Freedom Of Association?

[FredericBastiat]

This sounds very attractive, but it's really not that simple. I eat a banana. Is that force? Well, not if it's my banana. But yes if it's your banana.

I don't give you $100. Is that force? Well, if you believe in enforceable contracts and I agree to give you $100, that's going to have to be considered force. Unless you don't believe in enforceable contracts, which seems to pretty much doom the concept of a modern industrial society which requires long-term investments and legally-enforceable agreements.

Every interaction with others is a form of contract. I do believe in enforceable contract. Still simple.

[1715121782]

1715121782

[1715121782]

1715121782

[1715121782]

1715121782

[1715121782]

1715121782

[1715121782]

1715121782

[jgraham]

I guess you could say there are 2 types of offenses. Mental and physical.

If you're going to allow mental offenses to become legal issues then you might as well open Pandora's Box. Because anything could be interpreted as offensive. There could be no end to the number of laws that one could write.

On the other hand, if we only consider the physical domain (physics of force), then you narrow the playing field considerably.

I personally prefer simplicity.

I suspect, in their heads everyone's already made the alliteration concerning the terms "simplicity" and "simple" so I won't bother. 

You seem to be making the argument that "the lower the number of laws to be made the more you prefer it".   This is seems pretty weak.

i) Why is low number of laws the key element?  By the same token one could argue that if we only consider assault to a person (rather than property) then that result is simpler still! Better yet, lets only consider assault to peoples left arms!
ii) Can you actually prove that there is no infinite set of laws that could potentially be made (given an infinite amount of time) concerning the assault of person and property?
iii) Your secondary clause is actually a slippery slope fallacy.  Many societies already consider various forms mental abuse to be a crime and yet we still see limitations on laws regarding offensive things in those places. 

So by "legal crimes" you meant "physical assault to a person and I'll assume by extension to ones property" then?.  That's interesting since it doesn't cover "threat of violence" with is considered "aggression" under NAP.   Which means that blackmail in your world is not a crime.  Also to you an dependent elder, child, spouse can be in an raised in an environment with constant psychological abuse (including say making someone fear for their life) and believe that no crime is being committed there.  Right?

Law is complicated because life is, in part because life today is complicated.

[bonker]

Law is complicated because life is, in part because life today is complicated.

Hmmm, yes. I think this is the key point. Libertarianism cannot accommodate the complexities of
human nature.
 

[FredericBastiat]

You seem to be making the argument that "the lower the number of laws to be made the more you prefer it".   This is seems pretty weak.

i) Why is low number of laws the key element?  By the same token one could argue that if we only consider assault to a person (rather than property) then that result is simpler still! Better yet, lets only consider assault to peoples left arms!
ii) Can you actually prove that there is no infinite set of laws that could potentially be made (given an infinite amount of time) concerning the assault of person and property?
iii) Your secondary clause is actually a slippery slope fallacy.  Many societies already consider various forms mental abuse to be a crime and yet we still see limitations on laws regarding offensive things in those places.  

So by "legal crimes" you meant "physical assault to a person and I'll assume by extension to ones property" then?.  That's interesting since it doesn't cover "threat of violence" with is considered "aggression" under NAP.   Which means that blackmail in your world is not a crime.  Also to you an dependent elder, child, spouse can be in an raised in an environment with constant psychological abuse (including say making someone fear for their life) and believe that no crime is being committed there.  Right?

Law is complicated because life is, in part because life today is complicated.

I actually do prefer fewer laws. There's less to mess with. There is a reason for the preference. I think when you have many laws you introduce the possibility of loopholes. Those tend to be exploited by lawyers allowing real criminals to use them to excuse themselves from the accountability of their actions.

Every type of physical assault is unique (including the circumstances and evidence, a lot like a fingerprint), that's why you have a court to determine the gravity of the crime and the specific punishment and restitution. I think a reasonable set of jurors, judge, arbiters, or other panel of discerning individuals can mete out a sentence of reasonable proportions.

In general, blackmail, slander, and other forms of questionable communication are not physical abuse as would be defined in the usual physical sense of the word, and so, would not fall into the category of punishable offenses. Notwithstanding, children, who by nature have limited ability to decide for themselves that they would leave such a negative environment if available, warrants some investigation.

