Is this colonialism, or even imperialism?

Juan:

Actually there's nothing wrong with anyone overthrowing any government because there's no such thing as rule by consent. The idea that the government of, say, a banana republic shouldn't be overthrown by a group of libertarians because doing so would be morally wrong is a false idea.

If I contractualy consent to being governed by a certain government then that government is legitimate and it would be immoral to violently overthrow it.

"A group of libertarians" has no buisiness barging into my chess club and overthrowing our club president. He is quite a nice fellow and does a good job, keep your militant fingers well away from him!

Governments give orders and enforce them at the point of a gun. By definition, governments are not consensual. And even if you're happy with having your rights violated by 'your' government and consent to being robbed, that doesn't mean that your neighbor, who is ruled by the same government, is consenting too. There's absolutely no way for a government to get the consent of all the people they intend to enslave, sorry!, I mean rule, so the idea of legitimate government and rule-by-consent is bogus.

The thing is, if you're thinking about 'national' self-determination, you're out of the realm of libertarianism.

"A group of libertarians" has no buisiness barging into my chess club and overthrowing our club president.

... ... a chess club is not a government.

Sorry, but you are attempting to strip me of my right to self-ownership. I own myself therefore I can enter into whatever sort of contractual obligation I damn please right up to the point of selling myself into slavery for a period of time!

Infact I enter into contractual obligation to abide by all sorts of arbitrary rules and am therefore governed all the time. Such as when posting on message boards I oblige myself not to write nasty words or else!

Chess club is not a government, but it has a government a set of rules and rules makers. Therefore all its members are governed.

 

 

Sorry, but you are attempting to strip me of my right to self-ownership.

I don't think so.

Are you claiming that governments that violate rights, which in practice it means all governments existing today, should not be overthrown because, according to you, there's some sort of twisted 'consent' involved ?

I own myself therefore I can enter into whatever sort of contractual obligation I damn please right up to the point of selling myself into slavery for a period of time!

So...what about 'inalienable' rights ?

Juan:

Are you claiming that governments that violate rights, which in practice it means all governments existing today, should not be overthrown because, according to you, there's some sort of twisted 'consent' involved ?

I am telling the appologists of colonialism any colonialism is unjustified. No matter how liberal the colonialist regime. No matter how much more liberal the colonialist regime than the regime that preceeded it!

You do not violate basic rights of men in order to bring them the joys of liberalism. It is self-defeating and is not even liberal!

After that you got caught up on my using "government by consent" and we strayed into arguing pure theory and semantics.

Juan:

I own myself therefore I can enter into whatever sort of contractual obligation I damn please right up to the point of selling myself into slavery for a period of time!

So...what about 'inalienable' rights ?

Yes you are well right. I have an inalianable right to sell myself into slavery if I so please!

 

Marko:

Juan:

Are you claiming that governments that violate rights, which in practice it means all governments existing today, should not be overthrown because, according to you, there's some sort of twisted 'consent' involved ?

I am telling the appologists of colonialism any colonialism is unjustified. No matter how liberal the colonialist regime. No matter how much more liberal the colonialist regime than the regime that preceeded it!

You do not violate basic rights of men in order to bring them the joys of liberalism. It is self-defeating and is not even liberal!

After that you got caught up on my using "government by consent" and we strayed into arguing pure theory and semantics.

Juan:

I own myself therefore I can enter into whatever sort of contractual obligation I damn please right up to the point of selling myself into slavery for a period of time!

So...what about 'inalienable' rights ?

Yes you are well right. I have an inalianable right to sell myself into slavery if I so please!

Not all agreements should be enforced...

One such example is the non-compete agreement, which is basically DRM on sterioid. I heard two area were simlliar but one of them evolved into the famed Silicon Valley because in part that non-compete agreement are not enforcable in California.

Asian Austrian:

A fellow Austrian and myself have been discussing 'what if' the international situation gets consistently worse and the 21st Century becomes another century of Socialism. 

I've been thinking that the only approach would be to take a large group of Libertarians, probably with the help of a Private Military Contractor, and take over a failing state (probably an African one) with pre-existing infrastructure.

