“Look, when I say something like “The United States Government has a right to levy an income tax against its citizens,” I am talking about an actual, existing right that it really does have and exercises. I am not saying that it ought to, that I support it, or that it is granted that right by nature or god. When you say something like “[you] have the right not to be taxed,” I have to ask you to point to that right. Where does that right exist in reality? You can present all sorts of arguments why that ought be the case, but you can never prove that you have that right.”
Why does the government have this right and since you wish to be so grounded in reality then how can you claim governments have any rights since they are not actual entities but metaphors for a cabal of individuals?
Hegel argued that the state is the upmost morality, and was grounded as the only real giver of right’s. He went along the method’s of using the Right’s of the Individual violated the Right’s of the group/state by allowing property to be collected by the Individual and denied access by the other individual’s within that group/state. This is where I would recommend everyone read some Hegel, as this is where the majority of this whole modern collectivist idealism is coming from.
I found his argument to be muttled as he resorted to using the rationalism from Ancient Greece and Hume to ground most of his argument’s. Never once did he ever think about the level of technological advance that allowed people to live as Individual’s, rather than a collection of tribes that bonded together for their own defense.
I find many of the same argument’s made by Spinoza, but he based his purely in the realm of religious governance, which in itself was a collection of irrational hubris through morality. His argument was negated several times, as well as Hegel’s, by Nietzsche during the 19th century.
Mind you they where the two most influencial people in the mind’s of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. It all seem’s to be more of a moral argument based on irrational rules of judgement rather than any sort of measure of economic prosperity, or Individual thought. I think this was made clear after the numerous criticism’s by Austrian proponents over the years that this that particular line of thought was dangerous, and had pushed the law of unintended consequences to the very limits of belief. One only need to look at the atrocities perpetrated by the states in the name of the greater good for reference.
I certainly hope, that I do not have to go into much detail about those situations, as I would prefer not to re-read some of that stuff.
It seem’s what was all the rage in Europe during the 20th century is now becoming all the rage everywhere else during the 21st. It’s a shame that so many people seem to not understand the difference between rational conclusion’s from existing evidence and the irrationality of requiring evidence for “theories” without them being based in the realm of this previously existing evidence. Especially when the lack of ethical backing to these “theories” creates a situation where it’s in the best interest of that said Individual to manufacture the evidence to prove their proposed theories correct. The intellectual dishonesty that perputrates this line of thought endlessly deceives those that fall into the category of ignorance on such matter’s, and creates the situation we see today.
Piggy-backing off of what Michael Green just said, its no different than a contract that says “Bank of America reserves the right to fine you $x in the event you overdraw your account.”
The difference is that the Government will imprison you, or outright murder you, if you do not comply. That is not a right of the “state”, that is coercion with implied force. If compliance is gained through the threat of force, then it’s a “right” that is stolen from a person, and not given willingly. Thusly, it’s not really a right of the “state”, as one has to comply with the threats from the state to assert it’s own non-existent “right” for it to work. The state exist’s purely through tacit coercion.
Furthermore, there were no contracts signed when I was born stating that I agreed with this “state’s” supposed “right’s”. Even though they are not “right’s” at all, but grievances of this said ‘contract’ that you are using to prove your point. This same ‘contract’, which does not exist in the first place. The idea that I could enter into such a contract by simple act of me being born, which is completely out of my control, is inately absurb. Not to mention it violates the very laws that you are implying the “state” has a “right” to establish.
Unless you are clearly trying to indicate that we enter this contract unwillingly, and then the only logical conclusion is that we are all born as slaves to this “state”. With this in mind I would dare point out that the “state” is merely an idea held by Individual’s, and you have forfeited your entire right of being and property to a mere idea without any greivances on your own part. Congratulations, you have been conned out of your entire life’s prosperity on the notion that an idea is more important that your existence as an Individual. That my good sir, is Orwellian from the start.
I like your new response (not nearly as mean spirited).
I mostly agree until the state gets involved, rights have always been agreements between two people (the right holder and the obligee) and an act. The state has the power (not that it should) to essentially override the conventions and mores of society regarding consent which allows its members to dicate rights from above.
I also reject the ideas of social contract.
The state is no more a mere idea than a church, club or business are.
I wanted to go into more, but I gotta get to work.
‘Does it matter? Is it any different if I replace government with business, or church, or club?’
Yes it does. How one enters into a church, business or club is different from a government. Of course there are other differences but I think that is central to the question at hand. Do you presume to think that a business, church, or club is in fact a government?
‘Piggy-backing off of what Michael Green just said, its no different than a contract that says “Bank of America reserves the right to fine you $x in the event you overdraw your account.”’
Ah so you presume that governments can be freely entered into and exited out of but what shows this to be the case? You are confusing a contractual voluntary agreement with a coercive contractual agreement.
