Single Issue Voter?

[gsmoove23]

Wow, I read the first 5 pages of this thread and the last page I read most of, sorry just couldn't wait to post and all of the quote, response, quote, response quote, response was making my eyes glaze over.

IMO I don't believe pure philosophy and government mix, in fact I think its just plain dangerous. I would have this as part of my moral code but wouldn't dare impose it on any of you guys.

Obviously the libertarians have enough criticisms about our modern governments, some I agree heartily with but most I could not disagree more with, I must say. What I cannot do is debate philosophical reasons why a system is morally wrong, evil whatever. Could you tell me, because I really am curious, how you would implement a truly libertarian society, whether you believe a truly libertarian society is even possible? To assure you I'm not trying to set you up for a trap let me give you some of the fundamental questions I have.

The general philosophy, someone posted earlier and I have no idea whether all libertarians agree, that everyone has a right to liberty(in the truest sense of the word, whatever that is) and the only responsibility one has is to respect the liberty of others. Its fine enough that you believe that, but how do you enforce it, yes I know I'm using that dangerous word "force." Obviously people aren't going to naturally gravitate to this idea. Will their be an authority of some sort? Perhaps some private corporation? I won't go to far, I'd prefer not to have a quote war.

Infrastructure, roads, water, education, electricity. Do a persons fundamental rights include water or access to water? If so how do you ensure this? Is this all run by private corporations/individuals, is education simply the responsibility of individuals and individual families? If private utilities are run by corporations/individuals what do you do when their actions might inhibit the freedoms of other people in some hazy way. Monopolistic policies, price gouging that might endanger the lives of individuals or groups, certainly in the cases of water and electricity, etc...

Unrest, this might go under authority but I'm curious, many of the socialist policies undertaken in modern nations are often for IMO the very pragmatic reason of keeping the masses complacent. Certainly the GI Bill in the post-WW2 US. Couple-a million highly trained and experienced soldiers coming home, let's give 'em some stuff. Same for welfare systems and social security, these go a long way in easing the masses so perhaps we don't see quite as much rioting and unrest as we have in the past. If you don't agree please explain, otherwise what do you do with unrest, rioting or other general mass unpleasantness. Crime in general too, are these private policing organizations, private armies, home-grown militias?

Thats it for now, hope to get some informative posts.

[gsmoove23]

On-topic, I've never found a politician that could adequately deal with my issues. In the last US presidential election I voted on a single issue. The Democratic party is sliding to far to the right so screw 'em, I'm voting for Nader! bad decision.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Wow, I read the first 5 pages of this thread and the last page I read most of, sorry just couldn't wait to post and all of the quote, response, quote, response quote, response was making my eyes glaze over.

IMO I don't believe pure philosophy and government mix, in fact I think its just plain dangerous. I would have this as part of my moral code but wouldn't dare impose it on any of you guys.

Obviously the libertarians have enough criticisms about our modern governments, some I agree heartily with but most I could not disagree more with, I must say. What I cannot do is debate philosophical reasons why a system is morally wrong, evil whatever. Could you tell me, because I really am curious, how you would implement a truly libertarian society, whether you believe a truly libertarian society is even possible? To assure you I'm not trying to set you up for a trap let me give you some of the fundamental questions I have.

The general philosophy, someone posted earlier and I have no idea whether all libertarians agree, that everyone has a right to liberty(in the truest sense of the word, whatever that is) and the only responsibility one has is to respect the liberty of others. Its fine enough that you believe that, but how do you enforce it, yes I know I'm using that dangerous word "force." Obviously people aren't going to naturally gravitate to this idea. Will their be an authority of some sort? Perhaps some private corporation? I won't go to far, I'd prefer not to have a quote war.

Infrastructure, roads, water, education, electricity. Do a persons fundamental rights include water or access to water? If so how do you ensure this? Is this all run by private corporations/individuals, is education simply the responsibility of individuals and individual families? If private utilities are run by corporations/individuals what do you do when their actions might inhibit the freedoms of other people in some hazy way. Monopolistic policies, price gouging that might endanger the lives of individuals or groups, certainly in the cases of water and electricity, etc...

