Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Libertarianism, In Theory and Practice
Options
Comments
-
Given the fact that libertarians believe in a minimal government that enforces private property rights, I'm sure you'll have no problem explaining how Somalia is "libertarianism in practice".
Somalia = minimal government, those governments (various armed groups) that do exist enforce property rights - their property rights.
Somalia is the nearest thing to an actually functioning libertarian society, as opposed to libertarianism in theory.
As Somalia demonstrates, the practical and the ideal theoretical effects are worlds apart.
Now perhaps you'd care to answer these questions:
If libertarians believe in 'minimal government' then why do they place such a fundamental emphasis on the enforcement of property rights through the courts?
Are courts not a form of government, i.e institutions which govern and regulate?
Surely governing through the courts is no less intrusive into individual sovereignty than government through an elected legislature?0 -
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I hope you aren't serious about causing violence to property :eek:
Ok so would I be right in saying that the principal of your argument is that if something is given to you for free ie food,cloths,shelter you are obliged to repay that debt or force will be initiated against you. If thats not it could you state the principal of you argument?
And can you explain why you think that having a monopoly of force is an equilibrium in the first place?0 -
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.
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...
If a group of people claim a certain area and found their own country, what happens to the person who lived there before the country was founded, and rejects their claim? Those who founded the country can attempt to legitimise their actions by pointing to democracy - saying that those living in the area--dissident included--may vote for their ruler, but is that real legitimacy, in the democratic sense?0 -
marmurr1916 wrote: »Somalia = minimal government, those governments (various armed groups) that do exist enforce property rights - their property rights.
Somalia is the nearest thing to an actually functioning libertarian society, as opposed to libertarianism in theory.
As Somalia demonstrates, the practical and the ideal theoretical effects are worlds apart.
Now perhaps you'd care to answer these questions:
If libertarians believe in 'minimal government' then why do they place such a fundamental emphasis on the enforcement of property rights through the courts?
Are courts not a form of government, i.e institutions which govern and regulate?
Surely governing through the courts is no less intrusive into individual sovereignty than government through an elected legislature?
In the areas of Somalia that are outside government control there is not "minimal government" - there is no government. It is a chaotic free-for-all amongst various warlords, many of whom are funded from abroad in attempt to get a certain faction into power. I could just as easily point to Somalia and conjure up a straw man argument attacking the failings of socialist anarchism, but that'd be rather clumsy. If you'd bothered to read the thread you'd see that this has already been discussed.0 -
If a group of people claim a certain area and found their own country, what happens to the person who lived there before the country was founded, and rejects their claim? Those who founded the country can attempt to legitimise their actions by pointing to democracy - saying that those living in the area--dissident included--may vote for their ruler, but is that real legitimacy, in the democratic sense?
Im assuming that you feel that it isnt, right? And id be inclined to agree to some extent anyway.
But by this logic any claim by a 'white' american to some property or land or whatever would be void, because the original illegitimacy of their appropriation of native american land/resources would remain. So why do you recognise the right of, say, Coca Cola to their wealth?In the areas of Somalia that are outside government control there is not "minimal government" - there is no government.
So what are the aspects of government you want to see kept? The legal system? If I understand your position right you are in favour of multiple competing private security firms to 'keep the peace', so Im not sure why a non-profit government is necessary? And surely even if Somalia is lacking the parts of government you want to see kept it is still much more like what a libertarian society would probably look like if it should ever come to pass than anywhere else?0 -
Advertisement
-
In the areas of Somalia that are outside government control there is not "minimal government" - there is no government. It is a chaotic free-for-all amongst various warlords, many of whom are funded from abroad in attempt to get a certain faction into power.
Warlords, factions, power?
I think you'll find that a factional warlord exercising power over a given territory is a government.
What do you think a government is? Are courts a form of government?0 -
Ok so would I be right in saying that the principal of your argument is that if something is given to you for free ie food,cloths,shelter you are obliged to repay that debt or force will be initiated against you. If thats not it could you state the principal of you argument?
If you are provided with a basket of goods on a continuous basis over a prolonged period of time, I'd argue that there is sufficient (moral) obligation that claiming 'that damn restaraunt never gave me nothing and now they want me to pay for the food I'm eating too' seems somewhat similar to the famous Freudian broken kettle story; angry denial.
Now, there is an issue here, about being unwillingly (in the sense that one cannot opt out, pre-majority) accepting gifts. Emotionally, neurologically, you feel endebted. Such psychological 'hacks' are why Krisnas give you a book before asking for a donation, same as the Moonies with flowers; as humans, we generally feel a feeling of indebtedness. In airports, people throw those flowers into bins angrily, to try and 'purge' the feeling of debt.
The principle which I'm getting at is the moral one; if you continue to eat in the restaraunt, after having had a long 'gratis' trial of the establishment, there's no basis on which it can be claimed that payment is an immoral imposition of force. If you eat the food, use the toilet, and use the WiFi, telling the cashier that his intent to charge you is a coercive imposition backed up with violent force is a bit rich.
Continue the analogy, the Libertarian complains that there is no existing restaraunt which serves food in the style and manner which he would enjoy, and leaps from here to the assumption that continuing to eat in the restaraunt, without paying somehow becomes morally virtuous on this basis.And can you explain why you think that having a monopoly of force is an equilibrium in the first place?
I think a perfect monopoly is impossible in practice, but its an asymptote that territorial governments aspire to, for the simple reason that they historically do *not* appreciate competitors to force provision or legitimacy. It gets called nasty names like 'treason' or 'rebellion' or 'terrorism'. Mind you, if it prosper, none dare call it treason: you get nice names like 'Father of the Nation' instead, and start interning the counter-revolutionaries, plus ça change.
However, I'm in general quite happy with a statist provider 'crowding out' non-statist irregular security providers, for one because the 'Repressive State Apparatus' can, in theory, be called to account. There's no such mechanism beyond states; I'm not saying one can't evolve from a libertarian universe, but if it is binding, it will need the capacity to coerce, and if it cannot coerce, its not an effective structure.
For an example of a non-statist provider on the 'legit' side I'd use Blackwater/Xe, and on the 'illegit' side I'd go with Los Zetas in Mexico. What I find interesting about mafias like Los Zetas is they are pumping much of the drugwar proceeds into legitimacy and service provision in their controlled zones. Loz Zetas make the Somali legal system look ideal in comparison, as in this glowing piece on Mises.org, but then the Somalis have had countless generation to acculturate to libertarianism.Soldie wrote:If a group of people claim a certain area and found their own country, what happens to the person who lived there before the country was founded, and rejects their claim?
Historically, those people are eliminated, one way or another. To quote someone unwholesome, 'who now remembers the Armenians?'; I'm also reminded of Zizek mocking the British human rights critics of Israel, saying 'Israels real sin is doing what everone else did (violent statist ethnic cleansing), but doing it now. State-making historically, contra the contractarians, has had more than a mild element of violence. The Lockean proviso on land of 'still enough, and as good left; and more than the yet unprovided could use', fails on a finite Earth.Those who founded the country can attempt to legitimise their actions by pointing to democracy - saying that those living in the area--dissident included--may vote for their ruler, but is that real legitimacy, in the democratic sense?
Barring seasteading, the nearest practical scenario I see here is secession. In the abstract, I can't tell if I think they are legitimate; the PoMo subjectivist in me says 'if they can get away with convincing people they are, then they probably are'. I'm assuming they don't establish said country through a 'reign of terror' of genocide and mass population shifts and have voting and exit rights. In this case, I'd regard the regimes as somewhat fungible; the same leaders will be elected as otherwise.In the areas of Somalia that are outside government control there is not "minimal government" - there is no government. It is a chaotic free-for-all amongst various warlords
I'd insert 'polyarchic competition between different providers' for 'chaotic warlordism' and conider the meaning to be identical, and as the earlier Mises link argues, Somalia in practice is less the pejorative 'anarchy', and closer to the nearest instantiated non-statist system of governance we have available as a model.Marmurr1916 wrote:I think you'll find that a factional warlord exercising power over a given territory is a government.
I'd agree. The origins of a lot of governments look a lot more like this than the ideal-type of free associating individuals coming together over tea and biscuits.0 -
If you are provided with a basket of goods on a continuous basis over a prolonged period of time, I'd argue that there is sufficient (moral) obligation that claiming 'that damn restaraunt never gave me nothing and now they want me to pay for the food I'm eating too' seems somewhat similar to the famous Freudian broken kettle story; angry denial.
Ok so the principal is that if you are given somthing for free you are morally obliged to repay a debt that you didnt incur voluntarily.
First off a moral obligation is a contradiction when a contract was not entered voluntarily. An action can not be moral when it is done under threat of force. So if a robber holds a gun to my head and says you are obliged to give your wallet to charity. The robbers action is immoral and your action is nuetral. It is not moral because you gave your wallet to charity.
If the pricipal of the social contract was moral then you and I could also use this concept but we cant because we will be thrown in jail . So if I could use the above principal then I could adopt children from the Congo, feed them, educate them and then threaten them with violence if they didnt pay me a chunk of their wage. I can try and guilt trip them about moral obligations all day long but Id be lying.
So the social contract self implodes because the underlying principal is a contradiction and ethically if you try to apply this universally as ethics are supposed to be it just looks silly.
Now, there is an issue here, about being unwillingly (in the sense that one cannot opt out, pre-majority) accepting gifts. Emotionally, neurologically, you feel endebted. Such psychological 'hacks' are why Krisnas give you a book before asking for a donation, same as the Moonies with flowers; as humans, we generally feel a feeling of indebtedness. In airports, people throw those flowers into bins angrily, to try and 'purge' the feeling of debt.
I do agree here though that the state simply uses the same tactics that many parents use. They may try and pull the guilt trip on you by saying that they raised you so you owe them.This non sence that you owe the family something can been seen through the state and nationalism. The authority of the state is nothing more than a projection of the the family.
It by the same twisted logic and propaganda that people see their families with rose tinted glasses and justify the actions of their parents with " they did their best " and " well I deserved to be hit I was a terror" . Once people see their families for what they are they , people will people able to understand where the state came from. This is the toughest pill to swallow because so many people deny the abuse that they recived from their families and so continue to deny the abuse from the state.
Man ,family and the state
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN44xdQj2Cc0 -
It's not "free", it's given under the auspices of the social contract.simplistic wrote: »Ok so the principal is that if you are given somthing for free you are morally obliged to repay a debt that you didnt incur voluntarily.
Contracts do not need explicit consent to be binding. Only implicit consent is needed provided there is a reasonable mechanism to end the contract. This has been dealt with already in the thread.simplistic wrote: »First off a moral obligation is a contradiction when a contract was not entered voluntarily. An action can not be moral when it is done under threat of force. So if a robber holds a gun to my head and says you are obliged to give your wallet to charity. The robbers action is immoral and your action is nuetral. It is not moral because you gave your wallet to charity.
No, you could adopt them, feed them, house them, educate them etc and then say if they wish to continue recieving this aid, they would have to pay you a chunk of their wage. If they don't want to do this, they can leave your house. If they attempt to live in your house and use your utilities then using violence (calling the cops to kick them out) is perfectly acceptable.simplistic wrote: »If the pricipal of the social contract was moral then you and I could also use this concept but we cant because we will be thrown in jail . So if I could use the above principal then I could adopt children from the Congo, feed them, educate them and then threaten them with violence if they didnt pay me a chunk of their wage. I can try and guilt trip them about moral obligations all day long but Id be lying.
Does that not sound like a valid contract to you?
It only implodes if your idea of a contract needing explicit consent is taken onboard. Which isn't the case under contract law (common law anyway, I'm no expert by any means on codified law)simplistic wrote: »So the social contract self implodes because the underlying principal is a contradiction and ethically if you try to apply this universally as ethics are supposed to be it just looks silly.
The social contract doesn't rely on a sense of duty (although it can be a factor in some cases). It's an exhchange of goods and services.simplistic wrote: »I do agree here though that the state simply uses the same tactics that many parents use. They may try and pull the guilt trip on you by saying that they raised you so you owe them.This non sence that you owe the family something can been seen through the state and nationalism. The authority of the state is nothing more than a projection of the the family.
It by the same twisted logic and propaganda that people see their families with rose tinted glasses and justify the actions of their parents with " they did their best " and " well I deserved to be hit I was a terror" . Once people see their families for what they are they , people will people able to understand where the state came from. This is the toughest pill to swallow because so many people deny the abuse that they recived from their families and so continue to deny the abuse from the state.
Man ,family and the state
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN44xdQj2Cc0 -
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.
Yes. Out of habit, I generally refer to classical liberal strand of libertarianism (i.e. fiscal conservatism and social liberalism) when I use the term "libertarian". I should have clarified!
Within this strand of libertarianism there tend to be those who support in natural law, and those who don't. There doesn't appear to be a formal split between the two "camps" but, from my experience, those who support natural law tend to be more sympathetic towards minarchism and/or anarcho-capitalism, whereas those who don't often claim that property rights simply lead to the best possible social outcome.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?
Libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism are overwhelmingly based on the economics of the Austrian school, so I strongly suggest looking into it if you want to develop a better understanding of the underpinnings. If you want to learn more about the philosophy behind libertarianism you should check out some of Roderick Long's lectures in the media section on mises.org. He's an anarcho-capitalist and he believes in natural law, but he goes into that in his lectures. If you want to get a beginner's grasp on Austrian economics you could look at Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson -- it's quite an easy read. You should be able to find an ebook/audiobook on the web quite easily.Im assuming that you feel that it isnt, right? And id be inclined to agree to some extent anyway.
