Did you see the daily article the other day on zoning laws? I think you might like it, it discusses how zoning rules might work in a free society.
What you’re arguing for right now would involve a violation of property rights.
ummmm… every State has its own constitution.
So, do they get to put things in the state constitution that gives the state government the powers above and beyond the limited fed constitution?
If so, what was the point of creating a federal constitution and then pointing out how limited it is?
If it can all be broken (overstepped) by state governments…
Actually, no it doesn’t, at least using the proper interpretation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7zvGxJ8J1I Watch this vidoe for details. It’s not a contridiction.
All the state constitutions are different. Some are older than the Constitution, some are much newer. The point of limiting the federal government was to get the States to pass the Constitution.
For example, the Federal government was forbid to interfer with religion to ensure it got support from both states with complete religious freedom and states with established religions.(Yes, there were some states with established religions at the time)
Today, the Federal government attempts to regulate the State Constitutions. Which, of course, is the opposite of the original relationship.
What kind of point are you trying to get at? That if we dissolve the Union that the individual states will for some reason be more totalitarian than the unified state?
No…definitely not. I am very much in favor of dissolving the federal government. I think that is the first step towards liberty. I’m not sure what to do after that.
Well, I think we can rule out Californians invading Nevada to dismantle its State against their will.
Just as the States succeeded the Union, let counties and towns secede the States. Some States may deny smaller political units the right to seceed, but some may allow it.
The chance of it occuring peacefully will be much higher if the union has just dissolved peacefully(or atleast lost a number of States).
Why?
If I really hate forward facing garages, do I not have a right to enter into a contractual arrangement with my neighbors for us all no to have forward facing garages? At this level, even the stauchest of libertarians I think agree with that.
Now, let’s say that our local group, after coming to an amieable settlement of the gaurage issue, decide to manage an ongoing project - we pool our money to commonly purchase some land to build a road, a common swimming pool (club good), and a community playground. We agree, up front, to a decision making system of majority on some issues, and supermajority on other issues. As time goes on, many of the decisions of the group I agree with, but a few I disagree with. However, since I voluntarily enter into this agreement, I don’t think any libertarians should have a problem with this, or would consider me any “less free” than when I started.
Inevitably though, there comes up an issue that our homeowners association does not clearly have the power to regulate, but might - there is a gap in the contract. For example, let’s say the original charter gives the association the power to regulate the sidewalk and the road, but does not mention the land between the sidewalk and the road. When the association wants to put a new path joining the sidewalk and the road, I object, stating the association has no power to do so under my understanding of the contract. However, the others in the group argue that the power to pave a new path over the two feet between the sidewalk and the road is implied for the power over the road or sidewalk to have any real meaning, and do it anyway.
Am I still free?
I would argue that, in any contract, such gaps are inevitable, and as such, there is no practical difference between the legitimacy of this type of government and any other on the basis of consent. The real source of my liberty is not my consensual entry into the system, but my ability to leave it inexpensively, moving to a government that is closer to my preferences without onerous cost. In this case, I could live with the movement on the “fuzzy areas of the contract”, or I could sell my house and leave the “government”.
The stock market is the ultimate source of that type of liberty, where I can, for a small commission, sell my ownership in a company if I do not like its decisions.
No, what Scott is saying is that he wants people to leave him alone but for him to still be able to tell others what to do.
Good luck having your cake and eating it too, Scott.
Not at all. Your neighbors are sane people and don’t hate forward facing garages.
I bet I could convince them to deed restrict their property for some form of consideration…
I bet that social engineering doesn’t work.
I think a real source of liberty is the ability to leave an agreement [ of course absorbing the loses incurred by joining that voluntary agreement ] and retaining your status quo before the agreement, essentially retaining your property that you had not forfeiting in the agreement. I think what you are trying to do here is setup the argument of ‘well its a free country, if you don’t like it you can leave’ argument which I contend is an absurd logic for it presupposes that government has some authority over your explicit property which is does not.
This is correct. From the day after the federal constitution was ratified, the USG set about aggrandizing power to itself at the expense of the States. Really, the arrangement was unworkable to begin with. In a few key ways, the US constitution is actually a very clumsy document.
The Amish, the Mennonites, the Hasidim, retirement co-ops, and numerous others all build thriving communities with a number of restrictions on individual choice. That is part of what people bargain for when they purchase property and start families in the community. If it gets too onerous for them, they collect their marbles and leave the game.
People segregate by their values whenever and wherever they are allowed. When they are not allowed to do so, society becomes dysfunctional. The broke, socialist, violent, atomized, and ultimately extinct US is exhibit one in this disaster. Actually, Great Britain will probably explode first.
I agree with this, I study in the UK and I can’t walk to university without stepping over 3 puddles of puke every morning. And I study in one of the better parts of England.
Maybe you need to stop drinking ??
Would make sense, but on those occasions that I’ve been sick from alcohol I’ve managed to make it to the toilet.
Actually, I wasn’t trying to set up the “well, its a free country…” argument, which I agree is a bad one. My argument is thus:
- Libertarians (normal Libertarians, not “Long-style” Libertarians that demand no specific performance on contracts) agree that individuals should be able to voluntarily enter in to “government forming contracts” with decision making rules requiring less than unanimity.
- These contracts will necessarily have gaps (like all contracts).
- Thus → you can end up in a “government” organization that takes on powers beyond those you initially signed up for, but which others did initially sign up for.
Given 3, I assert - the real measure of my liberty is the cost of leaving such a contract for one that is more my liking. The other direction you can go from there is the “no specific performance” stance, but I want to enter into contracts that can demand specific performance from one of the parties.
Following this, I am led to local governments having more legitimacy, since 1) they are cheaper to leave, and 2) there are so many more of them, giving me a greater choice in finding one I like.
There are major problems with my assertion that the real measure of my liberty is the cost of leaving for a government more to my liking, particularly since it implies that as I get closer and closer to my “ideal government”, my liberty decreases (since the set of “governments that I would prefer over my current one” becomes a smaller and smaller set). However, I think the principle is a good starting point until someone thinks of a better one.