Does the fact that you can leave a country and go somewhere that government will not bother you (e.g. deserted island), or effectively remove yourself from the grid in a country (e.g. move to a mountain shack and hunt), mean that by staying in society you consent to it's social structure?
No, this begs the question. Why can legitimately rule you on your property in the first place?
Does the fact that a slave doesn't run away mean the slave consents to being a slave?
scinearm, homesteading? The government was in place before you were born.
Knight_of_BAAWA, the slave does not run out of fear of being caught and punished. Most governments of the world don't punish for leaving.
You're still presuming that governments can own anything in the first place (invalid assumption), and it's entirely irrelevant that most governments don't punish for leaving (though they do make it difficult).
Knight_of_BAAWA:Does the fact that a slave doesn't run away mean the slave consents to being a slave?
Yes.
If a slave did not consent, that slave would do everything in their power to escape slavery, up to and including death. This is an extension of the phrase, "actions speak louder than words".
If I say I want a turkey burger, but end up eating a hamburger, I must have really wanted a hamburger. Economics 101, right?
Nonsense. A slave may simply have not found the opportunity or ability to escape. Not escaping IS NOT in any way any sort of assent or consent to being a slave.
The state never homesteaded anything.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Nonsense. A slave may simply have not found the opportunity or ability to escape. Not escaping IS NOT in any way any sort of assent or consent to being a slave.
I disagree.
A slave may seek an escape route while still consenting, in the interim, to be a slave. They can disagree with their situation, but they are still consenting to it. The moment a slave discontinues their consent is the moment they break away. No sooner.
Nonsense. Since they are in a situation where force is initiated against them, this isn't even a question of "consent". Does a person consent to be beaten by staying in an abusive relationship? No, of course not.
Think before you post.
Daniel Waite: Knight_of_BAAWA: Nonsense. A slave may simply have not found the opportunity or ability to escape. Not escaping IS NOT in any way any sort of assent or consent to being a slave. I disagree. A slave may seek an escape route while still consenting, in the interim, to be a slave. They can disagree with their situation, but they are still consenting to it. The moment a slave discontinues their consent is the moment they break away. No sooner.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Nonsense. A slave may simply have not found the opportunity or ability to escape. Not escaping IS NOT in any way any sort of assent or consent to being a slave.
Consent can not co-exist with fraud or violence.
Complying with the demands of a mugger is not the same thing as consenting to be deprived of your property.
This line of thinking is still common in more primitive societies where, for example, any woman who does choose being murdered over being raped is considered to have consented to adultery.
Peace
KoB, I agree with you, but I think Daniel has a point.
Yes, there is force being initiated against them, but what you are saying if I understand you correctly, is that because force is present, then there is no longer a choice.
So for instance, resistance to force is not a choice. Leaving is not a choice. Escaping is not a choice.
If the person in the abusive relationship knows it is abusive, and does not withdraw or resist, then they are consenting to abuse.
We can't divorce decisions and action from consequences.
liberty student: KoB, I agree with you, but I think Daniel has a point. Yes, there is force being initiated against them, but what you are saying if I understand you correctly, is that because force is present, then there is no longer a choice. So for instance, resistance to force is not a choice. Leaving is not a choice. Escaping is not a choice. If the person in the abusive relationship knows it is abusive, and does not withdraw or resist, then they are consenting to abuse. We can't divorce decisions and action from consequences.
Obviously, none of that is a legal defense.
JonBostwick:Obviously, none of that is a legal defense.
Perhaps not. IANAL. But it is a common sense one.
liberty student: JonBostwick:Obviously, none of that is a legal defense. Perhaps not. IANAL. But it is a common sense one.
Only the victim has legal standing to prosecute so the criminal is safe so long as the victim chooses to not hold the criminal accountable.
This means that many "private" crimes would never enter the legal system, domestic violence for example.
But just because a slaves does not choose to try to escape does not mean they would not use the legal system (or personal violence) against their master if the chance arose.
In other words, many people have never had sex with Carmen Electra, but this is not evidence that they do not want to.
JonBostwick:In other words, many people have never had sex with Carmen Electra, but this is not evidence that they do not want to.
I don't understand how this is relevant at all. And I'm really not into a legal argument.
If I say, give me $10 or I will hit you, you do indeed have a choice to make. You can give me the $10, dare me to hit you, leave, resist etc. If you choose to give me the $10, we have made a trade, which means you think you are better off giving me $10 than getting hit. It's entirely your choice how you respond.