But by this logic any claim by a 'white' american to some property or land or whatever would be void, because the original illegitimacy of their appropriation of native american land/resources would remain. So why do you recognise the right of, say, Coca Cola to their wealth?
I don't know that Coca-Cola had much part to play in the colonisation of North America! You may have gathered from my posts on social contract theory that I consider the nation state to be quite an arbitrary construction.So what are the aspects of government you want to see kept? The legal system? If I understand your position right you are in favour of multiple competing private security firms to 'keep the peace', so Im not sure why a non-profit government is necessary? And surely even if Somalia is lacking the parts of government you want to see kept it is still much more like what a libertarian society would probably look like if it should ever come to pass than anywhere else?
I don't recall explicitly saying that I favoured a polycentric legal system -- only that I challenged the idea that a monocentric legal system is the only viable one. Even though there is some overlap between anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism, I do note that this thread is about the latter, and it is generally the former that advocates polycentric law. Libertarians such as Ron Paul are strict constitutionalists and want the government's role reduced to national defence, and the protection of property rights. Anarcho-capitalists, on the other hand, want the state abolished entirely.
I'm not going to get sucked into a debate on Somalia as it has already been discussed in this thread. As I said before, those who wish to highlight Somalia as an example of the failings of libertarianism and/or anarcho-capitalism may wish to come up with an explanation as to why Somalia isn't an example of the failings of socialist anarchism, instead. "That matches some of the criteria of X, therefore X is wrong!" is an easy approach to take.0 -
Advertisement
-
kickoutthejams wrote: »It's not "free", it's given under the auspices of the social contract.
Ok so what is the principal can tell me in one sentence? Is it " if you receive a good or service that you didnt ask for you can either pay under threat of force or go to prison"kickoutthejams wrote: »Contracts do not need explicit consent to be binding. Only implicit consent is needed provided there is a reasonable mechanism to end the contract. This has been dealt with already in the thread.
There is no way of an individual ending a contract , only being forced to implicitly accept a new one. Is their any actual way out?kickoutthejams wrote: »No, you could adopt them, feed them, house them, educate them etc and then say if they wish to continue recieving this aid, they would have to pay you a chunk of their wage. If they don't want to do this, they can leave your house. If they attempt to live in your house and use your utilities then using violence (calling the cops to kick them out) is perfectly acceptable.
Does that not sound like a valid contract to you?
Ok but they dont get to live on their own without harrasment because no matter where they try and live being the state I will come to their home and collect half of their wage under threat of force. Does that sound like a valid contract?kickoutthejams wrote: »It only implodes if your idea of a contract needing explicit consent is taken onboard. Which isn't the case under contract law (common law anyway, I'm no expert by any means on codified law)
breaking the argument from implicit consent down premise by premise shows that it is logically flawed:
The conclusion of the argument is "therefore state is legitimate." The premises are, as follows,
1: The state has a legitimate claim to the territory it claims sovereignty over.
2: Continued residence within that territory indicates consent to the sovereignty of the state, and its laws.
3: If a state rests on consent it is legitimate.
and so the conclusion: therefore the state is legitimate.
The only trouble is, premise 1 assumes your conclusion, for if the state is not legitimate, it can have no legitimate claim to the territory it holds sovereignty over. So for premise 1 to be true, the conclusion of the argument would have to first be true. But that is what the argument is supposed to show.
If premise 1 is not true, though, then continued residence does not indicate consent.
http://richardgarnerlib.blogspot.com/2009/01/argument-from-implicit-consent.htmlkickoutthejams wrote: »The social contract doesn't rely on a sense of duty (although it can be a factor in some cases). It's an exchange of goods and services.
Is it a voluntary exchange?
The only argument that will ever make any headway is the argument from morality.
So I accept that you like to pay taxes and like the state but do you think that violence should be used against me for disagreeing and taking inaction by not paying?0 -
simplistic wrote: »1: The state has a legitimate claim to the territory it claims sovereignty over.
2: Continued residence within that territory indicates consent to the sovereignty of the state, and its laws.
3: If a state rests on consent it is legitimate.
and so the conclusion: therefore the state is legitimate.
Im sorry but blatently picking an argument that is circular in order to criticise it is not beneficial to intelligent debate...
How about this:
1. A group of people live communaly, in a mutually interdependent manner, on a tract of land.
2. Over time, certain structures come into place whereby the people who live in the society have some method of self-government through democratically elected representatives.
3. A (vast, vast) majority of the people who are the decendents of those who first lived on the land recognise the legitimacy of the communal claim to ownership of the land, which the state represents.
Conclusion: the state is legitimate.
It took me about two minutes to come up with that argument. Im sure its flawed/needs to be improved, or a better alternative exists. However its nothing like as facile as the one you gave above0 -
No, it's "If you decide to keep recieving goods or services and stay around without paying for them, then you can expect to pay under threat. If you don't like it, you are free to attempt to modify the contract, protest it's payment or end it altogether "simplistic wrote: »Ok so what is the principal can tell me in one sentence? Is it " if you receive a good or service that you didnt ask for you can either pay under threat of force or go to prison"
Two sentences but close enough.
Would you believe that someone can go into a café and eat off the all you can eat buffet, and claim inequity for being made to pay? As they never asked for the food; they merely went in and ate everything.
Of course there is; leave the State, stop recieving their services and don't pay them anymore taxes.simplistic wrote: »There is no way of an individual ending a contract , only being forced to implicitly accept a new one. Is their any actual way out?
Nah, because that isn't what actually happens. If you move to another State, you won't be paying half your wages to the Irish government.simplistic wrote: »Ok but they dont get to live on their own without harrasment because no matter where they try and live being the state I will come to their home and collect half of their wage under threat of force. Does that sound like a valid contract?
I fail to see how that proves any fallacy.simplistic wrote: »breaking the argument from implicit consent down premise by premise shows that it is logically flawed:
The conclusion of the argument is "therefore state is legitimate." The premises are, as follows,
1: The state has a legitimate claim to the territory it claims sovereignty over.
2: Continued residence within that territory indicates consent to the sovereignty of the state, and its laws.
3: If a state rests on consent it is legitimate.
and so the conclusion: therefore the state is legitimate.
The only trouble is, premise 1 assumes your conclusion, for if the state is not legitimate, it can have no legitimate claim to the territory it holds sovereignty over. So for premise 1 to be true, the conclusion of the argument would have to first be true. But that is what the argument is supposed to show.
If premise 1 is not true, though, then continued residence does not indicate consent.
http://richardgarnerlib.blogspot.com/2009/01/argument-from-implicit-consent.html
We live in a democracy where we are able to leave if we so wish and we elect our government in accordance with the wishes of the population. Therefore, the collective will of the population decide on a government with legitimacy, who must then be recognised by the governments of other peoples' collective wills.
