Then we appear to be at an impasse. Do you wish to define a libertarian health system and we can debate the merits and negatives of that leaving aside any discussion as to whether it it libertarian or not?
Yep. As previously stated, not all libertarians agree on everything.
No they do not and I would not expect them to. But in the same way that an "anarchist" arguing for the existence of the state would no longer be an anarchist regardless of their other positions, someone arguing that the State should have that degree of control over who a business can and can not hire seems to me to be deeply anti-libertarian.
I'm usually not going to defend a position I do not hold. If you want to debate his position as to being libertarian or not, I would say it does not seem so to me either. But that isn't much of a debate.
Which does bring up the question of why you raised it... I believe it to be non-libertarian, you agree...
Which comes under a heading of "Against Censorship". Context matters.
We'll take note of this for later...
The website for his organization says "For us, freedom of speech is the right to say anything about public affairs, whether political, scientific, historical or otherwise." No limits on free speech in the context of government limiting political speech is a different argument than limits on free speech regarding fraud.
And as above, context matters. In the podcast he clearly argues for no
restrictions on freedom of speech, even outside of political speech.
To expand on your later contribution, transcribing.
Host: And I would hope that you are a complete upholder of freedom of speech?
Sean Gabb: Got it in one.
No qualifiers used.
In the same piece he later goes on to mention the case of an Oxford student being prosecuted for noting that a mounted policeman's horse looked gay and is clearly negative about this: saying a horse looks gay is certainly not a comment on a matter of public interest.
Where he does mention public interest is in relation to the incitement laws that follow on from the "fire in the crowded theatre" doctrine... something he opposes.
I fail to see how that means libertarians would be okay with fraud.
Fraud no longer being a crime but instead being punished by the markets is an "inconvenience" due to too much liberty...
Sigh. So basically your argument is that because Oliver Wendell Holmes said it it must be true? Really? Again, I doubt most libertarians would equate handing out anti-draft leaflets with falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Why you insist that they must, I cannot seem to get from you. Which leaves me no way to argue the point with you.
From my very first post on the topic I have clearly been discussing the doctrine of "fire in a crowded theatre" as opposed to a specific example... I'm not even aware if there have been any specific examples although I'm sure there must have been some. If you wish to discuss individual cases then I'm amiable to that... but it is the doctrine itself that I was presenting... and presenting as non-libertarian. From what you've said above, I suggest you agree with me.
So I don't need to worry about politicians trying to regulate things like salt and fat and Four Loko? Wow. What a relief. If only you could convince the politicians.
No, you of course do have to worry about such things... and oppose them if you wish to. What you suggested was that once the government controlled healthcare it would "most certainly" start mandating what people could and couldn't eat and how much exercise they would be forced to do.
Perhaps if you were more clear on which aspects of discrimination you're talking about, I would have a better idea of how to address your request.
For example, many modern equality/anti-discrimination acts contain provisions against discrimination on the basis of philosophical (as opposed to religious) beliefs or the lack of such beliefs. I am unaware... although happy to be corrected... of any previous laws which held that Kantian theorists or proposers of natural law were prevented from getting jobs.
And that means libertarians think fraud is okay because...?
The liberty to make deceitful statements against the security of not being subjected to fraud.
So far your argument on this point seems to be that libertarians think fraud is okay because they promote liberty. If one were to apply this sort of thinking to other folks, I suppose one would say that Martin Luther King, Jr., was okay with fraud. Or the abolitionists. Or the suffragettes. But that would be ridiculous. But then, saying libertarians are okay with fraud is also ridiculous.
Well, considering Martin Luther King Jr's academic career it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say he was unconcerned by fraud but that's an aside.
My point is more this: if libertarians are against government interference in the marketplace then it seems strange for them to then argue that the government has a role in preventing deceitful bad bargains. From my original post onwards I've ventured that one of the key ways of defining a libertarian is using Mill's Harm principle on a strict basis (although it is worth pointing out that Mill himself was a utilitarian, a position that can find itself opposed to libertarianism) and a strict reading of the Harm principle would not include fraud.
