Libertarianism versus Slavery

[Osborn F Enready]

Mr Perfecto said:
Well, does the right of the owner to collect come from a user consenting to pay or from being the owner?

I say:
The right of the owner to collect comes from two things.
1) The owner of the land is technically the state, but the State dedicated it to public use, since it is being PAID for by the people. State property, "dedicated" to public use, essentially transferring ownership to that of the public, for public use.
2) The finished product is a road that is paid for by the people, on land provided for by the state. This takes care of creation of the transportation system, but not its maintenance. The people are taxed for the maintenance, as well as the creation, all of which is handled by the state.

So the people pay for creation and maintenance on the transportation system collectively to further ease their own way of life, conducting business and transporting goods. The State however is only a figurehead for the people which make up a state, which are collectively the owners, and obligees of oversight of the State.

Mr Perfecto said:
So who are the owners and why do you think them illegitimate?

I say:
The people are the owners of all government in this country, as well as the superior oversight committee. The people own the road, therfore the people should be the ones voting at the state level on what laws to enforce upon these roads THEY paid for, and continue to pay for. The Federal Government has NO RIGHT to step in to enforce trivialities such as seat belt and helmet laws across the entire nation, since this should be a state issue. It is 90% a personal safety issue, and the Fed assumes it has the right to protect people from themselves. If the people in a state feel seat-belts affect ability to control a vehicle they should have voted that law in at the state level, same as helmets.

Mr Perfecto said:
You've already told me that a owner may charge fees for use of his property. Must these fee be voluntary also?

I say:
Technically the land is public use, and the upkeep is paid for by the taxpayers. The state has a right to tax for the upkeep, but that upkeep should be voted on by the taxpayers when it comes to MAJOR expenditures, and records for all monies spent and needed should be accurately and clearly accounted for. Also, this is a state issue, or should be. I as a person living in Ohio, should bear no brunt of taxation for the Big Dig in Boston.

The issue about voluntary fee, is tricky. When a village, town or city becomes "incorporated" the laws change in this respect I (believe). The laws of incorporation have changed, and I have made a seperate post about this issue I will try to link later in this thread. In modern laws application, you have to pay the tax as a fee for living in a city of incorporation, and receiving the benefits of that incorporation (without choice, if you are in their boundaries, user of the benefits or not.)

Mr Perfecto said:
What private issues? Whether you can operate an automobile on those roads without wearing a seatbelt? How is that anymore of a private issue than Burger King requiring you to wear clothing and shoes inside their restaurant?

I say:
Well I think it is obvious. Burger King is a business, who bought its land or leases its land from the city to operate a business, with that land transfer comes certain rights.
The business has the right to set conditions with which you must participate in order to enter or be served.

The roads are essentially owned and maintained with the money of the people, in the name of the state, therefore any laws created to govern those roads must meet the approval of the states inhabitants. The people in each state, at the minimum, each locality at the maximum should be able to vote personal safety issues individually since it affects THEM in THEIR CAR on THEIR ROAD. The people own the road, and the people are a "collective", they cannot sue themselves for not passing laws to protect themselves.
The people use the car, and the road at their own risk much like you walk at your own risk.

Mr Perfecto said:
So, if a private parking garage charges owners more for parking expensive or frequently stolen cars than the lesser types, is that an injustice as well?

I say:
It is voluntary compliance, in a private verbal or written contract unless it is REGULATED by the state or fed.

[SteveA]

Well, does the right of the owner to collect come from a user consenting to pay or from being the owner? ... etc.

From being the owner, but how is ownership rightly defined?

Let's jump back a bit further. What's a "right"? A right is something you feel is a moral/natural/just action you should be able to perform, unimpeded. Rights can only be universal in that they interact peaceably with others granted the similar right. For example the right to stand absolutely anywhere you desire is not a universal right because two people could desire to stand in exactly the same location with conflict/harm resulting.

So back to the question of ownership. Merely stating one is an owner of something isn't moral/natural/just etc. and enforcing such an arbitrary view of ownership could not be universal in that anyone could claim to own anything they wanted with a lot of conflict ensuing.

