Libertarianism: what is it?

This article seems relevant to the conversation. It is perhaps a somewhat more reasoned take than we have seen here. At the very least, it raises the questions at the heart of the issue: from whence or whom do rights (e.g. property rights) originate, and what effect does the source have on outcome?

I'll PM you Robear, which is what you should have done in the first place.

CheezePavilion wrote:

I'll PM you Robear, which is what I should have done in the first place.

FTFY

gregrampage wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I'll PM you Robear, which is what I should have done in the first place.

FTFY

+1

Stengah wrote:
gregrampage wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I'll PM you Robear, which is what I should have done in the first place.

FTFY

+1

It's true--two wrongs don't make a right. I should have remembered that.

I didn't mean to mess up the thread, Cheeze. There's real life going on too, don't forget that. And it's easy to misread intent, I certainly did that. So for what it's worth, I'd like to apologize for my reaction to you above, it was clearly incorrect and misguided.

Minarchist wrote:

This article seems relevant to the conversation. It is perhaps a somewhat more reasoned take than we have seen here. At the very least, it raises the questions at the heart of the issue: from whence or whom do rights (e.g. property rights) originate, and what effect does the source have on outcome?

It comes from us and our relationships with each other.

goman wrote:
Minarchist wrote:

This article seems relevant to the conversation. It is perhaps a somewhat more reasoned take than we have seen here. At the very least, it raises the questions at the heart of the issue: from whence or whom do rights (e.g. property rights) originate, and what effect does the source have on outcome?

It comes from us and our relationships with each other.

I'd really, really like to hear how that works in the real world with a non-trivial percentage of people who are willing to lie, cheat, censor, steal, murder, etc. Or even where people have different definitions of property rights or the exact location where one's nose begins and the other's fist ends. Might should not make right, but without some body in place to codify and enforce the rules of conduct, that seems like what things would devolve to given the general fallibility of man.

It's cool Robear--Stengah and gregrampage were right, and I should have handled that better myself. It takes two to tango, and I shouldn't have been so quick to get on my high horse either. No hard feelings.

Thanks, I appreciate your patience.

ruhk wrote:

In the same way that all Americans are Russian because both live in countries, or that the flu is the same as aids because they are both illnesses. You are suffering from the common libertarian disease of not being able to recognize degrees. Just because two things share a minor superficial resemblance do not make them the same. The only real obligations we have is to pay a small fraction of our income as taxes and to not go around killing each other, otherwise we live relatively free and luxurious lives. It does not equate to a meager sustenance existence as someone else's property.

On the contrary - it is only libertarians who recognize degrees. We're the only ones who explicitly argue that the "obligation" to pay a small fraction of your income is actually a degree or percentage of slavery - the government claims that it owns a percentage of your time and effort, and is willing to use force to take it from you. Does it matter if it's 30% or 90%? Well, of course, but it's only a difference in degree, not in the wrongness of some people owning other people.

Of course, upthread you've seen numerous arguments that do not acknowledge the similarity in kind, that these things are fundamentally different and not the same thing at all. As Malor pointed out, those arguments can also be used to justify slavery and serfdom - and were used time and time again for exactly that purpose.

George Fitzhugh, 1857[/url]]It seems to us that the vain attempts to define liberty in theory, or to secure its enjoyment in practice, proceed from the fact that man is naturally a social and gregarious animal, subject, not by contract or agreement, as Locke and his followers assume, but by birth and nature, to those restrictions of liberty which are expedient or necessary to secure the good of the human hive, to which he may belong. There is no such thing as natural human liberty, because it is unnatural for man to live alone and without the pale and government of society. Birds, and beasts of prey, who are not gregarious, are naturally free. Bees and herds are naturally subjects or slaves of society. Such is the theory of Aristotle, promulged more than two thousand years ago, generally considered true for two thousand years, and destined, we hope, soon again to be accepted as the only true theory of government and society.

...

