Ayn Rand

[Berzerker]

Agathon - I know you are ignoring my posts, so maybe someone else will post definitions to the words "coerce", "freedom", and "voluntary", since you don't understand what they mean.

The Libertarians haven't put forward any case at all, much less a cogent one in answer to my question which I will repeat.

I answered that question using the actual definitions of the words I cited above.

Giving dictionary definitions or merely re-asserting the point in question is not making a case.

Definitions don't count?

If depriving someone of liberty is depriving them of choice and this is the ground of Libertarian morality, why is what the robber does wrong when he clearly doesn't deprive his victim of the power of choice or make the choice for that person. The question couldn't be simpler.

And the answer is even more simple. "Voluntary" action and "freedom" - according to their definitions - both require the absence of coercion, and coercion includes the threat of force. The robber is using a threat of force to obtain what he wants. But if definitions don't work for you, what will?

Bad answers include: because he's threatening to violate someone's rights - this is dumb because merely threatening to violate someone's rights is not violating them ergo is not wrong, unless you invent a right not to be threatened.

Pretending that voluntary action and freedom allow for coercion to influence the "choice" of the robbery victim doesn't work. Saying it's dumb to point that out is ridiculous...

Bad answer 2: Claiming a "right not to be threatened". If you invent a right not to be threatened, where does it come from?

The same place the right not to be assaulted comes from - life and liberty/freedom.

It certainly cannot be account for in terms of violating a person's liberty because threats threaten to deprive people of liberty (as Libertarians define it) rather than actually depriving them of it.

Once again, freedom means the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action. And coercion includes force and threats of force.

And since all Libertarian rights are derived from the right to liberty, there just can't be any right not to be threatened in a Libertarian scheme.

Liberty means threats? Or does it mean the absence of threats - coercion? I've noticed you don't post any definitions for these words so key to your argument. Why is that?

Bad answer 3: coming up with some other moral principle in addition to liberty which justifies a right not to be threatened. This won't work because it is hard to find a principle that won't yield anti-libertarian counter examples.

What other moral principle?

Surely you supposed Libertarians can give some answers to these queries without begging the question.

Surely you can use a dictionary to see for yourself that freedom doesn't allow for threats of violence.

Rex's problem is that he assumes we have a right not to be threatened (what he calls "coercion") without giving an argument as to how it is derived from the principle of liberty.

The word "freedom" has a meaning, this right to be exempt from threats/coercion derives from the meaning of freedom which requires the absence of coercion. Is it Rex's problem you won't use a dictionary?

The fundamental principle of Libertarianism is a variation on "Everyone is the owner of their own life and no one owns anyone elses." Their interpretation of this is that we have a "negative" right to liberty (a right to non-interference in our choicemaking) rather than a "positive" right to liberty (a right to interfere in the choices of others in order to affect our range of choices).

You think freedom means a right to interfere in the choices of others? Where in the defintion of freedom did you find this right to interfere and where in that definition did you find "negative" and "positive" expressions of liberty?

Trom this "negative" conception of liberty, they derive the rights to freedom of association, speech and property. I have no great objection to this derivation of rights because it follows from the initial conception of liberty.

That is how the word is defined.

I can't see how you can derive a right not to be threatened like I described in the robber case because the robber doesn't interfere with your choicemaking (that is what he does does not intefere with "negative" liberty).

He interferes by employing COERCION!

The point isn't peculiar to Chomsky (in fact I think he reports the example from someone else) but it is a much more powerful point than the so called Libertarians on here realise since they don't seem to understand the conceptual role of the principle of liberty in a Libertarian scheme as the sole moral principle from which all rights are derived. Unfortunately rights not to be threatened don't fall into this scheme unless you adopt a different (i.e. socialist) principle of Liberty. That's what's so funny about the robber case.