Therefore;
1) The majority of the people consent to a government (those who don't can choose to run themselves, lobby or leave)
2) This government provides goods and services based on what their voters vote them in on and in accordance with a Constitution to prevent violations)
3) Citizens have a duty to pay for what they recieve, if they don't agree with what they are recieving is legitimate, they can vote or bring the case to the courts for breach of rights. Failing this, they can leave.simplistic wrote: »
Is it a voluntary exchange?
The only argument that will ever make any headway is the argument from morality.
So I accept that you like to pay taxes and like the state but do you think that violence should be used against me for disagreeing and taking inaction by not paying?
Key difference; you think that the only argument that will ever make any headway is a moral argument.
Let's continue your children analogy;
There is a vacant house where a group of people move in and elect a leader among themselvs. The leader protects the people of the house, organises their education and so on. It's so successful that parents move there with their kids (freely consenting to be bound by their rules and making decisions on the children's behalf) when the kids become old enough to have to pay their own way, they decide that they wish to continue living there and recieve protection, education etc without having to pay. They then have the option of running for leader themselves, leaving the house or paying for what they receive.
Would you feel that the contract is invalid; given that it is entirely voluntary aside from when parents make a contract on their children's behalf?0 -
Im sorry but blatently picking an argument that is circular in order to criticise it is not beneficial to intelligent debate...
How about this:
1. A group of people live communaly, in a mutually interdependent manner, on a tract of land.
2. Over time, certain structures come into place whereby the people who live in the society have some method of self-government through democratically elected representatives.
3. A (vast, vast) majority of the people who are the decendents of those who first lived on the land recognise the legitimacy of the communal claim to ownership of the land, which the state represents.
Conclusion: the state is legitimate.
It took me about two minutes to come up with that argument. Im sure its flawed/needs to be improved, or a better alternative exists. However its nothing like as facile as the one you gave above
I dont understand what you mean by circular ? That argument just breaks down the principals of the the argument of the social contract and proves that if the government is not even legitimate to begin Ie written consent from every individual on the contract than the social contract is in valid.
What if one person on the land decides that he doesnt want government? Is it justified to use violence against him to form the state?0 -
kickoutthejams wrote: »No, it's "If you decide to keep recieving goods or services and stay around without paying for them, then you can expect to pay under threat. If you don't like it, you are free to attempt to modify the contract, protest it's payment or end it altogether "
Two sentences but close enough.
Would you believe that someone can go into a café and eat off the all you can eat buffet, and claim inequity for being made to pay? As they never asked for the food; they merely went in and ate everything.
Is this principal moral ? So could I post I pods to somebodys home and then say ," either pay or leave"?kickoutthejams wrote: »Of course there is; leave the State, stop recieving their services and don't pay them anymore taxes.
Can you explain how somebody can do this without being trapped by a different state?kickoutthejams wrote: »Nah, because that isn't what actually happens. If you move to another State, you won't be paying half your wages to the Irish government.
"If you dont like being robbed in this street well then move and get robbed in a different street" Ha come on now you are just attempting to justify theft.kickoutthejams wrote: »I fail to see how that proves any fallacy.
We live in a democracy where we are able to leave if we so wish and we elect our government in accordance with the wishes of the population. Therefore, the collective will of the population decide on a government with legitimacy, who must then be recognised by the governments of other peoples' collective wills.
Therefore;
1) The majority of the people consent to a government (those who don't can choose to run themselves, lobby or leave)
2) This government provides goods and services based on what their voters vote them in on and in accordance with a Constitution to prevent violations)
3) Citizens have a duty to pay for what they recieve, if they don't agree with what they are recieving is legitimate, they can vote or bring the case to the courts for breach of rights. Failing this, they can leave.
See the above post.
Again you either agree that violence should be used against people who disagree or you dont which is it?
Key difference; you think that the only argument that will ever make any headway is a moral argument.
Let's continue your children analogy;
There is a vacant house where a group of people move in and elect a leader among themselvs. The leader protects the people of the house, organises their education and so on. It's so successful that parents move there with their kids (freely consenting to be bound by their rules and making decisions on the children's behalf) when the kids become old enough to have to pay their own way, they decide that they wish to continue living there and recieve protection, education etc without having to pay. They then have the option of running for leader themselves, leaving the house or paying for what they receive.
Would you feel that the contract is invalid; given that it is entirely voluntary aside from when parents make a contract on their children's behalf?[/quote]
Yes that is a valid contract between the parents and the leader. But a social contract does not have acceptance of everybody in the house at its beginning so it is invalid.0 -
simplistic wrote: »I dont understand what you mean by circular ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
"Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise. Begging the question is related to circular argument" (from wikipedia).
Example: (from wikipedia)
Person Statement
1 He is mad right now.
2 How do you know?
1 Well, because he is really angry.
So the argument which you claim is the one supporters of the concept of state use would fall under this category, and that is the reason that Richard Garner guy, or whoever it is who came up with it, sees it as invalid.That argument just breaks down the principals of the the argument of the social contract and proves that if the government is not even legitimate to begin
No it doesnt, it shows that the straw man you created is, in fact, a straw man.Ie written consent from every individual on the contract than the social contract is in valid.
You are now introducing your own notions of legitimacy into the argument. No where in my post did I mention anything about contracts. What im talking about is a claim on the land which is that of a community who are all dependent on one another, it has nothing to do with individual's "right to contract", or private property.What if one person on the land decides that he doesnt want government? Is it justified to use violence against him to form the state?
Yes, I would say so, because it is in fact an act of violence on the person's part to attempt to appropriate (steal) some of the community's land for his own selfish use, and as such demands a response in kind from those he or she has thieved from.0 -
The principle is indeed moral as it can be ended at any time.simplistic wrote: »Is this principal moral ? So could I post I pods to somebodys home and then say ," either pay or leave"?
Posting Ipods to somebodys home is not as they never consented to it (or noone capable of acting in thier interests consented to it) and have no way to end the contract. Unless you posted them to someone's house and said
You can move to a place where there isn't an effective government. Or one where the government is more to your liking.simplistic wrote: »Can you explain how somebody can do this without being trapped by a different state?
No; "If you refuse to pay for goods and service you recieve in this street then you must either pay up or move to another street where you won't be expected to pay as much/at all"simplistic wrote: »"If you dont like being robbed in this street well then move and get robbed in a different street" Ha come on now you are just attempting to justify theft.
You have failed to show how it is theft. I have already explained why a government is legitimate under popular consent and how a social contract functions (and is comparable to individual contracts)
What about it?simplistic wrote: »See the above post.
I'm sure you see no problem with violence being used against those who break a contract (either to make them pay their side of the bargain. Neither do I.simplistic wrote: »Again you either agree that violence should be used against people who disagree or you dont which is it?
