So, we libertarians pretty much accept the fact that tacit contracts do exist (or at least it seems that way from my reading of Kinsella's Against Intellectual Property and some Walter Block lectures). Yet, on the flip side, there are some we agree are entirely illegitimate (the social contract, for example).
The question I'm bringing up for discussion is, then:
What are the limits of tacit/implied contracts? What criteria do we use to determine if they are just or unjust?
And, if you wish, tackle associated problems like how would they be handled in a free society, etc. etc.
For all too many that's no easy guidepost. Do min/ancaps both believe in the legitimacy of judges, juries and jails?
I doubt that this would be a large problem...
Of course we believe in the legitimacy of a judicial system Ancaps do not advocate one run off of expropriated funds (taxes), however. And neither do some minarchists.
On juries... um... idk. The market will decide :P
On jails... I think that many AnCaps do not believe in jails but in restitution and ostracizing. I haven't thought much on this issue, but it does appear to me that jail is an inherently collectivized institution that places society above the individual - because a criminal might pose a threat to society, then society has a right to jail him. This I don't like.
Do you believe that Ron Paul is the former or the latter?
Oh gosh. There's been a topic on this before. I am not sure which he is. He is likely a minarchist who is not averse to slowly breaking down even the minarchy. Of course, I believe that if a society is willing to go minarchist, AnCap won't be far removed and would be the logical next step.
And do you object to voting, yourself--for him, or at all?
I do not think that I'm against voting in general. By itself, putting people in power doesn't lead to abuse of power. For example, I doubt that electing JJ or Clayton would increase the size of government.
That being said, you have to be careful for whom you vote. Voting for RP is fine because I do not foresee him expanding the powers of the federal government. In fact, he has contributed enormously to the liberty movement and would likely do so even more.
I guess that I might also vote for Johnson if I have to. It's not the best, but it is certainly a move toward decreasing violence.
Thanks, Wheylous.
DarylLloydDavis:A closer reading of my post would have yielded this short, clear statement. The Social Contract is not a valid contract; but it is nevertheless an enforceable contract.
The Social Contract is not a valid contract; but it is nevertheless an enforceable contract.
This is just repeating what you already wrote. I read it already. My point was that you're combining normativity and descriptivity in that statement. In other words, what you repeated above contains two contextually-different phrases, namely:
1. Normative statement: "The Social Contract is not a valid contract."
2. Descriptive statement: "The Social Contract is nevertheless an enforceable contract."
Now, as far as I can tell, Wheylous was not using the word "enforceable" in a descriptive sense - he was using it in a normative sense. So for you to use it in a descriptive sense is not to address his claim at all.
To put it another way, and more generally: it's one thing to say that something can be done if there's sufficient power to do it. It's another thing entirely to say whether it should be done regardless of there being sufficient power to do it.
DarylLloydDavis:It's your statement. If there's meaning to it, please explain: How does it refute the simple statement I made? Where did I mention entitlement? If one does not have a right to life, and to act in defense of one's life, then all other rights are void by extension.
You seemed to be equating "right to life" with "right to survival". I don't consider those to be one and the same. A person's survival can be affected by many impersonal forces and events. A person's survival can also be affected by how much help he receives from others - or whether he receives any help at all. The classic example here is that of a homeless man in the street. If you're claiming that a homeless man has a "right to life", and by that you mean a "right to survival", then I think it follows for you to consider it legitimate when the homeless man steals food. In fact, not only would that be legitimate, but it would be illegitimate for anyone to not give the homeless man food.
DarylLloydDavis: Explain to me what you mean by "imperative" and exactly how survival constitutes one. Really?
Explain to me what you mean by "imperative" and exactly how survival constitutes one.
Really?
Yes, really.
DarylLloydDavis:Actually, I said IF "..the control of limited resources cannot be maintained absent a limited state system...." And I used that conditional formulation, because I wanted to leave open the possibility that control could be maintained without a state system, but that so far it has not been--at least not in the modern world--or not for long.
True, you did say "if" in the beginning of that sentence. Maybe I misinterpreted your meaning behind it - it seemed to me like the use of "if" was either syllogistic or purely rhetorical. In other words, in spite of using a hypothetical phrasing, you sounded certain that it's literally impossible to control limited natural resources without a "limited state system". But instead of going around and around about what you really meant, I hope to clear things up by asking you directly: do you believe or claim that it is literally impossible to control limited natural resources without a "limited state system"? Why or why not? Please note that this question is outside of any historical context.
DarylLloydDavis:I don't mind explaining away an honest misinterpretation. But when one is immediately followed by another, and all with a snide tone, I can't help suspecting that the other person isn't interested in giving a fair hearing or providing a thoughtful response. I also suspect that you begin a reply to the post, sentence by sentence, without entirely reading through it first.
If I've had a snide tone with you at all, I'd say it's because you've had one with me first - and also with others in this forum. Rest assured, however, that I do typically read an entire post before responding to it. If you take offense to me responding to your points with such a fine level of granularity, that's your problem, not mine. Don't expect me to change my behavior there.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum