Political Theory

Re: The Austrian Constitution

mike barskey — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:24:44 GMT

There is a wiki called OpenGov for creating and discussing constitutions and governments and social pacts like this. Does anyone want to either move this discussion there, or create "The Austrian Constitution" as a wiki there and continue discussing it here?

Re: The Austrian Constitution

Matthew Graybosch — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:28:36 GMT

OK, I won't add it specifically unless you ask me to, since it's implied in the language already.

Please make it explicit. The US Constitution implied that the Congress was given specific powers in order to "promote the general welfare", but "promoting the general welfare" has become an excuse for Congress to do anything it damned well pleases. A constitution that does not explicitly define the government's authority in plain language is worthless.

Re: The Austrian Constitution

Matthew Graybosch — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:23:36 GMT

Donny with an A:
Does the constitution include a way for dealing with people who don't sign it, but violate the rights of others? By what principle could such a thing be justified? (Hehe yea, I'm a jerk)

Well, one could treat individuals who have not signed on with a government as sovereign; they govern themselves and are responsible for their own defense, as opposed to citizens who have chosen to live under a government's authority in exchange for its protection. If a sovereign violates the rights of a citizen or a group of citizens, I suppose the choice is between attempting to resolve the dispute via international law, or a rather absurd situation in which a nation goes to war with an individual (The Republic of Farkistan vs. John Smith).

I'll add a few to the Constitution:

"Under no circumstances may the government establish an official religion, grant privileges to religious organizations, or legislate religious morality."

"Under no circumstances may the government forbid individuals from the possession or defensive use of hand-held weapons. Crew-served weapons and weapons of mass destruction may be regulated for the safety of the Constitution's signitories and their property."

"The government's only legitimate powers are enumerated in this Constitution. The delegation of further powers to the government must be done through amendment to the Constitution. Amendments must be ratified by unanimous consent of all living signitories."

(I modified the clause concerning weapons. I don't want people thinking I want to let citizens have nukes or heavy-duty machineguns.)

Re: The Austrian Constitution

libertarian — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:37:28 GMT

Constitutions would be betrayed if the judge is not a constitutionalist. It is impossible to select a constitutionalist judge in a democracy. It's the judges that interpret the constitution, they can easily betray the constitution. Therefore, is impossible to limit the legislation of laws to a specific category, in all kinds of government systems, except in a dictatorship or monarchy. Only a dictatorship lifetime monarch (such as a lifetime krytocracy, which is a form of monarchy) would truly limit some kinds of laws. Anarchy, or no laws, is the other solution.

A way to limit laws is to raise the "majority rule" to "supermajority rule" or raising the "supermajority rule". Another way is to set mandatory law renewel after a period of time. Another way is to have multiple judges (e.g. each political party has its own judge, if at least one judge vetos the law, then the law does not take effect). Of course, a democratically elected minarchy is just a subset of democracy, although laws can be restricted to anarchy using multiple judges. A minarchist dictatorship (or anarchist dictatorship) is the best implementation of minarchy.

Minarchists think that anarchy is unstable, so they want an "anarchist dictatorship" to preserve anarchy. That is minarchy.

Re: The Austrian Constitution

Solredime — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:07:55 GMT

That's some good stuff!

Since he talks about Jesus Christ, I thought it would be relevant to post this:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

Scroll down to the table at the bottom and have a read. Note that Horus came into existance in Egyptian religion about 3000 years before Jesus. Also note that these are not the only two gods with incredible similarities in practically all aspects of their life. Makes you wonder...

Btw, that website is actually an excellent repository of (as unbiased as possible) information on every religious matter. This is because the crew is made up of members of all sorts of religions.

Re: The Austrian Constitution

Juan — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 23:49:36 GMT

Here are some, uh, comments on some religions...

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/part1.html

Re: The Austrian Constitution

Solredime — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 23:16:52 GMT

Juan:
Religions may be considered a fraud in certain sense, but I highly doubt that any libertarian court would rule in your favor Fred. What you're proposing sounds to me like religious persecution...

With respect to the subject of an Austrian/libertarian constitution, I don't think it makes much sense. Libertarians act, supposedly, guided by the NAP. They don't need to sign a paper for that.

Perhaps a constitution is a piece of paper wich turns evil politicians into nice people ? then it doesn't make sense for anarchists either. Anarchists think that the best way to limit the power of the gov't is to abolish it...

