question for libertarians?

[[censored]]

If America adopted a true libertarian philosophy which allowed people to decide for themselves on things like drugs, abortion, prostitution etc would people also have the right to do the following

could I form a group of of say 10 families who all held similar values. could we then build our own "gated" community or neighborhood which had certain rules that we agreed upon. for example could we say we don't want drugs sold with our community, and we don't want prostitution to take place and we do not want any abortion clinics with our gates as well.

Now all these things would be readily avaialable outside our gates and within the gates we would also follow all US/State/City laws.

We would also create/fund our own school which in addition to a standard education would also teach the common values we have agreed upon to our children.

all of this would be agreed willingly by the members of our community. However members who chose to not live up to the community would be legally obligated to move from the commmunity. This would all be in contract form.

Would this be allowed under a libertarian America? why or why not?

If yes--- what would be size limitations of communities like this? 20 families, 100 families, 1000 families?

If no what would parent have to right to decide that his/her 22 year old son who is living in their house while going to college is not allowed to take/bring drugs into their home? what if he lives in an off the main house guest room but which is still on the property of the parents? what gives them this right?

[whiskeytown]

A true libertarian philosophy is very interesting....

it would basically be a reversal back to Colonial America, with 50 seperate nations under one border and a military...

basically a true libertarian govt. gives everything to the states to decide - they won't support Roe Vs. Wade because they want the state to decide...

then does it go to the County/City level? - They've never gotten close enough to find it out...

It's sorta like talking about time travel and killing your grandfather - interesting to hypothise about, but it's not really in the realms of reality...

RB

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
A true libertarian philosophy is very interesting....

it would basically be a reversal back to Colonial America, with 50 seperate nations under one border and a military...

basically a true libertarian govt. gives everything to the states to decide - they won't support Roe Vs. Wade because they want the state to decide...



[/ QUOTE ]

I thought a fedarlist wants the state to decide everything and that a libertarian would want neither the federal/state or local governments making these decisions and that things like abortion, ect would be left entirely up the individual.

am I way off here?

the way you describe libertarians I think I could get behind them.

[coffeecrazy1]

I think that's a rather glib response, whiskey. But, in answer to your question, [censored], as long as it was a private community and everyone willingly signed the contract given the specifications of the community, then I would have no problem, as a Libertarian, with you operating under those conditions.

Similarly, I have no problem with Augusta National Country Club refusing to allow women to be members. It is not because I don't think women should be members, but because it is a private club, and as long as there is consent amongst every member, then I have no problem with it.

The keystone of all of it is consent. I am not going to say something like murder is okay as long as you do it privately...that's ridiculous, and it infringes upon the individual rights of others. But...I have no real problem, legally speaking, with assisted suicide in that regard(I have many problems with it morally).

And, whiskey...true libertarianism, whatever that is...would never cede power willingly to any overarching body like the state. Libertarianism is a minimalist view of government, where the government is reduced to its smallest possible size without becoming anarchy(do not mistake Libertarianism for anarchism). The unifying principle is the right of individuals to choose their own fates and actions.

Libertarian Statement of Principles: "We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose." - Libertarian National Committee

[renodoc]

Yes, it is called Galt's Gulch.

see you there

[lehighguy]

Your community would have the right to exile members that borke the contract. If your contract specified that property in the community was subject to siezure upon breaking of certain rules then that would be allowed as well.

Example: If you use drugs then you are expelled from the community and we sieze your house (I would suggest a just compensation clause here).

Your community WOULDN'T be able to engage in criminal prosecution. In other words, you couldn't put anyone in jail. This would all be in the framework of civil law.

Example: You can agree that if someone is a prostitute they have to leave the community, but you can't arrest them.

This kind of community will be no simple matter to create. Your laws will need to be very clear and you will need to specify a party in charge of interpreting them. Perhaps private judge/judges that are specified in the contract itself. By doing so you will be able to present to the courts of the nation you community is in a clear account of wether the contract you all entered into was broken and how. The courts of the nation shouldn't be determining this whenever possible. I leave you to figure out the problems associated with such practice. Nevertheless, they must enforce you civil contract so you must specify a party to determine if the contract has been broken.

