An easy solution to end unemployment, consumer debt, and class anxiety.
Many Americans today believe certain illegal vices in our society should be decriminalized, taxed, and regulated. The most popular of these vices include marijuana smoking, prostitution, and all forms of gambling. The proponents for decriminalization believe that the new tax revenues produced would help support schools, healthcare, and the impoverished, ease the pain of taxpayers, and reduce the deficit. They also believe that transgressions such as these will take place no matter, but, if properly regulated, would be safer for society in general. It would be a win, win situation.
Unfortunately, when it comes to lowering taxes and helping the downtrodden, the best-laid government plans seem to fall short of expectations. However, there is one vice, one small illegal indiscretion, that, if decriminalized would solve all our problems. The United States needs to legalize the victimless crime known as counterfeiting.
Once legalized, counterfeiting would be for everyone. This could be accomplished by making Federal Reserve paper (complete with silk threads, watermarks, etc.) available to the public. With the correct paper, most computers with the right software would have no trouble replicating U.S. currency. If a household did not have a computer, special over-the-counter counterfeit kits could be made available, with instructions in both English and Spanish.
Once in place, universal counterfeiting would prove to be the ultimate stimulus package for the economy. Employees would always have enough money and never have to go on strike. Citizens would have no trouble paying their mortgages and never face foreclosure. Everyone would gladly pay his or her taxes and there would be no need to have an IRS. Free market consumerism would return with a flourish. People would purchase whatever they wanted and stores would only have to worry about having enough merchandise on hand. Stores could charge the consumer whatever they wanted and the consumer could still afford. Every shopping day would be like the day after Thanksgiving and the day before Christmas.
Once legalized, counterfeiting would still have to be regulated. Parity and fairness would dictate that families earning over $250,000 would only be allowed to print $1, $2, $5 and $10 denominations. Families with combined incomes of less than $250,000 could print $20 and $50 bills. The unemployed could print $100 bills, and ACORN workers and UAW members would be entitled to counterfeit a new denomination, something even larger than the $100 bill (with President Obama on the front).
Universal counterfeiting could be the entitlement program that ends all other entitlement programs and sets us free. It is time to stand up and tell our legislators we want universal counterfeiting. If they protest, "You cannot just print money," then promptly respond in kind, "Why not? It works for you."
While I appreciate the humor of the example, there is legitimate discussion to be had about the other "vices" you mention. Gambling and prostitution in particular, since both are the result of a legitimate, free market expression of individual liberties, and neither activity infringes on the individual rights of others. Drug use is a slightly different discussion since impairment of judgment imperils the individual rights of others and may therefore not be a legitimate expression of individual liberties. Of course, the fact that certain judgment-impairing drugs are legal to purchase as consumer products while others are not complicates a legitimate discussion of the issue with accusations of hypocrisy.
This article by Harold Witkov is also published here today:
Try again:
This article by Harold Witkov is also published here today: American Thinker,
[www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/time_to_legalize_counterfeitin_1.html]
"Parity and fairness would dictate that families earning over $250,000 would only be allowed to print $1, $2, $5 and $10 denominations. Families with combined incomes of less than $250,000 could print $20 and $50 bills."
One problem: Those with combined incomes of less than $250,000 would quickly print their way into the over-$250,000 bracket. Then what?
I'm guessing this is a slight aimed at the recent calls for decriminalization of pot, etc.
What can I say? Prohibition is a proven failure.
Legalize it. Tax it. Regulate it. Get over it.
"When was the last time a tobacco kingpin was killed in a deal gone wrong?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/opinion/17gillespie.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&pagewanted=all
And more…
http://mensnewsdaily.com/amyalkon/?p=182
Legalize it. Tax it. Regulate it. Get over it.
A better slogan, though admittedly more verbose, would be: You cannot criminalize it because you don't have the constitutional authority; you shouldn't be regulating it – it's a free market and regulating it is beyond your purview; you shouldn't tax it any more or less than you tax any other good – in other words, punitive taxes shouldn't be allowed; get over it.
Of course, as I mentioned before, there is a legitimate reason to consider prohibiting recreational drugs to the extent that users of such drugs impinge on others' individual rights. That's a different discussion. At the end of the day, if you can't find authority for a law or regulation or agency in the constitution, it's because you don't have any.
I thought counterfeiting was already legal! How else did we ever get the money to buy the banks, insurnace companies, mortgage companies, and auto manufacturers 'we' now own?
Patrick – how do you feel about "Cyberbulling"?
Check this out: According to the Democrats, Cyberbullying is a crime with some of the following deleterious effects on society:
Most of the justification for the cyberbullying legislation is that cyberbulling — like smoking –is harmful for those under 18. But unlike cigarettes, their is no age limit in the proposed legislation for cyberbullying. In other words, the excuse for passing the legistlation is that "it's for the children", but the actual legislation will be applied to all Americans regardless of their age.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1966:
Which is worse, the cyberbully or the pot smoker? Statistics can be cited showing that both activities have a net deleterious effect on society by causing increases in work absence, use of sick leave, and has a negative impact on work performance and social engagement.
It seems to me that anyone who supports the prohibition of marijuana of these grounds must also support the Dimocrats Cyberbulling legislation.
To the extent that harassment of any kind – real life or "cyber" – impinges on the rights of others, I believe it is already – quite rightly – prohibited under our current laws, making "cyberbullying" legislation redundant and reactionary. Legally speaking, I couldn't care less about the deleterious affects of any particular action or behavior on society – I care whether or not it conflicts with the fundamental rights of other people.
PM said,
I agree there is a legitimate discussion here about rights and their limits.
For example, I think there is a limit to the right of anyone to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater where there is no fire and with an intent to create mischief. By the same token, the rights of the second amendment do not include the private purchase and possession of a tactical atomic explosive.
If my neighbor had a tactical nuclear explosive, then I might feel compelled to get one, too. In which case the predicted outcome of this scenario would likely end up depriving me of the very things I wish to defend.
I think the purpose of the article was to make fun of those libertarians who would like to see a sensible drug policy that does not intentionally thwart the general pursuit of personal liberty as described by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.
The cyberbully bill struck me as a frightening bit of Newspeak legislation framed in classic "For The Children" rhetoric. Legislation in the same league as the Patriot Act but worse because it stifles free exchange and chills collateral public speech.
It's a bad — no, it's a TERRIBLE — idea for a law, but I fear with wall to wall Democrats it might become law.
And one that our new Latina Overlord will be happy to adjudicate as needed.
But in what way does a marijuana smoker infringe on the liberty of his neighbor? Where is the social cost that justifies the current Prohibition? How is it different from alcohol or cigarettes?
How is it different from alcohol or cigarettes?
Or from prescription drugs, or from cocaine? It isn't. At least not philosophically. Practically, the psychoactive effects of all of those drugs are unique in both their properties and intensity, of course.
But in what way does a marijuana smoker infringe on the liberty of his neighbor?
Philosophically, anyone who is intoxicated impinges on the rights of his neighbors when they are forced to abandon the normal assumption of rationality that they would have under circumstances when he was not intoxicated. That is why, for instance, you may not enter into a contract while intoxicated, or if you do, the contract may be voided – you cannot be assumed to be a rational actor. That is not fair to the individuals that comprise the society that you interact with – it places a burden on them that they would not otherwise have. Practically, anytime you are intoxicated your judgment will be impaired (or, using less judgmental terminology "altered"), your decision making is less likely to be rational, and consequently your behavior is more likely than it would be when you are not intoxicated to be destructive, harmful, or otherwise interfering with the rights of others.
Contrast this with the other "vices" our author mentions: gambling and prostitution. To the extent that you are acting rationally, your decision to wager your money has no impact at all on anyone else's fundamental rights, anymore than your decision to purchase a movie ticket or groceries does. You made a rational decision to spend your money in exchange for some perceived value – as true a free market exchange as exists. Likewise prostitution. To the extent that both actors are acting rationally, the prostitute and the client both decide to enter into an exchange of services for money with terms negotiated to their mutual satisfaction the same way one would enter into an agreement with a lawer or a hair stylist. Neither actor impinges on anyone else's fundamental rights, and this again represents as true a free market exchange as exists.
