[Soixante-Retard]

The only enforceable responsibilities people have in a libertarian society are their contractual obligations

I agree. Explicit and implicit. We can, however, codify what responsibility a parent has to their child.

Bringing a child into the world cannot be reasonably viewed as initiating force against any person (or their property).

I agree.

Nor can it be viewed as undertaking a contractual obligation.

I disagree. If it was consensual (so excluding rape), I believe, it does imply contractual obligations.

Children ought to be supported by their parents.

I agree.

If the parents are unwilling or unable to support them, the children will be supported voluntarily by other members of society.

I disagree with the word in bold. The is-ought fallacy again.

Parents who are able but unwilling to support their children are likely to lose their guardianship rights to others who are willing to accept those responsibilities.

I agree that they ought to lose guardianship rights, but you've implicitly conceded that parents ought to have responsibility to their children. Now if this responsibility isn't legally-enforced then how can it be "enforced" sufficiently via another method, such as "societal pressure"?

[lucky]

Thus I expressed an opinion about libertarian principles, rather than about libertarians as individuals.

If your principles are not shared by other libertarians, it makes no sense to call them "the libertarian principles". Call them "Eran's an-cap principles".

The only enforceable responsibilities people have in a libertarian society are their contractual obligations, together with the background requirement not to initiate force against other people or their property.

Again the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

You are claiming that any society with any other enforceable responsibilities than the above is not a "libertarian society". This is false, as the adjective "libertarian" is much broader than that. In fact it's not even a clear-cut yes or no adjective, libertarianism is just a direction in politics.

Your claim would imply that any society that has taxes can't be said to be a "libertarian" society. This doesn't make any sense, unless you understand the word "libertarian" to mean "anarchist".

A better way to say what you wanted to say would have been "in my preferred design of society" (or just don't insert anything like that at all). You'll probably again claim that that's what you meant, but the formulation "in a libertarian society" means "in every libertarian society".

You always insert absolutes like that in an attempt to gain a false authority, basically saying "whoever doesn't agree with me isn't a libertarian".

[Social_Critic]

Caveat emptor. If you don't want to run the risk of paying child support I suggest a vasectomy or homosexuality. But if you do stick it in, you are toast.

[Eran]

I disagree. If it was consensual (so excluding rape), I believe, it does imply contractual obligations.

You ought to brush-up on your contract theory. A contract has two sides, and typically involves an actual or conditional exchange of title.

There is no "other side" to an implied contract upon a sexual act. There is no exchange of title. All there is is the moral intuition that parents ought to care for their children.

I disagree with the word in bold. The is-ought fallacy again.

No fallacy. This last statement was firmly in the "is" category. I am expressing a strong opinion as to the likely eventuality of children found unsupported by their parents in a normal human society, given centuries of experience regarding both prevailing sentiments in society and actual record for orphanages, foster home and people seeking to adopt children.

Now if this responsibility isn't legally-enforced then how can it be "enforced" sufficiently via another method, such as "societal pressure"?

Your question caught me by surprise. Human societies are full of non-legally-enforced yet strongly socially-enforced norms, from simple manners to political constitutions.

An important tenet of libertarian theory is the distinction between legally-enforced rules and moral obligations more generally. Children ought to respect their elderly parents. Husbands ought not cheat on their wives. People ought to be polite towards each other.

I am now watching the TV series "Downton Abbey" which, much like Jane Austin's novels makes it very clear how powerful extra-legal societal norms can be.

If your principles are not shared by other libertarians, it makes no sense to call them "the libertarian principles".

While these are indeed my principles, it is also my opinion that these principles can properly referred to as "libertarian principles". There is certainly no need for those principles to be accepted by every self-proclaimed libertarian to count as such.

A libertarian, broadly speaking, is a person sharing many principles with other libertarians, but the heterogeneity of the libertarian camp makes it clear that not all libertarians agree on every principle.

Having said that, there is no single arbiter of what constitutes "libertarian principles", and I believe we can agree that the principles behind my earlier statements are far from universally-accepted within the libertarian community.

Again the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

Again, no. Merely an expression of opinion as to what "libertarian society" is. We all make similar statements without thereby committing a fallacy.

You are claiming that any society with any other enforceable responsibilities than the above is not a "libertarian society". This is false, as the adjective "libertarian" is much broader than that. In fact it's not even a clear-cut yes or no adjective, libertarianism is just a direction in politics.

