I don't think anarcho-capitalism would work. I understand the concept, but the whole idea of having privates companies come up with laws and enforce them makes no sense to me. To me, that is the sole legitimate function of government: to create laws that protect men from other men and enforce those laws. If I can just create my own "justice company" and make some arbitrary characteristic illegal, punishable by death, then I can just go around and kill people for it. Then you'd have other companies coming after me for that. Humans have a natural tendency to act in their own self interest, and in a time of chaos, that means killing and stealing to survive. Government needs to exist to account for that.

I think we should aim to have a very small "night watchmen state" that serves only to protect individual rights. Not everyone is going to agree what rights should be protected. I think the government should protect against coercion, fraud, and theft. Anything else doesn't constitute a crime in my eyes, and the government should have nothing to do with it. Ironically, our current government violates those rights I mentioned every second of the day and most people see no problem with it.

12/28/2009 12:23:54 PM

Any "justice company" that goes around killing people would in fact be nothing but a mob, and would not be supported by society. As you said, other legitimate defense agencies would take care of this threat quickly.

Quote :

"I think the government should protect against coercion, fraud, and theft."

This is what government is. Government cannot exist without employing these methods. So you think we should implement a system of coercion, fraud, and theft to protect against those very things?

12/28/2009 12:58:24 PM

god damn you are dumb as shit and you fucking ruin it for those of us who want a smaller and/or more effective government.

Anarchism is the childish belief that humans never form social structures and that someone can be free from the existance of other human beings.

The only way someone can be free from outside influence on their "natural rights" is if they're the only person on the planet. Put 2 people together and the stronger of the two will assert their dominance over the other.

Modern government exists to solve the power balance by taking some collective rights away, to ensure others.

You can go blah blah whine whine hurr DEY TOOK MY TAX MONEY!!!! but it makes you look like a fucknig retard. Yes there is a ton of room for improvement in the government, and yes it probably takes away some rights it shouldn't, but when people like yourself go off on some retarded rant like we should all live in caves and leave each other alone it becomes pretty obvious you're a nut and ruins it for those of us who want actual government reform.


Humans cannot and will not ever exist without a form of government. Any social group of humans creates their own laws and structure, and while you may not call it "government" its the same fucking thing you goddamned retard baby.

[Edited on December 28, 2009 at 1:28 PM. Reason : a]

12/28/2009 1:28:11 PM

Quote :

"Any "justice company" that goes around killing people would in fact be nothing but a mob, and would not be supported by society. As you said, other legitimate defense agencies would take care of this threat quickly."

It wouldn't have to be supported by society. It would just have to be supported by the people running it, and as long as they had weapons, they'd be able to do what they want.

Quote :

"This is what government is. Government cannot exist without employing these methods. So you think we should implement a system of coercion, fraud, and theft to protect against those very things?"

How else are you going to punish crimes? If someone uses force on someone else, yeah, you have to "force them" to go to jail or pay up. They're not going to volunteer for jail time. A night watchman state would require minimal taxing, and since it would serve to protect everyone's rights, a small consumption tax would suffice and I wouldn't consider it theft. I don't think government requires the use of fraud.

12/28/2009 1:42:34 PM

Quote :

"Humans cannot and will not ever exist without a form of government. Any social group of humans creates their own laws and structure, and while you may not call it "government" its the same fucking thing you goddamned retard baby. "

haha

(i agree btw)

12/28/2009 1:46:12 PM

Quote :

"I think the government should protect against coercion, fraud, and theft. Anything else doesn't constitute a crime in my eyes"

W
T
F

12/28/2009 1:57:58 PM

Quote :

"It wouldn't have to be supported by society. It would just have to be supported by the people running it, and as long as they had weapons, they'd be able to do what they want."

It would have to be supported by society in order to last. Besides, there is no incentive to just going around killing people. The risk is much greater than the reward. But this gets back to the problem of defense agencies which I referred to earlier. It is definitely my biggest hangup with the system and I have not worked through it yet.

Quote :

" How else are you going to punish crimes? If someone uses force on someone else, yeah, you have to "force them" to go to jail or pay up."

The problem with government is you legitimize the monopoly on force. I agree that an ideal would be a limited government which is incorruptible and whose sole function is to protect the members of society. I just find it impossible that any organization with a monopoly on force will not abuse this power. We can attempt to build in checks, such as the Constitution, but over time these checks will break down and the power becomes greater until the original limitations are virtually non-existent. In my opinion we see this clearly in the history of our country. Sure, we could try to add in some extra limitations, but I think the only way to protect against the abuse of power may just be to not grant this monopoly of power in the first place.

In any case, I think it is worth considering before dismissing as a ridiculous outdated idea.

12/28/2009 2:03:33 PM

Quote :

"W T F"

Name something that can't be classified as one of those things that should be a crime. I'm going to guess you condone punishment of victimless crimes.

12/28/2009 2:28:11 PM

Petty Vandalism? Child neglect? Rape? Pooping out a car window? Do these things somehow fall under coercion, fraud and theft? Or are they not "crimes" that should be punished?

Are you just looking for a big semantics debate?

12/28/2009 3:43:17 PM

Vandalism damages someone else's property, or using their property in a way not authorized by them, so that's coercion. Rape is forcing someone to have sex, so that's obviously coercion. Pooping out of a car window, depending on where you do it, is basically the same as vandalism. It should be perfectly legal to poop out of a car window on your own property, though I couldn't tell you if it actually is.

Child neglect is a little different. I can look at in one of two ways. Having and giving birth to a child could be considered an "implied contract," meaning that by conceiving of the child and having it, you've entered into a contract to care for that child or provide for it to be taken care of. There's also the point of view that child neglect should not be a crime. Rothbard says it much better than I ever could, so I'll refer you to him: http://mises.org/story/2568. It's going to seem radical to you, most likely, because his ideal differs so much from what we see current society. I think he's correct in what he says, though, which is that the root of the problem is in adoption laws. Also, there's the fact that a child cannot voluntarily leave their family and live with a foster family on their own accord. If you're going to open the link, I would request that you actually read the entire article, rather than pick out one line and say "Ha! Libertarians are crazy and here's proof." The article very likely addresses the rebuttal you may attempt to make.

And no, it's not just about semantics, though I think so much of the debate on these forums stems from that.

12/28/2009 8:01:11 PM

Semantics, man. This is it. Vandalism doesn't fall under any conventional use of the term "coercion" and you know this. You wouldn't sound so crazy if you didn't insist on such arcane wording. You could have left out that bit about "coercion, fraud and theft" and your post would have been perfectly reasonable.

12/28/2009 10:26:04 PM

Quote :

" Murray died a few years ago without quite having made an anarchist of me. It was left to his brilliant disciple, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, to finish my conversion. Hans argued that no constitution could restrain the state. Once its monopoly of force was granted legitimacy, constitutional limits became mere fictions it could disregard; nobody could have the legal standing to enforce those limits. The state itself would decide, by force, what the constitution "meant," steadily ruling in its own favor and increasing its own power. This was true a priori, and American history bore it out. What if the Federal Government grossly violated the Constitution? Could states withdraw from the Union? Lincoln said no. The Union was "indissoluble" unless all the states agreed to dissolve it. As a practical matter, the Civil War settled that. The United States, plural, were really a single enormous state, as witness the new habit of speaking of "it" rather than "them." So the people are bound to obey the government even when the rulers betray their oath to uphold the Constitution. The door to escape is barred. Lincoln in effect claimed that it is not our rights but the state that is "unalienable." And he made it stick by force of arms. No transgression of the Constitution can impair the Union's inherited legitimacy. Once established on specific and limited terms, the US Government is forever, even if it refuses to abide by those terms. As Hoppe argues, this is the flaw in thinking the state can be controlled by a constitution. Once granted, state power naturally becomes absolute. Obedience is a one-way street. Notionally, "We the People" create a government and specify the powers it is allowed to exercise over us; our rulers swear before God that they will respect the limits we impose on them; but when they trample down those limits, our duty to obey them remains."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/sobran-j1.html

12/29/2009 1:46:17 PM

See, here you go. I don't mind libertarians. I just think that having these "END ALL COERCION" people popping up with the whole "TAXATION IS THEFT" deal throws a stupid wrench in the argument about what government is or should be. It makes it an argument of "gov. vs. anarchy" instead of the real argument of "what gov. will we have?"

