Libbies don't watch....

[Seth]

With respect, I'm not misunderstanding anything, I simply take a different view and express it in different terms. There's no facts in this discussion, merely opinions. to be contrasted and compared.

I understand your reluctance to accept even a broad definition of 'social responsibility', as presented--after all, not only is it, in practical terms, often far more convenient to avoid responsibilities than to embrace them, but you do not think it exists, or even should exist. But as Paine say, mutual dependences and reciprocal interests are "that great chain of connection" which holds society together and by which everyone benefits by "the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole." To accept this is to accept that we have at least some duty to those other than ourselves, those without which we cannot prosper and thrive. This is the nature of social responsibility as I see it - and before you go off on one again, this has nothing to do with Socialism and everything to do with being a decent human being among human beings.

Well, that's the nut of the issue: does the individual have a duty to others beyond refraining from initiating force or fraud or are the mutual dependencies and reciprocal interests of a voluntary nature?

The word "duty" implies something more than voluntary acts undertaken out of rational self interest, charity, compassion and those "connections" Paine writes of. "Duty" necessarily implies an enforceable externally-imposed obligation of some sort.

In Libertarian philosophy no person has an affirmative duty to perform some action for another. The Libertarian policy of "no force or fraud" is a duty not to perform an act that would violate the autonomy and rights of another. This is a significant thing, and understanding the core basis for this construction is important to understanding Libertarianism.

In Libertarianism, the individual is sovereign unto himself and has no duty or obligation to perform a positive act of any kind for the benefit of anyone else. The Libertarian is only obliged to refrain from committing acts that harm others. In Libertarian philosophy the impetus to perform positive acts to benefit others flows from one's natural instincts and reason in the form of rational self interest, charity, altruism, etc., and the motivation for performing these voluntary acts come from within, and are not imposed from without.

This acknowledges that the individual is not the servant of anyone else, or everyone else, his right to live as a sovereign individual is absolute except for his duty to refrain from harming others through force or fraud. Because every person in a Libertarian society has the same sovereign rights, no person may be obligated to another except by their own consent.

The problem with the notion of "social responsibility" is that it implies that the individual has a duty to act in ways that are acceptable to, and therefore necessarily dictated by the collective. This violates the prime principle of Libertarianism because it justifies forcibly imposing social duties on the individual in the interests of the collective, which violates the individual's sovereignty.

Now, one may view "social responsibility" in a more abstract way to mean nothing more than the expectations of the community for socially appropriate and responsible behavior, in which case I have no objection to the term because enforcement of those expectations takes place through the mechanism of each member of the community deciding for himself how to interact with others in order to gain social acceptance or to shun unacceptable social behavior.

But I take the former as the more likely view of "social responsibility" in your rebuttal.

It's not as if I disagree with the principle that mutual interactions between people should take place without fraud or force - who would argue otherwise? - but I do dispute that this does or should comprise the limit or full extent of our responsibilities to others - that is, our responsibilities those who are not directly involved in our interactions.

What sort of responsibilities are you referring to? In my estimation, any such responsibility you could state can be seen as an iteration of the "no force or fraud" tenet of Libertarianism. Can you describe some sort of social responsibility to those not directly involved in a transaction so I can get a better idea of what you mean?

I also think it is not unreasonable to think of commercial entities as being distinct from individuals, and while it may at first appear obvious that the activities of such entities are made up of an interlocking web of individual actions and transactions, when a company is at fault, for example, is it not reasonable to hold the company to account rather than its individual employees, directors, or shareholders.

Well, you cannot really hold the company accountable without also holding those who comprise the company accountable if for no other reason than that a sanction against the company directly affects the shareholders. The degree of accountability depends on one's nexus to the bad act I would think, with heavier sanctions upon those who knowingly commit the wrong. However, the point of not absolving investors or employees of liability for the bad acts is to force those persons to closely monitor the activities of those in power to ensure that their personal interests are not jeapordized by wrongful acts.

Also keep in mind that a malfeasance by a company CEO that results in harm to the shareholders (including sanctions imposed by the community) is an initiation of force or fraud by the CEO against the shareholders, who also have the right to act in self defense against such wrongful action.