The only constitution wich makes some sense would be something like "the govt's actions are limited to the protection of life, liberty and property of...its subjects?" - hmmmm.

You're right in the sense that the main purpose of a libertarian constitution should be to limit government, although laying some NAP rules down would be a good idea so that the message survived generations.

You're also right about the religious thing. I probably would never sue anyone for religious reasons unless they somehow negatively affected me. I did however find it paradoxical the way hugonz first excluded religion from the possibility of fraud (considering the hundreds of millions televangelists make), and then went on to say that the only way to sue him would be in the afterlife, in itself a contradiction since if there was an afterlife there would be no suing involved, and if there wasn't, then he'd get away with it.

I'm probably being the devil's advocate more than anything here, but I am quite annoyed by the high level of respect religions always demand from others, while giving very little if any themselves. You guys need to realise that there are many religions out there, and while you may have a right to advertise yours, I also have a right to ignore you, or critisize you as much as I want. Freedom is a double-sided coin. If you expect that because you think of yourself as on a mission to save souls from eternal damnation (as many are, I've already mentioned elsewhere that I was harrassed on several websites by religious fanatics, all of the Christians mind you) that you deserve my respect, then think again. Respect should be earned, and considering how much evil and violence has gone on in this world in the name of various gods, so far you've only lost my respect. Although hugonz, if you feel i'm missing something here and that religion in general, or maybe your particular religion, is deserving of a lot of respect for something, please enlighten me.

Re: The Austrian Constitution

Juan — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:59:25 GMT

Religions may be considered a fraud in certain sense, but I highly doubt that any libertarian court would rule in your favor Fred. What you're proposing sounds to me like religious persecution...

With respect to the subject of an Austrian/libertarian constitution, I don't think it makes much sense. Libertarians act, supposedly, guided by the NAP. They don't need to sign a paper for that.

Perhaps a constitution is a piece of paper wich turns evil politicians into nice people ? then it doesn't make sense for anarchists either. Anarchists think that the best way to limit the power of the gov't is to abolish it...

The only constitution wich makes some sense would be something like "the govt's actions are limited to the protection of life, liberty and property of...its subjects?" - hmmmm.

Re: The Austrian Constitution

Solredime — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:19:50 GMT

It is quite telling that you employ the use of drugs as an alternative example to religion. Eitherway, I CAN sue you for selling drugs you cannot prove work, IF you have made the claim that they do. For example, if you advertise that your drugs help with sleeping disorders, but they actually make your hyperactive (or don't work at all) then I can sue you for fraud because that's what it is.

Definition of fraud: "An intentional perversion of truth; deceitful practice or device resorted to with intent to deprive another of property or other right."

By saying that your product does something that I can prove it does not, such as the example with drugs, means I can definitely sue you for fraud since you're trying to gain some of my property in the form of money. However, making unverifiable claims to gain money isn't much better, and I'm sure that many religious teachings can been classified as inducing various psychological conditions. See this study: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660199036,00.html

I don't need to wait till the (imo non-existant) afterlife to sue you. That's just silly. There is so far not one shred of evidence to show that the afterlife exists. Which means you've created a win-win situation. If the afterlife does exist, then you win and your god saved me from hell. If it doesn't, then you lose nothing since I can't sue you in this life. Pointing this out to a court, together with linking to many studies about the effects of religion on people's minds, explaining how you may very well be lying to get my money, etc. would definitely form a very serious case against you.

And to answer your other question, of course I must be part of the transaction. However I don't see why you dismiss the possibility that someone who converted from whatever religious group it is you advocate, to another one, may very well sue you on the basis that you deceived them, making the arguments I pointed to above.

You for some reason assume that you not only deliver a "service", which I find in itself dubious, but that people would be satisfied with it. To put this into perspective, answer me this: If god is on your side, why do you need money from people who go to your church? I'm sure your omnipotent god can help you out some way, maybe not directly, but indirectly influencing your luck with money or whatever. All stuff to think about.

Re: The Austrian Constitution

hugonz — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:40:48 GMT

Fred Furash:

Since I regard religion with a fair bit of disdain (it's caused more suffering than anything else in this world), I must say that in my opinion religion falls under the fraud axiom.
You're selling unverified, and unverifiable claims to me, in other words false promises and lies. Sure they might NOT be lies, but the burden of proof lies with the religious, and without proof, in a truely free society I should be able to sue you for brainwashing or making "absurd" claims posed as truths (or worse, ultimate truths).

