The Founding Fathers Were Libertarians

[Yossarian]

If your kid is bullying other kids and taking their lunch money, he is using force, and therefore you are liable for his actions. But in any case, I thought you wanted to discuss legal principles, rather than argue legal semantics about coercion vs extortion. I have no interest in doing the latter. :2wave:

I'm sorry, but it is up to you to provide some evidence of this nebulous concept of 'vicarious coercion' and place it in context.

 

[Black Dog]

I'm sorry, but it is up to you to provide some evidence of this nebulous concept of 'vicarious coercion' and place it in context.

Maybe it was osmosis? I mean it does make as much sense as the rest of the argument being made.

 

[Yossarian]

Maybe it was osmosis? I mean it does make as much sense as the rest of the argument being made.

Well that's about the only thing I could think of that would underpin de facto liability for the coercive acts of another.

At least according to Australian and English common law, what the guy is saying is a complete joke.

 

[Kandahar]

I notice the parents of the kids (the school shooters in Colorado) were not held responsible for the deaths of all the other kids? I guess they just did not coerce them enough?

Come on man, you are making no sense.

CNN - Columbine lawsuit may go beyond shooters' parents - May 27, 1999

You said...

Not really. It's difficult to believe in freedom from government coercion if you own another human being (with the government's blessing). Jefferson was pretty hypocritical in that regard.

Owning a slave has nothing at all to do with the government coercing anyone to do anything.

If the government lets the strongman do whatever the hell he wants, then it ceases to be a government and the strongman BECOMES the government.

I can see why you are bowing out and I agree at this point it is a good idea.

Ya. I don't know why I let you waste an hour of my time when you just wanted to argue legal semantics over the difference between "coercion" and "extortion," which I couldn't care less about. You've made an excellent contribution to the thread, and have a huge e-penis. :roll:

 

[Kandahar]

Well that's about the only thing I could think of that would underpin de facto liability for the coercive acts of another.

So you don't believe you can be held liable for the actions of your kid?

 

[Fiddytree]

This is a form of historical masturbation perpetrated by libertarians.

 

[Yossarian]

So you don't believe you can be held liable for the actions of your kid?

Well there's no common law authority to say that you are. But over and above that, the analogy illustrates a general principle, that being that there is no concept of de facto vicarious liability for coercion of another.

Let me put it in slightly more legal terms. Coercion in itself is not a legal wrong. In some circumstances, it is a legal wrong, such as when threatening assault, but that is not because it is coercion. The coercive act must itself be wrongful under some other measure. This begs the question of liability. At least in Australian and English law, which shares some similarities with the US system, vicarious liabilty of third parties for wrongful acts of others is derived from a particular relationship between the wrongful party and the third party; they could be in an employee/employer relationship, for instance. Another example is that of prison officers and prisoners. But the gist is the legal relationship, not the acts or motives of the parties involved.

Now it would make sense to contextualise this. The Hugo Chavez example that you used earlier is invalid because newspaper reporters have no direct relationship to Chavez's regime. Therefore, no duty has been created. Moving away from the law (but using similar logic), a government should not, and does not, take responsibility for the acts of the people it governs, because there is no direct relationship between the acts of the masses and the government itself. Governments simply provide people with a legal (and perhaps moral) framework in which to act. Libertarians identify with this, but believe that this framework should be kept to a minimum in order to maximise the possibilities of individual choice.

And that is why governments do not coerce people by giving them options.

 

[Black Dog]

CNN - Columbine lawsuit may go beyond shooters' parents - May 27, 1999

This is still not coercion, this is being responsible, it is completely different. The parents did not coerce the children at all.

If the government lets the strongman do whatever the hell he wants, then it ceases to be a government and the strongman BECOMES the government.

I agree, to bad this has absolutely nothing to do with the government coercing anyone to do anything.

