Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Is it time for a "Liberty Manifesto"?

This post has 234 Replies | 8 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Mon, Aug 17 2009 9:34 PM
Lam, if I were to call you an idiot or something like that I would be insulting you. But what I'm doing is simply describing in a value-free manner your posts - which are reactionary and boring.

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,511
Points 31,955

liberty student:

laminustacitus:
More than plenty.

More than plenty is what?  IIRC, you don't even identify as a libertarian.  What is your political ideology?  What was your activism?

I need to prove nothing to you, and seeing that I don't use my real name as my screen-name then I also see any personal details such as the above as irrelevant.

 

liberty student:

laminustacitus:
Nevertheless, you dodged my entire post.

The last time we tangled in a proper political thread, you banned someone, then gave yourself a timeout from the forum.

You know how many people other moderators have banned for insulting people? Its nothing special, and I don't even know why you need to bring it up.

 

liberty student:
As much fun as it is to tweak people who are wound too tight, I'm not a sadist, and would rather skip this round of Lam vs. LS.

I don't care about any "Lam vs. LS" - all I care about are arguments, and I don't come whence they originate. It is only you who are making this personal.

 

liberty student:
That said, you're a grown man, so if you really want to play, I'm game.

Why does this need to be personal?

Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.

          - Edmund Burke

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

LibertyPatriot:
I think you know the specific examples, but for point of debate, let's take a national highway system. 

the good news is Doc Block heard you would be joining us and kindly left you some reading materials.

http://mises.org/story/3416

http://mises.org/store/Privatization-of-Roads-and-Highways-P581.aspx

lol, found the actual link

http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdf

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

nirgrahamUK:

LibertyPatriot:
I think you know the specific examples, but for point of debate, let's take a national highway system. 

the good news is Doc Block heard you would be joining us and kindly left you some reading materials.

http://mises.org/story/3416

http://mises.org/store/Privatization-of-Roads-and-Highways-P581.aspx

'Do not be one of them. Your very life may be at stake. For over 40,000 people die on the nation's roadways every year, and you or a loved one might one day join this horrid list.' - Walter Block

The untactful words of Dr. Block make me smile yet again.

 

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 replied on Mon, Aug 17 2009 9:40 PM

laminustacitus:
Conza88:

LibertyPatriot:
1. How does governance by and for the people, when honorable, conflict with Liberty?

How can the state say it protects property, when it must violate property to exist?

How else do you bring criminals to justice than by denying their property "rights"? Or have you created an imaginary defense of how criminals do not have property rights?

So under the state, everyone is to be treated as a criminal? Everyone is to have their property rights denied? That makes sense. Maybe we should get rid of this institution that treats everyone as a criminal for merely existing within it's territory. No?

laminustacitus:
Conza88:
The proper class analysis is RULERS vs RULED.

Class analysis is an ad-hoc technique that yields very limited knowledge, esspecially when one pretends that there is an iron-clad difference between rulers, and ruled in the modern world where the majority of the ruled do not believe in the legitimacy of the rulers

The vast majority do believe in the legitimacy of the rulers. Ideology is the cloak of the state. They cannot rule without it. An Austrian Class analysis is helpful in countering the Marxist class analysis and every other one. At least you concede that it yields knowledge.

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

LibertyPatriot:

Wilderness asked me to define "arbitrary".  Here you go (from wikipedia.org): "choices and actions which are considered to be done not by means of any underlying principle or logic, but by whim or some decidedly illogical formula."

I agree with this definition.

LibertyPatriot:

Recall that the request came in response to the definition of Liberty given: "freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control."

So, I now propose to you that a government (much smaller and much more honorable than in present supply) may indeed act on principle to govern for the good of the people.  Why is that to be desired?  Simply and only for those things individuals cannot do for themselves.  I think you know the specific examples, but for point of debate, let's take a national highway system. 

Oh god! Stick out tongue  the highway thing... my uncle works for a company that makes roads and it's not the government that does it... government usually contracts private companies to do this in the state I live in, but redistributing/handing-out contracts isn't the same as building the roads.  Workers do that.

First before you get into this stuff.  Let's turn the attention to liberty and arbitrary.  As you point out let's "act on principle".  Do you think individuals have a right of property?

