Governments, by their nature, intitiate force. It is a sine qua non.
With excellence.
You mean, should I vote democrat or republican? [;)]
I do not use the word profit to cover gain through coercion or violence. I prefer to use the words tax or loot for that.
Market for Liberty (pdf) (audiobook)
For a New Liberty (pdf) (audiobook)
Myth of National Defense (pdf)
The first is recommended for you… Rand plays a factor. And no doubt she’s influenced your thinking.
This book is very radical in the true sense of that term: it gets to the root of the problem of government and provides a rethinking of the whole organization of society. They start at the beginning with the idea of the individual and his rights, work their way through exchange and the market, expose government as the great enemy of mankind, and then — and here is the great surprise — they offer a dramatic expansion of market logic into areas of security and defense provision.
Enjoy.
Whew! You introduce yourself to the forum and, first thing you know, you’re in a debate about anarchism and government! [:P]
To answer your initial question, probably the only way to avoid bloodshed would be to create an artificial island of some kind or perhaps do the entire oil rig and/or “seastead” kinda thing that Patri Friedman suggested.
As for the debate about government, any government necessarily initiates force when it establishes itself as a monopoly over protection, security, and law. If you kill my family member and I decide to take you to a private arbitration service in order to exact justice, the government will violate the rights of you, me, and the arbitration service by shutting it down as an illegal enterprise and force us to do court proceedings supervized by government.
I think she shot down the idea of an island. If that is the case and she insists on govt, I think I may have already stated this, it’s to push for states rights and the rights of succession. And if that is her case, moving to New Hampshire may be the best starting ground.
You maintain that consent to finance your limited government is purely voluntarily, and by this you think that you have eliminated the coercive aspect of the government, however, you did nothing of the kind. As long as the government maintains the monopoly to use physical force, it is in essence depriving me of my right (moral right) to use force to defend myself, unless I submit my self to its services. If I have a right to use force for self-defense, then I have the right to delegate that right to someone else, however, according to the limited government approach, I am compelled to acquire protection only from the government. I ask you then, how is this monopoly over defense and law maintained if not by coercion?
Most laissez-fair advocates will admit that the limited government scheme does indeed violate individual rights. That opens the door once again for the collectivists and “altruists” to gain ground.
Ayn Rand, for example, was very stubborn on this matter for insisting that the limited government does not violate individual rights.
You already do! Not of gravity, but of law. You have different state courts. States are living in “anarchy” with respect to each other, yet there seems to be no chaos.
The same goes for police. Each town, city, county, state, and federal have different law enforcement agencies that do not operate under a central point of authority. I don’t believe there is chaos because a lack of a central authority.
In a true libertarian country, there can be one set of basic libertarian laws (natural laws) declaring the sovereignty of the individual. Since property rights is the application of Individual rights, all laws can be derived from such rights. There is no need to legislate. Legislation brings the arbitrary whim of the politician once again. The market is perfectly capable of providing such services as courts and police. With the profit and Loss system and no central point of authority, I believe you will now have a true free society that leaves the collectivist minority in no position to wreck the structure
What? This is not voting. It is violent revolution and radically changing the government by overthrowing the preexisting one.
Ok. What is the meaning of “coercion is unprofitable” now? Apparently, according to this, there is no profit, since gains from coercion do not count as profit. I guess I should not interpret it as “coercion does not help the person doing it”.
Couldn’t government also be attributed to law? Meaning, Natural Law and it’s principles pertaining to a man and woman’s rights are the government. My idea of a government is the principle of property rights govern the free market. In other words, Natural Law is the governing force of the free market. The nature of people involves the principle of property rights. I know I’m defining government different than what seems to be the way it is defined in this thread, but I thought government and State were different. Or has government truly and thus completely become to mean what I usually attribute to State?
true sovereignty requires nuclear weapons. so ideally you would buy an island from a country and get them to leave you alone for awhile. Then when your society starts doing well and the international community starts pressuring you as a “tax shelter” you conduct a nuclear test.
This is the only way I see of actually starting a new country.
Disclaimer: I am for non-violence. I don’t want to overthrow any governments.
You are asking, is a little liberty better than total tyranny. It’s the difference between voting democrat or republican. Liberty is an absolute. Everything else is just gradualism. Is it better to pay less taxes? Sure. But it’s still a tax, and that is not liberty.
That’s my point. Profit is the difference between income and expenses, but this presumes it is conducted in a voluntary manner.
Stealing is not profitable in the sense that it is arrived at rationally and ethically.
Sure coercion provides gains to the person doing it, but not to the other partner in the transaction, and thus it is not trade.
It is common for leftists (not saying you are one) to associate trade with exploitation. We know better.
Thanks to everyone for all the replies! I will work my way through them all eventually, I promise.
Thank you for those links, Conza. I have started on the first one, which on page 4 says:
“[t]he society we propose is based on one fundamental principle: No man or group of men—including any group of men calling themselves “the government”—is morally entitled to initiate (that is, to start) the use of physical force, the threat of force, or any substitute for force (such as fraud) against any other man or group of men.”
Looks like we’re in agreement so far. This is the same fundamental principle I suggest should serve as The Law that governs everyone. In order to have rational non-coercive government, there must first be a principle by which everyone is to be governed.
I do accept that anarcho-capitalists are convinced that the concept “government” means “coercive government.” I also agree with you all that government in its present incarnation employs coercion as of right, and I also agree that this system of government needs to be drastically changed.
What I do not agree with is that there is no need for any kind of government at all. One of the definitions given in an online dictionary for “government” states that government is " a system or policy by which a political unit is governed." Looks to me like “government” doesn’t have to mean “permission to use coercion.”
Is “self-interest” a bad thing just because a lot of people have been taught to define it as such?
Is “altruism” a good thing just because the official definitions try to paint a rosy picture of it?
granted there can be legitimate ‘voluntary’ governments, nevertheless, ‘government’ is accepted jargon on this board which by convention references the traditional commonplace (involuntary/state) government we know and hate. so if one wishes to specifically talk about the more exotic ‘voluntary/legitimate’ government, it is prudent to specify that this is what one is doing, and be explicit about it. otherwise confusion will inevitably ensue, given the difficulty of making insightful statements that hold true for both types of government.
Thank you. This is what I was looking for nirgrahamUK. This is how I see it and then I’ll compare it to what you wrote above that I quoted here.
I see government and State as different. Government is applying Natural Law or a reasoned principle to govern the free market. Property rights is one such principle governing the free market. This principle not only is an observation, but is the nature of man or woman. It is in our nature that property rights would be reasoned as moral for this principle involves non-aggression upon another property. This is therefore a society enacting reasonable ways to exist with each other.
State on the other hand does not such thing. State intervenes and is consistently aggressive to the free market. The State is not reasonable and is quite insensible in its actions. The State follows no moral principles that can be intellectually comprehended because the premise and thus the foundation of the State involves the State making paradoxical decisions. The State can not avoid these types of decisions because the State’s only existence is founded upon theft and violent action. Thus the warping of the free market occurs right off the bat when a State is founded. The State warps the very fabric of the free market by it’s irrational conditions to even exist in the first place.
Ok. Now to compare to what you just said to help clarify, as you mentioned, what this board defines in the use of these concepts. (1) The State that I mentioned/defined above is what is called on this board “involuntary government”. (2) The government that I mentioned/defined above is what is called on this board “voluntary government”.
Is this correct? If so, then I can use the board terminology to enhance better communication when I post here.
Thank you.
That’s just the problem. The purpose of law is emphatically not “to govern.” Governing is something only people can do and the only person who has the right to govern an individual is that individual himself (consenting to be governed by another can be regarded as self-rule as well). The singular purpose of law is the resolution of conflict; it is neither objective nor absolute.
what you wrote does indeed square with my interpretation. if anyone disagrees im sure they’ll let us know in short order !
Yet, Natural Law does govern, and an individual reasoning Natural Law comes to such conclusions that property rights are good. Natural Law states that whenever an individual is not understanding or reasoning what is best for the individual, then that individual doesn’t reach a certain excellence in his actions. What is “best” isn’t necessarily labeled or defined until an individual values a certain pursuit or action to be taken [which actually falls in line with how I understand the pursuit of happiness or said another way, the pursuit of excellence (or quality)].
For example, the individual values being baker. Whether that individual is a good or bad baker is up to the individuals spirit, or in other words, it is up to the effort the individual puts into being a baker. The market will define if the individual is a good or bad baker, that’s the power of the consumer. Now if the market doesn’t value the baker and states the individual is not an excellent enough baker, then that baker may not gain enough profit and nobody buys enough to keep the baker’s investments afloat, so, the baker closes shop. This doesn’t necessarily, if we go a step further, completely devalue the baker’s ability. This individual might cook well enough at home that the desire for the food is good enough. At home the baker is an excellent baker. Yet, on the free market he or she may not find a market niche to keep a business going. And thus so is the nature of a baker as governed by Natural Law, meaning, it’s only natural this all may turn out this way for the baker.
Thanks for getting back to me. I appreciate your response. [:)]
+1
Natural law is not something that need be written down, as it is something that just happens. This is clearly different from the laws of a particular legal system which are contingent upon the people who make it. So being “governed” by natural law is not at all the same as being subject, consensually or otherwise, to a court’s decision. This is distinction I was trying to make.
indeed. I agree
I agree with what you say here. Going by what you say here, then are you stating Natural Law does govern, but does not govern the way court’s and legal system’s govern if these latter do not follow Natural Law? A clear distinction in the way the free market can be governed. One by reasoned principles and another by haphazard criminal warps or skews that ill-define the free market. In other words, a non-Natural Law court enacts and make judgements that are not actually happening, in other words, is clearly not decipherable as being reasonable. Yet, a court that makes decisions based on Natural Law will be reasonable, and logically be understood as what is happening. Thus the government of Natural Law need not a State but instead reason. A natural government if you will.