UPDATE: This is a rather sloppy and poorly worded article in some areas. I’m thinking of cleaning it up a bit and posting it again. But until then, go easy on my disorganized thoughts and my obvious tendency to ramble.
It’s been quite a few years since I started this blog and I’ve never really laid out my political philosophy before. I’ve never FULLY described it to anyone before because I always used to say it would take an entire blog post to explain. And then I remembered that I have a blog. So here goes!
The Philosophy of Liberty and what it means
There are lots of different names for this political philosophy: Free-Market Anarchism, Anarcho-Capitalism, Agorism, etc. But a lot of us prefer “Voluntaryism” because it doesn’t carry the false, negative connotations that “anarchist” and “capitalist” do in some people’s minds.
The most basic principle that we believe in is that the initiation of force, violence, and coercion is always wrong. Each individual is free and sovereign unto themselves. We all own our own lives and so we own the fruits of whatever we produce throughout our lives. No one else has any legitimate claim on our lives or our property. We have the unalienable moral right to determine our own future. But that also means that we are solely responsible for our own futures.
Our rights come from within. We have thoughts and so we have the right to express those thoughts freely. We have the right to live and so we have the right to defend our lives from threats. Etc. But we do not have the right to something that requires anyone else to do something for us. For instance, we do not have the right to free housing because that would require someone to produce a house for us for free. We don’t have the right to free education because that would mean someone else is obligated to educate us. We have the right to do whatever we want as long as we don’t infringe on the rights of others. Our rights stop where another person’s rights begin and no sooner.
The best and most succinct expression of this idea that I have seen ironically comes from a T-Shirt, “Your life is not my fault. My life is not your business.”
So what does that look like in the real world? How does it apply to American politics and how do we get to that point? Let’s take a look…
Getting there
I think the first and probably most important thing that needs to change is the government needs to stop issuing fiat currency. Indeed, the government needs to stop issuing it’s own currency all together. Currently the dollar is backed by absolutely nothing. The value of today’s dollar compared to the dollar of 1913 when the Federal Reserve took over is about 4 cents. People always say that things were cheaper back in the old days. $.15 for a cheeseburger? That’s crazy! Well no not really. Things weren’t necessarily cheaper, it’s because our money was worth more. And the value of the dollar continues to plummet. The government just prints money whenever they need to buy something. But this reduces the value of each dollar already in existence. There is only so much value in the American economy and each dollar represents a fraction of that. Artificially increasing the number of dollars in the market place is like cutting up a pie into more and more pieces. Sure you get more slices but you don’t actually get any more pie. This is called inflation. I bet you thought inflation was when prices on products went up. In reality, inflation is the value of the dollar going down. The result is the wealth you have saved is worth less and less every year. Yet the government gets access to “free money”. Since they print the money, they get to use it first, before the dollar is inflated. If the government didn’t have access to the printing press, they wouldn’t have the money to fund all of their bad programs and the value of your money wouldn’t decrease every year.
The second and equally import thing that needs to happen is the government needs to stop writing and enforcing laws that outlaw “victimless crimes” and “crimes against society.” For a crime to occur, there must be a victim. If no one has been hurt physically, financially, etc by a person’s actions, then there is no who can make a claim against those actions. Society is just a concept and can have no more rights collectively than an individual can have individually. Thomas Jefferson once wrote:
“What is true of every member of the society individually, is true of them all collectively, since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals.”
In reality a society is a collection of individuals. If no individuals are hurt by an action, society is not hurt. There is no crime. Ok, so what’s an example? Car registration. How does that protect society? How does failing to pay car registration hurt society? You paid your taxes when you bought your car and registered it for the first time. Why do you need to keep paying every year to re-register? Does the registration fee help offset the cost of paying employees to file the papers? Then why is the fee a percentage of the vehicles worth? Is it harder to register a nicer car? Of course not. This is an on going tax. You are renting your car from the government. Don’t believe me? See what happens if you stop paying. This is just one example of “crimes against society” that really aren’t crimes at all. Seat belt laws are another example. Seat belts are a great idea. Taking people’s money for not using one is a bad idea. There is no victim when someone doesn’t wear their seat belt and so there is no crime to enforce. It’s just another source of revenue for your city government. This same principle can be applied to business licenses and building permits. It’s your property, you have the right to build what you want.