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Mon, Aug 17 2009 9:40 PM
Some gems ...

Integrity means that as a nation, we are accountable to God first, our families second, and our own personal rights, freedom, and pursuit of happiness third. And after that, the Government is accountable
6 - Taxation (Justly): Taxation shall be for the purpose of raising a military for defense, law enforcement, to maintain roads and essential infrastructure of the nation, a court system, moderation of free markets as a referee in the markets for fair and balanced capitalism, and to maintain public schools.
6b - The total tax rate is not to exceed 20%

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 18
Points 885

Liberty Student wrote:  "The roads, the roads, they always start with the roads.  There is no reason why a national highway system is needed, and if it is, there is no reason why it cannot be built privately either by one operator, or a series of operators with connected highways."

Questions:

  1. We could argue that a national highways system promotes free trade.  Your response?
  2. What agreements would be required for a series of operators to produce an efficient national highway system?
  3. Please clarify how "one operator" could build a national highway system?

And as to "they always start with the roads" -- the statement implies what?  That that is the only place to start?  That you have a "handle" on it because your position is above the fray?  Maybe it's neither, but then you could have simply proposed a different point on which to debate and stated clearly why that was necessary.

 

- Scott

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

read the book. we can wait. we can press pause on this discussion.

read the book.

 

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

Juan:
Integrity means that as a nation, we are accountable to God first, our families second, and our own personal rights, freedom, and pursuit of happiness third

God talked to me. He/She/It isn't too happy about being bound to an invisible social contract. Stick out tongue

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,511
Points 31,955

Conza88:

laminustacitus:
Conza88:

LibertyPatriot:
1. How does governance by and for the people, when honorable, conflict with Liberty?

How can the state say it protects property, when it must violate property to exist?

How else do you bring criminals to justice than by denying their property "rights"? Or have you created an imaginary defense of how criminals do not have property rights?
So under the state, everyone is to be treated as a criminal? Everyone is to have their property rights denied? That makes sense. Maybe we should get rid of this institution that treats everyone as a criminal for merely existing within it's territory. No?

You didn't get the point: in order to protect the innocent's property rights, one must violate the property rights of the guilty; yet, if we hold property rights as perfectly inalienable then there is not just method of dealing with criminals. But of course, we can always create imaginary constructs like "proportional justice" to show that we are not violating property rights.

 

Conza88:

laminustacitus:
Conza88:
The proper class analysis is RULERS vs RULED.

Class analysis is an ad-hoc technique that yields very limited knowledge, esspecially when one pretends that there is an iron-clad difference between rulers, and ruled in the modern world where the majority of the ruled do not believe in the legitimacy of the rulers

Ah but the vast majority do believe in the legitimacy of the rulers. Ideology is the cloak of the state. They cannot rule without it.

You speak as if the rulers of the state are a class of illuminati poisoning the wells of innocent mankind with their insidious ideology. 

Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.

          - Edmund Burke

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

laminustacitus:
But of course, we can always create imaginary constructs like "proportional justice" to show that we are not violating property rights.

Is all justice an 'imaginary construct' or is it just proportional justice?

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,415
Points 56,650
filc replied on Mon, Aug 17 2009 9:56 PM

LibertyPatriot:

  • We could argue that a national highways system promotes free trade.  Your response?
  • What agreements would be required for a series of operators to produce an efficient national highway system?
  • Please clarify how "one operator" could build a national highway system?
  • Who made the roads for the rural colonists before the existence of our government? 

    We have no way of knowing the most economical way of transporting people/goods because government has a monopoly over transportation. We may not use roads at all, thats entrapaneral discovery something that cannot happen when a government takes ownership of an industry. 

    Now it seems completly plausable for business's to invest in a road system. Business's however would invest in the roads that makes the most sense to them, and not fund a multi-billion dollar bridge that services nothing.

    As it stands presently all the construction of roads are done privately, the organization is done by the state, So on your third point any existing civil engineering firm could not only pick up the task they could probably do it with less money. But than again how do we know that a highway system or roadsystme as we presently know it is the most effecient, economic way to transport goods and people? You can never know untill free market is allowed to reign. 

    Why don't we use the same argument we use on roads as we do with food? WHy doesn't the government plan the produce of our food? Entertainment? Vehicles(almost there), general purchases, health decisions, financial planning? You cannot argue for a free market and use the word "BUT". You cannot defend governmental control over roads but be against it in another industry, it's complete hipocracy.

    I would ask what industry under free trade has failed the whole of man? Keep in mind I said "Free Trade", not industry's that have exclusive rights granted by the state which have failed or distorted the market. 

    • | Post Points: 5
    Top 75 Contributor
    Male
    Posts 1,511
    Points 31,955

    Laughing Man:

    laminustacitus:
    But of course, we can always create imaginary constructs like "proportional justice" to show that we are not violating property rights.

    Is all justice 'imaginary construct' or is it just proportional justice?

    Justice is only justice if man believes it to be so - justice is a creation of man, and hence an imaginary construct.

    Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.

              - Edmund Burke

    • | Post Points: 35
    Top 25 Contributor
    Male
    Posts 4,914
    Points 70,630
    wilderness replied on Mon, Aug 17 2009 10:01 PM

    laminustacitus:

    Laughing Man:

    laminustacitus:
    But of course, we can always create imaginary constructs like "proportional justice" to show that we are not violating property rights.

    Is all justice 'imaginary construct' or is it just proportional justice?

    Justice is only justice if man believes it to be so - justice is a creation of man, and hence an imaginary construct.

    To speak of justice means universal unbiasedness.  To speak otherwise is the tyranny of injustice.

     

    "Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
    • | Post Points: 5
    Top 25 Contributor
    Male
    Posts 4,850
    Points 85,810

    laminustacitus:
    Justice is only justice if man believes it to be so - justice is a creation of man, and hence an imaginary construct.

    Well so is math...and the arts and basically almost everything. Frankly you are a creation of man and yourself, therefore I propose you are imaginary according to your logic.

    'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

     

    • | Post Points: 5
    Not Ranked
    Male
    Posts 18
    Points 885

    Hello -

    Yes, I do believe that individuals have the right of property.

    As to reading the links provided, I will do so where they seem relevant -- and some good ones have been given, thanks.

    As to an earlier commenter here (not wilderness) If you are suggesting that I cannot converse with you until I have been specifically indoctrinated, then I simply suggest you leave the debate.  Your position implies that only the books you have read hold the correct interpretation on our subject at hand, and that no one should proceed until they read the books you deem essential.  Doesn't really seem like the "requirements" that should come from an anarchist, does it?

    As to reading any particular book, I am not in need of that at this point to continue the debate since I have read quite a number already, thank you. Please do not presume to know what I have and have not read, and confine yourself to the specifics of the subject at hand.

     

    • | Post Points: 20
    Top 50 Contributor
    Male
    Posts 2,939
    Points 49,110
    Conza88 replied on Mon, Aug 17 2009 10:05 PM

    laminustacitus:
    You didn't get the point: in order to protect the innocent's property rights, one must violate the property rights of the guilty; yet, if we hold property rights as perfectly inalienable then there is not just method of dealing with criminals. But of course, we can always create imaginary constructs like "proportional justice" to show that we are not violating property rights.

    Oh no, I got your point, I just believe there is a difference between the initiation of violence & the defense against violence. I believe there is a difference between voluntarism and coercion. Or are you a pacifist? The guilty lose their rights, to the extent they violate anothers. The victims. Or don't you believe in victims?

    laminustacitus:
    Conza88:
    laminustacitus:
    Conza88:
    The proper class analysis is RULERS vs RULED.

    Class analysis is an ad-hoc technique that yields very limited knowledge, esspecially when one pretends that there is an iron-clad difference between rulers, and ruled in the modern world where the majority of the ruled do not believe in the legitimacy of the rulers

    Ah but the vast majority do believe in the legitimacy of the rulers. Ideology is the cloak of the state. They cannot rule without it.

    You speak as if the rulers of the state are a class of illuminati poisoning the wells of innocent mankind with their insidious ideology.

    I speak as if I just read:

    HUMAN ACTION
    Action within the framework of Society
    Chapter IX. The Role of Ideas
    Might (p. 187)

    Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
    • | Post Points: 20
    Top 25 Contributor
    Male
    Posts 4,914
    Points 70,630
    wilderness replied on Mon, Aug 17 2009 10:17 PM

    LibertyPatriot:

    Yes, I do believe that individuals have the right of property.

    How does a get it's operational expenses? taxes (or the hidden tax of inflationary printing money out of thin air)

    How is the tax number surmised? 

    "Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
    • | Post Points: 20
    Top 75 Contributor
    Male
    Posts 1,511
    Points 31,955

    Conza88:

    laminustacitus:
    You didn't get the point: in order to protect the innocent's property rights, one must violate the property rights of the guilty; yet, if we hold property rights as perfectly inalienable then there is not just method of dealing with criminals. But of course, we can always create imaginary constructs like "proportional justice" to show that we are not violating property rights.

    Oh no, I got your point, I just believe there is a difference between the initiation of violence & the defense against violence. I believe there is a difference between voluntarism and coercion. Or are you a pacifist?

    I believe that if one believes that property rights are inalienable, then one must be a pacifist, and violate the property rights of no one. 

     

    Conza88:
    The guilty lose their rights, to the extent they violate anothers. The victims. Or don't you believe in victims?

    Why do the guilty loose their rights to property? In addition, when justice is actually being done, there is no absolute knowledge about whether or not a guilty man is truly guilty, and justice is done without the true knowledge that the so-called offender is truly guilty; one may very well be an aggressor against an innocent person - another reason why all believers of inalienable property rights ought to be pacifists.  

     

    Conza88:

    laminustacitus:
    Conza88:
    laminustacitus:
    Conza88:
    The proper class analysis is RULERS vs RULED.

    Class analysis is an ad-hoc technique that yields very limited knowledge, esspecially when one pretends that there is an iron-clad difference between rulers, and ruled in the modern world where the majority of the ruled do not believe in the legitimacy of the rulers

    Ah but the vast majority do believe in the legitimacy of the rulers. Ideology is the cloak of the state. They cannot rule without it.

    You speak as if the rulers of the state are a class of illuminati poisoning the wells of innocent mankind with their insidious ideology.

    I speak as if I just read:

    HUMAN ACTION
    Action within the framework of Society
    Chapter IX. The Role of Ideas
    Might (p. 187)

    It thus follows that ideologies are the cloaks of every single movement in history, not just that of the state. Without belief that the ideology is true, or at least advantageous, the movement will fail. 

    Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.

              - Edmund Burke

    • | Post Points: 50
    Top 25 Contributor
    Posts 3,415
    Points 56,650
    filc replied on Mon, Aug 17 2009 10:24 PM

    Lam you guys should start another thread and dish it out. It's hard to read through 2 seperate topics though. I seem to remember us making fun of the Rev-Left forum for the same kind of nonesense. No offense intended.

    • | Post Points: 20
    Top 25 Contributor
    Male
    Posts 4,914
    Points 70,630
    wilderness replied on Mon, Aug 17 2009 10:28 PM

    laminustacitus:

    In addition, when justice is actually being done, there is no absolute knowledge about whether or not a guilty man is truly guilty, and justice is done without the true knowledge that the so-called offender is truly guilty...

    tyranny and all is an illusion (skeptics)  That's your worldview since you've provided this definitional opinion.  yes your opinion cause there is only arbitrariness from your perspective as you state here.

     

    "Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
    • | Post Points: 5
    Top 25 Contributor
    Male
    Posts 4,914
    Points 70,630
    wilderness replied on Mon, Aug 17 2009 10:30 PM

    filc:

    Lam you guys should start another thread and dish it out. It's hard to read through 2 seperate topics though. I seem to remember us making fun of the Rev-Left forum for the same kind of nonesense. No offense intended.

    I should stop discussing with lam. too.  You're correct.  This thread does have an intention based on the original post.

     

    "Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
    • | Post Points: 5
    Top 50 Contributor
    Male
    Posts 2,939
    Points 49,110
    Conza88 replied on Mon, Aug 17 2009 10:44 PM

    laminustacitus:
    I believe that if one believes that property rights are inalienable, then one must be a pacifist, and violate the property rights of no one. 

    And I'm not seeing anything at all new in your statement, that which hasn't already been refuted.

    The Right to Self Defense

    laminustacitus:
    It thus follows that ideologies are the cloaks of every single movement in history, not just that of the state. Without belief that the ideology is true, or at least advantageous, the movement will fail. 

    Not all ideologies seek to cloak. Others seek to expose and enlighten. There are ideologies synonymous with tyranny and others explicitly with Liberty. And you didn't exactly add anything there. It's easier to base a movement on the truth, than lies. Which is why the state has so much of a vested interested in keeping the curtain closed.

    Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
    • | Post Points: 20
    Top 10 Contributor
    Male
    Posts 11,343
    Points 194,945
    ForumsAdministrator
    Moderator
    SystemAdministrator

    LibertyPatriot:
    We could argue that a national highways system promotes free trade.  Your response?

    Europe has traded for centuries without a single highway authority.  The American national highway system was built to facilitate land based military response coast to coast.

    LibertyPatriot:
    What agreements would be required for a series of operators to produce an efficient national highway system?

    I'm not sure I understand this.

    LibertyPatriot:
    Please clarify how "one operator" could build a national highway system?

    Buy land, build highway.  I know it sounds trite, but its really not more complicated than that.

    LibertyPatriot:
    And as to "they always start with the roads" -- the statement implies what?  That that is the only place to start?  That you have a "handle" on it because your position is above the fray?  Maybe it's neither, but then you could have simply proposed a different point on which to debate and stated clearly why that was necessary.

    No, it's just that you are maybe the 200th person I have seen come in here in the last year, without a conception of anarchism, and specifically anarcho-capitalism, and the first thing people say is "Who will build the roads?" completely unaware that the original American roads were all private, and most of the American state infrastructure in the form of rail, roads and canals was built simply to provide graft and payola to people politically connected.

    It's that so many people (I am not American btw) that do not have a proper grounding of history, outside what is taught in the state schools.  I'm happy you have opened yourself up to hearing some of us out.  I hope you at the very least, end up with some new ideas about what liberty really means on an individual level, and perhaps how the state is not the institution we have all hoped, at one time or another, that it in fact is.

    "When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
    • | Post Points: 20
    Not Ranked
    Male
    Posts 18
    Points 885

    Wilderness asked how a government gets its operating funds.

    It gets them from the agreement that all who wish to benefit from the fruits of what the government does shall pay a certain fair fee for the expenses incurred.

    Thus, if a government raises a force to protect its citizens, and to referee the playing field of commerce, then all who are citizens should pay fairly for those services.

    And, you asked about the manufacture of money out of thin air -- a reference to the banking system which I agree warrants close scrutiny, and change from our present system.

    Thank you for your questions.

    • | Post Points: 50
    Not Ranked
    Male
    Posts 18
    Points 885

    FREEDOM:  "freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control."

    ARBITRARY: "choices and actions which are considered to be done not by means of any underlying principle or logic, but by whim or some decidedly illogical formula."

    ----------------------

    Forum Participants -

    I came here hoping to find thinkers.  I found them.  I came looking for debate.  You have given it.

    My mission is to help forge a Liberty Manifesto, which does include the idea of government where government is needed, though smaller and in much better check than we have today.  The purpose of the manifesto is not to have the last word, create a party, or mandate anything other then a freer form of government, dedicated to Liberty, which is not what we have now (our common ground).

    You have argued that no government is needed. You have sent me to a number of citations to which I will respond to three:

    1.  The problem of Indecision:  "Meanwhile, the Assembly, headed by Arthur Cook, met in May and fell apart on the issue of protesting the arrest of one of its members. Between May and the end of the year, the Council met only twice." -  Pennsylvania's Anarchist Experiment: 1681-1690
    http://mises.org/story/1865

    2. An example of Inefficiency:  From David Friedman, "Police, Courts, and Laws -- on the Market": "Consider first the easiest case, the resolution of disputes involving contracts between well-established firms. A large fraction of such disputes are now settled not by government courts but by private arbitration of the sort described in Chapter 18. The firms, when they draw up a contract, specify a procedure for arbitrating any dispute that may arise. Thus they avoid the expense and delay of the courts." My response to this is how inefficient, since many cases involve the same principles.
    http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html

