Libertarianism and Morality

[SPC]

Since I'm tired of accidentally hijacking threads to debate libertarianism, I would like to debate the morality of the system right here once and for all. By posting here, you agree to the following rules of debate:
1. No ad hominem attacks
2. No hijacking the thread (i.e. global warming, the election, abortion, etc.)
3. Only discuss the morality of the system you advocate, do not make consequentialist arguments for your philosophy. If you wish to discuss consequentialism, make another thread.
4. The winner will be the side to get a person on the other side to concede the morality of the winning side's system. Do not concede if you are not truly convinced that the other side's position is moral.
5. Do not complain if the other side's posters are unconvinced.

Okay, and the start off, I ask the following question:

Is it ever moral to initiate force against someone?

[SPC]

It all depends on what system of morality you're trying to compare it to.

You're supposed to answer the question.

[SPC]

When I say 'initiate' force, I mean that the person forcing is the first person to commit force, i.e. is commiting agression. You cannot 'initiate' force against a criminal, since they were the ones to do the initiation.

[SPC]

When I say 'initiate' force, I mean that the person forcing is the first person to commit force, i.e. is commiting agression. You cannot 'initiate' force against a criminal, since they were the ones to do the initiation.

Not necessarily. Many crimes involve no force. A person stealing money or property may well have legal access, but no right to take without permission. It is moral initiate force in the form of an arrest of a suspect of that crime. Another example would be to arrest a drunk driver due to the hazard that person creates on the road. The arrest is a moral use of force, even though no force was used when the drunk created the hazard.

The criminal is commiting force because he is forcing the victim to part from his well-earned property. The drunk driver has not harmed anyone by driving drunk, so he should not be arrested unless he actually harms someone in a car accident. Should we arrest people who write checks because of thde chance that the check might bounce?

Yes, I do believe the government has the right to:
1) Tax people

Why is theft illegal when commited by individuals but permissible when commited by a monopolistic organization?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even when the "criminal" has not harmed anyone? Why is slavery illegal when commited by individuals but permissible when commited by a monopolistic organization?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is it forcibly imposing your morals on someone else illegal when commited by individuals but permissible when commited by a monopolistic organization?

Thank you to muon2 and ilikeverin to takin this argument to its logical conclusion.

[SPC]

When I say 'initiate' force, I mean that the person forcing is the first person to commit force, i.e. is commiting agression. You cannot 'initiate' force against a criminal, since they were the ones to do the initiation.

Not necessarily. Many crimes involve no force. A person stealing money or property may well have legal access, but no right to take without permission. It is moral initiate force in the form of an arrest of a suspect of that crime. Another example would be to arrest a drunk driver due to the hazard that person creates on the road. The arrest is a moral use of force, even though no force was used when the drunk created the hazard.

The criminal is commiting force because he is forcing the victim to part from his well-earned property.

I find this to be a very broad use of the concept of force or aggression. A reasonable group of citizens would probably not deem this type of crime one of force. You would like a term that simultaneously includes the traditional sense of aggression as well as violation of one's personal property rights, even when no aggression is needed.

Well, regardless of the semantics, I think we both agree that theft is a crime.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Check writing is a poor analogy to drunk driving. One the one hand it is more akin to driving in general, not specifically drunk driving. And secondly check writing is a private privilege given by a bank, not a license issued by a unit of government.

Drunk driving is a hazard that cannot be reasonably anticipated by other users of the road. If there was a mechanism by which all other drivers could be alerted to the hazard, then you could make some of your case. Even so, the license to operate a motor vehicle on the public roads is not a right, but a privilege given to individuals by the whole citizenry in the form of the state. In creating and maintaining the public roads, the public has a reasonable expectation that they can share those roads without putting themselves in jeopardy.

Your argument that the arrest is not moral seems to hinge that once the public as a whole has created a benefit, anyone can use it without regard to the other members of the public. I disagree, since it a shared resource by the nature of its creation. An arrest to stop an abuse of the public road that infringes on others remains moral.

[/quote]

I admit that writing a check was a poor analogy, but I couldn't really think of anything better that late at night. Also, what right does an organization have to bar people from using the roads their tax dollars paid for? Drivers' licenses imply that the people who paid for the roads do not own them. The notion behind barring drunk drivers from the road has led to the ridiculous law in my state that bars people from using cell phones as well. Should someone be barred from the road even if they are most alert when they are drunk or talking? If a drunk driver harms another driver in an accident, he should have to provide monetary restitution to pay for a new car and any medical procedures necessary. If that were in place, rather than simply arresting people before they commit a crime, drunk driving would still be discouraged.

[SPC]

Yes, I do believe the government has the right to:
1) Tax people

Why is theft illegal when commited by individuals but permissible when commited by a monopolistic organization?

That hinges upon the notion that taxation is theft. While you can draw similarities between taxation and theft, they are not always necessarily the same thing. If the government is taxing people only to line the pockets of the politicians, you could say that the taxation is theft and you'd get very little argument from anyone. However, if the money taken by taxation is being used to the benefit of the ones being taxed - you know, military and police protection, as well as other things that it would be difficult or damn near impossible for individuals to pull of that are regarded as necessary for a functioning modern society. (whether the thing the money being spent on meets that qualification is an entirely different matter, so let's not get into that)

So, I agree with ilikeverin that the government has the right to tax the people, but like many rights there are limits in which it can be acceptably exercised.

What if I do not want military and police protection? Surely you will admit it is theft to take money from someone against their will to pay for a service they do not want?

[SPC]

Taxation is not theft.  You choose to live in this society.  This society chooses to elect politicians that enact taxes.  Taxation is voluntary, as much as we hate it.  If you don't want to pay taxes, there are plenty of disorganized societies in Africa that are much easier to avoid being taxed by.

Society existed before government did. Government was formed to protect individuals' life, liberty, and property, not the other way around. If the government prevents me from paying taxes or paying someone else to protect my life, liberty, and property, then it cannot be said to be a voluntary agreement.

