Philosophy Monthly from Scars Publications

Crime and punishment

1/10/97 4:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time

I know that in most cases it seems that the Libertarian stance on puishment
is restitution. I do not know however the official stance on capital
punishment. Since we have for the most part given up our own self defense and
have left it to the authorities, is capital punishment the equivalent of
killing in self defense???
Thanks,
Bez

Subject: Re:Crime and punishment
Date: 1/11/97 2:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id:

>Since we have for the most part given up our own self defense and have left
it to the authorities...<

Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

Subject: Re:Crime and punishment
Date: 1/15/97 9:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: DCarlsten
Message-id:

>Since we have for the most part given up our own self defense and have left
it to the authorities...<

>Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

From my cold dead fingers

Subject: Re:Crime and punishment
Date: 1/15/97 12:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Brinkman1
Message-id:

>Since we have for the most part given up our own self defense and have left
it to the authorities...<

I know most libertarians are opposed to the death penalty, because it give
the state the power of life over death. On the other hand, it is impossible
for a victim of murder to ever gain restitution.

From a personal standpoint, I am in favor of the death penalty for
premeditated murder, but not rape, manslaughter, etc. I do also favor
multiple appeals for those who would be sentenced to the death penalty.

Why am I in favor of it? Here's why: I don't feel like I should have to pay
to keep cold-blooded killers alive. I know it isn't exactly consistent, but
like most people, I have some "because I said so" tendencies.

Subject: Re:Crime and punishment
Date: 1/16/97 1:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id:

>>>Since we have for the most part given up our own self defense and have
left it to the authorities...<<

>>Do you have a mouse in your pocket?<

>From my cold dead fingers<

You have a mouse in your cold dead fingers?

Ah, let me clarify: If anyone breaks into my house he should expect to have
some new orifices punched in his body, right before said body is gnawed on by
my numerous animals. This would, of course, occur ONLY because I would,
under such circumstances, be experiencing an overwhelming fear for my life
and the safety of my family [as required by the law of my state prior to
creating new orifices in the body of an intruder]. In fact, every night I
recite "I was in fear for my life and safety and that of my
family" twenty times before retiring, just so I won't become overwhelmed by
the stress of the moment.

As someone who talks to his animals, I can further testify that under such a
circumstance each and everyone of them would also be in overwelming fear for
his or her life and safety, even while chewing on various body parts of the
intruder. In fact, such chewing may be viewed as a manifestation of the
anxiety they are experiencing.

Subject: Re:Crime and punishment
Date: 1/16/97 4:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: ACSpace
Message-id:

Hmm -- mice and dead fingers. It must be the winter of our discontent.

Personally, I like the idea of saving taxpayers' money. Besides, that is one
thing that the government does VERY well -- make living things dead.

Subject: Re:Crime and punishment
Date: 1/18/97 3:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Randomthot
Message-id:

Put me down against the death penalty for the following reasons:

1. Our judicial system isn't perfect. Innocent people can and HAVE been
executed for crimes they did not commit.
2. Given (1), it becomes necessary, if we are to have the death penalty,
to also grant the right of multiple appeals. I mean, we're talking about
someone's LIFE here. Confiscated property can be returned, prisoners can be
released, but only God can bring someone back to life. It can be shown that
multiple appeals are actually more expensive in the long run than the average
life imprisonment.
3. Death is the easy way out. Personally, I believe that 40 or 50 years
of a pointless, hopeless, and meaningless existence is a far better
punishment than a quick, painless, mercy killing. We just have to make it
clear, as a society, that life in prison means LIFE IN PRISON. No parole.
Not ever.

- Randomthot

Subject: Re:Crime and punishment
Date: 1/18/97 6:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: ACSpace
Message-id:

Randomthot -- your points are well-taken, but what about the rights of the
innocent third party?

It currently costs about $30,000 a year to hold a prisoner. That means it
would cost around $600,000 to keep one person in prison over 20 years
($1,500,000 for 50 years). According to "The World Almanac -- 1997" there
were 21,600 murders committed in the United States in 1995. If all of the
perpetrators were arrested and convicted, the cost to hold them in prison
over 20 years would be $12.96 billion or $32.4 billion if the average length
of their sentence is 50 years. What right do you have to make
the taxpayers assume that bill? And how many them or their loved ones will
die because they couldn't afford to pay for needed medical care? That's why
libertarians believe taxation is theft. Of course, the criminal system will
make mistakes. What thing created by humans is perfect?

And what about the relatives of the victim? Do they have no right to help
determine what punishment is just?

But I agree with you about one thing. If I was ever in that situation, I
would prefer to be executed than to be the "sweetheart" of some primordial
creature.

Subject: Re:Crime and punishment
Date: 1/18/97 9:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id:

Well guys, how about a little creative thinking, instead of assuming that the
present penal system is the only one possible. How about the following
alternatives:

(1) You commit a nonviolent felony, you get a particular emblem inscribed on
your forehead and the next X years of life are sold to the highest bidder -
with the proceeds to go to your victim[s], not the state. You retain limited
"rights" but among these rights is not the right to dispose of your labor as
you wish [once called indentured servature].

(2) You commit a violent felony, another emblem is inscribed on your
forehead. Those with this emblem are not entitled to protection by the courts
or police. They can try and stay in the society if they want [maybe if the
offense isn't too serious they are given one chance at transport to the
nearest border], but, if so, they shouldn't be surprised if "their" property
is periodically taken from them by whoever wants it or misc. thugs decide
that it would be a good time to stomp and maim them. If some
other society wants them, so much the better. [This also solves the problem
of vengence when the crime is particularly henious - guess who will be
standing outside the tatoo station with a club and several of his friends,
good old Uncle Jack, the relative of the victim.]

Subject: Re:Crime and punishment
Date: 1/19/97 12:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Randomthot
Message-id:

< It currently costs about $30,000 a year to hold a prisoner. That means it
would cost around $600,000 to keep one person in prison over 20 years
($1,500,000 for 50 years). >
My impression (and please don't ask for specific numbers because I can't
quote them) is that the $30,000 figure is somewhat of a misnomer. Given that
a prison already exists, the actual incremental cost of housing another
inmate for a year is quite a bit less than that number. The $30K figure is
arrived at by dividing the total cost of prisons, including construction etc.
by the number of prisoners housed. It's like calculating the cost of
production of widgets. If you total all the costs of
producing all the widgets made by a factory, including the cost of the
factory itself, by the total number of widgets produced you come up with one
number. If you calculate the actual cost of producing one more widget from
an existing production line you come up with a much smaller number.
Another point: Given our present system of appeals, etc for death-row
inmates, a mil or more to fry someone is not out of line. The process takes
10 or more years and you're paying lawyers on both sides the whole time.
Virtually all these defendants are indigents and therefore receiving legal
counsel at public expense.

- R

Subject: Re:Crime and punishment
Date: 1/19/97 4:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: CheffJeff
Message-id:

I like Lawecon's ostracism concepts. Nothing is more powerful than knowing
that others know who you really are.
And with today's computer networks it would be easy to give different levels
of destruction/production to individuals. This way, anyone (prospective
employers, stores, potential lovers, etc.) could identify those who have
previously harmed others and choose to deal or not to deal with them. "I'm
sorry Mr. Giuliani, you have a destruction rating of minus 300,000.00--go buy
your girlie magazines elsewhere." ...or... "Yes, Mrs. Helmsley, you have a
production rating of plus 5,000,000.00, we'd be happy to
loan you a million dollars for your new hotel."
Jeff

Subject: Re:Crime and punishment
Date: 1/19/97 7:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Presbyte
Message-id:

>>>"I'm sorry Mr. Giuliani, you have a destruction rating of minus
300,000.00--go buy your girlie magazines elsewhere." ...or... "Yes, Mrs.
Helmsley, you have a production rating of plus 5,000,000.00, we'd be happy to
loan you a million dollars for your new hotel."<< -Jeff

Isn't that what the dollar is (theoretically) all about? A positive net
worth means that you have produced a commensurate amount of value, while a
negative net worth means that you have destroyed that much value.

I know that dollar measures are far from perfect, and that the "value" of a
dollar means so many things in many different contexts (and sometimes doesn't
mean anything!).

I guess I am just trying to say that, if we haven't arrived at an accurate
measure with dollars already, I doubt that any system of
production/destruction credits would prove any more useful.

What a problem it is, to determine someone's "worth..." :-)

-J

Subject: Re:Crime and punishment
Date: 1/20/97 7:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: ACSpace
Message-id:

Craig (LAWECON) -- I like it. The second part is kind of like the old Viking
custom. Once the King made you persona nongrata, anyone crossing your path
could feel free to rid society of your worthless hide. (There is an
additional advantage of this form of justice; it creates great explorers. It
was part of the reason that Leif Ericson came to North America. His father,
Eric the Red, was a Viking outcast.)

Subject: Re:Crime and punishment
Date: 1/20/97 7:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: ACSpace
Message-id:

Randomthot -- thanks for your post. I'm not sure how the $30,000 figure has
been derived. But prisons aren't free goods (whatever that might be). And
incarceration has been a real growth industry during the last ten years or
so. In fact, several states are under court orders to build more prisons in
order to relieve overcrowding.

As to your second point, it would seem to be an argument to reduce the time
spent with the appeals process.

Subject: Re:Crime and punishment
Date: 1/21/97 1:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Randomthot
Message-id:

< isn't that what the dollar is (theoretically) all about? A positive net
worth means that you have produced a commensurate amount of value, while a
negative net worth means that you have destroyed that much value. >

You seem to have a particularly limited and materialistic concept of
"value". According to your definition the Mafia is one of our most
upstanding and productive organizations.
Why don't you look up the word in the dictionary? There are at least two
meanings for it, as in "net present value" (an economic term) and "these
values we all hold dear" (a more general term having ethical, moral, and
spiritual aspects). Unless money is the only thing you value....

- R

Subject: Re:Crime and punishment
Date: 1/21/97 1:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Randomthot
Message-id:

< Randomthot -- thanks for your post. I'm not sure how the $30,000 figure
has been derived. But prisons aren't free goods (whatever that might be).
And incarceration has been a real growth industry during the last ten years
or so. In fact, several states are under court orders to build more prisons
in order to relieve overcrowding.

As to your second point, it would seem to be an argument to reduce the time
spent with the appeals process. >

And thanks for your post. (We're starting to sound like Chip and Dale,
here) Of course prisons aren't free goods. The problem is our prisons are
terribly over-utilized as gulags for otherwise innocent people like
dope-smokers. The issue of capital punishment is totally separate in my mind
at least. If we limited the prison population to those who truly deserve to
be there I don't believe we would have much of a problem with over-crowding
or funding.

I do like the banishment ideas though. Maybe a nice cold island off the
coast of Alaska for those sentenced to life in prison would be good. If they
want to swim for it let 'em fight the polar bears.

As for your second point... I'm just really uncomfortable with
irreversable punishments. I mean, we're talking about the GOVERNMENT and
LIFE & DEATH and you want to speed up the process? Make it more efficient
!!?? Sorta sends shivers up my spine.

- R

Subject: Re:Crime and punishment
Date: 1/21/97 2:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: ST8SALE
Message-id:

>I'm just really uncomfortable with irreversable punishments. I mean, we're
talking about the GOVERNMENT and LIFE & DEATH and you want to speed up the
process? Make it more efficient !!?? Sorta sends shivers up my spine.<

Government loves the right to execute it's people, it's the ultimate power
trip a State can possess over it's citizens, the power of life & death. Death
is too final to be left in the hands of the State. (I guess, Mr. Jewell had
the same shivers.) Frightening!!
Ron

Subject: Re:Crime and punishment
Date: 1/21/97 10:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id:

From: Presbyte
< isn't that what the dollar is (theoretically) all about? A positive net
worth means that you have produced a commensurate amount of value, while a
negative net worth means that you have destroyed that much value. >

From: Randomthot
"value". According to your definition the Mafia is one of our most
upstanding and productive organizations.
Why don't you look up the word in the dictionary? There are at least two
meanings for it, as in "net present value" (an economic term) and "these
values we all hold dear" (a more general term having ethical, moral, and
spiritual aspects). Unless money is the only thing you value...>

From Lawecon:

While I would have added some restriction about "value" as determined by a
COMPETITIVE MARKET to the quotation from Presbyte you were responding to
[which, at least in part, takes care of the value of the Mafia], I really
don't believe that this quotation is as far off-base as you seem to believe.
I believe that the topic being discussed had to do with how we MEASURE how
OTHER PEOPLE value what you have and can supply them with (e.g., your worth
as a supplier or consumer for them). The topic was not how
you value your alternatives or what your intrinsic worth is in the eyes of
God.

You may very well value sitting around picking your nose more than building a
new house. Others may disagree and not care to compensate you for what you
value. You may be Saint Paul in your heart of hearts, but, despite what
people will tell you if you ask, most other people aren't going to pay you
very much [if anything] for being holy, since they don't really value your
state of righteousness unless there is something in it for them. [Is it
"ashame" that that is the case? I'm not at all certain that
it is.]

Hence, I think that the quotation your were responding to is about right,
and you're wrong. [Oh, my God, I'm defending Presbyte. Better go take a pill
and lie down for awhile.]

Subject: Re:Crime and punishment
Date: 1/21/97 12:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Presbyte
Message-id:

>>>You seem to have a particularly limited and materialistic concept of
"value". According to your definition the Mafia is one of our most
upstanding and productive organizations. -randomthot

And you have a particularly limited imagination and commensurately limited
ability to give someone the benefit of the doubt.

Note that I said "theoretically" in my post. I am well aware of the pitfalls
and limitations of trying to assign a monetary value to human lives, the
people who live them, and their products. But if you dig only just under the
surface of what I wrote before, you find the implied question: wouldn't any
other alternative measuring system have the same problems as using money? I
was responding to an earlier post, in which such an alternative system was
proposed.

As far as organized crime and its wealth are concerned: Either the mob robs
others (thus demonstrating the practical pitfalls of untraceable physical
tokens), or they "create a need and fill it," as in protection rackets,
traffic in addictive substances, etc. The only difference between doing
something like that and marketing pet rocks, hula-hoops, or designer
fashions, is that we presume that nobody gets hurt in the latter,
"legitimate" activities. But anytime you knowingly sell something to someone
which will not really improve their life, or which won't improve their life
in a fashion that is anywhere near commensurate with the value you claim,
then you are debasing the currency and destroying value. The mob does a lot
of that, but so did the designers of automobile tailfins.

-J

Subject: Re:Crime and punishment
Date: 1/29/97 11:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Jgood61300
Message-id:

what is the cost of litigation before executing someone..isn't that as great
as keeping them alive for 50 years?

Subject: Chemical Castration
Date: 1/15/97 12:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Brinkman1
Message-id:

How do you guys feel about chemical castration for rapists? I'm opposed to
it, but want to see what other feel on the issue.

Subject: Re:Chemical Castration
Date: 1/15/97 1:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Suldog
Message-id:

Put me down as against. The problem is that rape, while viewed by most(?) as
a sex crime, is actually a crime of violence. As a crime of violence, it
isn't remedied by removal of sexual organs, or sexual desire.

'dog

Subject: Re:Chemical Castration
Date: 1/16/97 4:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: ACSpace
Message-id:

Nah -- I'm in favor of physical castration. Hey, if it's good enough for
Thomas Jefferson, it's good enough for me.

Subject: Competing courts solution
Date: 1/18/97 5:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Miseschick
Message-id:

I think that discussing things like chemical castration and the death penalty
are somewhat futile, since even under libertarian principles, the issues are
not clear. Why not let competing systems of law and courts decide these
subjective matters?

Subject: Re:Competing courts solution
Date: 1/18/97 10:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: DCarlsten
Message-id:

After what "Judicial law" has done to our rights, you'd trust them to this?

Subject: Re:Competing courts solution
Date: 1/18/97 5:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Miseschick
Message-id:

this?>>

I certainly trust a private corportation of my choosing more than the
governement.

Subject: Banishment
Date: 1/19/97 6:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Robin6491
Message-id:

I haven't heard much about the idea of banishment to some other
country discussed recently........What about after all the appeals
for capital crimes.......we just send the suckers to the gulag?
Pay the state who takes them some compensation and wipe our hands
of the matter or drop them on some deserted Island in the Pacific
Bikini would be a good place........

Subject: Re:LAWECON
Date: 1/18/97 6:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: TMA68
Message-id:

< Well guys, how about a little creative thinking, instead of assuming that
the present
penal system is the only one possible. How about the following alternatives:

(1) You commit a nonviolent felony, you get a particular emblem inscribed on
your
forehead and the next X years of life are sold to the highest bidder... >>

What exactly do you mean by "nonviolent felony"? These days, "nonviolent"
felonies often involve "possession" of a politically incorrect plant. In
light of
that, I think we should first eliminate all laws against non-violent,
non-fraudu-
lent, and non-theft-related activities before even considering your proposed
punishment for "nonviolent" felonies.

Subject: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 2/26/97 8:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: MoreRice
Message-id: <19970227000000.TAA23444@ladder02.news.aol.com>

I have a difficult question: As Libertarians, do you support the idea that
the State/government must force dead-beat dads to pay child support? Please
elaborate how this fits in with the Libertarian premise of a moral
governement is based on protecting individual rights from force.

Thanks,
MoreRice

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 2/27/97 3:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <19970227071600.CAA27277@ladder02.news.aol.com>

I don't know if you meant to address your inquiry to Libertarians or
libertarians, but as a libertarian but not a Libertarian I'll try to answer
anyway.

There is nothing per se in libertarianism that answers most of the difficult
questions that revolve around reproduction. There is a lot of difference
between libertarians on issues such as childerns' rights, whether or not sex
implies a contract between the two individuals to bear the responsibility for
any resulting childern, etc. Although I have my views about these matters, it
would be disingenuous for me to suggest that those views are "the
correct libertarian position".

My view on your question is as follows: if we strart from the premise of
selfownership then there are a number of changes from the current set up,
some favorable to women, some favorable to men. A woman consents to the
consequences of sex by consenting to sex. One such possible consequence FOR A
WOMAN BUT NOT FOR A MAN is pregnancy, and one consequence of not ending the
pregnancy is a child. These are consequences, not duties, since there is no
contract between the mother and the child, and duties only arise from consent
[contract].

The father has only those rights and duties that he contracted for with the
mother. Hence, he neither has a "natural right to the child" nor does he have
a duty to support the child, unless that was part of the deal. It is part of
the deal in most marriage contracts.

Hence, if the "deadbeat dads" in question are biological fathers who were
formerly married to the mother [at the time of the birth] the mother has the
perfect right to use the courts to enforce the obligatation contracted for by
the father, just as she would have the right to use the courts to enforce
specific performance or damages for breach of any other contractual
expectation. Does that mean that there should be special rights in this case?
No. Does it mean that there should be just as great of rights as there are
for other contract actions and debt collection actions? Yes.

If, however, the "deadbeat dad" was merely a "one night stand" who had no
contract with the mother, then there is no contract to enforce by the courts
and no claim of the mother or child against the resources of the father.

I would suggest that there are very good reasons for this view apart from the
"selfownership axiom" that is endorsed by many libertarians. If you don't
believe that, think about how the present system [where the state "implies" a
variety of contracts and has special courts to adjudicate and enforce those
contracts and which encourages one night stands with little particular
concern for the consequences] doesn't work at all, but the traditional
common law role of courts in enforcing or awarding damages for breach of
contract [and collection remedies such as garnishments, attachments, etc.]
works very well and has worked very well for several hundred years.

Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 2/28/97 3:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: MoreRice
Message-id: <19970228073601.CAA04500@ladder02.news.aol.com>

Craig,

Thankyou for your response to my question about "dead-beat dads". I have been
questioning this for some time as one of my good friends found out his
girlfriend of three-months was pregnant with his child. He decided to
completely break off the relationship, even refusing to speak with her. She
decided to go to the courts to force him to pay what she feels is his fair
share of child support.

I find myself torn between the libertarian arguement of self ownership (that
you so eloquently explained for me) and the argument that having sex which
produces a child is a contract in and of itself. I was hoping that by posting
this question I would see different arguments I had not considered. Your
response certainly helped me to gain a better understanding of this issue.

Thanks again,
MoreRice

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 2/28/97 8:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: PMill32182
Message-id: <19970301000201.TAA02476@ladder02.news.aol.com>

MoreRice;
LAWECON has developed one libertarian point of view very well. Let me
suggest another. This is based upon the arguments of proto-libertarian John
Locke, and goes like this.
We are all of us equal in rights and liberties. A problem develops with
chidlren, however, because, says Locke, they "...are not born -in- this state
of equality, though they are born -to- it. Their parents have a sort of rule
and jurisdiction over them, when they come into the world, and for some time
after, but it is but a temporary one." (2nd treatise, #55) So what is the
parental obligation, which clearly comes about because both
parents are responsible for the child being here? And it is an equal
responsibility, because neither parent could conceive without the other? It
is, he says, that they are by the law of nature, "...under an obligation to
preserve, nourish and educate the children, they had begotten..." (#56) Why?
If you help bring a child into the world, the child cannot understand the law
of nature, so you're responsible to get them to the point where they
can reason and understand the law of their being. Further-- beyond Locke--
the notion that Lawecon advances, that it is (perhaps if at all anyone's
responsibility) strictly a female responsibity, ignores the biological facts
of the matter. Both parties participated equally in the sex that created the
child, so both are equally responsible for the child's upbringing. Lawecon's
answer, I believe, sounds rather like the southern slaveholder's
defense of miscegenation, or having babies by his female slaves and then
saying, "who, me?" "I'm not responsible, fatherhood carries no
responsibility whatever!"
I will not guarantee to you that this is right: but it is an alternative
view (very briefly presented) that you might wish to consider also.
Jerry

Subject: Re:Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 3/1/97 2:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <19970301064400.BAA01573@ladder02.news.aol.com>

(perhaps if at all anyone's responsibility) strictly a female responsibity,
ignores the biological facts of the matter. Both parties participated
equally in the sex that created the child, so both are equally responsible
for the child's upbringing. Lawecon's answer, I believe, sounds rather like
the southern slaveholder's
defense of miscegenation, or having babies by his female slaves and then
saying, "who, me?" "I'm not responsible, fatherhood carries no
responsibility whatever!"
I will not guarantee to you that this is right: but it is an alternative
view (very briefly presented) that you might wish to consider also.
J>

As I said initially, and as J acknowledges, there is no one "right"
libertarian answer to these issses. However, I believe that that above
argument simply ignores a fundamental principle that is otherwise applied by
libertarians in other cases: namely, one does not ignore actually exiting
conditions in the world in determining what "moral duties" are prudent to
recognize as law and what "moral duties" are merely appeals to ones fellows
to act
one way rather than another.. Females can get pregnant. Males cannot. It is
all well and good to argue that "morality demands" that the male carry the
same responsibility for the outcome of the pregnancy as the male, but there
is, in fact, no practical way to enforce that moral judgment apart from a
rather comprehensive system of state regulation of the lives of people. What
if the female does not want "the support" of the male? Is she,
nonetheless forced to receive it "for the good of the child"? What if the
female wants to end the pregnancy? What if the female simply wants to follow
less than optimal health habits during the pregnancy? Once "society" starts
imposing various "moral duties" on parties that have no relationship to the
explicit agreements of the parties for the benefit of third parties there is
a slippery slope that ends up in the swamp of all around collectivist
control.

