A Rational Choice For November 2nd

[Anonymouse]

There are extenuating circumstances in some cases that you just seem to write off too easily. Sometimes aggression is necessary to ensure that an innocent person's or people's rights are not being taken away.

Aggression against people's will is never justified, no matter how much you appeal to the "social utility". Even in the case of forced integration, you are still coercing people and their right to free association. Now given the State owns the "public domains" is not the point here. It is the ethical point in which your point is moot.

I'm just saying that you do reap some of the benefits of the state system. Unless your family is in the top tax bracket, I can guarantee you that most of your education is being paid for by other people. You willingly chose this - the state did not force you. You could have gone to a private school, not received any federal or state aid, and you would have entirely paid your own way.

I am repeating this again. I am not going to school for free. Your assertion that "my education is paid for by other people" does not stand. I am receiving no aid. I am paying for their services, not to mention my parents are taxpayers. This has nothing to do with the State forcing me. That I willingly chose is precisely it. Thank you for proving my point. Now, how about other parts of the government when we do not have choice? Even the public schools that were constructed by taxpayers money, these people had no choice in paying these taxes.

It's a benefit, isn't it? You're paying a good deal less as a citizen than you would have as a non-citizen. In fact, you are entitled to a good deal of services paid for mostly by the wealthy citizens of this nation. Are you at an advantage compared to a non-state system with no concept of citizenship? I don't know for certain, but I think we both agree that you are not. But as you are so fond of saying, we can sit here and pontificate all we want. As it is, I'm speaking of reality as it currently stands.

A benefit? hardly a benefit when it is obtained at the expense of others. If by the States artificially induced price fixing we call that a "benefit" yes, because it is nothing more than a government hand out. The "citizenship services" you are alluding to are nothing but the same product of the coercive taxation that is stolen from people without their consent, and the services offered are again we agreed lacking cost calculation to determine if the services offered are really a benefit or more of a cost. Once again you are missing the point, the point being that the "services" that are paid are not determined by any economic calculation. All the "services" are paid for money that is extracted coercively, i.e. income tax.

I've never argued that point. No system of control is likely to exist very long without aggression. I've only argued that aggression can be in the best interest of the people (in this case, all of the people) in certain cases.

We should be careful about using phrases such as "the people". Such a thing is abstract and presupposes that everyone thinks uniformly. Unless someone consents to be aggressed upon, there is no case.

Let's not forget that their military was under central control and that they also received a good deal of assistance from France. I don't think it was so much that they had no seat of power that helped them; it was that they had no stationary seat of power. They had men who were in charge, but they had no single geographic location where they assembled and centralized their affairs. I really think that's the major reason the British lost. They were able to take most of the major cities without significantly affecting the colonial chain of command. But anyway, we're straying pretty far off here if we go into this much detail about military strategy. We'll just have to disagree on this issue. I think the colonials were safer and had more international leverage after the way with a strong federal government. You either don't think that's the case, or you think it's irrelevant. Either way, it's a matter of opinion, because, as you point out, history will never tell us what would have happened had the situation been different.

There was no "central government", which is why the resistence was blood gushing from every corner, much like the Americans faced in Vietnam among local peoples, or now in Iraq. Having central resistence command is quite different. Even then, that was not entirely the case. It assumes that all the resistance was one movement, which was not. Most were under Washington's command. Other militia men were not. There formed many bands across the colonies that often were acting out of no orders other than themselves.

See, this is where I just don't see much of an effect taking place. The government would have no mandate to rule, but what would they do? They wouldn't just leave office, and I can't see a popular uprising to force them out of office. Taxes would not stop being collected, and even if they were, infrastructure and basic services would go to hell, plus government debts would all be defaulted on, something that the nation's creditors would not be particularly happy with. You can't just end the public system with one fell swoop. No one would know what to do. Investor confidence would tailspin, farmers that currently rely on subsidies would go broke and our food supply would crash, prisons would go out of business and hundreds of thousands of criminals would be free to wreak havoc on a nation suddenly with no police force. You can't just do this all at once with no plan.

See the trouble the government has created through dependence? There are only two ways of this unfurling. There is either the gradual approach to liberty, or through the inherent destruction of the State, whereby people are thrown into this, as in the case of the Soviet Union. Personally, I don't care, this country has a culture and history of individualism. The reason Russia has it so bad is they have no concept or culture of individualism, since historically they have always had authoritarian regimes.

That's not what I'm talking about. I mean that the free market, and everything else, for that matter, needs defense from attack and from fraud.