Unrest, this might go under authority but I'm curious, many of the socialist policies undertaken in modern nations are often for IMO the very pragmatic reason of keeping the masses complacent. Certainly the GI Bill in the post-WW2 US. Couple-a million highly trained and experienced soldiers coming home, let's give 'em some stuff. Same for welfare systems and social security, these go a long way in easing the masses so perhaps we don't see quite as much rioting and unrest as we have in the past. If you don't agree please explain, otherwise what do you do with unrest, rioting or other general mass unpleasantness. Crime in general too, are these private policing organizations, private armies, home-grown militias?

Thats it for now, hope to get some informative posts.

This thread as you can see will give you an example of DF's views

[gsmoove23]

Oh, that DF! Yes they certainly are eye openers

[David Floyd]

Loinburger,

What definition are you using for a "state of nature" then?

Absence of organized government and society, and more to the point, lack of organized protection of rights.

When you object through complex communication ("You are morally obligated to respect my right") then you're no longer in a state of nature

I think this is the crux of the argument right here. We disagree on the basic definition of "state of nature". With that in mind, I'm not sure how we can continue the discussion, because we are arguing from different definitions.

How would somebody come up with a concept of "property" without a concept of "law" or "justice"?

Law and justice are two separate concepts. Something can be legal, but unjust, and something can be illegal, but just.

A concept of law is not needed to understand property. A concept of justice, in my opinion, exists in a state of nature.

Somebody wouldn't engage in a potentially lethal task for a marginal gain.

Really? If people won't risk heavy consequences for marginal gains (yes, I substitued heavy for lethal, but I think the point holds), then why do we see so much white collar crime such as embezzlement and large scale fraud?

A society doesn't need a king, mayor, or even village idiot. All it needs are contractual obligations, and you can't have cooperation without implicit (and likely explicit) contractual obligations.

Again, we're disagreeing on the definition and concept of "state of nature". I see no problem with implicit contractual obligations existing in a state of nature, there is just no method to legally enforce them. That is another reason, in my opinion, to form society.

In the pre-industrial time period there really wasn't such a thing as water filtration. Essentially "water filtration" consisted of "not drinking water that you just bathed your cow in" or "not drinking water that you just shat in." So the "you're better off with water filtration argument" doesn't make any sense when applied to the pre-industrial era.

OK, but boiling water was certainly possible in pre-industrial times. While it is very likely that did not take place, it would have been at least possible had someone been smart enough to understand that heat kills germs.

But OK, I see your point. Let's take another example. In a pre-industrial society, you are better off within a society because society is able to provide things such as regular and relatively healthy/unspoiled food. When one person is able to concentrate only on farming, or only on hunting, or what have you, because they don't also have to be constantly watching their backs, food is much easier to obtain.

The need to own property does not, since "ownership" and "property" are nonexistent without human interaction.

OK, again, I don't agree that human interaction and a state of nature are mutually exclusive.

Implicit contracts take away a state of nature.

Again, we disagree on the definition of a state of nature.

How are the man's actions and intentions any different than the dog's? Why would the man come up with a concept of "his" property if he'd grown up independently of any social interaction?

I've already granted that social interaction is a pre-requisite for being able to understand rights. Again, the problem is how we are defining "state of nature".

Define "naturally" as you're using it in that sentence.

For purposes of this discussion, I mean "state of nature".

Really, I think this is about as far as we're going to get. We can argue back and forth until the apocalypse, but until we agree on what the state of nature actually is, we're going to get nowhere with each other.

You do make very good arguments, and they make a certain amount of sense, given your beliefs about a state of nature, but I don't agree with those beliefs, so hence I also disagree with your arguments.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Really, I think this is about as far as we're going to get. We can argue back and forth until the apocalypse, but until we agree on what the state of nature actually is, we're going to get nowhere with each other.

Fair enough, then I've got a question regarding your use of the term "state of nature" -- if an implicit or even explicit contractual obligation doesn't necessarily remove somebody from a state of nature, then what would remove somebody from a state of nature? (If the answer is "a contractual obligation to a nation (government)," then explain how a contract to a nation is principally different than a contract to any other individual/group.) I suspect that you may be treating contractual obligations inconsistently in that you claim that some contractual obligations don't necessarily remove somebody from a state of nature -- you'll need to explain why one contract would remove you from a state of nature while another contract would not.

To me, a "state of nature" is the same as a "state without laws and contracts," so while a government would certainly remove somebody from a state of nature (no matter how loose and/or primitive the government), any form of cooperation or reciprocation would also remove somebody from a state of nature -- any implicit or explicit contractual obligation would nullify a state of nature. Contractual obligations to a nation are no different, in principle, than any other type of contractual obligation.

[David Floyd]

I would say that part of what removes one from a state of nature is agreeing to a system that will make contractual obligations "legally" enforceable. Thus, one can enter into a contract in a state of nature, but there is no system that forces you to comply with the terms of the contract.

Once a group of people agree that everyone should abide by their contracts, and that contracts should be enforced by a code of laws of some sort, then it can be said that one has removed themselves from a state of nature.

[loinburger]

All contracts, implicit or explicit, are enforceable to some degree -- that's the whole point of a contract. A group of people may have an implicit contract to behave morally (by virtue of the fact that they all reciprocally use the terms "moral" and "immoral") without having an explicit legal system ("If you perform [insert immoral action here], then you get a spanking") -- the legal system is implied with the contract ("If you renege on your end of the agreement, then we are no longer obliged to uphold our end of the agreement," i.e. if you behave immorally then you ought to expect others to reciprocate your behavior in future dealings with you). The contract and the consequences for breaking the contract may both be implicit, but they're binding nevertheless.

[David Floyd]

I disagree.

If two people contract together without government (say, for example, one person will give another person 3 oranges at the end of the day as payment for helping harvest some oranges), the enforceability of the contract is dependent only upon the ability of each individual to enforce the contract. If the person decides at the end of the day not to give the other person the three oranges he earned, there is no real recourse, and the situation will probably be resolved by whomever is stronger.

That is not a contract that we would view as enforceable. An enforceable contract comes about when a group of 3 or more people come together, and agree to uphold their contracts. These are enforceable, if these people set up a method for enforcing them.

In this case, if someone decided to withhold payment for labor already done, it wouldn't work, regardless of physical strength. He made an agreement to enforce contracts (and, in essence, behave morally), with the obvious consequences of the rest of the group making him if he does not.

You can argue "implicit contracts" all day long, but this isn't going to matter, if the people involved haven't also agreed on a system of enforcement - ie, a government.

Once contracts become enforceable and people agree to live by these contracts, THEN a state of nature ceases to exist for those people, in my opinion.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
If two people contract together without government (say, for example, one person will give another person 3 oranges at the end of the day as payment for helping harvest some oranges), the enforceability of the contract is dependent only upon the ability of each individual to enforce the contract. If the person decides at the end of the day not to give the other person the three oranges he earned, there is no real recourse, and the situation will probably be resolved by whomever is stronger.

The point is that somebody wouldn't contract without a means with which to enforce the contract -- the whole point of a contract is that everybody has to obey its terms. In your example you're assuming that somebody would be stupid enough to contract with somebody who would renege on a contract (presumably having never worked for the guy before), and if so then too bad for the stupid guy, he should be more careful about choosing his contracts. If, however, these two have contracted in the past (to their mutual benefit), and one reneges on a later contract, then the implied enforcement is that the one who reneged will no longer be able to benefit from any future agreements once word gets out that he reneges on his contracts. The guy who was cheated out of the three oranges is out three oranges, but he can still contract out to others and will probably be better off in the long run than the guy who has essentially cut himself off from all future enterprise. And, of course, the guy's neighbors might decide that he's a menace (being untrustworthy) and may take it upon themselves to eliminate him before he can cause them injury.

If a state of nature exists if a contract cannot always be properly enforced, then we're still in a state of nature -- people still break laws, and sometimes they get away with it.

That is not a contract that we would view as enforceable. An enforceable contract comes about when a group of 3 or more people come together, and agree to uphold their contracts. These are enforceable, if these people set up a method for enforcing them.

The enforcement method doesn't need to be explicit, e.g. the implicit enforcement method to insure moral behavior. An enforcement doesn't have to consist of getting spanked for breaking a contract -- it may be sufficient enforcement that the contract, having been broken, no longer compels anybody else to respect it with regards to the person who reneged on it, and that the person who reneged will no longer be able to make contracts. If ten people are living in relative peace (having implicity agreed that certain actions are "immoral" and certain actions are "moral" without having Hammurabi write down an explicit code of laws and punishments), and one breaks the implicit contract (he pisses in the stream even though everybody has agreed that stream pissing is "immoral" since piss tastes bad), then he will likely be much worse off as a result than the 9 folks who are still at peace with each other (but are implicitly at war with him, having found the taste of piss to be most displeasing).

In this case, if someone decided to withhold payment for labor already done, it wouldn't work, regardless of physical strength. He made an agreement to enforce contracts (and, in essence, behave morally), with the obvious consequences of the rest of the group making him if he does not.

It may be punishment enough that nobody's going to make any contracts with the guy in the future since he's known to renege on contracts.

You can argue "implicit contracts" all day long, but this isn't going to matter, if the people involved haven't also agreed on a system of enforcement - ie, a government.

If you mean that laws and punishments must be explicitly denoted in order to be valid, then all society prior to Hammurabi would cease to exist, and much of society after society as well -- it would be a "state of nature" since punishment (and sometimes law) was simply implied ("reciprocate, or 'bad things' will happen to you in the form of other people not reciprocating with you").

Once contracts become enforceable and people agree to live by these contracts, THEN a state of nature ceases to exist for those people, in my opinion.

Contracts are implicitly enforceable, and by definition people agree to contracts (otherwise they're not contracts).

[loinburger]

I should clarify the reason that I disagree with your views of a "state of nature": it seems to me that your definition of a state of nature is somewhat arbitrary, but more importantly your definition doesn't actually draw a valid distinction between "nature" and "society." If somebody is in a state of absolute and total liberty, then they shouldn't be under any kind of contractual obligation (implicit or explicit) that would limit their possible course of action, so a state of nature (if a "state of nature" is a "state of total liberty") couldn't exist if concepts such as morality had been implicitly contracted into by a group of people, or even if cooperation and reciprocity are understood and employed. You seem to be arguing that somebody can be in a state of nature despite being under contractual obligations (which would mean that somebody would not be in a state of total liberty while in a state of nature), and I just don't see how this can be the case without stripping all meaning from the term "state of nature" -- if a state of nature is not a state of total liberty, then I don't see why natural rights have any more validity than "unnatural" (or socially contracted) rights, i.e. why should we care about natural rights if we're not necessarily any more free in a state of nature than when we're yoked by society?

[Boris Godunov]

The Love for Three Oranges is a great opera...

[loinburger]

Only operas I've seen are Romeo and Juliet (saw it for a class, and fell asleep about an hour into it) and Mephistofeles (saw it with a friend who'd scored free tickets, and it kicked ass). Oh yeah, and an English-language version of Carmen at the local community college, but that's not an experience I particularly want to remember (and, since I fell asleep about an hour into the show, my memory of most of the ordeal is thankfully truncated). Never even heard of this Oranges business...

[Boris Godunov]

Oranges is by Prokofiev. It's a satire, full of absurdity.

Carmen in ENGLISH? Gah!!!!

[/threadjack]

[Boris Godunov]

As for the actual debate...DF, you are Christian, are you not? If that is so, I don't see why you need to go through this argument. Any Christian can say that natural rights are God-given, yes?