I've struggled with this issue for some time - hoping I can get some insight from this group.
Originally, in this nation, the land was used by the indigenous tribes. Colonization resulted in wholesale confiscation of this land from it's previous "owners" who of course had not land 'title' system. But by the tenets of laissez faire economics, those inhabitants worked the land, thus owned it, and so the land was stolen from them by the settlers.
In other words, according to the Lockean theory of justice of landed property - mixing one's labor, and so forth - surely, according to this doctrine, the original inhabitants of these lands owned them. They did not, perhaps, 'work' them as we might want to work them - less cultivation, more hunting and so forth, no factories obviously, though hunting provided raw materials for the crafting (aka manufacturing) that they did - but they worked them nonetheless.
Obviously, if you stray from Locke in the direction of the more radical anarchists (Tucker, Ingalls, George) it becomes even more persuasive of an argument. You have to move *away* from anarchism, it seems to me, to justify our current system.
Should it - all of it - not be returned to their closest descendants, if we are to remain consistent in our principles as libertarians/ancaps/free market laissez faire types? Does time erase injustice?
What say ye?
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. - Goethe
ozzy43:Should it - all of it - not be returned to their closest descendants, if we are to remain consistent in our principles as libertarians/ancaps/free market laissez faire types? Does time erase injustice?
The Native Americans weren't a bunch of saints.
They moved around and displaced other tribes just as much as the Europeans, Asians and Africans. All these plains tribes that are glorified in the cowboy movies didn't exist prior to the Spanish introducing horses to the Americas and there were tribes that occupied those lands before they stole the land through their superior technology for one example.
Perhaps if you go back and trace the decedents of the original settler for a particular piece of land then you might have a case but if not you are just rewarding the decedents for the exact same thing you feel guilty for. More than likely there were multiple migrations into the Americas so you would have to first figure out who lead the first migration and the path they took and then do the exact same thing for the next migration until all virgin land was accounted for. Then you have to determine which tribes were forcefully evicted and which ones voluntarily moved into virgin lands.
Some tribes had actual private property land rights so you would have to trace the descendant of the rightful owner to a particular piece of property, assuming it was a chain of legal acquisition all the way to it's virgin status, and then you could be sure you weren't falsely rewarding someone.
Mind you there is nothing even close to written records and the majority of the oral traditions were lost due to epidemics following the European discovery of the New World.
The Australian Aborigines on the other hand have a solid case under your argument as do quite a few island tribes.
To change the subject a bit, I know a Navajo girl that grew up on contested tribal land. She says, and I've heard this from other sources, that the only thing that keeps the Hopi from forcefully evicting her family is the federal government being involved. Mind you none of this land was ever traditional Hopi lands, it just happened to end up that way when they set up the reservation systems for these two tribes but that doesn't stop them from trying to lay claim to their 'rightful' property. From what she was saying the last time I talked to her the Hopi authorities constantly harass the families living on the contested land trying to force them to move away so they can 'legally' take possession. Apparently she even has to get a permit to allow non-resident visitors to even step foot on her family's property, payable to the Hopi nation of course.
Nope, the Native Americans aren't a bunch of saints...
As Anonymous Coward suggests, there is a time problem involved here.
I tend to think of it similarly to how I think of reparations for slavery. When slavery was abolished, I think that the slaves did deserve compensation. But once generations and generations have passed, to the point where all of the people in question are dead and the property in question has been transformed significantly and/or been transfered in ownership many times, it is impossible to have compensation. Don't get me wrong: I am extremely in favor of compensating victims. But we are talking about scenarios here where it is impossible to do so. It is so long "after the fact" that justice seems impossible.
No descendant of slaves alive today is a slave and no descendant of a slave-owner today is a slave-owner. To force innocent individuals to "compensate" all African Americans, whom they have done no wrong to, would be absurd and unjust in itself. I think the same is true of the natives and the land question. I definitely sympathize with the natives in that there was a significant degree of land theft that they were subjected to, but there really isn't much of a practical remedy for it now. To force everyone or loads of innocent people to suddenly give their land up to indians would be an injustice and grave absurdity in itself.
It's not that time erases injustice, it's that justice becomes impossible in some circumstances if there is a great enough time lag between the event in question and the attempt to remedy it.
And for clarification purposes: there is no discernable just owner of entire nations. Neither the natives or the colonials have a legitimate claim over the entirety of America. Some of it is/was simply unused/unowned land. The colonials legitimately owned that previously unused/owned land by which they homesteaded or voluntarily purchased, and the natives legitimately owned that land which they homesteaded and already occupied (even if some of them did not believe in land ownership, they still owned it in practise); and everything else is unowned. To grant either side a monopoly would be mistaken.
As Rothbard notes in "The Ethics of Liberty", you cannot own it beyond the extent that you make first-use of or control it (I.E. I cannot just land on an island and claim to own the entire thing without actually homesteading or purchasing the entire thing; I can only legitimately own that portion which results either from my labor or from me purchasing it from a willing seller that is a legitimate owner themselves). I believe that the consistant application of Rothbard's theory of legitimacy in property titles delegitimizes all "nations", since all "nations" consist of a claim of ownership that extends beyond that which has been homesteaded or voluntarily traded for.
On a somewhat related note: a common challenge posed to market anarchists is, once the state is gone, what happens to all of this "public property"? The proper answer, as far as I can tell, is that it is "homesteadable", it may as well be viewed as unowned property to be appropriated. Since the state has redistributed wealth and property so much, it is impossible to discern a just owner of the entirely of "public property"; even if we consider the tax-payer to own a quotal share of it, it would be impossible to adequately distribute this quotal share. So basically it should and would be transformed in turn by the people to whatever extent they can manage.
ozzy43:I've struggled with this issue for some time - hoping I can get some insight from this group.Originally, in this nation, the land was used by the indigenous tribes. Colonization resulted in wholesale confiscation of this land from it's previous "owners" who of course had not land 'title' system. But by the tenets of laissez faire economics, those inhabitants worked the land, thus owned it, and so the land was stolen from them by the settlers. In other words, according to the Lockean theory of justice of landed property - mixing one's labor, and so forth - surely, according to this doctrine, the original inhabitants of these lands owned them. They did not, perhaps, 'work' them as we might want to work them - less cultivation, more hunting and so forth, no factories obviously, though hunting provided raw materials for the crafting (aka manufacturing) that they did - but they worked them nonetheless.Obviously, if you stray from Locke in the direction of the more radical anarchists (Tucker, Ingalls, George) it becomes even more persuasive of an argument. You have to move *away* from anarchism, it seems to me, to justify our current system.Should it - all of it - not be returned to their closest descendants, if we are to remain consistent in our principles as libertarians/ancaps/free market laissez faire types? Does time erase injustice?What say ye?
Labor can't be "mixed" with land. Land can only be labored upon by the first person who, solely by chance, happens to come across it
I agree with the Georgist argument against land ownership, but then I also believe THAT if land ownership is unjustifiable, so is property because all property ownership can only be based upon land ownership. So, Locke's whole argument supporting land ownership (which even he didn't support in every circumstance, I.E. public goods like water wells) is nonsense.
The only justification for individual land ownership or property, in general, is individual prosperity.
If you combine this with egoism, you could still end up with something like the Objectivist argument for property rights... But then, I think Objectivism and egoism are also nonsense.
"Austrian economics and freedom are not synonymous." -JAlanKatz
Too bad Austrians do not even use the unmodified Lockean argument for property, then.
What is, in fact, pure nonsense is the Georgist division of capital and land. Frank Fetter demolished this view.
Anonymous Coward:The Native Americans weren't a bunch of saints.
This argument is ethically flawed. Because they 'weren't a bunch of saints' the original colonists and settlers afterward were justified in not being saints, too? In other words, 'they stole it first' - yet without the written records this cannot be proven, so we should simply assume that ALL the land was stolen to begin with, and therefore free game???
As for displacing other tribes, this argument falls completely flat. Over time, the American government has displaced just about ALL of the indigenous population. Surely, the magnitude of THAT displacement is enormous, comparitively.
The whole argument is just a rationalization for the status quo as far as I can tell, and has no solid ethical basis, in my view.
Brainpolice:Don't get me wrong: I am extremely in favor of compensating victims. But we are talking about scenarios here where it is impossible to do so. It is so long "after the fact" that justice seems impossible.
This has been pretty much my view, but I continue to feel that it's just too pat an answer to satisfy.
Anytime the resolution to some ethical question benefits the perpetrator of injustice - I am talking about the US government, which entity has existed intact since the time of the injustice - and maintains the status quo, that's not a good ethical resolution.
I do think it is an important distinction to make, that we are not talking about blaming individual Americans, which is what any kind of reparations, of course, tries to do. It's the State that is to blame, and the State that should be held to account, and yet of course the State is not a separate entity that can be taken to task. It has involved us all in its crimes as accomplices through our use and acceptance of the various predatory systems it implements.
As noted, I don't have a good answer, but every time I drive through a rez, and recognize that the actions of the American State have led directly to the appalling conditions there, it bugs the hell outta me. Just another set of victims of the criminal State.
ozzy43:This argument is ethically flawed. Because they 'weren't a bunch of saints' the original colonists and settlers afterward were justified in not being saints, too? In other words, 'they stole it first' - yet without the written records this cannot be proven, so we should simply assume that ALL the land was stolen to begin with, and therefore free game???
Oh wow, did I actually say that? I don't think so...
What I did was give you a road map to a course of action that would be acceptable to me in order to give the lands back to the Native Americans.
As for defending the status quo, I would stand to directly gain from your original argument since my grandmother's grandmother was full-blooded Cherokee and there is an actual Supreme Court decision against forcing them off their traditional lands so it would be quite trivial for me to go claim a part of Georgia.
ozzy43:Over time, the American government has displaced just about ALL of the indigenous population. Surely, the magnitude of THAT displacement is enormous, comparitively.
Go look up a linguistic map of Native American tribes post-Columbus and tell me there wasn't mass migrations going on. There are linguistic groups, pretty much the only practical way to track their movements, that are widely separated from any close relatives and are surrounded by many different groups that have the same characteristics.
If you really want a starting place for your theory you can start with protecting my friends traditional lands from Hopi aggression. Then maybe you can start with the rest of the continent...
ozzy43:Anytime the resolution to some ethical question benefits the perpetrator of injustice...
That's just the problem, though; both the perpetrator(s) and the victim(s) of injustice are long since passed away. Any resolution in which the criminal and victim are no longer in existence would be either meaningless or involve further injustice in an attempt to punish or reward the descendants of the actual actors.
History is nothing but a five thousand year old list of expropriations. The only way out of this problem is to declare an amnesty, in the interest of peace.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Anonymous Coward:If you really want a starting place for your theory you can start with protecting my friends traditional lands from Hopi aggression. Then maybe you can start with the rest of the continent...
Yeah. Because, clearly, 'Hopi aggression' is the root of injustice here.
AC, perhaps I misread, but your entire post was basically a 'they stole it first, so they had it coming' argument. I'll go point by point so it is clear what you 'actually' said and what you 'actually' did not.
- The indigenous tribes were not 'saints' - what does this have to do with anything? This sort of en masse collective blame belongs nowhere in an ethical argument.
