Libbies don't watch....

[Seth]

Part of the problem I have with US-style, big 'L' Libertarians is that that they seem so quick to assume that a small, out-of-the-way government will magically salve all ills and produce a kind of utopian society, but without acknowledging the decidedly in-the-way role government must invariably play in limiting the socially detrimental excesses of self-focused, self-serving economic elites.

This evidences a misunderstanding of Libertarianism. No Libertarian I know of really thinks that a small, weak central government will solve all problems. The problem is that the divide between individualism (Libertarianism) and collectivism (Socialism) is almost always cast as a black and white and unbridgeable gulf between the two political philosophies. But it's nothing of the kind.

Libertarianism doesn't maintain that small government will solve all problems, it holds that the legitimate purpose of government is not to solve problems, it is to facilitate, mediate and police the solving of problems by, first and foremost, the individual citizens who are experiencing the problem, and secondarily as a mediator between the individual state governments that are actually tasked with the bulk of law and rule making consistent with the will of the people within each state.

As originally contemplated, Congress' authority was explicitly limited ONLY to those powers mentioned in Section 1, Article 8. The Commerce Clause authority was originally contemplated to provide Congress with the power to "regulate commerce among the several states..." as a method of preventing the existing problems under the Articles of Confederation where one state would levy taxes, tariffs and duties on goods being transported from one state to another through the regulating state. Such taxes were common and were commonly used to harass and impede interstate trade in order to benefit the intervening state for no better reason that that the goods passed through that state enroute to their destination state.

This caused a lot of political and social problems during the time the Articles of Confederation were in effect and the Framers were determined to give the national congress, as the representatives of ALL of the states, the power to prevent one state from "impeding commerce" by levying taxes on the interstate transportation of goods. In short, the original intent of the Commerce Clause authority over interstate commerce was as a mediator and judicial decision-maker in disputes regarding the actual interstate movement of goods and persons brought to it by the states themselves.

It was never contemplated to be the kind of authority that has resulted in the all-but-plenary authority that Congress exercises over literally every aspect of day-to-day life of the citizens of the states.

It was supposed to prevent squabbling over trade by the state legislatures enforced by state laws.

The Framers had great faith that the states, being sovereign, were best suited to regulate the activities of their citizens, in large part because the closer the people are to the seat of power, the more effectively they can make their will known and cause it to be enforced.

The central government was contemplated to be the supervisor of state-to-state relations, the defender of the national borders and security, the facilitator of mail delivery, and the regulatory of currency, which are all aspects of political power amenable to federal regulation rather than state-by-state regulation.

As for the police power of the central government, it's neither necessary nor desirable that the Congress have any authority to deal with the "socially detrimental excesses of self-focused, self-serving economic elites."

That is the duty of the citizens, the free markets and the states, all of whom are perfectly capable of taking action to deal with such detrimental excesses within their own spheres of operation.

[Brian Peacock]

Does the body of the Free Market bear any necessary social responsibilities, and if so what are they?

[Seth]

Does the body of the Free Market bear any necessary social responsibilities, and if so what are they?

None at all. The "free market" is not a thing, it's an economic process by which individuals engaged in trade negotiate price and availability of products, nothing more. There is nothing inherently moral or immoral about the process of "free marketeering."

Social responsibility only occurs between human beings and only to the extent that one individual chooses to be involved with another human being in circumstances that may lend themselves to the initiation of force or fraud.

Don't confuse rational self interest, compassion, altruism, charity, greed, avarice, dishonesty or other aspects of an individual's character with some sort of duty to perform in a particular manner implied by the term "social responsibility."

What is "socially responsible" for one may be nothing more or less than coerced submission to theft and enslavement for another.

The intellectual flaw in interpreting the idea of "democracy" is that too many people make the a priori false assumption that "majority rule" is itself inherently fair, just and morally correct. It's not. Most definitely it's not. This is why the US is NOT a "democracy," it's a constitutional republic that utilizes certain limited democratic methods and processes as a part of group decision making.

There is nothing at all inherently good about majority rule. In fact the notion of majority rule is inherently immoral because it falsely presumes that whatever the majority wants is good, and that therefore the will of the majority may morally and ethically imposed on the minority regardless of the opinion of or impact upon the minority of the majority decisions.

In Libertarianism "social responsibility" means only two things: Do not initiate force or fraud against another. This requirement of social interaction is the only behavior that another individual or the community has moral authority to impose on someone. This moral authority is based in the principle that the individual is sovereign and entitled as by right to do as he or she pleases without constraint so long as, and only so long as his or her actions do not have the effect of initiating force or fraud upon others.

The problem with most people's understanding of Libertarianism is a faulty and misinformed understanding of what "initiation of force or fraud" actually means and how a particular individual act is analyzed under those rules to see if the others impacted by the action have just cause to resist the action or seek compensation for the alleged wrong. That analysis, it turns out, is much more complex and nuanced than most objectors to Libertarianism care to acknowledge. Usually they prefer to erect strawmen and red herring arguments and propound fallacies of composition as a substitute for a rational, reasoned analysis of specific examples under Libertarian philosophy that might illuminate the truth about Libertarian philosophy.

[rainbow]

The problem with most people's understanding of Libertarianism is a faulty and misinformed understanding of what "initiation of force or fraud" actually means and how a particular individual act is analyzed under those rules to see if the others impacted by the action have just cause to resist the action or seek compensation for the alleged wrong. That analysis, it turns out, is much more complex and nuanced than most objectors to Libertarianism care to acknowledge.

Clearly.
Who defines "just cause"?

If you cut off my access to drinking water, do I have the right to shoot you?

[pErvinalia]

The problem with most people's understanding of Libertarianism is a faulty and misinformed understanding of what "initiation of force or fraud" actually means and how a particular individual act is analyzed under those rules to see if the others impacted by the action have just cause to resist the action or seek compensation for the alleged wrong. That analysis, it turns out, is much more complex and nuanced than most objectors to Libertarianism care to acknowledge.

Clearly.
Who defines "just cause"?

He's going to feed you some bollocks about "natural law". But in reality it's "who has the bigger gun".

[Hermit]

The problem with most people's understanding of Libertarianism is a faulty and misinformed understanding of what "initiation of force or fraud" actually means and how a particular individual act is analyzed under those rules to see if the others impacted by the action have just cause to resist the action or seek compensation for the alleged wrong. That analysis, it turns out, is much more complex and nuanced than most objectors to Libertarianism care to acknowledge.

Clearly.
Who defines "just cause"?

If you cut off my access to drinking water, do I have the right to shoot you?

Prepare yourself for a substantial slab of verbiage on the values of lolbertardianism and why those values are objectively, irrefutably true and therefore define "just cause" beyond the shadow of any doubt. And that it is all so very obvious and simple. Such is the joy of certainty that comes from living in a black and white world.

[laklak]

Riparian rights are an excellent example of the limits of Randist thought, and they've caused more than a few violent confrontations in the American West back in the day. The law surrounding water usage is constantly evolving, and is still an issue. Witness California's destruction of the Colorado river, for example. Another is the state of Georgia's use of the Apalachicola river, which is negatively impacting Florida's oyster industry in Apalachicola Bay. Does Atlanta's unrestricted growth and consequent thirst justify destroying both the bay's ecology and a major economic resource?

We just sold our house up in North Carolina, for decades the farmer next door has used the stream running through the property to water his cattle. Before we sold I deeded him perpetual access, via a 3 inch pipe running through our property, since the stream does not flow through his property. There had to be consideration, as it's a contractual deed restriction on our property, so I charged him $20.

[Seth]

The problem with most people's understanding of Libertarianism is a faulty and misinformed understanding of what "initiation of force or fraud" actually means and how a particular individual act is analyzed under those rules to see if the others impacted by the action have just cause to resist the action or seek compensation for the alleged wrong. That analysis, it turns out, is much more complex and nuanced than most objectors to Libertarianism care to acknowledge.

Clearly.
Who defines "just cause"?

If you cut off my access to drinking water, do I have the right to shoot you?

Is it your drinking water?

[Seth]

Riparian rights are an excellent example of the limits of Randist thought, and they've caused more than a few violent confrontations in the American West back in the day. The law surrounding water usage is constantly evolving, and is still an issue. Witness California's destruction of the Colorado river, for example. Another is the state of Georgia's use of the Apalachicola river, which is negatively impacting Florida's oyster industry in Apalachicola Bay. Does Atlanta's unrestricted growth and consequent thirst justify destroying both the bay's ecology and a major economic resource?

We just sold our house up in North Carolina, for decades the farmer next door has used the stream running through the property to water his cattle. Before we sold I deeded him perpetual access, via a 3 inch pipe running through our property, since the stream does not flow through his property. There had to be consideration, as it's a contractual deed restriction on our property, so I charged him $20.