Everybody else is free to leave an abusive environment (assuming it isn't their own private property they're occupying, in which case the other person has to leave). Threats of force still involve the element of force, and so are unacceptable. However, one must be careful when interpreting imminent threat as the act of aggression hasn't commenced yet. A sticky situation.

[bonker]

I actually do prefer fewer laws. There's less to mess with. There is a reason for the preference. I think when you have many laws you introduce the possibility of loopholes. Those tend to be exploited by lawyers allowing real criminals to use them to excuse themselves from the accountability of their actions.

This is Occam's Razor.

The problem is that human nature will lead to conflicts that Libertarianism does not have the mechanisms to resolve.

[JoelKatz]

The problem is that human nature will lead to conflicts that Libertarianism does not have the mechanisms to resolve.

Yes, the problem with "live and let live" is that it inevitably leads to conflicts. What leads to conflicts is fighting over the profits of government.

[myrkul]

I actually do prefer fewer laws. There's less to mess with. There is a reason for the preference. I think when you have many laws you introduce the possibility of loopholes. Those tend to be exploited by lawyers allowing real criminals to use them to excuse themselves from the accountability of their actions.

This is Occam's Razor.

The problem is that human nature will lead to conflicts that Libertarianism does not have the mechanisms to resolve.

Which are?

[FredericBastiat]

Merely being imperfect humans leads to inevitable conflicts. This has nothing to do with Libertarianism, or for that matter any other type of form of government, belief system, "royal" proclamation, or list of prescribed constraints.

It is in man's nature to be destructive more often than not. It seemingly takes herculean effort to look outside oneself and "do the right thing."

The only constraints/actions governments can proscribe, are ones which involve the non-consensual entanglements and encroachments between men and their property. This is justice. Anything else, and the government abuses the same people it was intended to protect.

[NghtRppr]

It's a simple question.

I said you were stating the obvious. I'm sorry if you don't know whether or not that implies I agree with you.

Are you equivocating here?  You personally do not but that's because you don't have property on the other side of it.  Other people do, right now there's a municipal order allowing them access.

Would any rational person have bought that property in the first place if they couldn't be guaranteed access to it at a reasonable price in the future? No.

Define in his context how you are using "rational", "future" and "guaranteed".[/quote]

Use a dictionary. Answer the question.

I take it that you concede my point that most roads will be owned by a business.

There's no reason for me to assume any of that.[/quote]

Why is that an unreasonable assumption? Please provide some substance.

[jgraham]

It's a simple question.

I said you were stating the obvious. I'm sorry if you don't know whether or not that implies I agree with you.

Noooooo....what you said in reference to this particular point was:

What's your point? I claimed that stores would assure access to a major highway and then you state the obvious viz. that they wouldn't assure access to every customer at any cost. How does that disprove my claim that stores would still assure access to a major highway?

They only thing you clearly labeled as obvious was the idea about the feasibility of a non-business owning a road.  Unless you are saying that when you say: "What's your point?" you mean that the point you are responding to is obviously true?

On the same note, did you figure out what you meant by "feasible" yet?

Are you equivocating here?  You personally do not but that's because you don't have property on the other side of it.  Other people do, right now there's a municipal order allowing them access.

Would any rational person have bought that property in the first place if they couldn't be guaranteed access to it at a reasonable price in the future? No.

Define in his context how you are using "rational", "future" and "guaranteed".

Use a dictionary.

Those people actually reading my posts would see that I didn't ask for a list of potential meanings.  I asked how YOU were using the terms.  Sadly I don't have a dictionary that is labeled "bitcoin2cash to my personal usage English" which is why it's, at least in my circles deemed reasonable to get a definition before answering a question.  Perhaps where you come from it's not reasonable?  Which is fine but given that you seem to agree that it's rational to not answer a question without terms defined to ones satisfaction isn't the only thing blocking the conversation here some kind of emotional hang-up of yours?

I mean, hey if you don't want to talk that's fine but there are easier ways to do that...like not-posting. 

Also it's probably worthwhile to attempt to see this from my point of view.  You have, self-described yourself as a zealot.  Zealots, in my experience tend to oversimplify things.