    3. Groups which govern given as historical examples anarchy: "Celtic Ireland (650-1650)In Celtic Irish society, the courts and the law were largely libertarian, and operated within a purely state-less manner."
    You have said that Anarchy means without leaders. Seems like a society with "courts" and "law" not only required a "leader" during hearings, etc., but this is also a form of governance.  Interesting, however, and certainly an example of smaller forms of governance.
    - http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html#part18

    Finally, it worries me that what you call "anarchism" is very arbitrary (from wikipedia.org): "Anarchism is a heterogeneous philosophy with many different tendencies and schools of thought; differences on questions of ideology, values and tactics are common. Ideas about how an anarchist society might work vary considerably, especially with respect to economics."
    - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_in_anarchism

    So, I conclude that no clear definition of Anarchy emerges, is illogical, inefficient, and therefore a threat to Freedom itself, as defined as, "freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control." This is precisely contrary to what the Liberty Manifesto has for a goal.

    Men disagree.  Societies disagree.  But the laws of God remain the same -- this is why divine reference is in the first draft of the Manifesto, and likely to be in the last.  If there is not an authority above man, we are left to the arbitrary whim and interpretation of men and their customs.  The American founders understood this well.

    In your own forums here, the discussions often devolve into debates about semantics, straw men, definition of terms, and philosophical concerns, which while interesting -- don't get the roads built.

    It seems to me now, that while your ideas have a certain merit, they lack a real and practical method for success in the real world.  A major problem with your ideas about anarchism is human nature.  Without law and order (and how will it be accomplished without a regional authority?), society devolves into bands of bullies, balanced at times by bands of people with "better" values.  Not very efficient.  Not very productive.  Free?  Free until the next bully comes along.  Free if you wish to live in isolation.  The Wild Wild West.

    Yet, you have influenced me to consider the root of the case I am presenting much more carefully.  You've reminded me that smaller is usually better.  I thank you for that.  And who knows, perhaps we will be persuaded to include an argument against any form of state government in our book.  I will not forget you.

    Yours in Liberty -
    Scott

    • | Post Points: 50
    Top 10 Contributor
    Male
    Posts 5,538
    Points 93,790
    Juan replied on Tue, Aug 18 2009 1:00 AM
    the theocrat:
    Men disagree. Societies disagree. But the laws of God remain the same -- this is why divine reference is in the first draft of the Manifesto, and likely to be in the last. If there is not an authority above man, we are left to the arbitrary whim and interpretation of men and their customs.
    And you are the voice of god eh ?

    February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
    Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

    • | Post Points: 20
    Top 10 Contributor
    Male
    Posts 11,343
    Points 194,945
    ForumsAdministrator
    Moderator
    SystemAdministrator

    Juan:
    And you are the voice of god eh ?

    The crackpots are out in huge numbers.

    "When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
    • | Post Points: 5
    Top 50 Contributor
    Male
    Posts 2,551
    Points 46,635
    AJ replied on Tue, Aug 18 2009 2:02 AM

    LibertyPatriot:
    If you read the manifestion you will see that our intent is not to coerce anybody.

    If there is no coercion, you are on our side already. Is your manifesto opt-in/opt-out, or does everyone in the territory have to agree to it? If the former, we're all in agreement. If the latter, you're a Statist and not yet our ally, but I for one welcome you to come and read. No one is born an anarchist. Everyone had to learn.

    • | Post Points: 5
    Top 50 Contributor
    Male
    Posts 2,551
    Points 46,635
    AJ replied on Tue, Aug 18 2009 2:07 AM

    LibertyPatriot:
    It gets them from the agreement that all who wish to benefit from the fruits of what the government does shall pay a certain fair fee for the expenses incurred.

    This is good. It's voluntary.

    LibertyPatriot:
    Thus, if a government raises a force to protect its citizens, and to referee the playing field of commerce, then all who are citizens should pay fairly for those services.

    Can everyone in the territory choose not to be citizens? Or just because I am ostensibly receiving protection, does that mean I have to pay for it? If I follow you around with a gun and protect you from your enemies and send you my bill, will you be fine paying that?

    • | Post Points: 5
    Top 25 Contributor
    Posts 3,415
    Points 56,650
    filc replied on Tue, Aug 18 2009 2:12 AM

    LibertyPatriot:
    It gets them from the agreement that all who wish to benefit from the fruits of what the government does shall pay a certain fair fee for the expenses incurred.

