[net.politics.theory] The CONSISTENCY was MIXEN.

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?