Diego1751 Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 I received this question and did not have a good answer, can anyone help me answer this for my friend?
EclecticIdealist Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 Sex-trafficking is presumably the trafficking of sex-slaves, not voluntary prostitution. Involuntary slavery is prohibited on the basis that it violates the Non-Agression Principle. Consequently, those who engage in it in any voluntary way, including solicitation are prosecuted for their crimes. Perhaps a better question would be: What would be the penalty for those who buy, sell, and trade human beings who are not only enslaved, but physically, sexually, psychologically and emotionally abused? What would be the penalty for those who pay those who engage in human sex-slavery to gratify their desires? 4
dsayers Posted September 20, 2016 Posted September 20, 2016 It's a trap. 1) The State doesn't solve problems. So you don't need a surrogate for something that isn't there. 2) The only thing you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence is violence itself. So if the problem has a solution, you don't need the State to achieve it. 3) Theft, assault, rape, and murder are either immoral or they are not. Whether you can solve ONE problem doesn't change this. 4) Nobody is great at everything. The "best" solutions to problems are going to come from people having discussions together. Discussions that cannot happen while there is a State that will initiate the use of force against anybody that tries to compete with it. 5) How will we address _____ in a free society has already been established elsewhere. See point 4, combined with the internet. If they were genuinely curious, they would consult the sum of human consciousness (the internet). Asking you is just an excuse to ignore the reality that they are responsible for their own actions, humans cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories, and governments are predicated on immoral behavior. I'm sure there's more points to be made. The bottom line is it's a trap. They are merely draining you of your time and resources, miring you down in minutia that ultimately doesn't matter. People just want to live their lives and such an evil would hamper that. Meaning there are more people who would be morally opposed to "sex trafficking" than would try to effect it. Network strength would be the answer to almost all of the "bad people are about" scenarios. 3
Pod Posted September 20, 2016 Posted September 20, 2016 He wouldn't partake. I think that answers it.
Anuojat Posted September 20, 2016 Posted September 20, 2016 How would "libertarian" handle sex trafficking? You mean how would free society or NOT government handle it?
ValueOfBrevity Posted September 20, 2016 Posted September 20, 2016 A libertarian government would let women vote. Women would vote for a welfare state.Sex trafficking would still exist. 2
Troubador Posted September 20, 2016 Posted September 20, 2016 I can only guess what the response would be, as I can't speak for everybody. My guess is some people would care about the issue and form a charity. That charity would would do evidence based research looking into the problem, in addition to providing support services to help people exit the situation. Upon having solid data to take to the general population they would bring advice and guidance on how we can all collectively combat the problem. There would likely be more than one charity looking into it, but the one that arrived at the most efficient and measurably effective way of combating the problem would rise in prominence and gain more donations. My guess is the solution would involve providing data and guidance into what sorts of parenting lead to people being dragged into bieng trafficked, and the rest of us would ostracise the bad parents, johns and traffickers making it incredibly difficult for either group to interact with the rest of us in productive society. Which would produce disincentives to doing it in the first place. People follow incentives. As long as the consequences outweigh the benefits people will think twice about doing it. Like I say it is a big problem, and as such I couldn't give you a magic bullet solution to it right here. However give me a free society and some like minded intelligent people motivated to look into it, and I am convince we could come up with something. As human beings many of us possess great compassion and empathy so in short those of us that gave a shit about it and not rely on a government to do it for us. Some would be willing to toss in a buck or two to a worthy cause, others would roll up their sleeves and wade into the muck and do something.
shirgall Posted September 20, 2016 Posted September 20, 2016 It is justified to use countervailing, proportional force to prevent force being applied to oneself or the innocent, but you had damned well be able to prove force was being used on that innocent and that innocent really was innocent. If a libertarian knew someone was enslaved by captivity or threat of force they would be hard-pressed to ignore it. While a person is not obligated to put themselves on the line to rescue someone, a lot of people choose risky actions to do all sorts of things. (This is the biggest issue I have with voting. What is the proportional response to someone voting for a tax measure on a ballot? A vote against it. What's the proportional response to someone voting for a tyrant?)
