• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A question for the Libertarians

You argue that because the water seller did not create the hurricane, they cannot be a coercer. This is a clever but ultimately hollow distinction.

You are correct: the mugger creates a threat, while the water seller finds one. But you are making a profound moral error by assuming that only the creator of a threat can act coercively.

Coercion involves a deliberate threat. You can’t be guilty of coercion just for merely existing during a crisis. There’s a big difference between taking advantage of a situation and creating one through force and violence, but you can't seem to make the distinction.

The core of coercion is not the origin of the duress, but the leveraging of that duress to compel an action.
  • The mugger leverages a threat he created.
  • The predatory seller leverages a threat that nature created.

Leveraging scarcity isn’t coercion, it's how markets allocate goods. If you really believe that using scarcity to influence decisions is coercion, then every economic transaction under scarcity becomes coercive. That includes doctors charging for medicine, grocery stores charging for food, or anyone pricing anything during a shortage.

From the victim's standpoint, the result is identical: they are forced to surrender their property under a threat of grievous harm or death. The choice to hand over your wallet to an armed man is no more "voluntary" than the choice to hand over your life savings to the monopolist who controls the only water that can save your child. A choice is not free when the alternative is misery or suffering.

Again, a person who says “give me your wallet or I’ll shoot you” is threatening harm. A seller who says “this is the price I need to part with my water” is not threatening anything. The difference is not “convenient”, it’s fundamental to any coherent theory of ethics.

Your final escalation to comparing my logic to "murderous communist regimes" is a telling sign of a weak argument; when reason fails, resort to slurs.

No, because that’s exactly how murderous communist regimes justified their policies. They outlawed private trade and property rights under the banner of “ending coercion.” The result wasn’t justice, it was starvation. Plenty of leftists here in this forum push the same logic: they claim capitalists coerce workers simply by offering jobs, as if “work or starve” is the same as “your money or your life.”
 
You seemed to be implying that the privilege to drive on public roads was legitimate, so is it or isn't it?
I'm on the fence with public roads, actually. I think that private (toll) roads are better for roadways within a state, and I think that interstate roads are part of national infrastructure, and therefore the federal government should build, maintain and regulate those.

The government seizing monopoly power and control of roadways seems to be core to a subset of Libertarians who see privatization as the only legitimate way to build roads. I can even imagine a conversation with a Libertarian that would claim that anyone who believes that not a libertarian.
Again, libertarians have different views about public roads, and how they should be funded. You shouldn't use public roads as a metric for libertarian views. (IMO)
So would you said that the government holds the legitimate power to prevent citizens from driving on roads unless they acquire a license, insurance, inspection and registration? Is there any legitimate reason the government would able to deny a citizen the privilege to drive on public roads?
I don't really don't know about these things, I just know that toll roads are always better maintained than public roads, and toll roads always have less traffic. I use toll roads whenever I can.
So, imagine a situation where a person, though no fault of yours, finds themselves in a life threatening situation and you are the only person around to help.

1) Do you have a moral or ethical duty to help them if there is minimal or no risk to your safety?
2) If you demanded exorbitant payment in return for your help, again, let's imagine zero risk of harm to yourself and little if any incontinence or cost, is that coercion?
There is no coercion in this scenario. I already explained that coercion only happens when there is a promise to inflict harm on someone for not doing something or acting a certain way.
A robber who sticks a gun in your ribs and demands that you hand over your money uses coercion - he will harm you if you don't comply.
The government doesn't use a gun, but they use coercion to take your money, just like the robber does. The government promises to harm you if you don't comply with their demands.
While I think all Libertarian philosophy is morally, ethically and politically deeply flawed, I'm curious, can you point me to the authoritative source of what ideas a True™ Libertarian holds? Apologies in advanced if you've already posted this in the thread.
I have mentioned it numerous times, but here you go:

"Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own [Libertarian Party] grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent." https://lp.org/platform-page/

Every libertarian believes that no government should have the power to seize the fruits of our labor (Income Tax) by coercion. There are no exceptions. If a person believes that government should have the power to seize the fruits of our labor by coercion, then they CANNOT be a libertarian.
Do you deny that there are two recognized schools of thought within libertarianism? The Minarchist and the Anarchist?
I do not deny that.

Are one of those schools of thought not Libertarian?
No, because both schools of thought accept the core principle that government should never have the power to seize the fruits of our labor without our consent.
Is my example wrong?
Yes, it is wrong. Actually, it's absurd.
Because it's clearly in conflict with what I quoted as you stated, "that government should not have the power to force (coerce) citizens to do something against their will.".
I've explained it the best I can. Hopefully this makes sense:

"Government should never be able to do anything you can't do. If you can't steal from your neighbor, you can't send the government to steal for you." - Ron Paul
 
So would you said that the government holds the legitimate power to prevent citizens from driving on roads unless they acquire a license, insurance, inspection and registration? Is there any legitimate reason the government would able to deny a citizen the privilege to drive on public roads?

