GilesStratton:As for illigetimate...I don't think it can be proven.
Given the nature of the state and the circumstances requisite for it's very existence, why not assert 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?
Hm, I at least did not assume the state was legitimate, quite the contrary. If we assume it's illegitimate, some questions are raised, regardless of where they come from. My main concerns are:
And consolidating a good argument is never a bad thing, especially given things aren't exactly accurate in this matter.
I want to see why Giles thinks the illegitimacy of the state can't be proven (As though it needs to be. Rather, it is the alleged legitimacy of the state that needs to be proven.) in spite of the reality of the requisite circumstances of its very existence. Giles, you around buddy?
GilesStratton: you can say the state is illegitimate, you just can't prove it.
Legitimacy stems from justice, a just government derives its authority from the consent of the governed...
What cannot be proven is that anyone consents to the government, so you cannot prove it is just, therefore it is illegitimate....
Natural Law proves government's illegitimacy...
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Harry Felker:Natural Law proves government's illegitimacy...
There are a few theists on this site who do not believe in natural law, which for me is a new one.
liberty student: Harry Felker:Natural Law proves government's illegitimacy... There are a few theists on this site who do not believe in natural law, which for me is a new one.
yes...the whole thou shalt not murder or steal is quite confusing for them.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Well that does not gell too well with anarchism, because man made law is a mechanation of a state, correct?
hashem: I want to see why Giles thinks the illegitimacy of the state can't be proven (As though it needs to be. Rather, it is the alleged legitimacy of the state that needs to be proven.) in spite of the reality of the requisite circumstances of its very existence. Giles, you around buddy?
Yes, I think that's a pretty convincing argument, and if I were to argue against the state, that's the way I'd do it.
Since you were asking for authors of interest, and given you're interested in this line of thought, I suggest you read Anthony de Jasay's book Before Resorting to Politics, I've got it here but not done more than flicked through it. Essentially, he argues that the since one cannot compare utility, a lot of the justification for statist intervention does not hold water.
liberty student:There are a few theists on this site who do not believe in natural law, which for me is a new one.
Perhaps it's only new because you don't understand the differences between natural law philosophy and the divine command theory of ethics. Now, granted, some Christians argue for a natural law theory of ethics, such as Feser (Grisez, Finnis and Murphy of the LvMI, I believe), and I'd be interested to read his arguments in favour of natural law (I plan on reading his The Last Superstition soon). But that by no means implies that all Christians must be in favour of a natural law ethics.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton: Harry Felker:Natural Law proves government's illegitimacy... Not necessarily, many natural law philosophers have been for the state (Feser comes to mind). This assumes you can prove natural law.
Harry Felker:I have an answer for them, they are wrong, I understand where they are coming from, (a government that adheres to natural law in legislation and enforcement) but it is the policy of failure, as: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." G. Washington
But, that's not their argument.
Harry Felker:I can do that, care to play Giles, I will create a separate discussion just for this, but I want you to agree to challenge me on this....
Go ahead. Last time I had a one on one debate on these boards the other guy left.
GilesStratton:But, that's not their argument.
Care to elaborate? Or will I have to read countless books to know their point?
Harry Felker: GilesStratton:But, that's not their argument. Or will I have to read countless books to know their point?
Or will I have to read countless books to know their point?
Nope but I may have to in order to elaborate.
GilesStratton: Harry Felker: GilesStratton:But, that's not their argument. Or will I have to read countless books to know their point? Nope but I may have to in order to elaborate.
OK.... well I can wait.. In the meantime Here
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu: 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?
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?
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?
That question has nothing to do with government. That is a question of law.
Governments are illegitimate because they do not have consent of the governed. Claiming they have consent because someone has not moved is meaningless. My rebuttal to that is always, "why should I have to move? Shouldn't the government have to stop being tyrranical instead?"
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
If you "prove" something is illegitimate, the proof is only valid relative to a given ethical system of axioms.
"Governments are illegitimate because they do not have consent of the governed." - And people are illegitimate because they frequently violate property rights. Voters get the politicians they deserve.