Excuse me, but where has any of us "so-called" libertarians claimed people don't have a right not to be threatened under our "scheme"? And to ascribe this right not to be threatened to "socialism" is hilarious, socialism - where the state is the robber - consistently requires threats of violence to ensure compliance. In a libertarian system, the only threats of violence allowed are to secure freedom, self-defense.

Wraith -

I know. But this is why it's really hard to argue with subjectivists. When they insist that things can mean anything they want them to mean, it's effectively impossible to pin them down on anything.

Agathon name drops philosophers, claims, or at least implies having a thorough knowledge of philosophy and libertarianism, and accuses his libertarian opponents of lacking an understanding of their own philosophy, and then proceeds to re-define words and mis-characterise libertarianism based on his fabricated definitions. The insults, if he hasn't already started, will soon follow if he sticks to his pattern.

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

There is no straw man. Why do Libertarians always accuse people who argue with them of this? I suppose because it is the easiest response to an argument you don't understand.

Your strawman is claiming that armed robbery is not a violation of one's rights/freedom under libertarianism if the robber is bluffing. Where are these libertarians who take that position? Neither you nor Chomsky will say... Freedom requires the absence of coercion, and coercion includes threats of force, so coercion violates the victim's freedom even if the threat is not carried out. The robber, even if bluffing, employs the threat of force - that is coercion and not allowed under the defintion of freedom.

Similarly the right to life derives from the right to liberty because if I kill someone without their consent I have violated their liberty; but if I kill someone with their consent Libertarians think there is nothing wrong.

Which came first, life or liberty? Obviously liberty is important, but you wouldn't have liberty without first being alive. Liberty derives from identifying who owns your life - the right to life -and your life came first.

From Wraith:

By the way, please define "liberty". You are not using it consistently, and you quite obviously do not mean what I mean by the word.

From Agathon:

I'm using it in the way that Libertarians use it (although I think they abuse the word). What Libertarians mean by liberty is: being able to choose what I want commensurate with the right of others to similarly choose and not having my choices made for me. If this is true I don't have the right to expect anything from anyone else other than not to interfere in my decisions.

And this robber who threatens your life is not interfering with your decisions? You wouldn't even be faced with a decision without the robber's interference. Tell us Agathon, how do you define coercion and do you find that word in the definition of freedom? What does the definition of freedom say about coercion and freedom? What is the relationship between the two?

[monolith94]

hey narz - I think you included the word 'favorite' in a sentence that doesn't really need it...

[Berzerker]

Ramo - Before getting to your post, can you address Agathon's question about the robber not violating the victim's freedom under libertarianism if he is only bluffing?

There are a number of things that are inconsistent about Randism (and many of which carry over to other variants of libertarian capitalism).

For instance, the idea of a prison. In these institutions, the the liberties of people are taken away to an incredible degree, particularly in more authoritarian states (the US, for instance).

The degree is not a product of libertarianism, you know roughly half the prison population would be freed under libertarianism.

Rand would say that this can be justified from the "natural right" to self-defense. But this is a logical fallacy, for it is not strictly self-defense, just as if I were hit, went home, and then hit that person in retaliation is not strictly self-defense.

It is true retaliation and self-defense are not identical, but the former is related to the latter. If I try to kill you and, in your defense, you kill me, I'm punished for my action. If your defense fails and I kill you, the state's retaliation is still a result of my action. If your self-defense results in my death, your action is still justified as is the state's in putting me to death in retaliation. It is not a logical fallacy to claim a right to retaliate based on a right to self-defense, both are actions resulting from the initiation of force, one just comes sooner than the other.

Prison is a pre-emptive denial of one's liberties to protect society in the event of future crime through exluding these people from free society and ideally rehabilitating them

Then prison is not retaliation, it's prevention.

This cannot be justified under a Randist ethics system, just as drug prohibition or gun control cannot be justified under a Randist ethics system.

Leaving drugs and guns out, why? Rand was against retaliation or prevention? If you and I were the only people in the world and I was intent on murdering you and had already tried to accomplish my goal, wouldn't you be justified in restraining me, even by killing me?

These are all pre-emptive actions intended to protect society (and often do more harm than good).

Punishing people for attempted murder is not pre-emptive, they've already taken the action.

Another case in point is the idea of "natural rights." The idea of natural rights is that there's an absolutely good ethical metric independent of person. But ethical systems are philosophical systems, and as such, can be constructed arbitrarily within the human mind.

Which is why natural rights depend on some standard independent of this arbitrariness.

The only way you get an absolute ethical metric is if you start with assumptions about what which ethical metrics are best, or if you are theologically inclined, you believe everyone actually has the same ethical metric, and people who disagree are lying or something like that.

Lying? No, hypocritical. We've had this debate before, but excluding extenuating circumstances such as painful disease or emotional trauma brought on by life's occurences, no one wants to be murdered. Therefore, this universal desire creates a standard by which a natural right to life can be discerned (as well as identifying the rightful owner of your life). Only the hypocrite would murder others when he would not want others to murder him.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

The courtship ritual of the Libertarians consists of epic orgies of cut'n'paste dissections that instantly alienate all other readers. Shortly before the topic becomes exhausted, mating takes place.

[Berzerker]

But our mates enjoy our endurance, I see a tint of green in your face.

[SirTweek]

So berzerker basically what you are saying is that everything would be based on contracts and everything would be setelled in courts with the only law being "individual rights/property rights". A government police force I assume paid through taxes would be used to enforce the court orders and enforce people going to court? There would be no laws against polluting your neighbour's enviroment but if your neighbour could prove it violated there property rights then they could get compensation from you? Would it be up to you to pay for the cadre of scientists that may be needed to prove the claims that your enviroment is being polluted? If you didn't have the money would the government provide the tools for you to do the testing (scientists, testing equipment, ect...) or would you just have to rely on charity or take out a loan risking involuntary servitutde if you lost the case? Would there be guidlines for compensation if you are found guilty of something or would punishment be completly up to the jury/judges? Would lawyers be provided to those that can't afford them or would the poor need to defend themselves?

So far this doesn't seem like a very good society to me. It sounds like it would just be replacing a government bearucracy with a legal one. Courts full of people suing other people for small and petty things doesn't sound very efficient either.

If involuntary servitude is allowed then everyone would have it in there contracts as a fall back, therefore forcing the poor to sell themselves into slavery to recieve medical care or if they needed money to pursue a court case for serious matters.

Sounds like the lawyers win in this society and that's always a good thing!

[tinyp3nis]

Sigh . Berz I don't understand where you are going with all that. In my last post I was correcting your claim that you and I didn't discuss/debate/argue in that thread.
And now you claim I didn't discuss "the iissue". I never said or never implied that the discussion I had with you was about the main discussion with you and Agathon, it wasn't and it doesn't even matter was it or wasn't it to what I have been saying here. The brief discussion we had was just me answering what you asked of me, untill I noticed you don't understand what I mean. Kind of like now.
If my involvement in the thread is so big annoyance to you, let's make it easier. here

It was not about him making good arguments, but about his impaired debating skills that made others give up, and that was exactly why I gave up.

-->

It was not about him making good arguments, but about his impaired debating skills that made others give up.

[Berzerker]

Tweek -

So berzerker basically what you are saying is that everything would be based on contracts and everything would be setelled in courts with the only law being "individual rights/property rights".

I don't know why you can't quote what I said instead of claiming what I "basicly" said. I didn't say "everything" would be settled in the courts, but when other peaceful venues outside of the court system won't suffice, the courts are there to serve their purpose.

A government police force I assume paid through taxes would be used to enforce the court orders and enforce people going to court?

Without getting into the issue of taxation, yes.

There would be no laws against polluting your neighbour's enviroment but if your neighbour could prove it violated there property rights then they could get compensation from you?

Where did I say that?

Would it be up to you to pay for the cadre of scientists that may be needed to prove the claims that your enviroment is being polluted?