I'm interested in whether or not those of you who are anarcho-capitalists understand what a constitution is, what philosophy it is based in, or even what social contracts are.

Actually I'm more interested in where ghotiblue got his beliefs from if he's "new to politics" yet is so sure that the only moral system is one that lacks any, especially when history, if anything, is the constant evidence that people create order from disorder (in a myriad of ways, mind you).

So tell me: where do your beliefs come from and do you think Somalia is nice this time of year?

[Edited on December 29, 2009 at 2:04 PM. Reason : .]

12/29/2009 2:03:24 PM

Quote :

"So tell me: where do your beliefs come from and do you think Somalia is nice this time of year?"

I believe primarily in freedom and non-aggression. I believe each individual has the right to be left alone to live in the way that he/she sees fit, so long as it does not actively interfere with others' rights to do the same. In my opinion no other position is morally justifiable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Somalia is not relevant to this belief and would be better saved for another topic. However I will provide a couple of links which I posted in another thread, since it appears you believe it to be an irrefutable case against anarcho-capitalism.
http://mises.org/daily/2701
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1880

12/29/2009 2:25:02 PM

By the way, d357r0y3r, government's use of coercion necessarily extends beyond punishment of what you consider to be crime. Coercion must be used to collect taxes (if I don't pay, I am threatened with the use of force) and protect their monopoly on violence (if I attempt to set up a competing defense agency, I again am threatened with the use of force). Therefore, if you claim that only coercion, fraud, and theft should be punishable crimes (I would throw in any non-defensive act of aggression since coercion in actuality does not include this), any state, in order to survive, must violate this principle by punishing acts that are not included in this list. That in essence is the problem with any government institution.

12/29/2009 6:42:04 PM

I read the article on LR and have been thinking about it. To some degree, I agree with Sobran. The natural progression of government seems to be from upholding the law of the land to ignoring it. We've seen that in the United States. First you had the civil war, which wasn't actually a civil war at all - it was a war against a sovereign nation, the Confederate States of America. So, the right of states to peacefully leave the union was destroyed by Lincoln. Then you had FDR and the New Deal, which really set the new standard for the federal government. Now, referring to the 10th amendment is a fringe political position. So, in many ways, I find my own ideology to be very similar to Sobran's.

Here's one part that I found interesting, mainly because someone brought up a similar point in this very thread:

Quote :

"Murray and I shared a love of gangster films, and he once argued to me that the Mafia was preferable to the state, because it survived by providing services people actually wanted. I countered that the Mafia behaved like the state, extorting its own "taxes" in protection rackets directed at shopkeepers; its market was far from "free." He admitted I had a point. I was proud to have won a concession from him."

And Shaggy said:

Quote :

"Humans cannot and will not ever exist without a form of government. Any social group of humans creates their own laws and structure, and while you may not call it "government" its the same fucking thing you goddamned retard baby."

Even though Sobran has come to the conclusion that the constitution will never be an adequate restraint on government power and that anarchy would be preferable, his point (which is the same as Shaggy's) is still valid. You could say that the Mafia would be better than government, but the Mafia essentially is the government in that scenario. Any group of people that makes laws and enforces them is a government, whether you call it that or not. Government will always exist in some form.

Now, if the agreement is that all human interaction should be voluntary, then any individual should be free to leave the arrangement. That introduces the free rider problem. If there is no government, who protects against foreign invaders? Will the free market create defense agencies? Won't everyone living here benefit from those agencies, even though they are not funding them? I think that any society living in anarchy would be conquered by some other imperialistic government. If there were no governments, then perhaps you could have anarchy. But out of anarchy, governments will always arise, and those that run the government will act in their own self interest. Governments are naturally barbaric and abusive of the people. The ideal that should be aimed for and maintained is a minarchy that only protects rights but never takes them away.

