Maxliberty:We have to start from some basic starting point. I start based on property rights can be defended with force.
Can I call you maxi pad? How can you start with property rights if you don't believe in rights? Or, if you think you believe in property rights, then based on what? From what do you derive the right to property?
Juan:The whole discussion of course hinges on whether proportionality is part of the libertarian framework or not.
Yeah. And I admit, I don't have an answer for that. I don't see how we can reach an answer objectively.
Juan:Well, my answer is that it's wrong and I don't see why petty-thief-shooting should be sanctioned by law. Am I being utopian ?
I agree with you. But I don't expect everyone else will or should. And that is why I am saying that you may be utopian.
What is your solution on proportionality?
Juan:Of course, it seems that a fair amount of people in this site advocate different things
Yeah, ain't it grand!
liberty student:I think what's happened is what happens in many online debates. Both side move further apart as the debate continues, rather than closer together on understanding. This doesn't always happen in debates, and I would love to be able to pin down why it happens.
LS, I think you are rare in that you seem to view argument as a search for truth. Most people view argument as a battle to be won.
In the adversarial view, people assume they are right and the other person could not possibly teach them anything, nor could the discussion spark any change to their existing beliefs. "To win is all."
I submit that the focus on "winning" is based on a fall premise: that by proving the other person wrong they will have furthered their cause. But as they say, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." Calling people out and proving (or even suggesting) that they are wrong just makes them get defensive. This adversarial atmosphere gets their ego involved, thereby incentivizing them to shift goalposts (to win), employ strawmen (to win), contort analogies (to win), use ad hominims (to feel like they're winning), and get rigid/extreme/dogmatic in their viewpoints (because their position gets entwined with their ego; it becomes part of their identity).
In short, it's inefficient. Given what's at stake, I don't think we (Austrians/libertarians) can afford the luxury of the adversarial view.
Some would try to justify by pointing out the need to bring others to their viewpoint, which they already know is right. Even in that case, as soon as the other person's ego gets involved all likelihood of changing their opinion is lost. And notice how often people think they're being attacked even when they're being agreed with. Notice how many people seem to get defensive even before anyone really opposes what they're saying. Many people even seem to be addicted to arguing, and will try to bait their opponent's ego into the mix to ensure that mistakes are made on both sides.
Does this mean we should be careful not to bruise people's egos? I don't know, but I always try to point out
1) The purpose of argument is to learn, not to win. People can only ever convince themselves, and we can only show them the ideas that make our views self-evident through their own reflection.
2) The world is too vast and strange, and human knowledge too incomplete, for anyone to be free of views that most other people would consider those of a "crackpot," "moonbat," etc. Let's not take it personally.
Since although people may agree with those two points if raised neutrally, few people act as if they were true (all too often myself included).
Why anarchy fails
AJ:LS, I think you are rare in that you seem to view argument as a search for truth. Most people view argument as a battle to be won.
I do value truth more than argument generally. I still make a lot of mistakes and don't always show the best judgment.
Nice post AJ.
@ JB
As far as I can tell, we only disagree on what would make an agreement binding and on what is and isn't alienable property. Seeing as this thread has been totaled, would you like to flesh these two principles out, between just the two of us in a private convos or the "fight club" group?
I like your initial analysis AJ, but I'm not sure I agree with all of your conclusions.
I liken arguments such as these to games of chess. When you are playing someone who is close to you in skill level (not much above it or below it), it can be very fun and exciting. A good game of chess will always have strong emotional involvment and people's egos are on the line. This isn't a big deal if they are mature and appreciate and enjoy brilliant moves, whether they are made by them or their opponents (analogous to brilliant arguments). But if they are immature sore losers that swipe the board when they are frustrated, it can be pretty annoying. Same thing in the discussion forum.
hashem: Charles Anthony: hashem: What if I refuse your contract? In that case, you would be initiating aggression once you step on his property. What constitutues aggression of property with a coherent theory of property rights, or indeed in the admitted absence of rights whatsoever? Or even/especially without a theory of justice???
Charles Anthony: hashem: What if I refuse your contract? In that case, you would be initiating aggression once you step on his property.
hashem: What if I refuse your contract?
Regardless, the very fact that the property owner mounts a resistance is enough to suggest that aggression is perceived to have taken place at least by him. He might be wrong, though, as you seem to suggest as a possibility. In that case, the libertarian solution involves arbitration.
hashem:Or even/especially without a theory of justice???
This seems to be your problem: you are searching for objective law. You are never going to find it -- not in Libertariania nor anywhere else on this planet.
