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

Social Contract Theory

rated by 0 users
This post has 63 Replies | 4 Followers

Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 Posted: Thu, May 14 2009 3:07 AM

I'm doing a law course at the moment. I asked my tutor / course convenor after class today, what he thought about social contract theory. He gave a weird look and stated that he has to deliver a short report on precisesly this to the University. He then wondered why I asked.

I said I was interested in political philosophy. He then said if you have some stuff... (he sounded like he was stuck / having trouble with it)... that I should send it to him.

I said sure. So I'm wondering, I am in a position to influence the guy who will probably be outlining the course material on it. (It's not currently discussed in the course -pretty much because what we are learning, refutes it.) Haha.

I will probably send him this video. But I was wondering if there are any journal articles on it from a Libertarian perspective? Kinsella has written something maybe?

Cheers.

 

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 50
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Lysander Spooner without a doubt.

"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 50 Contributor
Posts 2,491
Points 43,390
scineram replied on Thu, May 14 2009 3:45 AM

Also Barnett. He circumvented unanimous consent.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 752
Points 16,735
Sage replied on Thu, May 14 2009 11:29 AM

As I understand it, social contract theory is basically the contractarian theories of political obligation, of which the most popular is consent theory: people freely consent to their government's authority, and so bind themselves to obedience. But because almost no one directly consents to the government, social contract theorists turn to indirect, or tacit consent. The typical acts that constitute tacit consent are residence, taxation, and voting. But none of these acts actually count as consent:

1- Circular reasoning. For residence to count as consent, the government would have to already have authority over your property — but this is the very issue being debated.
2- Taxation is aggression. Coerced consent is an oxymoron.
3- Voting is a coerced choice. You don't get to choose between anarchy and government, but only between different types of government.

So consent theory is a dead end, and people will usually respond with the gratitude account, i.e. that citizens owe a debt of gratitude to government for the services it provides. Of course, there are problems with this (e.g. paternalism), but at this point we have left the realm of consent theories, and it makes sense to do a complete analysis of political obligation.

On social contract theory, see here, here, and here.

On political obligation, see here and here. Moral Principles and Political Obligations by John Simmons is the classic text, and Is There a Duty to Obey the Law? by Christopher Wellman and John Simmons is a good recent discussion.

Long story short, the social contract is not worth the paper it's not printed on.

AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 633
Points 11,275
Torsten replied on Sat, Dec 1 2012 3:40 PM

I don't understand the social contractarians to mean something like a sales contract or labor contract one does enter or leave via signing something. It's rather something that is there by default. Still this isn't without problems. 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,018
Points 17,760

1- Circular reasoning. For residence to count as consent, the government would have to already have authority over your property — but this is the very issue being debated.
2- Taxation is aggression. Coerced consent is an oxymoron.
3- Voting is a coerced choice. You don't get to choose between anarchy and government, but only between different types of government.

I tend to argue no. 1 pretty well.

It is a matter of figuiring out who really owns all the land in a given area.

Is jurisdiction different from ownership?

I gave my friend (the socialist) an example of a table. 

If i truly owned the table, then i could do anything i wanted to do with the table without any regulation or higher authority limiting my volition to the table.

He told me that a higher authority can have jurisdiction over what can and cannot be done with the table but this is not ownership.

What should i say to this?

“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence."
"The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 639
Points 11,575
cab21 replied on Sat, Dec 1 2012 5:26 PM

nap could be  social contract like, unless we carry around papers to sign nap with everyone we meet there is some implicit aknoledgement of the mutual benefit of nap. maybe there is more difference between social contract and implicit agreement though.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 149
Points 2,855

Kelvin Silva:

I tend to argue no. 1 pretty well.

It is a matter of figuiring out who really owns all the land in a given area.

Is jurisdiction different from ownership?

I gave my friend (the socialist) an example of a table. 

If i truly owned the table, then i could do anything i wanted to do with the table without any regulation or higher authority limiting my volition to the table.

He told me that a higher authority can have jurisdiction over what can and cannot be done with the table but this is not ownership.

What should i say to this?