[SPC]

What if I do not want military and police protection?

Then I advise you distance yourself from civilization - it doesn't tend to last very long without those things.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, there are similarities but it's not the same. A thief doesn't use your money to buy you stuff, he keeps it for himself. Certainly your tax money might be spent on things you don't want, but if it's being returned to you in some form or fashion it doesn't quite constitute theft.

Again, this thread is speaking purely about morality. Does it really make a difference how the thief spends money if it is not rightfully his?

[SPC]

JFK, if we are to assume that roads are publicly owned, than that implies that everyone owns them, and to expel a person from the road would mean that they cannot access their own property. The drunk driver has not harmed anyone, he merely poses the threat of harming someone. Should Muslims be banned from flying on planes because they pose the threat of terrorism? If a drunk driver kills somebody in an accident, then they would likely receive the death penalty, if the victim's family thinks that if sufficient restitution.

Regarding society, you seem to ignore that society predates government, government was formed by the members of society to protect their life, liberty, and property. To imply that government created society as you do ignores naturals rights. If I do not want to participate in the tax system, that should be my right, so long as a do not reap the benefits of police protection.

[SPC]

Again, this thread is speaking purely about morality. Does it really make a difference how the thief spends money if it is not rightfully his?

Ok, if you want to play it that way. Admittedly taxation is to a degree an initiation of force. When that tax money is spent on military and police protection for the citizens whom are paying that money, it prevents greater initiation of force that would otherwise occur against them by warlords and criminals who care nothing for the rights of others. Given the people at large could not possibly live with their rights intact without these protections, and one views the maintaining of the rights of the people as moral, then the slight initiation of force required to fund these protections is moral at best or the least of all possible evils at worst.

Now with OTHER services that might be provided at the cost of taxation, there are other pros and cons to consider, and the merits of each should be considered individually.

If people value military and police protection so much, I don't see why the money to fund it couldn't come voluntarily. I just don't think it makes sense to punish people who neither pay taxes nor are free-riding.

[SPC]

JFK, if we are to assume that roads are publicly owned, than that implies that everyone owns them, and to expel a person from the road would mean that they cannot access their own property. The drunk driver has not harmed anyone, he merely poses the threat of harming someone. Should Muslims be banned from flying on planes because they pose the threat of terrorism? If a drunk driver kills somebody in an accident, then they would likely receive the death penalty, if the victim's family thinks that if sufficient restitution.

Regarding society, you seem to ignore that society predates government, government was formed by the members of society to protect their life, liberty, and property. To imply that government created society as you do ignores naturals rights. If I do not want to participate in the tax system, that should be my right, so long as a do not reap the benefits of police protection.

It doesn't mean they cannot access their property as they can still walk or use public transportation where provided. I find your comparison with Muslims and planes to not only be ridiculous but also heavily insulting; the likelihood of someone drink-driving causing harm to others is far higher than the likelihood that a Muslim on board a plane is going to fly it into a building or blow it up. I think the family would rather that there were laws preventing someone drink-driving in the first place. Financial compensation is in no way equivalent to still having a loved one. Personally I oppose the death penalty so I couldn't support that part of your argument either, but the fact that you believe in it seems to run counter to your belief in natural rights; surely the greatest of all rights is the right to life?

I am not ignoring the fact that society predates the government. Government is created both to protect the rights of the members of society but also to enforce responsibilities on society's behalf; it's what is known as the social contract. In no way did I imply that government creates society, in fact I believe I made it perfectly clear that I see government as the elected agent of society.

The person who has taken the life of another has lost his right to life. His right to life now belongs to the family of the victim, who are free to punish him as they please. Also, it should be pointed out the despite the ban on drunk driving, people still get killed in car accidents due to drunk driving. Therefore, feel free to ban it all you want, it will still happen. Regarding driver's licensing, do you think that it would have been necessary for people in the 19th century to license their horses and buggies? Of course, many roads back then were privately owned, so that leads to a different story.

And what happens of the government violates the social contract? Society cannot do anything about it short of revolution so long as the government is the sole interpreter of a social contract. Also, if government is the elected agent of society, who are they to prohibit the members of society from doing as they please so long as they don't harm anyone else?

[SPC]

To reply about JFK's and Dibble's complaints about free-riding, any non-taxpayers would not be subject to police and military protection. They would either have to defend their property themselves or hire a private security agency to do it for them.

So then these natural rights are not absolute rights? Are you not effectively conceding that society can take people's rights away?

No, people take their own natural rights away when they violate the natural rights of others and are not able to produce sufficient restitution. Unlike with a theft, where the money/property can be returned to the victim, there is no way to resurrect a murder victim. Thus, the natural rights of the murderer become the property of the victim's family, who are free to punish him as they see fit.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Murder takes away someone else's right to life. Drunk driving in and of itself does not take away anybody else's rights, so the fact that it is illegal solely as a preventive measure, as you say, is dubious given that it happens anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Correlation does not mean causation. The 20th and 21st centuries provide a better way of life in spite of increased government, not because of it. The quality of life has improved due to increased capital.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are several problems with this. First, in a democracy, the majority can plunder the minority to no punishment. Second, with democratic government, votes are really ineffective, as can be seen by George W. Bush's "humble foreign policy" and Bill Clinton's "the era of big government is over", both of which they immediately violated when they took office, to name some recent examples.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not supporting drunk driving; I merely oppose prohibition. By letting people live their lives as they please, I mean letting people exercise their natural rights so long as they do not violate anybody else's.

[SPC]

Taxation is not theft.  You choose to live in this society.  This society chooses to elect politicians that enact taxes.  Taxation is voluntary, as much as we hate it.  If you don't want to pay taxes, there are plenty of disorganized societies in Africa that are much easier to avoid being taxed by.

Society existed before government did. Government was formed to protect individuals' life, liberty, and property, not the other way around. If the government prevents me from paying taxes or paying someone else to protect my life, liberty, and property, then it cannot be said to be a voluntary agreement.

Nope. Government is society.

Maybe in Marxist societies, but nowhere else. Government is formed to protect the products of society (property) as well as the individuals of society (life and liberty). To say that government is society completely overlooks the works of Locke, Jefferson, Bastiat, Paine, etc.

[SPC]

Taxation is not theft.  You choose to live in this society.  This society chooses to elect politicians that enact taxes.  Taxation is voluntary, as much as we hate it.  If you don't want to pay taxes, there are plenty of disorganized societies in Africa that are much easier to avoid being taxed by.

Society existed before government did. Government was formed to protect individuals' life, liberty, and property, not the other way around. If the government prevents me from paying taxes or paying someone else to protect my life, liberty, and property, then it cannot be said to be a voluntary agreement.

Nope. Government is society.

Maybe in Marxist societies, but nowhere else. Government is formed to protect the products of society (property) as well as the individuals of society (life and liberty). To say that government is society completely overlooks the works of Locke, Jefferson, Bastiat, Paine, etc.

But since it is impossible to divorce them, they are for all intents and purposes the same. No society has existed without government.

So medieval Iceland, Ireland, and colonial Pennsylvania weren't societies?

[SPC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I thought a few pages ago you were opposing slavery?[/quote]

It is not slavery if the criminal harmed someone in a way such that no restitution can be provided. Everyone is born with the right to their life, liberty, and property, and only they can lose those rights by violating someone else's right to life, liberty, and property.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again I would return to this notion of rights and responsibilities; this law is about enforcing people's responsibilities and protecting against a threat to the rights of others. Again, it's flippant to suggest that its virtue as a preventative measure is dubious because it happens anyway; there will always be people who break laws, but we still have them. Also, the existence of the law gives the police the ability to stop people who they find drink-driving. Personally, I'd rather someone is pulled over for drink-driving and arrested by a police officer than the police leave them driving and in a hundred metres they crash head on into another car and kill someone.

Also, I'm still waiting for an apology for your deeply offensive point about Muslims.[/quote]

You seem to act that if the police decriminalized drunk driving, everyone and their mother would be getting drunk and killing people in accidents. In reality, high car insurance rates and the threat of an accident would deter people by themselves. Also, suppose someone drives sober, but they drive worse than a normal person does when they're drunk. Should they be arrested for 'drunk' driving? Also, my point about Muslims was a reductio ad absurdum, so I was pointing out the ridiculousness of criminalizing a threat.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It seems you've misread my post. At no point did I say that increased standards of living were solely down to increases in government so you're 'correlation does not mean causation' comment is pointless. So following on from your dismissal of the assertion that I never made, you make your own assertion with little to back it up. I'd like you to prove that increased government has had an adverse effect on increasing standards of living. I think you'll have a tough time of it personally and I am sure most historians would agree with me on that. Take for instance Britain at the turn of the twentieth-century; the Boer War showed up the terrible effects that laissez-faire capitalism had had on much of the working population of Britain, a problem that the Liberal welfare reforms that begun following the 1906 General Election did a lot to solve.[/quote]

Again, I can use reductio ad absurdum to disprove this. Logically speaking, if more government intervention increases the standard of living, then the country with the highest amount of government intervention shuld have the highest standard of living. According to the Index of Economic Freedom, the country with the most government intervention is North Korea. By your logic, North Korea must also have the highest standard of living, an observation that is laughable at best.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On the first point, that is why you have a system of checks and balances whereby judicial review serves as a check on the majority and in the case of the USA, the Constitution is also a limiting factor. I notice you've neglected the role of the judiciary in redressing grievances; do you not see that as an effective means of protection?[/quote]

In the words of President Bush, "The Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper." I have long past my phase where I actually thought constitutional government was stable; it was foolish idea to begin with to think that a piece of paper protecting your rights could stand guard against all three branches of government wishing to violate it. I do not see the Supreme Court as an effective means of protection because they've been violating the Constitution as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd question your understanding of living in a society; it's not just as simple as 'I can do whatever the hell I want'. Perhaps you should read some Rousseau; nobody has more recognised man's innate individuality but also the inherent need for a collective society.

Also, just out of curiosity, how do you justify these natural rights? Where do they come from?
[/quote]

I'd reccomend you read or listen to Bastiat's The Law. You can listen to it here and you can read it here or here. He says that collective rights only refer to the protection of individual rights. Also, my understanding of a free society is not 'I can do whatever the hell I want'; it is 'I can exercise my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so long as I don't violate anybody else's right to do the same.'

I would say what other natural rights theorists (Aquinas, Locke, Jefferson, etc.) have said in the past, that your natural rights are given to you by God, but I'm an athiest, so I would have to accept God in the theoretical sense, not necessarily in the literal sense. Either way, the fact that they are given to you by a higher being means that nobody has the right to take them away.

[SPC]

It is not slavery if the criminal harmed someone in a way such that no restitution can be provided. Everyone is born with the right to their life, liberty, and property, and only they can lose those rights by violating someone else's right to life, liberty, and property.

So a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, so slavery by any other name would feel as hard.  An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is never a good way to organise a justice system.

