What is Libertarianism?

[AthenaAwakened]

Here's the problem with that explanation. Okay, the two problems. The little problem is that you haven't shown any means by which we can determine what is or isn't aggression. For instance, you say private property isn't aggression and arkirk says it is. If we can't determine who's right, then you haven't actually defined libertarianism. All you've done is set us up for a "You're initiating aggression."/"No, you are!" shout-fest. But as I said, that's a little problem. All you need to do to deal with it is give us the libertarian definition of aggression. We can incorporate that into your explanation and then Bob's your uncle. (So, since you aren't answering my question about how to find out who's right, please define "aggression" as libertarians understand it.)

The big problem is that you've given us not one but two definitions: maximizing rights and zero aggression initiation. You appear to be taking for granted that the two are equivalent. But it's not at all self-evident that they're equivalent. It seems obvious to me that there exist circumstances where somebody initiating aggression against somebody else will do a better job of protecting individuals' rights than if he refrains from initiating aggression. If such circumstances indeed exist then once again you haven't defined libertarianism. All you've done is given libertarians an unfalsifiability engine -- a contradiction lets one logically derive anything. So if you want to produce a workable explanation of libertarianism you're going to need to either prove the counterintuitive proposition that your two definitions really are equivalent, or else drop one of the two.

Even though I did give enough information for anyone to derive libertarian policy positions, by giving libertarian principles, apparently it wasn't enough.

As I wrote, nobody is allowed to initiate aggression. So what is aggression.

If you take an action that violates someone's right to life. Therefore we are against murder, assault, and rape.
If you take an action that violates someone's right to liberty. Therefore we are against kidnapping, slavery, military draft, coerced servitude, and rape.
If you take an action that violates someone's right to property. Therefore we area against theft, breach of contract, and that is the basis for our opposition to taxation.

Yes, liberals, conservatives, and progressive are against all that too. But as I said before, what makes libertarianism different is that it applies those "don't do it" principles to the government as well, not carving out a big exception the way conservoprogressives do. Even the government shall not initiate aggression to violate the rights to life, liberty, and property. The function of the government is to protect the rights to life, liberty, and property, and nothing more.

There are two reasons we are so anti-government. The first reason is that of all the actors in civil society today, none compare to the government in violating those rights. Even criminal mafias fall shy when compared to the government. The second is in the phrase "and nothing more" and almost every political discussion among conservoprogressives is in the "more" and not in the "protect the rights to life, liberty, and property".

My question isn't why be so anti-govt, but why stop there? Why not be anti corporatism as well, or is libertarianism anti corporatism?

 

[untermensche]

Give me a real world example where 51% voted to deprive 49% of their rights.

Just one.

What happens in the real world is less than 1% with great wealth uses that wealth to buy the government and deprive the other 99% of their right to things like clean air and water.

The democracy that the US created in Iraq, where the 60% Shia are quite nasty to the 20% Sunni.

I'm sure the population of True Scotsmen isn't high enough in Iraq though.

This is probably the rarest and most destructive example you could find. It is also absurd since it something that happened after a massive act of terrorism against Iraq where the nation was basically destroyed. This destruction had absolutely nothing to do with the will of any percentage of Iraqi citizens.

But even here, what dd that 60% do?

What rights did they strip from the others.

Please be specific so we can see the worst case scenario.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

My question isn't why be so anti-govt, but why stop there? Why not be anti corporatism as well, or is libertarianism anti corporatism?

What about the corporations in particular?

Now, to understand my point here, it is helpful to understand behavioral theory. There are four possible actions one could take to change the behavior of another and they are; apply reward, withhold reward, apply punishment, withhold punishment. To encourage a behavior, one can apply reward or withhold punishment. To discourage a behavior, one can withhold reward or apply punishment.

No corporation is able to fine someone or throw them in jail. And when Pfizer stole property in New London, they did so through the city of New London who seized the property on their behalf. If New London didn't have the power to seize the property, Pfizer would never have gotten it - or even bothered to bribe New London to steal it on their behalf. That's an important point - if New London had not had the power, Pfizer wouldn't have purchased it from them. A government without favors to sell can't sell those favors.

