[jack_napier]

"This leaves unanswered the question of what comprises "coercion," but from my discussions with libertarians at FR, it seems largely to be limited to instances or threats of physical harm.

Well, I would think that seems an unusually narrow characterization; coercion can take the form of verbal, financial, etc. But bear in mind that I am not defending the most extreme of libertarians.

But there are other forms of "harm" than merely physical ones. Any imposition of unwelcome costs is a form of coercion. A policy of "if you don't like it, you can move" is a de facto admission that an unwelcome cost is being imposed. The remaining question is whether the imposed cost is reasonable, or at least not overly burdensome, despite being unwelcome.

And this shoots to the major point a libertarian will raise to you; that any society naturally sees situations in which conflicts of interest arise, and that there will be a loser.

And so we come again to the question of individual vs. community interests. The question of whether or not a complaint is reasonable, ultimately boils down to a question of whether or not my actions impose unreasonable costs on others. Alternatively, the question might boil down to judging whether my actions, though they may impose costs on some, will confer greater benefits on others.

Who decides what is unreasonable? The government? This teeters greatly towards the Marxist idea of "The rich/priviledged will not miss what they have, because they have so much." Afterall, you talk about the benefit of the many over the benefit of the one; if a man has 10 million dollars, we can bring GREAT benefit by housing the homeless with 9 million of those dollars that we take.

This brings us, finally, to my own primary reason for dismissing libertarians. Voluntary action cannot be separated from the idea of self-restraint, and here is where the libertarian position on things like drugs and prostitution is a useful marker.
The problem comes with who decides how much restraint is enough? The prevailing will of the people? If the will of the people that prevails is more permissive than you desire, does that make it wrong? The essential problem here is not that the governing body should demand self-restraint at times; it is that it is a demand that is so dangerous that it should be limited to where it is absolutely necessary. Where there is an area of doubt or contention that relies on the judgement of human beings, I err on the other side.

Part of liberty is being able to define the conditions under which I live. The libertarian point of view refuses me the right to do so, unless I behave badly -- in which case others have no right to complain. That's not "liberty," it's insanity.
This is especially ironic to me, because you are justifying the right of the communal interest to dictate to an individual those very conditions.

[r9etb]

But bear in mind that I am not defending the most extreme of libertarians.

How very convenient. That said, the frequency with which one sees statements like, "if you don't like it, you can leave" would tend to indicate that this is part of "mainstream" libertarian thought, so we needn't worry about your unwillingness to deal with the extremists.

And this shoots to the major point a libertarian will raise to you; that any society naturally sees situations in which conflicts of interest arise, and that there will be a loser.

True enough -- and the means by which the conflict is resolved are what's at issue here. And that's precisely why the typical retort, "if you don't like it, you can move" (or its sibling, "nobody has a right to not be offended") becomes an important component of the argument.

Under those rules, your ONLY alternatives are to put up with my choices, or leave -- in other words, you have no choice but to accept the costs that my actions impose upon you. There is only one "loser" in that scenario, and it's never the person whose actions impose the costs.

I suspect you'd relegate this result to the "extreme" side of libertarianism -- and if so, you have conceded that sometimes my voluntary actions can be curtailed, because the costs they impose upon you are too high.

Who decides what is unreasonable? The government?

Yes, sometimes. As a conservative, I prefer that this redress be kept to a minimum, but sometimes it is appropriate for the government to take action. But regardless of who decides, the point is that somebody has to decide -- and one would certainly hope that the criteria for deciding are both non-arbitrary and enforceable; which says, really, that it's a government decision even if you don't call it that.

This teeters greatly towards the Marxist idea of "The rich/priviledged will not miss what they have, because they have so much."

And by the same token, the opposite view "teeters greatly toward" ushering a Mogadishu-style anarchy into your neighborhood. Which is really to say, "teeters greatly" is an alarmist rather than rational term. All it does is presuppose that any and all human actions take place on the razor's edge of tyranny and anarchy -- which in real life they almost never do.

The problem comes with who decides how much restraint is enough? The prevailing will of the people? If the will of the people that prevails is more permissive than you desire, does that make it wrong?

Yes, the prevailing will of the people. That's the reality of life among other people -- a fact which libertarian theory never seems to grasp. The only safeguard against extremes in either direction is as Mr. Adams said all those years ago:

"We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."

Libertarianism without prior moral foundation leads to anarchy. Government action without prior moral foundation leads to tyranny.

Ironically, the libertarian ideal of "self-ownership" has the effect of undermining the religious and moral foundations of which Mr. Adams spoke. Libertarianism is its own worst enemy.