What is falsely called Free Society, is a very recent invention. It proposes to make the weak, ignorant and poor, free, by turning them loose in a world owned exclusively by the few (whom nature and education have made strong, and whom property has made stronger,) to get a living. In the fanciful state of nature, where property is unappropriated, the strong have no weapons but superior physical and mental power with which to oppress the weak. Their power of oppression is increased a thousand fold, when they become the exclusive owners of the earth and all the things thereon. They are masters without the obligations of masters, and the poor are slaves without the rights of slaves.

...

Now, let the reader examine and study these definitions of Liberty by Paley, Montesquieu and Blackstone, and he will see that they are in pursuit of an ignis fatuus that eludes their grasp. He will see more, that their liberty is a mere modification of slavery. That each of them proposes that degree of restraint, restriction and control, that will redound to the general good. That each is in pursuit of good government, not liberty. Government pre-supposes that liberty is surrendered as the price of security. The degree of government must depend on the moral and intellectual condition of those to be governed. Take, for instance, Blackstone's definition of civil liberty, and our negro slaves enjoy liberty, because the restrictions on their free will and free agency not only redound to public good, but are really necessary to the protection and government of themselves. We mean to involve ourselves in no such absurdities. Negroes, according to Blackstone, Paley and Montesquieu, although slaves, are free, because their liberty is only so far restricted as the public interest and their own good require. Our theory is, that they are not free, because God and nature, and the general good and their own good, intended them for slaves. They enjoy all the rights calculated to promote their own interests, or the public good. They are, at the South, well governed and well protected. These are the aims of all social institutions, and of all governments. There can be no liberty where there is government; but there may be security for good government. This the slave has in the selfish interest of the master and in his domestic affection. The free laborer has no such securities. It is the interest of employers to kill them off as fast possible; and they never fail to do it.

We do not mean to say that the negro slave enjoys liberty. But we do say that he is well and properly governed, so as best to promote his own good and that of society. We do mean to say further, that what we have quoted from these great authors, is all fudge and nonsense. Liberty is unattainable; and if attainable, not desirable.

Emphases are mine.

Aetius wrote:

On the contrary - it is only libertarians who recognize degrees. We're the only ones who explicitly argue that the "obligation" to pay a small fraction of your income is actually a degree or percentage of slavery (...etc)

Sometimes in writing it can be hard to determine tone, when you wrote these statements it was in a snarky manner meant to satirize libertarian views, right? Because I find it somewhat ridiculous that anyone could say something like that in earnest. Referencing civic responsibility as a "degree of slavery" in that example just goes to show how starkly black & white libertarian thinking is.

Oh, yes, Aetius. [em]Only[/em] libertarians recognize degrees. A very subtle and nuanced viewpoint there. [em]Any degree[/em] of taxation is equivalent to [em]slavery[/em], and we all know that slavery is wrong. There's no difference between 30% or 90% taxation, just like there's no difference between everyone paying taxes and a subset of the population not having their human rights recognized.

Do you even listen to yourself? Do you not realize that what you've just said--the argument you've just made--not only fails to refute the viewpoint you objected to, not only was an [em]example[/em] of exactly the kind of broken absolutist thinking that ruhk was talking about, but was so extreme that it's practically a [em]caricature[/em] of it?

ruhk wrote:

Sometimes in writing it can be hard to determine tone, when you wrote these statements it was in a snarky manner meant to satirize libertarian views, right? Because I find it somewhat ridiculous that anyone could say something like that in earnest. Referencing civic responsibility as a "degree of slavery" in that example just goes to show how starkly black & white libertarian thinking is.

No, I'm in deadly earnest. Did you read the excerpt I quoted? Who defines what "civic responsibility" is? What is the difference between the draft and slavery? Are they not both forced servitude?

Hypatian wrote:

There's no difference between 30% or 90% taxation, just like there's no difference between everyone paying taxes and a subset of the population not having their human rights recognized.

I just said there was a difference in degree, but not in kind. Does it really matter if it applies only to a subset of society? Is it therefore just and right simply because it is applied equally? What human rights were denied the slaves? Would the society have been just and right if everyone in society were treated as slaves were? Is the claim of ownership of 30% of someone's life somehow fundamentally different than the claim of 100% ownership? It is, of course, practically better to live in a society where the claim is only 30%. But it doesn't make it right.

