5 ms·
This is where your libertarian "unrestricted right to contract" turns sour.
by powera 11y ago
This is where your libertarian "unrestricted right to contract" turns sour.
- duncan_bayne 11y agoThat's a strawman - at least, in the case of minarchist-Libertarians. We explicitly advocate for restricted right to contract. Some examples of proscribed contracts include those involving minors, or slavery (see 'unalienable rights').
- ThomPete 11y agoWho is going to uphold that?
- nsxwolf 11y agoAre you confusing libertarians with anarchists?
- duncan_bayne 11y agoYeah, I think he may be, which is why I posted in the first place.
- ThomPete 11y agoNo I am aware of the difference, just would love to hear how something like that was going to be managed.
- duncan_bayne 11y ago(See also, in part, my reply above to maxxxxx). I guess the bulk of it it would be much the same as what we have now: courts, police, Government departments tasked with protecting the rights of the population. There would be laws against murder, assault, rape, fraudulent advertising, running two-stroke cars[1], etc. etc. The main change would be that whole classes of crimes (drug crimes, obscenity, blasphemy, private discrimination[2], etc.) would simply disappear. And - if this were the USA - a lot of powers currently improperly usurped by the Federal Government would be instead claimed by the States, assuming their constitutions allowed. [1] In other words, collective problems justify collective legislation. If smoky two-stroke cars cause human harm by polluting the air, it may be reasonable to ban them by legislation. [2] By law, the State would be prohibited from discriminating on the grounds of race, religion, sex, marital status, etc. But individuals would be free to discriminate in whatever rational or irrational manner they chose.
- maxxxxx 11y agoI want to reply back but can't either :-(. I hope this is not considered a flame war.
- duncan_bayne 11y agoDitto. I think this is a valuable conversation, esp. for bystanders who haven't been exposed to Libertarianism before (or have been misled into equating it with Anarchism).
- duncan_bayne 11y agoThe justice system, administered by the State. (I think you may be confusing market-anarchism with minarchist-Libertarianism).
- maxxxxx 11y agoThat's something I have been wondering about for a long time. Wouldn't pure libertarianism require a huge justice system and give a lot of power to courts? In absence of regulation every dispute would have to go to court.
- duncan_bayne 11y agoFirstly, minarchist-Libertarianism doesn't preclude legislation. We only support legislation that is rights-respecting (e.g. no forcing people to do business with customers they don't want), reality-based (e.g. no environmental legislation without provable harm), and consistently administered (e.g. no free passes for particularly rich criminals). Secondly, even in an hypothetical absence of regulation, mediation would be preferable to court action in a lot of cases. That's true even now; private mediation is frequently used to resolve disputes before they ever see a courtroom. Edited to add: Also, in a rights-respecting State, the list of criminal acts would be a lot, lot smaller than it is now. No censorship (obscenity, blasphemy, etc.), no war on drugs, etc. etc. It's likely that justice system workloads would drop significantly.
- maxxxxx 11y agoI really would like to see a set of laws and government regulations that libertarians would support. Has anybody ever created such a thing? Would there be regulations on cigarettes, selling alcohol to 10 year olds or lead paint? Who would prove the harm if there is no EPA? Who has the money to go against big corporations and their paid experts? It took forever to get a shared understanding that smoking is really harmful. I don't want to be dismissive but most libertarians I talk to seem to live in a dream world and avoid real-world scenarios.
- 11y ago
- adventured 11y agoNot at all. Valid contracts must pass a minimum bar of consent. There was no consent granted, the victim in this case is blatantly incapable of giving it. What occurred is theft.
- ThomPete 11y agoTheft defined by what court in the liberal society? The one owned by the rich people or the one owned by the rich people?
- Crito 11y agoYou seem to be attacking libertarians for being anarchists. Would you attack a democrat for being a republican?
- ThomPete 11y agoSorry I was unclear. I mean "own" as in how the rich own the politicians in the current system. In a libertarian society I have a hard time seeing this being anything but even less protective of people like those described in the article.
- mdpopescu 11y agoWhat stops you (in anarchism) from opening a court specifically for poor people? Why do you think you're the only one worried about them?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- dlss 11y agoThis is the nirvana fallacy. That people enter into contracts they later regret does not disprove the obvious benefits of allowing legally binding agreements. If you have an alternate solution, by all means propose it. (And while we're on the topic of libertarianism, I'd like to note that lawyers being too expensive for poor people is largely a product certification costs, something libertarians want to get rid of)
- agorabinary 11y agoNo, this is where your insert social system fails to eliminate deception and fraud. Because no social system can be expected to accomplish that. "Just where in the world are you going to find these angels who are going to organize society for us?"
- ccvannorman 11y agoYeah, this is a really good point. Short of altering the gene pool (haha), what can we actually do about it "as a society"? I refuse to accept that we just have to tolerate this, but any solution I come up with to prevent it feels like it isn't much better than the problem ..
- tsotha 11y agoThis is where you need to do some research on what Libertarians really believe.
- randyrand 11y agoLooks like our current government isn't fairing much better =P Let's not forget that even most libertarians would be fine with: 1. giving protections to mentally handicapped people when it comes to signing contracts. 2. Allowing for bankruptcy if you cannot uphold a contract