From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Libertarians, slaves and company towns
Date: 16 Apr 92 01:28:52 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <46160@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:

>
>I'm just trying to understand the limits of contract enforcement in the
>libertopia. 


What I am proposing is not some hypothetical utopia.

It is a combination of the same things which originally comprised the 
govt of the US, but with the additional knowledge of 200 years of
experience in attempting to keep govt limited.  It would bear
the additional knowledge of
economic theories of public goods (including costs of pollution and
potential eco-cide), and the wealth-creation principle
of capitalism.  It would be open to whatever the physical sciences
can come up with.  If a discovery is made (such as in vitro fertilization)
which changes the way we operate as human beings, then so be it.  The
system is flexible, because it is based on what people perceive to be
"right."

At the base of the system
is the common law, which is not written by legislators, but by juries.
Superimposed on the common law is a constitution which defines certain
minimum responsibilities for a national govt, and which forbids the
transgression of the people by the govt in certain areas (Bill of
Rights).  (But we mean it this time!)

Contract law, taxation, bankruptcy law, property claims, etc. are not at the
center of this universe, but in the fine print, hashed out by
a combination of the legislature and the judicial system (which includes
juries, as the moral check on the system by the people).

Modern libertarianism is not a monolithic ideology, it is an "area" of thought 
whose only common denominator is a respect for the principle of 
toleration of others.  Non-coercion is proximate to toleration,
but not identical to it.


>Who determines what is "duress"? If I bounce checks so that
>my family can eat, is that ok? 

If you are asking if you have a right to steal, ask Gordon Fitch. (8-)
The best hope for the poor is for a wealthy society to uplift them,
which it does.  Reference the Russian peasants who were near riot
when it was found that the poorest Americans had pickup trucks and VCR's.

There are many alternatives to theft for people who are hungry in a free
society.  Because we are at root based on "people power" and community 
conscience, it is only natural that soup kitchens have arisen wherever 
they were needed.
But if theft is justified due to need, then what is to prevent some
other hungry person from stealing from the one who has just gotten
some food?


>Does it depend on how well they eat?
>"Too many cases of brie, obviously you weren't under duress, into the 
>libertopian, well we can't call it a "jail" 'cause only states have jails,
>so we'll call it a "penal enterprise". Can I be forced by the libertopian
>"non-state" to work for someone else's profit in order to pay off a debt
>which was entered into voluntarily? Do I get a trial by a jury of my peers
>to determine whether or not high probability of going without Dom Perignon
>for a week is a "serious threat", or will there be little booklets in which
>what each individual entreprenuer can expect from life will be written down
>in a clear fashion?  -- Page 1785 Para 5: A contract may be considered to
>have been entered into under duress if at least one party to the contract
>had consumed less than 1000 calories a day for the previous 5 days.
>

Victor, dont be an idiot.  If you want to feed people, feed them!  Dont
set up huge bureaucracies and legal machines which will consume more 
energy than the poor will ever receive. 

The basis of our society is the common law, which is, in effect, an evolving
moral standard, which represents the conscience
of a community at any given point in time, as determined by the kinds
of verdicts that they render in criminal and civil cases.
The whole thing rests on moral sentiments, not on top-down management
systems!

Liberty lies somewhere between anarchy and tyranny.  It does not consist of
answers to every minute question of societal interaction, but it provides
a PROCESS for resolving such questions as they arise.  
Perhaps I disappoint you with
my admitted relativism and pragmatism, but I see the Classical Liberal 
ideals as eminently
practical, and still quite valid, as a framework in which to operate a
society.  There may be some coercion involved in order to minimize
coercion, but that is part of the challenge of living with millions
of other humans.

Which reminds me of our little chat about the lowly worker in the company
town.  Here's a quote from William Pitt the Elder:

"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of
the crown.  It may be frail--its roof may shake--the wind may blow
through it--the storm may enter, the rains may come--but the King
of England cannot enter--all his forces dare not cross the threshold
of the ruined tenement!"

So it should be.  The FF's thought that with due process protections,
that they had wiped out tyranny in their new country.  We are now
faced with the blatant horror of civil forfeitures, in direct violation of
the Bill of Rights.  We are being stared straight in the face by
unrestrained govt power.  It seems to me that the Classical
Liberals had the right idea, and that by appealing to that idea, we
might reclaim our liberties, and restrain the beast which our
govt has become.


--Al Date
Vote Libertarian -- Do it for your kids.