Philosophy Now Forum

Libertarianism = no authority should force you to give up your land or liberty.

Thought scenario:

Two neightbors own their own piece of land.

One of them starts a fire, to burn vegetation. This causes pollution on the other one's territory.

Who's right is most important? To burn vegetation or to be free from the other one's pollution?

Another example:

All land is already owned. That means anyone who doesn't already own land, are forced to comply with the landowners if they want food/water or even just have a place to stay or live.

This contradicts the libertarian view that everybody are entitled to liberty. Those who do not own land, have no right to liberty, at least not a right unless someone else who owns land, give it to them.

They become subjugated by the landowners.

Who's right is most important? Those who own the land, or those who don't?

philosopher wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 8:48 pmLibertarianism = no authority should force you to give up your land or liberty.

What makes it "your land"?

philosopher wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 8:48 pm Libertarianism = no authority should force you to give up your land or liberty.

Thought scenario:

Two neightbors own their own piece of land.

One of them starts a fire, to burn vegetation. This causes pollution on the other one's territory.

Who's right is most important? To burn vegetation or to be free from the other one's pollution?

This isn't controversial under libertarianism. You don't have the freedom to do nonconsensual property or health damage to other people.

Another example:

All land is already owned. That means anyone who doesn't already own land, are forced to comply with the landowners if they want food/water or even just have a place to stay or live.

This contradicts the libertarian view that everybody are entitled to liberty.

That's not the gist of libertarianism.

The gist of libertarianism, in a nutshell, is that people should be able to do whatever they'd like to do that's consensual, but nonconsensual property violations, initiation of violence (or just physical force or even indirect nonconsensual health threats in general) and contractual fraud would be prohibited. Very few libertarians, especially of the U.S. political party variety, pretend that it's some sort of recipe for a utopia. They accept that some people would have a hard time, but that's part of attraction to it in the traditional libertarian view--it's usually accompanied by sort of a social Darwinism that libertarians think is beneficial. People in difficult situations would need to be creative and proactive in finding solutions, where people who can't hang are basically weeded out.

Also, the vast majority of U.S. libertarian party libertarians still have limited government, government-run police forces, court systems, fire departments, some public land, etc.

Just fyi, I used to be standard U.S. libertarian in this sense, where I was actually involved with the party on local and national levels, so I know a lot about the standard views (at least circa 25-45 years ago). I transitioned into a libertarian socialist however--my views now are a very idiosyncratic blend of the two. But I'm still a (minarchist) libertarian when it comes to cultural/moral/etc. stuff. My socialist side now is the economic and public welfare side.

Which libertarianism, phil?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline ... rtarianism

From the wiki piece...


Branches and schools of libertarianism

Libertarianism has many overlapping schools of thought, all focused on smaller government and greater individual responsibility. As interpretations of the non-aggression principle vary, some libertarian schools of thought promote the total abolition of government while others promote a smaller government which does not initiate force. Some seek private ownership of all property and natural resources while others promote communal ownership of all natural resources and varying degrees of private property.

Agorism
Anarcho-capitalism
Autarchism
Bleeding-heart libertarianism
Christian libertarianism
Civil libertarianism
Classical liberalism
Consequentialist libertarianism
Crypto-anarchism
Deontological libertarianism
Free-market anarchism
Geolibertarianism
Green libertarianism
Individualist anarchism
Laissez-faire
Left-wing market anarchism
Liberism
Libertarian Christianity
Libertarian conservatism
Libertarian paternalism
Libertarian transhumanism
Market liberalism
Market socialism
Minarchism
Paleolibertarianism
Panarchism
Philosophical anarchism
Propertarianism
Right-libertarianism
Voluntaryism


This is not a comprehensive list. It's simplistic and doesn't account for variances within particular strains nor does it even distinguish between what to my thinking are the two broad streams of libertarianism, consequentialism and natural rights. I, for example, am a natural rights libertarian (a moral realist) and minarchist (favoring a proxy night watchman of local courts, constabulary, border patrol, and militia all which would exist solely to preserve what I call ownness). This puts me at odds with, for example, some, but not all, anarcho-capitalists.

My point: libertarianism isn't monolithic.

Your opening line, Libertarianism = no authority should force you to give up your land or liberty, some libertarians will agree completely, others (like me) will not (for a variety of reasons).

Yea, there's all kinds of libertarians.
Some are anarchists, others are minarchists.
Some make an exception for infrastructure.
Some believe in fractional reserve banking, some don't.
Some believe in intellectual property, some don't.
Some believe in limits on the amount of property one can accumulate.
Some believe in private property, others don't, some believe in personal property, others don't, see libertarian communism, they don't believe in property, only possession.
Some believe people can contract themselves into serfdom and slavery, others don't.

Gloominary wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 10:42 pm Yea, there's all kinds of libertarians.
Some are anarchists, others are minarchists.
Some make an exception for infrastructure.
Some believe in fractional reserve banking, some don't.
Some believe in intellectual property, some don't.
Some believe in limits on the amount of property one can accumulate.
Some believe in private property, others don't, some believe in personal property, others don't, see libertarian communism, they don't believe in property, only possession.
Some believe people can contract themselves into serfdom and slavery, others don't.

Yep. It's almost like we were real people with our own individual thinkin'.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 11:03 pm

Gloominary wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 10:42 pm Yea, there's all kinds of libertarians.
Some are anarchists, others are minarchists.
Some make an exception for infrastructure.
Some believe in fractional reserve banking, some don't.
Some believe in intellectual property, some don't.
Some believe in limits on the amount of property one can accumulate.
Some believe in private property, others don't, some believe in personal property, others don't, see libertarian communism, they don't believe in property, only possession.
Some believe people can contract themselves into serfdom and slavery, others don't.

Yep. It's almost like we were real people with our own individual thinkin'.

IKR?

Of course Mankind will never agree on a set of ethics, there'll always be degrees of division.

Even libertarians can't agree on many important issues, let alone other ideologues.

And of course ethics isn't the only thing that divides man, there's weath, power, race and on it goes.

Some libertarians think one can voluntarily contract into just about anything, even a marriage where adultery is punishable by death.
A Muslim could voluntarily exchange their rights for Sharia Law.
One could be sold into slavery if they failed to pay a debt.
By extension their children would be slaves too.
In such a libertarian society you might wind up with a lot of unfree people.

Other libertarians believe one always belongs to oneself, that such contracts are illegitimate.

Other libertarians believe one always belongs to oneself, that such contracts are illegitimate.

Yeah, I'm one of those.

Any contract is permissible as long as it's wholly voluntary and it doesn't violate #1, #1 bein' a man belongs to himself.

He belongs to himself all the time, everywhere, even if he thinks otherwise ('course, a sane man would never think otherwise...only crazy folks would accept bein' property or look to trade themselves off).

These...

Libertarians who think one can voluntarily contract into, or for, just about anything, like a marriage where adultery is punishable by death, or where a Muslim could voluntarily exchange his rights for Sharia, or that one could be sold into slavery if he failed to pay a debt (and, by extension, his kids would be slaves too.)

...are a heapin' bowl of steamy crazy.


In such a libertarian society you might wind up with a lot of unfree people.

Yep.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 2:10 am Other libertarians believe one always belongs to oneself, that such contracts are illegitimate.

Yeah, I'm one of those.

Any contract is permissible as long as it's wholly voluntary and it doesn't violate #1, #1 bein' a man belongs to himself.

He belongs to himself all the time, everywhere, even if he thinks otherwise ('course, a sane man would never think otherwise...only crazy folks would accept bein' property or look to trade themselves off).

These...

Libertarians who think one can voluntarily contract into, or for, just about anything, like a marriage where adultery is punishable by death, or where a Muslim could voluntarily exchange his rights for Sharia, or that one could be sold into slavery if he failed to pay a debt (and, by extension, his kids would be slaves too.)

...are a heapin' bowl of steamy crazy.


In such a libertarian society you might wind up with a lot of unfree people.

Yep.

I'm the steamy crazy kind. You should be able to contractually agree to whatever you'd like to contractually agree to. The difference re what was said above is that it wouldn't transfer to your kids or anyone else.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 11:42 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 2:10 am Other libertarians believe one always belongs to oneself, that such contracts are illegitimate.

Yeah, I'm one of those.

Any contract is permissible as long as it's wholly voluntary and it doesn't violate #1, #1 bein' a man belongs to himself.

He belongs to himself all the time, everywhere, even if he thinks otherwise ('course, a sane man would never think otherwise...only crazy folks would accept bein' property or look to trade themselves off).

These...

Libertarians who think one can voluntarily contract into, or for, just about anything, like a marriage where adultery is punishable by death, or where a Muslim could voluntarily exchange his rights for Sharia, or that one could be sold into slavery if he failed to pay a debt (and, by extension, his kids would be slaves too.)

...are a heapin' bowl of steamy crazy.


In such a libertarian society you might wind up with a lot of unfree people.

Yep.

I'm the steamy crazy kind. *You should be able to contractually agree to whatever you'd like to contractually agree to. The difference re what was said above is that it wouldn't transfer to your kids or anyone else.

*Oh, you be as crazy as you like...I'll never transact with you and I'll never recognize or give way to your wackadoodle contracts, but -- sure -- knock yourself out.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 11:03 pm Yep. It's almost like we were real people with our own individual thinkin'.

Almost. Individuals who think for themselves don't identify with any "ism," especially a political ideology like any form of, "libertarianism."