Statists sometimes argue that, since one is always free to leave, he must agree and abide by the law if he wants to live within its borders. This is somewhat similar to property rights. Every piece of land one buys in a state comes with some attached obligation to observe the rules. So nobody can set a piece of land completely free by selling it to others without these attached obligations, as you can't breach that contract. This is similar to arguing that one can't claim property rights over bought stolen goods.
If one tries to refute these statist claims, he must make sure he doesn't argue for positive rights in doing it. From a libertarian point of view, saying "But there is no free, stateless land!" is in contradiction with libertarian principles. If one wishes to buy or homestead land, he isn't entitled to demand others to provide anything to him. Similarly, if one asks for stateless land, it means he asks for positive rights in this regard.
But there are correct ways of refuting this. One is to say a transaction cannot be undone even if the seller had no property rights over that good. If someone steals a car and then sells it, the buyer is now the rightful owner (even if he knew it was a stolen good and even if he planned this to happen). Nobody could seize it in order to return it to its "rightful" owner. Instead, the original owner must take action against the thief. Also, this isn't susceptible to phony contracts (selling something you don't possess) because passive defense amounts to ownership and property. Applying this to our situation, if somebody sold you a piece of land and he claims you don't have to obey any laws, then all the state could do is turn against that guy. The state doesn't own or possess the land at any rate, so it can't claim it is passively protecting it.
Some may not agree to the previous argument. Here is another way of refuting statists' claims. Suppose some random guy lives in a free society. A foreign state wages war and starts ruling over this previously free society. Any agreement that random guy reaches while under coercion isn't valid, as with any decision taken while at gunpoint (of course, there must be a relationship between the decision and the coercive action).
Statists could also point out that states emerge from voluntarily-agreed hierarchies and rules. But rarely, if ever, there is consensus over rules. There's also no explicit agreement to lawmaking structures. No person really agreed he will abide by the laws and accept any laws which are further decreed, no matter which they are. In fact, they were coerced into accepting them.
Another nice way of refuting statist claims is to hold the same position as Kinsella does, which is opposed to Block's ideas. Some contracts and agreements aren't truly and fully enforceable. Selling oneself into slavery is one such an example. Another one is being employed for a fixed period of time. Let's discuss this last one. Nobody can truly say the employer can make the employee work if he doesn't want to. But as soon as the contract is breached, parties can demand collateral. So in a sense, giving up observing a state's rules doesn't entitle that state to imprison you.
One can also point out the moral inconsistencies in the statist theory. If someone agrees to this rule, then oppressive regimes are justified. Picture such a regime where you're free to leave the country, but speaking against the leaders is punished by the death penalty. Suddenly, being free to leave doesn't make up for all the state's wrongdoings anymore.
It's also interesting to note that if the statist argument would really hold, then it would mean we already live in anarcho-capitalism: we have all vowed to abide by any laws, present or future. Since we voluntarily chose this, we are free.
What do you think about all these?
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu: s. One is to say a transaction cannot be undone even if the seller had no property rights over that good. If someone steals a car and then sells it, the buyer is now the rightful owner (even if he knew it was a stolen good and even if he planned this to happen). Nobody could seize it in order to return it to its "rightful" owner. Instead, the original owner must take action against the thief. Also, this isn't susceptible to phony contracts (selling something you don't possess) because passive defense amounts to ownership and property. Applying this to our situation, if somebody sold you a piece of land and he claims you don't have to obey any laws, then all the state could do is turn against that guy. The state doesn't own or possess the land at any rate, so it can't claim it is passively protecting it. Some may not agree to the previous argument
s. One is to say a transaction cannot be undone even if the seller had no property rights over that good. If someone steals a car and then sells it, the buyer is now the rightful owner (even if he knew it was a stolen good and even if he planned this to happen). Nobody could seize it in order to return it to its "rightful" owner. Instead, the original owner must take action against the thief. Also, this isn't susceptible to phony contracts (selling something you don't possess) because passive defense amounts to ownership and property. Applying this to our situation, if somebody sold you a piece of land and he claims you don't have to obey any laws, then all the state could do is turn against that guy. The state doesn't own or possess the land at any rate, so it can't claim it is passively protecting it.
Some may not agree to the previous argument
i think im one of these people
(that dont agree)
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
nirgrahamUK: i think im one of these people (that dont agree)
Sure, I believe this requires further debate. I may end up not agreeing with this either, it's a new idea. If you think it would be useful in discussing statist claims, tell me why you don't agree.
