A question regarding libertarianism...

[BigBallinStalin]

Think of government as a robber gang. They steal your money to pay group A to build X. The victims of theft say, "f that, end the contract." The contract is ended, and that conforms with libertarianism. It's voluntary exchange v. involuntary exchange.

I understand the analogy, but I think it's a terrible stance to take regarding contracts that are already in force. Sure, take that stance on future contracts if you want...that's legitimate. But to void current contracts for such a position is ridiculous.

You dislike it because you want the state to maintain such contracts?

I dislike it because I don't believe in breaking legal contracts. I thought I made that fairly obvious by referring to "take that stance with future contracts, but not current ones".

So, you'd follow the law in all circumstances?

No. But I certainly would have to have seriously extenuating circumstances not to do so.

If not, then obviously you would in some cases break legal contracts...

I wouldn't have signed the legal contract if I planned to break it, so no. I do not necessarily consider a law to be a legal contract, at least not in the sense that I am talking about here.

Even the law as provided by the state (not quite the people) is not based on any agreement--other than some nonsensical social contract myth. The criminal gang which agrees to pay X to whoever is not a legal contract---in accordance with libertarianism. I'm sure you'd agree, but they take it one more step by saying the government is essentially a criminal gang. That's where you balk, right?

But it IS a LEGAL CONTRACT. It was signed by both parties.

Let's say the government selects Milk Inc. to be the only producer of milk in the entire country. All others cannot operate in that trade. According to your position, this is fine because it's a legal contract between two parties. Sure, there's restraint of trade, which would invalidate this contract after some court case, but main point is that this issue is beyond the legal contract between the government and a particular group it favors.

So, between those two parties (government and union), what of the citizens who are affected by this? Did they agree to this contract? (No).

If the government passes a law which states that they can hire group X who can effectively block/hamper other people from a job sector, would you say that all the interested parties have been involved in this?

[thegreekdog]

But it IS a LEGAL CONTRACT. It was signed by both parties.

It is technically a legal contract in that the representatives of the government were elected by the interested party (i.e. the people of Wisconsin) to represent* them in such contract negotiations. Otherwise, it would not be a legal contract.

The Libertarian Party's point (and my point) is that the representatives did not represent* the interest party in the way that they should have been represented*. Certain representatives were elected and negotiated with the unions. These representatives should have been acting in the best interest of their constituents. They did not. They acted in the best interest of the unions, who gave them certain benefits associated with acting in the unions' best interest, rather than the constituents. In legal parlance, this would be an invalid contract (except that the representatives in question were elected). I wonder if it's possible to bring a lawsuit to invalidate that contract (and all government contracts) on those grounds.

Completely fake example (that I use to attempt to remove your inherent and understandable bias in favor of teachers and their unions): President Tree was elected by the people of the Untied Staets. His first order of business was to negotiate a contract with a private security firm (let's just call that The Firm). As a representative of the constituents of the Untied Staets, President Tree ostensibly should try to get the best deal possible. But, President Tree's best friend is the head of The Firm and The Firm donated significant campaign dollars to President Tree and other members of his party. So President Tree gives The Firm a good deal, giving tax dollars from the constitutents to The Firm over and above the value that The Firm will provide. Essentially, President Tree is poorly representing his constituents to reward his friends. Wisconsin representatives are poorly representing their constituents to reward their friends. This invalidates the contract, in my opinion; you no longer have to parties that are at odds.

I will take a look, perhaps today, to see if government employees are paid more in states where the majority of representatives are Democratic compared to states where the majority of representatives are Republican.

tl;dr - Wisconsin representatives are not negotiating union contracts in good faith and aren't representing their constituents.

The problem with that logic is that anyone who doesn't like a particular governmental contract can then state that "the representatives were not negotiating contracts in good faith and representing their constituents". It's simply a matter of opinion at that point.

