Libertarianism, In Theory and Practice

Lockstep

Soldie wrote: »

You cannot draw a parallel between voluntary consent between states and an involuntary agreement between an individual and a state. If a hypothetical grouping of countries agree on a policy whereby to abstain from a vote is to consent to a decision made then that's one thing, but for the individual there is no such choice.

Why not?
And these groupings of countries are not hypothetical, it already exists and is not a grouping of countries; customary international law applies to everyone.

Soldie wrote: »

There's some conflicting terminology being thrown around here that is confusing matters. Perhaps I should have been more specific: I do not think that an individual can tacitly consent to a contract. Your example of countries tacitly consenting to various things deals neither with the individuals nor with contracts. A social contract tends to take the form of a constitution and is legally binding.

Then again, you would be incorrect. I have already used the example of resteraunts as a tacit individual contract.
And states are individual entities (individuals) under international law.
Also, tacit consent in customary international law, is indeed binding on states as a form of contract.

Soldie wrote: »

Can you rephrase that -- particularly the distinction you're drawing between "private property" and "private land ownership"? Nevertheless, you didn't really deal with his argument, specifically the part I quoted; that you're presupposing precisely what you're trying to prove -- that the state legitimately owns the land.

Yup, and his argument presupposes another thing; that he owns the land.

Soldie wrote: »

Lysander Spooner also extensively covered the absurdity of tacit consent in No Treason. He points out that social contract fails the burden of proof because it is involuntary.

Is it? Again, I would refer you to tacit consent.

Soldie wrote: »

Suppose I present an unsigned contract to a group of people and tell them that if they remain speechless for the duration of an hour then that means they agree to the contract. Do you think that would hold up in court?

No because there is no collateral exchange at work, it's not a contract when there is no two-way exhchange. (if you said I will give you a dinner and if you stay silent then you agree to the contract and they have a reasonable means of exit, then I'd say it comes under the terms of a verbal contract)

Soldie wrote: »

It's unsigned because it doesn't exist. You're trying to draw a parallel between a situation whereby there is a legally-binding contract and a situation when there is no contract whatsoever. It's a legal matter pertaining to property rights. If a person enters someone's property and steals something then that's theft. I really don't see how this can possibly be compared to an involuntary contract between an individual and a state.

Then once again, I have to say you are incorrect. Contracts do exist in resteraunts, ditto in shops. Unsigned but they still exist.
Once again, the fundamental point is whether tacit contracts/consent exist. I have already used examples to show that they do but you keep rejecting that they apply (in which case, your issue is with the common law system)

Soldie wrote: »

Okay, so what's your answer?

I just wrote it.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Lesser of two evils sure, but I would view a child with minimal working conditions as an evil but a lesser one that them working in a completely unregulated one.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

An extremely bold claim; any evidence for this?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What about it?
I oppose such working conditions, not because I'm in a union but because I'm a human.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm not advocating the closure of factories; I am contesting the conditions that are worked in are necessary.
And I don't see any AFL-CIO union leaders claiming that sweatshop work is the worst of all possible fates.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't believe I made any reference to unionised wage inflation.
Countries like Pakistan already have labour laws, it's the enforcement that is below standard. Ditto for corporate labour laws like Gap.
Would also disagree that economies are destroyed by unionised wage inflation; Pinochet's Chile forbade the use of unions (ridding them of the equation and managed to run the economy into the ground, forcing nationaliation of banks and industry in 1982

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In all fairness Donegalfella, I did refer numerous times to bonded labour. The child has a tough time getting out of that. And I am referring to bonded labour, I acknowledge the labor of people who consent to work in sweatshops.

Kama

Just noting that the restaurant analogy has been denied, rather than either refuted or engaged with.

Donegalfella wrote:

You appear to be confusing libertarianism with socialism, when the two ideologies are in fact diametrically opposed on most issues.

And you in turn appear in denial that the libertarian urge exists within broadly leftist thought, that there is a tradition of libertarian socialism. Both seek maximal liberty and minimal statism, but perceive how this is to be done differently.

Soldie wrote:

You're essentially arguing that the government has a right to tax us because we utilise their state monopolies, when we have no choice in the matter. Similarly, we don't need the state for arbitration or any other infrastructure, either.

If, as was said, you have a right of exit, then you can 'shop around' for a more libertarian regime, or use voice to attempt to change the regime you are in. If no such regime exists, there's a fair argument that it is not a stable and competitively-successful system. Variant on 'if you're so smart why ain't you rich?', if it works so well, why don't we see more of it?

The nearest I can see to the anarchocapitalist order is in Somalia (non-statist polycentric legal system, Xeer), or within organized crime. Between the statist system of taxation, and the non-statist rent-seeking violent actors, my preference is for the former. I'd rather be shaken down on a regular and predictable statist basis, than on an adhoc and irregular basis by a succession of competitors in an anarchic market of private security, and have some system of representation and checks/balances.

The libertarian case here seems to be that the State, due to its powers of coercive force, can inflict choices individuals do not want or agree to: I accept this to be true. However I see no reason to accept the conclusion that in the absence of a State, entities with coercive force abilities will not inflict similar 'forced choices', to the extent that they have the power to do so. Areas (nominally) controlled by weak or failed states tend not to be somewhere you'd like to live, or try to start a business.

Soldie

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Why not?
And these groupings of countries are not hypothetical, it already exists and is not a grouping of countries; customary international law applies to everyone.

Because an individual and a state are not the same thing. How can you possibly argue otherwise?

Then again, you would be incorrect. I have already used the example of resteraunts as a tacit individual contract.
And states are individual entities (individuals) under international law.
Also, tacit consent in customary international law, is indeed binding on states as a form of contract.

You're just engaging in sophistry now by fudging the terminology -- conflating an individual with a state, and what is a "tacit individual contract"? Again, an individual and a state two very different things. A libertarian believes in the sovereignty of the individual, not the state. You can point to as much arbitrary wrangling between states as you like, but it is not the same as an individual voluntarily consenting to a contract.

Yup, and his argument presupposes another thing; that he owns the land.

That is irrelevant. The point I'm making is that you're trying to prove the legitimacy of the state by implicitly (ironically) assuming that it already has legitimacy. It is a logical fallacy.

Even if we were to accept that implicit consent is a valid form of consent then that doesn't negate the fact the social contract theory fails the basic burden of proof in that it's involuntary. If I put a gun to your head and tell you to sign a contract then that contract is invalid. Similarly, if a state coerce us by threat of force into consenting to their legitimacy then we can cannot conclude that the consent is valid (if your response is "but you can leave if you want to!" then see above). It's one of the fundamental tenets of contract theory.

No because there is no collateral exchange at work, it's not a contract when there is no two-way exhchange. (if you said I will give you a dinner and if you stay silent then you agree to the contract and they have a reasonable means of exit, then I'd say it comes under the terms of a verbal contract)

What two-way exchange exists between the individual and the state (that which pertains to social contract theory)?

I just wrote it.

Here was my question:

When congress authorised the levying of income taxes when they passed the sixteenth amendment, would it be logical to assume that those still present on American soil after the amendment passed consented to this taxation?

Here was your response:

But those people were elected in by the electorate and were free to leave if they disagreed to the idea of taxation.

With respect, I don't think that you answered my question. It is a yes or no question. Did those who were still present in the U.S. after the 3rd of February 1913 consent to income tax?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Soldie

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's phase two. They first call for a transitory dictatorship of the proletariat before the state mysteriously withers away into the ether.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

Soldie wrote: »

Because an individual and a state are not the same thing. How can you possibly argue otherwise?

In legal terms for the issue at hand, there's little enough difference; both are individual entities part of a contract.

Soldie wrote: »

You're just engaging in sophistry now by fudging the terminology -- conflating an individual with a state, and what is a "tacit individual contract"? Again, an individual and a state two very different things. A libertarian believes in the sovereignty of the individual, not the state. You can point to as much arbitrary wrangling between states as you like, but it is not the same as an individual voluntarily consenting to a contract.

Grand, you can engage in rejecting state legitimacy as much as you wish so feel free to disregard international law (even though we are referring to states and consent)
However, you cannot ignore tacit consent in individual contract law.
So both between states and between individuals, tacit consent exists.

Soldie wrote: »

That is irrelevant. The point I'm making is that you're trying to prove the legitimacy of the state by implicitly (ironically) assuming that it already has legitimacy. It is a logical fallacy.