Of course my view has nothing at all to do with the relationship between
slaves and slaveholders. Women "have the right" not to consent to sex with
those men with whom they do not have marital contracts . They are not slaves.
They should be held to the same standard as all other adult humans in a
libertarian society: you picks your game, you gets the consequences [good and
bad]. Men, on the other hand, should not be held to some sort of "implied
contract" that does not in fact exist, whether Locke thinks so or not. It is
exactly this "implied contract" doctrine in Locke that leads to the abuses of
every regime that claims to be "legitimate" on the basis of "implied consent"
because its people have not yet been successful in overthrowing its tyranny.

Lawecon [Craig Bolton]
Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 3/2/97 12:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: MikeHRoth
Message-id: <19970302165601.LAA25853@ladder02.news.aol.com>

>> It is exactly this "implied contract" doctrine in Locke that leads to the
abuses of every regime that claims to be "legitimate" on the basis of
"implied consent" because its people have not yet been successful in
overthrowing its tyranny.< LAWECON

I thought you were talking about holding a man responsible for the
consequences of his actions(having sex=>pregnancy). I don't know how that
figures into "the abuses of every regime." You should stick to the topic and
not add the ultimate "extremes" in for SHOCK value.

By the way, a man is also not a slave. He can either not have sex, get
a vasectomy, etc.....

Sincerely,
Mike :)

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 3/3/97 10:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <19970304022100.VAA23154@ladder02.news.aol.com>

> I thought you were talking about holding a man responsible for the
consequences of his >actions(having sex=>pregnancy). I don't know how that
figures into "the abuses of every >regime." You should stick to the topic
and not add the ultimate "extremes" in for SHOCK >value.

I was talking about the "dead beat dads" doctrine, Mike. And I'm afraid
that I think that what I said is very relevant to the response I was replying
to. That response claimed that the act of having sex implied a contract
between the man and woman for the benefit of [apparently] the potential child
and the woman. This view was attributed to John Locke, and I have no reason
to doubt the attribution. I was attempting to point out that Locke
[and others] have applied this doctrine of "implied contracts" more widely,
e.g., to the "social contract". I was also suggesting that most libertarians
don't particularly agree with Locke when he argues that people have "implied"
consent to a particular regime just because they chose to keep living in a
particular geographic area. Hence, it would appear that there is something
wrong with the doctrine of "implied contracts" from a libertarian
point of view, since one of its primary applications results in undesirable
conclusions. [There are, in addition, a number of other things wrong with
this doctrine, as an examination of contract and liability law would show -
but I choose not to bore the reader to death with additional details, since
one example seemed sufficient.]

Sorry you didn't see the point and felt that I had to be engaged in shocking
people.
Maybe next time when you don't see a point you'll just inquire about the
point rather than being accusatory.
Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 3/4/97 7:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: MikeHRoth
Message-id: <19970304233000.SAA01504@ladder01.news.aol.com>

>>Sorry you didn't see the point and felt that I had to be engaged in
shocking people.
Maybe next time when you don't see a point you'll just inquire about the
point rather than being accusatory.< LAWECON

Actually I did see your point but unlike you I didn't find it "valid."
Many people, like yourself, who are talented in the arts of argumentation and
the written word, can put forth an argument that logically flows and seems to
make sense, however, when looked at from a simpler point of view(men who have
sex with women are responsible for any pregnancy that might occur as a result
of sex ==> this philosophy leading to "the abuses of
every regime.") just doesn't make much sense. Now if you put forth an
argument that deals specifically with why the man does not have any
responsibility towards the child he helped create or the woman he created it
with(which you did do before talking about "the abuses of every regime") then
that argument would make more sense(maybe).

I apologize if I came off accusatory. My purpose wasn't to offend you.

Sincerely,
Mike :)

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 3/4/97 6:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: PMill32182
Message-id: <19970304222200.RAA09452@ladder02.news.aol.com>

Continuation of previous post--
(Note: the point on slavery in my previous post was to refer to the relation
between father and child, not father and mother)
LAWECON's posts appear to assume that the only relationship between people
arises thru contract. Not so. Example: if I am driving down the street, my
brakes fail, and I hit the car in front of me, I have an obligation to the
owner of that car to "make him whole", that is, to pay for the damages I have
caused to his car. In much the same way, if I father a child, I have an
obligation to that child to make him/her whole, that is, as Locke
aargues, to see to the instruction of the child in the laws of living, to
bring him/her to the stage of reasoning, where the child can make his or her
own way in the world. This fully accords with what seems to me to be the
libertarian view, that, to use Herbert Spencer, one must learn to be
self-sufficient, to "...have powers exactly commensurate with what ought to
be done..." (Social Statics, III-2) This development of self-responsibility
is
necessary if we are to work and live and cooperate intelligently with others,
and is the key in achieving a free and moral society.
Finally, how do we put this view in play in the world? I, as an
individual, must take responsibility for my actions; if I father a child, I
must properly provide for that child; if I know someone who has fathered a
child, I must encourage him to do the same-- perhaps even to the point, if he
is a friend, breaking our friendship (shunning him, if you will), until he
accepts responsibility. Last, do I call upon the State to enforce the
responsibility upon him? Here libertarians (as they may throughout) differ.
I would suppose that libertarians who incline to the minimalist view of the
State would indeed make this a law, as they would in the example of the car
accident, and force the rule that one must be made whole. Others, more
radical perhaps, who look to ending all State power, would not use the State
for this or any other purpose, or would do so only conditionally,
regarding the State as evil, and temporarily acceptable only to avoid a worse
harm or evil (This also is derived from Spencer).
Let me interject my favorite Spencer quote here (miles from the one LAWECON
likes). "And when the change at present going on is complete-- when each
possesses an active instinct of freedom, together with an active sympathy--
then will all the still existing limitations to individuality, be they
government restraints or be they the aggressions of men on one another,
cease. Then none will be hindered from duly unfolding their natures; for
while everyone maintains his own claims, he will respect the like claims of
others. Then there will no longer be legislative restrictions and
legislative burdens; for by the same process these will have become both
needless and impossible. Then for the first time in the history of the world
will there exist beings whose individualities can be expanded to the full in
all directions. And thus...in the ultimate man, perfect morality, perfect
individuation, and perfect life will be simultaneously realized." (Social
Statics, XXX-12)
Jerry

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 3/4/97 11:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <19970305033200.WAA10732@ladder01.news.aol.com>

>Example: if I am driving down the street, my brakes fail, and I hit the car
in front of me, I have an obligation to the owner of that car to "make him
whole", that is, to pay for the damages I have caused to his car. In much
the same way, if I father a child, I have an obligation to that child to make
him/her whole, that is, as Locke
aargues, to see to the instruction of the child in the laws of living, to
bring him/her to the stage of reasoning, where the child can make his or her
own way in the world.<

I'm afraid that your analogy doesn't hold water. There was no consent of the
owner of the other car that you run into him or her. There is consent of the
woman to sex. Are you contending that women are generally unaware of the
possible consequences of sex or that they shouldn't become aware?

Further, you seem to, once again, be assuming your conclusion. The question
at hand is whether or not the man has such a duty as you assert he does, and,
if so, what the duty arises from - i.e., what it is "grounded" in . Your
previous contention was that it flowed from an "implied contract". I
naturally presumed that the contract was with the woman SINCE THERE IS NO
CHILD AT THE TIME THE SEX OCCURS and all contracts I'm aware of require that
the contracting parties be currently in existence at the time the contract is
formed. Now you seem to be taking the position that the contract is between
the [currently nonexistant] child and the father. The logic of the argument
gets worse and worse.