Perhaps when people stop acting illegitimately, we won't need a government. In an anarcho-capitalist society, as existed in prehistoric times, security organizations naturally evolved into the governments we see today. From an evolutionary perspective, the governments are legitimate.
baxter:If you "prove" something is illegitimate, the proof is only valid relative to a given ethical system of axioms.
You are just arguing there is no truth. Go away.
No. What he said is true instead.
scineram: No. What he said is true instead.
"And people are illegitimate because they frequently violate property rights." makes no sense, so no, it is not true.
As to "voters get the government they deserve", sure that is true for the voters that got the person they voted for.
Spideynw:As to "voters get the government they deserve", sure that is true for the voters that got the person they voted for.
or if they voted at all
or if they are eligible to vote
>You are just arguing there is no truth.
No, I believe in physical reality and empirically verifiable, general, physical laws. I believe in mathematical truths relative to particular mathematical axioms; such truths are often useful in practice. I also belive in social laws which are based on masses of real, flawed people and not some cabal of moral logicians. It is a fact that societies oscillate endlessly around some point between free market and totalitarianism. Anarcho-capitalist societies and the like are unstable and the proof is that they don't exist. Governments are a natural result of social laws and the proof is that they spring into being almost everywhere. Complaining about how reality is "illegitimate" and is in violation of your particular, subjective ethical system is not very productive, honestly. Don't expect this part of reality to change for a very long time. Even if USA collapses, USSA or something else will replace it.
>or if they voted at all
Not voting is certainly a valid choice.
>or if they are eligible to vote
A small percentage of people in USA can't vote. Unfortunately, giving voting rights to children, felons, invalids, and immigrants is not sufficient for establishing a anarchic utopia on Earth.
Anarcho-capitalist societies and the like are unstable and the proof is that they don't exist.
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."
FYI it's best not to be too dogmatic. Most ethical systems collapse utterly when applied to different kinds of beings: animals, plants, children, mentally handicapped people, etc.
For example, keeping your infant trapped in a crib is illegal incarceration unless the infant showed consent.
The credit card transaction bounced and the flyer does not have a right to be aboard the airplane. It is acceptable to forcefully eject him.
Animals are property and can be slain and eaten. Likewise, one is free to damage their property for their own amusement.
Bodily secretions are my property and I am free to sell them. Children are a kind of bodily secretion.
The glint in the milk man's eye is a potential human being; refusing to mate with him is equivalent to murder.
etc.
IMHO adopting any ethics beyond loose rules of thumb is doomed to logical inconsistency.
FYI it's best not to be too dogmatic.
>In reality there's never been a truly voluntary society
Not true, governments did not exist for many tens of thousands of years. Since about 10,000 years ago, they have a life of their own now and cannot be extinguished from any spot for long. Anarcho-capitalism is unstable in the same way that absence of living things in a given area is an unstable situation.
Adults want a government and an invisible sky daddy for the same reason that children want parents and Santa Claus. I don't see this changing any time soon.
Personally I agree with Ludwig von Mises and want a government, although a much less expensive one.
baxter:"Governments are illegitimate because they do not have consent of the governed." - And people are illegitimate because they frequently violate property rights.
Wrong. Governments are illegitimate because they NECESSARILY violtate rights. People do not necessarily violate rights.
baxter: FYI it's best not to be too dogmatic. Most ethical systems collapse utterly when applied to different kinds of beings: animals, plants, children, mentally handicapped people, etc. For example, keeping your infant trapped in a crib is illegal incarceration unless the infant showed consent. The credit card transaction bounced and the flyer does not have a right to be aboard the airplane. It is acceptable to forcefully eject him. Animals are property and can be slain and eaten. Likewise, one is free to damage their property for their own amusement. Bodily secretions are my property and I am free to sell them. Children are a kind of bodily secretion. The glint in the milk man's eye is a potential human being; refusing to mate with him is equivalent to murder. etc. IMHO adopting any ethics beyond loose rules of thumb is doomed to logical inconsistency.
I am sorry but this needs to be said, there is something very wrong with you
baxter:Adults want a government and an invisible sky daddy
Speak for yourself....
baxter:Personally I agree with Ludwig von Mises and want a government, although a much less expensive one.
This is logically inconsistent, because despite how you want that government to be, having it hands the expression of such to other's hands....
Spideynw: Governments are illegitimate because they do not have consent of the governed. Claiming they have consent because someone has not moved is meaningless. My rebuttal to that is always, "why should I have to move? Shouldn't the government have to stop being tyrranical instead?"
Do property owners need to have the consent of those trespassing their property? Because the "you're free to go away" statist argument implies the existence of some sort of property rights. The hardest point to prove seems to be whether the government property rights, which also requires a proof that agression continues past the original inhabitants of that land (i.e. illegitimacy goes away after they die, like a statute of limitations).
Now don't get me wrong, I do agree that property rights do not give any right to steal from or imprison those trespassing on your property. Or they can only do so to the extent that trespassers do not wish to leave, but once they do choose to leave and they have the means to, any coercion should cease.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu: Do property owners need to have the consent of those trespassing their property? Because the "you're free to go away" statist argument implies the existence of some sort of property rights. The hardest point to prove seems to be whether the government property rights, which also requires a proof that agression continues past the original inhabitants of that land (i.e. illegitimacy goes away after they die, like a statute of limitations). Now don't get me wrong, I do agree that property rights do not give any right to steal from or imprison those trespassing on your property. Or they can only do so to the extent that trespassers do not wish to leave, but once they do choose to leave and they have the means to, any coercion should cease.
Roderick T. Long: Now, one objection that’s sometimes raised isn’t so much an objection to anarchism as an objection to the moral argument for anarchism: well, look, it’s not really a coercive monopoly. It’s not as though people haven’t consented to this because there’s a certain sense in which people have consented to the existing system – by living within the borders of a particular territory, by accepting the benefits the government offers, and so forth, they have, in effect, consented. Just as if you walk into a restaurant and sit down and say, “I’ll have a steak,” you don’t have to explicitly mention that you are agreeing to pay for it; it’s just sort of understood. By sitting down in the restaurant and asking for the steak, you are agreeing to pay for it. Likewise, the argument goes, if you sit down in the territory of this given state, and you accept benefits of police protection or something, then you’ve implicitly agreed to abide by its requirements. Now, notice that even if this argument works, it doesn’t settle the pragmatic question of whether this is the best working system. But I think there is something dubious about this argument. It’s certainly true that if I go onto someone else’s property, then it seems like there’s an expectation that as long as I’m on their property I have to do as they say. I have to follow their rules. If I don’t want to follow their rules, then I’ve got to leave. So, I invite you over to my house, and when you come in I say, “You have to wear the funny hat.” And you say, “What’s this?” And I say, “Well, that’s the way it works in my house. Everyone has to wear the funny hat. Those are my rules.” Well, you can’t say, “I won’t wear the hat but I’m staying anyway.” These are my rules – they may be dumb rules, but I can do it. Now suppose that you’re at home having dinner, and I’m your next-door-neighbor, and I come and knock on your door. You open the door, and I come in and I say, “You have to wear the funny hat.” And you say, “Why is this?” And I say, “Well, you moved in next door to me, didn’t you? By doing that, you sort of agreed.” And you say, “Well, wait a second! When did I agree to this?” I think that the person who makes this argument is already assuming that the government has some legitimate jurisdiction over this territory. And then they say, well, now, anyone who is in the territory is therefore agreeing to the prevailing rules. But they’re assuming the very thing they’re trying to prove – namely that this jurisdiction over the territory is legitimate. If it’s not, then the government is just one more group of people living in this broad general geographical territory. But I’ve got my property, and exactly what their arrangements are I don’t know, but here I am in my property and they don’t own it – at least they haven’t given me any argument that they do – and so, the fact that I am living in “this country” means I am living in a certain geographical region that they have certain pretensions over – but the question is whether those pretensions are legitimate. You can’t assume it as a means to proving it.
Now, one objection that’s sometimes raised isn’t so much an objection to anarchism as an objection to the moral argument for anarchism: well, look, it’s not really a coercive monopoly. It’s not as though people haven’t consented to this because there’s a certain sense in which people have consented to the existing system – by living within the borders of a particular territory, by accepting the benefits the government offers, and so forth, they have, in effect, consented. Just as if you walk into a restaurant and sit down and say, “I’ll have a steak,” you don’t have to explicitly mention that you are agreeing to pay for it; it’s just sort of understood. By sitting down in the restaurant and asking for the steak, you are agreeing to pay for it. Likewise, the argument goes, if you sit down in the territory of this given state, and you accept benefits of police protection or something, then you’ve implicitly agreed to abide by its requirements. Now, notice that even if this argument works, it doesn’t settle the pragmatic question of whether this is the best working system.
But I think there is something dubious about this argument. It’s certainly true that if I go onto someone else’s property, then it seems like there’s an expectation that as long as I’m on their property I have to do as they say. I have to follow their rules. If I don’t want to follow their rules, then I’ve got to leave. So, I invite you over to my house, and when you come in I say, “You have to wear the funny hat.” And you say, “What’s this?” And I say, “Well, that’s the way it works in my house. Everyone has to wear the funny hat. Those are my rules.” Well, you can’t say, “I won’t wear the hat but I’m staying anyway.” These are my rules – they may be dumb rules, but I can do it.
Now suppose that you’re at home having dinner, and I’m your next-door-neighbor, and I come and knock on your door. You open the door, and I come in and I say, “You have to wear the funny hat.” And you say, “Why is this?” And I say, “Well, you moved in next door to me, didn’t you? By doing that, you sort of agreed.” And you say, “Well, wait a second! When did I agree to this?”
I think that the person who makes this argument is already assuming that the government has some legitimate jurisdiction over this territory. And then they say, well, now, anyone who is in the territory is therefore agreeing to the prevailing rules. But they’re assuming the very thing they’re trying to prove – namely that this jurisdiction over the territory is legitimate. If it’s not, then the government is just one more group of people living in this broad general geographical territory. But I’ve got my property, and exactly what their arrangements are I don’t know, but here I am in my property and they don’t own it – at least they haven’t given me any argument that they do – and so, the fact that I am living in “this country” means I am living in a certain geographical region that they have certain pretensions over – but the question is whether those pretensions are legitimate. You can’t assume it as a means to proving it.
Harry Felker: Roderick T. Long: I think that the person who makes this argument is already assuming that the government has some legitimate jurisdiction over this territory. And then they say, well, now, anyone who is in the territory is therefore agreeing to the prevailing rules. But they’re assuming the very thing they’re trying to prove – namely that this jurisdiction over the territory is legitimate. If it’s not, then the government is just one more group of people living in this broad general geographical territory. But I’ve got my property, and exactly what their arrangements are I don’t know, but here I am in my property and they don’t own it – at least they haven’t given me any argument that they do – and so, the fact that I am living in “this country” means I am living in a certain geographical region that they have certain pretensions over – but the question is whether those pretensions are legitimate. You can’t assume it as a means to proving it.
Roderick T. Long: I think that the person who makes this argument is already assuming that the government has some legitimate jurisdiction over this territory. And then they say, well, now, anyone who is in the territory is therefore agreeing to the prevailing rules. But they’re assuming the very thing they’re trying to prove – namely that this jurisdiction over the territory is legitimate. If it’s not, then the government is just one more group of people living in this broad general geographical territory. But I’ve got my property, and exactly what their arrangements are I don’t know, but here I am in my property and they don’t own it – at least they haven’t given me any argument that they do – and so, the fact that I am living in “this country” means I am living in a certain geographical region that they have certain pretensions over – but the question is whether those pretensions are legitimate. You can’t assume it as a means to proving it.
I fully agree with this, and it does make things a bit more clear. However, my argument is a bit different. I do agree that the original inhabitants, who have been subjected to such coercion and false pretensions, would have had the right to deny obeying these rules. But, do we have this (moral) right now?