But the State does have legitimacy; we live in a democracy where we have the power to choose our own government, our parents chose the State for us, and if you disagree, you can leave the country.
How is that not legitimate?

Soldie wrote: »

Even if we were to accept that implicit consent is a valid form of consent then that doesn't negate the fact the social contract theory fails the basic burden of proof in that it's involuntary. If I put a gun to your head and tell you to sign a contract then that contract is invalid. Similarly, if a state coerce us by threat of force into consenting to their legitimacy then we can cannot conclude that the consent is valid (if your response is "but you can leave if you want to!" then see above). It's one of the fundamental tenets of contract theory.

Implied consent is a valid form of consent as I have constantly pointed out in this thread.
Holding a gun to someone's head (duress)does not necessarily invalidate the contract (although it usually does so). At any rate, I don't see anything too bad about the contract of;
You are born in Mr X's boarding house, and you are expected to abide by his rules on curfew and when you are old enough, you are expected to pay your own way for staying there. You refuse to pay so MrX holds a gun to your head, telling you that if you are to pay your fees or else leave.
Problems there?

And the State doesn't force you to accept the contract by force. Once again, your parents chose the place for you to be born (unless they were kept against their will), and you're old enough to leave if you wish (reneging the contract)

What is the fundamental concept of contract law? If I remember rightly, it's voluntary agreements, and noone if forcing you to remain in the country.

Soldie wrote: »

What two-way exchange exists between the individual and the state (that which pertains to social contract theory)?

Protection and services/taxes.

Soldie wrote: »

With respect, I don't think that you answered my question. It is a yes or no question. Did those who were still present in the U.S. after the 3rd of February 1913 consent to income tax?

Very well; yes, I do believe it is logical that they consented to it by their electing a government.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The local governments. The laws already exist in countries like Pakistan but they are not enforced.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don;t recall so; but inductive reasoning does not that make that the truth.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Did he really?
When Pinochet took power (seizing power from the elected Allende), unemployment was at 4.3%, 10 years later it was at 22%.
In 1970, 1/5 of Chileans lived in poverty, when Pinochet left power, this figure was 2/5.
In 1982/93, Chilean GDP had dropped 19%, hell, at that point, pensions were so worthless and riots so common that Pinochet had to nationalise industry and banks on a scale Allenda had never dreamed of. He even created a work program straight out of the New Deal (500,000 new jobs) and never privatised Chile's biggest state asset; the copper company Codelco.

Joycey

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

soldie wrote:

That's phase two. They first call for a transitory dictatorship of the proletariat before the state mysteriously withers away into the ether.

Youd think that over the course of 140 posts, many of which were one of yours, including even the very first one, that you would have grasped the difference between state socialism and libertarian socialism/anarchism http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055610316. Given that you seem to be wilfully blind to the distinction, im not sure how much this will help, but here you go anyway

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism#Left


And it seems to me that the main sticking point between either of these ideologies and right libertarianism surrounds the legitimacy of the convention of private property, not the state. In state socialism the interim dictatorship of the proletariat is formed for the very purpose of reappropriating unjustly held private property and dismantling the oppressive and/or exploitative power structures established under and which maintain capitalism. It is seem entirely as a means towards an end, not an end in itself. Obviously you disagree with this ideology, at least get it straight before you start bashing it, it makes you looks like idiots.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And?
He managed to pull off a victory amidst a US funded smear/propaghanda campaign.
" I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people.”
(gotta love Kissinger in 1970)
Regardless, he was elected.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I was unaware that he needed congressional approval for everything; Congress ran a bill in 1972 prohibiting further nationalisation (two years after he was elected), which he vetoed. Perfectly in line with his legitimate powers.
And this is the same Congress dominated by his opponents in the Christian Democratic and National parties.

But sure, what's democracy when the successor is an authoritarian General who rides roughshod over human rights abuses (book burnings, dogs trained to sexually assault women, secret police, torture etc)

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

1987-97...you mean the years after Pinochet had saved the country by nationalising banks, industry, causing riots and strikes, restored the minimum wage, collective bargaining etc on a scale much greater by Allende?
Still didn't stop him from doubling the number of Chileans in poverty in 20 years.

Strange that you refer to conservative fiscal prudence; that article you linked to writes about Chile's current stimulus plan being one of the largest in the world relative to size.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And it continues to amaze me that every time any criticism is made of a regime, you will always have someone saying "How can you criticise X why aren't you criticising Israel/Palestine/Burma/Cuba/China etc?"

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Soldie

kickoutthejams wrote:

So both between states and between individuals, tacit consent exists.

Where consent--be it implicit or explicit--is voluntary and without coercion then that's fine. My position, which I've repeated countless times now, is that the "implicit consent" to the legitimacy of the government is neither voluntary nor is it without coercion, therefore it is not a valid form of consent, thus nullifying the "contract". To claim that "you can leave if you want to!" is not an appropriate response, because in making that claim you're presupposing that the state already has legitimate jurisdiction over a certain geographical location whilst simultaneously trying to prove that legitimacy.

Grand, you can engage in rejecting state legitimacy as much as you wish so feel free to disregard international law (even though we are referring to states and consent)
However, you cannot ignore tacit consent in individual contract law.

But the State does have legitimacy; we live in a democracy where we have the power to choose our own government, our parents chose the State for us, and if you disagree, you can leave the country.
How is that not legitimate?

In pointing to international law as an example of tacit consent you're not proving anything as it is based on the same presupposition -- that the state already has legitimacy. You're repeatedly presuming your conclusion over and over again. When I pressed you on this in my last post your response was "but the state does have legitimacy". If you're going to make that claim then the onus is on you to prove it, and to do without question begging, as that is a logical fallacy.

Implied consent is a valid form of consent as I have constantly pointed out in this thread.

You have not done so without resorting to logical fallacy.

Very well; yes, I do believe it is logical that they consented to it by their electing a government.

Okay. I'm going to deliberately invoke Godwin's law here. Did the Germans in fact commit suicide in the 30s and 40s in that they democratically elected--and contracted by implicit consent--the Nazis? If you're going to make the point that in electing the Nazis, the Germans did not implicitly consent to everything that their government did, then I wonder where the line is drawn. Does the state have the right to tax people but not to kill people? Where is the line drawn? It's entirely arbitrary.

Soldie

Joycey wrote: »

Youd think that over the course of 140 posts, many of which were one of yours, including even the very first one, that you would have grasped the difference between state socialism and libertarian socialism/anarchism http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055610316. Given that you seem to be wilfully blind to the distinction, im not sure how much this will help, but here you go anyway

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism#Left


And it seems to me that the main sticking point between either of these ideologies and right libertarianism surrounds the legitimacy of the convention of private property, not the state. In state socialism the interim dictatorship of the proletariat is formed for the very purpose of reappropriating unjustly held private property and dismantling the oppressive and/or exploitative power structures established under and which maintain capitalism. It is seem entirely as a means towards an end, not an end in itself.

That was already discussed in depth here.

As donegalfella said, it's funny how socialist states never seem to progress beyond the supposed transitory phase. If you'd like to point out some socialist countries that were anything other than a bureaucratic nightmare--or where the state had "withered away"--then I'm all ears.

Obviously you disagree with this ideology, at least get it straight before you start bashing it, it makes you looks like idiots.

If you treat me with courtesy then I will do the same to you.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

DUnno about the first 2 presidential runs, but in the 3rd he had a $20million CIA funded smear campaign against him. 4th time round was similar enough.

At any rate, your issue is with democracy in general then, and it's ability to elect candidates based on first past the post. The election was legal.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm not a defender of Allende, I am an opponent of Pinochet and his seizing power and instituting a torture ridden, authoritarian society.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I was unaware I would do so.
And I'm not a socialist.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

THey ran centre-left candidate of their own,Radomiro Tomic in the 1970 election.
Strange they would siphon off votes from Allende if they supported his running for presidency.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

He over-rode congress? I am aware he vetoed their calls for an end to privatisation as was within his powers ( the US president has the power to do the same thing, checks and balances etc)
I do remeber reading that he was fighting off an attempted right wing coup in June 1973.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Disappointed with your tone Donegalfella, despite our political differences, you and I always seemed capable of discussing politics without resorting to petulance.

What else do you want from the article? Chile's government merges free market principles with governmental spending and is doing well out of the crisis.
Doesn't sound too bad to me.