In the much-theorized situation where the marijuana smoker stays in his house, smokes his marijuana, and waits there with no contact with the outside world of any kind until he is no longer intoxicated, he doesn't practically impinge on anyone else's rights (though the philosophical principle still applies since it deals with one's capacity to act rationally, and not just with the results of acting irrationally). Neither would a crackhead or boozer who held to the same principle. To borrow your example, neither would the nuclear bomb builder who built his bomb in his own home with no knowledge, contact or interraction from anyone outside of his home.
"But in what way does a marijuana smoker infringe on the liberty of his neighbor? … Contrast this with the other "vices" our author mentions: gambling and prostitution. To the extent that you are acting rationally, your decision to wager your money has no impact at all on anyone else's fundamental rights, anymore than your decision to purchase a movie ticket or groceries does."
I disagree. Any time you procure a "vice" you are providing a market for someone to supply it. Inevitably, the fallout that you have no direct involvement in hurts individuals and society as a whole.
And the angels dancing on the head of a pin need to be counted.
Counterfeiting is already quite legal ever since we went off the gold standard. However, the article does raise the very items that most of the thread have been discussing. For example, consider prohibition which was meant to shield the innocent members of the population from "deamon rum". This helped my family through some very tough times driving Packards and Hudsons with very beefy rear springs and carrying goods from Canada (blame Canada). On the serious side prohibition created an active underground criminal (my relatives were really good people trying to survive in a tough world) enterprise not unlike that we see in drugs today. So what is the solution? Legalization makes some sense since it reduces the direct criminal involvement. It does not address the effect on others any more than the end of prohibition.
For those worrying about prostitution, don't worry visit Nevada there are a few glimmering counties where it is legal.
Seems to me that there are areas where widespread legalization could be a win. Certainly it would but a lot of bad folks on the unemployment line.
"Intoxicated": Question: Could we include in this definition the abandonment of normal assumptions when it comes to people "intoxicated" by religion or hormones or schizophrenia or some other mind-altering condition?
In that sense, anyone outside of an arbitrarily defined norm would satisfy the condition of being burdened by the unwanted responsibility of setting aside our "normal assumptions of rationality."
If we are explicitly discussing a foreign substance consciously introduced to the body, then these other psychological conditions (like depression, mood-disorders or even religious practices like banging a gong) would not be subject to the impracticalities of outlaw status because they would be protected forms of expression.
(Of course the state has the right to commit people to psychiatric institutions in the event some person is found dangerously insane. But that's a slippery slope: The Soviets were pretty good at declaring their political opponents "insane" and then subjecting them to mandatory stays at their state psychiatric hospitals.)
I'm not trying to be flip here. I'm just trying to understand the standard by which blanket drug laws are justified on the basis that someone somewhere might compel me to abandon my everyday "assumptions of rationality".
Any time you procure a "vice" you are providing a market for someone to supply it. Inevitably, the fallout that you have no direct involvement in hurts individuals and society as a whole.
Any time you procure clothing or food or movie tickets or a plasma TV or a manicure or the services of an attorney you are providing a market for someone to supply it. What is your point? Leaving the moral judgment of what is or is not a "vice" aside, if the transaction satisfies all of the conditions for a legitimate free market exchange, A) why should it be illegal and B) what difference does it make what happens indirectly after the transaction has taken place? What if I buy a TV from Wal Mart in a voluntary free market exchange and one of their employees uses the salary he is paid as a result of my purchase to buy candy to lure little kids into his van? Well, that would truly be a disgusting shame, but my involvement in the transaction has no bearing on the "consequence to society" and the transaction I partook in is no less legitimate because of it.
Question: Could we include in this definition the abandonment of normal assumptions when it comes to people "intoxicated" by religion or hormones or schizophrenia or some other mind-altering condition?
