Libertarianism, In Theory and Practice

Lockstep

Soldie wrote: »

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.

Have to correct you here Soldie; contract law has that when duress is present, "the will is deflected, not destroyed" (DPP v. Lynch)
The viewpoint you express above is archaic and no longer present in modern Irish contract law. A contract is voidable, not void if it's inception is marred by duress.

Soldie wrote: »

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.

Disagree; the State doesn't force you to agree to the social contract; you are free to consent to it or reject it. It's legitimacy doesn't come from the fact it already exists but from the population's will to maintain it which is enforced in things like citizenship declarations, oaths, voting etc.

Lockstep

simplistic wrote: »

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.

Nah, people either acknowledge that the social contract exists via the State's legitimacy and their implicit consent to it or else they assert that it is invalid (ignoring the collective will of the Irish people) or that implict consent doesn't exist (ignoring the reality of both common law and public international law)

pagancornflake

Soldie wrote: »

Our exchange started on page 23, and the topic was social contract theory.

So you want me to justify social contract theory using social contract theory in light of the fact that we have agreed that do so so is self certifying? And you are accusing me of logical fallacies? We are not talking about social contract theory until we have settled on a logical and moral framework in which the discussion can commence.

Soldie wrote: »

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.

pagancornflake wrote:

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.

Never did I imply anything of the sort. The word further in this context points towards the logical principles subsumed by the theory, and that these principles require justification. Hence, further implies an additional tangent of discussion, not a reverse delineation of concomitants with a view to a justification of its source (which is what you think I am doing. You are wrong on that one by the way).

soldie wrote:

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 (decided upon what? If the minority or the individual decides what legitimacy is, it has no weight in a communal environment). You then assumed that what you said was unquestionably true (I assumed that it was true, due to an absence of a logical alternative, which you have failed to provide. Hence, point carries), and set about deducting (deducing, even)other points from it.

You are ignoring (by accident? I think not...) this:

pagancornflake wrote:

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. 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 any alternative. As a concomitant to this, we have the people determining what areas this legitimacy is to deal with.

I explained the logical progression which leads to the predicate "it falls to the majority to decide what legitimacy is" in a deductive argument which you failed to offer any rebuttal to. Hence, the point carries.It falls to the majority to decide what legitimacy is (i.e. the legal framework) as a consequence of the fact that ubiquity of assent to principles of this nature is manifestly impossible due to the reciprocal deterministic nature of human beings and the resultant disparity of opinions, qualifications etc. Who is going to decide what the basis for the legal framework is in terms of parties? One person? Two? The minority? How would that work logically? The argument that majority consent is what determines legitimacy is not itself contingent on the same principle of majority consent.

soldie wrote:

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.

This objection is asinine. So your individual will to do whatever the hell you like and disregard the laws set out by the people should be respected by those same people? Not a chance.Anyways, this whole section of the argument is contingent on whether or not the state is as I have argued it to be. The state (i.e. the obtaining representation of the majority of people) does not force you to consent to its authority (i.e. the obtaining laws of the citizens). You are offered the choice to follow the mandate of the people and lobby for change to this obtaining mandate (if you disagree), or go somewhere else. The legitimacy is not derived from this in any case, it is derived from the deductive principles I have already outlined. This choice is the final consequence of what we have been talking about. Its truth is contingent on the outcome of the arguments above.

soldie wrote:

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.

Yep, longs objection is debased by the Define "burden of proof" with reference to what we are talking about. Also, you have failed the burden of proof to begin with by suggesting that removing consequences and hence allowing their concomitants to run riot is a better measure of what the majority want. If you make incoherent objections, then expect answers which are valid, yet contingent on previous points. Anyways, Consent=> expressed or implied. Iff the deductive argument for the necessity of majority mandate is true (which it is, since you have offered no argument to the contrary), then consent is implied by whoever chooses to stay and be taxed.

soldie wrote:

No, I wasn't wondering. Congratulations, I suppose? Were you out sick the day they covered logical fallacies?

Thanks for your congratulations. Please accept my commiserations regarding your apparent inability to identify or define logical fallacies, and your apparent inability to respond to, deal with or formulate deductive arguments :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D.

soldie wrote:

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.

Please quote passages where I have been self righteous (dont forget to qualify). What you are referring to is perhaps condescension... I think you will find a constant presence of this in my diatribe until the following conditions are met:

1) I am not winning the argument conclusively on every single point.
2) you can offer coherent responses to my pointsby following deductive arguments.

pagancornflake

simplistic wrote: »

Excellent post soldie!

