Free markets and social problems:

[FredericBastiat]

The very idea of a state is that it is not voluntary.  Concepts like property and cash are social creations.  If you have someone saying "I don't voluntarily accept your idea of property" are the rest of society supposed to unlock their doors and let the guy take what he pleases ?  Of course not - the state imposes property laws and punishes people who don't obey them.

Property derives from the word proprius, which means one's own. It cannot be simultaneously yours and mine and "theirs" if a person(s) is attempting to expropriate your property. Whether this be via direct theft, indirect "official proclamation", majority rule (vote), or some other such edict, matters little (it's semantics at this point).

I'm not contending with your definition of State. It is accurate, but the fact that it is involuntary means you are forcing your views and the opinions of the majority (or elected elite) upon the minority. That's not freedom, it's slavery. Not the blacks vs. the whites kind of slavery, but insidious and effective nevertheless.

The only definition that makes any sense, and simultaneously puts everybody on the same footing is one where your property and person is not trespassed or aggressed under any circumstances, and likewise the same must be done for everyone else. Any other variation would be a violation of the very definition of what is property.

If your going to have a subjective standard (is vs. ought), at least try to make logical sense of it, otherwise you look foolish and ignorant.

[Automagic]

"Government of the people, by the people and for the people." - some dead guy said that was the idea of the American system and I think its a good approximation of the ideal democracy.  Its not just the USA; pretty well the whole English speaking world is democratic and all of central and western Europe.  Contrary to your "2 wolves and a sheep" analogy, democracies are noted for human rights and for fairness. 

When dealing with their own people. 

Dictatorships treat other nations better than their own people?

I'm not sure how you got that from what I said and the text I bolded.  Democracies have historically treated their people fairly well when compared to dictatorships and feudal monarchies.  However, there are many examples of democratic countries visiting great harm upon the peoples of other nations.  The United States and Vietnam, for one example.

[Hawker]

The very idea of a state is that it is not voluntary.  Concepts like property and cash are social creations.  If you have someone saying "I don't voluntarily accept your idea of property" are the rest of society supposed to unlock their doors and let the guy take what he pleases ?  Of course not - the state imposes property laws and punishes people who don't obey them.

Property derives from the word proprius, which means one's own. It cannot be simultaneously yours and mine and "theirs" if a person(s) is attempting to expropriate your property. Whether this be via direct theft, indirect "official proclamation", majority rule (vote), or some other such edict, matters little (it's semantics at this point).

I'm not contending with your definition of State. It is accurate, but the fact that it is involuntary means you are forcing your views and the opinions of the majority (or elected elite) upon the minority. That's not freedom, it's slavery. Not the blacks vs. the whites kind of slavery, but insidious and effective nevertheless.

The only definition that makes any sense, and simultaneously puts everybody on the same footing is one where your property and person is not trespassed or aggressed under any circumstances, and likewise the same must be done for everyone else. Any other variation would be a violation of the very definition of what is property.

If your going to have a subjective standard (is vs. ought), at least try to make logical sense of it, otherwise you look foolish and ignorant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property

Private property is a legal construct and its not voluntary.  You don't have the option to disagree with my owning a house, cash, shares, copyrights and a dog.  But, you can ask to have the law changed so that you have access to my house for example.  Good luck with that.

[Hawker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property

Private property is a legal construct and its not voluntary.  You don't have the option to disagree with my owning a house, cash, shares, copyrights and a dog.  But, you can ask to have the law changed so that you have access to my house for example.  Good luck with that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_purchase_in_England_and_Wales

Compulsory purchase is a legal construct and it's not voluntary. You don't have the option to disagree with the state owning your house. But, you can ask to have the law changed so that you have access to your house, for example. Good luck with that.

That's the point.  The whole idea of property is that an authority says no-one can take it from you unlawfully.  Fred has this idea that it can all be voluntary.  That would mean that if one person disagrees with the idea that I own my house, its violence and slavery to deny her access to it.  I've had that problem and having the ability to call the police was very useful.

