[SpiderMonkey]

As far as I understand, Libertarianism opposes the physical coercion (i.e. pay taxes, or you go to jail) except where it is nessecary to preserve property rights (i.e. if you steal, you go to jail). On the other hand, according to Libertarianism, any form of economic coercion is acceptable.

I am also led to believe that the police, who would be the ones enforcing property rights, would be sustained by voluntary donations.

This presents a paradox:

A rich donor of the police force would have to power of economic coercion over them. He is free to donate or not donate to the police as he sees fit - so surely he could make his donation conditional on the police using physical coercion in a way he wants them too?

[Noumenon]

Actually, libertarianism is more about absolute property rights than physical coercion. When libertarians say that it is immoral to initiate force against someone, they mean it is immoral to violate that person's property rights by invading them with force. There is no inconsistancy in allowing the police to use force to repel invasions of property rights.

Libertarians don't have a consensus on how exactly the government would be funded in a libertarian society. I think we should keep the state lottery system, and extend it to the national level as well. That is a great way of voluntarily funding the government, and no corruption is involved. Donations would have to be anonymous. You could pay them to some third party, which would then give them to the government (I'm sure there are many other ways too). There might also be some cap on how much you can donate, to prevent the government from being too dependent on any individual ( if they somehow found out who the big donors are). In addition, there could be some voluntary taxes to pay for such things as public roads. If you don't pay them, you are simply not allowed to use those services.

What exactly do you mean by economic coercion? Is it just bribery, or other actions as well?

[SpiderMonkey]

Actually, libertarianism is more about absolute property rights than physical coercion. When libertarians say that it is immoral to initiate force against someone, they mean it is immoral to violate that person's property rights by invading them with force. There is no inconsistancy in allowing the police to use force to repel invasions of property rights.

Right, so libertarianism believes physical coercion is only justified in protecting the rights of citizens?

Libertarians don't have a consensus on how exactly the government would be funded in a libertarian society. I think we should keep the state lottery system, and extend it to the national level as well. That is a great way of voluntarily funding the government, and no corruption is involved. Donations would have to be anonymous. You could pay them to some third party, which would then give them to the government (I'm sure there are many other ways too). There might also be some cap on how much you can donate, to prevent the government from being too dependent on any individual ( if they somehow found out who the big donors are). In addition, there could be some voluntary taxes to pay for such things as public roads. If you don't pay them, you are simply not allowed to use those services.

Pay-on-demand wouldn't work with the police obviously - in order to engage their services protecting your property, you'ld need to have property...

Even if donations were anonymous, a person could make their identiy know to the authorities and withdraw, or threaten to withdraw a large donation.

What exactly do you mean by economic coercion? Is it just bribery, or other actions as well?

Everything that goes on in a capitalist society. Buying things is coercing people into giving you goods, for example.

[Noumenon]

Right, so libertarianism believes physical coercion is only justified in protecting the rights of citizens?

Yes. Physical coercion is justified in self-defense, since that is defending your property right to your own body. It is also justified in defense of other property, but it must be proportional. You are only allowed to take retaliatory action that invades on the rights of the aggressor to the same degree that he invaded your rights. Going beyond that is a crime; it invades the rights of the aggressor. Therefore, shooting someone who steps on your lawn is not permissable. Physically moving him off of it (by yourself or by calling the police), if he refuses to leave voluntarily, is permitted. The very slight aggression of walking onto someone else property without their consent only justifies a very slight aggression in physically moving him off of it, nothing more.

But the police are allowed to do nothing without consulting the victim of aggression. The victim holds the right to tell the police that the aggressor is forgiven, and then the police would not be allowed to take any action. The power of the police is simply the means of carrying out the will of the victim (victimless crimes make absolutely no sense in a libertarian society).

Pay-on-demand wouldn't work with the police obviously - in order to engage their services protecting your property, you'ld need to have property...

Everyone has property in their own person. The police can protect your life, which belongs to you. But I'm not suggesting that the police would be pay-on-demand, they would be funded through anonymous donations, not voluntary taxes.

Even if donations were anonymous, a person could make their identiy know to the authorities and withdraw, or threaten to withdraw a large donation.

Thus the reason for the donation caps. If you weren't allowed to donate more than, say, $5,000 a year, the police wouldn't be too dependent on your money. They probably wouldn't even notice if you didn't donate the next year.

Everything that goes on in a capitalist society. Buying things is coercing people into giving you goods, for example.

Ok, maybe technically that is coercion, but its not a bad form of coercion. If you give someone money in exchange for a good, and they don't give you that good, that is fraud, and implicit theft. The victim is justified not only in using coercion to get his money back, but also in using the government to fine the aggressor an amount less than or equal to the amount stolen in the theft. Thats called justice.

[SpiderMonkey]

Right, so libertarianism believes physical coercion is only justified in protecting the rights of citizens?