Now the question is; could or would this be considered by other Austrians as Colonialism or Imperialism? The obvious answer apears to be yes, tbh, but if it becomes impossible to recreate Libertarianism in the United States or Classical Liberalism in say, Great Britain, would it be justified to create a Libertarian state via the means I have suggested? 

This is not the free state project; it is an invasion by outside forces to liberate a country, just abnormally. The question really is if it could ever be justified?

This is the reverse of the issue stated by the socialists claiming to use force to overthrow capitalism. Why would one be morally acceptable over the other?

Marko:

I am telling the appologists of colonialism any colonialism is unjustified.

Fine. I'm not an apologist of colonialism.

No matter how liberal the colonialist regime. No matter how much more liberal the colonialist regime than the regime that preceeded it!

So, you are saying that if a government that steals 90% of its subjects' wealth is forcefully replaced by a government that taxes its new subjects at, say, 20% you'll support the 'rights' of the previous government ? Because you believe in...what ? The tribal and non-existent right to 'self-determination' ?

After that you got caught up on my using "government by consent" and we strayed into arguing pure theory and semantics.

Well, I thought this a forum for discussing theory...Anyway, if governments are not legitimate, they can be overthrown at any time. On the other hand, if you think that governments should not be overthrown, then you're supporting the 'rights' of government to steal. The only way for you to do so is to come up with the flawed notion of rule-by-consent. Maybe someone is playing semantic games, but I don't think it's me.

I have an inalianable right to sell myself into slavery if I so please!

I think that's a void contract. You can't really sell your 'self' -- it's a metaphysical impossibility. You can't really transfer ownership of the self since the self is not really a material object. You can sell parts of your body if you want to, but you can't alienate your will.

Besides, even if such a contract were valid, that has nothing to do with the legitimacy of government. Unless you're claiming something along the lines of "you live in [insert country here] and since you're not leaving the country you're consenting to [insert whatever atrocity your masters choose for you]".

My bottom line is : I'm not advocating colonialism. I'm only saying that governments have no right to exist, so if a bunch of libertarians overthrows one, great. Said libertarians of course have no right to create a new government...

Juan:

So, you are saying that if a government that steals 90% of its subjects' wealth is forcefully replaced by a government that taxes its new subjects at, say, 20% you'll support the 'rights' of the previous government ? Because you believe in...what ? The tribal and non-existent right to 'self-determination' ?

At what level the taxes stand is irrelevant in determining which of two governments is better (less bad). The only factor that matters is the preference of the ruled.

Now, you might prefer a colonialist regime with low taxes to a native regime with high taxes, but most people around the world are not like you. Mayority of people voluntary, of their own accord see themselves not as atomised induviduals, but as tribes, nations and so on. Therefore they are always going to prefer a native regime. 

I assure you if USA in the 1960s invaded USSR that Russians would have prefered the high tax native regime to the low tax invading regime and fight the invasion. Enthusiasticaly.

Even if British colonialism was more enlightened and liberal than the native regimes that came before it or after it, it was less legitimate, because it was even more resented and there was even less consent of the ruled involved.

Which is why FNL and Vietminh were clearly better (less bad) than the French in the Algerian and Vietnameese wars of independence. Or why it is perfectly normal to root for the Iraqi resistance over the invaders.

You can not invade someone "for their own good". Thats called neo-conservativism. You can not make the decision of which of two governments is less bad for them or violates more or more important rights of theirs. Different people have different perspectives.
 

Juan:

Well, I thought this a forum for discussing theory...Anyway, if governments are not legitimate, they can be overthrown at any time. On the other hand, if you think that governments should not be overthrown, then you're supporting the 'rights' of government to steal. The only way for you to do so is to come up with the flawed notion of rule-by-consent. Maybe someone is playing semantic games, but I don't think it's me.

I used the government by consent phrase in relation to the British. As in their rule could not be legitimate as it violated the principle, so why in nine hells did you get stuck on it?.