What about “vice crimes”? A “vice crime” is something that is illegal because it’s “immoral”, “dirty”, or “undesirable” to some people. The big examples include drugs, gambling, and prostitution. I won’t get too deep into the drug issue since I write about it twice a year on 4/20 and on 12/5 which is the anniversary of the repealing of prohibition. If you want to dig more deeply into why I believe drugs (and I mean ALL drugs) should not be illegal, [CLICK HERE]. Gambling and prostitution should be legal for the same reasons. No one is victimized when someone decides to gamble. This issue is even made humorous by the fact that in many areas of the country, there are indian casinos where anyone can gamble legally. I myself live within 20 minutes of at least 3 big casinos yet if I hosted a poker tournament for real cash in my living room for my friends, I would be breaking the law. It’s silly and everyone knows it’s silly. Prostitution is a touchier subject but the argument is essentially the same. People own their own bodies and they’re free to associate with anyone they please in whatever way they please. Two consenting adults can get together and do what adults do but the minute money changes hands, it becomes illegal. But there is no victim and therefore there is no crime. Some of you may feel like now would be a good time to flood my comment box with rants about forced prostitution. The keyword there is “forced”. In that case, there is a victim. And the crime is kidnapping, sexual abuse, and involuntary servitude. But prostitution, in and of itself, among consenting adults, does not constitute a crime.
Here’s a big one. The military. I won’t say too much about this subject in order not to offend my super-patriot republican friends. I will instead refer to what the founding father said our military policy should be.
“I sincerely join… in abjuring all political connection with every foreign power; and though I cordially wish well to the progress of liberty in all nations, and would forever give it the weight of our countenance, yet they are not to be touched without contamination from their other bad principles. Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.” –Thomas Jefferson
“[We would be] guilty of great [error] in [our] conduct toward other nations [if we endeavored] to force liberty on [our] neighbors in [our] own form.” –Thomas Jefferson
While their system isn’t perfect, I think Switzerland has the right idea: armed neutrality. The founding fathers understood that standing armies are bad for liberty, and war is even worse. A strict non-interventionist policy, no standing army, and an armed populace is the best policy for liberty. In fact this is what the constitution requires. I’ll bet you didn’t know that the constitution says that the United States should have no army unless the Congress votes to raise one in a time of war and after 2 years, it should either be voted on again or dissolved. Look it up. But since when has the government been concerned with liberty or following their own rules which they set up for themselves?
The discussion of military policy and an armed populace brings me to the subject of guns. I’d be willing to bet that you already know where I stand on this issue. Like drugs, I think guns should be 100% legal and unrestricted. Ok maybe bringing up guns and drugs in the same sentence wasn’t such a good idea. But like I said earlier, I believe in personal responsibility. If you hurt someone on purpose or accidentally, you will bear the consequences of your actions. Anyway, I digress. I believe that the right to bear arms is an individual right. Meaning each individual has that right unless and until they themselves cause someone harm. The right to bear arms is a very important one…and it’s not just about duck hunting.
On the issue of free-speech I believe that if you can’t say absolutely anything you want in public, then you’re not free. The 1st amendment was designed to protect unpopular speech. You don’t need a constitutional amendment to protect speech that everyone agrees with, you need it to protect speech that is controversial. On TV, on the radio, on the internet, out in public, in your own home/business you should be able to say whatever foul, dirty, hateful, pornographic, subversive, anti-government, pro-government, and racist things that you want to say…but you should also have to deal with the free-market consequences of that. If you spew nothing but hate and bigotry on your radio program, you should understand that you’ll lose a lot of listeners. If you have a sign on the door of your business that says “whites only” you should expect to go out of business promptly. But what about the children? Shouldn’t they be protected from such things as bad words and pornography? Of course, and that’s why you, as a parent, are going to pay attention to what your kids do online and what shows they watch on TV. If someone shouts a naughty word in public, or you kids stumble upon something you wouldn’t have liked them to see, you’re going to act like a parent for once and take that opportunity to teach them about the world. Kids grow up on their own much faster than parents think. They’ll learn naughty words and see naughty pictures from their friends in the school yard and they’ll be fine. They’ll cope with it well and become more mature as long as you as a parent teach your children about what they’ve seen and heard and why what they’ve seen or heard is for grown ups. Talk to your kids like adults and you’ll find that they become adults much sooner. Treat your kids like children and don’t be surprised if they stay children until the age of 25.
What about “dangerous” speech like shouting “fire” in a crowded theater? That type of thing can be handled by the market place. Private property rights work both ways. You should be able to say whatever you want on your own property but you should be able to restrict the speech of others on your own land too. If theater owners don’t want people shouting “fire” on their property, they can put up a sign and kick out any offenders. Problem solved.
In fact, I think that’s how a lot of issues can be resolved. I think private property owners can make up and enforce their own rules for their own properties just fine. The market can take care of itself. I would argue that anything the government does, the free-market could do more efficiently and for less money except for maybe warfare. And by that I mean foreign invasions and wars conducted over seas. I don’t think there would be any need for that in a free-market system. People don’t wage war, governments wage war. War is the health of the state, that’s why war happens. But in a free market world, or even just a world where our government followed to constitution and the intentions of the founders, we would never invade other countries. We would be neutral and without a standing army. In the event of an invasion, the militia would be called up and maybe even an army formed. That was the original intention. But what about all of the people who want to destroy America? Well I wonder WHY they want to destroy America. Could it be because we have 700 military bases around the world? Switzerland never gets attacked and that’s because they keep to themselves. The last time someone wanted to invade them, they changed their mind because they thought it was too dangerous. I’m talking about WWII. Nazi Germany conquered a big chunk of Europe, Switzerland was completely surrounded by enemy nations, and yet Hitler was afraid to invade them because every citizen was armed and knew how to wage a guerrilla war, and how to use their terrain to their advantage. So except for invading and conquering nations, I think a free market could handle anything the state does but better and for less cost. Some services might shrink or disappear all together. And that’s ok, that means no one wants that service. If the government has to subsidize something, that’s usually a hint that that thing is unneeded. If people want something, someone will figure out how to sell it; and that’s a good thing. If only a few people want something, why should the government force everyone to pay for it through taxes?
A perfect example would be the public school system. I don’t have any kids yet and when I do they will not be attending public school because I don’t like the teaching style. I don’t like how they teach obedience more than they teach children how to teach themselves. I don’t like how they are so weak on historical studies, often whitewashing American history. Why should someone like me be forced to pay for a service that I not only don’t use, but also morally disagree with? Think of something a big corporation does that you hate…now pretend that your property is directly taxed to pay for it. That’s how the public school works. In fact that’s how every government program works. No matter how well-intentioned a government program is, it is always backed up with the threat of violence. We’re starting a program to feed the poor and if you don’t contribute, we’ll garnish your wages. We’re starting a program to build a home for every American family and if you don’t want to pay for it, we’ll take your house. We’re starting a program to reduce violence and if you don’t pay your taxes, we’ll take your money, if you don’t pay we’ll take your home and throw you in a cage. If you resist we’ll kill you. There is a gun behind everything the government does. That’s what “mandatory” means. So next time you think of the perfect, most philanthropic idea for a new government program, ask yourself “what should happen to my loved ones if they refuse to go along with my plan?” Is it still worth it?
Conclusion
Tolstoy said,
“The Anarchists are right in everything; in the negation of the existing order, and in the assertion that, without Authority, there could not be worse violence than that of Authority under existing conditions. They are mistaken only in thinking that Anarchy can be instituted by a revolution. But it will be instituted only by there being more and more people who do not require the protection of governmental power … There can be only one permanent revolution – a moral one: the regeneration of the inner man.”
The thing that most people are afraid of in a world without government is some big group of people getting some guns together and taking advantage of the good people in society. But isn’t that what we already have? I’ve already shown how the government backs up everything it does with the threat of violence. The only tools a government has to get what it wants are fines, imprisonment, and violence. In other words FORCE and COERCION. Even the most free country is limited to using force and coercion against the population to get what it wants. It’s like I said in a previous blog post, what are you afraid will happen in a world (or at least a country) without a government? Are you afraid that all of the banking institutions will combine into one big super bank that controls the money supply of the country? Because thats called the Federal Reserve. Or maybe you’re afraid that in the absence of a state, private security companies will get so big and powerful that they will begin to terrorize the people that were once their customers; kidnapping, stealing, and killing at will. Because the cops can and do already do that in some major cities. Are you scared that big corporations, suddenly finding themselves without rules, will begin polluting freely? Because just the Pentagon alone pollutes more than the top 3 private chemical companies COMBINED! All of those things you’re afraid of are already happening.
When having this conversation with people, the topic always ends up with the roads. And I always say that if your last, greatest fear when it comes to a world without government is who will build the roads, you’re already well on you’re way to a liberty mind-set. If the last stumbling block for you on the road to liberty is figuring out who will build the roads, then you’re in a good place. Private companies are currently sending things into space. In fact NASA hires out their own satellite launches to private companies because they can do it better and for cheaper. It is private companies, not the government that are driving the innovation behind computer technology, cars, communications, and medicine. I think we can handle a little road maintenance.
