Libertarians and property
Libertarians and property
Can one of the hardcore libertarians explain to me simply how ownership and enforcement of property rights would exist in a system absent a single arbiter who held a monopoly on the use of force?
-
- Full Member
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2020 12:18 pm
Re: Libertarians and property
There is always a single arbiter. Each party consents to the arbiter instead of being forced by the government monopoly. Imagine each county having more than one legal system, you belong to one group, and they provide you with the services. If there is a dispute from another group, they wouldn't use your judge because that's biased, you wouldn't use their judge because that's biased. Therefore both parties would have to pick a third group that has no interest in either party, their only interest is maintaining their integrity with the market by being neutral. If the third party failed to be neutral and just, people would leave that group and join another one.
You'd have market judges and jury's, not government judges and jury's. The free market holds the monopoly of force.
Re: Libertarians and property
So wouldn't that single arbiter then in fact have a monopoly on the use of force and be in essence the government? Why would I consent to their decision if it didn't fall in my favor and what consequences would they be able to bring against me if I ignored them?
Re: Libertarians and property
To play devil's advocate, isn't that effectively what we currently have?PrimalToker wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 7:38 pm There is always a single arbiter. Each party consents to the arbiter instead of being forced by the government monopoly.
Granted, we are all born in a country (government) that we didn't voluntarily choose. But thereafter, if the country allows us to emigrate to another country, we can eventually do so.
Isn't that sort of like voluntarily choosing an arbiter (government)? There aren't an infinite number of choices of arbiter, but there is a choice, right?
I'm not necessarily taking a hard position here. Just asking questions and engaging in discussion.
- Mark Leavy
- Executive Member
- Posts: 1950
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:20 pm
- Location: US Citizen, Permanent Traveler
Re: Libertarians and property
A while back, tech threw out the idea of title insurance backed by private security.
I found that intriguing.
I found that intriguing.
Re: Libertarians and property
I don't understand the private security thing...can anyone with the means have their own private security force? So are there competing private security companies or is there one company that has a monopoly to use force?Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 7:58 pm A while back, tech threw out the idea of title insurance backed by private security.
I found that intriguing.
- Mark Leavy
- Executive Member
- Posts: 1950
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:20 pm
- Location: US Citizen, Permanent Traveler
Re: Libertarians and property
Competing security.
Think Brinks, Guarda, Loomis.
Think Brinks, Guarda, Loomis.
Re: Libertarians and property
Also, who creates and certifies the title that the title insurance company writes a policy on? Are there competing titling companies, or just one?
Re: Libertarians and property
So we have competing entities that create titles that are backed by competing title insurance companies each with their own independent security forces. And this will create a more just and peaceful society?
- Mark Leavy
- Executive Member
- Posts: 1950
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:20 pm
- Location: US Citizen, Permanent Traveler
Re: Libertarians and property
Title companies work just like they do today.
It’s a meld of insurance, investigators, litigators and enforcement.
It’s a meld of insurance, investigators, litigators and enforcement.
-
- Full Member
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2020 12:18 pm
Re: Libertarians and property
The single arbiter was appointed by the monopoly of force, the market. You would consent because even if not in your favor it would be the fair. If you fail to adhere to the decision you would be given a scarlet letter by the market. You backed out of your contract. I wouldn't do business with a liar, would you?doodle wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 7:49 pm So wouldn't that single arbiter then in fact have a monopoly on the use of force and be in essence the government? Why would I consent to their decision if it didn't fall in my favor and what consequences would they be able to bring against me if I ignored them?
- Mark Leavy
- Executive Member
- Posts: 1950
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:20 pm
- Location: US Citizen, Permanent Traveler
Re: Libertarians and property
I haven’t noticed any shootouts between the Brinks and the Loomis.
-
- Full Member
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2020 12:18 pm
Re: Libertarians and property
That is correct, that is why us peasants in the US pay our rents to the landlords aka property taxes. What happens if you don't pay property tax? You get evicted. It's rent you pay to the landlord government. We're basically communist with no land ownership, moving from master to master is not freedom.Tortoise wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 7:57 pmTo play devil's advocate, isn't that effectively what we currently have?PrimalToker wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 7:38 pm There is always a single arbiter. Each party consents to the arbiter instead of being forced by the government monopoly.