Only governments can withhold or apply punishment. Corporations can only apply or withhold reward. Government can only apply or withhold reward after it takes that reward from someone else. Yes, sometimes withholding a reward feels like a punishment, but any honest analysis shows that it isn't. There is a dearth of honest analysis on this point, about how withholding a reward is not a punishment.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

My question isn't why be so anti-govt, but why stop there? Why not be anti corporatism as well, or is libertarianism anti corporatism?

What about the corporations in particular?

Now, to understand my point here, it is helpful to understand behavioral theory. There are four possible actions one could take to change the behavior of another and they are; apply reward, withhold reward, apply punishment, withhold punishment. To encourage a behavior, one can apply reward or withhold punishment. To discourage a behavior, one can withhold reward or apply punishment.

No corporation is able to fine someone or throw them in jail. And when Pfizer stole property in New London, they did so through the city of New London who seized the property on their behalf. If New London didn't have the power to seize the property, Pfizer would never have gotten it - or even bothered to bribe New London to steal it on their behalf. That's an important point - if New London had not had the power, Pfizer wouldn't have purchased it from them. A government without favors to sell can't sell those favors.

Only governments can withhold or apply punishment. Corporations can only apply or withhold reward. Government can only apply or withhold reward after it takes that reward from someone else. Yes, sometimes withholding a reward feels like a punishment, but any honest analysis shows that it isn't. There is a dearth of honest analysis on this point, about how withholding a reward is not a punishment.

That explains the need for a healthy skepticism toward the workings of government, it doesn't explain a lack of similar skepticism for the corporations who are buying government.

Why not treat big business with similar disdain as big government? Your Pfizer example is an indictment of Pfizer. Or do you think Pfizer was an innocent victim?

 

[Bomb#20]

...please define "aggression" as libertarians understand it.
... So if you want to produce a workable explanation of libertarianism you're going to need to either prove the counterintuitive proposition that your two definitions really are equivalent, or else drop one of the two.

Even though I did give enough information for anyone to derive libertarian policy positions, by giving libertarian principles, apparently it wasn't enough.

As I wrote, nobody is allowed to initiate aggression. So what is aggression.

If you take an action that violates someone's right to life. Therefore we are against murder, assault, and rape.
If you take an action that violates someone's right to liberty. Therefore we are against kidnapping, slavery, military draft, coerced servitude, and rape.
If you take an action that violates someone's right to property. Therefore we area against theft, breach of contract, and that is the basis for our opposition to taxation.

Okay, that's a definition of aggression, sort of. But what's the libertarian definition of "property"? Here are two examples.

(1) There's a flash-flood down an arroyo in New Mexico, and when the water evaporates it leaves an uncovered nugget of silver. Joe picks it up and sells it for $15. Karen sues him, because she bought that land and it's hers -- Joe aggressively trespassed on her land and aggressively stole her property. Joe points out that Karen bought the land from a long line of buyers, the first of whom bought it from a robber who didn't own it, but got it by aggressively driving off the Native Americans, specifically the Navajo, in the 19th century. He, Joe, is a Navajo. By rights it's his land. So it was his silver. If the court rules for Karen then they are aggressively violating his right to the liberty to go nugget hunting on his own people's land. Karen calls her friend Larry to the stand. Larry testifies that the Navajo aren't Native Americans at all. They're Native Canadians who illegally immigrated onto Hopi land in the 14th century. So maybe it's Karen's land and maybe it's Hopi land, but it certainly isn't Joe's land. "What's your expertise?" asks the judge. Replies Larry, "I'm Hopi. All the Hopi know this. After you award the $15 to Karen the Hopi Nation might sue her for it."

(2) Mike writes a book. Nick buys it, reads half of it, and throws it away. Oscar picks it up out of the trash, reads it, thinks it's awesome, and tells Pat how awesome it is. Pat wants to read it too but Oscar isn't willing to part with it, so Oscar Xeroxes Pat a copy of it. Mike sues Oscar for punitive damages, for aggressively stealing his intellectual property. Oscar countersues Mike for his legal costs, for aggressively filing a frivolous lawsuit and thereby violating Oscar's right to the liberty to use his Xerox machine and his scrounged garbage as he sees fit.

