Political Theory

Re: Enforceable Obligations

Donny with an A — Tue, 06 May 2008 04:18:10 GMT

No worries; just making sure I didn't say anything I didn't mean!

Re: Enforceable Obligations

JAlanKatz — Tue, 06 May 2008 03:45:10 GMT

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.

Re: Enforceable Obligations

Donny with an A — Tue, 06 May 2008 03:37:34 GMT

I'm sorry, where did I say that claims necessarily needed to be enforced by a government?

Re: Enforceable Obligations

JAlanKatz — Mon, 05 May 2008 23:32:40 GMT

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.

Re: Enforceable Obligations

JAlanKatz — Mon, 05 May 2008 23:31:25 GMT

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?

Re: Enforceable Obligations

MacFall — Mon, 05 May 2008 23:20:30 GMT

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.

Re: Enforceable Obligations

Geoffrey Allan Plauché — Mon, 05 May 2008 23:13:14 GMT

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.

Re: Enforceable Obligations

Donny with an A — Mon, 05 May 2008 22:59:18 GMT

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?

Re: Enforceable Obligations

JAlanKatz — Mon, 05 May 2008 22:38:11 GMT

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.

Re: Enforceable Obligations

JCFolsom — Mon, 05 May 2008 22:37:33 GMT

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?

Re: Enforceable Obligations

Donny with an A — Mon, 05 May 2008 22:09:21 GMT

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."

Re: Enforceable Obligations

maxpot46 — Mon, 05 May 2008 21:21:34 GMT

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).

Re: Enforceable Obligations

Ego — Mon, 05 May 2008 21:10:50 GMT

Charitable donations, sponsorships, fundraisers, etc.

Re: Enforceable Obligations

JCFolsom — Mon, 05 May 2008 21:07:26 GMT

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.

Re: Enforceable Obligations

Ego — Mon, 05 May 2008 20:54:36 GMT

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.