Libertarianism

[Renegade]

By agreeing to stay in Canada (and not emmigrate) are you not implicitly accepting a contract which subjects you to paying for infrastructure and programs the government deems necessary? In that sense isn't it voluntary?

No.

Rather, you are accepting the unfortunate reality that your freedom is violated. If you do not have the strength to defend it (or you can not afford to emmigrate), it does not make your submission voluntary.

If a slave is bound by a ball-and-chain or over-powered by a violent master, will you say the slave is voluntarily "accepting" his plight if he does not bother to fight back?

Yes I agree with you. My question was not intended to state my postion as much as it was intended to elicit discussion.

The whole argument that by a person by entering a community that persion is accepting to whatever taxation a community chooses to levy, is a false argument in my opinion. It might be more valid if there were no cost or regulatory barriers to movement between communities and if there were an infinite number of communities to choose from. In practice, there are relative high barriers to moving between communities, regardless if I define the community as my immediate neighbourhood, or my country. In addition, I may find that the choices a community may move to may match my need in certain areas (say public schools) but my not match my needs in others (say streetlights).

[August1991]

The one who owns it is the one who is stong enough and willing enough to exercise ownership and protect it.

IOW, you envision a world where the school yard bully is king.

I don't see why the bully must decide ownership, or even whether it matters in the long run who obtains ownership. What does matter is that ownership is defined (however that is done), and contract law exists to allow trades.

In a sense, a society can remain impoverished as its members argue about who owns what. Or, the members can accept the definition of ownership and then get on with trading the resources they own, placing them in the hands of those who can best use them. It is not hard to imagine which society will be more successful.

The reason why I say measurment is a problem rather than getting an honest answer, is because an honest answer requires some measure of self-reporting. I agree that getting an honest answer is troublesome if not impossible.

Diffrentiated pricing is one way to measure marginal value. Airlines used to do this all the time (and some still do).

You are describing price discrimination which unfortunately doesn't shed light on the problem governments face in trying to elicit honesty from citizens.

True, different people pay different prices for apparently identical airplane tickets (be careful though, tickets bought on different days are not the same thing). Government's problem is different and it largely (but not solely) derives from the problem of free riders.

If I sense that the streetlight will be installed, I will be inclined to declare falsely that I am blind and have no need for a streetlight. A mechanism to get me to tell the truth would have me faced with an almost approved street light project in which my decision to participate would be the deciding vote.

At present, I'm aware of no workable mechanism that would achieve this.

----

Let me step back a moment. We try, as individuals, to co-operate and work together because we benefit that way. As a species, we are extermely sophisticated in determining how and when to co-operate and how to verify whether the co-operation is truly mutual or merely opportunistic. We have invented a wonderful mechanism (the price mechanism) to identify quickly the terms of trade. This mechanism doesn't always work.

One of the methods all species use to determine whether co-operation is likely to be legitimate or not is strategic commitment. When two people meet and consider having children (marriage), like so many beings before them, the likelihood of mutually beneficial co-operation is upper most in their minds. Government performs a similar role.

[Renegade]

You are describing price discrimination which unfortunately doesn't shed light on the problem governments face in trying to elicit honesty from citizens.

True, different people pay different prices for apparently identical airplane tickets (be careful though, tickets bought on different days are not the same thing).

Yes, I am describing price discrimmination, and I agree that the airline ticket is not a perfect example because the product is not exactly the same. The similarilty exiist because the airline, like the government, has to create and pay for a large an expensive infrastructure, in addition they have operating cost. They need a model for allocating the cost among the users. It is a rare case where the airline will allow free riders, and can only exist if people will voluntarily pay for their share of the infrastructure.

Government's problem is different and it largely (but not solely) derives from the problem of free riders.

To be honest, I doubt that the government cares about free riders. The people who care are tax payers who are forced to bear a higher cost. It's not just those who don't pay, its those who underpay who are free riders. In that sense, a large part of our population are free riders.

If I sense that the streetlight will be installed, I will be inclined to declare falsely that I am blind and have no need for a streetlight. A mechanism to get me to tell the truth would have me faced with an almost approved street light project in which my decision to participate would be the deciding vote.

Again you are assuming a self-reporting mechanism. What if I didn't rely on your declaration at all but instead relied on a mechanism to determine if you used the streetlight? Yes, yes, I know that it is not practial in all cases, but it is in many. Toll highways, electricity, water are all metered. It doesn't require you to truthfully report your usage in order to determine the cost you should bear for that infrastructure.

