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 100 Contributor
Posts 871
Points 21,030
eliotn replied on Wed, Apr 15 2009 1:45 PM

'Nuff said.

Some good questions (for liberty student but anyone can answer):

1.  What are the appropriate things that can be done to reduce/eliminate government from the lives of the people who don't want it?

2.  Do you believe that people inherantly like or dislike complete liberty?

Schools are labour camps.

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

eliotn:
1.  What are the appropriate things that can be done to reduce/eliminate government from the lives of the people who don't want it?

I started a thread on that.  What is appropriate for a libertarian, I think would be anything that is voluntary.  It's limited only to your imagination and I hope people have vivid imaginations because we will need a lot of creativity to find our way to peace and a free market.

eliotn:
2.  Do you believe that people inherantly like or dislike complete liberty?

I believe some people are ignorant and afraid, and some people like to make sure other people are ignorant and afraid.

"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
Female
Posts 142
Points 4,160

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 resolution of conflict; it is neither objective nor absolute.

How is "resolution of conflict" NOT the purpose of "governing"? Or should I say, its proper purpose?  Today's governments routinely abridge rights  by means of non-objective law and by means of unnatural law. Such criminal behavior has been made into an absolute. Why should Natural Law not occupy that place of objective and absolute truth?

The law needs to be objective and absolute. The law as used by courts to resolve conflicts should be the same law that rational people use to self-govern. In other words, the "law of the land" should be in accordance with Natural Law. The law of the land should prohibit the initiation of force.  It certainly is an absolute that if no-one initiates the use of force, there will be no war and no crime.

When people find themselves in conflict with each other, it is always true that either someone initiated force or someone erroneously concluded that force was iniitated against them. Resolution of the conflict requires objective fact-finding and analysis of the allegations with reference to rational principles of human interaction.


 

 

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,011
Points 47,070

The problem, Stephanie, is that governments have to initiate force. It is what they do. To delude one's self into thinking that "if you just get the right people" (which seems to be a hidden premise of yours) will fix things--that only serves to further the hold which statism has.

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

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.  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.

Natural Law does so need to be written down! The terrible situation we are in today ought to be proof enough that that is true. If Natural Law were all that were needed to achieve peace and freedom, we'd have already achieved it just by being here. Clearly it's not a given, it is not automatic and doesn't just happen all by itself.

Being governed by a court's decision should be the same as being governed by Natural Law. That is why Natural Law needs to be codified and established as the law by which a free-market nation is governed.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,056
Points 78,245

It looks like we have an Objectivist on our hands (Stephanie).

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

Knight_of_BAAWA:

The problem, Stephanie, is that governments have to initiate force. It is what they do. To delude one's self into thinking that "if you just get the right people" (which seems to be a hidden premise of yours) will fix things--that only serves to further the hold which statism has.

No that is not a hidden premise of mine. Whatever made you think it was?

I know it's not a matter of "getting the right people." it's a matter of having the right law.

 

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 2,966
Points 53,250
DD5 replied on Thu, Apr 16 2009 9:01 AM
Stephanie, I think the point is that these laws should NOT be legislated. legislation is arbitrary! legislation is an arbitrary process by definition! Rand said that the Democratic process is OK as long NO one can vote one's property and life away. Great! what is there left to vote on? I don't think that anyone really suggested that laws would not be written down in some manner in the liberterian society with no central government. What is meant is that these laws would be derived from natural laws by the market process. I certainly don't want an elected branch of some monopoly government to come up with these laws, do you? These laws would be written down for all paractical purposes. Practicing law would still require extensive academic study. Different courts may deviate slightly from one another or they may agree to use more objective standards. But the point is that the process is a product of the market, and laws would be derived according to liberterian philosophy. Today, there is no such objective standard as you are proposing. States have different laws. Each judge/jury interprets the law differently anyway.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

Stephanie Bond:

Knight_of_BAAWA:

The problem, Stephanie, is that governments have to initiate force. It is what they do. To delude one's self into thinking that "if you just get the right people" (which seems to be a hidden premise of yours) will fix things--that only serves to further the hold which statism has.

No that is not a hidden premise of mine. Whatever made you think it was?

I know it's not a matter of "getting the right people." it's a matter of having the right law.

