Distribution of Wealth

[JA37]

It's not ad hominem, I'm just basing myself on what you've been defending on this thread: the use of violence to force people to adhere to your regulations and taxes. You're defending the state, so by definition you're supporting violence.

And who said "no rules"? Freedom is about no rulers, not no rules. This has been said more than once on this thread too. This is such a repeated topic when discussing libertarianism that when I had the chance I wrote a text about it myself. It is in Portuguese, if you don't mind an auto translation: http://tinyurl.com/6jplv8u
Of course you can find better material than that. The short book Chaos Theory, from Robert Murphy, is easy to read and good. There are also plenty of videos like this (very good video this one).

Since I'm giving links, one that you shouldn't miss is this nice short animation on ethics: http://www.isil.org/resources/philosophy-of-liberty-index.html
It was actually this animation that made search for more answers concerning libertarianism. When I first saw it, that put me in a sort of contradiction, since I couldn't disagree with its fundamentals, but at the moment I couldn't agree either with the conclusion of such fundamentals. So I went on reading and learning about ethics and economics, until I changed my mind in many aspects.

No, claiming that I support violence and dictatorship when I in fact do not is an ad hominem attack. What I'm saying is that if you want to live under the rules of the current contract that the US has with it's citizens (or any other state) you have to adhere to the rules setup by that entity. Either that or you can leave, or try to change the rules/contract. Perhaps you can't find somewhere to move, or the rules won't be changes to suit you. Well, that can happen in a libertarian society too.  There's no gurarantee that you can find someone who'll offer exactly what you want, so you'd have to make compromises.

I glad to see that you agree that rules are needed. That's what I've been saying all along. Without rules in the marketplace it can't function. And rulers doesn't seem to be such a big problem either, since you applause the Cheiftains in Iceland and whatever the other were called in Ireland.  Seems to me that they are just what you protest so much against. Elected leaders.  Your text was interesting though, and I enjoyed reading it. The auto-translate wasn't too bad.
The video however was quite bad. It was very naive, full of misrepresentation and distortions and hopes that things would just "work out". Not all of it was bad, and he does have a few good points, but in all it isn't a very good video. I'm hoping that the book is better.

The flash-animation was a nice introduction, but nothing new. And it does describe an ideal world, a theory. While I also agree with the fundamentals, I'm not an idealist.

The premise of the contracts everyone is supposed to agree to is that all parties are equal. I reject that as a false premise. And if you enter into a contract as a weaker part and being exploited, how is that not comparable to the force that the state imposes on you.

I don't think we're as far apart as you might think we are. I believe that the state does good for the most part, that it should lay out a few basic rules for how the society should function, and then move out of the way, to a more controlling function where it monitors and punishes those who break the rules. And, like I said in a previous post, how many rules there should be is a matter of debate.

[1715170067]

1715170067

[1715170067]

1715170067

[1715170067]

1715170067

[caveden]

I'm glad to see you took the time to read even my text and watch the long video. That shows you're not just some troll, rather someone really interested.

No, claiming that I support violence and dictatorship when I in fact do not is an ad hominem attack. What I'm saying is that if you want to live under the rules of the current contract that the US has with it's citizens (or any other state) you have to adhere to the rules setup by that entity.

That's the thing. There's no such contract. I never signed any contract giving total control of all my properties (including my body) to any armed group. And yet I've been forced to do so since birth. That's totally authoritarian and violent. (This piece of the video you didn't like satirizes very well this wrong idea )

And no, you can't say that by using the services this violent group monopolizes I'm agreeing with anything, because, for a start, the way such services are provided is already criminal (from an ethical definition of crime, obviously not from a state definition). They use stolen resources to provide such services, and they coercively forbid competitors to provide them. There can be no valid contract there.

The only way a state could claim to have the right of doing all they do is if they were the legit owners of all the land they control. And that's obviously not the case. To be legit owner of anything, you either need to acquire it legitimately (voluntarily), or you build it out of your own labor, using only resources you legitimately own or that nobody does (original appropriation, the principle behind homesteading).
Every state territory in this world is the outcome of plain brute violence. Maybe tiny territories like Monaco would be an exception, but I doubt it.

And rulers doesn't seem to be such a big problem either, since you applause the Cheiftains in Iceland and whatever the other were called in Ireland.  Seems to me that they are just what you protest so much against. Elected leaders.  Your text was interesting though, and I enjoyed reading it. The auto-translate wasn't too bad.