The biggest problem with the argument is that it begs the question. The reason a property owner can enjoin someone to leave is because they own the land to begin with. Does the state own anything? If so, based on what? Mere claim? Generations of theft, in the name of the "people"? You also picked up on the odd kind of "contract" it'd be, i.e. one where one cannot default, yet normally a contract must specifically outline penalties for defaulting.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
if i own property. i own it .
if someone takes it without permission and gives it to a 3rd party.
they had no right to give it to a 3rd party.
the 3rd party has no right to have gotten it.
if we know its mine then its mine no matter who is holding it.
over time the evidence that i am the rightful owner MAY diminish. and if i am long deprived of my rightful property there MAY be a point beyond which
i can not prove (perhapos i myself am not confident) that the propeorty held by the 3rd party is really mine nad not his.
but until that time, and while the evidence of my true ownership is there. thats all there is to it.
now. looking from the perspective of the 3rd party. lets take the case that they know its stolen goods. then they owe it to themselves to decline the goods, and not invest heavily in purchasing them as they 'know' that by their purchase they dont come to own it, only possess it. I suppose it is merely a question of risk to them. will the true owner come forth at some time, will he not. how much will i have lost if my purchase is redirected the the true owner. etc.
on the otherhand the case where the 3rd party purchases the goods NOT knowing that they are stolen. then he has been defrauded by the theif. who has committed 2 crimes of theft. one aginst the orginal owner, and one against the 3rd party. but the orginal owner is still the orginal owner, (for as long as we know he is)
it just sounds like circular logic. By them saying "you are free to leave", tacitly implies that they already have legitimate claim of ownership ower a given geographic territory, but where does the claim of ownership come from? Their own rules they make up, its all circular.
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
Not only does this argument fail in defense of the state, it fails in any other context (such as a familial and propertarian context) as well for the same reasons. The first reason it fails was mentioned already: it begs the question of just ownership. The argument just assumes the legitimacy of the ownership claim to begin with when that's precisely what's in dispute. There's a 2nd reason it's a bunk line of reasoning as well though: ownership does not grant completely arbitrary authority over others. For example, one's ownership over their home, even if it is a just case of ownership, does not give you the right to assault and murder people just because they are in one's home. In other words, property rights do not trump life and liberty. So even if we do assume that the state is the legitimate owner, which it isn't in any case, it doesn't follow that literally whatever the state does is inherently legitimate. This likewise applies to any property owner.
"Love it or leave it" is a bunk authoritarian argument in just about any context.
Does the state own anything? If so, based on what?
the state owns all the land between the atlantic and pacific based on the fact that they DO in fact control it, exercise taxation over its inhabitants, and use nuclear and conventional weapons to defend it.
Talking about what the state *ought* to control seems silly to me. In reality the state does control all the land.
maybe I'm operating on a different definition of government than everyone else, but government is whoever does in fact control and derive taxes from a certain piece of land.
are you actually free to leave if the government decides to tax all your assets for 10 years afterwards?
hell the civil war has shown us that even if an entire group of well-armed people wish to leave, they are not free to do so.
Whatever. It seems perfectly fine to me to ask whether it has any right to exercise control over its territories. Does asking whether a slaveowner ought to control a slave also seem "silly" to you, out of curiosity? I mean, they control the slave...
On what basis do you claim that the State owns everything? There is in fact public land but I myself do not reside on this land. Where is the legal legislation showing the United States owns all the land underneath my house? What is the point of a deed or title then? Why does the government compensate individuals during emmient domain?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
I think to an extent the argument is correct. Indeed, it fails when trying to establish a case for taxation or something along those lines. Since, in order for one to sign such a contract free will would be necessary, and yet to "sign" a contract as this denies you of free will. Moreover, as has already been pointed out it begs to the question as to why the state can enforce such rules. If the state legitimately owned the property is claims to then it would be fine. This is where the disctinction arises.
In regards to public roads (ignoring, for the second, eminent domain issues) when one enters a road, one is bound by state rules. Since, it is a voluntary decision. Now, the state may not have the right to steal the money to finance the building of said roads, however it does own them and to break the rules would be to commit theft. Now, whether or not the state has any claim to your money is a different issue entirely.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Just a note regarding the intellectual history of this argument: it goes back at least as far as that godfather of statists, Plato:
we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the State, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him.
-The Crito
This is Socrates supposing what Athens itself would "rightfully" say to him about escaping his own execution, in the course of arguing that he should not escape.
Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle in 9 steps (Soliciting comments)
Too bad he didn't tell "Athens" to go get stuffed.
He might've in real life. Plato was always putting statist words in Socrates' mouth, but I doubt the real man would've been so loved if he had really been such a totalitarian.
yes, it is silly to talk about whether the slave owner *ought* to have the slave. He does in fact have the slave, if you want to do something about it by initiating force you can do so. if a third party wants to intervene between you and him they are free to do so etc. In all cases how much force can be brought to bear is the cromulent question. acting as if there are universal "oughts" outside of your preferences is silly. He has the slave, you don't want him to have slaves. a clear conflict of preferences. You don't get bonus points just because the majority agree with you, though you will be able to bring more force to bear and force your preference on him by rallying the majority against him.
