Hi,
I'm writing this because I'm finding it difficult to come up with a bulletproof argument against the government's legitimacy. That is, I could always come up with some ways of countering these arguments to a lesser or greater extent.
Let's see how an usual argument goes. Say the government is illegitimate because it arises as a form of coercion. There's no point of contention in this: aggression pointed towards people in a given area should not be a means to claim sovereignty (which after all is a misleading concept) or even property. Since they're being aggressed upon on grounds of arbitrary rules and might, the victims could rightfully defend themselves by whatever means.
However, let's stop for a minute and think how this applies to non-governmental entities, within an anarchic society. It would be natural to assume private courts and PDAs would be subject to the same priniciple. That means that such an entity should restrict its actions to what is agreed upon by the parties involved in a litigation. Moreover, it should accept that every such agreement must be continuously consented upon, otherwise we must agree on the possibility of someone entrusting an entity with discretionary, unrevokable power in a given matter. Therefore, no force should be used to enforce contracts or undo wrongs, except in direct defense of one's own self or property. Such entities should only help to marginalize those who do not obey contracts or do wrong things. For example, a murder happening somewhere should not be punishable through aggression. Otherwise, anyone may claim he has been aggressed upon, may deny the legitimacy of the aggressor and could equate the punishment with an arbitrary rule.
Getting back to the state's legitimacy, the last paragraph tells us we can't take action against any government as long as we're not doing it in self-defense. Nobody can take action against goverment by simply stating that it's illegitimate. Descendents of those who have lost their freedom to the state, as well as immigrants, would have no business trying to fight the established sovereignty through violence or breaking rules, especially since the alleged initial victims are probably long gone.
Similarly, if the government happens to be overthrown and its properties become up for grabs, the new owners would not be legitimate regardless of the new political situation, anarchy or not. Stealing from a thief does not constitute rightful ownership. Only if the goverment was to fall without being aggressed upon we could conclude that those new owners (in fact, homesteaders) would be legitimate.
But it's very difficult to define exactly what government is and what constitutes aggression against it. Is it a corporation? Is sovereignty essentially property? If this is true, the government must properly state who is a "stockholder", how much everybody owns and just what kinds of decisions can be taken.
Still, a land owner is a land owner, and he isn't required to have written rules or agreements in order to decide when to kick trespassers out.
Is it possible to counter this counter-argument? Or should we just conclude government is simply undesirable?
(By "illegitimate" in the title I mean illegitimate with respect to us right now. Sure, legitimacy isn't such a relative aspect, but in other words "are our hands tied or not?".)
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu: Moreover, it should accept that every such agreement must be continuously consented upon, otherwise we must agree on the possibility of someone entrusting an entity with discretionary, unrevokable power in a given matter. Therefore, no force should be used to enforce contracts or undo wrongs, except in direct defense of one's own self or property. Such entities should only help to marginalize those who do not obey contracts or do wrong things. For example, a murder happening somewhere should not be punishable through aggression. Otherwise, anyone may claim he has been aggressed upon, may deny the legitimacy of the aggressor and could equate the punishment with an arbitrary rule.
Some people say that when a man murders somebody he gives up part of his right not to be aggressed upon, and can be punished up to what is proportionate. Similarly in contracts, there would probably be some clause saying what would happen if somebody involved did not do what the contract said. (Maybe a fine or something)
I'm a bit new here, but that's what I've picking up from reading the forums and some articles.
Since the state exists by robbery and force, and perpetuates itself through untold violence, and since nobody is allowed to become independent of it, I propose that we assume it's illegitimacy, and put the burden of proof on those who claim otherwise. Simple.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:For example, a murder happening somewhere should not be punishable through aggression. Otherwise, anyone may claim he has been aggressed upon, may deny the legitimacy of the aggressor and could equate the punishment with an arbitrary rule.
Estoppel...
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:Getting back to the state's legitimacy, the last paragraph tells us we can't take action against any government as long as we're not doing it in self-defense. Nobody can take action against goverment by simply stating that it's illegitimate.
It is a reaction to the violation of rights, aggression satisfied....
Have you read No Treason by Lysander Spooner?
Start there....
