Political Theory

Re: Self-defence is threft

E. R. Olovetto — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:04:24 GMT

libertarian:
Many anarcho-capitalists justify the American revolution.

The British attacked the US because we didn't obey to their government.
Therefore, we made the British kill many things in the war.
Determinists would agree.

If we had a voluntary contractual association, and an individual in the association decided to not obey to the association, the association would and have the obligation attack the individual. But the individual would defend to the attack. The individual defending would be considered morally wrong by many anarchists. Correct? If Great Britain was a voluntary assocation, we should not fight back; but we did fought back. Therefore, fighting back or resisting the British is equivalent to threft from the British government.

Are we responsible for fighting back a voluntary association because we first breached the contract?

Re: Self-defence is threft

Torsten — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:32:48 GMT

Anonymous Coward:
If it were a voluntary association why did they attack when we delivered up the Declaration of Independence to them?

They were defending their "rights"!

Re: Self-defence is threft

A.L.Pruitt — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 03:15:47 GMT

Nathyn:
Friedman's work doesn't cover early colonial fiat in detail for a simple reason: Look at the title.

How silly of me. Although, I'm curious to know, why you would say this to me, when I wrote this to you earlier...

loweleif:
Nathyn:
The introduction of fiat, which caused strong economic growth.

I think it would be more accurate to say it caused inflation and instability rather then "Strong Economic growth".
See "A History of Money and Banking in the United States" by Murray Rothbard. Great book.

(For you then replied)

Nathyn:
I don't think so. See "A Monetary History of the United States" by Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz. A far greater book than the one you just cited.

... when you yourself admit that this book does not even cover the period of history in which we are discussing? And if Friedman did write about this period of history (because I will admit I don't know if he has), he would most likely follow his positivist methodology, and either misinterpret or completely ignore what the motivations were.

I'm curious, where did you get the above historical analysis? Do you have a source? I myself do not have much knowledge concerning the economic motivations for war, as I was mainly focused on nitpicking our difference concerning the effects of fiat as you yourself pointed out.

My other questions in regards to your post are...

1) You analysis does not cite any motivation of the banks to return to specie anyway due to public pressure, as they (the public) lost confidence in the fiat currency. Why?

2)How did the colonial bankers benefit both form inflation of fiat, and deflation of specie?

3)

Nathyn:
The introduction of fiat did not allow the mercantilists to profit from the hoarding of gold and silver, because if colonial America was on fiat, their hard assets did not deflate. American fiat stopped English deflation, leading to an economic boom in America and a recession in England.

I'm still confused as to why deflating assets is acting in someone's self interest (unless they are predicting a fall) other wise, people want the value of their property to appreciate. Right? I'm sure you'll inform me as to what I'm missing here.

4)

Nathyn:
The English bankers' response: Force the colonists back on the pound sterling. This helped the English economy recover, but sent the colonial economy into a depression, as the money supply was massively contracted.

A depression is more severe than a recession, so what caused such a negative occurrence, relative to a common recession?

P.S When I wrote "Friedman's work ignores why they did this. " I was making a generalization of Friedman's work ignores why not merely for this period history but infinite time.

Re: Self-defence is threft

CShirk — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 14:24:15 GMT

To believe that self-defence is theft - or in any other way wrong - is a misguided view, and a fallacy pushed onto people by (certain of) the current establishments, both religious and governmental. A person has the natural right to live, and (by extension) has the right to use any and all means available to them to defend that right to live, even if that means to kill. Furthermore, no person ever has the right to impose their will on another person. A situation demanding of self-defense is exactly that. Be it a government or a criminal, that entity is attempting to force its will on another. In violating your rights to life and free will, it is therefore implying that it believes those rights to be unimportant. Therefore, it is sacrificing its own rights to that respect. (At least that's the way it works out in my head.) The fact is that the British government went far beyond what was necessary and appropriate in dealing with the Colonies and made no effort to exhaust diplomatic methods of resolution. Furthermore, they made the first aggressive movement - landing of and movement of troops - against the Colonies with what can only be considered to be minimal - if any - provocation. (I mean, c'mon, the Boston Tea Party as provocation? That's like using a SWAT team to arrest a petty thief.) They wished to use force to impose their will on the Colonies, something nobody ever has the right to do. Had the British sent armies of diplomats instead of armies of soldiers, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. However, the British sent armies of soldiers instead. The Colonies were well within their rights to defend themselves against such an unnecessary and - quite flatly - abusive use of force and power.