Lockstep

Soldie wrote: »

Where consent--be it implicit or explicit--is voluntary and without coercion then that's fine. My position, which I've repeated countless times now, is that the "implicit consent" to the legitimacy of the government is neither voluntary nor is it without coercion, therefore it is not a valid form of consent, thus nullifying the "contract". To claim that "you can leave if you want to!" is not an appropriate response, because in making that claim you're presupposing that the state already has legitimate jurisdiction over a certain geographical location whilst simultaneously trying to prove that legitimacy.

Do you then accept that tacitly consented contracts are still contracts?

In the same way that if you dislike your contract with a hotel, your choices are to leave, attempt to renegotiate or accept it. If you continue to remain there while not paying your dues, the hotel will resort to force (legal action).
A bit like the state then.

At any rate, given we choose our own government, it does have legitimacy.

Soldie wrote: »

In pointing to international law as an example of tacit consent you're not proving anything as it is based on the same presupposition -- that the state already has legitimacy. You're repeatedly presuming your conclusion over and over again. When I pressed you on this in my last post your response was "but the state does have legitimacy". If you're going to make that claim then the onus is on you to prove it, and to do without question begging, as that is a logical fallacy.

Ah now, I didn't just say "but the state does have legitimacy"; I expanded on it by pointing out our power to choose our own government, and our freedom to leave the country at any time.
Your parents chose your place of birth, immigrants explicitly say their commitment to the State (as did I when I swore an oath joining the army reserves) and so on and we can attempt to renegotiate the contract through elections. And if all else fails, we are able to end the contract.
Where is the lack of legitimacy?

Soldie wrote: »

You have not done so without resorting to logical fallacy.[/qupte]
Then once again, I would point out the example of eating in resteraunts.
Not a fallacy at all.

Soldie wrote: »

Okay. I'm going to deliberately invoke Godwin's law here. Did the Germans in fact commit suicide in the 30s and 40s in that they democratically elected--and contracted by implicit consent--the Nazis? If you're going to make the point that in electing the Nazis, the Germans did not implicitly consent to everything that their government did, then I wonder where the line is drawn. Does the state have the right to tax people but not to kill people? Where is the line drawn? It's entirely arbitrary.

But Hitler was elected democratically and within the Weimar Constitution; he only gained power by arresting the Communist deputies (to have a majority) and only became a dictatorship by illegal means; the SA preventing opposition deputies from entering the Reichstag to vote on the Enabling Act.

silverharp

Can I throw out a few situaions for comment, I cant think of the exact wording but does the individual concerned still hold the moral highground in your opinion by declaring by his actions that he is a sovereign individual? for obvious reasons the person is taking risks and has decided he is not happy with the "let them eat cake " argument that he can move abroad if he doesnt like it.


1- Person 1 is drafted to fight in the US Army during the Vietnam war or similar , for whatever reason he decides he doesnt want to fight so fakes a medical report to get out of it.

2- Person 2 believes that because of the war the gov. is going to break promises and inflate the currency so he breaks the law by converting his savings to gold and doesnt declare it when asked by the authorities.

3- Tax rates rise at the margin to 90% so the person decides that this is just wrong so engages in a combination of avoidance and evasion.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sure thing; MIT's Western Hemisphere Project;
http://web.mit.edu/hemisphere/events/kissinger-chile.shtml

Wasn't Allende running under a Socialist party banner; not the Chilean Communist Party?

donegalfella wrote: »

Yes, but it is a tradition in Chilean politics that a president who wins by such a slender percentage (Allende's winning margin was only 1.3 percent) does not attempt to impose such a sweeping mandate of change. Allende ignored that tradition.

Surely someone elected on a radical agenda would be obliged to carry them out?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I would agree; I too would take the lesser of two evils, however, I would view Allende as by far the lesser of two evils; even in the 1973 Congress bill you linked to, I saw nothing which was worse than Pinochet. I had to read Pinochet era torture reports for Human Rights law and they absolutely sickened me.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Grand so; internet is terrible at getting tone across.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Very true; but sensible economic planning is not a bastion of free market economics; Norway stockpiles it's oil money into a Government Pension Fund.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

simplistic

Kama wrote: »

I'd love to see a coherent reply to the restaraunt analogy; I think I brought it up in the distant past of this thread, and I've never got a good reply on it. You ate the food, you drank the wine, its hardly coherent to then knock over the table and shriek about 'violence' that there might be an expectation that the bill would be paid.