No, it's definitely not the same. Elected leaders in modern democracies use violence to impose their rulings. Chieftans did not force you to agree to theirs, although in Iceland there was this problem of a maximum number of chieftans, the freedom of choice among the existent chieftans was already enough to make that system way different from current monopolized states.

The video however was quite bad. It was very naive, full of misrepresentation and distortions and hopes that things would just "work out".

It's not "hopes that it will work out", it's more a "certainty that it will work better", even though you don't exactly how it will work. That's the result of solid economic knowledge that shows that freedom brings a much better structure of incentives than monopolies, in any sector, from telephony to laws.
Maybe the most important part of that video is the one where he tries to describe why the government is incapable of making economic calculations. He should have spent a bit more time on that explanation I suppose.

The flash-animation was a nice introduction, but nothing new. And it does describe an ideal world, a theory. While I also agree with the fundamentals, I'm not an idealist.

That was my first reaction to that animation too.

The premise of the contracts everyone is supposed to agree to is that all parties are equal.

No, people are not equal. The main ethical premise is that people should have the same set of fundamental rights. Denying that is supporting a sort of cast society, pretty much like aristocracy did. That's the only way I can see one could argue for a state, actually.

And if you enter into a contract as a weaker part and being exploited, how is that not comparable to the force that the state imposes on you.

It's very different.

If you life is miserable because you're directly or indirectly forced to remain miserable, that's not only a criminal action perpetrated by this conscious agent who attacks you, but that's also something you'll never be able to get rid off without getting rid off the aggressor, or at least decreasing his level of aggression and increasing your level of freedom. It's both ethically and economically "bad".

If your life is miserable "just because it is" (bad luck, poor/bad parents, natural catastrophe, inability in being productive, whatever), then, first of all, that's not the result of an aggression perpetrated by an individual. There's no crime there. Then, for example, if an individual proposes you something that, for outsiders' standards, is something humiliating or degrading, but for you it represents an improvement, even if minimal, you'll certainly accept it. You would not accept something that would make your life even more miserable than what "nature" already does. So, naturally, you see a possibility of improvement there coming from this "exploitations", as people who haven't being under your skin call them.
And if you observe the economic incentives of such framework, you'll see that the possibility of profiting from these miserable people cheap labor will drag lots of investors, allowing such miserable people to improve their life faster and faster. It's a virtuous circle, not a "trap" from which you can't get out, like the scenario of coercion.
It's the typical sweat shop scenario, so criticized by leftists who don't really see the entire picture.

As you can see, there are major differences, both from an ethical and an economical point of view.

[error]

No, claiming that I support violence and dictatorship when I in fact do not is an ad hominem attack.

You keep protesting that you don't, but then you keep saying you do. No less than twice in this very post.

What I'm saying is that if you want to live under the rules of the current contract that the US has with it's citizens (or any other state) you have to adhere to the rules setup by that entity.

I believe that the state does good for the most part, that it should lay out a few basic rules for how the society should function, and then move out of the way, to a more controlling function where it monitors and punishes those who break the rules. And, like I said in a previous post, how many rules there should be is a matter of debate.

It's not an ad hominem attack when it is TRUE. I can't take you seriously as long as you continue to advocate violence, whether you realize that that is what you're doing or not.

[fergalish]

And who said "no rules"? Freedom is about no rulers, not no rules.
<snip>
<lots of links>

I'm going to read these links you sent, 'cos I really can't understand how you can have rules if there's no ruler to enforce them, *also* when it's a poly-centric system and adherence to any set of rules is voluntary.  Thanks.

You can be happy in a cage, if they treat you very well... but you will still be in cage...

The middle class only evolved very recently, but, really, they're just in a cage with glass walls, right?  The vast majority of people have lived in a cage for the vast majority of history.  There's no clear reason to me why that's gonna change any time soon, bitcoin & anarcho-capitalism or not.  The way humans are constructed, there will be, by default, few wealthy & powerful people, and many poor people.  If the system is good, it will allow opportunities for poor people to display their skill, and become wealthy.  But *not everyone can be wealthy*.  That's the Great American Dream, and it's a pile of horse-manure.

Poly-centric law is where no one entity can dictate the law for everyone. An individual must agree to the law in order to be bound by it. If you want to see an example of how this can work in today's world, look at international law.

