Free and open challenge to anti-statists, open borders supporters

[erowe1]

Bump, I just started reading Oppenheimer's, The State. So far it's good, and very germane to this thread.

 

[Conza88]

I read every response. What a complete waste of time.

A definition of the state supplied by the OP that has no relation to reality. But looking at it more closely, it is essentially Robert Nozick's immaculate conception of the state. Rothbard absolutely pwns the notion of a 'voluntary' state here. (Whether the minarchists understand they are actually trying to defend this position, I don't think so)

For the hilarity:

Since Nozick’s justification of existing States—provided they are or become minimal—rests on their alleged immaculate conception, and since no such State exists, then none of them can be justified, even if they should later become minimal. To go further, we can say that, at best, Nozick’s model can only justify a State which indeed did develop by his invisible hand method. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Nozick to join anarchists in calling for the abolition of all existing States, and then to sit back and wait for his alleged invisible hand to operate. The only minimal State, then, which Nozick at best can justify is one that will develop out of a future anarcho-capitalist society.
​

Furthermore, the definition supplied by Rothbard, Hoppe etc. is the definition that is completely uncontroversial.

What the difference between the mainstream is and the libertarians (logically consistent and principled ones) is that one denies monopoly as being a good, or necessary, and the other does not.

This is some third world class circus act... where you define voluntarism as part of the state. Talk about flipping reality. If I was to take a psychological swipe at this (make of it what you will), Byran, I think it really comes down to - is that you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to try re-define a socially acceptable word and state that as your position.

You're more interested in persuasion and rhetoric, than the truth - would that be correct? That's my take anyway.

There are so many implicit arguments that haven't been correctly determined, and have just been assumed.

"Is the most consequentially neglected word in political science. Alone it establishes that tax is theft and government criminal by giving a name for something that is between consent and confrontation.

The concept of acquiescence, and even the word, is often lumped incorrectly with consent, thereby confusing submission in the face of overwhelming force with consent chosen freely. For example, if people evade tax, they face imprisonment and further extortion. So the payment of tax no more proves consent than the payment of a ransom transforms kidnapping into mere babysitting.

This is not to say that everyone who lives under government would rise up against it if they could. Rather, it is to point out that acquiescing to government is no evidence of consent. So defenders of government cannot point to widespread acquiescence as evidence of consent. They must get written, signed and witnessed contracts if they want to say they are legitimate. And such an institution, with written, signed and witnessed contracts, would resemble a free market entity, not government." - Benjamin Marks, http://economics.org.au/2010/07/acquiescence/

 

[Bryan]

A definition of the state supplied by the OP that has no relation to reality.

Non sequitur. Saying that doesn't make it so- no proof has been supplied.

But looking at it more closely, it is essentially Robert Nozick's immaculate conception of the state. Rothbard absolutely pwns the notion of a 'voluntary' state here. (Whether the minarchists understand they are actually trying to defend this position, I don't think so)

For the hilarity:

Since Nozick’s justification of existing States—provided they are or become minimal—rests on their alleged immaculate conception, and since no such State exists, then none of them can be justified, even if they should later become minimal. To go further, we can say that, at best, Nozick’s model can only justify a State which indeed did develop by his invisible hand method. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Nozick to join anarchists in calling for the abolition of all existing States, and then to sit back and wait for his alleged invisible hand to operate. The only minimal State, then, which Nozick at best can justify is one that will develop out of a future anarcho-capitalist society.
​

So he's saying that a minimal State can develop from an anarcho-capitalist society? That is part of my point- states can be voluntary.

Furthermore, the definition supplied by Rothbard, Hoppe etc. is the definition that is completely uncontroversial.

I have previous put holes in it, and regardless if you agree with those holes, I further claim that it is controversial- so it stands that your statement of it being "completely uncontroversial" is in fact false.

This is some third world class circus act... where you define voluntarism as part of the state.

That's a straw man- I never defined that. I only said that states can be voluntary.

You're more interested in persuasion and rhetoric, than the truth - would that be correct? That's my take anyway.

No. Where have I been untruthful? Persuasion is certainly the point, but I don't think one can be so without bring truthful.

 

[showpan]

The entire history of this planet teaches us that those without borders will be thoroughly conquered, pillaged, assimilated and colonized. Those with borders are conquered, pillaged and assimilated....but they are already colonized.

 

[Seraphim]

FIRST tier Municipal/County/Regional States tend to occur under voluntary peaceful conditions.