>This development of self-responsibility is
necessary if we are to work and live and cooperate intelligently with others,
and is the key in achieving a free and moral society.<

Well, I certainly agree with this principle. The problem is, of course, that
you have a consequence that is caused by two necessary conditions, neither of
which is sufficient. In such cases libertarian legal thinkers like Posner
have suggested that the corrrect rule is to allocate the responsibility to
the "least cost avoider," not to allocate it equally or randomly. Another way
that libertarians might want to utilize to choose between
alternative legal rules is to ask "which of the alternative rules minimizes
interference by the state in the private sphere of individuals. I would
suggest that if women have control over [ownership of] their bodies, and how
they are "utilized," that they are the least cost avoider of whether or not
they become pregnant or stay pregnant.

I notice that you do not address what kind of monitoring and control by the
state is required to enforce the alternative rule. What must the state do to
assure that the "dad" supports and nurtures "his" child? Are these activities
compatible with a society that values choice and responsibility or are they
compatible with a society that likes Big Brother and his reverse TV? I would
suggest the latter is the case.

Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 3/5/97 8:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: PMill32182
Message-id: <19970306001800.TAA16460@ladder01.news.aol.com>

"Once more into the fray, dear friends...." Or, this will be my last post
here, because I think from now on, others need to do the development of
ideas. I hope LAWECON and I have sparked some thoughtful interest, and
helped to revive these message boards.
LAWECON insists on the idea of contract or implied contract, but this is
just not required in the context of my argument, as I had hoped to make
plain. No, there is no contract between anyone here-- none is needed.
Asks LAWECON, "Are you contending that women are generally unaware of the
possible consequences of sex or that they shouldn't become aware?" Absurd
comments don't need a response.
LAWECON also finds a "slippery slope" here, and seems to believe that
acceptance of responsibility by males may, perhaps MUST, require "Big Brother
and his reverse TV".
Slippery slopes are substitutes for arguments. We often live on slippery
slopes, and we need to use reasonable care to avoid distortions of our
positions to reach bad consequences. I expressly indicated a clear way to
avoid State monitoring of our behavior. If a minimal State libertarian wants
to propose methods of enforcing responsibility I will listen, but may or may
not agree.
This basis of the "libertarian legal thinkers" position of LAWECON appears
to rest upon the parxeological science of Mises. Fine. But Mises says in
Human Action that "Ultimate decisions, the valuaations and tahe choosing of
ends, are beyond the scope of any science." The ends of freedom and
responsibility are indeed beyond this sort of economic-style arguing. This
thinking is useful in many ways, but not for the choosing of one's goals.
If one says, for example, with Murray Rothbard, that "Freedom is the only
political goal," that is not a judgment subject to Misean analysis. That is
up to philosophy.
Jerry

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 3/24/97 10:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: BKS III
Message-id: <19970325022901.VAA16586@ladder01.news.aol.com>

>I find myself torn between the libertarian arguement of self ownership (that
you so eloquently explained for me) and the argument that having sex which
produces a child is a contract in and of itself.<

I believe that (unless the girlfriend lied about contraception) the boyfriend
is morally obligated to pay for his progeny. Should he be legally forced to
do so? I don't think so; for reasons already eloquently stated by others on
this thread.

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 3/24/97 10:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Randomthot
Message-id: <19970325024500.VAA17693@ladder01.news.aol.com>

< I believe that (unless the girlfriend lied about contraception) the
boyfriend is morally obligated to pay for his progeny. Should he be legally
forced to do so? I don't think so; for reasons already eloquently stated by
others on this thread. >

Frankly, I don't remember the reasons so eloquently stated by others on this
thread, but I disagree. I believe this is one of those issues which
separates libertarian from libertine. If I accidently smack into the rear
end of someone else's car while driving to work, I am legally obligated to
remedy the situation financially. I was only driving to work. I didn't
intend to smack into the car. But I did, so now I owe. I fail to see the
fundamental difference in the two situations.
Randomthot

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 3/27/97 3:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <19970327070500.CAA22543@ladder01.news.aol.com>

< If I accidently smack into the rear end of someone else's car while driving
to work, I am legally obligated to remedy the situation financially. I was
only driving to work. I didn't intend to smack into the car. But I did, so
now I owe. I fail to see the
fundamental difference in the two situations.
Randomthot>

Well, the main difference would appear to be that it would be incredible for
you to claim that the other person invited you or consented to you
"smack[ing] into their car". However, this is the only way to have sex -
unless you're talking about rape, which is an entirely different subject.
Presumably the woman with whom you're having sex knows that it can lead to
pregnancy. Now do you see the difference?
Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 3/28/97 11:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: MikeHRoth
Message-id: <19970329035800.WAA13807@ladder01.news.aol.com>

>> Presumably the woman with whom you're having sex knows that it can lead to
pregnancy.< LAWECON

Presumably so does the man.

Sincerely,
Mike =]

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 3/29/97 6:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Alazira
Message-id: <19970329225600.RAA07305@ladder01.news.aol.com>

LAWECON, in reference to auto accident:
< I'm afraid that your analogy doesn't hold water. There was no consent of
the
owner of the other car that you run into him or her. There is consent of the
woman to sex. Are you contending that women are generally unaware of the
possible consequences of sex or that they shouldn't become aware?

My comment:
One can drive a car without crashing into another. In the same way a couple
can have sex without conception (or accident if you wish). Presumably a
driver of a vehicle is aware that there is the potential for an accident.
Hopefully, a person having sex would also realize that accidents(?) happen.
I do not see the lack of a contact here as an absolution of responsibility.

Only a woman can be pregnant. Sure. This is not to say that conception can
take place without some contribution from a man (cloning not-withstanding).
Any contract for sex is between the involved parties, which does not include
some non-existent child. Conception, however, is a different incident than
sex. The parties involved in conception are the offspring and its
parents--both parents. One can argue that the parents are responsible for
placing the offspring in the position where it cannot take care of itself,
much as I might if I hit someone with my car and they can no longer earn a
living.

Garrett

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 3/29/97 10:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: PMill32182
Message-id: <19970330023300.VAA20974@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Good post, Alazira. Contract is NOT the only way people relate to each other
in any society.
Question-- I've offered one opinion on this already-- what should the
response be to a dead-beat who tries to avoid responsibility for his/her
actions? Does it have to be a LEGAL response? If so, why? Are there other
ways to get people to fulfil their responsibilities? I think, as
Libertarians, we ought to place special emphasis on these other remedies.
Jerry

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 3/30/97 9:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <19970330130200.IAA16394@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Alazira comments:
One can drive a car without crashing into another. In the same way a couple
can have sex without conception (or accident if you wish). Presumably a
driver of a vehicle is aware that there is the potential for an accident.
Hopefully, a person having sex would also realize that accidents(?) happen.
I do not see the lack of a contact here as an absolution of responsibility.

Lawecon responds: For some reason I'm not making my response clear. The
response is that the automobile accident was not consented to by the driver
whose car was hit. The
sex was consented to by the woman who becomes pregnant. One does not consent
or not consent to the consequences of ones actions [becoming pregnant], that
is a matter of physics and biology not of choice.

Further, I think that you are making a few legal assumptions that simply are
not true. That Driver A hits Driver B does not necessarily mean that Driver A
is LEGALLY responsible for the damage to B. That is only the case in a "no
fault" or "strict liability" system. Otherwise, one must prove negligence.
The argument between these two systems rests exactly on the type of "moral
distinctions" that most libertarians seem to feel is the only basis
for law - in the one system A is only liable if it can be shown that he was
negligent [or, conversely, if he cannot show as a defense that he was
exercising due care under the circumstances] in the other system A is liable
even though he hit B because C hit him.

Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 3/30/97 9:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <19970330132201.IAA17081@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Alazira opines: Only a woman can be pregnant. Sure. This is not to say that
conception can take place without some contribution from a man (cloning
not-withstanding). Any contract for sex is between the involved parties,
which does not include some non-existent child. Conception, however, is a
different incident than sex

Lawecon responds: While it is true that sex does not necessarily lead to
conception it is equally true that there is no conception without sex. Since
all forms of contraception except abortion are not 100% effective, it is
difficult to see that: " Conception, however, is a different incident than
sex."