No, I am not. Consider similar statements regarding "capitalist society", "democratic society", etc.

In each case, one can make a general statement about the likely attributes of a generally-described society. That doesn't mean that each of those attributes is essential or definitional. We can say "in a democratic society, individuals enjoy freedom of political speech". Does that mean that a society in which political speech is in any way limited (e.g. through campaign contribution limits) isn't "democratic"?

the formulation "in a libertarian society" means "in every libertarian society".

No, it doesn't. Rather, it means "in an ideal libertarian society", or maybe "in a typical libertarian society", rather than "in every libertarian society".

You always insert absolutes like that in an attempt to gain a false authority, basically saying "whoever doesn't agree with me isn't a libertarian".

Now who is inserting absolutes?

You are being overly-pedantic. We all make absolute-sounding statements. In my personal opinion, qualifying every statement with "in my personal opinion" would make most posts virtually unreadable.

[Soixante-Retard]

I disagree Eran, but I'll reiterate my opinion as succinctly as possible. If the act of procreative sex is consensual then both sides, in my opinion, ought to be legally responsible for the child's welfare (up to the age of adulthood) and, a fortiori, if it is not consensual (rape) then both sides should still be responsible. That both sides, at all times, must be held responsible does not entail that this responsible need necessarily be equal.

Also, Social_Critic has a point about caveat emptor. However, I would say that if you don't want the responsibility that stems from your actions, then you ought not to act.

[Eran]

We are going to have to leave it at that unless you can articulate the fundamental principle on which you base your opinion.

Libertarians tend to be very precise about the circumstances whereby people are deemed to undertake enforceable responsibilities.

For example, while many people believe employers have non-contractual but enforceable obligations towards their employees, libertarians tend to restrict enforceable obligations to those explicitly spelled out in a contract.

In the context of this discussion, you seem to merely iterate your position rather than ground it in any fundamental principle. Merely pointing out that the sexual act is (normally) voluntary, and that the participants thereby undertake certain "responsibilities" isn't enough. It opens the door to endless circumstances under which voluntary action (e.g. employing somebody) creates vague "responsibilities".

[Soixante-Retard]

My fundamental principle, Eran, is that people ought to be made responsible for their actions.

[Eran]

Where do you draw the line, and why?

What if I open a store that out-competes that of an existing one? My action has caused my competitor to become bankrupt. Am I not "responsible for my action"?

What if a girl refuses the courting of a boy, causing him to commit suicide. Is she "responsible for her action"?

What if I write a column suggesting that people buy gold. Some do, and lose money. Am I "responsible for my actions"?

My point is that being "responsible for your action" is far too broad an expression to serve as the basis for using force in society. That is why, as libertarian, we tend to restrict enforceable action to restoration of property rights (justly-acquired), not for vague notions such as "responsibility for action" or "preventing harm to others".

[Soixante-Retard]

Eran, you are, I think, deliberately separating, and thus confusing, who the actor is and what their actions are.

[Eran]

I am making the simple point that being "responsible for your actions" is far to broad and vague a standard based on which to justify the use of force. Adopting such standard would justify the use of force under a very wide range of circumstances that libertarians are generally uncomfortable with.

I am asking you to sharpen your standard. The normal libertarian view is that force is only justified in response to violations of property rights.

What property rights are violated when a parent refuses to support a child? Presumably, the child's. But how has the child acquired property rights in his parents' future earnings?

[Soixante-Retard]

What property rights are violated when a parent refuses to support a child? Presumably, the child's.

I agree.

But how has the child acquired property rights in his parents' future earnings?

By virtue that the child was brought into this world by its parents' volition. The child, is thus, acquired property of the parents (insofar as the responsibility for the child is the parents'). But the right of the child to its life, liberty and property supersedes the parents' right to dispose or abandon their acquired property.

[lucky]

The normal libertarian view is that force is only justified in response to violations of property rights.

That, as you know, is the anarcho-capitalist view, not the normal libertarian view.

[Eran]

But the right of the child to its life, liberty and property supersedes the parents' right to dispose or abandon their acquired property.

The right to "life, liberty and property" is generally understood to be a negative right - the right not to be assaulted by others.

You are describing a positive right in the child - the right to demand something of others.