The distinction between ownership and jurisdiction/regulation is one that exists in libertarian theory as well. You cannot do whatever you want with your property. It must adhere to the NAP. That's regulation. If unlimited discretion is a major element of ownership, do you really own anything under NAP then?

Historically speaking the depersonalization of governance from the feudal to modern eras, limiting private prerogative according to universalized standards, was one of the major innovations that allowed for the explosive growth of the West. 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 633
Points 11,275
Torsten replied on Sun, Dec 2 2012 3:40 AM

nap could be  social contract like, unless we carry around papers to sign nap with everyone we meet there is some implicit aknoledgement of the mutual benefit of nap. maybe there is more difference between social contract and implicit agreement though.

I think there is some commonality. The NAP, if in existence, would be part of a social contract. 

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,360
Points 43,785
z1235 replied on Sun, Dec 2 2012 5:20 AM

National Acrobat:

The distinction between ownership and jurisdiction/regulation is one that exists in libertarian theory as well. You cannot do whatever you want with your property. It must adhere to the NAP. That's regulation. If unlimited discretion is a major element of ownership, do you really own anything under NAP then?

This "regulation" is the inevitable result of universability. Your discretion to do as you will with your body and property is only limited by the discretion of others to do the same. Finally, you are de facto free to do whatever you want and suffer the consequences (i.e. the reactions of the equally free and self-interested agents around you). Neither a contract nor NAP is necessary. 

Historically speaking the depersonalization of governance from the feudal to modern eras, limiting private prerogative according to universalized standards, was one of the major innovations that allowed for the explosive growth of the West.

Quite the contrary. The explosive prosperity of the West was due to division of labor and markets (voluntary exchanges) which came only after this "private prerogative" was universally applied to every self-interested agent in the system. So it's the appearance of, and respect for, private property that caused the flourishing -- not the suppression of it through "collective contracts". Check out USSR and Mao's China as quintessential examples for "limiting the private prerogative". 

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 149
Points 2,855

z1235:

This "regulation" is the inevitable result of universability. Your discretion to do as you will with your body and property is only limited by the discretion of others to do the same. Finally, you are de facto free to do whatever you want and suffer the consequences (i.e. the reactions of the equally free and self-interested agents around you). Neither a contract nor NAP is necessary.  

So what? It doesn’t matter if its the result of universalization or not, it’s still regulation (no need for the scare quotes there). Your use of property is limited, yet you still own it. This requires the distinction between ownership and jurisdiction. 

Quite the contrary. The explosive prosperity of the West was due to division of labor and markets (voluntary exchanges) which came only after this "private prerogative" was universally applied to every self-interested agent in the system. So it's the appearance of, and respect for, private property that caused the flourishing -- not the suppression of it through "collective contracts". Check out USSR and Mao's China as quintessential examples for "limiting the private prerogative". 

All governance and property were in the private realm during the feudal period. That is, ownership and governance were the same thing. What allowed for the universalization you mention was the development of a public realm in which individuals achieved equal status at the expense of the private discretion of feudal lords. 

 

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,018
Points 17,760

Your use of property is limited

It is not limited by any authority.

Only if it is limited by an authority then we question who really owns the X object.

“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence."
"The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 149
Points 2,855

Kelvin Silva:

It is not limited by any authority.

Only if it is limited by an authority then we question who really owns the X object.

what/who limits it?

 

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,360
Points 43,785
z1235 replied on Sun, Dec 2 2012 8:30 PM

Acrobat, does your definition of "regulation" imply that you are being regulated by gravity into not being able to float away at will?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 149
Points 2,855

z1235:

Acrobat, does your definition of "regulation" imply that you are being regulated by gravity into not being able to float away at will?

No. Why?

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,360
Points 43,785
z1235 replied on Mon, Dec 3 2012 6:54 AM

Then who in a free society is regulating (stopping) you from being able to use your (or anyone else's, for that matter) body and property as you wish?

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 149
Points 2,855

z1235:

Then who in a free society is regulating (stopping) you from being able to use your (or anyone else's, for that matter) body and property as you wish?

In any society, immediately by the institution, association or practice that physically enforces property rights.

Mediately by the intersubjectively understood meaning of property commonly shared by a given group of people. 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,360
Points 43,785
z1235 replied on Mon, Dec 3 2012 10:43 PM

What is jurisdiction and how is it different from ownership?