Like all civil contracts this will be buyer beware. You will be bound by the terms you agree too. I would suggest reading up on civil contract law.

You community would be subject to the laws of the nation you were in. For instance, your community might think murder is ok but if its against the law of the nation then members of the community can be prosecuted for it. However, since this is a libraterian country you'll find very few laws being imposed except public safety and crime prevention.

[b}Basically, your community can do anything currently allowed by civil contract law.[/b]

I see no reason to limit the # of people allowed to live in the community.

In answer to your question about the 22 year old, his parents already have the right to kick him out of the house in our current society. It is thier private property.

This is my answer just trying to wing it without putting in much thought. I reserve the right to change my answer as I think about it some more.

[[censored]]

A follow up question for you and all.

Let's say my community was super popular and grew in size to the point to where we needed things like stores and a medical center. Then at some point we all decided we wanted to hire some security gaurds to help enforce the rules by which we all agreed as well as help protect property and assist with emergencies. What if added to the contract was a clause that said we give the security gaurds the power to enforce the rules which we all agreed to? would that be allowable? The gaurds would indentify if someone broke on the rules and after sometype of hearing would enforce the exile. which everyone has agreed to.

Also would my community be allowed to decide that because some infractions not as bad as others they would only result in a fine and not exile. Again this is something that everyone who chose to live their would agree to.

finally what if after commiting an infraction and facing exile changed their minds, even though they had already signed a contract agreeing to it. that is they are only changing their mind after breaking the rules. could we still kick them out?

remember in all the above, anything enforced by my community has been agreed to by the members using their own free will and determination.

[ptmusic]

I think your Utopia needs to figure out what happens when everyone doesn't agree on something.

And it needs to figure out how to prevent a "mob rules" scenario when the majority agrees to something that is wrong.

Minorities need to have rights.

-ptmusic

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
I think your Utopia needs to figure out what happens when everyone doesn't agree on something.

And it needs to figure out how to prevent a "mob rules" scenario when the majority agrees to something that is wrong.

Minorities need to have rights.

-ptmusic

[/ QUOTE ]

why the minority can leave.

the community holds town house meetings every other wednesday. punch and cookies are served and the members discuss the topics at hand. contained within the contract that everyone with their free will signs is clause that says in the absence of a unanimous consent the members will take a vote and the majority will decide. those in the minority have two options A) they agree to abide by the rules as deteremined od B) they leave the community. again this is all known and agreed upon ahead of time. there are no suprises here.

[ptmusic]

What if the rule is that the minority can't leave?

-ptmusic

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
What if the rule is that the minority can't leave?

-ptmusic

[/ QUOTE ]

that would be silly, there wouldn't be such a rule because we would have no desire to live amongst those who did want to follow our rules.

the better question perhaps would be what if the society outside our gates would not allow the minority to leave? that is what if leaving was not possible?

clearly we would still have the right to enforce the contract.

it would seem we would need to find and agree on a method of exile/punishment that did not involve actually physically leaving the community. then once determined through our agreed upon process we would simply set about enforcing it in the agreed upon method.

[coffeecrazy1]

So, essentially, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but you are advocating extremely strict democratic rule within the confines of your gates.

I guess my problem with these questions is that you're posing them to the Libertarians about what they would do if the "state," which, in this case, is the joined ruling body of your community, dictated the loss of liberty or what-have-you within the confines of that community.

You are advocating ceding personal ideals for group ideals...Libertarians are not going to do that. But, I have to be honest...I'm a little lost in this whole discussion, because I don't know what you are asking the Libertarians. Is there a point you're trying to make? I don't get it... /images/graemlins/confused.gif Please clarify...