     

    A) I never made such an agreement yet am forced to be bound by it.

    B) New born citizen's unfairly inhiret this illegitimate agreement. That is basically slavery in a nutshell. Creating a binding contract against a persons will before their existence. Worse then slavery really.

    C) In the free market consumers cast a ballet on goods based on what they purchase. If product A under performs or has lesser quality desired the consumer can compensate by purchasing product B instead. The result is that Company A suffers for producing a shafty product. In government the consumer has no say, they are forced against their will to use product A regardless of their feelings or sentiments. How you can call that freedom exposes your socialist ideals.

    • | Post Points: 5
    Top 25 Contributor
    Posts 3,415
    Points 56,650
    filc replied on Tue, Aug 18 2009 2:28 AM

     

    LibertyPatriot:
    Liberty Manifesto, which does include the idea of government

    Again oxymoronic. The existence of government means the direct removal of liberties and the consent of a lord over ones own person. If you are a supposed Christian how can you grant any other false god, (government), power over your human body. Should you not remain sovereign to god? Your loyalty to your government is nothing short of false idol worshiping. Your bible talks a great deal about the fallacy’s of Cesar. You cannot serve two gods, there is either God, or Government, not both. That’s if your a Christian like you say though...

     

    LibertyPatriot:
    2. An example of Inefficiency:  From David Friedman, "Police, Courts, and Laws -- on the Market": "Consider first the easiest case, the resolution of disputes involving contracts between well-established firms. A large fraction of such disputes are now settled not by government courts but by private arbitration of the sort described in Chapter 18. The firms, when they draw up a contract, specify a procedure for arbitrating any dispute that may arise. Thus they avoid the expense and delay of the courts." My response to this is how inefficient, since many cases involve the same principles.
    http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html

    Calling it en-efficient is presumptuous on your part. Are you actually going to try and argue that the current system of planning and installing roads is efficient? I live in Washington State and I KNOW why our deficit is so outstanding. I know we've been promised a road system of our dreams, instead we're spending billions to install a light rail system that no one will use. Complete utter waste of natural resources. I may as well mine for coal then destroy it, I’d be performing the same action but without stealing money from the taxpayers. 

     

    LibertyPatriot:
    1.  The problem of Indecision:  "Meanwhile, the Assembly, headed by Arthur Cook, met in May and fell apart on the issue of protesting the arrest of one of its members. Between May and the end of the year, the Council met only twice." -  Pennsylvania's Anarchist Experiment: 1681-1690
    http://mises.org/story/1865

    You make it obvious that you were desperate to find a flaw in this one.

     

    LibertyPatriot:
    3. Groups which govern given as historical examples anarchy: "Celtic Ireland (650-1650)In Celtic Irish society, the courts and the law were largely libertarian, and operated within a purely state-less manner."
    You have said that Anarchy means without leaders. Seems like a society with "courts" and "law" not only required a "leader" during hearings, etc., but this is also a form of governance.  Interesting, however, and certainly an example of smaller forms of governance.
    - http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html#part18

    Courts would have to compete and citizens would decide which court to bring a case to. It would not be one all powerful government. There would be several avenues. Courts that are corrupt would fail and not turn a profit. Our current court system fosters corruption with no means of correction. You seem to like that kind of system.

     

    LibertyPatriot:
    In your own forums here, the discussions often devolve into debates about semantics, straw men, definition of terms, and philosophical concerns, which while interesting -- don't get the roads built.

    LibertyPatriot:
    Finally, it worries me that what you call "anarchism" is very arbitrary (from wikipedia.org): "Anarchism is a heterogeneous philosophy with many different tendencies and schools of thought; differences on questions of ideology, values and tactics are common. Ideas about how an anarchist society might work vary considerably, especially with respect to economics."
    - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_in_anarchism

    So, I conclude that no clear definition of Anarchy emerges, is illogical, inefficient, and therefore a threat to Freedom itself, as defined as, "freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control." This is precisely contrary to what the Liberty Manifesto has for a goal.