Second Tier Provincial/State governments tend to be accepted but must be enforced by themselves rather annoyingly. They aren't that needed, hence why they compensate with annoyance and mid level tyrannies.

Third Tier Federal/National governments commit the most atrocious acts, PARTICULARLY AT HOME. The Federal Government is liken to the drunken, horribly abusive father. If left unchecked, the hurt will be brought.

National/Federal identities are FAR inferior and infinitely more destructive then local identities.

This seems to be the behavioural pattern around the world.

World elites are trying to set up a 2 tier system.

One world hyper dominant government plus all of our local small governments - which are bitches compared to the Terminator 8000 one world version.

It will not be voluntary. Collectivism or the barrel of a gun.

 

[Seraphim]

Ops.

 

[Conza88]

Non sequitur. Saying that doesn't make it so- no proof has been supplied.

You: "I think a common meaning, in not-so-common language, would be "a group of individuals within a defined geographical area self-organizing as they see fit."

A terrible definition as others here have pointed out. You then also go on to cite a "legal dictionary" definition. Seriously LOL!

The "legal dictionary" -> legal positivism... a definition SUPPLIED BY THE STATE. Hahah!

But within that definition, you have smuggled in "self-organisation". And by that you imply 'voluntary associations'. Do you support individual self ownership? And the right to choose which organisation an individual will contract with to provide them defense?

So he's saying that a minimal State can develop from an anarcho-capitalist society? That is part of my point- states can be voluntary.

No, that's not his point. Read the chapter please and provide a refutation, if you have one or disagree.

I have previous put holes in it, and regardless if you agree with those holes, I further claim that it is controversial- so it stands that your statement of it being "completely uncontroversial" is in fact false.

You can go and claim whatever the hell you want. Within the rest of the entire academic world, the definition of the state is uncontroversial. The libertarians, Hoppe et all, and all the statists - agree that is:

As defined by Rothbard, a state is an organization

which possesses either or both (in actual fact, almost always both) of the following characteristics: (a) it acquires its revenue by physical coercion (taxation); and (b) it achieves a compulsory monopoly of force and of ultimate decision-making power over a given territorial area. Both of these essential activities of the State necessarily constitute criminal aggression and depredation of the just rights of private property of its subjects (including self-ownership). For the first constitutes and establishes theft on a grand scale; while the second prohibits the free competition of defense and decision-making agencies within a given territorial area - prohibiting the voluntary purchase and sale of defense and judicial services (p. 172-73). TEOL​

The statists think a monopoly is necessary for the provision of "public goods". They also think taxation is necessary.

The definition isn't in question at all. Why you want to try re-define it, is beyond me. The only reason I can see - is you want to keep the term, so you can avoid - the unease of telling people your position involves in getting rid of a monopoly.

That's a straw man- I never defined that. I only said that states can be voluntary.

Read the Rothbard rebuttal of Nozick.

No. Where have I been untruthful? Persuasion is certainly the point, but I don't think one can be so without bring truthful.

I said more interested in rhetoric, than the truth. I.e More interested in using a definition that has nothing to do with reality. A definition that goes AGAINST one agreed upon by essentially all political philosophers the world over... statists and anti-statists alike.

The definition used in all the writings in political philosophy generally come down to the same. Yet you set up a debate with an absolutely erroneous one... that next to no-one else uses.

That's why this discussion has gone, no-where. The debate hasn't even really started.

 

[Conza88]

"Is the most consequentially neglected word in political science. Alone it establishes that tax is theft and government criminal by giving a name for something that is between consent and confrontation.

The concept of acquiescence, and even the word, is often lumped incorrectly with consent, thereby confusing submission in the face of overwhelming force with consent chosen freely. For example, if people evade tax, they face imprisonment and further extortion. So the payment of tax no more proves consent than the payment of a ransom transforms kidnapping into mere babysitting.

This is not to say that everyone who lives under government would rise up against it if they could. Rather, it is to point out that acquiescing to government is no evidence of consent. So defenders of government cannot point to widespread acquiescence as evidence of consent. They must get written, signed and witnessed contracts if they want to say they are legitimate. And such an institution, with written, signed and witnessed contracts, would resemble a free market entity, not government." - Benjamin Marks, http://economics.org.au/2010/07/acquiescence/

- Comments on this please, as it was completely ignored.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Hey, Conza-do you agree with Bourne's explanation of The State?

 

[Bryan]

You: "I think a common meaning, in not-so-common language, would be "a group of individuals within a defined geographical area self-organizing as they see fit."