The whole of the system strongly encourages ethical and moral behavior by those to whom power is given because wrongful acts harm both those outside the company as well as inside it.

Similarly, when we purchase goods and services is it not reasonable to say that we, the individual, are undertaking an interaction with the company as an entity and not just interacting on an individual level with the guy on the cash register or the other end of the phone, or whatever?

That's a bit simplistic. Of course you are interacting with "the company," but that phrase does not make the company some separate and distinct entity that absolves the people who work for or profit from it of responsibility for wrongful acts. Just as the cashier has the duty to prevent force or fraud committed by the CEO, the CEO and the shareholders have a duty to prevent the cashier from overcharging or embezzling.

It's a reciprocal interest thing.

In the practical sense however, one would interact with the company as an entity, using social opprobrium, boycott and social pressure on every member of the company to sanction the company for wrongdoing. Directly affecting the profitability of the company by refusing to do business with it because of misbehavior at some level encourages the members of the company to ferret out the wrongdoers and shun them from the company because those wrongful actions have resulted in harm to the employees and shareholders of the company.

Getting rid of the bad apples in this manner leads to more ethical behavior on the part of the company and a return to social acceptance by the community.

[Seth]

The problem with most people's understanding of Libertarianism is a faulty and misinformed understanding of what "initiation of force or fraud" actually means and how a particular individual act is analyzed under those rules to see if the others impacted by the action have just cause to resist the action or seek compensation for the alleged wrong. That analysis, it turns out, is much more complex and nuanced than most objectors to Libertarianism care to acknowledge.

Clearly.
Who defines "just cause"?

If you cut off my access to drinking water, do I have the right to shoot you?

Is it your drinking water?

How about the concept that water, like air doesn't belong to anybody?
Would this be too difficult for a Libertarian to grasp?

No need to be snarky. We're having a very polite and respectful discussion here and I ask you to participate in that spirit.

Yes, there is a view that water, like air, could be an unowned resource. Until it is owned.

Suppose the following scenario:

In a Libertarian settlement, one person homesteads (lays claim to) the land surrounding a natural spring by virtue of discovering the spring and settling there before the others. As the settlement grows the need for water from the stream increases and the owner decides to impose a free-market fee for such use. His claim to the water appears to be that it originates on his land, therefore it belongs to him, even though it passes beyond the boundaries of his land eventually to flow through land owned by others.

The thing to remember about a tangible, but free-flowing resource like water or air is that control over the resource does not extend beyond the boundaries of the land one owns.

Therefore, as soon as the water flows off of the homesteader's land it once again becomes unowned common property. The next landowner downstream can then claim that unowned resource as it passes through his property, and so on. Eventually, diversion and consumptive use of the stream will result in the stream ending on someone's property. At that point there is no more unowned resource. In current appropriations doctrine law this is reflected as the "use it or lose it" rule that says that if you do not put the appropriated water to beneficial use, you may lose the right to divert it from the stream and others may claim it.

So, let's suppose that the homesteader caps the spring so that no water escapes his land. In this case there is no unowned resource flowing off his property, and he's perfectly entitled to sell the spring water by the gallon if he wishes.

If he does so, the rest of the community has the option to purchase the water from the homesteader or find another source of water, or move somewhere else.

The first option leads to a negotiation between the homesteader and each member of the community for access to water for an acceptable free-market price.

The second option leads to community members spending their own money to drill wells into the aquifer beneath their own lands because the cost of spring water is too high, thus bypassing the exclusivity of the spring water and creating a wider market to satisfy demand. At the same time, the new well owners and other members of the community may express their displeasure at the rapacious and antisocial tactics of the spring owner by shunning and boycotting him and not allowing him to either trade with the community nor participate in social functions.

The third option leads to the community abandoning the area entirely, leaving the spring owner alone and unsupported by the community.

This is how the spring owner is encouraged to engage in ethical behavior through the stimulation of rational self interest on his part driven by his natural need for association and participation in community.

[pErvinalia]

The problem with most people's understanding of Libertarianism is a faulty and misinformed understanding of what "initiation of force or fraud" actually means and how a particular individual act is analyzed under those rules to see if the others impacted by the action have just cause to resist the action or seek compensation for the alleged wrong. That analysis, it turns out, is much more complex and nuanced than most objectors to Libertarianism care to acknowledge.