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Fluery:Some people say that when a man murders somebody he gives up part of his right not to be aggressed upon, and can be punished up to what is proportionate. Similarly in contracts, there would probably be some clause saying what would happen if somebody involved did not do what the contract said. (Maybe a fine or something)
It is called estoppel...
An aggressor is estopped from claiming aggression when it is the result of the aggression he primarily committed....
Given the nature of the state and the circumstances requisite for it's very existence, why not conclude that it's illegitimate and place the burden of proof on those who would claim otherwise? Or in other words, why are we to assume first that the state is legitimate, and proceed to dismantle that position, given the obvious violence and aggression explicitly requisite for the state to even exist?
Harry Felker: Fluery:Some people say that when a man murders somebody he gives up part of his right not to be aggressed upon, and can be punished up to what is proportionate. Similarly in contracts, there would probably be some clause saying what would happen if somebody involved did not do what the contract said. (Maybe a fine or something) It is called estoppel... An aggressor is estopped from claiming aggression when it is the result of the aggression he primarily committed....
It is tricky. He might deny (or renounce) the authority of the one trying to do justice. He might also deny the facts and claim he never commited the alleged crimes. In these cases, there's no reason to assume he's wrong, unless obvious proof is available. Having a court decide aggressive punishment in not-so-obvious instances is bound to cause such issues in at least some cases.
hashem: Given the nature of the state and the circumstances requisite for it's very existence, why not conclude that it's illegitimate and place the burden of proof on those who would claim otherwise? Or in other words, why are we to assume first that the state is legitimate, and proceed to dismantle that position, given the obvious violence and aggression explicitly requisite for the state to even exist?
That works, but causes problems later on. Suppose it delves into anarchy or government changes. While in either cases some force destroys the initial aggressor, the new owners/governors are still required to prove their legitimacy. Unless they do so, be it anarchy or not, they would default to illegitimate.
But besides the concept of estoppel which we were discussing a bit earlier, there seems to be little reason to assume the state is aggressive against the current inhabitants. If your bike is stolen by a thief, is your grandson entitled to aggress against the thief's grandson 100 years later, even if only to get the bike back?
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu: Getting back to the state's legitimacy, the last paragraph tells us we can't take action against any government as long as we're not doing it in self-defense. Nobody can take action against goverment by simply stating that it's illegitimate. Descendents of those who have lost their freedom to the state, as well as immigrants, would have no business trying to fight the established sovereignty through violence or breaking rules, especially since the alleged initial victims are probably long gone.
No. Just because agression happened to your predecessors and they did not defend themselves doesn't mean that you can't.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:Similarly, if the government happens to be overthrown and its properties become up for grabs, the new owners would not be legitimate regardless of the new political situation, anarchy or not. Stealing from a thief does not constitute rightful ownership. Only if the goverment was to fall without being aggressed upon we could conclude that those new owners (in fact, homesteaders) would be legitimate.
false analogy. Also, if government fell without agression and a new coercive government, it is still illigetimate because there is coercion.
Schools are labour camps.
hashem:Since the state exists by robbery and force, and perpetuates itself through untold violence, and since nobody is allowed to become independent of it, I propose that we assume it's illegitimacy, and put the burden of proof on those who claim otherwise. Simple. Given the nature of the state and the circumstances requisite for it's very existence, why not conclude that it's illegitimate and place the burden of proof on those who would claim otherwise? Or in other words, why are we to assume first that the state is legitimate, and proceed to dismantle that position, given the obvious violence and aggression explicitly requisite for the state to even exist?
Good points hashem. Is there an elephant in the room?
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:Having a court decide aggressive punishment in not-so-obvious instances is bound to cause such issues in at least some cases.
As though it doesn't already? Without the state (the necessary presence of the free market), courts would naturally work incredibly more efficiently and honestly. Police and Lawyers would too, and so would investigators. Less crimes would be committed on the whole, because there would be much less incentive for crime and much more incentive against it. What's the problem?
