While I agree that the individual rights of people in a society find their birthplace in the pervading morals of that society, some of these morals are given more significance. These become the RIGHTS of the people. They are rights because they comprise the foundation that the society is built upon. For America (US), “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration, the “Bill of Rights” in the Constitution. These are more than merely “moral assumptions”. This is what our government was designed to protect. The government was not designed to tell the people how to live their lives or to make moral decisions for the people, and should not. That is what I mean by regulating morals.

So you’re sayng, by implication, that if I don’t happen to agree that other people have rights of property and life, then the government has no right to interfere in my actions? (Yes, I know you’re not asserting that, but it’s implicit in the assumptions of your argument.)

No, this is not what I was saying nor implying. For you to infer this you would have to be being willfully obtuse. Murder and theft are illegal because people have the RIGHTS to life and property, not merely because of the moral view that it is wrong. You are the one who seems to be insisting that rights do not exist and are merely moral assumptions. It is because morals differ from person to person that society has to pick out certain ideals and elevate them to the level of rights. If you were to insert something that isn’t a “right”, like marrying another man (or woman if you are female), there are a number of people who would find that to be immoral and would argue that it should be illegal for you to be allowed to do so. I am saying that they would be wrong. I am saying that the government should not regulate morality, and since the rights of the people who would deny your (purely hypothetical) wish to marry someone of the same sex are not being violated by you doing so, then the government should stay out of it.

The next argument would naturally be “Who decides what is a right and what isn’t?” The answer is basically “Society does (or more precisely has)”. I know that causes a bit of a logic loop. I think the best description I have found for it is here:

http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2003/05/before-i-go-to-bed-who-am-i-fooling.html

That guy is a freakin genius.

s

ps: I am not a genius.

pps: Our President has gone as far as trying to declare “health insurance” as a human right. This is wrong-headed on so many levels. Rights aren’t just created by Presidential fiat, but that is a discussion for another day.

Your examples of theft, murder, invasion, etc are not examples of morality, they are examples of people violating the rights of others. THAT is the reason to have government, to pass laws that protect people’s rights (or punish the violaters of those rights). While yes, in most cultures theft is considered immoral, that immorality isn’t the reason it is illegal. It is illegal because theft violates the victum’s right to ownership. Murder likewise violates another persons right to life.

That above statement is self-contradictory.

Where do people’s ‘rights’ come from? What is the basis of those rights, and what obligates others to respect them? By what right does the government (in whatever form) act against someone who violates someone else’s ‘rights’?

The bigest problem with the government regulating morality is that people have differing opinions as to what is and isn’t moral.Here is an example:My Grandfather would say that it is immoral for a man to um… “love” another man and therefore he believes that the government should step in and keep gay marraige illegal. My belief is that what ever two (or more) concenting adults want to do in the privacy of their own home, as long as it isn’t violating anyone elses rights, is none of the government’s business. If two men, or two women, (or even a group of 3 or more people really) want to officially commit to eachother (“marry”) then their is no reason for the government to step in and deny them because it is not violating the rights of others. If someone could show me a VALID reason why that violates someone’s rights, and no “waaa… I don’t want to explain that to my kids” isn’t a valid reason, I would be willing to re-think my opinion.

As you note, you have a belief. Your belief that the government should not interfere with polygamy or homosexuality is just as much a religious and moral act of faith as the belief on the part of others that the government should not recognize homosexual relationships because they are morally unequal to traditional ones.

You say you might change your opinion if a VALID reason was offered, but you can only judge validity in terms of your own belief system taken on faith. Others would reject your assessment because it violates their beliefs.

All law, other than purely regulatory issues like traffic laws, is an example of regulated morality. To assert that a murderer violates another person’s ‘right to live’ is a moral argument in support of government action against murderers. Simply to assert that people even have a ‘right to live’ is a moral assertion.

I picked it because it is a good example of government regulating morality, which it shouldn’t do, but has historically done anyway.

This is one of the pitfalls of a Democracy. When the majority pushes their belief system onto the minority. It is the reason for the seperation of church and state and the reason that governments should not be involved in regulating morality.Ok, sorry, I’ll put away my soap box now.s

Contradiction in terms. The government cannot avoid being involved in the regulation of morality. You yourself argue in favor of it doing so when you call for the protection of ‘individual rights’.

