What's wrong with "coercion" as defined by Libertarians?

In a perfect world, deux would be right, since there would be a) enough court time to resolve all disputes fairly, b) the outcome of a case would have little to do with the quality of lawyers you hire (or alternatively, even the good lawyers are inexpensive) and c) even poor people can afford the time and money to pursue a lawsuit (largely because of a and b).

Of course, none of those are true, so the lawsuit thing isn't actually a very good solution.

Actually, making simpler laws would reduce time spent in court and need for awesome lawyers.

[Citation needed]

I honestly hope you're right, it would make things so much easier. But simple doesn't mean effective. I would rather have an effective but complex law which covers most contingencies.

Indeed, laws sometimes need to be complicated in order to account for every eventuality. I do agree that "plain speaking" should be put in place, but frequently that doesn't accurately convey the entirety of what is meant.

For a greater example, see the Voter ID topic and the list of amendments. Many of them were for clarification or solving of logistic or legal problems arising from the implementation of the bill.

As a libertarian I reject the idea of complicated laws about everything. I think law should act only when it's necessary, according to classic liberal concept of freedom

nzm 1536: Then where does the line go?
What is to be enforced, and not enforced?
And how do we stop the Oligarki from oppressing us all?

And there you go. Without clarification the law can be misused. For an example, one of the many commandments (which were greater than 10) was "Thou Shalt not Vex A Stranger."

Define vex. Is it merely to annoy? Is it to steal from?

Define stranger. Would the guy who always makes your coffee but you never remember the name of count? or is it just reserved for people who you have never met? If the latter, why restrict it to just complete strangers?

Your freedom ends where the other's freedom begins. Simple

Definitions are necessary. Not everything is

then what do you mean by complicated?

This is an informal discussion, not legislation. We don't need to define everything in informal discussions, that would be nitpicking. We can't even define everything too strictly in legislation for various reasons you'd know if you studied law, logic, philosophy or... physics. Seriously, don't let this degrade into semantic pseudo-discussion like the abortion thread

Actually, I remember a story where all of the Ten Commandments were shown to be abusive, and that society was better off without them.

I'm trying to figure out what you mean by complicated is all. Then I might actually be able to understand your position better? Because my assumption of definition of complicated was "overly wordy." This is incorrect, and I am trying to rectify this mistake. I am not trying to make this a semantics fest.

Story is a story, fiction. But the truth is, the commandments wouldn't make a good law

Modern laws are complicated because they assume a lot of ecconomic and individual regulations, often unnecessary. Also, the procedure itself is too long and complicated, with too many exceptions and ways of making it even longer. Also, at least where I live, the law tends to be divided between too many legal documents

edited 29th May '11 1:30:02 PM by nzm1536

Stories are one way humans communicate. And the arguments in the story are separate from the fiction itself.

I was using it as an example of an uncomplicated law which needs to be more complex to properly enforce. I wasn't suggesting it was a good law.

That doesn't define the line at all... it only says there is one. Maybe everyone else's freedom ends an inch below the surface of their skin, while mine covers the remaining space?

@nzm Except from what I'm from you, that doesn't hold true. For example, If a real estate agency decides they don't want certain people to buy houses from them, then they are violating those people's right to live where they want to live. Violating others freedom if you will.

And take it as it is and don't say anything about American race relations because you already claimed you didn't know much about how the US worked and it's like me trying to lecture you on an aspect of Polish society.

edited 29th May '11 1:34:04 PM by Alichains

Fuck, read a book, OK? I'm not going to spend hours explaining classic liberalism to you. An educated person should know it and understand (by knowledge or by intuition) the meaning of this phrase

Owner decides what to do with his property, it's his 'freedom'. Also, when I said about not knowing much about America, I meant American law. And this thread is not only about America. And racial relations in America are constantly getting better, that's what I know for sure

edited 29th May '11 1:34:16 PM by nzm1536

That would be fine if people had the same property, as is people who start off with less property often do not end up making an "informed" choice about it. And people who do have a large amount of property can pay others to decide what to do with it, thus leading to him gaining more without effectivly doing anything.

"Your freedom ends where the other's freedom begins. Simple"
I heard that said before.
And it is bullshit without a explaination.

Edit: One that not explain oneself is ALWAYS WRONG.

edited 29th May '11 1:43:04 PM by del_diablo

@ nzm: If you aren't prepared to explain your arguments, maybe you shouldn't make them.

That statement is not self-explanatory. Even various classical liberal philosophers had different ideas of where that line should be drawn. John Locke and John Stuart Mill were both classical liberals, but were not very similar to one another.

And don't forget, left-liberals are liberals, too. They just have different ideas about what impositions upon liberty exist (the concepts of privilege and systematic oppression being key).

edited 29th May '11 1:52:39 PM by BobbyG

Left liberals are not classic liberals (actually, only American call them 'liberals'; they are called 'social democrats' elsewhere). And don't expect me to explain well-known philosophical concepts here, there are people who can do it better. If you want to talk about libertarianism, learn its basic principles

edited 29th May '11 1:57:28 PM by nzm1536

I'm aware that classical liberals and left liberals are not the same. However, the former influenced the latter, and the concept of liberty is relevant to both. There is such thing as a left libertarian. I believe we have a few on this very site.

And no, it's not as simple as "American liberal = foreign social democrat". Political terminology varies a lot by region.

I sense a thread snarl here.