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu: Harry Felker: Fluery:Some people say that when a man murders somebody he gives up part of his right not to be aggressed upon, and can be punished up to what is proportionate. Similarly in contracts, there would probably be some clause saying what would happen if somebody involved did not do what the contract said. (Maybe a fine or something) It is called estoppel... An aggressor is estopped from claiming aggression when it is the result of the aggression he primarily committed.... It is tricky. He might deny (or renounce) the authority of the one trying to do justice. He might also deny the facts and claim he never commited the alleged crimes. In these cases, there's no reason to assume he's wrong, unless obvious proof is available. Having a court decide aggressive punishment in not-so-obvious instances is bound to cause such issues in at least some cases.
Innocent until proven guilty is a natural right that I see as a direct corollary of liberty (an event involving no physical coercion) and life (person).
Estoppel, as far as I understand, comes into play when the person is prosecuted as a criminal. Thus, as Harry said, estoppel happens as a "result of the aggression he primarily committed". That statement is pointing out he/she has "committed" the crime, prosecution has already happened.
There are debates against estoppel and writings that support it. Here's a link to a thread that gets into criminal repercussion inquiries further.
Harry Felker: Have you read No Treason by Lysander Spooner? Start there....
Heard about it, but didn't read it before. I will delve into it deeper.
However, to quote Spooner on the constitution:
It is plain, in the first place, that this language, as an agreement, purports to be onlywhat it at most really was, viz: a contract between the people then existing; and, ofnecessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the second place,the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any intention or desire, northat they imagined they had any right or power, to bind their “posterity” to live underit.
That is true, however it assumes this is a proper contract. But if we take government as an exercise of sovereignty, therefore property in some extended sense, such internal agreements need not be of any significance to third parties. If it is property they can do whatever they wish, even break such promises or make up additional terms at any moment. For example, even if I issue an "internal law" stating that everybody is welcome on my property, I can kick anyone out whenever I feel like.
But I agree it's hard to tell who is a rightful owner of (a part of) the government.
eliotn: No. Just because agression happened to your predecessors and they did not defend themselves doesn't mean that you can't.
Yes, but you need to prove the aggression continues. How does one prove the aggression does continue and is not limited to the ancestors? Because if it doesn't, the goverment could be allowed to free ride on the past and become a rightful owner of that land.
eliotn: false analogy. Also, if government fell without agression and a new coercive government, it is still illigetimate because there is coercion.
The goverment could claim free riding on a past situation gives rightful property. In that case, it would only require it to let you leave, but as long as you stay you have to agree with their rules. The government could in theory reply that the inhabitants don't really own their properties, instead they're only welcome there.
Could you elaborate on why this is a false analogy? Why wouldn't this apply in an incipient anarchy when the properties formerly owned by a goverment are "stolen" by other people?
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:Suppose it delves into anarchy or government changes. While in either cases some force destroys the initial aggressor, the new owners/governors are still required to prove their legitimacy.
So they prove their legitimacy. Problem solved. Of course, they could not rule anyone. They could not steal (aka tax) to fund their operations, could not force anyone to obey them, and could have no sort of special privileges, immunities, or rights which others don't have.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:But besides the concept of estoppel which we were discussing a bit earlier
Estoppel is illegitimate. It presumes that a promise is a binding contract. A promise is not a binding contract. To quote Hobbes, "Words alone, if they be of the time to come, and contain a bare promise [nudum pactum], are an insufficient sign of a free gift and therefore not obligatory. For if they be of the time to come, as tomorrow I will give, they are a sign I have not yet given, and consequently that my right is not transferred, but remaineth till I transfer it by some other act. But if the words be of the time present, or past, as, I have given, or do give to be delivered tomorrow, then this is my tomorrow's right given away today. . . . There is a great difference in the signification of [the] words . . . between I will that this be thine tomorrow, and I will give it thee tomorrow: for the word I will, in the former manner of speech signifies a promise of an act of the will present; but in the latter, it signifies a promise of an act of the will to come: and therefore the former words, being of the present, transfer a future right; the latter, that be of the future, transfer nothing."
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:there seems to be little reason to assume the state is aggressive against the current inhabitants
How can the state possibly not be aggressive?? It forces people to obey its commands at gunpoint, it expropriates its victims to obtain income through violent robbery, it enslaves its victims regularly, it monopolizes critical functions of the economy, it murders its victims, and it breaks the general moral law as well as its own laws. Again, the burden of proof is on those who disagree. The state is certainly illegitimate.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:If your bike is stolen by a thief, is your grandson entitled to aggress against the thief's grandson 100 years later, even if only to get the bike back?
Even 10,000 years later, yes. The bike is not properly anyone's besides the owners or his heirs. Perhaps the unjust owners 10,000 years from now will understand that their stolen property is not rightly theirs, and will return it without the need of force. It is clearly illegal for anyone to keep stolen property from it's just owners.
are you talking about theoretical governments, or about actual ones?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK: are you talking about theoretical governments, or about actual ones?
Hmm... good point. I think it's about theoretical governments. Whatever the conclusion is, to apply it to an actual one would require gathering facts and providing some evidence to show it applies to a particular situation. I admit I'm playing the devil's advocate here.
if you posit a theoretical government that does legitimately own all the land, and anyone on its territory is a guest and must play by house rules or get off then it sounds like you have just described a spectacularly endowed landowner. but the point is there is a difference between large landowners and governments. governments do not own all the land of the country they control. governments typically use stolen goods of their 'citizens' to buy private land, or pay their bully squads to appropriate private land, and then call these lands public buildings and parks etc. so even the land they do ''own' (or call themselves the owners of) they dont own legitimately. ...
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:That works, but causes problems later on. Suppose it delves into anarchy or government changes. While in either cases some force destroys the initial aggressor, the new owners/governors are still required to prove their legitimacy. Unless they do so, be it anarchy or not, they would default to illegitimate.
Not quite.
Property title need not be perfect. The property simply belongs to the person with the best claim. A property owner need not prove conclusively that he has the first title, he merely needs to have a better claim than any who challenges.
If an ownerless watch is found on the street then it belongs to the finder. The fact that we know there is a person in the world with a better claim to the watch, the person who actually lost it, does not mean that any third party can remove the watch from the finder. He has a better claim to the watch than anyone other than the actual owner, so it will remain with him until the owner comes to claim it.
In the case of the State, property would belong to whoever was most proximate until a person with a better title came to claim it. And this could happen several times until the property belongs to the most rightful owner.
Peace
JonBostwick:He has a better claim to the watch than anyone other than the actual owner, so it will remain with him until the owner comes to claim it.
Or until a representative/heir of the just title holder (not owner, anyone who holds/possesses the property is the "owner") siezes it. Remember, property always belongs to the just title holder, not just any title holder, and not necessarily any owner -- own just means to possess or hold.
An unjust owner might be the thief. Someone who the thief transferred title of his unjustly owned property to, would be an unjust title holder. Still, you are right since what you are probably trying to say is that property can be homesteaded in the absence of the just title owner or his representatives.
JonBostwick, I think you're pretty spot on a lot of the time, so it seemed like I would help your cause by clarifying your argument. But none of this legitimizes government or the state...
hashem:An unjust owner might be the thief. Someone who the thief transferred title of his unjustly owned property to, would be an unjust title holder. Still, you are right since what you are probably trying to say is that property can be homesteaded in the absence of the just title owner or his representatives.
In the case of a known thief(including the state), then any innocent person has a better claim to the property than the thief. And it would belong to the first person to dispossess the thief, this could include an unwitting purchaser(but not an accomplice.)
Very true. Where do you get your "better claim" theory? The Ethics of Liberty?
hashem: Very true. Where do you get your "better claim" theory? The Ethics of Liberty?
I believe its an Common Law term. I couldn't tell you specifically, my common law knowledge isn't what I wish it was.
Kinsella writes in those terms
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:It is tricky. He might deny (or renounce) the authority of the one trying to do justice. He might also deny the facts and claim he never commited the alleged crimes. In these cases, there's no reason to assume he's wrong, unless obvious proof is available. Having a court decide aggressive punishment in not-so-obvious instances is bound to cause such issues in at least some cases.
Did you read Rothbard's Public Sector, III: Police, Law and the Courts? The government is not necessary, or even, in all reality desirable, in the function of judgement...
The notion that there is a need for authority is fallacious at best, this is all within the ability of the free market to handle....
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:That is true, however it assumes this is a proper contract. But if we take government as an exercise of sovereignty, therefore property in some extended sense, such internal agreements need not be of any significance to third parties. If it is property they can do whatever they wish, even break such promises or make up additional terms at any moment. For example, even if I issue an "internal law" stating that everybody is welcome on my property, I can kick anyone out whenever I feel like.
You do understand the Spooner is saying the government is illegitimate, however you take government, without voluntary consent, this is an illegitimate govenrment based on coercion?
Harry Felker: Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:It is tricky. He might deny (or renounce) the authority of the one trying to do justice. He might also deny the facts and claim he never commited the alleged crimes. In these cases, there's no reason to assume he's wrong, unless obvious proof is available. Having a court decide aggressive punishment in not-so-obvious instances is bound to cause such issues in at least some cases. Did you read Rothbard's Public Sector, III: Police, Law and the Courts? The government is not necessary, or even, in all reality desirable, in the function of judgement... The notion that there is a need for authority is fallacious at best, this is all within the ability of the free market to handle....
I never said it was, in fact I'm all for private justice. I'm merely pointing out one can deny the government's authority to punish as he can deny the authority of such a private court. Therefore, it's best to use NAP-friendly measures rather than go for punishments.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:I never said it was, in fact I'm all for private justice. I'm merely pointing out one can deny the government's authority to punish as he can deny the authority of such a private court. Therefore, it's best to use NAP-friendly measures rather than go for punishments.
I am sorry but you may misunderstand me...
Steal my gum, violate a contract, tresspass are not what I am discussing as for punishment...
I am taking the extreme case, lets say vehicular homocide of my child...
A loses control of vehicle and ends up in my back yard on top of my child, well, I am sorry but punishment is necessary
JonBostwick: hashem:An unjust owner might be the thief. Someone who the thief transferred title of his unjustly owned property to, would be an unjust title holder. Still, you are right since what you are probably trying to say is that property can be homesteaded in the absence of the just title owner or his representatives. In the case of a known thief(including the state), then any innocent person has a better claim to the property than the thief. And it would belong to the first person to dispossess the thief, this could include an unwitting purchaser(but not an accomplice.)
Suppose somewhere far away from our eyes, A kills B and takes his land. Now we meet him (or his descendants) and only later on we find out what he did. Is this just cause to dispossess A? Restitution can't happen, even if B has heirs, which might not even be clear in the absence of proper inheritance. If A has heirs on the other hand, they should be rightful owners, since they supposedly did not commit theft and therefore have better claims.
Sounds like estoppel to me. I read a bit about estoppel and I can't say I fully agree with this concept. Probably only in a restricted sense (ethical estoppel, restitution-oriented estoppel).
If this includes unwitting purchasers excluding accomplices, then I think we're basing our whole rationale on hidden motivations. I think it isn't that hard to come up with a "cleanroom theft" procedure, at least in the case of a state or government, since history gives us so little evidence about what truly happened. Even if we estoppel the government, it still leads to conflicts over who should be entitled to take up its property: those who supported a democracy (which are kinda guilty), those who can prove their ancestors were hurt and/or immigrants who allegedly have no good claims?
EDIT: Surely, you could say everybody else has a better claim, but it won't actuallly be that clear in a (former) democracy.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:I'm merely pointing out one can deny the government's authority to punish as he can deny the authority of such a private court.
A court has no authority to punish, whether private or "public". The authority is the victims, and it follows that he can appoint willing representatives. A victim needn't even require a court to pass judgement.
hashem: Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:I'm merely pointing out one can deny the government's authority to punish as he can deny the authority of such a private court. A court has no authority to punish, whether private or "public". The authority is the victims, and it follows that he can appoint willing representatives. A victim needn't even require a court to pass judgement.
Yes, "authority" might be a bad choice of words in this context.
However, you do realize the criminal can defend himself or hire protection (and even retaliate later on), right? IMHO, anarchy should be approached like a system of interactions, more than from an ethical standpoint, i.e. "human action" drives it, not necessarily ethics.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu: hashem: Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:I'm merely pointing out one can deny the government's authority to punish as he can deny the authority of such a private court. A court has no authority to punish, whether private or "public". The authority is the victims, and it follows that he can appoint willing representatives. A victim needn't even require a court to pass judgement. Yes, "authority" might be a bad choice of words in this context. However, you do realize the criminal can defend himself or hire protection (and even retaliate later on), right? IMHO, anarchy should be approached like a system of interactions, more than from an ethical standpoint, i.e. "human action" drives it, not necessarily ethics.