Yes. Physical coercion is justified in self-defence, since that is defending your property right to your own body. It is also justified in defence of other property, but it must be proportional. You are only allowed to take retaliatory action that invades on the rights of the aggressor to the same degree that he invaded your rights. Going beyond that is a crime; it invades the rights of the aggressor. Therefore, shooting someone who steps on your lawn is not permissable. Physically moving him off of it (by yourself or by calling the police), if he refuses to leave voluntarily, is permitted. The very slight aggression of walking onto someone else property without their consent only justifies a very slight aggression in physically moving him off of it, nothing more.

But the police are allowed to do nothing without consulting the victim of aggression. The victim holds the right to tell the police that the aggressor is forgiven, and then the police would not be allowed to take any action. The power of the police is simply the means of carrying out the will of the victim (victimless crimes make absolutely no sense in a libertarian society).

The point I am making, is that the role of the police would be to use physical coercion in order to maintain property rights, and that they alone would have the right to use physical coercion against the population, right?

Even if donations were anonymous, a person could make their identiy know to the authorities and withdraw, or threaten to withdraw a large donation.

Thus the reason for the donation caps. If you weren't allowed to donate more than, say, $5,000 a year, the police wouldn't be too dependent on your money. They probably wouldn't even notice if you didn't donate the next year.
[/quote]

Do all libertarians agree on capping donations to the government or it's agencies? I was under the impression they don't.

$5000 per person could add up to a lot when people start forming groups. Imagine, for example, if the NRA were to dictate to its members wether or not to donate to the government. Also, would donation occur at a national or local level - $5000 could go a long way in some local governments.

Everything that goes on in a capitalist society. Buying things is coercing people into giving you goods, for example.

Ok, maybe technically that is coercion, but its not a bad form of coercion. If you give someone money in exchange for a good, and they don't give you that good, that is fraud, and implicit theft. The victim is justified not only in using coercion to get his money back, but also in using the government to fine the aggressor an amount less than or equal to the amount stolen in the theft. Thats called justice.

Its a matter of debate what forms of coercion are good and bad - which is the point of the thread.

[Todd D.]

As far as I understand, Libertarianism opposes the physical coercion (i.e. pay taxes, or you go to jail) except where it is nessecary to preserve property rights (i.e. if you steal, you go to jail). On the other hand, according to Libertarianism, any form of economic coercion is acceptable.

I reject your defenition of coersion. You are not FORCING someone to give you a good if you give them money. You are both voluntarily entering into an agreement to trade something, namely money for a good or service. That is not coersion, in my opinion.

I am also led to believe that the police, who would be the ones enforcing property rights, would be sustained by voluntary donations.

Not necessarily. I personally believe that the government does have a right to provide certain services, and that certain services are paid for by taxes. Remember, we are Libertarians, not Anarchists, and not all taxes are coersion. A sales tax, for example, is not coersion, because you voluntarily enter into that transaction. A sales tax at the local or state level is more than enough to pay for a local fire or police department, as evident by what goes on today. No need for an income tax.

A rich donor of the police force would have to power of economic coercion over them. He is free to donate or not donate to the police as he sees fit - so surely he could make his donation conditional on the police using physical coercion in a way he wants them too?

Police are still under oath and duty to protect all citizens, regardless of contributions. Keep in mind that police are not there to make sure that you pay social security, don't do drugs, anything else. They are there to make sure that someone does not violate your life, liberty, or property. Under those guidelines, Police would require very little funding and would defenitely be equal.

[SpiderMonkey]

As far as I understand, Libertarianism opposes the physical coercion (i.e. pay taxes, or you go to jail) except where it is nessecary to preserve property rights (i.e. if you steal, you go to jail). On the other hand, according to Libertarianism, any form of economic coercion is acceptable.

I reject your defenition of coersion. You are not FORCING someone to give you a good if you give them money. You are both voluntarily entering into an agreement to trade something, namely money for a good or service. That is not coersion, in my opinion.

It's an accurate definition of coercion. I'm not nessecarily trying to imply anything negative by using the term.

I am also led to believe that the police, who would be the ones enforcing property rights, would be sustained by voluntary donations.

Not necessarily. I personally believe that the government does have a right to provide certain services, and that certain services are paid for by taxes. Remember, we are Libertarians, not Anarchists, and not all taxes are coersion. A sales tax, for example, is not coersion, because you voluntarily enter into that transaction. A sales tax at the local or state level is more than enough to pay for a local fire or police department, as evident by what goes on today. No need for an income tax.

Surely a sales tax is coercion, as it consitutes a threat to imprison a salesman who doesn't apply it?

A rich donor of the police force would have to power of economic coercion over them. He is free to donate or not donate to the police as he sees fit - so surely he could make his donation conditional on the police using physical coercion in a way he wants them too?

Police are still under oath and duty to protect all citizens, regardless of contributions. Keep in mind that police are not there to make sure that you pay social security, don't do drugs, anything else. They are there to make sure that someone does not violate your life, liberty, or property. Under those guidelines, Police would require very little funding and would defenitely be equal.

If a state forced people to cough up cash to pay for a police force, surely it wouldn't be libertarian?

[Noumenon]

The point I am making, is that the role of the police would be to use physical coercion in order to maintain property rights, and that they alone would have the right to use physical coercion against the population, right?

No, they do not have the right to use physical coercion against the general population. Only against violators of property rights, and even then only with the consent of the victim. And they do not have the sole right to use coercion against aggressors. Anyone has the right to use coercion against aggressors. Vigilante justice is allowed. However, if those vigilantes turn out to be wrong about the guilt of the aggressor, or excessively invade the rights of the aggressor, then they become the aggressors.

If the police are by no means exempt from being aggressors. If they invade the property rights of an innocent, or engage in "police brutality" in which they excessively invade the rights of an aggressor, they are the aggressors. Anyone would would then be justified in taking the appropriate action against the police aggressor.

Do all libertarians agree on capping donations to the government or it's agencies? I was under the impression they don't.

I don't think most libertarians care about the practicalities of a true libertarian government. They have the attitude of "lets minimize government to the point where only a very small amount of taxation is necessary, then we'll worry about the practicalities of abolishing taxation altogether."

$5000 per person could add up to a lot when people start forming groups. Imagine, for example, if the NRA were to dictate to its members wether or not to donate to the government. Also, would donation occur at a national or local level - $5000 could go a long way in some local governments.

And then maybe a bigger group could form with people who don't want justice to be corrupted, and they could threaten to withdraw their donations if the government caves in to the NRA.

All police forces should be state or local. The military, with the exception of militias, would be national. Maybe there could be different caps depending on whether the donation goes to the county, state, or federal government.

[SpiderMonkey]

No, they do not have the right to use physical coercion against the general population. Only against violators of property rights, and even then only with the consent of the victim. And they do not have the sole right to use coercion against aggressors. Anyone has the right to use coercion against aggressors. Vigilante justice is allowed. However, if those vigilantes turn out to be wrong about the guilt of the aggressor, or excessively invade the rights of the aggressor, then they become the aggressors.

If the police are by no means exempt from being aggressors. If they invade the property rights of an innocent, or engage in "police brutality" in which they excessively invade the rights of an aggressor, they are the aggressors. Anyone would would then be justified in taking the appropriate action against the police aggressor.

However they, as the police, get to determine who is violating property rights. Thus, they choose who to use physical coercion against, and if someone is economically coercing them, they may modify their choices. Of course, this is a problem in all societies - but it seems to me that a libertarian one would be far more vunerable to it.

I don't think most libertarians care about the practicalities of a true libertarian government. They have the attitude of "lets minimize government to the point where only a very small amount of taxation is necessary, then we'll worry about the practicalities of abolishing taxation altogether."

I don't think most bolsheviks care about the practicalities of a true communist government. They have the attitude of "lets start collectivising things to the point when nearly everything is state owned, then we'll worry about the practicalities of a command economy."

$5000 per person could add up to a lot when people start forming groups. Imagine, for example, if the NRA were to dictate to its members wether or not to donate to the government. Also, would donation occur at a national or local level - $5000 could go a long way in some local governments.

And then maybe a bigger group could form with people who don't want justice to be corrupted, and they could threaten to withdraw their donations if the government caves in to the NRA.

Do you think a society where groups of people compete with each other to corrupt the government more is a good one to live in?

All police forces should be state or local. The military, with the exception of militias, would be national. Maybe there could be different caps depending on whether the donation goes to the county, state, or federal government.

Local governments would be easier to corrupt. Extremists often concentrate their efforts locally, in order to appear more succesful than they are (the BNP do this in Britain).

[Noumenon]

However they, as the police, get to determine who is violating property rights. Thus, they choose who to use physical coercion against, and if someone is economically coercing them, they may modify their choices. Of course, this is a problem in all societies - but it seems to me that a libertarian one would be far more vunerable to it.

No, a representative government determines who is violating property rights. The only way this society could work is if a significant majority of the population was educated enough on property rights to elect representatives who could accurately judge when they are violated. It would probably fall apart if the majority was not willing to stand up and protect it, and keep it free from corruption.

Do you think a society where groups of people compete with each other to corrupt the government more is a good one to live in?

It would be illegal for the police to accept bribes or be involved in any corruption. The power of the people, in the form of elected representatives, would check police power. I don't see how this is much different from our current system.

Local governments would be easier to corrupt. Extremists often concentrate their efforts locally, in order to appear more succesful than they are (the BNP do this in Britain).

Well we might have some sort of national police force whose only purpose is to police the local police.