But the question of roads is a legitimate concern. Not to mention all of the other services that government provides that we definitely need like schools, police, firemen, etc. And no one is saying that those things should go away. I’m not even saying that the group of people calling themselves the government has to go away or stop provide those services. I just think two things should happen: They should stop forcing us to pay for certain services that we don’t use, and they should allow competition in the areas where they currently have a monopoly. The government schools can stay open, and it’s good that they allow private schools to exist. But they should allow those who want to, to opt out and stop paying for government schools. They should allow private fire fighting companies to exist. And anyone who wants to use the private company should be allowed to opt out of paying for the government’s service. In some areas there are even private volunteer fire fighting companies. If my neighborhood isn’t satisfied with the government police, we should be able to hire a private company to patrol our neighborhood. We’ll stop paying for the government version but we’ll also loose their protection.
That’s fine. That’s how the market place is supposed to work. It’s a win-win situation. If the government’s services are SO beneficial, people will keep their “subscriptions”. But if a company can provide the same service better and for less money, people can switch. The resulting competition would force government to clean up their act or to go out of business JUST LIKE THE REST OF US. That’s how the real world works. Competition drives prices down and quality up. Monopolies always over-charge and provide poorer service. What baffles me is that everyone knows and accepts this and yet they demand that government have a monopoly on many important areas of our life. They say that private security companies are a bad idea because they could form a monopoly and become overly expensive and corrupt…and so to prevent that the government should have a monopoly on security. The contradiction baffles my mind. It’s like I (or actually Tolstoy) said. The worst that could happen in a world without government is we would end up with another government. So there’s literally nothing to loose by trying it.
Now I’m not saying we should just turn the switch off tonight so that we wake up tomorrow with no government. That wouldn’t work. Just look at Somalia. But slowly, one by one, government services could become marketized until every service the government provides would have a free market alternative. To keep making money, the government might have to stop providing some services all together and some other services they might end up being the best at. I wouldn’t be against buying services from them if they weren’t forcing us with guns to pay for them. They already have the infrastructure to run the roads for example, there’s no reason they wouldn’t be able to fund them voluntarily. Anarchy is the ideal, and we all know how ideals turn out. I’m not saying that government ever would or should go away. If government ever shrinks to a size that is not oppressive and funds itself voluntarily instead of with force, I’d be happy to stop there.
Good people don’t need laws. Bad people do bad things despite laws. Is the only thing keeping you from going on a murderous rampage the government? No of course not. You’re a good person and you don’t want to hurt anyone. You just want to live your life in peace and privacy with the people you love. Most people are just like you. Of course there are bad people out there. There always will be bad people and no one is claiming the world will ever be perfect. But how do you know there are bad people? Because they do bad things to people…despite the laws. Meaning laws don’t stop them. In a free society there only needs to be one law; the natural law: Don’t harm anyone or their property. Anything beyond that is either repetitive, unnecessary, or oppressive. People should be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies and property as long as they aren’t hurting other people or preventing them from doing what they want to do with their property.
Thomas Jefferson said it best:
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”
The only boundaries to your natural rights are the equal rights of others. Any law that is more restrictive than that is a violation of your natural rights because someone is using their power to restrict you from doing what you want to do with your life or property when you haven’t harmed anyone. Government offers the perfect opportunity to wield power over others with impunity, whether that is in the form of political office where you get to make decisions about people’s lives, or in the form of direct skull-cracking action on the ground as a law enforcement officer. Now I’m not saying that every police officer is corrupt or drunk with power, but I also don’t subscribe to the “just a few bad apples” theory.
But enough talk about theory. If you want to get into more specifics on any particular issue, well, just look around. There’s an entire blog full of my views on these subjects and in even more detail. Let’s just talk very quickly about changing the system. What can be done? Should we vote? Run for office? Start a political party? Well it’s like Emma Goldman said, “If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.” The closest thing to a small government candidate we’ve had in a generation was Ron Paul and his own party ridiculed him and ostracized him during the election (even though now they have realized he was right about the coming recession and they interview him about it on Fox News all the time.) And even if we could get a small government President into office, there’s still the congress we have to deal with. Ok what about running for office then? You saw what happened to Ron Paul when he didn’t walk the party line. He was unfairly ridiculed and discredited in anyway they could come up with…BY HIS OWN PARTY. Alright, then I guess we’ll have to start our own party. Good luck with that. How many third party presidents have there been since Abraham Lincoln? I’ll let you do the research and figure out the answer for yourself.