At present, I'm aware of no workable mechanism that would achieve this.

Me either. Certainly not one that works in all cases. I wish is that society embrace the principle, and implement where it is practical. I can't see that society has even agreed in princple that things should work that way.

One of the methods all species use to determine whether co-operation is likely to be legitimate or not is strategic commitment. When two people meet and consider having children (marriage), like so many beings before them, the likelihood of mutually beneficial co-operation is upper most in their minds. Government performs a similar role.

The issue is that the relationship between an individual and the government is not a "marriage" of equal partners. The government can coerce the individual, but the individual can't really coerce the government. If the individual fits outside the norm, it is highly likely that government policy will clash with his interest.

Imagine a two person marriage in which one person has all the physical, financial, and decision power. How beneficial is that marriage to the other individual?

The other difference is that at least with marriage you have a choice on who you marry. With govenment you get no choice. You get whoever the collective picks. If you're lucky or fit into the profile of the collective, their pick may be the same as your pick, but it is never guaranteed.

[ClearWest]

Riverwind,

If the person, upon entering the community, agreed to be subject to a municipal government which can legally tax, and raise taxes, and make and change laws, then it is perfectly within the contract for them to do that. I would personally never sign such a contract--which is sad, because, frankly, we are all part of a contract like that, living in Canada, sadly not having a choice over it.

ClearWest, you have the exact same complaint if no countries existed and taxes were imposed by private companies that existed from before you were born. However, you are infinitely better off in the system we have now because you have democratic rights. In the feudal/liberatrian system you advocate you would have no rights if you did not inheirit property.

I disagree. In the free market there will always be a demand (and therefore a supply) of property, because people can profit from buying and selling property. So, you just have to be able to afford it. People aren't locked into their financial situation either. There are too many riches to rags stories for me to believe that poor people can't become rich without inheritance.

Private Companies cannot take, they rely on voluntary funds--as opposed to governments which take. What difference do democratic rights make? Democracy was supposed to mean government by the people--but our "Representational" democracy is just a means for us to choose the people who get to control us. They can decide how much of our money they get, and what they get to use it on. They can decide which laws we need to live by who needs to live by them, and what penalities they can inflict upon us if and when we do not live by those laws.

Governments throughout history have been able to kill us, enslave us, and steal from us. (The antithesis of Life, Liberty, and Property). This isn't acceptable to me--and it cannot be solved simply by electing a different person who promises not to do these things with their majority-given powers. It can be solved, however, by not letting them have these powers over us in the first place.

Renegade,

I propose minimal government and for the programs and infrastructure that the govenment is forced to impose, the allocations of cost according to benefit.

True, I understand that in cases this may be necessary--As August has argued concerning the streetlight. Sometimes order and organization requires some command. However, I think that if there must be a chain of command, then it should be voluntary. For instance, the Army could never run in a Libertarian/voluntary fashion, where people can choose which wars they want to fight, or they can choose which drills to take part in. But, it can be Libertarian and voluntary in the sense that you voluntary sign up to join the army, knowing the risks beforehand. (Which is why we should eliminate conscription, it's worse than the death penalty). Anyways, the same can be with whatever socialism needs to exist. Whether it be through roads or whatever the case may be.

[Riverwind]

I disagree. In the free market there will always be a demand (and therefore a supply) of property, because people can profit from buying and selling property. So, you just have to be able to afford it. People aren't locked into their financial situation either. There are too many riches to rags stories for me to believe that poor people can't become rich without inheritance.

Rags to riches stories are nothing but anecdotes that mean nothing compared to statistics that show the best predictor of a man's future wealth is how much wealth his father had. In a pure libertarian system all of the property worth having would be owned by wealthy people that would only sell it to other wealthy people. The rest of the serfs would simply have to sell their labour to get whatever crumbs the wealthy choose to give them. This is model that existed in virtually every human society until we discovered the virtues of democracy and universal education. Why should anyone throw away the various benefits of our society today to pursue a theoretical social theory that has never been shown to work? This is one situation where the saying 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' really applies (BTW - minor problems with our existing society do not mean it is broken).

[August1991]

Democracy was supposed to mean government by the people--but our "Representational" democracy is just a means for us to choose the people who get to control us. They can decide how much of our money they get, and what they get to use it on. They can decide which laws we need to live by who needs to live by them, and what penalities they can inflict upon us if and when we do not live by those laws.

Clearwest, I have always liked the comparison (attributed to Washington) of government to fire: it is a useful servant but a terrible master. We must find ways to restrain government as much as possible.

Democracy does this better than any other form of government because it means we choose our leaders in essentially arbitrary fashion and they have terms of no more than a few years.

To be honest, I doubt that the government cares about free riders. The people who care are tax payers who are forced to bear a higher cost. It's not just those who don't pay, its those who underpay who are free riders. In that sense, a large part of our population are free riders.

You have a curious view of government. You seem to see it as a giant monolith capable of ignoring whether people pay their taxes or not. I don't see government that way at all.

Free riders are at the heart of the problem government faces because they are at the heart of why a voluntary market cannot provide the good or service we would like to have. In a world without government, we would not have streetlights unless a wealthy benefactor decided to install one and accept to provide a free ride (or at least free light) to anyone using it.

Again you are assuming a self-reporting mechanism. What if I didn't rely on your declaration at all but instead relied on a mechanism to determine if you used the streetlight? Yes, yes, I know that it is not practial in all cases, but it is in many. Toll highways, electricity, water are all metered. It doesn't require you to truthfully report your usage in order to determine the cost you should bear for that infrastructure.

The ability to exclude someone from access to a good or service is the start down the road of solving the free rider problem. In esence, by metering water, we can define ownership and then charge for using something. Technology sometimes makes this possible.

For example, I believe that in 50 years all cars will have GPS devices and you will pay for your road use according to where you drive and the time of day you drive. Collecting tolls, as is common in the US, is a similar idea but it is inexact and cumbersome. We want to charge people for the congestion they impose rather than the use of the road as such.

But I agree with you Renegade. Governments must start to more like this. If you can believe it, at present, the city of Montreal does not meter for water use, and it has no metering system for garbage collection. To its credit, it has recently installed credit card parking meters.

The issue is that the relationship between an individual and the government is not a "marriage" of equal partners. The government can coerce the individual, but the individual can't really coerce the government. If the individual fits outside the norm, it is highly likely that government policy will clash with his interest.

Imagine a two person marriage in which one person has all the physical, financial, and decision power. How beneficial is that marriage to the other individual?

You view government as another person??? (I have heard of anthropomorphism applied to pets but never a government!)

I view government (in an ideal sense) as a nexus of contracts between individuals in society - the common term is a

social contract. I made above the comparison of this social contract to a marriage contract. Government would best be seen as a series of contracts you have with all others in society. If that sounds strange, imagine an agreement you sign when you buy a condo.

The significant point, IMV, is that in such a contract, you buy a pig in the poke. You don't know exactly what you are getting. Typically, you (and others) have to make some kind of commitment as a visible sign of good faith. For example, in the case of marriage, divorce must carry some severe penalty to prevent individuals from selfishly deciding to walk out whenever the marriage doesn't go their way.

A gold wedding ring is the age-old sign of commitment.

Rags to riches stories are nothing but anecdotes that mean nothing compared to statistics that show the best predictor of a man's future wealth is how much wealth his father had. In a pure libertarian system all of the property worth having would be owned by wealthy people that would only sell it to other wealthy people. The rest of the serfs would simply have to sell their labour to get whatever crumbs the wealthy choose to give them.

You are viewing this entirely from the perspective of the individual. Yet the whole discussion is about how individuals working co-operatively in a collective can each obtain much more. In 1850, if individuals had spent their time arguing about who owns what piece of land and trying to divide it up in a fair manner between rich and poor, no doubt we would still be doing the same 150 years later - and no one would be any richer.

Instead, we are now using computers to discuss this question. IOW, don't look at wealth in comparison to those around you but look at it in terms of the past and the future. Based on the experience of the past two centuries, your great-grandchildren will be wealthier than Bill Gates is now. If you want rags to riches, compare yourself to your great-grandparents. Did they fly in airplanes? Have penicillin? Polio vaccines?

This is model that existed in virtually every human society until we discovered the virtues of democracy and universal education. Why should anyone throw away the various benefits of our society today to pursue a theoretical social theory that has never been shown to work?

You raise the idea of universal education and IMV, one of the most important elements of the "social contract" must be how we deal with children. Not everyone is born into a family with responsible parents and not all parents have the means to raise their children well. It's a problem because children are incapable of deciding for themselves.

OTOH, handing children over to a monopoly government system strikes me as a recipe for disaster. A Quebec judge recently resigned rather than be fired because she was controversial in raising this question. In any case, the real horror story of our universal education system is that it is a huge, boring waste of time.