- Indigenous tribes displaced other indigenous tribes via technology - this is clearly an implied justification for the proposition that it was thus OK for settlers to in turn displace tribes via technological superiority themselves. Two wrongs = a right, again, does not belong in an ethical argument.
- To solve the problem, we would have to "first figure out who lead the first migration and the path they took and then do the exact same thing for the next migration until all virgin land was accounted for" - the blindingly obvious implication that any reasonble person would draw here is that we might as well not even worry about it since there's no way we can know every single thing about who stole what when, and from whom. This is a preposterous implication, in my view.
- Unless we can know for sure the "chain of legal acquisition all the way to it's virgin status", there's nothing we can do. This is a laughable argument, inasmuch is says 'let the recipients of stolen goods keep them if we can't figure out who the original purchasre was - even if we know from whom it was originally stolen.' Once again, this logic is preposterous.
- There are no written records available - so we can't know with certainty who really owned what. Similar to the old 'rub out the witness so there's nobody to testify against you' defense. Ethically hollow.
I'm not trying to start a fight, but I was looking for an ethical argument according to the tenets of libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism, and what I got was for all intents and purposes a practical rationalization that might just as easily have come from a Bush supporter.
I.am:That's just the problem, though; both the perpetrator(s) and the victim(s) of injustice are long since passed away.
But that's the point I was trying to make - the perpetrator DOES exist - the perpetrator was not the army, or the settlers, or even the original colonists. It was, for the most part, the American STATE - and that DOES still exist, and still bears the responsibility.
I suppose one thing I am trying to get at here is that most libs/ancaps I talk to castigate the State for all sorts of current and past abuses of life and liberty. But the worst abuse I can see, even more egregious than slavery, not to downplay the vastly egregious nature of that abuse, is the genocide of the indigenous inhabitants.
Now, I know that we must take historical context into account, but I think even having done so, this abuse stands out like a screaming neon sign, which is ignored by the vast majority, including by libs/ancaps. And this historical fact fatally undermines the entire popular notion of the State as a social and beneficial entity (which misconception lies at the heart of the argument for minarchy, IMO), when it is in fact an anti-human, anti-individual, malevolently anti-social entity. And it is the misconceptions about the nature of the State - which ALWAYS finds its origins inevitably in "conquest and confiscation", in Nock's words - that is at the root of the difficulty we have in educating people about liberty.
Stranger:History is nothing but a five thousand year old list of expropriations. The only way out of this problem is to declare an amnesty, in the interest of peace.
This is sensible, I think. Yet, prior to an amnesty, genocide should be acknowledged and the State should accept responsibility for it. Absent that, an amnesty would just be empty and self-justifying. If anything, perhaps such an acknowledgment would give our rulers pause before they proclaim with such self-righteous piety their next campaign to 'make the world safe for democracy.'
ozzy43:AC, perhaps I misread, but your entire post was basically a 'they stole it first, so they had it coming' argument.
The key point you missed is:
Perhaps if you go back and trace the decedents of the original settler for a particular piece of land then you might have a case but if not you are just rewarding the decedents for the exact same thing you feel guilty for.
ozzy43:- The indigenous tribes were not 'saints' - what does this have to do with anything? This sort of en masse collective blame belongs nowhere in an ethical argument.
Kind of like the en masse collective blame you are trying to place on the European descended peoples who currently inhabit N. America? The fact is they were just as guilty of land theft as the European settlers. You base your argument on the assumption that the last known tribe was the rightful owner.
ozzy43:- Indigenous tribes displaced other indigenous tribes via technology - this is clearly an implied justification for the proposition that it was thus OK for settlers to in turn displace tribes via technological superiority themselves. Two wrongs = a right, again, does not belong in an ethical argument.
I was merely demonstrating the absurdity of rewarding some group for the exact same action you attribute to the American settlers just because they were the last indigenous peoples to 'own' the land. You can imply a moral argument in favor of whatever you wish but I was clearly not saying that.
ozzy43:- To solve the problem, we would have to "first figure out who lead the first migration and the path they took and then do the exact same thing for the next migration until all virgin land was accounted for" - the blindingly obvious implication that any reasonble person would draw here is that we might as well not even worry about it since there's no way we can know every single thing about who stole what when, and from whom. This is a preposterous implication, in my view.
So what, we willy-nilly redistribute land to people who have questionable ownership because they were the last known victims? If I stole your car and it was in turn stolen from me does that give me legal rights to your car if it were recovered? Or if I sold your stolen car to someone else does that mean you have lost all legal rights to recover your property because the buyer acted in good faith? Chain of legal custody is essential it would appear.
ozzy43:- Unless we can know for sure the "chain of legal acquisition all the way to it's virgin status", there's nothing we can do. This is a laughable argument, inasmuch is says 'let the recipients of stolen goods keep them if we can't figure out who the original purchasre was - even if we know from whom it was originally stolen.' Once again, this logic is preposterous.
How do you know if it was even stolen and by whom in the first place without a chain of legal custody? Since you can't determine from whom it was originally stolen you would yet again be rewarding the last non-European owner's decedents for a crime that may or may not have been commited.
ozzy43:- There are no written records available - so we can't know with certainty who really owned what. Similar to the old 'rub out the witness so there's nobody to testify against you' defense. Ethically hollow.
The witnesses were 'rubbed out' anywhere from a hundred to thousands of years ago -- and not by the current property owners. A more apt analogy would be you know a liquor store was robbed by a black man so you round up the first black man you see and charge him with the crime because you know all black men are criminals.
ozzy43:I'm not trying to start a fight...and what I got was for all intents and purposes a practical rationalization that might just as easily have come from a Bush supporter.
Oh, them's fighting' words...
ozzy43:But that's the point I was trying to make - the perpetrator DOES exist - the perpetrator was not the army, or the settlers, or even the original colonists. It was, for the most part, the American STATE - and that DOES still exist, and still bears the responsibility.
And you say *my* argument is flawed?
The 'state' doesn't exist outside of its members -- the state can't act on its own. Individuals can act in the name of the state, be it the army, settlers or original colonists but they are still individual actions. There is a name for this fallacy but it slips my mind at the moment and I'm much too lazy to look it up.
ozzy43:Yet, prior to an amnesty, genocide should be acknowledged and the State should accept responsibility for it.
To what practical end. I think it's fair to say we are all in agreement that it is impossible to give reparations to the descendants of the Native Americans who were victims of the crimes of our forefathers without making someone suffer for an act they were no part of.
It's not like there is some grand conspiracy to hide what was done to the Native Americans by the 'state' anyway.
The American state also doesn't have a monopoly on crimes against Native Americans either. The French, British and Spaniards (the short list) also participated in these actions. Is the American state responsible for their crimes due to the fact that they occurred on land that is now part of the US?
ozzy43:This is sensible, I think. Yet, prior to an amnesty, genocide should be acknowledged and the State should accept responsibility for it. Absent that, an amnesty would just be empty and self-justifying. If anything, perhaps such an acknowledgment would give our rulers pause before they proclaim with such self-righteous piety their next campaign to 'make the world safe for democracy.'
If we are to believe in individual responsibility, then we cannot blame "the state" for this. We can only blame the specific agents of the state whom at the time conducted this policy.
Stranger: ozzy43:This is sensible, I think. Yet, prior to an amnesty, genocide should be acknowledged and the State should accept responsibility for it. Absent that, an amnesty would just be empty and self-justifying. If anything, perhaps such an acknowledgment would give our rulers pause before they proclaim with such self-righteous piety their next campaign to 'make the world safe for democracy.' If we are to believe in individual responsibility, then we cannot blame "the state" for this. We can only blame the specific agents of the state whom at the time conducted this policy.
If you believe in individual responsibility, you cannot personify the state as a collective anymore than socialists do the market, but have to place relative amounts of responsibility on the different individuals for their different choices.
You contribute to the state by paying taxes and obeying the law. But even if the state is evil, you're complicit in that evil by cooperating with it. Government agents take this a step further. But obviously, a German postal worker is not responsible for the Holocaust to the same degree as Hitler, just because they're "government."
The anarchist categories of "private individuals" and "state" is just as collectivist as the Marxist's proletarist and bourgeoisie. In both cases, they're established to create a unified, faceless enemy. But they're all individuals, even those who work for and run the government.
Stranger:If we are to believe in individual responsibility, then we cannot blame "the state" for this. We can only blame the specific agents of the state whom at the time conducted this policy.
Well, yeah, the agents of the State ARE the State. The State has no existence outside of those individuals who collectively comprise it. So, yeah, that's exactly right. I use 'the State' as shorthand because typing out 'those individuals who comprised the State during the period in question' takes too many keystrokes. Semantics.
Nathyn:If you believe in individual responsibility, you cannot personify the state as a collective anymore than socialists do the market, but have to place relative amounts of responsibility on the different individuals for their different choices.
Semantics. The State is simply shorthand for the individuals comprising it. The market IS a collective, and so is the State, but there is a huge difference here. The market is millions of individuals making their own decisions based on market mechanisms. It's bottom up. The State is top down, and ACTS as a collective in matters of policy. Nobody working for the State can contravene its policy arbitrarily or without consequence. You have disagreement, certainly, but it is in the context of an agreement that all will more or less support whatever decisions have been made above their level - or they will resign. The market features nothing like this. So your analogy is inapt.
Nathyn:You contribute to the state by paying taxes and obeying the law. But even if the state is evil, you're complicit in that evil by cooperating with it. Government agents take this a step further. But obviously, a German postal worker is not responsible for the Holocaust to the same degree as Hitler, just because they're "government."
That's like saying if a mugger points a gun in my face and I give him my cash, I am complicit in that evil. This is nonsense. Spooner is on point:
t is true that the theory of our Constitution is, that all taxes are paid voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily entered into by the people with each other. . . .But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: “Your money or your life.” And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is nonetheless a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectlyable to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these.
Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will, assuming to be your rightful “sovereign”; on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbingyou attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.
The proceedings of those robbers and murderers, who call themselves “the government,” are directly the opposite of those of the single highwayman.
Nathyn:The anarchist categories of "private individuals" and "state" is just as collectivist as the Marxist's proletarist and bourgeoisie. In both cases, they're established to create a unified, faceless enemy. But they're all individuals, even those who work for and run the government.
Top down enforced collective action is the distinction. I understand that this is not easy to grasp, but there it is. Perhaps this will be easier for you to understand if you think of the State like an organized criminal conspiracy, such as the mafia. This is a perfectly apt analogy because everyone working for it has opted to participate in a violent and anti-social entity which is parasitical in nature.
ozzy43: Nathyn:If you believe in individual responsibility, you cannot personify the state as a collective anymore than socialists do the market, but have to place relative amounts of responsibility on the different individuals for their different choices.Semantics. The State is simply shorthand for the individuals comprising it. The market IS a collective, and so is the State, but there is a huge difference here. The market is millions of individuals making their own decisions based on market mechanisms. It's bottom up. The State is top down, and ACTS as a collective in matters of policy. Nobody working for the State can contravene its policy arbitrarily or without consequence. You have disagreement, certainly, but it is in the context of an agreement that all will more or less support whatever decisions have been made above their level - or they will resign. The market features nothing like this. So your analogy is inapt.