How does the libertarian government's judge apply the "no initiation of aggression" principle to resolve these competing claims?

Also, your post didn't address my second question, about the two separate definitions. Should I take the fact that you reiterated your "no initiation of aggression" principle to mean you're dropping your alternate definition, "maximizing rights"?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Why not treat big business with similar disdain as big government? Your Pfizer example is an indictment of Pfizer. Or do you think Pfizer was an innocent victim?

My Pfizer example is primarily an indictment of New London and only secondarily an indictment of Pfizer. Only government can apply punishment or withhold punishment. Business cannot apply punishment, so does not get similar disdain.

How does the libertarian government's judge apply the "no initiation of aggression" principle to resolve these competing claims?

Also, your post didn't address my second question, about the two separate definitions. Should I take the fact that you reiterated your "no initiation of aggression" principle to mean you're dropping your alternate definition, "maximizing rights"?

I hope you're not leading towards the perfection fallacy.

And my expanded explanation doesn't show that I'm dropping the other definition of maximizing rights, when I explicitly defined aggression as violation of rights.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

My Pfizer example is primarily an indictment of New London and only secondarily an indictment of Pfizer.

Does New London take action without being asked by Pfizer?

Only government can apply punishment or withhold punishment. Business cannot apply punishment, so does not get similar disdain.

But business can buy govt and use the power of government to do its bidding.

If I bash a guy in the head with a hammer, I go to jail, not the hammer.

 

[Bomb#20]

How does the libertarian government's judge apply the "no initiation of aggression" principle to resolve these competing claims?

Also, your post didn't address my second question, about the two separate definitions. Should I take the fact that you reiterated your "no initiation of aggression" principle to mean you're dropping your alternate definition, "maximizing rights"?

I hope you're not leading towards the perfection fallacy.

Not at all. I'm trying to get an answer to bigfield's OP questions -- to nail down what libertarianism's principles are. Saying "Don't violate people's right to property" doesn't answer those questions if we aren't told how libertarianism decides what things a given person has a property right to. Perfection? Hardly. The whole issue of libertarianism's merits is off-topic in this thread. I'm just asking for the libertarian criteria for ownership. Is that an unreasonable request?

And my expanded explanation doesn't show that I'm dropping the other definition of maximizing rights, when I explicitly defined aggression as violation of rights.

Well then, address the two-definition problem. If a situation arises where maximizing rights and banning initiation of aggression conflict with each other, which one does libertarianism go with? Defining aggression as violation of rights in no way makes such situations impossible. Again, here are two examples:

(1) You've read the Bill of Rights. It explicitly lists thirty-five "negative" rights -- thirty-five ways the government is barred from initiating aggression against individuals -- and one "positive" right, one guarantee that an individual may initiate aggression against another individual and the government has to back him up. That's the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of an accused criminal's right to subpoena witnesses. This is a straightforward trade-off: by initiating a violation of the liberty of the witness -- constraining him against his will to spend a day in court testifying -- we prevent the government from committing a far greater initiation of violation of liberty: locking up an innocent man for many years. So do libertarians support the Sixth Amendment? Clearly there's no such right if we follow the "zero aggression principle"; but of course there's a right to subpoena if we follow the "maximize rights" principle. A government is hardly maximizing rights if it makes an innocent man spend his life in prison because it was too squeamish about initiating aggression to get its hands dirty detaining a reluctant witness for a day. Your two definitions conflict. Which principle wins?

(2) Collectivia has a habit of invading its neighbors; and it taxes its subjects to pay for its army. In neighboring Zapopia there are no taxes, so its army is paid for out of voluntary donations. Consequently the Collectivian army is bigger, better trained, better armed, and more experienced in warfare than the Zapopian army. Collectivia invades, the Zapopians fight bravely but are predictably conquered, and now the people of Zapopia have all their rights routinely violated, not just their right to property. If only the government of Zapopia had been willing to initiate a little aggression against its citizens and tax them enough to fund a capable army, they'd have been able to beat back the Collectivian invasion and keep their lives, liberty, and most of their property. Insistence on non-initiation has resulted in a massive failure to maximize. Now that Zapopia is no more, the Collectivian Empire's border's reach to the next domino over: Libertopia. So do the Libertopians follow the policy of the Zapopians? Your two definitions conflict. Which principle wins?

