Are you for open borders?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I wasn't planning on getting into classical realism today but you have some interesting ideas so I'll throw out my thoughts....

It is obvious that private property is in line with natural law. All things being equal, it is easier to defend your property than it is to take someone's property from them. Western civilization from the Greeks through the Christian Stoics right up to present day has support that this system works and has demostrated it is in line with natural law over time (a few thousand years).

At the same time, throughout history, government ownership of limited means has not caused any conflict with the theory of natural law and private ownership. We can still have our right to property even if the government "owns" other property. And by "government" I mean "we the people" and by people I mean "citizens".

Illegal immigration is the biggest threat to private property of "we the people". They come, they utilize.

Ownership imples disownership. Can you sell your portion of that "public" "government" "we the people" land? If you can't then you do not own it. It's that simple.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Who will find them guilty and enforce any judgement against them? Government? We're back to square one.

A justice system, but not necessarily government. That is a topic that's been debated at length in other threads, so I'll avoid derailing for now and simply disagree. See Dr Woods book "33 questions you're not supposed to ask about American History" where he explains that the Stateless society of the Western frontier was not at all chaotic as Hollywood leads us to believe. Disputes were settled between parties peacefully as a general rule. I imagine, based on this historic precedent, a similar system of justice would arise in the absence of the State here. This assumes, of course, that the transition to Statelessness is voluntary and peaceful. Those anarchists who advocate a sudden and violent end to the State haven't thought through the ramifications of this or studied history enough.

 

[Dunedain]

Ownership imples disownership. Can you sell your portion of that "public" "government" "we the people" land? If you can't then you do not own it. It's that simple.

AED, we both know you are capable of a better answer. Come on...did you write this while you are doing your taxes? I put some effort into answer your questions and I'm interested in your responses....

....I'd actually like to be wrong about needing the government to own property....

 

[Dunedain]

A justice system, but not necessarily government. That is a topic that's been debated at length in other threads, so I'll avoid derailing for now and simply disagree. See Dr Woods book "33 questions you're not supposed to ask about American History" where he explains that the Stateless society of the Western frontier was not at all chaotic as Hollywood leads us to believe. Disputes were settled between parties peacefully as a general rule. I imagine, based on this historic precedent, a similar system of justice would arise in the absence of the State here. This assumes, of course, that the transition to Statelessness is voluntary and peaceful. Those anarchists who advocate a sudden and violent end to the State haven't thought through the ramifications of this or studied history enough.

And who enforces the outcomes of the disputes assuming that all private parties can somehow come to an agreement with each other in this private justice system? Another for-profit private entity of some kind?

I would prefer not to have to order a book off amazon in an attempt to understand these twisted (just my opinion) theories.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

AED, we both know you are capable of a better answer. Come on...did you write this while you are doing your taxes? I put some effort into answer your questions and I'm interested in your responses....

....I'd actually like to be wrong about needing the government to own property....

I was getting ready for work, I'll write up a more detailed answer for you later, but nevertheless what I wrote is factually true.

 

[JustinTime]

A justice system, but not necessarily government. That is a topic that's been debated at length in other threads, so I'll avoid derailing for now and simply disagree. See Dr Woods book "33 questions you're not supposed to ask about American History" where he explains that the Stateless society of the Western frontier was not at all chaotic as Hollywood leads us to believe. Disputes were settled between parties peacefully as a general rule.

Any justice system with power to enforce its judgements would be a government, and any one without it wouldnt be a justice system.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

And who enforces the outcomes of the disputes assuming that all private parties can somehow come to an agreement with each other in this private justice system? Another for-profit private entity of some kind?

I would prefer not to have to order a book off amazon in an attempt to understand these twisted (just my opinion) theories.

At that time, tasks like this were handled by voluntary agencies. The "chaos" associated with the "wild west" was spun mostly by dime novel writers and other story tellers. I'm sorry you don't want to read, because I don't have time to type out the full answer-and because this puts you at the disadvantage of being ignorant (and thus vulnerable to slick politicians who will prey on your fear of "chaos" and danger).

Another book that you can check out on this is THE NOT SO WILD, WILD WEST: Property Rights on the Frontier by Terry L. Anderson & Peter J. Hill.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Any justice system with power to enforce its judgements would be a government, and any one without it wouldnt be a justice system.

Only if you use an extremely loose definition of government, which you are doing here. Such an agency wouldn't have a monopoly on the use of force and wouldn't be funded by theft(taxation)-this, and its voluntary nature, is what distinguishes it from government.

By your rather fast-and-loose definition, parents could be considered "government" of their children. Enough of this for today. Now, get off the webbernet and read some books!

 

[Met Income]

any justice system with power to enforce its judgements would be a government, and any one without it wouldnt be a justice system.

Ｓｉｎｃｅ　ｔｈｅｙ　ａｒｅ　ｆｏｕｎｄｅｄ　ｖｏｌｕｎｔａｒｉｌｙ　ｉｎｓｔｅａｄ　ｏｆ　ｔｈｒｏｕｇｈ　ｆｏｒｃｅ，　ｔｈｅ　ｐｅｏｐｌｅ　ｈａｖｅ　ａ　ｂｅｔｔｅｒ　ｃｈｅｃｋ　ａｎｄ　ｂａｌａｎｃｅ　ａｇａｉｎｓｔ　ｃｏｒｒｕｐｔｉｏｎ．

 

[Dunedain]

Such an agency wouldn't have a monopoly on the use of force and wouldn't be funded by theft(taxation)-this, and its voluntary nature, is what distinguishes it from government.

this explains why this non-government entity only exists in the abstact (i.e. fantasy world).

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

this explains why this non-government entity only exists in the abstact (i.e. fantasy world).

Really? Because there are many real world examples dating back thousands of years. From the Old West, to Colonial Pennsylvania, to Iceland, to the Xeer in Somalia, to Celtic Ireland and Tuaths, etc. If you are going to continue to ad hom, at least make sure you know a bit about history, please.

In Celtic Irish society of the Middle Ages and Early Modern period, courts and the law were largely anarchist, and operated in a purely stateless manner. This society persisted in this manner for roughly a thousand years until its conquest by England in the seventeenth century. In contrast to many similarly functioning tribal societies (such as the Ibos in West Africa), preconquest Ireland was not in any sense "primitive": it was a highly complex society that was, for centuries, the most advanced, most scholarly, and most civilized in all of Western Europe. A leading authority on ancient Irish law wrote, "There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforcement of justice... There was no trace of State-administered justice.

All "freemen" who owned land, all professionals, and all craftsmen, were entitled to become members of a tuath. Each tuath's members formed an annual assembly which decided all common policies, declared war or peace on other tuatha, and elected or deposed their "kings." In contrast to primitive tribes, no one was stuck or bound to a given tuath, either because of kinship or of geographical location. Individual members were free to, and often did, secede from a tuath and join a competing tuath. Professor Peden states, "the tuath is thus a body of persons voluntarily united for socially beneficial purposes and the sum total of the landed properties of its members constituted its territorial dimension. The "king" had no political power; he could not decree or administer justice or declare war. Basically he was a priest and militia leader, and presided over the tuath assemblies.

Celtic Ireland survived many invasions, but was finally vanquished by Oliver Cromwell's reconquest in 1649-50.

​

While not perfect, nor strictly adhering to Natural Law, it is very close, and it is a poignant real world example that illustrates how a Stateless society is far better off than a State induced society. For one, name me one Nation-State that lasted for 1,000 years, like the Anarchistic Irish did. Think of the "King" as the CEO or business owner, and the tuath as a DRO/Insurance/Judicial type of Business venture.

No College or High School, or any Government school ever teaches their pupils about Ireland, and other Stateless societies which have thrived far better than any State. No, they will not because it is not in their interest to. States are not instituted to preserve your liberty, it is to create a monopolistic geographical extortion ring. The State is indeed, nothing more than the Mafia. I bet a thousand-years from now, people looking back on this period of history will wonder what the fuck we were thinking.

I suspect if Hobbes was never born, we would not be in the current dire situation we are in today.

 

[Mini-Me]

I suspect if Hobbes was never born, we would not be in the current dire situation we are in today.

Maybe...but I think it's more likely that Hobbes never having been born would only have put off our current situation. Someone was bound to come up with the notion of a social contract sooner or later, much like Marxist principles, libertarianism, and everything in between. I really believe the intellectual discovery of all such ideas (and ideals) was inevitable and only a matter of time.