Juan:

I think that's a void contract. You can't really sell your 'self' -- it's a metaphysical impossibility. You can't really transfer ownership of the self since the self is not really a material object. You can sell parts of your body if you want to, but you can't alienate your will.

 

You do not own what you can not trade. You do not own a plot of land if it would be illegal for you to sell that plot. There is only a freedom of speech if I can enter a contract to say or not say certain things. (Such as if I blackmail someone and he pays me not to disclose a certain information..)

Juan:

My bottom line is : I'm not advocating colonialism. I'm only saying that governments have no right to exist, so if a bunch of libertarians overthrows one, great. Said libertarians of course have no right to create a new government...

But that was not what Asian Austrian was talking about was it. He was mentioning to us many places were "better off" under colonialism.

": I'm not advocating colonialism. I'm only saying that governments have no right to exist, so if a bunch of libertarians overthrows one, great. Said libertarians of course have no right to create a new government..."

 

Well, if the government is non intrusive and is consentual from others and doesn't impose its laws upon those who don't consent then what is the problem? Let us hypothize that my neighbors in the interest of "protecting their rights" decided to voluntarily create a form of government within the community. They say to me, if you wish to join us, then join us. If you don't then we will still live in peace. Now, I would naturally say no, but beyond my consent or lack of it, what right do I have to tell them that they cannot form this government?

Well, if the government is non intrusive and is consentual from others and doesn't impose its laws upon those who don't consent then what is the problem?

There's no problem. Except that I wouldn't call that a 'government' -- that arrangement would be a voluntary association. If we use different definitions for the word 'government' we will talk past each other forever...

Well then how would you define government?

Marko:

Now, you might prefer a colonialist regime with low taxes to a native regime with high taxes, but most people around the world are not like you. Mayority of people voluntary, of their own accord see themselves not as atomised induviduals, but as tribes, nations and so on. Therefore they are always going to prefer a native regime. 

I assure you if USA in the 1960s invaded USSR that Russians would have prefered the high tax native regime to the low tax invading regime and fight the invasion. Enthusiasticaly.

Even if British colonialism was more enlightened and liberal than the native regimes that came before it or after it, it was less legitimate, because it was even more resented and there was even less consent of the ruled involved.

Of course if foreigners try to simply overthrow local authorities, that will result in rebellion. This why all successful colonialism worked not by wiping out local authority but by co-opting them and taking them over. Whever you go, there is always some group of oppressed people who would love outside protection in exchange for local order.

How could a few thousand British businessmen rule a country the size of India? It did so through the principalities it gradually took control of. The same thing allowed the Spanish to rapidly take control of Mexico with a few hundred men. The power was given to them by the formerly oppressed minorities.

Once your rule stops being about protecting the weakest groups and starts being about imposing your laws, that is when colonialism becomes imperialism.

Laughing Man:

Well then how would you define government ?

As a group of people(rulers) who claim 'ownership' over other people(subjects) living(or born) in certain area. Since government officials believe they own their subjects they think they are entitled to rob them (taxing), enslave them (conscription), etc. All known governments fit this description.

Now, the idea that such an organization, which exists only thanks to force and fraud, is legitimate because, allegedly, the subjects chose their government, is ridiculous.

In a word, there's no right to "self-determination" if by self-determination it is meant :

"the determining by the people of the form their government shall have, without reference to the wishes of any other nation, esp. by people of a territory or former colony." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/self%20determination

Juan:

In a word, there's no right to "self-determination" if by self-determination it is meant :

]"the determining by the people of the form their government shall have, without reference to the wishes of any other nation, esp. by people of a territory or former colony." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/self%20determination

 

I think you are needlesly complicating.

Induviduals have a right of self-determination. Therefore a consensual nation has a right of self-determination stemming from the rights of induviduals forming it. Thus in practice the only really relevant addition Libertarians have to this Nationalist principle is that not just a nation, but also a single induvidual can not be rightfuly kept in a political unit against his will.

Marko:

Therefore a consensual nation has a right of self-determination stemming from the rights of induviduals forming it.