 

[SimpleDon]

What exactly do you think we have when we don't have democracy?

All we ever end up with is power in the hands of a few who dictate to the majority.

And the way you protect rights is through Amendments.

You don't protect rights by limiting democracy.

You cannot have liberty without democracy.

You can have democracy without liberty. Democracy is insufficient. 50%+1 can vote to deprive 50%-1 of all their rights, up to and including their lives.

So what is the libertarian proposal to replace democracy to improve the guarantee of more individual liberty?

What would be different in a pure libertarian society from what we have today to guarantee more individual liberty, the NAP and all of the other quite admirable libertarian principles?

This is what we have been asking for page after page with no response.

(Well, skepticabhp did say that we could fire one half of all of the police in the US if we legalized marijuana, if we legalized prostitution, and if we stopped regulating recreational boating. In my opinion, this is not a reasonable assertion. And it would leave us still only tied with Germany as the worse police state in the world.)

 

[skepticalbip]

........................
(2) Collectivia has a habit of invading its neighbors; and it taxes its subjects to pay for its army. In neighboring Zapopia there are no taxes, so its army is paid for out of voluntary donations. Consequently the Collectivian army is bigger, better trained, better armed, and more experienced in warfare than the Zapopian army. Collectivia invades, the Zapopians fight bravely but are predictably conquered, and now the people of Zapopia have all their rights routinely violated, not just their right to property. If only the government of Zapopia had been willing to initiate a little aggression against its citizens and tax them enough to fund a capable army, they'd have been able to beat back the Collectivian invasion and keep their lives, liberty, and most of their property. Insistence on non-initiation has resulted in a massive failure to maximize. Now that Zapopia is no more, the Collectivian Empire's border's reach to the next domino over: Libertopia. So do the Libertopians follow the policy of the Zapopians? Your two definitions conflict. Which principle wins?

I'm sorry but this is relying on the idea of a perfect ideal utopia where a political philosophy, even if pushed to its limits, solves any and all possible future problems. There ain't no such thing.

In your scenario, you are apparently assuming that a government should have the power to defend its borders from any real or imagined threat by whatever means its leadership decides is needed. I could give you many absurd consequences of this philosophy but I am sure that isn't necessary as you can see them too.

 

[skepticalbip]

...................
(Well, skepticabhp did say that we could fire one half of all of the police in the US if we legalized marijuana, if we legalized prostitution, and if we stopped regulating recreational boating. In my opinion, this is not a reasonable assertion. And it would leave us still only tied with Germany as the worse police state in the world.)

You and your fucking srawmen.. Most of the police could be fired if all the unnecessary regulation and laws were eliminated. Those three were just three examples of myriad regulations and laws that are not needed. I'm sure even you can think of quite a few laws, rules, and regulations that you think are absurd. Eliminate the unnecessary and/or redundant government departments and most of the fucking bureaucrats that suck up the government budget could be fired and have to become productive citizens too.

 

[SimpleDon]

Libertarians may trace their roots to Locke, and be totally justified in doing so, but is Locke a fair representation of libertarianism today? So how does the philosophy of Locke compare with the libertarian philosophies of today? What has changed? What has stayed the same? How has the thought evolved? Who are the leading minds of today and how do they compare and contrast to Locke?

Locke was very much opposed to any person owning more land than he could work in his own right. “As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property".

In this, he stands sharply at odds with most modern libertarians, who would consider his proposed limits to the amount of wealth that can justly accumulate in one person's possession.

He is more like the Levellers, from whom he derived much of his philosophy, than he is like any modern libertarian.

And the Levellers are more Marxist than libertarian - albeit Marxism would not be labelled as such for a further two centuries.