 

True it's about having the right law.  It's partly inherent in the U.S. Constitution.  It is based on Natural Law.  But why do you think that didn't work?  I have my reasons, but I'm trying to get an intellectual foothold on where you are coming from in this discussion, thanks.

 

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Stephanie Bond:
I know it's not a matter of "getting the right people." it's a matter of having the right law.

if the right law is the moral law/natural law.  then it is objectively true for everyone, and under that meaning we 'have it'

to the extent that not everyone recognises that it is objectively true for everyone we 'dont have it'

if we arent talking about natural law, but produced law, i.e. 'a force of greater than xPascals will constitue aggession, and less than x will be considered a tolerated mistake that although breaches 'natural law'(which abhors any force) this court and its subscribers will hold to this standard'

now, either such produced law is left to the private market, in which case it has every chance of being high quality and giving people 'good law', or it is the monopoly business of some socialised state institution in which the good money says that the law wont be ffit for purpose, and will leave people with poor quality law. It is too much to hope that 'the right people' get the job of producing the monopoly law. that is not credible. and yet it is indeed implied (as KnightOfBaw) pointed out by what you have said heretofore.

 

note that produced law, help people deal with boundary problems and establishes the correct process of law that its voluntary adherents bind themselves to agree to. it must be compatible with natural law, but by necessity it goes beyond natural law, since it does much more than natural law alone can do.

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

nirgrahamUK:

note that produced law, help people deal with boundary problems and establishes the correct process of law that its voluntary adherents bind themselves to agree to. it must be compatible with natural law, but by necessity it goes beyond natural law, since it does much more than natural law alone can do.

If by this you mean, produced laws emerge from Natural Law, then I think these produced laws are an extension of Natural Law.  Not necessarily "beyond" meaning a 'gap' is between them, or "natural law alone can('t) do", for Natural Law are these produced laws.  These produced laws would need to be extensions that emerge and can be easily traced back to Natural Law.  There can be no conflicts between the "produced law" and "Natural Law".  Property rights are an extension of Natural Law and emerge from Natural Law, thereby laws produced from property rights do not conflict and are essentially the same as Natural Law.  If that's what you mean, I agree.

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,011
Points 47,070

Knight_of_BAAWA:
The problem, Stephanie, is that governments have to initiate force. It is what they do. To delude one's self into thinking that "if you just get the right people" (which seems to be a hidden premise of yours) will fix things--that only serves to further the hold which statism has.

Stephanie Bond:
No that is not a hidden premise of mine. Whatever made you think it was?
Your words.

 

Stephanie Bond:
I know it's not a matter of "getting the right people." it's a matter of having the right law.
Yeah, how's that working out? Governments have historically ignored the laws which said governments create (in the sense that the agents in the government have).

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 659
Points 13,990
ama gi replied on Thu, Apr 16 2009 8:03 PM

Stephanie Bond:

I'm a long-time fan of laissez-faire capitalism and I'm wondering - is there a way to avoid bloodshed in the establishment of a country that actually recognizes Individual Rights and doesn't abridge those rights in any way?

To answer the original post, yeah!  Ghandi, for example, was an anarchist who managed to end the British occupation of India by non-violent means.  His movement used boycotts, civil disobedience, and self-sufficiency to resist the occupation.  When the occupation was no longer profitable for the British government, they left.

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_revolution

"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 304
Points 3,965
Solomon replied on Thu, Apr 16 2009 9:40 PM

Stephanie Bond:
How is "resolution of conflict" NOT the purpose of "governing"? Or should I say, its proper purpose?

Government does not try to resolve conflicts, per se, but prevent them (if this were not the case it could not really be called a government).  The inherent contradiction here is that this can only realistically be done by making threats, i.e. by instigating conflicts.  (Threats of course are precisely what government laws are, and why the state cannot be a just legal entity).  Clearly, attempting to prevent conflict by instigating it is patently absurd, and more importantly assumes that the governing body has natural authority over the individuals comprising society, which is simply not acceptable, as well as the ability to control society, which is obnoxiously hubristic.

Simply put, the distinction between law as a process for preventing conflicts and as one of resolving conflicts is crucial in that it is the difference between a free society and an unfree one.  It should not be overlooked or confounded.

Stephanie Bond:
The law needs to be objective and absolute. The law as used by courts to resolve conflicts should be the same law that rational people use to self-govern.

