Is it time for a "Liberty Manifesto"?

Economics Political Theory
, , , ,
141

[NOTE: was unable to log back in under original forum name]

Wilderness wrote: “therefore if he hung out here long enough he would have admitted what he stands for is not liberty - but arbitrary despotism, I believe those were his definitions.”

Sir, what I stand for is Liberty, and a reasonable and small government to do those things beyond that which the people can do for themselves. I believe in the Constitution, with any amendments which are ratified by the people.

Despotism is a form of government by a single authority, either an individual or tightly knit group, which rules with absolute political power (wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despotism). This is not a form of governance by and for the people – which is where I stand.

I stand for nothing beyond a simpler, fairer government, formed by and for the people to do things beyond that what they may do themselves. Clear?

Question for Wilderness: How can you be efficient, and not arbitrary in your processes without some leadership and management?

Juan asked: “And you are the voice of god eh?”
No, and neither are you. That’s the point. The rights of Life and Liberty are granted by the Maker, not some arbitrary ruler, or group.

How else would you defend against arbitrary control?

Laminustacitus wrote" “All ideologies seek to cloak their movement in truth - whether it is true, or not does not matter. No ideology is merely offensive, all seek to defend some ideal as being true, and are hence cloaks.”

The Truth, by definition, is a cloak of nothing.

So, sir, since you speak of Truth as though you may recognize it, please tell us what Truth is?

Wilderness asked (after correcting me that he was asking how a government decides on a fair percentage, not where the Gov. gets its funds): Is that an arbitrary estimate? (regarding Laughing Man’s mention of Flat versus Fair taxes).

The people should set the percentage based on what they want the government to do for them. IE., build a Navy, etc. And no, I do not support temporary mercenary forces, but instead advocate an armed force sworn to the republic and the people.

Do you believe it is not possible for the people, to voluntarily form a government management group which will act in a consistent and principled manner and so do the work requested by the people efficiently?

filc asked three questions (forwarding on what he believed were important topics from other posters):

  1. What is voluntary about the social contract with a government? 2. What voluntary rights do citizen’s have against their government? 3. How is this NOT forced upon them at birth?

  2. The social contract, after a people have voluntarily formed a government (as in the Founders of America), becomes voluntary for those born later in this way: They can leave the country, or they can work from within to reform it.

  3. First, I answer this question, with another: Why would one require “voluntary rights against their government”, if they put it in place in the first place?

But today, since it’s clear that we do in fact require rights against an over-sized government, my answer is to look to the Constitution. Within it is the right to petition the government with grievances.

  1. Your third question is a variation of #1, and so my answer is consistent: the government is NOT forced upon a person at birth because the person can decide to leave the country, or work to reform it from within. And, there is a court system in which to address injustice.

Question for filc: why do you fear a “social contract” if it is by and for the people?

AJ asked:
Can everyone in the territory choose not to be citizens?
Yes. They can leave the country.

If I follow you around with a gun and protect you from your enemies and send you my bill, will you be fine paying that?
No. You have not been requested to fulfill that function via the will of the people.

Is the Manifesto Opt in/Opt out?
It’s up for debate, and of course you are free, still today, to not subscribe to some or all of what will be the final principles in the Manifesto.

Question for AJ: If the people, in good faith, have chosen to form a government for good reasons, as our founders did and explained in the Constitution, then why would you have a problem with it?

E. R. Olovetto asks no questions, and instead proclaims, “this thread is stupid.”

How is it “stupid”?

QUESTION FOR ALL: Please explain how a hypothetical “society” without a government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?

142

I’m not sure if your deliberately avoiding our perspective and viewpoint because you know we are right or because you do not yet understand it. However you have stated again in the same sentence that you believe in liberty AND government. You have completly ignored our argument where we state government and freedom are not complimentary but in fact in conflict with each other. Untill you understand our point of view your argument will just get routed around the wheel forever. Eventually the you will have to give up and agree to disagree.