Consider the case where the trigger-happy shopkeeper is deemed to be in the wrong. In that case, your position faces the same dilemma: you have identified an aggressor (the shopkeeper) and a victim (the bubble-gum thief). The aggressor is convinced that he is right and will fight to the death to defend himself against you, the libertarian lawyers and the libertarian defense contractors. So, what do you do? You have to resort to might-is-right anyway to get the justice you seek.
liberty student:What is your solution on proportionality?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
AJ:1) The purpose of argument is to learn, not to win.
shift goalposts (to win), employ strawmen (to win), contort analogies (to win), use ad hominims
hashem: Maxliberty:We have to start from some basic starting point. I start based on property rights can be defended with force. Can I call you maxi pad? How can you start with property rights if you don't believe in rights? Or, if you think you believe in property rights, then based on what? From what do you derive the right to property?
It seems that my position is clear. Violence can be used to defend property. Please confirm if you agree with that. Also, please tell us how we determine proportionality.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Maxliberty:We have to start from some basic starting point. I start based on property rights can be defended with force. Your position is that the property owner is defenseless to protect his propertyStrawman and non sequitur. You were saying something about baby steps? Maybe you should take your own advice and not commit basic fallacies, Maxine.
Maxliberty:We have to start from some basic starting point. I start based on property rights can be defended with force. Your position is that the property owner is defenseless to protect his property
You were saying something about baby steps? Maybe you should take your own advice and not commit basic fallacies, Maxine.
Well, for starters, a coherent theory of property rights is not a necessary condition.
All you need is mutually accepted arbitration.
Juan: BUT notice that even this totalitarian government will use some sort of 'due process' UNLIKE the advocates of murder who plague this forum.
Well, this is a problem, if you can't answer how much force is reasonable or acceptable (I won't even ask why it would be reasonable or acceptable) then how can anyone else?
Some people are applying a reductio, and if you don't like where it goes, then we need proportionality, and not just the word, but an actual scale. They are already applying proportionality. They are saying that lethal force could be an adequate response and it seems to me, the onus is on you and I to show how it is now.
I'm fresh out of ideas.
liberty student:Well, this is a problem, if you can't answer how much force is reasonable or acceptable
Some people are applying a reductio,
Max:Your position is that the property owner is defenseless to protect his property
liberty student:...if you don't like where it goes, then we need proportionality, and not just the word, but an actual scale.
They are already applying proportionality. They are saying that lethal force could be an adequate response and it seems to me, the onus is on you and I to show how it is now.
Juan:Please, don't play the moral subjectvist game - it's boring and annoying.
It's hard to have a civilized discussion with you. Shiva knows I try. You always have to take every argument up to a fever pitch and then resort to condescending remarks.
You may have the time for discussions like that. I don't.
Good luck with the debate.
Stephen Forde:A good game of chess will always have strong emotional involvment and people's egos are on the line.This isn't a big deal if they are mature and appreciate and enjoy brilliant moves, whether they are made by them or their opponents (analogous to brilliant arguments).
I appreciate this way of looking at it, and I agree that it can actually be really fun to engage someone in debate when you both appreciate and enjoy such brilliant maneuvers. It's just that my experience leads me to believe that such matchups are quite rare, and I find the few arguments that start off that way seldom end that way. I don't know exactly why, but I'd venture to guess that most people invest more of their ego in their ideas and beliefs than in their chess-playing ability (the ones that wipe the board being an exception).
Juan:When you say that people win by doing these things "shift goalposts (to win), employ strawmen (to win), contort analogies (to win), use ad hominims" you're mistaken. You don't win a logical contest by tampering with logic.
Fully agreed. My point was rather that people think such tactics will help them win, or at least save face. Also I didn't mean to imply that you (or anyone in particular) used an ad hominim -- an attack "on the man" is only illogical if it is used as part of the argument proper. My post was just a response to LS's musing.
liberty student:It's hard to have a civilized discussion with you. Shiva knows I try.
Maxliberty:It seems that my position is clear. Violence can be used to defend property.
We determine proportionality by the deed. Pretty simple, really. I'm amazed that you haven't grasped that yet.
What property? You can't have property if you don't have property RIGHTS. You can be in possession of something, but without the right to the property then it is no more yours than it is mine.
But it IS yours, because you have the RIGHT to the property. And from what do you derive the RIGHT to property?
liberty student: Juan: BUT notice that even this totalitarian government will use some sort of 'due process' UNLIKE the advocates of murder who plague this forum. Well, this is a problem, if you can't answer how much force is reasonable or acceptable (I won't even ask why it would be reasonable or acceptable) then how can anyone else? Some people are applying a reductio, and if you don't like where it goes, then we need proportionality, and not just the word, but an actual scale. They are already applying proportionality. They are saying that lethal force could be an adequate response and it seems to me, the onus is on you and I to show how it is now. I'm fresh out of ideas.
