Libertarian Legal Theory - Introduction

Well every single person living today lives under some kind of threat of military force by a hostile nation, especially if they live in any kind of industrial society.

 

Most of them seem to be coming along okay without air superiority or threats from above(South America and Asia for example). The only threats in the air that I know of are coming from states and unions of states.

 

Are you (*)(*)(*)(*)ing serious? Name an Asian country besides New Zealand that doesn't have an Air Force or another nation that provides that function for them.

Every nation in South America has an air force.

There will always be states. Even if one society becomes "libertarian", not every other society would.

 

I don't think it's far fetched to imagine libertarians having specialized private military corporations for defense. It is, after all, a service that any society would need so long as there are aggressors. I think it's debatable whether such a militia would be advantaged or disadvantaged against the military of, say, an aggressive fascist state. There'd have to be some way for PMCs to compete in the market without needing to go to war, though.

 

Would you call this

an air force?

How much would it cost to replace that, like 10 million bucks?

I shouldn't make fun though, I'm sure that's what's keeping them safe from Bolivia, I mean Canada, I mean terrorists.
get the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of my face with this (*)(*)(*)(*)

 

I'll give it a shot. Given your initial axiom:
A. Superior, or supreme, property rights are granted by performing first labor.
B. Natural resources were not made thru labor.
C. If A&B, Nobody starts with a superior property claim on natural resources.
D. If nobody has a superior property claim, all can be said to have an equal property claim.
E. Trivially, natural resources are not equal to 0.
F. Everybody has an equal, non-zero property claim to all natural resources.

Also if we go with another idea that leads to a consistent conclusion:

G. "Labor" is only defined thru the market.

If so, that means that no property right can even exist without the consent of the market, and thus, all other people's opinions on the value of your labor.

Getting past most immediate objections is done with the trading of said shares at market value; I have no use for my ]share in Chinese land anymore than someone there has for use of a plot of land here. Practically, most of us forfeit those claims, and our shares of land most likely approach the sphere of influence that we are willing to pay for. Scarce resources, such as oil or trees, or clean water for our community, may be something that we are more interested in maintaining a distant share in, to receive whatever dividends we get from the use fees. I've already seen some interesting complaints of Georgism, such as the disincentive to discover valuable resources under your land, but I think these problems could be addressed.

 

One question,
is it of libertarian principle to satisfy one's own liberty above all else?

 

Individual license...is the supposed right some think they have to do whatever one wants. Period!

You asked me "What do we need law for?"...and my answer is to LIMIT what any individual can do. The reason for that is to allow society to function as reasonably as possible.

As more and more restrictions were placed on individuals...society became a more reasonably functioning element of humanity.

It is my opinion that Libertarianism is an invitation to return humanity to barbarianism...it is an invitation to chaos and anarchy.

 

Certainly it has nothing to do with the fact that every country in South America save Venezuela and Bolivia are under the aegis of US protection.

 

This is the best argument to common ownership I've ever seen. My objections are to A and E. One problem with A can be fixed real easy by substituting something else for "granted". It seems negligible, but I think it's worth going into why we can't assume anything any right to be granted. Something cannot be granted by one who doesn't have it or by one who does not exist. While I can show that we all recognize natural law(whatever we call it), I can't show that God is the source of it. We are the only ones we all know for sure are in the game. If we assume rights to be granted by others, that argument becomes circular since we haven't arrived at C and D yet; you'd have to start over.

After you fix that, the problem with E is that extrapolating all the way to implementation will lead to legal chaos, which, of course, none of us will put up with, or (and this is what we would be left with) a system which would deny A: If we affirm E(F seems to follow from D and E, but I'm not sure if you stated E thoroughly), some value will be assigned to it at some point. You seem to be saying that that value should be assigned by the market via trading, but market value can only be established by voluntary exchange between two rational actors each giving up one thing that he values less in exchange for another thing that he values more. Each of those actors must own what they they are trading away. The Georgian land value tax determines the owner of a plot by assigning it to the highest bidder. This assumes that the claim of the right of the tax office to assign ownership of all land in question is superior to that of the laborer, which completely negates A.

I've taken a shortcut to showing that E(really E and F) will deny A by assuming the LVT as the system for implementation, but I've been through this enough to know(intuitively) that you won't get to any such system without denying A.

Another problem is that F makes it invalid because of the word "all". It comes in without having been established beforehand. That "all" also introduces problems for dispute resolution. Some natural resources are occupied, the land on which your house or garden is resting, for example. If my claim to that land is equally valid to yours, as that "all" implies, my building of a tool shed or a greenhouse where your garden is at the time would provoke a dispute that we each, all else being equal, have an equal chance of winning. ←This is going too far on my part: I know you don't intend that outcome: But your argument, as it stands, implies it.

_____________________________

There is a starting point to libertarian legal theory which precedes everything within the scope of this thread. I've given a short illustration of it here. We all intuitively perceive that we should not attack each other or take each other's stuff. The logistics of applying this knowledge consistently, while rejecting and subduing exploitation, are difficult to imagine, but that's what those of us who have committed to making sure our moral arguments trump our utilitarian arguments are trying to do, and I think we can agree that it's what we should be aiming for.

- - - Updated - - -

Absolutely not.

 

You are trying to deny the implications of what you affirm.

 

Not at all, Max.

I am simply stating my feelings that among the great dangers to humanity and civilization...few rank as dangerous and needless as Libertarianism.

I understand your deep regard for it...and I respect you for your advocacy for it...but I will speak out against it as strongly as possible whenever I encounter it anywhere.

Your casual dismissal of Thehumankind's, "...is it of libertarian principle to satisfy one's own liberty above all else?"...is, in my opinion, false in its essence...although I acknowledge that most libertarians are careful enough to take baby steps towards what they want.

 

I'm one of those strange people that don't quite fit most labels. Many say I'm libertarian. Many say I'm atheist.

What I am is successful in what I plan and do, honest with all honorable people and my dealings, a friend to those in genuine need (unless they created their own need with sheer stupidity) and a person who follows and respects the real rules that make life work- and those were written by mother nature. So- I'm a naturalist, and my higher power is nature's principles.

One thing that most all people who achieve success know it that simplicity is the essence. There may be a thousand variables to a concept, but all based on a simple principle. When you ignore the principle and get carried away with the variables... you lose focus on the essence that makes things work.

Now- I used to teach this professionally, mostly to business management as a consultant. Boeing had 200 managers in one of my classes. It's not just a personal thought, it's a functional fact that the best managers must understand.

As I read the above post- I'm thinking... no wonder people are confused about the libertarian concept.
There's an old saying, and a political standby rule: "If you can't blind them with brilliance, baffle them with bull(*)(*)(*)(*)."

 

I answered Thehumankind's question honestly and correctly.

You haven't leveled any criticism of libertarianism. You have only told us about your feelings. Your feeling strike me as uneducated, misled, and irrational.

 

Thanks for sharing.

 

You didn't answer it at all...you simply dismissed it.

We've done this several times, Max...so don't try to sell that snake oil.

Libertarianism eventually leads to chaos and anarchy. And as Thehumankind suggested, it is the most obvious kind of "Hooray for me, screw you"...especially, "Hooray for me, screw society."

Is that criticism enough?

I've done a lot more than that.

Wow...we do have something in common. Your feelings about my feelings strike me that same way.

Who woulda thunk it?

 

It was a closed ended question. The answer is no.

I don't remember any argument against libertarianism written by you. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else.

If you have an argument to make, make it. If you have a rebuttal to any of my arguments, write it.

 

Thank you for your kindness, Max.

I'd prefer to leave it at:

Civilization and society depend heavily upon individuals giving up significant (supposed) liberties.

Libertarianism tends to put the supposed rights of the individual before the rights of society to function as reasonably as possible.

Libertarianism seems destined to lead to chaos and anarchy. It is, in my opinion, the enemy of civilization, society, and TRUE FREEDOM.

Mostly when discussing any of these things with Libertarians, the stock reply is "You do not understand libertarianism."

Fine.

Continue to push it as a reasonable political position...and I will continue to oppose it.

But I will not intentionally disrupt your sales pitch here unless I see something I feel compelled to comment on.

 

You're very welcome.

If you ever make an argument, I'll address it.

 

I doubt that, but we'll see.

 

Hm...I don't quite understand your objection to E, "Natural resources are not equal to 0."
Perhaps something like, "Trivially, the sum of market valuations of the natural resources is not equal to 0?"
I'm going to back track; I actually don't think exchange needs to happen for something to have market value. If I am only willing to sell at 200 and you are willing to only buy at 100, there is no exchange, but value is certainly not null or zero, right?
Perhaps there was actually merit in the idea of a solipsistic person's valuation; they function as buyer and seller, being the entire market.

Perhaps I tried too hard, and A actually isn't necessary. I think the idea can be attempted agnostic of the definition of a property claim, so long as we assume a property claim is measurable.

C. Nobody starts with a superior property claim on natural resources.
D. If nobody has a superior property claim, all can be said to have an equal property claim.
E. Trivially, the sum valuation of natural resources is nonzero.
F. Everybody has an equal, non-zero property claim to natural resources.