He also said, "The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the party that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections." He doesn't seem to be okay with fraud.
He's using fraud in the colloquial sense. I'm using it in the criminal.
That seems a perfectly reasonable thing to say. It does not, however, appear to have anything to do with the "libertarians think fraud is okay" notion.
Fraud legislation isn't motivated by a desire to do good? And it isn't backed with force?
Wow. We've moved from fraud to putting people out of business. So person A being successful in business means if person B fails in business then person A caused economic harm. No doubt, you say. But your example seems highly simplistic and, ahem, lacking in necessary nuance.
Just to point out I believe you introduced the concept of economic harm while I originally restricted my discussion to fraud. That may have been a slip of the tongue/keyboard by you... economic harm is an incredibly wide area and I'm not sure you really are arguing on that basis.
Not to mention the fact that you seem to have suddenly enlarged the definition of economic harm from things like fraud to basically anything that has a consequence that might be perceived to be negative.
It appears we're using economic harm in different contexts. I use it in the way it's used in the legal, business and philosophical world to describe anything
that cause harm economically to an entity; there is extensive discussion on the topic with regards to tort law (with the leading case being Spartan Steel) for example. You appear to be using it in a far more specific sense to refer only to criminal(?) acts that involve economic loss. Is that so and, if that is the case, shall we bypass that aspect of the discussion as it doesn't appear to add anything to the topic that is not covered by our discussion on fraud?
Perhaps that was your thinking all along. But arguing that libertarians are not against a business being more successful than another does not in any way mean they are okay with fraud. To assume that it does seems to me to be highly illogical.
As above. As I've been using it Economic Harm is not limited to the likes of fraud, insider trading etc etc.
No part of that addresses why you have set yourself up as an arbiter of what is and is not "true" libertarianism. And given that you seem to not understand libertarianism at a basic level, I am of the opinion you are not qualified to be such an arbiter.
From your own definition/explanation of libertarianism in response to another post you held that it was concerned with individual liberty and is based around individual rights (as opposed to privileges). I understand and pretty much accept that. The issue is this: can you frame the right that means that fraud legislation is a valid act (in the moral sense to avoid the legal positivism angle) by the State? A right to not be deceived? A right to not be deceived if it leads to economic loss? A right to not be deceived if it directly leads to economic loss?
Unsophisticated readers. Uh-huh. And I was worried I might come across as arrogant.
"Sophisticated" and "unsophisticated" are terms widely used in the business and legal world (as well as probably others) to describe people who are not familiar with the terms and processes involved with no negative connotations. If a derivatives lawyer is buying property then he will understand many of the terms and situations a real estate lawyer will use even if not an expert much like if a commodity trader uses a wealth management fund. It means you can use the more technical and precise jargon without having to explain or simplify it.
Okay. This weird semantic game where deceptively acquiring the property of others and dishonestly acquiring the property of others are some how not both theft is, I am sure, very "sophisticated". It's also ridiculous. Yes, the singular act of deceiving someone is not in itself theft. Deceiving someone to gain their property and being successful, however, is theft.
As I set out, using the relevant statute laws, that simply isn't the case. Colloquially it may be... but in colloquial terms people describe both abortion and capital punishment as murder, neither of which is true. If fraud was theft why would there be the need for separate fraud legislation?
Because a lie is used and not a gun or a lockpick does not make it any less theft. Your "sophisticated" explanation is weak at best. That you can make something sound complicated does not mean that it is.
I hope I'm not presenting it as complicated as it simply isn't. Fraud is a separate offence that shares certain similarities (dishonesty and property) to theft... but certain similarities are not enough to make two things identical.
Sigh. Yes, there are other kinds of fraud that do not necessarily result in the exchange of property. But in the context of what we were discussing, fraud is theft. Again, if I were to use your methods, robbery and embezzlement are not theft either. And yet, they actually are.
Embezzlement is regarded as merely a type of fraud by most jurisdictions so the reasoning set out above applies. Robbery, at least at common law, actually requires a theft to occur so while they are technically different offences I fully accept that they are in many ways the same. Fraud has no such requirement.
Against the existence of the state is not against the existence of order.
Oh, I agree entirely. Which is why I was very careful to include the qualifier "created by the State" during that aspect of the discussion. I was slightly lax earlier in the discussion by just using the term "law", for which I apologise but that usage appeared to pass off without incident.
I didn't believe what I said was difficult to understand. I don't accept your definitions of libertarianism or your "it's not theft" explanation of fraud so I reject your notion that libertarian theory "leaves the state somewhat flapping in the wind when it comes to dealing with fraud."
Should the government be involved in bad bargains?
Is fraud a bad bargain caused by deceit?
Is there a market solution to this issue?
Why is the state option preferable to a possible market solution?
Does there being deceit give the state the right to intefere?
Somehow I knew you would dismiss him. He was a pamphleteer. Oh, well then what he said must be useless. Except that it isn't. Bastiat's works like The Law and Economic Harmonies are hardly the equivalent of 30 seconds of sound-bites. Notably, rather than address what he said, you simply dismiss the man.
As I set out previously he was a great writer and did huge amounts to influence the general public discourse on liberty as a topic. But there was a reason Schumpter infamously said that he was a brilliant economic journalist, but no economic theorist and that Hayek... while introducing his Bastiats own work... criticises his attempts to deal with economics. I don't dislike Bastiat... I rather like him in fact... but that doesn't mean I gloss over his (sometimes severe) limitations.
Ah yes. The old "dismiss anything that contradicts you" bit.
They're clearly colloquialising fraud to make it easier to understand for people not sophisticated in the legal terminology. In the same way certain derivatives are often described as "a type of insurance" when describing them to people not familiar with them or their operation.
Deliberately using deception to put other people's lives in danger seems to you an exceptionally wide restriction on free speech. I must really be tired (even though I cannot sleep) because you're making less and less sense to me. Are you now going to defend falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater?
This construction is already better as it indicates that the intention behind the deceit has to be to put lives in danger as opposed to being strict liability. My issues still remain however: are there any causation requirements? Is mere physical harm enough or is (subjectively? Objectively?) lives being in danger the requirement?
Having not been to this area of the site until a day or so ago and not encountered you elsewhere, I know nothing about you. I don't know what you said to others. Only what you said to me. If you would prefer I not consider your arguments hostile, perhaps you should reconsider your approach. I've nothing against a debate of libertarian ideas. I don't claim you have to agree with me to be libertarian. Telling me libertarians are okay with fraud, however, and basically telling me they are because you say they are, and implying I don't know what I'm talking about because I don't agree, that is not what I would call a friendly debate. I'm a nice guy but not meek. When pushed, I tend to push back. If that's a problem, then don't push.
I certainly don't think you don't know what you're talking about (although there have been a few cases of loose language... but then I've done likewise) but putting forward an argument as to why logically a libertarian in name and deed should oppose fraud legislation is not a "hostile" argument, especially from someone who in their very first post on the topic noted how he admired anarcho-capitalism (where fraud would be a genuine and real concern... and one of the major arguments against it). Likewise someone, who from their very first post on the topic noted how they are firmly on the libertarian side of the spectrum and only "not quite" a libertarian, pointing out some of the fairly innocuous flaws in general libertarian thinking doesn't seem to me to be hostile. I've even avoided some of the more contentious issues such as the tension between the widely held libertarian/classical liberal views on meritocracy/equality of opportunity and inheritance.
Debating someone's political or philosophical position is not an attack on them... most of my own positions in relation to many things contain several logical gaps which I'm well aware of and would fully expect someone to point out during any debate. I would defend them to the best of my ability but I wouldn't hint at a tone argument and I would engage with the criticism.