[Eran]

Restricting it to property rights would beget a vile society because property distributution would effectively circumscribe individual liberty.

What makes you think that?

Indeed, which is no violent assault upon you meantime.

Of course it is. Just because the majority doesn't realise it doesn't mean injustice isn't being perpetrated. I (and I suspect you too) have my own standards of right and wrong. Just because the majority believes something to be right doesn't make it so, does it?

resorting to circular definitions non-Libertarians don't recognise

There is a difference between circular definitions and reliance on axioms. My definitions aren't circular. I defined The NAP in terms of non-political concept such as "force" and "projects".

There is circularity in the reference to "peaceful". A peaceful project is one which hasn't violated the NAP. That circularity is necessary and isn't problematic, as the peaceful (or not) nature of the project is determined at a chronologically-prior point to the use of force against it.


The right to be left alone, the topic of your question, isn't one based on definitions. It is based on moral judgements. All moral reasonings ultimately end with an unprovable claims (just as all mathematical theorems ultimately end in unprovable axioms). The NAP is such unprovable claim. I can appeal to people's intuitions, and discuss the consequences of adherence to it, but I can't prove it.

That doesn't make it circular.

But at least I can point to a coherent moral statement upon which I base my ethical system. Can you do the same?

[SueDeNîmes]

What makes you think that?

Applying the conditions and running the thought experiment. Libertarian versions involve too much magic by the Free Market Fairy.

Of course it is. Just because the majority doesn't realise it doesn't mean injustice isn't being perpetrated. I (and I suspect you too) have my own standards of right and wrong. Just because the majority believes something to be right doesn't make it so, does it?

..nor you or me, right?

There is a difference between circular definitions and reliance on axioms. My definitions aren't circular. I defined The NAP in terms of non-political concept such as "force" and "projects".

Certainly not. The Libertarian notion of force redefines all sorts of coercion, threat, exploitation as voluntarism because they don't violate property rights, and calls other things force because they do. Even the right to bodily integrity derives from 'self-ownership'. To a non-Libertarian, "projects" has no necessary relation to any of it. Saying, for example, pollution regulation is initiation of force against polluters because some natural resource isn't someone's project ..is nearly speaking a foreign language.

There is circularity in the reference to "peaceful". A peaceful project is one which hasn't violated the NAP. That circularity is necessary and isn't problematic, as the peaceful (or not) nature of the project is determined at a chronologically-prior point to the use of force against it.


The right to be left alone, the topic of your question, isn't one based on definitions. It is based on moral judgements. All moral reasonings ultimately end with an unprovable claims (just as all mathematical theorems ultimately end in unprovable axioms). The NAP is such unprovable claim. I can appeal to people's intuitions, and discuss the consequences of adherence to it, but I can't prove it.

That doesn't make it circular.

But at least I can point to a coherent moral statement upon which I base my ethical system. Can you do the same?

Well I'm afraid it is circular. Yer "moral judgements" boil down to a system of property rights with all sorts of things redefined in terms of property rights as per the proposed system of property rights. Reliance on axioms is precisely yer problem as human morality is a bag of emotional responses that evolved to allow social living. Even if it weren't circular, that leaves you, as you say, with one among conflicting, unprovable claims. And free to leave if you don't like the rules.

[Eran]

Applying the conditions and running the thought experiment.

I'd be happy to explore your thoughts in more details.

As for the free market fairy, are you referring to the one that made the difference between East and West Germany?

..nor you or me, right?

I have proposed an objective standard for the right use of force. It isn't guaranteed to be right, but having an objective standard is surely better than leaving it to the whim of opportunistic politicians.

The Libertarian notion of force redefines all sorts of coercion, threat, exploitation as voluntarism because they don't violate property rights, and calls other things force because they do.

The libertarian notion of force is very straightforward - it involves the use of physical force or physical invasion.