The notion that the initiation of force negates free will seems silly to me.
Or maybe I am just not understanding this properly.
The government was in place before you were born.
Irrelevant.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus: The government was in place before you were born. Irrelevant. -Jon
Agreed, although in the sense that by definition something that is in place before one is born is unchosen, it is totally relevant.
Trianglechoke7: Does the fact that you can leave a country and go somewhere that government will not bother you (e.g. deserted island), or effectively remove yourself from the grid in a country (e.g. move to a mountain shack and hunt), mean that by staying in society you consent to it's social structure?
Begging the question. The very issue we are discussing is whether the government's authority is legitimate or not. This line of thinking assumes that the government's authority indeed is legitimate. Of course, the opposite is true.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
liberty student:Yes, there is force being initiated against them, but what you are saying if I understand you correctly, is that because force is present, then there is no longer a choice. So for instance, resistance to force is not a choice. Leaving is not a choice. Escaping is not a choice. If the person in the abusive relationship knows it is abusive, and does not withdraw or resist, then they are consenting to abuse. We can't divorce decisions and action from consequences.
Thank you.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Nonsense. Since they are in a situation where force is initiated against them, this isn't even a question of "consent". Does a person consent to be beaten by staying in an abusive relationship? No, of course not.
It is fruitless to describe a situation under the constraint of force without context:
The only time you cannot give consent is when you have no physical or mental ability to choose. For example, being completely physicaly restrained from escaping does not constitute your consent to being a slave. However, the moment you are free to act on your own volition, and you do nothing to change your situation, you again give consent.
In other words, I am saying simply that, in the context of being a slave, there have historically been periods of time (of whatever length) in which physical force is not in the equation. It is at those times, when a person can choose, and they choose to stay, they give consent.
I am very much for people being repsonsible for their situations in life. Situations can arise (as in slavery) where available options are few, but there are options nonetheless.
Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death.". Sometimes, as undesirable as it may be, those are our only options.
liberty student:If I say, give me $10 or I will hit you, you do indeed have a choice to make. You can give me the $10, dare me to hit you, leave, resist etc. If you choose to give me the $10, we have made a trade
Then you don't know what trade is.
The concept of coercion has nothing to do with how many choices you have (although it is often used to limit choices), it fundamentally has to do with the threat of force. Technically, yes, if you stick a gun to my head say pony up or die I have the "choice" between (1) ponying up and (2) actively resisting. If I decide to pony up, this does not mean that I have consented in any meaningful sense, for the only reason I ponied up is the threat of force. To claim that I have consented is to obfuscate the gun in the room and to totally negate the individual responsibility of the person who holds guns to people's heads. So please, let's not totally eradicate the meaning of consent and coercion here.
The problem I see with this is that everyone is always technically capable of acting, so does that then mean that everyone consents to everything by default? But just people people can act, just because they have options, does not mean that they consent to everything in any meaningful or explicit sense. By definition, people do not explicitly consent to that which is purely circumstantial. It seems to me like you are totally removing the burden of proof from the individual who is trying to control another and shifting it completely onto none other than their victim. This confuses me.
The problem I have with this is that it leads to the absurdity of "voluntary slavery", which is a contradiction in terms and is made senseless by the realization that the will cannot be alienated from the body. Noone chooses slavery and it is logistically impossible to truly have one's self as a coherent whole directly controlled by anyone else (in the absence of any kind of crazy mind control magic). The "voluntary slavery" contract is simply null and void and unenforcable as soon as one's will is taken into account.
Care to explain specifically where I am wrong?
Or you could just address the crux of my argument. That the initiation of force does not negate free will.
From your earlier replies, it was my understanding that you did not believe that decisions of free will were capable once violence or the threat of violence was involved.
Which would mean that if people remain as slaves, it's not an act of consent (your position as I understand it)
and thus, when people escape or resist slavery, then that is also not an act of withdrawing consent.
liberty student:Then you don't know what trade is.
Hitting this one twice.
Trade is just a fancy name for human action. Humans act when they stay in the slave pens, or when they make a dash for the treeline.
My understanding of trade is based on praxeology. Do you have a different model for human behaviour that you are using?
liberty student: Care to explain specifically where I am wrong? Or you could just address the crux of my argument. That the initiation of force does not negate free will. From your earlier replies, it was my understanding that you did not believe that decisions of free will were capable once violence or the threat of violence was involved. Which would mean that if people remain as slaves, it's not an act of consent (your position as I understand it) and thus, when people escape or resist slavery, then that is also not an act of withdrawing consent.