Huh? We were both responding to your question of how a government could have rights since it is not an “entity” but only a “metaphor for a cabal of individuals,” which I took as some nitpicking about methodological individualism vs collectivism. What does the more voluntary nature of clubs or businesses have to do with this? Does the voluntary nature make businesses actual “entities” and not mere “metaphors for a cabal of individuals?”
We have both said, following Jasay, that rights can be conferred by authority and the matching obligation imposed by force. Obviously, we all (I assume, mikachusetts?) prefer rights to be created and obligations assumed though voluntary contract, but these politically created rights still exist. Would you deny that American children have a right to enrollment in a local public school, and that local property owners are obligated to fund the school?
I had a feeling you would call me on this. I didn’t mean to say that the government is like Bank of America in that they are both voluntary institutions (banks are, gov’t’s aren’t), I just wanted to point out that the language of collective rights is not just crazy statist thinking and makes perfect sense in the context of non-state institutions.
‘Huh? We were both responding to your question of how a government could have rights since it is not an “entity” but only a “metaphor for a cabal of individuals,” which I took as some nitpicking about methodological individualism vs collectivism. What does the more voluntary nature of clubs or businesses have to do with this? Does the voluntary nature make businesses actual “entities” and not mere “metaphors for a cabal of individuals?”’
If that is what you mean by it then no churches and businesses don’t have rights because they are not entities, merely a collection of individuals. Individuals in churches and businesses have rights especially ones to property though.
'Would you deny that American children have a right to enrollment in a local public school, and that local property owners are obligated to fund the school?"
Yes I would deny it because this right of enrollment subjectates another individual or individuals to provide such a school. Thus enter the local property owners who you ask whether they are obligated to pay. You stated that a right brings with it the ability to impose it by force. Do you think it correct to impose by force the acquisition of funds from a person or persons in order to carry out a public institution aimed at the welfare of the masses?
“I had a feeling you would call me on this. I didn’t mean to say that the government is like Bank of America in that they are both voluntary institutions (banks are, gov’t’s aren’t), I just wanted to point out that the language of collective rights is not just crazy statist thinking and makes perfect sense in the context of non-state institutions.”
But there are no collective rights. It’s not as if past a certain point there stops being individual rights and starts being collective ones. An individual does not have the right to impose coercive measures to extract wealth from another individual (thievery or robbery). Being in a government does not confer any addition rights beyond an individual, therefore governments do not have the right to commit thievery or robbery because they are infact individuals under a given title. It is like what these Constitutionalists are trying to say about the Constitution. The Federal government does not have powers beyond what the states secede to it therefore it cannot carry out a lot of what it does today legitimately.
I know this was MJG’s question but I wanted to respond. If local property owners are not obligated to fund local public schools, then wouldn’t you have to agree that they are paying voluntarily? I mean, why would they if they were not obligated? Because if you HAVE to pay taxes due to laws, then you have an obligation; there is no way around it (and this does not mean that taxation is moral, beneficial, or nice).
The reason the state can proclaim rights while everyone else must be granted rights voluntarily by obligees is that the state has the raw power and ideological support to force obligations. I think you and I both agree that this is “wrong” for a lot of reasons, but to say that it is a false statement is to insist that rights must be tied to an objective ethics which are neither verifiable nor falsifiable.
Individuals can exercise certain rights in their capacity as members of a collective group. Returning to my bank example, the contract that says “Bank A reserves the right to fine you $x in case of an overdraft” is not actually suggesting that Bank A is an individual capable of action. We all recognize it to mean that certain individuals acting as agents of Bank A hold that right, but only insofar as they are agents of Bank A.
An individual does not have the right to steal, rape, or murder because those acts are generally impermissible; they cannot be commited free from recourse of some kind. There is no need to appeal to natural law or even utilitarianism to point out that it is neither socially acceptable nor legal to do those things. A government (or agent acting on behalf of a government) is permitted to do these things because it is a special case: it has massive idealogical support and enough force to undertake taxation without recourse.
Also, I want to make it really explicit that I am in fact an anarcho-capitalist and am not trying to justify state actions here.
The state doesn’t exist. Right’s are not agreements between people. They are propagated by self-ownership. Agreements between Individuals are only a means to exercise your “right’s”.
The state doesn’t exist, like I have already mentioned. It’s an idea, a figment of imagination. It’s merely a concept of serfdom from a bygone era when King’s ruled and owned everything. The right’s existed before the state, but the state uses the whole idea of right’s being given by it to justify it’s existence. It’s a fallacy, and weak one at that.
Put it this way, if a Police Officer arrest’s you on charges he created by dropping the 10lb bag of crack in you car, you are not consenting to go to prison. You are being forced, and your right’s are being stolen from you. That is how the state work’s. His motive to do such would be a promotion, or fame. It rewards situations of this manner by stealing right’s from the Individuals.
No you don’t. You just used the concept to justify the state having right’s in the above quote. You are horribly inconsistent, and it’s annoying that you can not see your own inconsistencies.