For you to say the market is "bottom up," is so absurd because most firms are NOT perfectly competitive and there are a lot of firms that face very little competition. And in general, it is competition which provides the goods that people want at a price which isn't ridiculously above cost. Furthermore, people arbitrarily contravene government policy all the time: through speeding, evading taxes, and so on.Aside from government, though, when can I come over and take what is held by another company, without retaliatory violence?
If you have disagreement over who ought to have what (such as the equitability of certain deals), it matters not which side is in the right, because might makes right. The side with greater assets will gain the upper-hand.You see this right now with the writer's guilt strike. On the one hand, you have a union of writers who are clearly dissatisfied and have clearly been cheated. On the other hand, you have a union of media companies in an industry that is uncompetitive. The writers have gone on strike and, if it turns out that the media companies can withstand their non-involvement for longer than the unions, they can effectively force all of them to come back to work by making the unions bleed out.
Of course, you see this entire situation as "voluntary," simply because you believe in the same convoluted definition of voluntary that has led to the discovery that Libertarianism is only consistent is a person can be made a slave through contract.
ozzy43: Nathyn:You contribute to the state by paying taxes and obeying the law. But even if the state is evil, you're complicit in that evil by cooperating with it. Government agents take this a step further. But obviously, a German postal worker is not responsible for the Holocaust to the same degree as Hitler, just because they're "government."That's like saying if a mugger points a gun in my face and I give him my cash, I am complicit in that evil. This is nonsense.
ozzy43:Spooner is on point:Ideat is true that the theory of our Constitution is, that all taxes are paid voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily entered into by the people with each other. . . .But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: “Your money or your life.” And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is nonetheless a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectlyable to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these.Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will, assuming to be your rightful “sovereign”; on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbingyou attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.The proceedings of those robbers and murderers, who call themselves “the government,” are directly the opposite of those of the single highwayman.
Are you saying that I ought to forsake my own values, for the sake of making myself a slave to your values, which are rather unclear? I think not. I'd rather not be a slave-by-contract.
ozzy43: Nathyn:The anarchist categories of "private individuals" and "state" is just as collectivist as the Marxist's proletarist and bourgeoisie. In both cases, they're established to create a unified, faceless enemy. But they're all individuals, even those who work for and run the government. Top down enforced collective action is the distinction. I understand that this is not easy to grasp, but there it is. Perhaps this will be easier for you to understand if you think of the State like an organized criminal conspiracy, such as the mafia. This is a perfectly apt analogy because everyone working for it has opted to participate in a violent and anti-social entity which is parasitical in nature.
ozzy43:But that's the point I was trying to make - the perpetrator DOES exist - the perpetrator was not the army, or the settlers, or even the original colonists. It was, for the most part, those individuals who comprised the State during the period in question - and that DOES still exist, and still bears the responsibility.
There, fixed it for you.
Anonymous Coward: ozzy43:But that's the point I was trying to make - the perpetrator DOES exist - the perpetrator was not the army, or the settlers, or even the original colonists. It was, for the most part, those individuals who comprised the State during the period in question - and that DOES still exist, and still bears the responsibility.There, fixed it for you.
Thanks so much - but I think I'll stick with 'The State' - if it's good enough for Rothbard, Spencer, Nock, Oppenhiemer, Wolfe, Bovard, et.al., it's good enough for me. ;-)
Nathyn: ozzy43:Semantics. The State is simply shorthand for the individuals comprising it. The market IS a collective, and so is the State, but there is a huge difference here. The market is millions of individuals making their own decisions based on market mechanisms. It's bottom up. The State is top down, and ACTS as a collective in matters of policy. Nobody working for the State can contravene its policy arbitrarily or without consequence. You have disagreement, certainly, but it is in the context of an agreement that all will more or less support whatever decisions have been made above their level - or they will resign. The market features nothing like this. So your analogy is inapt.One person's effect on aggregate supply through their trade is just as meaningless as one person's effect on government through democracy.
ozzy43:Semantics. The State is simply shorthand for the individuals comprising it. The market IS a collective, and so is the State, but there is a huge difference here. The market is millions of individuals making their own decisions based on market mechanisms. It's bottom up. The State is top down, and ACTS as a collective in matters of policy. Nobody working for the State can contravene its policy arbitrarily or without consequence. You have disagreement, certainly, but it is in the context of an agreement that all will more or less support whatever decisions have been made above their level - or they will resign. The market features nothing like this. So your analogy is inapt.
Wrong. What is so difficult to grasp about the notion of collective action? I'll let Spencer, in The Coming Slavery, explain the fundamental difference to you between an agent of the coercive State and an individual operating in a purely voluntary free market:
"Every extension of the regulative policy involves an addition to the regulative agents—a further growth of officialism and an increasing power of the organization formed of officials. Take a pair of scales with many shot in the one and a few in the other. Lift shot after shot out of the loaded scale and put it into the unloaded scale. Presently you will produce a balance; and if you go on, the position of the scales will be reversed. Suppose the beam to be unequally divided, and let the lightly loaded scale be at the end of a very long arm; then the transfer of each shot, producing a much greater effect, will far sooner bring about a change of position. I use the figure to illustrate what results from transferring one individual after another from the regulated mass of the community to the regulating structures. The transfer weakens the one and strengthens the other in a far greater degree than is implied by the relative change of numbers. A comparatively small body of officials, coherent, having common interests, and acting under central authority, has an immense advantage over an incoherent public which has no settled policy, and can be brought to act unitedly only under strong provocation. Hence an organization of officials, once passing a certain stage of growth, becomes less and less resistible; as we see in the bureaucracies of the Continent."
Nathyn: The government is dominated by political leaders, the economy by business leaders. I have no control over both. I can't engage in any kind of fair negotiation with either because society recognizes their claims to power as legitimate. So, if in negotiation, I reject any proposal as unfair even if it is truly unequitable, they can simply ignore me and find someone else to accept the deal. It's my loss.For you to say the market is "bottom up," is so absurd because most firms are NOT perfectly competitive and there are a lot of firms that face very little competition. And in general, it is competition which provides the goods that people want at a price which isn't ridiculously above cost. Furthermore, people arbitrarily contravene government policy all the time: through speeding, evading taxes, and so on.Aside from government, though, when can I come over and take what is held by another company, without retaliatory violence?
/sigh. I had hoped this sort of delusional thinking would not exist at mises.com. Look, this is really simple: our current system, which is what you are implying is a 'free market' so you can take pot shots at it is nothing of the sort. Our society is not capitalist. It is corporatist (what Nock called 'economism). It is Big Biz in collusion with Big Gov at the expense in dollars and liberty - the coins of the realm - of the citizens, who participate because they are trapped, and don't even know any better. When I talk about the market - the free market - I am talking about a theoretical which does not exist. In this nation, we have a heavily regulated, heavily protectionist market, not a free one. So feel free to blast all the holes in our current system you like - I'll help you - but don't try to assert that you have discovered a failure in the free market and then point to ours, because this is just a straw man fallacy.
It's absurd to say that "society recognizes their claims to power as legitimate" - legitimacy has NOTHING to do with it, and society barely anything. The reason such practices take place is because illegal government actions which favor the corporations which can most readily fund the campaigns of the politicians who 'help' them. None of this is 'legitimate' under a Republican form of government. So we don't have a Republic, nor do we have a free market. We have a democracy verging on a dictatorship at the present time, and an at-bext 'mixed' corporatist economy.
I'm so tired of this mindless, bogus straw man argument. It's really discouraging to see it repeated here.
Nathyn: If you have disagreement over who ought to have what (such as the equitability of certain deals), it matters not which side is in the right, because might makes right. The side with greater assets will gain the upper-hand.You see this right now with the writer's guilt strike. On the one hand, you have a union of writers who are clearly dissatisfied and have clearly been cheated. On the other hand, you have a union of media companies in an industry that is uncompetitive. The writers have gone on strike and, if it turns out that the media companies can withstand their non-involvement for longer than the unions, they can effectively force all of them to come back to work by making the unions bleed out. Of course, you see this entire situation as "voluntary," simply because you believe in the same convoluted definition of voluntary that has led to the discovery that Libertarianism is only consistent is a person can be made a slave through contract.
So now you are reduced to making specific assertions about what I 'see' and what I don't see? You don't know jack about my philosophy - it's laughably presumptious of you to assert you know what's going on in my brain. I would speculate that you are used to winding out certain arguments over and over again, and so now you have decided that I fit into some template and you're using that argument. Ain't gonna work. You have demonstrated pretty compellingly that you have never exposed yourself to any of the thinkers that inform my philosophy, so your arguments are just not on the mark.
Nathyn: ozzy43: Nathyn:You contribute to the state by paying taxes and obeying the law. But even if the state is evil, you're complicit in that evil by cooperating with it. Government agents take this a step further. But obviously, a German postal worker is not responsible for the Holocaust to the same degree as Hitler, just because they're "government."That's like saying if a mugger points a gun in my face and I give him my cash, I am complicit in that evil. This is nonsense.Not at all. It's more like a mugger robbing an old lady and you simply watching, doing nothing.
Wrong again. Reread your statement 3 lines up. You said I contribute to the state in taxes, state is evil, then I am complicit. There are only 2 parties here. Me and the State. Me and the mugger. You are entitled to your own opinions - you are NOT entitled to your own facts. My analogy holds - yours does not.
Nathyn:For some reason, you feel some entitlement for people to protect your rights -- I ought to sacrifice my own well-being by supporting your economic policies and your property rights. That is, I am obligated to protect your property. Why? I don't care about your property! It's yours, not mine! Worry about it yourself!
Huh? Where did I assert that I feel entitled to protection from other people? Where did I assert that you should sacrifice your well being? Where did I assert any of this? You feeling OK dude? Talk about outta left field...
Nathyn:But when it comes to protecting others' rights -- the countless rights which are not based upon property or may be infringed upon through the religious worship of property -- you see no such obligation.I reject your claim and, as such, I continue to support the government.
I see - so by making up a bunch of stuff I never said, and simply saying I said it (and even calling it a CLAIM LOL!), you are now rejecting this phantom reality. That you made up and assigned falsely to me. That's a neat trick.
Hopefully, I didn't screw up the quoting too badly...
But, as you yourself acknowledged, the state IS the agents that made up the state. Given that the agents who made up the state at that time are dead, there is no one alive who was responsible. The continuity of the state is merely a convenient fiction, as the state itself is. You have no right to force me out of my home for a crime committed by dead men against dead men. They have nothing to do with me. The fact that I occupy the ground on which unfortunate events happened does not obligate me to make up for those unfortunate events.
Nathyn: most firms are NOT perfectly competitive and there are a lot of firms that face very little competition.. I
most firms are NOT perfectly competitive and there are a lot of firms that face very little competition.. I
if you can suss out these uncompetitive firms still in existence, then wall st has a corner office and a car-bay with your name on it. warren buffett is proof it is possible. better still, cough up a few names that we may load up our portfolios, and sit back to enjoy these abnormal profits.
Nathyn: I'd rather not be a slave-by-contract.
I'd rather not be a slave-by-contract.
there's an internal contradiction here! contracts are only binding for legitimate activities. anyway it's insulting to real slaves (check out the eastern europeans who are sold unwittingly into italian prostitution rackets). pop terminology doesn't further your arguments.
JCFolsom:But, as you yourself acknowledged, the state IS the agents that made up the state. Given that the agents who made up the state at that time are dead, there is no one alive who was responsible. The continuity of the state is merely a convenient fiction, as the state itself is. You have no right to force me out of my home for a crime committed by dead men against dead men. They have nothing to do with me. The fact that I occupy the ground on which unfortunate events happened does not obligate me to make up for those unfortunate events.
JC, in regard to the above, I see what you are saying, and I sort of agree with much of it, but I'm having a hard time buying it - this is just too convenient. Let's use the analogy I made in my not-post: State as organized criminal conspiracy, or mafia. When a new don takes over the reins of the existing organization, he continues the criminal activities seamlessly. The numbers racket goes on, the prostitution, the drug smuggling, whatever. New criminal activities may be initiated, and some old ones modified or stopped, but there is a continuation, and that benefits the crime family. This can go on for generations. Now, is a member of the family now criminally liable for, say, a bank robbery committed years before his time? Well, the robbery benfited the organization, perhaps allowing it to fund its drug smuggling operation, which in turn enables it to keep its numbers racket going. So the current mafioso benefits from the illegal actions of the past because he inherits the funds and is in a position to perpetuate the ongoing illegal activity without much effort.
So while the current don is not criminally liable for that robbery, because he and the family benefit from the crime and it was used to perpetuate further criminal activity, which may not have existed absent earlier crimes, it seems to me there must be some moral responsibility here.
As I said before, I don't have a good answer to all of this, but the situation where a State can inflict all sorts of violence upon people, up to and including genocide, and then escape any justice for it simply by normal personnel turnover, seems like a situation which is going to incentivize the ongoing visitation of violence and force against people, and an ethical system that cannot offer any hope of justice for such seems to be a limited ethical system.
And the idea that individuals from group B can justifiably take all the land that once belonged to group A (and kill most of those in group A as a by product) by force, but that there is no remedy for this under an ethical system, seems, again, to expose a fairly severe shortcoming in that ethical system.
Finally, we need to address this issue that has been raised several times recently: that the State is no more than a bunch of individuals. While that is true on one level, there is more to it, because that definition implies a randomness and incoherence that doesn't exist in the case of the State. Rothbard, Nock, Oppenheimer, Spencer - all saw the State as a specific type of entity (and used The State as I use it) - comprised wholly of individuals, to be sure, but addressable as a collective entity with certain specific characteristics, operational dynamics, etc. So in this sense, the State is much more than just a collection of individuals - it is a collection of individuals brought together for a specific purpose, operating toward a specific agenda, in coordination with each other. As Spencer put it:
"A comparatively small body of officials, coherent, having common interests, and acting under central authority, has an immense advantage over an incoherent public which has no settled policy, and can be brought to act unitedly only under strong provocation"
The quickest way to understand this is, I think, Rothbard's 'The Anatomy of the State', but I would strongly urge those who have not done to to also read Spencer's 'Man vs The State' and Nock's 'Our Enemy the State.'
ozzy43: Nathyn: ozzy43:Semantics. The State is simply shorthand for the individuals comprising it. The market IS a collective, and so is the State, but there is a huge difference here. The market is millions of individuals making their own decisions based on market mechanisms. It's bottom up. The State is top down, and ACTS as a collective in matters of policy. Nobody working for the State can contravene its policy arbitrarily or without consequence. You have disagreement, certainly, but it is in the context of an agreement that all will more or less support whatever decisions have been made above their level - or they will resign. The market features nothing like this. So your analogy is inapt.One person's effect on aggregate supply through their trade is just as meaningless as one person's effect on government through democracy.Wrong. What is so difficult to grasp about the notion of collective action? I'll let Spencer, in The Coming Slavery, explain the fundamental difference to you between an agent of the coercive State and an individual operating in a purely voluntary free market:"Every extension of the regulative policy involves an addition to the regulative agents—a further growth of officialism and an increasing power of the organization formed of officials. Take a pair of scales with many shot in the one and a few in the other. Lift shot after shot out of the loaded scale and put it into the unloaded scale. Presently you will produce a balance; and if you go on, the position of the scales will be reversed. Suppose the beam to be unequally divided, and let the lightly loaded scale be at the end of a very long arm; then the transfer of each shot, producing a much greater effect, will far sooner bring about a change of position. I use the figure to illustrate what results from transferring one individual after another from the regulated mass of the community to the regulating structures. The transfer weakens the one and strengthens the other in a far greater degree than is implied by the relative change of numbers. A comparatively small body of officials, coherent, having common interests, and acting under central authority, has an immense advantage over an incoherent public which has no settled policy, and can be brought to act unitedly only under strong provocation. Hence an organization of officials, once passing a certain stage of growth, becomes less and less resistible; as we see in the bureaucracies of the Continent."
It's a mistake to place the state outside of the market. The government's existence depends on market forces.
Markets precede governments, because the trade of goods precedes the regulation of trade.
If governments could not be established under markets, then government would never exist today. Since they do exist today, there must be some reason.
And they only continue to exist because of market forces. If every individual in the market today suddenly said, "We don't want government," and engaged in civil disobedience or violence, the government would fall apart. The government, too, is restrained in how much debt it can incur. Because if it incurs debt that it clearly can't pay off and it has to default, the debtor is liable to go to war or at least demand some kind of appeasement.
This is why non-corrupt democratic regimes tend to be more stable than corrupt, authoritarian regimes.