[Renegade]

True, I understand that in cases this may be necessary--As August has argued concerning the streetlight. Sometimes order and organization requires some command. However, I think that if there must be a chain of command, then it should be voluntary. For instance, the Army could never run in a Libertarian/voluntary fashion, where people can choose which wars they want to fight, or they can choose which drills to take part in. But, it can be Libertarian and voluntary in the sense that you voluntary sign up to join the army, knowing the risks beforehand. (Which is why we should eliminate conscription, it's worse than the death penalty). Anyways, the same can be with whatever socialism needs to exist. Whether it be through roads or whatever the case may be.

ClearWest, but what you have not resolved is what happens when voluntary participation is not sufficient, does that scuttle that infrastructure? Let me take an example. A highway is required to link two cities. Because there is massive trade and population flow between the cities, the highway will provide huge economic benefit either directly or indirectly to everyone. Because of geographic constraints, there is only one choice for the route for the highway. Farmer A owns land which is along the route of the proposed highway. Everyone else who owns land has come to a voluntary agreement to sell the land for the highway. Farmer A, refuses to sell at any price, thus preventing the highway from being built.

How does this get resolved voluntarily?

[Renegade]

To be honest, I doubt that the government cares about free riders. The people who care are tax payers who are forced to bear a higher cost. It's not just those who don't pay, its those who underpay who are free riders. In that sense, a large part of our population are free riders.

You have a curious view of government. You seem to see it as a giant monolith capable of ignoring whether people pay their taxes or not. I don't see government that way at all.

Free riders are at the heart of the problem government faces because they are at the heart of why a voluntary market cannot provide the good or service we would like to have. In a world without government, we would not have streetlights unless a wealthy benefactor decided to install one and accept to provide a free ride (or at least free light) to anyone using it.

In my view the government cares far less about free riders, and cares far more if the funds it needs are collectable. It is far easier to collect tax on income than to meter usage of infrastructure. Similarily it is far easier, for the government, to hike a tax which is already in place then to create a new funding structure which minimizes free-riders. As long as it has overall funding for the initiative, there seems to be very little focus on whether the burden of cost is appropriately shared. If the government could get 1% of the popuation to pay for the infrasturcture that benefits everyone and 99% are free-riders, it is actually in the government's benefit, as it makes it more likely that the 99% will support the government in future. It doesn't really give a damn about the 1%. Hence my comment that the government doesn't care about free-riders.

Again you are assuming a self-reporting mechanism. What if I didn't rely on your declaration at all but instead relied on a mechanism to determine if you used the streetlight? Yes, yes, I know that it is not practial in all cases, but it is in many. Toll highways, electricity, water are all metered. It doesn't require you to truthfully report your usage in order to determine the cost you should bear for that infrastructure.

The ability to exclude someone from access to a good or service is the start down the road of solving the free rider problem. In esence, by metering water, we can define ownership and then charge for using something. Technology sometimes makes this possible.

For example, I believe that in 50 years all cars will have GPS devices and you will pay for your road use according to where you drive and the time of day you drive. Collecting tolls, as is common in the US, is a similar idea but it is inexact and cumbersome. We want to charge people for the congestion they impose rather than the use of the road as such.

But I agree with you Renegade. Governments must start to more like this. If you can believe it, at present, the city of Montreal does not meter for water use, and it has no metering system for garbage collection. To its credit, it has recently installed credit card parking meters.

We are on the same page. I used to live in Montreal so I'm aware of the lack of water metering. I always note how much greener the lawns are in Montreal in August than they are in Toronto which does meter water. Much technology to implement pay-by-use exists today. What doesn't exist is wilingness from the government to impement such as system.

I live in Mississauga, which I consider well run. The City of Mississauga provides many recreation programs but the user fees are not cheap and is reflective of the actual cost to run the programs. Programs run in the City of Toronto are dirt cheap by comparison because the city govenment subsidized them, despite the city constantly lacking funds. Everytime there is an increase to the user fees for the recreation programs, there are howls of protest. It seems the people are not very willing to give up the role as free riders.

You view government as another person??? (I have heard of anthropomorphism applied to pets but never a government!)

I view government (in an ideal sense) as a nexus of contracts between individuals in society - the common term is a

social contract. I made above the comparison of this social contract to a marriage contract. Government would best be seen as a series of contracts you have with all others in society. If that sounds strange, imagine an agreement you sign when you buy a condo.

The significant point, IMV, is that in such a contract, you buy a pig in the poke. You don't know exactly what you are getting. Typically, you (and others) have to make some kind of commitment as a visible sign of good faith. For example, in the case of marriage, divorce must carry some severe penalty to prevent individuals from selfishly deciding to walk out whenever the marriage doesn't go their way.

A gold wedding ring is the age-old sign of commitment.

I would say that govenment has some of the characteristics of being its own entity as well as being a series of communial agreements. In a sense it is something like an incorporated company which is its own legal entity over and above being a set of agreements between shareholders.

There are some important differences between marriage and government, even in the way you describe it. With marriage you spend years (or at least you are able to), understanding the other party so that you can make a reasonable assessment of the commitment you are undertaking. You do this because as you described you are buying a pig-in-a-poke, so you better be damn careful before you make the decision. You have no such opportunity with government. Leaving aside the people who immigrated here, the ones who were born here, made no such explicit decision to accept such a commitment. This is an important distinction as the situation as we have it today is people defaulting into commitmetns they nether agreed to, nor accepted, and one in which there are high barriers to exit.

[ClearWest]

True, I understand that in cases this may be necessary--As August has argued concerning the streetlight. Sometimes order and organization requires some command. However, I think that if there must be a chain of command, then it should be voluntary. For instance, the Army could never run in a Libertarian/voluntary fashion, where people can choose which wars they want to fight, or they can choose which drills to take part in. But, it can be Libertarian and voluntary in the sense that you voluntary sign up to join the army, knowing the risks beforehand. (Which is why we should eliminate conscription, it's worse than the death penalty). Anyways, the same can be with whatever socialism needs to exist. Whether it be through roads or whatever the case may be.

ClearWest, but what you have not resolved is what happens when voluntary participation is not sufficient, does that scuttle that infrastructure. Let me take an example. A highway is required to link two cities. Because there is massive trade and population flow between the cities, the highway will provide huge economic benefit either directly or indirectly to everyone. Because of geographic constraints, there is only one choice for the route for the highway. Farmer A owns land which is along the route of the proposed highway. Everyone else who owns land has come to a voluntary agreement to sell the land for the highway. Farmer A, refuses to sell at any price.

How does this get resolved voluntarily?

Highways are easy--you can set up a tollbooth and pay for the road that way. Or you can sell it to a private company and they'll set up a tollbooth. Or you can keep the highway free, and get corporate sponsors to fund it, and in return they get to advertise on the highway, and even sell their products at rest stops along the highway. Or a private company can buy the road, let people use it for free, and sell their products on the highway. There are SO many alternatives to taxation that I think work just as good if not better!

Where it gets complicated is once you consider a system of streetlights within a municipality. Almost everyone in the city uses them, but should they all be forced to pay for them? I, of course, say no. They can run on voluntary donation--or if that isn't possible, you can get sponsorship from local businesses. If that still isn't enough, then obviously nobody knows and nobody cares. But in a free society, people will be free to try to educate others about the road which needs repairs, and they might be compelled to contribute a bit.

Clearwest, I have always liked the comparison (attributed to Washington) of government to fire: it is a useful servant but a terrible master. We must find ways to restrain government as much as possible.

Democracy does this better than any other form of government because it means we choose our leaders in essentially arbitrary fashion and they have terms of no more than a few years.

I agree with your metaphor to an extent. The fire can be useful if it is kept small and in a safe place and does only what we expect it to do. The problem is, we have let the fire get too big to the point where it tries to engulf all of us, it is everywhere, and it does far more than we originally intended for it to do. Democracy has let this happen, representative democracy. That's the nature of the system. So now the choice isn't between big dangerous fire or little useful fire, it's a matter of where the big fire will go, and how many people it will burn. We choose who gets to hold the fire, but they still burn us.

[Renegade]

Highways are easy--you can set up a tollbooth and pay for the road that way. Or you can sell it to a private company and they'll set up a tollbooth. Or you can keep the highway free, and get corporate sponsors to fund it, and in return they get to advertise on the highway, and even sell their products at rest stops along the highway. Or a private company can buy the road, let people use it for free, and sell their products on the highway. There are SO many alternatives to taxation that I think work just as good if not better!

Where it gets complicated is once you consider a system of streetlights within a municipality. Almost everyone in the city uses them, but should they all be forced to pay for them? I, of course, say no. They can run on voluntary donation--or if that isn't possible, you can get sponsorship from local businesses. If that still isn't enough, then obviously nobody knows and nobody cares. But in a free society, people will be free to try to educate others about the road which needs repairs, and they might be compelled to contribute a bit.