Those are ideas as well. Most of them are based on false assumptions, but being human that’s only nature to make false assumptions. The worst one though is the state, because it relies merely on the threat of force to enact in theft. The state/government does not produce anything other that depression and misery.
Thats big news to me. All this time libertarians have been attacking dream deamons.
Self-ownership cannot be proven. The language of it doesn’t make sense either, because if I showed you a slave, you would have to explain how he is both a self-owner and owned by someone else.
I said that states “override the conventions and mores of society regarding consent” by weilding significant force. A social contract would mean that because you use the services of the state you implicitly consent to its rule.
I’m really trying to grasp how clubs, churches, businesses, and the state are only ideas. The Baltimore Orioles are an actual group of people who play baseball. The United States Government is an actually group of people who rule over the United States (well, most of the world really).
wouldn’t that mean that you don’t believe in involuntary slavery either? If your right to self ownership is indeed inalienable, then your slave master cannot take it away. I think the problem is with the “you cannot sell yourself into slavery” argument is calling slavery different things for when its involuntary and when it is voluntary. I think you can certainly sell yourself into slavery, and it has nothing to do with giving up control over your own body, it just means that you AGREE to control your own body in the exact same manner as someone else wishes you to.
They may be more intelligent than the average statist, but they are still statists. Statist tend to be a bit fanatical in their belief’s. Don’t get me wrong I like a lot of what they stand for, and what they want is far better than what we have now.
Is this hypothetical slave chained, or otherwise impaired? Then the real question is why hasn’t this perceived slave hung his assumed master yet? It goes back to the same thing, only the Individual can willingly give their right’s away.
I see three things wrong with that statement alone. I will only cover one though.
As I have covered previously on this idea, in this same thread nonetheless.
A person being born in a “state” does not equate to consenting to any sort of contract, whether it be verbal or notarized for obvious reasons. This is in direct contradiction to Natural Law which this thread is about, and Common Law which is what the legal system of this “state” is based on. Even in Judicial Law no one under the age of 18 can be the character of a legally binding contract. This whole idea that you can bind someone at birth is absolutely insane, and this is why we have endless wars, and why any sort of welfare system will eventually bankrupt any economy it is placed upon. See the US’s current financial status for reference on this. It’s clear as day.
Take away all of the symbolism that goes with all of these ideas and what are you left with?
A bunch of people gathered together on the premise of an idea. The symbolism that is used by these groupings of Individual’s are merely a way for formenting the idea into something tangible. It’s all a facade.
Think of it like actors playing a role in a movie, and when the movie end’s they all go to their respective places of living and retire for the night. It’s the same concept that makes corporation exist, a mere idea, as a living entity through misguided interpretation’s of other ideas. I will not get into my view on corporation’s, but I see them as ethically corrupted as governments.
The whole concept is based upon the conceived idea that people will enter in these exchanges for a mediocre return.
The US Federal Government doesn’t rule over anything. The Individual’s within the Government go along with the ideas in exchange for a return. Trust me, I did back to back deployments because the pay was good, not because I believed in the war. You stop paying those soldiers, police, and everyone else that is on the states payroll, and you will find out how fast that idea can unravel. A lot of thing’s that the Politician’s in the Federal Government do is based on that fact. They know what will happen if the change is too fast. They know if they stop doling out the fiat like they are, there will be an all out war on this land. Too many people are caught up in this idea that the state is something tangible, and unbreakable, when it’s not even real.
That’s the idea behind consignment labor/contracting. Essentially Voluntary Slavery with conditions that must be met or the contractual agreement is terminated.
The only time I can support the idea of slavery is when it has to do with restitution, and even then it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. How about a thought experiment:
Abe’s son needs medical treatment for some surgery that will cure him, but it is $100,000. Abe agrees to sell himself to Bob for $100,000 so that he may pay for his son’s surgery. Suppose Abe decides he no longer wants to be Bob’s slave, has Abe stolen from Bob? I think it depends on when. If Abe does not hold up his end of the agreement, he has defrauded Bob for $100,000. He must now give Bob restitution. The only question is how much of that $100,000 does Abe owe Bob. Suppose Abe renounces his end of the bargain right after paying for his son’s surgery. Well, that’s easy, he owes Bob the entire $100,000. However, suppose Abe decides he doesn’t want to be a slave after 1 year. How much does Abe owe Bob then? That seems a hell of a lot trickier. The easiest answer is to just say $100,000 and be done with it. But I do not know if this is necessarily the correct solution.
It might be that Abe owes Bob $100,000 minus however much he earned for Bob while a slave. But we still need to determine how much that is. I suppose the answer I can give is I do not know, and a free market in arbitration will eventually figure out the appropriate answer. I’d like to hear what anyone else might think - but I think I might be hijacking the thread.
I think the best way I would describe the difference between voluntary and involuntary is to define slavery as involuntary and indentured servitude as voluntary. Again, I have my ideas of how an indentured servant should be treated (you can’t violate their rights), but I think the separation in terms makes the difference clear.