Hm. Another irrelevant lifeboat scenario. Well, this one is somewhat original in that it’s not about saving a life by stealing but about ending a life.
Fine. Still, assisted suicide has nothing to do with the idea that, by posting a sign, you get people to ‘agree’ to any sort of deranged dictates you may come up with as ‘owner’ of a plot of land.
That is what sounds like pure statism to me. Giving orders to PEOPLE and lamely justifying it by invoking ownership over LAND.
Merlin,
So here is the difference in situations. In the situation you described where people who enter a building agree to being shot they do so willingly and voluntarily. The owner may find that no one enters his home, perhaps thats what his intentions were. Afterall this is a fairly common method of dealing with tresspassers. Posting a sign letting people know they are not wanted or allowed.
The difference with the state is that it has claimed ownership of an entire geographical region, the entire country. You are only renting land from it. The public has no option to go to another bar, the entire country is that single bar where they, the state, gets to have their way with you.
So the difference is legitimate claim and scale. The state has illegitimate claim to an entire region of planet earth. They proceed to tell you what to do and how to live on what you thought was your property.
A man who posts a sign that says he will shoot you if you enter is just protecting himself and his property. “The punishment doesn’t fit the crime” is a second discussion. Getting into that I think would be off topic from what you originally were discussing.
Precisely! That’s what I’m saying, that the State differs from any property holder just because people allow it to violate other’s property rights. I’m NOT trying to justify the State, nor say that it is just a property holder like all others. All the point of this thread was to discuss this idea: ANY property holder is a legitimate monopolist of force within a given territory (his property). The State is just a special case of such property holder: an entity which is legitimated when infringing the property rights of others. In view of the Rothbard idiom that all rights are but property rights, I believe that this latter definition of the State is more suitable to the libertarian theoretical set. The orthodox definition is surely found lacking.
Think of it like this to. The State knows how integral property rights are society. So it has simply illegitimately extended it’s claim over the whole region.
It makes us think that they are abandoning property rights, thats not true. They may be abandoning the respect for property rights but they are most certainly attempting to practice illegitimate claim over a region.
Wrong. It’s the main discussion.
False.
False. The state is not a property holder.
Not sure what you mean.
Rothbard said that. It is false though.
Why dont we just define the state as “the orginization in a given territory (subject to change over time) which is percieved by the majority of its population to have soveirgn rights over the land, people, and property held therein; the structure of governance and laws employed to accomplish its ends”
Reality is a lot more nuanced than that… which is kind of why these circular egg-head arguments are pointless in the first place.. but i digress
Perhaps our argument here is expanding too much. Allow me just one question: can we say of any legitimate property holder, that he is the legitimate monopolist of force within a given territory (his property)? If so, the definition of the State must change, for as it is, it also encompasses ordinary property holders. That is all.
Lot of public lands are not stolen, for they were never private.
The State didn’t homestead public land, it just claimed it.
But still, to repeat myself, even if we just forgot how public land became public (mostly plunder and confiscation), and even if we declare all real estate henceforth (including private houses, etc.) becomes publicly owned, shortly if we grant every wish of any socialist, but with a sole condition: that no more confiscation shall take place, and the State shall henceforth behave just like any other honest property holder, even under such conditions that Rothbard immediately pointed to as a “last russe of a decaying state”, that entity would cease to be a State immediately, although practically things would continue as they are for months.
Of course, that shall never happen. But still, for theoretical purposes of defining the State, it’s an interesting thought experiment.
You don’t have monopoly on force in your house as soon anyone enters your property carrying a weapon. Again, when I say monopoly on force I’m not talking about legitimacy; I’m talking about control. The very fact that someone is deemed a “property holder” (recalling that we’re talking about property in terms of de facto rights here, nothing about right and wrong) is itself based on the de facto enforcement of that person’s rights as a property holder.
Sure, but if we use this definition of State then not even the US government qualifies, since most people in the US see the government as legitimate.
I’m saying leave out the word legitimate. “Monopoly on force” is understood as a person or group that has enough force to determine significantly the terms on which others (in a given territory) will - de facto - have access to force.
Yes, if you include the word legitimate then the latter definition is more accurate than the former; but I’m saying there’s no real purpose served by using the term legitimate in the first place. What - at least I - am against is just monopolies on force.
I apologize, but I failed to get your point the first time.