You seem to be missing the point.  Scarcity exists, so conflict, while people typically try to avoid it out of self-interest, is in general unavoidable.  When conflicts occur, the people involved may find it expedient to have it resolved by appealing to an agreed upon third party.  If this third party is appealed to often enough, he may find it expedient to lay out the rules by which he makes his decisions (laws).  If two conflicting individuals do not like the laws of one particular legal institution, they simply go to another.

Thus you have the mechanism by which law comes into existence in a free society.  No where is there a need to invoke the god of reason or whatever in making it.  The "right" law is whatever satisfies consumers.

Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!

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

DD5:
Stephanie, I think the point is that these laws should NOT be legislated. legislation is arbitrary! legislation is an arbitrary process by definition! Rand said that the Democratic process is OK as long NO one can vote one's property and life away. Great! what is there left to vote on? I don't think that anyone really suggested that laws would not be written down in some manner in the liberterian society with no central government. What is meant is that these laws would be derived from natural laws by the market process. I certainly don't want an elected branch of some monopoly government to come up with these laws, do you? These laws would be written down for all paractical purposes. Practicing law would still require extensive academic study. Different courts may deviate slightly from one another or they may agree to use more objective standards. But the point is that the process is a product of the market, and laws would be derived according to liberterian philosophy. Today, there is no such objective standard as you are proposing. States have different laws. Each judge/jury interprets the law differently anyway.

You misunderstand me, obviously. It's not a question of "laws," but of a single law. The one and only law we really need, one to which every single one of  us is subject. Just like the Law of Gravity. You might try to disagree with Gravity but you are subject to it, like it or not.

The law of human interaction states that in order to have the benefit of freedom, human beings need boundaries. The boundary is - no one has the right to initiate the use of force for ANY reason. Not for financial, environmental, ethical or moral issues/reasons.

I agree with many of the ideas I've seen here (at this site) such as letting the free market determine who are the preferred judges, fire department guys, police services, armies etc. Any and every kind of job that you can think of. People who provide the services of government must earn their livings the same as the providers of food, health, entertainment and so forth. There can be no coercion between or among human beings.

The only way to achieve it is by being explicit, up front and in your face with the facts. We need a Law of Human Interaction. It's LAW that we need, not coercive government.

Please - go online and look up the word "government," Bear in mind the atrocities that have been perpetrated on human beings by those who put themselves in charge. It is in their interests to muddy the definitions, but the truth is in each and every one (well, they are now but if we don't get it together soon we could lose our civilization in a grand orgy of sacrifice to save the planet.) Selfish, altruism, government - these in particular are presented with a slant, an agenda.

We need explicitly stated Law to stand up against all the different thugs and villains, some of whom are masquerading as supporters of the free market. Oh yes - free the market and find OTHER ways to chain men and women. It is unacceptable. Unless the principle is stated loudly and proudly, we have no chance to stem the tide of anti-rationality.

 

Oh and please. On the issue of "interpretation of the law," that is precisely the idiotic situation we have now. Being a judge isn't about interpreting the law but of finding the facts. People lie, and distort and omit important information when they present their side of the story. You, as a judge, have to work out who is telling the truth, and decide how to find the most rational resolution of the conflict.

People can live by their personal rules and "laws," but the only law that human beings need in order to live peacefully and profitably together is the law that bans the iniitiation of force.

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Thu, Apr 16 2009 11:54 PM
I agree with many of the ideas I've seen here (at this site) such as letting the free market determine who are the preferred judges, fire department guys, police services, armies etc...

The only way to achieve it is by being explicit, up front and in your face with the facts. We need a Law of Human Interaction. It's LAW that we need, not coercive government.
To achieve a voluntary society, what's needed is that the majority of people be willing to give up coercion. That has nothing to do with "needing a LAW". For freedom to exist individuals must be willing to not use violence. That's a personal choice, it's not something you achieve using a 'government' regardless of your, or anybody's definition of government.

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

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

Solomon, are you kidding? No need to invoke the "god of reason"????? Yes, there most definitely is a need for the rationality test. A proposed system of government must pass a rationality test. The right law is the one that achieves what you say is what you want - that all humans be self-governing, abiding by the principle that no one has the right to use coercion, to initiate force, for any reason whatsoever.

