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

Hi, I'm new.

rated by 0 users
This post has 377 Replies | 19 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

nirgrahamUK:

stephanie has done remarkably well to remain ambigious about what kind of government she advocates, i.e voluntary/involuntary, anarchy/minarchy.

Indeed. While I don't know if she is a Randian, she argues like a Randian, and I don't think she recognizes (while claiming rationality as a high virtue), that her position is irrational because it is based on false premises.

 

"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
Top 500 Contributor
Female
Posts 142
Points 4,160

I am the one who is rational because I do not believe initiating force is a right at all. 

Should I try putting the idea into French? I am in 100% agreement with this proposition. Have I not said? Nobody has the right to initiate the use of force. Not even government. I've been saying this in practically every post I've made so far.

 

You seem to believe it is, and we need a law against such a non-existent right.

WHEN DID I SAY THAT? However did you arrive at that conclusion? What does "We need a law to protect against the initiation of force" mean to you? What it means to me is that there is no right to initiate force.

 

Answers to your questions.

1. No to definition. Your qualification of  "interpretation" allows for private dispute resolution mechanisms, for example, which are already a fact of life today.  Yes to enforcement.

2. No.

3. Yes. all citizens of that country.

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

Stephanie Bond:

1. No to definition. Your qualification of  "interpretation" allows for private dispute resolution mechanisms, for example, which are already a fact of life today.  Yes to enforcement.

2. No.

3. Yes. all citizens of that country.

your answers make no sense as they are contradictory.

you are coming over like a confused minarchist now.

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 500 Contributor
Female
Posts 142
Points 4,160

liberty student, I advocate a voluntarily funded government based on the law that prohibis the initiation of force. It needs a name.

What is minarchy?

 

And what "false premises"?

 

eta: Show me the contradictions.

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

Stephanie Bond:
Answers to your questions.

Do you believe that government should have a monopoly on the definition of law (interpretation) and justice (enforcement) or not?

1. No to definition. Your qualification of  "interpretation" allows for private dispute resolution mechanisms, for example, which are already a fact of life today.  Yes to enforcement.

So you are for a monopoly on force but not on the definition of when to use force.  Now there is a contradiction.

Stephanie Bond:
Answers to your questions.

If so, are all citizens required to pay for it?

2. No.

So this is unfunded?  If people do not have to pay for the service, how is the service provided?

Stephanie Bond:
Answers to your questions.

Are all citizens subject to that government, whether they recognize it or not?

3. Yes. all citizens of that country.

So you maintain that the state exists above free will.

Also, why delineate by country?  A nation is an arbitrary fiction.

"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
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Stephanie Bond:
What is minarchy?

Minimal government.

Stephanie Bond:
And what "false premises"?

Your premise that man needs government.  That one law fits all.  That enforcement must be monopoly.

Stephanie Bond:
eta: Show me the contradictions.

Have been.  As have others.  You've avoided addressing them.

It's contradictory to say that you believe man has rational free will, but then insist he submit to a monopoly authority.

"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
Top 500 Contributor
Female
Posts 142
Points 4,160

If "definition" means "interpretation", there is no monopoly needed for it. With one basic law it's not so much the definition as the fact-finding, therefore there can be a private method of resolution of differences/disputes. It helps to have familiarity with how the courts work to understand what I'm talking about here.

If there is only the one basic law - nobody has the right to initiate the use of force - then it follows that what has to be decided in every dispute is who is in the wrong, and what the consequences should be. Working out how to resolve disputes is not necessarily something that has to be done by a quote unquote government official.

The legal monopoly on the use of retaliatory force should be governed by a strict set of rules, so in THAT sense my answer to Q. 1 would be yes - there should be a monopoly on definition.

"Interpretation" is something that is not a monopoly of government/courts now, so why should it be in a proper civilization?

 

You asked if all citizens are required to pay for it, and I said no. Wanna know why? Because to require everyone to pay for protection is to initiate force. It has to be left up to the individuals to decide when and if they need to pay for protection. Is it  in people's interest to pay for protection? Yes it is, but a strict adherence to reason and rationality means that those who wish to be employed providing defense services must persuade the public to pay for same. That is what I mean by the statement that the government cannot have the right to coerce the public into paying for it. People have to be free to decide for themselves if and when such expenses are necessary and how much. Of course the system would not be unfunded; it would be voluntarily funded by those who value the services.