I take it you therefore accept the contract between the parents and the leader.simplistic wrote: »Yes that is a valid contract between the parents and the leader. But a social contract does not have acceptance of everybody in the house at its beginning so it is invalid.
How can you then reject the concept of a contract between people and the government, given that they're parents made it for them/they freely chose it themselves by emigrating here?
Universal acceptance is not a prerequisite in international law (customary law needs to be widespread but need not be universal, with all states being bound by it)0 -
Simplistic wrote:I'm not going to get sucked into a debate on Somalia as it has already been discussed in this thread.
I've seen it pooh-poohed a lot, but rarely discussed. Like I linked, it has a pretty fawning analysis of its polycentric legal system on Mises.
I'd agree that the Somali example is applicable to any advocates of a weak-to-absent state, regardless of left-right position.As I said before, those who wish to highlight Somalia as an example of the failings of libertarianism and/or anarcho-capitalism may wish to come up with an explanation as to why Somalia isn't an example of the failings of socialist anarchism, instead. "That matches some of the criteria of X, therefore X is wrong!" is an easy approach to take.
I'd also note that my habit of beating my wife has precisely nothing to do with whether you beat yours.simplistic wrote:Ok so the principal is that if you are given somthing for free you are morally obliged to repay a debt that you didnt incur voluntarily...Is it a voluntary exchange? The only argument that will ever make any headway is the argument from morality.
I'd disagree, the real concluding argument is the Realist one; unless you are willing and capable of deploying sufficient force or power, moral claims won't get you very far. Ask the Melians, or more recently the Biafrans.
However within morality, the disjunct in my opinion comes from individualist refusal to accept collective choice; a state or polity is a collectivity over time, and hence many of its 'agreements' will necessarily not be 'freely consented' to by a dissenting individual, especially if the dissenters ideology indicates that their individual preference should trump aggregate preference. Typically this is where 'natural law' comes in, its problem being that it is fully fungible - natural law1 emphasises private property and the inalienable right of the individual, natural law2 emphasises the supremacy of Allah, natural law3...etc.
We have been proposing the argument from morality, of an incurred debt. I've known a small smattering of highly principled anti-statists, who withdrew as far as feasible from using state services; there are other examples (like some fundamentalists in the US) who view 'bleeding the Beast' by using state welfare as much as possible to be their 'agorist' strategy. Crusties in West Cork fit here too in my mind, some of punk too. My own view is if you're 'anti-establishment', but suck on the teat, the hypocrisy should leave a bitter taste in the mouth.
On the voluntary exchange, you are not (coercively) obliged to repay the debt incurred prior to consent; you retain the right of Exit. 'Brain drains' result from precisely such Exit, and are quite the problem in development policy. Given that you choose to remain, rather than leave, consent inarguably exists. The counter made, that there is only another state to flee to, is untrue. There are areas where state legitimacy and power is lower; but other 'racketeers' seem to fill an analagous gap. Claiming that because an ideal situation does not exist to move to seems weak: ideal situations are not instantiated possibilities, aka 'I'd like a unicorn and the ability to fly'. Wouldn't we all?
You may attempt to make your way as a stateless wanderer, or sans papieres, without the benefits of state protection, legal systems, citizenship etc: start by burning your passport, and go on from there. By doing so, you lose access to a mixed basket of collective goods without which your life becomes much harder, but you are welcome to at any time, if you consider that the costs of statism are greater than the benefits. The option exists; its just not a pleasant one, compared to remaining within the statist system.0 -
This is what Im trying to say. Statism is an ex-post facto justification for human ownership.0 -
simplistic wrote: »
This is what Im trying to say. Statism is an ex-post facto justification for human ownership.
Sorry but watched 3 minutes of that and its complete tripe.
A couple of things your man says that are stupid and/or BS:
Governments weren't "invented", as he says, rather they emerged spontaneously as a result of and as a response to certain material conditions in society. Large groups of people always self-regulate. Trying not to get into complexity theory which I dont really understand, some form of order will always emerge in a society over time. "Governments", obviously depending on how you define what a government is, are one form of this emergent order, not a result of evil slavemongers sitting around and thinking up a new, ingeneous way to exploit people.
Just after he says "governments always exploit people" :rolleyes:, he gives as proof of this the fact that they imprison people and take people's incomes from them. Exactly what would happen under a right-libertarian system if someone is deemed to pose a risk to others in a society? Fining only works if the person doesnt pose a continued risk, eventually some means of seperation from everyone else needs to occur -> imprisonment. Similarly, is not exactly what happens under capitalism when I enter into a contract with someone that I give them some of my income in exchange for some good or service? That is exactly why the state collects taxes from me at the moment, in order that roads/hospitals/schools/protection etc may be provided to me. And not only that, but at cost price (ie not profited from by any individual by means of their being provided).
-> Capitalism = exploitation, if we are to take his definition of exploitation to be correct. No?
The fact that he uses images from the matrix in order to further sensationalise his message, which itself is delivered by means of countless unjustified assertions and generalised statements means I really cba listening to the rest of it... Sorry.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sorry but watched 3 minutes of that and its complete tripe.
A couple of things your man says that are stupid and/or BS:
Governments weren't "invented", as he says, rather they emerged spontaneously as a result of and as a response to certain material conditions in society. Large groups of people always self-regulate. Trying not to get into complexity theory which I dont really understand, some form of order will always emerge in a society over time. "Governments", obviously depending on how you define what a government is, are one form of this emergent order, not a result of evil slavemongers sitting around and thinking up a new, ingeneous way to exploit people.
Just after he says "governments always exploit people" :rolleyes:, he gives as proof of this the fact that they imprison people and take people's incomes from them. Exactly what would happen under a right-libertarian system if someone is deemed to pose a risk to others in a society? Fining only works if the person doesnt pose a continued risk, eventually some means of seperation from everyone else needs to occur -> imprisonment. Similarly, is not exactly what happens under capitalism when I enter into a contract with someone that I give them some of my income in exchange for some good or service? That is exactly why the state collects taxes from me at the moment, in order that roads/hospitals/schools/protection etc may be provided to me. And not only that, but at cost price (ie not profited from by any individual by means of their being provided).
-> Capitalism = exploitation, if we are to take his definition of exploitation to be correct. No?
The fact that he uses images from the matrix in order to further sensationalise his message, which itself is delivered by means of countless unjustified assertions and generalised statements means I really cba listening to the rest of it... Sorry.
Emerged?:D Yes nobody walked into the restraunt the restraunt was built around them.
Again my point is that govenment is an ex post facto justification for human ownership it at about 13 mins in the video.0 -
Joycey wrote:Im sorry but blatently picking an argument that is circular in order to criticise it is not beneficial to intelligent debate...
Although I'm eager not to get sucked back into the social contract theory debate, I have to point out that this is simply wrong.