I know that just naming the law is not all that is necessary to achieve this Utopia. But there's a damn sight more chance to achieve the result if the Law is explicitly stated than if it is not. Yes, conflicts are possible. In the early stages they are likely. Being able to trade with each other - and refrain from trading with those with whom we disagree - requires securing real freedom. Real freedom is freedom from coercion. That is it. Nobody has the right to initiate force . The consequence for anyone who initiates force will vary from situation to situation. it is not for the "government" to force people to take action against those who do them wrong. It is for the aggrieved party to handle it - but - taking the law into one's own hands runs the risk of accusing the wrong person, or getting the facts of the matter wrong. People can and often do jump to conclusions, make poor assumptions, fail to obtain enough facts to allow a reasoned  decision.

Individuals live their lives by all kinds of rules and values. The means by which we can explore our individual paths in life is by securing real freedom. There is no substitute for a law that bans coercion. It is the only way to secure peace among so many different people who hold so many different ideas, beliefs, values and goals.

A law that no-one has the right to initiate force works both as a preventative measure and as the means to judge allegations of initiation of force. It is the only law that is true for everyone. It has to be treated like a law of nature, and it is in fact the law of our natures. When no individual initiates force, there is no war, no crime, and far fewer disputes.

The right law is not "whatever satisfies consumers." The right law is the one that secures freedom from coercion.

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

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Knight_of_BAAWA:
The problem, Stephanie, is that governments have to initiate force. It is what they do. To delude one's self into thinking that "if you just get the right people" (which seems to be a hidden premise of yours) will fix things--that only serves to further the hold which statism has.

Stephanie Bond:
No that is not a hidden premise of mine. Whatever made you think it was?
Your words.

 

Stephanie Bond:
I know it's not a matter of "getting the right people." it's a matter of having the right law.
Yeah, how's that working out? Governments have historically ignored the laws which said governments create (in the sense that the agents in the government have).

 

People are afraid to think for themselves. It's not the taxation that they value, you know. It's being told what to do and how to live. Taxation is considered a necessary evil because it's a way to make sure everyone pays for it, on the premise that "everyone" gets something out of the system and secretly likes it the way it is. Most people want to grab control of the system, they don't want to eradicate the whole mess.

 

I want to eradicate the whole mess. No more mountains of legislation setting standards by force. No more central banking system, phony money, phony govenrment aid, bailouts, fake assistance.

 

Why haven't governments worked up to now? Because they have all been corrupt by design. Does that invalidate the notion that "government" - a policy or system by which people are governed - is needed? No. The law that no one has the right to initiate force should be stated explicitly as being the law of a free-market nation that is serious about wanting to have the free market. If only for the children and the foreigners, it is necessary to make it explicit. Name the principle and keep naming it.

There is no coercion being employed here, only the recognition that as law, this concept achieves what law is supposed to, and provides a frame of reference for everyone to judge their own actions and those of the people with whom they deal and trade and live.

 

It's certainly no surprise that government has managed to mangle itself. These days everything government touches turns to crap; it's little wonder that it's managed to make its real purpose appear unnecessary.

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

wilderness:

Stephanie Bond:

Knight_of_BAAWA:

The problem, Stephanie, is that governments have to initiate force. It is what they do. To delude one's self into thinking that "if you just get the right people" (which seems to be a hidden premise of yours) will fix things--that only serves to further the hold which statism has.

No that is not a hidden premise of mine. Whatever made you think it was?

I know it's not a matter of "getting the right people." it's a matter of having the right law.

 

True it's about having the right law.  It's partly inherent in the U.S. Constitution.  It is based on Natural Law.  But why do you think that didn't work?  I have my reasons, but I'm trying to get an intellectual foothold on where you are coming from in this discussion, thanks.

 

I think it didn't work because even though great strides towards freedom were taken (and for proof of that, just look at how much innovation, invention, discovery and sheer production took place over the span of just the last 150 years. Although the new country was unable to shed old world routines of slavery and taxation, we are able to have this civil discussion and contemplate a world without coercive government, without tax, without a mountain of legislation masquerading as law.

I don't care for the verbiage setting up the political machinery, as it too smacks of coercion.

Actually, I think that "anarchy" is what rational government looks like, but in fact it's an illusion created by people who live by the law of human interaction, and do not resort to coercion to get what they want.