The free market doesn't need "defense". The free market is the free association between individuals, and the voluntary exchange of goods and services, and production. The free market provides its own defense. Theoretically speaking, since there is competition between different producers, all will seek to maximize their efforts and ensure the best quality, since consumers are the ultimate determining factor of which company succeeds and which fails. It is a natural defense mechanism. If a company performs poorly and doesn't meet the demands of consumers, it will simply cease. Now, that isn't to say that there wont be private agencies that will handle the job of what government regulations are now, with the only difference is they will compete and be exposed to the laws of the market and not be a monopoly that restricts entry into the market.

Actually, I'm not talking about eminent domain. This land the road would be built on was not owned by anyone. I'm just positing a situation where all but one townsperson agrees to how the land should be used. What do you do in such a situation?

Eminent domain is tied into this. Did you at least read the links I provided? There are only two alternatives here. If in the theoretical case where the individual does not want his property rights violated, if you were the government, you would make him, in the form of eminent domain. Think about it. If you were in a situation and someone wanted to build a road over your property, and you didn't want that, would you agree? Now, naturally the government claims compensation, but the initial act was not concentual. If the other parties can somehow persuade this individual into the transaction, thereby making it voluntary, it would be okay. However, if he refuses then his property right would have to be respected.

But how is private property defined at all? Is it simply owned by the person that got there first? Is it owned when one person has built on it, or worked or developed the land? Is it owned because you paid money to a nation that simply claimed ownership based on a papal bull issued 500 years ago?

Here is Hans Hermann Hoppes answer.

...in the realm of all-around scarcity the solution is provided by this rule: Everyone is the proper owner of his own physical body as well as of all places and nature-given goods that he occupies and puts to use by means of his body, provided that no one else has already occupied or used the same places and goods before him. This ownership of “originally appropriated” places and goods by a person implies his right to use and transform these places and goods in any way he sees fit, provided that he does not thereby forcibly change the physical integrity of places and goods originally appropriated by another person. In particular, once a place or good has been first appropriated, in John Locke’s words, by “mixing one’s labor” with it, ownership in such places and goods can be acquired only by means of a voluntary – contractual – transfer of its property title from a previous to a later owner.

In light of widespread moral relativism, it is worth pointing out that this idea of original appropriation and private property as a solution to the problem of social order is in complete accordance with our moral “intuition.” Is it not simply absurd to claim that a person should not be the proper owner of his body and the places and goods that he originally, i.e., prior to anyone else, appropriates, uses and/or produces by means of his body? For who else, if not he, should be their owner? And is it not also obvious that the overwhelming majority of people – including children and primitives – in fact act according to these rules, and do so as a matter of course?

If you can agree that some people need decisions made for them, then shouldn't you agree that this needs to be done, even if the individuals in question don't like it? I'm really only referring to people who are mentally incompetent and criminals. I highly doubt that Ted Bundy or John Dillinger or the like would ever voluntarily go to prison.

That some people have no way to reason whether or not they need to make decisions made for them, does not mean that people in general need decisions made for them. Retards are incapable of ethically working out these problems. Children are not yet adults or independent to make their own decisions. As far as criminals, because they have used aggression on and violated the life and property of others, they forfeit their right of making decisions.

So do you not care about the success of the approach? Unless you can provide some form of argument that attempts to show that a radical, sudden approach would work, why should I give up my ideas of a gradual change? I can still see nothing but a greater form of chaos resulting from the sudden dissolving of state structures.

We have no way of determining whether a rapid sudden approach would work or not, just like a gradual approach. A gradual approach would be preferred, but sometimes events are out of the control of human actors and are controlled by forces set in motion already. The success or lack of it, will also depend on the region and people. Russia for example had no history of individualism, of private property, or market relations, thus it easily sank into Bolshevism, and when that collapsed, it still did not possess that individualist culture. Thereby, Russia was chaotic. But I would not expect the same result in a place such as here or England. A gradual approach is always preferred.

This isn't about the government doing good things. Bad things can also be brought about by a vote, as in the case of the destruction of the south. Had Lincoln not been voted in, hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions of dollars of damage could have been avoided, temporarily at least.

Pontificating on what ifs prove everything and nothing. Anyone can do this to history because its so pliable.

