The question libertarians just can’t answer

[Synthaholic]

Libertarians are just embarrassed Republicans.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Libertarians are just embarrassed Republicans.

Good one, man! Wow, you turds really have this all nailed down. Leave it to LOLberals to completely ruin their own arguments.

 

[kaz]

That precludes the possibility of private defense and private law. Anarcho-capitalists do not believe in no law. Hans-Hermann Hoppe refers to it as a "private law society."

What about providing some substance. I'm tired of your wispy cloud non answers. When you have some content, get back to me. I'm a smart guy who hates government. I'm a low hurdle to convince if you have anything. But we don't need government and it's my job to convince you we do while you give me platitudes isn't interesting to me.

"We need government, otherwise people will take over your house." - You

"An anarchist would argue that private defense and private justice, as there is no absence of law in anarchism, would protect your property." - Me

Sorry about the platitudes.

Absolutely it's a platitude because you're giving zero about how that would actually work. OK, I'll stipulate to the fact that if we all lived on the set of Bonanza then you'd have something. However, when you go from not everyone being a God fearing Christian in an area with 50s TV character and population is measured in people per acre instead of square miles per person, you're leaving out a few details. A couple scenarios to see if you can stop orbiting the globe with your answers. Oddball BTW is clearly getting into specifics. You're not entering the atmosphere.

- You go on vacation and someone moved into your house when you were gone. They have a forged document saying you sold it to them and they start shooting at you from the upstairs window when you start walking up your driveway. Your neighbors are doubtful, but the new residents of your home are scary and they're not interested in helping you. What are you going to do?

- You are in your fields on your Bonanza set dreamworld working and someone rides by and sets your house on fire and takes off. What are you going to do?

- Even if you could convince America to go anarchist, we live in a dangerous world led by despots who want our stuff. They have armies and start sending and your neighbors you tax bills, non-payment is punishable by death. What are you going to do?

- On the Bonanza set you live on in your mind, you have 10 acres. A bad guy says you don't, you have 9. His acre is the one by the stream and he's charging you $10 every time yo go there. He's got guns and forged documents and your house is a ways away and your neighbors aren't interested in a war with him. They pat you on the shoulder.

- Your neighbor's boy rapes your daughter. He denies it. Your neighbors don't know.

Come out of the corner and stop playing with yourself and get involved in the discussion. Or don't. But stop pretending you're doing one when you do the other.

 

[dblack]

Libertarians are just embarrassed Republicans.

You might be surprised. We have more than a few embarrassed Democrats in our midst as well.

 

[flacaltenn]

As far as definitions then, my impression is that the word "libertarian" -- in this country anyway-- is a contemporary fad label. Much the same as a little kid dressing up in a Batman costume, some folks want to dress up in the robes of a label whose description they can't even agree on, because it's the current cool.

Seems to be loosely based on the writings of the self-centered antisocialite Ayn Rand, whose books were then canonized for the convenience they offered of making excuses for self-centered antisocial policy. The antisocial contract if you will. Perhaps that is the extreme at the end of the pendulum opposite socialism, between the two of which a reasonable people find a balance.

You really have no concept of the ground-breaking work done by Libertarian Party do you?

We have CONSISTENTLY been the only staunch defenders of Civil Liberty.. Opposing (for instance the Patriot Act, Asset Forfeiture, eminent domain seizures, and the War on Drugs.

We have fought for ballot access rules to be taken from the partisians and democratized.

We WORK HARD to put candidates on the ballots in all 50 states.

We champion CHOICE on everything consistently.. Especially in your choice of schools, medical care, and consumption..

We INVENTED Med Savings accounts and "cap and trade" and "congestion pricing" for decreasing traffic jams..

We've opposed MOST of America's badly chosen projections of power..

But yet --- you want to ATTEMPT to equate all that CONVICTION AND PRINCIPLE with Halloween custumes and Ayn Rand..

Bet you dont even know that Rand EXCORIATED AND SHUNNED the infant Lib Party.. She told us that "we were not judgemental enough" in our pursuit of freedoms. That we should toss our morals and ethics into the mix..