Only individuals have rights. Abstractions such as "nations" can't have rights. Besides, such hypothetical "consensual nation" has nothing to do with historic governments. So, your claim that past "national governments" were more legitimate than "foreign governments" is still wrong. Whether you (or I) like it or not, a less taxing government is less criminal than a more taxing one, regardless of 'nationality'.

Thus in practice the only really relevant addition Libertarians have to this Nationalist principle is that not just a nation, but also a single induvidual can not be rightfuly kept in a political unit against his will.

You're getting it backwards I think, there's no "nationalist principle" -- nationalism or tribalism is just one more kind of collectivism. It can't be reformed and turned into individualism.

Whether you (or I) like it or not, a less taxing government is less criminal than a more taxing one, regardless of 'nationality'.

You mistake your personal preference for a fact. And you seem to think the only thing a government does is tax. I assure you it transgresses in many other ways besides that one. In reality an anarchist belives no monopolising government is legitimate. Therefore which government is more evil and which less so is entirely subjective. There is no objective way of measuring it. 

Some people will object more vigorously against one type of government and others against another. The only way of deciding which one is truly more objectionable is to see which one is more distasteful to the people that would actualy be ruled/affected by it.

You're getting it backwards I think, there's no "nationalist principle" -- nationalism or tribalism is just one more kind of collectivism. It can't be reformed and turned into individualism.

You are turning your vulgar induvidualism into a dogma. Libertarians do not deny nations the right of self-determination. They only claim that does not go far enough! (After all it was the Classical Liberals, the forerunners of Libertarians, that came up with the principle in the first place.)

Besides, such hypothetical "consensual nation"... 

Again, you mistake your own vulgar induvidualism for a universal human stance. Infact there are many nations who are to a large extent voluntary.

Marko:

You mistake your personal preference for a fact. And you seem to think the only thing a government does is tax

Silly nitpicking. I also mentioned conscription...and 'etc' -- the list wasn't meant to be exhaustive.

Again, you mistake your own vulgar induvidualism for universal human stance. Infact there are many nations who are to a large extent voluntary.

Nonsense. You mistake your ridiculous collectivism, nationalism and subjective ethics for libertarianism. The problem is, perhaps, that the concept of individualism is beyond your grasp. I'm not wasting any more time =]

...."vulgar individualism", go figure....some people never fail to amaze me....

Marko:

In fact there are many nations who are to a large extent voluntary.

Key word here being "extent". You're under the delusion that might makes right, but in a slightly modified form : "majority makes right" or "mob rule makes right".

Silly nitpicking. I also mentioned conscription...and 'etc' -- the list wasn't meant to be exhaustive.

The taxation level in itself is irrelevant. In some circumstances I would be happy to pay a very high voluntary "tax". Infact if I felt I was getting a reasonable amount of services in return I would be happy to pay a proper tax that was not voluntary, albeit I would fight for it to be made voluntary so that others that do not feel they are getting their money`s worth are not forced to pay it. 

There is only a crime if somebody is getting victimised. If I am happy to pay a certain tax there is no crime. Which is why preference or the consent of the ruled is the only thing that matters. A USSR government was not wrong to conscript the people that were glad to be drafted and would have volunteered anyway. It was only wrong to conscript those that did not wish to be conscripted.

Therefore you are spouting nonsense. Conscription by a native regime and conscription by a foreign regime is not equivalent evil, because in the first case alot more consent is involved as fewer people have to be forced to join the military.

What is wrong with the state is not taxes or conscription as such. What is wrong is that it is all based on FORCE. When less of state is based on FORCE, then that state is less evil.

In a nationalist society a native government is always going to be less based on force than a foreign one.

 

Nonsense. You mistake your ridiculous collectivism, nationalism and subjective ethics for libertarianism. The problem is, perhaps, that the concept of individualism is beyond your grasp.

...."vulgar individualism", go figure....some people never fail to amaze me....

Why don`t you take it to Murray Rothbard:

http://mises.org/journals/jls/11_1/11_1_1.pdf

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard134.html

Geez.

 

I'm not wasting any more time =] 

Nice try, but it won`t save you. I am not jet done bashing you.