I take it that you concede my point that most roads will be owned by a business.

There's no reason for me to assume any of that.

Why is that an unreasonable assumption? Please provide some substance.

Either a strawman or a implied false dichotomy.  I've simply stated that there is no reason to assume that (especially since fantasy-land is pretty poorly defined and possibly this is deliberate on your part). 

[jgraham]

You seem to be making the argument that "the lower the number of laws to be made the more you prefer it".   This is seems pretty weak.

i) Why is low number of laws the key element?  By the same token one could argue that if we only consider assault to a person (rather than property) then that result is simpler still! Better yet, lets only consider assault to peoples left arms!
ii) Can you actually prove that there is no infinite set of laws that could potentially be made (given an infinite amount of time) concerning the assault of person and property?
iii) Your secondary clause is actually a slippery slope fallacy.  Many societies already consider various forms mental abuse to be a crime and yet we still see limitations on laws regarding offensive things in those places.  

So by "legal crimes" you meant "physical assault to a person and I'll assume by extension to ones property" then?.  That's interesting since it doesn't cover "threat of violence" with is considered "aggression" under NAP.   Which means that blackmail in your world is not a crime.  Also to you an dependent elder, child, spouse can be in an raised in an environment with constant psychological abuse (including say making someone fear for their life) and believe that no crime is being committed there.  Right?

Law is complicated because life is, in part because life today is complicated.

I actually do prefer fewer laws. There's less to mess with. There is a reason for the preference. I think when you have many laws you introduce the possibility of loopholes.

So fewer laws do not create loopholes or create less loopholes?  So if I have a law who's intent is to stop the use of dangerous weapons which only restricts weapons made of steel and a set of laws that provides specific requirements for each material based on various characteristics.  Are you saying the first law allows for less dangerous weapons than the second?

Not to mention this kind of highlights that the term "number of laws" is at least poorly defined.   What's the difference between my set of laws - strung together as a single sentence and classified as a single "law" and treating them as a group of laws?  Perhaps we need to use terms more like "simple" or "complex".   I'm not trying to put words in your mouth here - just trying to think things through.

However on that note this makes me think of the problems involved in approximation.  Bare with me here...if we assume that there is some kind of "true" justice then it seems reasonable that such a concept could be defined as a function (of sorts) where each possible situation is the input and the output maps to some set of results - leaving aside for the moment the difficulty in defining "true justice" and some of the other terms - we will call this function T.  A law then could be defined as a function attempting to approximate this function - which we'll call L.   It's inputs do not necessarily take into account every situation and it's outputs do not necessarily match T for any and all cases.    Given all that, what features would L require to approximate T best?

In general, blackmail, slander, and other forms of questionable communication are not physical abuse as would be defined in the usual physical sense of the word, and so, would not fall into the category of punishable offenses. Notwithstanding, children, who by nature have limited ability to decide for themselves that they would leave such a negative environment if available, warrants some investigation.

Yes and under your system apparently these child abusers are not criminals and are also not punished correct?

Everybody else is free to leave an abusive environment (assuming it isn't their own private property they're occupying, in which case the other person has to leave).

Depends on what you mean by "free".  Do you mean significantly unencumbered?

Threats of force still involve the element of force

Technically that's equivocation.  Before you used the term 'force' to align with the term used by physicists.  Threats of violence are orthogonal to physical force.   Now you appear to be using the term to mean something else.

[FredericBastiat]

So fewer laws do not create loopholes or create less loopholes? 

Nobody's perfect; so fewer imperfect laws would produce, in general, and statistically speaking, less loopholes.

So if I have a law who's intent is to stop the use of dangerous weapons which only restricts weapons made of steel and a set of laws that provides specific requirements for each material based on various characteristics.  Are you saying the first law allows for less dangerous weapons than the second?

Those aren't laws, they're suggestive mores/opinions masquerading as laws. Laws prevent injury, enslavement, and plunder, not cause them. To wit, if I make a law which proscribes or obstructs a specific use of your property, I've violated your liberties. There's your first loophole. Oops!