CW, I think you completely missed the point of my question. What I asked was how the highway was even built in the first place when Farmer A won't sell out.

[ClearWest]

CW, I think you completely missed the point of my question. What I asked was how the highway was even built in the first place when Farmer A won't sell out.

Oh, sorry. I completely skimmed over the farmer part.

Let me take an example. A highway is required to link two cities. Because there is massive trade and population flow between the cities, the highway will provide huge economic benefit either directly or indirectly to everyone. Because of geographic constraints, there is only one choice for the route for the highway. Farmer A owns land which is along the route of the proposed highway. Everyone else who owns land has come to a voluntary agreement to sell the land for the highway. Farmer A, refuses to sell at any price.

Well, it's the farmer's right to keep his property. But if the highway will provide "huge economic benefit either directly or indirectly to everyone", then perhaps the farmer will soon realize this, and desire to sell a portion of his land, if he gets a good deal for it.

If a government uses force to solve a problem like this, property rights are downright trampled on. In my city a few years ago, one of our local factories wanted to expand. They got permission from the municipal government to do so--even though there were already people residing on that land. The factories bought out each house for a flat rate (I don't think they even got 'market value'). They didn't have a choice over the matter. They took their money, moved on, and their houses were demolished to allow for the factory's expansion. This kind of practice is unfair, and should be discontinued.

[Riverwind]

Well, it's the farmer's right to keep his property. But if the highway will provide "huge economic benefit either directly or indirectly to everyone", then perhaps the farmer will soon realize this, and desire to sell a portion of his land, if he gets a good deal for it.

You cannot have a system where the economic interests of an entire society can be held hostage by a single greedy or simply stubborn individual. Furthermore, if land owners did have absolute rights then you would find that very few people would sell out at a reasonable price because would not have to. This would make it extremely expensive to build any sort of public project.

They took their money, moved on, and their houses were demolished to allow for the factory's expansion. This kind of practice is unfair, and should be discontinued.

There are problems with the way compensation is calculated when gov'ts expropriate property today. For example, a rundown old farmhouse may be worthless on the open market but if it is somebody's home then they should be entitled to have that home replaced: even if it means paying much more than market value for a newer property in the same area. In other words, the issues you raised can be addressed without taking away the gov't right to expropriate.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear ClearWest,

If a government uses force to solve a problem like this, property rights are downright trampled on.

'Property rights' are given to farmer A (by the gov't, and the will of the majority), and sometimes those rights can be taken away if need be, based on whether it helps or hinders those that gave the rights in the first place..

[Charles Anthony]

You cannot have a system where the economic interests of an entire society can be held hostage by a single greedy or simply stubborn individual.

I believe we should. It is called Libertarianism or Anarchism. Libertarians would side with the greedy or simply stubborn individual only to defend his right to property. Much like they would defend your right to free speech even if they did not like what you say. Without the right to property or to free speech, you are a slave.

those that gave the rights in the first place..

I would fear those people with such power and I would not trust them.

Libertarians do not believe anybody has the dominion to bestow rights of any kind to anybody. Libertarians believe that you inherently have the right to property in the same way as you have other basic human rights such as free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom from slavery, etc....

How you acquire that property may be a different issue but so long as you have acquired that property without stealing it, nobody rightly can force you to give it up without violating Libertarian laws of fairness.

[Riverwind]

Libertarians would side with the greedy or simply stubborn individual only to defend his right to property.

The issue is not whether some people believe that protecting property rights trumps all other social concerns. The issue is whether it is in the best interest of society to adopt such beliefs. I feel that granting absolute property rights to individuals harms society more than it helps for the reasons expressed in this thread.

Perhaps you could try to make the case why absolute property rights benefit society? Keep in mind that no one here is arguing that no property rights exist - only that the needs of society are more important than the rights of an individual in some cases. Also keep in mind that the right to free speech is not absolute. Libel laws exist because 'free speech' by one person can hurt another person.

Libertarians do not believe anybody has the dominion to bestow rights of any kind to anybody.

You can believe that the world is flat but that does not make it true. Rights are nothing but a social construct that have no meaning other than what society chooses to give them. In other words, the only way someone can get rights is to have them granted by society which means it is perfectly reasonable for society to place reasonable restrictions on those rights.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Riverwind,

Rights are nothing but a social construct that have no meaning other than what society chooses to give them. In other words, the only way someone can get rights is to have them granted by society

Well said, and my point exactly.