Besides, social contract theory may have been an important stepping stone in the gradual development of libertarian thought as we know it. Even if modern libertarianism could have come about without anyone ever first imagining social contracts, I'm not so sure how desirable that situation would even be. The main reason is, the world will never be a perfect place devoid of all suffering or injustice. Even if we had a peaceful and prosperous voluntaryist society, there would still be no shortage of people thinking, "Hey, we haven't tried this other system yet, and maybe it's better!" Fast-forward through a few generations of agitation and a mass movement of hopefuls, and we may very well have ended up with a social contract experiment anyway. For all we know, it could have been worse, given the later chronological starting point and level of technology.

Perhaps a world full of stable voluntaryism could not be easily overcome by statism everywhere, but the ideological clash was always going to happen in any case, unless humanity somehow went extinct first. In a lot of ways, we are probably in a better position now, having already experienced so many centuries of statism and social contract theory in action. Granted, many people are too dense to learn from history whatsoever, as we can see by the myriad idiots constantly thinking this or that trivial variation of price controls will "work this time," and we "won't know until we try it," despite the fact that we should have learned our lesson in Babylonian times. Still, considering an ideological clash is and always was inevitable, it's better to have such a wealth of historical experience to draw from than not.

Cliff's Notes: If there is any such thing as winning the ideological battle "once and for all," it is/was only ever going to happen after all statist avenues have/had been thoroughly exhausted.

Ownership imples disownership. Can you sell your portion of that "public" "government" "we the people" land? If you can't then you do not own it. It's that simple.

I don't know if this is strictly the case, since I feel there is an exception. Perhaps I'm breaking with strict libertarianism here, but I've always believed that your life and your soul are eternally and perpetually yours. You could technically "sell yourself into slavery," sure, but the moment you desire your soul back you have inherently reclaimed it, and the moment you take your life back, you have broken your contract and reclaimed it in practice, if not "legally." When it comes to something as precious as life and liberty, I cannot imagine the sale of such to be rightly considered irrevocable (as with mere property). Even if there were some legal/moral consequence to breaking such a horrible slavery contract in a libertarian world, would any non-sociopathic judge/jury/etc. ever consider such a contract enforceable beyond giving a slap on the wrist for breaking it? I think not...and I do not think they would be wrong for rejecting enforcement. (Then again, I make an exception to an exception: If you deprive someone else of life or liberty, you naturally owe them your own in kind, so involuntary servitude does seem quite fitting for punishment and an attempt at victim compensation...)

 

[constituent]

Really? Because there are many real world examples dating back thousands of years. From the Old West, to Colonial Pennsylvania, to Iceland, to the Xeer in Somalia, to Celtic Ireland and Tuaths, etc. If you are going to continue to ad hom, at least make sure you know a bit about history, please.

In Celtic Irish society of the Middle Ages and Early Modern period, courts and the law were largely anarchist, and operated in a purely stateless manner. This society persisted in this manner for roughly a thousand years until its conquest by England in the seventeenth century. In contrast to many similarly functioning tribal societies (such as the Ibos in West Africa), preconquest Ireland was not in any sense "primitive": it was a highly complex society that was, for centuries, the most advanced, most scholarly, and most civilized in all of Western Europe. A leading authority on ancient Irish law wrote, "There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforcement of justice... There was no trace of State-administered justice.

All "freemen" who owned land, all professionals, and all craftsmen, were entitled to become members of a tuath. Each tuath's members formed an annual assembly which decided all common policies, declared war or peace on other tuatha, and elected or deposed their "kings." In contrast to primitive tribes, no one was stuck or bound to a given tuath, either because of kinship or of geographical location. Individual members were free to, and often did, secede from a tuath and join a competing tuath. Professor Peden states, "the tuath is thus a body of persons voluntarily united for socially beneficial purposes and the sum total of the landed properties of its members constituted its territorial dimension. The "king" had no political power; he could not decree or administer justice or declare war. Basically he was a priest and militia leader, and presided over the tuath assemblies.

Celtic Ireland survived many invasions, but was finally vanquished by Oliver Cromwell's reconquest in 1649-50.