[[censored]]

I am trying to determine to what extent Libertarians believe communities should be allowed to create and enforce their own code of conduct.

my first example (on a small scale) was easy but what happens as the community grows.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]


You are advocating ceding personal ideals for group ideals...Libertarians are not going to do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I wouldn't expect Libertarians to want to live in my community but the question I have for them is will they grant me and others the personal freedom to create such a thing by our own free will and self determination.

[coffeecrazy1]

Well...the question is whether you're talking public or private. I, for one, would tend to crack down on this sort of thing for the public, but if a private community wants to do this, that's their business...as in nudist colonies.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Well...the question is whether you're talking public or private. I, for one, would tend to crack down on this sort of thing for the public, but if a private community wants to do this, that's their business...as in nudist colonies.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok cool so far I'm down the Libertarians. now I just need to know exactly what constitutes public and private? for example with my community there would be somethings (like for instance a play ground buuilt and funded by the community as a whole) that would be owned by all but still clearly within the confines of the community.

so this playground would it be private in terms the the nation as whole but public within the community? We within the community would still not allow drugs anywhere within the community, again as agreed by all. This is still ok right, as long as it is in the community?

[[censored]]

to be honest a gate is somewhat burdensome. opening and closing, maintaining etc.

Is this a requirement or would be alright if we simply used a sign that stated where my community propery, begins and ends?

[[censored]]

one other thing. I'm not trying to attack Libertarians I am only trying to sort out for myself whether I want to be in the Libertarian camp or Republican camp. I'm torn because I have problems with both.

[coffeecrazy1]

As far as I know...it works for country clubs this way, I don't see why it wouldn't work here.

[coffeecrazy1]

Now we may have a bit of an issue, but I'm not sure...the problem would be public roads going into private ones...you would need to make sure that it was exceptionally clear that your rules were in effect.

Also...that might present some hefty jurisdictional problems for your security force.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Now we may have a bit of an issue, but I'm not sure...the problem would be public roads going into private ones...you would need to make sure that it was exceptionally clear that your rules were in effect.

Also...that might present some hefty jurisdictional problems for your security force.

[/ QUOTE ]

well we have different laws in different states now and people manage, also people are able to travel into other coutries and manage.

Couldn't my commmunity just follow that example? If not what would your concerns be?

[lehighguy]

NO, you can't prosecute criminal activity. You can't hire your own police force. There are like a billion problems with this.

You can use fines instead of exile. You can't use physical force (your own police force).

No, they are bound by a contract. You can appeal to the law enforcement of the nation to enforce the contract.

You would be constrained by CIVIL CONTRACT LAW. This is distinct from criminal law. There are problems if you have your own police force. I'm sure someone can come up for an arguement for it, but I don't want to go down that route.

[lehighguy]

There are problems with this. You can't have laws changing every week. Your better of laying them out clearly before you start the community.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
NO, you can't prosecute criminal activity. You can't hire your own police force. There are like a billion problems with this.

You can use fines instead of exile. You can't use physical force (your own police force).

No, they are bound by a contract. You can appeal to the law enforcement of the nation to enforce the contract.

You would be constrained by CIVIL CONTRACT LAW. This is distinct from criminal law. There are problems if you have your own police force. I'm sure someone can come up for an arguement for it, but I don't want to go down that route.

[/ QUOTE ]


Interesting, so why is it ok for cities to start their own police force which serves the same basic purpose?

[lehighguy]

As long as you lay it out in the contract. Please consult civil contract law. It will answer nearly all of your questions.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
There are problems with this. You can't have laws changing every week. Your better of laying them out clearly before you start the community.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes but out desires for the community may change over time or unforeseen issues may arise. we need sometype of mechanism.

At somepoint our community would grow large enough that meetings wouldn't make sense. at that point we would probably elect some type of leaders that would decide these things. If they chose incorrectly we would just replace them at the next scheduled election.

[lehighguy]

You can enter a contract in which you give up certain rights. The key difference is you do this of your own free will rather then being forced to by government.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
NO, you can't prosecute criminal activity. You can't hire your own police force. There are like a billion problems with this.

You can use fines instead of exile. You can't use physical force (your own police force).

