The government versus freedom problem

[edthayer]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

No, not at all. He still has his own body. He still has the freedom to pursue other forms of property through work and trade.

[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.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll qoute from my notes what my econ professor thought the government should do.

[ QUOTE ]
1) Government should only do things worth doing, that is, things where the benefits from the government action exceed full opporuntity costs.

2) The government should only do things the private sector cannot do

3) Things which the private sector cannot do, which only the government can do, involve the use of force, or the threat to use force, coercion
a) National defense
b) Police Protection against violent crimes
c) Enactment and enforcement of the basic laws necessary for an economy to function

[/ QUOTE ]

[SheetWise]

[ 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 ]
This is not an issue involving govenment. The free market solves this problem today in the form of Title Insurance.

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if the new owner doesn't understand and seems to think that it's his property because he obtained it in what he viewed to be a just transaction? He still has to return it, I suppose? Does he retain no rights to the property whatsoever?

What of this situation? Bob steals a coin from Alice. Bob gives it to his son Barry. Bob dies. Alice has a son Aaron. Alice dies. Barry gives the coin to his daughter Beth. Barry dies. Aaron has a daughter Alexis. Aaron dies. To whom does the coin rightfully belong? Beth, Alexis, or someone else?

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]
Why? I employ private security forces to protect my property, and I do it through a company set up to protect many different sights -- because it's more cost effective than hiring my own people.

If the threat against my property was greater, I would respond by increasing the protection I buy. Interestingly, by protecting my personal property -- I am unintentionally protecting the property of my neighbors.

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
This is not an issue involving govenment. The free market solves this problem today in the form of Title Insurance.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does insurance solve any such problems? Say I steal your ring. I fence it. You have insurance that compensates you for your loss. Haven't I thus stolen from everyone who pays insurance premiums?

[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.

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
What of this situation? Bob steals a coin from Alice. Bob gives it to his son Barry. Bob dies. Alice has a son Aaron. Alice dies. Barry gives the coin to his daughter Beth. Barry dies. Aaron has a daughter Alexis. Aaron dies. To whom does the coin rightfully belong? Beth, Alexis, or someone else?

[/ QUOTE ]
To whom does the coin rightfully belong?
The lawyers.