Ok so voting is out and so are running for office and forming a political party. So what can be done? Well I’ll draw your attention back to that Tolstoy quote. The first time I presented it, I emphasized the first part, but it’s the second part of the quote that is most important,
“The Anarchists are right in everything; in the negation of the existing order, and in the assertion that, without Authority, there could not be worse violence than that of Authority under existing conditions. They are mistaken only in thinking that Anarchy can be instituted by a revolution. But it will be instituted only by there being more and more people who do not require the protection of governmental power … There can be only one permanent revolution – a moral one: the regeneration of the inner man.“
All of those black-clad, spikey-haired teenagers you see on the news throwing rocks through shop windows at the G20 summit, those kids are not anarchists. They are thugs and criminals. Anarchists don’t believe in force, violence, theft, or coercion. And yet what do you see them doing? Breaking windows and looting private businesses. So the next time you think of Anarchists, don’t think of them. They’re a disgrace to the entire human race. A real Anarchist would try to change hearts and minds, not loot jewelry and cell phones. We need to show people how the government hurts us. There needs to be a paradigm shift in the minds of Americans where people start to see that they are free, they have unalienable natural rights, and anyone restricting those rights is a thug and a criminal, including the government. Once you see the world in this way, then government, in your mind, becomes what it really is: nothing more than the most successful gang in any geographical area. Voting won’t accomplish this paradigm shift but if the shift ever happens, voting will take care of the problem. That’s why right now I prefer to focus my energy on persuading the general population rather than voting for candidates because until most people see government for what it truly is, my vote for freedom will be drowned out in the sea of votes to expand government power. I do still vote on rare occasion. I vote against new laws or to repeal old laws…and that’s about it. It’s a much better use of our time to treat the government like we treat any other violent gang. Ignore them. Act like you are free because you ARE free. Grow your own vegetables and sell them out of your house without a licence, they’re YOUR vegetables. Renovate your home without a permit, it’s YOUR house. Yes, the government might come knocking and demand you stop what you’re doing until you pay them a cut of your earnings, but so might the mafia. What’s the difference? The Agora, the marketplace is where real change happens. When enough people stop using and paying for government services, how can the government possibly survive? Civil disobedience, tax resistance, and counter-economics, all conducted in a peaceful manner, with fairness, honor, and love; that is the path to freedom. And the best part is, you don’t have to have a nation-wide majority to start practicing Agorism. Just start a network with your friends and family. All that’s required to be an Agorist is to practice Agorism. Chances are you already have done unlicensed work for a friend and been paid under the table. Congratulations, you’re an Agorist. Keep it up. If more people lived that way, as if they were free, we’d be one step closer to realizing that we’ve all been free from the very beginning.
Phenomenal post! You’ve been blogrolled and passed on to my readers.
Thanks! I’ll add you to my blogroll.
A proud mother is smiling. :~)
Hurray! My son’s an anarchist!
Great post, but there’s some inherent flaws. The most obvious is the reliance on private property. Who enforces property rights? You and your right to bear arms I suppose? The model breaks down with your subtle assumption that property is a “right”. Wealth and property rights flow from land rights (which are an overarching right covering rights to “resources”). Resources in the physical sense had to be taken by force from someone at some time. And, that will always be the case. So free-market anarchism just doesn’t work for me. Force and coercion, or the threat thereof, is *required* for private property to exist, no?
I see it as a decent stepping stone to dismantling the current paradigm, though. And for that it’s a useful model.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply! I don’t have any problem with most other forms of anarchism as long as I’m not forced to change the way I want to live (which is the whole point of anarchism.) Anarcho-communists or other non-property rights anarchists are ok in my book as long as they don’t force me to live in a community with them. And who knows? If they end up having the best system, I’d go live with them. I think you’re right though. It doesn’t matter how small the steps are as long as they’re all in the right direction.
I would disagree on this existence of private property, especially for land. John Locke wrote in his Second Treatise of Civil Government that land was giving to us by God (If you believe in God) in common. God didn’t say “Hey you, I am going to give you specifically all this land, do what you will, and manage it however you want, including not giving it to others”, but rather he gave it to everyone so that we could all manage it between each other. Therefore the land is inheritently ours. All together. Private property does exist, but it is a mere convenience. I do agree with you though, the fruits of our own labor our hours. As Locke says – paraphrased – “When a human mixes his hands with the Earth, the output of that is his to keep”. Therefore the Earth isn’t mans (Or the plot of land), but what he grows from that land is his (Fruits, Vegetables, etc).
I don’t see coercion in this sense as force. But we also have to look at a bunch of other things. We are all connected. The roads that are built were built by people, people paid tax payer dollars in order to build those roads and other services. Therefore everyone who uses those roads or doesn’t (but is available to them since they aren’t excluded) must pay. The same with public services like police, firefighters, ambulances, etc. Therefore at the end of the day, you are entitled to keep everything you make except a part of it which will go to these public services with at the end of the day, provide you security, and transportation for a lot of things.
Well it depends on which holy book you believe in, but the entire Old Testament is basically the story of the Hebrews mass murdering everyone who lived on the land that God promised them. So if you believe the Bible, then God did promise people land. Although I guess it could be said that he promised the land to the Hebrews as a collective.
I agree with your principles but I come to a different conclusion. Raw, untouched land is for everyone. But if someone puts time, effort, and resources into improving it for themself, then that land belongs to them just like the things that grow on it belong to them. Even if you don’t think it’s TRULY their land, who else could possibly be said to have more of a claim on it if that individual did all the work to make it useful and valuable?
Also I forgot to write, the other thing we need to look at it how the state was formed in the first place. The State is mearly independent free agents that gathered together and agreed upon things that are needed. Like protections in the society so that individuals rights are protected, and someone can’t go and kill you. Property rights in the sense of “Oh you are this color, or are this race, therefore you must get out of my property” is not what I’m speaking about and I don’t support that type of “right”.
Overall, this Social Contract, this agreement between Free Agents is what created our Society, and more importantly the State.
In Wiki there are 2 excellent pages: Structuration, and Social Contract. Definitely check those out. Also Compatibilists is a good page (Redefinition of Free Will to fit in with Determinism).
Dont try to be an “Anarchist” or “Troll” or something. Just be yourself :=)
Done
I’m sure you’ve heard this before, but for anyone who hasn’t…
as far as the military is concerned. there will always be a dominant military power. so…
who should the dominant military power be?
china
russia
poland
USA
other
Eh, who cares? Switzerland has a military closer to what the founding fathers envisioned. They’re not a military super power and they like it that way. It draws less attention and helps them stay neutral and out of war. What has being a military super power brought us? Nothing but war. Give a man a hammer and everything looks like a nail.
I am Agnostic-Atheist (A/Gnostic goes towards knowledge, A/Theist goes towards belief so for me I don’t have enough proof that God exists therefore I don’t believe he/she/it exists .. of course I’m not saying that I’m 100% sure, and I actually hope it does exist haha.. or I go with another definition of what “God” is.. Energy, Nature, that does exist. I do believe something created everything, but I don’t believe that we can interact with it.. so maybe Deist.. who knows.. I don’t even know what the hell does or doesn’t exist haha). So I personally don’t believe in any holy book. But the concept of land itself isn’t something you can buy, just like Air, makes a lot of sense to me. Now as I said before, I agree that if someone developed the land, that the output of what that land produces becomes theres, but I still don’t believe that just because they work on the land, the land becomes theres. So at the end of the day, you can keep the output, but not the land.
An example of this would be with buildiling a house. If someone builds a house on a piece of land, the house is definitely theres, and it’s definitely their “private property”, but the land that the house is built upon is now theres. So how do we protect the owner of the house from losing his house if the land is common? Easily, we make a Social Contract, start a society where everyone agrees that even though the land is common to everyone, the property built by the labor of the individual owner, is theres, therefore as long as the land is occupied, the land is unavailable. Unless the owner of the land is hoarding the land, causing harm and distress to the society. Just as locke said, if a person hoards, or wastes materials, that is the only reason for the person to lose his private property.
I actually wrote a personal essay about this, if you want, you can definitely read it
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S05xGjYcVmf1I9tglDR2mpZVuGoTDOkiAPugKbU8_qI/edit
Awesome. As long as other people can’t come onto “my” land (that land that I’m cultivating) or into my house without my permission, then the net result is the same and I’m happy. I’m ok with other forms of libertarianism/anarchism because the main idea of the philosophy is individual liberty. I’m not an anarcho-communist for example but I don’t mind them as long as they wouldn’t force me to live in their commune. If they did try to force me to live in their commune then they wouldn’t be anarchists anymore, they’d be totalitarian communists haha
So yeah, as long as the end result of whatever libertarian/anarchist philosophy people hold to is that I can live in piece the way I want (as long as I don’t infringe on someone’s rights) then I’m fine with it.
Haha. I’m not Libertarian or Anarchist though because I want a State. Remember from my previous posts that the state was formed by individuals via the Social Contract. Once the Social Contract is formed, there is a Society, and thus a State. So to me the state is something good and it’s just a projection of all of our basic agreements.
Regarding Property Rights, the only thing so far that I don’t give owners the right is to Discriminate. Just because someone owns a business let’s say, does not give them the right to kick someone out of the business based on “Race, Color, Sexual Preference, etc”. I completely understand if a customer comes in and starts acting disorderly, or does something to harm others, but if the customer isn’t doing anything wrong, then I do not agree that the owner has the right to kick them out based off of that.
I also do believe that the only way the Humans can pretty much live together equally is if we have a democracy. I would mostly want a Direct Democracy though, not a Representative one. But I do understand that it was hard to pull Direct Democracy off with 300 million people. Hopefully as technology advances more, we could advance our voting system, and other forms of representation.
A problem that I’ve noticed with Libertarians and Anarchists (I don’t know your beliefs so I can’t include you), but basically they complain about Democracy and about if the majority of the people want something, then the minority shouldn’t be forced to do it. But then what is the point of the Democracy then? What was the point of the voting? I’m not saying that the point is to force the minority, what I am saying is that if we are in a school (for example), and the teacher asks all of us if we either want to go to the Red Tavern, or the Blue Tavern, the majority of the people that want to go to the specific tavern will win. Thus if the majority agree that they want to go to the Blue Tavern, therefore the class goes to the Blue one. The minority who wanted to go to the Red Tavern do not get to make the class go to the Red Tavern anymore. (This trip to the Blue Tavern can be mandatory though, for grades etc). The same thing would be with the argument for people saying “Why should I contribute to Social Security if I can plan my own retirement?” or “Why should I be taxed when I worked for this stuff myself?” .. The answer would be easy for either question.
1. Social Contract between our current agents of society agreed previously that we needed to take care of the elderly, and the majority agreed, therefore we proceed to do that. For the people that don’t agree with Social Security, you still have a vote, and can vote for people that represent your ideas. But until those people win and change the political system, you cannot say “Well I don’t agree, so I won’t pay”.
2. For the taxing situation, People who work in our current society are making use of resources that were created by the public. Like roads, highways, bridges, police officers, firefighters, ambulances, etc. All these things need to be funded, and it’s for the public good. Therefore taxes should and will go to those services. There are exceptions to this, specifically for people that have way too low income (Like $25,000). If a person doesn’t have enough income to eat, they obviously cannot pay for public services.
Sorry for the ramble, but if you get up to this far, I hope you enjoyed it hahaha.
- Jon
Keep on rambling. I don’t get enough comments on this blog
You make good arguments but I don’t think you should use Social Security as an example in the future. It’s seen as kind of a failure (or at east very poorly executed) even by those people who support the idea behind it.
But the whole idea behind a social contract is coercion. Go back to the wiki article you mentioned on the social contract and read the criticism, especially the voluntarism section. It is assumed that anyone living in the U.S. agrees to the contract just by living here. But I was born here. I had no choice where to be born. I didn’t see or agree to any contract with specific terms. But I have to go along with it or else I will be thrown in a cage or fined. I guess I could always leave but why should I be forced to leave my home, the product of my labor? If keeping the product of my labor, my legitimate property, is dependent upon my obeying a coercive social contract that I realistically had no say in writing, then my property isn’t really mine. It’s borrowed.
Not exactly. A social contract is a mutual agreement between all the parties at the time (For US, constitution). Now don’t get me wrong, if we just leave it at that, then it would be wrong because there will be consequences as time goes on. That’s why we need a system with the Social Contract.
1. Democracy – So that people can get their voices heard and change the system.
2. A Dynamic System – We need a system that can be changed as time goes on. This will let people adapt to the new world problems. Democracy is the solution to this because it offers people an equal opportunity to let their voices heard. This doesn’t mean that the individual person will win, but it just means that the person will be heard. If a person loses to the majority, then that person does not get the right to refuse to follow the rules. This is a fundamental problem with Voluntarists. They think that if they lose, that they shouldn’t or are exempt from following the rules, meanwhile people should follow what they believe.
This all comes back to what Thomas Jefferson said-paraphrased “The Dead shall not rule the living”. I agree with that 100%, now how are we going to implement that? Are we going to say every 15-18 years (1 baby generation reaches adulthood) the new adults can rebel against their existing Social Contract/Society/Government and not follow any rules? Or are we going to have a systematic way that we can change and adapt to the times (Constitution, in our situation.. Bicameral system, Checks & Balances, Amendments, etc)?