No, they are bound by a contract. You can appeal to the law enforcement of the nation to enforce the contract.

You would be constrained by CIVIL CONTRACT LAW. This is distinct from criminal law. There are problems if you have your own police force. I'm sure someone can come up for an arguement for it, but I don't want to go down that route.

[/ QUOTE ]


Interesting, so why is it ok for cities to start their own police force which serves the same basic purpose?

[/ QUOTE ]

Also why not? what exactly would give you the right to decide how my community is governed? If we want our own police force who is your government to tell us we can't?

[lehighguy]

It seems impracticle that you are going to buy a house, and then a week later the majority might pass a law you are unable to accept. Are you going to move out?

Your community is going to have to come up with rules by which they make new rules. A constitution if you will.

You know there are a lot of problems with this. Let me finsih my tournaments before i respond.

[coffeecrazy1]

Well...the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, for one. State government overrides city government, federal overrides state...that is the hierarchy(not to say that states or cities don't have individual rights)...hence the federal law superseding California's medical marijuana law.

Also, I would like to point out, again, that Libertarians are not anarchists, nor are we separatists.

You cannot arbitrarily start your own country in the middle of the United States...it's been tried many times.

And the reason why cities can start their own police force is that they are not private entities...they are public entities, governed by the laws of our Libertarian Outworld, or, ultimately, the Constitution, in the real world.

[lehighguy]

If you are going to have your own police force and law enforcement then you are your own country. You might as well not even be part of another country. Why even ask if it would work in a libraterian country.

[[censored]]

I assume that you would be ok with a country club instituting a no smoking rule right? even though smoking is allowed under the law. Is this country club not allowed to hire staff which helps enforce this rule? Is this really that different?

at a country club a security gaurd would have the right to detain someone who was not welcome in the club right? ie I scale the wall sit down on the 9th whole and start drinking, the gaurds are able to detain me, remove from the 9th hole and wait until the police arrive.

what is your basis for drawing a distinction?

[lehighguy]

People from outside the community would not be subject to your laws. You could remove them because they were on your property, but you can't subject them to your laws.

[lehighguy]

You can hire security personal to remove people from your property. The key is seperating civil and criminal law. If an outsider comes into your community and does drugs, you can't subject them to your laws. He never agreed to them. All you can do is remove him from your property.

Rent-a-cops are governed by different standards then real cops.

[lehighguy]

Buyer beware is what I'm going to say here. I think there are a lot of problems with your gated community. But its people's choice to enter it.

The problem comes when your community becomes so large people can't leave if dissatified. For instance, the United States qualifies as one giant gated community using your description. Can someone really leave the US if they disagree with government policies? Can I stop paying taxes if I disagree with how the monies spent?

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are going to have your own police force and law enforcement then you are your own country. You might as well not even be part of another country. Why even ask if it would work in a libraterian country.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ok so libertarians are ok with the father of his house setting rules which restrict the freedom of those members (ect) and they are ok with a country club coming up with rules on there property which conflict with what is legal outside its grounds (smoking) but at some scale say city they suddenly say no this group is too large to make its own rules that may restrict the absolute individual freedom.

For example its ok for a house and club to ban smoking but not for town to get together and decide the same thing?

I guess what im asking is if Libertarians believe groups can get together and form rules they want to live under (even those which restrict some freedom) or not. I don't see how I can say well you see its ok some outside goeverntment to enforce its own rule in these situations but not these? With the difference being the size and nature of the group.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Buyer beware is what I'm going to say here. I think there are a lot of problems with your gated community. But its people's choice to enter it.

The problem comes when your community becomes so large people can't leave if dissatified. For instance, the United States qualifies as one giant gated community using your description. Can someone really leave the US if they disagree with government policies? Can I stop paying taxes if I disagree with how the monies spent?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes exactly this is the problem.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
People from outside the community would not be subject to your laws. You could remove them because they were on your property, but you can't subject them to your laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok this is good. in your opinion who owns the propery within a state

also when there is conflicting laws between states would (in a libertarian philosophy) someone who obeyed his states laws but broke the law of state he entered by subject to punishement in the offended state? or can that state only remove him from the state?