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,018
Points 17,760

What is jurisdiction and how is it different from ownership?

Its the same thing.

Ownership means to totally control a resource in any way shape or form (just because gravity or friction exists preventing you from doing certain things, there is no higher authority, marking you owner).

Jurisdiction means: to say how something should or should not be done.

Who has jurisdictions? Authorities do.

“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence."
"The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 633
Points 11,275
Torsten replied on Tue, Dec 4 2012 1:15 AM

 

What is jurisdiction and how is it different from ownership?

Its the same thing.

Ownership means to totally control a resource in any way shape or form (just because gravity or friction exists preventing you from doing certain things, there is no higher authority, marking you owner).

Jurisdiction means: to say how something should or should not be done.

Who has jurisdictions? Authorities do.

I want say that jurisdiction/dominion and ownership are the same things. 

The both refer to authority over an object, but the reference is different aspects of that authority.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 149
Points 2,855

z1235:

What is jurisdiction and how is it different from ownership?

Any rule requires an understanding of its meaning and for it to take effect some form of enforcement. The determination of the meaning and enforcement of the rules of governance is jurisdiction. Ownership is possessive discretion over things according to some set of rules. Those with jurisdiction determine and enforce the rules regarding ownership. 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 149
Points 2,855

Kelvin Silva:

Its the same thing.

They're not the same thing.

Ownership means to totally control a resource in any way shape or form (just because gravity or friction exists preventing you from doing certain things, there is no higher authority, marking you owner).

Jurisdiction means: to say how something should or should not be done.

Who has jurisdictions? Authorities do.

So when you join a PDA and they place limits on the things you can do with your property upon membership you're transferring ownership to them? 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,360
Points 43,785
z1235 replied on Tue, Dec 4 2012 6:06 AM

National Acrobat:

z1235:

What is jurisdiction and how is it different from ownership?

Any rule requires an understanding of its meaning and for it to take effect some form of enforcement. The determination of the meaning and enforcement of the rules of governance is jurisdiction.

So owners cannot "determine the meaning" and cannot "enforce the rules of governance" over their property? Owners don't have jurisdiction over their property?

Ownership is possessive discretion over things according to some set of rules. Those with jurisdiction determine and enforce the rules regarding ownership.

It seems as though, according to your definition, jurisdiction is something like super-ownership as those "with jurisdiction" excercise superior "possesive discretion over things according to some set of rules" than the owners themselves. Btw, how do "those with jurisdiction" acquire jurisdiction? Looks like not a bad to thing to have. 

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,360
Points 43,785
z1235 replied on Tue, Dec 4 2012 6:13 AM

National Acrobat:
So when you join a PDA and they place limits on the things you can do with your property upon membership you're transferring ownership to them? 

No. You subscribe to a provision of defense/insurance services by signing a contract -- just like when you buy car insurance. If you breach the contract, you suffer the consequences as they are listed in the contract. A service provider does not (can not) have jurisdiction (ownership) over its clients or their property.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 149
Points 2,855

z1235:

So owners cannot "determine the meaning" and cannot "enforce the rules of governance" over their property? Owners don't have jurisdiction over their property?

They could. As i said originally, in case you've forgotten, in the feudal period jurisdiction and ownership were not distinct from one another and governance was personal. 

It seems as though, according to your definition, jurisdiction is something like super-ownership as those "with jurisdiction" excercise superior "possesive discretion over things according to some set of rules" than the owners themselves. Btw, how do "those with jurisdiction" acquire jurisdiction? Looks like not a bad to thing to have.

You could look at it like that, but I don't think it's useful to. Making the distinction between the emergence of rules and acting within the confines of those rules is substantively useful in my estimation. To collapse them into the same thing seems somewhat heavy handed and ideologically motivated. 

As far as how jurisdiction is acquired, it can be through a number of ways. Historically, the most prevalent seems to be some form of conquest or domination. I would agree, it probably is a pretty useful to exercise jurisdiction. 

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590

National Acrobat:
You could look at it like that, but I don't think it's useful to. Making the distinction between the emergence of rules and acting within the confines of those rules is substantively useful in my estimation. To collapse them into the same thing seems somewhat heavy handed and ideologically motivated. [Emphasis added.]

