The Libertarian "State"

[pErvinalia]

Sure. I wasn't only referring to you. Blind Groper is acting like it's a choice between Libbo'ism at one end and Marxism at the other. That's a false dichotomy.

[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.

No, it encourages workers to vote for parties which don't automatically kowtow to the power of established wealth and privilege...

If that were true, you would expect such parties actually to exist, which they don't, at least in the U.S.

[Warren Dew]

Libertarianism may work below a certain, very low, population density. Beyond that, recipe for total bloody chaos.

Considering anything below that of central London is "very low" to you Brits, perhaps.

Libertarianism may work below a certain, very low, population density. Beyond that, recipe for total bloody chaos.

I think Marxism and pure Socialsim are similar in this aspect. I suspect the homogeneity of a society is a factor also.

I don't think Marxism or pure socialism work for reasonably sized populations at any population density. They only work for small communities, such as a single kibbutz.

[Blind groper]

Sure. I wasn't only referring to you. Blind Groper is acting like it's a choice between Libbo'ism at one end and Marxism at the other. That's a false dichotomy.

No. I said it was a matter of balance. I don't tend to think in terms of libertarianism vs Marxism. My thinking is more left versus right. However, the important thing is to get a balance and not run with an extremist approach.

And Marxism is not the same as socialism.

[Seth]

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.

Yes, much land was homesteaded west of the Mississippi. Much of the land east of the Mississippi was bought from the Indians both before and after the Revolution...sometimes several times from several different tribes, which led to many disputes from both sides. It was hardly "free" though. There was no monetary expense, but the laws of homesteading required a significant input of labor and improvement before title passed.

...

The purpose of homestead laws was to stimulate commerce by granting land patents to settlers. Other land was sold by the government to fund government operations. This is why the Congress created the "split estate" in which it grants the surface rights to an individual but retains the subsurface mineral rights to the government. I don't agree with split estates, which should never have happened.

1. One of the first purposes of the original acts pertaining to the disposal of the Public Domain was to pay off Revolutionary War debts. And the original purpose of homestead laws in the US was to reward soldiers of the Revolutionary War.

2. As I've explained in another thread, "Land ownership" is merely a set of rights granted by some sort of conveyance and guaranteed by a government.

And what is your point, exactly? A "government" is nothing more or less than a body organized by people as a way to resolve conflicts over resources and the exercise of rights. It's merely a sophisticated form of jungle law that replaces the "if you can hold it, it's yours" rule of nature with a more complex form of combat. The rights aren't granted by government, they are merely adjudicated in a systematic fashion by general agreement of the members of the community in order to reduce the need for direct combat.

"Subsurface rights" are just as severable and fungible as any other of the rights bundled as a land title. If it wasn't that way since before Rome, someone would have invented it in the interim.

So you're not really correct on either score.

I didn't say they weren't, I merely said I don't think it's right that they are severed by the government. It's kind of like saying "We'll issue you a fishing license, but we're reserving all the fish for government use, so don't catch any."

But granting land patents for homesteaders is only marginally different from the settlers themselves going forth and occupying the land by acquiring it from those who laid claim to it, if anyone chose to do so.

It's more than marginally different, as a government backs the rights known as "Land Title". Bob could go out and claim some patch of land for his exclusive use, but he'll have a tough time holding his claim against others or handling disputes in the absence of the force represented by a government. Governments are all the difference. Whatayougonna do?

Your base argument against government use of land depends upon a government powerful enough to enforce land laws. Congratulations on such a fine logical regression. I guess when you get to be God, you'll fix that.

Governments are not alien objects or supreme beings, they are merely an organ of the community used to mediate and adjudicate disputes over the exercise of various rights. It's irrelevant how "tough" it might be for an individual to hold his claim against others because nobody said it was easy to survive or to find, reduce to possession and make exclusive use of the resources necessary for survival. The issue is what "government's" role is, and it's not granting of rights, it's nothing more than adjudication of the exercise of rights. It may be convenient to have the force of government to back up your claim, but it's hardly necessary because the individual, if he has the capacity to do so, can defend that claim all on his own, even against the superior force of government itself. There is nothing inherently "right" about a government decision to exercise force in defending the exercise of one right by one person over the exercise of a competing right by another. Government's make mistakes and commit moral and ethical errors all the time. This does not change the nature of the right asserted by the individual, it merely changes the outcome of the conflict...or not.

[pErvinalia]

Sure. I wasn't only referring to you. Blind Groper is acting like it's a choice between Libbo'ism at one end and Marxism at the other. That's a false dichotomy.

No. I said it was a matter of balance. I don't tend to think in terms of libertarianism vs Marxism. My thinking is more left versus right. However, the important thing is to get a balance and not run with an extremist approach.

