6 ms·
In libertarianism, the non-aggression principle is not a commitment to pacifism. When someone trespasses on someone else's property, the trespasser is considere
by commoner 4y ago
In libertarianism, the non-aggression principle is not a commitment to pacifism. When someone trespasses on someone else's property, the trespasser is considered the initial aggressor, and the property owner is within their right to remove the trespasser from the property.
> Consider the following hypothetical example:
>> Trespass: George is walking across a field when David jumps out
from behind a bush, grabs him, and gently but forcefully removes him
from the area.
> In this example, it certainly looks as though David is the one committing
an act of aggression against George. After all, George is simply walking
along, minding his own business, when David comes from out of nowhere,
physically lays hands on him, and drags him off the field.
> But suppose that the field in this example is David’s property, and that
George is knowingly trespassing across it. In that case it is clear that
most libertarians would say that it is actually George who has committed
aggression. David’s violence, they would say, is simply an appropriate
response to George’s impermissible intrusion upon his land.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy/article/abs/libertarian-nonaggression-principle/E8CF5446CB1D9601EFA043F7903F1CB1 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-an...
Libertarians oppose expropriation and eminent domain because the government is the one initiating the aggression against the property owner by forcible seizure. (Although libertarians support limiting the power of the state, it is not the same thing as eliminating the state entirely. That would be anarchism, not libertarianism.)
- Eisenstein 4y agoLibertarians don't account for externalities. When the property owner three miles over is dumping toxic waste into the river, what are you going to do about it? The state works because they have a monopoly on violence and imprisonment. As long as they operate for general good and operate via a strict system of laws which prevents abuses and maintains rights, then that is a good thing. Making my neighbor stop dumping waste into my drinking water (which I don't own at the point they are dumping in) by having to come up with enough money to buy them out and shut them down is not viable.
- djbebs 4y agoOf course it accounts for externalities. If someone is dumping toxic waste onto your property, there is nothing anti-libertarian about suing them to stop it and compensate you for the damages.
- Eisenstein 4y ago> If someone is dumping toxic waste onto your property If they own that part of the river, they are dumping it on their property. This is the definition of an externality.
- commoner 4y agoIf someone dumps toxic waste onto their property, which then bleeds into your property because they failed to contain it, the dumper is effectively dumping toxic waste onto your property and you are able to respond with legal action. This is the case in any society that recognizes and enforces property rights, libertarian or not.
- Eisenstein 4y agoHow far away does it have to be from you to count? What do I need to prove that it is getting into my water? Do I need to hire a lab to prove that a certain chemical causes cancer 20 years later and that it is in the product they are putting in the water? What if it is air, instead? What about climate change? What if they operate a business, say, they buy tiger feet, and it is causing a growth in a market for tiger feet which leads to poaching of tigers who have been endangered and are needed for a local ecosystem which I rely on to work?
- commoner 4y agoThe courts will decide how the damages for the toxic waste dumping should be assessed. The government regulates the use of public and common goods, and it can also file lawsuits. When you said: > The state works because they have a monopoly on violence and imprisonment. As long as they operate for general good and operate via a strict system of laws which prevents abuses and maintains rights, then that is a good thing. did you think that most libertarians would disagree? The status quo is that the state has a role in protecting human and property rights, and in regulating public and common goods. No pragmatic libertarian would suggest removing the state from these roles without finding a suitable replacement.
- smeagull 4y agoOkay, but the libertarian state that is now the property of the large multinationals that bought it seconds after it established, doesn't care.