The complexities of riparian rights versus prior appropriation doctrine would make a find thread all its own.

The question of the Apalachicola river depends on (in the Libertarian sense) who owns the water, if anyone, and how consumptive use might produce an initiation of force or fraud on others.

The question you posit is an economic test primarily, and secondarily a question of bioethics.

The fundamental question is whether or not Florida has any right to expect that the waters of the river will continue to flow to it unimpeded, undiminished and unpolluted merely because it's at the end of the pipeline, and whether Georgia has a right to appropriate water to consumptive use that is flowing through or originating in its state to the benefit of the people of Georgia over the interests of Florida's oyster industry and environmental lobby.

You posit an interesting question indeed because it involves a common resource that may be either "unowned" (like air) or "owned" (like water) depending on how it is being used.

I'd like to continue this, but I've been up all night driving and I can't think right now, so I'll continue later.

[Brian Peacock]

Does the body of the Free Market bear any necessary social responsibilities, and if so what are they?

None at all. The "free market" is not a thing, it's an economic process by which individuals engaged in trade negotiate price and availability of products, nothing more. There is nothing inherently moral or immoral about the process of "free marketeering."

Social responsibility only occurs between human beings and only to the extent that one individual chooses to be involved with another human being in circumstances that may lend themselves to the initiation of force or fraud.

Of course, by 'body' I mean all those engaged in what one might call the mutual exchanges that take place under that 'Free Market' banner.

Don't confuse rational self interest, compassion, altruism, charity, greed, avarice, dishonesty or other aspects of an individual's character with some sort of duty to perform in a particular manner implied by the term "social responsibility."

What is "socially responsible" for one may be nothing more or less than coerced submission to theft and enslavement for another.

I must admit that this seems a rather unnecessarily defensive response to the uncontroversial notion of 'social responsibility' - which is really just a catch-all term for a broad ethic which implies that an entity, either institution, organization, or individual &c, owes their fellow entities some element of duty not to act in ways which are detrimental to them.

The intellectual flaw in interpreting the idea of "democracy" is that too many people make the a priori false assumption that "majority rule" is itself inherently fair, just and morally correct. It's not. Most definitely it's not. This is why the US is NOT a "democracy," it's a constitutional republic that utilizes certain limited democratic methods and processes as a part of group decision making.

There is nothing at all inherently good about majority rule. In fact the notion of majority rule is inherently immoral because it falsely presumes that whatever the majority wants is good, and that therefore the will of the majority may morally and ethically imposed on the minority regardless of the opinion of or impact upon the minority of the majority decisions.

And this follows from what?

In Libertarianism "social responsibility" means only two things: Do not initiate force or fraud against another. This requirement of social interaction is the only behavior that another individual or the community has moral authority to impose on someone. This moral authority is based in the principle that the individual is sovereign and entitled as by right to do as he or she pleases without constraint so long as, and only so long as his or her actions do not have the effect of initiating force or fraud upon others.

The problem with most people's understanding of Libertarianism is a faulty and misinformed understanding of what "initiation of force or fraud" actually means and how a particular individual act is analyzed under those rules to see if the others impacted by the action have just cause to resist the action or seek compensation for the alleged wrong. That analysis, it turns out, is much more complex and nuanced than most objectors to Libertarianism care to acknowledge. Usually they prefer to erect strawmen and red herring arguments and propound fallacies of composition as a substitute for a rational, reasoned analysis of specific examples under Libertarian philosophy that might illuminate the truth about Libertarian philosophy.

I guess you are somewhat bored, and perhaps a little frustrated, with having to defend Libertarian ideals against what you see as undue criticism borne from misapprehension. Nonetheless, I would like to pick a little more at what you regard as the due limit of social responsibility from a Libertarian perspective.

In Libertarianism "social responsibility" means only two things: Do not initiate force or fraud against another. This requirement of social interaction is the only behavior that another individual or the community has moral authority to impose on someone.

Accepting that fraud is something to be defined in law as some transaction in which one entity wilfully, and for gain, fails to uphold some aspect of some form of contract, and that force is to be similarly defined as action by an entity which seeks to oblige or coerce another to act against its own declared interests, how does this imbue any particular interaction with social responsibility - which we might say is a responsibility extended to those not directly involved in that interaction?

For example, by your lights, are commercial entities free to act and transact in the way individuals are free to act and transact - assuming of course that the actions and transactions in question comprise a mutual exchange in which neither force nor fraud plays a part?