Locke's main beef was with the idea of absolute monarchy, and his proposals were for a government that was free from such arbitrary tyranny. This makes him no more a libertarian in the modern sense than was George Washington or Robespierre. Freedom is not a concept on which libertarianism has a monopoly.

Yes, and also Locke was a proponent and an advancer of social contract theory, that each individual gives up a little bit of his individual freedom to the collective to guarantee their remaining rights. To Locke the collective is the government. Therefore the way to maximum personal freedom was through the proper form of the government.

This seems to be at odds also with modern American libertarianism who see the government as the main threat to personal freedom irrespective of the form of the government. Consider Jason's oppression of the majority theory.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

........................
(2) Collectivia has a habit of invading its neighbors; and it taxes its subjects to pay for its army. In neighboring Zapopia there are no taxes, so its army is paid for out of voluntary donations. Consequently the Collectivian army is bigger, better trained, better armed, and more experienced in warfare than the Zapopian army. Collectivia invades, the Zapopians fight bravely but are predictably conquered, and now the people of Zapopia have all their rights routinely violated, not just their right to property. If only the government of Zapopia had been willing to initiate a little aggression against its citizens and tax them enough to fund a capable army, they'd have been able to beat back the Collectivian invasion and keep their lives, liberty, and most of their property. Insistence on non-initiation has resulted in a massive failure to maximize. Now that Zapopia is no more, the Collectivian Empire's border's reach to the next domino over: Libertopia. So do the Libertopians follow the policy of the Zapopians? Your two definitions conflict. Which principle wins?

I'm sorry but this is relying on the idea of a perfect ideal utopia where a political philosophy, even if pushed to its limits, solves any and all possible future problems. There ain't no such thing.

In your scenario, you are apparently assuming that a government should have the power to defend its borders from any real or imagined threat by whatever means its leadership decides is needed. I could give you many absurd consequences of this philosophy but I am sure that isn't necessary as you can see them too.

Skepticalbip,

What are you critiques of libertarianism? What do you think libertarianism gets wrong?

- - - Updated - - -

........................
(2) Collectivia has a habit of invading its neighbors; and it taxes its subjects to pay for its army. In neighboring Zapopia there are no taxes, so its army is paid for out of voluntary donations. Consequently the Collectivian army is bigger, better trained, better armed, and more experienced in warfare than the Zapopian army. Collectivia invades, the Zapopians fight bravely but are predictably conquered, and now the people of Zapopia have all their rights routinely violated, not just their right to property. If only the government of Zapopia had been willing to initiate a little aggression against its citizens and tax them enough to fund a capable army, they'd have been able to beat back the Collectivian invasion and keep their lives, liberty, and most of their property. Insistence on non-initiation has resulted in a massive failure to maximize. Now that Zapopia is no more, the Collectivian Empire's border's reach to the next domino over: Libertopia. So do the Libertopians follow the policy of the Zapopians? Your two definitions conflict. Which principle wins?

I'm sorry but this is relying on the idea of a perfect ideal utopia where a political philosophy, even if pushed to its limits, solves any and all possible future problems. There ain't no such thing.

In your scenario, you are apparently assuming that a government should have the power to defend its borders from any real or imagined threat by whatever means its leadership decides is needed. I could give you many absurd consequences of this philosophy but I am sure that isn't necessary as you can see them too.

Skepticalbip,

What are you critiques of libertarianism? What do you think libertarianism gets wrong?

 

[skepticalbip]

Locke was very much opposed to any person owning more land than he could work in his own right. “As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property".

In this, he stands sharply at odds with most modern libertarians, who would consider his proposed limits to the amount of wealth that can justly accumulate in one person's possession.

He is more like the Levellers, from whom he derived much of his philosophy, than he is like any modern libertarian.

And the Levellers are more Marxist than libertarian - albeit Marxism would not be labelled as such for a further two centuries.

Locke's main beef was with the idea of absolute monarchy, and his proposals were for a government that was free from such arbitrary tyranny. This makes him no more a libertarian in the modern sense than was George Washington or Robespierre. Freedom is not a concept on which libertarianism has a monopoly.

