I’m a long-time fan of laissez-faire capitalism and I’m wondering - is there a way to avoid bloodshed in the establishment of a country that actually recognizes Individual Rights and doesn’t abridge those rights in any way?
A country would, I assume, have a government. Governments abridge rights. Unless all the people could be duped, I don’t know how there couldn’t be at least some bloodshed.
I think murder/ violence and laissez-faire are inherently at odds with eachother. Establishing a country, I guess save up money and buy an island? It has been done a few times before. Other than that education and living a good life are the best tools.
Government in its present form abridges rights, I agree 100%. This is because government in its present form is permitted to initiate the use of force.
The concept of government is necessary but only fit for human consumption when its purpose is rationally defined and rationally carried out., The purpose of Government is to provide for rational individuals a mechanism for defense against the irrational. Coercion is irrational. Therefore, government cannot have the right to use coercion. That is why all governments so far have failed.
I think you’ll find that most people consider the initation of coercion as a key component of the definition of government.
Government is only rational when it is voluntary, which precludes it being a monopoly.
Dondoolee, I looked into buying an island and it appears that it’s unlikely at best to result in having a new country. I’m probably going to have to convince an existing government/existing citizenry to change how things are done.
nje, that may be the impression people have given the government systems we’ve had so far, but it’s not the actual definition of government.
Government is only rational when it is not inherently contradictory.
The problem isn’t that “government has the monopoly on force.” The problem is that at present all governments are premised on the contradictory idea that that government ought to have the right to initiate the use of force in order to carry out its job of providing defense against the initiation of force.
Monopoly government by definition is inherently contradictory unless it is supported by 100% consent all of the time.
Actually, that is the major problem. The other being that the state has a monopoly on law.
I have absolutely no idea what this means.
A much simpler definition of valid/invalid government is that the only valid government is the one that works on 100% consent, that is to say that any government which governs involuntarily, is illegitimate.
“A much simpler definition of valid/invalid government is that the only valid government is the one that works on 100% consent, that is to say that any government which governs involuntarily, is illegitimate.”
I think 100% consent is irrelevant. Government based on rational law will not be embraced by those who wish to act irrationally. So, that criterion is doomed to fail.
We already know that everyone won’t consent. Because humans are volitional and have to choose to be rational, it’s safe to assume that there is a chance that someone will choose to be irrational. They won’t consent to being governed but given they are the ones choosing irrationality and irrational behavior, they are why the rest of us need protection.
Because paying for proper government services is currently involuntary, there is no mechanism for individuals to gauge how little or how much protection they actually need or desire. The whole thing is a big mess, and sorry but anarchy isn’t the answer. Without a mechanism of self-defense, the irrational people will once again take over and ruin everything just as much if not more than the current system of half-freedom/half-slavery is presently doing.
The answer is to remove the tumor of contradictory premises, which permit the use of coercion by the very entity empowered with providing defense against the use of coercion.
If people are forced to exist under a law by coercion (because they do not consent) then the law is illegitimate.
Or if government supplies this best, or if government should be supplying it at all.
A free market in law and defense is the only answer.
So we need coercive involuntary government to prevent coercive involuntary government?
Contradictory premises is an authoritarian way of saying, “people who think different”.
If your dream society of perfect rationality requires all premises to be consistent, then you have stagnation and the end of free will.
Indeed, and unless you are using a very different meaning of the word “government”, then it is impossible for it to be funded voluntarily. If it has not got a legal monopoly on the use of force in a given territorial area, and relies on voluntary contributions for its funding, then it is more a firm or a charity than a government.
What exactly do you mean by this?
I guess then if you are against the whole island thing and adament about a government being neccasary, push for states rights? Succession is a peacful solution, let the socialist states be socialist. New Hampshire would probably be the best starting ground I guess.
Who decides what’s rational and what’s not? Who decides if the man deciding is rational himself?
Nobody’s rationality and/or ethics is to be fully and blindly trusted. And this goes for groups of people as well, e.g. crowds, majorities. Any government-like system of balances and checks requires watching the watcher ad infinitum, but the only logical possibility of this happening is consensus decision-making.
“If people are forced to exist under a law by coercion (because they do not consent) then the law is illegitimate.”
Recognizing individual rights is recognizing and agreeing that nobody has the right to initiate the use of force. It is recognizing that coercion is the opposite of rationality. Do you not agree to that condition? Do you want to have the right to initiate the use of force for some reason?
Because who else but someone who wants to force others to do his bidding would not consent to abide by such a law? If there is no right to the use of retaliatory force against those who initiate the use of force, what happens to those whose rights are abridged? What recourse do they have?
“Or if government supplies this best, or if government should be supplying it at all”.
Well, I can see how you might have trouble figuring out what government is supposed to be doing, given its involvement in so many areas of human existence in which it doesn’t belong. The problem isn’t in having government, it is in having an irrationally defined system of government. You wouldn’t go to a car mechanic when you need antibiotics, or take parachuting lessons from a scuba diver instructor, would you? What other kind of entity ought to provide proper government services?
“A free market in law and defense is the only answer.”
Yes, the free market has a role to play. But what principle of law do you propose to guide the whole system? Do you propose to have competing laws?
“So we need coercive involuntary government to prevent coercive involuntary government?”
Actually, the coercive involuntary government is what we have now. I am not proposing that things stay as they are.
“Contradictory premises is an authoritarian way of saying, “people who think different”.”
In this situation, you are confusing “thinking like a thug” with “thinking differently.” Anarchy is the perfect breeding ground for criminal thuggish non-rational behavior. If no behavior were censured, who wins? The worst irrational behavior, just like we are struggling with now. Are you happy with how things are at the moment?
Why is freedom desirable?
Thinking different is not the same as thinking irrationally. Using coercion to force people to pay for something they don’t want, or to pay more than they want, is the same principle no matter what product or service is involved.
“If your dream society of perfect rationality requires all premises to be consistent, then you have stagnation and the end of free will.”
All? Who said anything about all premises? The premises that need to be consistent here are the recognition of indiivdual rights and the recognition that coercion is banned. Such is the protection rational people require against the irrational. We need freedom from coercion to bail others out as well as coercion to prevent us from pursuing rational goals, which those others don’t understand or agree with. The mere fact of disagreeing with someone else’s proposed course of action is insufficient to ground a complaint of coercion.
Let’s not forget the whole point of the exercise is to secure freedom to pursue our rational goals in life. All that rational people need from those who disagree with them is the knowledge that neither they nor their opponents will use coercion on each other, whether it’s to participate or prevent from participating.
Plenty of room for progress and development. No loss of free will. Individuals are free to direct the course of their individual lives, to find other people to work with by voluntary agreement to mutual benefit.
Stagnation is the hallmark of a dictatorship, with one or a few trying to direct the entire society. The result is the mess we currently find ourselves in.
Hey Stephanie,
Welcome to the forum! You bring up some good questions.
I have to admit: all the stuff about how laws are made and how legal systems would work has always struck me as the weakest/shadiest part of market anarchism. I’m still “for” market anarchism, but quite willing to concede that much of it is theoretical.
I believe you’re talking about the David Friedman version. Friedman’s a good guy, but I (and probably most of the others here) favor Rothbard’s version, where there’s a single legal code.
You completely avoided answering on consent.
No, the problem is in having an involuntary coercive government.
Whole system? I’m talking about many systems. Polycentric order.
What principle? Voluntarism.
Absolutely. Competing laws, competing providers and competing enforcement. No monopolies.
But you’re saying that consent is not necessary. This implies that people who do not consent to your model, then they will be coerced. You dodged answering what I wrote. It seems to me, you are saying that coercive monopoly government is a suitable replacement for coercive monopoly government. In other words, you want to change the focus of government, but not the fact it is a monopoly, and can only be a monopoly through force.
No, I am not confusing thinking like a thug. You have proposed that consent does not matter, there is only one rational way of thinking, and monopoly government.
Anarchy (here at least) is predicated on the Non-Aggression Principle. Anarchy is not the absence of government, it is self-government. You seem uncomfortable with the idea that people can self-govern, and voluntarily choose their own laws and conventions.
But this is a strawman. We do not currently have anarchy. We have monopolistic government. Exactly what you are endorsing, but with a different focus.
“Indeed, and unless you are using a very different meaning of the word “government”, then it is impossible for it to be funded voluntarily. If it has not got a legal monopoly on the use of force in a given territorial area, and relies on voluntary contributions for its funding, then it is more a firm or a charity than a government.”
Impossible, you say? I disagree. The key is in having people see that it is in their own best interests to purchase protection, and also in leaving it up to them to decide how much protection they want or need. I am confident that such a government would generate more funds than the present system of legalized theft. It’s the honey vs vinegar principle at work.
At present, the richer someone is, the less tax he’s likely to pay, because he can afford to pay for someone to find loopholes. In a system where paying for government services is about either buying insurance or about paying “going rate” for court services, the funds to provide court services would be set up to come from somewhere. Given that most contracts conclude without a problem, some people might decide to forego buying contract insurance. And they should be free to make that decision. If their transaction is problem-free, good for them, they saved a few dollars. If a dispute arises, the person will have to decide whether to pay the market prices for the services, or let the matter slide altogether.
I think a lot of people would buy an insurance that protected them in case of being sued. The cost of putting up a defense is less than that of launching a lawsuit, so the premiums would be lower for one thing.
Don’t forget that most individuals enter into only a handful of contracts during their lives. However, big corporations enter into lots and lots of contracts. I have a feeling companies large and small will routinely purchase contract insurance because they find it to be the most efficient way of protecting themselves in case of default.
As for the legal monopoly on the use of force, it is imperative that it be called the legal monopoly on the use of retaliatory force, just to keep reminding people that NOBODY has the right to initiate the use of force.
Yes, I do agree with you that this kind of government will have the appearance at times of a firm and at other times of a charity. I think it would be good to encourage people to leave something in their wills to their favorite government service on a completely voluntary basis. A lot of people leave something to their favorite charity because they value the service it provides.
Oh, and contract insurance is just one way of raising funds in a voluntary manner. There are likely many more which people will think of, given the chance, but I also advocate lotteries, bequests and fees for things like registering an official will, registering ownership to property, paying for passports - there are a number of areas where it would be proper for government to charge a fee. It need not be an exhorbitant fee - the idea is to pay the proper costs and allow a going rate of return. Because government has been corrupt for so long it is hard to imagine what uncorrupted government would be like, or that people would feel warmth toward it. I think that day can only come when government stops acting like it ought to have the right to initiate the use of force against anyone, whether its own citizens or the citizens of other countries.
The point about a voluntarily funded government is that government itself cannot have the right to force the citizens to pay for it. It must make itself attractive and affordable and persuade people to want to pay for its services, to the extent they decide is necessary. Not only does this approach ensure there are funds to pay for the actual use of the court services, at its highest such a system permits people to transmit their wishes to government. For example, if there were an array of lottery tickets at the lottery ticket counter, and you could pick one that benefited the police, the navy, the fire department - your choice to buy $5 worth of Fire Department Lottery tickets would put $2.50 into the Fire Department fund. You do realize that people spend a lot of money on lottery tickets, don’t you? Being able to direct exactly where you want your funds to go could prove to be immensely satisfying to a lot of people.
My point is - paying for government could be a much more fun & satisfying experience, as well as a much more efficient and lucrative one.
Coercion is the most inefficient way to get anything done. Our countries are being bankrupted because of rampant legalized coercion. To eliminate the right to initiate the use of force is to eliminate the means to corrupt.
What I mean by that sentence is that the irrational want the right to initiate the use of force, whether it is by means of corrupt government or no government at all. Rational people want rational law. Irrational people are allergic to rational law.
Governments which cease to initiate force cease to be governments.
“You completely avoided answering on consent.”
Who are they who would not consent? The only ones who would not consent are those who wish to have the right to initiate the use of force.
I do agree that Self-Government is an important concept. It is in fact how the system I advocate will largely function. It is because MOST people are able and willing to self-govern, and to abide by the only Law they really need - which is the Law that prohibits the initiation of force - that they are able to work together and live together prosperously and harmoniously.
Why do we need a government? Because some people do not wish to Self-Govern. They wish to Other-Govern, to have the right to force others to do what they want them to.
Can you have competing Laws of Gravity?