History

Re: The Formation of Government

Knight_of_BAAWA — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 03:23:25 GMT

Stranger:
I don't know what you mean by legitimacy anymore. Obviously the state is legitimate, since many people turn to it to solve their problems and consider it to be necessary for a properly functioning society.

The two can be separated, though. One can use the services (because they are foisted upon us) without considering the monopolistic provision thereof to be necessary, or even the service itself to be that necessary.

Re: The Formation of Government

Brainpolice — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 03:21:37 GMT

There is a difference between agreeing with the concept of the government and that it is necessary and agreeing to every single thing that the government does. Noone subject to the government consents to the actions of the government as such, they only ideologically believe in its legitimacy and necessity. Ideological belief and consent are not necessarily the same thing. Everyone is subject to and effected by the government regaurdless of consent in the context of a particular case or situation. People are essentially born into political systems, it's not something they ever had a true chance to "choose" to begin with.

Re: The Formation of Government

scineram — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 02:04:02 GMT

If they think it is legitimate and necessary and a positive good, then they quite consent to it.

Re: The Formation of Government

Brainpolice — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:35:23 GMT

Stranger:

Brainpolice:
I'm simply pointing out that the logical implication of what you're saying is, in fact, state legitimacy.

I don't know what you mean by legitimacy anymore. Obviously the state is legitimate, since many people turn to it to solve their problems and consider it to be necessary for a properly functioning society. That means they they regard the state as legitimate. I don't know what this has to do with libertarian theory however.

I think we live in two completely different worlds. In my world, libertarianism rejects state legitimacy. Apparently in your world it doesn't.

Yes, most people regaurd the state as such to be legitimate and necessary - does this mean that it actually is? Of course not, nor does it mean that they necessarily actually consent to the state in any consistant sense. If the majority thought that rape and murder are moral, would it actually be moral? Not in my book.

I don't know what the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the state DOESN'T have to do with libertarianism. It's a fundamental question of political philosophy.

Re: The Formation of Government

Juan — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:44:36 GMT

Stranger:
I don't know what you mean by legitimacy anymore. Obviously the state is legitimate,

Legitimate means lawful. If we're talking about 'positive' law then the state is legitimate - hell, they get to dictate what positive law is. But if we're looking at things from a libertarian point of view and taking into account individual rights then the state is clearly not legitimate.

I don't know what this has to do with libertarian theory however.

You certainly don't.

Re: The Formation of Government

Juan — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:43:05 GMT

I don't know what you point is JonBostwick. Would you mind explaining it so that half-retarded people like me can understanding it ?

I think we agreed that the state exists thanks to force and fraud, but you say that there's something else as well ? What's that "something else" ?

Re: The Formation of Government

Stranger — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:50:40 GMT

Brainpolice:
I'm simply pointing out that the logical implication of what you're saying is, in fact, state legitimacy.

I don't know what you mean by legitimacy anymore. Obviously the state is legitimate, since many people turn to it to solve their problems and consider it to be necessary for a properly functioning society. That means they they regard the state as legitimate. I don't know what this has to do with libertarian theory however.

Re: The Formation of Government

Bostwick — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:48:06 GMT

Brainpolice:
You're essentially construeing taxation as voluntary

Are these equivalent statement?

I want taxation to be involuntary.
Taxation is voluntary.

Re: The Formation of Government

Brainpolice — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:34:33 GMT

Stranger:

Brainpolice:
I already am quite familiar with this work and Rothbard's introduction. I think that you're misusing it to actually establish legitimacy, when I interpret it as a brilliant suggestion for how to make the state obsolete via civil disobedience and an explaination as to how states perpetuate themselves once they are already formed.

Brainpolice:

Power (particularly political and criminal power), by definition, is not voluntarily submited to.

You keep claiming conclusions that follow from definitions which do not, in fact, follow from definitions, making all of your claims unsubstantiated.

I am also not trying to establish the legitimacy of the state, you simply accuse everyone who points out the errors in your reasoning of being your enemy.

I'm simply pointing out that the logical implication of what you're saying is, in fact, state legitimacy. You've yet to directly address me pointing out such contradictions, you simply dismiss them and proceed to conveniently switch between two contradictary premises (voluntaryism and the state as a product of the consent of the multitude). There's no need to beat a dead horse, but it's quite simple: if one accepts voluntaryism as a principle, then one must accept whatever follows from voluntary interaction. If the state is, in some sense, the product of voluntary interaction, then you must view it as legitimate. This is very simple logic that you have refused to address. You have not pointed out errors in my reasoning - you have made some questionable positive claims, I have pointed out the errors of them, and you have evaded the challenge consistantly.

You cannot coherantly maintain both anti-statism or voluntaryism and the premise that people who are subject to the state "voluntarily" submit to the state at the same time, unless you want to essentially deny causality or destroy the meaning of "voluntary" entirely.

Re: The Formation of Government

Brainpolice — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:32:56 GMT

JonBostwick:

Brainpolice:
The state is by no means an example of 99 people robbing 1.

True. Its 98 people helping 1 person rob the 100th person. The 98 people being everyone who happily pays their taxes and the 100th person being you.

You're essentially construeing taxation as voluntary or seem to imply that people "consent" to whatever the consequence of them paying taxes happens to be (an absurdity), which destroys the whole point of this libertarianism thing. It is not realistic at all to portray the scenario as if the vast majority of people are "gladly" supporting the state as a whole. Everyone opposes the state in one context or another.

Furthermore, this explaination totally leaves out that fact that the multitude are themselves subjects of the robbery in various contexts. Portraying it as the evil multitude indirectly plundering a small innocent elite is not accurate. In reality there is a very complex web of plunder extending in all directions, and the actual instrument of plunder itself is directly controlled by an oligarchy, not the multitude.

Re: The Formation of Government

Stranger — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:55:56 GMT

Brainpolice:
I already am quite familiar with this work and Rothbard's introduction. I think that you're misusing it to actually establish legitimacy, when I interpret it as a brilliant suggestion for how to make the state obsolete via civil disobedience and an explaination as to how states perpetuate themselves once they are already formed.

Brainpolice:

Power (particularly political and criminal power), by definition, is not voluntarily submited to.

You keep claiming conclusions that follow from definitions which do not, in fact, follow from definitions, making all of your claims unsubstantiated.

I am also not trying to establish the legitimacy of the state, you simply accuse everyone who points out the errors in your reasoning of being your enemy.

Re: The Formation of Government

Bostwick — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 05:00:08 GMT

Juan:
So according to you 98% of tax-payers don't really pay 'taxes' but rather 'voluntary contributions' ?

No, according to me:

JonBostwick:
True. Its 98 people helping 1 person rob the 100th person. The 98 people being everyone who happily pays their taxes and the 100th person being you.

Re: The Formation of Government

Juan — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 04:47:30 GMT

So according to you 98% of tax-payers don't really pay 'taxes' but rather 'voluntary contributions' ?

Re: The Formation of Government

Bostwick — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 04:24:13 GMT

Brainpolice:
The state is by no means an example of 99 people robbing 1.

True. Its 98 people helping 1 person rob the 100th person. The 98 people being everyone who happily pays their taxes and the 100th person being you.

Re: The Formation of Government

Juan — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 04:16:52 GMT

Ah, I see now.

edit: or maybe I don't...