Charles Anthony,

Libertarians do not believe anybody has the dominion to bestow rights of any kind to anybody.

That is the only place 'rights' come from.

[Charles Anthony]

"Rights are nothing but a social construct that have no meaning other than what society chooses to give them. In other words, the only way someone can get rights is to have them granted by society"

Libertarians do not agree with that stance.

Libertarians believe that each individual has a God-given (if you do not believe in God, that is OK too, you could still understand the principle) right to property regardless of whether it benefits any conception of "society" or not. For Libertarians, the point is that individual "rights" are not pliable.

Libertarians do not believe that just because groupA wants something from groupB, that groupA has the right to take it without groupB's consent. Libertarians identify that as theft regardless of who benefits or who is the majority or who is included in the definition of "society" or how "society benefits" is defined. Libertarians are very absolutist in that regard.

Try to extrapolate into the issue of slavery:

Years ago, slavery was normal and "society" accepted it and "society" benefitted from it.

Years ago, Libertarians would have gone against the norm and insisted that it was wrong regardless of what "society" grants.

Today, advocating slavery is abhorrent.

Today, Libertarians advocate that you have a right to your own person and nobody has dominion over you regardless of what aspect of "society" benefits.

Likewise, yesterday, today and tomorrow, the Libertarian stance is that you have the right to property.

CAVEAT: Libertarians DO UNDERSTAND the concept of accountability, so when it comes to libel and freedom of speech and crime and anything else that involves transgressions of rights, they have ways of dealing with those scenarios. That is a fun discussion too!

[Riverwind]

CAVEAT: Libertarians DO UNDERSTAND the concept of accountability, so when it comes to libel and freedom of speech and crime and anything else that involves transgressions of rights, they have ways of dealing with those scenarios.

We do not have a system of absolute property rights today because people recognize that enforcing absolute property rights will inevitably create conflict with the rights of other people. My economic rights are violated if I pay a premium for a property in a residential neighborhood and later discover that my neighbor wants to build a meat rendering plant next door.

People do not live in a vaccuum and everyone has an obligation to society. A society that allows the rights of a single individual to take priority over the interests of society as a whole is a society that will not last very long. People will not tolerate unfairness and will take things into their own hands if necessary. A farmer that refused to sell a property to allow a much needed highway would likely discover his home would be burned to the ground by a mob. Providing a legal mechanism to acquire property when necessary ensures that such disputes can be resolved peacefully.

[Renegade]

Let me take an example. A highway is required to link two cities. Because there is massive trade and population flow between the cities, the highway will provide huge economic benefit either directly or indirectly to everyone. Because of geographic constraints, there is only one choice for the route for the highway. Farmer A owns land which is along the route of the proposed highway. Everyone else who owns land has come to a voluntary agreement to sell the land for the highway. Farmer A, refuses to sell at any price.

Well, it's the farmer's right to keep his property. But if the highway will provide "huge economic benefit either directly or indirectly to everyone", then perhaps the farmer will soon realize this, and desire to sell a portion of his land, if he gets a good deal for it.

If a government uses force to solve a problem like this, property rights are downright trampled on.

CW, in your response you admit that the only way in a completely Libertarian system is to wait for the farmer to be convinced he should voluntarily sell the land. That means one individual can stop the building of infrastructure for an entire community. In reality, people can be stubborn, not rational, have an emotional attachment to the property, or simply be greedy and hold out for an unreasonably high price. If there was no threat of expropriation, everyone who held property would hold out to be bought at an excessively high price. The net result is that in many cases it would be cost probhitive to build infrastructure so some infrastructure would not be built. Even if we assumed everyone were cooperative, the time it would take to secure everyone's voluntarily agreement would hugely slow down infrastructure creation. Looking at the big picture, one of the reasons we can be productive as a society is because of infrastructure which has been built. If the scenerio were to unfold as you describe, we would build much less infrastructure, or build it much more slowly and would cease to be competitive on the world market. This would be determental to everyone in our society.

In my city a few years ago, one of our local factories wanted to expand. They got permission from the municipal government to do so--even though there were already people residing on that land. The factories bought out each house for a flat rate (I don't think they even got 'market value'). They didn't have a choice over the matter. They took their money, moved on, and their houses were demolished to allow for the factory's expansion. This kind of practice is unfair, and should be discontinued.