As with anything, you cannot force "anarchy" by demanding that ALL law be abolished and all government be excised. "Anarchy"  is only what it looks like. A free-market society will only be achieved by enacting rational law that is true for all human beings. A rational country doesn't need a bunch of laws. What it does need is  Law of Human Interaction, the kind of law people can know, understand and happily obey for selfish reasons, because it's the fastest path to finding willing business and life partners, friends, associates.


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

Stephanie Bond:
People are afraid to think for themselves.
And you can't force them to think.

 

Stephanie Bond:
It's not the taxation that they value, you know. It's being told what to do and how to live. Taxation is considered a necessary evil because it's a way to make sure everyone pays for it, on the premise that "everyone" gets something out of the system and secretly likes it the way it is. Most people want to grab control of the system, they don't want to eradicate the whole mess.
And how do you propose to have this self-contradictory "limited government". It simply can't exist. It's like a square circle.

 

Stephanie Bond:
Why haven't governments worked up to now? Because they have all been corrupt by design. Does that invalidate the notion that "government" - a policy or system by which people are governed - is needed?
That's not the political definition of government and you know it.

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

Knight_of_BAAWA:
1. And you can't force them to think.

2. And how do you propose to have this self-contradictory "limited government". It simply can't exist. It's like a square circle.

3. That's not the political definition of government and you know it.

1. No, you can't. The law can't force anyone to think but that's not its job. Its job is to protect everyone from anyone who initiates the use of force. That is how you create an environment in which individuals can think, and act, on their own judgments.

2. It is not contradictory when you have a sane uncluttered definition of "government."

3, It's one of the definitions of government and you should know it. Politics begins as soon as there are two people, and the Law operates. Just because you marry somebody does not give that person the right to coerce you. The same principle applies when there are two trillion people. The Law doesn't force people to think or to act a certain way. It just says that they can't act a certain way, i.e., by employing the use of coercion.

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

wilderness:

True it's about having the right law.  It's partly inherent in the U.S. Constitution.  It is based on Natural Law.  But why do you think that didn't work?  I have my reasons, but I'm trying to get an intellectual foothold on where you are coming from in this discussion, thanks.

Stephanie Bond:

I think it didn't work because even though great strides towards freedom were taken (and for proof of that, just look at how much innovation, invention, discovery and sheer production took place over the span of just the last 150 years. Although the new country was unable to shed old world routines of slavery and taxation, we are able to have this civil discussion and contemplate a world without coercive government, without tax, without a mountain of legislation masquerading as law.

I agree so far

Stephanie Bond:

I don't care for the verbiage setting up the political machinery, as it too smacks of coercion.

Actually, I think that "anarchy" is what rational government looks like, but in fact it's an illusion created by people who live by the law of human interaction, and do not resort to coercion to get what they want.

As with anything, you cannot force "anarchy" by demanding that ALL law be abolished and all government be excised. "Anarchy"  is only what it looks like. A free-market society will only be achieved by enacting rational law that is true for all human beings. A rational country doesn't need a bunch of laws. What it does need is  Law of Human Interaction, the kind of law people can know, understand and happily obey for selfish reasons, because it's the fastest path to finding willing business and life partners, friends, associates.

I completely agree.  This is Natural Law espoused by Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, and then Murray Rothbard... each with their own input and Rothbard came up with it's best understanding out of the bunch I think.  Aristotle still advocated a State.  Not sure about Aquinas.  I believe Locke still allowed for the State to monopolize defense and protection.  Rothbard rid the State all together and discusses Reason the way you state it above as far as I can see. 

Thanks.  I think people are confusing government and State on this board.  They are not the same.  I've brought this up before and considered ridding the term "government" to go along with the board to help provide clarity to communication.  Yet, nobody disagreed with the definition of government that I understand, so, I keep using it.  Government is different from State.  A government can be reason based on the principles of Natural Law.  Reason is what governs our actions day and night.

 

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,011
Points 47,070

Knight_of_BAAWA:
1. And you can't force them to think.

2. And how do you propose to have this self-contradictory "limited government". It simply can't exist. It's like a square circle.

3. That's not the political definition of government and you know it.

Stephanie Bond:
1. No, you can't. The law can't force anyone to think but that's not its job. Its job is to protect everyone from anyone who initiates the use of force.
Trouble is that governments require the initiation of force. 

 

Stephanie Bond:
2. It is not contradictory when you have a sane uncluttered definition of "government."
Problem is that you're using the wrong definition.