Okay, then what would you propose to be the punishment for murder? Keep in mind that my system doesn't necessarily mean the death penalty would be the punishment for murder. If the family of the victim opposed the death penalty, they could think of an alternative way to get justice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If people got charged an obscene amount on their insurance for drunk driving, they would be more likely to have a designated driver before they got intoxicted to avoid paying high rates or get in an accident.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, your attacking a position that I don't hold. I never said that the more the government intervenes the higher the standard of living. I believe there is a balance to it; you don't have to go to one extreme or the other shockingly. You still haven't proved that government intervention necessarily decreases the standards of living of its citizens. All you have said is that if the government runs everything then it is bad which I would agree with but I would also argue that if it is all left to the free market then you would have problems.  Again I return to that notion of a mixed economy which I mentioned before.[/quote]

I realize that you do not hold that position. However, that is the logical conclusion of your position. If government intervention in 40% of the economy is good, than government intervention in 100% of the economy must be great. I have shown a correlation between government intervention and low standards of living, as you can see than nearly all the countries at the bottom have a low standard of living. This makes sense, given that the more government intervenes in the economy, the less room there is for the private sector, and thus less competition and a lower standard of living. Also, could you please explain the logic behind your 'mixed economy', and don't just say 'its a combination of capitalism and socialism, so it just be good'

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You don't think constitutional government is stable? What exactly do you mean by 'stability'? How exactly are your rights to be protected otherwise? I would probably disagree with you on your Supreme Court point - although I am not immensely well versed in the court records of the Supreme Court - simply because it rests on interpretation. Your interpretation of the Supreme Court may differ from theirs, but I have a feeling if they struck down an important aspect of the Constitution that people viewed as inalienable there would be such public outrage that it would have to be changed. Convention and tradition play an important role in establishing stability and granting legitimacy.[/quote]

By stability, I mean the government hasn't violated the Constitution. From the PATRIOT Act, to the Military Commisions Act, to Waco, to warrentless wiretapping, to LBJ's Great Society, to FDR's New Deal, I think it is safe to say that the U.S. federal government doesn't abide by the Constitution. When all three branches of government are power-hungry, and all that stands in their way is a piece of paper that they have the power to interpret, the government will grow at the expense of individual liberty. The Court hadn't overturned a single federal law for over 60 years between the late 30s and the late 90s, which shows you how reliable the Supreme Court is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I will have a look at the Bastiat later if you will read some Rousseau. Personally I would tend to disagree with collective rights merely representing individual rights; the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The problem is that often in the exercising of your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness you will come across another person and often come breach their rights, particularly on the latter. Yet, the greatest problem with the society that you envision is that there is really no ultimate arbiter to decide upon these issues or to protect against the breach of others rights. Your previously discussed theories on courts and security services were hardly the foundations of a stable society.[/quote]

The problem with an ultimate single arbiter is that if they look at their own self-interests, they can twist the law to their favor. If competition is good for everything else, why wouldn't it be good for enforcing the law? My ideal system would still have the security and courts we have today, it would just have competition in those sectors.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So then your view is effectively that natural rights are abitrary; you don't believe in a higher authority but you believe that your rights were given to you by a higher authority...but that authority doesn't exist in your view.
[/quote]

I believe in God in the theoretical sense. The natural rights theorists meant whe they said rights were given to you by God that they were not given to you by anybody mortal, and thus cannot be taken away by anyone mortal.

[SPC]

That is why I support the existence of an impartial justice system; I don't believe that punishment should solely be retributive which is what you are essentially advocating. Personally I prefer the UK penal system on the matter of murder because I do not support the death penalty. Also, how is rape punished under your eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth system?

Please explain how you would specifically punish a murderer of your family. Also, for rape, if I were the judge, I would make the rapist pay for any medical procedures on the victims genitalia, and/or vaccinations from venereal diseases.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If somebody had the choice to not buy insurance, they would be more cautious with their driving, since they know that any repair from an accident would have to come from their wallet. Because the government mandates that everyone have car insurance, people have less incentive to drive carefully, since any repair will be coming from a third-party payer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's a difference between eating vegatables and government intervention in the economy. If you had read the article I linked to, you would realize that compromise I only a good thing when you are compromising two evils to a good end. For example, if I make a compromise between not eating any vegetables and eating only vegetables, then it is a good thing. However, compromising between socialism (evil) and capitalism (good) is incoherent, because where do you draw the line between which sectors of the economy are socialized and which sectors are a free-market? Also, where do you gain the evidence that a compromise works, or do you just like the idea because the idea of compromise sounds cool?

I happen to have an uncle who lives in Britain who 'loves' the British Healthcare system so much that they've delayed a hip replacement for him for over two years! A free-market would have none of that unless they wanted to lose customers. Why do you think foreign leaders go to the U.S. to have their surgeries? A belief in man's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness does not mean he is entitled to those things. It just means that nobody can infringe on those rights. It is as simple as the difference between the right to own a home and the 'right' to move into someone's home without their permission. BTW, our health care system is expensive in America because of programs like Medicare, Medicaid, HMOs, and the Food and Druf Administration, which artificially inflate prices by mandating insurance companies give 'insurance' for non-emergency procedures. Can you imagine how high the price of a gallon of gas would be if insurance companies offered 'gas insurance', where for a monthly fee, you could have all the gas you want?

[SPC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, I would say it shows more that you and the Supreme Court differ over your interpretations. While I would never go so far as to say that the system the United States has at the moment is perfect - in fact I think in many ways it is greatly flawed - I would value it far more than your interpretation of society which is both unworkable and would essentially result in the dominance of the wealthy to a greater extent than already exists. [/quote]

You seem to believe the economy is a zero-sum game. The truth is, because capital is always growing, a free-economy allows everyone to become richer. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the Amrican lower-class is still wealthier than the 17th century monarchs. My interpretation of society would make all transactions be voluntary, and you say that is somehow 'unworkable'? Are people are too dumb to make choices for themselves?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mutual consent between the defendant and the plantiff on which court to use would have to be reached. Thus, the most neutral and law-abiding court is most likely to be chosen, and courts will try to be neutral and law-abiding to win donations. I do not oppose having a government, I merely oppose having that government forced upon the members of society. If the poor decide that they cannot afford to live in a pure-free market economy, they can choose to have the government take care of their security and legal needs, though they would likely still have to pay taxes to keep the government running. Your basis seems to be, "In a free-market, the rich would be able to afford better police and legal protection, so therefore everyone must have the government take care of that, whether they like it or not." If someone wishes to have their security needs taken care of by a private agency, then why do they need to pay taxes for the government's police protection? The poor person's security agency would take care of any crime investigation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do you mean 'in the theoretical sense'? If this God is purely theoretical then the basis for these rights is purely theoretical and practice seldom follows theory. I find it amusing that you take such a dichotomous view of everything except metaphysical questions which are generally regarded by philosophers to be some of the few areas where there must be a 'yes' or 'no' answer to the question ultimately. Either there is a God and these natural rights are God-given, or there isn't a God and thus these natural rights are arbitrary. I do believe in natural rights but I don't believe in God; the difference is that I recognise that these rights are, in a sense, arbitrary but that it is my belief that they have to be inalienable in order for society to function.
[/quote]

I believe that nobody can infringe on anyone else's natural rights, because of morality, not because of arbitrarity. Your definition implies that natural rights can be taken away if it is deem necessary for society to function by some third-party. 