Want some examples? One of my favorites is contract insurance, which is basically insurance to cover the costs of having to resort to some kind of dispute resolution services. Such insurance could be needed if one party reneges on a contract. Now, if you did not pay the insurance, you could still sue the reneging party, but you'd have to find the money to pay for it out of your own pocket, instead of having insurance pay for it. Of course, the more litigious you are, the higher the premium you will probably have to pay (unless you are successful at litigation, but that's an issue to sort out with your insurance provider.) Contract insurance is something the government could run, or run in tandem with insurance companies, which would be set up so as to generate funds to keep the courts running continuously and also to generate profit for the insurance company. Claims on policies to launch lawsuits would cause funds to be made available to pay for those lawsuits. In order to launch a lawsuit, either you need insurance or you need your own funds or you need to convince a lawyer to take your case on a contingency basis.

 

All citizens would be subject to the Law that prohibits the initiation of force. Thus,  the ones who  disagree either accept the consequences of initiating force, or more likely they can just go live in one of the other 150 countries where force is still permitted.

 

Let's face it - this new country is going to be the only one of its kind. It may well need a budget to provide for its own defense against bully nations which are unhappy with seeing this new free country. Paying for that defense is also something that has to be voluntarily done.

 

People who agree with the system  are more likely to pay something for it, because they value their freedom and they value having a means to deal with those who don't. The citizens who decide they have the right to initiate force are precisely the reason there needs to be a law against initiation of force in the first place. That doesn't mean that people have the right to initiate force!!!!!!! It does mean that people have the right to retaliatory force.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

As NUK said, you've done a masterful job of saying lots without saying anything.

First government is an absolute, now it is voluntary.  Except it has to be a monopoly, but it doesn't because people can choose.  But it is the only agency that can use force, even though you recognize that government having a monopoly on the use of force is what makes it immoral.

You keep bringing up rationality, but there is no rational consistency in your responses from post to post.

Did you read the article Knight of Bawaa linked up thread?

"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
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

i think stephanie has struggled due to infamiliarity with terminology, (i.e. the minarchy thing is an example of that)

if i am understanding right, her 'one law' is simply natural law, i.e. an objective formulation of property rights and the non-aggression principle. this is not 'law' in the everyday sense of the word, it is simply the 'moral law', i.e. morals/ethics.

if this is so, i agree entirely since i think that if there are to be morals and 'right and wrong' 'permissable and impermissable(moraly)' then the morality must be objective/universal as such it would be 'natural law'.

as far as institutions that deal with law in the everyday sense of law i claim that;

workaday law should be produced as private law, and enforcement of the produced law should be done by private enforcement.

any produced private law that contradicts the moral law is illegitimate(morally)

this is a voluntary government system commonly know as market anarchy or anarcho-capitalism (ancap) or just plain anarchy.

 

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 500 Contributor
Female
Posts 142
Points 4,160

It's contradictory to say that you believe man has rational free will, but then insist he submit to a monopoly authority.

I see. Well, I haven't said that man has rational free will.That is what you just said.

I have said that man's rationality is volitional, which means he has to choose to use it. It is not the same thing as rational free will. If man's free will were rational, there would be no need to have laws to guard against irrational choices. Man would automatically choose the rational. He doesn't.

Volitional doesn't automatically guarantee that the choice will be made to be rational or that having chosen to be rational, all choices will be rational ones. That is why even in the best of all possible worlds, it will still be worthwhile to have a mechanism to deal with misunderstandings and disputes.

 


  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

please explain rational and irrational choices?

following Mises I tend to assume that rationality is only concerned with deciding on means, and whatever acting man happens to value as an end-in-itself is not subject for classification as rational or irrational

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: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Female
Posts 142
Points 4,160

liberty student:

As NUK said, you've done a masterful job of saying lots without saying anything.

First government is an absolute, now it is voluntary.  Except it has to be a monopoly, but it doesn't because people can choose.  But it is the only agency that can use force, even though you recognize that government having a monopoly on the use of force is what makes it immoral.

You keep bringing up rationality, but there is no rational consistency in your responses from post to post.

Did you read the article Knight of Bawaa linked up thread?

The law is absolute. No one has the right to initiate the use of force. That is why I advocate voluntary funding of government  services, which services are concerned with providing defense against the initiation of force.