Clearly.
Who defines "just cause"?

If you cut off my access to drinking water, do I have the right to shoot you?

Is it your drinking water?

How about the concept that water, like air doesn't belong to anybody?
Would this be too difficult for a Libertarian to grasp?

No need to be snarky. We're having a very polite and respectful discussion here and I ask you to participate in that spirit.

Should I join in too?

[Seth]

Should I join in too?

If you can be polite, reasonable and rational, why not?

[rainbow]

The problem with most people's understanding of Libertarianism is a faulty and misinformed understanding of what "initiation of force or fraud" actually means and how a particular individual act is analyzed under those rules to see if the others impacted by the action have just cause to resist the action or seek compensation for the alleged wrong. That analysis, it turns out, is much more complex and nuanced than most objectors to Libertarianism care to acknowledge.

Clearly.
Who defines "just cause"?

If you cut off my access to drinking water, do I have the right to shoot you?

Is it your drinking water?

How about the concept that water, like air doesn't belong to anybody?
Would this be too difficult for a Libertarian to grasp?

No need to be snarky. We're having a very polite and respectful discussion here and I ask you to participate in that spirit.

It was a perfectly valid question.

Yes, there is a view that water, like air, could be an unowned resource. Until it is owned.

Suppose the following scenario:

In a Libertarian settlement, one person homesteads (lays claim to) the land surrounding a natural spring by virtue of discovering the spring and settling there before the others. As the settlement grows the need for water from the stream increases and the owner decides to impose a free-market fee for such use. His claim to the water appears to be that it originates on his land, therefore it belongs to him, even though it passes beyond the boundaries of his land eventually to flow through land owned by others.

The claim would be invalid on the grounds that the water is never owned.

[Seth]

How about the concept that water, like air doesn't belong to anybody?
Would this be too difficult for a Libertarian to grasp?

No need to be snarky. We're having a very polite and respectful discussion here and I ask you to participate in that spirit.

It was a perfectly valid question.

Yes, it was, and I responded to it politely. The snark was your second sentence implying that Libertarians aren't smart enough to grasp the concept. That was unnecessary.

Yes, there is a view that water, like air, could be an unowned resource. Until it is owned.

Suppose the following scenario:

In a Libertarian settlement, one person homesteads (lays claim to) the land surrounding a natural spring by virtue of discovering the spring and settling there before the others. As the settlement grows the need for water from the stream increases and the owner decides to impose a free-market fee for such use. His claim to the water appears to be that it originates on his land, therefore it belongs to him, even though it passes beyond the boundaries of his land eventually to flow through land owned by others.

The claim would be invalid on the grounds that the water is never owned.

And thus occurs the tragedy of the commons. Who is to decide then whose right to use the water consumptively prevails? If the spring is small, and the homesteader diverts all of it to water his crops or livestock, or to drink and wash with it, leaving none for anyone else, how it it "unowned?"

This conundrum was addressed by the water-poor states of the west long ago. It is perhaps difficult for someone who lives in a water-rich area where the rivers always flow (riparian doctrine states), and those who live in places where water, unlike air, is a decidedly finite resource, such as the American west, or perhaps Saudi Arabia, where so much as drinking from a well belonging to another tribe (because they built it) without permission will get you killed. (Anyone who hasn't seen Lawrence of Arabia should see it)

In the American west the only partly humorous dictum "Whiskey's for drinking, water's for fighting" still applies. As recently as ten years ago a Colorado farmer was beaten to death by his neighbor for stealing water from a common ditch.

The solution here is the doctrine of prior appropriation which states that the first person in time to divert a natural stream's water to a useful purpose has the right to continue to divert that amount of water in perpetuity with absolute priority over later appropriators who might have appropriated unclaimed water in the stream at a later time.

This system was devised as the fairest and most manageable way of allocating a limited resource.

So in your "unowned water" scenario, how are disputes over allocation of a limited resource like water resolved?

[rainbow]

So in your "unowned water" scenario, how are disputes over allocation of a limited resource like water resolved?

Big Government.

[Seth]

So in your "unowned water" scenario, how are disputes over allocation of a limited resource like water resolved?