That was really really weak dude..

 

[Pogo]

As far as definitions then, my impression is that the word "libertarian" -- in this country anyway-- is a contemporary fad label. Much the same as a little kid dressing up in a Batman costume, some folks want to dress up in the robes of a label whose description they can't even agree on, because it's the current cool.

Seems to be loosely based on the writings of the self-centered antisocialite Ayn Rand, whose books were then canonized for the convenience they offered of making excuses for self-centered antisocial policy. The antisocial contract if you will. Perhaps that is the extreme at the end of the pendulum opposite socialism, between the two of which a reasonable people find a balance.

You really have no concept of the ground-breaking work done by Libertarian Party do you?

We have CONSISTENTLY been the only staunch defenders of Civil Liberty.. Opposing (for instance the Patriot Act, Asset Forfeiture, eminent domain seizures, and the War on Drugs.

We have fought for ballot access rules to be taken from the partisians and democratized.

We WORK HARD to put candidates on the ballots in all 50 states.

We champion CHOICE on everything consistently.. Especially in your choice of schools, medical care, and consumption..

We INVENTED Med Savings accounts and "cap and trade" and "congestion pricing" for decreasing traffic jams..

We've opposed MOST of America's badly chosen projections of power..

But yet --- you want to ATTEMPT to equate all that CONVICTION AND PRINCIPLE with Halloween custumes and Ayn Rand..

Bet you dont even know that Rand EXCORIATED AND SHUNNED the infant Lib Party.. She told us that "we were not judgemental enough" in our pursuit of freedoms. That we should toss our morals and ethics into the mix..

That was really really weak dude..

"We"? Who's "we"? There's an organization now? I thought this thread was about the abstract theory of 'libertarianism', thus what I was talking about was the label "libertarian", period.

I'm sure there's an actual party using the name somewhere, just as there are other democratic and republican and socialist and communist parties but I thought we were talking about the label and the concept. That's all I was talking about -- the use of the label. From what I've read in this thread, interested parties can't even agree on what libertarianism is, so what some third party advocates really isn't relevant, since the very label isn't defined. That's why I opined on the label. It's the only quantifiable element here.

 

[Oddball]

So... two defamations of character, no substance. That's instructive. Do go on....

Says the guy who posted this....

As far as definitions then, my impression is that the word "libertarian" -- in this country anyway-- is a contemporary fad label. Much the same as a little kid dressing up in a Batman costume, some folks want to dress up in the robes of a label whose description they can't even agree on, because it's the current cool.

Seems to be loosely based on the writings of the self-centered antisocialite Ayn Rand, whose books were then canonized for the convenience they offered of making excuses for self-centered antisocial policy. The antisocial contract if you will. Perhaps that is the extreme at the end of the pendulum opposite socialism, between the two of which a reasonable people find a balance.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[Foxfyre]

If you are so concerned about these people, you would take the time to help them directly.

Yup, it's real easy to be all concerned and caring and generous when you can force other people to pay for that concern and caring and generosity.

That in a nutshellis the #1 difference between true libertarians and other ideologies. The libertarian can accept concepts of social contract, no matter how much Kevin and Oddball reject that. The libertarian may give away most or all of what he has to help somebody else.

But he will never agree for the government or anybody else to confiscate property from one individual and give it to another individual just because the second individual NEEDS it or as any other wealth redistribution gimmick.

When Did I Sign This ?Social Contract?? | Tom Woods

The Social Contract and Other Myths

It should be clear that the title-transfer theory immediately tosses out of court all variants of the “social contract” theory as a justification for the State. Setting aside the historical problem of whether such a social contract ever took place, it should be evident that the social contract, whether it be the Hobbesian surrender of all one’s rights, the Lockean surrender of the right of self-defense, or any other, was a mere promise of future behavior (future will) and in no way surrendered title to alienable property. Certainly no past promise can bind later generations, let alone the actual maker of the promise.

The Ethics of Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard

Look at that, "true" libertarians opposed to the idea of the nonsensical social contract.