[SPC]

I find your suggestion that the American lower-class is wealthier than seeventeenth-century monarchs is completely laughable and really exposes a lack of historical knowledge.

I'll get back to your other points later, but I have a couple questions for you:
Could 17th century monarchs get vaccinated to prevent them from getting bacterial disease?
Could 17th century monarchs fly from one part of the Earth to another in a matter of hours?
Could 17th century monarchs keep their food cold for later use?
Could 17th century monarchs drink water without the fear of getting a terminal illness?
Could 17th century monarchs get the news by turning on their television or their laptop?
Could 17th century monarchs get +3 hours of entertainment from a disc?
etc.

It is clear from all of these examples that the American poor enjoy a higher standard of living than 17th century monarchs.

[SPC]

My interpretation of society would make all transactions be voluntary, and you say that is somehow 'unworkable'? Are people are too dumb to make choices for themselves?

I do think that sometimes people make bad decisions but that isn't my objection to your system. The problem is that it is one where mutual obligations to one another would seldom be fulfilled. By making the entire system voluntary you end up with a system whereby people will inevitably take decisions that benefit themselves at the expense of many of those around them. I think it is important to recognise that rights come with responsibilities; in that respect your proposed system is inherently selfish because it fails to recognise our responsibilities.

And where do these responsibilities come from? To burden adults with responsibilities against their will is slavery. In reality, everyone benefits from voluntary transactions, or else they would not happen. If I purchase a milk for $2, I obviously value the milk more than the $2, whereas the person selling me the milk values the $2 more than the milk. Thus, both parties benefit through voluntary transaction. However, if I force the milk supplier to provide me the milk at a lower price, stating that it is his responsibility to provide the neighborhood with affordable milk, then I benefit at the expense of the milk supplier. Therefore, your concept of responsibities is counter-productive. If one party fails to uphold his side of the deal, then the other party can take him to court. The only "responsibility" every individual has is to pursue his/her happiness.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only thing that would lead to is gridlock; if I have clearly committed a crime then I can simply prevent justice by refusing to agree on which court will try the case. I'm hardly going to agree to go before a court - however neutral and law-abiding - if it is going to convict me.

Your proposal essentially turns justice into a profit-driven industry; why would a judge  find in favour of someone who has no money to donate when it could find in favour of a multi-millionaire who will make a sizeable donation? Similarly, who regulates the appointment of judges?

Do you believe in the right to trial by jury? That right would be incredibly problematic under such a system because a court cannot force people to serve in the way the state can which means you end up with an inherently flawed justice system; if jury service is voluntary then who do you think will step forward to serve on a jury?

I also notice you have conveniently ignored the problem of how the prison service runs. [/quote]

I'll admit I'm not that educated about Rothbardian court theory, I think the best way to answer those questions would be to consult the author himself. A judge would be willing to be neutral toward a multi-millionaire because if he is biased, the public will find out and put him out of business. I believe that trial by jury would be the best system. Regarding jury duty, have you ever thought of say, paying jurors for their services? That is the way every other job functions. Would it make sense for the state to mandate that attorney work for free, and then to conscript random citizens to make them be lawyers for a trial? Can you imagine how the quality of lawyers would decline in such a system? Given the nonsense of conscripting lawyers, I think it only makes sense to pay jurors as well. Since the punishment for all crimes would be restitution for the victim, prisons would undergo a dramatic decline in population.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That isn't government, that is simply another private security firm and such an organization would never be able to provide a similar standard of justice or protection as the private security firms of the wealthy would be because it would simply lack the revenue. In other words, even with your so-called 'government' you have a situation whereby the rich enjoy a far greater degree of safety and protection.

Well done on spotting the basis of my argument; I don't think it is fair that the rich should be afforded better protection because they have the financial clout. As I said before, it is hardly fair if one person receives preferential legal treatment because they were born into a wealthier family while another person receives no protection whatsoever because their parents are both struggling to put food on the table. Even with your supposed compromise - which is hardly a compromise - the wealthy end up receiving preferential treatment. [/quote]

So you'd rather have the poor receive the same treatment and the wealthy receive worse treatment? Also, the only difference between the government I propose and the government we currently have is that the former would be voluntary. However, you just cannot seem to fathom the idea of individual choice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, that means a higher standard of justice for the wealthy than for the poor. How is someone who lives on the margins supposed to fund a lengthy criminal investigation to establish who murdered their son or who raped their daughter? Once again we would end up with a legal system whereby the rich receive a far better standard of justice, a point that is only reinforced by the absence of a state prosecution service.[/quote]

If a applied your arguments to life insurance, the argument would sound ridiculous.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. I don't want to run society according to my dictums. I want everyone to be free to run their own lives according to their dictums.
2. They should not be forced to accept my interpretation. They should just permit people who disapprove of the government's job to secede from it and not pay taxes toward it.
3. Again, you confuse society with government. I view government as the servant of the people, not the master of them. Thus, if the government is not fulfilling the needs of the people, they should not be coerced into maintaining it.