Saying, for example, pollution regulation is initiation of force against polluters because some natural resource isn't someone's project ..is nearly speaking a foreign language.

The basic libertarian logic is that action can only be forcefully countered to the extent that such action is itself an initiation of force (or invasion) of another person's peaceful projects (typically as codified into property). Pollution can be resisted if it actually harms people. If it doesn't, it cannot. Foreign language?

Yet "moral judgements" boil down to a system of property rights with all sorts of things redefined in terms of property rights as per the proposed system of property rights.

I have repeatedly pointed out and demonstrated that property rights aren't at the bottom of our moral judgement - the use of force against other people is. Property rights are merely a convenient way of identifying which physical objects or geographic locations are part of a protected project.

And free to leave if you don't like the rules.

That doesn't help, as I challenge your (or your government's) right to set me with that option. You have yet to suggest a cogent argument for why the majority of citizens have a right to force me to leave.

Further, we know from history that the majority of citizens often act criminally. Can you propose a criterion for determining whether majority-sanctioned action is or isn't legitimate?

[SueDeNîmes]

I'd be happy to explore your thoughts in more details.

As for the free market fairy, are you referring to the one that made the difference between East and West Germany?

Hardly. W Germany exemplifies the kind of highly regulated mixed economy where evil gov't hinders the free market fairy.

I have proposed an objective standard for the right use of force. It isn't guaranteed to be right, but having an objective standard is surely better than leaving it to the whim of opportunistic politicians.

You'd have to ask someone who advocates leaving it to the whim of etc

The libertarian notion of force is very straightforward - it involves the use of physical force or physical invasion.

Which licenses all sorts of coercion, threat and harm non-Libertarians find morally unacceptable. So you haven't, in fact, "defined The NAP in terms of non-political concept," but a highly selective, politically motivated one.

The basic libertarian logic is that action can only be forcefully countered to the extent that such action is itself an initiation of force (or invasion) of another person's peaceful projects (typically as codified into property). Pollution can be resisted if it actually harms people. If it doesn't, it cannot. Foreign language?

Which bit? "Pollution can be resisted if it actually harms people" is fine, but nothing to do with the other gobbledygook. Condemning anti-pollution regulation as initiation of force against polluters is saying pretty much the opposite if the relevant "project" / property is the biosphere.

I have repeatedly pointed out and demonstrated that property rights aren't at the bottom of our moral judgement - the use of force against other people is. Property rights are merely a convenient way of identifying which physical objects or geographic locations are part of a protected project.

Which makes no sense. Physical objects, geographic locations and "projects" aren't people. Saying property rights identify where force is justified does effectively put them at the bottom of your moral judgement. If the "merely convenient" qualifier is supposed to make sense of it, presumably Libertarians are "merely inconvenienced" for now and ought to stop the "violently oppressed" histrionics.

That doesn't help, as I challenge your (or your government's) right to set me with that option. You have yet to suggest a cogent argument for why the majority of citizens have a right to force me to leave.

I've yet to suggest they can force you to leave at all. You're free to leave if you don't like the rules. Your choice.

Further, we know from history that the majority of citizens often act criminally.

Yeah, for example people in pre-state societies being in the order of 100 times more likely to die violently at the hands of another.

Can you propose a criterion for determining whether majority-sanctioned action is or isn't legitimate?

Not while others make conflicting claims of same. Hence democracy.

[Eran]

W Germany exemplifies the kind of highly regulated mixed economy where evil gov't hinders the free market fairy.

Everything is relative. Relative to East Germany, the West allowed free markets to operate. In my opinion, the West would have grown even faster absent the government intervention that was present.

You'd have to ask someone who advocates leaving it to the whim of etc

What else can you propose? What mechanism stops politicians from exercising their power for their own benefit?

Which licenses all sorts of coercion, threat and harm non-Libertarians find morally unacceptable. So you haven't, in fact, "defined The NAP in terms of non-political concept," but a highly selective, politically motivated one.