Having a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force is NOT the same thing as having the monopoly on the use of force. By omitting the word "retaliatory" you allow yourself to persist in misunderstanding me.

Nobody has the right to use coercion, i.e., initiate force.

In order for government to respond with retaliatory force, someone has to have initiated force in the first place.

What makes government immoral is its initiation of force. Govenrment having the legal monopoly on retaliatory force would be fine. To refer to an example, in the situation cited earlier, someone reneges on a contract. The two parties might go for private arbitration of the dispute, but to enforce the decision of the process would require involving government services - the courts and the police.

Speaking of things unanswered, how would you propose to handle a breakdown in contractual obligations using your anarcho-capitalist model?

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Stephanie Bond:
Speaking of things unanswered, how would you propose to handle a breakdown in contractual obligations using your anarcho-capitalist model?

The entire Institute is devoted to those solutions.  Have you read any material here?  Did you read the article Knight of Bawaa posted up thread?

 

"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
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Stephanie Bond:
What makes government immoral is its initiation of force.
true !

Stephanie Bond:
Govenrment having the legal monopoly on retaliatory force would be fine.
false!

in the last one you are saying at least two seperable things. (im going to swap out the loaded word government for the more palatable organisation)

an organisation having a legal right to engage in retaliatory (self-defence) foce would be fine     /// that was the good part

an organisation having a legal right to exclude other organisations or individuals from the right to engage in retaliatory force would be fine /// false, this the bad part !

 

 

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 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 313
Points 6,560
Eric replied on Tue, Apr 14 2009 2:22 PM

Stephanie Bond:
What makes government immoral is its initiation of force. Govenrment having the legal monopoly on retaliatory force would be fine.

How can the government enforce this legal monopoly without the initiation of force?

The governemnt cannot outlaw competition without initiating force. What if another company offered "retaliatory force" services? Then What?

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Female
Posts 142
Points 4,160

nirgrahamUK:

please explain rational and irrational choices?

following Mises I tend to assume that rationality is only concerned with deciding on means, and whatever acting man happens to value as an end-in-itself is not subject for classification as rational or irrational


Any action that involves the initiation of force should be illegal because it represents the abridgement of the rights of others. Perhaps it would be helpful to differentiate between anti-rational and irrational. One cannot legislate against all irrational choices, although that is what government is trying to do at present. An action that doesn't seem to make sense to you isn't necessarily an irrational one. It could simply be that the other person has done a poor job of explaining it to you. Likewise you might consider an act to be rational, but it isn't.
 
An irrational choice might result in your injury or death  (such as trying to jump off a cliff without a parachute or windsail for example. This would not be an act that qualifies as an initiation of force, but it would quality as an irrational choice.)

A man who decides to pursue geothermal energy might be said by others to be pursuing an irrational end, or they might say he is proposing to use irrational means to achieve what could be a rational end. Simply because others claim one's means or one's ends are rational (or irrational) doens't make it is so. This is where free will comes into the picture. A man should judge for himself whether the proposed course is rational and worthwhile. If it is irrational, the chances are the proposer will have difficulty in finding others to work with him.  As long as that man does not use coercion to force others to work with him, the man's choices are his to make and if he has chosen rationally his chances of success are greater than if he has chosen irrationally.
 
Whatever someone "happens to value" is not a guarantee that what he has chosen is rational. How are you going to decide whether to get involved with his project, unless you evaluate it?  Note that it is not for "government" to perform that evaluation as a matter of course. In fact, the only time government would become involved is when there is an allegation that force was initiated.
 
It is something those individuals who are asked to participate ought to do for their own sakes. Those individuals ought to perform 'due diligence" in order to  increase their chances of avoiding irrational choices and pursuing rational ones. So in that sense, what a man values as an end in itself is very much subject to classification as rational or irrational. The point for this discussion is that in the ordinary course, it is not something for government to involve itself in. What kinds of "ends in themselves" are you thinking of here?
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Female
Posts 142
Points 4,160

liberty student:

Stephanie Bond:
Speaking of things unanswered, how would you propose to handle a breakdown in contractual obligations using your anarcho-capitalist model?

The entire Institute is devoted to those solutions.  Have you read any material here?  Did you read the article Knight of Bawaa posted up thread?

 

 

I have read a lot of the Daily posts. Been reading them for the past few weeks, and going back through the archives to read them from the beginning. I've only been reading heavily in the last couple of weeks.