The fact that someone has free will does not mean that everything they do is consentual; they live in a world with circumstances that pre-exist them and are beyond their control and their free will in and of itself does nothing to stop other people from coercing them. The existance of free will does not negate coercion. You're eradicating the concept of coercion entirely. When someone remains a slave, it is submission to coercion, not voluntary. And when someone escapes slavery, it is active defiance of coercion, not withdrawing consent, as no such consent was given to begin with. Free will merely refers to the capacity to make choices - it does not mean that everything is voluntary by definition.
Strangley enough, whenever I've gotten into this exact same arguement in the past it was with a statist. I wonder why you are making their argument for them. Hmm.
liberty student: liberty student:Then you don't know what trade is. Hitting this one twice. Trade is just a fancy name for human action. Humans act when they stay in the slave pens, or when they make a dash for the treeline. My understanding of trade is based on praxeology. Do you have a different model for human behaviour that you are using?
The reason why you got the response you did is because you took an example of a theft and construed it as a voluntary trade when you very well know the differance. Human action in general is not necessarily completely based on voluntary trade, there are purely parasitic or violent actions as well, hence the existance of crime (and states). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the differance between voluntary mutual beneficial relationships and parastic and coerced ones.
Value-free utilitarian economics should not be used in a vacuum. Outside of one's role as economist there are important value judgements to be made with regaurd to human behavior - such as judgeing wether or not something is coercive and getting into the nitty gritty of interpersonal ethics. That's why there is more to libertarian political theory than a dry praxeological analysis. In this sentiment I am merely echoing Rothbard (see the The Ethics of Liberty).
Brainpolice:Strangley enough, whenever I've gotten into this exact same arguement in the past it was with a statist. I wonder why you are making their argument for them. Hmm.
They are paying me big bucks!
Brainpolice:When someone remains a slave, it is submission to coercion, not voluntary. And when someone escapes slavery, it is active defiance of coercion, not withdrawing consent, as no such consent was given to begin with. Free will merely refers to the capacity to make choices - it does not mean that everything is voluntary by definition.
This is just nonsense. I'm not sure it's even worth a response.
Brainpolice:The existance of free will does not negate coercion.
Au contraire mon frere. Because I have free will, I can negate coercion. I can run for the treeline. I can tunnel my way out.
Your argument as written can be summed up as such,
Free will is not the same as making choices voluntarily (uhm, that's the "free will" part - ls). Some men choose to stay slaves, and others choose to run away or resist, but either choice is not made voluntarily.
Which implies, that the decision is being made involuntarily? Someone else is making the decision?
If anything is nonsense, it is the premise that all human action is voluntary by definition, which is the implication of what you are saying. If that's the case, then whatever the status quo happens to be is libertarianism/anarchy and we should all be content.
Your argument as written can be summed up as such, Free will is not the same as making choices voluntarily (uhm, that's the "free will" part - ls). Some men choose to stay slaves, and others choose to run away or resist, but either choice is not made voluntarily. Which implies, that the decision is being made involuntarily? Someone else is making the decision?
You are argueing as if the mere fact that a choice is made means its voluntary. This is nonsensical and obliterates the concept of coercion entirely. A choice that is made under the threat of force is not voluntary. Why is it so hard for you to understand this?
The implication of what you are saying would be that if every single thief victim doesn't manage to sucessfully defy the theif, they are responsible rather than the thief and deserve what they get good and hard, because afterall they allegedly consented to being milked of their possessions by failing to incapacatate the theif or adequately defend themselves. It's ridiculous.
Brainpolice:The reason why you got the response you did is because you took an example of a theft and construed it as a voluntary trade when you very well know the differance. Human action in general is not necessarily completely based on voluntary trade, there are purely parasitic or violent actions as well, hence the existance of crime (and states). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the differance between voluntary mutual beneficial relationships and parastic and coerced ones.
In your previous post, you alluded to "involuntary action". That's pretty funny stuff.
Brainpolice:That's why there is more to libertarian political theory than a dry praxeological analysis.
I see, so my position is praxeological. Very interesting!
I'm only interested in logic. Not the moral views of you or others. Including Rothbard.
Brainpolice:You are argueing as if the mere fact that a choice is made means its voluntary. This is nonsensical and obliterates the concept of coercion entirely. A choice that is made under the threat of force is not voluntary. Why is it so hard for you to understand this?