Not necessarily. There are people who think ethically, and such people recognize justice has ethical considerations.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:Is this just cause to dispossess A?
Yes. It is always just to repossess stolen property from a thief. It is not just to the extent that you are a knowing accomplice. The family and friends of A have no more right to his murderously acquired stolen property than A himself. It will be a profitable business, as it is today, to confirm land titles and help the just owner in repossessing it.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:If this includes unwitting purchasers excluding accomplices, then I think we're basing our whole rationale on hidden motivations.
Unwitting purchasers of stolen property, i.e. pawn shops, have no right to the property. They are merely owners until the title holder repossesses it. The purchasers are not required to be reimbursed by the title holder upon repossession, but may sue the thief for fraud.
Concerning estoppel, it is illegitimate. The reasons are many, but suffice it to say that it relies on force and unvoluntary methods.
hashem:A court has no authority to punish, whether private or "public". The authority is the victims, and it follows that he can appoint willing representatives. A victim needn't even require a court to pass judgement.
Thanks I was having trouble jumbling that into words in my head....
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:However, you do realize the criminal can defend himself or hire protection (and even retaliate later on), right?
That's precisely what I was pointing out.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:IMHO, anarchy should be approached like a system of interactions, more than from an ethical standpoint, i.e. "human action" drives it, not necessarily ethics.
Humble, maybe; but there are those who believe they have proved ethics to be based on the laws of human action, i.e. Murray Rothbard.
wilderness: Not necessarily. There are people who think ethically, and such people recognize justice has ethical considerations.
I think this is accurate. Anarchy is market, and market has niches. If we try to think what would happen in an anarchy, out best bet is to describe a stable point and avoid contradictions (e.g. describing anarchy as a NAP-abiding democracy or something similar).
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:However, you do realize the criminal can defend himself or hire protection (and even retaliate later on), right? IMHO, anarchy should be approached like a system of interactions, more than from an ethical standpoint, i.e. "human action" drives it, not necessarily ethics.
And this is where private sector options take place...
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:Suppose somewhere far away from our eyes, A kills B and takes his land. Now we meet him (or his descendants) and only later on we find out what he did. Is this just cause to dispossess A?
Yes.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu: If A has heirs on the other hand, they should be rightful owners, since they supposedly did not commit theft and therefore have better claims.
I thought my brevity might come back and bite me. An innocent person has a better claim then the thief, but they do not have a better claim then the rightful title holder.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu: Even if we estoppel the government, it still leads to conflicts over who should be entitled to take up its property: those who supported a democracy (which are kinda guilty), those who can prove their ancestors were hurt and/or immigrants who allegedly have no good claims?
Of course there will be conflict over who should be entitled to own state property, thats why we have to employ our already existing theory of property.
JonBostwick:I thought my brevity might come back and bite me. An innocent person has a better claim the thief, but they do not have a better claim the rightful title holder.
Indeed. There is no point in collapsing the state if we cannot allow for justice (at least for the living).
JonBostwick:Of course there will be conflict over who should be entitled to own state property, thats why we have to employ our already existing theory of property.
I have written about my desocialization solution for property that I feel conforms to our existing property theories.
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/7629/137672.aspx#137672
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/7629/137734.aspx#137734
Governments aren't even necessarily undesirable, what's undesirable is the mass democratic state we see now. On the other hand, small, competing providers of law with a geographical monopoly solve Mises' calculation argument as applied to the provision of security. They also have other advantages as compared to the standard anarchist view of PDAs namely that they reduce risk and therefore costs.
As for illigetimate, I do think the democratic state is illegitimate, but I don't think it can be proven. Hoppe's argumentation ethics, Rothbard's arguments in TEOL and other forms of natural law all fail in my opinion. On the other hand, if you're willing to take various things on faith, you can say the state is illegitimate, you just can't prove it.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
broken monarchist record:Governments aren't even necessarily undesirable, what's undesirable is the mass democratic state
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."