A terrible definition as others here have pointed out.

Where has this been pointed out as a "terrible definition" that hasn't been refuted?

Seriously LOL!

Condensing tones don't support an argument, I see them just as an emotional ploy to try to win over the weak.

But within that definition, you have smuggled in "self-organisation". And by that you imply 'voluntary associations'. Do you support individual self ownership? And the right to choose which organisation an individual will contract with to provide them defense?

The issue isn't what I support or not. But for the stake of argument, I would say that in a free society one does have individual self-ownership, and the right to choose a defense, unless they sign that over by contract.

No, that's not his point. Read the chapter please and provide a refutation, if you have one or disagree.

So what exactly is meant by the statement "The only minimal State, then, which Nozick at best can justify is one that will develop out of a future anarcho-capitalist society." It sounds like he is saying that states can rise out of voluntary associations- how am I parsing this sentence wrong?

You can go and claim whatever the hell you want.

I can and will, which still makes your original "completely uncontroversial" statement false.

Within the rest of the entire academic world, the definition of the state is uncontroversial.

So you're making an appeal to an authority? Another logically fallacy.

The libertarians, Hoppe et all, and all the statists - agree that is:

As defined by Rothbard, a state is an organization

which possesses either or both (in actual fact, almost always both) of the following characteristics: (a) it acquires its revenue by physical coercion (taxation); and (b) it achieves a compulsory monopoly of force and of ultimate decision-making power over a given territorial area. Both of these essential activities of the State necessarily constitute criminal aggression and depredation of the just rights of private property of its subjects (including self-ownership). For the first constitutes and establishes theft on a grand scale; while the second prohibits the free competition of defense and decision-making agencies within a given territorial area - prohibiting the voluntary purchase and sale of defense and judicial services (p. 172-73). TEOL​

For the sake of argument, let's say that the two elements listed are a good definition. What if a group of people agree to these two elements, and specific terms of the state? Wouldn't it still be a state? Wouldn't it be voluntary? How is it then "criminal aggression" if the terms were agreed upon? Please answer this.

Even then, you're appealing to authority again, this time with Rothbard-- and worse, attempting to use a bandwagon fallacy with the "libertarians, Hoppe et all, and all the statists" remark.

The statists think a monopoly is necessary for the provision of "public goods". They also think taxation is necessary.

This is a different issue. Certainly some people think that, other realized that it isn't the case.

The definition isn't in question at all.

Says who?

Why you want to try re-define it, is beyond me. The only reason I can see - is you want to keep the term, so you can avoid - the unease of telling people your position involves in getting rid of a monopoly.

I'm not trying to redefine it, I'm trying to use the terms based on attributes of what the general public accepts. Actually, I don't have a hard time telling people that I don't want any monopoly on power-- the key however, is to properly understand where the monopoly's are. I don't see a state as necessarily as a monopoly, I do however see that a collection of states that are completely pervasive to the planets arable land is a monopoly however, and that "reasonable alternatives" to states need to be provided for, for those wishing to be a part of a voluntary society, so they can move and live there. See my past posts on the characteristics of "reasonable alternatives". I would also see any form of world government, much like in the UN's dreams, as being a monopoly and there is nothing uneasy about speaking out against that. I would consider a state a monopoly in a sense if they prevented anyone from leaving their border.

Would you care if others lived in a state if you were able to not live within one?

I said more interested in rhetoric, than the truth. I.e More interested in using a definition that has nothing to do with reality. A definition that goes AGAINST one agreed upon by essentially all political philosophers the world over... statists and anti-statists alike.

More appeal to authority and bandwagon logical fallacies.

The definition used in all the writings in political philosophy generally come down to the same.

The point that I made was to have a definition that is best understood by the general public.

Yet you set up a debate with an absolutely erroneous one... that next to no-one else uses.

Another straw man. I didn't set up anything- I proposed a definition to be debated upon, as part of the discussion.

That's why this discussion has gone, no-where. The debate hasn't even really started.

There has been some good discussion, IMO, but yes, it has stalled some since there seems to be disregard to all the evidence that a state can in fact be viewed as voluntary. My argument below (as previously posted) hits on this. You're welcome to try to refute it.