Not really. There is a basis for comparison with this type of contract (and others). A government contract with a construction company may be compared to similar contracts with non-government entities. Similarly, one can compare a government union contract to a contract between a union and a private company. And ultimately that is the problem in a state like Wisconsin (or New Jersey). The benefits provided by government-union contracts are far and away superior to those for private company-union contracts. Is it because government unions have better lawyers? Or is it because government unions can influence the people they are ostensibly negotiating with?

I don't limit my criticism to unions, by the way (hence the President Bush example). Government contracts in any form should be highly visible and highly scrutinized.

[thegreekdog]

And, between those two parties (government and union), what of the citizens who are affected by this? Did they agree to this contract? (No).

Your paranthetical answer is incorrect. The citizens did agree to the contract by electing represntatives. That's ultimately the only problem with the Libertarian argument. To put it another way - the citizens have reaped what they have sown.

[BigBallinStalin]

And, between those two parties (government and union), what of the citizens who are affected by this? Did they agree to this contract? (No).

Your paranthetical answer is incorrect. The citizens did agree to the contract by electing represntatives. That's ultimately the only problem with the Libertarian argument. To put it another way - the citizens have reaped what they have sown.

Okay, let's run with that logic. If the citizens did agree to the contract by electing representatives, then all citizens who elect representatives agreed to the following:

The Iraq War 2.0
The US-Afghan War
The pre-2010 federal stance on gay marriage (no gay marriage)
etc.

Simply because someone votes or has the capability to vote, it doesn't follow that they agreed to particular decisions of the politician nor the outcomes of the political process (e.g. public policy at the federal level).

(I'm sure you know this, but this is why the libertarians insist on governance via real contracts--instead of this vague process of interest group politics we have today).

[thegreekdog]

And, between those two parties (government and union), what of the citizens who are affected by this? Did they agree to this contract? (No).

Your paranthetical answer is incorrect. The citizens did agree to the contract by electing represntatives. That's ultimately the only problem with the Libertarian argument. To put it another way - the citizens have reaped what they have sown.

Okay, let's run with that logic. If the citizens did agree to the contract by electing representatives, then all citizens who elect representatives agreed to the following:

The Iraq War 2.0
The US-Afghan War
The pre-2010 federal stance on gay marriage (no gay marriage)
etc.

Simply because someone votes or has the capability to vote, it doesn't follow that they agreed to particular decisions of the politician nor the outcomes of the political process (e.g. public policy at the federal level).

(I'm sure you know this, but this is why the libertarians insist on governance via real contracts--instead of this vague process of interest group politics we have today).

Whether they agree with a decision is irrelevant. They agreed to have the representative represent them in contract negotiations. If I pick someone to represent me, I'm agreeing to abide by the decisions that person makes. If the representative doesn't do what I want them to do or disappoints me, I select someone else (when the representative's contract is up).

If Company X picks a shitty attorney to enter into contract negotiations with a union and the attorney doesn't do what the company wants, that doesn't void the contract. It's a little difference in the union contract situation because the representatives aren't actually representing the views of their constituents (they are representing the views of the other party), but it's simply incorrect to indicate that the citizens did not agree to the contract by agreeing to the representation.

[Woodruff]

I don't limit my criticism to unions, by the way (hence the President Bush example). Government contracts in any form should be highly visible and highly scrutinized.

I definitely agree with them being highly visible and highly scrutinized. However, my contention is that they should not be BROKEN...rather, those politicians who agree to those contracts should be held responsible for doing so (via future election results, bad publicity, etc...). I don't agree that the contracts should be broken, but I have no problem with this sort of thing resulting in better contracts being written in the future.

[Dukasaur]

Whether they agree with a decision is irrelevant. They agreed to have the representative represent them in contract negotiations. If I pick someone to represent me, I'm agreeing to abide by the decisions that person makes. If the representative doesn't do what I want them to do or disappoints me, I select someone else (when the representative's contract is up).

If Company X picks a shitty attorney to enter into contract negotiations with a union and the attorney doesn't do what the company wants, that doesn't void the contract. It's a little difference in the union contract situation because the representatives aren't actually representing the views of their constituents (they are representing the views of the other party), but it's simply incorrect to indicate that the citizens did not agree to the contract by agreeing to the representation.