So why were ownership rights created in the first place - as a common respect for the endeavors/pursuit of happiness/privacy etc. of others. It's a mutual benefit to everyone to allow private ownership of things, but what's the criteria of this? Like the hypocratic oath - Do no harm. You can create/discover/possess most anything and claim ownership of it as long as these don't conflict with the prior interests of others, and if they do then such transfer of control needs to be agreed to by both parties. This is the manner in which we protect our private interests under a system that ensures each such transaction at least appears to be beneficial to both/all parties and often called free markets.

So, let's go back and look at who owns the road - those with vested interests in it that haven't already been compensated for these. An employee doesn't own a product they assisted in creating if they've voluntarily received compensation for it. They owned their labor and sold it in a voluntary manner. The employer paid resources in exchange for this labor and owns the product of it. The employee owns the wages received and has no claim over the product.

Now, who is the paid employee and who is the employer in the road scenario? Were the construction crews paid wages? Yes. Was the police officer paid wages? Yes. Were the politicians performing administrative functions paid wages? Yes. So it appears as though all of them have been paid compensation for their labors with regard to the road. Ah ha! I have it. The taxpayers that paid for this are the true owners as they still have resources invested in this and have not been paid wages in any voluntary exchange for their interest.

The claim by the police officer of owning the road is obvious false, just as I don't own the engineering department at work - my employer does.

So, do you not agree with it because it is illegitimate or is it illegitimate because you don't agree with it. You've already told me that a owner may charge fees for use of his property. Must these fee be voluntary also?

I view legitimacy of an authority as the extent to which one has voluntarily accepted it (which could be a contractual or implicit agreement as well, though explicit agreements are much preferred). If I marry my wife and make commitments because I entered into the agreement willingly, then the marriage is legitimate. Whereas if someone use threats of force or incarceration or other non-valuable methods of motivation to marry someone else then I would consider the marriage illegitimate. Agreements are only valid when both parties have something at risk and at least the potential for gain. Someone must over something of value, not merely an absence of harm, in the exchange. (For example, if someone gives there milk money to another to avoid the threat of being beaten up, it's not a binding agreement because one party offered nothing of value to motivate this exchange voluntarily from the other person).

I disagree with the legitimacy of the police officer claiming to own the road. I also disagree with the legitimacy of any specific public representative claiming ownership of it. They are both representative employees of the owners and receive compensation for their efforts.

Charging fees to use a road is a voluntary transaction between the owner and the user. Using a road without permission can violate the rights of the owner.

Though I'd like to encourage, and not merely for the sake of this discussion that people refrain from taking too black and white a view of ownership. There have often been times, in my opinion, when it has seemed that too strong a private claim, and right to deny access to others, has been asserted over something while ignoring prior interests of others in that resource. Though it may be true that noone in particular has a large claim relative to the person making it, many people have a small interest and the total prior interests of people outside this claim are significant. To put it simpler, someone might claim a space of ocean with keep out signs and as long as it's not too large an area likely no real conflicts result but many other people could have an interest passing through there and though each person passing by individually could easily go around this blockade, the costs of such to multiple people over time is greater than any benefit of privacy to the individual claiming to own that area. Land is a little different in that most people don't assume a right to walk through someone elses yard, but there have been historical examples of people placing unfounded claims on land much larger than this, irrespective of the interests of natives already living there.

Anyway, as long as the creation of the road didn't harm any prior interests, the owner has a rightful claim to charging others to use, and when/if they do, they do so in a voluntary fashion. Not paying to use it, despite the owners desire, would be violating the prior interests of the owner.

(Sorry if I'm so dang long winded. It's just a bad habit developed over time )

What private issues? Whether you can operate an automobile on those roads without wearing a seatbelt? How is that anymore of a private issue than Burger King requiring you to wear clothing and shoes inside their restaurant?