We beleive that individual’s must competantly consent to a contract, that blanket social-contracts are unjustifiable. This is the same argument Communists use to direct people’s labor.

I’ll repeat myself. Democracy is like 3 wolves and 2 sheep trying to decide what to have for dinner. You really need to consider the full consequences of what you’re advocating.

I’m scared because it justifies murder, theft, genocide, and worse. I think those are good reasons to be scared. I’m also scared because government is immediately destructive to an economy and does not allow me to live as prosperous as I otherwise would be able to do so.

143

Liberty.

144

No, you have to show that with a government that will happen. Further, you have to show that governments can be philosophically justifiable WITHOUT fallacies, blatant assertions, or smuggled premises.

145

Funny how such a claim violates the right to property you supposedly hold dear. You presuppose that the government’s right to maintain its monopoly over land it never aqcuired is in fact more important then an individual’s right to live peacably on his/her land without molestation by the government.

In the words of Samuel Seabury “Oh rare America freedom”

146

Because it, and the whole “love it or leave it” nonsense, ends up being a blank check for a systematic abuse of rights.

147

I do believe in individual rights though I don’t think they are granted by some theistic authority. If you personally think that’s the case, fine. Still, I don’t see why a political document should invoke theological matters.

148

That is like asking me how grocery stores are always stocked with just the right items 24 hours a day. I do not work in the grocery store business, but apparently by magic, it does happen. It has been coined the invisible hand. If you have not taken the time to research it, then all you can do is argue from ignorance.

Now, you please explain to me how a government that does not have consent of the governed will ever be restrained?

149

By constitution! Because the constitution will bite anyone who violates it [;)]

150

If you believe in individual liberty, that statement is anathema to it. The only form of governance by and for, is self-governance, or anarchy. That is the only true form of governance by “the people”. When they govern themselves.

If you believe in that, then you subscribe to natural rights theory. Which means that all rights belong to men, through their maker, and those men CHOOSE to delegate rights at their own prerogative. It also means you support the right of secession, not just of states, but of individuals from a political regime. It means you understand that without individuals, there is no government, and the government legitimately exists only where individuals will it.

This, is very nearly anarchism.

How can the people do that? Democracy? The Founders considered it the tyranny of the majority. How can you on one hand claim natural rights through a maker, and then arbitrary democracy to violate those property rights of individuals (extraction of taxes by violence)?

That is a love it or leave it argument. It is not consistent with natural rights (the maker) theory. Again, read the Declaration. All men have inalienable rights. Government is created by the people, when they give consent. When they withdraw consent, the government doesn’t crowd them out and make them move to Mexico. America is millions of Americans, not the American government for crissakes.

You need to read the Kentucky Resolutions written by Jefferson. The right of secession and nullification is the people’s (through their state) check and balance on runaway government.

Because it is tyranny writ large. There is no “the people”. There are individuals. You can’t be an anti-socialist, and then make collectivist justifications for nationalism. It’s completely irrational.

Why? Why must the citizens who own property, be forced to leave when the government does not represent them? By that justification, the Founders should not have revolted against King George III but they should have moved to another place. Is that really your position? That America is an illegitimate country, founded by people who had no right to their property AND self-determination?

Your complete inability to embrace more than the kindergarten version of the Founders myth and Constitution worship. You have no conception of history, natural rights, classic liberalism, anarchism, abolition, secession, etc.

It wouldn’t. It is impossible to render efficient and consistent justice for all. The state can only do it by threatening violence. In a free market, justice will come from a strong theory of property rights, enforced by contract and arbitration, before it comes down to violence. In most cases, problems will be solved before anyone has to get hurt, or more property rights violations have to occur.

The state is a myth.

You really need to read some Tom Woods. Or watch his 10 part video lecture series hosted here, and relearn the history of your country and it’s foundinge.

151

Thank you for the honest questions, and opportunity to debate in the best interests of education.