Yes, and also Locke was a proponent and an advancer of social contract theory, that each individual gives up a little bit of his individual freedom to the collective to guarantee their remaining rights. To Locke the collective is the government. Therefore the way to maximum personal freedom was through the proper form of the government.
.

If you agree with this then you seem to be agreeing with libertarianism's philosophy. That is what the designated, specified and limited powers granted to the government is about (see the Constitution). The people cede some of their individual freedoms to government for the greater good in the form of specified and limited powers. However, the people can't cede powers to the government that the people didn't have to begin with. This is bottom up government as opposed to the top down government assumed by our congress critters who assume that it is they who decide what freedoms they will grant to the people that they will be allowed to exercise.

ETA:
Or is it that you were arguing yet another of your fucking strawmen, the one where you imply that libertarians think that the government should have no power?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Even though I did give enough information for anyone to derive libertarian policy positions, by giving libertarian principles, apparently it wasn't enough.

As I wrote, nobody is allowed to initiate aggression. So what is aggression.

If you take an action that violates someone's right to life. Therefore we are against murder, assault, and rape.
If you take an action that violates someone's right to liberty. Therefore we are against kidnapping, slavery, military draft, coerced servitude, and rape.
If you take an action that violates someone's right to property. Therefore we area against theft, breach of contract, and that is the basis for our opposition to taxation.

Yes, liberals, conservatives, and progressive are against all that too. But as I said before, what makes libertarianism different is that it applies those "don't do it" principles to the government as well, not carving out a big exception the way conservoprogressives do. Even the government shall not initiate aggression to violate the rights to life, liberty, and property. The function of the government is to protect the rights to life, liberty, and property, and nothing more.

There are two reasons we are so anti-government. The first reason is that of all the actors in civil society today, none compare to the government in violating those rights. Even criminal mafias fall shy when compared to the government. The second is in the phrase "and nothing more" and almost every political discussion among conservoprogressives is in the "more" and not in the "protect the rights to life, liberty, and property".

My question isn't why be so anti-govt, but why stop there? Why not be anti corporatism as well, or is libertarianism anti corporatism?

Same here.

As I've said again and again, the problem with libertarianism is that stripping the GOVERNMENT'S power to act has the side effect of removing restrictions on other powerful organizations that are only too happy to violate the rights to life, liberty and property. Or worse, organizations that have a very special interpretation of those rights and what defines the violation thereof (you mentioned "breach of contract" after all).

You're still, in essence, describing principles and ideals in the general sense but that doesn't tell us much about what libertarians think should be DONE.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

No corporation is able to fine someone or throw them in jail.

Yes they CAN fine people. It's just that they call them "fees" not "fines."

And when Pfizer stole property in New London, they did so through the city of New London who seized the property on their behalf. If New London didn't have the power to seize the property, Pfizer would never have gotten it - or even bothered to bribe New London to steal it on their behalf. That's an important point - if New London had not had the power, Pfizer wouldn't have purchased it from them. A government without favors to sell can't sell those favors.

So on the one hand, you're implying that stripping governments of the power to seize property would prevent corporations from using governments to do so.

On the other hand, that still doesn't address the side effects: if the New London government no longer has the power suspend private property rights for a good enough reason, then it has no means whatsoever to stop Pfizer from stealing property DIRECTLY. Even less so if Pfizer "steals" said property through a combination of legal trickery and contract negotiation, slowly tightening its grip over assets it wishes to seize with a veneer of legality.

Think about it: if corporations use overly-powerful governments to initiate theft, what makes you think they'll stop stealing things in the ABSENCE of an overly-powerful government?

Only governments can withhold or apply punishment.

NOW. That's because they presently hold the monopoly on the initiation of (overt) aggression, which is what the application of punishment basically is.

If you strip the government of this monopoly, all bets are off; ANYONE can apply punishment, directly and overtly, and not have to worry about the consequences, Pfizer can build for-profit prisons and prosecute you in an internal discipline committee with a "judge" in all but name drawing your attention to a claus in a contract you signed years ago and barely remember that says failure to pay your insurance premiums on time may result in you being shipped to the platinum mines of Asteroid B612 until your debt is fully paid. Complain to the government all you want, you signed a contract and they have a right to enforce it and they can't initiate aggression just because YOU don't like the terms of your contract.

Government can only apply or withhold reward after it takes that reward from someone else.

And if you remove the Government monopoly on the use of force, then ANYONE can do that.

 

[Bomb#20]

........................
(2) Collectivia has a habit of invading its neighbors; and it taxes its subjects to pay for its army. In neighboring Zapopia there are no taxes, so its army is paid for out of voluntary donations. ... So do the Libertopians follow the policy of the Zapopians? Your two definitions conflict. Which principle wins?

I'm sorry but this is relying on the idea of a perfect ideal utopia where a political philosophy, even if pushed to its limits, solves any and all possible future problems. There ain't no such thing.

In your scenario, you are apparently assuming that a government should have the power to defend its borders from any real or imagined threat by whatever means its leadership decides is needed. I could give you many absurd consequences of this philosophy but I am sure that isn't necessary as you can see them too.

Where the heck are you getting any of that? I'm relying on no such assumptions; I'm simply asking JH to clarify his definition. I made no demand that his political philosophy solve a problem*; I said nothing about what powers a government should have, let alone that it should be up to the leadership to decide; in fact I made no moral claims whatsoever. I simply observed that JH gave two definitions and they are incompatible with each other. He says he gave enough information for anyone to derive libertarian policy positions by giving libertarian principles. But from the principles he gave, I can't tell whether the libertarian policy is to tax the public to pay for a military, because one libertarian principle he gave says yes and the other libertarian principle he gave says no. Why do you imagine that I have to rely on a perfect ideal utopia, and/or that I have to assume unchecked government power is a good thing, simply in order to ask the question "Will there be taxes?"

(* Besides which, countries getting invaded by their neighbors isn't exactly a "possible future problem". It's pretty much the oldest and most familiar past problem there is for political science to study.)

 

[skepticalbip]

I'm sorry but this is relying on the idea of a perfect ideal utopia where a political philosophy, even if pushed to its limits, solves any and all possible future problems. There ain't no such thing.

In your scenario, you are apparently assuming that a government should have the power to defend its borders from any real or imagined threat by whatever means its leadership decides is needed. I could give you many absurd consequences of this philosophy but I am sure that isn't necessary as you can see them too.

Where the heck are you getting any of that? I'm relying on no such assumptions; I'm simply asking JH to clarify his definition. I made no demand that his political philosophy solve a problem*; I said nothing about what powers a government should have, let alone that it should be up to the leadership to decide; in fact I made no moral claims whatsoever. I simply observed that JH gave two definitions and they are incompatible with each other. He says he gave enough information for anyone to derive libertarian policy positions by giving libertarian principles. But from the principles he gave, I can't tell whether the libertarian policy is to tax the public to pay for a military, because one libertarian principle he gave says yes and the other libertarian principle he gave says no. Why do you imagine that I have to rely on a perfect ideal utopia, and/or that I have to assume unchecked government power is a good thing, simply in order to ask the question "Will there be taxes?"

(* Besides which, countries getting invaded by their neighbors isn't exactly a "possible future problem". It's pretty much the oldest and most familiar past problem there is for political science to study.)

Ah. Apparently I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that libertarianism could not protect the country from a massive invasion that overwhelms our resources.

You were asking about taxes. I don't know JH's stand on taxation but, as far as I know, libertarians are not opposed to taxes. They are opposed to direct taxes such as the income tax, poll tax, etc.. They are fine with indirect taxes like excise tax, import/export duty, even sales tax, etc. I think the reasoning is that the government has been granted limited power to regulate interstate commerce, maintain a navy, build highways, run a post office, etc. so they are entitled to and need to collect funds necessary to fulfill their obligations. They oppose income tax and poll tax (which we don't have now) because it gives the government control over individuals and can be (and is) used to manipulate and control society - just look at the hundreds of pages of tax code that is explained in almost 74,000 pages of instructions which are just for that purpose.