[Bind]

it boils down to force.

someone with more force than you, will always [be able to] take whatever you have, and most likely will attempt to justify it in whatever way that they can to make themselves or 3rd parties feel better about it, agree to it, or not quiestion it [see: justifications, propaganda, ideological indoctrination, psychological manipulation, education, etc]

we have no rights or property if we can not protect it with force.

this has been the problem since the dawn of Man to this very day.

there is someone who always wants more of what you got, then takes it by force or threat of force.

[FredericBastiat]

That's the point.  The whole idea of property is that an authority says no-one can take it from you unlawfully.  Fred has this idea that it can all be voluntary.  That would mean that if one person disagrees with the idea that I own my house, its violence and slavery to deny her access to it.  I've had that problem and having the ability to call the police was very useful.

I don't need, nor does anybody else need, an authority to tell them that a thing should, or should not, be expropriated unlawfully. If little kids can figure that one out on their own, so can I. I'm sure we can adjust without the state just fine. Producing definitions from the state doesn't make them lawful and unlawful per se, it just means they have the convenience of force majeure. If I want to defend myself against intruders, I can do so. If I want to hire an agent to assist me for that purpose, I can do that too. And last but not least, if I want to join a collective and spread the cost of protections amongst the members of said association, that can be done also.

I don't need a state to legitimize this process. Everything that was voluntary before the birth of the state can be voluntary after that fact. There is nothing special about the function of a state. I might as well call myself a state or a sovereign nation of one. The logic is equally as valid. Numbers change nothing. The force is just multiplied in the collective. The application is equivalent. You have created nothing new here. Stop making it appear as if you have created anything original. You have merely organized a group of individuals and given them various titles of nobility. Why should I care, unless all you're interested in doing is attempting to induce fear, loathing and threats. If you're not doing that then I will just ignore you otherwise, I will oppose you.

To wit, and to answer your question, yes; it can all be accomplished voluntarily. The only time it becomes involuntary is when you or your things have been aggressed or trespassed. At that point the aggressor gets a taste of his own medicine.

[Hawker]

That's the point.  The whole idea of property is that an authority says no-one can take it from you unlawfully.  Fred has this idea that it can all be voluntary.  That would mean that if one person disagrees with the idea that I own my house, its violence and slavery to deny her access to it.  I've had that problem and having the ability to call the police was very useful.

I don't need, nor does anybody else need, an authority to tell them that a thing should, or should not, be expropriated unlawfully. If little kids can figure that one out on their own, so can I. I'm sure we can adjust without the state just fine. Producing definitions from the state doesn't make them lawful and unlawful per se, it just means they have the convenience of force majeure. If I want to defend myself against intruders, I can do so. ...snip...

You are avoiding the point.  There is nothing to expropriate without the state because private property and cash are state creations. Of course once the state has created property rights, then you are within your right to defend yourself against unlawful intrusion.  But don't kid yourself that property rights are voluntary - they are based on force. 

[cbeast]

Would you 'force' your child to eat good food instead of candy? Would you 'force' your child to stay off the busy street?

[FredericBastiat]

You are avoiding the point.  There is nothing to expropriate without the state because private property and cash are state creations. Of course once the state has created property rights, then you are within your right to defend yourself against unlawful intrusion.  But don't kid yourself that property rights are voluntary - they are based on force. 

I'm not avoiding anything. The state is people (state == people). People are comprised of individuals (people == many individuals). I'm and individual (1 person). I don't need you to tell me what property is. And even if I did learn from your precious little "state" thugs, I still don't need them to assist me in maintaining it. I can do that just fine for myself.

And to be perfectly accurate, property rights are based on the potential use and individual right of self defense, which derives from force. If nobody stole or trespassed, there would be no use of force. Your conflating the use of voluntary and property rights. My argument is one where the right of the individual to privately contract for his security is his business, if he sees fit to do so. He may do that in any number of ways, but stealing the resources of his neighbors to achieve this (we call this theft or plunder, in case you were wondering) WOULD BE A NO-NO.

Wake up Hawker. Your logic stinks to high heaven. Go peruse Wikipedia and get aquainted with fallacy, logic, aggression, force and other most abundantly obvious topics. It's philosophy 101 stuff. I can explain it to an 8th grader and they can understand just fine. You've been indoctrinated and brainwashed. Wake up and smell the freedom.

[FirstAscent]

And even if I did learn from your precious little "state" thugs, I still don't need them to assist me in maintaining it. I can do that just fine for myself.

You keep saying that, in one form or another. Sadly, believing it and saying it does not demonstrate the truth and accuracy of it. And even if it was true, which I sincerely doubt, you fail to address whether everyone else can also do it, and what the consequences are for those who can't.

What you have is an unproven fantasy, and as long as you safely live in a world where you are not called upon to demonstrate the actuality of it, you feel that your fantasy has merit.

[Hawker]

You are avoiding the point.  There is nothing to expropriate without the state because private property and cash are state creations. Of course once the state has created property rights, then you are within your right to defend yourself against unlawful intrusion.  But don't kid yourself that property rights are voluntary - they are based on force.  

I'm not avoiding anything. The state is people (state == people). People are comprised of individuals (people == many individuals). I'm and individual (1 person). I don't need you to tell me what property is. And even if I did learn from your precious little "state" thugs, I still don't need them to assist me in maintaining it. I can do that just fine for myself.

And to be perfectly accurate, property rights are based on the potential use and individual right of self defense, which derives from force. If nobody stole or trespassed, there would be no use of force. Your conflating the use of voluntary and property rights. My argument is one where the right of the individual to privately contract for his security is his business, if he sees fit to do so. He may do that in any number of ways, but stealing the resources of his neighbors to achieve this (we call this theft or plunder, in case you were wondering) WOULD BE A NO-NO.

Wake up Hawker. Your logic stinks to high heaven. Go peruse Wikipedia and get aquainted with fallacy, logic, aggression, force and other most abundantly obvious topics. It's philosophy 101 stuff. I can explain it to an 8th grader and they can understand just fine. You've been indoctrinated and brainwashed. Wake up and smell the freedom.

Fred you still avoid the point.  Private property is a legal creation.  It requires a state.  No state means no property.

The way states make private property is that its not voluntary.  You cannot disagree about me owning my house if the law says I own it.  There is no "I an opting out" system whereby you can take someone else's house.  If you call this violence and oppression, fine you are being violently oppressed from taking others' lawful property.  Tough!

[FredericBastiat]

You keep saying that, in one form or another. Sadly, believing it and saying it does not demonstrate the truth and accuracy of it. And even if it was true, which I sincerely doubt, you fail to address whether everyone else can also do it, and what the consequences are for those who can't.

What you have is an unproven fantasy, and as long as you safely live in a world where you are not called upon to demonstrate the actuality of it, you feel that your fantasy has merit.

Oh really? Wow! Real freedom is that bad huh? So, shall I bow down to my benevolent overlords now and kiss their feet, since I'm nothing more than "clay in the potter's hands" of the intelligentsia; ready to be molded to whatever suits their fancy? Nothing is free, including freedom. Freedom to associate (solidarity) is what I'm looking for, not forced association or collectivism. Sadly you're also suggesting that nobody can get along without the state. No doubt a fantasy of your own it seems.

The fact I have any freedom at all, has much to do with my founding fathers who mostly got it right. Had you lived back in the day and graced the presence of so many impressive "statesmen" would you have told them the same drivel? That it's all a fantasy and we should all just go back to our miserable lives and pay homage to the English? Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Sound familiar?