==========================

filc asked: “I’m not sure if your deliberately avoiding our perspective and viewpoint because you know we are right or because you do not yet understand it.?”

Of course sir, it is yet another possibility which you chose not to list: I disagree with your position.

filc states: “You have completly ignored our argument where we state government and freedom are not complimentary but in fact in conflict with each other.”

To be clear, I have not ignored it. It is my position that free persons, once agreed in the value of forming a government, will by nature of the agreement concede some liberties to well-reasoned and just laws in the service of law and order.

filc proposes: “In other words it was completely within the states’ rights to murder those Jews and it was of no loss to personal liberty to the Jew to die in such a way, as it was completely morally, ethically, and legally in the right to do so.”

In fact, sir, I have stated nothing of the kind, unless you believe that within the Consitution of the United States, the government is given license to murder entire ethnic groups of citizens. Is that your position?

filc answers the question, why do you fear a “social contract” if it is by and for the people?
“I’m scared because it justifies murder, theft, genocide, and worse.”

Please cite where in the Constitution of the United States, there is justification for genocide, or “worse”?

Knight_of_BAAWA asks: Isn’t the Constitution a “social construct”? If so, I take it you then would swear no allegiance to it. What then, sir, are you left with for allegiance?"

I would swear allegiance to a fair agreement into which I was not coerced, which I believed was constituted by and for the people, and for which every individual holds the right to petition, challenge, and reform it.

Regarding this, “QUESTION FOR ALL”: Please explain how a hypothetical “society” without a government would render efficient and consistent justice for all? Knight_of_BAAWA responds, “No, you have to show that with a government that will happen. Further, you have to show that governments can be philosophically justifiable WITHOUT fallacies, blatant assertions, or smuggled premises.”

No sir, in an honorable debate, the debaters agree to answer each others questions, as I have done for you above. It is very interesting, however, that you choose to avoid answering this question.

I do not have to prove that groups of men operating in either a government formed by the people, or through a decentralized occasional court will act in a just way – human nature proves otherwise. The three criticisms you list are due to failings of humans which may be present in any operating body national, or local. But if a person or persons operate under a fair and just statement of principles – a Constitution – and, if that Constitution provides for a way to petition any grievances, then they will be more efficient in operation and any if they operate in transparency, than any misdeeds will be observed, and may be punished according to the rules of law and order.

Once again, I ask you to explain how a society without leaders and government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?

Laughing Man writes, “You presuppose that the government’s right to maintain its monopoly over land it never aqcuired is in fact more important then an individual’s right to live peaceably on his/her land without molestation by the government.”

Of course, you have not proven this. Property may be understood as a storage place for value. Since any person is free to sell his property and move on, then the government has not “molested” that individual. And since the same individual is free to petition the government in the court system, plus work for repeal and reform of any encroaching laws, then once again the person is at liberty to address problems and injustice in the system.

C’mon. Are you pretending to be completely unaware of court cases won by individuals against government encroachments?

Fluery writes, Because it (the “social contract”), and the whole “love it or leave it” nonsense, ends up being a blank check for a systematic abuse of rights.

While I agree with you sir, that there is too much abuse of rights today, the impetus for a Liberty Manifesto, I cannot agree that a fair contract contains any license for abuse.

Please demonstrate for us how the founders of America, in the Constitution, intended to create a “blank check for systematic abuse of rights”?

Juan writes, in answer to the question: “How else would you defend against arbitrary control?”
“I do believe in individual rights though I don’t think they are granted by some theistic authority. If you personally think that’s the case, fine. Still, I don’t see why a political document should invoke theological matters.”

You have not answered the question, Juan, and instead have side-stepped in such a way that only proves the premise that without a stipulation that rights stem from the Divine, you are subject to the whims of what this person, or that person believes. That, sir, opens you to arbitrary definitions of rights, and so abuse thereof.

So, I ask you again, how will avoid arbitrary definitions of rights if you do not hold to a granting of rights from a level greater than any man, society, or culture?

