Political Theory

Re: Non-Aggression Principle vs. State Rights

Kevin — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 23:59:16 GMT

Re: Non-Aggression Principle vs. State Rights

MaikU — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 23:34:25 GMT

All anarchists believing in NAP would say the same: the only transition is through education. Educate your children, they educate theirs etc. and after few generations free societies will start to emerge. And I am not dismissing a minarchist state as a transition phase, but it is very unstable system that can easily explode into new empire. Aim for impossible and you will get the best outcome, rather than making a deal for "lesser" evil and surrendering basic princples of anarchism. That's not the example I would like to teach my kids.

Re: Non-Aggression Principle vs. State Rights

Kevin — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 23:17:40 GMT

Cortes -- it's a hot topic (one of denial in the An-Cap community).

My arguments tend to focus on how do we get into said "free-society" -- how do we transition?

My belief is that An-Caps cannot solve some of the better "what if" questions that people will bring up -- they just regirgitate Rothbard ad-nauseum and until Ron Paul (the Minarchist) the Mises Institute showed very little growth.

I'm NOT a long-run Minarchist but I believe a model can be created to satisfy the nay-sayers (the wealthy and the poor and the overworked middle class).

---A model that moves toward liberty without permission -- an autodestruct Constitution of sorts; one where "power" diminishes naturally and by design.

I truly believe if we look at Liberty in terms of consumption ("as the consumer" which is how Mises viewed it) and we create a line graph where the highest level of liberty is to the left and the highest level of Statism is to the right and all political models must be placed on this line graph with a right or left directional orientation; then I believe that An-Cap is left of Capitalism with a right directional heading.

Liberty------------An-Cap (Rothbard)--------------Octobox Minarchism (Mises)-------------Capitalism (as it was in reality)--------------Corporatism---------Socialism

An-Cap is Right Heading

My Minarchist Model is Left Heading

Capitalism is Right Heading

Corporatism is Right Heading

Socialism is Right Heading

Further meaning that An-Cap will eventually lead to a form of right-heading minarchism, then on to capitalism etc.

What makes a political model "right-or-left" heading?

----The answer: Whether or not the force-agency to keep the peace is ever-diminishing or ever-increasing

What makes a political model "ever-dim or ever-inc?"

----The answer: One of the Information Control -- Identity Control -- Ownership Control -- Currency Control in the hands of a few

How is An-Cap right-heading then?

First we must look at the fundamental game changer -- where Mises and Rothbard disagreed.

----Answer: Over who the individual was........Rothbard said it was the property owner and Mises said it was the consumer.

For there to be property "rights" (worth their salt) in a Rothbardian-Society then there must be a mechanism to take assets from one individual and give them to another -- there must also be a group of people who are "authorized" to make such a decision.

Re: Non-Aggression Principle vs. State Rights

Cortes — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:02:23 GMT

EDIT: Apparently IE no longer saves post edits?

Anyway, didn't mean to sound overly harsh or polemical, but still. I know I'm not entitled to automatic discussion on every thread, but it seems strange that this topic falls on deaf ears here since it's such a great opportunity to make a convincing case.

Re: Non-Aggression Principle vs. State Rights

Cortes — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 08:48:10 GMT

Bumping this because it's basically the same concern I see all the time when discussing libertarian and classical liberal political theory (my thread I created yesterday is about a debate regarding Ron Paul's stance relative to this).

It is frustrating because the answers are clearly there, yet while the responses to OP's question-

If an American State, ... violate an American individuals rights to self-rule (trampling Rothbard's non-aggression principal) would the Central US Gov't have an obligation to step in? Or do State Rights and Sovereignty precede the individuals liberty?

-make clear the ramifications of this consequentialist devil's advocate argument, they fail to provide a recourse for the individuals who have clearly been effected by such local and state depredations on liberty.