I would further question any axiom that it is impossible for a state to be voluntary, and in some way must have some involuntary element to it. Why should it be necessary to have to include some involuntary element? Here's another example- we should agree that the USA is a state (in the broader sense). Say that everyone within the USA that did not voluntary agree to the state just disappeared, moved out, or whatever- thus only leaving people who agreed to the voluntary association with the USA, should it then no longer be considered a state? That doesn't make sense. As well, why can't one call it a state in the example of "if someone laid claim to an unclaimed area, and then others did the same next to them, then they could voluntary agree to terms of their choice." Would they have to force one person into involuntary association with it to rightfully call it a state? This just doesn't make sense either.

 

[mport1]

Are there any takers that want to defend the position that there should be no state, or that borders should be open - regardless of other peoples desires? Or a similar position?

If so- please post up to engage in a dialog. Feel free to start off with posting definitions to any important terms such as "state" or what open borders means to you. You can also lead with adding in your position and I would appreciate it if you indicate if that position relates to the study of some philosopher.


Note: I will not moderate this thread, and encourage mods to allow for a good deal of latitude but there is no reason this shouldn't be civil.


So, who is up for it?

It is wrong to initiate force on other people, period.

 

[Bryan]

- Comments on this please, as it was completely ignored.

Sorry- vB doesn't pull quoted text into replies, so I missed it.

"Is the most consequentially neglected word in political science. Alone it establishes that tax is theft and government criminal by giving a name for something that is between consent and confrontation.

I disagree that taxation is inherently theft. Taxation could be agreed upon, in some manner, in which case, it's not theft. I much prefer to use the term "forced taxation", which I would consider as theft. It's much more clear to the general public.

The concept of acquiescence, and even the word, is often lumped incorrectly with consent, thereby confusing submission in the face of overwhelming force with consent chosen freely. For example, if people evade tax, they face imprisonment and further extortion. So the payment of tax no more proves consent than the payment of a ransom transforms kidnapping into mere babysitting.

This is not to say that everyone who lives under government would rise up against it if they could. Rather, it is to point out that acquiescing to government is no evidence of consent. So defenders of government cannot point to widespread acquiescence as evidence of consent. They must get written, signed and witnessed contracts if they want to say they are legitimate. And such an institution, with written, signed and witnessed contracts, would resemble a free market entity, not government." - Benjamin Marks, http://economics.org.au/2010/07/acquiescence/

I would generally agree with this. A key issue with this however is to understand who is consenting and who is not. Often, those who consent to tyranny will tell others who don't consent "If you don't like it, then leave!" This can cut both ways. If there actually is a reasonable alternative then leaving could be a good option, thus staying is a form of consenting. If however, there is no reasonable alternative then it's pretty disingenuous to tell someone to leave when there is no place to go that is not equally as bad- thus staying does not imply consent. This is pretty much the case now of not implying consenting in terms of federal issues. Of course, those who claim to support a free society should never tell someone to leave if they don't like whatever form of tyranny that suits them.

Even then, I don't think that written, signed and witnessed contracts are necessarily a form of consenting, based again on the argument that there needs to be reasonable alternative. A good example of this is that you could be required to sign a contract when buying land, or making a lease for a place to live- if there are no "reasonable alternatives" then you're going to have to all-but sign and accept all the terms regardless if you truly consent to them or not.

 

[Bryan]

It is wrong to initiate force on other people, period.

Agreed- unless they signed a contract, not under duress, saying that it was OK to do so.

 

[Conza88]

I disagree that taxation is inherently theft.

So Ron Paul is wrong then?

Taxation could be agreed upon, in some manner, in which case, it's not theft. I much prefer to use the term "forced taxation", which I would consider as theft. It's much more clear to the general public.

"Forced taxation" is just as redundant as ATM machine, or "with au jus".

I would generally agree with this. A key issue with this however is to understand who is consenting and who is not. Often, those who consent to tyranny will tell others who don't consent "If you don't like it, then leave!" This can cut both ways. If there actually is a reasonable alternative then leaving could be a good option, thus staying is a form of consenting. If however, there is no reasonable alternative then it's pretty disingenuous to tell someone to leave when there is no place to go that is not equally as bad- thus staying does not imply consent. This is pretty much the case now of not implying consenting in terms of federal issues. Of course, those who claim to support a free society should never tell someone to leave if they don't like whatever form of tyranny that suits them.

Even then, I don't think that written, signed and witnessed contracts are necessarily a form of consenting, based again on the argument that there needs to be reasonable alternative. A good example of this is that you could be required to sign a contract when buying land, or making a lease for a place to live- if there are no "reasonable alternatives" then you're going to have to all-but sign and accept all the terms regardless if you truly consent to them or not.