[lehighguy]

The big difference is between criminal and civil law. Private individuals can't enforce criminal law. They can't arrest people.

[lehighguy]

Yeah, I think its impossible to have a large society unless its governed by libraterian principles. Simply because people can't leave if they disagree.

[lehighguy]

Government law would overide community law. You can remove him, but you can't fine him or punish him in other ways. If the person damaged your property he would probably have to pay resitution as per the laws of the government the community was in.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
The big difference is between criminal and civil law. Private individuals can't enforce criminal law. They can't arrest people.

[/ QUOTE ]

only because society based on its values decided to make them different. there is no scientific law which makes them as such. So how do libertarians decide as to what is ok for society to decide under some sort or democratic/representative rule and what isn't?

why is it ok for one authority figure to tell me I can't smoke in a particular place but not ok for another (the state)?

It can't be as simple as what classification the property is because public property is still owned by the people the difference is only a common ownership.

I have to believe that Libertarians are ok for example with a city deciding that a couple cannot have sex openly in a public park yet clearly they are allowed to within the confinces of their home. Thus Libertarians believe that some sort of common rule can instituted over personnal behavior even when A) not everyone agrees and B) it restricts individual freedom.

So what fundemental principle is being used to make this determination and how is this principle different fundementally from the one being used by Republicans or Liberals?

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I think its impossible to have a large society unless its governed by libraterian principles. Simply because people can't leave if they disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

what are these prinicples and how have they determined that this is superior to the principles of other idealogies? Please, Please tell me this isn't all just based on wanting drugs to be legal.

[renodoc]

it sounds like the Free State Project, doesn't it? web page (go here)

[lehighguy]

"I have to believe that Libertarians are ok for example with a city deciding that a couple cannot have sex openly in a public park yet clearly they are allowed to within the confinces of their home. Thus Libertarians believe that some sort of common rule can instituted over personnal behavior even when A) not everyone agrees and B) it restricts individual freedom."

Let us say someone owns a building on 3rd street. They also own the sidewalk in front of the building. If they want to have sex in public, they can, but only on the sidewalk in front of thier building.

There is no public property in a libraterian society. Roads are privately owned, parks are privately owned. So there is no need to determine what people are allowed to do on public property.

[lehighguy]

Let me think about this overnight. The problem of the large gated community is an interesting one.

[coffeecrazy1]

Besides, and I'd like to reiterate this point: Libertarianism says your freedom ends where mine begins...that's it.

The issue with your community expansion is this: are you buying the land that you expand on? Or, is the land just being annexed by you?

And, in your extreme example, I don't think that a couple having sex in the park should be illegal . That does not mean that Libertarians would think it ethical, couth, or very intelligent, and I would have no problems with the social repercussions of such an act...but legally speaking, I don't think that the government should have recourse against that kind of behavior.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Besides, and I'd like to reiterate this point: Libertarianism says your freedom ends where mine begins...that's it.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's it? ok so then I can do anything I want in the country club as long as it doesn't impede you? and I can smoke/drink in my parents house because they have no right to impede my freedom?

clearly it doesn't stop and start there or else libertarians are nothing but anarchist? Because if that is the case no form of taxation would be legal and the concept of private property ceases exist because I don't see how you rationlize not allowing me to occupy a space that is not being occupied currently by you.

so unless you are saying libertarians are anarchists I don't see how it can simply be about "you're fredom ends where mine begins.

[lehighguy]

You can't smoke or drink in your parents house because its thier house and they can kick you out. You parents can't tell you not to smoke/drink in your house because its your house.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't smoke or drink in your parents house because its thier house and they can kick you out. You parents can't tell you not to smoke/drink in your house because its your house.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree but I thought your freedom ended your mine began and that's it. so clearly this isn't the case because you believe that also my parents have the right to own a house and make rules of the house that may infringe on my freedom and if I don't like it than it is my right to leave the house.

