Libertarianism: what is it?

CheezePavilion wrote:

So why aren't the arguments more like that (I think Robear has been talking about that) and less about radical ideas about what constitutes consent and 'if you don't like it, you can leave so you have no appeal if you're outvoted' or ideas about the government owning all property in a country because they conquered it?

I believe you've pretty much been the only person insisting that the government somehow owns all the property. We've tried to explain that if you own property that means your sandbox is part of another, larger sandbox and that means you can't quite do anything you want on your land.

60% of all land in the US is in private hands. Uncle Sam owns 28%, most of which is the wilderness of Alaska, the Rocky and Sierra Nevada Mountains, and the deserts of the Southwest. State and local governments own 8% and Indian reservations own 2%.

But 'own' isn't really accurate, since you've made it very clear that the the majority is entitled to take anything away from you it wants to, if the controlling minority decides it has a project it wants to accomplish.

The only thing I've tried to make clear is that taxes aren't "government violence" and instead are simply part of the cost of living in a civil society. The fact that only about 2,500 people are investigated for tax fraud or evasion a year and about 1,000 people are actually convicted (out of 140 million individual tax filers and some six million corporate filers) kind of takes the wind out of Libertarian claims that armed, jack booted government thugs will break down your door the instant you don't pay your taxes.

And 'own' is still accurate, even with eminent domain. There are a few thousand properties that are threatened with eminent domain a year out of hundreds of millions of pieces of property. As with taxes, this seems to be a rare thing that gets blown out of proportion by Libertarians to justify their extreme beliefs.

I will admit, however, that the Kelo v. City of New London Supreme Court decision is troubling in that economic development (or, more accurately, a chance at higher property tax revenue) isn't exactly a public use especially when private businesses are the biggest beneficiaries. But that's what you get when you stack the court with ultra conservatives. Luckily states are passing new laws restricting the use of eminent domain so it's not like Kelo will be the last word on the issue.

But 'own' isn't really accurate, since you've made it very clear that the the majority is entitled to take anything away from you it wants to, if the controlling minority decides it has a project it wants to accomplish.

This is a truism. Yes, it happens, it's called "eminent domain". So what's your claim here? That we're all going to lose our property tomorrow? Next week? What?

Also, if you can clarify who "the majority" and the "controlling minority" are, that would be great. Voters? Citizens? Elected officials? Corporate CEOs? Skull and Bones members? Police officers? Whites in Massachusetts? Latinos in Texas? Who? It matters because without pinning that down, *anyone* can be a "controlling minority" in any situation.

It looks like you're trying to establish a persecution with no boundaries, done by no one in particular, on any timescale, to an undefined amount of property, involving no particular set of victims, to fit any particular scenario. It's not really, you know, precise. It's just scary.

The whole ownership/territory thing is messy and confusing. The point I was trying to make is that it is the territorial ownership of land by the US (or whatever nation) combined with the rule of law that [em]allows[/em] property to be owned. In the absence of an authority like that of a nation, ownership extends only as far as your ability to keep people from taking your stuff.

The point is not that "the majority is entitled to take your stuff", it's that "you own your stuff under the aegis of the law." It's not the case that people own things and the government just happens to drop in on top of them and claim those things. Rather, government provides the very framework of property ownership.

Hence: The government owns the land you own insofar as it is the agency that will use guns to defend it from other people with guns who want to take it. However, there is a long-established tradition (several, actually, with ours growing out of a reformation of British common law) of how property is managed within that, and that controls what property ownership means within the bounds of a nation.

That is how both the government (in a democratic republic: the populace as a whole—not just the majority) and you own the same land. And that is why you can legally transfer ownership of it from yourself to another individual, but you cannot legally transfer territorial control of it from your nation to another nation—only the nations as a whole can do that sort of thing.

Hypatian wrote:

The whole ownership/territory thing is messy and confusing. The point I was trying to make is that it is the territorial ownership of land by the US (or whatever nation) combined with the rule of law that [em]allows[/em] property to be owned. In the absence of an authority like that of a nation, ownership extends only as far as your ability to keep people from taking your stuff.