Granted, we are all born in a country (government) that we didn't voluntarily choose. But thereafter, if the country allows us to emigrate to another country, we can eventually do so.
Isn't that sort of like voluntarily choosing an arbiter (government)? There aren't an infinite number of choices of arbiter, but there is a choice, right?
I'm not necessarily taking a hard position here. Just asking questions and engaging in discussion.
-
- Full Member
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2020 12:18 pm
Re: Libertarians and property
A service provided by the group you're a member of...paying your fee to get what you want voluntarily. Instead of by force and with no choice in company to provide the insurance or security (government).Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 7:58 pm A while back, tech threw out the idea of title insurance backed by private security.
I found that intriguing.
Re: Libertarians and property
We aren't doing business...we are having a property dispute. Who is lying and who is telling the truth is up for debate. What if I don't care what's fair? Are you presupposing that all humans are rational ethical actors?PrimalToker wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:21 pmThe single arbiter was appointed by the monopoly of force, the market. You would consent because even if not in your favor it would be the fair. If you fail to adhere to the decision you would be given a scarlet letter by the market. You backed out of your contract. I wouldn't do business with a liar, would you?doodle wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 7:49 pm So wouldn't that single arbiter then in fact have a monopoly on the use of force and be in essence the government? Why would I consent to their decision if it didn't fall in my favor and what consequences would they be able to bring against me if I ignored them?
Isn't that because if a dispute arose between them they would have recourse with the monopoly holder of force? They dont have to solve the problem by using force between them because they have a larger entity to appeal to...the government and our legal system. If you remove that don't we in essence just have the same anarchy that we have on the world stage? When Germany and Poland weren't agreeing over land I guess they could have both appealed to league of nations but ultimately Germany just decided to roll out the panzers and take what they felt was theirs.Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:22 pm I haven’t noticed any shootouts between the Brinks and the Loomis.
Last edited by doodle on Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Full Member
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2020 12:18 pm
Re: Libertarians and property
Anyone can start lots of different businesses why would security be different? There would be competition just like any other business. Their monopoly of force would only be over their own property and their members by consent.doodle wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:09 pmI don't understand the private security thing...can anyone with the means have their own private security force? So are there competing private security companies or is there one company that has a monopoly to use force?Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 7:58 pm A while back, tech threw out the idea of title insurance backed by private security.
I found that intriguing.
Re: Libertarians and property
So what's to keep my better funded and equipped security force from just overrunning a less worthy competitor? In the case of a property dispute would that not just default back to law of the jungle?PrimalToker wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:31 pmAnyone can start lots of different businesses why would security be different? There would be competition just like any other business. Their monopoly of force would only be over their own property and their members by consent.doodle wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:09 pmI don't understand the private security thing...can anyone with the means have their own private security force? So are there competing private security companies or is there one company that has a monopoly to use force?Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 7:58 pm A while back, tech threw out the idea of title insurance backed by private security.
I found that intriguing.
-
- Full Member
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2020 12:18 pm
Re: Libertarians and property
Life is business, a contract dispute over property counts. People wouldn't want to enter into a contract with someone that breaks their word when they don't get what they want, you would lose respect of your peers. Peer pressure or honor would force your compliance so you're not shunned from the marketplace.doodle wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:30 pmWe aren't doing business...we are having a property dispute. Who is lying and who is telling the truth is up for debate. What if I don't care what's fair? Are you presupposing that all humans are rational ethical actors?PrimalToker wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:21 pmThe single arbiter was appointed by the monopoly of force, the market. You would consent because even if not in your favor it would be the fair. If you fail to adhere to the decision you would be given a scarlet letter by the market. You backed out of your contract. I wouldn't do business with a liar, would you?doodle wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 7:49 pm So wouldn't that single arbiter then in fact have a monopoly on the use of force and be in essence the government? Why would I consent to their decision if it didn't fall in my favor and what consequences would they be able to bring against me if I ignored them?