Perhaps a definition of the term "intoxicated" could help enlighten this situation. Courtesy of http://www.dictionary.com:
intoxicated 1. to affect temporarily with diminished physical and mental control by means of alcoholic liquor, a drug, or another substance, esp. to excite or stupefy with liquor.
For the sake of clarity and consistency, let's use this definition of "intoxicated" for the purposes of any future discourse.
Except in the case where the religious person alters his state of consciousness in the course of his religious activities, I wouldn't consider someone practicing a religion to be stupefied or experiencing diminished mental or physical control. Neither someone experiencing normal human hormone fluctuations. Someone who is mentally ill would partially fit the definition in that he may not be fully in control of his mental faculties. However, being that the mentally ill person presumably did not intentionally induce his condition, his liability for his mental incompetence is diminished, if not excused (this is why those deemed insane by a court are not held to the same standard of liability for crimes they commit as people who are sane).
You have a point in that rationality and normalcy can be thought of as arbitarily defined, but that is a far deeper philosophical issue that strikes to the very root of constructing an ethical basis from which we can have this argument in the first place, so I'm not sure where you're going. If you reject a logical and ethical framework based on individual liberty and rational egoism and an accompanying conception of competing rights this would be a rather fruitless discussion.
I'm just trying to understand the standard by which blanket drug laws are justified on the basis that someone somewhere might compel me to abandon my everyday "assumptions of rationality".
That's a caricature of the argument I was making. Either that or a poor understanding of the argument I was making. You asked how recreational drug use affected the individual rights of others and I gave you response based on the libertarian conception of conflicing liberties.
This is one of those rare situations where there really is no grey area – either recreational intoxication, by whatever means you prefer, principally violates the rights of others, and is therefore not a legitimate expression of individual liberty, and should therefore be universally illegal; or recreational intoxication, by whatever means you prefer, principally does not violate the rights of others, and is therefore a legitimate expression of individual liberty, and should therefore be universally legal. You've asked me to elucidate the former position, which I have attempted to do, and I can't help but feel that you're not returning the favor, nor even stating your own position, but merely nitpicking.
Patrick Mulligan:
Re: “Any time you procure clothing or food or movie tickets or a plasma TV or a manicure or the services of an attorney you are providing a market for someone to supply it. What is your point? Leaving the moral judgment of what is or is not a ‘vice’ aside, if the transaction satisfies all of the conditions for a legitimate free market exchange, A) why should it be illegal …?”
I once saw a debate between to men[!], one advocated that housewives be paid for doing housework; his opponent disagreed, stating that a husband-wife relationship should not be reduced to a strictly commercial one, and I agreed. That’s what you libertarians seemed to want – to reduce all human interaction to that of a willing buyer and a willing seller, and all moral judgement be eliminated. The premise of “leaving the moral judgment of what is or is not a ‘vice’ aside,” is all wet because, as a society, we must seek the desirable and eliminate the undesirable as much as possible, so we can’t leave moral judgment aside. And in order to determine if something is desirable or not, we must exercise judgement.
“…and B) what difference does it make what happens indirectly after the transaction has taken place? What if I buy a TV from Wal Mart in a voluntary free market exchange and one of their employees uses the salary he is paid as a result of my purchase to buy candy to lure little kids into his van?”
Get reasonable. This is a false analogy because people have to earn a living, and they have to shop. In order for me to be 100% absolutely sure that no one would abuse a child with his legitimate salary that I help pay, we would have to ban all men, and some women, from earning a living on the extremely remote chance someone would. On the other hand, there is a much stronger nexus between my paying a prostitute and her using the money to buy illegal drugs [which is probably why she’s a prostitute] than there is between my buying a TV and the salesman using his earnings to buy candy to lure children so he could commit child molestation.
Another problem you libertarians have is that if just one exception can be found to the idea that one vice leads to another, all the stops on human restraint should be pulled out, which makes about as much sense as banning all men from earning a living – or possessing any money at all. Well, life just isn’t that Manichaean, and I wouldn't want to live in the world you advocate.