Have you read any of what he was replying to?

simplistic wrote: »

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.

Elaborate. I might add that a citizen has the option to lobby for a change to conditions or to opt out. A slave does not.

Soldie

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Have to correct you here Soldie; contract law has that when duress is present, "the will is deflected, not destroyed" (DPP v. Lynch)
The viewpoint you express above is archaic and no longer present in modern Irish contract law. A contract is voidable, not void if it's inception is marred by duress.

A social contract doesn't appear to be voidable in a conventional sense, though -- in that the only way to void it is to leave. For what it's worth, I was speaking more hypothetically -- not specifically about Ireland.

With no offence intended, I'm not going to respond to your second paragraph for the same reason I stated a couple of pages ago. I think we've both said all that we have to say about social contract theory.

pagancornflake: frankly, I can think of better ways to spend my time than debating with a haughty philosophy undergrad who has no interest in constructive discussion. You seem more interested in swiping at straw men than actually reading what I'm posting, after all. On that note, you may consider this to be my last response to you, and it will be brief. I'll give you the last word, and we can leave it up to the gallery to decide who's "winning". :rolleyes:

pagancornflake wrote: »

So you want me to justify social contract theory using social contract theory in light of the fact that we have agreed that do so so is self certifying? And you are accusing me of logical fallacies? We are not talking about social contract theory until we have settled on a logical and moral framework in which the discussion can commence.

I didn't say that at all. Our exchange was initially about social contract theory. Therefore, there was no point in discussing the tangential topics, such as the scope of government, that arose due to misinterpretation of each other's posts, as that wasn't what our discussion was about in the first place.

Never did I imply anything of the sort. The word further in this context points towards the logical principles subsumed by the theory, and that these principles require justification. Hence, further implies an additional tangent of discussion, not a reverse delineation of concomitants with a view to a justification of its source (which is what you think I am doing. You are wrong on that one by the way).

In using the term "further justification" you're implying that there is already some justification.

I explained the logical progression which leads to the predicate "it falls to the majority to decide what legitimacy is" in a deductive argument

No, you stated it as though it were an axiomatic truth. You have failed to point out how, where or when the majority decided upon what legitimacy was, and that is why I see no point in refuting the unsubstantiated claims that you extrapolated from that. More specifically, you failed to point out how that legitimacy was decided upon without coercion.

Your argument essentially boils down to the state being legitimate because the majority consent to it, casually ignoring that it's not voluntary consent.

simplistic

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Nah, people either acknowledge that the social contract exists via the State's legitimacy and their implicit consent to it or else they assert that it is invalid (ignoring the collective will of the Irish people) or that implict consent doesn't exist (ignoring the reality of both common law and public international law)

Collective will of the Irish people = Fantasy propaganda world

So if over half of a given number of people believe in a concept it therefore validates the concept for the rest of the people that disagree.
Just think of how ridiculous that pricipal is, try applying it to any group and it really is just an equation for violence.

Ha,even if you were to look at the social contract as a real contract Id just be embarrased for anybody who was stupid enough to sign it.

Salesman" here sign this contract its for your benifit youll get protection from evil people and wonderful social insurace"

Consumer " WHoa hold on there let me have a read first"

Salesman " ARGGHH"

Consumer " Ok What the **** is this? It states here that you can decide how much of my wage you can take! It also says you can borrow money on my behalf! Jesus ****ing christ it says you can put me in jail for actions you deem to be wrong even if there is no injured party! Well what if I want out?

Salesman " Well the thing about that is..."

Consumer " I cant get out of the contract what about my children?"

Salesman " Well vote to change things"

Consumer " So what your saying is I get to beg people to change things , I think I have a little more pride than that"

Salesman " Ah but you can try to become boss yourself"

Consumer " You mean give up my life on a gamble in the hope that I can get to the position of boss and Im still not even able to end the contract"

Salesman " Its what the people want ! its the will of the people!"

Consumer " Get the **** of my doorstep"

Salesman " well as soon as I get enough people to believe this propaganda it wont matter what you think because well have the muscle!"

Consumer " You Coward"

simplistic

pagancornflake wrote: »

Have you read any of what he was replying to?



Elaborate. I might add that a citizen has the option to lobby for a change to conditions or to opt out. A slave does not.