Yet the answers are clearly there within the Constitutional framework (I am not referring to ancap; the average person who raises this issue has no care and knowledge of ancap when they obviously have reservations over even classical liberal theory): the citizen's duty to nullify an unconstitutional state law (Texan sodomy law, Kelo etc) just as rightfully as a state's duty to nullify unconstitutional federal laws. Thus citizens suing the state government.

What is unfortunate is that there is a fatalist attitude among many skeptics of this decentralist view, especially from those who have lived in communities that have favored unconstitutional state and local laws (I do not endorse the SC's interpretation of positive rights from such past decisions as Lawrence v Texas, but nonetheless everyone here should detest the reasoning behind anti-sodomy laws).

The skeptics do not see any value in a federalist/decentralized approach since they have been alienated by their state government, they doubt their own ability to influence such laws by challenging them in court and see the federal government as a savior in such cases. In short they conclude with the contradictory position of believing in the futility of the citizen to challenge City Hall or Capital Hall, yet trust in the citizen's ability to influence DC. To them the federal government is more effective as an 'unbiased mediator', and they reason this arbitration crosses state lines and helps 'solve' the flaws of state governments. This is their reasoning, and I do not blame them for taking this viewpoint, despite it being built from false premises, when they have experienced such alienation and isolation from the majority.

This then ends up as it always has: the debate over the 14th Amendment and federalism. I have yet to read Woods' Nullification, but does he cover this concern raised by the OP? Because afaict nobody in this thread has.

Re: Non-Aggression Principle vs. State Rights

Kevin — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 07:13:49 GMT

We "do" know why modern wars are fought -- For Oil, For Metals, For Oil Piplines, For Supply Chain Profits (to extend the war machine), For Construction, For Debt Profits, For Military Spending, For Militarism -- etc. We "know" this because Misesean Scholars have all written about it, because Mises has written about it, because Rothbard has written about it -- Because Ron Paul and Napolitano talk endlessly about it and because it's obvious to the casual observer.

One can figure this out by observing "spending" and reading Gov't Detailed reports on where it went -- they don't deny it, it's right there.

Are you being funny -- Is this a trick question, hahahaha.

Maybe you are making a more subtle point here, as in "we cannot know what was in Lincoln's head when he made all his decisions," now this I would agree on -- but most Rothbardian Scholars disagree, they will make direct claims; ignoring the obvious facts about Southern Upper 8% debt and tangling foreign alliances with former colonial powers.

The desire to make slavery work blinded them -- it was never a viable business (slavery) it required Big Central Gov't collusion with Small State Gov't who colluded with the Upper 8% (the 8% who owned the slaves) -- it could of never lasted so long in an actual free-society or under Mises' Minarchist Society (which is almost a pure free-society). This is my point -- We (as Miseseans / Rothbardians / Free-Market Thinkers) should not use The South as the poster-child to free-market rebellion; they were in fact the EXACT opposite, they were treasonist against the "principles" of NAP (not that they 'heard' of it or that they cared) and they were treasonist against consumer-sovereignty (owing to state collusion, indebtedness, and tryanical control over 12% of the population). Many other reasons -- you get the idea.

We could win over Gays - Liberals - Women - Workers - and Minorities with some short logical arguments; but no, "we" The Liberty Movements strongest voice (Misesean / Rothbardian Scholars and Liberty Movement Politicians) want to focus on the Civil War and how Lincoln was responsible for 600K deaths and the South was well within their Constitutional Rights to Secede (leaving out all the drippings of course) -- THIS is the winning strategy.

There's more but this will be a lot for you to pick through.

Re: Non-Aggression Principle vs. State Rights

liberty student — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 15:29:27 GMT

Kevin:
What I was going to ellude to if someone could of answered the question at face value (in the simplistic and conversational terms it was presented) is WHY do "we" as Miseseans or Rothbardians

No offense but you haven't posted one thing in this thread that indicates you are a Misesian or a Rothbardian. On the contrary, you've posted stuff that indicates you're neither.

Kevin:
knowing that physical slavery is a far greater evil than "un-just taxation"

They are the same thing. Slavery is slavery. Taxes are slavery.

Kevin:
If "we" believe in NAP

You can believe in anything you want, that doesn't make it so. Don't confuse an "ought" with an "is".

Kevin:
NAP and Consumer-Sovereignty (in modern language -- zero harkening back -- zero intellectual reparations) are all that is needed.

I have no idea what consumer sovereignty is, it sounds incompatible with property. As far as what is needed, that depends on which audience you're speaking to and what your goals are. Newsflash, not everyone thinks as you do.

Kevin:
From our vantage point we only need to see that there was NEVER a period of NAP or Consumer-Soveriegnty prior to Lincoln (owing to or because of Lincoln), so to hang him now when the South (the ruling 8%) were so out of ethics (developing entangling alliances with Former Colonial Powers and Rothschilds) seems like a misguided way to ring in the notion of free-enterprise. Or is it me?

It's you. No one claimed that there was a NAP period. And attacking Lincoln is not defending the south.

Kevin:
Doesn't NAP and Consumer-Sovereignty stand on their own?

I'm not sure you understand what the former is, and the latter seems to be some nonsense brought in from the mainstream.

Define consumer sovereignty.

Define the NAP.

Which DiLorenzo book(s) have you read?

Re: Non-Aggression Principle vs. State Rights

liberty student — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 15:23:08 GMT

Kevin:
So why would Rothbardians and Miseseans talk Succession or Nullyfication?

If we know in modern times that all wars are fought for Supply Chain, Resources, and Cheap Labor (Bill Clinton's plan to move sweat shop labor into Haiti). Why would this not be the case in "olden" times? Maybe none of the wars we've ever witnessed were ever fought without full Collusion -- One batch of Upper 8% Cousins funnin' with another batch of Upper 8's.

---From State to Central Gov't and back again

This is why I am against "harkening" back to a "freer" period -- there was no freer period only for the Upper 8%.

1. We don't know that "all wars are fought for" any particular reason. You can't know intent. It's an epistemological error to claim otherwise.

2. Your obsession with classes like an arbitrary 8% do nothing to help you make a precise argument. Austro-libertarians are methodological individualists. Name names otherwise you're just making vacuous claims that don't really make a better case than pointing at DiLorenzo and claiming he was being unnecessarily specific.

Re: Non-Aggression Principle vs. State Rights

liberty student — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 15:15:53 GMT

Kevin:
DiLorenzo wrote an entire book on Lincoln -- as if Statism and Central banking was created by Lincoln.

Which book are you referring to, and have you read it?

Kevin:
The Lincoln bashing is un-necessary if the Mises Institute does not "harken back" -- I mean why that period; why not the periods that led up to it, it's pointless.

Actually, this criticism is pointless. Obviously when doing historical analysis, one has to focus on some point in history. You're making an argument from ignorance.

Kevin:
No one was making the 600K Civil War was a "benefit" to liberty type argument which then required the Mises Institute to back the DiLorenzo book

Sure they were. The Straussians were, and the Staussians are the intellectual wing of the neoconservatives. Again, which book are you talking about, and also, you're still making this silly error of either (1) insisting we ignore the past or (2) claiming that a focus on any one period is somehow intellectually dishonest to other periods. Your argument is bunk.

Kevin:
Lot's of Mises scholars make "harken" back arguments -- are you serious, please don't ask me to prove it, you must have not been thinking that one through.

---Block talks about Washer Woman "rights" back in the 1840's

---DiLorenzo's Lincoln

---Even Ron Paul talks about the Founders

---I've heard Rockwell do it

---Napolitano

I could keep going on -- maybe I misundertood what you meant to say versus what you wrote?

Again, are you saying that we cannot discuss history at all? I agree that empirical arguments are pointless, but haven't you made a point about all sorts of historical wrongs yourself? Aren't you guilty of the very same errors of narration?