Spideynw, cleverly attempts to sidestep the question, “Please explain how a hypothetical “society” without a government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?”, by writing: “That is like asking me how grocery stores are always stocked with just the right items 24 hours a day. I do not work in the grocery store business…”

But of course, you are debating Liberty in a forum for for the Mises Institute which intends to “advance liberty in the tradition of the Austrian School”, and remains a “School of economics and libertarian political and social theory.” Further, you appear, at this point, to be a member of the school of thought arguing against any form of governance at all. So, sir, for these reasons, your analogy does not hold. You may not work in the grocery business, but you are representing yourself as a student of what the Mises Institute represents.

Therefore, I will first do you the honor of asking the question you next ask, then I will await your answer to the former question I asked before we may proceed in honest debate.

You asked, “Now, you please explain to me how a government that does not have consent of the governed will ever be restrained?”

Easy. It won’t. That is why I am an advocate for a government by and for the people and so has their consent to govern, although greatly reduced and more restrained than we have today.

So, I ask you again: Please explain how a hypothetical “society” without a government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?

152

No, they do not. I don’t know where you got that idiotic idea, but it’s not true. When you create questions which contain within them implicit strawmen (as you’ve done), there’s no requirement to answer.

Then why ask such a question of us?

Yeah–how’s that working out? And no, saying “if we only had the right people” won’t work, either.

Once again, it’s not up to us to explain it. YOU have the onus of proof. Not us.

Ummmm…do you understand the concept of shifting the burden of proof? Governments claim monopolies over justice, defense, etc., and say that they “own” the land they govern. By what right did this happen? Show it.

What do you think taxation IS?

Consent theory requires unanimity or else you violate the rights of those who do not consent.

153

liberty student writes: The only form of governance by and for, is self-governance, or anarchy. That is the only true form of governance by “the people”."

No sir, what you have asserted is a total lack of government in the interests of an individual, and so it is quite telling that you left out “people” in the first sentence of your reply above. Anarchy, by definition, is inconsistent with the definition of government, and so your argument fails render any logical conclusion.

Again, I find the general conclusions made here to be illogical, ambivalent, and in promotion of a type of extremely inefficient, and so ineffective government. And, once again, I refer you to Wikipedia which supports my conclusion in its definition of anarchy: “Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder.”

liberty student continues, “If you believe in that (rights of liberty are granted by the divine), then you subscribe to natural rights theory. Which means that all rights belong to men, through their maker, and those men CHOOSE to delegate rights at their own prerogative.”

While I agree with your statement that all divine rights belong to all men, if that’s what you meant, I do not agree with your second statement that men may then choose to delegate those rights already granted in any arbitrary way which suits their own “prerogative.” You have made a conclusion which is the exact opposite of what I have stated.

liberty student continues, by responding to “The social contract, after a people have voluntarily formed a government (as in the Founders of America), becomes voluntary for those born later in this way: They can leave the country, or they can work from within to reform it,” by writing, “That is a love it or leave it argument.”

It is not a “love it or leave it” argument. It is a love it, change it, fight it from within, or leave it argument.

Then liberty student answers the question, “why do you fear a “social contract” if it is by and for the people?” writing, “Because it is tyranny writ large.”

Can you prove that the American Constitution, not the abuse of it, is “tyranny writ large?”

liberty student asks, “Why must the citizens who own property, be forced to leave when the government does not represent them?”

I have not stated that they must. They have a free choice to stay and comply with fair and just laws of the land. My position implies quite the opposite, sir, in fact that when a government social contract which is by and for the people is in effect in a fair and just way, that they do not have to leave, and probably, I imagine, they would not wish to do so.

Liberty student writes, “In a free market, justice will come from a strong theory of property rights, enforced by contract and arbitration, before it comes down to violence. In most cases, problems will be solved before anyone has to get hurt, or more property rights violations have to occur.”