I bring 'commercial entities' into this only because I am trying to draw you towards explaining what a Libertarian sees as the extent and scope of freedom in a Free Market system, and what limitations it is proper to place upon it - and why?

[Seth]

Does the body of the Free Market bear any necessary social responsibilities, and if so what are they?

None at all. The "free market" is not a thing, it's an economic process by which individuals engaged in trade negotiate price and availability of products, nothing more. There is nothing inherently moral or immoral about the process of "free marketeering."

Social responsibility only occurs between human beings and only to the extent that one individual chooses to be involved with another human being in circumstances that may lend themselves to the initiation of force or fraud.

Of course, by 'body' I mean all those engaged in what one might call the mutual exchanges that take place under that 'Free Market' banner.

The conflation of "free market" and "body" meaning those who participate in free market economics blurs the necessary division between economic transactions and social order.

The only appropriate linkage between an economic transaction and social responsibility is the necessary requirement to prevent force or fraud in the transaction. Everything else is caveat emptor. The "social fairness" of a trade is of no concern to anyone but the parties to the transaction. What an outsider to the transaction, like the government, thinks about whether the purchaser has been "fairly treated" is beyond irrelevant and the social justice motivation for interfering in a private contract (transaction) is the root of most of the problems with government overregulation and interference intended to manipulate the markets to achieve social engineering goals.

If I go to a shoe store and examine a pair of shoes and decide to buy them, it's strictly a transaction voluntarily entered into between me and the vendor, and if you (or the government) thinks I'm being charged too much for that pair of shoes, it's irrelevant and should never be an excuse for government regulation of the shoe market to try to ensure that I pay a "fair" price for those shoes. If I want the shoes and I'm willing to pay, let's say, women's fashion shoe prices for a basic man's shoe, I'm being fairly treated in the transaction and government should butt out.

Free market economic transactions are quite simple. A buyer decides whether he is willing to pay the price for the good offered by the seller. Absent fraud (like advertising snake oil as a cure-all for disease or telling someone the car they are buying gets 50 miles to the gallon when it actually only gets 15), the wisdom of a buyer's decision to voluntarily pay for a good is not an appropriate subject for government examination or regulation. To allow such intervention by the government grants to the government the power to stand in loco parentis for adults whose fundamental liberties depend upon being able to make sovereign decisions about their lives free of nanny-state interference by government. For better or worse, human beings function better, both as individuals and as a society, when individuals make their own decisions about how to dispose of the fruits of their labors. The free market operates based on the principle that the billions of individual decisions about what to buy, when, and for how much are the ONLY remotely accurate and appropriate way for markets to be regulated for other than the prevention of force or fraud.

Anything else is either government choosing economic winners and losers for social engineering purposes or government improperly assuming parental control over free adults, which denigrates the individual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Government has no place interposing its judgements about how and individual disposes of the fruits of his or her labor, because to allow that is to create totalitarian tyranny and oppression.

If a consumer makes a mistake in purchasing something, the responsibility and consequences for that mistake fall upon the consumer alone, and it is those consequences that teach the consumer to make better decisions. We all know that it is not appropriate for parents to make every decision a child may face because it leaves the child unable to function in society without parental guidance. The same principle applies to governmental interference with economic decision making by adults. It's a bad thing.

Don't confuse rational self interest, compassion, altruism, charity, greed, avarice, dishonesty or other aspects of an individual's character with some sort of duty to perform in a particular manner implied by the term "social responsibility."

What is "socially responsible" for one may be nothing more or less than coerced submission to theft and enslavement for another.

I must admit that this seems a rather unnecessarily defensive response to the uncontroversial notion of 'social responsibility' - which is really just a catch-all term for a broad ethic which implies that an entity, either institution, organization, or individual &c, owes their fellow entities some element of duty not to act in ways which are detrimental to them.

That's actually the core issue here. Does the individual owe others a duty to do anything other than avoid initiating force or fraud against another. We can dispense with the "institution [or] organization" by simply recognizing that institutions, organizations, businesses, corporations and all other forms of organization of humans are comprised of individual human beings, each of whom, and all of whom together, have a duty not to initiate force or fraud against another. In Libertarian theory, a corporate structure does not provide legal exemption from the basic rule of not initiating force or fraud for the individuals who comprise the corporation, from the shareholder to the CEO. In Libertarian philosophy there is no such thing as immunity from personal liability for the actions of a group that the individual chooses to associate with and abdicate personal decision making power to.

