The Libertarian "State"

[Warren Dew]

On that basis, when is the USA going to return Guantanamo Bay to Cuba, since it was taken by force of arms in 1898?

As soon as the Spaniards retake Cuba, since that was who Guantanamo Bay was taken from.

[JimC]

On that basis, when is the USA going to return Guantanamo Bay to Cuba, since it was taken by force of arms in 1898?

As soon as the Spaniards retake Cuba, since that was who Guantanamo Bay was taken from.

As long as the Dons don't sight Devon...

[piscator]

Libertarianism does not prohibit the existence of "public" or common property, it merely forbids the majority from taking what is owned by the individual by initiating force or fraud. The concept of eminent domain does not exist in Libertarianism, but the principle of free-market negotiation most certainly does. Eminent domain as a concept holds that all land is held by individuals subject to the overarching right of the King (or the government) to use that land for its own purposes. In US law, eminent domain exists but is strictly limited by the Constitution as to how and when it may be exercised. There are two conditions stated in the Constitution itself: The taking of the property must be for "public use," and the owner of the property must receive "just compensation."

How did the land of the United States become private property?
How did the millions of square miles of, say, the Louisiana Purchase become mostly private property?


Hint: That land was overwhelmingly given to the first comers ("Entrymen") by the US government. Free of charge.

[JimC]

Perhaps it would work on an asteroid...

[piscator]

"The Louisiana Purchase (French: Vente de la Louisiane "Sale of Louisiana") was the acquisition by the United States of America in 1803 of 828,000 square miles (2,140,000 km2) of France's claim to the territory of Louisiana. The U.S. paid 50 million francs ($11,250,000) plus cancellation of debts worth 18 million francs ($3,750,000), for a total sum of 15 million dollars (less than 3 cents per acre) for the Louisiana territory."

[Blind groper]

Question : why is there no libertarian state anywhere in the world today?

Answer : because it does not bloody work!

It is like the reason communism does not work. To work, it requires humans to be more than they are. It requires ethical behaviour, and people are not like that.

[rainbow]

In a libertarian "state", you'd see a lot more people actually helping others out of the goodness of their own hearts, voluntarily.

There would also be those that abuse their position of power gained by economic dominance.

How do you propose to limit that?

Read my answer to Pappa on the last page; it's dealt with there.

No, it wasn't.

If the whole thing is too long for you, start reading with the paragraph that begins, "Then there is the issue of monopolies ...".

I didn't say it was too long.
I said it didn't adress my question.

If you can't answer it, just say so.

[rainbow]

Contrary to current law, Libertarianism does not permit government to forcibly expropriate property, nor does it limit to "just" the amount of compensation that must be paid. Instead, Libertarianism holds that the public, or the community at large, through it's representatives in government have no better right to take what belongs to the individual against his will than any individual does, and that therefore all transactions between the government and the private individual must flow from voluntary contract.

Does a landowner have a right to property taken without voluntary contract?
Would that mean that all land taken by conquest would need to be returned?

In Libertarian terms I think it would depend morally upon the genesis of the conflict. The "NFNF" (No force, no fraud) principle does not permit Libertarians to initiate force under any circumstances, but it does not prohibit either defensive or retaliatory force when attacked.

Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was an aggressive initiation of force against a neighboring country that fully justified a defensive and retaliatory response that would have justified Kuwait and/or the Coalition seizing control of Iraq and making it a vassal state in compensation for the damages of Saddam's invasion.

The same is true of Egypt's invasion of Israel in 1968. Israel kicked it's enemy's ass and took control of the West Bank, Gaza and the Sinai and was therefore fully justified in claiming those lands as compensation for the aggression.

On the other hand, had Saddam prevailed in Kuwait, his claim would be illegitimate because he initiated the force and therefor any and all force used to oppose that occupation is legitimate.

Nothing in Libertarianism is unreservedly pacifist. To the contrary, Libertarians fully support the use of defensive and retaliatory force, they just eschew the initiation of force. That's why Libertarians strongly support the RKBA and laws like the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground.

OK. What about for example, the land taken from Native Americans?
The history indicates that there were not always voluntary contracts in place.

[pErvinalia]

I told you.. That's different. Moral laws only apply from this point on for people who are already comfortably well off.

[laklak]

Question : why is there no libertarian state anywhere in the world today?

Answer : because it does not bloody work!

It is like the reason communism does not work. To work, it requires humans to be more than they are. It requires ethical behaviour, and people are not like that.

BG and I agree again. Neither communism nor libertarianism will work in the real world. But, just as many want to incorporate more communist principles into a mixed economy, I want to incorporate more libertarian principles. I believe that individual liberty is more important than the greater good, they believe the opposite. Neither is a fixed, unvarying absolute. In some cases individual liberty trumps, in some the greater good does, but in almost all cases it is a mixture. The devil, as usual, is in the details.

[rainbow]

Question : why is there no libertarian state anywhere in the world today?

Answer : because it does not bloody work!

It is like the reason communism does not work. To work, it requires humans to be more than they are. It requires ethical behaviour, and people are not like that.

BG and I agree again. Neither communism nor libertarianism will work in the real world. But, just as many want to incorporate more communist principles into a mixed economy, I want to incorporate more libertarian principles. I believe that individual liberty is more important than the greater good, they believe the opposite. Neither is a fixed, unvarying absolute. In some cases individual liberty trumps, in some the greater good does, but in almost all cases it is a mixture. The devil, as usual, is in the details.

...so really it comes down to some wishy-washy compromise.

[laklak]

Pretty much like everything else in life.

[pErvinalia]

But we can't argue about compromise!

[laklak]

Yes we can!

I'm not budging!

[Warren Dew]

Question : why is there no libertarian state anywhere in the world today?

Answer : because it does not bloody work!

It is like the reason communism does not work. To work, it requires humans to be more than they are. It requires ethical behaviour, and people are not like that.

Not really true. Many of the United States were pretty darn close to libertarian states until the early 20th century.

The reason is more that egalitarian democracy encourages people to vote themselves other peoples' money, thus biasing democracies towards socialism.