Regardless, you contradict yourself. The "social contract" of the United States says that there will be redistributionist social safety nets that take money from one individual and give it to others. So on what basis can you possibly reject this, if you support the social contract?

Is that what the 'social contract of the United States' says? You could fool me. I've read the Constitution and pretty much every single document that led to its final form. And I simply find no place in it that authorizes any government, entity, or person to take money from Citizen A and give it to Citizen B without Citizen A's consent.

You and Oddball continue to distort and misrepresent what I describe as social contract and neither of you will honestly address the concepts I've put out there. You would have failed miserably in the excercise if you had been graded on your debating skills on this subject.

 

[Oddball]

Oh and for Oddball:

BTW, Rousseau was a socialist prototype.

If you want to talk French revolutionaries, my views much more reflect Frédéric Bastiat than Rousseau, whom Bastiat also believed to be all wet.

I recommend this brief (novella length), highly informative and absorbing read....

The Law, by Frederic Bastiat

Great, except almost everything you are arguing is refuted by Frédéric Bastiat.

Hey Jethro, I thought Friedrich von Hayek was your 'jesus'?

Nothing I have said is refuted by Bastiat....And I worship no man.

For someone who accuses others of being infantile, you appear to be the one here who needs to grow the hell up, junior.

 

[flacaltenn]

As far as definitions then, my impression is that the word "libertarian" -- in this country anyway-- is a contemporary fad label. Much the same as a little kid dressing up in a Batman costume, some folks want to dress up in the robes of a label whose description they can't even agree on, because it's the current cool.

Seems to be loosely based on the writings of the self-centered antisocialite Ayn Rand, whose books were then canonized for the convenience they offered of making excuses for self-centered antisocial policy. The antisocial contract if you will. Perhaps that is the extreme at the end of the pendulum opposite socialism, between the two of which a reasonable people find a balance.

You really have no concept of the ground-breaking work done by Libertarian Party do you?

We have CONSISTENTLY been the only staunch defenders of Civil Liberty.. Opposing (for instance the Patriot Act, Asset Forfeiture, eminent domain seizures, and the War on Drugs.

We have fought for ballot access rules to be taken from the partisians and democratized.

We WORK HARD to put candidates on the ballots in all 50 states.

We champion CHOICE on everything consistently.. Especially in your choice of schools, medical care, and consumption..

We INVENTED Med Savings accounts and "cap and trade" and "congestion pricing" for decreasing traffic jams..

We've opposed MOST of America's badly chosen projections of power..

But yet --- you want to ATTEMPT to equate all that CONVICTION AND PRINCIPLE with Halloween custumes and Ayn Rand..

Bet you dont even know that Rand EXCORIATED AND SHUNNED the infant Lib Party.. She told us that "we were not judgemental enough" in our pursuit of freedoms. That we should toss our morals and ethics into the mix..

That was really really weak dude..

"We"? Who's "we"? There's an organization now? I thought this thread was about the abstract theory of 'libertarianism', thus what I was talking about was the label "libertarian", period.

I'm sure there's an actual party using the name somewhere, just as there are other democratic and republican and socialist and communist parties but I thought we were talking about the label and the concept. That's all I was talking about -- the use of the label. From what I've read in this thread, interested parties can't even agree on what libertarianism is, so what some third party advocates really isn't relevant, since the very label isn't defined. That's why I opined on the label. It's the only quantifiable element here.

Au Contrare -- it's EXTREMELY relevant to point to the authorized political party that represents "libertarians".. I can tell EXACTLY where WE (yes there is a we) have stood on the Patriot Act since it's birth. YOU on the other hand would have a hell of challenge telling me where YOUR sorry ass party representation stands on most ANY issue..

Point is --- should be well - known what we've done and stand for. It doesn't change election cycle to cycle.

Not only is there a REAL 3rd party behind that label.. There are MANY outstanding think tanks and organizations (like Cato, Reason, IJustice) that are world class BROADCASTERS of libertarian thought.

You can "try" to arrive at "what a libertarian thinks" from anectdotes or stereotypes or silly references to Halloween costumes, -- or you can go the sources of the OPENLY libertarian institutions that we have BUILT with our money and time...