Not to mention this kind of highlights that the term "number of laws" is at least poorly defined.   What's the difference between my set of laws - strung together as a single sentence and classified as a single "law" and treating them as a group of laws?  Perhaps we need to use terms more like "simple" or "complex".   I'm not trying to put words in your mouth here - just trying to think things through.

This smacks of garrulousness, semantics and pedantry. If we can't communicate, then were going to have a problem.

However on that note this makes me think of the problems involved in approximation.  Bare with me here...if we assume that there is some kind of "true" justice then it seems reasonable that such a concept could be defined as a function (of sorts) where each possible situation is the input and the output maps to some set of results - leaving aside for the moment the difficulty in defining "true justice" and some of the other terms - we will call this function T.  A law then could be defined as a function attempting to approximate this function - which we'll call L.   It's inputs do not necessarily take into account every situation and it's outputs do not necessarily match T for any and all cases.    Given all that, what features would L require to approximate T best?

I've actually given great thought to this. I do think it's possible, although, when you include things like imminent physical threats, the approximations become more vague. I haven't yet condensed it into mathemeatical form, I will get there eventually, here's my take on it:

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=18489.msg351447#msg351447

Yes and under your system apparently these child abusers are not criminals and are also not punished correct?

If the child feels threatened, cannot express their situation to someone else they trust and feel safe with, nor permitted to leave their environment, these "verbal" abusers would be holding their own children hostage. Kidnapping is enslavement, and is obviously not allowed.

Depends on what you mean by "free".  Do you mean significantly unencumbered?

Yes, free. Free in the general vernacular and etymology of the word, indicating unencumberedness. Pedantic again?, see above... You know what it meant. The contextual use of that word was not meant to imply that it cost you no money, no energy, and no mental effort to relocate yourself to another position in a 4-dimensional (x,y,z,t) space as constrained by an inertial reference frame. Oh wait, quantum physicists believe their is 11-dimensional space, sorry, better get that straightened out too...Geez!

Technically that's equivocation.  Before you used the term 'force' to align with the term used by physicists.  Threats of violence are orthogonal to physical force.   Now you appear to be using the term to mean something else.

I suppose that's true to some extent. Maybe we could equate threats of violence/force with potential energy, and violence that has already been committed, with kinetic energy. I'm sure we can figure something out here. Most laws should, for the most part, align with measurable and observable physical phenomena. Those laws which include potential threats can be observed/defined as deterministic, or at the least probabalistic, predictable events in progress. It would be like setting the initial conditions of an experiment, then introducing impetus to the inputs, followed by observing the outputs.

[bonker]

Those people actually reading my posts would see that I didn't ask for a list of potential meanings.  I asked how YOU were using the terms.  Sadly I don't have a dictionary that is labeled "bitcoin2cash to my personal usage English" which is why it's, at least in my circles deemed reasonable to get a definition before answering a question.  Perhaps where you come from it's not reasonable?  Which is fine but given that you seem to agree that it's rational to not answer a question without terms defined to ones satisfaction isn't the only thing blocking the conversation here some kind of emotional hang-up of yours?

I mean, hey if you don't want to talk that's fine but there are easier ways to do that...like not-posting.  

 

I'm getting the same problem. The defenders of Libertarianism are simply not following the argument here.

The whole point of governance is to resolve conflicts, Libertarianism has no mechanism to do this other than some
crude and ineffective notion of property rights.

Its nothing but a half-assed hangover theory from a decadent, post-consumer society.

[myrkul]

I actually do prefer fewer laws. There's less to mess with. There is a reason for the preference. I think when you have many laws you introduce the possibility of loopholes. Those tend to be exploited by lawyers allowing real criminals to use them to excuse themselves from the accountability of their actions.

This is Occam's Razor.

The problem is that human nature will lead to conflicts that Libertarianism does not have the mechanisms to resolve.

Which are?

Still waiting....

[JoelKatz]

The whole point of governance is to resolve conflicts, Libertarianism has no mechanism to do this other than some
crude and ineffective notion of property rights.

The mechanism is the same, laws, police, courts, and jails. The difference is that Libertarians don't recognize you wanting my stuff as a conflict that gets resolves in your favor.

[bonker]

I actually do prefer fewer laws. There's less to mess with. There is a reason for the preference. I think when you have many laws you introduce the possibility of loopholes. Those tend to be exploited by lawyers allowing real criminals to use them to excuse themselves from the accountability of their actions.