Personally I dont' agree that private enterprise should be allowed to expropriate land. Even when govenment expropriate property rules should be in place which both make it difficult for the government to do so, and compensate the owner a premium for the property expropriated. It is however, an unreasonable ask of society that no expropriation should ever be possible under any circumstance.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

"Rights are nothing but a social construct that have no meaning other than what society chooses to give them. In other words, the only way someone can get rights is to have them granted by society"

Libertarians do not agree with that stance.

That is because Libertarianism is largely 'faith-based'. Not because of the use of the term 'god-given rights', but rather because of the faith in voluntary co-operation being plausible. Same goes for expecting the threat of ostracism being an effective deterrent to the transgressions of your self-imagined rights or physical contracts.

[Renegade]

Property rights' are given to farmer A (by the gov't, and the will of the majority), and sometimes those rights can be taken away if need be, based on whether it helps or hinders those that gave the rights in the first place..

Rights are nothing but a social construct that have no meaning other than what society chooses to give them. In other words, the only way someone can get rights is to have them granted by society which means it is perfectly reasonable for society to place reasonable restrictions on those rights.

Riverwind, TFB, I disagree with both of you on this. Rights are not given to us by society but are inherent to our existance. Society merely acknowledges that those rights exist.

Let's say the majority of people in some society decided that women should not have the right to security of their person or the right to marry whomever they choose. By your reasoning, they now don't have that right because society didn't grant it to them.

The issues above are not because society grants people rights and can take them away or curtail them, it is because there are conflicting rights. Those of the collective conflict with those of the individual, and how do we mediate between them.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Renegade,

Rights are not given to us by society but are inherent to our existance.

There are no 'inherent rights' anywhere (not to mention philosophers such as Proudhon and Marx seem to argue that there are no individual 'property rights') save what we choose to create, bestow and respect (and enforce).

[Renegade]

Dear Renegade,

Rights are not given to us by society but are inherent to our existance.

There are no 'inherent rights' anywhere (not to mention philosophers such as Proudhon and Marx seem to argue that there are no individual 'property rights') save what we choose to create, bestow and respect (and enforce).

Would you agree then TFB, that in societies in which women are not granted the same rights as men, that the women don't in fact have those rights?

[Charles Anthony]

By using the "interests of society" as a justification, we have the power to get away with anything. Libertarians do not want people to be able to get away with anything.

"A farmer that refused to sell a property to allow a much needed highway would likely discover his home would be burned to the ground by a mob."

You are right. That is exactly what the mob would do.

The Libertarian would still identify it is as wrong.

However, the Libertarian would also wonder if the selfish farmer was stupid or not.

"because of the faith in voluntary co-operation being plausible."

That is a mistake. Libertarians do insist that everybody will co-operate. They expect that most smart people will co-operate but the principles of Libertarianism only suggest what is right and wrong. They do not insist on making any expectation of human behavior.

"in soceities in which women are not granted the same rights as men, that the women don't in fact have those rights?"

The principles of Libertarianism rise above this and would identify that as just plain wrong.

Here are some questions about the highway:

If the farmer is intelligent enough to understand the repercussions of his selfishness, would it not make sense to say that he should expect mob action? The Libertarian would still identify him as a victim, albeit a stupid selfish man.

If the farmer is truly not intelligent enough to understand the repercussions, would you think it "right" or "fair" for "society" to steal his land without warning?

[August1991]

I don't know if this post will make any sense.

There's an empty room with a large pie. Five people walk into the room and make different claims on the pie and about how to divide it up.

By discussing rights, this thread is attempting to declare which particular way is the correct way to divy up the pie. Well, there is no answer and the thread will simply turn around in circles as each poster presents a different (perfectly justifiable) way to cut the pie.

There is only one way out of this endless loop and to take it, you really have to think outside of the box.

The division of the pie (granting of rights) should be done in such a manner that, where possible, the pieces of the pie will wind up going to the person who will best use them. Now, this criteria doesn't decide always how to accord rights in the first place (or even to transfer rights between people) but the criteria sometimes helps.

Adam Smith observed ages ago that the name of the game is trade, not who owns what now. The Wealth of Nations is not based on accumulating gold but rather never refusing a good deal. We should define rights in such a manner that the most deals can occur.

BTW, the example of the farmer's land is known as the hold-up problem and it's a problem in all long term contracts. (Think about bitter family disputes.) The problem arises because the road has been built except for the final tract of land. The road builders have a large investment and the farmer can exploit that fact.