Point taken though a few other factors need to be consider. Buying food at a Burger King is optional - Burger King doesn't send the IRS to your house if you didn't pay enough for their burgers, also you didn't pay to help build the Burger King so have no claim to be a coowner, and to a minor extent, wearing shoes and a shirt has more of a public esthetic and sanitary effect, people in violation of this are often not even harrassed and when it is enforced it's merely a matter of leaving without being fined. I admit there are similarities but the primary mistake is that the underlying relationship is not based upon voluntary actions by the parties, with regard to the public road. It's very likely that someone who enjoyed eating at a restaurant with no shoes or shirt would NOT support Burger King, yet such a natural ability to "vote" in a free market is denied when it comes to public institutions - whether or not you like the public education system or even use it, you're paying for it, even if you send your children to private schools or don't have children. That's the crux of the issue.

Well, you are definitely helping me to understand some parts of libertarianism that I had been confused about. So, if a private parking garage charges owners more for parking expensive or frequently stolen cars than the lesser types, is that an injustice as well?

No. He invested the resources and took the risk, it's up to him to see whether or not others view this as valuable enough for him to earn a profit.

I think this is a discussion (the distinction between public and private) that I should avoid getting much deeper into until after I am able to get a better grasp of the libertarian worldview.

There is no single "Libertarian" view really but just a lot of similar complaints from people. I've been trying to see more sides of the issues to see if much of the complaints from similar root causes, and I believe this is the case.

Make up your own view and test it against others and see what makes the most sense. That's the beauty if libertarian views, in general, we only have to be able to agree on a few issues to ensure a peaceful respect for others interests and can then leave the rest to be privately addressed as each individual sees best.

A site you might want to look at also is:
www.mises.org

They have a lot of semi-technical posts regarding many economic and ownership issues centered around free markets.

[SteveA]

Quote by: mr.perfecto Steve, I am definitely looking forward to your next post. In my days as a communist (for 3 months about six years ago) And, the debate over whether the Bill of Rights limits the states is also something I look forward to discussing with you. Welcome to Volconvo.

That sounds like fun. I'd enjoy such a discussion :) and thank you for the welcome too. Hopefully the above post gives a little clearer view of how I see property rights (I'll admit not everyone agrees on how property rights should be handled, hence the need to look closer at how people naturally exchange value and see where the mistakes are currently being made)

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: SteveA The claim by the police officer of owning the road is obvious false, just as I don't own the engineering department at work - my employer does.

Steve, in your example you made a reference to just "a man with a gun," in my examples I stuck with the same reference point. I don't disagree with you at all that a police officer is not the owner of the road, but I think you've proceeded along a tangential path of reasoning. My point was merely to show that the owner has a right to set and enforce rules for the use of his property, not to suggest the police officer or the security guard who patrols your engineering department are the owners of what they are assigned to patrol.

I view legitimacy of an authority as the extent to which one has voluntarily accepted

I can see a contridiction between this statement and the one you made earlier. I can't see how both can be true.

Well, does the right of the owner to collect come from a user consenting to pay or from being the owner? From being the owner, but how is ownership rightly defined?

Your post drifted after this so I wasn't able to find the tie-in that explained how ownership is only legitimate with consent.

(Sorry if I'm so dang long winded. It's just a bad habit developed over time )

I don't mind. It is interesting to get your point of view...even if if you do have a tendency to wander.

Point taken though a few other factors need to be consider. Buying food at a Burger King is optional - Burger King doesn't send the IRS to your house if you didn't pay enough for their burgers, also you didn't pay to help build the Burger King so have no claim to be a coowner, and to a minor extent, wearing shoes and a shirt has more of a public esthetic and sanitary effect, people in violation of this are often not even harrassed and when it is enforced it's merely a matter of leaving without being fined. I admit there are similarities but the primary mistake is that the underlying relationship is not based upon voluntary actions by the parties, with regard to the public road. It's very likely that someone who enjoyed eating at a restaurant with no shoes or shirt would NOT support Burger King, yet such a natural ability to "vote" in a free market is denied when it comes to public institutions - whether or not you like the public education system or even use it, you're paying for it, even if you send your children to private schools or don't have children. That's the crux of the issue.