Right yeah I forgot its not politically correct to call someone a slave in the 21st century there citizens now.Haha

Lockstep

simplistic wrote: »

Collective will of the Irish people = Fantasy propaganda world

I don't even know where to start with that kind of arrogance.
It really shows a high degree of contempt for people and the choices they make.

simplistic wrote: »

So if over half of a given number of people believe in a concept it therefore validates the concept for the rest of the people that disagree.
Just think of how ridiculous that pricipal is, try applying it to any group and it really is just an equation for violence.

Yes, because the minority were able to vote, campaign, shape policy etc.

simplistic wrote: »

Ha,even if you were to look at the social contract as a real contract Id just be embarrased for anybody who was stupid enough to sign it.

Once again, I'm fairly astounded by your arrogance and the fact you dress up your opinions as facts.
Also the most extensive use of strawmen I've ever seen;

simplistic wrote: »

Consumer " Ok What the **** is this? It states here that you can decide how much of my wage you can take! It also says you can borrow money on my behalf! Jesus ****ing christ it says you can put me in jail for actions you deem to be wrong even if there is no injured party! Well what if I want out?

And you can change the contract every few years, your rights are guaranteed by the Constitution, there is no arbitrary imprisonment, laws are created by legisltature voted in by the electorate. Etc.
You are also able to run for election and disband the social contract at any time. But you don't see this as worth doing as you achknowledge that your chances of success are slim.

simplistic wrote: »

Consumer " I cant get out of the contract what about my children?"

Please read the thread. This has been addressed countless times.
You are free to leave at any time, to alter it during elections and so on.
You choose where your children are born and enter them into a social contract under parental responsabilities. They are free to end the contract when they come of age.

simplistic wrote: »

Consumer " So what your saying is I get to beg people to change things , I think I have a little more pride than that"

I believe you'll find that politicians beg you for your vote.
There's no begging involved; politicians put their case forward and you are free to vote or not vote on them based on their policies.
Form a libertarian party and run yourself.

simplistic wrote: »

Consumer " You mean give up my life on a gamble in the hope that I can get to the position of boss and Im still not even able to end the contract"

So you admit that few people share your beliefs and that you're system would be enforcing your opinions on the majority?
Inb4 "They're brainwashed".

simplistic wrote: »

Salesman " Its what the people want ! its the will of the people!"

It is indeed.

simplistic wrote: »

Salesman " well as soon as I get enough people to believe this propaganda it wont matter what you think because well have the muscle!"

Consumer " You Coward"

Once again, you resort to throwing around the use of the words propaghanda, cowardice etc.


I'm very disappointed by your means arguing; you dismiss the will of the Irish people (good to know that as a libertarian, you respect people's decisions), resort to non sequiter and shrill arguments (throwing around slavery, propaghanda and so on like there is no tomorrow) and so forth.

Lockstep

Soldie wrote: »

A social contract doesn't appear to be voidable in a conventional sense, though -- in that the only way to void it is to leave. For what it's worth, I was speaking more hypothetically -- not specifically about Ireland.

A unique contract is still not an invalid one. It's a bit like a landlord/tenant contract. The only way for the tenant to end it involves leaving. They cannot stay in the appartment and refuse to keep paying without the landlord resorting to violence/threat of violence.


Irish law is a common law system and practiced around the world (from America to Singapore). Similar rules apply to international law in regards to this.
I know little on codified law (France, Italy etc) so am unable to refer to that.

Lockstep

simplistic wrote: »

Right yeah I forgot its not politically correct to call someone a slave in the 21st century there citizens now.Haha

You didn't respond to his question. Merely went off on a tangent.

pagancornflake

Soldie wrote: »

pagancornflake: frankly, I can think of better ways to spend my time than debating with a haughty philosophy undergrad who has no interest in constructive discussion. You seem more interested in swiping at straw men than actually reading what I'm posting, after all. On that note, you may consider this to be my last response to you, and it will be brief. I'll give you the last word, and we can leave it up to the gallery to decide who's "winning". :rolleyes:

True, you can go to another board, have your arguments crushed, and then trot out some ad hominems, tell them (without justification, as you have done here) that their arguments from abstraction are incorrect, and then disappear with the same air of "self righteousness" that you accused me of just last response. Sounds like a grand way to spend (read:waste) your time. I have plenty of interest in constructive discussion with those who are capable of it (you are not, as I will demonstrate in my summation), so off with you then. If all you construct is straw men, then all I can do is swipe at them. Your comment pertains to your failures, not mine. Also, not sure what you do yourself, but it is manifestly inferior to that of a "haughty philosophy undergrad" with regards to political theory, since you were just bested by one.