This is absurd.  Everyone gets to choose which set of rules to obey?  So if I decide not to be bound by any of them, then I can do whatever I like, right?  And, what, can you change your mind when it's convenient for you?  "Oh, you know what, today I'm not obeying those laws."  And then, in order to transact with anyone, do you have to know which set of rules they adhere to?  How many sets of rules will there be?  You cite "international law" like as though international law is simple? It's a mess even when countries *want* to cooperate.  The lawyers would have a field day.

[MoonShadow]

And who said "no rules"? Freedom is about no rulers, not no rules.
<snip>
<lots of links>

I'm going to read these links you sent, 'cos I really can't understand how you can have rules if there's no ruler to enforce them,

And that is why most people can't understand libertarianism.

[JA37]

You keep protesting that you don't, but then you keep saying you do. No less than twice in this very post.

It's not an ad hominem attack when it is TRUE. I can't take you seriously as long as you continue to advocate violence, whether you realize that that is what you're doing or not.

I'm going to assume that you're not trolling me here and explain to you that I do NOT advocate violence, or that YOU advocate the same. Call it violence if you like, but I think you'll have to be very anal retentive to do that.

First of all I'm going to assume that you agree with me that there can be long term contracts. I will provide a service for you for one year, and you'll pay me an amount of money at the end of the year. I'm also going to assume that  you agree that I should get paid weather or not you used the service or not, since we have a contract.
Now, if you don't pay me at the end of the year, am I advocating violence if I try to get my money that you owe me? I mean by legal means, court, chieftains or whatever means are availible to me?


I'm going to assume you're not stupid and know what an implicit contract is too. You know, if I let you live in my house for free for a week and then say "These rules will be in effect by next monday, if you want to live here you'll have to follow them". If you don't move out the day before you've accepted the contract. Right?
Here's a little shock for you. Your parents, guardians, whatever you call them, accepted the rules of the state they live in, while they were taking care of you. Whenever you got old enough to take care of your own life and make your own decisions you had a choice. Accept the rules of the "house" you were living in, or GTFO. If you didn't GTFO you implicitly accepted the rules, and the state is no more violent than the example above. You accepted the contract and the service provider have every right to collect the money from you for the service provided, weather or not you used them.

Sorry for taking so long to answer, I'm abroad and don't have access to the internet all the time.

[MoonShadow]

You keep protesting that you don't, but then you keep saying you do. No less than twice in this very post.

It's not an ad hominem attack when it is TRUE. I can't take you seriously as long as you continue to advocate violence, whether you realize that that is what you're doing or not.

I'm going to assume that you're not trolling me here and explain to you that I do NOT advocate violence, or that YOU advocate the same. Call it violence if you like, but I think you'll have to be very anal retentive to do that.

JA37, it is a basic root premise that the state, and by state I mean any persistent political structure that a citizen doesn't explicitly opt into, is based upon violence.  Violence is both it's reason for existence (national defense being the largest part of that) as well as it's means of support.  Taxation, even by representative democracy, is the use of force or a credible threat of force to extract wealth from someone who (presumedly) honestly earned it.  In any other context, this would be theft.  So when you openly support the state, or the taxation required to support the state, you are (indirectly) supporting violence against others.  I'm not an anarchist, myself, and generally agree with you that there is a minimum degree of government required to maintain liberty, order and prosperity in any society larger than the average church business meeting, but I also understand that I do advocate the judicious & minimum use of violence to achieve those ends.  This is, at it's core, the primary function of law enforcement.  This doesn't necessarily make such support bad, but you do need to be honest with yourself and others about what your support of the state actually means.

[The Script]

You keep protesting that you don't, but then you keep saying you do. No less than twice in this very post.

It's not an ad hominem attack when it is TRUE. I can't take you seriously as long as you continue to advocate violence, whether you realize that that is what you're doing or not.

I'm going to assume that you're not trolling me here and explain to you that I do NOT advocate violence, or that YOU advocate the same. Call it violence if you like, but I think you'll have to be very anal retentive to do that.

First of all I'm going to assume that you agree with me that there can be long term contracts. I will provide a service for you for one year, and you'll pay me an amount of money at the end of the year. I'm also going to assume that  you agree that I should get paid weather or not you used the service or not, since we have a contract.
Now, if you don't pay me at the end of the year, am I advocating violence if I try to get my money that you owe me? I mean by legal means, court, chieftains or whatever means are availible to me?