This is Occam's Razor.

The problem is that human nature will lead to conflicts that Libertarianism does not have the mechanisms to resolve.

Which are?

Still waiting....

We've already covered many examples in this thread. Let me help you, you decadent, lazy libertarian.

From earlier in the thread, the example of a whites-only restaurant opening in an ethnic neighbourhood.
Given there is enough support for such a restaurant, conflict will result.

This is one of many, many conflict scenarios - religious, racial, cultural -  that will always occur. There is
no mechanism to resolve these conflicts other than to let them beat the shit out of each other.

Hence, libertarianism is unstable and will always collapse into a barbarism or tyranny.

[bonker]

The whole point of governance is to resolve conflicts, Libertarianism has no mechanism to do this other than some
crude and ineffective notion of property rights.

The mechanism is the same, laws, police, courts, and jails. The difference is that Libertarians don't recognize you wanting my stuff as a conflict that gets resolves in your favor.

Ok, so libertarianism is not really a system of governance, it's a set of rules dealing with property rights. That's not really much of a change is it?

[JoelKatz]

From earlier in the thread, the example of a whites-only restaurant opening in an ethnic neighbourhood.
Given there is enough support for such a restaurant, conflict will result.

And we've explained several times how that conflict would be resolved.

This is one of many, many conflict scenarios - religious, racial, cultural -  that will always occur. There is
no mechanism to resolve these conflicts other than to let them beat the shit out of each other.

Hence, libertarianism is unstable and will always collapse into a barbarism or tyranny.

You can make this argument about any system. Heck, you could reject freedom of speech on these grounds. If you're free to say things I don't like, there will always be conflict. With freedom of speech, we can never resolve this conflict other than to let people beat the shit out of each other.

If you value freedom, then you accept that people will conflict because some people will be free to do things other people don't like. The solution is simple -- the people who don't like it have to get over it. If not, if they respond with violence, we put them in jail. For the system to work, the majority of people have to value their own freedom above the power to micro-manage other people's lives. In other words, people have to learn to get over it. If you think that's impossible, then Libertarianism will not work but then neither will freedom.

Ok, so libertarianism is not really a system of governance, it's a set of rules dealing with property rights. That's not really much of a change is it?

The difference is primarily in the scope of government. You can have a technical argument over whether it's a "system" or not. A Libertarian government could, for example, be imposed by a dictator. Or one could be maintained by majority vote. Generally, the term "libertarian" applies to government policy choices, regardless of the system by which those choices are made.

[myrkul]

This is one of many, many conflict scenarios - religious, racial, cultural -  that will always occur. There is
no mechanism to resolve these conflicts other than to let them beat the shit out of each other.

Yes, there are. I've already told them to you, but you handwaved them away.

[jgraham]

So fewer laws do not create loopholes or create less loopholes? 

Nobody's perfect; so fewer imperfect laws would produce, in general, and statistically speaking, less loopholes.

You haven't defined 'loophole' but until you provide another definition I'm going to assert that what you mean by it is something like 'allows for a deviation from "true justice" to some degree and in some particular case or set of cases'.  The consequence of this is that all laws do not have an equal number of loopholes nor are the equally egregious.   If so, your assertion is both a) Not necessarily true (generally and statistically  ) and b)  Even if it was it begs the larger and seemingly more relevant question as to how well these laws approximate "justice".  Since it doesn't take into consideration the degree of the loophole or the injustice caused by having no law at all.

So provide a better definition or I'd say that you really haven't made your point. 

So if I have a law who's intent is to stop the use of dangerous weapons which only restricts weapons made of steel and a set of laws that provides specific requirements for each material based on various characteristics.  Are you saying the first law allows for less dangerous weapons than the second?

Those aren't laws,

You're arguing by special definition (which is a fallacy!).  What I provided sure seems congruent with how the term is used where I live.  For example the laws in my jurisdiction disallow ownership of dangerous weapons and do make exceptions for their construction and use.  i.e. decorative weapons which are made from carbon steel are acceptable.