Now, willy-nilly, one obtains a variety of costs and benefits from living in any society, even at the extreme micro of being born into a family. These cannot be chosen volitionally, so an explicit contract is therefore impossible. But, assuming the existence of a right of Exit, the decision to remain constitutes an implicit consent, ergo the contractual requirements such as taxation cannot be coherently represented as 'violence'.

By continuing to eat the food, you accept the legitimacy of paying the bill; you can attempt to haggle with the owner, or use your 'Voice' to enact lower levels of taxation, but principled opposition to the concept of payment seems at best confused, at worst dishonest, especially for one who maintains the sanctity of contract.

Are you born in the restaurant or do you just walk in?

Do you parents pay a percentage of their wage to the restaurant or do they keep their full wage?

Can you leave and build your own restaurant? or are you just moving from restaurant to restaurant?

Essentially the argument of " if you dont like it leave " is phony , because I would in a heartbeat move to a society that used private security firms to protect property rights.

But right now there is none so I have to kick over a few tables because Im pissed of that Im being robbed through violence.

Kama

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

We had this before, on anarchocapitalism and libertarian socialism; iirc Joycey is of the opinion that the first is an incoherent misnomer, while you are of the equivalent position on the second. Yet, both these positions have traditions and adherents.

Faced with a dictator implementing socialism, and a dictator implementing free-market reform, I would take the lesser of two evils.

But for those who view free market solutions as inferior to socialist solutions for securing liberty, the opposite would be true. Still, its an authoritarian means to aspirationally-libertarian ends. Still coercive, still violent, still dictatorship. Similar to authoritarian flavours of Marxism, first the Terror, then the Paradise.

simplistic wrote:

Are you born in the restaurant or do you just walk in?

You are born in the restaraunt, and grow up there eating the food for free, using the toilets, and camping in an adjoining apartment where your parents live, when they aren't slaving away their lives at McStatism.

Do you parents pay a percentage of their wage to the restaurant or do they keep their full wage?

They work at the restaurant. They then eat there too, and pay for the food. They are free to move to another restaraunt and work there.

Can you leave and build your own restaurant? or are you just moving from restaurant to restaurant?

You are free to try to build another restaraunt, but there are barriers to entry. Establishing a restaurant requires significant capital, hiring security, staff, equipping the place, securing supplies etc.

simplistic wrote:

Essentially the argument of " if you dont like it leave " is phony , because I would in a heartbeat move to a society that used private security firms to protect property rights.

There are many such locations, generally where state coercive violence is insufficiently competitive with non-statist forces. There's large growth in this industry in South Africa, Mexico, and Iraq, among others.

Essentially, the libertarian demand seems to be that there be an area which possesses the basket of goods provided by states (security, property rights, etc) that does not have a state. Which is an unlikely equilibrium, imho.

But right now there is none so I have to kick over a few tables because Im pissed of that Im being robbed through violence.

I hope you aren't serious about causing violence to property :eek:

Joycey

Soldie wrote: »

That was already discussed in depth here.

As donegalfella said, it's funny how socialist states never seem to progress beyond the supposed transitory phase. If you'd like to point out some socialist countries that were anything other than a bureaucratic nightmare--or where the state had "withered away"--then I'm all ears.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution
Would be a big one...

As would this (though it only lasted a couple of months)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune
Crushed by returning French army from defeat in Franco-Prussian war

Those are examples of broadly anarchist movements (obviously with socialist ideas a central part of them), where no centralised state was set up, only commitees and various forms of collectives and workplace organisations, and which worked, more or less, till the capitalist class reinserted themselves into a position of dominance.

If you treat me with courtesy then I will do the same to you.

That is complete rubbish, im fairly aware of where most of the justifications for the right libertarian ideology come from. Given that I have read/read about (and not even from partisan left wing sources, as you seem to derive all your information from the right) and fundamentally disagree with your base principles (a) of property ownership according to us as a natural right, and (b) of 'human nature', and know in what way I disagree with them and would be happy to argue those points, I dont really interest myself in reading things which follow on from those (IMO), dodgy foundations, when theres so much other stuff out there to read that doesnt lose my interest immediately.