Every person is responsible for his or her own actions, absolutely and without exception, and it is not an excuse that one is "merely a shareholder" and not a corporate official when the corporation initiates force or fraud. Every individual is equally responsible for the actions of those who have been given authority to act in the name of the individuals in the group.

This principle prevents groups from disclaiming responsibility for the wrongful actions of those they have ceded personal authority to, which in turn motivates the members of an organization to ensure that those who exercise such control do so within the boundaries of Libertarian principles, lest they be held personally responsible for the actions of their leaders.

In Libertarianism the duty of each individual, regardless of other associations or agreements, to avoid initiating force or fraud, even indirectly by authorizing someone else to act on the individual's behalf, motivates individuals to use great care in making associations and authorizing others to act in their name.

Under this principle, every member of the KKK would be equally liable for any sanction imposed upon any other member for violation of the no-force-or-fraud principle under the banner of the organization.

The intellectual flaw in interpreting the idea of "democracy" is that too many people make the a priori false assumption that "majority rule" is itself inherently fair, just and morally correct. It's not. Most definitely it's not. This is why the US is NOT a "democracy," it's a constitutional republic that utilizes certain limited democratic methods and processes as a part of group decision making.

There is nothing at all inherently good about majority rule. In fact the notion of majority rule is inherently immoral because it falsely presumes that whatever the majority wants is good, and that therefore the will of the majority may morally and ethically imposed on the minority regardless of the opinion of or impact upon the minority of the majority decisions.

And this follows from what?

What do you mean? Majority rule is the basis of Socialism. Since majority rule is immoral, Socialism is immoral.

In Libertarianism "social responsibility" means only two things: Do not initiate force or fraud against another. This requirement of social interaction is the only behavior that another individual or the community has moral authority to impose on someone. This moral authority is based in the principle that the individual is sovereign and entitled as by right to do as he or she pleases without constraint so long as, and only so long as his or her actions do not have the effect of initiating force or fraud upon others.

The problem with most people's understanding of Libertarianism is a faulty and misinformed understanding of what "initiation of force or fraud" actually means and how a particular individual act is analyzed under those rules to see if the others impacted by the action have just cause to resist the action or seek compensation for the alleged wrong. That analysis, it turns out, is much more complex and nuanced than most objectors to Libertarianism care to acknowledge. Usually they prefer to erect strawmen and red herring arguments and propound fallacies of composition as a substitute for a rational, reasoned analysis of specific examples under Libertarian philosophy that might illuminate the truth about Libertarian philosophy.

I guess you are somewhat bored, and perhaps a little frustrated, with having to defend Libertarian ideals against what you see as undue criticism borne from misapprehension. Nonetheless, I would like to pick a little more at what you regard as the due limit of social responsibility from a Libertarian perspective.

I'm not bored at all. I'm frustrated that in general, discussion of Libertarianism goes no further than the obvious and traditional insults, derision, canards and evasions of socialists, who by and large refuse to engage the subject on anything other than a superficially snarky level. I'm quite pleased with your willingness to examine the subject free of rancor and personal invective. I really appreciate it, it's been a very, very long time since anyone has been willing to have an honest and respectful discussion on the subject of Libertarianism.

In Libertarianism "social responsibility" means only two things: Do not initiate force or fraud against another. This requirement of social interaction is the only behavior that another individual or the community has moral authority to impose on someone.

Accepting that fraud is something to be defined in law as some transaction in which one entity wilfully, and for gain, fails to uphold some aspect of some form of contract, and that force is to be similarly defined as action by an entity which seeks to oblige or coerce another to act against its own declared interests, how does this imbue any particular interaction with social responsibility - which we might say is a responsibility extended to those not directly involved in that interaction?

It doesn't. That's the point. "Social reponsibility" is Newspeak for "doing what the majority wants." Libertarianism eschews telling the individual he must comport himself in any particular manner based on social convention. The only constraints on individual action are to avoid initiating force or fraud. Beyond that, individual behavior in a social setting is governed by the liberties that other members of the community have to voluntarily interact or not interact with the individual. Therefore, "social responsibility" as generally implied does not exist, all that exists is acceptable social behavior and unacceptable social behavior, and that is a judgment made by each and every other individual with whom the first person comes into contact.

Moderating and guiding social behavior down acceptable paths is the product of individual actions in response to objectionable behaviors. If you pick your nose and eat it at dinner, others are under no obligation to invite you to dinner in the future. If you hog more than your fair share of common property out of greed, others may shun you. They can refuse to trade with you, help you or even acknowledge your existence, and it is the natural inclination to social behavior and inclusion that is depended upon to cause the offending individual to modify his or her own social behavior so as to gain acceptance and intercourse with other members of the community.