I'm not going to spend much time addressing an argument I didn't make and that isn't relevant to the argument I was making, but suffice it to say that a husband and wife are free to negotiate any type of commercial contract that they want, separately or jointly with the social/religious/civil contract of their marriage. Paying one's spouse as a condition of the marriage contract is not a typical libertarian position, anymore than is the ownership of one spouse by another. Of course not everything is a commercial contract.
If we are to use moral judgments instead of fundamental, inalienable rights to decide what transactions may and may not be legally allowed to take place, we may arbitrarily ban any activity we wish at any time we wish for any reason we wish. If we should elect a government of Amish moralists, we could legitimately outlaw the sale of automobiles, television sets, power tools, or electric ovens. If we should elect a government of environmentalist moralists, we could legitimately outlaw carbon-based electricity production, the sale of hunting or fishing equipment, the sale or production of automobiles or the logging of trees. If we should elect a government of… I'm sure you can see the example.
No, moral judgments do not come into play. Fundamental rights do. What are fundamental rights? Well, the one's we decided to guarantee in our constitution include the right to private property, the right to bear arms, the right to freedom of speech and association, the right to freely practice one's religion, etc. The liberties that these fundamental rights guarantee give people the ability to do things that may be immoral. That is a risk that we deemed acceptable in order to protect people's individual rights. So as long as an activity is within our individual fundamental rights, and does not infringe on the individual fundamental rights of others, it is a legitimate activity before the law. Morality is a different matter.
For example, I may find it personally immoral to engage in prostitution, but I believe that a prostitute has as much right to use the labor of his or her body in exchange for money as any other person performing any other type of labor, and I believe that a prostitute has as much right to negotiate a wage for his or her labor as any other person performing any other type of labor. Consequently, I cannot say that prostitution should be illegal, even though I believe it to be immoral. The goal of a moral person should be to pursuade others of your moral ideals so that they will voluntarily comply with them – not to take away the ability of other people to behave immorally. If you are not given the choice, is your morality even genuine?
In order for me to be 100% absolutely sure that no one would abuse a child with his legitimate salary that I help pay, we would have to ban all men, and some women, from earning a living
Precisely my point. There is no difference at all between the examples, except in the way that you define the word "legitimate" in that sentence. Prostitution does not yield a "legitimate" salary, in your opinion, but stocking Wal Mart shelves does, regardless of whether or not both laborers are going to spend their salary on the exact same things. That is precisely the type of ridiculous hypocrisy that arises when you rely on relative terms to define what is permissible and not permissible instead of fundamental rights (see also: 98% of the laws we have in the United States). Tell me, should purchasing the music of Elvis Presley have been made illegal because it was established publicly and without any doubt that Elvis Presley spent his money on drugs and debauchery? How about movies starring Robert Downey Jr.? I had a friend with a several hundred dollar per month drug habit who worked at Best Buy. Why is it "legitimate" for him to perform labor with his body in exchange for money so that he can purchase drugs, but it is not "legitimate" for a prostitute to perform labor with his or her body in exchange for money so that he or she can purchase drugs?
I would not be considered by most orthodox libertarians to be an orthodox libertarian, but I have appreciation for the libertarian (and classically liberal, which is probably a more apt description of my ideology) establishment of fundamental individual rights and the universal application of those rights. Under such a system, things are indeed dualistic, without non-sensical and hypocritical "grey" layers of subjectivity explaining why one person excercising some fundamental right is illegitimate while another person exercising the exact same fundamental right is legitimate. You either have the right to do something or you don't – you don't have the right to various degrees, in various situations, under various circumstances.
Forgive the formatting – only the quotation from your post was intended to be italicized. Whoops!
Patrick Mulligan:
I don't agree with much of what you have said, which amounts to license, not freedom. If you want to leave religious beliefs out, all you have to do is watch "It's a Wonderful Life" to realize how much an individual life influences those around him, either positively or negatively.
Peace.