Do you even listen to yourself? Do you not realize that what you've just said--the argument you've just made--not only fails to refute the viewpoint you objected to, not only was an [em]example[/em] of exactly the kind of broken absolutist thinking that ruhk was talking about, but was so extreme that it's practically a [em]caricature[/em] of it?

So you won't mind if I take the money that's in your wallet, right? After all, it's just a small theft, and it applies only to you. Oh wait, I guess that means I should take the money from everyone's wallet - it's okay as long as it's fair. Don't you see the problem with that logic? It's not absolutist or broken to identify things as what they are. Indeed, it's rather important.

Edit: Never mind. I should have looked into the man before posting.

Aetius wrote:

No, I'm in deadly earnest. Did you read the excerpt I quoted? Who defines what "civic responsibility" is? What is the difference between the draft and slavery? Are they not both forced servitude?

Yes I did read it, and it was objectionable bullsh*t sculpted into a pretty shape by someone who is well known for trying to rationalize his racism with his own skewed ideas about liberty and society. It's a bit disgusting that you would quote him as an example of how society should be.

Aetius wrote:

So you won't mind if I take the money that's in your wallet, right? After all, it's just a small theft, and it applies only to you. Oh wait, I guess that means I should take the money from everyone's wallet - it's okay as long as it's fair. Don't you see the problem with that logic? It's not absolutist or broken to identify things as what they are. Indeed, it's rather important.

...aaaand this goes to further the point we were making about how libertarians can't recognize degrees. Thanks! The metaphor is ridiculous, because it ignores the actual situation, and all the benefits that are gained from participating in a society. The social contract you interpret as the threat of force only exists for the few people who carp over their own selfishness and would refuse to participate (at everyone's detriment) if it didn't exist. Because frankly, people are dicks, and whether through laziness, selfishness or failure to see an immediate return on a long-term investment, they won't cooperate at all, and would just leech off the benefits from everyone else's cooperation. Comparing this to a taskmaster whipping his property in the fields is just inane and does nothing but prove our point about aggressively blind libertarian viewpoints.

He wasn't quoting that as an example of how society should be, but rather as how it shouldn't be... of how the same principles and reasoning that allow the ownership of slaves also support involuntary taxation.

That guy is vile. He's supposed to be. And you're supposed to realize that you are echoing him, to some degree.... 30%, instead of 100.

It was for the good of society that we kept the black man in chains. It is for the good of society that you have to work, every year, until well into June to pay for projects that you don't even know about, and would hate vehemently if you did.

From January 1 until Tax Freedom Day, you don't own your own output. How is this different from being a sharecropper?

We probably have to do some of this. It's probably required. But we need to grasp what it fundamentally is, and recognize what it's actually doing.

Libertarians wanting less regulation superficially resemble a rioting mob trying to burn down the capitol

No, they don't, not even a little bit. It's not the same drive, it's not shades along a continuum, they are just different things.

Saying, however, that the government has partial ownership of a person is the same basic idea as saying it has complete ownership of them.

It's a very clear and direct line. You may not LIKE it, but that doesn't make it less true.

Malor wrote:

He wasn't quoting that as an example of how society should be, but rather as how it shouldn't be... of how the same principles and reasoning that allow the ownership of slaves also support involuntary taxation.

That guy is vile. He's supposed to be. And you're supposed to realize that you are echoing him, to some degree.... 30%, instead of 100.

It was for the good of society that we kept the black man in chains. It is for the good of society that you have to work, every year, until well into June to pay for projects that you don't even know about, and would hate vehemently if you did.

I misread it the first time, but it still holds as an example of failures of degree. Fitzhugh is stretching his terms to justify his racism, it's not even even remotely similar to what we are trying to discuss here. Libertarians wanting less regulation superficially resemble a rioting mob of criminals and terrorists trying to burn down the capitol, in that both want less government, but it would be facetious to equate the two.

Malor wrote:

From January 1 until Tax Freedom Day, you don't own your own output. How is this different from being a sharecropper?