And that's what troubles me: that in arguing against Libertarianism, we move towards the idea that might makes right. That if you are weak and someone else is strong, and they come along and take your stuff, they own it as legitimately as if the two of you had a nice conversation over tea and came to a peaceful arrangement.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

The whole ownership/territory thing is messy and confusing. The point I was trying to make is that it is the territorial ownership of land by the US (or whatever nation) combined with the rule of law that [em]allows[/em] property to be owned. In the absence of an authority like that of a nation, ownership extends only as far as your ability to keep people from taking your stuff.

And that's what troubles me: that in arguing against Libertarianism, we move towards the idea that might makes right. That if you are weak and someone else is strong, and they come along and take your stuff, they own it as legitimately as if the two of you had a nice conversation over tea and came to a peaceful arrangement.

From Hypatian's post it sounds like that's what happens when you argue against a nation's authority. Not argue against Libertarianism.

gregrampage wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

The whole ownership/territory thing is messy and confusing. The point I was trying to make is that it is the territorial ownership of land by the US (or whatever nation) combined with the rule of law that [em]allows[/em] property to be owned. In the absence of an authority like that of a nation, ownership extends only as far as your ability to keep people from taking your stuff.

And that's what troubles me: that in arguing against Libertarianism, we move towards the idea that might makes right. That if you are weak and someone else is strong, and they come along and take your stuff, they own it as legitimately as if the two of you had a nice conversation over tea and came to a peaceful arrangement.

From Hypatian's post it sounds like that's what happens when you argue against a nation's authority. Not argue against Libertarianism.

Sorry--I don't get what you're saying here.

And that's what troubles me: that in arguing against Libertarianism, we move towards the idea that might makes right. That if you are weak and someone else is strong, and they come along and take your stuff, they own it as legitimately as if the two of you had a nice conversation over tea and came to a peaceful arrangement.

No, because the rule of law prevents that in a non-libertarian environment. However, the less government "coercion" you have, the more *you* have do the protecting. Your fear is more likely to come true in a hardcore libertarian environment than in today's US.

Edit - Note, too, this is what comes of defining every concept as it's far extreme. That's a favorite tactic for the L crowd, and you've kind of reciprocated here. In reality, that extreme is mitigated by government, but boy, it sure *sounds* dire...

CheezePavilion wrote:

And that's what troubles me: that in arguing against Libertarianism, we move towards the idea that might makes right. That if you are weak and someone else is strong, and they come along and take your stuff, they own it as legitimately as if the two of you had a nice conversation over tea and came to a peaceful arrangement.

I hate to burst your bubble, but the entire history of Homo Sapiens has pretty much been about might makes right. No nation state would exist today if their ancestors hadn't either conquered the land they now live in or defended it from someone else. If you're concerned about that then you best find the nearest Neanderthal and give them everything you own because at one point in time one of your ancestors stole land from them.

The important thing is that modern (Western) governments have moved from pure "might makes right" to the ideas of freedom, liberty, individuality, and the explicit guarantee of rights that Libertarians get all misty about. But these are also concepts that have only existed for a fraction of recorded history.

Again, if your argument is that it's all bullsh*t if someone at some point in history used force then Libertarianism is just as much bullsh*t as everything else because it would not exist without the formation of nation states that were stable enough to let people think about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and reject the idea of all political power flowed from god saying this or that bloke was king.

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

And that's what troubles me: that in arguing against Libertarianism, we move towards the idea that might makes right. That if you are weak and someone else is strong, and they come along and take your stuff, they own it as legitimately as if the two of you had a nice conversation over tea and came to a peaceful arrangement.

I hate to burst your bubble, but the entire history of Homo Sapiens has pretty much been about might makes right. No nation state would exist today if their ancestors hadn't either conquered the land they now live in or defended it from someone else. If you're concerned about that then you best find the nearest Neanderthal and give them everything you own because at one point in time one of your ancestors stole land from them.

That's "might makes things the way they are" not "might makes right." Of course the way things are is the product of might. This is about the way things ought to be. There's a difference.