 

Stephanie Bond:
3, It's one of the definitions of government and you should know it.
I do; it's simply the wrong one. You're using it incorrectly.

 

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

 

Stephanie Bond:

3, It's one of the definitions of government and you should know it.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

I do; it's simply the wrong one. You're using it incorrectly.

 

     First off, I'll make a short issue of this.  This is how I've been using government, the way Stephanie states it and nobody has argued with me and I know of others on this board that are in agreement with Stephanie as well.  So there is definitely some confusion here on what the definition of government is.

     Government is an illusion as Stephanie stated.  So is anarchy.  For what's really going on in a free market is the governing principle of reason is making decisions based on Natural Law.

     Where's everybody getting their definitions from.  I saw the definition Stephan posted here and I agree.  I looked up in the first edition of Black's Law dictionary the definitions of government and it defines government the way I usually define State:

http://www.zavvi.de/blackslaw/1/G/g-0544.jpg

     But then when I looked up "anarchy" it defines this as confusion, destruction, and  lawlessness:

http://www.zavvi.de/blackslaw/1/A/a-0069.jpg

 

      So based on these two definitions I want neither.  Reason is the plain and simple way.  And since Reason governs, it seems a society based on reason is a natural government.  Same reasons why private property alone, as defined by Rothbard, is not enough to explain Natural Law (Ethics of Liberty):

 

     "In short, we cannot simply talk of defense of "property rights" or of "private property" per se. For if we do so, we are in grave danger of defending the "property right" of a criminal aggressor-in fact, we logically must do so. We may therefore only speak of just property or legitimate property or perhaps "natural property."And this means that, in concrete cases, we must decide whether any single given act of violence is aggressive or defensive: e.g., whether it is a case of a criminal robbing a victim, or of a victim trying to repossess his property."

      So why "natural"?  Why when I say "natural government" I'm saying what unlike Black's Law Dictionary states I'm actually referring to what this board refers to as "anarchy"?  Due to reason.  That's why.  Reason is what all individuals do when they extract laws.  Extract from where?  Nature.  This has been argued numerous times by all of those that have espoused Natural Law over the centuries.  It makes sense.  When I reason something out it is not some magical or mystical occurrence.  Reasoning is a faculty that extracts it's understanding from nature.  Thus why Rothbard here uses "natural property" to mean property that is of the owner, not the criminal.  Natural property rationally is a better way of defining just property rights for as he states here, "property rights" alone does not delineate between a "criminal aggressor" and the true owner of the property.  Understanding "nature" is key to all this. 

 

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 2,966
Points 53,250
DD5 replied on Fri, Apr 17 2009 11:04 AM

Stephanie Bond:

You misunderstand me, obviously. It's not a question of "laws," but of a single law. The one and only law we really need, one to which every single one of  us is subject. Just like the Law of Gravity. You might try to disagree with Gravity but you are subject to it, like it or not.

I agree with many of the ideas I've seen here (at this site) such as letting the free market determine who are the preferred judges, fire department guys, police services, armies etc. Any and every kind of job that you can think of. People who provide the services of government must earn their livings the same as the providers of food, health, entertainment and so forth. There can be no coercion between or among human beings.

So, now you are basically accepting the idea that a central government is not required if I understand you correctly.

Stephanie Bond:

The only way to achieve it is by being explicit, up front and in your face with the facts. We need a Law of Human Interaction. It's LAW that we need, not coercive government.

 People can live by their personal rules and "laws," but the only law that human beings need in order to live peacefully and profitably together is the law that bans the iniitiation of force.

 

If you are somewhat familiar with free market economics, then you know that it is governed by a type of "spontaneous order".  Economics only reveal the laws that govern the market.  But those laws are already there to discover and the millions or billions of participants do not need to learn Austrian economics in order to play by the rules.  The natural laws that arise in such a social context are already there, they are products of nature.  The scientist (economist) discovers them and does not invent them.  The law of non-violence  in the free market is as vital as the law of supply and demand.  But why should it be a vital precondition for the market to have an explicit  law of non-violence enforced by some "limited" government, and not have the same explicit law for supply and demand?  In both cases, if such laws are not followed, then no free market exists.  But no law of supply and demand need be legislated or explicitly written down.  The market profit & loss system regulates against those business men who would not follow such laws, and there is no reason not to think that it would not regulate against the criminals.  I am sure you are familiar with "The Assault on Integrity" By Alan Greenspan, in Ayn Rand's "Capitalism, the unknown Ideal".  Well then, if the market can filter out the less honest business men without the coercive intrusion of the state, then what is the problem? Is there a limit to the degree of dishonesty where a state is required?