Um, no. I own my output, but spend a tiny percentage of it towards my fellow citizens, through the medium of state and federal agencies who have the reach and ability to distribute my funds where they are needed. I do so gladly because not only does it help my fellow citizens and the society in which I live, but it also goes towards building, maintaining and improving upon things that I use on a daily basis. I recognize this and don't selfishly try to cheat my fellow americans, so I don't face the repercussions of freeloading off them.

But I suppose your way is another way of looking at it. Not one I agree with, or even find accurate, mind you, but another way nonetheless. I think our views on this are too divergent to reach some sort of middle ground.

Okay, you need to show that wanting regulations removed, because they are often abused, is the same as arson. That is a GIGANTIC stretch.

The line from partial to complete ownership, however, is direct and absolute.

Malor wrote:
Libertarians wanting less regulation superficially resemble a rioting mob trying to burn down the capitol

No, they don't, not even a little bit. It's not the same drive, it's not shades along a continuum, they are just different things.

See? Our point exactly.

Malor wrote:

Saying, however, that the government has partial ownership of a person is the same basic idea as saying it has complete ownership of them.

It's a very clear and direct line. You may not LIKE it, but that doesn't make it less true.

But the government DOESN'T own the citizenry, the government is there to serve the citizenry, distribute things that are needed where they are needed, to set boundaries and regulations for our safety and to keep in line those who refuse to follow the play nicely, and to protect us from outside agencies.

Malor wrote:

Okay, you need to show that wanting regulations removed, because they are often abused, is the same as arson. That is a GIGANTIC stretch.

The line from partial to complete ownership, however, is direct and absolute.

It was meant to be a stretch, the mob has the same motivation (to lessen government control), and their actions would have the same outcome (government control is weakened). I made the example extreme to counterpoint the extreme example of equating citizenship with slavery. We own the government. We can, and do, change it. A nice example of which is the fight over gay marriage that is occurring in many states at the moment. The problem is that government change is a slow process because it consists of many sides and forces pushing it in different directions, and the people in power are typically slow to turn over their power to a new generation. That last point isn't a problem with government, though, that's just another example of the inter-generational battle that has existed in all forms of society from the dawn of recorded history.

Malor wrote:

Okay, you need to show that wanting regulations removed, because they are often abused, is the same as arson. That is a GIGANTIC stretch.

The line from partial to complete ownership, however, is direct and absolute.

Okay, I am both less eloquent and less delicate than Ruhk, so take this as me being very, very confused, as opposed to a personal attack.

...So, an aggressive and massive deregulation, and someone burning down the state offices to hinder the application or formations of new regulations are completely different things.

Paying taxes, and being someone's personal property are the same thing, just to different degrees.

Bwuh? I can't even begin to get my head around how paying a small percentage of one's income as taxes remotely equates to slavery. Seriously, that's the dumbest argument I've ever heard. And there is a lot of competition for that title.

With the draft a theoretical possibility, you've got a tiny bit more stretch to make that argument... but frankly, instituting the draft anytime in the next, oh, 20 years, would be complete and utter political suicide. Not gonna happen.

So, we're left with small portion of income to pay for sh*t like roads, schools, public water infrastructure... look, at any time in your life, you have used one of these things. I would wager your economic and quality-of-life benefit is stronger than you've put in. Considering the mess our telecom system is in, I'd say roads and non-public utility infrastructure on a country-wide level would be an utter disaster. And, we'd get the problem we have with our data infrastructure now, and there's no rural support for it.

So, as opposed to, you know, slavery, why don't we draw a less... well, we'll go with incendiary parallel. You're opted in to a gigantic co-op. You use the infrastructure, you help float the costs of it. Seems fair to me.

And you could opt out, if you really wanted to. Get a boat, and go hang out in international waters. BAM, no taxes, no "slavery"... and no society, and all the awesome things that come with it.

ruhk wrote:

Um, no. I own my output, but spend a tiny percentage of it towards my fellow citizens, through the medium of state and federal agencies who have the reach and ability to distribute my funds where they are needed.

Really? Lets perform a thought experiment. Lets say that you morally oppose the war in Afghanistan. Why don't you redirect that percentage of your output that you "own" to, say, Code Pink so they can protest the war more effectively. What? The IRS is coming after you and garnishing your wages?

If you own something, that means you get to determine where it goes and what is done with it. If you don't control it, then you don't own it, do you?

Paying taxes, and being someone's personal property are the same thing, just to different degrees.

Bwuh? I can't even begin to get my head around how paying a small percentage of one's income as taxes remotely equates to slavery. Seriously, that's the dumbest argument I've ever heard. And there is a lot of competition for that title.

Perhaps an analogy would help. Would you agree that a slaveowner having a claim to, say, 3/5ths of the economic output of a slave would be morally acceptable? Of course, it would be better than having a claim to 100% ... but again, that doesn't make it right. You can make the argument that a certain percentage is acceptable, but it's important to identify exactly what you're talking about.

With the draft a theoretical possibility, you've got a tiny bit more stretch to make that argument... but frankly, instituting the draft anytime in the next, oh, 20 years, would be complete and utter political suicide. Not gonna happen.

And why is that? It's because people are very uncomfortable with the idea of forcing people who don't want to fight into a war. It's the result of the Vietnam War, where 50,000 Americans and untold millions of Vietnamese died in a pointless war where most of the American soldiers were forced to fight.

So, we're left with small portion of income to pay for sh*t like roads, schools, public water infrastructure... look, at any time in your life, you have used one of these things. I would wager your economic and quality-of-life benefit is stronger than you've put in. Considering the mess our telecom system is in, I'd say roads and non-public utility infrastructure on a country-wide level would be an utter disaster. And, we'd get the problem we have with our data infrastructure now, and there's no rural support for it.

If a slave accepts food, housing, equipment, and clothing from his master, does that constitute acceptance of his or her "social contract"? Does accepting the peace and low crime rate that comes with Mafia "protection" of a business constitute acceptance of that "social contract"? If not, why not? Of course, it's because the "agreement" isn't voluntary, it's made under duress.

So, as opposed to, you know, slavery, why don't we draw a less... well, we'll go with incendiary parallel. You're opted in to a gigantic co-op. You use the infrastructure, you help float the costs of it. Seems fair to me.

The problem with that analogy is that no one is "opting in" to the co-op. It's not a choice, it's imposed by a group of people who generally live far away and don't know anything about you. It's the Hotel California of co-ops.

And you could opt out, if you really wanted to. Get a boat, and go hang out in international waters. BAM, no taxes, no "slavery"... and no society, and all the awesome things that come with it.

Slaves could "opt out" as well, if they didn't mind being hunted like animals. And businesses can "opt out" of Mafia protection, if they don't mind being attacked.

I just said there was a difference in degree, but not in kind.

Like with abortion and murder.

ruhk wrote:
Malor wrote:

Okay, you need to show that wanting regulations removed, because they are often abused, is the same as arson. That is a GIGANTIC stretch.

The line from partial to complete ownership, however, is direct and absolute.

It was meant to be a stretch, the mob has the same motivation (to lessen government control), and their actions would have the same outcome (government control is weakened). I made the example extreme to counterpoint the extreme example of equating citizenship with slavery.

The problem is the comparison of taxes and slavery does not rely on motivation or outcome--it relies on method: using violence to take something you do not own. The problem with you extreme example isn't that it's a stretch, it's that it's not really a counterpoint.

Aetius wrote:
Um, no. I own my output, but spend a tiny percentage of it towards my fellow citizens, through the medium of state and federal agencies who have the reach and ability to distribute my funds where they are needed.

Really? Lets perform a thought experiment. Lets say that you morally oppose the war in Afghanistan. Why don't you redirect that percentage of your output that you "own" to, say, Code Pink so they can protest the war more effectively. What? The IRS is coming after you and garnishing your wages?

If you own something, that means you get to determine where it goes and what is done with it. If you don't control it, then you don't own it, do you?

Paying taxes, and being someone's personal property are the same thing, just to different degrees.

Bwuh? I can't even begin to get my head around how paying a small percentage of one's income as taxes remotely equates to slavery. Seriously, that's the dumbest argument I've ever heard. And there is a lot of competition for that title.

Perhaps an analogy would help. Would you agree that a slaveowner having a claim to, say, 3/5ths of the economic output of a slave would be morally acceptable? Of course, it would be better than having a claim to 100% ... but again, that doesn't make it right. You can make the argument that a certain percentage is acceptable, but it's important to identify exactly what you're talking about.

With the draft a theoretical possibility, you've got a tiny bit more stretch to make that argument... but frankly, instituting the draft anytime in the next, oh, 20 years, would be complete and utter political suicide. Not gonna happen.

And why is that? It's because people are very uncomfortable with the idea of forcing people who don't want to fight into a war. It's the result of the Vietnam War, where 50,000 Americans and untold millions of Vietnamese died in a pointless war where most of the American soldiers were forced to fight.

So, we're left with small portion of income to pay for sh*t like roads, schools, public water infrastructure... look, at any time in your life, you have used one of these things. I would wager your economic and quality-of-life benefit is stronger than you've put in. Considering the mess our telecom system is in, I'd say roads and non-public utility infrastructure on a country-wide level would be an utter disaster. And, we'd get the problem we have with our data infrastructure now, and there's no rural support for it.

If a slave accepts food, housing, equipment, and clothing from his master, does that constitute acceptance of his or her "social contract"? Does accepting the peace and low crime rate that comes with Mafia "protection" of a business constitute acceptance of that "social contract"? If not, why not? Of course, it's because the "agreement" isn't voluntary, it's made under duress.

So, as opposed to, you know, slavery, why don't we draw a less... well, we'll go with incendiary parallel. You're opted in to a gigantic co-op. You use the infrastructure, you help float the costs of it. Seems fair to me.

The problem with that analogy is that no one is "opting in" to the co-op. It's not a choice, it's imposed by a group of people who generally live far away and don't know anything about you. It's the Hotel California of co-ops.

And you could opt out, if you really wanted to. Get a boat, and go hang out in international waters. BAM, no taxes, no "slavery"... and no society, and all the awesome things that come with it.

Slaves could "opt out" as well, if they didn't mind being hunted like animals. And businesses can "opt out" of Mafia protection, if they don't mind being attacked.

I'm going to quote this because it's a really good outline of the kinds of questions the Libertarian issue forces us to ask. My suggestion is not to scramble to find reasons to disagree: instead, really try and understand what Aetius is talking about here. It won't necessarily make you a Libertarian if you do, but it *will* make you more aware of your own beliefs and why you hold them if you read these responses with an open mind.

I thought the "Men with guns are taking your stuff!" thing was the worst of libertarian hyperbole. Guess I was wrong!

Look, if you think income taxes are on a continuum with slavery, where 0% taxes is freedom, 30% taxes is partial slavery, and 100% taxes is full slavery, it implies that you think that the main problem with slavery is that slaves didn't get paid. But that's wrong: the main problem with slavery is that you have no human agency. The main problem with slavery is that your owner got to tell you what to do, where to live, where to go. If you resisted, your owner could beat you or kill you. If your owner, out of the goodness of his heart, paid you a fair salary, we aren't suddenly down to 0% slavery--the essential injustice of slavery would remain. Right?

Do taxes tell you what job to perform? Do taxes tell you where to live, what to do, who to marry? Do taxes remove your agency? Hell no. So quit saying taxes are slavery.

Aetius wrote:

Perhaps an analogy would help. Would you agree that a slaveowner having a claim to, say, 3/5ths of the economic output of a slave would be morally acceptable? Of course, it would be better than having a claim to 100% ... but again, that doesn't make it right. You can make the argument that a certain percentage is acceptable, but it's important to identify exactly what you're talking about.

Nice analogy except for the part about how we get to vote for our slave owners and can actually get rid of the ones that we feel aren't treating us right. Any comparison of taxation to slavery is really pushing the limit.

Aetius wrote:

If a slave accepts food, housing, equipment, and clothing from his master, does that constitute acceptance of his or her "social contract"? Does accepting the peace and low crime rate that comes with Mafia "protection" of a business constitute acceptance of that "social contract"? If not, why not? Of course, it's because the "agreement" isn't voluntary, it's made under duress.

You're essentially saying that no law, no agreement, no social contract should never be recognized unless everyone accepts it individually and in a circumstance where there's absolutely no compulsion or duress.

Let's perform a thought experiment with that. How do you have a society where that's the norm?

When you turn 18 do you have to review every law that was ever written and then decide which ones you're going to follow and which ones you don't think should apply to you? No, you don't understand, Officer. You can't arrest me for that because I personally didn't approve that law. It doesn't apply to me because it was written 50 years ago, well before my time. If you arrest me then you're turning me into a slave.

Societies don't function that way. There are a hole host of values, beliefs, and rules that come along for the ride when you are born into them. You might not like some of them, but them's the breaks. You can work to change them or you can choose to leave and find another society that's more fitting to your outlook on life.

In the case of Libertarians, Somalia seems a perfect fit. They have a nice, weak-to-non-existent central government and there's no bullsh*t regulations or annoying things like a functioning taxpayer financed infrastructure. Nope. Everyone's free to do what they want. Once they fight off the local gangs and avoid being kidnapped by whoever's running the Warlord-of-the-Month Club, that is. But, hey. At least you won't be a slave like you are here in America, right?

Aetius wrote:

The problem with that analogy is that no one is "opting in" to the co-op. It's not a choice, it's imposed by a group of people who generally live far away and don't know anything about you. It's the Hotel California of co-ops.

Bullsh*t. Absolute bullsh*t. In the past decade alone more that 6.6 million people opted into our co-op through the the naturalization process.

Again, let's go back to that thought experiment. In the perfect Libertarian world what are we supposed to do with the all the native-born Americas who decide that the rules of the co-op don't apply to them? Let them suck off the teat of our hard work while they do whatever the hell they want? Kick them out? Force them to participate?

CheezePavilion wrote:

I'm going to quote this because it's a really good outline of the kinds of questions the Libertarian issue forces us to ask. My suggestion is not to scramble to find reasons to disagree: instead, really try and understand what Aetius is talking about here. It won't necessarily make you a Libertarian if you do, but it *will* make you more aware of your own beliefs and why you hold them if you read these responses with an open mind.

I'm not disagreeing to disagree, here. I'm a bleeding-heart liberal for a reason.

jonstock wrote:

Do taxes tell you what job to perform? Do taxes tell you where to live, what to do, who to marry? Do taxes remove your agency? Hell no. So quit saying taxes are slavery.

That's the core of my disagreement. You're losing %random, small percentage of your income. In return, you get a hell of a lot, with agency on how it's spent. I would posit that the presence or absence of agency is a difference of type, as opposed to degree. Differing levels of agency are differences in degree. Fair?

Sure, the system isn't perfect, but I'd rather work towards fixing it than burn it all down.

And you _can_ opt out. Just because you don't like the options to doesn't mean it's not a valid option. No one would hunt you like an animal if you were on a boat in international waters. If you can get into another country, no-one here is going to stop you unless you were wanted for killing someone or something.

aetius wrote:

Does accepting the peace and low crime rate that comes with Mafia "protection" of a business constitute acceptance of that "social contract"? If not, why not? Of course, it's because the "agreement" isn't voluntary, it's made under duress.

This is a bit more reasonable. I can work with this. There's a long-damned-way between unfortunate "business" arrangement and slavery. Extreme still, but not apples to alpha-centauri kind of comparison.

The funny thing here is, I can easily think of a case where this would be acceptable, and may even be of active benefit.

Consider if the Mafia were not running the "protection" racket, but were actively providing a service in protecting your business from rival gangs and wandering thugs. Because really, who in their right mind would rob a store that was under the mafia's protection?

Now, you have the projected losses from theft, vandalism, so forth, as well as the profits from your business. Provided the cost for the protection was less than projected losses, without swamping your profits, it would be a smart thing to go with it.

In our analogy of degrees, you'd have some ability to negotiate to represent your agency (because an absence of agency is a difference of type, and not degree.), and some ability to choose between different "service" providers, albeit difficult.

Now, it'd be a suboptimal outcome, far and away. But you'd not be shuffling around in chains. Maybe without the duress you could find a private security company that would provide protection at a cheaper rate? You could always move your buisness location, but that's a royal pain in the ass, and carries it's own opportunity cost.