I'm going to assume you're not stupid and know what an implicit contract is too. You know, if I let you live in my house for free for a week and then say "These rules will be in effect by next monday, if you want to live here you'll have to follow them". If you don't move out the day before you've accepted the contract. Right?
Here's a little shock for you. Your parents, guardians, whatever you call them, accepted the rules of the state they live in, while they were taking care of you. Whenever you got old enough to take care of your own life and make your own decisions you had a choice. Accept the rules of the "house" you were living in, or GTFO. If you didn't GTFO you implicitly accepted the rules, and the state is no more violent than the example above. You accepted the contract and the service provider have every right to collect the money from you for the service provided, weather or not you used them.

Sorry for taking so long to answer, I'm abroad and don't have access to the internet all the time.

This example of an implicit contract is really interesting.  I agree with your example above that if Caveden doesn't leave your house he is implicitly agreeing to follow your rules.  But what if your rules were "If you don't leave my house by Monday next week, you agree to be my slave for life" ?  Furthermore, if Caveden then replies: "No. I am a self-owner and will not agree to be yours or anyone's slave."  But then he stays on past Monday.  Is he then your slave?  I'm not trying to lead you into a trap, I just want to clarify my understanding of your point.

The other thought I had was that while I agree with your example, I don't agree with the analogy you draw to living under The State.  You, presumably, own your house.  Therefore it is YOUR private property and you get to set the rules for it.  By saying that The State can set the rules for everyone in its jurisdiction, you are saying that it OWNS ALL of it.  This necessarily negates all private property.  From previous posts it seems that you are not against private property, so I'm not sure how you could agree with the concept of an implicit social contract with the State.  Am I not understanding your point?

[JA37]

JA37, it is a basic root premise that the state, and by state I mean any persistent political structure that a citizen doesn't explicitly opt into, is based upon violence.  Violence is both it's reason for existence (national defense being the largest part of that) as well as it's means of support.  Taxation, even by representative democracy, is the use of force or a credible threat of force to extract wealth from someone who (presumedly) honestly earned it.  In any other context, this would be theft.  So when you openly support the state, or the taxation required to support the state, you are (indirectly) supporting violence against others.  I'm not an anarchist, myself, and generally agree with you that there is a minimum degree of government required to maintain liberty, order and prosperity in any society larger than the average church business meeting, but I also understand that I do advocate the judicious & minimum use of violence to achieve those ends.  This is, at it's core, the primary function of law enforcement.  This doesn't necessarily make such support bad, but you do need to be honest with yourself and others about what your support of the state actually means.

I don't really subscribe to the root premise you give above. Or atleast I don't see the difference from any other "persistant (political) structure". Whatever is said about the state can be said about any such structure. If I setup a commune/society where you "opt in" I will need some sort of protection from outsiders if I manage to draw wealth into my community. I will also need to "extract wealth" from those who live there. Call it a tax, fee, contribution or whatever you like, but the fact is that if the people living with me wants to use my services they'll have to pay for it, and there will be a "threat of force" to extract it from those who think they can avoid it.
It's not "theft" to get the money people owe me for using my services.

So you can say that I "advocate violence" if you like, but the matter of fact is that I don't advocate anything else than anyone else on these forums. To say that I do is either dishonest, ignorant or just plain stupid.

But like you said, I think we're mostly in agreement here.

[JA37]

This example of an implicit contract is really interesting.  I agree with your example above that if Caveden doesn't leave your house he is implicitly agreeing to follow your rules.  But what if your rules were "If you don't leave my house by Monday next week, you agree to be my slave for life" ?  Furthermore, if Caveden then replies: "No. I am a self-owner and will not agree to be yours or anyone's slave."  But then he stays on past Monday.  Is he then your slave?  I'm not trying to lead you into a trap, I just want to clarify my understanding of your point.

The other thought I had was that while I agree with your example, I don't agree with the analogy you draw to living under The State.  You, presumably, own your house.  Therefore it is YOUR private property and you get to set the rules for it.  By saying that The State can set the rules for everyone in its jurisdiction, you are saying that it OWNS ALL of it.  This necessarily negates all private property.  From previous posts it seems that you are not against private property, so I'm not sure how you could agree with the concept of an implicit social contract with the State.  Am I not understanding your point?
[/quote]

I think that there are some contracts that are unenforceable, like slave contracts. I think that the UN declaration of human rights has it mostly right. In the example above a contract which sais that he will be my slave is is void. A contract has to be "reasonable". Lifetime slavery for housing isn't. I do however think that I have the right to use "force" to either evict or "extract wealth" if he doesn't leave. What reasonable is should be set by the market, limited by certain basic human rights.

I don't think that the state owns everything, I think that "we" own everything, but that it is governed by the state. That way someone can buy something from us, through the state, and use it as their private property. And "we" set the rules, by proxy.
I'm absolutely not against private property, quite the contrary, but I also don't subscribe to the idea that "every man is an island" and that there has to be rules to be followed, even with regards to your private property.

[Anonymous]

This example of an implicit contract is really interesting.  I agree with your example above that if Caveden doesn't leave your house he is implicitly agreeing to follow your rules.  But what if your rules were "If you don't leave my house by Monday next week, you agree to be my slave for life" ?  Furthermore, if Caveden then replies: "No. I am a self-owner and will not agree to be yours or anyone's slave."  But then he stays on past Monday.  Is he then your slave?  I'm not trying to lead you into a trap, I just want to clarify my understanding of your point.

The other thought I had was that while I agree with your example, I don't agree with the analogy you draw to living under The State.  You, presumably, own your house.  Therefore it is YOUR private property and you get to set the rules for it.  By saying that The State can set the rules for everyone in its jurisdiction, you are saying that it OWNS ALL of it.  This necessarily negates all private property.  From previous posts it seems that you are not against private property, so I'm not sure how you could agree with the concept of an implicit social contract with the State.  Am I not understanding your point?

I think that there are some contracts that are unenforceable, like slave contracts. I think that the UN declaration of human rights has it mostly right. In the example above a contract which sais that he will be my slave is is void. A contract has to be "reasonable". Lifetime slavery for housing isn't. I do however think that I have the right to use "force" to either evict or "extract wealth" if he doesn't leave. What reasonable is should be set by the market, limited by certain basic human rights.

I don't think that the state owns everything, I think that "we" own everything, but that it is governed by the state. That way someone can buy something from us, through the state, and use it as their private property. And "we" set the rules, by proxy.
I'm absolutely not against private property, quite the contrary, but I also don't subscribe to the idea that "every man is an island" and that there has to be rules to be followed, even with regards to your private property.
[/quote]


Try not paying council rates or "school taxes" if you are in the states  and claim you "own" your house when the sherriff shows up to collect the dues.

You'll have it sold for what you owe not for what its worth. There are numerous cases of beauracrats foreclosing on people for minor amounts of overdue rates and getting a sweet deal for their mates who know exactly when the tax auction is.

[wb3]

I think that there are some contracts that are unenforceable, like slave contracts.

How about indentured servitude contracts?

[JA37]

Try not paying council rates or "school taxes" if you are in the states  and claim you "own" your house when the sherriff shows up to collect the dues.

You'll have it sold for what you owe not for what its worth. There are numerous cases of beauracrats foreclosing on people for minor amounts of overdue rates and getting a sweet deal for their mates who know exactly when the tax auction is.

If there are "school taxes" then there's a service that you pay for, ie schools. And if there are dues on your house, you don't own it.

And the next thing you're talking about is corruption, that happens in all organizations and should be abhorred and fought by everyone everywhere. Start by voting for more transparency in the state, you know, the way you can't do in private business. 

[JA37]

I think that there are some contracts that are unenforceable, like slave contracts.

How about indentured servitude contracts?

Looks very much like slave contracts, but I don't know enough about it to really have a strong opinion in the matter. Gut feeling is however that any contract that puts you in ownership of another person is wrong and should not be honored.

[Anonymous]

Try not paying council rates or "school taxes" if you are in the states  and claim you "own" your house when the sherriff shows up to collect the dues.

You'll have it sold for what you owe not for what its worth. There are numerous cases of beauracrats foreclosing on people for minor amounts of overdue rates and getting a sweet deal for their mates who know exactly when the tax auction is.

If there are "school taxes" then there's a service that you pay for, ie schools. And if there are dues on your house, you don't own it.

And the next thing you're talking about is corruption, that happens in all organizations and should be abhorred and fought by everyone everywhere. Start by voting for more transparency in the state, you know, the way you can't do in private business. 

Thats because councils are corporations now. The council here has a corporate headquarters and a general manager,just like any other business.

They also have two sets of books - one is the budget and one is the comprehensive financial report where they have "investments". Digging further into this you will find out they get enough return on  their investment that they could not collect rates at all and still provide all the services. rates are just a way to keep you in line as a householder from that point.
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_annual_financial_report 

While they cry poor in the budget which is just a projection for the following period they are actually raking in the cash on their investments.