The idea that the government can grant or deny permission to travel - something as basic as driving - is absurd and authoritarian. Roads shouldn’t be public in the first place. They should be privately owned and maintained, like any other property.

If roads were private, access rules would be set by the owners, not by the coercive monopolist called the state. If a road owner wanted to require insurance or a safe vehicle, then fine - just like a store can require shirts and shoes. But the key difference? Choice and competition. You could take a competing road that doesn’t demand the same things. Under state control, there’s no choice - just an armed bureaucracy with a ticket quota.

And by the way, the first transcontinental highway in the US - the lincoln highway - was conceived, built, and funded with private money. So go ahead and clutch your pearls.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Highway
 
I pay Income Tax not because I agree to it - I pay because the government promised to hunt me down and punish me if I don't. That is the essence of coercion.
this is the biggest canard libertarians parrot. Of course you voluntarily pay taxes. You aren’t forced to live and work in the US. You are free to leave at any time, buy your own private island somewhere and live however you want with zero government. But you CHOOSE to remain in the US, under the protection of the US government, with all the privileges and rights, infrastructure etc, knowing that if you do work, you will have to pay taxes.
 
under the protection of the US government,

The supremes have held repeatedly that cops have no legal obligation to protect you unless you are in custody, so there goes that argument.

Next time read the social contract before responding.

knowing that if you do work, you will have to pay taxes.

Only until crypto use becomes widespread, then good luck collecting income taxes. Crypto doesn't just disrupt finance - it undermines the entire coercive funding model of the state.
 
The supremes have held repeatedly that cops have no legal obligation to protect you unless you are in custody, so there goes that argument.
If I had said law enforcement, you’d have a point. Since I didn’t, whoops.
Next time read the social contract before responding.
Next time respond to what I said, not shit you made up and attributed to me.
Only until crypto use becomes widespread, then good luck collecting income taxes.
It’s not going to be wide spread.
Crypto doesn't just disrupt finance - it undermines the entire coercive funding model of the state.
When you say silly and stupid things like this, you understand why nobody takes libertarians seriously.
 
Because you cannot make the distinction between Direct Taxes, and INdirect Taxes.

Direct Taxes are taken by force (coercion). Indirect taxes can be avoided.

Your amusement is based on ignorance.
Buddy, get over yourself. I absolutely understand the distinction you are drawing. This isn't some grand clever idea that takes a genius like yourself to understand. I get it. I just think your distinction doesn't matter.

Can a sales tax truly be avoided? What, just never buy anything? Is that the grand moral distinction? This dumb ass technicality? Is a capital gains tax avoidable, that's a tax on income. But I suppose you can just not buy stocks. How about an estate tax? Well, I suppose technically death is not avoidable, but you can choose to not leave your children a single penny and give it all to charity, so they pay no estate tax and therefore the estate tax is avoidable. A tax on tipped income, there's a conundrum. You can technically avoid taxes on tips by being a shitty waiter and not getting any tips...
 
Last edited:
Coercion involves a deliberate threat. You can’t be guilty of coercion just for merely existing during a crisis. There’s a big difference between taking advantage of a situation and creating one through force and violence, but you can't seem to make the distinction.
Let's say a pretty young girl (but legal) is driving though a seldom used county road in the dead of winter and he car breaks down, and worse, her cell phone is dead. After shivering for hours fearful that she'll freeze to death before anyone comes by, she sees lights in the rear view mirror! She's saved! She jumps out in front of the car waving her hands wildly, screaming HELP ME!, PLEASE HELP ME! A man in a nice car rolls down the window and is instantly aware of her desperation. Seeing his opportunity, he tells her he'll give her a ride for $500. She tells him she only has a few dollars, but promises to get the money if he'll just take her to safety. The man, realizing her situation and finding her attractive, tells her he doesn't trust she'll pay him, but in lieu of money, he'll accept a depraved sexual favor as payment.

Now, as long as he gives her the choice, to take the favor he's asked or risk freezing to death, you cannot say there is anything inconsistent with your beliefs, in fact, I've personally heard Libertarians, and others on the right, proclaim the virtue of this situation and similar situations. She had no money, but she could sell herself to save herself from harm. He's not obligated to act, to help her. No one can force him, so her dropping to her knees is feature of the kind of Libertarian philosophy you promote. You would point out that her experience is entirely of her making and that she should treat it as a learning experience. "Next time she'll make sure and tell people where she's going and be sure to charge her cell phone!".