Also, just because those guys do it, doesn't mean it is a "Mises" thing. Only someone with the most superficial exposure to Austro-libertarianism would believe those folks represent the leading edge of Misesian and Libertarian thought (no disrespect to Lew Rockwell, who is a hero of mine).

Re: Non-Aggression Principle vs. State Rights

Kevin — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 08:07:56 GMT

Think instead of gangs or mafias. Small mafias and big mafias. If a shopkeeper is being brutalised by a small mafia, does a big mafia have the obligation to step in? It is a non-question. The only obligation a mafia has is to dissolve itself.

Big Mafia = Central Gov't

Small Mafia = State Gov't

Big Mafia serve the interests (in part) of Small Mafia

At least in the drug trade.

You are making my point -- thanks.

My point is that pre-Lincoln Small Mafia's (States) maintained as policy the right to own slaves, break treaties, and force-assimilate Indian children (etc etc etc) -- They did this with the full backing of the Big Mafia (central gov't).

So why would Rothbardians and Miseseans talk Succession or Nullyfication?

If we know in modern times that all wars are fought for Supply Chain, Resources, and Cheap Labor (Bill Clinton's plan to move sweat shop labor into Haiti). Why would this not be the case in "olden" times? Maybe none of the wars we've ever witnessed were ever fought without full Collusion -- One batch of Upper 8% Cousins funnin' with another batch of Upper 8's.

---From State to Central Gov't and back again

This is why I am against "harkening" back to a "freer" period -- there was no freer period only for the Upper 8%.

Re: Non-Aggression Principle vs. State Rights

Kevin — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 01:41:59 GMT

I'm trying to use language that is familiar to Rothbardians, so I might be mis-using "rights" as that is a concept I do not believe in. I do not believe you can have a free-society with one person having a "guarantee" or "justificatory 'out'" without having some level of force-agency for them to qualify it too -- even if that force-agency is relatively voluntary.

Re: Non-Aggression Principle vs. State Rights

liberty student — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 21:23:33 GMT

Kevin:
If an American State, subsidized by Foreign Gov't and Foreign Fed Bankers, violate an American individuals rights to self-rule

No American has any rights. Erase that concept from your mind because it is a false premise. Now, ask the right question, which is "from where does the government get the right to rule anyone?"

Re: Non-Aggression Principle vs. State Rights

Clayton — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 21:16:37 GMT

+1,000,000 Business Cycle Points to Marko! You said it perfectly!

Re: Non-Aggression Principle vs. State Rights

Marko — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 05:44:58 GMT

If an American State, subsidized by Foreign Gov't and Foreign Fed Bankers, violate an American individuals rights to self-rule (trampling Rothbard's non-aggression principal) would the Central US Gov't have an obligation to step in? Or do State Rights and Sovereignty precede the individuals liberty?

You are phrasing the question in moral terms. This is a mistake. The issue of centralisation-decentralisation is not a moral one. It is a practical one. Libertarians favour state rights, devolution, national sovereignty and so on over their opposites as a matter of strategy, not morals. It means favouring the concepts most likely to produce a semblance of freedom in a statist world.

Think instead of gangs or mafias. Small mafias and big mafias. If a shopkeeper is being brutalised by a small mafia, does a big mafia have the obligation to step in? It is a non-question. The only obligation a mafia has is to dissolve itself.

The only question that can be asked is: If the shopkeeper believes that he would be better treated by the big mafia, is it wrong of him to call on the big mafia to step in and take the place of the small mafia? The answer is of course no. It is not wrong. For the sake of his defense he may ask of the big mafia to crack down on the small mafia.

The other question is how wise is it to do so? This is the extent of the libertarian argument for state's rights. In the long term you are almost certainly better off being subject to a small mafia, rather than to a large mafia.

Re: Non-Aggression Principle vs. State Rights

Marko — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 04:31:27 GMT

Why has this become a Civil War debate? The war was not fought in order to free the slaves. You are giving whitey too much credit.