It's not a case of "picking out" an argument that is circular -- it's the fact that social contract is pointed to in an attempt to legitimise the state, and that is question begging. If you argue that the state is legitimate because you've implicitly signed a contract that you can cancel at any time by emigrating, you're presupposing that the state is already legitimate.
Off-topic for a moment:
Something about Stefan Molyneux gives me the heebie-jeebies. He's usually right on the money when it comes to economics and politics, but his philosophy and pseudo-psychiatry is quite out there. There's an interesting article about him and his site, Freedomain Radio, here. He offers a lengthy rebuttal to the allegations on his YouTube channel, though -- part one and part two, for those interested.0 -
If a group of people claim a certain area and found their own country, what happens to the person who lived there before the country was founded, and rejects their claim? Those who founded the country can attempt to legitimise their actions by pointing to democracy - saying that those living in the area--dissident included--may vote for their ruler, but is that real legitimacy, in the democratic sense?Im assuming that you feel that it isnt, right? And id be inclined to agree to some extent anyway.
But by this logic any claim by a 'white' american to some property or land or whatever would be void, because the original illegitimacy of their appropriation of native american land/resources would remain. So why do you recognise the right of, say, Coca Cola to their wealth?I don't know that Coca-Cola had much part to play in the colonisation of North America! You may have gathered from my posts on social contract theory that I consider the nation state to be quite an arbitrary construction.
Coca-Cola themselves didnt colonise America, but given the owners can trace their ancestry to white colonists (and if this doesnt work for Coca-Cola it surely will for thousands of other American corporations), how do you justify their continued, upheld claim of ownership of the assets of Coca-Cola?
I only see two ways of justifying it really, the first is through the establishment of a universally enfranchised, democratic state which subsumes the colonised people under the aegis of a new community comprised of both settlers and indigenous peoples, which you could argue is what has actually happened, but you dont seem to see this as adequate justification, given the above quotes. Or secondly, a kind of might=right principle, which I gather you also wouldnt see as appropriate for bestowing legitimacy on a thief's actions.
So then, how do you justify the continued claim of ownership of Coca-Cola, or any other corporation who's assets are founded on the disenfranchisement (or theft from) a people?0 -
Although I'm eager not to get sucked back into the social contract theory debate, I have to point out that this is simply wrong.
It's not a case of "picking out" an argument that is circular -- it's the fact that social contract is pointed to in an attempt to legitimise the state, and that is question begging. If you argue that the state is legitimate because you've implicitly signed a contract that you can cancel at any time by emigrating, you're
Im not really well schooled enough to put forward a justification of social contract theory. Not sure I actually consider myself a proponant of it in the first place tbh. However I am virtually certain that if it were as easy to prove the entire discourse of social contract theory logically incoherent at its most basic level in the space of 4 half-sentences, that it would have been done several hundred years ago.
Im not going to take the time to research it/come up with an alternative justification myself right now, but seriously, the argument above is rediculous.
On the other hand, I did post a primitive defence of the legitimacy of the state above which has no recourse to social contract theory at all and which doesnt have any glaring logical inconsistencies in it. Would like to discuss that if you have any objections to it?0 -
Just noticed that you made another reply Soldie, apologies for the late rebuttal.That's somewhat of a chicken/egg argument. 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.
Nope, throughout this argument you have been confusing the scope of government involvement with my arguments for its legitimacy. I have argued that there is legitimacy for some degree of taxation on the basis of the legitimacy of its initial presence and that this degree is itself defined by the same people who legitimized the state's presence in the first place. I just re-read some of my books on the topic (and had another scoff at freedomainradio and its proponents), so let me set you straight about what I am saying once and for all.
I am saying that the criteria which define legitimacy and rights are transient and subjective, as history and a frank lack of polarity on moral issues demonstrates. Hence, each and every person is going to have a propensity to disagree on what constitutes legitimacy. As a result of this, there can be no guarantee of coherence or justification of systems of ownership without a polarized definition of what legitimacy is. Hence, I argue that it falls to the majority to decide what legitimacy is, due to the apparent disparity of the alternative. As a concomitant to this, we have the people determining what areas this legitimacy is to deal with.
Based on your logic, we have a moral dictatorship of the minority by the majority, I presume. Do you consider this majority definition of legitimacy to be force? If so, then it is the concept of legitimacy which is the force or "violence" that you speak of, so you cannot apply your objections to its concomitants (which include taxation), until you can coherently reject their source using a moral vocabulary which is not self defeating (since the concept of legitimacy itself which you frequently employ, along with its subsisting functions, such as "rights" is apparently useless unless defined on this basis of dictatorship, meaning that your rejection of taxation and the state on the basis of majority violence shows nothing about the morality of it other than you being on the losing side).
Anyways, on this definition of legitimacy (as being sanctioned by the majority and not conflicting with a set of fundamental rights which are protected by constitution) the state is established as legitimate by majority consent to be governed; this is done primarily to define and protect scope of personal freedoms and property rights (in whatever way these rights manifest themselves, which is defined by the scope mentioned above). In a democracy, legitimacy is rightly defined only in this case (majority), and objections to this majority on the basis that the minority have a right to complete non interference from the state is invalid, since this right is not justified prima facie.
Dealt with, I hope.The state's existence isn't justified simply because it exists.
This deals with the scope of government, not its legitimacy.After the privatisation of Telecom Éireann we've come to the refreshing reliasation that we don't actually need the state to provide us with phone and internet services.
This is a blatant non-sequiter. Especially the part about arbitration. I have already mentioned the necessary role of the state as arbiter, and you have not formed a rebuttal. Privatization of communication infrastructure =/= judicial privatization precedent. Please explain how a privatized legislative (legal) system and judicial system can exist without resorting to majority mandate with regard to law/policing (see above discussion on legitimacy).Similarly, we don't need the state for arbitration or any other infrastructure, either.
Private and public sectors can exist together. Hence, it is not a "monopoly". The public services exist to extend necessary services to areas where it is unprofitable to do so for a private company. In accordance with our "coercive" ethics (which violate your unjustified right not to be taxed for services you do not necessarily use), we pay for these public services which we reckon everyone ought to have due to the fact that some people do not live in areas which it is profitable to service, or they may not be in a position to pay for services due to some uncontrollable disposition or condition.Your position seems to be that the state is fully justified in taxing us to fund their coercive monopolies simply because we use them, which is absurd in that we have no choice.
