The government versus freedom problem

[edthayer]

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.

[Ed Miller]

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?

[edthayer]

[ 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.

[mackthefork]

[ 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

[edthayer]

[ 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.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm not. I want my possessions protected from criminals, not poor people. And I think everyone else should be secure in their possessions as well.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does this need to happen? Most people agree these services are of great value to our society, so why would we immediately discontinue them if the government suddenly stopped forcing them upon us? I recently read the "Autobiography of Ben Franklin" and Franklin talks about all of these modern day services he invented, such as public libraries, fire stations, and road maintanence. The only thing that was different was that instead of coercing people to pay for these services, he instead wrote essays on why these things would be beneficial to everyone. For many of these projects, he recieved unanimous support. People volunteered their money because they realized how important it was to have these things.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does this need to happen? Most people agree these services are of great value to our society, so why would we immediately discontinue them if the government suddenly stopped forcing them upon us?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi

I don't know how the government collects funds to pay for garbage collections in the US, but here we pay by council tax, it's a kind of fixed amount paid annually, there are 7 bands depending upon the value of your property. This tax is supposedly used to provide local authority services, such as garbage collection and landfill management, road networks in towns etc, and other stuff that generally annoys people. Unemployed people and low income households do not pay this tax, their rubbish still gets taken away. That was my basic point.

Regards Mack

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
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 ...

[/ QUOTE ]
In Portland you can't get garbage taken away unless you pay for it -- they have no public collection service, all private -- and your fears have not materialized.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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 ...

[/ QUOTE ]
In Portland you can't get garbage taken away unless you pay for it -- they have no public collection service, all private -- and your fears have not materialized.

[/ QUOTE ]

No public trash here either, its two competing companies. And there are no piles of trash all over nor rampant disease. Nice try at fearmongering, though.

[lehighguy]

I view it in quite the opposite way. The wealthy can hire police to protect themselves. The poor can't. I had always seen government law enforcement as essential to prevent the powerful from coercing the powerless.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
I view it in quite the opposite way. The wealthy can hire police to protect themselves. The poor can't. I had always seen government law enforcement as essential to prevent the powerful from coercing the powerless.

[/ QUOTE ]

The poor don't have much worth stealing either, think of a cherry tree, and a thorn bush, which needs protecting from the birds.

Mack