[net.politics.theory] Questions for Libertarians

wallace@ucbvax.ARPA (David E. Wallace) (02/19/85)

	I have some questions for those on the net who consider themselves
libertarians.  Suppose that a government has been established in accordance
with your favorite libertarian principles.  Now suppose the following
situation arises:

	Joe and Bob are two hikers who independently decide to go
backpacking in a remote wilderness, away from any naturally occurring
sources of food or water.  Joe encounters a band of thugs who beat him
up, take all his equipment (including all his food and water), and leave
him badly injured and unable to get help unassisted.  Bob subsequently
comes along and finds Joe lying by the side of the trail.  Bob has 
enough food, water, and medical supplies in his pack to treat Joe and
allow both of them to return safely to civilization.  Both men realize
that if Bob does not help Joe, it is extremely unlikely that anyone else
will come that way before Joe dies from a combination of hunger, thirst,
and the effects of his injuries.

	Bob offers to help Joe, but only if Joe will sign a contract with
him first.  The major provisions of this contract are:

	A. Bob will treat Joe's injuries and assist him in returning to
	   civilization,
	B. Bob agrees to supply Joe with at least a minimal amount of
	   food, clothing, and shelter (enough for survival) for the rest
	   of Joe's life.
	In exchange for these, Joe agrees:
	C. To give Bob all property that he currently owns (presumably he
	   had some property that he left behind when setting out on this
	   trip), and
	D. To work for Bob without further compensation (beyond that
	   specified in (A) and (B) above) at any tasks Bob may require,
	   up to 16 hours per day, 7 days per week, for the rest of
	   his (Joe's) life.
	Finally,
	E. Bob may transfer his rights and obligations under this contract
	   to anyone he chooses, either temporarily or permanently, for
	   any consideration whatever.

	In addition, there are whatever standard enforcement and
arbitration provisions are typical for legal contracts in this society.

	Joe, after considering his alternatives (most likely a rather
unpleasant death), signs this contract, and Bob treats his wounds
and helps him return to civilization.  After recovering from his
injuries, however, Joe decides that he has gotten a rather raw deal
and appeals to an arbitrator, asking to be released from this contract
(particularly provision (D) above).

	Now for the questions:

	1. If you were the arbitrator, presumably ruling in accordance with
	   whatever principles of libertarian society you value most, how
	   would you resolve this dispute, and why?
	
	2. If the contract were to be upheld, do you think that Joe's status
	   under it would be significantly different from a slave in
	   pre-Civil War times (other than that his status would not
	   automatically be transferred to his children, if any)?
	   If so, what do you think the significant differences are?
	   If not (I don't see much difference), is such a status acceptable
	   in a society that values human freedom?
	
	3. If you felt the contract should be struck down (in whole or in
	   part), what do you think should be the limits of governmental
	   interference with individual's rights to contract with one
	   another?  Is there a difference between a claim on Joe's
	   future labor (provision D) and a claim on the results of
	   his past labor (provision C)?  Would it make a difference if
	   the period covered by the contract was a fixed period rather
	   than Joe's lifetime (say, seven years?  What about if it was for
	   one day?).  Does it make any difference if the labor required
	   of Joe endangers his life (such as service in Bob's private army)?
	
	4. Suppose the contract were upheld, and Joe subsequently runs away.
	   Has Joe thereby initiated the use of force against Bob's property
	   (Bob's interest in Joe's future labor)?  Is Bob therefore justified
	   in using force against Joe to reclaim his property rights?
	   Is this situation any different from that of a burglar who comes
	   on to Bob's property, takes something belonging to Bob, and then
	   leaves?  Why or why not?

	5. Regardless of whether or not you felt the conditions Bob imposed
	   on providing aid should be legal, do you think he was right
	   (i.e., morally justified) in doing so?  (I trust the distinction
	   is clear).

Dave Wallace  (...!ucbvax!wallace, wallace@Berkeley)
(Not a libertarian, but interested in responses from those who are.)

nrh@inmet.UUCP (02/23/85)

>***** inmet:net.politics.t / ucbvax!wallace /  5:28 am  Feb 19, 1985
>
>	I have some questions for those on the net who consider themselves
>libertarians.  Suppose that a government has been established in accordance
>with your favorite libertarian principles.  Now suppose the following
>situation arises:
>

I find the situation given more than a little incredible.  Joe's obvious
solution is to simply refuse the ignominious offer that Bob makes, on
the following grounds:

	1. Bob will gain *NOTHING* and run the risk of being
	suspected of killing Joe should Bob return alone and
	Joe's body be subsequently discovered, to say nothing
	of what would happen to Bob socially were Joe to be
	rescued (by a remorseful thug, say) and return
	to civilization and tell of Bob's conduct (who would
	chose to associate with someone KNOWN to be such a
	knave when there are people NOT known to be knaves available?
	