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Lysander.Spooner.Quote.3EC1

"In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former.

His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot -- which is a mere substitute for a bullet -- because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency, into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him."

[Lootifer]

Whether they agree with a decision is irrelevant. They agreed to have the representative represent them in contract negotiations. If I pick someone to represent me, I'm agreeing to abide by the decisions that person makes. If the representative doesn't do what I want them to do or disappoints me, I select someone else (when the representative's contract is up).

If Company X picks a shitty attorney to enter into contract negotiations with a union and the attorney doesn't do what the company wants, that doesn't void the contract. It's a little difference in the union contract situation because the representatives aren't actually representing the views of their constituents (they are representing the views of the other party), but it's simply incorrect to indicate that the citizens did not agree to the contract by agreeing to the representation.

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Lysander.Spooner.Quote.3EC1

"In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former.

His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot -- which is a mere substitute for a bullet -- because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency, into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him."

I agree.

And regarding government representation (I dont really care about unions so much) I fully believe that unless there is a "no confidence" vote on the ballot that actually bears significant weight (i.e. it is treated like any other party when things like majorities etc are decided) then I am with BBS on this one. If there was a no confidence option worth voting for then you can accurately say that the voters chose their representative over and above a neutral counterfactual.

[thegreekdog]

Whether they agree with a decision is irrelevant. They agreed to have the representative represent them in contract negotiations. If I pick someone to represent me, I'm agreeing to abide by the decisions that person makes. If the representative doesn't do what I want them to do or disappoints me, I select someone else (when the representative's contract is up).

If Company X picks a shitty attorney to enter into contract negotiations with a union and the attorney doesn't do what the company wants, that doesn't void the contract. It's a little difference in the union contract situation because the representatives aren't actually representing the views of their constituents (they are representing the views of the other party), but it's simply incorrect to indicate that the citizens did not agree to the contract by agreeing to the representation.

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Lysander.Spooner.Quote.3EC1

"In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former.

His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot -- which is a mere substitute for a bullet -- because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency, into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him."

The alternative is anarchy. In a representative government, one is able to choose his representative. The people of Wisconsin chose poorly, but they must live with their decisions (or leave the state I suppose). What is the alternative? I agree that the contract should be void, but not because the people of Wisconsin didn't have a say. They had a say.

[john9blue]

what if i didn't vote for the people in charge?

aren't republics supposed to protect the rights of the minority? (the minority in this case being the people who didn't vote for the winner)

[BigBallinStalin]

what if i didn't vote for the people in charge?

aren't republics supposed to protect the rights of the minority? (the minority in this case being the people who didn't vote for the winner)

According to TGD, you would still be agreeing to whatever happened. I don't get it, but that's the logic he's been running with ITT.

[Woodruff]

what if i didn't vote for the people in charge?

aren't republics supposed to protect the rights of the minority? (the minority in this case being the people who didn't vote for the winner)

I think that's an interesting point, but difficult in actual workings. "The people" being dissected into individuals becomes very problematic from the perspective of national policy, since obviously it is a rarity when everyone agrees on something specific. No laws or agreements of any sort would be possible.

[PLAYER57832]

what if i didn't vote for the people in charge?

aren't republics supposed to protect the rights of the minority? (the minority in this case being the people who didn't vote for the winner)

I think that's an interesting point, but difficult in actual workings. "The people" being dissected into individuals becomes very problematic from the perspective of national policy, since obviously it is a rarity when everyone agrees on something specific. No laws or agreements of any sort would be possible.

This is yet one of many reasons why such a system would end up being nothing more than a totalitarianism of bullies-- MUCH more than what we have now, that is.

[john9blue]

what if i didn't vote for the people in charge?

aren't republics supposed to protect the rights of the minority? (the minority in this case being the people who didn't vote for the winner)

I think that's an interesting point, but difficult in actual workings. "The people" being dissected into individuals becomes very problematic from the perspective of national policy, since obviously it is a rarity when everyone agrees on something specific. No laws or agreements of any sort would be possible.

This is yet one of many reasons why such a system would end up being nothing more than a totalitarianism of bullies-- MUCH more than what we have now, that is.

it's also a reason why we should bring more power to the local/state levels, so people can more easily choose the leaders that they want to represent them by moving away from the city or state that has leaders that don't represent their desires.

[thegreekdog]

what if i didn't vote for the people in charge?

aren't republics supposed to protect the rights of the minority? (the minority in this case being the people who didn't vote for the winner)

According to TGD, you would still be agreeing to whatever happened. I don't get it, but that's the logic he's been running with ITT.

Oh I don't know, voting for people who will repeal whatever it is you disagreed with (and try to make others knowledgeable; and if that doesn't work, go somewhere else.

Alternatively, you could revolt or disobey the law or bitch on internet forums. Whatevs.

And BBS, you're overly simplifying my argument. But if that's what gets you through...

[Woodruff]

what if i didn't vote for the people in charge?

aren't republics supposed to protect the rights of the minority? (the minority in this case being the people who didn't vote for the winner)

I think that's an interesting point, but difficult in actual workings. "The people" being dissected into individuals becomes very problematic from the perspective of national policy, since obviously it is a rarity when everyone agrees on something specific. No laws or agreements of any sort would be possible.

This is yet one of many reasons why such a system would end up being nothing more than a totalitarianism of bullies-- MUCH more than what we have now, that is.

it's also a reason why we should bring more power to the local/state levels, so people can more easily choose the leaders that they want to represent them by moving away from the city or state that has leaders that don't represent their desires.

True enough, as far as answering PLAYER goes. But that's still not going to result in every individual buying into a piece of legislation outside of PERHAPS one township/city.

[PLAYER57832]

what if i didn't vote for the people in charge?

aren't republics supposed to protect the rights of the minority? (the minority in this case being the people who didn't vote for the winner)

I think that's an interesting point, but difficult in actual workings. "The people" being dissected into individuals becomes very problematic from the perspective of national policy, since obviously it is a rarity when everyone agrees on something specific. No laws or agreements of any sort would be possible.

This is yet one of many reasons why such a system would end up being nothing more than a totalitarianism of bullies-- MUCH more than what we have now, that is.

it's also a reason why we should bring more power to the local/state levels, so people can more easily choose the leaders that they want to represent them by moving away from the city or state that has leaders that don't represent their desires.

Not necessarily, because bullying in a small area is still bullying. The real question is whether people should have to tolerate others and have to do certain things that are necessary for the good of all (things like paying for public schools, roads, fire departments and yes, even various administrative functions, but also research into solutions).

This "new" brand of liberaterianism is nothing more than "I cannot be bothered to do anything not benefiting me directly, but I am going to pretend it is for the greater good".

[thegreekdog]

This "new" brand of liberaterianism is nothing more than "I cannot be bothered to do anything not benefiting me directly, but I am going to pretend it is for the greater good".

No, actually, that's called being selfish. The libertarian brand has not changed; it's "The government can't do anything to benefit anyone better or more efficiently than I can."

[BigBallinStalin]

it's also a reason why we should bring more power to the local/state levels, so people can more easily choose the leaders that they want to represent them by moving away from the city or state that has leaders that don't represent their desires.

Not necessarily, because bullying in a small area is still bullying. The real question is whether people should have to tolerate others and have to do certain things that are necessary for the good of all (things like paying for public schools, roads, fire departments and yes, even various administrative functions, but also research into solutions).

I think we can all agree that education, infrastructure, and research are necessary for.... what exactly? Self-development? The advancement of humanity over this world and beyond? Or are there more narrowly conceived goals at play here? What role does moral rhetoric play in this game?


Also, why do people assume that only government should provide X-amount of these particular services to various groups?

And if they assume that, then how much should X be? And, how do they know?

[Woodruff]

This "new" brand of liberaterianism is nothing more than "I cannot be bothered to do anything not benefiting me directly, but I am going to pretend it is for the greater good".

I really don't think that's true at all. I'm not even sure why you would say such a thing, unless you're correlating a few individuals with the organization as a whole (I'm sure there are some "Libertarians" who fit your definition...Phatscotty, I'm looking at you).

[PLAYER57832]

This "new" brand of liberaterianism is nothing more than "I cannot be bothered to do anything not benefiting me directly, but I am going to pretend it is for the greater good".

No, actually, that's called being selfish. The libertarian brand has not changed; it's "The government can't do anything to benefit anyone better or more efficiently than I can."

That's delusion, if for no other reason than any system you put forward will, ultimately BE government.

Aside from that, it is just not backed by facts. You keep claiming it is, but the data really shows otherwise. AND, when government is not efficient, its by design -- because government is ONLY supposed to step into areas where business/individuals cannot function well.

The problem is that a plethora of additional functions have come up in recent decades, mostly because folks have "suddenly" realized that our lives actually do depend on the world around.. the animals and plants, the weather, etc and that we are not quite smart enough to redesign everything better than God ("God being specific to greekdog and other beleivers, for others it would be whatever entity/non-entity to whom people assign creation).

So, virtually all of the environmental protection agency, most of the variety of "ology" services, and a good portion of medical care are all performed by the government and labeled as inherent inefficiencies, but not because they necessarily are inefficient in their function, rather because people with those entities just did not exist to limit what they want to do.

[PLAYER57832]

This "new" brand of liberaterianism is nothing more than "I cannot be bothered to do anything not benefiting me directly, but I am going to pretend it is for the greater good".

I really don't think that's true at all. I'm not even sure why you would say such a thing, unless you're correlating a few individuals with the organization as a whole (I'm sure there are some "Libertarians" who fit your definition...Phatscotty, I'm looking at you).

It did come out rather harsh. I know greekdog, for example, and you don't percieve that to be the result. The problem is, you are engaging in wishful, idealistic thinking, rather than the reality of what has and is happening.

The real bottom line is that our economy is now suffering because a very few people at the top have decided they "need" and have a "right" to take a bit too much of what the rest of us earn. They further feel that having more money means they have the right and better ability to decide what is best for society.. never mind any evidence to the contrary. It is an old pattern, and whether it happens under a theocracy, a monarchy, a dictatorship is irrelevant. The problem is that those at the top get isolated from those around, and wind up not having enough direct checks, wind up justifying their behavior.

The taking of money operates under the same principles of any other abuse of power. The saying "power corrupts" is true. Very, very few people have the ability to self-limit themselves. The reasons are inherent in the skills needed to succeed.. be it attaining physical domination, "political/social" domination (for lack of a better description) or practical/monetary domination. To find the objectivity requires stepping away from and outside of the goals. It requires a special kind of moral base which is no longer even very much touted.

[PLAYER57832]

Also, why do people assume that only government should provide X-amount of these particular services to various groups?

And if they assume that, then how much should X be? And, how do they know?

This is the only answerable question. I have said all along that government's function is both to provide "fences" so that individuals and other entities don't trod on the basic rights of others. Beyond that, and as a part of that, government needs to undertake things that are not inherently profitable for business or where there is an overriding moral imperative against taking profit.

Much of biological and environmental research and work falls into the first bracket. Medicine falls into both.. it is both difficult to be inherently profitable and there is a moral imperative to ensure that profit doesn't limit its availability to some extent. The debate lies in how much and where profit can exist, but that is another topic, mostly already being addressed in the latest incarnation (whatever it is named now) of Phattscotty's healthcare thread.

[john9blue]

Not necessarily, because bullying in a small area is still bullying. The real question is whether people should have to tolerate others and have to do certain things that are necessary for the good of all (things like paying for public schools, roads, fire departments and yes, even various administrative functions, but also research into solutions).

but i have choices with my local government. i can attend town hall meetings. i can shop or work in the next town over as a form of protest. i can have a much larger individual influence than i can with the federal government.

plus, there are protections against "tyranny" from local governments. not so with the federal government.

the rest of your post was already dismissed as a misunderstanding, so i'll leave it at that.