Please do elaborate on this.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 149
Points 2,855

z1235:

National Acrobat:
So when you join a PDA and they place limits on the things you can do with your property upon membership you're transferring ownership to them? 

No. You subscribe to a provision of defense/insurance services by signing a contract -- just like when you buy car insurance. If you breach the contract, you suffer the consequences as they are listed in the contract. A service provider does not (can not) have jurisdiction (ownership) over its clients or their property.

So clients own property and then they contract with a PDA. Where do the rules for acquiring, transferring and holding property prior to contracting with a PDA come from and why are they followed? 

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 149
Points 2,855

Autolykos:

Please do elaborate on this.

Before I spend anytime responding to you I'm gonna need you to agree to keep a respectful tone and refrain from conspiratorial theorizing about my intentions that lead you to disregard the things I say in favor of flights of your imagination. 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,360
Points 43,785
z1235 replied on Tue, Dec 4 2012 7:10 AM

National Acrobat:

z1235:

So owners cannot "determine the meaning" and cannot "enforce the rules of governance" over their property? Owners don't have jurisdiction over their property?

They could. As i said originally, in case you've forgotten, in the feudal period jurisdiction and ownership were not distinct from one another and governance was personal.

Why could not (ought not?) owners have jurisdiction over their property today? What types of governance (other than personal) are there?

It seems as though, according to your definition, jurisdiction is something like super-ownership as those "with jurisdiction" excercise superior "possesive discretion over things according to some set of rules" than the owners themselves. Btw, how do "those with jurisdiction" acquire jurisdiction? Looks like not a bad to thing to have.

You could look at it like that, but I don't think it's useful to. Making the distinction between the emergence of rules and acting within the confines of those rules is substantively useful in my estimation.

How did I not make that distinction  and how is this related to jurisdiction?

To collapse them into the same thing seems somewhat heavy handed and ideologically motivated.

How am I collapsing emergence of rules and acting within their confines?

As far as how jurisdiction is acquired, it can be through a number of ways. Historically, the most prevalent seems to be some form of conquest or domination. I would agree, it probably is a pretty useful to exercise jurisdiction. 

Is it useful for those that don't have it, though, and could the ones who have it be able to hold it without the consent of those who don't? Must there be jurisdiction (ultimate discretion) of others over you and your property, for example? If yes, why?

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,360
Points 43,785
z1235 replied on Tue, Dec 4 2012 7:16 AM

National Acrobat:

z1235:
No. You subscribe to a provision of defense/insurance services by signing a contract -- just like when you buy car insurance. If you breach the contract, you suffer the consequences as they are listed in the contract. A service provider does not (can not) have jurisdiction (ownership) over its clients or their property.

So clients own property and then they contract with a PDA. Where do the rules for acquiring, transferring and holding property prior to contracting with a PDA come from and why are they followed?

As you said, the rules emerge. They are followed by self-interested agents as means towards their (inter)subjectively valued ends. 

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590

National Acrobat:
Before I spend anytime responding to you I'm gonna need you to agree to keep a respectful tone and refrain from conspiratorial theorizing about my intentions that lead you to disregard the things I say in favor of flights of your imagination.

First I'd like you to please demonstrate where I've disregarded things you've said in favor of "flights of my imagination".

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 467
Points 7,590

I am simply going to state how the United States is and you can infer whatever social theory you like:

There is no right to commerce without resorting to violence in nature.

Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.”

Penhallow v. Doane's Administraters 3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54, (1795)

Government is an enclosure ... AoC .. the "stile" of this confederacy ... an enclosure for property

Prior to 1933 commerce meant

COMMERCE, trade, contracts. The exchange of commodities for commodities; considered in a legal point of view, it consists in the various agreements which have for their object to facilitate the exchange of the products of the earth or industry of man, with an intent to realize a profit.

A Law Dictionary by John Bouvier, Revised 6th Edition (1856);

after 1933 commerce has come to mean

COMMERCE. The exchange of goods, productions, or property of any kind.

Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th Edition (1968);

everything government in the U.S. does today interacting with citizens is based on contracts ... it is 100% voluntary (but for whatever reason people aren't willing to own up to this simple fact) ... every single thing ... because there is no money to tender payment of debt only dischage debt ... every single thing is based on federal bills of credit which is a federal privilege of exchange (ie. federal reserve notes, commercial paper, checks, etc.)

if you go to the grocery store and purchase food using money of intrinsic value there is no intent to profit

if you purchase groceries using worthless paper you derived a gain using that federal privilege of exchange and club fed wants a cut

 

When the United States, with constitutional authority, makes contracts, it has rights and incurs responsibilities similar to those of individuals who are parties to such instruments. There is no difference ... except that the United States cannot be sued without its consent.

United States v. Winstar Corp., 518 U. S. 839 (1996),
United States v. National Exchange Bank of Baltimore, 270 U.S. 527, 534 (1926),
Perry v. United States, supra at 352 (1935);

"The United States, when they contract with their citizens, are controlled by the same laws that govern the citizen in that behalf."

United States v. Bostwick, 94 U.S. 53, 66 (1877);

"[When the United States] comes down from its position of sovereignty, and enters the domain of commerce, it submits itself to the same laws that govern individuals there"

Cooke v. United States, 91 U.S. 389, 398 (1875);

As was well said in the last case, “From the daily and unavoidable use of commercial paper by the United States, they are as much interested as the community at large can be in maintaining these principles.”

The Floyd Acceptances, 7 Wall. 557,
United States v. Bank of Metropolis, 15 Pet. 377 (1841);

Laches is not imputable to the government, in its character as sovereign, by those subject to its dominion.

United States v. Kilpatrick, 9 Wheat. 735 (1985);

Still a government may suffer loss through the negligence of its officers. If it comes down from its position of sovereignty, and enters the domain of commerce, it submits itself to the same laws that govern individuals there.”

Gibbons v. United States, 8 Wall. 269 (1869);

Thus, if it becomes the holder of a bill of exchange, it must use the same diligence to charge the drawers and endorsers that is required of individuals, and if it fails in this, its claim upon the parties is lost.

United States v. Barker, 12 Wheat. 559 (1827);

Even in the domain of private contract law, the author of a standard-form agreement is required to state its terms with clarity and candor. Surely no less is required [397 U.S. 222] of the United States of America when it does business with its citizens.

United States v. Seckinger, 397 U. S. 203 (Dissenting opinion)(1970);

Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation, and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen … where private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Notes] and securities [checks] is concerned. ... For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government."

Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 318 U.S. 363-371 (1943);

just to drive a point home to the "its not voluntary crowd" ...

Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment."

Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147 (1934);

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."

Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579,
Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784,
11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329 (p. 1135);

" … the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference … is a fundamental constitutional right"

White, 97 Cal. App. 3d. 141, 158 Cal. Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979);

citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”

Caneisha Mills v. D.C. (2009);

The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the right to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees … ”

Berberian v. Lussier 139 A2d 869, 872 (1958),
Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963);

The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”

Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966);

A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”

Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41;

The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway, a traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”

Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236;

"The right of the citizen to drive on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a fundamental constitutional right which must be protected by the courts."

People v. Horton, 14 Cal. App. 3Rd 667 (1971);

The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”

House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374,
Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166;

The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.”

Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666;

The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”

Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468;

A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.”

Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159,
Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104,
Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670;

There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.”

Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456;

"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived."

Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 221,
Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934,
Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607,
25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163;

The constitutional right to travel from one State to another, and necessarily to use the highways and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce in doing so, occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.”

U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966);

Since the Constitution guarantees the right of interstate movement … In moving from jurisdiction to jurisdiction appellees were exercising a constitutional right, and any classification which penalizes the exercise of that right, unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest, is unconstitutional.”

Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969);

the legislature has no power to regulate the people or their automobiles.”

Kalich v. Knapp, 73 Or. 558;

 

versus commerce ...

" ... For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion."

State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073,
Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171,
Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256,
Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516;

"Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain."

Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982,
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82;

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus."

State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864;

"[The roads] ... are constructed and maintained at public expense, and no person therefore, can insist that he has, or may acquire, a vested right to their use in carrying on a commercial business."

