spun's Journal: Libertianism Failure Diagram

Consider the simplified case of three property owners, A, B, and C. Here's what their property looks like:
AAA
ABC
CCC
Now, A and C make an agreement not to buy any of Bs goods or sell anything to B. B doesn't own enough land to support him and all his family living there. He doesn't have enough land for an airport, or a helicopter. A and C won't let him on their property, and they won't let anyone else deliver anything to him over their property either. B and his family starve to death, then A and C split his land between themselves.

Please, explain how this scenario or more complex variants of it would not be commonplace in a true libertarian system. "Force" is more complex than libertarian philosophy likes to admit.

From this post, just wanted to save it because I think it distills much of the objection I have towards libertarianism into a succinct argument, and if anyone can refute the premise, it would go a long way towards convincing me that libertarianism isn't morally bankrupt.

Also this, from the same thread:

The real ideological difference lies in what qualifies as "hitting first," and also what qualifies as "freedom." For instance, should people be free to own more real estate than they themselves can work, and charge rent for said real estate? If people have that freedom, is it "hitting first" for them to withhold food from workers who have no other means of support than working for them at whatever wage they offer?

In a system with total individual freedom and strong property rights, what is to keep the most ruthless from leveraging the power that accumulated wealth has to influence markets, and using that power to keep other people dependent on them? Is economic coercion "hitting first?"

If people do have the right to own more land than they themselves can work, then isn't it also a freedom for a group of people to, say, call themselves "The United States of America" and make up some rules regarding what others can do with "The United States of America's" land? After all, isn't that really nothing more than land owned by a group of individuals?

There is a lot of difference in ideology even amongst people who subscribe to the ideals of freedom and not hitting first. So much so that different camps within that group all seriously question the other sides' commitment to those ideals. You know, the whole rift between individualist anarchism and social anarchism.

Oh, and happy Troll Tuesday everybody!

Silly liberal!

[Captain Splendid]

Of course, in a libertarian utopia, B's estate (whatever's left of it, anyhow) can sue for, uh, Anti-trust violations? Will that even be illegal in libertarianutopialand?

There ain't no such thing as property

[o1d5ch001]

Libertarianism is based on the Premise that Property is actually something that occurs naturally, like BO. But it ain't. There is not such thing as Property. Its a meta-idea. At best its a way of knowing where to plant crops, at its worst it is theft.

I watched Lost for a while, and one of the themes of lost is use of resources because we are here. i.e. the Survivors of Oceanic 815 ended up on a tropical island, someone _elses_ tropical island. But that did not enter their minds when they are trying to survi

Re:

[spun]

Don't forget the Libertarians do propose a court system and mutual defense, for anyone who has enough cash to participate successfully. That's called freedom. If someone fucks you over, why, of course everyone will be able to find a lawyer willing to take the case on commission. And of course the amount of money that one side will be able to throw at the case, that's a moot point. Survival of the Richest, don't you know. Cash makes Right in Libertopia, and cash is just another name for Might.

Re:

[o1d5ch001]

A long time ago, when I played with all sorts of ideas, Libertarianism, Communism, Fascism to name a few (ok, I never really thought fascism was a good idea, but I think it useful to consider other points of view, if only to understand how to combat them). Libertarianism had a natural attraction, but the more I examined it, the more it was apparent that it was based on greed and the golden rule. These are the same folks that wank off after reading soldier of fortune, and think that the brown people of the

Libertarianism

[cmacb]

I last watched a Libertarian national convention a dozen years ago and they argued about whether to allow personal possession of nuclear weapons. The fact that the question was even under consideration led me to decide to just stick with the two parties, as unpleasant as that choice often is.

The puzzle you pose makes for interesting game theory, but in real American (or even world) politics we are no where near facing such situations.

Instead of the scenario you pose, more realistically, a and b are on the

Re:

[cmacb]

I just noticed I transposed the letters from your example... I used A and B and the bad guys and C as the victim.

Missed the part...

[SatanicPuppy]

...Where B get's fed up, and breaks into A's house and kills him one night, which is the more direct leveraging of power.

One of the problems that always strikes me with the pure libertarian ideal is that no provision is made for those who aren't able to compete for whatever reason, and at the same time, it's assumed that their inability to gain an economic advantage is prima facie evidence that they're unfit, and will starve rather than give a more typical aggressive response.

People tend not to passively st

Re:

[spun]

Yes, a social safety net is a public good. It helps everyone, even those who do not make use of it directly. But the Libertarians want to be free riders and not pay for it. Even though they benefit from the stability it provides.

Violence is the natural human response to having too many humans and not enough positions in society for all of them. It's a fairly efficient way of keeping overpopulation in check. So if we want to reduce violence we need to ensure there is a place in society for all humans.

Sitting

Re:

[spun]

Idiot. How can they leave without trespassing?