GilesStratton:Since, it is a voluntary decision.
It is not a voluntary decision. First of all, it is illegal to not drive on the road. Second of all, money was taken from me without my consent to pay for the roads. Why should I not use them when I was forced to pay for them?
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Where is the legal legislation showing the United States owns all the land underneath my house? What is the point of a deed or title then? Why does the government compensate individuals during emmient domain?
if you do not take positive action and labor enough to produce property tax come the end of the year the state will take your land. The point of a deed and or title is to provide the illusion of ownership. The government compensates individuals to prevent rebellion.
"rights", "legitimacy", "ought". Just what are people talking about when they talk about these things? it seems to vary from person to person. I assert that these are words without referrant and are meaningless.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:Statists sometimes argue that, since one is always free to leave, he must agree and abide by the law if he wants to live within its borders.
And I ask, why should I have to leave? Why should the tyrant not have to stop being a tyrant?
"if you do not take positive action and labor enough to produce property tax come the end of the year the state will take your land. The point of a deed and or title is to provide the illusion of ownership. The government compensates individuals to prevent rebellion."Where is the legislation stating government owns all land?
why do you think that the government's power comes from legislation? they don't legislate your house away, they threaten you with a gun and or imprisonment.
nazgulnarsil: yes, it is silly to talk about whether the slave owner *ought* to have the slave. He does in fact have the slave, if you want to do something about it by initiating force you can do so. if a third party wants to intervene between you and him they are free to do so etc. In all cases how much force can be brought to bear is the cromulent question. acting as if there are universal "oughts" outside of your preferences is silly. He has the slave, you don't want him to have slaves. a clear conflict of preferences. You don't get bonus points just because the majority agree with you, though you will be able to bring more force to bear and force your preference on him by rallying the majority against him.
"why do you think that the government's power comes from legislation? they don't legislate your house away, they threaten you with a gun and or imprisonment."Well if it is merely might and no legislation then they have no legitimate claim to land.
GilesStratton: I think to an extent the argument is correct. Indeed, it fails when trying to establish a case for taxation or something along those lines. Since, in order for one to sign such a contract free will would be necessary, and yet to "sign" a contract as this denies you of free will. Moreover, as has already been pointed out it begs to the question as to why the state can enforce such rules. If the state legitimately owned the property is claims to then it would be fine. This is where the disctinction arises. In regards to public roads (ignoring, for the second, eminent domain issues) when one enters a road, one is bound by state rules. Since, it is a voluntary decision. Now, the state may not have the right to steal the money to finance the building of said roads, however it does own them and to break the rules would be to commit theft. Now, whether or not the state has any claim to your money is a different issue entirely.
Marko:Moral relativism makes me sick.
I said nothing about what is right and wrong. I think owning slaves is wrong, but I correctly identify that as a statement about my own mind, not about the universe. The universe won't favor owning slaves or not owning slaves, it's up to us to make the world we want to live in.
Wait a minute Nazgul, I think you are making a mistake here. You seem to be confusing the concept that various opinions can exist about what is right and wrong (a fact, they can and do), with the idea that there is no correct answer about what is right and wrong, or about who rightfully owns what.
Think on this - you say you believe owning slaves to be wrong. But do you believe owning slaves is wrong only inside your head? Do you think it's only wrong for you, personally, to have thoughts about owning them? No, you think it's objectively wrong, out there in the real world, to own slaves. Now, you could be incorrect in your belief, but assuming you are correct, that means that yes, it's objectively wrong to own slaves. A similar argument could be made regarding actual ownership of slaves (as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of doing so), if you consider them separate issues.
Twilight:But do you believe owning slaves is wrong only inside your head?
that would be a textbook definition of "belief" yes.
Twilight:No, you think it's objectively wrong, out there in the real world, to own slaves.
I have a preference for a world without slaves. My ability to influence the world determines how much I can influence other people's ability to have slaves.
No, that's not any sort of definition of belief at all. If a religious person believes in God, they believe God actually exists, not that God exists as a concept inside their head. In fact, believing God exists only as a concept inside your head is synonymous with not believing in God! People have beliefs and opinions about objective reality, not just about their own inner thoughts.
nazgulnarsil: I have a preference for a world without slaves. My ability to influence the world determines how much I can influence other people's ability to have slaves.
A very true comment which has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is justifiable to own slaves or not.
I assert that these are words without referrant and are meaningless.