Graham Shevlin: There is nothing intrinsically non-libertarian about being against abortion. I’m not in favour of abortion on a personal level. Where it starts to get decidedly non-libertarian is working on the principle that just because you dislike something or it offends your sensibilities, it should be restricted or outlawed. That’s tripping off down the slippery slope towards authoritarianism.

By that same logic, one could say, “I’m not in favor of shooting other people on a personal level. Where it starts to get decidedly non-libertarian is working on the principle that just because you dislike something or it offends your sensibilities, it should be restricted or outlawed.”

If take as a ‘given’ that an unborn child (as opposed to a pre-human fetus) is a separate human being, than the same logic that permits the destruction of such would necessarily permit any form of murder. Once can only consistantly argue that abortion is purely a private matter by also taking the premise that either:

1. ‘All interpersonal violence is a private matter’

or

2. ‘The unborn entity is not yet a full human being.’

Either must be taken on faith, they can not be proven or disproven.

A successful libertarian movement will of necessity be fored to come to terms with the role of principles taken on faith in all argument, politics, and social interaction.

Mark N.: Another might be that it isn’t seen as enough of a swing vote to be worth campaigning for; my guess is that many libertarians are either “left” or “right” libertarians who mainly vote for one of the two major parties and don’t frequently change which of them they vote for (the “guns/taxes” v. “pot/speech” contingents).

A third might be that people are really not as libertarian as they say: while 58% to 38% favor smaller government more broadly (when explicitly stacked up against bigger government), most specific proposals to cut the size of government fare much less well in polling. The latter is exacerbated by the fact that some prominent libertarian intellectuals seem to focus on particularly unpopular proposals, such as eliminating public schooling.

Bingo.

The electorate is certainly in favor of spending cuts. But when you look at individiual voters, almost invariably it turns out that s/he has a long list of other people’s spending priorities that s/he wants to see cut, in favor his his/her own necessary and prudent spending.

Further, the polling tends, for various reasons, to underestimate the strength of social and nationalist conservatism in the general electorate. Just because you favor gun rights and are a big believer in low taxes does not necessarily mean you don’t think abortion is evil and murderous, the two beliefs often exist together in the same person. You can believe that government regulation is overdone and still also believe that gay marriage is a contradiction in terms, and this too is by no means uncommon. Just because one believes in domestic free markets doesn’t automatically mean one also believes in free trade internationally. And so on.

In the American electorate as currently constituted, liberatarianism is a fringe force, like it or not. Which makes the tendency of some on the Right to want to push an ever-harder libertarian agenda not just self-defeating, but near-suicidal.

BenP:
And what’s your remedy if they want out of the contract? Not only are those type of holdings very few and far between, Specific performance is only even plausible as a remedy where the contempt power of the court or the power to award punitive damages gives the court leverage to require specific performance. If someone is judgment proof already, using the court’s contempt power to order specific performance is somewhere between merely unworkable and utterly absurd. It’s the functional equivalent of a debtors prison. If forces the state to expend resources punishing people for the failure to live up to private agreements.

My first go at an answer to your first question is either, “There isn’t one,” or some kind of uber-bankruptcy where fine, you can leave, but every penny you make from now until forever goes to paying back your debt, plus interest. I go back and forth. As to how that first option works, it’s simple – the slave is property. Removing property from its owner’s control is theft. They get treated like any other form of stolen property. (Although of course if they just can’t keep their property under control we might have to start fining them for the equivalent of misuse of 911 or excessive alarm calls or whatever.) Runaway slaves were a problem back in the day but not to the extent that slavery was economically unworkable. With modern technology I’m pretty sure I can build a system where fugitive slaves are at least as easy to recover as a stolen car if not far more so. It also depends on the average economic value of the slave, in exactly the same way that the resources devoted to protecting cars from theft and/or recovery of stolen ones depends on their economic value.

If you are trying to convince me that the idea is logistically unworkable, you’re going to have to try harder than that but you might get somewhere. However, “can’t make the logistics work” is in no sense relevant to the question of inherent immorality.

And your last sentence is inconsistent with your prior sentences. Using state resources to punish people for the failure to live up to private agreements happens all the time. That’s what court fees are for. Escaped slaves (or runaway indentures) didn’t go to debtor’s prison. They were returned to their owners.

How would you answer a question for example, raised on the Corner, about allowing pornography on Saturday morning television? It seems like once you start going down the road of what freedoms you are OK with and which you aren’t, you will eventually run into some freedoms you wish to restrict.

Thanks in advance for any responses. I’m trying to reconcile my own positions and beliefs and any input is appreciated.