I just hope you're willing to admit that some forms of government are superior to others. The American form is superior to the Soviet form, or the Korean form. This isn't a love it or leave it statement. The argument runs like this:

If you really thought there was no difference between different state systems, then it would make no difference where you lived.
If it made no difference where you lived, you would gladly move to North Korea.
You won't move to North Korea.
Therefore, you must think that there is a difference.

The logic is impeccable, and the argument can easily be proven valid through a hypothetical syllogism and modus tollens. You even seem willing to admit that the liberties afforded you in this nation are greater than what you would be afforded in other nations, and that has something to do with why you live here. Now look, I want change as much as the next person does. I think I have made that clear. I'd prefer to be in a position to criticize the US and its government and to suggest those changes, but oftentimes I'm instead put in the position of defending the US against those who would have us believe that it is the bane of existence. It is not.

When did I deny there is a difference? The only difference is in degree, not in kind, i.e. that regime being communist, is more totalitarian than this. That doesn't mean this government hasn't done some phucked up shyt, or that it should be immune to criticism. My family, I love them dearly, but they have done some phucked up things. The U.S. however, has done far more harm globally than Sweden, or even North Korea. So when conservative warmongers are sayin that "terrorists hate us because of our freedom, and culture" it is untrue. Things couldn't have been further from the truth. We reap what we sow. Our imperial escapades have gotten the country where it is. Did you even read the recent bin Laden videos transcript? Nothing happens without a cause or provocation. These people do not hate America for its freedoms or culture. They hate America because it is a hypocrtical warmonger. Criticizin the U.S. as such does not mean we want to go to North Korea, instead like true patriots we are only trying to defend the idea the framers envisioned. The present warmongers are destroying that.

[loseyourname]

Aggression against people's will is never justified, no matter how much you appeal to the "social utility". Even in the case of forced integration, you are still coercing people and their right to free association. Now given the State owns the "public domains" is not the point here. It is the ethical point in which your point is moot.

I'm not talking about state ownership, though. I'm talking about taxpayer ownership. If your taxes are being used to fund a school, then don't you agree that your children have the right to attend that school, even the administration must be forced to recognize that right?

I am repeating this again. I am not going to school for free. Your assertion that "my education is paid for by other people" does not stand. I am receiving no aid. I am paying for their services, not to mention my parents are taxpayers.

You pay less than you would if you went to a private school. Do you not agree with this? Thereby you have accepted some amount of assistance from the taxpayers. I'm not criticizing you for this.

Once again you are missing the point, the point being that the "services" that are paid are not determined by any economic calculation. All the "services" are paid for money that is extracted coercively, i.e. income tax.

I really think you are still missing the point. I'm not claiming that their are benefits to state citizenship above those that would be in place if there were no state. I'm claiming that, given the state we already have, there are benefits to being a citizen. How can anyone claim otherwise? If this wasn't the case, then no immigrant would ever seek citizenship.

See the trouble the government has created through dependence? There are only two ways of this unfurling. There is either the gradual approach to liberty, or through the inherent destruction of the State, whereby people are thrown into this, as in the case of the Soviet Union. Personally, I don't care, this country has a culture and history of individualism. The reason Russia has it so bad is they have no concept or culture of individualism, since historically they have always had authoritarian regimes.

Yes, I do see the trouble the government has created through state dependence. This is exactly why I advocate the gradual approach. You can't just dissolve a state that many depend upon all at once. Millions of people either receive assistance of some sort of are employed by the government. Millions of students, including yourself, either receive aid or are attending a state school. If you suddenly dissolved the state, every one of these people would either be out of work or out of school. Privatization needs to happen in degrees so as not to shock the economy into a depression and incite those who are dependent on the state to violence or at least thrust them into poverty.

The free market doesn't need "defense". The free market is the free association between individuals, and the voluntary exchange of goods and services, and production. The free market provides its own defense. Theoretically speaking, since there is competition between different producers, all will seek to maximize their efforts and ensure the best quality, since consumers are the ultimate determining factor of which company succeeds and which fails.

You still don't understand what I'm saying. The market needs defense not from those who would attempt to operate outside of or monopolize it. I'm aware of the safeguards from this inherent in the market itself. Individual companies and consumers, however, must be protected from attack. Let's say some crazy person decided to poison the entire wheat yield in the midwest next season with a bacterial disease. There is no market defense from this, because it is not an economic harm being done, it is physical harm.

Eminent domain is tied into this. Did you at least read the links I provided? There are only two alternatives here. If in the theoretical case where the individual does not want his property rights violated, if you were the government, you would make him, in the form of eminent domain. Think about it. If you were in a situation and someone wanted to build a road over your property, and you didn't want that, would you agree?