[Ya. I don't know why I let you waste an hour of my time when you just wanted to argue legal semantics over the difference between "coercion" and "extortion," which I couldn't care less about. You've made an excellent contribution to the thread, and have a huge e-penis. :roll:

It has nothing to do with coercion or extortion. The government did not coerce anyone into owning slaves nor did the extort them into it.

Thanks for your useless denial and waste of my time as well.

Any victory is better than any defeat. :mrgreen:

 

[Redress]

Just to make the point: you guys are getting hung up on the word "coercion" and losing sight of the points every one is trying to make.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Some of them were libertines and belonged to the hellfire club. The Hell-Fire Club, Masonic Deism, Dashwood, Franklin, and the Black Mass

Most of them were deists who evolved from the Renaissance.

 

[samsmart]

Some of them were libertines and belonged to the hellfire club. The Hell-Fire Club, Masonic Deism, Dashwood, Franklin, and the Black Mass

Most of them were deists who evolved from the Renaissance.

That's true, but the former is a social philosophy and the latter is a religious philosophy. We're talking political philosophy.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

That's true, but the former is a social philosophy and the latter is a religious philosophy. We're talking political philosophy.

Religion and social philosophy are very much intertwined with politics, today, and has always been that way.

 

[Goobieman]

A bunch of exclusively white males who owned slaves?
Sounds about right.

Really?
Two questiuons:

Of all the people that signed the Declaration of Independece and were part of the Constitutional Convention, exactly that proportion owned slaves?

What proportion of current libertarians are white slave-owning males?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

... States rights is something both the Founding slave owners and Libertarians all seem to be fond of.

so what? ,,,,,,,

 

[Goobieman]

so what? ,,,,,,,

There's no real point attached to that post -- just another example of her usual drive-by sophistry.

 

[Agent Ferris]

Ron Paul Believes that our Founding Fathers Were Libertarians. Awesome!!!:mrgreen:

Watch Video-> YouTube- Ron Paul: The Founding Fathers Were Libertarians

Ya statist libertarians who set up a timocratic system of governance that allowed slavery. :roll:

 

[Agent Ferris]

... States rights is something both the Founding slave owners and Libertarians all seem to be fond of.

Um Libertarians are opposed to the state, period, we support the sovereignty of the individual. A collective tyranny at the state or local level is a tyranny just like that of the federal level only on a smaller scale.

 

[Agent Ferris]

Jefferson would be considered a libertarian today.

How do you figure that? Jefferson was a slave owner.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

How do you figure that? Jefferson was a slave owner.

He wouldn't be today. :shrug:

 

[Goobieman]

Um Libertarians are opposed to the state, period.

This is false.
Wanting a minimum of government does not equate to the total opposition of the existence of government.

 

[Agent Ferris]

This is false.
Wanting a minimum of government does not equate to the total opposition of the existence of government.

A social contract is antithetical to the non-aggression principle and the right of self ownership so we are necessarily opposed to the state, period.

 

[Black Dog]

Ya statist libertarians who set up a timocratic system of governance that allowed slavery. :roll:

In all fairness the institution of slavery already existed and was accepted in most of the world at the time.

Judging people of a different time and mind set as compared to ours is nothing but mental masturbation, as it does not apply.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Um Libertarians are opposed to the state, period, we support the sovereignty of the individual. A collective tyranny at the state or local level is a tyranny just like that of the federal level only on a smaller scale.

We are?



I thought we were for individual liberty and limited government. You want the anarchists. There two doors down. :ssst:

 

[Agent Ferris]

In all fairness the institution of slavery already existed and was accepted in most of the world at the time.

Judging people of a different time and mind set as compared to ours is nothing but mental masturbation, as it does not apply.

The right of self ownership IE individual sovereignty is the central tenet of the Libertarian party and thus anyone who owned a slave or supported slavery could not possibly be a libertarian. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.

 

[Goobieman]

A social contract is antithetical to the non-aggression principle and the right of self ownership...

Not necessarily so, and even if so, this isn't the Libertarian position.

so we are necessarily opposed to the state, period.

If so, then "we" are anarchists, not libertarians.