Has a truly libertarian society ever existed?

[BigG]

Thanks for all the detailed discourse. I've learned a lot from keeping up with this thread! I don't want to get into the blow by blow of the various points but offer the observation that expecting people to act grown up and play nice is a little far fetched. There has to be an impartial 3rd party to mete out justice. This insures everybody is playing by the same "rules."

Example: Two or more people may view a "crime" as different levels of seriousness or as no crime at all. What could be a small territorial dispute (hey get off my property) can escalate into a bloodletting. Similar with a "love" triangle. Cannot expect rationality from essentially emotion driven individuals. Sorry, these facts just get in the way of the best intentions!

 

[nualle]

Badahur: I concede the need for a third party, in the absence of perfect information, to approach justice.

I cannot concede that a government that 1) coerces compliance with its decisions and 2) makes itself an interested party (usually the only interested party, reducing the victim to a mere witness) in the redress-of-crime process can be, or even approach being, impartial in that process.

 

[BigG]

Hi Nualle (again!)

I cannot concede that a government that 1) coerces compliance with its decisions and 2) makes itself an interested party (usually the only interested party, reducing the victim to a mere witness) in the redress ...

Agree, but "in for a penny, in for a pound," is typically the 800 lb. gorilla that gomt, any gomt tries to become once it realizes that its perpetuation (self preservation, or even self-interest) is more important than justice.

 

[Bahadur]

nualle:

Badahur: I concede the need for a third party, in the absence of perfect information, to approach justice.

My thanks for your graciousness.

I cannot concede that a government that 1) coerces compliance with its decisions and 2) makes itself an interested party (usually the only interested party, reducing the victim to a mere witness) in the redress-of-crime process can be, or even approach being, impartial in that process.

The assumption behind this statement is that the government is an "external" entity. But I argue that it is not. All the citizens are represented by the government (or society). The victim is not just the individual who was "directly" harmed. It is also the entire society of people who experienced rule-breaking (murder in this example), which if unchecked will harm them all ("back to the blood feuds"). The "coercion" you speak of is not from a third party, it is from the entirety of the society.

 

[Chipper]

Badahur,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps you have a different idea in mind of how the contractual society would play out? I'm no expert on a contract based society/government.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed. I meant "contract" in "social contract" in social-cultural terms rather than economic-legal terms.

Thanks for the clarification. In a re-review of the various social contract theories the two main questions that remain unresolved in any useful sense are:
1) what constitutes political obligation and
2) can a contract exist without explicit consent of either party

I think both of these lie at the root of the discussion between you and nualle.

What we see in America today is best characterized by both the Hobbesian theory and the Lockean theory. A strange mixture indeed. When we drill to the base of the problems we encounter with government it is seen that there is no clear understanding of what constitutes political obligation. In both the above mentioned theories, the benefits derived from a government such as roads, military defense, the provision of justice and so on, are claimed to be the basis of justifying obligation to the government that provides these. In both of these theories, this obligation is predicated on heritage (I was born here, therefore I am obligated) and/or conquest in the case of Hobbes. Either is truly a poor basis for obligation. This imposed obligation also negates the necessity of explicit consent as obligation is implied and imposed at birth or at the time of the conquerors choosing. If the obligation is imposed rather than accepted by consent, how can this relationship be defined as a contract? A social contract is an unworkable and illegitimate concept unless some provision is made for the individual to either give or withold his consent.

Chipper

 

[Matt Wallis]

I apologize that I haven't read through this whole thread. So this may have already been responded to. But I just ahd to respond to this... (By Big G, I think)

I DO believe in the Bible and it teaches that human govts at their very best are essentially evil.

Uh, nope. Try reading Romans 13:1-10. Kind of teaches that gov't is a good gift of God (at its best).

Matt

 

[nualle]

Badahur, you said:

All the citizens are represented by the government (or society).

You've accused me of utopianism. If there is a utopian statement, I think this is it. This is the legal fiction underlying the claimed legitimacy of many of today's governments. Its truth in fact is not in evidence.

The victim is not just the individual who was "directly" harmed. It is also the entire society of people who experienced rule-breaking (murder in this example), which if unchecked will harm them all ("back to the blood feuds"). The "coercion" you speak of is not from a third party, it is from the entirety of the society.

This elevates rule-breaking above actual harm. There is, then, nothing to keep a government from instituting rules that address no actual harm, then increasing their social control by enforcing those rules.