The NAP is defined in terms of an objective concept. Clearly, it has powerful political ramifications. We wouldn't be discussing it on these Political Forums otherwise.

I also accept that non-libertarians are concerned about the consequences of prohibiting the initiation of force against others, though I hold that a consistent adherence to that principle would avoid any of the "coercion, threat and harm" that non-libertarians erroneously associate with free markets.

Condemning anti-pollution regulation as initiation of force against polluters is saying pretty much the opposite if the relevant "project" / property is the biosphere.

Anti-pollution regulation can do one of two things.

Either it prohibits pollution which violates other people's property or use rights, in which case it is unnecessary in a society in which such rights are well-protected.

Or it prohibits pollution which doesn't violate other people's rights, in which case it is an act of aggression.

In addition, since there is no mechanism that drives regulation towards an economically-sensible level, there is every expectation that government regulators will either over-regulate or under-regulate, in each case causing waste.

Physical objects, geographic locations and "projects" aren't people. Saying property rights identify where force is justified does effectively put them at the bottom of your moral judgement.

Projects aren't people, but they belong, having been initiated by, and on them does the survival and prosperity of people depends. If I worked for years to cultivate a field, and you then come and trample it, you have aggressed against me, even though you haven't touched a hair on my body.

If you give it a moment's thought you'd realise that stealing or destroying another person's hard work is wrong, even if the process doesn't involve physically touching that other person.

We libertarians only value people. Property is valuable and worthy of protection because it belongs to people, and represents the result of their hard work (or the hard work of the people who gave it to them).

It is environmentalists, by contrast, who value things other than people.

I've yet to suggest they can force you to leave at all. You're free to leave if you don't like the rules. Your choice.

But you do suggest that they can throw me into a cage if I refuse to obey their "rules", right?

Yeah, for example people in pre-state societies being in the order of 100 times more likely to die violently at the hands of another.

No, but the citizens of 1933 Germany who elected and then supported the Nazi regime.

Not while others make conflicting claims of same. Hence democracy.

I asked how one can determine whether a majority-sanctioned action is or isn't legitimate. Democracy merely implements that action. How does it help determine whether the action is legitimate or not?

How do you draw the line between majority-sanctioned genocide and majority-sanctioned drug prohibition? Or between majority-sanctioned oppression of natives and majority-sanctioned confiscation of peacefully-acquired property through taxes?

[SueDeNîmes]

Everything is relative. Relative to East Germany, the West allowed free markets to operate. In my opinion, the West would have grown even faster absent the government intervention that was present.

Well, fancy a Libertarian holding that opinion. I'm shocked.

What else can you propose? What mechanism stops politicians from exercising their power for their own benefit?

What, absolutely stop it or tend to deter it? One's impossible, the other I suspect you can answer.

The NAP is defined in terms of an objective concept. Clearly, it has powerful political ramifications. We wouldn't be discussing it on these Political Forums otherwise.

I also accept that non-libertarians are concerned about the consequences of prohibiting the initiation of force against others, though I hold that a consistent adherence to that principle would avoid any of the "coercion, threat and harm" that non-libertarians erroneously associate with free markets.

Do you really? Astonishing. Had I known you held these opinions, I'd never have entertained contrary ones.

Anti-pollution regulation can do one of two things.

Either it prohibits pollution which violates other people's property or use rights, in which case it is unnecessary in a society in which such rights are well-protected.

Or it prohibits pollution which doesn't violate other people's rights, in which case it is an act of aggression.

And since either means people who disagree with the ideological bit can breathe the air and drink the water, fine.

In addition, since there is no mechanism that drives regulation towards an economically-sensible level, there is every expectation that government regulators will either over-regulate or under-regulate, in each case causing waste.

Projects aren't people, but they belong, having been initiated by, and on them does the survival and prosperity of people depends. If I worked for years to cultivate a field, and you then come and trample it, you have aggressed against me, even though you haven't touched a hair on my body.