Basic Assumptions of Structuration:
- Social life is not the sum of all micro-level activity (e.g. dyads), but social activity cannot be completely explained from a macro perspective.
- The repetition of the acts of individual agents reproduce the structure.
- Social structures are neither inviolable nor permanent.
- The social structures constrain the actions of individual agents.
- Thus structure and action constrain each other in an evolving way.
1. It’s not all about individuals nor collectives.
2. Environment Determinism is in effect (When you place a person or a group of people into a society with specific values “Individualism”, “You are the most important”, “Step on everyone else to get to the top”, “Capitalism – Everything is about capital, money”, etc) you will get the same effect. History will repeat itself in a sense. For this we should put people into a society where we encourage sharing, caring, etc. Not saying we will ever have an utopia, but if we have to start society from somewhere, why not start it at a positive level, rather than a negative? Since the social contract is in effect, there will be some things which obviously need to be coerced/forced. Like people needing to contribute some funds back for their own protection. The coercion in the society should be benign, and should be _restricted_ by a Constitution at both the Federal and State level.
3. People have to stop thinking that our government will stay like this forever. It’s a democracy, and a social contract. We as people will obviously evolve, new situations will arise, and we will need to adapt. That’s why it makes me laugh that Conservatives want to maintain the status quo, especially at a religious level. I’m pretty sure that humans have evolved mentally from 2000 years ago. If we haven’t evolved mentally in 2000 years.. than we have a serious problem.
4. People in the society will be restricted. These restrictions primarily should revolve around restrictions against hurting others. Like coming into your house and killing you, or your family member. Stealing from you [Entering home, animals, money]. Kicking you out of a bar because you are black or white, or asian, or whatever (Discrimination).
5. With all that said, all of these forces and systems work together in order to advance the society all from the Micro to the Macro levels
.
It’s amazing (or not) how so many ply all their logically-challenged theories about justifiable government. In particular, the notion of social contract, and the “dead ruling the living” issue, stand out as unconquerable hurdles for their contrivances.
As was so rightly stated, a contract must be entered into WILLINGLY. Being born here doesn’t create consent to ANY social contract. Further, all IMPOSED systems are just that: imposed. The only logical approach that CAN be fair is non-coercion. There is no other logical way around it.
And by the way, DOESN’T mean that every 15-18 years you have a new Constitutional convention or any such nonsense. Because what, other than 100% UNANIMOUS vote, would be justifiable then? There is no magical virtue in majority vote. The closer to unanimous you are, the fewer people you’d need to coerce against their wills anyway, so why not leave them alone? And the further from unanimous you get, the more you approach coercion of half the people against their wills, outside the notion of social contract. The notion of imposing the will of the majority is based on the ASSUMPTION (or better, foregone conclusion) that you intend to impose an unwilling “social contract” onto people. Which violates the very definition of social contract.
Which means no government like ours today is ever justifiable. If ANYTHING is justifiable, or even wants to approach justifiable, it must be the absolute minimal government. That which assumes each of us owns himself, his freedom, and his property. And NOTHING more. And that the only universally agreeable reason for government is to defend our sovereign territory from invasion, and to defend the life, liberty, and property of each person when overwhelming evidence shows another has violated those things. And even that makes some assumptions, and breaks the rule, and won’t get universal agreement. But short of doing so, that’s what you’ll have anyway, because groups of like-minded people will band together to do just that.
But no one can point to any system or any principles which can justify coercion against the will of another, because INHERENTLY that violates the willingness requirement of the social contract. Which leaves, by definition, NON-COERCION. Leaving people to decide THEIR OWN contracts, where they are only held to terms into which they freely entered.
And with that said, all of those who challenged our host blogger’s premise of non-coercion are inherently pushing coercion, and thus inherently violating the definition of the social contract: a willing compact between the citizen and the state. There, to put it bluntly, just ain’t no way around it.
So, if you want to form an autonomous collective and sign yourselves up to obeying the will of whatever majority (or more likely, tyranny of the majority) eventually manifests itself, folks like our blogging host (and I) say have a field day. We might even join. But don’t force anyone else to accept your terms. Or expect justifiable resistance. Because the one form of justifiable coercion by force, is, inherently, self-defense from coercion by force.
So, you’re left with two, maybe three justifiable forms of government. Non coercion, where people are willing to use force to defend individual life/liberty/property. And non coercion, where people resist crimes against life, liberty, and property by non-violent means only. And non coercion where no one resists any crimes.