EclecticIdealist Posted September 20, 2016 Posted September 20, 2016 It's a trap. 1) The State doesn't solve problems. So you don't need a surrogate for something that isn't there. "The State" can solve problems that individuals are unable to do for themselves. Ideally, The State is the collective will of the people made manifest in the actions of a few representative individuals acting on behalf of the whole of society. Realistically, the State, like every collective (even DROs) becomes corrupt and must continually be cleansed and pruned of its corruption. 2) The only thing you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence is violence itself. So if the problem has a solution, you don't need the State to achieve it. The only solution to those using violence against you or others is, more often than not, violence. Neither Nazi Germany, nor Imperialist Japan, nor Fascist Italy were brought to the table to discuss the terms of their cessation of hostilities without first meeting their violence with violence. Initiating violence does not result in peace, but more often than not it is necessary to put an end to violent tyranny. I invite those who disagree to surrender any and all weapons to whomever would like them and see how long they are allowed to maintain their liberty and property. 3) Theft, assault, rape, and murder are either immoral or they are not. Whether you can solve ONE problem doesn't change this. SImply because they are immoral will not stop immoral people from selfishly committed to engaging in them without the use of force. Utilizing force against those who are already using it to oppress, abuse, and tyrannize will solve the problem for those thus rescued and those who will avoid being subjugated in the future. 4) Nobody is great at everything. The "best" solutions to problems are going to come from people having discussions together. Discussions that cannot happen while there is a State that will initiate the use of force against anybody that tries to compete with it. The problem is clearly a State that does not serve the interests of the people by initiating the use of force against any that attempt to compete with it. There is no reason to believe that a state cannot exist which does not do this. 5) How will we address _____ in a free society has already been established elsewhere. See point 4, combined with the internet. If they were genuinely curious, they would consult the sum of human consciousness (the internet). Asking you is just an excuse to ignore the reality that they are responsible for their own actions, humans cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories, and governments are predicated on immoral behavior. While it is probably such an excuse, it may be that the individual is simply ignorant of how a Libertarian would in fact approach the problem. It is presumptuous to suppose that one knows until sufficient evidence makes any other conclusion impossible. I'm sure there's more points to be made. The bottom line is it's a trap. They are merely draining you of your time and resources, miring you down in minutia that ultimately doesn't matter. People just want to live their lives and such an evil would hamper that. Meaning there are more people who would be morally opposed to "sex trafficking" than would try to effect it. Network strength would be the answer to almost all of the "bad people are about" scenarios. Such "network strength" has traditionally been found in the institution known as "The State". It's not a perfect solution by any means. There's a good chance it's not the best solution either. However, while it is the present solution that we have access to, our efforts ought to be directed at removing as much corruption from it as we possibly can. Alternatively, we can sit back and wait for the corruption to destroy society and observe as the world devolves into abject chaos and mob rule on the one hand, or dictatorships and oligarchies of the wealthy and powerful on the other and hope we are not caught up in it ourselves. In short, you can choose to be like Batman and fight the Darkness, or you can become it like Ra's al Ghul and help to set the fire, light the match, and watch Rome burn. A libertarian government would let women vote. Women would vote for a welfare state. Sex trafficking would still exist. A libertarian government would not create or maintain a welfare state. The two are mutually exclusive, unless the welfare is provided entirely by completely voluntary contributions. (This is the biggest issue I have with voting. What is the proportional response to someone voting for a tax measure on a ballot? A vote against it. What's the proportional response to someone voting for a tyrant?) The proportional response to someone voting for a tyrant is expelling them from your society. Voting for tyranny is a vote for violence by proxy. Unfortunately, we live in a society that is already so sick that expulsion of those disposed to tyranny is all but utterly impossible except in the most extreme circumstances (if even then).
shirgall Posted September 20, 2016 Posted September 20, 2016 The proportional response to someone voting for a tyrant is expelling them from your society. Voting for tyranny is a vote for violence by proxy. Unfortunately, we live in a society that is already so sick that expulsion of those disposed to tyranny is all but utterly impossible except in the most extreme circumstances (if even then). I don't disagree, but what I try to picture is the continuum of responses from the low bar of voting for a fire marshal to the high bar of voting for a President. It's not settled. Some people have made arguments that any voting within the system only serves massive initiation of force that is modern government systems.