I understand them pretty well. So again, why are they "meaningless"? What difference does it make if people disagree over them? They disagree over plenty of things without thereby rendering them "meaningless" or "witout referrent"; it's usually taken to be the opposite, i.e. it is usually matters of fact where disagreement crops up. Perhaps you buy into the positivist (verification) theory of meaning, though. Pareto thought the same thing about value. At any rate, the fact that someone controls something does not mean they should... what have they done to warrant this control? Made a claim? So what? What connection does this create between them and the property? You may think this is meaningless, but it's a pretty easy to comprehend notion.
I said nothing about what is right and wrong. I think owning slaves is wrong, but I correctly identify that as a statement about my own mind, not about the universe.
The universe (as in, the world of objects) has little to do with it anyway.
Spideynw:It is not a voluntary decision. First of all, it is illegal to not drive on the road. Second of all, money was taken from me without my consent to pay for the roads. Why should I not use them when I was forced to pay for them?
It's illegal to not use the roads? Nonsense.
And if I steal money from you to build a fireplace you don't then have the right to move into my house, it's that simple. The same applies to roads. You have the right to demand compensation. You don't have the right to use the roads as if they were yours, because they're not.
Marko:You pretend as if these are seperate issues when they are not. If the state did not legitmately aquire its title then it does not in fact own what it claims to own. A tief that steals my money to buy a luxury yacht does not get to enforce the rules on the said yacht, because that would imply he owns the said yacht when in fact by law it is me who owns it.
He does own the yatch, he just owes you the money for it and compensation. If you decide that you wish to receive the yatch in compensation then he can no longer set the rules for the yatch. However, if he steals the money from numerous people then the most you can do is ask for the money he stole from you to be returned. You can't merely step on to his yatch as if it were yours, especially not if some of the money were legitimately his.
One night, I voluntarily chose to go to a brand-new grocery store after leaving work. Just as I was about to lock my bike up, a guy grabbed me from behind and put a knife to my throat. Since I had the freedom to choose to go to the store, and I could have not gone, by the statist reasoning I must have consented to nearly being robbed. And the woman who gets raped in a seedy area consented to the sex because she went to the seedy area and probably wore slutty clothes, too.
"You're free to leave" in merely a blank check for the violation of rights.
Knight_of_BAAWA:"You're free to leave" in merely a blank check for the violation of rights.
Well spoken.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Spideynw: GilesStratton:Since, it is a voluntary decision. It is not a voluntary decision. First of all, it is illegal to not drive on the road. Second of all, money was taken from me without my consent to pay for the roads. Why should I not use them when I was forced to pay for them?
A reoccuring theme of Giles is a general inability to understand the involuntary nature of political systems.
Spideynw: Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:Statists sometimes argue that, since one is always free to leave, he must agree and abide by the law if he wants to live within its borders. And I ask, why should I have to leave? Why should the tyrant not have to stop being a tyrant?
Exactly. The question of legitimacy in ownership or decision-making power is begged. In my view, it's the state that has no right to infringe on my property and hence should back off of my own domain as an individual (which generally is at least my person and my home). The argument essentially presumes legitimacy of state ownership over your particular portion of the land and to an extent your very person. It's not you who should leave, it's the state that should leave your property. You have no unchosen positive obligation to abandon your own property if you disagree with the state that arbitrarily claims partial dominion over it.
Treating the state as if it was a legitimate private property owner is ridiculous and not consistant as a libertarian view. It just sneaks legitimacy in through the back door and justifies completely arbitrary decision-making power over others.
Brainpolice:A reoccuring theme of Giles is a general inability to understand the involuntary nature of political systems.
Indeed, I'm quite the statist. Show me other instances of this "recurring theme". By the way, I understand that it isn't voluntary. You're just not forced to use the roads, hence, use of the roads is voluntary.
By the way BP, I understand you haven't the decency to decline the request for a debate in public (or at all) or to even respond, but do you lack the decency to address me directly at all now?
Brainpolice:Treating the state as if it was a legitimate private property owner is ridiculous and not consistant as a libertarian view. It just sneaks legitimacy in through the back door and justifies completely arbitrary decision-making power over others.
What seperates the state from a common thief?
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:Treating the state as if it was a legitimate private property owner is ridiculous and not consistant as a libertarian view. It just sneaks legitimacy in through the back door and justifies completely arbitrary decision-making power over others. What seperates the state from a common thief?
Only the guise of legitimacy.
sirmonty: GilesStratton: Brainpolice:Treating the state as if it was a legitimate private property owner is ridiculous and not consistant as a libertarian view. It just sneaks legitimacy in through the back door and justifies completely arbitrary decision-making power over others. What seperates the state from a common thief? Only the guise of legitimacy.
Correct, now BP has to explain why a common thief can own property and the state can't.