The key is to eliminate the export of the costs of social engineering from one group onto another. If you want to live in a drug-free society, then you need to pay the costs. You shouldn’t get to force other people who don’t give a crap about drugs or maybe even like to use drugs themselves to pay for your pet, anti-drug project. Of course, people tend to be a lot less zealous once they have to foot the bill for their own zeal, if you get what I mean.>>>>
Josh - that’s the distinction I make between “initially-voluntary” and “continually-voluntary” slavery. It all depends on the definition of slavery itself.
Do you know of any other passages where he discusses this? I’ve been wondering about this for a bit.
he cannot transfer himself, even if he wished, into another man’s permanent capital good. For he cannot rid himself of his own will, which may change in future years and repudiate the current arrangement.
Why not? He obviously can’t extract it from himself, but that doesn’t mean anything. He simply transfers the right of use of his body to someone else.
“Now, I agree laws would be generally libertarian as to outlawing involuntary coercion and initiated violence against property. However, my critique is as to what people would think about victimless crimes. Prostitution is a victimless crime, being a drug dealer is a victimless crime etc., and some people might want these acitivities banned based upon your reply.”
I agree that some people will want these things prohibited, but if we achieve a voluntary society then I think they would be in a minority. I think they would be a small enough minority that it would be impossible to fund the amount of necessary aggression that it would require to invade other people’s property to stop their mutually voluntary associations. I am open to other views on this, but right now I can’t imagine achieving a voluntary society composed of a majority willing to spend their own money to invade peaceful people.
Also, even right now I think a lot less people would support prohibition of drugs if they had to do more than check a box at the voting booth. People are so detached from reality that they don’t understand the real expense. The costs are hidden to the average prohibition supporter. I would guess that a LOT of the people who support the war on drugs right now would quickly change their mind if they had to pay for it themselves (and understood the real cost) and could not force other people to help them pay for it through taxation and inflation.
Wheylous, that was just the bit I had read while perusing Crusoe Economics (which is great for getting a handle on some complicated subjects). I’m not familiar with other specific writings of Rothbard’s other than what I glean from Mises Daily and LRC, but the quote is originally from Ethics of Liberty, which I’m starting on now (plenty of good stuff from what I’ve looked at so far).
he cannot transfer himself, even if he wished, into another man’s permanent capital good. For he cannot rid himself of his own will, which may change in future years and repudiate the current arrangement.
Why not? He obviously can’t extract it from himself, but that doesn’t mean anything. He simply transfers the right of use of his body to someone else.
He may proclaim “I am no longer human, I am property” but this is no more sensible (or enforceable) than if he proclaimed himself to be a turnip. He is still a moral agent possessed of free will and, as such, retains his inalienable rights. He could voluntarily enter into a contract to give the “master” his future labor, and he could possibly be sued for monetary compensation if he fails to do so, but in no way would it be a legitimate use of force to physically overpower him and control his body to extract the labor from him if he breaks the contract.