    The only one arguing semantics here is you, as you can see by the post made above. Your the only one here who is confused on the definition.  But ultimately it's arguing semantics and that is completely fruitless and erroneous to the actual debate. How is it supposedly "honorable" as you would call it to debate semantics? You say tomato, I say tomaato, who cares? The fact that your hung up on it proves that your not here to be insightful but here to instigate a fight. The precise meaning of anarchy is completely erroneous. All that you need be concerned with is our interpretation of it in order to properly defend your case without looking un-informed.

     

    If it makes you feel better lets make up a new word to demonstrate how frivolous the semantic argument is. From now on the word "flabbergast" is the definition for a society without government. Now copy this entire forum and find/replace all "Anarchy" with flabbergast. Use my definition of flabbergast and you can have your little debate without using a word which you chose to have a different meaning as a matter of opinion. 

    The whole exercise is a big waste of time.

     Finally, several people here have posted some very serious questions for you that you have conveniently chosen to ignore. The very questions which eradicate the entire moral premise of your so called "liberty manifesto". I strongly ask you to re-read the previous posts questions and answer them. Primarily, this.

    What is voluntary about the social contract with a government? What voluntary rights do citizen's have against their government? How is NOT forced apon them at birth? 

     

    • | Post Points: 5
    Top 50 Contributor
    Male
    Posts 2,939
    Points 49,110
    Conza88 replied on Tue, Aug 18 2009 2:39 AM

    LibertyPatriot:
    3. Groups which govern given as historical examples anarchy: "Celtic Ireland (650-1650)In Celtic Irish society, the courts and the law were largely libertarian, and operated within a purely state-less manner."
    You have said that Anarchy means without leaders. Seems like a society with "courts" and "law" not only required a "leader" during hearings, etc., but this is also a form of governance.  Interesting, however, and certainly an example of smaller forms of governance.
    - http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html#part18

    No, it means without RULERS. Leaders can be different to rulers. One uses coercion, one uses voluntaryism.

    Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
    • | Post Points: 20
    Top 500 Contributor
    Posts 183
    Points 3,750
    tacoface replied on Tue, Aug 18 2009 3:39 AM

    lol, voluntaryism is so unwieldy.

    not as bad as an-cap though...

    • | Post Points: 20
    Not Ranked
    Posts 62
    Points 1,480
    yoshimura replied on Tue, Aug 18 2009 6:41 AM

    liberty student:
    "Who will build the roads?" completely unaware that the original American roads were all private, and most of the American state infrastructure in the form of rail, roads and canals was built simply to provide graft and payola to people politically connected.

    Any books to recommend on that topic?

    • | Post Points: 35
    Top 50 Contributor
    Male
    Posts 2,939
    Points 49,110
    Conza88 replied on Tue, Aug 18 2009 6:51 AM

    tacoface:

    lol, voluntaryism is so unwieldy.

    not as bad as an-cap though...

    lol got lazy

    Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
    • | Post Points: 20
    Top 25 Contributor
    Male
    Posts 4,850
    Points 85,810

    I'm still waiting to hear by what legitmate power this 'Liberty government' is going to be established by.

    'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

     

    • | Post Points: 5
    Top 50 Contributor
    Posts 1,649
    Points 28,420

    yoshimura:

    liberty student:
    "Who will build the roads?" completely unaware that the original American roads were all private, and most of the American state infrastructure in the form of rail, roads and canals was built simply to provide graft and payola to people politically connected.

    Any books to recommend on that topic?

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/14140118/The-Privatization-of-Roads-and-Highways-Walter-Block

    --

    Voluntarism is unweildy? Unweildy like a thousand page+ socialized medicine bill which the criminals legislating it don't seem to have time to read?

    Libertarianism is simple. Walking up to people along the street and punching them in the face is wrong, now how do we deal with it. Voluntarism is the acknowlegement that anarchy at some point requires an end to (under a certain definition) political processes, and the desire to achieve it peacefully.

    Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.

    • | Post Points: 50
    Top 25 Contributor
    Male
    Posts 4,850
    Points 85,810

    E. R. Olovetto:
    Libertarianism is simple. Walking up to people along the street and punching them in the face is wrong, now how do we deal with it.

    Plagerizer! You have stolen the intellectual property of my hypothetical face puncher situation!

    'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

     

    • | Post Points: 20
    Previous | Next
    Page 3 of 6 (235 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last » | RSS