Taxation is theft, so why blame the victim? Why, in effect, tell the victim of assault-by-taxation “if you don’t like it you can leave”? That position simply affirms that opposition to the violence of taxation will beget more violence. Why not say the same things to victims of physical and sexual assault?
— Chris Leithner, personal correspondence 2009(Source: leithner.com.au)

There is no "alternative" to property rights you mong. Just like there is no justified alternative to 2+2=4.

The institution of private property and in particular the establishment of private property by means of original appropriation are frequently referred to as "conventions." However, as should have become clear, this is false. A convention serves a purpose, and it is something to which an alternative exists. For instance, the Latin alphabet serves the purpose of written communication. There exists an alternative to it, the Cyrillic alphabet. That is why it is referred to as a convention.

What, however, is the purpose of action-norms? The avoidance of possible conflict! Conflict-generating norms are contrary to the very purpose of norms. However, with regard to the purpose of conflict-avoidance, the two mentioned institutions are not just conventional; no alternative to them exists. Only private property makes it possible for all otherwise unavoidable conflicts to be avoided; and only the principle of property acquisition by acts of original appropriation performed by specific individuals at a specific time and location makes it possible for conflicts to be avoided from the beginning of mankind on. ~ Hoppe

But if you want to see it another way; there is an alternative: it is a short, nasty and brutish life.

But really, discussion with you is pointless. If you want to use your own pet definitions of words, I cannot have a conversation with you, as I don't even know what you mean by such words as "as", "but", and "is" - let alone "contract" "property rights" "voluntary" etc.

For those that want to have a real intellectual discussion - please see here.

 

[ClayTrainor]

So Ron Paul is wrong then?

Go to about 3:30



Spitzer: Is taxation theft in your mind?

Ron Paul: Yes, it is. It has to steal from productive individuals and give to somebody else.

 

[Bryan]

So Ron Paul is wrong then?

Wrong in the sense of what ClayTrainor just posted about Dr. Paul saying "Yes, it is" that taxes are theft? Yes, I would say he is in certain cases- in other cases he is correct.

"Forced taxation" is just as redundant as ATM machine, or "with au jus".

If someone voluntary moved to some municipal utility district that imposed a MUD tax for that area, then wouldn't their acceptance of that tax by voluntarily agreeing to purchase a house within that district make in not forced? Aren't there a lot of other places they could buy a house that don't have a MUD tax? Of course there are. So how is that MUD tax forced when there are reasonable alternatives to it?

Taxation is theft, so why blame the victim? — (Chris Leithner)

Where is the victim in the above case of someone voluntarily agreeing to buy a house that requires them to pay a MUD tax?

Why, in effect, tell the victim of assault-by-taxation “if you don’t like it you can leave”? — (Chris Leithner)

Why, because like in the case I am describing the person did not have to buy the house within the MUD district and thus, leaving is what they should do, since they never should have bought the house there in the first place where the agreed by contract to pay the tax but then later decided they didn't want to.

That position simply affirms that opposition to the violence of taxation will beget more violence. Why not say the same things to victims of physical and sexual assault?
— Chris Leithner, personal correspondence 2009(Source: leithner.com.au)

This is an apples-vs-oranges comparison. In the taxation case, there are cases, such as in the MUD district example, where the individual agreed based on contract to pay the tax, and agree to and understood that there can be violence if they do not uphold their end of the contract. In the case of physical and sexual assault, there was no such prior agreement with the assailant.

There is no "alternative" to property rights you mong.

ad hominem.

Just like there is no justified alternative to 2+2=4.

Non sequitur, certainly there is no alternative to 2+2=4 within the scope of modernly accepted mathematics but your points on taxation are being refuted.

The institution of private property and in particular the establishment of private property by means of original appropriation are frequently referred to as "conventions." However, as should have become clear, this is false. A convention serves a purpose, and it is something to which an alternative exists. For instance, the Latin alphabet serves the purpose of written communication. There exists an alternative to it, the Cyrillic alphabet. That is why it is referred to as a convention.

