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

Gary Lloyd (
Fri, 24 Oct 1997 07:05:28 -0400 (EDT)

At 07:19 PM 10/23/97 -0700, wrote:
>>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.

The U.S. is not a person, and thus has no rights.

>>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.

Consent is the highest form of acceptance. Think of acceptance as a scale,
with gun-to-the-head *submission* on one end, and yes-that's-what-I-want
*consent* on the other end. When viewed in this manner, it is clear that
obey-or-leave-the-country is closer, on the scale of acceptance, to
submission than it is to consent.

>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.

Not so. See below.

>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.

Libertarians unilaterally decide that aggression (initiation of force) is
immoral, while proportionate defense against aggression is moral. I call
this the Primethic Decision. This means that a libertarian will recognize
and respect everyone's right to consent (to that which would otherwise be
aggression), but will consider it moral to defend themselves wrt those who
do not make the Primethic Decision, i.e. non-libertarians.

The Primethic Decision (that aggression is immoral and defense is moral)
thus establishes the right to consent, which is the basis for all universal,
reciprocol rights. IOW, universal, reciprocol rights cannot exist without
first recognizing the right to consent, which can only come from the
Primethic Decision. All else is by consensual agreement.

>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.

It is not necessary that all adhere. Those who do not, should they aggress
against others, are simply, and morally, defended against.

>Can anyone talk me out of this?

Does this help?

When the boot of government is on your neck,
it doesn't matter if it's left or right.