12/29/2009 7:26:52 PM

Of course government will always exist in the broad sense meaning whatever form of rule currently exists. But that is just semantics, and in this thread I am clearly referring to a central government, a sovereign state, an organization that has a monopoly on the use of force in a specific area. It is this state that I think is immoral, as it requires the illegitimate use of coercion to exist.

I realize that some aspects of anarcho-capitalism are so far removed from society as it exists now that it is difficult to imagine how it could work, but there has been much discussion of possible solutions for things like protection. If you do believe that free markets naturally provide goods and services of a greater quality and more efficiently than monopolies, there is nothing to suggest that the defense industry would be any different.

I would propose that rather than the ideal being a minarchy, which by necessity violates the rights you refer to, the ideal should be a sustainable anarchy in which every individual governs themselves and legitimized coercion is nonexistent.

12/29/2009 9:53:17 PM

The problem is such a system is inherently unsustainable. People will eventually create systems which allow for mediated conflict resolution and mutual protection, and both of those by definition require ceding some autonomy and legitimizing a coercive entity.

12/30/2009 1:43:14 PM

I can understand thinking that a system of anarchy is not sustainable. I thought that myself not too long ago, and I'm still not convinced that it is. But I'm also not convinced that it is not, and don't see any proof to your claim that "ceding some autonomy and legitimizing a coercive entity" is the only way that order can be established in society. Therefore, I will continue to explore the possibility until I am convinced that it cannot work.

Anarchy may very well be impractical. I have only recently come to see its merit as a philosophical and theoretical system, and have not yet analyzed every aspect of its practicality in the real world. However, at this point I see it as far more practical than the idea that an organization with a monopoly on force can somehow be restrained and limited. Even if the state can be effectively limited, even the smallest form of government requires the use of coercion, which I believe to be immoral.

I merely think that the idea deserves more respect than it is currently given. It is not just crazy people wanting disorder and chaos. Anarchists are not against order in society (which several posters in this thread don't seem to realize), they just don't feel that the state is necessary for order to exist. There are a lot of brilliant, well respected people who believe that anarchy would be a much more just system of society, and to dismiss it as nonsense is a mistake.

12/30/2009 3:25:04 PM

The simplest proof that it is impossible to maintain without a coercive entity is an exercise in fraud or theft. You go to a car dealership, and having negotiated that you will be using silver coins as your payment system, you hand the dealer your payment amount, and he then gets in your new car and drives away.

How do you either get your coins back or get your new car?

Even complete free market capitalists recognize the need for a dispute mediator that both sides cede some authority to before the transaction/

You could say the solution is for you to steal the car from the dealer or rob him, but leaving aside the idea that two wrongs don't make a right, all you've done there is legitimized coercion and decided that the wronged individual will be the arbitrator of justice.

You could say that a private mediator would be necessary for the transaction but again there you have to cede some authority to that mediator otherwise the decision is non binding and worthless.

Yes eventually such an entity would not remain in business but they would have wronged a number of people first, and none of them would have any form of recourse.

12/30/2009 7:14:36 PM

Of course a system of defense is necessary. I was never attempting to claim that it is not. I just don't think it is necessary for it to be provided by a state. Private defense firms are a central part of anarcho-capitalism, and defense of property rights is certainly a valid use of force.

I do not disagree with your statement that "People will eventually create systems which allow for mediated conflict resolution and mutual protection". But allowing for open competition where individuals choose to use a particular firm voluntarily is the key (all legitimate exchanges are voluntary for both parties). A system where force is monopolized by the state and requires taxes to be paid is nothing but extortion. And as I explained before, a monopoly on force grants absolute power which will always be abused.

12/30/2009 8:18:05 PM

Quote :

"I believe primarily in freedom and non-aggression. I believe each individual has the right to be left alone to live in the way that he/she sees fit, so long as it does not actively interfere with others' rights to do the same. In my opinion no other position is morally justifiable."

That's lovely, but unfortunately reality is more complicated that that. You are a part of a social contract through which laws might be created which, while constitutional, you might not agree with. The power to wage war, for one. Whether you like it or not, you're part of a collective body, junior, so either join the argument on what sort of government we should have or drop out of society.

Of course, it's also laughable to see a product of government schooling, state-chartered systems provided for the public welfare, or whatever assuming they could have bootstrapped themselves to where they are today. Grow up. No man is an island.

Quote :

"Of course a system of defense is necessary. I was never attempting to claim that it is not. I just don't think it is necessary for it to be provided by a state. Private defense firms are a central part of anarcho-capitalism, and defense of property rights is certainly a valid use of force."

Now this is just silly. We get it. You read a book by Murray Rothbard and it changed your life. How in God's name would this not turn into clan wars or something? Will there just be some cosmic-groovy agreement as to who the legit arbiter of force is? How do you decide who the legitimate arbiter of force is? Man is a political animal and the agreements which we make through the inevitable coalescing of groups which come to be know as government and the governed are inevitable. Go read something else other than super-cool edgy "i'm a unique snowflake and I need something to validate how special i am" anarchist amusements.

Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_as_a_Vocation





[Edited on December 30, 2009 at 11:59 PM. Reason : .]

12/30/2009 11:52:22 PM

Quote :

"That's lovely, but unfortunately reality is more complicated that that. You are a part of a social contract through which laws might be created which, while constitutional, you might not agree with. The power to wage war, for one."

The idea of "social contract" is ridiculous. I have never agreed to any social contract, and the notion that I am held to this "contract" and must agree to whatever society says is best simply based on where I live is absurd. By that logic, German Jews could be said to be responsible for the Holocaust and their own genocide.

By the way, I have not yet read Rothbard, but am looking forward to it. I have formed these opinions on my own based, as I said before, on my belief in natural rights and non-aggression. I find that attempting to justify a system based on anything other than non-aggression leads to moral and logical inconsistencies. I have admitted that I don't know all the answers as to how this philosophy can be carried out in practice, but that doesn't change my foundational belief that non-aggression is fundamental to a just society.

12/31/2009 12:45:08 AM

Quote :

"The idea of "social contract" is ridiculous."

What the fuck do you think the constitution is? What the hell do you think the laws that define things like "no drunk driving" or "no dumping your garbage all over the street" are? We have laws at various levels of government and I'm guessing you accept them, especially as someone who supposedly graduated from a PUBLIC university.

And no, not every law you write into being is just. That's why we have this concept called justice and a system of checks and balances. There's no system of justice which validates your stupid claim that accepting social contract means you have to accept any hypothetical stupid Godwin's Law-invoking example there.

Unless you're in open rebellion against the constitution (we can debate how it should be read, but you can't debate it's the contract that binds this nation) then you accept a social contract. I'm guessing you probably abide by most laws in all circumstances. Guess what? You accept a social contract. Or you have no idea what is being discussed here, just want to convince yourself that you're a unique edgy rebellious snowflake, had someone at your Ron Paul ROLOVUTION meetings tell you about some sort of anarchism, thought it sounded edgy and required little of you in the way of social interaction or even having to care about anyone else, and accepted it.

It's lovely that you feel the way you do about non-aggression, but by your definition of that, as soon as one person exerts their will in some way AT ALL, that pact is broken. This is pretty much impossible for the same reason communism is impossible: people will always exert power over one another in some way and form societies and if you can't observe that by reading any history book at all then I don't know what to say.

Shit son, what philosophers have you read?

[Edited on January 4, 2010 at 2:33 PM. Reason : .]

1/4/2010 2:30:30 PM

You keep hammering this point, man. I know you think all libertarians (which, for some reason, you feel is the same as "Ron Paul supporter") are a monolithic group that demand ideological purity and reprimand those that don't adhere to the standard. It's obvious that you've never actually been to any sort of libertarian or C4L event, because that's not how it is. Sure, most libertarians are going to agree on a few basic tenets, but views on constitutionalism versus anarchism, social issues, religion, and foreign policy are all over the map. I've had pretty heated debates with other libertarians and Ron Paul supporters. Part of the reason a "libertarian party" never takes off like one of the main parties is because they're generally not willing to part with their principles for the sake of getting votes or mass appeal.

1/4/2010 2:56:13 PM

Quote :

"What the fuck do you think the constitution is? What the hell do you think the laws that define things like "no drunk driving" or "no dumping your garbage all over the street" are? We have laws at various levels of government and I'm guessing you accept them, especially as someone who supposedly graduated from a PUBLIC university."

I understand that the constitution is a social contract. So you claim that because some people signed a document 200 years ago, I must go along with whatever it says. I couldn't disagree more. I think the constitution is an impressive attempt to restrain the state, but still is immoral in that it grants the "right" of coercion and I can see no justification for that. Still though, I'd be ecstatic to see the government return to its intended form under a strict interpretation of the constitution. A return to the Articles of the Confederacy would probably be better still. The less coercion, the better.

Quote :

"It's lovely that you feel the way you do about non-aggression, but by your definition of that, as soon as one person exerts their will in some way AT ALL, that pact is broken. This is pretty much impossible for the same reason communism is impossible: people will always exert power over one another in some way and form societies and if you can't observe that by reading any history book at all then I don't know what to say."

Apparently you don't understand what I have said. I am all for people forming society. I just don't think it is right for people to have legal power over and control of others. A just society should be based on voluntary exchange. The state is based on monopoly of force and coercion. It is therefore immoral.

Between your belaboring of social contracts and ad hominem arguments, you have yet to explain how it is moral for one individual to have the right to coerce another. I'm assuming you would think it wrong for me to steal money from you. If I had a million other people vote on it and grant me the right to steal from you, does that somehow make stealing moral? Of course not. Therefore, any organization who claims this right is also immoral. I believe that a system of society and governance that does not permit coercion is morally preferable to a system that promotes it. It's pretty simple really.

How does this translate into the real world? I haven't totally figured it out, and don't think it can be totally imagined within context of our current society. I definitely don't think it can change overnight. We unfortunately have become reliant on the state in many ways, and it will take gradual steps to reclaim our liberty. But it starts with us recognizing the state for what it really is and then discussing ways which we can change it.

1/4/2010 5:19:37 PM

Quote :

"Go read something else other than super-cool edgy "i'm a unique snowflake and I need something to validate how special i am" anarchist amusements. ...just want to convince yourself that you're a unique edgy rebellious snowflake.."

Interesting that part of the argument of a pro-state supporter is to make sure you know that you're just one of the masses..nothing special or unique. The statist sees the forest, the libertarian sees the trees.

Quote :

".. most libertarians are going to agree on a few basic tenets, but views on constitutionalism versus anarchism, social issues, religion, and foreign policy are all over the map. "

Very true. Even though I lean libertarian, I still see a need for gov't. A very small gov't. But a gov't.

1/4/2010 9:55:20 PM

Quote :

"How does this translate into the real world? I haven't totally figured it out, and don't think it can be totally imagined within context of our current society."

I can believe all sorts of things that have no historical basis too. It's especially easy if my hypothesis will never be tested.

Do you read your posts to yourself in the style of a monologue by John Galt before you post them?

STATISTS

Quote :

"You keep hammering this point, man. I know you think all libertarians (which, for some reason, you feel is the same as "Ron Paul supporter") are a monolithic group that demand ideological purity and reprimand those that don't adhere to the standard. It's obvious that you've never actually been to any sort of libertarian or C4L event, because that's not how it is. Sure, most libertarians are going to agree on a few basic tenets, but views on constitutionalism versus anarchism, social issues, religion, and foreign policy are all over the map. I've had pretty heated debates with other libertarians and Ron Paul supporters. Part of the reason a "libertarian party" never takes off like one of the main parties is because they're generally not willing to part with their principles for the sake of getting votes or mass appeal."

You do a pretty good job of fitting the bill by throwing in mentions to "Ending the Fed" and voting for some vanity Paultard candidate in situations where such things aren't even being discussed. I've told you what my issue will always be. As long as you can't separate social freedom from "economic freedom", and as long as you insist on the "economic freedom first, all else will follow" as a law, and make a stink about the Federal Reserve while not saying a word about restrictive issues like reproductive freedom, then I'll continue to be dissapointed with the so-called heirs to the tradition of liberty.

You never said how believing in economics based on freaking axioms was any less dumb that treating the discipline like a science.

And what is C4L? I'm not down with the lingo. Most of what I learned about Ron Paul people was from the glut of them that invaded message boards like Something Awful in '07 and bought up a ton of banner ads and spammed YouTube videos and spammed every poll out there and claimed that internet polls were the true voice of the people, not, you know, actual votes. That, and I watched that counter-rally thing at the RNC on C-SPAN.

So unfortunately if you aren't one of those people, you've got a ways to go to get rid of their reputation.

[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 1:57 PM. Reason : .]

1/6/2010 1:43:56 PM

Quote :

"I can believe all sorts of things that have no historical basis too. It's especially easy if my hypothesis will never be tested. Do you read your posts to yourself in the style of a monologue by John Galt before you post them?"

Once again, nothing you said addresses the actual issue.

You can rant about libertarians and Ron Paul all you want, but it doesn't change the legitimacy of the ideas. And the ideas are just about common sense. Don't keep spending for things that we can't afford, and allow people to be free, both here and around the world. Most people agree with these ideas but the establishment (both Republican and Democrat) try to complicate these issues and act like the world is too complex for us to just live by common sense (kind of like you've been saying). But the complexity they add only serves to take away freedom and widen the gap between rich and poor and master and servant. People need to stop listening to these people and start listening to common sense again.

"That government is best which governs least."

1/7/2010 10:41:51 AM

Quote :

"And the ideas are just about common sense. Don't keep spending for things that we can't afford, and allow people to be free, both here and around the world. Most people agree with these ideas but the establishment (both Republican and Democrat) try to complicate these issues and act like the world is too complex for us to just live by common sense (kind of like you've been saying)."

And still, you think the solution to this is anarchy. You assume that noone will exert any undue coercive force on any other person despite any historical evidence (well, you did try to use SOMALIA as an example but I don't know where to begin on that). You need a codified justice system if you're going to enforce any sort of law, and how in the world do you ensure that everyone is abiding by a common system of law when you have private justice companies? Are they just all magically going to accept some cosmic sense of justice? You're wishing for the acceptance of something that just isn't there in history.

And furthermore, this whole equating "freedom" with relaxed government is pretty self-evidently weak in this century. Countries like the Netherlands, Denmark, New Zealand, etc has a large welfare state, and yet this does nothing to prevent people's creativity, freedom of speech, freedom of association, property rights, or even prevent them from having a, by most metrics, free economy. You want to tie freedom to your anarchy, but the two aren't required to go hand-in-hand, and most people realize that. What you're left with is, ironically enough, a very rigid definition of "freedom" as your personal views of the preferred organization of society.

Sorry you feel so oppressed, dude.

1/8/2010 2:50:24 PM

The problem with the social contract concept is that it assumes that an individual, by virtue of his or her birth, is automatically a willing signatory to the contract. Some people find this concept hard to square with the concepts of natural liberty and self-determination. Personally, I think the social contract is one of several ideas, along with natural rights, that the Founding Fathers effectively employed with good intentions (and good outcomes), but which are nevertheless fatally flawed concepts in that they assume the existence of the non-existent. I think that, as a society, we'll probably have to confront that problem some day, as it is difficult to defend indefinitely a system built on an internally weak foundation.

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 4:19 PM. Reason : ]

1/8/2010 4:19:02 PM

Quote :

"The problem with the social contract concept is that it assumes that an individual, by virtue of his or her birth, is automatically a willing signatory to the contract. Some people find this concept hard to square with the concepts of natural liberty and self-determination."

Then each citizen should have veto power over the Constitution when they turn 18?

1/8/2010 4:29:02 PM

No. But, technically speaking, for a person to be considerd a willing party to a contract, he or she must in some way make a positive (that is, active) declaration to that end. The fact is that in our society, as in all societies I'm aware of, that choice is not really offered. It is just assumed (with full legal authority) that you are a willing party to the contract by virtue of your birth. Since you don't really have a choice, it is a bit disingenuous to call it a social contract, as if you necessarily signed off on it on your own accord.

Ideally, for the social contract to be legitimate, it would require continuous renewal by all willing participants, and those who did not wish to be party to the contract could opt out without the threat of force or coercion.