EclecticIdealist Posted September 20, 2016 Posted September 20, 2016 I don't disagree, but what I try to picture is the continuum of responses from the low bar of voting for a fire marshal to the high bar of voting for a President. It's not settled. Some people have made arguments that any voting within the system only serves massive initiation of force that is modern government systems. Given that we are currently living under such a system, and given the fact that it can get much worse than it presently is, and given the remote possibility that our vote might actually count towards moving us away from even greater tyranny, I don't hold with the argument that "not voting" as a protest against the current system of oppression is the wisest course of action; especially given the propensity for others to vote for greater tyranny. I can, nevertheless, understand and even respect the difference of opinion, that refusing to vote in an election where one's vote will not count (the elections are rigged, or the election essentially a foregone conclusion for a particular district) could be the more ethical choice. Personally, I view simple voting or not voting to the be LEAST effective thing a person can do... even participating in such a public forum as this I consider to be of at least nominally greater value, as one stands a greater chance of persuading others by voicing an opinion than by simply casting a ballot.
NotDarkYet Posted September 20, 2016 Posted September 20, 2016 By not making slavery legal in the form of a State.
ValueOfBrevity Posted September 22, 2016 Posted September 22, 2016 A libertarian government would not create or maintain a welfare state. The two are mutually exclusive, unless the welfare is provided entirely by completely voluntary contributions. Eventually it would. Small governments always grow. "Even if we did achieve what we wanted with a very small state, we'd just be resetting the clock back to 1776 and it would roll forward in exactly the same way again...the only way to break the cycle is not to lower the dimmer switch but, you know, push it and turn off the light."
shirgall Posted September 22, 2016 Posted September 22, 2016 Given that we are currently living under such a system, and given the fact that it can get much worse than it presently is, and given the remote possibility that our vote might actually count towards moving us away from even greater tyranny, I don't hold with the argument that "not voting" as a protest against the current system of oppression is the wisest course of action; especially given the propensity for others to vote for greater tyranny. I can, nevertheless, understand and even respect the difference of opinion, that refusing to vote in an election where one's vote will not count (the elections are rigged, or the election essentially a foregone conclusion for a particular district) could be the more ethical choice. Personally, I view simple voting or not voting to the be LEAST effective thing a person can do... even participating in such a public forum as this I consider to be of at least nominally greater value, as one stands a greater chance of persuading others by voicing an opinion than by simply casting a ballot. I'm going to vote, but I hold no lofty notions that makes much difference except in local elections. I live in the state of Washington, and near Seattle, and the looters outnumber the producers greatly here, probably drawn by the massive cash flows of Microsoft, Amazon, Starbucks, Boeing, etc.
EclecticIdealist Posted September 22, 2016 Posted September 22, 2016 I'm going to vote, but I hold no lofty notions that makes much difference except in local elections. I live in the state of Washington, and near Seattle, and the looters outnumber the producers greatly here, probably drawn by the massive cash flows of Microsoft, Amazon, Starbucks, Boeing, etc. Yeah, if I wanted to live on the dole, I'd go to NYC, Seatle, SF, or some other such city
AlanM Posted October 18, 2016 Posted October 18, 2016 I'm going to vote, but I hold no lofty notions that makes much difference except in local elections. I live in the state of Washington, and near Seattle, and the looters outnumber the producers greatly here, probably drawn by the massive cash flows of Microsoft, Amazon, Starbucks, Boeing, etc. There's nothing wrong with voting as long as you understand that you're voting in order to express your opinion, not change the results of an election. I would consider it very un-libertarian to vote in order to bring about change for two reasons: 1. You're being Borromir and trying to use the ring to achieve good. 2. Your vote is completely and totally useless and will not change the results of the election even if you voted in 10,000,000 elections. Again though, if you're voting for personal expression, no one can criticize you.
shirgall Posted October 18, 2016 Posted October 18, 2016 There's nothing wrong with voting as long as you understand that you're voting in order to express your opinion, not change the results of an election. I would consider it very un-libertarian to vote in order to bring about change for two reasons: 1. You're being Borromir and trying to use the ring to achieve good. 2. Your vote is completely and totally useless and will not change the results of the election even if you voted in 10,000,000 elections. Again though, if you're voting for personal expression, no one can criticize you. It's not useless in local elections and the Boromir argument does not follow (except that I might be played by Sean Bean in the movie of my life, which means I die early **spoiler**). They are using force against me, and I'm responding with whatever tools I have at my disposal to change that. No one cares about people not voting, but they do care if the margins change.
Recommended Posts