Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › A Few Questions for Libertarians
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) A Few Questions for Libertarians (Read 857 times)
DnSn107
Junior Member
**
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 31
Joined: May 21st, 2017
Re: A Few Questions for Libertarians
Reply #40 - May 28th, 2017 at 9:02pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on May 27th, 2017 at 12:34pm:
Yes but the master would be a fool to sign it. The "slave" at all times has the right to breach contract. So he can sign such a contract, and if he wishes, walk away. He may be subject to whatever penalties are expressed in the contract but if not explicitly stated, and if the master has already paid, the slave may walk away and leave the master holding the bag.

Remember this at all times:
human rights > contract rights


But what if the contract was explicitly worded so that it did not allow him to back out of the contract, and the "slave" was well aware of that at the time of signing? Would "the purest Libertarians" argue that he should be responsible for his decision, as he did make that original decision knowingly?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4870
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: A Few Questions for Libertarians
Reply #41 - May 28th, 2017 at 9:57pm
Print Post  
DnSn107 wrote on May 28th, 2017 at 9:02pm:
But what if the contract was explicitly worded so that it did not allow him to back out of the contract, and the "slave" was well aware of that at the time of signing? Would "the purest Libertarians" argue that he should be responsible for his decision, as he did make that original decision knowingly?


If the contract is worded so the slave can't back out, it is invalid because the human right of choice always supersedes rights granted in contracts.

I can derive right to breach contract from the Non-Aggression Principle.

Let us take one person who lies and another who uses force against the liar. Obviously that is not proportionate so it violates the Non-Aggression Principle. Likewise, what you would have to do to your slave to keep him there when he decides not to work anymore is clearly disproportionate to simply welshing on an agreement. Libertarians believe this should be resolved in civil court, in a civil manner.

But you needn't worry about the inability to keep slaves because eventually all property will be owned by few enough people that you can use your right of exclusion to make anyone do anything you like. If they don't, you can tell them to get off your property, and if they don't (ha! they can't) you may self defend.
  

Making Sci-Fi great again since 2063.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 2377
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: A Few Questions for Libertarians
Reply #42 - Jun 7th, 2017 at 12:16pm
Print Post  
DnSn107 wrote on May 26th, 2017 at 3:27pm:
Libertarians state that people should not be punished unless they aggress against people or their property. However, I'm hesitant to fully accept that notion. Here are some questions I have about some scenarios where a person is punished but has not aggressed against a person or their property.

1) Should a person be allowed to torture, abuse, or have sex with animals?
2) Should a person be allowed to be nude in public, or should "public decency" be illegal at all, including public drunkenness, public sex, and sawing off your leg in public?
3) Should a person be allowed to contract himself as a slave to another person for the rest of his life?
4) Should a gun salesman be allowed to sell a gun to somebody without first running a background check?
5) Should gun and drug manufacturers be allowed to sell their products to children?
6) Should a person be allowed to sell things without being forced to give a sum of his money to the government (taxes)?


Your questions are differences between small government libertarians and anarchists
  

Greg Gutfeld - I became a conservative by being around liberals and I became a libertarian by being around conservatives

Matt Stone - I hate conservatives, but I really f'ing hate liberals
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 2377
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: A Few Questions for Libertarians
Reply #43 - Jun 7th, 2017 at 12:21pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on May 28th, 2017 at 9:57pm:
If the contract is worded so the slave can't back out, it is invalid because the human right of choice always supersedes rights granted in contracts.

I can derive right to breach contract from the Non-Aggression Principle.

Let us take one person who lies and another who uses force against the liar. Obviously that is not proportionate so it violates the Non-Aggression Principle. Likewise, what you would have to do to your slave to keep him there when he decides not to work anymore is clearly disproportionate to simply welshing on an agreement. Libertarians believe this should be resolved in civil court, in a civil manner.

But you needn't worry about the inability to keep slaves because eventually all property will be owned by few enough people that you can use your right of exclusion to make anyone do anything you like. If they don't, you can tell them to get off your property, and if they don't (ha! they can't) you may self defend.


I think I agree with the gist of what you are saying, but I would put it differently.  If you back out of an agreement to be their slave, government cannot come in and arrest you and force you to be their slave.  However, the person you contracted with can sue you for the economic value of your breach of the contract.
  

Greg Gutfeld - I became a conservative by being around liberals and I became a libertarian by being around conservatives

Matt Stone - I hate conservatives, but I really f'ing hate liberals
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4870
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: A Few Questions for Libertarians
Reply #44 - Jun 7th, 2017 at 9:49pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Jun 7th, 2017 at 12:21pm:
I think I agree with the gist of what you are saying, but I would put it differently.  If you back out of an agreement to be their slave, government cannot come in and arrest you and force you to be their slave.  However, the person you contracted with can sue you for the economic value of your breach of the contract.


That's absolutely true and something I forgot to add. Yes, the master can sue to get his money back, but if the former slave spent it already, the master is out of luck.

My basic point was that yes, you can make such a contract, but the master would be an utter fool to sign it.
  

Making Sci-Fi great again since 2063.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 2377
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: A Few Questions for Libertarians
Reply #45 - Jun 7th, 2017 at 10:05pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jun 7th, 2017 at 9:49pm:
That's absolutely true and something I forgot to add. Yes, the master can sue to get his money back, but if the former slave spent it already, the master is out of luck.

My basic point was that yes, you can make such a contract, but the master would be an utter fool to sign it.


Agreed, and for the reason you said.  Someone who agrees to be a slave is very unlikely to be able to pay the economic damage of their reneging on the contract
  

Greg Gutfeld - I became a conservative by being around liberals and I became a libertarian by being around conservatives

Matt Stone - I hate conservatives, but I really f'ing hate liberals
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
merkelstan
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 553
Joined: Jan 22nd, 2017
Re: A Few Questions for Libertarians
Reply #46 - Jun 7th, 2017 at 11:24pm
Print Post  
DnSn107 wrote on May 26th, 2017 at 3:27pm:
Libertarians state that people should not be punished unless they aggress against people or their property. However, I'm hesitant to fully accept that notion. Here are some questions I have about some scenarios where a person is punished but has not aggressed against a person or their property.

1) Should a person be allowed to torture, abuse, or have sex with animals?
2) Should a person be allowed to be nude in public, or should "public decency" be illegal at all, including public drunkenness, public sex, and sawing off your leg in public?
3) Should a person be allowed to contract himself as a slave to another person for the rest of his life?
4) Should a gun salesman be allowed to sell a gun to somebody without first running a background check?
5) Should gun and drug manufacturers be allowed to sell their products to children?
6) Should a person be allowed to sell things without being forced to give a sum of his money to the government (taxes)?


Great questions: I'll give the libertarian answers, without engaging in the extended discussion.

The crux of the issue is the interpretation of 'allowed'.  In a free society, people can be made to suffer negative consequences for acts which are immoral or indecent, even just unpopular - but are not crimes.

1) Animal abuse: Not a crime. People who commit this can be shunned by the community.  No renting apartments, no shopping at the supermarket, no membership in clubs etc.

2) Public nuisance: Not a crime. People who commit this can be shunned by the community.  No renting apartments, no shopping at the supermarket, no membership in clubs etc.  (public nudity for e.g. is not a crime in Germany, but you will suffer consequences)

3) This is hotly debated among libertarian scholars and there is no consensus. The writings of Walter Block are a good starting point.

4) Yes.

5) Yes. Children are the wards of their parents, who are the sole entities responsible for their actions.

6) Yes. However most libertarians would prefer sales and excise taxes to the income tax, if these were the only options.

Doubtlessly, many self-identified libertarians would disagree with some of my answers, but this is because they misunderstand and misapply the non-aggression axiom in one area or another.

Cheers
  

"Obviously, the lack of any evidence just proves Russia is behind the lack of evidence." - AZJoe
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4870
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: A Few Questions for Libertarians
Reply #47 - Jun 7th, 2017 at 11:58pm
Print Post  
merkelstan wrote on Jun 7th, 2017 at 11:24pm:
1) Animal abuse: Not a crime. People who commit this can be shunned by the community.  No renting apartments, no shopping at the supermarket, no membership in clubs etc.


I think this one is open to interpretation. Children have some rights, but not [yet the ability to exercise - pfft technicality] all.

There's no reason animals can't have some rights, but not all.

Regardless of whether you happen to think they do, it's not incompatible with libertarian philosophy to believe so.

And I admit I'm biased. I think Kosher butchering is about the worst thing in the world and I tried vegetarian life and didn't thrive on the diet.

So full disclosure: Most of this may be justification on my part. I don't honestly know.
  

Making Sci-Fi great again since 2063.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 2377
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: A Few Questions for Libertarians
Reply #48 - Jun 8th, 2017 at 9:32am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jun 7th, 2017 at 11:58pm:
I think this one is open to interpretation. Children have some rights, but not [yet the ability to exercise - pfft technicality] all.

There's no reason animals can't have some rights, but not all.

Regardless of whether you happen to think they do, it's not incompatible with libertarian philosophy to believe so.

And I admit I'm biased. I think Kosher butchering is about the worst thing in the world and I tried vegetarian life and didn't thrive on the diet.

So full disclosure: Most of this may be justification on my part. I don't honestly know.


I completely agree.  Society has a complete right and responsibility to protect living beings who feel pain from sadistic creeps who torture them
  

Greg Gutfeld - I became a conservative by being around liberals and I became a libertarian by being around conservatives

Matt Stone - I hate conservatives, but I really f'ing hate liberals
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
merkelstan
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 553
Joined: Jan 22nd, 2017
Re: A Few Questions for Libertarians
Reply #49 - Jun 8th, 2017 at 11:23am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jun 7th, 2017 at 11:58pm:
I think this one is open to interpretation. Children have some rights, but not [yet the ability to exercise - pfft technicality] all.

There's no reason animals can't have some rights, but not all.

Regardless of whether you happen to think they do, it's not incompatible with libertarian philosophy to believe so.

And I admit I'm biased. I think Kosher butchering is about the worst thing in the world and I tried vegetarian life and didn't thrive on the diet.

So full disclosure: Most of this may be justification on my part. I don't honestly know.


It would be helpful if we all read what 'Mr. Libertarian', Murray Rothbard had to say on the subject before continuing.

https://mises.org/library/children-and-rights

https://mises.org/library/rights-animals

I cite this work not to end debate but to give it some grounding in the libertarian canon.
  

"Obviously, the lack of any evidence just proves Russia is behind the lack of evidence." - AZJoe
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › A Few Questions for Libertarians
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy