Negative vs. Positive Rights

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
61

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
In a free society a contract would be meaningless whether arbitration, credit, or reputation agencies exist or not. This is where the “free society” crowd loses it for me… [/quote]

Here’s an interesting thought experiment, and I’m not directing it towards usmccds423, but using his example.

One school of libertarian thought believes that there should be no gov’t courts and that contractual disputes should be decided by private arbitration. A second school believes that the court system is a proper role of gov’t, but that it should be funded by those who avail themselves of the court system.

In other words, why are my tax dollars being spent for a court system I don’t use?

The solution would involve a bond paid to the courts to adjudicate a case. Take example one: Joe sells Larry a car, Larry doesn’t pay Joe. Joe has no ability to collect from Larry however Larry’s reputation has been irrepairably damaged and no one will do business with him again.

Example 2: Joe sells Larry a car and they place %1 of the purchase price on deposit with the courts. Larry doesn’t pay Joe, except now the courts agree to hear the case. The courts find against Larry and use the power of the gov’t to compel payment. Importantly, Joe and Larry have voluntarily agreed to be bound by the decision of the courts.

I think the second example, where both parties agree to subject themselves to the courts, and the courts collect a fee based on the economic value of the contract is a very interesting model and also in line with libertarian thought.

62

To go even further down the rabbit hole, the gov’t could play with the percentage that would compel the most economic activity to subscribe to the court system. For example, a corporation might be willing to pay %3 of the value of a contract to the courts, but not %4. Also, other competing court system could spring up only they wouldn’t have the power of the gov’t behind them. Or perhaps, they could subcontract the gov’t to do collections, but they believe they could adjudicate cases for less. So, you could have court systems that compete with the gov’t. Obviously, a court system that isn’t seen as impartial would lose business.

So many ways to skin the libertarian cat…

63

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
In a free society a contract would be meaningless whether arbitration, credit, or reputation agencies exist or not. This is where the “free society” crowd loses it for me… [/quote]

Here’s an interesting thought experiment, and I’m not directing it towards usmccds423, but using his example.

One school of libertarian thought believes that there should be no gov’t courts and that contractual disputes should be decided by private arbitration. A second school believes that the court system is a proper role of gov’t, but that it should be funded by those who avail themselves of the court system.

In other words, why are my tax dollars being spent for a court system I don’t use?

The solution would involve a bond paid to the courts to adjudicate a case. Take example one: Joe sells Larry a car, Larry doesn’t pay Joe. Joe has no ability to collect from Larry however Larry’s reputation has been irrepairably damaged and no one will do business with him again.

Example 2: Joe sells Larry a car and they place %1 of the purchase price on deposit with the courts. Larry doesn’t pay Joe, except now the courts agree to hear the case. The courts find against Larry and use the power of the gov’t to compel payment. Importantly, Joe and Larry have voluntarily agreed to be bound by the decision of the courts.

I think the second example, where both parties agree to subject themselves to the courts, and the courts collect a fee based on the economic value of the contract is a very interesting model and also in line with libertarian thought.
[/quote]

That’s quite an interesting scenario you’ve presented with your second example. I like it.

The problem I’ve always had with libertarianism is the idea that any force whatsoever is inherently a bad thing. Of course, this always comes with a caveat, namely the one you presented in example one in which a loss of reputation constitutes the only deterrent. The idea that reputation alone will suffice as a deterrent only works in a mythical society in which honor and virtue are valued by everyone. The person who does not value things like honor, virtue, etc. will not be swayed by such threats to his standing.

Madison put it best when he said that if men were angels, then no gov’t would be necessary. Likewise, if ALL men value honor and virtue, then no coercion would be necessary. Unfortunately, we require that something be capable of using force to bind men without honor and virtue to their agreements.

64

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
In a free society a contract would be meaningless whether arbitration, credit, or reputation agencies exist or not. This is where the “free society” crowd loses it for me… [/quote]

Here’s an interesting thought experiment, and I’m not directing it towards usmccds423, but using his example.

One school of libertarian thought believes that there should be no gov’t courts and that contractual disputes should be decided by private arbitration. A second school believes that the court system is a proper role of gov’t, but that it should be funded by those who avail themselves of the court system.

In other words, why are my tax dollars being spent for a court system I don’t use?

The solution would involve a bond paid to the courts to adjudicate a case. Take example one: Joe sells Larry a car, Larry doesn’t pay Joe. Joe has no ability to collect from Larry however Larry’s reputation has been irrepairably damaged and no one will do business with him again.

Example 2: Joe sells Larry a car and they place %1 of the purchase price on deposit with the courts. Larry doesn’t pay Joe, except now the courts agree to hear the case. The courts find against Larry and use the power of the gov’t to compel payment. Importantly, Joe and Larry have voluntarily agreed to be bound by the decision of the courts.

I think the second example, where both parties agree to subject themselves to the courts, and the courts collect a fee based on the economic value of the contract is a very interesting model and also in line with libertarian thought.
[/quote]

That’s quite an interesting scenario you’ve presented with your second example. I like it.

The problem I’ve always had with libertarianism is the idea that any force whatsoever is inherently a bad thing. Of course, this always comes with a caveat, namely the one you presented in example one in which a loss of reputation constitutes the only deterrent. The idea that reputation alone will suffice as a deterrent only works in a mythical society in which honor and virtue are valued by everyone. The person who does not value things like honor, virtue, etc. will not be swayed by such threats to his standing.

Madison put it best when he said that if men were angels, then no gov’t would be necessary. Likewise, if ALL men value honor and virtue, then no coercion would be necessary. Unfortunately, we require that something be capable of using force to bind men without honor and virtue to their agreements.

[/quote]

Libertarianism isn’t against the use of force, just the initiation of force. It’s okay to hit if you’re a libertarian, it’s just not okay to hit first.

65

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
In a free society a contract would be meaningless whether arbitration, credit, or reputation agencies exist or not. This is where the “free society” crowd loses it for me… [/quote]

Here’s an interesting thought experiment, and I’m not directing it towards usmccds423, but using his example.

One school of libertarian thought believes that there should be no gov’t courts and that contractual disputes should be decided by private arbitration. A second school believes that the court system is a proper role of gov’t, but that it should be funded by those who avail themselves of the court system.

In other words, why are my tax dollars being spent for a court system I don’t use?

The solution would involve a bond paid to the courts to adjudicate a case. Take example one: Joe sells Larry a car, Larry doesn’t pay Joe. Joe has no ability to collect from Larry however Larry’s reputation has been irrepairably damaged and no one will do business with him again.

Example 2: Joe sells Larry a car and they place %1 of the purchase price on deposit with the courts. Larry doesn’t pay Joe, except now the courts agree to hear the case. The courts find against Larry and use the power of the gov’t to compel payment. Importantly, Joe and Larry have voluntarily agreed to be bound by the decision of the courts.

I think the second example, where both parties agree to subject themselves to the courts, and the courts collect a fee based on the economic value of the contract is a very interesting model and also in line with libertarian thought.
[/quote]

That’s quite an interesting scenario you’ve presented with your second example. I like it.

The problem I’ve always had with libertarianism is the idea that any force whatsoever is inherently a bad thing. Of course, this always comes with a caveat, namely the one you presented in example one in which a loss of reputation constitutes the only deterrent. The idea that reputation alone will suffice as a deterrent only works in a mythical society in which honor and virtue are valued by everyone. The person who does not value things like honor, virtue, etc. will not be swayed by such threats to his standing.

Madison put it best when he said that if men were angels, then no gov’t would be necessary. Likewise, if ALL men value honor and virtue, then no coercion would be necessary. Unfortunately, we require that something be capable of using force to bind men without honor and virtue to their agreements.

[/quote]

How many libertarians believe that any force whatsoever is a bad thing? Defensive force aligns just fine with libertarian ideals. Some “thick” libertarians, perhaps, believe that force is inherently bad, but certainly not all libertarians believe that. Actually, I don’t even believe that “thick” libertarians believe that-they actually expand the definition of “defensive” to include fighting all sorts of “isms.” (It’s probably worth noting that nobody, as far as I know, believes/admits to himself that he is NOT defending himself.)

66

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
In a free society a contract would be meaningless whether arbitration, credit, or reputation agencies exist or not. This is where the “free society” crowd loses it for me… [/quote]

Here’s an interesting thought experiment, and I’m not directing it towards usmccds423, but using his example.

One school of libertarian thought believes that there should be no gov’t courts and that contractual disputes should be decided by private arbitration. A second school believes that the court system is a proper role of gov’t, but that it should be funded by those who avail themselves of the court system.

In other words, why are my tax dollars being spent for a court system I don’t use?

The solution would involve a bond paid to the courts to adjudicate a case. Take example one: Joe sells Larry a car, Larry doesn’t pay Joe. Joe has no ability to collect from Larry however Larry’s reputation has been irrepairably damaged and no one will do business with him again.

Example 2: Joe sells Larry a car and they place %1 of the purchase price on deposit with the courts. Larry doesn’t pay Joe, except now the courts agree to hear the case. The courts find against Larry and use the power of the gov’t to compel payment. Importantly, Joe and Larry have voluntarily agreed to be bound by the decision of the courts.

I think the second example, where both parties agree to subject themselves to the courts, and the courts collect a fee based on the economic value of the contract is a very interesting model and also in line with libertarian thought.
[/quote]

That’s quite an interesting scenario you’ve presented with your second example. I like it.

The problem I’ve always had with libertarianism is the idea that any force whatsoever is inherently a bad thing. Of course, this always comes with a caveat, namely the one you presented in example one in which a loss of reputation constitutes the only deterrent. The idea that reputation alone will suffice as a deterrent only works in a mythical society in which honor and virtue are valued by everyone. The person who does not value things like honor, virtue, etc. will not be swayed by such threats to his standing.

Madison put it best when he said that if men were angels, then no gov’t would be necessary. Likewise, if ALL men value honor and virtue, then no coercion would be necessary. Unfortunately, we require that something be capable of using force to bind men without honor and virtue to their agreements.

[/quote]

How many libertarians believe that any force whatsoever is a bad thing? Defensive force aligns just fine with libertarian ideals. Some “thick” libertarians, perhaps, believe that force is inherently bad, but certainly not all libertarians believe that. Actually, I don’t even believe that “thick” libertarians believe that-they actually expand the definition of “defensive” to include fighting all sorts of “isms.” (It’s probably worth noting that nobody, as far as I know, believes/admits to himself that he is NOT defending himself.) [/quote]

By force, I mean coercion, not self-defense.

67

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
In a free society a contract would be meaningless whether arbitration, credit, or reputation agencies exist or not. This is where the “free society” crowd loses it for me… [/quote]

Here’s an interesting thought experiment, and I’m not directing it towards usmccds423, but using his example.

One school of libertarian thought believes that there should be no gov’t courts and that contractual disputes should be decided by private arbitration. A second school believes that the court system is a proper role of gov’t, but that it should be funded by those who avail themselves of the court system.

In other words, why are my tax dollars being spent for a court system I don’t use?

The solution would involve a bond paid to the courts to adjudicate a case. Take example one: Joe sells Larry a car, Larry doesn’t pay Joe. Joe has no ability to collect from Larry however Larry’s reputation has been irrepairably damaged and no one will do business with him again.

Example 2: Joe sells Larry a car and they place %1 of the purchase price on deposit with the courts. Larry doesn’t pay Joe, except now the courts agree to hear the case. The courts find against Larry and use the power of the gov’t to compel payment. Importantly, Joe and Larry have voluntarily agreed to be bound by the decision of the courts.

I think the second example, where both parties agree to subject themselves to the courts, and the courts collect a fee based on the economic value of the contract is a very interesting model and also in line with libertarian thought.
[/quote]

That’s quite an interesting scenario you’ve presented with your second example. I like it.

The problem I’ve always had with libertarianism is the idea that any force whatsoever is inherently a bad thing. Of course, this always comes with a caveat, namely the one you presented in example one in which a loss of reputation constitutes the only deterrent. The idea that reputation alone will suffice as a deterrent only works in a mythical society in which honor and virtue are valued by everyone. The person who does not value things like honor, virtue, etc. will not be swayed by such threats to his standing.

Madison put it best when he said that if men were angels, then no gov’t would be necessary. Likewise, if ALL men value honor and virtue, then no coercion would be necessary. Unfortunately, we require that something be capable of using force to bind men without honor and virtue to their agreements.

[/quote]

Libertarianism isn’t against the use of force, just the initiation of force. It’s okay to hit if you’re a libertarian, it’s just not okay to hit first.[/quote]

Libertarianism is against coercion. The initiation of force or the use of force is immaterial. The idea is that coercion is inherently bad. I would agree, but then again, all men love liberty and dominion over others. Many libertarians envision a world in which no coercion is necessary since an ideal world or an ideal society or an ideal economy would be one devoid of the need for coercion.

The entire concept of negative rights has thus been commandeered by libertarians. The acknowledgement of only negative rights is how things like the Articles of Confederation or the smoldering ruins of the Achaean League occur. The idealized libertarian world simply isn’t realistic and will never happen. To operate in such a manner as to reject any and all forms of coercion whatsoever is to reject any analysis which takes into account actual human behavior.

Of course, this is where a fool like Ayn Rand comes in and speaks of complete removal from society to create a culture of producers. She fails to understand that at some point, the weakest members of the producers-only club will necessarily become consumers themselves, at which point John Galt will have to pick up and move again.

68

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
In a free society a contract would be meaningless whether arbitration, credit, or reputation agencies exist or not. This is where the “free society” crowd loses it for me… [/quote]

Here’s an interesting thought experiment, and I’m not directing it towards usmccds423, but using his example.

One school of libertarian thought believes that there should be no gov’t courts and that contractual disputes should be decided by private arbitration. A second school believes that the court system is a proper role of gov’t, but that it should be funded by those who avail themselves of the court system.

In other words, why are my tax dollars being spent for a court system I don’t use?

The solution would involve a bond paid to the courts to adjudicate a case. Take example one: Joe sells Larry a car, Larry doesn’t pay Joe. Joe has no ability to collect from Larry however Larry’s reputation has been irrepairably damaged and no one will do business with him again.

Example 2: Joe sells Larry a car and they place %1 of the purchase price on deposit with the courts. Larry doesn’t pay Joe, except now the courts agree to hear the case. The courts find against Larry and use the power of the gov’t to compel payment. Importantly, Joe and Larry have voluntarily agreed to be bound by the decision of the courts.

I think the second example, where both parties agree to subject themselves to the courts, and the courts collect a fee based on the economic value of the contract is a very interesting model and also in line with libertarian thought.
[/quote]

What if, in example 2, Larry still refuses to pay the remaining 99% of the purchase price even after the court ruling. He accepts the loss of the 1% and keeps the car. How would the court enforce the remaining value of the ruling?

69

Dr. P,

Interesting questions. A few thoughts:

  1. The only way an “escrow” court could work is in small towns where commerce is extremely limited. Nearly every transaction would require a deposit on a theory that something in the deal could go sour, from small consumer goods to large capital purchases. I don’t think that would work as a practical matter since the Indistrial Age - look at every good you have in your home…to get some protection against bad craftmanship or basic non-performance, on everything from a toaster to a shipload of pork bellies, youd have to have money deposited with the court.

It’s also impractical because I can’t imagine would want to administer the deposited funds and track all that for every commercial transaction. That would be an enormous and expensive task.

  1. This arrangement fails to provide recourse for non-contractual harms.
70

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
It’s also impractical because I can’t imagine would want to administer the deposited funds and track all that for every commercial transaction. That would be an enormous and expensive task.
[/quote]

This is a great point. I read yesterday that over 700 million Iphones have been sold to date. That’s 1 product (or 1 line of products I suppose) from 1 company. Speaking of phones, how would you address ongoing services like your cell phone, mortgage, loans of any kind, etc…?

It sounds like a nightmare to me.

71

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
It’s also impractical because I can’t imagine would want to administer the deposited funds and track all that for every commercial transaction. That would be an enormous and expensive task.
[/quote]

This is a great point. I read yesterday that over 700 million Iphones have been sold to date. That’s 1 product (or 1 line of products I suppose) from 1 company. Speaking of phones, how would you address ongoing services like your cell phone, mortgage, loans of any kind, etc…?

It sounds like a nightmare to me. [/quote]

Yes, great point, and something I meant to touch on - which court? If I am in New York and I buy something from Texas, where do I deposit the money? The answer is very complicated, it would depend. What if I bought a service instead of a tangible good? More complicated.

On the other side, imagine a local courr having to track and administer not just local transactions, but national ones, and even international ones.

Simply impossible.

72

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
It’s also impractical because I can’t imagine would want to administer the deposited funds and track all that for every commercial transaction. That would be an enormous and expensive task.
[/quote]

This is a great point. I read yesterday that over 700 million Iphones have been sold to date. That’s 1 product (or 1 line of products I suppose) from 1 company. Speaking of phones, how would you address ongoing services like your cell phone, mortgage, loans of any kind, etc…?

It sounds like a nightmare to me. [/quote]

Yes, great point, and something I meant to touch on - which court? If I am in New York and I buy something from Texas, where do I deposit the money? The answer is very complicated, it would depend. What if I bought a service instead of a tangible good? More complicated.

On the other side, imagine a local courr having to track and administer not just local transactions, but national ones, and even international ones.

Simply impossible.
[/quote]

Absolutely. I could envision a system much like the criminal justice system where interstate commerce would be tracked & administered under a federal court system. I’m not an expert on libertarian ideals, but I assume that would not fly.

What about appeals? Will there be a Supreme Commerce court? How would this even be paid for (if 1% of the purchase price is paid to the court we are basically talking about a court tax) and what is the benefit (there will still be state sales tax)? You could potentially reduce income tax, which theoretically helps the well to do more than the poor. Something that is generally frowned upon in America.

Furthermore, we are talking about trillions of dollars being dumped into state and undoubtedly federal court systems to adjudicate any and all commerce. That’s an awful lot of money and power being imbued into various governments.

I don’t think this is a viable alternative to the current system. It certainly doesn’t seem like a libertarian alternative.

73

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

What if, in example 2, Larry still refuses to pay the remaining 99% of the purchase price even after the court ruling. He accepts the loss of the 1% and keeps the car. How would the court enforce the remaining value of the ruling? [/quote]

It would operate the same way it does now. Joe would have a judgement against Larry and if Larry didn’t pay up, Joe would have to initiate enforcement proceedings.

74

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

What if, in example 2, Larry still refuses to pay the remaining 99% of the purchase price even after the court ruling. He accepts the loss of the 1% and keeps the car. How would the court enforce the remaining value of the ruling? [/quote]

It would operate the same way it does now. Joe would have a judgement against Larry and if Larry didn’t pay up, Joe would have to initiate enforcement proceedings.[/quote]

I thought libertarians are against the initiation of force especially when its initiated by a government they deem illegitimate? I guess where I’m stuck is what would be the point of a commerce court if you still need the state and/or federal governments to enforce the ruling?

75

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
So… You’re arguing what a corp/LLC means in fantasy land and not real life then?[/quote]

The opposite. How government regulates is the actual fantasy.

76

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Well, you don’t have to - in most states you can operate as sole proprietorship. However, you’d enjoy no privileges like limited liability, and creditors can go after your personal property even if the act taken creating the financial liability was done in the name of your business.
[/quote]

I think this result while plausible would be taken care of by private insurance, arbitration, credit and reputation agencies.

It is perfectly legitimate for a person who makes bad business decisions to lose everything and have to start over.

Why should the government protect them for it?

77

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
In a free society people can contract with each other and those contracts can be upheld by private arbitration, credit and reputation agencies.[/quote]

In a free society a contract would be meaningless whether arbitration, credit, or reputation agencies exist or not. This is where the “free society” crowd loses it for me.

B1: I’ll sell you these 100 cars for $5MM.
B2: Agreed

B1: Delivers cars
B2: I’m not going to pay you.

B1: WTF? I’ll see you in arbitration

A1: B2 you owe B1 $5MM due immediately.
B2: Nah, I’m good go fuck yourself.

B1 & A1: Well shit…

Contracts in a “free society” will not be held up by private arbitration unless both parties submit to said arbitration and then agree with what the arbitrator rules. Never gonna happen…

This would equal about 1,000 steps backwards. No thanks. [/quote]

You don’t take the time to think things through.

If you agree to some contractual terms and then don’t comply with them your reputation and credit would be quickly ruined. In this technology age it would hurt very badly.

And its more like 1000 steps advanced from the backwoods of current government regulations.

78

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

What if, in example 2, Larry still refuses to pay the remaining 99% of the purchase price even after the court ruling. He accepts the loss of the 1% and keeps the car. How would the court enforce the remaining value of the ruling? [/quote]

It would operate the same way it does now. Joe would have a judgement against Larry and if Larry didn’t pay up, Joe would have to initiate enforcement proceedings.[/quote]

I thought libertarians are against the initiation of force especially when its initiated by a government they deem illegitimate? I guess where I’m stuck is what would be the point of a commerce court if you still need the state and/or federal governments to enforce the ruling? [/quote]

You don’t need force or coercion. Being able to negatively affect ones reputation is a powerful motivator to honest business.

Let’s also assume the majority of people are honest and want to do honest business - if this were not the case where would we be? No amount of regulations can make people moral.

79

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
So… You’re arguing what a corp/LLC means in fantasy land and not real life then?[/quote]

The opposite. How government regulates is the actual fantasy.[/quote]

George? Is that you?

Skip to 1:05, the judge explains quite well.

80

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

I think this result while plausible would be taken care of by private insurance,

It is perfectly legitimate for a person who makes bad business decisions to lose everything and have to start over.
[/quote]

You’re aren’t getting former, with the later.

No one, and I mean no one, is going to put their personal assets on the line to run insurance. That would be the dumbest financial move outside of sinking your entire retirement into Beanie Babies.

I’ll ignore the fact that it isn’t always the owner’s fault that a business goes bankrupt. But you know, reality isn’t really your strong suit when it comes to this whole business thing.