I don't think the dispute is over whether or not the actions of the shopkeeper in the scenario are proportional or not. They obviously are not. The whole reason for the scenario is to illistrate that it is possible to gain the right to use what would normally be supraproportional force by including it in an agreement as a penalty clause for breaking the agreement. The entire argument hinges on two controversial presuppositions. The first being that the human body is alienable and that an agreement which transfers titles to a person is legally binding. The second being that actions which are not normally considered as a signal of entry into a binding agreement, namely entry onto a person's property constituting entry into an agreement.
The reason why we might want to consider this, besides exploring how various legal systems could be integrated into a libertarian framework, is that the state removes the option of proportionality in many cases. In fact in almost every case where the police get involved they use supraproportional force. However, if it is to be expected that the police will use supraproportional force and an individual decides to use the state police to gain justice, they are merely using the state as a means to an end which makes them criminal for using a supraproportional means of punishment against a criminal. So, decent people are left with a choice between being victimized or becoming criminals. The monopolization of justice is in a way a soft variant of conscription.
It would seem odd if there was no way within the libertarian framework for decent people to extricate themselves from the dilemma. And setting a penalty contractually seems to me to be a way to do it.
It would seem odd if there was no way within the libertarian framework for decent people to extricate themselves from the dilemma.
And setting a penalty contractually seems to me to be a way to do it.
Juan:It would seem odd if there was no way within the libertarian framework for decent people to extricate themselves from the dilemma. I'm not sure I follow. The objections to police using supraportional force are valid today, but in a free society there wouldn't be that sort of police. I don't think there's a workaround for the dilemma today, and the dilemma wouldn't exist in a free society.
Well, the libertarian legal framework applies right now, even though it is not generally enforced. We still have an obligation to live by it.
Juan:And setting a penalty contractually seems to me to be a way to do it. You mean do that in the current statist system ? How ?
Let me make give another scenario I thought of.
Let's suppose that a libertarian revolution occurs two years from now, and libertarian laws are enforced. Today, a drug dealer is selling drugs in an apartment lobby. The owner asks him to leave. The dealer refuses. The owner calls the police. The police arrest him and he gets sent to jail for 2 years. Obviously this is not a proportionate punishment for trespassing. Now, the owner is just as guilty of the use of disproportionate force as the police are because he used the police as the means to an end and was completely aware of the consequences.
Now, should the dealer be allowed to take the owner to court for this (or the police for that matter)? I think a case can reasonably be made that he implicitly agreed to the punishment. But if we accept your framework, the owner should get something like 2 years minus 1 or 2 days in jail for excessive force. After all, a person is a criminal to the extent that they go beyond proportionality, right?
Juan:As to finding a way to justify non-proportional force in a free society, you've summarized two big objections - it'd seem we're mostly on the same page...
Except, I don't agree with the objections whereas most people on this forum agree with Rothbard, that the human body is inalienable property and probably haven't thought at all about what form an agreement must take to be binding.
In addition, you seem a little too 'sane' for us to be on the same page.
I would like to jump in here...
Stephen Forde: Let's suppose that a libertarian revolution occurs two years from now, and libertarian laws are enforced. Today, a drug dealer is selling drugs in an apartment lobby. The owner asks him to leave. The dealer refuses. The owner calls the police. The police arrest him and he gets sent to jail for 2 years. Obviously this is not a proportionate punishment for trespassing. Now, the owner is just as guilty of the use of disproportionate force as the police are because he used the police as the means to an end and was completely aware of the consequences. Now, should the dealer be allowed to take the owner to court for this (or the police for that matter)? I think a case can reasonably be made that he implicitly agreed to the punishment. But if we accept your framework, the owner should get something like 2 years minus 1 or 2 days in jail for excessive force. After all, a person is a criminal to the extent that they go beyond proportionality, right?
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Stephen Forde:Let's suppose that a libertarian revolution occurs two years from now, and libertarian laws are enforced. Today, a drug dealer is selling drugs in an apartment lobby. The owner asks him to leave. The dealer refuses. The owner calls the police. The police arrest him and he gets sent to jail for 2 years. Obviously this is not a proportionate punishment for trespassing. Now, the owner is just as guilty of the use of disproportionate force as the police are because he used the police as the means to an end and was completely aware of the consequences.
Now, should the dealer be allowed to take the owner to court for this (or the police for that matter)?