I don't know if I've read the one at the link posted. Have to check it out later and get back to you.

 

However, I've not seen reference to anarchy or anarcho-capitalism in those Daily articles. And I'm asking you personally for a concrete example of how you see this working out - this idea that one private police force will provide defense against another private police force. How would it work in practice - please be as detailed as you like. Also, how do those private police forces organize their funding? Do they go round and make sure that everyone is paying someone for protection? Sounds a bit like the Mafia to me. Show me how it is different from the Mafia.

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

im trying to illustrate something that you yourself hinted at but havent acknowledge outright that

it is difficult for 3rd parties to make claims about whether decions that others make are rational or not, given lack of information.

yet in scenarios where we are assuming certain facts and relations, it would be possible to judge whether a given chain of reasoning is rational or not. i.e. if we know that the cup is above the table, and we know that the end desired is that of holding the cup, then we know it is irrational to stretch ones hand out (for the cup) under the table, given that its not there.

as for peoples 'end values' , what they want, the things to which their chains of rationality are geared towards helping them achieve,... these are beyond analysis into classification as rational or irrational.

rationality in human agents is only a meaningful and useful concept when it is restricted to an analysis of the means which themselves are aimed at certain arbitrary ends . if certain ends are only sub-goals, they can themselves be thought of as means to the yet more ultimate ends. whatever the ultimate ends might happen  to be. having a jog in the neighbourhood on tuesday, getting to enjoy the taste of a strawberry in 5minutes, etc. unless we know of other ends to which they are subordinate there is no meaningful possibility to analyse them as being rational (or irrational) ends; they must just be treated as givens

a man that throws himself off a bridge to commit suicide, has rationally used suitable means to efficiently achieve his end. this is an argument for the rationality of his act. it would be ridiculous to claim that his suicide was irrational if that is just a reference to a societal norm, or some arbitrary belief, 'suicide is irrational' . if we posit further ends though, we are classifying his suicide goal as just another means. so if he wanted to go watch a film, the means of choosing suicide, because of its entailments, is irrational. yet if he wanted oblivion then suicide is a rational means. however the new end goal 'oblivion', again, is not subject to classification into rational or irrational.

i hope this makes clearer my understanding of the Misesian view of human rationality, that it is means -ends oriented

 

 

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 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

i found the following:
on mises.org

Customary Law with Private Means
of Resolving Disputes and Dispensing
Justice: A Description of a Modern
System of Law and Order
without State Coercion
by Bruce L. Benson

Enforcement of Private
Property Rights in Primitive Societies:
Law without Government
by Bruce L. Benson

Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society
N. Stephan Kinsella

Reciprocal Exchange as the Basis
for Recognition of Law: Examples
from American History
by Bruce L. Benson*


Anarchism and the Public Goods Issue:
Law, Courts, and the Police
by David Osterfeld

Customary Law With Private Means of Resolving Disputes and Dispensing Justice: A Description Of a Modern System of Law and Order Without State Coercion
Bruce L. Benson

THE ROLE OF PERSONAL JUSTICE IN ANARCHO-CAPITALISM
KARL T. FIELDING

Justice Entrepreneurship
In a Free Market*
by George H. Smith
Forum for Philosophical Studies, Los Angeles

ORDER WITHOUT LAW:
WHERE WILL ANARCHISTS KEEP THE MADMEN?
JOHN D. SNEED

European Unification as the New Frontier of Collectivism: The Case for Competitive Federalism and Polycentric Law
Carlo Lottieri

CHAOS THEORY
Two Essays On
Market Anarchy
by
Robert P. Murphy


MARKET CHOSEN LAW
Edward Stringham*
he put together abook but cant find the whole thing online
http://www.mises.org/store/Anarchy-and-the-Law-P335.aspx

Benson's website with more articles
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~bbenson/

/////////////////////////////////////////////

also, there are explanations by anarchists who are not Austrian, i.e. David Freidman (son of milton)

1989 (1973). The Machinery of Freedom.

which is interesting for a perspective from a different intellectual tradition. (this file is available as a zipped up html on filesharing sites, Kazaa etc.)

and theres the letter that Roy Childs wrote to Ayn Rand.

http://www.isil.org/ayn-rand/childs-open-letter.html

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 100 Contributor
Posts 871
Points 21,030
eliotn replied on Tue, Apr 14 2009 4:50 PM

liberty student:
Government is by definition coercive, and coercion is irrational.

How does that answer my question?

liberty student:

I judge action, not intent.

OK.  I was actually talking about the change in government size.  Would replacing a totaliterian government (with extreme regulation) with a minarchist one be pro, or anti liberty?

liberty student:
You missed the gist.  She was speaking of the need for government as an absolute.  I was challenging her position that government is a need, or that anyone "needs" government.  Sure some people want government.  I have no problem with free choice to make lousy choices.  But monopoly government is not a need.

Good point.

liberty student:

eliotn:
liberty student:
Or peace can just exist when people choose not to initiate force because it is unprofitable.
 

But don't people in governments profit from initiating force?

Do you consider it a profit when you steal?  Does that conform to a praxeological view of trade?

Profit and loss is subjective to the individual.  People act to maximize their psychic profit and minimize their psychic loss.  However, the actions used to achieve that vary.

There are people, that for whatever reason, use violence as a means to increase their psychic profit.  If that was not the case, violence would not exist.  While from our standpoint, it may seem irrational or self-destructive to use violence, to them, violence is an appropriate means to achieve their ends ex ante.

 

Schools are labour camps.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,011
Points 47,070

Stephanie Bond:
Should I try putting the idea into French? I am in 100% agreement with this proposition. Have I not said? Nobody has the right to initiate the use of force. Not even government. I've been saying this in practically every post I've made so far.
Governments, by their nature, intitiate force. It is a sine qua non.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

eliotn:
How does that answer my question?

With excellence.

eliotn:
Would replacing a totaliterian government (with extreme regulation) with a minarchist one be pro, or anti liberty?

You mean, should I vote democrat or republican?  Wink

eliotn:
There are people, that for whatever reason, use violence as a means to increase their psychic profit.  If that was not the case, violence would not exist.  While from our standpoint, it may seem irrational or self-destructive to use violence, to them, violence is an appropriate means to achieve their ends ex ante.

I do not use the word profit to cover gain through coercion or violence.  I prefer to use the words tax or loot for that.

 

 

"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: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,943
Points 49,130
SystemAdministrator
Conza88 replied on Tue, Apr 14 2009 8:19 PM

Stephanie Bond:

However, I've not seen reference to anarchy or anarcho-capitalism in those Daily articles. And I'm asking you personally for a concrete example of how you see this working out - this idea that one private police force will provide defense against another private police force. How would it work in practice - please be as detailed as you like. Also, how do those private police forces organize their funding? Do they go round and make sure that everyone is paying someone for protection? Sounds a bit like the Mafia to me. Show me how it is different from the Mafia.

Market for Liberty (pdf) (audiobook)

For a New Liberty (pdf) (audiobook)

Myth of National Defense (pdf)

The first is recommended for you... Rand plays a factor. And no doubt she's influenced your thinking.

This book is very radical in the true sense of that term: it gets to the root of the problem of government and provides a rethinking of the whole organization of society. They start at the beginning with the idea of the individual and his rights, work their way through exchange and the market, expose government as the great enemy of mankind, and then — and here is the great surprise — they offer a dramatic expansion of market logic into areas of security and defense provision.

Enjoy.

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,651
Points 51,325
Moderator

Whew! You introduce yourself to the forum and, first thing you know, you're in a debate about anarchism and government! Stick out tongue

To answer your initial question, probably the only way to avoid bloodshed would be to create an artificial island of some kind or perhaps do the entire oil rig and/or "seastead" kinda thing that Patri Friedman suggested.

As for the debate about government, any government necessarily initiates force when it establishes itself as a monopoly over protection, security, and law. If you kill my family member and I decide to take you to a private arbitration service in order to exact justice, the government will violate the rights of you, me, and the arbitration service by shutting it down as an illegal enterprise and force us to do court proceedings supervized by government.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,255
Points 36,010
Moderator
William replied on Tue, Apr 14 2009 10:20 PM

krazy kaju:

Whew! You introduce yourself to the forum and, first thing you know, you're in a debate about anarchism and government! Stick out tongue

To answer your initial question, probably the only way to avoid bloodshed would be to create an artificial island of some kind or perhaps do the entire oil rig and/or "seastead" kinda thing that Patri Friedman suggested.

As for the debate about government, any government necessarily initiates force when it establishes itself as a monopoly over protection, security, and law. If you kill my family member and I decide to take you to a private arbitration service in order to exact justice, the government will violate the rights of you, me, and the arbitration service by shutting it down as an illegal enterprise and force us to do court proceedings supervized by government.

 

I think she shot down the idea of an island.  If that is the case and she insists on govt, I think I may have already stated this, it's to push for states rights and the rights of succession.  And if that is her case, moving to New Hampshire may be the best starting ground.

"I am not an ego along with other egos, but the sole ego: I am unique. Hence my wants too are unique, and my deeds; in short, everything about me is unique" Max Stirner
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 2,966
Points 53,250
DD5 replied on Wed, Apr 15 2009 1:02 AM

Stephanie Bond:

"Who are they who would not consent? The only ones who would not consent are those who wish to have the right to initiate the use of force.

 

 

You maintain that  consent to finance your limited government is purely voluntarily, and by this you think that you have eliminated the coercive aspect of the government, however, you did nothing of the kind.  As long as the government  maintains the monopoly to use physical force, it is in essence depriving me of my right (moral right) to use force to defend myself, unless I submit my self to its services.  If I have a right to use force for self-defense, then I have the right to delegate that right to someone else, however, according to the limited government approach, I am compelled to acquire protection only from the government.  I ask you then, how is this monopoly over defense and law maintained if not by coercion? 

Most laissez-fair advocates will admit that the limited government scheme does indeed violate individual rights.  That opens the door once again for the collectivists and "altruists" to gain ground. 

Ayn Rand, for example, was very stubborn on this matter for insisting that the limited government does not violate individual rights. 

Stephanie Bond:

Can you have competing Laws of Gravity?

You already do!  Not of gravity, but of law.  You have different state courts.  States are living in "anarchy" with respect to each other, yet there seems to be no chaos.

The same goes for police.  Each town, city, county, state, and federal have different law enforcement agencies that do not operate under a central point of authority.  I don't believe there is chaos because a lack of a central authority.

In a true libertarian country, there can be one set of basic libertarian laws (natural laws) declaring the sovereignty of the individual.  Since property rights is the application of Individual rights, all laws can be derived from such rights.  There is no need to legislate.  Legislation brings the arbitrary whim of the politician once again.  The market is perfectly capable of providing such services as courts and police.  With the profit and Loss system and no central point of authority, I believe you will now have a true free society that leaves the collectivist minority in no position to wreck the structure

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 871
Points 21,030
eliotn replied on Wed, Apr 15 2009 8:13 AM

liberty student:

eliotn:
Would replacing a totaliterian government (with extreme regulation) with a minarchist one be pro, or anti liberty?

You mean, should I vote democrat or republican?  Wink

What? This is not voting.  It is violent revolution and radically changing the government by overthrowing the preexisting one.

liberty student:
I do not use the word profit to cover gain through coercion or violence.  I prefer to use the words tax or loot for that.

Ok.  What is the meaning of "coercion is unprofitable" now?  Apparently, according to this, there is no profit, since gains from coercion do not count as profit.  I guess I should not interpret it as "coercion does not help the person doing it".

Schools are labour camps.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

Couldn't government also be attributed to law?  Meaning, Natural Law and it's principles pertaining to a man and woman's rights are the government.  My idea of a government is the principle of property rights govern the free market.  In other words, Natural Law is the governing force of the free market.  The nature of people involves the principle of property rights.  I know I'm defining government different than what seems to be the way it is defined in this thread, but I thought government and State were different.  Or has government truly and thus completely become to mean what I usually attribute to State?

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 444
Points 7,395

true sovereignty requires nuclear weapons.  so ideally you would buy an island from a country and get them to leave you alone for awhile.  Then when your society starts doing well and the international community starts pressuring you as a "tax shelter" you conduct a nuclear test.

This is the only way I see of actually starting a new country.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

eliotn:

liberty student:

eliotn:
Would replacing a totaliterian government (with extreme regulation) with a minarchist one be pro, or anti liberty?

You mean, should I vote democrat or republican?  Wink

What? This is not voting.  It is violent revolution and radically changing the government by overthrowing the preexisting one.

Disclaimer: I am for non-violence.  I don't want to overthrow any governments.

You are asking, is a little liberty better than total tyranny.  It's the difference between voting democrat or republican.  Liberty is an absolute.  Everything else is just gradualism.  Is it better to pay less taxes?  Sure.  But it's still a tax, and that is not liberty.

eliotn:

liberty student:
I do not use the word profit to cover gain through coercion or violence.  I prefer to use the words tax or loot for that.

Ok.  What is the meaning of "coercion is unprofitable" now?  Apparently, according to this, there is no profit, since gains from coercion do not count as profit.  I guess I should not interpret it as "coercion does not help the person doing it".

That's my point.  Profit is the difference between income and expenses, but this presumes it is conducted in a voluntary manner.

Stealing is not profitable in the sense that it is arrived at rationally and ethically.

Sure coercion provides gains to the person doing it, but not to the other partner in the transaction, and thus it is not trade.

It is common for leftists (not saying you are one) to associate trade with exploitation.  We know better.

"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
Top 500 Contributor
Female
Posts 142
Points 4,160

Thanks to everyone for all the replies! I will work my way through them all eventually, I promise.

Thank you for those links, Conza. I have started on the first one, which on page 4 says:

"[t]he society we propose is based on one fundamental principle: No man or group of men—including any group of men calling themselves "the government"—is morally entitled to initiate (that is, to start) the use of physical force, the threat of force, or any substitute for force (such as fraud) against any other man or group of men."

Looks like we're in agreement so far. This is the same fundamental principle I suggest should serve as The Law that governs everyone.  In order to have rational non-coercive government, there must first be a principle by which everyone is to be governed.

I do accept that anarcho-capitalists are convinced that the concept "government" means "coercive government."  I also agree with you all that government in its present incarnation employs coercion as of right,  and I also agree that this system of government needs to be drastically changed.

What I do not agree with is that there is no need for any kind of government at all. One of the definitions given in an online dictionary for "government" states that government is " a system or policy by which a political unit is governed." Looks to me like "government" doesn't have to mean "permission to use coercion."

Is "self-interest" a bad thing just because a lot of people have been taught to define it as such?
Is "altruism" a good thing just because the official definitions try to paint a rosy picture of it?

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

granted there can be legitimate 'voluntary' governments, nevertheless, 'government' is accepted jargon on this board which by convention references the traditional commonplace (involuntary/state) government we know and hate. so if one wishes to specifically talk about the more exotic 'voluntary/legitimate' government, it is prudent to specify that this is what one is doing, and be explicit about it. otherwise confusion will inevitably ensue, given the difficulty of making insightful statements that hold true for both types of government.

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: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630
wilderness replied on Wed, Apr 15 2009 11:45 AM

nirgrahamUK:

granted there can be legitimate 'voluntary' governments, nevertheless, 'government' is accepted jargon on this board which by convention references the traditional commonplace (involuntary/state) government we know and hate. so if one wishes to specifically talk about the more exotic 'voluntary/legitimate' government, it is prudent to specify that this is what one is doing, and be explicit about it. otherwise confusion will inevitably ensue, given the difficulty of making insightful statements that hold true for both types of government.

     Thank you.  This is what I was looking for nirgrahamUK.  This is how I see it and then I'll compare it to what you wrote above that I quoted here.  

     I see government and State as different.  Government is applying Natural Law or a reasoned principle to govern the free market.  Property rights is one such principle governing the free market.  This principle not only is an observation, but is the nature of man or woman.  It is in our nature that property rights would be reasoned as moral for this principle involves non-aggression upon another property.  This is therefore a society enacting reasonable ways to exist with each other.  

     State on the other hand does not such thing.  State intervenes and is consistently aggressive to the free market.  The State is not reasonable and is quite insensible in its actions.  The State follows no moral principles that can be intellectually comprehended because the premise and thus the foundation of the State involves the State making paradoxical decisions.  The State can not avoid these types of decisions because the State's only existence is founded upon theft and violent action.  Thus the warping of the free market occurs right off the bat when a State is founded.  The State warps the very fabric of the free market by it's irrational conditions to even exist in the first place.

     Ok.  Now to compare to what you just said to help clarify, as you mentioned, what this board defines in the use of these concepts.  (1) The State that I mentioned/defined above is what is called on this board "involuntary government".  (2)  The government that I mentioned/defined above is what is called on this board "voluntary government".

     Is this correct?  If so, then I can use the board terminology to enhance better communication when I post here.

Thank you.