[SPC]

I see you're backtracking because before you were saying that the American 'lower-class' was 'wealthier' than seventeenth-century monarchs, a point which is clearly ludicrous as I showed you, and now you’re saying they enjoy a higher standard of living. Yes, Americans have better access to modern medicine but as Gully has pointed out, many of these innovations were hardly down to free-market economics but to the labours and travails of interested amateurs and government employed scientists. Equally there were plenty of other entertainments afforded to seventeenth-century monarchs that many modern Americans could never dream of; I can hardly see your average American having his own orchestra available to him whenever he wishes or the ability to commission a play as Louis XIV did with Moliere and Racine. What's the point in watching television when I could simply have my court dramatist produce a completely new play and have my court troupe perform it? Alternatively, I could just gather my noblemen and go on a hunt.

I'd also imagine that there were economically deprived areas in the USA where life-expectancy would be lower than that of a monarch in the seventeenth-century but I couldn't be sure there so don't quote me on that.

I was talking in terms of real wealth, meaning the goods they has availbility to, not the amount of paper or gold they has in their bank account. Americans can buy a ticket to an orchestra if they wanted to see one. I doubt any monarch could ever dream of watching such a play from thousands of miles away. Americans can still hunt with friends. The very fact that you are uncertain about whether the American poor or the 17th century monarchs have a higher life expectancy simply shows that the standard of living has improved since then.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

'No man is an Iland, intire of itselfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Manor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.' - John Donne

I could, of course, just as easily say that these are ‘natural responsibilities’ granted by a theoretical God and suddenly their basis is just as strong as ‘natural rights’. Where would the difference lie? Of course, I believe that these responsibilities come from living as a part of a community – technically I prefer the German Gemeinschaft as it has a subtly different meaning to ‘community’, but we’ll stick with community for the sake of the English language. Historically, community meant the parish community and thus the enforcement of these responsibilities was far simpler than it is today in our modern ‘society’; it was done by social pressure such as the use of charivari. Yet, with population expansion and the breakdown of this traditional moral community, I believe it is now important that the state exists as the enforcer of these responsibilities. In that respect, democracy plays an important part as it gives the population the ability to voice its opinion on these matters and keeps government responsive. [/quote]

The catch is that democracy allows the majority to plunder the minority. If 51% of the public demand that government force everyone to revert back to hunter-gatherer society, there's no way to stop them in a democracy. Also, the very fact that many American voters  vote for candidates based on their personality disproves any theory that a democratic election guarentees the wills of the voters. I would prefer consumer democracy, where everyone votes for businesses they like with their wallet. I'll explain howthisis more efficient by using an example. Say that 51% of the population prefers Coke while 49% of the population prefers Pepsi. In a consumer democracy, both Coke and Pepsi will have incentive to improve the taste of their soda in hopes of winning over some of the other soda's customers. The customers are all free to drink the soda they please. This is a Win-Win Scenario, since everyone benefits. On the other hand, in a political democracy, the 51% Coke would outnumber the 49% Pepsi, thus meaning that everyone would have to drink Coke. Since Coke is in power for the next 2-4 years, they have no incentive to improve the taste, and every incentive to make it worse. Pepsi, since they will not be selling soda for the next 2-4 years, has no incentive to improve either. Thus, this is a Win-Lose scenario, since Coke will be making twice as many transactions in the next 2-4 years, but the customers will be forced to buy filthy-tasting soda.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except that the proper functioning of our society isn’t as simple as you popping to the local supermarket and buying a bottle of milk. In the wider world these voluntary transactions often have consequences that affect others outside of the transaction and it is these negative externalities – such as pollution - that the free market tends to fail to take into account. Many of these transactions are not simple dichotomies between the seller and the buyer but have wider reaching consequences.[/quote]

The solution to pollution is private ownership of land and water. If the business owns the land they pollute on, they have no problem. If they pollute on someone else's land, they will be looking at a lawsuit, which will cost them more than polluting will save them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that is why I think your system is selfish.
[/quote]

So, it is "selfish" to propose that nobody do somethign against their will? I suppose by that line of thinking, you would call Hariet Tubbman and Frederick Douglass "selfish" because they think that blacks should be free to choose their job.

[SPC]

As I said, the trouble with turning jury duty into a business endeavour is that you have to consider who is going to step forward to serve on a jury if it is turned into a form of employment as you propose. It would hardly be trial by a jury of your peers if the only people stepping forward are those who would like to see all murderers brutally slaughtered. Similarly, you would likely lack the differing levels of experience or knowledge that are associated with having a variety of people from a variety of backgrounds on a jury. How exactly would these jurors be paid? Is it conviction related? Performance related? Each method of paying jurors will have its own problems for the nature of a fair and just judicial system. Further to that, the difference between lawyers and jurors is that lawyers have to be specifically versed in the law whereas the jury need not know the intricacies of every bit of law.

That still happens under the current system. The only difference is that, rather than simply not volunteering, the people who really don't want to serve on a jury simply come on with reasons why they cannot. Can you deny that someone unwilling to do a job is going to be bad at it? If so, then why would it be any different with the job of a juror? Shouldn't the jury be knowledgeable about the law is they are charged to determine if someone violated it? Maybe you don't see the ridiculousness in that, but it seems pretty obvious to me. They would be paid for their services, not whether they got a conviction or not. Just as in the current system, they would be hired by the defense attorney and the prosecution attorney.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where did I say that criminals would not have a criminal record?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Firstly, under the US system many poor people don't receive treatment at all so it would hardly be 'the same treatment'. Secondly, you're assuming that suddenly all the best doctors will disappear under my system In fact, you have a system where the best doctors will see people of all financial backgrounds. While the quality of treatment received by the wealthy may not be better than under the current American system, the poor would receive far improved treatment. Just a few links to have a look at:

World Health Organization Healthcare Rankings
New York Times Article on Healthcare

(Those two articles also slot in to some extent with your discussion of seventeenth-century monarchs)[/quote]

I've already explained this. Many poor people don't receive treatment because insurance companies with the help of government artificially raise medical prices. In a true free-market health care system, insurance companies would only be able to pay for emergency operations. Thus, people will be more selective as far as when they go to the doctor, because any non-emergency visit will come from the customer's wallet. This will lower health care prices to a level where the poor can afford both insurance and a occasional check-up.