Laws prevent injury, enslavement, and plunder, not cause them. To wit, if I make a law which proscribes or obstructs a specific use of your property, I've violated your liberties.

So what exactly are you asserting here? That my examples of laws are non-laws under your definition because they have a loophole? or because there is no possible case where they can prevent injury, enslavement and plunder?

Not to mention this kind of highlights that the term "number of laws" is at least poorly defined.   What's the difference between my set of laws - strung together as a single sentence and classified as a single "law" and treating them as a group of laws?  Perhaps we need to use terms more like "simple" or "complex".   I'm not trying to put words in your mouth here - just trying to think things through.

This smacks of garrulousness, semantics and pedantry.

No. You are talking about "number of laws" I gave an example of laws that could be considered a single law and asserted that this makes the term poorly defined.  You have given no rationale as to why "true laws" are somehow exempt from this.  I humbly submit that "true laws" notwithstanding my point is still made.

If we can't communicate, then were going to have a problem.

Agreed but to date you have made two arguments by special definition and one via equivocation.  I'd suggest that these are indicative of where the communication problem lies.

However on that note this makes me think of the problems involved in approximation.  Bare with me here...if we assume that there is some kind of "true" justice then it seems reasonable that such a concept could be defined as a function (of sorts) where each possible situation is the input and the output maps to some set of results - leaving aside for the moment the difficulty in defining "true justice" and some of the other terms - we will call this function T.  A law then could be defined as a function attempting to approximate this function - which we'll call L.   It's inputs do not necessarily take into account every situation and it's outputs do not necessarily match T for any and all cases.    Given all that, what features would L require to approximate T best?

I've actually given great thought to this. I do think it's possible, although, when you include things like imminent physical threats, the approximations become more vague. I haven't yet condensed it into mathemeatical form, I will get there eventually, here's my take on it:

You can argue, mathematically that given a suitable single object for approximation and a function to approximate.   The more objects you use the more you can reduce your error in approximation.

Depends on what you mean by "free".  Do you mean significantly unencumbered?

Yes, free. Free in the general vernacular and etymology of the word, indicating unencumberedness. Pedantic again?, see above... You know what it meant.

I don't know about "it" but I was unclear about what you meant.  So someone who is significantly encumbered is not free?  Ergo when you said "Everybody else is free to leave an abusive environment" is incorrect or at least inconsistent.  Since it seems like someone who is elderly, disabled or in other ways dependent are "significantly encumbered".  I think it's reasonable to ask for a definition when there is an apparent contradiction and doing so should not earn someone an accusation of pedantry?  Do you disagree?

Yes and under your system apparently these child abusers are not criminals and are also not punished correct?

If the child feels threatened, cannot express their situation to someone else they trust and feel safe with, nor permitted to leave their environment, these "verbal" abusers would be holding their own children hostage. Kidnapping is enslavement, and is obviously not allowed.

Ok, so is mental abuse illegal now in your world or what?  Just being mentally abused does not necessarily imply being held against one's will.  Your "trust and feel safe" criteria seems like exactly the kind of 'mental crime' you said we shouldn't have laws against.  So the only thing you've prohibited here is holding someone against their will under threat.    Even that doesn't solve very much because the abuse while horrible may simply be not as bad as the alternative i.e. starvation.

Technically that's equivocation.  Before you used the term 'force' to align with the term used by physicists.  Threats of violence are orthogonal to physical force.   Now you appear to be using the term to mean something else.

I suppose that's true to some extent. Maybe we could equate threats of violence/force with potential energy, and violence that has already been committed, with kinetic energy. I'm sure we can figure something out here. Most laws should, for the most part, align with measurable and observable physical phenomena. Those laws which include potential threats can be observed/defined as deterministic, or at the least probabalistic, predictable events in progress. It would be like setting the initial conditions of an experiment, then introducing impetus to the inputs, followed by observing the outputs.

This sounds like you're saying that threats are not bad because they are intrinsically so but because they lead to the expressed or implied action.   I'd expect that is untrue.  What I'd assert is that mental abuse - including violent threats are intrinsically damaging it just isn't an assault on ones person in the "physical" sense.

While the idea that laws should be based on statistics and outcomes I find intriguing.  Have you considered turning the same lens on your ideas about property rights?