So, based on these statements, I ask you:

  1. Are you not then advocating a form of social contract, and if not please then explain how a “strong theory of property rights enforced by contract…” is not a social contract?
  2. Who would enforce your contracts in a just, consistent, and efficient manner?
  3. Please give specific details and the premises by which you conclude that under anarchy, “problems will be solved before anyone has to get hurt, or more property rights violations have to occur.”

Finally, Liberty student appears to have concluded this: “Your complete inability to embrace more than the kindergarten version of the Founders myth and Constitution worship. You have no conception of history, natural rights, classic liberalism, anarchism, abolition, secession, etc.”

You have not proven your first sentence, which by your continuing debate here, I assume you are laboring to do. In your second sentence, it you seem to have implied that you have a firm grasp on the range of theories you cite, while there is not yet evidence of that on this thread either.

154

Bob LeFevre has something to say about that :

The Constitution Revisited

155

Yes. This is precisely the form of government which Hamilton and the Federalists agitated for. Here is an item about Alexander I just posted.

The best thing about Alexander Hamilton

Why have you not addressed the Kentucky resolutions?

Why do you continue to refer to the people as a collective, like a socialist, instead of individuals, as a classic liberal would?

Why do you continue to insist that the maker gives man his rights, and then claim the Constitution’s conception of rights is higher than the individual and his maker?

Usually when people are confronted with strong arguments, they don’t run off half cocked to Wikipedia to post refutations that are irrational and misunderstood. You’re not arguing in good faith, and you’re not presenting a libertarian or Austrian argument. No one is buying what you are selling (statism).

This community is for discussing liberty, not tyranny.

156

How do you know that the rights to life, liberty and property have truly been granted by god ? Because you can talk to him ? What happens with people who don’t accept your revealed knowledge about the divine ?

Different people have different religious beliefs or no beliefs at all. You can’t have a political system based on religious beliefs because religious beliefs are not uniform.

By the way, I imagine you are familiar with Mr. Tom Paine ?

157

My argument was against “Social Contracts” not against the constitution specifically. You have accused everyone of sidestepping but you have just sidestepped my point.

You said.

To restate, you claim the social contract is inherited to those born in a country. So I will now restate. YOU have given precedence and justification for genocide, example being the holocaust. Those Jews were born in that country, and their social contract ended up killing them.

Please do not re-state my argument. This is about social construct.

Since your stuck on the constitution let me ask you this.

The present government has the tools to amend the constitution to how it sees fit. Not to mention our government does not uphold the constitution in law making any more either. How will your system prevent such abuse in the long rung? What previsions will you place that will bring more protection than what the founders left us.

And how would you deal with folks who didn’t agree to that social construct?

Can I lol? Name one current country that has transpired into a fair and just government.

This man petitioned his government. Look where he ended up. Alot of good your petitioning does.

He doesn’t have too. I know you would agree that the constitution was a supposed a pretty fair document. But the task is on YOU to prove how your system would not lead us to where we are today. The fact is, regardless of what nonesense you state in your “constitution”, “Government” will just work around it until it can do away with it.

Case in point, the constitution has failed you, otherwise you wouldn’t be re-writing a new one. It no longer holds the relevant authority it did back then. Our government dismisses it and works around it. How can you guarantee that your system would be any different? You cannot.

His point is that your zealous religious beliefs are getting in your way. That level of zelousy is intrusive on other folks with different beliefs. You have already demonstrated to us how your supposed ‘fair’ contract will be unfair to those who have a difference of opinion regarding the ‘divine’.

Makes perfect sense to me. Government doesn’t manage the availability of milk in grocery stores, yet it arrives there magically every day. Perhaps you would think the government can do better?

I find it ironic that you’re having to defend government but aim to alter it to what you perceive is better. It’s ironic that your defending something you wish to attack and change. Which is it, you like what government has done for you or do not? If you like government then why do you wish to alter things? Or, are you demonstrating how everyone has a difference of opinion and that blanket contracts do not serve everyone best interests. It’s obvious you are not happy.