How does one go about supporting a claim of pollution now? With a "cadre" of scientists? You don't think lawyers (environmental) deal with this kind of research when bringing a suit against a polluter?

If you didn't have the money would the government provide the tools for you to do the testing (scientists, testing equipment, ect...)

No, there are plenty of lawyers who will provide that service in return for a cut of the award.

or would you just have to rely on charity or take out a loan risking involuntary servitutde if you lost the case?

Are you totally unaware of how the legal system works?

Would there be guidlines for compensation if you are found guilty of something or would punishment be completly up to the jury/judges?

Guilty of what? Polluting a neighbor's land? Juries hand out awards and judges have the power to modify awards.

Would lawyers be provided to those that can't afford them or would the poor need to defend themselves?

Yes and no.

So far this doesn't seem like a very good society to me. It sounds like it would just be replacing a government bearucracy with a legal one. Courts full of people suing other people for small and petty things doesn't sound very efficient either.

I don't think you can be pleased, first you complain libertarianism means everyone for themself, now you complain about having courts. The government bureaucracy is a legal one. And since when do I advocate clogging courts with frivolous lawsuits?

If involuntary servitude is allowed then everyone would have it in there contracts as a fall back, therefore forcing the poor to sell themselves into slavery to recieve medical care or if they needed money to pursue a court case for serious matters.

Geez, I said if you borrowed money and refused to pay it back, the loaner could force you into involuntary servitude if there was no government. But because we have government, there are other means for the loaner to get what is owed them.

Sounds like the lawyers win in this society and that's always a good thing!

Like I said, first you complain about the lack of legal protection via government, now you complain about having legal protection via government. You sounded sincere in your first post, but now you sound dis-ingenuous.

[Berzerker]

Tiny Pen!s -

Sigh . Berz I don't understand where you are going with all that.

Your problem, not mine.

In my last post I was correcting your claim that you and I didn't discuss/debate/argue in that thread.

We didn't debate the issue Agathon and I were debating, you jumped into the thread to accuse me of not properly debating Agathon. You provided no evidence for your accusation, so we didn't debate anything except the validity of your charge and you didn't really debate that since you provided nothing to support yourself.

And now you claim I didn't discuss "the iissue". I never said or never implied that the discussion I had with you was about the main discussion with you and Agathon

Then why did you imply that you were part of the debate and gave up when I supposedly wouldn't listen to your arguments?

it wasn't and it doesn't even matter was it or wasn't it to what I have been saying here.

It sure matters what Agathon and I were debating since you claimed David's characterisation was false.

The brief discussion we had was just me answering what you asked of me, untill I noticed you don't understand what I mean. Kind of like now.

You didn't answer me, when I kept asking you to support your accusations, you just ignored my requests for proof and kept right on trolling.

If my involvement in the thread is so big annoyance to you, let's make it easier. here

Here what? You're doing the same thing here that you did in the other thread without all the insults. You aren't debating any issue just like the other thread, all you're doing is making unsupported assertions about me.

It was not about him making good arguments, but about his impaired debating skills that made others give up.

And you think repeating this ad nauseum proves something? Where are your examples of my "impaired" debating skills? How do you know why "others" gave up? Did you read their minds? I thought you were going to link the thread and support your claims...

[Wraith]

--"No, there are Randian and non-Randian Libertarians."

Exactly. The two groups will not use the same arguments. The two groups will often not agree on the same ends. See earlier in the thread where I pointed out that there are both minarchist and anarchist Libertarians. The philosophical underpinnings of the two are not the same.

It's like trying to get a Maoist to defend Stalinist communism. They may share many ideas, but they don't share them all.

--"So you aren't a Libertarian then?"

I am, but I am also not making the arguments you are insisting must be made by all Libertarians. They don't have to be, you see.

--"You cannot deduce a right to liberty from a right to life without introducing other principles"

I still don't think you're using liberty the way Libertarians do, but now at least you've defined it so we can work from there. Your definition is rather narrow, and your focus on "having my choices made for me" is completely missing the point.