I think that what you are concerned about is a lack of proper philosophy of freedom, and you would somehow like to declare that in some sort of a "declaration of independence" or something of that nature.   I think that declaring exactly what you want on paper and expecting the majority to accept it is unrealistic.  Any supreme "law of the land" will distort the libertarian legal code that would arise in a purely free market, once again wrecking the system and shifting towards collectivism.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 871
Points 21,030
eliotn replied on Fri, Apr 17 2009 1:59 PM

liberty student:
I do not use the word profit to cover gain through coercion or violence.

I was cranking out reading Human Action, and look what I read:

"A less desirable condition is bartered for a more desirable. What gratifies less is abandoned in order to attain something that pleases more. That which is abandoned is called the price paid for the attainment of the end sought. The value of the price paid is called costs. Costs are equal to the value attached to the satisfaction which one must forego in order to attain the end aimed at. The difference between the value of the price paid (the costs incurred and that of the goal attained is called gain or profit or net yield. Profit in this primary sense is purely subjective, it is an increase in the acting mans happiness, it is a psychical phenomenon that can be neither measured nor weighed. There is a more and a less in the removal of uneasiness felt; but how much one satisfaction surpasses another one can only be felt; it cannot be established and determined in an objective way."

Schools are labour camps.

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

Fill me in.  What does the quote mean to our conversation?

"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 25 Contributor
Posts 3,011
Points 47,070

wilderness:
First off, I'll make a short issue of this.  This is how I've been using government, the way Stephanie states it and nobody has argued with me and I know of others on this board that are in agreement with Stephanie as well.  So there is definitely some confusion here on what the definition of government is.
On your part and hers.

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

Knight_of_BAAWA:

wilderness:
First off, I'll make a short issue of this.  This is how I've been using government, the way Stephanie states it and nobody has argued with me and I know of others on this board that are in agreement with Stephanie as well.  So there is definitely some confusion here on what the definition of government is.
On your part and hers.

Where are you getting your definition?  I reasoned mine.  Are you for anarchy?  If you are, then Black's Law dictionary says you're for chaos and destruction.   I'm sure you're not for those.  Define?  Don't leave it so simply without any thoughts.  It's too easy to just say, 'Cause I told you so.'

 

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,011
Points 47,070

I already defined it; I'm using the political definition, and especially that used by Rothbard and Hoppe. That is what government is, especially when you talk about "voluntary" vs. "involuntary".

I don't know why you're having such difficulty.

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

Knight_of_BAAWA:

I already defined it; I'm using the political definition, and especially that used by Rothbard and Hoppe. That is what government is, especially when you talk about "voluntary" vs. "involuntary".

I don't know why you're having such difficulty.

    Ok so voluntary government is what I would call natural government.  I can use the former for clarity in my posts here, but I see no difference between the two.  It's the same as Rothbard argued.  Private property or property rights alone are not definitive enough.  Natural property is just-property and these terms provide more clarity to show ownership can't be derived from a criminal.  Natural government is based on individual reason.  It's the same as saying voluntary government if I get your drift.

    I think what hindered my understanding on where everybody else was coming from is cause Stephanie mentioned she was for voluntary government and people still shut her down for that.  So I'm doing some gardening work and trying to pull the weeds to see the fruits of our labor.  Thanks.

    So I guess you're advocating voluntary government.  That's your definition.  Ok.  And if it fits into what I mentioned about natural government, then I agree with you.

 

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,255
Points 36,010
Moderator
William replied on Fri, Apr 17 2009 6:31 PM

Stephanie Bond:

I'm a long-time fan of laissez-faire capitalism and I'm wondering - is there a way to avoid bloodshed in the establishment of a country that actually recognizes Individual Rights and doesn't abridge those rights in any way?

 

I think the governor of Texas was talking about the right of secession today or yesterday, there is another states rights non violen option.  That shows Texas and NH as two good starting grounds for someone who insists on government and a non violent solution while not purchasing an island.