"I would rather be exposed to the inconvenience attending too much Liberty than those attending too small degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson

"It is seldom that any Liberty is lost all at once." --David Hugh

"The argument for Liberty is not an argument against organization, which is one of the most powerful tools human reasoning can employ, but an argument against all exclusive, privilege, monopolistic organization, against the use of coercion to prevent others from doing better." --F.A. Hayek

"Without Liberty, Law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression. Without Law, Liberty also loses its nature and its name, and becomes licentiousness." --James Wilson

"A frequent reference to fundamental principles is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of Liberty, and keep a Government free." --Benjamin Franklin

"We will never be through with our fight for Liberty, because their will always be people who do not want the responsibility of freedom, and there will always be people who will gladly take that responsibility away from them, for the power it brings." --N. Scott Mills

"I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me Liberty or give me death."  --Patrick Henry

[FirstAscent]

You keep saying that, in one form or another. Sadly, believing it and saying it does not demonstrate the truth and accuracy of it. And even if it was true, which I sincerely doubt, you fail to address whether everyone else can also do it, and what the consequences are for those who can't.

What you have is an unproven fantasy, and as long as you safely live in a world where you are not called upon to demonstrate the actuality of it, you feel that your fantasy has merit.

Oh really? Wow! Real freedom is that bad huh? So, shall I bow down to my benevolent overlords now and kiss their feet, since I'm nothing more than "clay in the potter's hands" of the intelligentsia; ready to be molded to whatever suits their fancy? Nothing is free, including freedom. Freedom to associate (solidarity) is what I'm looking for, not forced association or collectivism. Sadly you're also suggesting that nobody can get along without the state. No doubt a fantasy of your own it seems.

The fact I have any freedom at all, has much to do with my founding fathers who mostly got it right. Had you lived back in the day and graced the presence of so many impressive "statesmen" would you have told them the same drivel? That it's all a fantasy and we should all just go back to our miserable lives and pay homage to the English? Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Sound familiar?

"I would rather be exposed to the inconvenience attending too much Liberty than those attending too small degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson

"It is seldom that any Liberty is lost all at once." --David Hugh

"The argument for Liberty is not an argument against organization, which is one of the most powerful tools human reasoning can employ, but an argument against all exclusive, privilege, monopolistic organization, against the use of coercion to prevent others from doing better." --F.A. Hayek

"Without Liberty, Law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression. Without Law, Liberty also loses its nature and its name, and becomes licentiousness." --James Wilson

"A frequent reference to fundamental principles is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of Liberty, and keep a Government free." --Benjamin Franklin

"We will never be through with our fight for Liberty, because their will always be people who do not want the responsibility of freedom, and there will always be people who will gladly take that responsibility away from them, for the power it brings." --N. Scott Mills

"I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me Liberty or give me death."  --Patrick Henry

You quoted me, but didn't address what I said. Try again.

[FredericBastiat]

Fred you still avoid the point.  Private property is a legal creation.  It requires a state.  No state means no property.

The way states make private property is that its not voluntary.  You cannot disagree about me owning my house if the law says I own it.  There is no "I an opting out" system whereby you can take someone else's house.  If you call this violence and oppression, fine you are being violently oppressed from taking others' lawful property.  Tough!

That's BS, and you know it. Private property is a philosophical 'is-ought' construct and merely needs one or more persons to defend it -should it become necessary. The state means nothing in that context. So the actual and real physical outcome would be this, "no defense, possible property loss", no state needed.

Thru private contract, everyone can achieve the effect of property status. You don't need a violent involuntary state construct for that goal. There is nothing intrinsically different between the state and a gang of highwaymen or mafioso. One merely has the scent of lawfulness at his disposal, while the other hides in the dark.

You almost make it sound like your omnipresent, omniscient, almighty state is some incorporeal demi-god. Enjoy the groveling you liege.

[Hawker]

Fred you still avoid the point.  Private property is a legal creation.  It requires a state.  No state means no property.

The way states make private property is that its not voluntary.  You cannot disagree about me owning my house if the law says I own it.  There is no "I an opting out" system whereby you can take someone else's house.  If you call this violence and oppression, fine you are being violently oppressed from taking others' lawful property.  Tough!

That's BS, and you know it. Private property is a philosophical 'is-ought' construct and merely needs one or more persons to defend it -should it become necessary. The state means nothing in that context. So the actual and real physical outcome would be this, "no defense, possible property loss", no state needed.