 

[Synthaholic]

Libertarians are just embarrassed Republicans.

You might be surprised. We have more than a few embarrassed Democrats in our midst as well.

No doubt. I support some Libertarian principles.

 

[Foxfyre]

Frederick Bastiat is among my favorite great philosophers and thinkes. One of my very favorite quotations of his:

"Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame and danger that their acts would otherwise involve... But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them and gives it to the other persons to whom it doesn't belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish that law without delay ... No legal plunder; this is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony and logic."

And this one, though it needs its full context:
"By virtue of exchange, one man's prosperity is beneficial to all others."

And this one which sounds very much like my definition of social contract:
"If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups."

Coincidentally, Bastiat was as close to a pure libertarian as I define libertarian as it gets.

 

[Oddball]

When you misrepresent what I say and presume to assign what, in your eyes, I see, no productive discussion is possible. I have engaged in many social contracts and not one of them was a coercive action of any mob. I accept that you reject the concept of social contract. Should I assume that you are sitting alone on a desert island in some remote part of the world where you don't ever have to interact with other human beings?

If unanimous consent is the only non coercive way for people to mutually cooperate on something and make you happy, we might as well disband everything and find one of those desert island for everybody.

But since you want no restrictions or expectations of any kind put on you that you don't consent to, I wonder how you handle that trashy neighbor who has brought your home value down by tens of thousands of dollars?

That you believe that you have engaged in this "social contracting" does not make it so....The word "contract" has very specific and defined meanings, almost all of which preclude its credible use in the semantic contradiction that is the term "social contract".

And, yes, unanimous consent is the only non-coercive way to mutually cooperate on anything....Therefore, when you use the coercive power of gubmint action to do something, you had damned well be aware that when you trample another's rights to their life, liberty and property in doing so (i.e. take their taxes and use them to feather the nests of someone who did nothing to earn those resources), you're going to engender a certain degree of resentment and mistrust....That level of resentment and mistrust is directly proportional to the amount of compulsion being put into play in your coercive "social contract" model of doing things....That's not just me, that's human nature.

And I deal with that trashy neighbor by either joining a condominium HOA, a covenant controlled community, where such things are written into the HOA contracts (real contracts with hard copies and all that), and/or control enough land to where that slob's mess becomes pretty much irrelevant....All things that work perfectly well within the model of a libertarian philosophy.

Which is exactly what I have been describing as social contract in some detail. Apparently you have no problem with zoning laws, which are a form of social contract, that protect your property values. Social contract is a MUTUAL agreement between people in how they organize themselves as a Home Owners assocaition or community or society. It is not a dictate of government or assignment of rules by an outside authority, though the social contract itself can assign responsibilities to a government entity.

But using your and Kevin's own question, why should I have to join a Homeowner's Association and pay dues in order to protect my property values? Why should I have to buy 50 more acres of land to insulate myself from a trashy neighbor? (And of course it begs the question that if you're okay with a Homeowner's Association, why would you object to other people organizing themselves in the same way but with less restrictive rules and far less expense?)

You tie up the bulk of your personal wealth when you buy into a developing rural area. You and your neighbors enjoy the beauty of the area and you all live similar lifestyles and your property values are increasing giving you a nice return on your investments. And then that trashy neighbor moves in and spoils the views with his junk and your property values are declining as a result of it.

Because nobody thought to put restrictions in place initially, chances are you can't do anything about that one neighbor and the eyesore that already exists. But nobody wants to buy into a neighborhood when they might get stuck with neighbors like that. What do you do? You call a meeting of the homeowners and all agree some formal restrictions need to be put into place both to prevent more trashy neighbors and to prevent the existing one from adding even more junk cars, etc. etc. The one neighbor will of course object.

Should he be overruled?

OK...We're talking past one another here...I've slept on this one and decided upon a different tack.

Let's take your social contract thingy at face value....Let's say, despite the fact that nobody has ever produced one for me to look over and negotiate for myself, that it does exist somewhere....Though I do not share it, that is your belief...You said so yourself....Beliefs are the strongest substances in the universe, BTW.

You believe that the social contract is so true that it has caused you to take action in your community...Which, regardless the motivation of the willing participants, is a good thing.

Now, do you believe that your belief in the social contract so self-evident to others, so incontrovertibly iron-clad correct, that it, as a matter of course and necessity, requires the imposition of it upon your neighbors who don't believe in it, by the force of arms if necessary?

 

[Bfgrn]

BTW, Rousseau was a socialist prototype.

If you want to talk French revolutionaries, my views much more reflect Frédéric Bastiat than Rousseau, whom Bastiat also believed to be all wet.

I recommend this brief (novella length), highly informative and absorbing read....

The Law, by Frederic Bastiat

Great, except almost everything you are arguing is refuted by Frédéric Bastiat.

Hey Jethro, I thought Friedrich von Hayek was your 'jesus'?

Nothing I have said is refuted by Bastiat....And I worship no man.

For someone who accuses others of being infantile, you appear to be the one here who needs to grow the hell up, junior.

Really Jethro? Frédéric Bastiat has no problem with 'social contracts'

"If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right."
Frédéric Bastiat

You worship which 'man', Frédéric Bastiat or Friedrich von Hayek?

 

[Oddball]

No mention of any "social contract" there, junior....Just free people coming together to form voluntary associations, with no mention of compelling others to join in...Coercing others into the association being, of course, base premise of the modern "social contract".

You really, really suck at this...Best go play with your Legos.

 

[Pogo]

You really have no concept of the ground-breaking work done by Libertarian Party do you?

We have CONSISTENTLY been the only staunch defenders of Civil Liberty.. Opposing (for instance the Patriot Act, Asset Forfeiture, eminent domain seizures, and the War on Drugs.

We have fought for ballot access rules to be taken from the partisians and democratized.

We WORK HARD to put candidates on the ballots in all 50 states.

We champion CHOICE on everything consistently.. Especially in your choice of schools, medical care, and consumption..

We INVENTED Med Savings accounts and "cap and trade" and "congestion pricing" for decreasing traffic jams..

We've opposed MOST of America's badly chosen projections of power..

But yet --- you want to ATTEMPT to equate all that CONVICTION AND PRINCIPLE with Halloween custumes and Ayn Rand..

Bet you dont even know that Rand EXCORIATED AND SHUNNED the infant Lib Party.. She told us that "we were not judgemental enough" in our pursuit of freedoms. That we should toss our morals and ethics into the mix..

That was really really weak dude..

"We"? Who's "we"? There's an organization now? I thought this thread was about the abstract theory of 'libertarianism', thus what I was talking about was the label "libertarian", period.

I'm sure there's an actual party using the name somewhere, just as there are other democratic and republican and socialist and communist parties but I thought we were talking about the label and the concept. That's all I was talking about -- the use of the label. From what I've read in this thread, interested parties can't even agree on what libertarianism is, so what some third party advocates really isn't relevant, since the very label isn't defined. That's why I opined on the label. It's the only quantifiable element here.

Au Contrare -- it's EXTREMELY relevant to point to the authorized political party that represents "libertarians".. I can tell EXACTLY where WE (yes there is a we) have stood on the Patriot Act since it's birth. YOU on the other hand would have a hell of challenge telling me where YOUR sorry ass party representation stands on most ANY issue..

Point is --- should be well - known what we've done and stand for. It doesn't change election cycle to cycle.

Not only is there a REAL 3rd party behind that label.. There are MANY outstanding think tanks and organizations (like Cato, Reason, IJustice) that are world class BROADCASTERS of libertarian thought.

You can "try" to arrive at "what a libertarian thinks" from anectdotes or stereotypes or silly references to Halloween costumes, -- or you can go the sources of the OPENLY libertarian institutions that we have BUILT with our money and time...

Somebody's having a little martyr complex hissyfit moment.

If it wasn't clear -- I didn't post about the Libertarian Party. I don't know a damn thing about that. So your martyr premise is contrived.

I did not post about "libertarians" either, since I don't know who they are, since they don't know who they are according to what I've read here. What I posted about was the trendy use of the label libertarian and why those who cloak themselves in it might want to do so. Is that disctinction elusive?

What I posted about was the motivation that might lie behind using a label. That's it. Reading an entire Checkers Speech into it is just irrelevant. Whether those that use the label for themselves really are libertarians, "weekend" libertarians, or just following a trend, is not something we can analyze since we don't have a definition of the word in the first place.

To demonstrate:
WHO is a libertarian, and who is not? Names in the public discourse, please. Discuss.

 

[Foxfyre]

That you believe that you have engaged in this "social contracting" does not make it so....The word "contract" has very specific and defined meanings, almost all of which preclude its credible use in the semantic contradiction that is the term "social contract".

And, yes, unanimous consent is the only non-coercive way to mutually cooperate on anything....Therefore, when you use the coercive power of gubmint action to do something, you had damned well be aware that when you trample another's rights to their life, liberty and property in doing so (i.e. take their taxes and use them to feather the nests of someone who did nothing to earn those resources), you're going to engender a certain degree of resentment and mistrust....That level of resentment and mistrust is directly proportional to the amount of compulsion being put into play in your coercive "social contract" model of doing things....That's not just me, that's human nature.

And I deal with that trashy neighbor by either joining a condominium HOA, a covenant controlled community, where such things are written into the HOA contracts (real contracts with hard copies and all that), and/or control enough land to where that slob's mess becomes pretty much irrelevant....All things that work perfectly well within the model of a libertarian philosophy.

Which is exactly what I have been describing as social contract in some detail. Apparently you have no problem with zoning laws, which are a form of social contract, that protect your property values. Social contract is a MUTUAL agreement between people in how they organize themselves as a Home Owners assocaition or community or society. It is not a dictate of government or assignment of rules by an outside authority, though the social contract itself can assign responsibilities to a government entity.

But using your and Kevin's own question, why should I have to join a Homeowner's Association and pay dues in order to protect my property values? Why should I have to buy 50 more acres of land to insulate myself from a trashy neighbor? (And of course it begs the question that if you're okay with a Homeowner's Association, why would you object to other people organizing themselves in the same way but with less restrictive rules and far less expense?)

You tie up the bulk of your personal wealth when you buy into a developing rural area. You and your neighbors enjoy the beauty of the area and you all live similar lifestyles and your property values are increasing giving you a nice return on your investments. And then that trashy neighbor moves in and spoils the views with his junk and your property values are declining as a result of it.

Because nobody thought to put restrictions in place initially, chances are you can't do anything about that one neighbor and the eyesore that already exists. But nobody wants to buy into a neighborhood when they might get stuck with neighbors like that. What do you do? You call a meeting of the homeowners and all agree some formal restrictions need to be put into place both to prevent more trashy neighbors and to prevent the existing one from adding even more junk cars, etc. etc. The one neighbor will of course object.

Should he be overruled?

OK...We're talking past one another here...I've slept on this one and decided upon a different tack.

Let's take your social contract thingy at face value....Let's say, despite the fact that nobody has ever produced one for me to look over and negotiate for myself, that it does exist somewhere....Though I do not share it, that is your belief...You said so yourself....Beliefs are the strongest substances in the universe, BTW.

You believe that the social contract is so true that it has caused you to take action in your community...Which, regardless the motivation of the willing participants, is a good thing.

Now, do you believe that your belief in the social contract so self-evident to others, so incontrovertibly iron-clad correct, that it, as a matter of course and necessity, requires the imposition of it upon your neighbors who don't believe in it, by the force of arms if necessary?

Obviously my belief in social contract is not so self evident to others as you do not seem to be able to grasp the concept.

Social contract could of course be used for corrupt purposes; i.e. take Kelo vs New London as sort of an example of that. But the social contract I speak of takes no private property from anybody, but rather protects the property of everybody or allows for cooperation that benefits all. If you believe in Homeowners Associations, then you believe in social contract. And it does exist. Go back to Bastiat's own writing:

"If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right."

To put it another way, we are not obligated to defend one person's liberty/property at the expense of his harming another person's liberty/property.