In any case, the basic argument is laid out here.
I'll see if I can find a better presentation online, though.

Keep in mind this is the Objectivist argument, not necessarily the Libertarian one. The two will likely be different, depending on whom you ask.

--"You still haven't shown me why what the robber does is wrong"

Because you are still ignoring one of the main points. If you wish to continue harping on your liberty argument, how is what the robber doing not infringing on your liberty? He has artificially narrowed your range of choices down to two, which are both detrimental to you.

--"just as drug prohibition or gun control cannot be justified under a Randist ethics system"

When did she or her followers argue for either of those? She was for very limited government.

--"But ethical systems are philosophical systems, and as such, can be constructed arbitrarily within the human mind."

But you still have to live in reality. It's this disconnect of yours that causes the problem. All you have to do is ground your ethics system in objective reality, which is what Rand attempts (whether or not she suceeded is something you can decide for yourself).

--" A government police force I assume paid through taxes would be used to enforce the court orders and enforce people going to court?"

There have been various voluntary tax proposals. I'm quite fond of one known as "contract insurance".

--"There would be no laws against polluting your neighbour's enviroment"

Why wouldn't there be? If you understand that property rights are so imporant, why would you assume this?

--"Would there be guidlines for compensation if you are found guilty of something"

Probably very similar to how it's set up now. There's a range of punishments for various crimes, with modifiers based on other factors.

I really don't understand where most of your assumptions are coming from.

Wraith
"There is nothing to take a man's freedom away from him, save other men. To be free, a man must be free of his brothers."
-- Ayn Rand

[tinyp3nis]

So in short, turning this to be about me lets you of the hook? Doesn't matter if I was the devil, it won't make you any better that you are no matter what you think I am or actually am.
You still don't get it. Orange says Agathon was the one being the bad debater, but I say it's you. Just expressing my opinion here. But hell, I admit Agathon even insulted you finally, you made him that mad what your "style" of inverting and twisting, circling around stuff, semantics and total blindness of the point the other guy is making. So I can't really blame him.
No I don't imply anywhere here that I was part of _the_ debate. And me repeating "ad nauseum"? Only because you are circling around and misunderstading what I said, again.

[SirTweek]

I guess I don't understand what the basis of this libertarian society would be or how it works. Now it sounds exactly like the society we have with taxes, lawyers, courts and government regulations. Maybe an explicit description of the diffrences of our society and your vision of a libertarian society might help.

I do understand how the legal system works, lawyers will mostly not take on a case that they think they will not win or ones where the cost of research outweighs the benefits of the possible award recieved. Yes, in some cases it takes a lot of resources to prove enviromental pollution. In other cases trials have been dragged out for years before compensation was given. I also understand that lawyers will not prosecute if they know the defendant will not be able to pay the victim.

The proliferation of student legal services and legal aid societies, to take up the cases that other lawyers will not is common where I live. Legal aid and student legal groups also take up the cases of defendants that can not pay a lawyer and some non-criminal cases (like family law).

I thought you advocated frivolous lawsuits when you said putting trash on someone's lawn would be a initiation of force. Where I live a by-law enforcement officer would give you a fine for something like that.

I also assumed and this may be a false assumption that in a libertarian society the crown as it is called in Canada would not prosecute people for breaking laws and that individuals had to hire lawyers to do this. For example in a libertarian society if someone assulted you rather then the crown prosecuting this person you would need to hire a lawyer to prosecute.

I've never complained that libertarianism means everyone for themselves, please show me where I said that. I never complained about having courts either, I did complain that your view of libertarianism seems to be highly centered around the court system but I may be understanding you wrong.

[Berzerker]

Tiny Pen!is -

So in short, turning this to be about me lets you of the hook?

It is about you. When you actually offer evidence to support your opinions about me, then it'll be about me.

Doesn't matter if I was the devil, it won't make you any better that you are no matter what you think I am or actually am.

That's right, I don't evaluate myself based on your failure to support your accusations.

You still don't get it.

That you're a troll, I got it.

Orange says Agathon was the one being the bad debater, but I say it's you. Just expressing my opinion here.

Gee whiz, is that the big mystery I supposedly don't get? I've been asking you, in this thread as in the last, to support your opinion but you don't. So what are we to "discuss", your unsupported opinion?

But hell, I admit Agathon even insulted you finally, you made him that mad what your "style" of inverting and twisting, circling around stuff, semantics and total blindness of the point the other guy is making.

More accusations without any proof. I thought you were going to link the thread and provide examples or was that just more of your BS?

So I can't really blame him.

You entered that thread to insult me because of my politics and no other reason. Defending Agathon is playing "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" game. You never once tried to support his arguments in that thread nor did you once try to refute the arguments I made in response to him, so don't act like you were analyzing the debate.

No I don't imply anywhere here that I was part of _the_ debate.

Yes you did.

And me repeating "ad nauseum"? Only because you are circling around and misunderstading what I said, again.

Do you have proof for that? Of course not, why break a string of unsupported accusations by actually providing proof...

Unless you offer evidence for your "opinions", this'll be my last response to you, troll.

[Berzerker]

Tweek -

I guess I don't understand what the basis of this libertarian society would be or how it works. Now it sounds exactly like the society we have with taxes, lawyers, courts and government regulations. Maybe an explicit description of the diffrences of our society and your vision of a libertarian society might help.

Type Libertarian Party into google if you want an in depth description. I'm sure Wraith has a few links...

I do understand how the legal system works, lawyers will mostly not take on a case that they think they will not win or ones where the cost of research outweighs the benefits of the possible award recieved.

Their fee is part of the award so most of the time they will only avoid a case if it's without merit, and even that won't deter some lawyers.

Yes, in some cases it takes a lot of resources to prove enviromental pollution.

We have that now. If you want a system where the government does all the research for everyone filing a lawsuit, we'll go bankrupt with every Tom, ****, and Harry trying to get rich off lawsuits with the government footing the bill.

In other cases trials have been dragged out for years before compensation was given.

The courts are clogged with drug cases and the politicians have created a system plagued with loopholes and complications that result in this corruption which was probably their goal anyway.

I also understand that lawyers will not prosecute if they know the defendant will not be able to pay the victim.

That's why lawyers look for the deepest pockets. But if the plaintiff can't get anything from a lawsuit, there's not much point in suing. Nothing can change that reality...

The proliferation of student legal services and legal aid societies, to take up the cases that other lawyers will not is common where I live. Legal aid and student legal groups also take up the cases of defendants that can not pay a lawyer and some non-criminal cases (like family law).

Yup, and this is often the result of trials where the accused was defended by an incompetent public defender. PD's are a bad joke in prison...

I thought you advocated frivolous lawsuits when you said putting trash on someone's lawn would be a initiation of force.

I don't see the connection. You asked about a business polluting your property and I explained that in a libertarian system, I could not dump my trash on your land, so why would a business get away with polluting your land.

Where I live a by-law enforcement officer would give you a fine for something like that.

Yup.

I also assumed and this may be a false assumption that in a libertarian society the crown as it is called in Canada would not prosecute people for breaking laws and that individuals had to hire lawyers to do this.

False assumption.

For example in a libertarian society if someone assulted you rather then the crown prosecuting this person you would need to hire a lawyer to prosecute.

Nope.

I've never complained that libertarianism means everyone for themselves, please show me where I said that.

Here:

In the instances where force is used what redress do you have in a libertarian society, would there be a police system, and a court system or would it be up to you and anyone you can hire to defend your 'rights'?

I never complained about having courts either, I did complain that your view of libertarianism seems to be highly centered around the court system but I may be understanding you wrong.

Centered around courts no more than now, actually much less since there would be far fewer laws with no drug cases currently clogging the courts, and the tax code would almost disappear. But contractual cases would remain similar in number I imagine.