Libertarian Evangelistic Arguments - Part 3

Description

This article is from the Libertarian FAQ, by Joe Dehn jwd3@dehnbase.fidonet.org, Robert Bickford rab.AT.daft.com, Mike Huben mhuben@world.std.com and Advocates for Self-Government http://www.self-gov.org/ with numerous contributions by others.

40 Libertarian Evangelistic Arguments - Part 3

12. Isn't that "love it or leave it"?

Nope. This is a distinction that seems too subtle for a lot of
libertarians: the difference between having a choice and having to
leave.

For example, let's say you live in a condominium, and are very fond of
it. As long as you can move out, you have a choice. No matter how
firmly you intend to stay. No matter how much you prefer your current
condo. No matter how good or bad your current condo is for you, you
still have a choice.

This is analogous to living in a nation. You choose which one to live
in, and you can change. You may not be able to improve some things
about it all by yourself, because it is not entirely yours.

You have at least 4 choices. 1) Tolerate the social contract, and
perhaps try to amend it. 2) Leave it by emigrating. 3) Violate it. 4)
Revolt.

13. Why should we be coerced to accept the social contract? Why can't we be
left alone?

You are not coerced to accept US government services any more than you
are coerced to rent or purchase a place to live. If pretty much all
territory is owned by governments, and pretty much all houses and
apartments are owned, well, did you want them to grow on trees? There
ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

14. We can't emigrate because there is no libertarian nation.

Yes you can emmigrate, just as you could buy a different car even
though your favorite company doesn't produce cars which let you travel
at the speed of sound and get 2000 mpg. Even if nobody produces EXACTLY
what you want, you can choose any car the market produces or you create
yourself.

There are roughly 200 nations to which you could emmigrate. They are
the product of an anarcho-capitalist free market: there is no
over-government dictating to those sovereign nations. Indeed, the only
difference between the anarchy of nations and libertopia is that
anarcho-capitalists are wishing for a smaller granularity. These
nations have found that it is most cost-efficient to defend themselves
territorially.

If any other market provided 200 choices, libertarians would declare
that the sacred workings of the market blessed whatever choices were
offered. The point is that choices do exist: it's up to libertarians to
show that there is something wrong with the market of nations in a way
they would accept being applied to markets within nations.

Libertaria is a combination of values that just doesn't exist: the
government equivalent of a really posh residence for very little money.
You can find nations which have much lower taxes, etc.: just don't
expect them to be first class.

And the reason these combinations don't exist is probably simple: the
free market of government services essentially guarantees that there is
no such thing as the free lunch libertarians want. It's not
competitive.
15. Extortion by the state is no different than extortion by the Mafia.

This is a prize piece of libertarian rhetoric, because it slides in the
accusation that taxation is extortion. This analogy initially seems
strong, because both are territorial. However, libertarians consider
contractual rental of land by owners (which is also fundamentally
territorial) ethical, and consider coercion of squatters by those
owners ethical. The key difference is who owns what. The Mafia doesn't
own anything to contract about. The landowner owns the land (in a
limited sense.) And the US government owns rights to govern its
territory. (These rights are a form of property, much as mineral rights
are a form of property. Let's not confuse them with rights of
individuals.) Thus, the social contract can be required by the
territorial property holder: the USA.

16. There's no such thing as rights to govern territory!

You'd have to ignore an awful lot of history to claim this sort of
PROPERTY didn't exist. The US government can demonstrate ownership of
such rights through treaty, purchase, bequeathment by the original
colonies and some other states, and conquest. The EXACT same sources as
all other forms of land ownership in the US. Also note that governance
rights are merely a subset of the rights that anarcho-libertarians
would want landowners to have. For example, insistence on contractual
obedience to regulations and acceptance of punishment for violations.

17. Why should I be told what to do with my property? That infringes on my
rights of ownership.

This question comes up rather often, since absolute ownership of
property is fundamental to most flavors of libertarianism. Such
propertarianism fuels daydreams of being able to force the rest of the
world to swirl around the immovable rock of your property. For example,
there were trespass lawsuits filed against airlines for flying over
property.

A good answer is: what makes you so sure it is yours?

18. Of course it's my property. I paid money and hold the deed.

What do you hold the deed to? Property as recognized by a government.
As such, you can address infringement of your rights through the legal
system. However your property as recognized by the legal system is
limited.

This isn't too surprising, since limitations created by private
transactions are also common. For example, property is often sold
without water rights or timber rights. Property is commonly sold with
easements: for example a neighbor may have the right to cross to reach
the road. And property may be sold with limitations to its usage: for
example, the Adirondack State Park was bequeathed to the people of New
York State with the stipulation that it remain forever wild.

Most government limitations on property are analogous, and you bought
property that was already under those limitations. Just as it would be
wrong to deny the validity of an easement sold by the previous owner,
it is wrong to deny the validity of the current system of limited
ownership of property. For example, a clear statement of such an
"easement" is in the Fourth Amendment, which essentially says that the
government can enter your property with a valid search warrant and not
be trespassing.

There are many existing limitations such as government rights to tax
and to zone property, limitations to ownership of navigable waters, how
far property extends to the water, etc. And sometimes new limitations
are specified, such as non-ownership of airspace above property.

19. New limitations on use of property are a taking, and should be
compensated.

Some new limitations can be viewed as merely making specific that what
was claimed was never really owned. For example, where was ownership of
airspace above property ever explicitly granted in our system of
property? Where were polluters ever explicitly granted the right to
dump wastes into air or water that they do not have a title to?

Other limitations (such as rezoning to eliminate undesirable business
or protecting wetlands from development) might be viewed as control of
negative externalities. Most libertarians would recognize the right of
a mall owner to write his leases so that he could terminate them if the
renters cause externalities: why shouldn't communities have this right
to self-governance as well?

20. Think how much wealthier we'd be if we didn't pay taxes.

This is a classic example of libertarians not looking at the complete
equation for at least two reasons. (1) If taxes are eliminated, you'll
need to purchase services that were formerly provided by government.
(2) If taxes are eliminated, the economics of wages have changed, and
wages will change as well.

Here's a really ludicrous (but real) example of (1): "With taxation
gone, not only will we have twice as much money to spend, but it will
go twice as far, since those who produce goods and services won't have
to pay taxes, either. In one stroke we'll be effectively four times as
rich. Let's figure that deregulation will cut prices, once again, by
half. Now our actual purchasing power, already quadrupled by
deTAXification, is doubled again. We now have eight times our former
wealth!" (L. Neil Smith)

And here's an example of (2): "I'm self-employed. My pay would
absolutely, positively go up 15+% tomorrow if I wasn't paying
FICA/Medicare." But only briefly. Standard microeconomic theory applies
just as well to someone selling labor as to someone selling widgits. If
FICA disappeared, your competitors in the market to sell labor would be
attracted to the higher wages and would sell more labor. This increase
in supply of labor would drive down your wage from the 15% increase.
You'd earn more (per hour). But less than 15% more.