Thru private contract, everyone can achieve the effect of property status. You don't need a violent involuntary state construct for that goal. There is nothing intrinsically different between the state and a gang of highwaymen or mafioso. One merely has the scent of lawfulness at his disposal, while the other hides in the dark.

You almost make it sound like your omnipresent, omniscient, almighty state is some incorporeal demi-god. Enjoy the groveling you liege.

Fred, you can "is-ought" all you want but you don't have the right to take other people's property.  The reason for this is simple; the state protects their legal ownership and it does not protect your "is-ought" baloney. 

[FredericBastiat]

You quoted me, but didn't address what I said. Try again.

So I need to prove that private contract, solidarity, voluntary association, and personal freedom needs to be proven just so I can acquire my independence?

Wherein does that make sense? The mere fact I can elucidate it means I should automatically gain personal sovereignty and autonomy; and should you deny me that, you become just like the idolatrous elitist felons you worship so much.

Your state is just as much an 'is-ought' construct as my voluntary consensual contractual society is. Yours may be the way it is right now, but that doesn't justfy it's existence. Logic demonstrates that any individual should have no more or less freedom and privilege than any other individual or group of individuals. What's so hard to understand about that?

Or was I born a slave and now I must purchase my freedom back? What say you massah? Next time, phrase you questions more accurately.

[FredericBastiat]

Fred, you can "is-ought" all you want but you don't have the right to take other people's property.  The reason for this is simple; the state protects their legal ownership and it does not protect your "is-ought" baloney. 

What on earth are you talking about!!!??? I have never, not once, not so much as breathed, or intimated that I would ever take other people's property or would justify theft. The state primarily protects itself. The citizenry is a secondary concern.

Are you high on something? Can you read? Is English not your first language? Your comprehension level is atrocious.

[Hawker]

Fred, you can "is-ought" all you want but you don't have the right to take other people's property.  The reason for this is simple; the state protects their legal ownership and it does not protect your "is-ought" baloney. 

What on earth are you talking about!!!??? I have never, not once, not so much as breathed, or intimated that I would ever take other people's property or would justify theft. The state primarily protects itself. The citizenry is a secondary concern.

Are you high on something? Can you read? Is English not your first language? Your comprehension level is atrocious.

Your say that recognition of property rights is voluntary and doesn't need a state.  I am pointing out that property rights are created by states - they don't exist without a legal enforcement system.  When I say this you start your "slavery theft oppression" schtick.

Do you accept that enforceable property rights are a legal creation?  Yes or No?

[FirstAscent]

Logic demonstrates that any individual should have no more or less freedom and privilege than any other individual or group of individuals. What's so hard to understand about that?

There is nothing hard to understand about that. However, the burden falls upon you to persuasively argue and demonstrate that your way of doing things would actually work. It frankly sounds flimsy, and your philosophical ramblings on the subject only seem to touch on your insistence that it should be that way, without ever actually making it sound like it would believably work.

Furthermore, every time you mention the word slavery or something similar, you deserve to be not listened to. Hyperbole makes your case weaker, not stronger.

[FredericBastiat]

Your say that recognition of property rights is voluntary and doesn't need a state.  I am pointing out that property rights are created by states - they don't exist without a legal enforcement system.  When I say this you start your "slavery theft oppression" schtick.

Do you accept that enforceable property rights are a legal creation?  Yes or No?

I accept that property rights are a "legal construction" insofar as one person recognizes that the property not in his possession, or within his control, is not his/theirs, and should not be infringed; and should he/they infringe, restitution may be the consequence.

The word legal has been abused and misconstrued so much, it has practically lost it's meaning. I prefer the words and/or phrases 'force' (physics domain), 'mutual consent', and 'private contract'. It makes you think a little harder about the legislative consequences of your actions.

How one goes about enforcing that is an entirely different matter altogether. A 'state' may accomplish this to some extent, but so can anybody else smart enough to provide the same service. You're arguing possible vs. impossible, instead of should vs. could.