Yeah, but you only presented two extremes. Marxism is one version of socialism (communism?), and there are other less toxic versions.

[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.

Yes, much land was homesteaded west of the Mississippi. Much of the land east of the Mississippi was bought from the Indians both before and after the Revolution...sometimes several times from several different tribes, which led to many disputes from both sides. It was hardly "free" though. There was no monetary expense, but the laws of homesteading required a significant input of labor and improvement before title passed.

...

The purpose of homestead laws was to stimulate commerce by granting land patents to settlers. Other land was sold by the government to fund government operations. This is why the Congress created the "split estate" in which it grants the surface rights to an individual but retains the subsurface mineral rights to the government. I don't agree with split estates, which should never have happened.

1. One of the first purposes of the original acts pertaining to the disposal of the Public Domain was to pay off Revolutionary War debts. And the original purpose of homestead laws in the US was to reward soldiers of the Revolutionary War.

2. As I've explained in another thread, "Land ownership" is merely a set of rights granted by some sort of conveyance and guaranteed by a government.

And what is your point, exactly?

To show how distanced your premises and aesthetic opinions happen to be from mechanical fact. You just don't have a very good grasp of how the world works, yet you think you have some sort of better mousetrap in Libertarianism.

"Subsurface rights" are just as severable and fungible as any other of the rights bundled as a land title. If it wasn't that way since before Rome, someone would have invented it in the interim.

So you're not really correct on either score.

I didn't say they weren't, I merely said I don't think it's right that they are severed by the government. It's kind of like saying "We'll issue you a fishing license, but we're reserving all the fish for government use, so don't catch any."

They're not often severed by the government, and certainly not arbitrarily.
And since you bring up fishing licenses, states often distinguish between fresh and saltwater, recreational and commercial fishing licenses, so your analogy is as groundless as your subsurface land rights beef.

Like most of your political opinions, it falls under the heading of "Arbitrary aesthetic preferences" rather than "Things we must do to remedy existing problems with the way the US works".

But granting land patents for homesteaders is only marginally different from the settlers themselves going forth and occupying the land by acquiring it from those who laid claim to it, if anyone chose to do so.

It's more than marginally different, as a government backs the rights known as "Land Title". Bob could go out and claim some patch of land for his exclusive use, but he'll have a tough time holding his claim against others or handling disputes in the absence of the force represented by a government. Governments are all the difference. Whatayougonna do?

Your base argument against government use of land depends upon a government powerful enough to enforce land laws. Congratulations on such a fine logical regression. I guess when you get to be God, you'll fix that.

Governments are not alien objects or supreme beings, they are merely an organ of the community used to mediate and adjudicate disputes over the exercise of various rights.

With armies and navies...
Governments are pretty much the only ones who grant and maintain "Rights". Do you think an individual has any rights irrespective of a government? Do you think the universe cares about your Natural Law theories?

Most of your reasoning inre individual vs government is entirely circular. And like most smug Libertarians, you're a poster boy for Dunning-Kruger.

[rainbow]

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

Because individuals don't form states

Wrong. Somalia is a good example of a state without any government interference in the workings of business.

...what could go wrong?

[MrJonno]

Considering anything below that of central London is "very low" to you Brits, perhaps.

Most people do live in cities and central London doesn't have that many residents, people just go there to work (few could afford accommodation there and commute)

[Blind groper]

Just a comment about government.

Lots of people present a very cynical view of government, suggesting it is simply the whims of a bunch of idiots we call politicians.

In established nations that is not true. Here in NZ, we are the heirs of the British system, which is a system going back many centuries. I sometimes think one of the reasons the USA does so many less than civilised things is that it rejected the British system.

Governments pass laws, but those laws are passed within a framework set down by history, and are (mostly) non reckless, but well researched. If there is a criticism, it is that the British legal framework tends to slow down necessary changes. But it prevents whimsical legal changes and mostly stops idiotic legislation.

[Seth]

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

Because individuals don't form states

Wrong. Somalia is a good example of a state without any government interference in the workings of business.

...what could go wrong?

Somalia is a good example of anarchy, not Libertarianism.

[Seth]

And what is your point, exactly?

To show how distanced your premises and aesthetic opinions happen to be from mechanical fact. You just don't have a very good grasp of how the world works, yet you think you have some sort of better mousetrap in Libertarianism.

I'm perfectly aware of how the world works, you're just committing the appeal to common practice fallacy.

"Subsurface rights" are just as severable and fungible as any other of the rights bundled as a land title. If it wasn't that way since before Rome, someone would have invented it in the interim.

So you're not really correct on either score.