That's just my 2 cents worth, though.

Re: Self-defence is threft

Nathyn — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 06:36:49 GMT

loweleif:
Terribly sorry Nathyn. I forgot to add, " In the Long Run" to my point.

Oh BTW, I'm sure your thinking along the lines of Milton Friedman & Anna J. Schwartz, " A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960 ", and that in your opinion it is above Murray Rothbard's work.

IMO that is nonsense. This is Joseph T. Salerno impression of Friedman's work.

"Rather, the positivist methodology they espouse constrains them to narrowly focus their historical narrative on the observable outcomes of these actions and nenver to formally address their motivation".

Whilst I can't refuse that early colonial "experiences" with fiat may have produced initial rapid growth, Friedman's work ignores why they did this. For it was never of any thought to make life "better" for the individual colonies, even if it was to spend excessively in their interest, for really it is the self-interest of the bankers and politicians which is what motivates the establishment of Fiat Currency. So Friedman's books is not really a level above Rothbards. It's really just a collection of data (boring), altogether not comprehensively informative which Friedman himself states in his book

Also my main contention with your initial post is that how doing going back to gold (sterling is irrelevant just say specie (gold, silver etc) caused a depression? They had to return to gold at sometime. They could not print indefinitely. What's more is depression? Or recession? Don't forget this intervening in the monetary system only occurred in the some colonies, so I don't see how it could be that strong of a motivator to rid America of the British. Unless that is, the people were lied, and told that the crown was responsible for the inflation when it was really just the local governments.

In Sum, I believe that the colony's meddled with fractional reserve banking through Government Institutions, and this led to depreciation of the currency, and a drop in it's use as people switched to specie. This prompted the meddlers to switch back to specie.

Friedman's work doesn't cover early colonial fiat in detail for a simple reason: Look at the title.

Also, you need to make a distinction here between the colonial bankers and the bankers in England. I agree fiat was established in colonial America and by FDR because the bankers wanted it. I don't deny this at all, because the establishment of fractional reserve obviously gives their assets a far greater value. Where you and I disagree is that the existence of fractional reserve by itself is continuing systematic theft that harms the economy as a whole. But that's a side issue.

With that said, the reason I said you need to distinguish between those two groups of bankers is because colonial bankers benefitted from fiat, while the bank of England benefited from the pound sterling. Banks benefit from the introduction of fractional-reserve, but they also benefit from deflation, since the mere hoarding of assets by them has a minimal cost with a huge return.

The central bank of England, like all mercantilist economies, had huge stockpiles of hard commodities which deflated over time. Mercantilist economies -- supported by their central banks -- traded and robbed Africans and Native Americans of their hard commodities (like gold, silver, etc).

This was why the bank of England viciously opposed colonial scrip and forced colonial America back on the pound sterling.

The introduction of fiat did not allow the mercantilists to profit from the hoarding of gold and silver, because if colonial America was on fiat, their hard assets did not deflate. American fiat stopped English deflation, leading to an economic boom in America and a recession in England.

The English bankers' response: Force the colonists back on the pound sterling. This helped the English economy recover, but sent the colonial economy into a depression, as the money supply was massively contracted.

Re: Self-defence is threft

A.L.Pruitt — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 05:46:08 GMT

Terribly sorry Nathyn. I forgot to add, " In the Long Run" to my point.

Oh BTW, I'm sure your thinking along the lines of Milton Friedman & Anna J. Schwartz, " A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960 ", and that in your opinion it is above Murray Rothbard's work.

IMO that is nonsense. This is Joseph T. Salerno impression of Friedman's work.

"Rather, the positivist methodology they espouse constrains them to narrowly focus their historical narrative on the observable outcomes of these actions and nenver to formally address their motivation".

Whilst I can't refuse that early colonial "experiences" with fiat may have produced initial rapid growth, Friedman's work ignores why they did this. For it was never of any thought to make life "better" for the individual colonies, even if it was to spend excessively in their interest, for really it is the self-interest of the bankers and politicians which is what motivates the establishment of Fiat Currency. So Friedman's books is not really a level above Rothbards. It's really just a collection of data (boring), altogether not comprehensively informative which Friedman himself states in his book

Also my main contention with your initial post is that how doing going back to gold (sterling is irrelevant just say specie (gold, silver etc) caused a depression? They had to return to gold at sometime. They could not print indefinitely. What's more is depression? Or recession? Don't forget this intervening in the monetary system only occurred in the some colonies, so I don't see how it could be that strong of a motivator to rid America of the British. Unless that is, the people were lied, and told that the crown was responsible for the inflation when it was really just the local governments.