Alazira further opines: The parties involved in conception are the offspring
and its parents--both parents. One can argue that the parents are responsible
for placing the offspring in the position where it cannot take care of
itself, much as I might if I hit someone with my car and they can no longer
earn a living.

Lawecon responds: One can argue a lot of things. One could argue, for
instance, that my grandparents or great grandparents are responsible for my
support because they parented my parents or their parents. One could argue
that my parents [or their estates] are responsible for my support and
happiness until I die of old age. One could argue that, starting with the
premise that the fetus is a human being that should be accorded full human
rights,
that the mother can be charged with child abuse if she doesn't eat the right
things or exercise correctly or take breathing exercises, etc. during the
pregnancy. In fact, although each of these arguments is equally valid from a
logical standpoint, law is more than mere logic. The principle question that
should be asked when someone is proposing that a new law should be passed or
that an old law shouldn't be repealed is "What will be required to
enforce this law effectively?" Put differently: "What would the state have to
do to assure that most people who break this law are going to be caught an
prosecuted."

My own basic position on this present group of questions is that there should
be no LEGAL parential responsibility by either the father or the mother for
caring for "the child". The principle reason for that position is that I have
explored the above question at some length and I don't like the consequences
of having the state in charge of this area of life. I don't think that you
would either if you looked into it. For a start ask yourself the
following: What if the only legal rule that existed in this area was that
once "the child" was born the parents couldn't dispose of it by killing it or
abandoning it where it could not be readily found by others? How many
homeless childern do you think we'd have? [Damn few if you know anything
about the adoption situation.] Now ask yourself the following: What
enforcement programs would be required if we made the parents "fully
responsible" for
the child from the minute of conception forward. The answer I arrive at is
something very much like barracks socialism.

The debate referred to in the couple sentences of the last paragraph has been
going on in the Freedom folder of this board, so I won't repeat it here. But
the only answer I've received so far to this line of reasoning is that "it
can't happen here" - i.e., its O.K. to legal insitute policies with
totalitarian implications because we Americans would never be so silly as to
enforce these policies consistently. Maybe you have a better answer. If
you don't, I hope that you find this answer as unsatisfactory as I do.
Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 3/30/97 11:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Randomthot
Message-id: <19970331032900.WAA08078@ladder01.news.aol.com>

LAWECON writes: < The principle question that should be asked when someone is
proposing that a new law should be passed or that an old law shouldn't be
repealed is "What will be required to
enforce this law effectively?" Put differently: "What would the state have to
do to assure that most people who break this law are going to be caught an
prosecuted." >

That, to me, seems like a pretty tough standard to hold any law up to. This
would effectively make it impossible to pass any law against anything.

Take something straightforward, like murder, rape, robbery, and examine the
statistics for successful prosecutions vs. crimes committed. If you plan it
out right, murder is one of the easiest crimes to get away with for the
simple reason that you tend to effectively silence the only witness to the
crime.
The rate of successful rape convictions is ludicrously low for a combination
of a number of reasons.

So let's summarize: According to Lawecon's version of libertarianism, we
can't hold the father responsible since he may or may not be around and
besides, he didn't intend to get her pregnant. ( If the b**** gets knocked up
it's her own damn fault. ) We can't hold the mother responsible because the
only way we can do that is to lock her up and force feed her good nutritious
food and make sure she don't do drugs for nine months. And we sure as
h*** can't hold society responsible because that involves holding guns to
people's heads to collect taxes (about the only part of the argument I agree
with).

I guess the kid gets raised by wolves (assuming mama don't take a
coat-hanger to him first).
Randomthot

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 4/1/97 1:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <19970401054501.AAA03011@ladder01.news.aol.com>

< I guess the kid gets raised by wolves (assuming mama don't take a
coat-hanger to him first).
Randomthot>

Don't know much about the real world, do we? I guess in your imaginary world
we have to have a law for everything or it doesn't happen. Ah, can you give
me the cite for the law that enables you to breathe?
Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 4/1/97 2:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Randomthot
Message-id: <19970401065400.BAA06912@ladder01.news.aol.com>

< Don't know much about the real world, do we? I guess in your imaginary
world we have to have a law for everything or it doesn't happen. >

Nooo.... that's not what I'm saying. Try reading what I write instead of
putting your own spin on them just so you can extend your argument and
belittle me.

Most people, whether gladly and lovingly or grudgingly, own up to their
responsibilities without being forced to do so. For that minority that
refuse to be adults however, I believe that society, acting through the
agency of government, is within its rights to force the issue. If for no
other reason, on behalf of the child who is the only party without any say-so
as to the circumstances involved.

But I guess I shouldn't expect any better out of a bankruptcy lawyer given
that you make your living helping people evade their responsibilities.
Randomthot

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 4/2/97 12:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <19970402043301.XAA15663@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Lawecon summarized < Don't know much about the real world, do we? I guess in
your imaginary world we have to have a law for everything or it doesn't
happen. >

Randomthot backed off I write instead of putting your own spin on them just so you can extend your
argument and belittle me.>

I don't have to do much in that area, you're doing such a good job yourself.

And Randomthot sermonized grudgingly, own up to their responsibilities without being forced to do so.
For that minority that refuse to be adults however, I believe that society,
acting through the agency of government, is within its rights to force the
issue. If for no other reason, on behalf of the child who is the only party
without any say-so as to the circumstances involved.>

Ah yes, the inevitable "the government is the parent", and "we've got to save
the childern" arguments. I'm really glad to know that anyone who disagrees
with your position is an irresponsible child and that you are out there
protecting the innocents of the world --- well, not "you" personally of
course, rather your "representatives" with the billy clubs, the guns and the
jails.

Oh sorry, there I go again being accurate rather than sophisticated and
"civilized".

Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 4/3/97 1:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Randomthot
Message-id: <19970403050601.AAA02745@ladder01.news.aol.com>

I would like to publicly apologize to LAWECON for asserting that as a
bankruptcy lawyer he helps people to evade their legal and moral
responsibilities. In a private e-mail to me he indicated that he may
actually be representing creditors as opposed to debtors ( I say "may",
because typical of the slippery language of lawyerdom he didn't actually
state that to be the case, merely that lawyers exist who represent
creditors).

That being the case he's merely being inconsistent personally. On the one
hand asserting that it's slavery and tyranny to use the power of the parental
state to protect the interests of the most innocent and powerless among us,
while on the other hand using whatever legal tactics he can dream up to bring
this same power to bear in the interests of his clients.

I hate lawyers.
Randomthot

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 4/3/97 11:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <19970404032701.WAA11523@ladder01.news.aol.com>

hand asserting that it's slavery and tyranny to use the power of the parental
state to protect the interests of the most innocent and powerless among us,
while on the other hand using whatever legal tactics he can dream up to bring
this same power to bear in the interests of his clients.>

Ah, you've got it my friend. Very good. Lawyers protect the PRIVATE INTERESTS
of their clients not the sort of "public interest" that is so well protected
by the "parental state": that is, the interest in unquestioning obedience to
our great father in Washington, the interest in giving up your property, your
liberty and your life for the "public good," that sort of "public interest".

Evidentally, and undoubtedly for good reason. Lawyers in the Anglo-American
world have always been the ONLY real barrier between the individual and the
omnipotent state. Lawyers were the leaders of the revolt against the tyranny
of the British Parliament 200 years ago and so it will be once again. I'm
sure you do hate them.