I didn't say they weren't, I merely said I don't think it's right that they are severed by the government. It's kind of like saying "We'll issue you a fishing license, but we're reserving all the fish for government use, so don't catch any."

They're not often severed by the government, and certainly not arbitrarily.
And since you bring up fishing licenses, states often distinguish between fresh and saltwater, recreational and commercial fishing licenses, so your analogy is as groundless as your subsurface land rights beef.

You're absolutely wrong. The United States severed the mineral rights of huge numbers of land grants in the west, after it figured out that there were substantial mineral resources there that it could keep and then lease out.

Like most of your political opinions, it falls under the heading of "Arbitrary aesthetic preferences" rather than "Things we must do to remedy existing problems with the way the US works".

So what? I have my philosophical positions and nothing requires that I accept the way things are as the permanent status quo. Pointing out the inequities involved in Congress severing mineral rights in the west when it did not do so in the east is a demonstration of the principle of "unequal footing." This means that the states in the West that were formed well after the eastern states, which were supposed to be admitted to the Union on an "equal footing" with the original 13 colonies, which was largely the case east of the Mississippi, were not.

The enormous reservations of federal lands, some 60 percent or more, along with severing of mineral rights was extracted from the people of the states against their wishes by Congress, which demanded that the occupants of the new states surrender ALL right and title to unappropriated lands to the federal government as a condition of statehood, something that was not done in the eastern United States. This is why, for example, the federal government "owns" more than 80% of the state of Nevada, and therefore pays no taxes to the state of Nevada, putting Nevada at a substantial disadvantage economically from other states where the lands within the state's boundaries that are not privately owned largely belong to the STATE, not the federal government.

One of the solutions to the budget deficit and national debt is for the federal government to do as it has done before and sell off vast amounts of federal lands to private individuals. There is another movement that claims that most federal lands, like National Forests and BLM lands do not legitimately belong to the federal government at all, but belong to the State, under the Equal Footing Doctrine.

The federal government has no business owning ANY land at all except for those purposes explicitly authorized in the Constitution, which explicitly limits what the federal government may own: "and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings."

Please note that the Constitution REQUIRES that the Congress, only with the CONSENT of the state involved, is allowed to PURCHASE lands within a state for government structures, including post offices and post roads, from the states. The obvious implication is that the title to the lands within the boundaries of a state are the property of the STATE, not the federal government.

The coerced surrender of these lands by states in the west is a direct violation of the Equal Footing Doctrine, and a direct violation of the constitutional LIMITATIONS on the acquisition and ownership of property.

With armies and navies...
Governments are pretty much the only ones who grant and maintain "Rights". Do you think an individual has any rights irrespective of a government? Do you think the universe cares about your Natural Law theories?

Yes, absolutely. Individual rights exist irrespective of the existence of government. Government doesn't grant me the right to defend my life, or to find food and water, reduce it to my personal possession and defend it against others taking it from me. Government does not grant me a right to find a woman and procreate and defend my family from harm. I have those rights independent of government and as a function of my existence as a living being capable of asserting and defending those rights. So do you. The universe doesn't care, but I do, and you do, because both of us will defend those rights no matter who or what attempts to breach them.

Most of your reasoning inre individual vs government is entirely circular. And like most smug Libertarians, you're a poster boy for Dunning-Kruger.

[/quote][/quote]

Personal attack reported. And if you don't get time off I'll translate and rebut your slur in plain language.

[JimC]

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

Because individuals don't form states

Wrong. Somalia is a good example of a state without any government interference in the workings of business.

...what could go wrong?

Somalia is a good example of anarchy, not Libertarianism.

One man's anarchy is another man's Libertarianism...

One thinks of a Hobbesian "war of all against all"...

[Blind groper]

To Seth

What you defined as 'rights' in the last post, I call inevitabilities. In the American declaration, you have 'the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' The latter is a misnomer. The pursuit of happiness is not a right. It is an inevitability, because even a man in prison will do whatever he can to improve his level of pleasure.


A right is something given by those in power. IF It is outside their ability to confer, it is not a right. It is an inevitability.

[Warren Dew]

Just a comment about government.

Lots of people present a very cynical view of government, suggesting it is simply the whims of a bunch of idiots we call politicians.

In established nations that is not true. Here in NZ, we are the heirs of the British system, which is a system going back many centuries. I sometimes think one of the reasons the USA does so many less than civilised things is that it rejected the British system.

Governments pass laws, but those laws are passed within a framework set down by history, and are (mostly) non reckless, but well researched. If there is a criticism, it is that the British legal framework tends to slow down necessary changes. But it prevents whimsical legal changes and mostly stops idiotic legislation.

Don't tell my wife. She would push hard to move to a place where the government where the queen still had the primary influence over national policy.