​

While not perfect, nor strictly adhering to Natural Law, it is very close, and it is a poignant real world example that illustrates how a Stateless society is far better off than a State induced society. For one, name me one Nation-State that lasted for 1,000 years, like the Anarchistic Irish did. Think of the "King" as the CEO or business owner, and the tuath as a DRO/Insurance/Judicial type of Business venture.

No College or High School, or any Government school ever teaches their pupils about Ireland, and other Stateless societies which have thrived far better than any State. No, they will not because it is not in their interest to. States are not instituted to preserve your liberty, it is to create a monopolistic geographical extortion ring. The State is indeed, nothing more than the Mafia. I bet a thousand-years from now, people looking back on this period of history will wonder what the fuck we were thinking.

I suspect if Hobbes was never born, we would not be in the current dire situation we are in today.

great post aed.

 

[JustinTime]

Only if you use an extremely loose definition of government, which you are doing here. Such an agency wouldn't have a monopoly on the use of force and wouldn't be funded by theft(taxation)-this, and its voluntary nature, is what distinguishes it from government.

If its voluntary whats to stop someone from telling this "agency" to fuck off? Who the hell will do the required work if there are no taxes to pay them, and who would voluntarily pay this agency to protect their property when nobody had to abide by its decisions?

I sure as hell wouldnt, seems like a scam-ish insurance plan.

By your rather fast-and-loose definition, parents could be considered "government" of their children.

Could be.

Enough of this for today. Now, get off the webbernet and read some books!

Information is information, whether its ink or pixels.

Look, Im not an anarchist, some government is needed, I believe it needs to be constitutionally limited and citizens must keep a close eye on it at all times.

 

[constituent]

...and citizens must keep a close eye on it at all times.

this is the sticking point. when you cut all the fluff and rhetoric away, this is the root of all differences between those who advocate unduly coercive government™ and those who believe that the only legitimate "government" will be built entirely upon the collective voluntary participation of the individual actors within the system.

short of that, the constitution fails to delivery on its stated purpose as a protector of rights through limitations on government powers/authorities.

 

[Mini-Me]

If its voluntary whats to stop someone from telling this "agency" to fuck off? Who the hell will do the required work if there are no taxes to pay them, and who would voluntarily pay this agency to protect their property when nobody had to abide by its decisions?

If you're talking about "police:" The less people who pay, the less often "police" patrols will go through their community. If you want a more constant patrol presence, you're going to have to pay up for the service. If you don't pay dues, don't expect to be given priority/any service when you dial that company's equivalent of 911. If you don't pay dues, don't expect to be given priority/any service if someone commits a crime against you and you need an investigation done to find and/or take the risk of apprehending the culprit. Sure, there'd be other non-subscription-based companies dealing with these situations out-of-pocket, and many would use them, but the out-of-pocket price would generally be steeper than the premium price of pooled-risk insurance.

When it comes to nobody having to abide by XYZ company's decisions, you're not talking about the private equivalent of police but the court system. It is not the police but the courts (and their guiding principles and/or law) that are at the heart of "law and order" government. (Truly, even a society that keeps the singular state does not require a singular police force with unique or special powers over anybody else.) As always, whether or not people abide by (or can be made to abide by) a court's decisions will always depend on what proportion of people (and other courts) respect that particular court's rulings and what proportion are willing to help defend that concept of justice/law and order, if push comes to shove.

To give an example: If you're ordered to pay damages to an aggrieved party and you refuse, the court will order your assets physically seized. If 50% of the population agrees with you and you have a lot of armed backup, society will obviously not be united in forcing you to pay or e.g. sending all your friends to the slammer...and the court that ordered your assets seized would not exactly be in existence for very long, considering its decisions are not respected and instead lead to armed standoffs or bloodshed. On the other hand, if 99% of the population respects the verdicts of a court and is ultimately willing to help back them up by force if it comes to it (i.e. if you start a one-man rebellion), that's quite a different scenario. This is a more complex subject if we're dealing with private law courts with wildly differing laws and guiding principles, but the bottom line here comes to preexisting agreements between them for how to deal with conflicts (i.e. so everybody doesn't end up dead in a gunfight, which practically nobody wants).

I sure as hell wouldnt, seems like a scam-ish insurance plan.



Could be.



Information is information, whether its ink or pixels.