 

Whether you (or I) like it or not, a less taxing government is less criminal than a more taxing one, regardless of 'nationality'.

If a government A demands out of 100 of its citizens 20 dollars in taxes and twenty citizens are happy to pay while the other eighty pay only because of the underlying threat of force then that government has stolen 1600 dollars.

If a government B demands out of 100 of its citizens 60 dollars in taxes and eighty citizens are happy to pay while the other twenty pay only because of the underlying threat of force then that government has stolen 1200 dollars.

Now tell me which government is more evil, the government that stole 1600 dollars or the government that stole 1200 dollars??? 

Jesus!

Marko:

The taxation level in itself is irrelevant.

More ridiculous nonsense.

In some circumstances I would be happy to pay a very high voluntary "tax"

Who on earth cares about your preferences ? You are unable to understand that IF you pay voluntarily THEN it is not a tax.

If I am happy to pay a certain tax there is no crime.

Yeah, but your neighbour, who has the same skin colour as you do and speaks the same language you speak is paying at the point of a gun. Of course, you don't give a damn because 'self-determination' trumps individual rights.

A USSR government was not wrong to conscript the people that were glad to be drafted and would have volunteered anyway.

Boy, I love doublethink. Freedom is Slavery, I guess ? If they've volunteered anyway, why were they conscripted at the point of a gun ?

In a nationalist society a native government is always going to be less based on force than a foreign one.

Well, that's the kind of false assertion that a nationalist like you will make, because, you see, you are trying to pass your collectivistic nationalism as...what ? Libertarianism ? Give me a break.

Why don`t you take it to Murray Rothbard:

Rothbard said pigs fly so it must be true! It seems that some libertarians thought that pandering to racists and conservatives would be a good idea. Obviously it was not.

So...here's is Rothbard saying something 100% correct but pretending it is not.

Libertarians are, by and large, as fiercely opposed to ethnic nationalism as the global democrats, but for very different reasons. Libertarians are generally what might be called simplistic and "vulgar" individualists. A typical critique would run as follows: "There is no nation; there are only individuals. The nation is a collectivist and therefore pernicious concept. The concept of 'national self-determination' is fallacious, since only the individual has a 'self.' Since the nation and the State are both collective concepts, both are pernicious and should be combated.

The thing is, Rothbard was a libertarian himself, but in this case, for some practical, or rather opportunistic reason that escapes me, he was talking as if he was not.

In addition, the libertarian, especially of the anarcho-capitalist wing, asserts that it makes no difference where the boundaries are, since in a perfect world all institutions and land areas would be private and there would be no national boundaries

Maybe Rothbard had multiple personality disorder and forgot that he was an anarcho-capitalist as well ?

So you were not jet finished wasting time on me were you?  Sweet contradiction, eh?

 

If you can`t understand there are Americans who would rather be conscripted for 10 years into the US Army than for 1 day into the Soviet Army then you live in a cocoon someplace.

Yeah, but your neighbour, who has the same skin colour as you do and speaks the same language you speak is paying at the point of a gun. Of course, you don't give a damn because 'self-determination' trumps individual rights.

You are putting words in my mouth. A classical tactic of fanatics without arguments.


I will not deal with the rest of your post. It is far too tedious. You even seem to know what Rothbard meant better than the man himself, eh?

You even seem to know what Rothbard meant better than the man himself, eh?

There's no doubt that Rothbard was praising nationalism, racism and other niceties and trying to dismiss libertarians as "vulgar" -- What you don't get is that Rothbard's opportunistic support for those positions doesn't imply that the positions are correct. Of course, they are not.

"As a group of people(rulers) who claim 'ownership' over other people(subjects) living(or born) in certain area. Since government officials believe they own their subjects they think they are entitled to rob them (taxing), enslave them (conscription), etc. All known governments fit this description."

That is just a exaggerated personal definition of government. I am no friend of government but the definition that is "better" would be to say an institution which exercises political power through laws and regulations placed on its citizenry. The example I gave, the community establishing a "government", is itself an institution of authority over those who voluntarily enter into it and live their lives by the rules and regulations set in place by the establishment (to be governed).