I mean you have to agree that there is more than just "my freedom ends where yours begins", right?

[lehighguy]

A society reflects the values of those in it. So in order for a libraterian society to work the citizens must share libraterian values. If a society shares liberal values it should become a liberal society. If the people share conservative values it should be a conservative society.

This brings us to two questions:
1) Why are libraterian values a good idea?
2) Why is a libraterian government the best way to order a large society?

The first you should research yourself. I'm not going to go over all libraterian ideals and thier justifications right here in this thread.

Before I answer the second question I want to define two terms: community and society.
A community is a small group of people who share similair values and live in the same geographic area. A society is a much larger version of a community. The big difference between the two is wether or not someone can leave if they disagree. If a community is small this is a simple matter (moving to the next town over). However, at some point you live in a society so large that moving is incredibly burdensome and not an option in most cases.

A libraterian society can easily accept a non-libraterian community. Since libraterianism has few government controls, it doesn't force anyone to do what they don't want to. If you choose to give up those rights to live in a community with a different idealogy, a libraterian society can accept that. It is well within your rights to forfiet your rights. Should you decide that the values of the community no longer reflect your own you can move away.

Example:
A county has ten cities. Two of those cities have citizens that have conservative values. One has citizens that share liberal values. The remaining seven share libraterian values. Anyone with strong liberal, conservative, or libraterian values can move to the communities who share those values. However, all of these communities are bound togethor within a libraterian society and get along peacefully.

In contrast a conservative society can't accept a liberal community or vice versa. And niether could exist in an authoritarian society. I will explain why if this is not intuitively obvious.

When a community becomes so large it becomes a society, it's relationship with the libraterian society changes. Instead of being a community within a society it becomes its own society. It is no longer a part of the libraterian society. Any relation they have between eachother would be a society to society partnership. Each would have soveriegnty.

Example:
Let's say tommorrow Americans woke up and most decided they shared libraterian values. However, a few million were still diehard liberals. All of the hippies decide to move to Vermont and make Howard Dean thier emporer. We should allow Vermont to secede and grant it soveriegnty because it the community has become large enough to constitute its own society (if vermonts not big enough for you then let's say texas).

So why support libraterianism?
Because it is the best way to govern diverse people and communities with different believes and values togethor in a workable social fabric. Even non-libraterians can live in a libraterian society. Non-libraterian communities can exist within a libraterian society. This is not true for conservative or liberal societies.

[coffeecrazy1]

Obviously, there's more...but I was trying to simplify because we were getting wrapped up in the hypothetical...it was as much to establish a control group for the Libertarian position than anything else...so forgive me for the oversimplification.

[lehighguy]

I didn't make that statement, nor am I sure what it means. Without context it is meaningless.

I will say this though. A libraterian society is not lawless. It respects property rights and protects people from physical harm.

[[censored]]

Awesome. That is an awesome response and is almost exactly the conclusion I came to.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't make that statement, nor am I sure what it means. Without context it is meaningless.

I will say this though. A libraterian society is not lawless. It respects property rights and protects people from physical harm.

[/ QUOTE ]

right because libertarians believe in laws. it matters not where this belief comes from or if they are 100% consistent it is enough that they do.

[lehighguy]

I'm actually glad you asked this question. It made me think alot and I think it helped me organize my thoughts alot better.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm actually glad you asked this question. It made me think alot and I think it helped me organize my thoughts alot better.

[/ QUOTE ]


yes me too. I now feel very confident in the legitamacy of my polictical beliefs.

[lehighguy]

Don't get too comfortable. I find mine keep evolving constantly. Reading is fun /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't get too comfortable. I find mine keep evolving constantly. Reading is fun /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not comfortable in my positions (ie issues) only in my belief that I have a right to desire them expressed in the form of law even if some disagree.

[Dead]

In my fantasy world you would all be tried for treason and shot.

[lehighguy]

That doesn't suprise me.

[coffeecrazy1]

In my fantasy world, Mike Mussina would be shot.

[renodoc]

Why bother with a trial?