If I want to buy the exclusive right to have Emeril be my cook or Plácido Domingo my background singer as I move about through life, and I can find a price where they are willing to agree to that, forever, then what business is it of yours? It is not up to me to prove my actions are moral: it is up to you to show that they are so immoral that I shouldn’t be allowed to perform them.

And what’s your remedy if they want out of the contract?

Not only are those type of holdings very few and far between, Specific performance is only even plausible as a remedy where the contempt power of the court or the power to award punitive damages gives the court leverage to require specific performance.

If someone is judgment proof already, using the court’s contempt power to order specific performance is somewhere between merely unworkable and utterly absurd. It’s the functional equivalent of a debtors prison. If forces the state to expend resources punishing people for the failure to live up to private agreements.

Crunchy Frog:
I believe the correct term is “apprenticeship”.An apprentice agrees to work for a skilled tradesman for a specific period of time, after which the tradesman certifies the apprentice as fully trained in the trade, who then becomes a “journeyman”.He is free to leave service at any time, but gives up the right to certification.All in all, kinda like a 3rd year medical student.

Although the institution varied widely, in England and America some indentured servants became indentured servants to learn a trade, but most indentured themselves simply to either get money for their families or earn passage and get a general start in the colonies. In fact, many of them already had working experience or even knew a skilled or semiskilled trade. Usually an indentured servant got some money upon completing their indenture, and they could sometimes buy themselves free if they worked hard.

Ben P:
I’d be hard pressed to find any moral justification for allowing a court of law (and the government by implication) to support someone being held to a labor contract against their will.

For the same reason we ever enforce specific performance: some things are not fungible. Anybody can cook, anybody can sing. Only Emeril can cook like Emeril; only Plácido Domingo can sing like Plácido Domingo. If I want to buy the exclusive right to have Emeril be my cook or Plácido Domingo my background singer as I move about through life, and I can find a price where they are willing to agree to that, forever, then what business is it of yours? It is not up to me to prove my actions are moral: it is up to you to show that they are so immoral that I shouldn’t be allowed to perform them.

Now, granted, you may believe that consensual chattel slavery, or even strictly enforced specific performance, is inherently immoral. But I don’t agree. Convince me.

Crunchy Frog:
Huh?Did I run over your dog or something?

I’ll take back using you as an example, but I think “in most respects republican” is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw from you describing yourself as “small l libertarian big R Republican.”

and I think that given the general tone about Obama in the comments here that the overall statement isn’t far off. For people who would describe themselves as not Republicans, there’s an awful lot of republican partisanship.

It was also a common agreement for learning a trade. A person would agree to be a indentured servant in exchange for being taught by a blacksmith etc.

I believe the correct term is “apprenticeship”.

An apprentice agrees to work for a skilled tradesman for a specific period of time, after which the tradesman certifies the apprentice as fully trained in the trade, who then becomes a “journeyman”. He is free to leave service at any time, but gives up the right to certification.

All in all, kinda like a 3rd year medical student.

The commenter population of this site appears at most times to be people who are in nearly all respects conservative, except in perhaps they think the Republican party isn’t far enough right, and like to call themselves libertarian. (Crunchy Frog is Exhibit A)

Huh? Did I run over your dog or something?

Does it make me to the right of the Republican party that I:

Think prostitution should be legal?
Think marijuana should be decriminalized (and even signed a petition to that effect)?
Am in favor of domestic partnerships?
Believe in reciprocal trade agreements?

Really Ben… if you need to hold up someone here as a strawman, there are better choices than me – but I suppose that would require intellectual honesty.

Isn’t that pretty much the concept of ‘indentured servants’?

That was a pretty popular concept in the last few centuries with people exchanging something like passage to the new world, and food, shelter once they got there for a few years with being a servent to the person who paid their way.

This was quite popular in early America both in New England, and in the South among the immigrants from the poorer nations/classes of Europe that wished to come to America and were willing to commit to servitude for an amount of time in exchange for that change at a better life in the new country of opportunity.

It was also a common agreement for learning a trade. A person would agree to be a indentured servant in exchange for being taught by a blacksmith etc.

It was perfectly legal under English Law.

Personally I don’t like the idea because its just too easy for someone to be abused when they give up their rights like that.