 

 

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 304
Points 3,965
Solomon replied on Wed, Apr 15 2009 12:23 PM

Stephanie Bond:
Looks like we're in agreement so far. This is the same fundamental principle I suggest should serve as The Law that governs everyone.  In order to have rational non-coercive government, there must first be a principle by which everyone is to be governed.

That's just the problem.  The purpose of law is emphatically not "to govern."  Governing is something only people can do and the only person who has the right to govern an individual is that individual himself (consenting to be governed by another can be regarded as self-rule as well).   The singular purpose of law is the resolution of conflict; it is neither objective nor absolute.

Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!

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

what you wrote does indeed square with my interpretation. if anyone disagrees im sure they'll let us know in short order !

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: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630
wilderness replied on Wed, Apr 15 2009 12:38 PM

Solomon:

Stephanie Bond:
Looks like we're in agreement so far. This is the same fundamental principle I suggest should serve as The Law that governs everyone.  In order to have rational non-coercive government, there must first be a principle by which everyone is to be governed.

That's just the problem.  The purpose of law is emphatically not "to govern."  Governing is something only people can do and the only person who has the right to govern an individual is that individual himself (consenting to be governed by another can be regarded as self-rule as well).   The singular purpose of law is the (post facto) resolution of conflict; it is neither objective nor absolute.

     Yet, Natural Law does govern, and an individual reasoning Natural Law comes to such conclusions that property rights are good.  Natural Law states that whenever an individual is not understanding or reasoning what is best for the individual, then that individual doesn't reach a certain excellence in his actions.  What is "best" isn't necessarily labeled or defined until an individual values a certain pursuit or action to be taken [which actually falls in line with how I understand the pursuit of happiness or said another way, the pursuit of excellence (or quality)].  

     For example, the individual values being baker.  Whether that individual is a good or bad baker is up to the individuals spirit, or in other words, it is up to the effort the individual puts into being a baker.  The market will define if the individual is a good or bad baker, that's the power of the consumer.  Now if the market doesn't value the baker and states the individual is not an excellent enough baker, then that baker may not gain enough profit and nobody buys enough to keep the baker's investments afloat, so, the baker closes shop.  This doesn't necessarily, if we go a step further, completely devalue the baker's ability.  This individual might cook well enough at home that the desire for the food is good enough.  At home the baker is an excellent baker.  Yet, on the free market he or she may not find a market niche to keep a business going.  And thus so is the nature of a baker as governed by Natural Law, meaning, it's only natural this all may turn out this way for the baker.

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630
wilderness replied on Wed, Apr 15 2009 12:39 PM

nirgrahamUK:

what you wrote does indeed square with my interpretation. if anyone disagrees im sure they'll let us know in short order !

Thanks for getting back to me.  I appreciate your response.  Smile

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Solomon:
The singular purpose of law is the resolution of conflict; it is neither objective nor absolute.

+1

"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 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 304
Points 3,965
Solomon replied on Wed, Apr 15 2009 12:50 PM

wilderness:
Yet, Natural Law does govern, and an individual reasoning Natural Law comes to such conclusions that property rights are good.

Natural law is not something that need be written down, as it is something that just happens.  This is clearly different from the laws of a particular legal system which are contingent upon the people who make it.  So being "governed" by natural law is not at all the same as being subject, consensually or otherwise, to a court's decision.  This is distinction I was trying to make.

Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

Solomon:

wilderness:
Yet, Natural Law does govern, and an individual reasoning Natural Law comes to such conclusions that property rights are good.

Natural law is not something that need be written down, as it is something that just happens.  This is clearly different from the laws of a particular legal system which are contingent upon the people who make it.

indeed.  I agree

Solomon:

So being "governed" by natural law is not at all the same as being subject, consensually or otherwise, to a court's decision.  This is distinction I was trying to make.

I agree with what you say here.  Going by what you say here, then are you stating Natural Law does govern, but does not govern the way court's and legal system's govern if these latter do not follow Natural Law?  A clear distinction in the way the free market can be governed.  One by reasoned principles and another by haphazard criminal warps or skews that ill-define the free market.  In other words, a non-Natural Law court enacts and make judgements that are not actually happening, in other words, is clearly not decipherable as being reasonable.  Yet, a court that makes decisions based on Natural Law will be reasonable, and logically be understood as what is happening.  Thus the government of Natural Law need not a State but instead reason.  A natural government if you will.

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 2 of 10 (378 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last » | RSS