You on the other hand, and DF too, have this really annoying habit of making these grandiose, sweeping statements which refer to some strawman which no one your discussing with is actually argueing for. If you are going to seriously maintain your position, dont just endlessly bang on about the same points without actually engaging with the arguments of the people you are talking to.

So, for example, arguments I would like to see ye engage with
-> resteraunt analogy
-> natural rights vs socially agreed set of conventions/rules regarding justice
-> negative vs positive rights, and the justification for why it is more important to be free from something than free to do its opposite

Soldie

kickoutthejams; since the discussion is stagnating and and both of us are just repeating ourselves, I'm happy to draw a line under the social contract tangent if you are too. Having said that, if you still want to talk about it or if you have anything left to add then that's fine too -- I'm just making a suggestion for the sake of making the discussion a bit more productive.

On that note, I just want to pick up on one particular thing you said:

kickoutthejams wrote:

At any rate, given we choose our own government, it does have legitimacy.

Ah now, I didn't just say "but the state does have legitimacy"; I expanded on it by pointing out our power to choose our own government, and our freedom to leave the country at any time.

Do you think that a state requires more than our ability to vote governments in and out of power in order to be called legitimate? If I decide to setup my own country tomorrow and someone challenges its legitimacy, can I simply say "It's grand, sure you can vote for me or that lad over there to be in power and if you don't like it you can leave" in order to legitimise it?

I'm fully aware that the above has all the ingredients required to steer the discussion back towards social contract, but that's not my intention. I'm just putting the question to you to see if you've anything else to say on the matter given your claim that the state is legitimate because we "choose our own government". In short: what makes a state legitimate?

Soldie

Soldie wrote:

If you treat me with courtesy then I will do the same to you.

Joycey wrote: »

That is complete rubbish, im fairly aware of where most of the justifications for the right libertarian ideology come from. Given that I have read/read about (and not even from partisan left wing sources, as you seem to derive all your information from the right) and fundamentally disagree with your base principles (a) of property ownership according to us as a natural right, and (b) of 'human nature', and know in what way I disagree with them and would be happy to argue those points, I dont really interest myself in reading things which follow on from those (IMO), dodgy foundations, when theres so much other stuff out there to read that doesnt lose my interest immediately.

You on the other hand, and DF too, have this really annoying habit of making these grandiose, sweeping statements which refer to some strawman which no one your discussing with is actually argueing for. If you are going to seriously maintain your position, dont just endlessly bang on about the same points without actually engaging with the arguments of the people you are talking to.

Disagreeing with someone is not being discourteous, but calling them an idiot is. I think you'll find that, save for my exchange with kickoutthejams on social contract theory, I haven't posted in this thread much at all. It's quite hypocritical that you accuse me of putting forth straw man arguments and making sweeping generalisations when you blandly thank anyone and everyone who launches another clumsy tirade against the cliché of capitalism. [In this case I'm not talking about kickoutthejams.]

If you had, as you claim, read up on libertarian reading material from both sides of the political spectrum then you would have quickly discovered that not every libertarian believes in natural law. You would also have discovered that when the Austrian School talks of "human nature" they are starting with the axiom "man acts" as detailed in von Mises' magnum opus entitled Human Action. The reason why man acts and does as he does is not within the sphere of economics. Rather, Austrian economists are interested in the causation of events that occur from man acting.

Kama

If I decide to setup my own country tomorrow and someone challenges its legitimacy, can I simply say "It's grand, sure you can vote for me or that lad over there to be in power and if you don't like it you can leave" in order to legitimise it?

As long as you allow them to vote, and don't prevent them from organizing/putting up candidates you'd probably get the minimal democratic legitimacy Seal of Approval.

Course, we could have, say, two near-identical parties owned by near-identical lobbying interests, which matches your scenario pretty closely.

In short: what makes a state legitimate?

As a contested concept, there's obviously no easy answers here...

For the more emotivist, legitimacy merely means 'that I approve of it'. So a state doing policies I disagree with (taxation, welfarism, warfare etc) has lost the 'Mandate of Heaven'. Problem here is the definition is a highly narcissist one: stuff I like i legitimate, stuff I don't isn't.