Don't get me wrong, I think the social contract is a pretty good idea in theory (if compared to arbitrary monarchical rule), and is perhaps a good ideal to work towards, but practically speaking is probably untenable, and at the moment is certainly not truly existent.

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 5:58 PM. Reason : ]

1/8/2010 5:46:56 PM

What would an opt-out clause look like? On your 18th birthday you will be asked to sign the "Social Contract", and if you refuse you/we must...what? Move to Minnesota?

Perhaps counties could be allowed to vote themselves "Social Contract Exemption Zones" where you must move in the event you refuse the "Social Contract". It would be an interesting experiment to see if people really value the benefits of Government as much as they say they do. As I understand it, they do have such Government free zones in Europe somewhere, so I guess it wouldn't be that unusual.

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 6:05 PM. Reason : .,.]

1/8/2010 6:03:29 PM

You can opt out of the social contract anytime you want.

I hear Somalia is warm this time of year.

1/8/2010 6:17:52 PM

There are immigration laws. You can't just up and move to another country, at least without dealing with systems that you never signed off on in the first place. At any rate, that's sort of doging the issue. Again, contracts are created and sustained when people make a positive effort to join them. Contracts are not thrust upon people who then have to make a positive effort to get out of them. That's just not how contracts work.

1/8/2010 6:27:24 PM

I'm laughing at these graduates of a public university who, at least in principle, sound like they need to be living in a shack in the woods in Montana somewhere. You can really put your public education to work there.

1/11/2010 12:51:58 PM

"Social Contract" is a concept fwiw.

Arguing about its legitimacy is foolish.

1/11/2010 12:55:09 PM

Hey, talk to the people who think Somalia is doing well.

1/11/2010 12:57:47 PM

There is no opt-out. Until people stop living on the same planet, non-interference is impossible.

Every tree you cut down, every drop of water you drink, every breath you take (lol), every square inch of space your body occupies takes away from the available pool of resources for others.

1/11/2010 1:30:46 PM

Quote :

""Social Contract" is a concept fwiw. Arguing about its legitimacy is foolish."

Since when is arguing about the legitimacy of concepts foolish? Isn't that what this entire board is for?

^ I don't think anyone is arguing for isolationism. I've only said that all exchanges should be voluntary by all involved parties. Otherwise it should be seen as illegitimate. That doesn't seem too extreme to me.

1/12/2010 12:22:16 AM

Boy I can't wait until we throw out this batch of idiots currently in office and replace them with their counterparts. Surely they won't continue along the same path as their predecessors, for if they do we will throw them out and replace them with their counterparts.

This country is too far gone to every really hope for meaningful reform of government.

1/12/2010 8:44:04 AM

^^Not all exchanges are voluntary. No one can provide themselves with 100% of their basic needs. Everyone has to pay someone else to provide one need or another. Those who own/control the means to provide these needs have real power over their dependents. Thus, unless we all live on self-sustaining islands, non-interference is impossible.

1/12/2010 9:46:55 AM

Quote :

"This country is too far gone to every really hope for meaningful reform of government."

Sadly, I have also come to this conclusion.

1/12/2010 9:52:30 AM

Shit dude, it's hard not to come to that conclusion if you pay even a little bit of attention. I have hopes that one day people will wake the fuck up, by they're modest hopes at best and mainly center on the idea that like minded people will relocate to the same areas and try to make local and state governments be what they want them to be and try to minimize the level of involvement they have with the fed.

1/12/2010 10:12:40 AM

^^^ Paying someone else to provide a need can be -- and in most cases in our society, is currently -- a voluntary exchange. As long as I am not being forced to pay, it is my choice. How badly I need the good or service being provided is not relevant, only that I have the option to refuse it or get it from somewhere else if I so wish. Otherwise, it is coercion and is immoral.

Being self-sufficient is not a prerequisite of voluntary exchange.

1/12/2010 10:39:37 AM

Without government anti-trust regulation, we wouldn't have alternatives.

1/12/2010 12:08:26 PM

With government we don't have alternatives. Without we'd have many.

1/12/2010 12:55:32 PM