But you can't say he did anything morally wrong , at least consistent with your own beliefs. I think it's evil.

Now, to be clear, I'm not stooping to a level saying that's what you'd do in the same situation, other than your immoral ideas about how society should operate, you might be seen as thoughtful and caring person by those who know you, it's just that you cannot say that the actions of the man in this hypothetical are inconsistent with your beliefs or that he did anything wrong.

Coercion comes in all forms, some is overt, as you say, but the situation I just described is coercion. It's leveraging a power dynamic

Extortion is a crime in civilized societies. You think its a way to allocate scarce resources.
Leveraging scarcity isn’t coercion, it's how markets allocate goods.
Maybe in a post-apocalyptic society. Not in a civilized one.

If you really believe that using scarcity to influence decisions is coercion
Tell me how the example I gave above isn't using scarcity (2 people 1 car) and circumstances to coerce that young woman into performing a revolting sexual act that she does not want to do, and when faced with the choice breaks down crying, begging him to help her without the favor. And for the sake if my example, let's say she's happily married, and is a person of devout faith who would see such an act in any other circumstance, as an unforgivable trespass on her faith and god. But let's say out of desperation she does it, but later, when her husband learns what she did, he leaves her and shortly after she kills herself. You'd almost certainly say that everything that happened, everything was her fault and he did nothing wrong.

And as hypothetical as my example is, nothing that I've described would be considered a one-in-a-million-chance. In fact, I think in the world your lust for, this would be quite common.
then every economic transaction under scarcity becomes coercive
Wrong. All coercion, direct or indirect happens where there is a power imbalance between 2 or more parties. The woman I just described needed shelter, and the man leveraged the power imbalance to get something from her that she'd NEVER give otherwise.

Again, a person who says “give me your wallet or I’ll shoot you” is threatening harm
The man threating not to give her a ride unless she capitulates to his sexual demands is threating her, maybe not by his hand, but he's threatening to let her suffer or die.

No, because that’s exactly how murderous communist regimes justified their policies.
Not a fan of Communism, but it's still a huge improvment over the post-apocalyptic nightmare your promoting.
 
this is the biggest canard libertarians parrot. Of course you voluntarily pay taxes.
I never said that "I voluntarily pay taxes". You made up that stupid straw-man.
You aren’t forced to live and work in the US. You are free to leave at any time,
Correct. But if anyone needs to leave, it's you.
buy your own private island somewhere and live however you want with zero government.
Another stupid Straw man argument.
But you CHOOSE to remain in the US, under the protection of the US government, with all the privileges and rights, infrastructure etc, knowing that if you do work, you will have to pay taxes.
You should go live in some socialist shit-hole country. Then you would quickly understand why the Founding Fathers wanted limited government, and liberty and freedom for the American people.

Your post is complete nonsense.

Buddy, get over yourself. I absolutely understand the distinction you are drawing. This isn't some grand clever idea that takes a genius like yourself to understand. I get it. I just think your distinction doesn't matter.
What a remakably dumb argument. But I'm glad that you made it. ;)
Can a sales tax truly be avoided?
Of course it can. You can buy used goods, where the sales tax has already been paid. OR you can buy direct from the distributor, such as at the Farmer's Market. There are no sales taxes at the Farmer's Market - - it's cash and carry.
What, just never buy anything? Is that the grand moral distinction? This dumb ass technicality?
Dumb ass?? Really??? Oh, the irony of that! :LOL:
Is a capital gains tax avoidable, that's a tax on income. But I suppose you can just not buy stocks. How about an estate tax? Well, I suppose technically death is not avoidable, but you can choose to not leave your children a single penny and give it all to charity, so they pay no estate tax and therefore the estate tax is avoidable. A tax on tipped income, there's a conundrum. You can technically avoid taxes on tips by being a shitty waiter and not getting any tips...
Your post is so dumb - based on false premises, and a profound ignorance of how a prosperous economy actually works.
 
Last edited:
I never said that "I voluntarily pay taxes". You made up that stupid straw-man.
You said it’s coercion. I refuted that.
Correct. But if anyone needs to leave, it's you.
Why?
Another stupid Straw man argument.
You don’t seem to know what this word means.
You should go live in some socialist shit-hole country.
Why?
Then you would quickly understand why the Founding Fathers wanted limited government, and liberty and freedom for the American people.
They didn’t want limited government. Many wanted a much stronger federal government. And most of them didn’t believe in liberty or freedom for everyone. Just white men.
Your post is complete nonsense.
Because it points out the hilarious detachment from reality of libertarianism?
 
You said it’s coercion. I refuted that.

Why?

You don’t seem to know what this word means.

Why?

They didn’t want limited government. Many wanted a much stronger federal government. And most of them didn’t believe in liberty or freedom for everyone. Just white men.

Because it points out the hilarious detachment from reality of libertarianism?
Your vast wealth of ignorance is truly remarkable. :LOL:
 
Your vast wealth of ignorance is truly remarkable. :LOL:
I’m sorry that you don’t like having the hilarious stupidity of libertarianism pointed out.

You pay taxes voluntarily. You are not coerced.
 
What a remakably dumb argument. But I'm glad that you made it. ;)
"I think your distinction doesn't matter" isn't an argument, it's a statement.
Of course it can. You can buy used goods, where the sales tax has already been paid. OR you can buy direct from the distributor, such as at the Farmer's Market. There are no sales taxes at the Farmer's Market - - it's cash and carry.
Maybe your state exempts those sales from sales tax. Did...did you think that was some universal characteristic of sales tax? Like it's impossible to write a sales tax law that applies to a Farmer's Market? After all, if this is your basis for an immutable moral position then surely it must be universal in your mind.

Ok, so you can buy food, and literally nothing else new. And that's sufficient to satisfy this grand moral outrage of yours?


Dumb ass?? Really??? Oh, the irony of that! :LOL:

Your post is so dumb - based on false premises, and a profound ignorance of how a prosperous economy actually works.
You're the one who decided that "avoidable" was the key characteristic, but you yourself have given examples indicating that these taxes are "avoidable" only in an extremely technical sense. And you're mad that I'm trying to find other technicalities?

Ok. Don't work for money. Just trade your labor for food and barter with scavenged goods and supplies. You've avoided income taxes. Congratulations, income taxes are now "indirect" and therefore acceptable!


Side note: Have you, by any chance, ever looked up the definition of a direct and indirect tax?
 
Let's say a pretty young girl (but legal) is driving though a seldom used county road in the dead of winter and he car breaks down, and worse, her cell phone is dead. After shivering for hours fearful that she'll freeze to death before anyone comes by, she sees lights in the rear view mirror! She's saved! She jumps out in front of the car waving her hands wildly, screaming HELP ME!, PLEASE HELP ME! A man in a nice car rolls down the window and is instantly aware of her desperation. Seeing his opportunity, he tells her he'll give her a ride for $500. She tells him she only has a few dollars, but promises to get the money if he'll just take her to safety. The man, realizing her situation and finding her attractive, tells her he doesn't trust she'll pay him, but in lieu of money, he'll accept a depraved sexual favor as payment.

Now, as long as he gives her the choice, to take the favor he's asked or risk freezing to death, you cannot say there is anything inconsistent with your beliefs, in fact, I've personally heard Libertarians, and others on the right, proclaim the virtue of this situation and similar situations. She had no money, but she could sell herself to save herself from harm. He's not obligated to act, to help her. No one can force him, so her dropping to her knees is feature of the kind of Libertarian philosophy you promote. You would point out that her experience is entirely of her making and that she should treat it as a learning experience. "Next time she'll make sure and tell people where she's going and be sure to charge her cell phone!".

But you can't say he did anything morally wrong , at least consistent with your own beliefs. I think it's evil.

Wrong. Just because someone isn’t legally obligated to do something doesn't mean they're morally right not to do it. Saying someone shouldn’t be forced to help doesn’t mean I think their refusal is morally good. I can say the man in your scenario is a scumbag without saying the state should put a gun to his head and force him to give her a ride. If I see someone drowning and I don’t help, I might not be legally required to jump in. But that doesn’t mean my inaction is morally correct.

Libertarianism isn’t "everything that’s legal is good." It’s "not everything that’s bad should be illegal."

And you're also still confusing coercion with scarcity. The man didn't cause her to be stranded, he’s just exploiting it. That’s not coercion - it’s exploitation. It’s cruel and vile, but it’s not a rights violation unless he created the situation or used force.

You want to give the state that power to punish immoral people as if they were criminals. That’s a far more dangerous stance than anything libertarians support.
 
You are, of course, correct in the general principle that not everything immoral should be illegal. That is a foundational concept of a free and tolerant society. We don’t want the state legislating against being a jerk, being uncharitable, or holding odious opinions.

But you are making a grave category error by placing the scenario I described in that same bucket. This isn't just about a "scumbag" being mean. The question isn't whether to draw a line between immoral and illegal, but where. You draw it in a way that legally protects predators at the expense of their vulnerable victims

Let’s dissect your defense.