This isn't about eminent domain, and there aren't only two possibilities. There is the third possibility that I am presenting, in which no one owns the land in question. It is not being put to use by anyone. It is simply land that happens to be in the town. Because no one owns it, then town decided to make a collective decision on how to use it. The majority decided the road should be built there, but one woman whose land is close to this land complains, saying that she does not want a road this close to her land. It isn't that the road will actually cross her land. I ask simply how this situation could be resolved without collective action?

Here is Hans Hermann Hoppes answer.

[I]...in the realm of all-around scarcity the solution is provided by this rule: Everyone is the proper owner of his own physical body as well as of all places and nature-given goods that he occupies and puts to use by means of his body, provided that no one else has already occupied or used the same places and goods before him. This ownership of ?originally appropriated? places and goods by a person implies his right to use and transform these places and goods in any way he sees fit, provided that he does not thereby forcibly change the physical integrity of places and goods originally appropriated by another person. In particular, once a place or good has been first appropriated, in John Locke?s words, by ?mixing one?s labor? with it, ownership in such places and goods can be acquired only by means of a voluntary ? contractual ? transfer of its property title from a previous to a later owner.

I don't necessarily have a problem with this definition, but given that every piece of land on this planet has been stolen from someone at some point in time, how do you determine original ownership? Do you propose that a vast research project be undertaken to determine every person's ancestry and place of family origin and then relocate them there?

That some people have no way to reason whether or not they need to make decisions made for them, does not mean that people in general need decisions made for them.

Did I ever say that it did?

As far as criminals, because they have used aggression on and violated the life and property of others, they forfeit their right of making decisions.

Sure they do, but how should they be dealt with?

The success or lack of it, will also depend on the region and people. Russia for example had no history of individualism, of private property, or market relations, thus it easily sank into Bolshevism, and when that collapsed, it still did not possess that individualist culture. Thereby, Russia was chaotic. But I would not expect the same result in a place such as here or England. A gradual approach is always preferred.

I wouldn't expect chaos either, so long as we do things gradually. That means we must take action that will result in gradual change. A refusal to participate in or effect any body capable of implementing change does not seem to me to be the proper course of action.

Pontificating on what ifs prove everything and nothing. Anyone can do this to history because its so pliable.

What events would have been is not provable. What is provable is that at that particular moment, had another man been chosen, the proximate cause of certain events would not have existed. The only thing proven is that their exists no theoretical roadblock to any vote ever making a difference.

When did I deny there is a difference?

You've said in the past that we have only two choices - tyranny or anarchy. Separating a vast continuum of degrees into only two kinds may not necessarily be incorrect, but it does greatly distort the meaning of the words from their common usage. I'm sure you're well aware that using rhetorical devices such as these without any accompanying explanation leaves you open to misunderstanding. Given the number of times you've been misunderstood on these forums alone, you'd think you might stop making these kinds of statements.

[Anonymouse]

I'm not talking about state ownership, though. I'm talking about taxpayer ownership. If your taxes are being used to fund a school, then don't you agree that your children have the right to attend that school, even the administration must be forced to recognize that right?

You pay less than you would if you went to a private school. Do you not agree with this? Thereby you have accepted some amount of assistance from the taxpayers. I'm not criticizing you for this.

I really think you are still missing the point. I'm not claiming that their are benefits to state citizenship above those that would be in place if there were no state. I'm claiming that, given the state we already have, there are benefits to being a citizen. How can anyone claim otherwise? If this wasn't the case, then no immigrant would ever seek citizenship

Again, I do not receive any aid. The fallacy you have is that property is "tax payer owned" which is another way of saying "collectively owned". Property cannot be owned collectively. And the only way citizenship is a 'benefit' is in the welfare state, by coercively taking what belongs to others, and giving it to someone else who did not deserve it. In my case both my parents by taxes, and I pay for school, there is no way I am "benefiting". To assert that somehow this is a benefit because taxpayers "hand it to me" is fallacious. Imagine if someone were to steal 10 dollars from you, and give it to someone else ( taxation ). That would be a benefit, although at what cost? In my case, the government is stealing 10 dollars from other people, giving it to me, yet asking me to pay 10 dollars for the exact 10 dollars. It makes no sense. Furthermore, all public goods, whether schools, welfare or social security, are in effect not calculated to determine costs. Since there is no cost calculation in allocating which resources go where, there is no way to determine if the cheaper public schools are cheaper. Instead it is an artificially induced price set about by government interference to keep it low. The current budget crisis has affected state institutions. A student proposed recently that the chancellor act like UCLA is a private business and school and try cost cutting, to cancel bureaucracies that need not be there, or other programs that aren't effective. But the problem with this is exactly because no economic calculation went into the services theres no way to determine. Money was simply taken and spent on this or that, no way to determine if the resources that go to these state schools are actually worth their cost, therefore in reality they are a burden to the taxpayer and the 'benefit' which we see by 'citizenship' is clouded by an ever widening burden on taxpayers. So the 'benefit' that comes with citizenship is in actually some people living at the expense of other people.