If you give it a moment's thought you'd realise that stealing or destroying another person's hard work is wrong, even if the process doesn't involve physically touching that other person.

We libertarians only value people. Property is valuable and worthy of protection because it belongs to people, and represents the result of their hard work (or the hard work of the people who gave it to them).

Then it's strange that they think people having little or none while others acquire it without limit is fine and dandy. As long as no property rights are violated, of course.

It is environmentalists, by contrast, who value things other than people.

So do people, which is actually rather noble, however I've noticed that environmentalists seem preoccupied with whether a particular planet can support human life.

But you do suggest that they can throw me into a cage if I refuse to obey their "rules", right?

Depends what "rules" - or, indeed, rules - you don't obey. I think you'll find unpaid tax merely garnished from your wages or bank account.

No, but the citizens of 1933 Germany who elected and then supported the Nazi regime.

Aah, the inevitable Godwin moment - I'm surprised the Gestapo have held back for so many posts. Actually, if the 20th century wars had killed the same proportion of population that die violently in pre-state societies, there'd have been more like two billion deaths than 100 million.

I asked how one can determine whether a majority-sanctioned action is or isn't legitimate. Democracy merely implements that action. How does it help determine whether the action is legitimate or not?

No, you asked whether I could determine one, to which my answer stands.

How do you draw the line between majority-sanctioned genocide and majority-sanctioned drug prohibition? Or between majority-sanctioned oppression of natives and majority-sanctioned confiscation of peacefully-acquired property through taxes?

The same way I'd distinguish them without the redundant "majority sanctioned" descriptor. I think you need to find someone who thinks "majority sanctioned" means "I must like it then," or something.

[Eran]

Depends what "rules" - or, indeed, rules - you don't obey. I think you'll find unpaid tax merely garnished from your wages or bank account.

People are sent to jail for not paying taxes, for smoking the wrong stuff, and, in the past, for refusing to fight for their country.

Actually, if the 20th century wars had killed the same proportion of population that die violently in pre-state societies, there'd have been more like two billion deaths than 100 million.

So that makes them OK?

Note that I am not advocating going back to a pre-state society, but rather going forward to one. In other words, I am advocating an extension of the moral evolution of the human race, rather than a retracement.

The same way I'd distinguish them without the redundant "majority sanctioned" descriptor. I think you need to find someone who thinks "majority sanctioned" means "I must like it then," or something.

You are advocating a democracy in which the constitutional dictates of the majority are considered to legitimise the use of force, right?

[SueDeNîmes]

People are sent to jail for not paying taxes, for smoking the wrong stuff, and, in the past, for refusing to fight for their country.

But mostly for violating property rights, often out of dire need.

Actually, if the 20th century wars had killed the same proportion of population that die violently in pre-state societies, there'd have been more like two billion deaths than 100 million.

So that makes them OK?

Of course not ffs. The thing is that sometimes grownups have to deal with the world as it is and can't just define another one into existence. Because, you see, they'd all define different ones and be back where they started.

Note that I am not advocating going back to a pre-state society, but rather going forward to one. In other words, I am advocating an extension of the moral evolution of the human race, rather than a retracement.

No, you're fantasizing about something impossible in the real world of conflicting interests. Something that sounds very unfair and dangerous to most people.

You are advocating a democracy in which the constitutional dictates of the majority are considered to legitimise the use of force, right?

No, I'm saying that, unfortunately, is as good as it gets in the real world. I actually advocate Biebertarianism, where everyone accepts the benevolent judgment of Justin Bieber as the basis for legitimate whatever. There'd be no conflict by definition so anyone who doesn't accept Biebertarianism is violently oppressing me and being horrid.

[Rothbardian]

Can anyone explain the non-aggression principle to me? I have been unable to understand it in the context of some of my disagreements with the more anarchist-leaning Libertarians on here.

Basically, why is making a regulation against (for example) polluting a waterway a violation of the non-aggression principle, even though suing someone for polluting the waterway is not? The difference between the two approaches seems like splitting hairs to me, particularly since the first form of regulation is proven to be more effective in terms of preventing injuries.

Regulations do not violate the non aggression principle, you are mistaken here. Regulations put in by government decree upon people who have not chosen to accept the government's authority are violations of the non aggression principle, and if the reason isn't obvious, it's because the government will hurt you if you don't obey it whether you chose to join it or not.

[Nunt]

But mostly for violating property rights, often out of dire need.

It would be interested to see some data on this, but my guess is that the people who are in jail because they stole bread to feed their family are outnumbered by people convicted for drug related issues.

[Eran]

In fact, over half the Federal prison population has only been charged with non-violent drug offences. Overall, about 86% of Federal prisoners are jailed for victimless crimes.

To be fair, at the state level, a majority (55%) of prisoners are in for violent crimes, while only 19% are in for property crimes (although some violent crimes may be property-motivated).

How many of those have committed their crime out of dire need is hard to say, though I seriously doubt it is a significant fraction.

No, you're fantasizing about something impossible in the real world of conflicting interests. Something that sounds very unfair and dangerous to most people.

It does sound that way - I agree. But actually it isn't. History has shown a broad tendency towards more individual autonomy and less arbitrary power by rulers. More security in one's person and property as against physical dangers, whether private or public.

My suggestion is in line with that direction. We can debate whether my end-state is possible or not. I have this debate with very dedicated libertarians. But that question has zero short-term policy implications. In the short-term we are proposing highly-realistic changes.

[SueDeNîmes]

In fact, over half the Federal prison population has only been charged with non-violent drug offences. Overall, about 86% of Federal prisoners are jailed for victimless crimes.

To be fair, at the state level, a majority (55%) of prisoners are in for violent crimes, while only 19% are in for property crimes (although some violent crimes may be property-motivated).

How many of those have committed their crime out of dire need is hard to say, though I seriously doubt it is a significant fraction.

My comment was in response to your "and, in the past, for refusing to fight for their country." Historically, I'd imagine bigger proportions of prison populations were in for violating property rights than drugs or draft dodging.

No, you're fantasizing about something impossible in the real world of conflicting interests. Something that sounds very unfair and dangerous to most people.

It does sound that way - I agree. But actually it isn't. History has shown a broad tendency towards more individual autonomy and less arbitrary power by rulers. More security in one's person and property as against physical dangers, whether private or public.

My suggestion is in line with that direction. We can debate whether my end-state is possible or not. I have this debate with very dedicated libertarians. But that question has zero short-term policy implications. In the short-term we are proposing highly-realistic changes.

It doesn't sound like it to most ppl. It sounds like a formula for plutocracy and Dickensian poverty, albeit with cellphones. Any liberal democracy would resist it, hence it's a non-starter by its own criteria.

[Eran]

Historically, I'd imagine bigger proportions of prison populations were in for violating property rights than drugs or draft dodging.

Historically, people have been imprisoned (or otherwise punished) for a wide range of offences that had nothing to do with violating other people's property rights. From religious crimes and sexual indiscretions to evasion of taxes, tariffs and government-imposed monopolies.

It sounds like a formula for plutocracy and Dickensian poverty, albeit with cellphones.

It sounds like that to many people. I would hope that this forum would be an opportunity to explore that actual consequences of my policy suggestions, rather than rule them out because of what they would sound like to the majority.

[SueDeNîmes]

Historically, people have been imprisoned (or otherwise punished) for a wide range of offences that had nothing to do with violating other people's property rights. From religious crimes and sexual indiscretions to evasion of taxes, tariffs and government-imposed monopolies.

At the time of Edward VI, anyone found cracking a boiled egg at the sharp end could be sentenced to 24 hours in the village stocks.

It sounds like a formula for plutocracy and Dickensian poverty, albeit with cellphones.

It sounds like that to many people. I would hope that this forum would be an opportunity to explore that actual consequences of my policy suggestions, rather than rule them out because of what they would sound like to the majority.

Yah, unfortunately they turn out to be the same thing.

[Eran]

It is possibly worse. People on this forum tend to already have very set political opinions. Changing them through rational discussion may be even more difficult than with ordinary people (if those could only be persuaded to listen!)

[mikema63]

Rational discussion doesn't change people's position because political ideology is psychologically tribalistic and all people of opposing ideologies will view you as an enemy. What you have to do is get them to like you and befriend you first to change the enemy distinction so that they are more likely to consider your arguments and give them weight.

[Rothbardian]

It is possibly worse. People on this forum tend to already have very set political opinions. Changing them through rational discussion may be even more difficult than with ordinary people (if those could only be persuaded to listen!)

You can't reason people out of their positions because they did not reason themselves into them. Human pscyhology basically works like this:

Start with a paradigm (usually linked to childhood somehow)
The subconscious then seeks out validation for this paradigm (cherry picking). Any data that supports the paradign is embraced, any data that disrupts it is unconsciously ignored.
The subonscious then convinces itself that this conclusion was reached objectively, from a 'blank state', based entirely on evidence and reason.

People come to forums like this thinking they will put their ideals to the test, but the truth is that even when you shoot down their arguments, they find ways, subconsciously, to feel validated which in the end only enforces their preforgone conclusions.

The only way around this, to be honest, is to raise our children differently. And what I usually suggest to libertarians and open minded thinkers is that they stop wasting time on people that are for all intents and purposes brain dead, and move on to those that still have some life in the old noggin'. I say this as a former socialist.

Just as an example, this forum seems to be a cut above the general idiocy you find on the web, and I've already had people here explain to me how stupid they think logic is. You just can't reason with people that refuse to use reason.

[SueDeNîmes]

It is possibly worse. People on this forum tend to already have very set political opinions. Changing them through rational discussion may be even more difficult than with ordinary people (if those could only be persuaded to listen!)

I honestly don't think that's yer problem. Especially since the internet, enough "ordinary people" are drawn in by Libertarianism's innocuous soundbites. But it only takes a bit of exposure to the literature and policy for most to realise it's using words like 'harm' and 'freedom' in very different senses from those of their moral perceptions.

Plus, Libertarians like yer friends here claiming that only Libertarians are capable of rationality will always ring alarm bells for rational people.

[Eran]

I am sure you are right in that the web is full of libertarians who aren't very careful about expressing themselves.

Whenever you see a libertarian referring to one of the following: "freedom", "harm", "coercion", you know he is appealing to people's emotions rather than carefully expressing himself.

Careful libertarian ethics is based exclusively on the question of the initiation of force. Libertarians are characterised by placing severe limits on the range of circumstances in which it is legitimate to initiate force against a person or his property.

Libertarians and most people agree on the applicability of this principle to ordinary people. We tend to differ only with respect to whether an exception to the general rule ought to be carved out for government.

[SueDeNîmes]

I am sure you are right in that the web is full of libertarians who aren't very careful about expressing themselves.

Whenever you see a libertarian referring to one of the following: "freedom", "harm", "coercion", you know he is appealing to people's emotions rather than carefully expressing himself.

Careful libertarian ethics is based exclusively on the question of the initiation of force. Libertarians are characterised by placing severe limits on the range of circumstances in which it is legitimate to initiate force against a person or his property.

OK.

Libertarians and most people agree on the applicability of this principle to ordinary people. We tend to differ only with respect to whether an exception to the general rule ought to be carved out for government.

No, see above. Most people do not agree on Libertarian "severe limits on the range of circumstances in which it is legitimate to initiate force against a person or his property." The Libertarian disagreement is actually with most people, and government merely the administrative arm they want to chop off.