Robear wrote:
And that's what troubles me: that in arguing against Libertarianism, we move towards the idea that might makes right. That if you are weak and someone else is strong, and they come along and take your stuff, they own it as legitimately as if the two of you had a nice conversation over tea and came to a peaceful arrangement.

No, because the rule of law prevents that in a non-libertarian environment.

Okay, think I have the issue here in clearer view: the problem is that 'rule of law' is something that comes *after* what Hypatian is talking about, the initial act of conquest. There's a bootstrapping problem here.

bleh--double post.

Alternatively, you can think of it as "by organizing as a group, we have gotten past the point where we must individually defend ourselves—allowing us to do it more efficiently, and to generally force belligerents to think very hard before attacking in the first place." The bootstrapping that got there isn't the important thing today. The important thing is not going back to the bad old way things were.

But as you keep moving up in scale, you also return to the point where it's a question of force.

(See the Falkland Islands War as an example of a recent conflict between nations that was clearly and unabashedly about what nation held sovereignty over certain territory.)

We have defense pacts between nations, treaty organizations, the UN, etc. in order to try to prevent these conflicts from occurring, and to try to work out the conflicts without resorting to force. But treaties may be broken (sorry, we *were* going to help defend you, honest, but against those guys it's really not in our best interest) and there's really no direct penalty for that except earning the distrust of other nations. And there's no possible punishment except by armed force (either that of the offended nation or its allies acting on its behalf).

If all the nations came together and decided on a common framework of rules about how to decide disputes between nations, when force is allowed, etc., and committed to punching the bloody hell out of any nation that tried to do otherwise (or better, forming a common police force to do so), then there would be a rule of law (and a government) at a global level.

Of course, there are a lot of reasons to be wary of going that far.

Hypatian wrote:

Alternatively, you can think of it as "by organizing as a group, we have gotten past the point where we must individually defend ourselves—allowing us to do it more efficiently, and to generally force belligerents to think very hard before attacking in the first place." But as you keep moving up, you return to the point where it's a question of force.

(See the Falkland Islands War as an example of a recent conflict that was clearly and unabashedly about what nation held sovereignty over certain territory.)

We have defense pacts between nations, treaty organizations, the UN, etc. in order to try to prevent these conflicts from occurring, and to try to work out the conflicts without resorting to force. But treaties may be broken (sorry, we *were* going to help defend you, honest, but against those guys it's really not in our best interest) and there's really no direct penalty for that except earning the distrust of other nations. And there's no possible punishment except by armed force (either that of the offended nation or its allies acting on its behalf).

If all the nations came together and decided on a common framework of rules about how to decide disputes between nations, when force is allowed, etc., and committed to punching the bloody hell out of any nation that tried to do otherwise (or better, forming a common police force to do so), then there would be a rule of law (and a government) at a global level.

Of course, there are a lot of reasons to be wary of going that far.

I'm not sure where that fits in. A treaty or a global police force to settle disputes between nations doesn't involve creating a new entity that owns all the land it defends.

There's a big difference between saying a nation is a group organized for efficient defense and saying it's a kind of corporate landowner. In fact, the former would be just hunky-dory with many Libertarians: government as an efficient self-defense force.

CheezePavilion wrote:

There's a big difference between saying a nation is a group organized for efficient defense and saying it's a kind of corporate landowner. In fact, the former would be just hunky-dory with many Libertarians: government as an efficient self-defense force.

Yep. It's in the Constitution of the United States.

Okay, think I have the issue here in clearer view: the problem is that 'rule of law' is something that comes *after* what Hypatian is talking about, the initial act of conquest. There's a bootstrapping problem here.

So how is that a problem? Are you going to claim that we should not have the rule of law to prevent "might makes right" society because all countries arose from the destruction or assimilation of earlier states?

What does that earn us?

Robear wrote:
Okay, think I have the issue here in clearer view: the problem is that 'rule of law' is something that comes *after* what Hypatian is talking about, the initial act of conquest. There's a bootstrapping problem here.

So how is that a problem? Are you going to claim that we should not have the rule of law to prevent "might makes right" society because all countries arose from the destruction or assimilation of earlier states?

