'Nuff said.
Some good questions (for liberty student but anyone can answer):
What are the appropriate things that can be done to reduce/eliminate government from the lives of the people who don’t want it?
Do you believe that people inherantly like or dislike complete liberty?
I started a thread on that. What is appropriate for a libertarian, I think would be anything that is voluntary. It’s limited only to your imagination and I hope people have vivid imaginations because we will need a lot of creativity to find our way to peace and a free market.
I believe some people are ignorant and afraid, and some people like to make sure other people are ignorant and afraid.
How is “resolution of conflict” NOT the purpose of “governing”? Or should I say, its proper purpose? Today’s governments routinely abridge rights by means of non-objective law and by means of unnatural law. Such criminal behavior has been made into an absolute. Why should Natural Law not occupy that place of objective and absolute truth?
The law needs to be objective and absolute. The law as used by courts to resolve conflicts should be the same law that rational people use to self-govern. In other words, the “law of the land” should be in accordance with Natural Law. The law of the land should prohibit the initiation of force. It certainly is an absolute that if no-one initiates the use of force, there will be no war and no crime.
When people find themselves in conflict with each other, it is always true that either someone initiated force or someone erroneously concluded that force was iniitated against them. Resolution of the conflict requires objective fact-finding and analysis of the allegations with reference to rational principles of human interaction.
The problem, Stephanie, is that governments have to initiate force. It is what they do. To delude one’s self into thinking that “if you just get the right people” (which seems to be a hidden premise of yours) will fix things–that only serves to further the hold which statism has.
Natural Law does so need to be written down! The terrible situation we are in today ought to be proof enough that that is true. If Natural Law were all that were needed to achieve peace and freedom, we’d have already achieved it just by being here. Clearly it’s not a given, it is not automatic and doesn’t just happen all by itself.
Being governed by a court’s decision should be the same as being governed by Natural Law. That is why Natural Law needs to be codified and established as the law by which a free-market nation is governed.
It looks like we have an Objectivist on our hands (Stephanie).
No that is not a hidden premise of mine. Whatever made you think it was?
I know it’s not a matter of “getting the right people.” it’s a matter of having the right law.
Stephanie, I think the point is that these laws should NOT be legislated. legislation is arbitrary! legislation is an arbitrary process by definition!
Rand said that the Democratic process is OK as long NO one can vote one’s property and life away. Great! what is there left to vote on?
I don’t think that anyone really suggested that laws would not be written down in some manner in the liberterian society with no central government. What is meant is that these laws would be derived from natural laws by the market process. I certainly don’t want an elected branch of some monopoly government to come up with these laws, do you?
These laws would be written down for all paractical purposes. Practicing law would still require extensive academic study. Different courts may deviate slightly from one another or they may agree to use more objective standards. But the point is that the process is a product of the market, and laws would be derived according to liberterian philosophy.
Today, there is no such objective standard as you are proposing. States have different laws. Each judge/jury interprets the law differently anyway.
True it’s about having the right law. It’s partly inherent in the U.S. Constitution. It is based on Natural Law. But why do you think that didn’t work? I have my reasons, but I’m trying to get an intellectual foothold on where you are coming from in this discussion, thanks.
if the right law is the moral law/natural law. then it is objectively true for everyone, and under that meaning we ‘have it’
to the extent that not everyone recognises that it is objectively true for everyone we ‘dont have it’
if we arent talking about natural law, but produced law, i.e. ‘a force of greater than xPascals will constitue aggession, and less than x will be considered a tolerated mistake that although breaches ‘natural law’(which abhors any force) this court and its subscribers will hold to this standard’
now, either such produced law is left to the private market, in which case it has every chance of being high quality and giving people ‘good law’, or it is the monopoly business of some socialised state institution in which the good money says that the law wont be ffit for purpose, and will leave people with poor quality law. It is too much to hope that ‘the right people’ get the job of producing the monopoly law. that is not credible. and yet it is indeed implied (as KnightOfBaw) pointed out by what you have said heretofore.
note that produced law, help people deal with boundary problems and establishes the correct process of law that its voluntary adherents bind themselves to agree to. it must be compatible with natural law, but by necessity it goes beyond natural law, since it does much more than natural law alone can do.
If by this you mean, produced laws emerge from Natural Law, then I think these produced laws are an extension of Natural Law. Not necessarily “beyond” meaning a ‘gap’ is between them, or “natural law alone can('t) do”, for Natural Law are these produced laws. These produced laws would need to be extensions that emerge and can be easily traced back to Natural Law. There can be no conflicts between the “produced law” and “Natural Law”. Property rights are an extension of Natural Law and emerge from Natural Law, thereby laws produced from property rights do not conflict and are essentially the same as Natural Law. If that’s what you mean, I agree.
Your words.
Yeah, how’s that working out? Governments have historically ignored the laws which said governments create (in the sense that the agents in the government have).
To answer the original post, yeah! Ghandi, for example, was an anarchist who managed to end the British occupation of India by non-violent means. His movement used boycotts, civil disobedience, and self-sufficiency to resist the occupation. When the occupation was no longer profitable for the British government, they left.
See also:
Government does not try to resolve conflicts, per se, but prevent them (if this were not the case it could not really be called a government). The inherent contradiction here is that this can only realistically be done by making threats, i.e. by instigating conflicts. (Threats of course are precisely what government laws are, and why the state cannot be a just legal entity). Clearly, attempting to prevent conflict by instigating it is patently absurd, and more importantly assumes that the governing body has natural authority over the individuals comprising society, which is simply not acceptable, as well as the ability to control society, which is obnoxiously hubristic.
Simply put, the distinction between law as a process for preventing conflicts and as one of resolving conflicts is crucial in that it is the difference between a free society and an unfree one. It should not be overlooked or confounded.
You seem to be missing the point. Scarcity exists, so conflict, while people typically try to avoid it out of self-interest, is in general unavoidable. When conflicts occur, the people involved may find it expedient to have it resolved by appealing to an agreed upon third party. If this third party is appealed to often enough, he may find it expedient to lay out the rules by which he makes his decisions (laws). If two conflicting individuals do not like the laws of one particular legal institution, they simply go to another.
Thus you have the mechanism by which law comes into existence in a free society. No where is there a need to invoke the god of reason or whatever in making it. The “right” law is whatever satisfies consumers.
You misunderstand me, obviously. It’s not a question of “laws,” but of a single law. The one and only law we really need, one to which every single one of us is subject. Just like the Law of Gravity. You might try to disagree with Gravity but you are subject to it, like it or not.
The law of human interaction states that in order to have the benefit of freedom, human beings need boundaries. The boundary is - no one has the right to initiate the use of force for ANY reason. Not for financial, environmental, ethical or moral issues/reasons.
I agree with many of the ideas I’ve seen here (at this site) such as letting the free market determine who are the preferred judges, fire department guys, police services, armies etc. Any and every kind of job that you can think of. People who provide the services of government must earn their livings the same as the providers of food, health, entertainment and so forth. There can be no coercion between or among human beings.
The only way to achieve it is by being explicit, up front and in your face with the facts. We need a Law of Human Interaction. It’s LAW that we need, not coercive government.
Please - go online and look up the word “government,” Bear in mind the atrocities that have been perpetrated on human beings by those who put themselves in charge. It is in their interests to muddy the definitions, but the truth is in each and every one (well, they are now but if we don’t get it together soon we could lose our civilization in a grand orgy of sacrifice to save the planet.) Selfish, altruism, government - these in particular are presented with a slant, an agenda.
We need explicitly stated Law to stand up against all the different thugs and villains, some of whom are masquerading as supporters of the free market. Oh yes - free the market and find OTHER ways to chain men and women. It is unacceptable. Unless the principle is stated loudly and proudly, we have no chance to stem the tide of anti-rationality.
Oh and please. On the issue of “interpretation of the law,” that is precisely the idiotic situation we have now. Being a judge isn’t about interpreting the law but of finding the facts. People lie, and distort and omit important information when they present their side of the story. You, as a judge, have to work out who is telling the truth, and decide how to find the most rational resolution of the conflict.
People can live by their personal rules and “laws,” but the only law that human beings need in order to live peacefully and profitably together is the law that bans the iniitiation of force.
To achieve a voluntary society, what’s needed is that the majority of people be willing to give up coercion. That has nothing to do with “needing a LAW”. For freedom to exist individuals must be willing to not use violence. That’s a personal choice, it’s not something you achieve using a ‘government’ regardless of your, or anybody’s definition of government.
Solomon, are you kidding? No need to invoke the “god of reason”??? Yes, there most definitely is a need for the rationality test. A proposed system of government must pass a rationality test. The right law is the one that achieves what you say is what you want - that all humans be self-governing, abiding by the principle that no one has the right to use coercion, to initiate force, for any reason whatsoever.
I know that just naming the law is not all that is necessary to achieve this Utopia. But there’s a damn sight more chance to achieve the result if the Law is explicitly stated than if it is not. Yes, conflicts are possible. In the early stages they are likely. Being able to trade with each other - and refrain from trading with those with whom we disagree - requires securing real freedom. Real freedom is freedom from coercion. That is it. Nobody has the right to initiate force . The consequence for anyone who initiates force will vary from situation to situation. it is not for the “government” to force people to take action against those who do them wrong. It is for the aggrieved party to handle it - but - taking the law into one’s own hands runs the risk of accusing the wrong person, or getting the facts of the matter wrong. People can and often do jump to conclusions, make poor assumptions, fail to obtain enough facts to allow a reasoned decision.
Individuals live their lives by all kinds of rules and values. The means by which we can explore our individual paths in life is by securing real freedom. There is no substitute for a law that bans coercion. It is the only way to secure peace among so many different people who hold so many different ideas, beliefs, values and goals.
A law that no-one has the right to initiate force works both as a preventative measure and as the means to judge allegations of initiation of force. It is the only law that is true for everyone. It has to be treated like a law of nature, and it is in fact the law of our natures. When no individual initiates force, there is no war, no crime, and far fewer disputes.
The right law is not “whatever satisfies consumers.” The right law is the one that secures freedom from coercion.
People are afraid to think for themselves. It’s not the taxation that they value, you know. It’s being told what to do and how to live. Taxation is considered a necessary evil because it’s a way to make sure everyone pays for it, on the premise that “everyone” gets something out of the system and secretly likes it the way it is. Most people want to grab control of the system, they don’t want to eradicate the whole mess.
I want to eradicate the whole mess. No more mountains of legislation setting standards by force. No more central banking system, phony money, phony govenrment aid, bailouts, fake assistance.
Why haven’t governments worked up to now? Because they have all been corrupt by design. Does that invalidate the notion that “government” - a policy or system by which people are governed - is needed? No. The law that no one has the right to initiate force should be stated explicitly as being the law of a free-market nation that is serious about wanting to have the free market. If only for the children and the foreigners, it is necessary to make it explicit. Name the principle and keep naming it.
There is no coercion being employed here, only the recognition that as law, this concept achieves what law is supposed to, and provides a frame of reference for everyone to judge their own actions and those of the people with whom they deal and trade and live.
It’s certainly no surprise that government has managed to mangle itself. These days everything government touches turns to crap; it’s little wonder that it’s managed to make its real purpose appear unnecessary.
I think it didn’t work because even though great strides towards freedom were taken (and for proof of that, just look at how much innovation, invention, discovery and sheer production took place over the span of just the last 150 years. Although the new country was unable to shed old world routines of slavery and taxation, we are able to have this civil discussion and contemplate a world without coercive government, without tax, without a mountain of legislation masquerading as law.
I don’t care for the verbiage setting up the political machinery, as it too smacks of coercion.
Actually, I think that “anarchy” is what rational government looks like, but in fact it’s an illusion created by people who live by the law of human interaction, and do not resort to coercion to get what they want.
As with anything, you cannot force “anarchy” by demanding that ALL law be abolished and all government be excised. “Anarchy” is only what it looks like. A free-market society will only be achieved by enacting rational law that is true for all human beings. A rational country doesn’t need a bunch of laws. What it does need is Law of Human Interaction, the kind of law people can know, understand and happily obey for selfish reasons, because it’s the fastest path to finding willing business and life partners, friends, associates.
And you can’t force them to think.
And how do you propose to have this self-contradictory “limited government”. It simply can’t exist. It’s like a square circle.
That’s not the political definition of government and you know it.