Yes, I do see the trouble the government has created through state dependence. This is exactly why I advocate the gradual approach. You can't just dissolve a state that many depend upon all at once. Millions of people either receive assistance of some sort of are employed by the government. Millions of students, including yourself, either receive aid or are attending a state school. If you suddenly dissolved the state, every one of these people would either be out of work or out of school. Privatization needs to happen in degrees so as not to shock the economy into a depression and incite those who are dependent on the state to violence or at least thrust them into poverty.

The people that will suffer are government employees and people with paper money. Those that will be hit least are those that have hard assets such as land or gold, that is why I recommend people invest in e bullion or e gold, or any other form of hard commodity which cannot be devalued and exposed to the boom/bust cycle.

The market needs defense not from those who would attempt to operate outside of or monopolize it. I'm aware of the safeguards from this inherent in the market itself. Individual companies and consumers, however, must be protected from attack. Let's say some crazy person decided to poison the entire wheat yield in the midwest next season with a bacterial disease. There is no market defense from this, because it is not an economic harm being done, it is physical harm.

I do understand what you are saying and it makes no sense. Just what are you advocating "protect" the market? Some form of insurance company as liability to shareholders? In a competing market such will be the rule, not he exception, so I'm left wondering.

This isn't about eminent domain, and there aren't only two possibilities. There is the third possibility that I am presenting, in which no one owns the land in question. It is not being put to use by anyone. It is simply land that happens to be in the town. Because no one owns it, then town decided to make a collective decision on how to use it. The majority decided the road should be built there, but one woman whose land is close to this land complains, saying that she does not want a road this close to her land. It isn't that the road will actually cross her land. I ask simply how this situation could be resolved without collective action?

Because the majority decided doesn't mean anything. If land was previously unowned who ever claims it first is the rightful owner, per the homesteading principle as enunciated by Rothbard. The PDF HTML link here by Rothbard will state it better than I can. Scroll down to A Just Theory of Property Rights: Homesteading. As he states, there are two forms of violations, tresspassing and nuisance. He goes on to make a further distinction between tangible and invisible forms of trespass or nuisance, and how it can be prosecuted accordingly.

http://66.102.7.104/u/Mises?q=cache:bHjOhwnKEeUJ:www.mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf+Property+Rights&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

I don't necessarily have a problem with this definition, but given that every piece of land on this planet has been stolen from someone at some point in time, how do you determine original ownership? Do you propose that a vast research project be undertaken to determine every person's ancestry and place of family origin and then relocate them there?

As mentioned per the homesteading principle, those who claim unowned land first, lay rightful ownership to that land.

Did I ever say that it did?

You implied it.

Sure they do, but how should they be dealt with?

According to the law.

What events would have been is not provable. What is provable is that at that particular moment, had another man been chosen, the proximate cause of certain events would not have existed. The only thing proven is that their exists no theoretical roadblock to any vote ever making a difference.

That is not provable. It is mere speculation on what ifs. Because no other man was chosen, therefore it hasn't proved anything. That someone wasn't chosen doesn't mean those "certain events" would not have existed. They may have or may not have. We don't know that. Anything would have been possible. That we are now speculating on it, is not proof of anything, other than proof that we can speculate. Pontificating all we want, it doesn't change anything.

You've said in the past that we have only two choices - tyranny or anarchy. Separating a vast continuum of degrees into only two kinds may not necessarily be incorrect, but it does greatly distort the meaning of the words from their common usage. I'm sure you're well aware that using rhetorical devices such as these without any accompanying explanation leaves you open to misunderstanding. Given the number of times you've been misunderstood on these forums alone, you'd think you might stop making these kinds of statements.

I only meant those are as extreme as they can get. There is nothing else beyond those two theoretical extremes. Everything else is in between is everything else in between. If you think I wasn't clear, re-read my response.