So, there is no difference between collective action in the market or government. Either way, you're forced to be subject to the values and policies of others.
The only reason the government is so powerful is because of it is the least competitive economic entity within any given region. Since not all economic entities are competitive, there is a very thin line between large, monopolistic businesses and governments.
ozzy43: Nathyn: The government is dominated by political leaders, the economy by business leaders. I have no control over both. I can't engage in any kind of fair negotiation with either because society recognizes their claims to power as legitimate. So, if in negotiation, I reject any proposal as unfair even if it is truly unequitable, they can simply ignore me and find someone else to accept the deal. It's my loss.For you to say the market is "bottom up," is so absurd because most firms are NOT perfectly competitive and there are a lot of firms that face very little competition. And in general, it is competition which provides the goods that people want at a price which isn't ridiculously above cost. Furthermore, people arbitrarily contravene government policy all the time: through speeding, evading taxes, and so on.Aside from government, though, when can I come over and take what is held by another company, without retaliatory violence?/sigh. I had hoped this sort of delusional thinking would not exist at mises.com. Look, this is really simple: our current system, which is what you are implying is a 'free market' so you can take pot shots at it is nothing of the sort. Our society is not capitalist. It is corporatist (what Nock called 'economism). It is Big Biz in collusion with Big Gov at the expense in dollars and liberty - the coins of the realm - of the citizens, who participate because they are trapped, and don't even know any better. When I talk about the market - the free market - I am talking about a theoretical which does not exist. In this nation, we have a heavily regulated, heavily protectionist market, not a free one. So feel free to blast all the holes in our current system you like - I'll help you - but don't try to assert that you have discovered a failure in the free market and then point to ours, because this is just a straw man fallacy. It's absurd to say that "society recognizes their claims to power as legitimate" - legitimacy has NOTHING to do with it, and society barely anything. The reason such practices take place is because illegal government actions which favor the corporations which can most readily fund the campaigns of the politicians who 'help' them. None of this is 'legitimate' under a Republican form of government. So we don't have a Republic, nor do we have a free market. We have a democracy verging on a dictatorship at the present time, and an at-bext 'mixed' corporatist economy. I'm so tired of this mindless, bogus straw man argument. It's really discouraging to see it repeated here.
So, is the "free market" a fiction like "communism" that hasn't existed and never will exist, anywhere?
Humans all act in their own subjective interest -- basics of praxeology. This is why we have what you call "economism."
In order to have your free market, you have to some cause most people in the world to share your own subjective interest of having a free market.
ozzy43: Nathyn: If you have disagreement over who ought to have what (such as the equitability of certain deals), it matters not which side is in the right, because might makes right. The side with greater assets will gain the upper-hand.You see this right now with the writer's guilt strike. On the one hand, you have a union of writers who are clearly dissatisfied and have clearly been cheated. On the other hand, you have a union of media companies in an industry that is uncompetitive. The writers have gone on strike and, if it turns out that the media companies can withstand their non-involvement for longer than the unions, they can effectively force all of them to come back to work by making the unions bleed out. Of course, you see this entire situation as "voluntary," simply because you believe in the same convoluted definition of voluntary that has led to the discovery that Libertarianism is only consistent is a person can be made a slave through contract.So now you are reduced to making specific assertions about what I 'see' and what I don't see? You don't know jack about my philosophy - it's laughably presumptious of you to assert you know what's going on in my brain. I would speculate that you are used to winding out certain arguments over and over again, and so now you have decided that I fit into some template and you're using that argument. Ain't gonna work. You have demonstrated pretty compellingly that you have never exposed yourself to any of the thinkers that inform my philosophy, so your arguments are just not on the mark.
It's simply a manner of speaking.
"You see," doesn't literally mean "this is your opinion."
Don't nitpick if you get my general meaning. Many words have multiple meanings but it's very easy to get the general meaning. For instance, if I say, "Are my statements above clear?" you know I'm not asking if they're transparent.
ozzy43: Nathyn: ozzy43: Nathyn:You contribute to the state by paying taxes and obeying the law. But even if the state is evil, you're complicit in that evil by cooperating with it. Government agents take this a step further. But obviously, a German postal worker is not responsible for the Holocaust to the same degree as Hitler, just because they're "government."That's like saying if a mugger points a gun in my face and I give him my cash, I am complicit in that evil. This is nonsense.Not at all. It's more like a mugger robbing an old lady and you simply watching, doing nothing.Wrong again. Reread your statement 3 lines up. You said I contribute to the state in taxes, state is evil, then I am complicit. There are only 2 parties here. Me and the State. Me and the mugger. You are entitled to your own opinions - you are NOT entitled to your own facts. My analogy holds - yours does not.
No, there isn't. There's the rest of America, too, remember. By paying taxes, you contribute to your own theft and theirs, just as much as they contribute to your theft by paying taxes.
Plus, the government offers services which many people believe are justifiable on philosophical ethical grounds. This is far from the mafia, which only offers protection tongue-in-cheek, which nobody actually takes seriously.
Not to mention, you have means of recouse if you feel you've been wronged, you have certain rights, etc, etc.. The analogy is so wildly off.
ozzy43: Nathyn:For some reason, you feel some entitlement for people to protect your rights -- I ought to sacrifice my own well-being by supporting your economic policies and your property rights. That is, I am obligated to protect your property. Why? I don't care about your property! It's yours, not mine! Worry about it yourself!Huh? Where did I assert that I feel entitled to protection from other people? Where did I assert that you should sacrifice your well being? Where did I assert any of this? You feeling OK dude? Talk about outta left field...
By opposing my right to support the government.
.../yawn...