In Sum, I believe that the colony's meddled with fractional reserve banking through Government Institutions, and this led to depreciation of the currency, and a drop in it's use as people switched to specie. This prompted the meddlers to switch back to specie.

Re: Self-defence is threft

ricarpe — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 05:08:18 GMT

Brainpolice:

What is "threft"?

A combination of "theft" and "bereft"?

Re: Self-defence is threft

allixpeeke — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 03:44:38 GMT

libertarian:
The British attacked the US because we didn't obey to their government.
Therefore, we made the British kill many things in the war.
Determinists would agree.

Methinks you're confusing rational with responsibility, a mistake that Giuliani and a bunch of Republicans make.

Although U.S. attacks on and intervention in the Middle East is the rational for (and in that sense only the cause of) the 9/11 attacks, only the people who actually planned and committed the attacks are responsible for the lives lost, because they had the free will to choose not to kill innocent people but chose to do so anyway.

Although the U.S. becoming independent was the rational for (and in that sense only the cause of) the British war against the United States, only the peple who actually planned and committed the attacks are responsible for the lives lost, because they had the free will to choose not to kill innocent people but chose to do so anyway.

libertarian:
If Great Britain was a voluntary assocation, we should not fight back; but we did fought back.

Whether an entity employing force is a "voluntary association" or not is irrelevant. The KKK was a voluntary association insofar as no one was forced to join it, but that does not mean there was anything immoral or unjust about fighting back against an attack by the KKK. What's relevant is whether or not the non-aggression axiom has been violated.

libertarian:
Are we responsible for fighting back a voluntary association because we first breached the contract?

This is why Rothbard goes over in great detail contracts in his The Ethics of Liberty (and why I believe Dr. Walter Block is wholly incorrect in his opinion that voluntary slave contracts can be enforced). Any contract that one signs saying that one will remain within an association forever or even for a given length of time is not enforceable with violence.

Let's say I sign a contract saying that I will be your slave for five years, at the end of which I shall be freed and you shall give me $100. Let's say I choose to break off the contract three years in. Would you be able to force me to remain your slave for another two years? Absolutely not! You would have no right to lay even one finger on me. But, likewise, I will have no claim to any portion of that $100. If I make it through the full five years, it would be your obligation to pay me the $100.

In essence, since a person can leave such a contract at any time and for any reason, the notion of voluntary slavery can be seen for the oxymoron it is. The instance above is not slavery, and cannot ever truly be slavery, because it is not enforceable with violence. Slavery is an institution which, by definition, is enforced with violence or the threat thereof. Throughout the entire five years, I'm free to walk away from the arrangement, gaining for myself the complete and total rights I had previously (and therefore all along).

If a voluntary association decides to fight me for leaving it, it is therefore not defending itself, but rather aggressing against me. I have every right to defend myself.

Re: Self-defence is threft

JAlanKatz — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 03:27:57 GMT

libertarian:
Of course, people agreeing to a contract saying: "a voluntary agreement to form a democratic government that people cannot de-associate once people agreed to join the state", would not have the right to de-associate forever. It is equivalent to Rothbard's indefinite slave analogy. Once you agree to join a state that does not premit you to de-associate, you must obey it.

Suppose we agree to trade, I will give you two apples, and you will give me 3 oranges. However, I will give you the apples today, and you will pay me the oranges tomorrow. I give you the apples, a day goes by, and it turns out you don't have the oranges. What do you owe me? I consider it clear that you owe me two apples, plus damages, not 3 oranges.

Now, suppose I sell myself as a slave for the rest of my life, then change my mind in 5 years and leave. What do I owe you? By analogy, I owe you what you paid for the initial contract (say $1million to my family) plus damages, not my body.

I simply don't see how you can have a legal system which does not acknowledge the concept of paying damages for breach of contract, but instead requires that all contracts be literally fulfilled. If I change the terms enough (say, you will give me THOSE 3 oranges, and you eat them tonight) it is impossible to fulfill the contract literally. Even if the slave contract is not entirely impossible, I look with amazement at someone advocating that the slave be chained, and insists that this is a consequence of libertarianism. Contracts can be broken, the solution is to require damages plus return of the initial payment. I see no reason that voluntary government agreements cannot be handled similarly.

libertarian:
However, if you consider the offspring of the people of that state, different individuals, then of course they can de-associate. However, if the parents agreed to the state that their children do not have the right to de-associate, then is it their parents' responsibility?