Social behavior is not enforced, it is encouraged by the withdrawing of social interaction when one acts inappropriately.

This principle of Libertarianism honors the firm belief that each individual is autonomous and has the right to do as he or she pleases, absent the initiation of force or fraud, but is also expected to suffer the consequences of those actions that may displease or injure others, and that others have an equal right to do as they please, which includes shunning individuals whom they don't care to associate with.

For example, by your lights, are commercial entities free to act and transact in the way individuals are free to act and transact - assuming of course that the actions and transactions in question comprise a mutual exchange in which neither force nor fraud plays a part?

Yes. But keep in mind that there is no such thing as a "commercial entity" that is not comprised of individuals, each of whom is individually and severally responsible for abiding by the fundamental Libertarian principles of avoiding the initiation of force or fraud.

I bring 'commercial entities' into this only because I am trying to draw you towards explaining what a Libertarian sees as the extent and scope of freedom in a Free Market system, and what limitations it is proper to place upon it - and why?

I've already explained this. Your misunderstanding is in thinking that a "commercial entity" is something other than the people who operate it. It's not. A "commercial entity" such as a corporation is an organizational form for a group of people wishing to operate together in a free market that describes how members of that organization cede individual power and authority to a management structure. The operational organizational form of the business entity has nothing to do with the responsibility of each and every individual participating in that organization to prevent the initiation of force or fraud by those who have been given authority to manage, it's not (in Libertarianism) something separate and distinct from the individuals who operate and profit from it. There is no disclaiming of personal liability for the initiation of force or fraud by the "commercial entity" in Libertarianism. Each individual in that organization is fully responsible for the consequences of allowing those who manage or operate the organization to initiate force or fraud in the marketplace.

[Brian Peacock]

With respect, I'm not misunderstanding anything, I simply take a different view and express it in different terms. There's no facts in this discussion, merely opinions. to be contrasted and compared.

I understand your reluctance to accept even a broad definition of 'social responsibility', as presented--after all, not only is it, in practical terms, often far more convenient to avoid responsibilities than to embrace them, but you do not think it exists, or even should exist. But as Paine say, mutual dependences and reciprocal interests are "that great chain of connection" which holds society together and by which everyone benefits by "the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole." To accept this is to accept that we have at least some duty to those other than ourselves, those without which we cannot prosper and thrive. This is the nature of social responsibility as I see it - and before you go off on one again, this has nothing to do with Socialism and everything to do with being a decent human being among human beings.

It's not as if I disagree with the principle that mutual interactions between people should take place without fraud or force - who would argue otherwise? - but I do dispute that this does or should comprise the limit or full extent of our responsibilities to others - that is, our responsibilities those who are not directly involved in our interactions.

I also think it is not unreasonable to think of commercial entities as being distinct from individuals, and while it may at first appear obvious that the activities of such entities are made up of an interlocking web of individual actions and transactions, when a company is at fault, for example, is it not reasonable to hold the company to account rather than its individual employees, directors, or shareholders. Similarly, when we purchase goods and services is it not reasonable to say that we, the individual, are undertaking an interaction with the company as an entity and not just interacting on an individual level with the guy on the cash register or the other end of the phone, or whatever?

[laklak]

I'm enjoying this discussion, gentlemen. Keep it up. The last two posts were both well put.

[rainbow]

The problem with most people's understanding of Libertarianism is a faulty and misinformed understanding of what "initiation of force or fraud" actually means and how a particular individual act is analyzed under those rules to see if the others impacted by the action have just cause to resist the action or seek compensation for the alleged wrong. That analysis, it turns out, is much more complex and nuanced than most objectors to Libertarianism care to acknowledge.

Clearly.
Who defines "just cause"?

If you cut off my access to drinking water, do I have the right to shoot you?

Is it your drinking water?

How about the concept that water, like air doesn't belong to anybody?

Would this be too difficult for a Libertarian to grasp?

[laklak]

If it doesn't belong to anyone then anyone can use it however they see fit. This is the nub of the issue. If I live downstream and someone upstream builds a dam that stops my water flow, how do I resolve that if there is no ownership of the water? There's a similar situation for air. If no one owns it, then why can I not pollute it with impunity? It's not yours, so you have no right to tell me not to do so. This is where courts and laws come into the mix, someone must balance the competing demands on a finite and necessary resource.