On the other hand, in the socialistic system you propose, there is no price that makes people use discretion for when the go to the doctor, because every visit is paid by their taxes. Thus, people will be going to the doctor for every scratch they get. Because of this artificial increase in demand, and since doctors are not allowed to raise the price to ration, a line will exist for health care, meaning that rather than being served based on how serious the problem is, patients will be seen on a first come, first serve basis. This is largely the reason why my great-uncle has been waiting forever for a hip replacement. Unfortunately for him, his hip is so bas that he cannot fly to the United States to have a hip replacement, so he will likely perish before he gets a hip. Also, my great-uncle is far from rich. Looking from a different perspective, doctors will be paid the same regardless of the quality of their services, unlike in a free-market system. Thus, they have no incentive to provide high-quality service, and medical quality will decline overall. With longer lines and lower quality services, it can hardly be said that the socialistic system is better, regardless of the intentions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course I can fathom the idea of individual choice and I believe it has an important part to play in society. However, I think there are some circumstances where the existence of individual choice would be damaging to other members of society. While many wouldn't agree with me on the matter of healthcare, I think most would on the justice and policing system; without an ultimate arbiter or a uniform system, the rights of the rich are greater than the rights of the poor. If this 'government' is voluntary in the way you suggest then it is hardly a government at all. The government that exists today is voluntary; you choose to live within its territories and therefore abide by its rules; if you don't want to live under that government then you can leave the country. [/quote]

Suppose I applied your arguments to market services:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This sounds ridiculous at best.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps here it would have been better to put in the Donne quotation; society cannot properly function if people think only of themselves. Yes, we are individuals, but we are not just individuals but a part of an indivisible whole. [/quote]

Individuals would still be free to trade with one another, they would just be able to choose who provides their security. Also, the several secessionist movements over the centuries (American, Indian, etc.)show that societies are in fact "divisible".
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I am not confusing society with government. Government is the servant of the people. That is why democracies have elections; to ensure that government remains responsive to the needs and will of the people. Government is there to ensure that both the rights and responsibilities of the members of society are enforced and that often means a government should intervene.
[/quote]

I've already explained why democracies are not as efficient as the market in gauging the peoples' needs. Also, I should be free to fire any servant of mine that does a bad job.

[SPC]

Don't worry about it. I don't spend all m time on the Atlas either. Feel free to respond/concede whenever you get the chance.

That still happens under the current system. The only difference is that, rather than simply not volunteering, the people who really don't want to serve on a jury simply come on with reasons why they cannot. Can you deny that someone unwilling to do a job is going to be bad at it? If so, then why would it be any different with the job of a juror? Shouldn't the jury be knowledgeable about the law is they are charged to determine if someone violated it? Maybe you don't see the ridiculousness in that, but it seems pretty obvious to me. They would be paid for their services, not whether they got a conviction or not. Just as in the current system, they would be hired by the defense attorney and the prosecution attorney.

It doesn’t happen to the same extent it would under your system. As you pointed out, it is only those ‘who really don’t want to serve’ who find ways to get out of jury duty. There are still those who would rather not, but do go ahead with serving on a jury. I would argue that the right to a trial by one’s peers would mandate the need for a system of jury duty as exists now and I believe that is a duty that theorists such as John Locke would be firmly committed to. I think having a jury composed of career jurists undermines the point of a trial by one’s peers and also narrows the range of experience. It is important that you have people from different backgrounds and different experiences in the jury which simply wouldn’t be the case under your system.

What is about getting paid for a service that makes it so that they are not 'peers'?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You friend would probably be even better as his job if he enjoyed it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe in jury nullification, i.e. that juries should be free to find someone innocent if the law they violated was unconstitutional or immoral.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You didn’t. My point is that without a monopolistic organization to turn to, it would be very difficult to discover someone’s criminal background. Given you support competition in all ‘markets’ you assumedly believe there should be more than one criminal register. Correct me if I am wrong there. In those circumstances, it becomes a lot harder to check somebody’s background than it currently is where there is a national database to turn to. Equally, I would imagine it was far easier to evade one’s criminal past by changing one’s name. Again, without a national system of registration it is easy for someone to simply change their name and lose their past identity. [/quote]

Sounds familiar. And if one criminal register works well, why wouldn't two or three?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you honestly believe that everyone could afford the healthcare they need under a perfect free market? If so then you’re living in a dream world because the nature of both the economy and humanity means that there will always be some level of unemployment. Similarly, there will always be those on low wages. If you had read the article that I linked, you would have seen that one of the key problems of charging people for healthcare is that – as I have already said – people will tend to put off treatment for something that seems minor until it becomes a bigger problem. By that point it will be far more expensive to treat and also far riskier. This is especially true of problems like cancer which are much easier to treat in their early stages.[/quote]

Poorer people can get treatment from charity hospitals, as was done before the "Great Society". It would seem that you've failed to address any of the problems I pointed out with socialist health care, and instead attacked my free-market ideal system (BTW, I forgot to mention that abolishing the FDA would make prescription drugs cheaper and save lives). Could you also explain how a socialistic system would make people treat health problems in earlier stages, other than forcing them to go to the doctor?