 

[Bomb#20]

Ah. Apparently I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that libertarianism could not protect the country from a massive invasion that overwhelms our resources.

As far as I can see, a government following the Zero Aggression Principle can't even protect the country from a moderate invasion that doesn't come near to overwhelming our resources, an invasion that merely overwhelms the voluntary contributions from those who overcome the temptation to be freeriders who leave it to somebody else to pay for driving out the invaders. So I'm asking whether libertarianism seriously follows the Zero Aggression Principle.

You were asking about taxes. I don't know JH's stand on taxation but, as far as I know, libertarians are not opposed to taxes.

JH wrote:

"As I wrote, nobody is allowed to initiate aggression. So what is aggression.
... If you take an action that violates someone's right to property. Therefore we are against theft, breach of contract, and that is the basis for our opposition to taxation.
... what makes libertarianism different is that it applies those "don't do it" principles to the government as well, not carving out a big exception the way conservoprogressives do."​

That sure makes it sound like in his concept of libertarianism, the government isn't allowed to tax. Even if you have nothing but an excise tax on Learjets, you're still initiating aggression against the buyer's right to property.

 

[SimpleDon]

Here's the problem with that explanation. Okay, the two problems. The little problem is that you haven't shown any means by which we can determine what is or isn't aggression. For instance, you say private property isn't aggression and arkirk says it is. If we can't determine who's right, then you haven't actually defined libertarianism. All you've done is set us up for a "You're initiating aggression."/"No, you are!" shout-fest. But as I said, that's a little problem. All you need to do to deal with it is give us the libertarian definition of aggression. We can incorporate that into your explanation and then Bob's your uncle. (So, since you aren't answering my question about how to find out who's right, please define "aggression" as libertarians understand it.)

The big problem is that you've given us not one but two definitions: maximizing rights and zero aggression initiation. You appear to be taking for granted that the two are equivalent. But it's not at all self-evident that they're equivalent. It seems obvious to me that there exist circumstances where somebody initiating aggression against somebody else will do a better job of protecting individuals' rights than if he refrains from initiating aggression. If such circumstances indeed exist then once again you haven't defined libertarianism. All you've done is given libertarians an unfalsifiability engine -- a contradiction lets one logically derive anything. So if you want to produce a workable explanation of libertarianism you're going to need to either prove the counterintuitive proposition that your two definitions really are equivalent, or else drop one of the two.

Even though I did give enough information for anyone to derive libertarian policy positions, by giving libertarian principles, apparently it wasn't enough.

As I wrote, nobody is allowed to initiate aggression. So what is aggression.

If you take an action that violates someone's right to life. Therefore we are against murder, assault, and rape.
If you take an action that violates someone's right to liberty. Therefore we are against kidnapping, slavery, military draft, coerced servitude, and rape.
If you take an action that violates someone's right to property. Therefore we area against theft, breach of contract, and that is the basis for our opposition to taxation.

Yes, liberals, conservatives, and progressive are against all that too. But as I said before, what makes libertarianism different is that it applies those "don't do it" principles to the government as well, not carving out a big exception the way conservoprogressives do. Even the government shall not initiate aggression to violate the rights to life, liberty, and property. The function of the government is to protect the rights to life, liberty, and property, and nothing more.

There are two reasons we are so anti-government. The first reason is that of all the actors in civil society today, none compare to the government in violating those rights. Even criminal mafias fall shy when compared to the government. The second is in the phrase "and nothing more" and almost every political discussion among conservoprogressives is in the "more" and not in the "protect the rights to life, liberty, and property".

So you believe that as society gets more complex that this isn't a reason for government to get more complex?

You don't believe that government has to grow to protect our rights to life, liberty and property from ever more complex and sophisticated threats from both within our society and from outside of our society?

That you haven't awakened to the fact that currently these threats are lessened because the government has grown and adapted to the threats to our rights? A process that you want to stop.

That you don't seem to realize that government is not an entity, one that is always evil, but is a process whose nature is determined by the people who participate in the process?

And that the best way to prevent evil government is to get as many people involved in the process of government as possible?

And that the best way that we have found to do that is through the democracy of which you are so contemptuous?