tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) (07/07/85)
(Followups exclusively in net.politics.theory, please.) Paul Torek and his walter wego (the UETRay ibertarianLay) are fond of variations on the following argument: > From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) > > Here we have a libertarian contradicting himself. On the one hand, as > a libertarian, he says that people should be free to do as they will > so long as they do not initiate force or fraud. On the other hand, > he says above that only the govt. should be allowed to enforce contracts. > Now, enforcing contracts is either initiating force/fraud -- in which > case a libertarian must condemn it -- or not -- in which case a > libertarian must ALLOW it REGARDLESS of who does it. > > Q.E.D. (Ah, the joys of iconoclasm!) Let's first distinguish several kinds of rights: 1) ethical This kind of right is the equivalent of saying, "It is right that so-and-so should be free to do such-and-such." Such a right is, when objectively derived, inalienable; it is an inescapable condition of reality. 2) political This kind of right is the equivalent of, "In the political system that I have in mind, so-and-so would have the formal support of society for his freedom to do such-and-such." 3) legal This is the existence in reality of a political right, as opposed to the mere idea of it. 4) common law This is an informal version of a legal right. It means that, although there has been no formal organization established in support of a political right, the extra-legal power of society is such that so-and-so's freedom to do such-and-such would be respected. (I have deliberately left out the element of tradition normally part of common law, because it is inessential to my present purpose. However, the weaknesses of common law, upon which anarcho-libertarianism depends, are worthy of separate treatment.) Now, since the word "coercion" is only meaningful with respect to a right, and since the ways in which such a right can be brought into existence are limited, it is impermissible to speak of coercion being applied against those who seek to enforce non-coercion without reference to a system that brings it into being. To do so, for good example with the word "REGARDLESS" above, is to drop an essential part of the context of the word. So, although a government may be coercing contract-enforcers, it isn't necessarily. David Hudson
flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (07/10/85)
In <218@frog.UUCP> tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) writes: >> Here we have a libertarian contradicting himself. On the one hand, as >> a libertarian, he says that people should be free to do as they will >> so long as they do not initiate force or fraud. On the other hand, >> he says above that only the govt. should be allowed to enforce contracts. >> Now, enforcing contracts is either initiating force/fraud -- in which >> case a libertarian must condemn it -- or not -- in which case a >> libertarian must ALLOW it REGARDLESS of who does it. [Torek] >Let's first distinguish several kinds of rights: > >1) ethical > This kind of right is the equivalent of saying, "It > is right that so-and-so should be free to do > such-and-such." Such a right is, when objectively > derived, inalienable; it is an inescapable condition > of reality. >2) political [...] >3) legal [...] >4) common law [...] [Readers who want to see the explanations under 2 thru 4, which I've deleted to save space, should refer to <218@frog.UUCP>] >Now, since the word "coercion" is only meaningful with >respect to a right, and since the ways in which such a right >can be brought into existence are limited, it is >impermissible to speak of coercion being applied against >those who seek to enforce non-coercion without reference to >a system that brings it into being. To do so, for good >example with the word "REGARDLESS" above, is to drop an >essential part of the context of the word. Some of Hudson's sentences are pretty convoluted there, but if I get the drift, he's faulting my argument for not specifying what kind of right I am talking about. OK, I'll spell it out: People have an ETHICAL right (according to libertarianism) to do what they will provided they do not intiate force or fraud. Now either enforcing contracts constitutes initiation of force/fraud -- violates people's ethical right -- or it doesn't. If it does, government shouldn't do it. If it doesn't (and all the libertarians I know of say it doesn't) then a private company, empowered by an individual to enforce the contracts that the individual enters into, is acting within its ETHICAL rights by enforcing the contracts which that individual enters into, and is not initiating force/fraud. (In fact, quite clearly the company is RESPONDING to an initiation of fraud by the contract-breaker.) Therefore if the government forcibly stops this company, IT is initiating force and is therefore doing wrong. Clear now?