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?

[Albus Dumbledore]

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

[SPC]

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

You're supposed to answer the question.

[tik 🪀✨]

...for a thread about libertarianism, you sure have a lot of rules.

Allow me to answer your initial question with another question: What do you mean by 'initiate force'? I imagine you mean subjugating another to your own will, with no specific purpose or intent by the one forcing, but just generally speaking. That's kind of a loaded question given the topic at hand - of course you're likely to say that it is immoral, as it is violating the freedom of the individual against their own will.

However, that is very general. It becomes grey depending on your point of view when you get into specifics. One could argue it's moral to impose force on someone who is imposing detrimental force against someone else. That is to say, by the general understanding and will of most people, it is moral to stop crime against another. Whose responsibility is it to carry out this moral imposition of force against an immoral initiation of force - the individual or the collective? Since most people have agreed that something is immoral and ought to be stopped, many would argue the impersonal collective is the best one to carry out the secondary force, doing its best to remain without bias and simply existing to carry out and maintain the collective will of society. That is not to say that the individual has no responsibility - the collective players are not omnipresent, so the individual has himself the primary responsibility to secure his own freedom during a situation. However, that responsibility will likely need to be given up to the will of the people at large, who, however imperfectly, need to show impartiality in order for justice to be met.

It's quite difficult to discuss this so generally speaking, so forgive me if whatever I just wrote doesn't make any sense

[John Dibble]

Is it ever moral to initiate force against someone?

Is it ever? Yes, because the question is broad enough that it covers every potential situation in which force could be initiated against another as well as every possible degree of force.

As tik points out, one such situation is initiating force against a criminal to defend the criminal's victim. Another situation where it could be considered moral is initiating it against a person who is taking actions that you know will inadvertently bring harm to other innocents when that force is necessary to stop that harm. And then there's the matter of degree. In many situations great force (say, lethal) can be considered immoral, while lesser force (say, a force that stuns but does no long term damage) would be acceptable.

[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.

[John Dibble]

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.

Fair enough, but as I said there are other situations where it may be considered acceptable.

[dead0man]

But what about those that can't force morals on themselves?  The state must force the proper morals on those people and I think those morals should, oddly enough, exactly mirror mine!  Sheesh.  libertarians never think of the less fortunate.

[Хahar 🤔]

2. No hijacking the thread (i.e. global warming, the election, abortion, etc.)

But it's fun!

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course it is! Next question.

My question. Is social Darwinism moral?

[muon2]

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.

[ilikeverin]

Is it ever moral to initiate force against someone?

Yes, I do believe the government has the right to:
1) Tax people
2) Put criminals in jail
3) Regulate several aspects of life to differing extents
4) Illegalize and/or regulate drugs
5) Produce laws that coincide with the morality of some persons

If that's what you're getting after.

[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.

[muon2]

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.

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.

[John Dibble]

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.

[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.

[John Dibble]

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.

[JohnFKennedy]

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.

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?

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.

Once again you speak only of rights and neglect to consider responsibilities. First let's consider the question of drink-driving. I'd be curious to see a case where someone's reaction times were enhanced by consumption of alcohol because all the evidence points to it decreasing reaction times and the same is true of driving whilst talking on the phone.

This is from an article that appeared in the European Journal of Epidemiology from 2000, although it could come from almost any medical review of the topic:

'Blood alcohol concentrations even less than 0.03% have been reported to have an adverse effect on motor skills. Furtherrmore, a remarkable deterioration of driving performance at the level of 0.05% is generally considered as established.'

Given the impossibility of assessing and instituting a different level of alcohol for each individual driver - let alone the problems of enforcing this - it seems completely sensible that the government should outlaw drink driving as it poses a significant risk to the lives of both those in the car and others on the road.

Here's a bit more on the topic just for good measure (it also coverse phones):

Alcohol is water-soluble and is readily absorbed in the blood. More blood is
supplied to the brain that to other organs, with the result that alcohol impairs your brain function within minutes. At a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.08 gm/100ml, the reaction time of the average driver doubles from 1.5 s to 3.0 s. Muscle coordination also diminishes and a driver is more likely to respond incorrectly to stimuli. A 1997 New England Journal of Medicine cited a study that found that talking on a cell phone quadruples a driver’s risk of collision, roughly the same as being drunk. Studies have shown that BAC levels as low as 0.04 gm/100 ml can affect reaction times. Simple reaction times (where the subject attempts to detect a stimulus and respond as quickly as possible) appear to be less affected by lower BACs than do complex reaction times (where the subject must discriminate between stimuli and respond appropriately.) If your BAC is 0.08 gm/100 ml, you are 4 times more likely to crash than if you are sober. At a BAC of 0.12 gm/100 ml, your chances are 15 times more likely and at a BAC of 0.16 gm/100 ml, your chances of crashing are 30 times more than if you are sober.

The point is to protect people, not simply to punish those breaking the law. Compensation may be all very good and well if the injured party has only a slight scratch, but if someone is killed as a result of another's drink driving then suddenly you have a lot more problems.

As to banning people from driving for breaking the rules of the road, it seems entirely sensible. Once again it is a question of rights and responsibilities; if you want to exercise your right to drive then you have to be responsible in the way you use that right. Driving is hardly an absolute right.

So let's move on to the next point about not wanting a military or police force. Well, as I've repeatedly said in the past, if you don't want to pay for them then you don't have to live in the society you do, you can choose to go elsewhere and live a life separate from that. If you want society to protect your rights, you need to take on the responsibilities it asks of you. It's not good enough to just say that it's government and not society that is taking away your rights because the government you live under was democratically elected by the society in which you live.

Society is a voluntary organization; if you don't like the society that you live in then you can move away from it. Alternatively, you can decide that you quite like the rights that it grants you and accept your corrollary responsibilities.

[dead0man]

Society is a voluntary organization; if you don't like the society that you live in then you can move away from it.

That isn't the case for everyone in the world.  Thankfully most of us reading this are free do to that.  Three cheers for liberty!

[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.

[John Dibble]

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.

[JohnFKennedy]

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.