Libertarianism

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why assume it's consensual?

[Seth]

Why assume it's consensual?

Because individual autonomy and liberty demand that before anyone interferes with one's liberty, there must be just cause to do so, otherwise it's improper imposition of force on the autonomy and liberty of the individual without their consent.

In the absence of any complaint that it's not consensual, the presumption must be that the individual is competent and able to make rational decisions about their body and what they do with it, and that they are equally capable of refusing to participate in a non-consensual act and know that they are entitled to use force in self-defense, including deadly physical force, to defend against a sexual assault they do not consent to. Kind of like abortion is today; a girl of 13 or 14 can consent to having an abortion without either the parent or the state being able to intervene in many states. If she can get an abortion on demand, she ought to be able to screw at will. It's nonsensical and illogical to say that she can't consent to sex with whomever she likes but that she can consent to a dangerous medical procedure without getting approval from anyone, including her parents.

The "state" has no authority to intervene or judge whether an act was consensual without a) substantial evidence amounting to probable cause that the act was forcible in the absence of testimony from the victim (such as the victim's death or inability to communicate); or b) have a credible complaint with evidence amounting to probable cause from the victim that the act was forcible.

If the "victim" doesn't complain and no coercion to prevent the victim from reporting the crime (which is another initiation of force) is either complained of or shown, then there was no crime and no wrong done, and no actionable offense involved.

Because under Libertarianism the individual is both at liberty to exercise personal autonomy, he/she is also responsible for the consequences of those actions and may not shift the blame for bad judgment onto another, but must generally accept the consequences of poor judgment.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So, you don't have a good reason. Thought so.

[Seth]

OK to the first part, that's as I thought. Admittedly the second part is more convoluted, because of the consent factor and the maturity factor. Also, competence must be addressed. Is a person competent to say no harm was done to him- or herself? Say there is an issue of defective mental ability, say Down Syndrome or a similar intelligence impairing function present. I suppose the parents would decide on the competence. Would there be a militia police force present to enforce the laws, or would that fall under the powers of the government? I think the first option would be more viable because the governance would be local, therefore more accurately reflecting the local mores and customs. Would there be a police force at all?

Nothing in Libertarianism precludes the existence of a police force or a militia, but what's prohibited is to levy taxes on those who are not willing to voluntarily contribute to such government services. This is true of ALL government services. Persons may not be compelled to pay for that which they do not agree to pay for.

On the other hand, they can be denied use of or access to the services provided at the expense of others if they refuse to pay for the services. This includes roads, police, and any other service offered by those who voluntarily cooperate together to provide a common service, from police to sewers.

This does not mean that they may absolve themselves from the rule of law or from the civil or criminal justice systems merely by "opting out" of paying for police, fire or other government services. If you initiate force or fraud, thereby triggering the right of self-defense, which extends to forcing compensation for wrongs done including through the use of government force, you may not escape your responsibilities to compensate others for such wrongs. Any interaction with a community or others triggers the obligation to avoid initiating force or fraud, and such interactions grant license for the community, or its members, to enforce that principle.

Libertarians would prefer to handle such things individually, through mechanisms like "shunning" and refusing to trade with someone who does not adhere to community standards of behavior, and this is the primary way that people are brought under social pressure to conform and cooperate, but where wrongdoing causes harm, there can be resort to the force of the state, such as it is, to enforce justice.

Libertarianism is not, as some suggest, all about anarchy and greed. It's about using voluntary associations, and dis-associations, to enforce moral behavior whenever possible, but with the reservation of the right to use force to defend against unconscionable actions or intrusions on the rights of individuals.

Right conduct in a Libertarian society is enforced by social pressure and exclusion from the benefits of community and society as the principle methodology. The theory is that most people have well-formed adult personalities that include aspects like rational self-interest, charity, honesty, and altruism. Therefore, most people can be motivated to cooperate with others in social endevours without the use of coercive force by anyone. Those who cannot cooperate voluntarily, and who initiate force or fraud, are shunned and excluded from the community and from enjoying any of its benefits, including social associations, use of infrastructure paid for by others, and even trade for things like food and supplies.

Because every person is autonomous and free to refuse to associate or trade with someone who does not meet their standards of social behavior, sociopaths quickly find themselves excluded from something as simple as being able to buy a meal at a restaurant once word gets around of their socially-inappropriate or socially unacceptable behavior.

There would be no laws requiring anyone to associate with or serve anyone else whom they have decided not worthy of their companionship or trade.

Few people would be rugged enough individualists to be able to, or want to be completely shunned and excluded from society, and most would amend their behavior so as to be more socially acceptable and accepted.

Those that cannot conform, can go somewhere else in search of a community that better serves their particular needs and desires. In this way, communities conform themselves as voluntary cooperatives relatively free of the coercive force of government, and thus not in need of nearly as much governance than societies filled with dependent-class, entitlement-minded sociopaths who demand that others slave away to support them.

Such people end up starving to death if they cannot become responsible citizens, and I'm not disturbed much by that prospect. A generation of two of Libertarianism would serve to largely wipe out the entitlement-mentality dependent class, who would either fend for themselves or die...as evolution suggests is the proper course for the species.

[Seth]

So, you don't have a good reason. Thought so.

[Drewish]

Hmmm, I'm trying to figure out which is worse, Gawzilla's one liner non-responses or Rum's "let's all calm down, both extremes are wrong, but really only the one I disagree with..." I think I'll just dance for a bit because it'll be more productive than this conversation.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

AC, I learned a long time ago that the longer the reply, the more material the other person has to quibble with.

[Drewish]

Shhh. Remember Gawdzilla, you prefer quality over quantity. Less is more

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Shhh. Remember Gawdzilla, you prefer quality over quantity. Less is more

I prefer succinct over 32-screen pettifogging dissections.

[Drewish]

Shhh. Remember Gawdzilla, you prefer quality over quantity. Less is more

I prefer succinct over 32-screen pettifogging dissections.

It's not 'succinct' if you make 6 short posts in rapid succession. Might as well right a full paragraph instead at that point. Really though, when you're being asked direct questions (check my posts again, I asked clear questions) and the other person is making a point to respond to your posts, then coming back with a one liner dismissal that could have followed anything (and makes it seem like you're not even reading their posts) is And do go talking about Seth's long posts. You were pulling the dismissive crap with my posts that were a third the length of his. If you want to have a discussion, it requires you to listen and think rather than fire from the hip. If you're goal is just to hive five other people who already agree with you, and then declare yourself the winner (as ti appears), then please stop posting in this thread so that the rest of us can enjoy it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Stop me.

[Drewish]

Well that was easy, so, where were we?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Talking about a self-centered group of people who don't want to co-operate with society.

[JimC]

What I find rather amusing is that libertarianism, like communism, is an ideal based on theory and ideas and stands no chance, again like communism, of ever being a practical reality. While societies remain as complex as they currently are, there is likely to remain a messy mix of selfishness and social responsibility, based basically on what can be afforded and what can be ripped out of the maw of the greedy and generally speaking nasty one percent.

The most amusing thing is when one improbable fantasy fears another, and vows violent defence of truth, justice and the American way.

Seth's fantasy involves heroically fighting off Sandinista's fantasy...

[MrJonno]

For 7 billion people to survive on this planet there needs to be a lot of restrictions on freedom of action. Libertarians understand this fully which is why they are quite happy to get rid of about 99% of them