	2. Joe, realizing this, may (and should) hold out for
	a better deal than giving himself into slavery.

	3. If Joe is in such dire straits that he *cannot* *think* *clearly*,
	then it would be hard to argue that he could understand clearly
	the agreement he was making -- therefore no such agreement
	would, depending of course on the arbitration agencies 
	involved, exist.

	4. Were word of the agreement to get out, Bob would quickly
	find himself incapable of making deals with anyone who
	knows about it.  People do not, as a rule, shake hands
	with sharks.

>	1. If you were the arbitrator, presumably ruling in accordance with
>	   whatever principles of libertarian society you value most, how
>	   would you resolve this dispute, and why?

Hmmmm.  I'm no arbitrator, so one shouldn't consult me, but I would
ask the following questions:

		Was Joe in a position to think clearly when the agreement
		was made?

		If Joe WAS in such a position, why didn't he hold
		out for a better deal?

		Now, let us say that Joe and Bob are hooked up to some
		sort of device (say a voice-stress analyzer) that will
		(in this hypothetical example) tell me whether they're
		telling the truth when asked the first question.  I
		suspect that Joe's answer will be "no", and I expect
		I'll get an ambiguous answer from the analyzer.  I
		suspect that Bob's answer will be (if he doesn't know
		about the analyzer) "yes", and I expect that the
		analyzer will record that this is a lie.  Given this
		situation, (Bob attempted to get Joe to sign an
		agreement in a situation where Joe would have great
		trouble thinking clearly) it's dubious whether a valid
		agreement has, in fact, been made.  Absent a lie-detector
		I'll evaluate on the basis of my own prejudice: would
		Joe make an agreement were he thinking clearly at the
		time?

		On top of all this, it may be that Joe's arbitration
		firm (and Bob's, too) believe in the concept of, and 
		enforce decisions consistent with, the doctrine of 
		inalienable rights.  Liberty may be among those rights,
		in which case the contract, even made freely, would
		be void in the face of previous agreements made with
		the arbitration agencies.  In other words, Joe may
		already have made an agreement that prohibits him
		selling himself into slavery;  Bob may be part of
		an organization the bylaws of which prohibit the
		holding of slaves.


I suppose it is possible that the arbitration agency involved held to
the position that such a contract was enforceable after all (doubtless a
decision that will prove very bad for business), in which case we come to:

>	2. If the contract were to be upheld, do you think that Joe's status
>	   under it would be significantly different from a slave in
>	   pre-Civil War times (other than that his status would not
>	   automatically be transferred to his children, if any)?
>	   If so, what do you think the significant differences are?

Absolutely!  I suspect you'll find VERY few records of slaves who (under
pressures not related to the slave-taker's presence) agreed in advance
to be slaves.  Remember, the Joe and Bob example is rather contrived.

In Joe's case, he's CHOSEN something like slavery WITHOUT
PRESSURE FROM Bob (he's under terrific pressure, but that's not Bob's
fault).  For one thing, it's not at all clear that Bob may harm Joe in
any way, nor may he limit his discourse with others (an important
point), nor do any uninvolved third parties have an obligation to 
help keep Joe from escaping.

>	   If not (I don't see much difference), is such a status acceptable
>	   in a society that values human freedom?

Unacceptable enough for the society to abandon libertarianism in favor
of having the government arbitrarily abrogate freely made agreements?  I
would hope not -- there are such obvious non-governmental ways of
convincing Bob that he should renegotiate:  For example I, and (I
suspect) many others who value freedom would refuse to deal with Bob in
any way until he renegotiated the contract with Joe.  I suspect that a
general boycott of Bob's work would be in order.  There is precedent for
this -- for example, there is a general understanding that the results
of the experiments done by Nazis on unwilling human beings during WWII
are NOT used by the medical profession.

>	3. If you felt the contract should be struck down (in whole or in
>	   part), what do you think should be the limits of governmental
>	   interference with individual's rights to contract with one
>	   another?  