You also state free members of your so called government can assemble and petition for change. Well let me tell you what, our last election got us a mouth full of change. How well is that example working out for you?

The burden is on you to prove to us how government has not failed. It’s not the other way around.

158

filc you should learn how to use the quote function instead of copy pasting. That keeps the page from being broken.

159

Juan responds to "Please demonstrate for us how the founders of America, in the Constitution, intended to create a “blank check for systematic abuse of rights”? By making a reference to a writing by Bob LeFevre - “The Constitution Revisited”.

I asked you what you thought, Juan. Are you saying that LeFevre expresses the answer better than you could do?

Knight_of_BAAWA replies to my assertion that “in an honorable debate, the debaters agree to answer each others questions, as I have done for you above,” saying, “No, they do not. I don’t know where you got that idiotic idea, but it’s not true.”

I refer you to Wikipedia, on debate, which in the text states, “In a formal debating contest, there are rules for people to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact. Informal debate is a common occurrence, but the quality and depth of a debate improves with knowledge and skill of its participants as debaters.”

Of course, I recognize that in Anarchy, there are no rules, and so no order except what you want it to be. Again this supports my conclusion that Anarchy is ineffective.

Knight of BAAWA states, “When you create questions which contain within them implicit strawmen (as you’ve done), there’s no requirement to answer.”

Then, it is your responsibility to cite the supposed strawman, and present premises for the conclusion you have drawn that a statement I have made is a “strawman.” Again, your refusal to answer the specific question is quite interesting.

Regarding the question at hand, “how a society without leaders and government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?” Knight of BAAWA again side steps an honest answer with another question, “Then why ask such a question of us?”

Because, Knight, I believe it points directly at the weakness of the anarchic position. And your refusal to answer only supports that position.

To Knight of BAAWAs question, “Yeah–how’s that working out?” with regards to the American Constitution, I say it is currently in a state of abuse, which has been compounded by the laziness and failure of the citizens to uphold it.

For a third method of avoiding the question, “how a society without leaders and government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?” Knight of BAAWA attempts to argue, “Once again, it’s not up to us to explain it. YOU have the onus of proof. Not us.”

I am not a proponent of anarchy, as are you. So, by the commonly understood definition of honorable debate (follow link above), you are making the proposition that anarchy is better than what we now have, and so it is in fact your responsibility to explain and suport that position.

Knight then asks, “do you understand the concept of shifting the burden of proof?”
Yes.

Knight continues, “Governments claim monopolies over justice, defense, etc., and say that they “own” the land they govern. By what right did this happen? Show it.”

They would be in violation of the Constitution when this has happened in the US. And the answer to your last question is that I can of course show no right for them to do that, because no right was ever granted them by the people in their Constitution for them to do it.

Knight asks, “What do you think taxation IS?”

I do not think that an honest and uncoerced agreement may be understood in any way to be a form of “molestation” as you put it. I am not necessarily in from of “taxation” because it implies that the government is due a portion of the fruit of one’s labor. I am, however, in favor of a just fee paid in return for fair services rendered by a government of and for the people.

Knight writes, “Consent theory requires unanimity or else you violate the rights of those who do not consent.”

Not everyone will agree in this world, but that does not mean that a majority approved contract, which is based on prinicples of liberty, fairness, and justice, will not create a much more efficient and effective operating agreement than does your proposition which you continually fail to support by refusing to answer this question: How does a society without leaders and government render efficient and consistent justice for all?

The assumption that unanimous assent should be required for all contracts is not supported historically, Knight. Where would we be if such assent were required? Since it would be achieved in very few, if any, cases, then we would be left with inefficient, arbitrary, and ineffective ways to proceed.

Sir, if you do believe in Anarchy, then I ask you for the last time to support it by answering the question, How does a society without leaders and government render efficient and consistent justice for all? Unless perhaps you do not believe in justice for all?

160

I used it, and it copied the whole thing. I had to go back and edit it.