I think that the desire to philosophically justify anarchism has led to a frequent mistake in ethics amongst the liberty-minded. Specifically, discarding the idea of enforceable obligations without a contract. If you damage a person or his property, or force them into a situation of dependency, you are obligated to them, and they have an enforceable claim against you with or without a contract. Such an enforcement requires an overriding agency, a government that can act to enforce obligations.
The most frequently argued case, I think, is the obligation of parents to children, but I don't really want to focus on that, here, but instead the overall question of whether non-contractual enforceable obligations are possible. If the car accident is your fault, are you obligated to pay for the repairs, even without a contract to do so? I believe the answer is yes. Can someone explain to me why it is not so?
I absolutely agree; as long as that individuals within that agency don't steal in order to fund it, there's nothing anti-liberty about it.
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
Ego:I absolutely agree; as long as that individuals within that agency don't steal in order to fund it, there's nothing anti-liberty about it.
Which of course brings about the question, how do you fund a government without stealing? I'm a geolibertarian of sorts, so I can answer that, but that position is not traditionally an Austrian one.
Charitable donations, sponsorships, fundraisers, etc.
JCFolsom:how do you fund a government without stealing?
A government reduced to its "essential" functions would be easily fundable by voluntary donations (as are, for example, non-profits, political campaigns, churches, charities).
"He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Edmund Burke
Well the other possible position is embodied by Bruce Benson in his essay, "Restitution in Theory and Practice":
"...criminals should be responsible for their actions, but...free individuals must also take responsibility for protecting themselves and their property. Individuals reap the primary benefits from secure property rights and therefore they should have primary responsibility for that security. They certainly may cooperate with others in fulfilling this responsibility, but the cooperation of others should come at a voluntarily agreed-upon price; it should not be expected to be provided free upon demand."
Yet if, say, I cause an accident which paralyzes you, your loss is immediate and permanent. To the degree of my responsibility and your need, am I not obligated to provide for your resulting dependency? Am I not obligated at least contribute to your maintenance? And should you not have recourse to collect on that obligation, and indeed, at my expense rather than your own? Even more so, if I harm you deliberately?
JCFolsom: Such an enforcement requires an overriding agency, a government that can act to enforce obligations.
This is the part I disagree with. I agree that there can be enforcable, non-contractual obligations. However, I don't think that "A has an enforceable claim against B" implies that someone has to enforce it for A. Wouldn't that amount to a separate claim - that A has an enforceable claim against C, that C must enforce A's claim against B? Then to enforce the claim against C, you need...
To me, the word "enforceable" simply means that A is entitled to use force to stake this claim.
Well can we settle the dispute by saying that if A is incapable of defending his rights against B, or demanding that their violation by B be recognized, then C could be justified in using force against B in order to correct the injustice? That's not to say that C should have to interfere, or that A would have a right to someone interfering. But it seems fair to say that it would be permissible for a third party to interfere if A couldn't stand up for himself. No?
JCFolsom: Yet if, say, I cause an accident which paralyzes you, your loss is immediate and permanent. To the degree of my responsibility and your need, am I not obligated to provide for your resulting dependency? Am I not obligated at least contribute to your maintenance? And should you not have recourse to collect on that obligation, and indeed, at my expense rather than your own? Even more so, if I harm you deliberately?
I'm not sure why the obvious thing is being overlooked. The obligation not to threaten or use initiatory physical force is the fundamental one that is legally enforceable, it is the obligation from which rights are derived. Any rights-violation incurs a legally enforceable obligation to pay restitution. In most cases, responsibility is irrelevant; if you violate someone's rights, you're liable. See:
“The Irrelevance of Responsibility.” Social Philosophy and Policy 16, no. 2 (Summer 1999): 118-145; reprinted in Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred D. Miller, Jr., and Jeffrey Paul, eds., Responsibility (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998): 118-145.
Rights, being legally enforceable moral obligations, are also the fundamental reason why contractual obligations are legally enforceable. This is because breaking contract constitutes use of initiatory physical force. For example, let's say we have a contract that you'll pay me $8,000 for my 2006 Chevy Cavalier. I hand over title to the car, and the car itself, to you but you pay me in a bum check. You've broken contract. Since you didn't fulfill your side of the bargain, the title to the car remains mine, not yours. So long as you keep possession of the car or refuse payment, you are violating my right to the car. You've stolen my car, which constitutes an initiation of physical force.
Libertarianism is not limited to enforcing contractual obligations. In fact, these are derivative of more fundamental natural rights.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
JAlanKatz: To me, the word "enforceable" simply means that A is entitled to use force to stake this claim.
This. And also, I would sum up my beliefs regarding "obligation" as such: without commission, there can be no obligation. In other words, there is no such thing as an obligation which does not follow a positive action. Whether the action was malicious or accidental is irrelevant to whether or not an obligation exists, although I do believe that an act of malice creates a different kind of obligation.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Donny with an A:Well can we settle the dispute by saying that if A is incapable of defending his rights against B, or demanding that their violation by B be recognized, then C could be justified in using force against B in order to correct the injustice? That's not to say that C should have to interfere, or that A would have a right to someone interfering. But it seems fair to say that it would be permissible for a third party to interfere if A couldn't stand up for himself. No?
Sure. How does this get you to the claim that recognizing such obligations entails the necessity of a government?
gplauche: I'm not sure why the obvious thing is being overlooked. The obligation not to threaten or use initiatory physical force is the fundamental one that is legally enforceable, it is the obligation from which rights are derived. Any rights-violation incurs a legally enforceable obligation to pay restitution. In most cases, responsibility is irrelevant; if you violate someone's rights, you're liable. See:
I couldn't agree more.
I'm sorry, where did I say that claims necessarily needed to be enforced by a government?
Donny with an A: I'm sorry, where did I say that claims necessarily needed to be enforced by a government?
Ah, ok, I went back and checked the thread, and that was said by JCFolsom, in the original post, not by you. This was the point that I was disputing in my earlier post.
No worries; just making sure I didn't say anything I didn't mean!