My 8:21 post is my last to you unless you have something new to offer. After you admitted that all human action is Praxeological, my point was made. The rest is just arguing for our own self-aggrandizement.
liberty student, are you trolling?
Brainpolice:If anything is nonsense, it is the premise that all human action is voluntary by definition, which is the implication of what you are saying. If that's the case, then whatever the status quo happens to be is libertarianism/anarchy and we should all be content.
Missed this juicy tidbit.
No, we should not be content with the status quo. But unfortunately, most libertarians and anarchists are men of words, not action. The option to resist is there. It is not taken. The option to renounce allegiance to the state is there and state approved. People will not take it.
You accused me of making the statist argument. It is in fact you who makes the statist argument, that if the state threatens force, all must comply. I am the one who advocates refusing to comply and resisting violence. But I knew you were making that argument to attack me personally because you had no real argument against my position.
Trianglechoke7: liberty student, are you trolling?
No, I am winning the argument. If you want, I can play it back for you in super-slo-mo.
You're setting up a straw man. I'm refering to actions of submission to coercion - which are not voluntary. Once again, you will be hardpressed to prove that all human action is inherently voluntary, and shying away from the implications of this premise, which is a justification for all actions (and the entirely of statism).
I see, so my position is praxeological. Very interesting! I'm only interested in logic. Not the moral views of you or others. Including Rothbard.
Then don't shy away from the implications of your position: a defense of statism.
liberty student: Trianglechoke7: liberty student, are you trolling? No, I am winning the argument. If you want, I can play it back for you in super-slo-mo.
No, you're not winning the argument, you're making statist arguments that the people here generally reject. It's interesting that you swiftly proclaim "victory" in arguements in which you are argueing against the libertarian position and continually demonstrate a total lack of understanding of the libertarian position.
Brainpolice:In your previous post, you alluded to "involuntary action". That's pretty funny stuff. You're setting up a straw man. I'm refering to actions of submission to coercion - which are not voluntary.
You're setting up a straw man. I'm refering to actions of submission to coercion - which are not voluntary.
Yes, involuntary action. Is there an echo in here? Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Can you hear me?
Brainpolice:Then don't shy away from the implications of your position: a defense of statism.
And another straw man. I'm still waiting for you to explain a model of behavior for "not voluntary" (don't call it involuntary) action.
Brainpolice:No, you're not winning the argument, you're making statist arguments that the people here generally reject. It's interesting that you swiftly proclaim "victory" in arguements in which you are argueing against the libertarian position and continually demonstrate a total lack of understanding of the libertarian position.
I'm making an argument based on praxeology, coincidentally I am arguing against compliance with the state.
I don't care what people "generally reject" Most people generally accept statism. Why would I care what the generalities are? You consistently bring up these appeals to populism, as though there is some sort of authority or logic to such an argument, when I think you know full well there is not.
I claim victory, because you conceded with your "dry praxeology". I made my point, you agreed. The rest is all cranberry sauce and stuffing.
liberty student: Brainpolice:If anything is nonsense, it is the premise that all human action is voluntary by definition, which is the implication of what you are saying. If that's the case, then whatever the status quo happens to be is libertarianism/anarchy and we should all be content. Missed this juicy tidbit. No, we should not be content with the status quo. But unfortunately, most libertarians and anarchists are men of words, not action. The option to resist is there. It is not taken. The option to renounce allegiance to the state is there and state approved. People will not take it. You accused me of making the statist argument. It is in fact you who makes the statist argument, that if the state threatens force, all must comply. I am the one who advocates refusing to comply and resisting violence. But I knew you were making that argument to attack me personally because you had no real argument against my position.
I'm sorry, you are making the statist argument by implying that our relationship with the state is voluntary, wheras the libertarian or anarchist would argue that it is not voluntary. The option to live as a sovereign individual is essentially non-existant right now precisely because we exist in coercive conditions - individual secession is not state approved, the mere existance of a state runs counter to it. This is really basic stuff man. I never said that "all must comply" or "all should comply", I'm actually trying to hammer into your head the obvious, that the fact that people make choices in the context of the threat of force means that it isn't voluntary precisely because there is a threat of force. You seem to be demonstrating rather extreme naivety about libertarianism.
Voluntary means without coercion. If you choose to do something due to the presence of coercion, then you are doing it involuntarily. Coercion means the threat or use of physical violence.