I differ with your views on the benefit vs. the suffering religion has caused, but I will not use religious arguments, but libertarian ones.

Even if I say that there is a God, and that it will forgive your sins if you pay a monthly sum to my church, that is not fraud. Should a transaction for a new drug be considered fraud on the grounds that I cannot prove that it works? No. Maybe if it turns out that it did not work you may sue me later. Same for the afterlife, you'll have to wait and sue on the celestial courts, since you cannot prove that your use of force (extracting compensation) is legitimate. The burden of proof rests with he who wants to use force, in the same way that the burden of proof for theft rests with he who is not the current posessor, and will have to prove that the stolen object is his.

Finally, you cannot sue anyone for selling "unverifiable claims to you" unless you buy it and consider it fraud. Even for trying to sue, you must be part of the transaction, or are you doing it for religious people's own good? If they are satisfied with the "service" provided, who are you to start action?

Hugo G.

Re: The Austrian Constitution

Solredime — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:08:55 GMT

hugonz:
Fred Furash:
"Though shalt always keep thy religion to thyself."

Does this imply that I don't have the right to try to sell my religious ideas to you? Open a church? Publish something like Jehovas'Witnesses' magazines?
If phrased in a libertarian way, it would be "Thou shalt not use force or fraud in relation to religious matters." Which is simply the non-agression axiom applied to religion.

Since I regard religion with a fair bit of disdain (it's caused more suffering than anything else in this world), I must say that in my opinion religion falls under the fraud axiom.

You're selling unverified, and unverifiable claims to me, in other words false promises and lies. Sure they might NOT be lies, but the burden of proof lies with the religious, and without proof, in a truely free society I should be able to sue you for brainwashing or making "absurd" claims posed as truths (or worse, ultimate truths).

After all, for every religion claiming one thing, there are hundreds claiming the exact opposite. Why is your religion any more right than the others? And what if they're all wrong? It's no wonder I'm an atheist, at least in respect to religions of any sort. With respect to god, or any possible number of them, i'm an agnostic, since to assume that I know that dieties do NOT exist is just as arrogant as to assume that they DO. Although religious zealots usually go a step further and claim they even know what god WANTS you to do. And this my friends, is somehow labeled as meakness.

Re: The Austrian Constitution

hugonz — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:53:41 GMT

Fred Furash:
"Though shalt always keep thy religion to thyself."

Does this imply that I don't have the right to try to sell my religious ideas to you? Open a church? Publish something like Jehovas'Witnesses' magazines?

If phrased in a libertarian way, it would be "Thou shalt not use force or fraud in relation to religious matters." Which is simply the non-agression axiom applied to religion.

Re: The Austrian Constitution

macsnafu — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:15:28 GMT

Nathyn:
Why does the Mises institute tie all three of those together?

Why not?

Technically, one could be an Austrian economist and not be a libertarian, but since Austrian economics is basically laissez-faire, it's hard to imagine a non-libertarian Austrian.

Re: The Austrian Constitution

Nathyn — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:51:56 GMT

macsnafu:
Nathyn:

Then why does the Mises Institute publish a Journal on Libertarian thought? Are you trying to tell me they're not all Libertarians?

Also, we're talking about Austrian political theory here -- not just the economic aspects. How and why should there be a Constitution and what should it say? Your inability to answer this most basic question is a huge blow to Rothbardian Anarchism.

Ahem. http://www.mises.org/about.aspx "The Ludwig von Mises Institute is the research and educational center of classical liberalism, libertarian political theory, and the Austrian School of economics." Quite simply, the Mises Institute is dedicated to both Austrian economic and libertarianism.

Technically, one could be an Austrian economist and not be a libertarian, but since Austrian economics is basically laissez-faire, it's hard to imagine a non-libertarian Austrian. You may have noticed, however, that not all Austrian economist types are all anarcho-capitalists or all minarchists. As far as I know, there is no such thing as an "Austrian political theory".

And your questions about an anarcho-capitalist constitution were already answered at Anti-State.com. You just choose to ignore the answers.

Why does the Mises institute tie all three of those together?

Re: The Austrian Constitution

macsnafu — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:40:53 GMT

DennisLeeWilson:
I reviewed the discussion at the anti-State site and duly noted the lack of serious discussion therein

It was a different thread: http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=6;action=display;threadid=20371 . Nathyn posted the thread about a constitution afterwards. By that time, what was the point of serious discussion? Nathyn throws stuff out just for the heck of it.