Re: Gov't NOT Coercion? [Michael Lorrey]

kristen brennan (
Thu, 23 Oct 1997 19:19:49 -0700

>Uninformed consent is not recognized. Unless the conditions of entrance
>are posted at the entrance, and the property owner will not allow
>entrance until conditions have been read and agreed to, there is no
>informed consent.

Not recognized by who? As far as the US government is concerned,
every single driver in this country is liable for the "Implied Consent
Law," without having signed anything. Even ignorance of
the law will not stand up in court.

>> Also, if a child is born in an apartment
>> and its parents die sometime thereafter,
>> the landlord, in accord with libertarian
>> theory, has the right to evict the child,
>> to use force against the child, even as
>> the child did not sign any contract.
>SO you are saying that since the parents died in the apartment, in
>effect abandoning the child, then under the lease, the landlord can
>claim the child?
>> Libertarians seem to think that they have
>> an inherent right to property upon which a
>> preexisting claim has been placed: the U.S.
>Libertarians, as citizens, have the ultimate right, since the US is
>nothing but responsible to and exists with the consent of the citizens.
>The population was here before the government was.

This brings up my major question about Libertarianism:

I generally agree with Libertarianism in theory. But as far as I can
tell, for it to globally replace other systems of interaction, one
of two things would need to happen:

1. Everyone would need to voluntarily adhere to it. But as long as there's a
profit to be made by coercion, I believe that some people
will always attempt to do so.

2. Some group would need to impose Libertarianism on the world. Of course,
this imposition would go against Libertarian values.

This catch-22 makes me draw a parallel between communism and libertarianism:
sounds great, if everyone adheres. But usually the only way to get everyone
to adhere is with guns, which means fascism.

Can anyone talk me out of this?

>> The only difference between the smalltime
>> landlord and Uncle Sam is that U.S. is big.
>> Yet there is no libertarian rule that places
>> a limit on the size of an area claimed. Yes,
>> force was used to wrongfully remove preexist-
>> ing claims of Native Americans, but none of
>> the guilty are alive today. If we say that
>> therefore the U.S. property is forfeit, so
>> too all land claims, for your dwelling pro-
>> bably stands on once Indian territory.
>> I think the importance of libertarianism
>> lies in the utility of private property,
>> such that people are more prosperous when
>> individuals are allowed maximum control of
>> areas that they purchase in exchange with
>> others. In short, if a landlord (Uncle Sam)
>> that owns a vast area wants his tenants to
>> prosper, he will allow them a very high
>> degree of liberty. He will allow them to
>> control parcels of land and trade them.
>> What makes the market work is the ease with
>> which customers can exit a given establishment.
>> What makes government not work is the difficulty
>> with which customers can exist the country. This
>> difficulty makes it a "landlords market," putting
>> the customers, or citizens, largely at the mercy
>> of those who are the de facto landlord. So it all
>> comes down to size. This places emphasis on the
>> need to expand beyond the Earth, beyond this
>> fixed and limited parcel of territory.
>Since the sovreign power of the US gov't is delegated by the people as
>individuals, if the people decide to abolish it, break it up in an
>anti-trust action, or make its role entirely voluntary for each and
>every individual, allowing people to "go armadillo" in Vinge's terms,
>then its legal. Since this voluntary principle already exists in the tax
>code and in the Social Security Act, its not unprecendented.

Although America is theoretically a democracy, in fact we have
a very complicated series of mechanisms of political control ultimately
enforced by violence or threat of violence. "The people" may not
circumvent those mechanisms and remain within the existing laws.


Kristen Brennan Teknowledge

"Thou canst not stir a flower without troubling a star."
-- Francis Thompson