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

wilderness:
    I think what hindered my understanding on where everybody else was coming from is cause Stephanie mentioned she was for voluntary government and people still shut her down for that.

yea, she dropped in the word voluntary to flavour some of her posts, but all that time she was insisting that the government in question enjoy monopoly privileges, so either she didnt mean the voluntary part, or didnt understand it...

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

nirgrahamUK:

wilderness:
    I think what hindered my understanding on where everybody else was coming from is cause Stephanie mentioned she was for voluntary government and people still shut her down for that.

yea, she dropped in the word voluntary to flavour some of her posts, but all that time she was insisting that the government in question enjoy monopoly privileges, so either she didnt mean the voluntary part, or didnt understand it...

ahh... now I see. Big Smile  Thanks for the help!

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,011
Points 47,070

wilderness:
Ok so voluntary government is what I would call natural government.  I can use the former for clarity in my posts here, but I see no difference between the two.
I do. "Voluntary" government is simply self-contradictory. "Natural" government (if you can even call it that--I prefer natural order) is self-ownership.

 

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

Cork:

Hey Stephanie,

Welcome to the forum!  You bring up some good questions.

I have to admit: all the stuff about how laws are made and how legal systems would work has always struck me as the weakest/shadiest part of market anarchism.  I'm still "for" market anarchism, but quite willing to concede that much of it is theoretical.

But what principle of law do you propose to guide the whole system? Do you propose to have competing laws?

I believe you're talking about the David Friedman version.  Friedman's a good guy, but I (and probably most of the others here) favor Rothbard's version, where there's a single legal code.

Hi Cork. Thanks for the welcome, and sorry I took so long to respond to you. I've been learning some terminology. Cool

Single legal code! There we go. That's the term I needed. That is the kind of government I've been talking about. It's the legal code that applies to everyone. It's the legal code that is in essence "the government." After all, we do need law prohibiting the initiation of force to be applicable to all areas of life, not just those that affect property or financial transactions.

There has never been a true lawful government because every government so far has given itself or been given by the governed the legal right to initiate force. It is THAT proposition that I reject - that government must by definition and design be an instrument of coercion. To me it is like accepting the idea that "self-interest" is immoral because so many people say it is, or that altruism is a good thing because so many people say it is. Or that sacrifice is a noble, good & virtuous act because so many people say it is.  Crucial concepts have been deliberately twisted to mean their opposites for a reason: to disarm people and get them to accept (or reject) a concept which they would not do if they understood the nature of the term.

Regardless of whether people support or reject the current system, almost everyone thinks that government has to be the way it is - i.e., that it must initiate force. And I reject that idea. Throwing away the concept "government" is like throwing away the concept "self-interest" or embracing the concept of "sacrifice." It achieves the opposite of the intended result.

Just as gradually people came to accept the idea that the Universe does not revolve around the Earth, so eventually people will come to understand that lawful government does not initiate force.

 

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

Why should there be a single legal code? Why can't different areas have their own law system? Answer: there's absolute no reason why there shouldn't be different legal codes.

 

Again: a government which does not initiate force is no longer a government. To say otherwise is to obliterate the concept of government.

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

nirgrahamUK:

wilderness:
    I think what hindered my understanding on where everybody else was coming from is cause Stephanie mentioned she was for voluntary government and people still shut her down for that.

yea, she dropped in the word voluntary to flavour some of her posts, but all that time she was insisting that the government in question enjoy monopoly privileges, so either she didnt mean the voluntary part, or didnt understand it...

I absolutely mean the voluntary part. What part of "banning the use of coercion" did you not follow?

Monopoly privileges? I don't know what you're talking about.

 

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

http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/7372/123627.aspx#123627

i encourage followers of the link not to get trapped into an endless cycle. this thread is now looped.

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

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Why should there be a single legal code? Why can't different areas have their own law system? Answer: there's absolute no reason why there shouldn't be different legal codes.

 

Again: a government which does not initiate force is no longer a government. To say otherwise is to obliterate the concept of government.

Do you know what the single legal code consists of?

What kind of laws do you envisage being in these separate law systems? What is the point of them?

I think you may be mistaking individual codes of conduct, rules of association, "laws" that govern how you run your business, association, group.

 

Sorry you aren't able to comprehend the possibility that a lawful government doesn't involve the initiation of force.

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Page 3 of 10 (378 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last » | RSS