I couldn't watch past the self-ownership section. What did your girlfriend find confusing?
Also, the problem with attempting to convince people of a universal ethic is that no matter what you say, it doesn't matter. So it's not possible for everyone to give consent to another to act, so what? While this certainly proves the impracticality of collective bodily ownership, and it is a very interesting argument, it's not really relevant to ethics. Someone can believe in contradictory morals. You aren't going to get anywhere trying to convince someone that the government is immoral because collective bodily ownership is impossible.
The only way you are going to make progress with someone is if you point out the difference between socially cooperative behavior and socially adversarial behavior. Economics is in the realm of socially cooperative behavior, and politics is in the realm of socially adversarial behavior. One of the great tradegies of the modern world since the rise of the democratic nation state is the belief that the political realm is in fact socially cooperative behavior while the market is socially adversarial. Nothing could be further from the truth.
So if you want to convince your girlfriend, you are going to have to establish what kind of person she is. Does she value in socially cooperative behavior? This is most likely the case, as the vast majority of humanity prefer cooperation. Once you have established that she values cooperation, you are going to have to go down a long and thankless road in order to teach her about social cooperation and economics. One of the most common argument types against anarchy is, "But what will guarantee X in anarchy?"
But nothing guarantees anything in any system. I highly recommend reading Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections by Roderick Long.
She says that "the Social Contract exists because we are living it right now. By being in a country you are tacitly accepting the rules and regulations of the country". The video shows how there is no such thing as a "Social Contract" because the governmnet can't make such an arrangement. She says that it is all really confusing (I just assume she is kinda dumb).
government is immoral
I'm not sure if I can def. believe that government is immoral. I do think, however, that an income tax is immoral because it is theft. If the government eliminates the income tax, then I would have less of a problem with it.
"The only way you are going to make progress with someone is if you point out the difference between socially cooperative behavior and socially adversarial behavior. Economics is in the realm of socially cooperative behavior, and politics is in the realm of socially adversarial behavior. One of the great tradegies of the modern world since the rise of the democratic nation state is the belief that the political realm is in fact socially cooperative behavior while the market is socially adversarial. Nothing could be further from the truth."
This is GREAT!
She says that "the Social Contract exists because we are living it right now. By being in a country you are tacitly accepting the rules and regulations of the country".
http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/when-did-i-sign-this-social-contract/
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
Yeah I've seen that video. I'll show it to her and see what she thinks.
Hi Pablo,
You can find a critique of this, from the point of view of Mises and Hazlitt, here: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA7FF865D89D7720C .
You can contrast the tenet of government's social contract to being sexually assaulted.
Suppose you get raped. If you get raped, what if i blamed you for getting raped, instead of blaming the rapist? I blame you for getting raped because you live in an area that has potential rapists and therefore consented to the rape. Is this just? I can tell you to move out of this town and go to another rape free town, but that is impossible since everytown has at least 1 rapist or you will at least have a chance of getting raped. No matter where you go, this is the logic your girlfriend is using.
Apply this scenario and logic to the government. Because you live in the borders of the united states, its ok to be raped by the government (wallet rape, property rape, all kinds of rapes etc). And if you dont like it, get the fuck out of the united states. Well if i move to canada, it wont be an american government raping me, its a canadian governent raping me. All in all youre still getting raped by a government, whether it is a canadian government, or a american government.
Just as is, if i moved to compton, i would be raped by a black person, and if i move to alabama, i would get raped by a white person. All in all, im still getting raped whethher it is a white, or black person.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
The Tom Woods video is great, but I just wanted to add a little to the subject. The social contract typically refers to the idea that individuals must give up some of their rights in order to live in society. This is a contradictory idea, as it amounts to: "In order for humans to cooperate, they must first become adversaries." The main problem here also has to do with the unfortunate rise of the democratic nation state. Too many people in the modern world believe that law is government. Statutory law is only one type of law. Where statutory law is centralized law, common law is decentralized, and customary law is the most decentralized. There may be other types, but I think these are the big 3.
There are many problems with statutory law, but there are two main problems. The first is that I consider it immoral, that some group with the most guns gets to decide what rules everyone else ought to live by. However, not everyone shares this view, and this is where the second problem may be more useful. The government is not subject to the price system. If you were to own a business, you need to make decisions that encourage customers to do business with you. When you fail to do this, you suffer for it. But if the government makes bad law, who suffers for it? Anyone but the government, as the government rules by force and can continue to make bad decisions as other people are the ones who suffer for it. Furthermore, the government cannot always know what the right decision is. This is the problem of central planning and the incompleteness of knowledge. No one person can know what the price of oranges in New York City ought to be, and no one person can know what ought to be the proper settlement of any particular dispute.
Centrally planned law does not allow for adaptation. If the US Federal Government ammended the constitution to ban gay marriage, that's it. It's banned everywhere in the US. But if there are local laws banning gay marriage, even if you might consider it wrong, at least the damage will be localized.
Well, if you are against aggression, then government is immoral. Minarchists tend to believe that government is a necessary evil, whereas anarchists go the whole distance and say it is an unnecessary evil.
*blushes*
I'm a minarchist, just wanted to make it clear. However, I'm slowly becoming, in my opinion, an an-cap because my ideal society is one in which everything is done voluntarily. The problem is that I can't see such a society, specially here in my country Panama, due to poor education and the idiosyncrasy of panamanians. Before we can achieve a 100% voluntary society, we have to change that; at least here.
One of the major problems with government is that the bigger it gets, the more what would be the market equivalent atrophies. So if the government has a huge welfare state, private charity suffers. Eliminate the state, and it will take time for private charity to grow again. It's even harder for law and police services, as people still do a lot of private charity, but typically there is just the one police force in a town. Some places have private security, and they typically operate by providing security for a building. That's it. So, eliminate the state, and it will take a while for the private police to grow.
If you read enough of this forum and the Mises Dailies, I think you may find that anarchy is much more practical than you might currently think. But certainly, if you immediately ended the state, then the sectors of the market that have atrophied won't immediately become powerhouses.
That's why I believe in reducing the size of the government little by little. We can't, well at least I don't think we can, eliminate the government immediately because the system will collapse. That's why, for example, I say we must reduce the income tax to 0% throughout the years, i.e. year 1 15%, year 2 10%, year 3 5%, year 4 0%. The same applies to government provided welfare, V.A.T., etc etc.
Thanks Nielsio, I'll check those videos out.
Kevin, that's a good analogy. I'll show it to her and see what she thinks.