Look, Im not an anarchist, some government is needed, I believe it needs to be constitutionally limited and citizens must keep a close eye on it at all times.

 

[LibertyEagle]

this is the sticking point. when you cut all the fluff and rhetoric away, this is the root of all differences between those who advocate unduly coercive government™ and those who believe that the only legitimate "government" will be built entirely upon the collective voluntary participation of the individual actors within the system.

short of that, the constitution fails to delivery on its stated purpose as a protector of rights through limitations on government powers/authorities.

Isn't that a fallacy though? I doubt a thief would want to participate in your "voluntary" collective. Yet, wouldn't the voluntary collective go round him up and run him through some kind of court? So much for the voluntary participation, if so.

 

[Mini-Me]

Isn't that a fallacy though? I doubt a thief would want to participate in your "voluntary" collective. Yet, wouldn't the voluntary collective go round him up and run him through some kind of court? So much for the voluntary participation, if so.

If you're talking about the consistency of the ideology: Once you go around raping and pillaging (or are suspected of such strongly enough that someone's willing to pay to try you* and face a lawsuit if they're wrong), not too many people of any ideological persuasion would be morally averse to putting you on trial. The voluntary part simply has to do with whether you are forced at the point of a gun to pay protection to the mafia a priori (or else have your assets seized with no provocation, and/or be kidnapped and locked away), and also whether you are forced to abide by arbitrary rules (no sodomy or you're going in the slammer). If you're going around using coercion against other people, you're kind of relinquishing your own self-ownership and right to be free from retaliatory coercion/justice.

*(Most likely an insurance company that covers the risk of such things on behalf of potential victims, since trials are expensive and all)

 

[constituent]

Isn't that a fallacy though? I doubt a thief would want to participate in your "voluntary" collective. Yet, wouldn't the voluntary collective go round him up and run him through some kind of court? So much for the voluntary participation, if so.

That's not my argument. I have stated numerous times in the past that I disagree w/ the "anarcho-capitalists" on this point, and have articulated arguments against it. That you're attempting to ascribe an argument to me that I do not own, however, comes as no surprise. I think it's Monday morning and you're jumping the gun on me.

 

[Met Income]

If you're talking about "police:" The less people who pay, the less often "police" patrols will go through their community. If you want a more constant patrol presence, you're going to have to pay up for the service. If you don't pay dues, don't expect to be given priority/any service when you dial that company's equivalent of 911. If you don't pay dues, don't expect to be given priority/any service if someone commits a crime against you and you need an investigation done to find and/or take the risk of apprehending the culprit. Sure, there'd be other non-subscription-based companies dealing with these situations out-of-pocket, and many would use them, but the out-of-pocket price would generally be steeper than the premium price of pooled-risk insurance.

When it comes to nobody having to abide by XYZ company's decisions, you're not talking about the private equivalent of police but the court system. It is not the police but the courts (and their guiding principles and/or law) that are at the heart of "law and order" government. (Truly, even a society that keeps the singular state does not require a singular police force with unique or special powers over anybody else.) As always, whether or not people abide by (or can be made to abide by) a court's decisions will always depend on what proportion of people (and other courts) respect that particular court's rulings and what proportion are willing to help defend that concept of justice/law and order, if push comes to shove.

To give an example: If you're ordered to pay damages to an aggrieved party and you refuse, the court will order your assets physically seized. If 50% of the population agrees with you and you have a lot of armed backup, society will obviously not be united in forcing you to pay or e.g. sending all your friends to the slammer...and the court that ordered your assets seized would not exactly be in existence for very long, considering its decisions are not respected and instead lead to armed standoffs or bloodshed. On the other hand, if 99% of the population respects the verdicts of a court and is ultimately willing to help back them up by force if it comes to it (i.e. if you start a one-man rebellion), that's quite a different scenario. This is a more complex subject if we're dealing with private law courts with wildly differing laws and guiding principles, but the bottom line here comes to preexisting agreements between them for how to deal with conflicts (i.e. so everybody doesn't end up dead in a gunfight, which practically nobody wants).

They don’t even have to seize your assets (ie use force). They can register you in a database that documents how you did not make good on your contract and/or violated someone’s property rights. Anyone who views this database would be more reluctant to do business with a person who violates their promises and other people’s property.