The Trouble With Libertarians

[KitemanSA]

Or to be more concise, and offensive. In general, Libertarians appear to be apathetic anarchists.

Appearances can be deceiving and ignorance is bliss. Thou residest in a state of deceived-bliss.

Libertarians are not "anarchist". They are autarchists. Anarchists believe in NO government AN-archy. Libertarians believe in SELF government, AUTO-archy... autarchy. Major difference there.

[bcglorf]

Anarchists believe in NO government AN-archy. Libertarians believe in SELF government

Do you really believe that though? Just moments before you had this to say:

Law and Justice are two completely DIFFERENT concepts except to those who have an authoritarian mind-set. Such moral reprobates think that if a law is made then "the people have spoken"

You are merely pointing out that existing laws are flawed, unjust and rarely the 'will' of the people. I don't recall seeing anyone denying that or even questioning it. The question was simply how do you implement any kind of system of justice without laws? Even the basic principle of "your rights end where mine begin" is a law. I would assert it is a law that MUST be enforced for the difference between SELF government and anarchy to have any meaning in practice. I wonder what word you'd like used to refer to the enforcers of this law under such a self government, since the obvious "law enforcement" name seems to cause you so much consternation?

[KitemanSA]

Law and Justice are two completely DIFFERENT concepts except to those who have an authoritarian mind-set. Such moral reprobates think that if a law is made then "the people have spoken"

You are merely pointing out that existing laws are flawed, unjust and rarely the 'will' of the people. I don't recall seeing anyone denying that or even questioning it. The question was simply how do you implement any kind of system of justice without laws?

One achieves "justice" in a sea of "law" by placing all decisions on "enforcement" of said laws in the hands of the UNANIMOUS consent of an unbiased statistical representation of people via a fully informed jury (FIJ) according to the ORIGINAL definition of jury, not the Animal Farm perversion we have now.

Moral action via justice, not law enFORCEment by government. Simple. Libertarian.

Oh, and by the way, laws are supposed to be made by Congress as an attempt to codify the general will of the people and applied or rejected by the FIJ. That part of the Great American Experiment was lost ~130 years ago, though inertia carried us for a while.

[bcglorf]

Law and Justice are two completely DIFFERENT concepts except to those who have an authoritarian mind-set. Such moral reprobates think that if a law is made then "the people have spoken"

You are merely pointing out that existing laws are flawed, unjust and rarely the 'will' of the people. I don't recall seeing anyone denying that or even questioning it. The question was simply how do you implement any kind of system of justice without laws?

One achieves "justice" in a sea of "law" by placing all decisions on "enforcement" of said laws in the hands of the UNANIMOUS consent of an unbiased statistical representation of people via a fully informed jury (FIJ) according to the ORIGINAL definition of jury, not the Animal Farm perversion we have now.

Moral action via justice, not law enFORCEment by government. Simple. Libertarian.

Oh, and by the way, laws are supposed to be made by Congress as an attempt to codify the general will of the people and applied or rejected by the FIJ. That part of the Great American Experiment was lost ~130 years ago, though inertia carried us for a while.

Yet again, I never disagreed with your ideas on placing more authority on juries. It is not relevant to my point so I really can't see why you insist on repeating it.

Can you agree to the simplest example, where the existence of a law based on "Your rights end where mine begins" is acceptable under your view of a Libertarian self government?

As near as I can tell from your response, you are agreed that such a law is acceptable?

Next you simply insist that the application of that law be kept in the hands of a well informed jury(fully informed being impossible in practice). I hope that is understanding you correctly?

As near as I can tell, this is still agreeable to you.

So now we end up with the ugliness of the real world. Somebody breaks this one single law by shooting and killing his neighbour. Your jury will presumably reach the conclusion that yes, this action does violate the law of "your rights end where mine begin". The jury even decides on a sentencing to be applied to the killer, say a heavy fine to go to the dead man's family. When the killer refuses to pay, who enforces the decision of the jury? Are they expected to go over as a group and do it themselves? Is this a specialized enough task that a group should be trained to perform it. Should that group be armed? You see where this all falls apart on you, right?