[SPC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That’s a gross exaggeration; there are certainly waiting lists in the UK but people hardly go to the doctor for ‘every scratch they get’. I am not saying our system is perfect, but it does provide greater access to healthcare for the general populace than the US system does. There are problems with the system and I would never deny that – in particular I think people who miss their appointments should pay for them unless they have serious mitigating circumstances – but I do think it is fairer and better to a system whereby all healthcare is paid for at the point of need.[/quote]

If this is true, then why do world leaders choose to have operations in the US instead of the UK? Obviously our system must be cheaper and/or of higher quality. Of course I was exageratting with a scratch, but the point stands. I people do not have a price that will ration their medical visits, they will go at every opportunity possible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nope, resources are not allocated based on wealth in capitalism. They are allocated based upon supply and demand. If there is high demand for a good, the price will go up. Because of the profits they can make, producers will have an incentive to increase the supply of the good, thus lowering prices. Under your socialistic system, when there is high demand for a good, and prices are not allowed to rise, then there will bo no incentive on behalf of the producers to increase the supply, and there will be shortages of that good. This is a simple economic law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Firstly, I don’t think healthcare should be ‘rationed’ by price increases because – as I have said – I don’t think that is fair. I think it is particularly unfair when it comes to children; if two babies are born with the same rare condition, one to a wealthy family and the other to a poor family, I hardly think it is fair that the child with the richer parents will receive better treatment than that of the poorer person; in my eyes that is punishing someone for circumstances they have no control over. In particular, that is a problem that is close to my heart; my closest friend was born with an incredibly rare condition that required almost immediate operation and regular check-ups and treatment. Given the rarity of the condition, treatment would likely be very expensive under a market system.[/quote]

Yes, better for both babies to die from waiting too long than to have the rich one survive. Also, if a family member has a life-threatening condition, under capitalism, they can have an insurance policy cover that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why not simply allow people to sell their organs? That will insure they won't be any shortages or organs for transplants. Also, who is going to be the person to determine which patients are in dire need and which ones aren't? My dad actually has that job, so don't deny that it wouldn't exist in a socialistic health care system. Because there will be doctors who have to determine which patients need to be served first, they cannot be treating patients, thus making the lines even longer for patients declared to not be in dire need.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pay for doctors is not uniform in the United Kingdom, I believe there is a degree of performance related pay but I would have to consult my medical friends to find out the extent of it. I also doubt that doctors do what they do solely in the interest of making money. I think a greater incentive is saving people's lives.
[/quote]

Performance-replated pay?! Why not simply let patients decide what their salary is? They can do this by deciding to come back to a doctor if he treats them well.

[SPC]

What is about getting paid for a service that makes it so that they are not 'peers'?

Juries are meant to be socially representative in terms of occupation and background; if they are employees of a court then they are not going to be so. Equally, the point of having different professionals sitting on a jury is that they bring different areas of knowledge which is something that would again not happen if these were career jurors. Further to that I believe that career service on a jury would tend to have an effect on the judgment handed down by the jurors as previous cases would tend to prejudice them.

If the jurors are paid by a neutral person (the judge), then their neutrality isn't effected.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps, but I don’t think it is necessarily true that one must enjoy their job to be better at it. Equally, I think in many cases it is better not to enjoy one’s job. So for instance in the USA I would prefer that those who administer the death penalty did not enjoy their job.[/quote]

You list one occupation out of the hundreds of thousands out there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If one criminal register works well, why do we need two or three? As far as I can see, having more than one register would actually make the service worse. Are courts required to give all information to each register or do the criminal registers buy the data? It seems to me this would end up as more expensive and complicated for businesses as they could very well end up having to pay for checks on several different registers in order to find out if their employees’ records are clean. It’s far simpler if there is one unified and national database, particularly if you end up with regional registers as one could evade their criminal record by leaving the region.[/quote]

The criminal registers could buy the data and then sell it to the businesses.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which worked ever so well didn’t it? Do you honestly believe that the poor would have better access to healthcare under such a system than they do in a socialist system? [/quote]

Yes, and they did. Only after Medicare and Medicaid did health care prices rise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What were the problems you pointed out? As far as I can see your biggest gripe with socialist healthcare systems was that everyone will show up at the doctors for every minor scratch that they get which is simply not true. Then there was the waiting list problem and I pointed out that urgent cases were actually moved up the waiting list. Further to that I pointed out my own problems with the system that I felt could help to alleviate the problems of waiting lists including an opt-out organ donation system and charges for cancelled appointments. I also stated that I felt it was more moral that healthcare was provided on the basis it is here than under a system whereby the highest bidder gets the best healthcare. It seems to me that I did address your problems with the socialist system.

I find it difficult to believe that you can’t fathom how a socialised healthcare system means people are more likely to receive treatment in the early stages of illnesses. As you pointed out, if people have to pay for healthcare then they are only likely to seek treatment in an emergency whereas under a socialist system they are more likely to go for regular check-ups as well as to seek medical advice in the earlier stages of an illness which means it is more likely that a disease will be caught earlier.[/quote]

The fact is you will be more likely to see the doctor if the visit is free than if you have to pay with your own wallet. Don' deny simple economics. I've already explained that organ sales should simply be legalzed if you want to alleviate the organ shortage, which you have yet to reply to. It isn't moral for someone with a common cold and someone with a serious illness to pay the same amount for their healthcare, it is nonsensical. Also, another economics question: If a doctor is paid the same regardless of the quality of his service, will he have any incentive to do a good job, other than his morality? In a free-market, the most skilled doctors are rewarded; under socialism the reverse happens.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My point was that it is not always possible for supply to simply be ‘increased’, particularly when it comes to something like healthcare where supply is limited by the number of trained doctors and their working hours. In which case, if there is high demand, the price goes up and only richer people can afford to pay for the services meaning that the resource is being allocated based on wealth. I am not disputing this ‘simply economic law’.

Equally, I am not proposing that the entire economy be run by the government, simply that there are areas where it is right for the government to intervene to ensure at least the basic provision of things like healthcare and education. Equally, under such a system it is in the interest of the government to increase the availability of healthcare because poor provision will threaten their electoral success.
[/quote]

High prices aren't going to deter someone with a serious illness from seeing a doctor. It will deter those with non-serious illnesses.