I think a case can reasonably be made that he implicitly agreed to the punishment.
But if we accept your framework, the owner should get something like 2 years minus 1 or 2 days in jail for excessive force.
After all, a person is a criminal to the extent that they go beyond proportionality, right?
liberty student:Pablo on the other hand, I don't know him so well...
Murder is great fun. I mean, you can't hate on it until you've tried it, right?
All joking aside.. I have already stated clearly that I would not kill the bubble gum thief, but I support the shopkeepers decision to do so. I, for one, would feel like shit for killing someone for something that I see as so unreasonable.
Juan: if two parties voluntarily agree to whatever a 3rd party decides, I've no objection.
Wow.
Pablo: Juan: if two parties voluntarily agree to whatever a 3rd party decides, I've no objection. Wow.
I have already stated clearly that I would not kill the bubble gum thief, but I support the shopkeepers decision to do so.
Juan:roughly uniform and voluntary legal system which protects the individual is what libertarianism is all about in my opinion.
I am curious how we go about making laws which are voluntary to all, yet enforces certain beliefs regardless if you agree to them? Sounds like what the intended purpose of the constitution was. We all know how well that turned out. How would the holding the next social contract over personal property law be any better?
Pablo:I am curious how we go about making laws which are voluntary to all, yet enforces certain beliefs regardless if you agree to them?
The theif does not voluntarily agree to property rights, does that make them not exist?
I am curious how we go about making laws which are voluntary to all, yet enforces certain beliefs regardless if you agree to them?
Sounds like what the intended purpose of the constitution was.
We all know how well that turned out. How would the holding the next social contract over personal property law be any better ?
Juan:Regardless of what you would do, your support for the shopkeeper relies on flawed reasoning.
I have given you my reasoning. The fact that you have not defined who or what will decide what is proportional is where your argument fails. I am stating that the only person who can claim what is proportional, is each person. You still believe in the czar.
Juan: I added the word 'voluntary' to the sentence you quoted to indicate that I wasn't talking about a monopolistic minimal government.
Great. Though adding the word doesn't change the fact that you still are. Its like when politicians throw around the word freedom right behind government. All you are succeeding in doing is making me cringe.
Juan:You see a social contract where there is none.
You are forcing others to obey a contract which they have not signed. That is a social contract. That is what you are advocating.
Pablo:I have given you my reasoning.
Pablo: Juan: I added the word 'voluntary' to the sentence you quoted to indicate that I wasn't talking about a monopolistic minimal government. Great. Though adding the word doesn't change the fact that you still are.
You are forcing others to obey a contract which they have not signed.
I'm still very new to all this so don't go labeling me as an arbitrary failure here...
When you make a contract that violates the rights of any party that enters into the contract the contract is nullified. If a landlord put a clause in his lease that states I am not allowed to own libertarian literature and I bring libertarian literature into my rental space he cannot evict on those grounds as they impinge upon the rights of the distributors and creators of those works as well as my right to own and read whatever I damn well please.
Therefore, I would have to say that if anyone stole bubble gum from me the most I could do would be attempt to recoup the value of said bubble gum from the theif. To seek compensation above and beyond the value of the bubble gum and the resources I must spend to retrieve said compenstation is in itself theft.
jed.green:When you make a contract that violates the rights of any party that enters into the contract the contract is nullified. If a landlord put a clause in his lease that states I am not allowed to own libertarian literature and I bring libertarian literature into my rental space he cannot evict on those grounds as they impinge upon the rights of the distributors and creators of those works as well as my right to own and read whatever I damn well please.
Not if you sign the contract, I would sign no such contract...
You have the individual right ot smoke cigarettes, yet it is not a rights violation for the leasor to not rent to a smoker or if he does to require in the lease contract that there is no smoking in the apartment...
jed.green:Therefore, I would have to say that if anyone stole bubble gum from me the most I could do would be attempt to recoup the value of said bubble gum from the theif. To seek compensation above and beyond the value of the bubble gum and the resources I must spend to retrieve said compenstation is in itself theft.
This does not involve a contract, a contract is completed upon gaining the reciept for the exchange of money for gum, the rights of the shopkeep are violated (property is stolen) with no contract present, the theif then nullified his own right to equal amount of property, plus damages, when he steals said gum, thus restitution is set by proportionality.
jed.green:I'm still very new to all this so don't go labeling me as an arbitrary failure here...
Welcome to the forums Jed
Harry Felker:The libertarian revolution occurs and government is abolished?
Correct.
Harry Felker:If the state is abolished, the drug dealer has no one to sue, the property owner does not have any control over anything but the trespass, which he called the police to deal with, everything else is the responsibility of the state, which as it no longer exists, can not be "sued"
But, you see, when someone uses a means to and end, they are responsible for all the outcomes they know will occur as a result for choosing that means, not just the outcomes they desire. In this case the owner is responsible for both the removal of the dealer from his property and the arrest and the full term of the imprisonment.
Harry Felker:The convictions that get him the bulk of 2 years are possession and trafficking of controlled substances, correct?
Harry Felker:If you accept the framework laid out by Juan, you have a property owner that did nothing but protect his property rights and is not liable for the excessive sentencing at the hands of the state for the non crime of selling and/or using drugs
Juan hasn't laid out much of a framework. He has spent most of the discussion making ad-homs. I assume that he is a strict The Ethics of Liberty-style Rothbardian, in which case there are a few points of disagreement. Of course, I can't really be sure.
Harry Felker:Is the sentencing for the trespassing concurrent or consecutive sentencing?
Let's say concurrent.
Harry Felker:This also is, in regard to ex post facto, irrelevant, the change in legality made the state operate illegally before such an action was illegal, it should not be made to bear the responsibility, just as the state had no case against Coca Cola when the federal government passed the drug laws...
Natural law is timeless. It always applies, whether it is enforced or not. What legislators think is law is irrelevant to what law actually is. So enforcement of Natural law is not and can never be retroactive. Natural law applies now just as much as it would in a free society, the state notwithstanding.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Maxliberty:It seems that my position is clear. Violence can be used to defend property.I never said it couldn't, Maxine. Please refrain from creating strawmen. We determine proportionality by the deed. Pretty simple, really. I'm amazed that you haven't grasped that yet.
We agree then that violence can be used to defend property. Please explain why deadly force is not possible in this case then and also please provide us with what level of violence is acceptable in this case. Also, if you would be so kind to tell us in what instances of defending property deadly force can be used. See we are making progress.
hashem: Maxliberty:It seems that my position is clear. Violence can be used to defend property. What property? You can't have property if you don't have property RIGHTS. You can be in possession of something, but without the right to the property then it is no more yours than it is mine. But it IS yours, because you have the RIGHT to the property. And from what do you derive the RIGHT to property?
Property is an extension of the person. We derive our right to property by mixing our labor with materials to create something that didn't exist before. The person or persons who mix their labor with materials become the owners of the property. The theft or destuction of property is no different than an assault on the property owner himself.
Harry Felker: This does not involve a contract, a contract is completed upon gaining the reciept for the exchange of money for gum, the rights of the shopkeep are violated (property is stolen) with no contract present, the theif then nullified his own right to equal amount of property, plus damages, when he steals said gum, thus restitution is set by proportionality.
Here is a big problem with this arguement that you Juan and Baawa are presenting. You are always assuming the thief will be caught and can be made to pay restitution. The shopkeeper has no idea if that will be the case. The shopkeeper has the choice of be robbed or use violence to stop the robber.
If we want to discuss what happens after the robber is caught five days later I think your arguement for porportionality can now come into play. In the heat of the crime the shopkeeper has to have the right to protect his property.
Juan:But why should the drug dealer be actually charged with drug dealing ? Assuming that's what happened ? I mean, the owner can call the police and tell them that there's a trespasser - so the drug dealer is just kicked out, not jailed because of the non-crime of 'drug dealing'. Or is the owner purposely trying to get the drug dealer charged with drug dealing ?
Is that how police operate in your country? Because that's certainly not their MO in mine. Once they get involved, they decide whether or not they have 'probable cause' for a search and what charges will be laid.
Juan:The police should be sued into oblivion, no doubt about that. As to the owner, if he got the drug dealer convicted on purpose, he's also responsible.
Well, it's clearly foreseeable from the perspective of the owner, so it is done on purpose, even if it is not the desired outcome. As for the police, if the owner is extracated from responsibility, so are the police.
Juan:I think a case can reasonably be made that he implicitly agreed to the punishment. Who did ? The owner ? And agreed to what kind of punishment ?
The dealer. Obviously.
Juan:But if we accept your framework, the owner should get something like 2 years minus 1 or 2 days in jail for excessive force. Well, if the drug dealer was jailed for two years because of the owner's actions, the owner couldn't complain if he got the same treatment.
Exactly! Unless it was in the offing as far as all parties were concerned and can be considered implicitly agreed upon within a contractual framework.
Juan:In addition, you seem a little too 'sane' for us to be on the same page. No, we are not in the same page...
No, for that to happen, we'ld have to have a civilized discussion. Instead, I've explained my position and you've heaped abuse on me.