posted
Oh, I know that, Pix. Ironically that 'final arbiter' executes the kind of power you and Lisa criticize: neither you nor I have the power to intervene in a robbery committed by one person on another and decide who is right, wrong, and who to use force on.
But the government-even in the libertarian ideal-does.
Anyway, I didn't say 'oh' because I disagreed that I wouldn't like it. I said 'oh' because I interpreted that statement to be saying at least two things, one of which was pretty silly in my opinion.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rak: If you think we don't support a government that would intervene on a robbery then you don't understand our arguments.
I'll admit I often have problems making myself understood, but Lisa is a much better speaker (typer) than me. You should at least understand her.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Of course I understand you support a government that would intervene in a robbery.
But perhaps I made a mistaken assumption: let's say I hear about someone robbing you. I'm unhappy about that because I dig you, so I decide to look into the matter. After an investigation (let's assume it's thorough and accurate) I come to the conclusion that I know who the robber was and where to find him.
I bust down his door and take him captive, throwing him into a prison I built in my backyard and give back what he stole.
Setting aside the fact that I've just done something good for you, did I have the right to do so? The right to use force and intervene after the fact, that is.
If I didn't...why does the government have that right?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: That question was predicated on the assumption that you had signed such a contract. It was not intended as part of the previous scenarios. Also, I wasn't talking about any specific payment for services rendered, but about a general permissions for future taking.
Anyone shortsighted enough can enter into a foolish contract that binds them in a way they may later regret. They cannot, however, bind their descendents in that way. So you'd have to restart it at each new generation.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: The previous scenarios envisioned people ending up in such contracts (beyond the initial group) because they were riders on land sale contracts and a law had been passed (entirely imaginably) by the group making the penalty for trespassing on group owned land jailing . . .
Actually, I don't think I agree. There is a concept in common law which I think is quite defensible. If you own a piece of land, and I own all the land surrounding it, you're entitled to fair passage.
And again, as far as such riders are concerned, someone who enters into a foolish agreement can do so. Someone could enter into an agreement making themselves effectively a slave. In our modern society, that contract would probably be nullified by the court, to the cost and detriment of the other party. But that doesn't mean it'd be right. Contractual obligations are contractual obligations.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Oh, I know that, Pix. Ironically that 'final arbiter' executes the kind of power you and Lisa criticize: neither you nor I have the power to intervene in a robbery committed by one person on another and decide who is right, wrong, and who to use force on.
Nope. If someone steals from me, I have the right to go and get it back, whatever that may entail. If they hit me, I have a right to hit them back. But if everyone is doing this themselves, then Pix is right about life being nasty, brutish and short. The fact is, we all have less than perfect knowledge, and the essential difference between barbarism and civilization is that in civilization, we delegate our right of retributory violence to an objective third party.
When the police intervene between two parties, they aren't doing so as a third party; they're doing so as delegates of those two parties. Someone who refuses to delegate their right of retributory violence to the government is a danger to others, because at any time, they may incorrectly think that you did something to them and take action against you.
This is the sole justification for a government at all. To be that objective holder of our delegated right of retributory violence, and to be an objective arbitrator of disputes.
Other than that, we can govern ourselves quite well, thanks very much.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Anyway, I didn't say 'oh' because I disagreed that I wouldn't like it. I said 'oh' because I interpreted that statement to be saying at least two things, one of which was pretty silly in my opinion.
You misread it. I wouldn't like it either.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: But perhaps I made a mistaken assumption: let's say I hear about someone robbing you. I'm unhappy about that because I dig you, so I decide to look into the matter. After an investigation (let's assume it's thorough and accurate) I come to the conclusion that I know who the robber was and where to find him.
I bust down his door and take him captive, throwing him into a prison I built in my backyard and give back what he stole.
Setting aside the fact that I've just done something good for you, did I have the right to do so? The right to use force and intervene after the fact, that is.
If I didn't...why does the government have that right?
You do, by nature. But if I know that everyone else out there maintains their inborn right to retaliatory violence, I will kill anyone I perceive as being willing to act on that right as a point of simple pre-emptive self-defense.
So will a lot of people.
Hence: government.
When the cops use force in such a situation, it is not because they have a perogative that I don't. It's because I've agreed to delegate that right to the government, mutually, with everyone else.
Note that I'm delegating only my right to retaliatory violence. I never had a right to initiate violence against anyone, and I can't delegate that right to any government, because I don't have it in the first place. No matter how important some people may deem it to be able to initiate violence (theft, murder, slavery) against others, it will never be acceptable, because no person or persons has ever had, or will ever have, the right to do that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, where are these rights coming from? You talk about natural rights, but it seems to me that your natural right to not have stuff taken from you has no actual backing. If I am bigger then you, I take whatever I want. Right to life- again, if I am bigger then you, I can take that too.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Again (and again and again and again) having the government do those things does not in any way suggest that it can fund programs. That it can fund arts and education and any of the other billion dollar boondoggles that the US government uses its ill-gotten gains for.
So all taxes aren't slavery, just the ones you don't want to pay? The other taxes are ok?
What I don't get is if you think the other problems are just going to go away if we aren't taxed for government programs.
If we don't have taxes set up for medicare, what happens to all the people who can't afford health care? Do we just live with epidemics until a sufficient portion of the population dies out?
If we don't have public education, do we revert to an industrial revolution society, with subsistence farming and unregulated factory work?
Helping the less-fortunate (call it slavery-taxing to force rich people to pay for things they don't personally use if you like) isn't all about altruism. Society as a whole doesn't function well if huge numbers aren't able to maintain an adequate standard of living due to poor health or no education.
What it sounds like to me is that you're happy with a slave-state, as long as it's somebody else who is slaving away - out of sight, out of mind.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: What it sounds like to me is that you're happy with a slave-state, as long as it's somebody else who is slaving away - out of sight, out of mind.
So now Lisa's enslaving people if she doesn't give them all of her money?
I thought Pixiest's definition of slavery was a stretch, but you've really raised the bar. Well done. Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Nope. If someone steals from me, I have the right to go and get it back, whatever that may entail.
Why? Property is a purely abstract concept. Unless you can derive the right to defend stolen property from the commonly agreed upon definition of property then your claim is unsupported. I see nothing in the definition of property that logically leads to the right to protect property (unless you make certain assumptions).
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: If they hit me, I have a right to hit them back.
Why? Can you establish this right as an absolute without merely defining it into existence?
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Other than that, we can govern ourselves quite well, thanks very much.
Of course this is just your theory. There is little evidence that a pure libertarian society would work in practice (and lots of evidence of the human abuse that results from unregulated business). At some level you must acknowledge this or else you wouldn't spend so much time trying to prove libertarianism in theory (as opposed to demonstrating how it works well in practice). As has already been explained, many people do not share the same fundamental assumptions you do so they will not draw the same conclusions you do.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