Being a citizen is optional too. Indeed, being a citizen is so optional that billions of people aren't one. On the other hand, millions of people who weren't one have became one. I would say more about this, but I want to stick more with where the rights of an owner originate. I will just note that BK will call the police if they need to and that, even if you did invest in BK, you would still have to pay for your burger the same as everyone else. After all, TANSTAAFL.

No. He invested the resources and took the risk, it's up to him to see whether or not others view this as valuable enough for him to earn a profit. There is no single "Libertarian" view really but just a lot of similar complaints from people. I've been trying to see more sides of the issues to see if much of the complaints from similar root causes, and I believe this is the case. Make up your own view and test it against others and see what makes the most sense. That's the beauty if libertarian views, in general, we only have to be able to agree on a few issues to ensure a peaceful respect for others interests and can then leave the rest to be privately addressed as each individual sees best. So, the owners can set rules according to what they think best. Time will tell if those decisions were good ones. So, if the owners have a disagreement about which of them should get the parking spot nearest the ground-floor elevator, what does libertarianism (in your opinion) say about how the decision should be made?

A site you might want to look at also is: www.mises.org They have a lot of semi-technical posts regarding many economic and ownership issues centered around free markets.

I have studied a great deal of Mises work. If I had a hard copy of it, I'd probably keep his Bureaucracy next to my Bible.

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Mr Perfecto said: Well, does the right of the owner to collect come from a user consenting to pay or from being the owner? I say: The right of the owner to collect comes from two things. 1) The owner of the land is technically the state, but the State dedicated it to public use, since it is being PAID for by the people. State property, "dedicated" to public use, ... <snip>

Osborn, I don't disagree with the statements you have made (although I do think, because those statements are correct, your position is contrary to them). So, I don't really have anything to respond to. I guess I'm going to need to think some more about how you could get the facts right, but the conclusion wrong.

But, just to have some fun with you, what do you mean by voluntary compliance?

[SteveA]

I view legitimacy of an authority as the extent to which one has voluntarily accepted I can see a contridiction between this statement and the one you made earlier. I can't see how both can be true. Quote: Well, does the right of the owner to collect come from a user consenting to pay or from being the owner? Quote: From being the owner, but how is ownership rightly defined? Your post drifted after this so I wasn't able to find the tie-in that explained how ownership is only legitimate with consent.

I was trying to point out that someone can claim authority over something they own. While the legitimacy of this claim can be disputed by someone else if they had prior vested interests in it and no voluntary transfer had occured.

To correlate this with the police officer claiming to own the road - the road was a public venture paid for by many people to different extents who generally haven't voluntarily religuished this interest to someone else by accepting compensation for their investment. The police officer receives wages as compensation for his labor, so his labor is paid for also by the owners - he's an employee. If he believes he is the owner, then he should assert it. It's important for people to assert their rights. If he wanted to block of a section of the freeway for lunch, pull out a picnic blanket and enjoy a sandwich in the middle of the freeway during rushhour, that's what he should do. It's also important for the 20 miles of people stacked up behind this scene to inform him of the obvious mistake that he's an employee that merely represents the owners. The situation goes to court as often as needed, until a second police officer comes up to him and also informs him that he's a "public servant" and merely a representative of the owners (that sets the stage for the next discrepancy in rights over who the owners are ... but I'll skip that part).

People must assert what they feel their rights are. We won't all view them equally but it's important to remember that rights ideally should be able to coexist peacefully without ones persons envisioned rights trampling on others. If noone defended their rights, it would only take a single irresponsible individual to ruin an entire society by violating the interests of everyone else. When those rights conflict, we seek to arbitrate a peaceful compromise or more enforced decisions if such a compromise can't be reached, so to avoid conflict people should attempt to keep what rights they view themselves as having from overly encroaching on others.

Basically libertarian views support a common defense of each individual and their life, liberty and of vested interests (property) against force, fraud, theft or other forms of threats or coercion. People should trade or interact based upon voluntary agreements viewed as beneficial instead of involuntary interactions motivated by avoidance of harm.

Being a citizen is optional too. Indeed, being a citizen is so optional that billions of people aren't one. On the other hand, millions of people who weren't one have became one. I would say more about this, but I want to stick more with where the rights of an owner originate. I will just note that BK will call the police if they need to and that, even if you did invest in BK, you would still have to pay for your burger the same as everyone else. After all, TANSTAAFL.