For a democratic state, being included in the selectorate is seen as a key component of legitimacy. If I can't vote, eg due to race or lack of property, I can claim that the state lacks legitimacy. The democratic move took the divine right of kings, and invested it in (and arguably partially created by this process) the 'People' as a sovereign entity.

The harsh answer from the Realist in me would be the ability to control an area, and hence to be able to - effectively - make law for that area. So rather than a theoretic or philosophical source, here legitimacy is a product of coercive force advantage + time.

So...Effective control --> Legitimation --> Legitimacy.


That being said, the question 'What is Legitimacy?' could go all sorts of places...

Joycey

Soldie wrote: »

Disagreeing with someone is not being discourteous, but calling them an idiot is.

Right, I understand that and maybe my words were a bit strong. On the other hand I didnt directly call you and DF idiots, I said you looked like idiots (as does anyone) when you argue against straw men, something I tdo find kind of discourteous.

I think you'll find that, save for my exchange with kickoutthejams on social contract theory, I haven't posted in this thread much at all. It's quite hypocritical that you accuse me of putting forth straw man arguments and making sweeping generalisations when you blandly thank anyone and everyone who launches another clumsy tirade against the cliché of capitalism. [In this case I'm not talking about kickoutthejams.]

My logic in thanking people is usually when I (a)learn something I didnt know that interests me (b)see a response to an argument that is better than any I would have made/make an argument ive never seen before that works for me (c)have someone provide me with a link to something interesting. Kama regularly turns up with the goods, as has KOTJ in this thread.

If you had, as you claim, read up on libertarian reading material from both sides of the political spectrum then you would have quickly discovered that not every libertarian believes in natural law.

OK thats interesting. What schools of libertarianism (im assuming you mean right libertarianism) dont believe in natural law? Ive read Nozick, and othber secondary stuff on the right that either takes his justifications for property ownership for granted or gives a brief summary of them in order to make some other point. I dont find them convincing, and still less his other work. If you could link to a wiki article or something about this group id like to have a read.

You would also have discovered that when the Austrian School talks of "human nature" they are starting with the axiom "man acts" as detailed in von Mises' magnum opus entitled Human Action.

Ive not read any of the Austrian school, which I know is a bit of a gap in my economic education. Any suggestions of something relatively easy going by Mises or anyone else who you would consider to be an originator/most influencial in the school?

The reason why man acts and does as he does is not within the sphere of economics. Rather, Austrian economists are interested in the causation of events that occur from man acting.

Right, I dont really know enough to attempt to disentangle the argument... I know Silverharp gave me a link to an article talking about rational action and whether it was necessary for the Austrian school or not, which I ended up disagreeing with but I cant remember on what ground.

When I said I disagreed with your views of human nature I suppose I was argthinking more of the Randian/social Darwinist thing, which I have absolutely no time for whatsoever. I think most theories of capitalism begin by thinking of human beings as infinitely selfish beings, something that doesnt work for me, certainly not as an unexamined foundation of an ideology

Lockstep

Soldie wrote: »

kickoutthejams; since the discussion is stagnating and and both of us are just repeating ourselves, I'm happy to draw a line under the social contract tangent if you are too. Having said that, if you still want to talk about it or if you have anything left to add then that's fine too -- I'm just making a suggestion for the sake of making the discussion a bit more productive.

Completely agree; argument has reached stalemate as we're coming at it from such different angles.

Soldie wrote: »

On that note, I just want to pick up on one particular thing you said:




Do you think that a state requires more than our ability to vote governments in and out of power in order to be called legitimate? If I decide to setup my own country tomorrow and someone challenges its legitimacy, can I simply say "It's grand, sure you can vote for me or that lad over there to be in power and if you don't like it you can leave" in order to legitimise it?

I'm fully aware that the above has all the ingredients required to steer the discussion back towards social contract, but that's not my intention. I'm just putting the question to you to see if you've anything else to say on the matter given your claim that the state is legitimate because we "choose our own government". In short: what makes a state legitimate?

I'm a bit more inclined to go under the international law ideas that to secede, you need to show;
that ye are a distinct ethnic people from those around you
That you're rights are being abused
That there is no other remedy available to you
While they may seem restrictive, they are the best I can foresee that guarantee the right of secession while maintaining stability (the premise of international law)

In this case, there are remedies available to you; you are free to attempt to change your own destiny by the ballot box.