The government versus freedom problem
 

As a libertarian, I believe that the initiation of force, fraud, or coercion is morally wrong.

I also believe that we need a government to provide us with protection against those who would otherwise use force against us. Essentially I think the government's job should be to maintain an army, police force, and justice system.

The catch-22 of it all is that in order for a government to exist, it needs to employ some kind of compulsory payment system in order to stay in business, be it taxation, tariffs, or what have you. This system, unfortunately, needs to be backed by the threat of force.

I justify the government's use of force in this specific area because I believe it is necessary to keep us free from others in the world who pose greater threats to our liberty. I think my position would be best described as minarchistic. In an ideal world we would have no government and no threats to our lives or liberty. But seeing as how there are people who wish to attack and rob us, I think a small government, while necessarily forcing us to make a few sacrifices in liberty, maximizes our liberty overall.

Please comment. I am especially interested to hear from other libertarians, and what their conclusions are in reconciling the need for both government and freedom.

Re: The government versus freedom problem
 

Is an entitlement to private property a subset of liberty in your view?

EDIT: And, as a private person, am I entitled to keep property that I obtained through coercion, or is it permissible to "recoerce" the property from me?

Re: The government versus freedom problem
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is an entitlement to private property a subset of liberty in your view?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I believe that private property is essential to liberty. For instance, private ownership of one's own body is necessary to be free for obvious reasons. I believe this idea extends to land and material goods as well. For instance, if a piece of land was owned communally, then nobody would be able to do what they they really wanted. Every action taken concerning the land would have to be okayed by the community.

[ QUOTE ]
And, as a private person, am I entitled to keep property that I obtained through coercion, or is it permissible to "recoerce" the property from me?

[/ QUOTE ]

You cannot lay claim to property acquired illegitimately. Although I don't believe in initiating force, I am by no means a pacifist. If someone takes property through force, that person forfeits certain rights, and everyone can and should retaliate justly.

Re: The government versus freedom problem
 

[ QUOTE ]
The catch-22 of it all is that in order for a government to exist, it needs to employ some kind of compulsory payment system in order to stay in business, be it taxation, tariffs, or what have you. This system, unfortunately, needs to be backed by the threat of force.


[/ QUOTE ]

This system needs to be backed by a whole bunch of tax collectors, inspectors etc. Already the bureaucracy is burgeoning.

Your government doing nothing except running the army and police force sounds quite frightening, given what you guys managed to do with all sorts of other problems to consider, I dread to think what you could manage if the army was all they had to think about.

Mack

Re: The government versus freedom problem
 

[ QUOTE ]
This system needs to be backed by a whole bunch of tax collectors, inspectors etc. Already the bureaucracy is burgeoning.

Your government doing nothing except running the army and police force sounds quite frightening, given what you guys managed to do with all sorts of other problems to consider, I dread to think what you could manage if the army was all they had to think about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I follow you. Who is "you guys"? Are you saying that less things to consider makes things more complicated?

Re: The government versus freedom problem
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. I believe that private property is essential to liberty. For instance, private ownership of one's own body is necessary to be free for obvious reasons. I believe this idea extends to land and material goods as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all this is not meant to be offensive to you, just thought provoking. You sound a lot like an anarchist to me. An anarchist who wants a system of laws and enforcement of said laws to protect him and his possessions from nasty poor people.

I had to come up with some kind of example as to why I don't like the idea of government not providing basic services, so here we go. Assuming people get no health care or garbage taken away unless they pay for it, there will be areas that are full of disease, it would go unchecked and uncured, it could spread to more affluent areas. It could even be your next door neighboor who can't afford, or chooses not to have his rubbish taken away. I suppose the law could insist that he paid, but then surely as a libertarian you would find it unacceptable that your neighbour was compelled by legislation to deal with a specific private company.

Mack

Re: The government versus freedom problem
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I follow you. Who is "you guys"? Are you saying that less things to consider makes things more complicated?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of war is what I think.

Mack

Re: The government versus freedom problem
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is an entitlement to private property a subset of liberty in your view?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I believe that private property is essential to liberty. For instance, private ownership of one's own body is necessary to be free for obvious reasons. I believe this idea extends to land and material goods as well. For instance, if a piece of land was owned communally, then nobody would be able to do what they they really wanted. Every action taken concerning the land would have to be okayed by the community.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is ownership of private property necessary only to the extent that it is required to ensure liberty, or is there also a separate and distinct right to private property?

[ QUOTE ]
And, as a private person, am I entitled to keep property that I obtained through coercion, or is it permissible to "recoerce" the property from me?

[/ QUOTE ]

You cannot lay claim to property acquired illegitimately. Although I don't believe in initiating force, I am by no means a pacifist. If someone takes property through force, that person forfeits certain rights, and everyone can and should retaliate justly.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if I acquire property illegitimately, but then I trade it to someone else in an uncoerced transaction? Does the original property owner have the right to retaliate against the new posessor of the property, or does the new posessor now have a right to it?

Another question
 

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that private property is essential to liberty. For instance, private ownership of one's own body is necessary to be free for obvious reasons. I believe this idea extends to land and material goods as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is a man who posesses nothing but his own body then denied his liberty?

Re: The government versus freedom problem
 

[ QUOTE ]

What if I acquire property illegitimately, but then I trade it to someone else in an uncoerced transaction? Does the original property owner have the right to retaliate against the new posessor of the property, or does the new posessor now have a right to it?

[/ QUOTE ]

The new possessor does not have a claim to the property; only the original owner can rightfully give him the property. The original owner has the right to have his property returned. Hopefully the new "owner" will understand, and the person who sold the property illegitimately can be held accountable for his actions.

It's an unfortunate situation, and reminds of me of the scenario in "House of Sand and Fog." A woman gets her house siezed by the government due to a mistake, and the government sells her house to someone else. It screws up everything pretty badly.