Yes, I think you've hit the issue rather squarely on this - citizenship is something that needs to be looked at closer. I'd agree that people should have an ability to "go their separate ways", though it's not as simple as merely not patronizing a BK

This is largely why I see the primary issue as government being too top heavy. There's continually fewer issues left up to the discretion of individual states and greater control placed at a central, inescapable level. I'm not going to claim the Constitution defends our rights, it's a piece of paper, written by people with likely good intentions but an agreement that only has as much weight as we place in it. The U.S. was specifically created as a republic with the guarantee of a republican form of government - independent states with federal oversight of interstate disputes, and powers not specifically granted to the federal government were explicitly retained by the people and/or states. If we're going to do something else, then we should rethinking the intents of the institution and assure people are protected from abuse in whatever new form of government we create.

I have studied a great deal of Mises work. If I had a hard copy of it, I'd probably keep his Bureaucracy next to my Bible.

:)

I haven't ever bought one of his books, but it's tempting.

Have fun.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: madprophet Libertarians always make the same ridiculous assumptions: Contracts are only ever made between equal parties. Markets are fair and will handle all of societies needs without interference. Governments are the sole source of tyranny. Yadda, Yadda. I'm a good ole Anarchist myself. Tyranny comes from ALL FORMS OF AUTHORITY, no matter how centralized that authority happens to be. Whether it's an authoritarian socialist state or a loose conglomerate of economic interests, it's still a bunch of people telling you what to do with threat of death or imprisonment. It's still people making your decisions for you. Making our decisions for us.

What I find most interesting is that no matter how many we point out the obvious, nobody seems to get it.


We have had a working example of a Libertarian utopia. The early US history is proof that the guidelines laid down in the constitution are a very real way to limit the government intrusion into ones life, and business. It wasn't until people saw a need to scrap the constitution that nation got into trouble.


I know of zero examples of anarchy as a working, thriving, real world system of government. (I'm not trying to be smug, so please cite examples if you have any)

[Osborn F Enready]

Mr Perfecto said:
Osborn, I don't disagree with the statements you have made (although I do think, because those statements are correct, your position is contrary to them). So, I don't really have anything to respond to. I guess I'm going to need to think some more about how you could get the facts right, but the conclusion wrong.

But, just to have some fun with you, what do you mean by voluntary compliance?

I say:
Boy, you take pompous to a whole new level.

You agree with everything I said, but since I said it, it must be wrong heh? :rolleyes:

Facts right, but wrong conclusion? ROFLMAO

Facts tell the story, the conclusion is self evident. :rolleyes:

Try looking up the words in the dictionary for "voluntary compliance."
I wouldn't want you to think that was wrong because I said it too, then you would be walking around mis-using the words when you talked to anyone.

Come back when you have something to debate Perfecto.

[Livemike]

Quote by: madprophet 1) Anyone who says that A is less like slavery has very obviously never read one single bit of history. "Let's bring back the Company Store, ya'll; working for script is a fair contract between equal parties!" Fuck you. 2) Yeah, racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills (if you've got good credit) doesn''t lead to indentured servitude anyway. Heh. 3) Again, all you have to do is look at history, particularly US LABOR HISTORY to know the answer here. The only thing they used to use the federal government for was to stomp strikers. Hey, the national guard simply had bigger guns then the company men.

Actually US labour history shows that the Feds moved to help the unions victimise blacks with the Davies-Bacon act. Before that you're right, the national guard had bigger guns than the company men and that was needed to stop unionists murdering and torturing negros and other people trying to earn an honest wage.

Quote by: madprophet Libertarians always make the same ridiculous assumptions: Contracts are only ever made between equal parties.

I've never once heard a libertarian make that assumption. It's hard to even know what it means. A contract is the best way for two parties of unequal power to relate because either party can walk away. That means that both parties have an interest in giving the other one an acceptable deal. In non-contractual relationships the more powerful party has no reason to give the other an acceptable deal because their acceptance is moot.

Quote by: madprophet Markets are fair and will handle all of societies needs without interference. Governments are the sole source of tyranny. Yadda, Yadda. I'm a good ole Anarchist myself. Tyranny comes from ALL FORMS OF AUTHORITY, no matter how centralized that authority happens to be.

So for instance anyone with the authority to forbid any of the types of contracts listed is a tyrant?

Quote by: madprophet Whether it's an authoritarian socialist state or a loose conglomerate of economic interests, it's still a bunch of people telling you what to do with threat of death or imprisonment.

How is a "loose conglomerate of economic interests" able to "tell you what to do with the threat of death or imprisonment"?

Quote by: madprophet It's still people making your decisions for you. Making our decisions for us. http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/ The Anarchist FAQ. Take particular note of Section F. http://www.aflcio.org/trivia/links.htm Labor History on the Web. You can also just google "Labor History" and see what happens.

[Livemike]

Quote by: madprophet Prometheus: Question one was about paying workers as little as possible. Debt bondage is very much relevent to the discussion when we are talking about people being paid less than a living wage (the REAL minimum wage.) And it is very much an issue when discussing the advancement of Right-Libertarian policies.

But by insisting on a "minimum wage" above what people will accept you condemn people to recieving nothing, which is below a "living wage" which you correctly call "the real minimum wage". Debt peonage is unlikely in a free market with good productivity and capital formation.

Quote by: madprophet Two, Insurance companies are not required to give anyone a policy, and are very good at worming out of paying claims.

They will give you a policy if you pay them enough. As for being "good at worming out of claims" that's only possible if you sign a fairly stupid contract.

Quote by: madprophet "You are not owed medical service"? Okay, how about: You are not owed protection for your private property. You are not owed the infrastructure required to do business in modern society.

Agreed. If I want to protect my private property I should do it myself or contract for the protection. I should not expect someone to force others to pay for the "protection" of my private property, a protection that is impossible as long as anyone is forced to pay for anyone else's private property protection.

Quote by: madprophet Medical Service, like infrastructure and protection, is not owed to ME, it is owed to US for the betterment of our society.

Who says that making you better by spending someone else's resources is a net gain to society?

Quote by: madprophet Healthy people are more productive members of society.

And since they reap the benefits of that productivity they are best placed to judge whether it's worth spending resources to preserve it.

Quote by: madprophet Prevention is better and cheaper than treatment.

That's a decision for the private individual based on perceived risk. In any case the fact that one choice is better than another doesn't imply the public should make it.

Quote by: madprophet Institutional research is better than private research.

Says who? And since when did we need the "right" to medical care to set up institutions?

Quote by: madprophet Three. Yes, a time in societies developement when government had far less power and the "Free Market" was controlled by capitalist barons who exploited their workers.

The "capitalist barons" who controlled the government were able to do the workers down because the government had power and undermined the free market.

Quote by: madprophet And it wasn't just the 1800's, it continued to a great extent right up until Roosevelt came to power and even for years afterward. In many ways we are still fighting the same battles today--one of the central issues of the Labor Movement the last two centuries was the MINIMUM WAGE. Again, very much relevent.

Yes and it was a central issue because it gives the Labour Movement more power and victimises non-union workers. This makes it a lot more attractive to be a union member. The "Labour Movement" was interested in the welfare of itself and it's members not the working class.

[Livemike]

Quote by: Milton Bradley What I find most interesting is that no matter how many we point out the obvious, nobody seems to get it. We have had a working example of a Libertarian utopia. The early US history is proof that the guidelines laid down in the constitution are a very real way to limit the government intrusion into ones life, and business. It wasn't until people saw a need to scrap the constitution that nation got into trouble. I know of zero examples of anarchy as a working, thriving, real world system of government. (I'm not trying to be smug, so please cite examples if you have any)

Somalia is working well, considering it's in Africa. Economic growth is high and for a country not long out of a civil war it's relatively peaceful. All this without a cent of foreign aid (although that's probably part of the success). Medieval Iceland (saga period) also seemed to work well.

[Osborn F Enready]

Excellent posts, Livemike and Steve.