 

[Oddball]

Which is exactly what I have been describing as social contract in some detail. Apparently you have no problem with zoning laws, which are a form of social contract, that protect your property values. Social contract is a MUTUAL agreement between people in how they organize themselves as a Home Owners assocaition or community or society. It is not a dictate of government or assignment of rules by an outside authority, though the social contract itself can assign responsibilities to a government entity.

But using your and Kevin's own question, why should I have to join a Homeowner's Association and pay dues in order to protect my property values? Why should I have to buy 50 more acres of land to insulate myself from a trashy neighbor? (And of course it begs the question that if you're okay with a Homeowner's Association, why would you object to other people organizing themselves in the same way but with less restrictive rules and far less expense?)

You tie up the bulk of your personal wealth when you buy into a developing rural area. You and your neighbors enjoy the beauty of the area and you all live similar lifestyles and your property values are increasing giving you a nice return on your investments. And then that trashy neighbor moves in and spoils the views with his junk and your property values are declining as a result of it.

Because nobody thought to put restrictions in place initially, chances are you can't do anything about that one neighbor and the eyesore that already exists. But nobody wants to buy into a neighborhood when they might get stuck with neighbors like that. What do you do? You call a meeting of the homeowners and all agree some formal restrictions need to be put into place both to prevent more trashy neighbors and to prevent the existing one from adding even more junk cars, etc. etc. The one neighbor will of course object.

Should he be overruled?

OK...We're talking past one another here...I've slept on this one and decided upon a different tack.

Let's take your social contract thingy at face value....Let's say, despite the fact that nobody has ever produced one for me to look over and negotiate for myself, that it does exist somewhere....Though I do not share it, that is your belief...You said so yourself....Beliefs are the strongest substances in the universe, BTW.

You believe that the social contract is so true that it has caused you to take action in your community...Which, regardless the motivation of the willing participants, is a good thing.

Now, do you believe that your belief in the social contract so self-evident to others, so incontrovertibly iron-clad correct, that it, as a matter of course and necessity, requires the imposition of it upon your neighbors who don't believe in it, by the force of arms if necessary?

Obviously my belief in social contract is not so self evident to others as you do not seem to be able to grasp the concept.

I grasp it just fine...To the point that I can properly identify the "social contract" as a contract of adhesion, that would be deemed by the courts as null and void under any other circumstance.

Social contract could of course be used for corrupt purposes; i.e. take Kelo vs New London as sort of an example of that.

But those are exactly the kinds of things those who invoke the social contract argument most often use as a rationale for such travesties as Kelo.

But the social contract I speak of takes no private property from anybody, but rather protects the property of everybody or allows for cooperation that benefits all. If you believe in Homeowners Associations, then you believe in social contract. And it does exist. Go back to Bastiat's own writing:

"If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right."

Apples and oranges...The associations Bastiat referenced were voluntary, like the militia and out modern day voluntary fire departments....If I decied to un-volunteer from the militia or fire department, nobody is telling me to stay in move out of the community should I do so.

To put it another way, we are not obligated to defend one person's liberty/property at the expense of his harming another person's liberty/property.

I'm under no obligation to defend anyone's liberty/property...Ever....That's the point.

I only do so because I am persuaded to see the value in doing so...I do so because I come to the point that it can be recognized that I gain something of value to myself by joining the association.

Rather invoke an argument like the social contract, why not persuade people to be communitarian by explaining what's in it for them, using their desires, values and rules?

 

[Foxfyre]

Sigh. I give up. I love you dearly Oddball, but though others seem to be understanding me perfectly, you don't seem to be able to do that. And I am weary of re-explaining it. It's probably my fault. I just don't have sufficient skills to help you understand. I really do love you though.

 

[Oddball]

Ever one of the libertarian types understand it just fine as well...That the social contract is an instrument of coercion.

While I don't doubt your sincerity, the notion has been hijacked by the same people who have run "general welfare" and "necessary and proper" completely outside the bounds that they were clearly intended.

Social contract is your belief....Imposing upon others as though it's self-evident is no better than forcing your religious belief upon your neighbor.

Think about it.