What you are advocating is license instead of freedom. If you have a fundamental right, it cannot legitimately be mitigated or regulated or diminished for any reason, whatever the intentions. Interfering with fundamental rights for good intentions is why we have regulations forcing banks to act against their own self interest in making home loans, for example. How some particular behavior impacts society should never be relevent to whether or not you have a fundamental right to that behavior. The argument has been made that owning guns makes society more violent, and consequently that fundamental right should be regulated, mitigates, or taken away entirely. If society is worse off for owning guns, shouldn't we comply? By your reasoning, we absolutely should – because the result of exercising the right is more important than the right itself. By the libertarian/classical liberal reasoning, the right is more important, and cannot be infringed.
Patrick Mulligan:
Re: “If you have a fundamental right, it cannot legitimately be mitigated or regulated or diminished for any reason, whatever the intentions.”
“Legitimately” by whose standard? While I will agree that the law sometimes places unreasonable limits, “fundamental” rights are mitigated by society all the time – and rightfully so. Take your right to free speech. It is mitigated by laws against child porn. I might have a fundamental right to interstate travel, but I cannot unreasonably risk endangering others on the highway, so there are speed limits. I have the right to own a gun, but I cannot own a machine gun without much more severe restrictions than an ordinary rifle; I cannot discharge a firearm in a city. These are all mitigations of fundamental rights.
Pulling the thread on the prostitution hypothetical, I think you are arguing that immorality equals sin, and therefore, laws based on morality [i.e., sin] should be eliminated. But if we did that, we would have to eliminate all laws because morality isn’t just a religious concept; it is the quality of an act judged against a standard. I can choose Coke over Pepsi, an act that is morally neutral, but still containing a moral level nonetheless, albeit zero. Suppose laws against prostitution were eliminated as you claim they should be, and your local prostitutes decided [for whatever reason] to use the street in front of your house to parade their wares [the fundamental right of free speech] and pursue their fundamental free market rights of transactions. If that’s too far-fetched, what if they used the street in front of your place of employment, and their activity drove away business, and you lost your job as a result? Would you still claim that, “how some particular behavior impacts society should never be relevant to whether or not the prostitutes have a fundamental right to their behavior”?
“By the libertarian/classical liberal reasoning, the right is more important, and cannot be infringed.”
No right is absolute.
No right is absolute.
When you've reached that conclusion, you acknowledge and accept that you have no rights, so discussion is futile. Rights that are not absolute are not rights – they are privileges. Rights that can be revoked are not rights – they are privileges. Privileges are meted out by authorities. Rights are secured against authorities. If you honestly believe that the American Revolution was fought to establish a moral authority in the halls of government, the purpose of which is to arbitrarily assign and revoke privileges to the citizenry based on the judgment of lawmakers as if they were some elevated class of high priests, I think you have a different understanding of rights, the purpose of rights, and the purpose of government than the men who executed said revolution and established our American government.
Patrick Mulligan:
Re: “When you've reached that conclusion, you acknowledge and accept that you have no rights, so discussion is futile. Rights that are not absolute are not rights – they are privileges. … I think you have a different understanding of rights, the purpose of rights, and the purpose of government than the men who executed said revolution and established our American government.”
I know there are more extreme statements, but they would be difficult to find. Your understanding of “rights” is the one at odds with that of the Founding Fathers who wrote the following in the “Bill of Rights”:
“No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; …”
They obviously envisioned that in some limited circumstances, a person’s rights can be taken away, for if rights are absolute, you cannot enforce any law at all because punishment, by its very nature, is the denial of certain rights [e.g., imprisonment = loss of liberty, a fine = loss of property]. If rights were absolute, chaos will ensue, and we will all lose all of our rights.
Re: “If you honestly believe that the American Revolution was fought to establish a moral authority in the halls of government, the purpose of which is to arbitrarily assign and revoke privileges to the citizenry based on the judgment of lawmakers as if they were some elevated class of high priests …”
I have stated that morality is the quality of an act judged against a standard, and you have taken from that the absurd idea that I think politicians are the epitome and the very definition of morality. Talk about taking one data point and extrapolating a whole universe! You are still equating morality exclusively with sin. I have defined my concept of morality, but you haven’t said what yours is. My understanding of libertarianism is that anything goes between willing participants as long as force and/or fraud are not used. Under such an arrangement, and human nature being what it is, what happens when the eventual conflict arises? Who, and by what standard, decides if and when force and/or fraud have been present in a transaction? Who decides the standard? Who decides if it is reasonable? What happens if force and/or fraud indeed were the case? How does it get resolved and by whom? Does the guilty party get punished? I suppose one solution is just to let everyone extract his own revenge.