If you say "because the government represents the people, and they wouldn't allow it," I refer you back to my response above... and to the War on (Some) Drugs.

 

[Bahadur]

Chipper:

In both the above mentioned theories, the benefits derived from a government such as roads, military defense, the provision of justice and so on, are claimed to be the basis of justifying obligation to the government that provides these. In both of these theories, this obligation is predicated on heritage (I was born here, therefore I am obligated) and/or conquest in the case of Hobbes. Either is truly a poor basis for obligation.

That's what's great about the US. One can acquire the obligation (and the rights) by either being born or immigrating. Furthermore, for those who wish to renounce the citizenship, they can simply do so.

nualle:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the citizens are represented by the government (or society).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You've accused me of utopianism. If there is a utopian statement, I think this is it. This is the legal fiction underlying the claimed legitimacy of many of today's governments. Its truth in fact is not in evidence.

It is NOT utopian. When one travels overseas and catches oneself in a bind, one quickly learns about representation by the government. The confusion rises from the fact that some people want selective representation, namely, they claim the mandate of universal representation for all when their ideas are implemented by the government, but cry misrepresentation when they are not.

This elevates rule-breaking above actual harm.

Rule-breaking is actual harm. And it's not "above." It *comensurates* with severity of the rule-breaking (what you call "actual harm"). For example, murder and theft are both rule-breaking, but are not treated the same. One has a more grave impact on the society as a whole and the individual victim than the other, and henced treated more harshly.

There is, then, nothing to keep a government from instituting rules that address no actual harm, then increasing their social control by enforcing those rules.

Sure there are. For one thing, the government is elected by the people. For another, government is not monolithic - checks and balances.

If you say "because the government represents the people, and they wouldn't allow it," I refer you back to my response above... and to the War on (Some) Drugs.

Well, the so-called War on Drugs is anti-libertarian in principle. Remember that (at least my version of) libertarianism isn't a utopian notion of perfect rights and no government. It is a working solution of the most rights possible and the most minimal government possible.

 

[bad_dad_brad]

Make your own state:

Check out:

http://www.freestateproject.org/

They want to move a bunch of libertarians to a small conservative state (like Wyoming) take it over politically, and then secede from the Federal government.

It's a plan.

 

[Ian]

Badahur,

Furthermore, for those who wish to renounce the citizenship, they can simply do so.

Really? You can renounce it all you want, but the Fed and State are still going to treat you any differently. They'll still search you at airports and confiscate your money, among other things.

If a person owns the land they live on, and decides to renounce their citizenship, they should be left alone, exempt from both the priveliges and duties of that citizenship. No group of people have any right whatsoever to intrude into life of a non-consenting individual (assuming the individual has not harmed another person, in which case that victimized person would have a right to restitution).

The only just government - that is, the only government which can exist without necessarily and flagrantly violating human rights - is one based on the actual consent of its citizens. This situation is synonymous with anarchy, because the government is denied arbitrary authority.

Rule-breaking is actual harm.

A rule has no weight simply because it is a "rule". The weight of a rule is defined by the harm (or lack thereof) caused by violating it. I (or, say, Congress) could proclaim a rule prohibiting the ownership of Volvos, but I (or Congress) cannot justly enforce that rule, as no harm comes of breaking it. The principle is upheld through the legal doctrine that an unconstitutional law is null and void from moment of passage, and may be violated with impunity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is, then, nothing to keep a government from instituting rules that address no actual harm, then increasing their social control by enforcing those rules.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure there are. For one thing, the government is elected by the people. For another, government is not monolithic - checks and balances.

To be exact, government is chosen by a majority of the people, not the whole people. There is no actual check against the majority using the government to grieviously violate the rights of any given minority (like machinegun owners, for example). Furthermore, the government IS monolithic - no branch has a motive to curtail the power of any other branch. The Supreme Court is the worst example of this - the Court is appointed by the other branches, can only be overruled by Constitutional Amendment (an action of the legislative branch), and serves a life term. It has only the most tenuous tie to the will of the people, and only the will of the majority of the people at that. The practical result of our "system of checks and balances" has been the concentration of power in the hands of the Federal government, for all the branches have a vested interest in usurping powers from the States and citizens.

 

[BigG]

Matt Wallis: Read the book of Samuel where the Israelites were clamoring for a king. God gave Samuel the straight skinny on human govts right there. The example you cited from Romans shows that God suffers a lot of things. Because he suffers human govts does not mean he endorses them. Remember the part about "they do not bear the sword in vain?" that means God is telling them if you get out of line they (the govt) will kill you.

 

[Bahadur]

Ian:

Really? You can renounce it all you want, but the Fed and State are still going to treat you any differently. They'll still search you at airports and confiscate your money, among other things.

Nope. If you do not derive income in the US or own property and live elsewhere after renouncing the citizenship, you are no longer under the jurisdiction of the US government.

If a person owns the land they live on, and decides to renounce their citizenship, they should be left alone, exempt from both the priveliges and duties of that citizenship.

Not so. You are free riding. It's your CHOICE to live where you do - that choice entails responsibilities like paying for common goods like national defense. You can't continue to enjoy the benefits, but shirk responsibilities by "simply" renouncing. You'd also have to shed all benefits (which would entail, in all probability, moving).

A rule has no weight simply because it is a "rule". The weight of a rule is defined by the harm (or lack thereof) caused by violating it. I (or, say, Congress) could proclaim a rule prohibiting the ownership of Volvos, but I (or Congress) cannot justly enforce that rule, as no harm comes of breaking it. The principle is upheld through the legal doctrine that an unconstitutional law is null and void from moment of passage, and may be violated with impunity.

I agree. But once the social contract is reached, rule-breaking does become an actual harm, because it retards "fair play" and harms those who "play fair."

There is no actual check against the majority using the government to grieviously violate the rights of any given minority (like machinegun owners, for example).

That's what a contitutional republic is all about, as opposed to a "pure" democracy. I agree we're not achieving the full potential of a "libertarian" constitutional republic. But what's that got to do with whether anarchism or libertarianism is more practical in real life? We both agree that the current status quo is not to our liking.

BTW, while by no means perfect, I'd take the US system over that of another country any day. The best possible in real life beats perfect fantasy any day.

Furthermore, the government IS monolithic - no branch has a motive to curtail the power of any other branch.

The federal government is not monolithic. The different branches have opposed each other numerous times. Furthermore, there are state and local governments. Anyone who has worked "inside" the government really knows just how un-monolithic it really is.

 

[Matt Wallis]

Big G,

I hate to hijack this thread, especially to a non-legal/political topic, so feel free to PM or email me at [email protected].

However, to respond briefly, I agree about the whole King for Israel thing. But that was a completely different situation. Read Rm 13 again. It doesn't say God tolerates Gov't. It says he instituted it. It calls gov't an institute or ordinance of God. Why would God institute something that is inherently bad? Answer: He wouldn't.

Although as an aside, gov't is needed only becuase there is sin and evil in the world. That much we can probably agree on.

Matt

 

[nualle]

But once the social contract is reached, rule-breaking does become an actual harm, because it retards "fair play" and harms those who "play fair."

This is true only if the content of the social contract is so minimal as to contain nothing more than the Non-Aggression Principle. If so, then your libertarians and my anarchists are beginning in the same spot. (Except that my anarchists don't need the contract, because they each individually assent to the NAP, hold themselves to that minimum standard of conduct, and understand another's breach of it to constitute redressable harm.)

If the social contract you refer to contains any content beyond the NAP, then your libertarians who assent to it lose liberties by each additional provision. How many liberties must they consent to lose before they can no longer be considered to be libertarians?

 

[Bahadur]

nualle:

This is true only if the content of the social contract is so minimal as to contain nothing more than the Non-Aggression Principle. If so, then your libertarians and my anarchists are beginning in the same spot. (Except that my anarchists don't need the contract, because they each individually assent to the NAP, hold themselves to that minimum standard of conduct, and understand another's breach of it to constitute redressable harm.)

Well, not quite "same" because of the "private justice" issue where there is no collective enforcement under your version of anarchism (which thus encourages rule-breaking). I again refer the matter to the lack of perfect information.

If the social contract you refer to contains any content beyond the NAP, then your libertarians who assent to it lose liberties by each additional provision. How many liberties must they consent to lose before they can no longer be considered to be libertarians?

That's a good question. There is, IMO, no cut and dry answer. It would have to depend on the cultural-historical circumstances of the society (that's the "reality" part of the lack of perfection in my libertarianism).