And they are (arbitration definitely so). Polycentric law only changes the scale of the area in which people are subject to majority defined law (which still falls prey to the legitimacy dispute I outlined above). With regard to the infrastructure part of it, I have explained that this is a question of scale and the nature of the private sector accompanying it, and the service which is to be provided,not legitimacy.I pointed to the possibility of polycentric law in response to your repeated implication that state arbitration and state infrastructure are necessary.To reiterate my previous point (which was invalid to begin with since I have already explained how polycentric law does not serve to do as you say it does, it merely relates to the scale of government): we don't need the government for either of those things.The implication you're making is that a contract is unenforceable without an arbitrary centralised central state and, as such, is redundant. There is abundant reading material available on polycentric law which proves that this is not the case.pagancornflake wrote: »Centralized state wide or central to a locality, the point being made is that you must refer to a judicial and executive system which is provided by the government in order for contractual agreements and their enforcement to take place, and they will need funding to do so. The only difference is the scale of the government, and I don't see the point in localizing the government's power in terms of law.
And I have. Your objection regarding poly centric law does nothing to debase the role of the state in arbitration. You ignored this rebuttal. If you're going to take the anti-state side then I politely point out that you're expected to back up that position (preferably by elaborating on points such as how polycentric law supports your position) as I alluded to here:If you're going to take the statist side then I politely point out that you're expected to back up that position.pagancornflake wrote: »Also, this is an argument, not a reading list. If there is reading to be done on poly centric law, then it must be done by you and paraphrased here if you are going to suggest it as a better alternative.0 -
If you argue that the state is legitimate because you've implicitly signed a contract that you can cancel at any time by emigrating, you're presupposing that the state is already legitimate.
A fine synopsis of Roderick Long's argument against the principles of social contract. They are indeed self certifying on their own, and require further justification of the moral principles leading to the supposed necessity and validity of such a contract (I will give you that, and I believe I have given such a justification already). This is what should occupy the rest of the discussion imo.0 -
pagancornflake, I'm just going to respond to the portion of your post that pertains to social contract theory, as that is what our exchange was about. My initial responses were somewhat sloppy, but at the time I was unsure of what your point was. I don't think that responding to the tangential discussions that arose from the misinterpretation of each other's posts will benefit the discussion so, as said, I'm not going to do so.pagancornflake wrote: »Nope, throughout this argument you have been confusing the scope of government involvement with my arguments for its legitimacy. I have argued that there is legitimacy for some degree of taxation on the basis of the legitimacy of its initial presence and that this degree is itself defined by the same people who legitimized the state's presence in the first place. I just re-read some of my books on the topic (and had another scoff at freedomainradio and its proponents), so let me set you straight about what I am saying once and for all.
In your most recent post you seemed to sympathise with Long's objections, and said that "further" justification was required. This is contradictory in that you're implying that the "you consent because you choose to stay" question begging that is often trotted out is, at least, a partially valid justification. It is either a valid justification or it isn't, and if it isn't then it cannot be built upon. That is exactly what you have done, though, in that you've extrapolated your position of "moral justification" from the initial logical fallacy, and positioned it along side it as though it adds to the justification.I am saying that the criteria which define legitimacy and rights are transient and subjective, as history and a frank lack of polarity on moral issues demonstrates. Hence, each and every person is going to have a propensity to disagree on what constitutes legitimacy. As a result of this, there can be no guarantee of coherence or justification of systems of ownership without a polarized definition of what legitimacy is. Hence, I argue that it falls to the majority to decide what legitimacy is, due to the apparent disparity of the alternative. As a concomitant to this, we have the people determining what areas this legitimacy is to deal with.
Can you point out where the majority have decided upon the definition of legitimacy? I don't want to preempt your response, but I will say that, if your response is based on tacit consent, involuntary consent, tacit or otherwise, fails the burden of proof. If I may borrow your logic I could say that most people consent to paying taxes because they pay them. However, what do you think would happen if there were no consequence to tax evasion? I'd speculate that the vast majority--if not all--people would stop paying their taxes. Would this not be a better indicator of what the "majority" want?Based on your logic, we have a moral dictatorship of the minority by the majority, I presume. Do you consider this majority definition of legitimacy to be force? If so, then it is the concept of legitimacy which is the force or "violence" that you speak of, so you cannot apply your objections to its concomitants (which include taxation), until you can coherently reject their source using a moral vocabulary which is not self defeating (since the concept of legitimacy itself which you frequently employ, along with its subsisting functions, such as "rights" is apparently useless unless defined on this basis of dictatorship, meaning that your rejection of taxation and the state on the basis of majority violence shows nothing about the morality of it other than you being on the losing side).Anyways, on this definition of legitimacy (as being sanctioned by the majority and not conflicting with a set of fundamental rights which are protected by constitution) the state is established as legitimate by majority consent to be governed; this is done primarily to define and protect scope of personal freedoms and property rights (in whatever way these rights manifest themselves, which is defined by the scope mentioned above). In a democracy, legitimacy is rightly defined only in this case (majority), and objections to this majority on the basis that the minority have a right to complete non interference from the state is invalid, since this right is not justified prima facie.
The problem with the above is that it all hinges on the assumption that one form of legitimacy is more valid than all others. More specifically, it hinges on the assumption that the more valid form of legitimacy is so because its legitimacy is sanctioned by a majority. Until you can substantiate this claim, though, there is little point in responding to points derived from it.0 -
pagancornflake, I'm just going to respond to the portion of your post that pertains to social contract theory, as that is what our exchange was about. My initial responses were somewhat sloppy, but at the time I was unsure of what your point was. I don't think that responding to the tangential discussions that arose from the misinterpretation of each other's posts will benefit the discussion so, as said, I'm not going to do so.
My post was not concerned with social contract theory, it was concerned with the subsuming logical framework determining the morality of it, which you require to challenge the legitimacy of the state and the legitimacy of your right not to be taxed.
In your most recent post you seemed to sympathise with Long's objections, and said that "further" justification was required. This is contradictory in that you're implying that the "you consent because you choose to stay" question begging that is often trotted out is, at least, a partially valid justification. It is either a valid justification or it isn't, and if it isn't then it cannot be built upon. That is exactly what you have done, though, in that you've extrapolated your position of "moral justification" from the initial logical fallacy, and positioned it along side it as though it adds to the justification.
Why is the word further put in inverted commas in your post? The word is in no way contentious, so I do not think that it merits such syntactical attention.
Anyways, it is in no way contradictory because you are ignoring the logical and moral tenets behind consent and legitimacy which I outlined in my previous post. What I did was show that the logical nature of legitimacy and rights necessarily entails majority mandate as being the only coherent qualifier.
So, my position is necessarily entailed logically. I extrapolate (read: argue deductively) my theory of moral justification from this, not a logical fallacy.Can you point out where the majority have decided upon the definition of legitimacy?