Hmmm… interesting. That is certianly a lot to think about. My initial reaction is yea, if someone WANTS to sell thenselves they should be free to; but I don’t think it’s as simple as all that. First of all, there is the catch 22 of it, a good argument could be made that someone who is willing to sell themselves as a slave isn’t sane and therefore could not enter into a legal contract. I’m sure there are other reasons that it isn’t workable.

The fundamental question with this is the general bar on specific performance for personal in contract law.

Assuming we were to even allow such indenture contracts, the question arises when someone breaches. If the indentured doesn’t wish to serve anymore, what’s the other party’s remedy? Present contract law would say, rightfully I think, you don’t get specific performance in personal service contracts. The other party’s just entitled to money damages.

I’d be hard pressed to find any moral justification for allowing a court of law (and the government by implication) to support someone being held to a labor contract against their will.

sardonic_sob says:

While I do support the right of people to practice consensual deviant behavior, that’s not what I meant: I meant literally I think people should be able to sell themselves into slavery.

Hmmm… interesting. That is certianly a lot to think about. My initial reaction is yea, if someone WANTS to sell thenselves they should be free to; but I don’t think it’s as simple as all that. First of all, there is the catch 22 of it, a good argument could be made that someone who is willing to sell themselves as a slave isn’t sane and therefore could not enter into a legal contract. I’m sure there are other reasons that it isn’t workable.

It’s at least an interesting thought puzzle.

s

Stuart_the_Viking:
Quite frankly, I THINK what you were trying to say that you supported was the consept of consentual, contractual “Sexual Slavery” as practiced by the dom/sub crowd, but I’m not sure and I don’t want to put words into your mouth…

Be sure to let me know which it is since now I am curious.s

While I do support the right of people to practice consensual deviant behavior, that’s not what I meant: I meant literally I think people should be able to sell themselves into slavery.

My reference to the Code Noir had more to do with its “floors” for the protection of rights which slaves could not lose or alienate (for instance, husbands and wives could not be sold apart, minor children could not be separated from their parents, slaves were not to be tortured, were to be given a certain minimum level of food and shelter, etc, etc.) You are absolutely right that I could have been clearer and lots of the stuff in the Code Noir is not consistent with my stated position, including and especially its implied approval of the nonconsensual imposition of slavery, either by capture or birth.

If I were suddenly given a Mandate to create a legal code for the governance of consensual slavery, I might very well decide that such “floors” are a reasonable restraint on alienation of self, in much the same way that while philosophically I believe in almost absolute freedom of contract, if I were a legal authority I would hold that as a matter of public policy, a contract between two individuals arranging for the murder of a third was not enforceable. I am a reasonably libertarian person, not an anarchist.

I have often wished for something simular. My idea was a president who refused to sign a bill if it contained more than one particular idea. Like a finance bill that had some non-finance related rider on it.

One bill, One law!

s

sardonic_sob says: I believe that consensual contractual slavery should be perfectly legal and enforceable, at the very least to the level of the Code Noir. Although if you insist that it’s not true slavery unless it’s hereditable and can be imposed nonconsensually, then you got me there.

I have to admit a little ignorance as to what exactly Code Noir entailed, so I did a little looking and from what I found, your argument is inconsistent. Nothing that I found on Code Noir said anything about slavery being “consentual” or “contractual”. Code Noir also states that the children of a slave couple are slaves (article 12) and the children of a free man and a female slave are also slaves (article 13) therefore the hereditable part of your comment doesn’t follow.

Other articles in Code Noir:
Article 2 states that slaves must be baptized in the Roman Catholic Church and article 4 states that slave owners must be Roman Catholic.

Are you a Roman Catholic then?

Quite frankly, I THINK what you were trying to say that you supported was the consept of consentual, contractual “Sexual Slavery” as practiced by the dom/sub crowd, but I’m not sure and I don’t want to put words into your mouth. If that is the case, No, if it is consentual, it doesn’t really count as slavery (and has absolutely nothing to do with Code Noir), and I support your right to whatever deviant behavior you may or may not choose to partake in as long as it doesn’t violate the rights of others.

If I am wrong and you really think that you (or others like you) should really be allowed to go out and “capture you some negros”, then… well… expect me to shoot you if you try it in my neck of the woods. No offence intended, I’m sure your mother loves you and stuff, but it is far beyond time to put that crap in the past. Oh, and kidnapping is a forcable felony here abouts, so it would be legal to do so. I’m not really into illegally shooting people, that would be like murder or something.

Be sure to let me know which it is since now I am curious.

s

The essence of Libertarianism(essentially called minarchism which most Libertarians are) is the belief that the only proper role of government is to protect the individual, their rights and their property. This is pretty much the way the US government system was intended to function, not as the totalitarian nanny state we have today.

Slavery does not have a place anywhere in this.

a) Are longer than 100 pages. More than that, your doing to much and hiding things. This would eliminate earmarks and crazy mandates to the states because they would have to be rill bills that would be evaluated on their own merits.

b) The first paragraph does not outline in detail what part of the constitution congress is enacting this legislation. Congress has no clue anymore what they should and should not be doing. Maybe this would at least get them to think for a brief second about it. And would also allow the public to see just how much the views of congress opinion on where they get their powers is much different than most of the people.

If it totally shuts down the federal government for 4 years, so be it. We will live.

The federal legislature needs to either be reigned in or ELIMINATED via revolution.

Stuart_the_Viking: Oh, and I have NEVER met a libertarian nor a Libertarian who thinks that slavery should be brought back.Not even the weirdo ones. s

Isn’t it nice to know that the world still holds surprises?

I believe that consensual contractual slavery should be perfectly legal and enforceable, at the very least to the level of the Code Noir. Although if you insist that it’s not true slavery unless it’s hereditable and can be imposed nonconsensually, then you got me there.

Glad I could add to your life list!

Crunchy Frog:
If you accept that a growing fetus has just as much right to live as anyone else does, then there is nothing un-libertarian about being against abortion.

I thought it would not take that long for an example to present itself. Goes to show you what I know.

Slavery violates the rights of the enslaved. Therefore, the morality or immorality of slavery is a moot point. It should be illegal because it violates those rights.

s

Northern Dave:
I mean no offence, but I have to say that you are wrong in this. Government’s “raison d’etre” as you say, is NOT to regulate morality. Your examples of theft, murder, invasion, etc are not examples of morality, they are examples of people violating the rights of others. THAT is the reason to have government, to pass laws that protect people’s rights (or punish the violaters of those rights). While yes, in most cultures theft is considered immoral, that immorality isn’t the reason it is illegal. It is illegal because theft violates the victum’s right to ownership. Murder likewise violates another persons right to life.

The bigest problem with the government regulating morality is that people have differing opinions as to what is and isn’t moral.

Here is an example:
My Grandfather would say that it is immoral for a man to um… “love” another man and therefore he believes that the government should step in and keep gay marraige illegal. My belief is that what ever two (or more) concenting adults want to do in the privacy of their own home, as long as it isn’t violating anyone elses rights, is none of the government’s business. If two men, or two women, (or even a group of 3 or more people really) want to officially commit to eachother (“marry”) then their is no reason for the government to step in and deny them because it is not violating the rights of others. If someone could show me a VALID reason why that violates someone’s rights, and no “waaa… I don’t want to explain that to my kids” isn’t a valid reason, I would be willing to re-think my opinion. Note: that hasn’t happened in the many years that I have made that challenge.

Please know that I didn’t pick gay marraige as my example because I thought that anyone in particular would or wouldn’t be offended by it. I picked it because it is a good example of government regulating morality, which it shouldn’t do, but has historically done anyway. This is one of the pitfalls of a Democracy. When the majority pushes their belief system onto the minority. It is the reason for the seperation of church and state and the reason that governments should not be involved in regulating morality.

Ok, sorry, I’ll put away my soap box now.

s

Actually, Friedman endorsed the Reagan tax cuts despite the fact that they didn’t cut spending first. He argued that tax cuts would reduce spending over the long run by “starving the beast.” So too did other libertarian economists such as Gary Becker. I think this proved to be overoptimistic. But tax cuts without prior spending cuts was not just a policy advocated by conservative supply-siders.

Most libertarians would define collective defense of property rights (ie. the police and courts) as acceptable government because to them the theft of their property is an immoral act at a level requiring action.

Not to pile on, ND, but it does not appear to me that you are much of an authority on how libertarians define terms, or why. Why not just offer your own views straight-up, rather than play the straw man game?

An interesting question is then why, besides the Libertarian Party’s ineptitude, libertarianism hasn’t been somewhat more successful in either party. Some libertarian policy ideas have actually had political success (tax cuts, free trade, ending the draft). That’s often true, but depends on the proposal.

I think that’s the real success of Libertarian Intellectuals. Like some other groups that themselves don’t have the ability to take power, their ideas can get into the mainstream parties enough that they can be adopted.