Soldie wrote: »

I didn't say that at all. Our exchange was initially about social contract theory. Therefore, there was no point in discussing the tangential topics, such as the scope of government, that arose due to misinterpretation of each other's posts, as that wasn't what our discussion was about in the first place.

In order to discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of social contract theory, it is necessary to provide justification for its predicates (not tangents, as you claim. That would make no sense, since they would be mutually dependent on each other's validity)=> subsuming area of discussion.

Soldie wrote: »

In using the term "further justification" you're implying that there is already some justification.

Oh dear lord this is getting tedious.

a)Predicates==(further)==b)social contract==(further)==c)S.C. concomitants

In order for SOCIAL CONTRACT to be valid (which is self certifying on its own, since it does not provide its own justification, only a delineation), it is necessary for its PREDICATES to be valid. FURTHER does not imply tangental; that would be pointless since they would be contingent on the validity of social contract, similar to a justification of its concomitants. Hence, FURTHER means its basis...PREDICATES=> no bearing whatsoever on justification of social contract.

Let me know if you need any pictures to supplement your understanding of my arguments in future.

Soldie wrote: »

No, you stated it as though it were an axiomatic truth. You have failed to point out how, where or when the majority decided upon what legitimacy was, and that is why I see no point in refuting the unsubstantiated claims that you extrapolated from that. More specifically, you failed to point out how that legitimacy was decided upon without coercion.

pagancornflake wrote:

It falls to the majority to decide what legitimacy is (i.e. the legal framework) as a consequence of the fact that ubiquity of assent to principles of this nature is manifestly impossible due to the reciprocal deterministic nature of human beings and the resultant disparity of opinions, qualifications etc. Who is going to decide what the basis for the legal framework is in terms of parties? One person? Two? The minority? How would that work logically? The argument that majority consent is what determines legitimacy is not itself contingent on the same principle of majority consent.

Soldie, when I can copy paste sections of my own comments in a valid rebuttal to you, then you must concede that you have lost thoroughly.

Soldie wrote: »

Your argument essentially boils down to the state being legitimate because the majority consent to it, casually ignoring that it's not voluntary consent.

Since you feel inclined to ignore my argument and come up with your own (trivialized) version of it, I will do the same to your objection:

Soldie wrote:

THE STATE ISNT LEGITIMATE BECAUSE I DONT CONSENT TO THERE BEING A STATE AND NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE. THEY ARE JUST VOTING FOR ONE BECAUSE THEY ARE BEING FORCED TO BY THEMSELVES AND ANYONE WHO SEES THE HOLY LIGHT OF STATELESS LIFE IS BEING INTIMIDATED BY THE MAJORITY INTO LIVING IN THIS OPPRESSIVE STATE IN POSSIBLE VIOLATION (I CANT EXPLAIN HOW BUT I KNOW IT IS THE CASE) OF THEIR RIGHTS WHICH ARE DEFINED AND PROTECTED BY THE STATE. THEY SHOULD BE FREE TO BAND TOGETHER, IGNORE THE JURISDICTION OF EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THEM (BUT THEY DONT REALLY, THEY JUST VOTE AND CANVASS AS THOUGH THEY DO) AND FORM THEIR OWN JURISDICTION IN WHICH THERE WILL MOST LIKELY EXIST A DISSIDENT MINORITY AND THEY WILL ALL LIVE TOGETHER HAPPILY EVER AFTER.

I deserve pre tax income because of this.

Nice talking with you Soldie.

pagancornflake

simplistic wrote: »

Right yeah I forgot its not politically correct to call someone a slave in the 21st century there citizens now.Haha

Nope. Its INVALID to apply a pronoun to a person when they do not fit the criteria of what is described by that pronoun.

simplistic

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I don't even know where to start with that kind of arrogance.
It really shows a high degree of contempt for people and the choices they make.


Yes, because the minority were able to vote, campaign, shape policy etc.




Once again, I'm fairly astounded by your arrogance and the fact you dress up your opinions as facts.
Also the most extensive use of strawmen I've ever seen;



And you can change the contract every few years, your rights are guaranteed by the Constitution, there is no arbitrary imprisonment, laws are created by legisltature voted in by the electorate. Etc.
You are also able to run for election and disband the social contract at any time. But you don't see this as worth doing as you achknowledge that your chances of success are slim.



Please read the thread. This has been addressed countless times.
You are free to leave at any time, to alter it during elections and so on.
You choose where your children are born and enter them into a social contract under parental responsabilities. They are free to end the contract when they come of age.



I believe you'll find that politicians beg you for your vote.
There's no begging involved; politicians put their case forward and you are free to vote or not vote on them based on their policies.
Form a libertarian party and run yourself.