1. You Misunderstand the Nature of the Threat
Your entire argument rests on the claim: "The man didn't cause her to be stranded, he’s just exploiting it."

While he did not create the snowstorm, he absolutely created the specific, depraved choice she faced. Her initial predicament was "find help or freeze." When he arrived, he single-handedly transformed her predicament into: "submit to a depraved sexual act or freeze."

He introduced a new, directed, and malicious element of human cruelty into a random act of nature. He chose to become the monstrous gatekeeper between her and survival. To absolve him of responsibility for the choice he authored is to abdicate the very concept of situational ethics. The moral and legal analysis cannot simply stop at "he didn't make he car break down, or make it cold".

2. Your Distinction Between Coercion and Exploitation Collapses into Extortion
You are correct that I conflated coercion and exploitation. I’m happy to accept your stricter definitions, because doing so makes your position even more indefensible. You admit he is exploiting her.

What you call "mere exploitation," civilized societies have long identified as the crime of extortion.

Extortion is the practice of obtaining something of value (money, property, or in this case, a sexual act) by threatening harm. You seem to believe the "harm" must be a direct act of violence from the extortionist. This is false. Threatening to withhold a rescue from imminent, certain harm is a distinction without a difference.

The man's proposition is structured as extortion, as he leverages the threat of her death to extract a service. Your defense of this amounts to legalizing any extortion where the deadly threat is conveniently found, not made.

3. A System That Protects an immoral Predator is Not a "Good" System
Here we arrive at the contradiction I pointed out. You admit the act is "vile," yet you defend the libertarian legal framework that would permit it. You believe the system is good even if the outcomes are monstrous.

What does your preferred system incentivize in this scenario? It tells the man that his predatory impulse is legally protected. It signals that leveraging desperation for depraved ends is a valid, if perhaps distasteful, market transaction. It tells the woman that in her moment of ultimate vulnerability, the law will view her predator as a rational actor and her plea for survival as one side of a negotiation.

A system that produces this outcome is not "good." It is a system with a catastrophic bug in its operating code. It is a framework that prioritizes a rigid, academic definition of "rights" over the tangible safety and dignity of its citizens. A society where the strong are legally protected in their exploitation of the weak is not a free society; it is a feudal society with better branding.

4. This Isn't About Punishing "Immoral People," It's About Prohibiting Destructive Acts
You frame my position as wanting a "dangerous" state that can "punish immoral people as if they were criminals." This is a straw man and, even if true, your critique does nothing to bolster the veracity of your own argument.

This isn't about the man's "immoral" thoughts. It's about his actions. I am not arguing for the existence of "thought police." I am arguing that a just society must have laws against extortion and predatory, life-threatening exploitation.

A state that is incapable of distinguishing between a rude comment (immoral but legal) and leveraging a life-or-death situation for sexual exploitation (a profound harm that must be illegal) is not a "limited" state. It is an incompetent and morally bankrupt state that has failed in its most basic function: to protect its citizens from predators.

You fear the slippery slope of state power. I contend that your philosophy embraces a different, and far more terrifying, slippery slope: the slide into a society where human dignity is a commodity and survival is a luxury item to be negotiated with the powerful. A system where the answer to the girl's plea for help can legally be, "First, you must submit to cruelty," is not a system worth defending.
 
LOL. Oh, ok, who knew.


The difference between monopolies in the 1870's and today, is the many of the people of that time still had a sense of civic duty, even the wealthiest men, that or the best way to display their vanity was to build schools and libraries and name them after themselves.

Today, men like Musk are unlawfully striping funding away from the world poorest, including 10's of thousands of children and doing it with no shame and a total sense of glee.

Now even if you think that children dying in a far off land isn't your problem and you think that the government's money could better be spent elsewhere, I'd hope that you'd have the decency not to pull the rug out from under those people and then take joy in it. If that's not pure evil, nothing is.

Now find me a modern monopoly that you think benefits the public.


Again, demonstrably false for healthcare.

There's no disputing that Europe, So. Korea and Japan have better public transport

And as far as education, the only place the US competes on this list is some colleges.


We may soon as corporations work to consolidate control of the food supply. Fortunately, competition and a very large country to grow things in makes it a little harder to dominate.

Though, as an example of what I say, we've recently learned that the nation's largest egg producer is earning record profits 3 times higher than recent years, why? Because of the perception of shortages allowed the industry to gouge people. Turns out that Bird Flu cost the industry about 4% of it's flock. At every turn we learn about greedy capitalists gouging people for higher and higher profits. Libertarian utopia would be a nightmare.
Umm even those guys were stripping away things from the poor to the point they lived in absolute destitution.
 
Back
Top Bottom