Robear, keep in mind that what I'm talking about right now is going too far with counter-arguments to Libertarianism. No, I'm not going to claim that, but the issue here is the idea that conquest means the government actually owns the property--I don't see how the government then instituting a rule of law changes anything.

CheezePavilion wrote:

I'm not sure where that fits in. A treaty or a global police force to settle disputes between nations doesn't involve creating a new entity that owns all the land it defends.

There's a big difference between saying a nation is a group organized for efficient defense and saying it's a kind of corporate landowner. In fact, the former would be just hunky-dory with many Libertarians: government as an efficient self-defense force.

That's... why I pointed out that while "nations own land" and "individuals own land" sound similar, they're not the same thing. *sigh* Whatever.

It does seem like an unfortunate use of the same word for two different concepts, but I get the difference Hypatian.

Hypatian wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I'm not sure where that fits in. A treaty or a global police force to settle disputes between nations doesn't involve creating a new entity that owns all the land it defends.

There's a big difference between saying a nation is a group organized for efficient defense and saying it's a kind of corporate landowner. In fact, the former would be just hunky-dory with many Libertarians: government as an efficient self-defense force.

That's... why I pointed out that while "nations own land" and "individuals own land" sound similar, they're not the same thing. *sigh* Whatever.

The problem is, the way you're pointing that out? You're undercutting your own earlier arguments for why taxes are not theft.

What you said in that last post is not just an 'alternate way to think of' what you were saying before about property not being yours until a government recognizes it as your at its own sufferance: it's a radically different concept, and honestly it's one that's a lot closer to Libertarianism than most.

I have no idea what you're talking about any more, CheezePavilion. You're going to have to explain what you mean.

What you said in that last post is not just an 'alternate way to think of' what you were saying before about property not being yours until a government recognizes it as your at its own sufferance: it's a radically different concept, and honestly it's one that's a lot closer to Libertarianism than most.

Cheeze, how does property become "yours"? Is it because you occupy it and shoot at all comers? Is it because you talked it over with your neighbors and have a private agreement? Or is it because you homesteaded (grant or purchase from the government), purchased/rented/leased it (a contract executed under laws established and maintained by government), or inherited it (a status established in law, again set by the government)? That latter is what Hypatian is talking about, and it's not in itself *idealistically* libertarian. It's what we have now. But it was founded in a way that libertarians would recognize and understand. And it was part of a movement in the 18th century to establish and widen property rights significantly.

The Founders looked at the government they had and decided to leave it - violently. They banded together, hired a bunch of additional soldiers, and tore down the existing government. Then they built a country based on the idea that "all men are created equal" (even if at the time they had to compromise on that, it came true later) and put the focus on the *citizen*, instead of the aristocracy. These are all ideas that a libertarian would approve of.

So arguing that we were founded in a way that's abhorrent to libertarians, and so the government is unjust somehow, is really just revisionism. We *were* founded in violence, yes, but also with an eye towards increasing the freedom of the individual, the citizen. The rules we have come from that, not from some horrible injustice that we need to right. Government and the rule of law are what allows us to contemplate laws and policies that increase the rights and freedoms of the individual. (That's why many libertarians have to argue that it's eeeevil, because otherwise people ask inconvenient questions like "why not just add to the Bill of Rights?" as opposed to trying to gain advantages by tearing down existing laws and policies. It's also why so much of libertarian thought references the American Revolution.)

We have a system that is perfectly capable of instantiating *and enforcing* libertarian rules far beyond what we have today, but *only* if the coercive power of government is used to do so. That's a lot cleaner than just tearing things down and *hoping* things work out, but the latter is the best we have if we get rid of the rule of law. And the rule of law can *only* be maintained when there are penalties *enforced* for violating it.

So, who enforces them? Government, or religion. Take your pick. Yes, we need to fix injustices and stupid policies where they occur, and frankly, both parties have contributed to those in the last 31 years. But the normal way to do this is to *fix* these things through government involvement, not tearing down the entire system. Do we *really* suffer as much powerlessness as our ancestors did? I don't think that anyone can claim that we do. We are not yet in a spot where the system is so broken and abusive that a revolution is required, even though the fringe that thinks so has always been there and has become a political power. But that's no accident - it's taken 50 years or so of corporate investment in that idea to nudge it into the front ranks of one of the parties. But that massive abuse of libertarian ideals is another story.