Like so many other Utopian schemes, libertarianism hasn’t been all that well thought through.
They obviously envisioned that in some limited circumstances, a person’s rights can be taken away, for if rights are absolute, you cannot enforce any law at all because punishment, by its very nature, is the denial of certain rights [e.g., imprisonment = loss of liberty, a fine = loss of property].
You are presenting a false argument from a false dilemma. I did not say that all rights are absolute – but that fundamental rights are. The only legitimate reason to deny a fundamental right to one person is in restitution or punishment for his doing the same to another system. More on that in a moment.
My understanding of libertarianism is that anything goes between willing participants as long as force and/or fraud are not used. Under such an arrangement, and human nature being what it is, what happens when the eventual conflict arises? Who, and by what standard, decides if and when force and/or fraud have been present in a transaction? Who decides the standard? Who decides if it is reasonable? What happens if force and/or fraud indeed were the case? How does it get resolved and by whom? Does the guilty party get punished? I suppose one solution is just to let everyone extract his own revenge.
Your understanding of libertarianism is simplistic at best. You apparently have libertarianism confused with anarchism, a system in which no government exists and has no right to enforce any sort of authority. Libertarians believe that government is necessary to protect fundamental rights from being infringed by others – nothing more, nothing less. A government is confined in it's authority by the establishment of inalienable (a term you may recognize from the Declaration of Independence – as I mentioned, our founding fathers based our entire government on this idea of rights) fundamental rights. You make absolutely no distinction between fundamental natural right and legal privileges, which is why you do not understand this philosophy. This may help you to understand the difference. This defintion of classical liberalism (not libertarianism, mind you, but classical liberalism – the philosophy essentially defined by our founding fathers) addresses the compossiblity of rights, which I believe you are also failing to properly understand.
Your caricature of libertarianism certainly doesn't seem very well thought out, but actual libertarianism makes quite a bit more sense and could hardly be described as Utopian (that you would choose such a term to define libertarianism is a humorous betrayal of your lack of understanding of the philosophy). To answer your questions: when conflicts arise, one of the only legitimate purposes of government is to intervene on behalf of the wronged party, which they determine by examining the evidence against the rubric of the codified system of inalienable, fundemantal rights, and then to use force to punish the wrongdoer and/or ensure restitution to the wronged party. This is not nearly so complicated a system as you are making it into – it is, in fact, the system our founding fathers envisioned and then pursued for about 150 years until we decided, based upon reasoning like yours, that the law was subject to the whims and judgment of an all-powerful central government.
First sentence should read "to another person" instead of "to another system" – sorry.
Patrick Mulligan:
Re: "You are presenting a false argument from a false dilemma. I did not say that all rights are absolute – but that fundamental rights are. The only legitimate reason to deny a fundamental right to one person is in restitution or punishment for his doing the same to another person."
Sounds like you contradicted yourself here. Fundamental rights are absolute [your comment #21: "If you have a fundamental right, it cannot legitimately be mitigated or regulated or diminished for any reason, whatever the intentions."], but now they can be denied as "restitution or punishment for his doing the same to another person."
I suppose I could have been clearer in comment 21, but then I was operating on the assumption that you were actually familiar with the tenets of libertarian philosophy and government, which you are only vaguely. Since the context of our conversation up to that point was the government denying fundamental rights by regulating certain transactions arbitrarily based on their perceived morality, or effects on society, or legislative whim, I was speaking of the government mitigating, regulating, or diminshing fundamental rights outside of a disciplinary context – as a matter of policy. You're not an idiot, so I'm sure you can see the difference. At this point you're just grabbing at semantical straws – you didn't even touch on the actual thrust of my last comment.