Now I believe the word legitimate should by all means be included because, strictly speaking, there can be no Human entity wielding an absolute monopoly of force on a given territory (for any decent amount of time), regardless of what other think of this monopoly. I don’t believe that any individual or association of individual has ever possessed even half percent of the resources needed to command an absolute monopoly on force. The State doesn’t exit because it can just silence everyone. It sure can silence a few people, as we al know, but if a large minority of the population woke up tomorrow and decided to go for anarchy, do you believe that the State would survive? When the Romanian communist regime fell, the government ordered the army to fire on the protesters. What could have been massive bloodshed just ended when the troop directed their weapons against their officers, not the people. You see, no one can maintain an absolute monopoly of force. Only a monopoly of force that is maintained because others allow you to, i.e. is generally viewed as legitimate, has any meaning.
PS: although the dynamist of an absolute monopoly of force could apply to an entity known as “God” or a very advances Alien civilization[6].
Yes, no monopoly is absolute. That’s why I said a monopoly on force can “significantly” determine the terms on which other will have access to force.
But you’re right that the monopoly on force would have to be much more of a monopoly if it weren’t for the popular support it enjoys. So it’s sort of chicken-and-egg, because if we recommend people not to support the monopoly on force and enough people follow our recommendation, the monopoly is no longer monopolistic enough to warrant the name.
I think the big picture is this: If I am going to advocate anything, it should be an action that is as simple and agreeable as possible while still achieving my goals. So what action do I recommend? Stop supporting monopolies on force. That is all. Since I am framing the situation this way, with only one object and one action, it makes sense to define that object as the State. It may be technically better - in light of what I wrote in the previous paragraph - to instead say “Stop supporting monopolies on power,” because then the idea isn’t limited to capacity for violence, but includes the power of enjoying public “legitimacy.” Anyway, whether we call it force or power, I think the best definition of a state is a (territorial) monopoly on force/power.
Interesting idea indeed. Still, for technical reason, I myself cling to my “the only guy allowed to cheat”. Fine discussion, nonetheless.
That’s another good way to frame it. The thing is, people can come back with either collectivist notions like “the government is us” or democratic fallacies like “everyone can be elected so it’s not cheating.” These can be refuted, but that requires additional argument on your part and a particularly open mind on theirs.
However, if you want something along those lines, how about just “territoriality”? State = any person or group that has jurisdiction over a whole territory, i.e., one that is way larger than any one person could reasonably own. The key aspect here is “you can’t opt out of the legal system” (without leaving the territory). Then you can advocate voluntarism/panarchism, which can also be stated as only one singular and rather agreeable tenet: Let people opt out without having to leave the territory.
In other words, the one recommended action is, “Stop disallowing free legal association among consenting adults within the territory.”
How do you define who’s property is who’s?
Louisiana Purchase, Alaska, Gadsden Purchase…
Some states allow you to emigrate.
I don’t really see the difference between a landlord and a renter, and the state and a citizen, from a property rights standpoint.
That’s the catch: the State has no independent existence from the property regime. I.e. the “state” among propertyless tribes is not the same as the “state” in a private-property regime. It depends on the particular property ethics in the community.
But than again, I said "mostly’’
.
With my rightful property? I don’t think so. If you emigrate you have to leave every immovable posesion behind. hardly “free emigration”.
Than we are close to agreeing. The moment the State will be denied the right of Eminent Domain, and will be forced to actually purchase property in teh market, it will cease, little by little, beign a State, and will turn into a (massively inefficient) private firm.
It begs the question, whether the state actually owns that land. That they had the right to purchase it in the first place, and that the purchase itself was not a violation of some already pre-established land owner.
If the state is the land owner then our taxes are nothing more then rent.
Republican’s have no basis for arguing the lowering of taxes, unless they believed that the state did not have legitimate claim over the land. But if they did believe the state was legitimate then so are it’s rent rates, regardless of the price.
How is it your property? Why aren’t you just considered a lessee of the state’s property?
Again, how have you determined it’s actually your property to begin with?
It sure does.
Why wouldn’t they?
If it was purchased, wouldn’t that be a voluntary exchange?
Yep.
Not true, they may think that as elected officials, it is their duty to care for their constituents. They happen to think the best way to do that is let them keep more of their money. A Shepard tries to provide the best for his flock.