I will strike the "all" for now, but I did mean it. I would only have been able to build on my land by previously offering you something in exchange for use of the land.
If it were just the two of us, the easiest exchange would likely be "I will cede my usage rights in this half of land in exchange for you ceding your rights in the other half."
If the land is uneven, then we would split it up by personal preferences and valuation. Compromise.
If we cannot agree, we cannot build, as neither of us yet has full property rights to any of the land yet.
Retrofitting this to a world that has not acknowledged these debts is the modern implementation problem.

I haven't gotten as far as implementation or a "tax," but the idea would be that, "If common ownership is established, the owner of a plot is he who has compensated all other shareholders in exchange for usage rights." It wouldn't really be tax as much as land rent, or a use fee. A small community could do its own accounting, netting what everybody owes each other against the other, and redistributing, with small communities engaging with other small communities in a similar way to form a larger community, etc.

 

It is unlikely that you'll have to do so.

 

Well, A was the one thing we both agreed on, so now you've stricken our common ground from your argument. The problems I have with E are that you're using it to get F, which does seem to follow from E(given C and D), and that it's a numerical variable which must eventually take some cardinal value. We have to affirm something like E if we want to say that any of us have a right to appropriate unowned resources, but giving its valuation a number like that assumes both cardinal utility and objective value, neither of which can be found in the real world.

As you've begun to acknowledge, value is subjective, as there must be an agent for anything to be valued by. Utility can be ranked, one need or want over another, but never on an absolute scale. Trying to assign cardinal values to utility allows us to deduce known falsehoods. eg:
a: I prefer apples to oranges.
b: I prefer bananas to apples.
If we give cardinal values to the utility I get from oranges, apples, and bananas, it would follow that I prefer bananas to oranges, but I don't even though a and b are true. If we really want to know whether I prefer bananas to oranges, we have to see how I decide when given a choice between the two. If I opt for one over the other, we know that I preferred the one I chose to the one I didn't.

All of this is subject to the arrow of time. What is true of one person at one time may not be true of that same person at another time. I couldn't tell you what my fruit preferences will be a year from now. I could tell you what I believe them to be right now, but I could also lie about it or even be mistaken about my own preferences. The only way we can really know what people prefer over what is to see what they choose over what they forgo, and we can only do that by looking into the past.

To put a number on E, we would have to look into the past or guess as to how everyone in an arbitrarily defined geographic area would value a given natural resource. Since not everyone has traded said resource, we can't get that number by looking into the past, so we would have to guess. That leaves us assigning an arbitrary value, based on our own subjective valuations and perspective, to an arbitrarily chosen object on behalf of an arbitrarily chosen set of people. This assumes way too much. It assumes rights of ours which we haven't established for anyone. I don't have a right to control what I do not own. None of us have that right, but we would need that right to justly require rent payments from everyone using resources we don't own. It also assumes that everyone has an interest, or should have an interest, in owning natural resources. I, for one, am not interested in owning land. If we had a libertarian legal order, I may or may not be interested in owning land for reasons different from my reasons now, but I probably wouldn't be interested in owning all kinds of natural resources, and I definitely wouldn't have a valid claim to all land and all other natural resources.

There's also the is-ought gap to deal with when trying to establish obligations. No ought, positive or negative, can be deduced from any morally neutral proposition.

It's so much more tenable to just say, with the OP, that our respective rights to appropriate is Boolean with respect to any given object. If something is owned, you and I should leave it alone. If something is unowned, you and I are equally free and entitled to appropriate it until the time when it becomes owned.

 

It's a shame, too. I'm curious as to what objections one might have to minimization of conflict as the purpose of law, and what purpose they would try to defend as a better one.

 

Does any economic system work without these assumptions?

I disagree with the idea that you cannot know the value until a discrete trade has happened. I am a trading hobbyist, so my immediate response is what makes this any different from efficient markets, the very idea of free trade? From an arbitrary collection of valuations from whoever is arbitrarily interested, you have a market, an invisible hand that most efficiently determines the value. Even if everybody could "lie or be mistaken about their own preferences," we could derive a bid/ask from the aggregate of those quotes.

However, in an attempt to affirm E, what happens if we affirm its opposite:
~E: The sum valuations of all unowned resources is null

In that case, the entire conversation is moot, no? Even if are not interested in owning land, this does not exclude you assigning a value to it, even if it is practically 0.

And even if we insisted that a discrete trade is necessary, what if we go back to your example of a man using his hammock, and the opportunity costs. Aren't those all "trades" that one makes with themselves?

Unsure how this applies, besides as a critique of the possibility of implementation?

I'm not familiar with this philosophical subject, but I assume the arguments would have to do with the semantics of "is" and "ought."

I'm confused. If we are equally free and entitled, and appropriation is how one becomes owner, how do we solve conflicting desires to appropriate without taking into account the values of all interested parties?