Craig J. Bolton, Esq.
Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 4/5/97 12:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Randomthot
Message-id: <19970405045700.XAA06418@ladder01.news.aol.com>

< Lawyers were the leaders of the revolt against the tyranny of the British
Parliament 200 years ago and so it will be once again. I'm sure you do hate
them.>

If memory serves correctly, I believe the revolutionaries were a rather
diverse bunch hailing from a number of professions. I'm sure there were some
lawyers in the bunch but it also included farmers, publishers, various
businessmen, etc..

If there's anything more pompous and arrogant than putting Esq. behind your
name I haven't heard of it.
Randomthot

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 5/1/97 1:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: MoreRice
Message-id: <19970501054300.BAA12323@ladder01.news.aol.com>

It seems the main theme of the discussions so far is whether government
should proctect the interests (some may say rights) of those who can not
protect themselves. The clear example here is whether the government should
force the parents, especially the dad, of an unborn child to support him/her
or the mother who carries the unborn child, which incidently was my original
question.

LAWECON seems to argue that the question of sex, childbearing, etc. is purely
a matter for individuals to solve among themselves. He argues that government
should only intervene in very few matters (of which he doesn't specify) and
remain extremely restrained in its scope of power, because ultimately all
problems are between individuals, and thus must be solved by individuals, and
rarely (or never) by the state.

If my synopisis of your arguement is correct, then how do you propose
individuals should solve problems among themselves? Using the duels, public
stonings, the law, etc.? When is the state authorized in your view to use
force?

Randomthot seems to think that the state should sometimes (albeit, rarely)
intervene to protect the interests (or rights) of those who can not protect
themselves. Since he believes that a fetus is a child, then it has inherent
rights. And since a fetus has no say in its matters of its own interest, the
state is compelled (sometimes, only when the parents are bad) to interfere
and force either one or both of the parents to care for the
fetus/child. This arguement seems to be the essence that opens the door for
unlimited government growth.

Ok, if my summary of your views is correct, then how do you apply your
standard of when the state should interfere in matters where individuals can
not protect themselves (ie. infants, mentily handicapped, the poor,
conscription, etc.)?

The questions I ask seem to not have easy answers and, I often find myself
struggling for my own answers. I appreciate the time you have all taken to
continue this dissussion this far... and hopefully further.

Maurice

"The problem with the legal system in this country is not that there are too
many lawyers, but rather, too many laws."
--author unknown

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 5/3/97 12:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <19970503044200.AAA06713@ladder01.news.aol.com>

purely a matter for individuals to solve among themselves. He argues that
government should only intervene in very few matters (of which he doesn't
specify) and remain extremely restrained in its scope of power, because
ultimately all problems are between individuals, and thus must be solved by
individuals, and rarely (or never) by the state.

Your summary is partially correct and partially incorrect.

My personal view is that an absence of a state is a preferable social
situation. The lack of a state is not, however, the lack of a collective
decision, adjudication and enforcement mechanism. You may want to read the
posts to the anarchy folder to clarify these points, as they are much too
complex and extensive to try to summarize in a few sentences.

However, putting my preferences aside for a moment, if you believe a state is
desirable, I believe you should consider how such a state is to maintain the
degree of "objective justice" that seems to be the only rationale for a state
[see Locke's Second Treatise]. It seems to me that one necessary prerequisite
for such "objective justice" is that the law does not intrude into what is
ordinarily recognized as the private sphere of individuals. The
reason for this is simple - if the law starts prohibiting "private acts" then
it is either extremely sporatic in its application [being applied only when
private acts are inadvertantly disclosed or discovered] and, hence, is
potentially or actually tyrannical, or it requires a significant diminution
in the private sphere of individuals to be effectively enforced. The
difference between my view and that of those who disagree with my views on
the
family and child bearing is primarily a difference of definition. If you will
read my post immediately above, you will note that I don't believe that
dependent childern have many if any "rights". Those who disagree with me
apparently believe that they have the same "rights" as adult citizens, and
such rights MUST [for some unspecified reasons] be enforced by the state. I
think that such a view is as silly as making the state the guarantor of the
rights of cats and dogs. Since neither childern, cats, nor dogs can, by
definition, defend or assert their "rights" [unlike mature normal human
beings], they don't have any rights, and the state can't wave its
nonexistent limbs and somehow supply what doesn't exist.

Your apparent desire for me to be specific about what acts are and are not
properly prohibited by a minarchist state is going to have to remain
unsatisfied, as this "publicness" criterion is only one of several that must
be satisfied to maintain a "libertarian" legal structure. For instance, a
law that states that individuals who receive a gross earned income of less
than $10,000 per year should be eligible for various sorts of public aid
would
meet this "publicness criterion" for law [since, presumably, the receipt of
such earned income occurs in the "public" rather than the "private" sphere],
but such a law may be objectionable on other grounds.

Neither the anarchist nor the minarchist alternatives prohibit a public
adjudication of legal disputes by arbitrators or courts. These views only
prohibit a particular configuration of law[s]. Neither is adjudication
necessarily a state monopoly in an anarchist or minarchist or [witness
contemporary California where 80% of the civil lawsuits are today adjudicated
by private arbitrators], even collectivist society. The difference between
anarchy
and minarchy on these points, should you be interested, is in the enforcement
mechanisms. Under anarchy, those who fail to "pay up" when it is so
adjudicated that they should do so are subject only to certain "social
sanctions" such as shunning or refusal to deal by the others in the society
that endorse the arbitrator's decision. Under minarchy the person who does
not pay a judgment may have his property confiscated by the state's police
or
may, in extreme circumstances, be imprisioned or expelled from the society.
Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 5/3/97 10:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Randomthot
Message-id: <19970504022900.WAA29239@ladder01.news.aol.com>

< The difference between my view and that of those who disagree with my
views on the
family and child bearing is primarily a difference of definition. If you will
read my post immediately above, you will note that I don't believe that
dependent childern have many if any "rights". Those who disagree with me
apparently believe that they have the same "rights" as adult citizens, and
such rights MUST [for some unspecified reasons] be enforced by the state. I
think that such a view is as silly as making the state the guarantor of the
rights of cats and dogs. Since neither childern, cats, nor dogs can, by
definition, defend or assert their "rights" [unlike mature normal human
beings], they don't have any rights, and the state can't wave its
nonexistent limbs and somehow supply what doesn't exist. >

It seems to me that a large part of our disagreement actually hinges more
on the concept of a "right" than on any particulars concerning who has and
hasn't particular rights. I've always thought of a "right" as being
something that you had by the simple virtue of existence, or, in a civilized
society, by virtue of citizenship at least. Your definition of "rights"
seems to be that you only have the right to what you can both "assert" and
"defend". Whether right or wrong, I simply can't subscribe to that kind of
Darwinian might-makes-right philosophy. What you seem to be saying is that
if you can't keep someone from killing you then you don't have the right to
exist. If you don't have the means to defend, physically or legally, your
property then you don't have the right to keep it if someone bigger and
badder decides to "assert" his right to it and can successfully "defend"
it.
Randomthot

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 5/4/97 2:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <19970504185200.OAA25385@ladder01.news.aol.com>

on the concept of a "right" than on any particulars concerning who has and
hasn't particular rights. I've always thought of a "right" as being
something that you had by the simple virtue of existence, or, in a civilized
society, by virtue of citizenship at least. Your definition of "rights"
seems to be that you only have the right to what you can both "assert" and
"defend". Whether right or wrong, I simply can't subscribe to that kind of
Darwinian might-makes-right philosophy.>

I think you are misunderstanding the point once again. The point is NOT that
you must personally defend your right in every situation and point in time
but that you must have the CAPACITY to exercise and assert such a right.
Children and animals, by definition, don't have the CAPACITY to exercise the
rights that many people want to endow them with. Hence a surrogate a
"guardian" - must exercise and assert such rights for a child, just as a
guardian asserts and defends the rights of someone who is adjudged
incompetent to manage his own affairs. Traditionally, in this society, to the
extent that a child was said to have "rights" [e.g., the right to title to a
particular piece of real property] the guardian who asserted and defended
these rights was the child's natural or adopted parents. The trend is to
replace that guardian with the state and to make the parents merely agents of
the state, who can be held responsible to their principal for what the
principal views as malfeasance or misfeasance. I think that this replacement
is NECESSARY if you start with the presumption that the parent is not the
holder of the chid's rights. Apparently you don't agree, but I fail to see
where you have specified just who the guardian will be if it isn't the
parents or the state.