Re: Libertarians and property
The United States has been using it's military all over the globe to get what it wants essentially. They make and break treaties, push their weight around, bomb people that they might have disagreements with. Why would having private militaries change this aspect of human behavior? We abhor the idea of contractually limiting the power of our military to UN treaties. Why would anyone think that people would come together and do this in a libertarian society? The United States isn't reviled...people still want to come here to live, visit here, own dollars, etc etc
-
- Full Member
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2020 12:18 pm
Re: Libertarians and property
It would be cheaper to buy them out than go to war. A free market monopoly isn't a bad thing, it means they provide the best value that no competitor can beat. Certain places when efficiency is maximized there will be no more competition because its cheaper to have a monopoly even for consumers.doodle wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:33 pmSo what's to keep my better funded and equipped security force from just overrunning a less worthy competitor? In the case of a property dispute would that not just default back to law of the jungle?PrimalToker wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:31 pmAnyone can start lots of different businesses why would security be different? There would be competition just like any other business. Their monopoly of force would only be over their own property and their members by consent.doodle wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:09 pmI don't understand the private security thing...can anyone with the means have their own private security force? So are there competing private security companies or is there one company that has a monopoly to use force?Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 7:58 pm A while back, tech threw out the idea of title insurance backed by private security.
I found that intriguing.
-
- Full Member
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2020 12:18 pm
Re: Libertarians and property
I thought this is about contract disputes and arbiters. or I suppose you can hijack your own thread into an anti libertarian rant if you want loldoodle wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:39 pm The United States has been using it's military all over the globe to get what it wants essentially. They make and break treaties, push their weight around, bomb people that they might have disagreements with. Why would having private militaries change this aspect of human behavior? We abhor the idea of contractually limiting the power of our military to UN treaties. Why would anyone think that people would come together and do this in a libertarian society? The United States isn't reviled...people still want to come here to live, visit here, own dollars, etc etc
Re: Libertarians and property
I don't understand. Is the UN not a voluntary forum where nation's create contracts (treaties)? Does it not attempt to arbitrate disputes between nation's? Isn't it a good example of what you are trying to create?PrimalToker wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:47 pmI thought this is about contract disputes and arbiters. or I suppose you can hijack your own thread into an anti libertarian rant if you want loldoodle wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:39 pm The United States has been using it's military all over the globe to get what it wants essentially. They make and break treaties, push their weight around, bomb people that they might have disagreements with. Why would having private militaries change this aspect of human behavior? We abhor the idea of contractually limiting the power of our military to UN treaties. Why would anyone think that people would come together and do this in a libertarian society? The United States isn't reviled...people still want to come here to live, visit here, own dollars, etc etc
Re: Libertarians and property
I'm confused...so we're back to monopoly on force? How is this private security force then different from the government except that it's not subject to the will of the people?PrimalToker wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:43 pmIt would be cheaper to buy them out than go to war. A free market monopoly isn't a bad thing, it means they provide the best value that no competitor can beat. Certain places when efficiency is maximized there will be no more competition because its cheaper to have a monopoly even for consumers.doodle wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:33 pmSo what's to keep my better funded and equipped security force from just overrunning a less worthy competitor? In the case of a property dispute would that not just default back to law of the jungle?PrimalToker wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:31 pmAnyone can start lots of different businesses why would security be different? There would be competition just like any other business. Their monopoly of force would only be over their own property and their members by consent.doodle wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:09 pmI don't understand the private security thing...can anyone with the means have their own private security force? So are there competing private security companies or is there one company that has a monopoly to use force?Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 7:58 pm A while back, tech threw out the idea of title insurance backed by private security.
I found that intriguing.
It's better to have a private security force rather than one beholden to the public?
- Mark Leavy
- Executive Member
- Posts: 1950
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:20 pm
- Location: US Citizen, Permanent Traveler
Re: Libertarians and property
Why post hypotheticals?
Private arbitration and private security are both common and widespread and have a high trust value. Today.
Look at the record.
Private arbitration and private security are both common and widespread and have a high trust value. Today.
Look at the record.
- Mark Leavy
- Executive Member
- Posts: 1950
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:20 pm
- Location: US Citizen, Permanent Traveler
Re: Libertarians and property
Why post hypotheticals?
Private arbitration and private security are both common and widespread and have a high trust value. Today.
Look at the record.
Private arbitration and private security are both common and widespread and have a high trust value. Today.
Look at the record.