If the parents agree that their children will not have the right to de-associate, I don't care about whose responsibility it is, I care about what you're going to do with these children. Are they bound or not? I say they obviously are not, although damages can be taken from their parent's estates to pay for writing a contract which will go unfulfilled. My example, however, was different, in that I didn't say the parents agreed that the children would be bound. Instead, I asked about a case where the state is constructed in such a way as to make it impossible for them to leave, in economic terms.

libertarian:
How about parents brainwashing their children that they cannot de-associate? How about cultural, religious, genetic, or state propaganda stating they cannot deassociate?

I still want to know what you're going to do about that.

How about it?

Re: Self-defence is threft

A.L.Pruitt — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 10:47:47 GMT

Nathyn:
The introduction of fiat, which caused strong economic growth,

I think it would be more accurate to say it caused inflation and instability rather then "Strong Economic growth".

See "A History of Money and Banking in the United States" by Murray Rothbard. Great book.

Re: Self-defence is threft

Brainpolice — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:14:01 GMT

What is "threft"?

Re: Self-defence is threft

Nathyn — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:00:31 GMT

libertarian:
Many anarcho-capitalists justify the American revolution.

The British attacked the US because we didn't obey to their government.
Therefore, we made the British kill many things in the war.
Determinists would agree.

If we had a voluntary contractual association, and an individual in the association decided to not obey to the association, the association would and have the obligation attack the individual. But the individual would defend to the attack. The individual defending would be considered morally wrong by many anarchists. Correct? If Great Britain was a voluntary assocation, we should not fight back; but we did fought back. Therefore, fighting back or resisting the British is equivalent to threft from the British government.

Are we responsible for fighting back a voluntary association because we first breached the contract?

The American revolution was primarily caused by:

The fact that the colonial governments were weak. The colonial governors put in place rarely if ever actually "governed" but just collected taxes, which pissed off the colonists.
The introduction of fiat, which caused strong economic growth, followed by the reinstatement of the British pound sterling, which caused an economic depression. Benjamin Franklin wrote on this.
The Patriots' propaganda and terrorism, stirring up trouble.

Frankly, I don't think it was justified. Canada gained its independence from Britain peacefully. It took 300 years, but still...

Re: Self-defence is threft

macsnafu — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:54:23 GMT

libertarian:
Of course, people agreeing to a contract saying: "a voluntary agreement to form a democratic government that people cannot de-associate once people agreed to join the state", would not have the right to de-associate forever. It is equivalent to Rothbard's indefinite slave analogy. Once you agree to join a state that does not premit you to de-associate, you must obey it.

Exactly. It's an unreasonable contract. It cannot be considered a fully voluntary association, even if there is an initial voluntary requirement.

Re: Self-defence is threft

libertarian — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 01:29:57 GMT

Of course, people agreeing to a contract saying: "a voluntary agreement to form a democratic government that people cannot de-associate once people agreed to join the state", would not have the right to de-associate forever. It is equivalent to Rothbard's indefinite slave analogy. Once you agree to join a state that does not premit you to de-associate, you must obey it.

However, if you consider the offspring of the people of that state, different individuals, then of course they can de-associate. However, if the parents agreed to the state that their children do not have the right to de-associate, then is it their parents' responsibility?

How about parents brainwashing their children that they cannot de-associate? How about cultural, religious, genetic, or state propaganda stating they cannot deassociate?

Re: Self-defence is threft

JAlanKatz — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 00:09:37 GMT

I met a gentleman at the ASC who engaged me in conversation that may be apropos to this question. His topic had to do with the formation of neighborhood covenants through deed restriction. The idea was that any form of "government" that we choose to consider can be formed without aggression through this process, and therefore any form of government is legitimate in some sense. I pointed out that this didn't follow, because the fact that it could be formed that way in principle doesn't imply that a nation with that government would have formed it through that process. Regardless, I put forward another point, which I'm not sure of, but might work. Say we managed to form some rigid, oppressive form of "government" through deed restriction, and naturally the people living there will not be prosperous, and financially, not in a position to move and leave behind the land they inherited. They also have trouble selling it for obvious reasons - it's a poor area, people don't want the onerous restrictions, and so on. What should they do? I say they have the right to revolt against the "government" despite it's immaculate conception. Am I wrong?