You can characterize the above argument as "Darwinian" if you want, but that
neither adds or subtracts anything from it. So let's cease the
characterization and address the substance of the argument, shall we?
Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 5/7/97 7:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Alazira
Message-id: <19970507234200.TAA17032@ladder01.news.aol.com>

LAWECON:
I think you are misunderstanding the point once again. The point is NOT that
you must personally defend your right in every situation and point in time
but that you must have the CAPACITY to exercise and assert such a right.
Children and animals, by definition, don't have the CAPACITY to exercise the
rights that many people want to endow them with. Hence a surrogate a
"guardian" - must exercise and assert such rights for a child, just as a
guardian asserts and defends the rights of someone who is adjudged
incompetent to manage his own affairs.

What definition is this? A legal one perhaps? Since when does one need
"capacity" to exercise/object/protest say being physically injured by
another? Might I not call it a basic (meaning it pertains to those who might
not have "capacity" as well as those who do) right not to have an unprovoked
assault on my person?

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 5/7/97 8:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <19970508003100.UAA21339@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Ah, let's see. "rights" is a term defined in law and meaningful only to the
extent that it can be enforced through the legal system. So, ya, I think
you're right, it is a "legal" definition. What kind of definition were you
expecting?
Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 5/8/97 4:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Alazira
Message-id: <19970508203400.QAA00955@ladder01.news.aol.com>

LAWECON writes:
Ah, let's see. "rights" is a term defined in law and meaningful only to the
extent that it can be enforced through the legal system. So, ya, I think
you're right, it is a "legal" definition. What kind of definition were you
expecting?

Craig, on the one hand you posit yourself as an anarchist, yet on the other
you tend to view everything strictly in legal terms. I was merely trying to
get you to step back for a moment to see that what I and others are saying is
that a child is something more than just a legal definition, and "rights" can
have meaning regardless of legal enforcement or not.

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 5/8/97 10:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <19970509024600.WAA03114@ladder02.news.aol.com>

you tend to view everything strictly in legal terms. I was merely trying to
get you to step back for a moment to see that what I and others are saying is
that a child is something more than just a legal definition, and "rights" can
have meaning regardless of legal enforcement or not.>

Haven't we been through this about a dozen times? If you really think that
there is some contradiction between law and anarchy you should (1) read the
anarchy folder, (2) note that one of the two American founders of
individualist anarchism - Lysander Spooner - was [gasp] a lawyer, whose
writings are almost entirely legal, and (3) check out any good history of
individualist anarchism - try James J. Martin's Men Against The State for a
start, or
one of the several expositions of private justice, like, perhaps, Bruce
Benson's, The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without The State. Incidentally, I
tend to think of things primarily in economic and legal terms, not
metaphysical, moral or dogmatic terms. How do you think of think? Can you
construct an argument without the words "soul" or "god" in the premises that
supports your view? Can you show me a "soul" or a "god". Just one, please.

As to your contentions regarding "rights" having meaning regardless of their
enforceability PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT "MEANING." The same meaning as debates
over the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin? The same
meaning as discussions over space aliens as a part of our ruling class? Just
WHAT are you saying, specifically?

Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 5/9/97 5:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Alazira
Message-id: <19970509210400.RAA09717@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Incidentally, I tend to think of things primarily in economic and legal
terms, not metaphysical, moral or dogmatic terms. How do you think of think?
Can you construct an argument without the words "soul" or "god" in the
premises that supports your view? Can you show me a "soul" or a "god". Just
one, please. >>

I ask:
Do laws have meaning only if they are enforceable? Perhaps to some.
"Enforceability" of a law does not in and of itself justify the existence of
it. Laws do not appear spontaneously in an amoral vacuum. The creation of any
law can be traced back to some grounding moral premise "this is good" or
"this is bad," and therefore we need some law about it. Even something less
obvious like taxes. Take the progressive tax rate. How did that come about?
Someone probably thought "the rich should pay their fair share," and their
interpretation of fair share is a higher and higher percentage of earnings.

How do I think of think? Perhaps a more important question is "how do I
know?" A pristine logical construct is only as good as the facts/knowledge
it is based on. I am not disagreeing with your legal analysis, but the moral
supposition it is grounded in. Is it inappropriate to examine that? During
WWII I had a Japanese-American relative interned in a concentration camp
whose legality was authorized by the president. It was the "law" and it was
"enforceable," but am I wrong to argue that it wasn't right? We do not
necessarily have to agree that there is a "Soul" or a "God" to debate whether
a particular law is good or bad. Of course, if you felt there was no such
thing as "good" or "bad" in the first place then there would not be a point
in continuing the discussion as our grounding knowledge is irreconcilable.

Item A) A man kills his wife because she was cheating on him. It is against
the law but it did not stop him. Therefore it was not "enforceable."
Item B) A man kills his wife for adultery in Iran in accordance with Islamic
law.
Item C) A man kills his wife for no reason. It is against the law.
Item D) A man kills his wife for no reason. The law says he can do this.
The result in each is the same--man kills wife. I submit that some people,
perhaps not you, may find different meanings in each example.

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 5/9/97 11:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <19970510033700.XAA07056@ladder02.news.aol.com>

Let me try it once more. To say that something is illegal is not the same as
to say that it is immoral. Laws are not NECESSARILY expressions of common
morality, they are, properly, agreed to rules by which the members of a
community have decided to regulate their public affairs. This does not mean
that all statutes or other laws existing today meet this definition [the only
definition that describes all "laws" is that they are "the will of the
sovereign"]. Rather this is the definition of law in a libertarian community.

There are a VARIETY of GOOD reasons for there being a law regarding
something. The reason may be public peace, regardless of the demand of a
strict morality. The reason may be economic efficiency, regardless of the
demands of a strict morality. The reason may be a shared estectic, regardless
of morality. The reason MAY be morality, but doesn't have to be. Those who
equate law and morality or believe that laws are didactic rules for the state
teaching people morality are in the tradition of monarchism and European
Conservativism, not libertarianism or classical liberalism.

[There are also a variety of bad reasons for there being a law - like the
furtherance of special interests, tyranny, etc., but I assume we are agreed
in excluding those reasons.]
Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 5/9/97 11:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <19970510033900.XAA07099@ladder02.news.aol.com>

based on. I am not disagreeing with your legal analysis, but the moral
supposition it is grounded in. Is it inappropriate to examine that? During
WWII I had a Japanese-American relative interned in a concentration camp
whose legality was authorized by the president. It was the "law" and it was
"enforceable," but am I wrong to argue that it wasn't right?>

You seem to have missed the part of my previous post where I said that the
enforceability of a law was ONE REQUIREMENT for it being a good law, and
that there were other requirements. Are you familiar with the distinction
between necessary and sufficient conditions?
Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 5/9/97 11:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <19970510034300.XAA07187@ladder02.news.aol.com>

debate whether a particular law is good or bad. Of course, if you felt there
was no such thing as "good" or "bad" in the first place then there would not
be a point in continuing the discussion as our grounding knowledge is
irreconcilable.>

Do you mean "good and bad" or "right and wrong". There are alot of ethical
and nonethical standards for "good and bad" [various sorts of utilitarianism
or functionalism] . I therefore do not disagree with this standard [since it
is no distinguishable standard at all]. Regard "right and wrong" I've already
noted that morality and law are not synonymous.
Craig Bolton

"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own
follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer

Subject: Re: Libertarian view of dead-beat dads
Date: 5/9/97 11:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <19970510034500.XAA07261@ladder02.news.aol.com>