Big Government.

Based on what criteria?

[JimC]

So in your "unowned water" scenario, how are disputes over allocation of a limited resource like water resolved?

Big Government.

Based on what criteria?

Hopefully a set of rational criteria, well publicised, that can be a factor when they are up for re-election. If the people don't like the criteria, or how they are implemented, they can respond in the ballot box...

[Hermit]

In Australia most water resources are actually owned by the various state governments as well as the federal government. Between them they have established various organisations to manage the supply and quality of water for agricultural, domestic and industrial use. Our water supply is highly erratic. Our biggest river system, The Murray-Darling Basin, dried up completely twice since records were kept, and on numerous occasions so little water was replenished that river flow at the mouth had basically stopped. Sea water flowed in for many miles.

It was quickly recognised that bureaucratic regulation was necessary to optimise water use. In 1915 three state governments, along with the the commonwealth government came up with the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, which began operations two years later, building dozens of dams, and dozens more weirs and locks. These served as buffer zones on a scale private ownership was not capable of.

Not surprisingly, there are and always have been conflicts between upstream and downstream interests. Resolving them was beyond a system based on private ownership. Overall, now the situation is acceptable to everybody even though not everybody is particularly happy with it, especially those whose usage quota have been reduced, or not increased by the amount they would have liked. Acceptance is due to the realisation that without regulation on a macro level almost everyone would be worse off and that water is a national resource that must be shared rather than inherently private property. Works well enough for us. Certainly better than the alternative: each man for himself, first in, best dressed, and so on.

[rainbow]

So in your "unowned water" scenario, how are disputes over allocation of a limited resource like water resolved?

Big Government.

Based on what criteria?

Based on preventing a few people with guns from taking over limited resources and holding the rest of us to ransom.

[piscator]

The spring flowed out of the Libertarian farmer's property before he dammed it? So he's just rent collecting?


Then it's in my rational interests to make it as expensive for him as I can, as every rent-collecting leech I can run out of business may ultimately make vital resources cheaper for me, my heirs, and assigns.
To that effect, I helped form an association of concerned neighboring land, road, electricity, sunlight, and air owners, and we're going to charge Squire Q. Waterhaug quite a bit extra for his road tolls, air, sunlight, and electricity. Moreover, since I know a friend of the family of the man awarded the General Patent for carbohydrates, further investigations into Mr Waterhaug's cellular carbohydrate levels, as well as those of any vegetation and livestock on his land, may well be warranted.

[Seth]

So in your "unowned water" scenario, how are disputes over allocation of a limited resource like water resolved?

Big Government.

Based on what criteria?

Hopefully a set of rational criteria, well publicised, that can be a factor when they are up for re-election. If the people don't like the criteria, or how they are implemented, they can respond in the ballot box...

What criteria? Don't dodge the issue.

[Hermit]

Issue addressed here. In short, overall it's better to have access to government than privately owned water.

[Seth]

So in your "unowned water" scenario, how are disputes over allocation of a limited resource like water resolved?

Big Government.

Based on what criteria?

Based on preventing a few people with guns from taking over limited resources and holding the rest of us to ransom.

So you advocate the collective using guns to take over a limited resource that some individual was using before anybody else came along? How is that any more moral or ethical than the homesteader protecting his private property from expropriation by the collective using guns?

What you suggest is nothing more than tyranny of the majority, which results in the tragedy of the commons, because the collective (or the government) can never be as good a steward of a limited resource as an individual owner who has an interest in marketing that resource in perpetuity. When it's a renewable resource like water or trees or crops, it is in the interests of the owner to both protect (in this case) the watershed or spring from damage, pollution or over-use, and to market the water so that the community that wants to grow around the water source will flourish and prosper rather than drying up and blowing away, like the communities around the Aral Sea.

That's the very definition of "rational self-interest."

There is nothing inherently moral about a collective wielding force in its own interest to tyrannize the minority than there is in the minority using force to defend its own interests against the majority. Numbers do not create moral behavior, they merely facilitate tyranny and oppression.

Just because you and your neighbors want to grow corn in my back yard doesn't give you any moral standing to appropriate my property to your benefit against my will. Like water, land is a "limited resource" and the same principles apply to both.