Robear wrote:
What you said in that last post is not just an 'alternate way to think of' what you were saying before about property not being yours until a government recognizes it as your at its own sufferance: it's a radically different concept, and honestly it's one that's a lot closer to Libertarianism than most.

Cheeze, how does property become "yours"? Is it because you occupy it and shoot at all comers? Is it because you talked it over with your neighbors and have a private agreement? Or is it because you homesteaded (grant or purchase from the government), purchased/rented/leased it (a contract executed under laws established and maintained by government), or inherited it (a status established in law, again set by the government)? That latter is what Hypatian is talking about, and it's not in itself *idealistically* libertarian.

If it is, then we need to start over with why that legitimizes taxes. Remember that we're on the question "why are Libertarians always going on about something ridiculous as 'taxes are theft.'" The way I was understanding the argument before, I'd agree: that would certainly legitimize taxes! If you don't really own your property in the first place you can't complain about the government taking some of it back (technically they wouldn't even *be* taxes, but same difference). However, if we're saying that people own things because they inherited them, then we need to show why that legitimizes taxes.

If we do start going down that road, keep in mind that a LOT of people--not just Libertarians--consider ownership something that exists prior to any government recognition: it's a status established whether there are laws or not, and government doesn't set it, it recognizes it. Those who are not anarchists would allow for the government to take a role in keeping things efficient by enforcing contracts or keeping records and such.

Hypatian wrote:

I have no idea what you're talking about any more, CheezePavilion. You're going to have to explain what you mean.

My take is that he's not arguing against you per se, but that he's arguing against how you're presenting your argument.

As a side note: Malor, any thoughts on the info I posted about renouncing you citizenship for tax purposes?

Stengah, I haven't had time to look into it yet. My sources are close to a decade old, and I don't even remember what they were anymore. I'm certain I correctly understood what I read; I'm not certain it was actually right. I'll have to see if I can figure out where I got the information from.

What it seems to say is that renouncing your citizenship won't clear existing taxes owed the government, or future tax obligations from being incurred by working or living in the US, which makes sense, but it is vague.

CheezePavilion wrote:

If it is, then we need to start over with why that legitimizes taxes. Remember that we're on the question "why are Libertarians always going on about something ridiculous as 'taxes are theft.'"

There are different kinds of taxes, which are you referring to?

If it is, then we need to start over with why that legitimizes taxes. Remember that we're on the question "why are Libertarians always going on about something ridiculous as 'taxes are theft.'" The way I was understanding the argument before, I'd agree: that would certainly legitimize taxes! If you don't really own your property in the first place you can't complain about the government taking some of it back (technically they wouldn't even *be* taxes, but same difference). However, if we're saying that people own things because they inherited them, then we need to show why that legitimizes taxes.

Taxes are taken to support government as part of the contract of citizenship. You get rights and responsibilities under the law in return for citizenship; one of them is the quite reasonable requirement to fund government, which protects those rights for you (among many other things). If you think that's unreasonable, then I think we need another thread for the discussion.

If we do start going down that road, keep in mind that a LOT of people--not just Libertarians--consider ownership something that exists prior to any government recognition: it's a status established whether there are laws or not, and government doesn't set it, it recognizes it. Those who are not anarchists would allow for the government to take a role in keeping things efficient by enforcing contracts or keeping records and such.

Sets it, recognizes it... So what? It's the rule of law that makes keeping your property a product of more than just how much firepower you can muster at any given time. Without that, it's *definitely* "might makes right" and devil take the hindmost.

If you've got a system for people *keeping* property without the rule of law, put it on the table (and wait for the Nobel prize in Economics). If you have a system that *involves* the rule of law, you've got government coercion in there somewhere, and the need to keep government funded - hence, taxes. This stuff is basic civics, going back to before Hammurabi. It's not a mystery, so why is it even controversial? If the argument is "every civilization in history got it wrong", well, that's a steep hill to climb...

Again, start a thread, this taxes topic is a derail.