So you admit that few people share your beliefs and that you're system would be enforcing your opinions on the majority?
Inb4 "They're brainwashed".


It is indeed.




Once again, you resort to throwing around the use of the words propaghanda, cowardice etc.


I'm very disappointed by your means arguing; you dismiss the will of the Irish people (good to know that as a libertarian, you respect people's decisions), resort to non sequiter and shrill arguments (throwing around slavery, propaghanda and so on like there is no tomorrow) and so forth.

I have contempt for individuals who believe that having "will" justifies the use of violence. The social contract was founded on violence its renews itself through the threat of violence and individuals that support violence as a means to solve social problems are cowards.

Many people however do not understand because of the propaganda that is bet into them so I exclude them.

Im ending on that because its a waste of time proving to a religious person that god is nonsense.

Joycey

simplistic wrote: »

I have contempt for individuals who believe that having "will" justifies the use of violence. The social contract was founded on violence its renews itself through the threat of violence and individuals that support violence as a means to solve social problems are cowards.

Excuse me if I snigger at the fact that you think those who defend the protection of those who are weakest in society if they have no means of defending for themselves (welfare) are "solving social problems through violence", when you would feel yourself to be perfectly justified, say, if you owned a massive farm, in shooting any trespassers who come onto your land to eat your crops, whether they be starving or not. Because thats not cowardice :rolleyes:

Many people however do not understand because of the propaganda that is bet into them so I exclude them.

How generous.

Im ending on that because its a waste of time proving to a religious person that god is nonsense.

Clearly you stick to your beliefs with the fervour of a religious zealot. Argument doesnt seem to make any difference, certainly

Lockstep

simplistic wrote: »

I have contempt for individuals who believe that having "will" justifies the use of violence. The social contract was founded on violence its renews itself through the threat of violence and individuals that support violence as a means to solve social problems are cowards. [.quote]
It's no more based on violence than a common contract is (which I'm sure you support as a libertarian); you breach the contract, you are coerced into either paying your dues or else to stop recieving benefits from the contractor.

simplistic wrote: »

Many people however do not understand because of the propaganda that is bet into them so I exclude them.

Grand, so you have the idea that everyone else is wrong (not you). You have no proof of this aside from your own belief and stubbornly cling to it, dismissing everyone else as brainwashed.
It's funny you bring up religious fervor in the next few lines.

simplistic wrote: »

Im ending on that because its a waste of time proving to a religious person that god is nonsense.

Except we aren't talking about God here; we're talking about something a lot less abstract, which has been done numerous times in this thread from case law to democracy's legitimacy and how this is achieved.



And once again, you throw around terms like "coward", "propaghanda" and "violence".

pagancornflake

simplistic wrote: »

I have contempt for individuals who believe that having "will" justifies the use of violence.

I have contempt for individuals who hurl platitudes around without justifying them. There is ample material in the previous few pages which tease out the main areas of contention on this issue. Feel free to respond to the points already raised (like the ones which carried through after I annihilated Soldie). Otherwise, take your platitudes elsewhere.

simplistic wrote: »

The social contract was founded on violence its renews itself through the threat of violence and individuals that support violence as a means to solve social problems are cowards.

Social contract (as I have demonstrated already) is the necessary concomitant to the fact that law, legitimacy, and indeed a moral paradigm is the result of majority compromise. Ethical codes are themselves infused with violence simplistic (the name suits), so your objection on the grounds of violence h to asbe a bit more specific.

simplistic wrote: »

Many people however do not understand because of the propaganda that is bet into them so I exclude them.

Many people do not understand because people who dwell around your polarity tend to have problems justifying the position. Also, since you are the one who harbors disdain for the processes and results of democracy, we exclude you from the realm of our respect.

simplistic wrote: »

Im ending on that because its a waste of time proving to a religious person that god is nonsense.

Im ending on that because it is a waste of time proving to simplistic that simplistic's position is nonsense.

Also, you cant "prove" that god does not exist. lrn2epistemology.

Valmont

pagancornflake wrote: »

...after I annihilated Soldie

Hold on. Were there some pages I didn't read?

Joycey

Valmont wrote: »

Hold on. Were there some pages I didn't read?

Apparently the last 3 or 4

pagancornflake

Valmont wrote: »

Hold on. Were there some pages I didn't read?

Elaborate.

Soldie

Sorry for the bump, but the real thing we have to worry about is Anarcho-capitalism Arachno-capitalism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccUR7nbvAEM