Whoops!  Hold it right there -- there's no need for a government to be
involved here.  Let's stick to PRIVATE arbitration.

>	   Is there a difference between a claim on Joe's
>	   future labor (provision D) and a claim on the results of
>	   his past labor (provision C)?  Would it make a difference if
>	   the period covered by the contract was a fixed period rather
>	   than Joe's lifetime (say, seven years?  What about if it was for
>	   one day?).  Does it make any difference if the labor required
>	   of Joe endangers his life (such as service in Bob's private army)?

Again, we're now into the sort of agreement that Joe SHOULD have
negotiated with Bob.  The one that you have him making is outrageous,
and only makes sense if you ASSUME he could not reason clearly at the
time.  On the other hand, it may strike me as reasonable that Joe agree
to help Bob to the extent of Bob's outlay, and perhaps a little bit
extra.  The voluntary sanctions of others (myself in the boycott
mentioned above) would vary according to how they understood Joe's
agreement with Bob.  As far as the basis of the agreement, the less
sensible the agreement the more likely it would seem to outsiders
(arbitrators included) that Joe was not capable of thinking clearly at
the time, and therefore that no binding agreement was made.  On the
other hand, were such an agreement normal in Joe's culture (I understand
(vaguely) that parts of the orient had such understandings
commonly) the becomes more acceptable because the likelyhood that Joe
would make such an agreement only under extreme stress becomes less
likely.

It's certainly fair, and probably likely that Joe would want to reward
Bob for saving Joe's life.  The bizarre part comes when Bob takes
advantage of Joe's agitated state to get terms that Joe would not agree
to were he able to ponder.


>	4. Suppose the contract were upheld, and Joe subsequently runs away.
>	   Has Joe thereby initiated the use of force against Bob's property
>	   (Bob's interest in Joe's future labor)?  Is Bob therefore justified
>	   in using force against Joe to reclaim his property rights?

Hmmm.....  I notice that there was no provision for enforcement in the
contract.  What sort of force did you have in mind?  A chase with pack
hounds?  Chains, to "protect" Bob's property?  The answer is that Joe is
probably better off simply refusing to live up to his end of the
contract and paying the penalty (if any) levied by the arbitrators.  I
imagine it wouldn't be long before Bob tires of this, and before the
continual picketing and boycott by civil liberties groups got to be too
much.  ("What time is it Charley?", "Sorry, Bob, I'll want 30 years of
hard labor from you if I answer that question.")
		
>	   Is this situation any different from that of a burglar who comes
>	   on to Bob's property, takes something belonging to Bob, and then
>	   leaves?  Why or why not?
>

This is not the issue -- if Joe's life were Bob's property, the cases
would be similar, but Bob would be very hard-pressed, as I've  tried to 
show, to show that Joe's life (or not-quite-interchangably) Joe's labor
IS Bob's property.

	
>	5. Regardless of whether or not you felt the conditions Bob imposed
>	   on providing aid should be legal, do you think he was right
>	   (i.e., morally justified) in doing so?  (I trust the distinction
>	   is clear).

I do NOT think that Bob was morally justified in doing what he
(hypothetically) did.  I don't think it is a rational act at all, given
the likely consequences (severe embarrassment, a recalcitrant Joe who
will certainly harass you at every turn, boycotts, the immediate
cancellation of all arbitration contracts (arbitrators would be fools to
let you subscribe, just as health maintainance organizations would be
fools to allow a person with massive (incurable) leukemia to join their
rolls (I assume this happens, but only under special conditions)).

The interesting part about the situation you propose is that it provides
a good illustration of how people depend on the state for solutions when
they don't need to.  In non-libertarian societies governments could and
did enforce the slaveholder's claim to the slave, regardless of the
personal feelings of onlookers.  In a libertarian society, Bob is much
less likely to be able to enforce his claim on Joe (bystanders are under
no obligation not to help Joe), and you will note that only an extremely
contrived situation results in even a very implausible slavery being
enacted.  My own opinion is that long-term
enslavement of the unwilling is possible only where a government
supports it.  Variations (such as Indenture) are possible, but 
not very likely given an industrial society and efficient teaching
methods.

>Dave Wallace  (...!ucbvax!wallace, wallace@Berkeley)
>(Not a libertarian, but interested in responses from those who are.)

Nat Howard