In order for a concept to have any salience or value, it must be defined. "Legitimacy" is a function of compliance with law. The definition of law is contingent on the mandate of those whose interest it serves. We live in a democracy, hence the definition of legitimacy corresponds with compliance with democratic tenets. Your explicit consent is not a necessary requisite to legitimacy unless mandated by the majority. Your explicit consent to there being a state governing you is not a requisite to it being justified, the mandate of the majority is. The mandate of the majority dictates that the state is legitimate.If I may borrow your logic (a poor attempt at kidnap)I could say that most people consent to paying taxes because they pay them
No, most people consent to paying taxes because they have agreed that an institution is necessary which protects and represents their interests, and that taxes are necessary for this institution to function. If you do not agree to be under their tax-paying dominion, then leave. You had no fundamental right to be there in the first place, since the protections and benefits afforded by democracy (property rights, protection under law etc.) do not extend to those who disregard their requisites (compliance with the resultant mandate).However, what do you think would happen if there were no consequence to tax evasion? I'd speculate that the vast majority--if not all--people would stop paying their taxes. Would this not be a better indicator of what the "majority" want?
What do you think would happen if there were no consequence to refrain from rape? I'd speculate that the vast majority- if not all-- people would go around raping each other. If this is a better indicator of what the "majority" (again, what is with the random inverted commas?), then I suppose everyone would go around in their new found state of rapey bliss and live happily ever after.
Seriously, what were you thinking when you came up with that argument? In order for there to be no consequence to tax evasion (police intervention), the mandate would have to dictate that this should be the case. Why on earth would this happen? You are asking what would happen if people stopped providing the requisites for the protection of basic needs in their society. Take a guess.
To expand a little, the people's mandate has not changed with respect to taxation (whether or not there are consequences to taxation is under our control), and it has not done so. I'd say this is a "nice" "measure" of "what" the "majority" "want".""""""""""""""""""""""The problem with the above is that it all hinges on the assumption that one form of legitimacy is more valid than all others. More specifically, it hinges on the fact that the more valid form of legitimacy is so because its legitimacy is sanctioned by a majority. Until you can substantiate this claim, though, there is little point in responding to points derived from it.
1) You fail to explain how this is the case
2) You cannot possibly do so, since there is no scale of verisimilitude when it comes to legitimacy or validity, nor has this been claimed at any point by me. Validity is a qualifier, not a scale. Legitimacy is a qualifier of a particular thing which is contingent on its compliance with the law. The law is sanctioned by the majority (forcefully so if you so wish, but moral principles are derived by the majority, so there is nothing necessarily immoral about this, hence nothing which necessarily debases legitimacy and hence validity of the models coherence), hence its concomitants are legitimate, hence the logical requisites for the concept of legitimacy to be valid are fulfilled.
In case you are wondering... yes, I do study philosophy. And yes, I am getting Socratic on your 4ss.0 -
pagancornflake wrote: »My post was not concerned with social contract theory, it was concerned with the subsuming logical framework determining the morality of it, which you require to challenge the legitimacy of the state and the legitimacy of your right not to be taxed.
Our exchange started on page 23, and the topic was social contract theory.Why is the word further put in inverted commas in your post? The word is in no way contentious, so I do not think that it merits such syntactical attention.
I highlighted the word further because, in the context you used it in, you implied that the oft-repeated question begging explanation offers some justification, when it doesn't offer any at all.Anyways, it is in no way contradictory because you are ignoring the logical and moral tenets behind consent and legitimacy which I outlined in my previous post. What I did was show that the logical nature of legitimacy and rights necessarily entails majority mandate as being the only coherent qualifier.
You didn't outline anything, though, you merely said that "it falls to the majority to decide what legitimacy is", but you failed to point out where the majority has decided upon this. You then assumed that what you said was unquestionably true, and set about deducting other points from it.In order for a concept to have any salience or value, it must be defined. "Legitimacy" is a function of compliance with law. The definition of law is contingent on the mandate of those whose interest it serves. We live in a democracy, hence the definition of legitimacy corresponds with compliance with democratic tenets. Your explicit consent is not a necessary requisite to legitimacy unless mandated by the majority. Your explicit consent to there being a state governing you is not a requisite to it being justified, the mandate of the majority is. The mandate of the majority dictates that the state is legitimate.
This has already been dealt with. In contract law, consent, be it implicit or explicit, is invalid--in that it fails the burden of proof--unless it is voluntary. If I put a gun to your head and get you to consent to a contract, again, either implicitly or explicitly, then it is not a valid contract. The state, on the other hand, allows itself, by threat of violence, to force me to consent to its authority, and from this it justifies its own legitimacy. Your point about the law being "contigent with the mandate of those whose interest it serves" is therefore erroneous in that the aforementioned highlights a double-standard.No, most people consent to paying taxes because they have agreed that an institution is necessary which protects and represents their interests, and that taxes are necessary for this institution to function. If you do not agree to be under their tax-paying dominion, then leave. You had no fundamental right to be there in the first place, since the protections and benefits afforded by democracy (property rights, protection under law etc.) do not extend to those who disregard their requisites (compliance with the resultant mandate).
The underlined part is not valid consent because it fails the burden of proof -- see above. The bolded part is a logical fallacy -- remember Long's point that you sympathised with? The rest is waffle.In case you are wondering... yes, I do study philosophy. And yes, I am getting Socratic on your 4ss.
No, I wasn't wondering. Congratulations, I suppose? Were you out sick the day they covered logical fallacies?
If you want this discussion to go anywhere then you might have more luck losing the self-righteous tone and actually clarifying and substantiating your positions instead of putting them forward as though they're axiomatic truths.0 -
Advertisement
-
Our exchange started on page 23, and the topic was social contract theory.
I highlighted the word further because, in the context you used it in, you implied that the oft-repeated question begging explanation offers some justification, when it doesn't offer any at all.
You didn't outline anything, though, you merely said that "it falls to the majority to decide what legitimacy is", but you failed to point out where the majority has decided upon this. You then assumed that what you said was unquestionably true, and set about deducting other points from it.
This has already been dealt with. In contract law, consent, be it implicit or explicit, is invalid--in that it fails the burden of proof--unless it is voluntary. If I put a gun to your head and get you to consent to a contract, again, either implicitly or explicitly, then it is not a valid contract. The state, on the other hand, allows itself, by threat of violence, to force me to consent to its authority, and from this it justifies its own legitimacy. Your point about the law being "contigent with the mandate of those whose interest it serves" is therefore erroneous in that the aforementioned highlights a double-standard.
The underlined part is not valid consent because it fails the burden of proof -- see above. The bolded part is a logical fallacy -- remember Long's point that you sympathised with? The rest is waffle.
No, I wasn't wondering. Congratulations, I suppose? Were you out sick the day they covered logical fallacies?
If you want this discussion to go anywhere then you might have more luck losing the self-righteous tone and actually clarifying and substantiating your positions instead of putting them forward as though they're axiomatic truths.
Excellent post soldie! People either see the violence inherent in the social contract and accept it or choose to avoid it because living in a fantasy propaganda world is much more emotionally soothing than accepting that you are a slave. 0
Advertisement