[MSimon]

I'm starting to get how libertarians can run out of other peoples money.

When libertarians run out of money they are not asking for they will not be asking for more.

Thus eventually when they are asking for nothing their program will be a failure because there is nothing more they can do. And you know. Doing nothing is not an option. The Conservative program makes more sense. There is always more to do. Thus they can never fail. Unless they can contrive to do everything. Bur they are in competition with the liberals on that one.

[bcglorf]

I'm starting to get how libertarians can run out of other peoples money.

When libertarians run out of money they are not asking for they will not be asking for more.

Thus eventually when they are asking for nothing their program will be a failure because there is nothing more they can do. And you know. Doing nothing is not an option. The Conservative program makes more sense. There is always more to do. Thus they can never fail. Unless they can contrive to do everything. Bur they are in competition with the liberals on that one.

You state that "doing nothing is not an option". Are you serious with that statement, it seems like you are trying to be sarcastic.

If I guess right, and you meant doing nothing IS an option, what is the difference between a Libertarian self government that does absolutely nothing, and anarchy?

[Betruger]

Doing nothing isn't an option as things are right now -- with libertarian policies a small minority, at best, on the political battleground. A majority of Libertarian policies would mean more spare cash to bootstrap solutions from failures than there is today under the rule of Conservatives and Liberals.

And doing nothing isn't inherently a bad thing, provided we're not arguing in simplistic black and white. Unless you consider it bad for people to go thru govt teet withdrawal. That's probably not a new idea either - govt "aid" as an addiction.

I don't expect you seriously think there's anarchy anytime the govt isn't micromanaging its citizens' livelihood.

[bcglorf]

Doing nothing isn't an option as things are right now -- with libertarian policies a small minority, at best, on the political battleground. A majority of Libertarian policies would mean more spare cash to bootstrap solutions from failures than there is today under the rule of Conservatives and Liberals.

And doing nothing isn't inherently a bad thing, provided we're not arguing in simplistic black and white. Unless you consider it bad for people to go thru govt teet withdrawal. That's probably not a new idea either - govt "aid" as an addiction.

I don't expect you seriously think there's anarchy anytime the govt isn't micromanaging its citizens' livelihood.

Actually, I think there is anarchy when the government abandons things like law enforcement. If you haven't noticed, the suggestion has been made from the libertarian side of the argument that law enforcement is on the list of things where doing nothing would be better.

Either you disagree with that version of Libertarianism, or you need to start accepting that the line between anarchy and smaller government is being blurred unreasonably.

[Betruger]

I don't see how the reply you quoted is arguing that law enforcement thread. It reads like an assessment of libertarian policy in general.

Don't see either how libertarian governance would necessarily "abandon" law enforcement.

When you say that the line between anarchy and smaller govt is being blurred unreasonably, I assume you mean it being so as KitemanSA seems to argue.

[bcglorf]

I don't see how the reply you quoted is arguing that law enforcement thread. It reads like an assessment of libertarian policy in general.

Don't see either how libertarian governance would necessarily "abandon" law enforcement.

When you say that the line between anarchy and smaller govt is being blurred unreasonably, I assume you mean it being so as KitemanSA seems to argue.

The law enforcement part I was certainly directing at KitemanSA. If your content to reject his take on that, then I'd probably need to hear what you feel the libertarian view on it should be. And it leads into my prior problem with libertarianism Ask 3 different Libertarians if power, water and emergency services should be centrally controlled and you'll get 3 different answers.

[Betruger]

Why's that a problem for you?

[bcglorf]

Why's that a problem for you?

It's a problem for me when a person's answer is claimed as a fundamental principle of Libertarian ideology. When every Libertarian has a different opinion on what the fundamental principles of it should allow it's not really a movement any more to me, just a generalized line of complaints.

I think almost everyone can agree that "your rights end where mine begin"is good guiding principle. My problem is that crowds playing off nothing but populist discontent want to use that as a rallying cry against any law they personally find inconvenient or disagreeable. To the extent that people will declare the very principle of law enforcement or taxation to be fundamentally incompatible with Libertarianism.

[KitemanSA]

Yet again, I never disagreed with your ideas on placing more authority on juries. It is not relevant to my point so I really can't see why you insist on repeating it.

Can you agree to the simplest example, where the existence of a law based on "Your rights end where mine begins" is acceptable under your view of a Libertarian self government?

As near as I can tell from your response, you are agreed that such a law is acceptable?

The basic concept of "your 'right' to swing your fist stops at my personal space (not nose, but somewhat removed from it) is a fairly basic one in Libertarian circles. But I have trouble seeing how this is a "law". And in truth, people's rights never "end" at other people's rights, not if you understand "rights". The basic rule is "sapient beings have the right to voluntary action" and that never stops. For those who can't think in the constructive, the corollary is that "it is wrong to involve someone in an action involuntarily".

The thing is, no matter how hard you try to make a law perfectly adhere to that principle, it can't be done. There is no way (at least in my experience) that a "law" can be "enforced" justly unless there is a fully informed jury. Please note that the term "Fully Informed Jury" has specific meanings and does not imply omniscience on the part of the jurors.

What I DO think is appropriate is "default social contract". The uniform commercial code is "law" in the sense that it was written and passed by the legislative process. But it is NOT law in the sense that it only applies if you want it too. The UCC provides for DEFAULT commercial contract. If you take a commercial case to court, the court will apply the UCC... in the absence of any specific wording to the contrary. So in fact they are basically more like "guidelines".

Next you simply insist that the application of that law be kept in the hands of a well informed jury(fully informed being impossible in practice). I hope that is understanding you correctly?

As near as I can tell, this is still agreeable to you.

So now we end up with the ugliness of the real world. Somebody breaks this one single law by shooting and killing his neighbour. Your jury will presumably reach the conclusion that yes, this action does violate the law of "your rights end where mine begin". The jury even decides on a sentencing to be applied to the killer, say a heavy fine to go to the dead man's family. When the killer refuses to pay, who enforces the decision of the jury? Are they expected to go over as a group and do it themselves? Is this a specialized enough task that a group should be trained to perform it. Should that group be armed? You see where this all falls apart on you, right?

Read "On the Steppes of Central Asia". It has a MARVELOUS suggestion for the solution to that issue. It involves the sale of permissions to extract such payments from the scoffer. Essentially, the victim is awarded compensation and if the defendant refuses to pay, the courts take that as a statement that said defendant rejects the social process and is no longer protected by the courts from actions by the awardee. Said awardee can sell that property (the compensation award) to others. The awardee gets his compensation and the purchaser can do whatever he wants to the defendant to get his money back. Lets face it, there are a number of people who would pay big bucks to be allowed to "extract" their money.

But yes, there should be a social mechanism for enforcing the judgment of juries.

Please note that this defines one of the basic differences between Libertarians and anarchists. Libertarians recognize the need for judgment enforcement.

[KitemanSA]

I'm starting to get how libertarians can run out of other peoples money.

When libertarians run out of money they are not asking for they will not be asking for more.

I thought you had been a Libertarian. Libertarians ask other people for money all the time. They just don't take it at the point of a gun.

[bcglorf]

You are driving nails into another of my pet peeves. I entered this thread with you saying of Libertarians:

Justice is a necessary part of civilization. "Law Enforcement" is the perversion of THAT requirement by people who can't think in more abstract terms like "justice".

And now, after some back and forth you are saying:

Please note that this defines one of the basic differences between Libertarians and anarchists. Libertarians recognize the need for judgment enforcement.

You do appreciate, of course, that the difference between law enforcement and judgment enforcement isn't differentiated so radically within the common English usage as you seem to differentiate in your own usage. After all, the law enforcement we are familiar with is nearly 100% under right of challenge before judge or jury and it thus can be considered part of a judgment enforcement process.

Your arguing 99% semantics over things we largely agree with on principle if you'd just be willing to let go, or even simply to explain, your semantical differences in advance.