Ex Parte Sterling, 53 SW.2d 294,
Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82,
Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.;

"When the public highways are made the place of business the state has a right to regulate their use in the interest of safety and convenience of the public as well as the preservation of the highways … [The state's] right to regulate such use is based upon the nature of the business and the use of the highways in connection therewith."

Thompson vs. Smith, supra.;

"We know of no inherent right in one to use the highways for commercial purposes. The highways are primarily for the use of the public, and in the interest of the public, the state may prohibit or regulate ... the use of the highways for gain."

Robertson vs. Dept. of Public Works, supra.;

and that is just one tiny little subject ... travel vs driving.  now when is the last time you went into a traffic court and seen anyone stand up for their right to travel and demand it be proven they were in fact engaged in commerce at the time ... no one does that except a small minority that everyone else calls crazy because everyone else is too busy being a good little slave!

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,018
Points 17,760

So when you join a PDA and they place limits on the things you can do with your property upon membership you're transferring ownership to them?

No. You are placing limits upon youself, in return for a service,  because you signed the contract. You still have ownership/jurisdiction of your property because you can always cancel the contract (and possible pay a fine).

 

“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence."
"The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 149
Points 2,855

z1235:

Why could not (ought not?) owners have jurisdiction over their property today? What types of governance (other than personal) are there?

I don't think its theoretically impossible but no one has given a plan or strategy of any worth about how you could get to that point. I'm not sure all of the consequences of such a move have been entirely considered either.

Any form of government that differentiates governance and ownership by creating offices separate from the persons holding them is depersonalized. 

How did I not make that distinction and how is this related to jurisdiction?

 

How am I collapsing emergence of rules and acting within their confines?

Jurisdiction is about determining the rules, ownership is established by the rules. You're trying to make jurisdiction as a type of ownership. That collapses the distinction. 

Is it useful for those that don't have it, though, and could the ones who have it be able to hold it without the consent of those who don't? Must there be jurisdiction (ultimate discretion) of others over you and your property, for example? If yes, why?

It can be useful, depends how it is used. 

Personalized government isn't necessary but depersonalization has proven fairly effective and was integral to the rise of capitalism. 

As you said, the rules emerge. They are followed by self-interested agents as means towards their (inter)subjectively valued ends. 

 
So that's an open-ended evolutionary process. How do your ensure protections for all individuals and libertarian oriented rules emerge? 

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 149
Points 2,855

 

Autolykos:

First I'd like you to please demonstrate where I've disregarded things you've said in favor of "flights of my imagination".

You can look at the pledge thread. You changed my words and refused to accept them in favor of words of your choosing.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 149
Points 2,855

 

Kelvin Silva:

No. You are placing limits upon youself, in return for a service,  because you signed the contract. You still have ownership/jurisdiction of your property because you can always cancel the contract (and possible pay a fine).

Where do the rules for your ownership and ability to contract come from?

How is it determined that your claims actually qualify as ownership? 

Your ability to cancel the contract comes from where and why would a PDA respect that? 

 

I think you're reifying property rights. 

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Wed, Dec 5 2012 10:06 AM

National Acrobat:
You can look at the pledge thread.

I did already.

National Acrobat:
You changed my words and refused to accept them in favor of words of your choosing.

Please support this contention.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Mon, Dec 17 2012 1:19 PM

Still waiting on this, National Acrobat.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 371
Points 5,590

You can have some fun with something along these lines:

Social contract theory has been the name given to the mainstream form of political propaganda oriented to educated people.

The object of social contract theory is to manufacture the delusion of a righteous relationship between some State-entity and some Society-entity.

Imaginary beings that do not belong in the real world.

This mythos persists as it serves several purpose of politically interested groups.

And as all self-serving lie, those dedicated to propagate it end up by believing in it.

"Blood alone moves the wheels of history" - Dwight Schrute
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 149
Points 2,855

 

Autolykos:

National Acrobat:
I didn't say necessarily, I said might. Note the difference.

True, you didn't actually say "necessarily", and you did say "might", but I've taken that as just a rhetorical device - a way to "soften the blow" and make yourself appear more "reasonable".

  • | Post Points: 20
Previous | Next
Page 1 of 2 (64 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS