Hi, I'm new.

[Stephanie_Bond]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

1. And you can’t force them to think.

2. And how do you propose to have this self-contradictory “limited government”. It simply can’t exist. It’s like a square circle.

3. That’s not the political definition of government and you know it.

1. No, you can’t. The law can’t force anyone to think but that’s not its job. Its job is to protect everyone from anyone who initiates the use of force. That is how you create an environment in which individuals can think, and act, on their own judgments.

2. It is not contradictory when you have a sane uncluttered definition of “government.”

3, It’s one of the definitions of government and you should know it. Politics begins as soon as there are two people, and the Law operates. Just because you marry somebody does not give that person the right to coerce you. The same principle applies when there are two trillion people. The Law doesn’t force people to think or to act a certain way. It just says that they can’t act a certain way, i.e., by employing the use of coercion.

[wilderness]

@wilderness

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.

@Stephanie Bond

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 agree so far

@Stephanie Bond

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.

I completely agree. This is Natural Law espoused by Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, and then Murray Rothbard… each with their own input and Rothbard came up with it’s best understanding out of the bunch I think. Aristotle still advocated a State. Not sure about Aquinas. I believe Locke still allowed for the State to monopolize defense and protection. Rothbard rid the State all together and discusses Reason the way you state it above as far as I can see.

Thanks. I think people are confusing government and State on this board. They are not the same. I’ve brought this up before and considered ridding the term “government” to go along with the board to help provide clarity to communication. Yet, nobody disagreed with the definition of government that I understand, so, I keep using it. Government is different from State. A government can be reason based on the principles of Natural Law. Reason is what governs our actions day and night.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

1. And you can’t force them to think.

2. And how do you propose to have this self-contradictory “limited government”. It simply can’t exist. It’s like a square circle.

3. That’s not the political definition of government and you know it.

@Stephanie Bond

1. No, you can’t. The law can’t force anyone to think but that’s not its job. Its job is to protect everyone from anyone who initiates the use of force.

Trouble is that governments require the initiation of force.

@Stephanie Bond

2. It is not contradictory when you have a sane uncluttered definition of “government.”

Problem is that you’re using the wrong definition.

@Stephanie Bond

3, It’s one of the definitions of government and you should know it.

I do; it’s simply the wrong one. You’re using it incorrectly.

[wilderness]

@Stephanie Bond

3, It’s one of the definitions of government and you should know it.

@Knight_of_BAAWA

I do; it’s simply the wrong one. You’re using it incorrectly.

First off, I’ll make a short issue of this. This is how I’ve been using government, the way Stephanie states it and nobody has argued with me and I know of others on this board that are in agreement with Stephanie as well. So there is definitely some confusion here on what the definition of government is.

Government is an illusion as Stephanie stated. So is anarchy. For what’s really going on in a free market is the governing principle of reason is making decisions based on Natural Law.

Where’s everybody getting their definitions from. I saw the definition Stephan posted here and I agree. I looked up in the first edition of Black’s Law dictionary the definitions of government and it defines government the way I usually define State:

http://www.zavvi.de/blackslaw/1/G/g-0544.jpg

But then when I looked up “anarchy” it defines this as confusion, destruction, and lawlessness:

http://www.zavvi.de/blackslaw/1/A/a-0069.jpg

So based on these two definitions I want neither. Reason is the plain and simple way. And since Reason governs, it seems a society based on reason is a natural government. Same reasons why private property alone, as defined by Rothbard, is not enough to explain Natural Law (Ethics of Liberty):

"In short, we cannot simply talk of defense of “property rights” or of “private property” per se. For if we do so, we are in grave danger of defending the “property right” of a criminal aggressor-in fact, we logically must do so. We may therefore only speak of just property or legitimate property or perhaps "natural property.“And this means that, in concrete cases, we must decide whether any single given act of violence is aggressive or defensive: e.g., whether it is a case of a criminal robbing a victim, or of a victim trying to repossess his property.”

So why “natural”? Why when I say “natural government” I’m saying what unlike Black’s Law Dictionary states I’m actually referring to what this board refers to as “anarchy”? Due to reason. That’s why. Reason is what all individuals do when they extract laws. Extract from where? Nature. This has been argued numerous times by all of those that have espoused Natural Law over the centuries. It makes sense. When I reason something out it is not some magical or mystical occurrence. Reasoning is a faculty that extracts it’s understanding from nature. Thus why Rothbard here uses “natural property” to mean property that is of the owner, not the criminal. Natural property rationally is a better way of defining just property rights for as he states here, “property rights” alone does not delineate between a “criminal aggressor” and the true owner of the property. Understanding “nature” is key to all this.

[DD5]

@Stephanie Bond

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.

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.

So, now you are basically accepting the idea that a central government is not required if I understand you correctly.

@Stephanie Bond

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.

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.

If you are somewhat familiar with free market economics, then you know that it is governed by a type of “spontaneous order”. Economics only reveal the laws that govern the market. But those laws are already there to discover and the millions or billions of participants do not need to learn Austrian economics in order to play by the rules. The natural laws that arise in such a social context are already there, they are products of nature. The scientist (economist) discovers them and does not invent them. The law of non-violence in the free market is as vital as the law of supply and demand. But why should it be a vital precondition for the market to have an explicit law of non-violence enforced by some “limited” government, and not have the same explicit law for supply and demand? In both cases, if such laws are not followed, then no free market exists. But no law of supply and demand need be legislated or explicitly written down. The market profit & loss system regulates against those business men who would not follow such laws, and there is no reason not to think that it would not regulate against the criminals. I am sure you are familiar with “The Assault on Integrity” By Alan Greenspan, in Ayn Rand’s “Capitalism, the unknown Ideal”. Well then, if the market can filter out the less honest business men without the coercive intrusion of the state, then what is the problem? Is there a limit to the degree of dishonesty where a state is required?

I think that what you are concerned about is a lack of proper philosophy of freedom, and you would somehow like to declare that in some sort of a “declaration of independence” or something of that nature. I think that declaring exactly what you want on paper and expecting the majority to accept it is unrealistic. Any supreme “law of the land” will distort the libertarian legal code that would arise in a purely free market, once again wrecking the system and shifting towards collectivism.

[eliotn]

@liberty student

I do not use the word profit to cover gain through coercion or violence.

I was cranking out reading Human Action, and look what I read:

“A less desirable condition is bartered for a more desirable. What gratifies less is abandoned in order to attain something that pleases more. That which is abandoned is called the price paid for the attainment of the end sought. The value of the price paid is called costs. Costs are equal to the value attached to the satisfaction which one must forego in order to attain the end aimed at. The difference between the value of the price paid (the costs incurred and that of the goal attained is called gain or profit or net yield. Profit in this primary sense is purely subjective, it is an increase in the acting mans happiness, it is a psychical phenomenon that can be neither measured nor weighed. There is a more and a less in the removal of uneasiness felt; but how much one satisfaction surpasses another one can only be felt; it cannot be established and determined in an objective way.”

[liberty_student]

Fill me in. What does the quote mean to our conversation?

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@wilderness

First off, I’ll make a short issue of this. This is how I’ve been using government, the way Stephanie states it and nobody has argued with me and I know of others on this board that are in agreement with Stephanie as well. So there is definitely some confusion here on what the definition of government is.

On your part and hers.

[wilderness]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

@wilderness

First off, I’ll make a short issue of this. This is how I’ve been using government, the way Stephanie states it and nobody has argued with me and I know of others on this board that are in agreement with Stephanie as well. So there is definitely some confusion here on what the definition of government is.

On your part and hers.

Where are you getting your definition? I reasoned mine. Are you for anarchy? If you are, then Black’s Law dictionary says you’re for chaos and destruction. I’m sure you’re not for those. Define? Don’t leave it so simply without any thoughts. It’s too easy to just say, ‘Cause I told you so.’

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

I already defined it; I’m using the political definition, and especially that used by Rothbard and Hoppe. That is what government is, especially when you talk about “voluntary” vs. “involuntary”.

I don’t know why you’re having such difficulty.

[wilderness]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

I already defined it; I’m using the political definition, and especially that used by Rothbard and Hoppe. That is what government is, especially when you talk about “voluntary” vs. “involuntary”.

I don’t know why you’re having such difficulty.

Ok so voluntary government is what I would call natural government. I can use the former for clarity in my posts here, but I see no difference between the two. It’s the same as Rothbard argued. Private property or property rights alone are not definitive enough. Natural property is just-property and these terms provide more clarity to show ownership can’t be derived from a criminal. Natural government is based on individual reason. It’s the same as saying voluntary government if I get your drift.

I think what hindered my understanding on where everybody else was coming from is cause Stephanie mentioned she was for voluntary government and people still shut her down for that. So I’m doing some gardening work and trying to pull the weeds to see the fruits of our labor. Thanks.

So I guess you’re advocating voluntary government. That’s your definition. Ok. And if it fits into what I mentioned about natural government, then I agree with you.

[Dondoolee]

@Stephanie Bond

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?

I think the governor of Texas was talking about the right of secession today or yesterday, there is another states rights non violen option. That shows Texas and NH as two good starting grounds for someone who insists on government and a non violent solution while not purchasing an island.

[nirgrahamUK]

@wilderness

I think what hindered my understanding on where everybody else was coming from is cause Stephanie mentioned she was for voluntary government and people still shut her down for that.

yea, she dropped in the word voluntary to flavour some of her posts, but all that time she was insisting that the government in question enjoy monopoly privileges, so either she didnt mean the voluntary part, or didnt understand it…

[wilderness]

@nirgrahamUK

@wilderness

I think what hindered my understanding on where everybody else was coming from is cause Stephanie mentioned she was for voluntary government and people still shut her down for that.

yea, she dropped in the word voluntary to flavour some of her posts, but all that time she was insisting that the government in question enjoy monopoly privileges, so either she didnt mean the voluntary part, or didnt understand it…

ahh… now I see. [:D] Thanks for the help!

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@wilderness

Ok so voluntary government is what I would call natural government. I can use the former for clarity in my posts here, but I see no difference between the two.

I do. “Voluntary” government is simply self-contradictory. “Natural” government (if you can even call it that–I prefer natural order) is self-ownership.

[Stephanie_Bond]

@Cork

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.

But what principle of law do you propose to guide the whole system? Do you propose to have competing laws?

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.

Hi Cork. Thanks for the welcome, and sorry I took so long to respond to you. I’ve been learning some terminology. [H]

Single legal code! There we go. That’s the term I needed. That is the kind of government I’ve been talking about. It’s the legal code that applies to everyone. It’s the legal code that is in essence “the government.” After all, we do need law prohibiting the initiation of force to be applicable to all areas of life, not just those that affect property or financial transactions.

There has never been a true lawful government because every government so far has given itself or been given by the governed the legal right to initiate force. It is THAT proposition that I reject - that government must by definition and design be an instrument of coercion. To me it is like accepting the idea that “self-interest” is immoral because so many people say it is, or that altruism is a good thing because so many people say it is. Or that sacrifice is a noble, good & virtuous act because so many people say it is. Crucial concepts have been deliberately twisted to mean their opposites for a reason: to disarm people and get them to accept (or reject) a concept which they would not do if they understood the nature of the term.

Regardless of whether people support or reject the current system, almost everyone thinks that government has to be the way it is - i.e., that it must initiate force. And I reject that idea. Throwing away the concept “government” is like throwing away the concept “self-interest” or embracing the concept of “sacrifice.” It achieves the opposite of the intended result.

Just as gradually people came to accept the idea that the Universe does not revolve around the Earth, so eventually people will come to understand that lawful government does not initiate force.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

Why should there be a single legal code? Why can’t different areas have their own law system? Answer: there’s absolute no reason why there shouldn’t be different legal codes.

Again: a government which does not initiate force is no longer a government. To say otherwise is to obliterate the concept of government.

[Stephanie_Bond]

@nirgrahamUK

@wilderness

I think what hindered my understanding on where everybody else was coming from is cause Stephanie mentioned she was for voluntary government and people still shut her down for that.

yea, she dropped in the word voluntary to flavour some of her posts, but all that time she was insisting that the government in question enjoy monopoly privileges, so either she didnt mean the voluntary part, or didnt understand it…

I absolutely mean the voluntary part. What part of “banning the use of coercion” did you not follow?

Monopoly privileges? I don’t know what you’re talking about.

[nirgrahamUK]

https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/hi-im-new/5696/47

i encourage followers of the link not to get trapped into an endless cycle. this thread is now looped.

[Stephanie_Bond]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

Why should there be a single legal code? Why can’t different areas have their own law system? Answer: there’s absolute no reason why there shouldn’t be different legal codes.

Again: a government which does not initiate force is no longer a government. To say otherwise is to obliterate the concept of government.

Do you know what the single legal code consists of?

What kind of laws do you envisage being in these separate law systems? What is the point of them?

I think you may be mistaking individual codes of conduct, rules of association, “laws” that govern how you run your business, association, group.

Sorry you aren’t able to comprehend the possibility that a lawful government doesn’t involve the initiation of force.