This isn't all clear to me, and I have a few unanswered questions. Do we inherit the right to recover our ancestors' lost properties? Do history and records provide such a good proof of such inheritance? And, most important, isn't all property in a state somewhat tainted by being passed between innocent and government-supporting people alike? It seems to me anybody could claim my property because at some point one of my ancestors bought it from the state, which in turn stole it from legitimate owners.
Thanks so far.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:This isn't all clear to me, and I have a few unanswered questions. Do we inherit the right to recover our ancestors' lost properties? Do history and records provide such a good proof of such inheritance? And, most important, isn't all property in a state somewhat tainted by being passed between innocent and government-supporting people alike? It seems to me anybody could claim my property because at some point one of my ancestors bought it from the state, which in turn stole it from legitimate owners.
If you bought your property, then you are the legitimate owner unless someone can prove that it was stolen from them.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu: Do we inherit the right to recover our ancestors' lost properties?
sure, if your ancestors bequethed their belongings (including their stolen belongings) then the claims of the thief or the thiefs family or acquaintances are moot against this.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:Do history and records provide such a good proof of such inheritance?
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:sn't all property in a state somewhat tainted by being passed between innocent and government-supporting people alike?
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:It seems to me anybody could claim my property because at some point one of my ancestors bought it from the state, which in turn stole it from legitimate owners.
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
>I am sorry but this needs to be said, there is something very wrong with you
Let's discuss the issue at hand and not resort to ad hominem remarks.
>>Personally I agree with Ludwig von Mises and want a government, although a much less expensive one.>This is logically inconsistent, because gespite how you want that government to be, having it hands the expression of such to other's hands....
Really? What other beliefs of Mises do you find "logically inconsistent".
If this is the case, everyone save for about 1 million people better pack their bags, because they are all trespassing...
There is a point of ridiculousness, and your bold hits right on it, if the state was illegitimate to begin with it does not matter who supports the state or not?
I do not think there is any historical record that is reliable enough to make any present day claims on land from before 1850, so I think you are pretty safe....
If we are discussing the Native Americans, my people did not claim any ownership of said property anyway, they did not believe they individually owned property (Land) because they understood the Earth to be alive, and therefore had self ownership.... (Basic Translation)
baxter:Let's discuss the issue at hand
Using impossible trap situations is exactly how ethics is blurry, not in universal application....
baxter:Really? What other beliefs of Mises do you find "logically inconsistent".
Just that one....
And it is illogical to think that government, whose sole purpose is to increase in power will ever become "less expensive"
>And it is illogical to think that government, whose sole purpose is to increase in power will ever become "less expensive"
It is not "illogical" and in fact it actually occurs. I'm curious what axioms you are using to prove that everything in sight is "illogical".
Governments can shrink due to the intrusion of economic reality and with periodic collapses like with USSR. I predict that either California and/or the USA will collapse soon. Government can also become less expensive through the action of voters, which is what I seek when I vote.
It is not "illogical" to think that voters can organize such a change. Are you saying that there are municipalities within USA where no such change has a occured? Does reality violate your "logic" in this case, too?
>Using impossible trap situations is exactly how ethics is blurry, not in universal application....
I can agree with that. Kind of like how non-relativistic mechanics fails when speeds near the speed of light are under consideration. But for most purposes, it's fine.
One difference is that physics is a property of the universe, whereas an ethics are rather arbitrary - an ethical system that says commiting murder is good is certainly possible to hold. I guess the only real benchmark for ethics are whether they are in accordance with evolution. People with "bad" ethical systems tend to die out.
If you can see that keeping an infant in a crib is not illegal incarceration, then I assume you perceive the difference between different kinds of beings (infants and adults). Why can you not also admit governments as another class of being? One which can legitimately violate your property rights (e.g. taxation), just as you might violate an infant's rights to roam around freely? At least consider the possibility that it's not an illogical thought. Just as you are more than the sum of a few trillion cells, a government is not just the sum of its employees; it has a monopoly on acts of violence which is quite an extraordinary ability.
Does the universe violate your property rights because you grow old and die? Should you sue the universe?