Being brought into the world can only be viewed as a favour (something of positive value) conferred on the child by the parents. If you doubt that, consider that killing the child will quickly and painlessly reverse the parental act of having brought it into the world. Since we (correctly) view killing a child as doing him wrong, it is illogical to claim that having brought it into the world creates a debt.

That, as you know, is the anarcho-capitalist view, not the normal libertarian view.

That's because most libertarians aren't consistent in their principles. They adopt fundamental libertarian principles (the ones you characterise as "anarcho-capitalist"), but then hedge themselves with a mix of non-libertarian notions.

This, to clarify, is my personal view of the issue.

I would be interested to hear what your view is of the principles underlying the circumstances under which the use of force is permitted.

[lucky]

That's because most libertarians aren't consistent in their principles.

I think it's more like: anarcho-capitalists like to pretend that all libertarians are secretly anarchist, thus extrapolate their views into much broader "principles" which nobody other than an-caps actually holds. Thinking that other people share your beliefs, only are inconsistent or hypocritical or evil in their application of those beliefs, is a common mistake. An analogy I would make is all the fundamentalist Christians who think that atheists hate god or try to avoid him.

I would be interested to hear what your view is of the principles underlying the circumstances under which the use of force is permitted.

It is permitted, by definition, when the legal code under discussion does not outlaw it. I understand that you are probably really asking about something else.

If you are really asking about my view of when it is permitted by some sort of abstract universal law or universal morality, rather than an actual legal system, then I don't know what that is.

If you are really asking about when force ought to be (rather than "is") permitted, under my preferred optimal legal code, then I don't have a simple answer to that, since discussion of "force" permeates many issues, it's a broad term. In particular: if you break laws, force, or a threat of force, should typically be used to punish you (in various degrees). We would have to be talking about specific instances, I don't favor having a single "force law" encompassing it all. Such a question is too broad to really discuss, it's basically asking "what should the laws be?".

[Eran]

Indeed I asked about your view with respect to which uses of force would be permitted under a system of law that you'd favour.

Without going into details, are you able to provide an over-arching principle underlying your views? Or are you suggesting that circumstances be judged based on some vague intuition regarding what "feels right"?


Most libertarians (I think you'll agree) tend to see much narrower circumstances under which the initiation of force is legitimised than do non-libertarians. I agree with you that most libertarians aren't radical libertarian-anarchists, and thus do see exceptions to the rule that initiation of force is never legitimate.

I take that rule to be the "libertarian principle", even while different libertarians adopt this rule to varying degrees. Even I see some exceptions to that rule (narrowly-understood emergencies). A person can legitimately call themselves (and be regarded by others) "libertarian" even if they accept many additional exceptions to the rule (e.g. taxation to fund national defence).

[DeadPresidents]

Bringing a child into the world through consensual sex is both parents burden. If either one of them walk out on the child... they are responsible for the child's well-being.

Actions have consequences.

[Eran]

Actions have consequences.

Some do, and some don't. You and many others are clearly expressing the strong conviction that parents have moral obligations to their children.

But not all moral obligations ought to be legally-binding.

How can we tell this one ought to be?

[lucky]

Without going into details, are you able to provide an over-arching principle underlying your views? Or are you suggesting that circumstances be judged based on some vague intuition regarding what "feels right"?

Nothing unusual here: my political views are obviously guided by ... politics. In other words, by attempting to make the best compromise between the interests of myself and people I care most about, and of everybody else. In a bit more detail, figuring out what policy is in my and others' interest is guided by a mix of my knowledge about economics, political science, mathematics, and indeed intuition. If what you're getting at is some simplistic rule that I use to derive all my policy preferences, akin to your version of non-aggression principle, then I have nothing like that for you.

[Eran]

That's honest, if unsatisfying.

And how do you normally respond to statists who talk about "societal responsibilities" with the same inner-conviction that you and Soixante-Retard have with respect "parental responsibilities"?

After all, the vast majority of us chose to live within society, and "actions have consequences"!

[lucky]

And how do you normally respond to statists who talk about "societal responsibilities" with the same inner-conviction that you and Soixante-Retard have with respect "parental responsibilities"?

I am a statist myself. I'm also not sure what hypothetical question I am supposed to be responding to.

I support having some societal responsibilities (like child support, paying taxes, or cleaning up after your dog), and not others.