What, however, is the purpose of action-norms? The avoidance of possible conflict! Conflict-generating norms are contrary to the very purpose of norms. However, with regard to the purpose of conflict-avoidance, the two mentioned institutions are not just conventional; no alternative to them exists. Only private property makes it possible for all otherwise unavoidable conflicts to be avoided; and only the principle of property acquisition by acts of original appropriation performed by specific individuals at a specific time and location makes it possible for conflicts to be avoided from the beginning of mankind on. ~ Hoppe

I would agree with Hoppe here, however, situation can get a little more complicated then this. Say someone acquires some property by acts of original appropriation performed by specific individuals at a specific time and location as Hoppe describes. Lets say then that that individual develops this property into the foundation of a community, and puts sub-sections of his property up for sale, however, for the sale to be final the buyer must sign a contract that limits what they can do with their property. How is this not acceptable? Logically if people do not like the terms of the contract for the asking price they will not sign it, and thus, the developers efforts will fail. However, if some people do find the terms favorable, can they not voluntary sign the contract to move there? What if that contract required the payment of taxes? Would that not then be voluntary for them to move there?

But if you want to see it another way; there is an alternative: it is a short, nasty and brutish life.

Another non sequitur, you have not shown that any alternative to your argument will be a "short, nasty and brutish life.".

But really, discussion with you is pointless. If you want to use your own pet definitions of words,

Straw man. I am not enforcing the use of my definitions, I am only proposing definitions and critiquing others.

I cannot have a conversation with you, as I don't even know what you mean by such words as "as", "but", and "is" - let alone "contract" "property rights" "voluntary" etc.

I'm sorry if you do not understand, you're welcome to ask to clarify any term that is used. Has there been one case where you have asked for some clarification of terms that I did not respond to? Are you trying to play as a victim here?

For those that want to have a real intellectual discussion - please see here.

The insinuation here is that this is not a "real intellectual discussion", which is an ad hominem.

However, if you want to define a "real intellectual discussion" as one in which it includes people answering direct questions posed to them, then, yes, I might have to agree with you to a point since you have avoided answering direct questions posed to you. Perhaps this can be rectified, so I will repeat these questions with their context:

The libertarians, Hoppe et all, and all the statists - agree that is:

As defined by Rothbard, a state is an organization

which possesses either or both (in actual fact, almost always both) of the following characteristics: (a) it acquires its revenue by physical coercion (taxation); and (b) it achieves a compulsory monopoly of force and of ultimate decision-making power over a given territorial area. Both of these essential activities of the State necessarily constitute criminal aggression and depredation of the just rights of private property of its subjects (including self-ownership). For the first constitutes and establishes theft on a grand scale; while the second prohibits the free competition of defense and decision-making agencies within a given territorial area - prohibiting the voluntary purchase and sale of defense and judicial services (p. 172-73). TEOL​

For the sake of argument, let's say that the two elements listed are a good definition. What if a group of people agree to these two elements, and specific terms of the state? Wouldn't it still be a state? Wouldn't it be voluntary? How is it then "criminal aggression" if the terms were agreed upon? Please answer this.

---

Regardless of that, I am curious to your opinion as to why you would see your thread as being a "real intellectual discussion" and this one not. I see that you start off by saying: "But first - let's define our terms - like any proper intellectual endeavour should.". Did you not see in my first post in this thread that I wrote: "Feel free to start off with posting definitions to any important terms such as "state" or what open borders means to you.".

It seems that the only difference is that in my case I asked others to work to build a working definition of terms for the sake of the discussion, but in your case you are unconditionally defining the terms. In my opinion, and it is just my opinion, a superior intellectual discussion will allow for some debate upon the important terms used, and not shut down discussion right from the start. Again, just my opinion, you are welcome to disagree
.

 

[Bryan]

The burden of proof, lies with you guys. As you are the ones who must justify initiating physical aggression against others.

But first - let's define our terms - like any proper intellectual endeavour should.

Daily Bell: Are you denying, then, that we need the state to defend us?

Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe: Indeed. The state does not defend us; rather, the state aggresses against us and it uses our confiscated property to defend itself. The standard definition of the state is this: the state is an agency characterized by two unique, logically connected features.

1. The state is an agency that exercises a territorial monopoly of ultimate decision-making. That is, the state is the ultimate arbiter and judge in every case of conflict, including conflicts involving itself and its agents. There is no appeal above and beyond the state.
2. The state is an agency that exercises a territorial monopoly of taxation. That is, it is an agency that can unilaterally fix the price that its subjects must pay for the state’s service as ultimate judge.

It looks like Hoppe has a similar definition of a state as Rothbard, although he is saying that both features are a part of the characterization. Is this to say that if a state did not tax then it would no longer be able to be considered a state? None-the-less, my counter argument to Rothbard (as above) is repeated here.

Based on this institutional set-up you can safely predict the consequences.

1. Instead of preventing and resolving conflict, a monopolist of ultimate decision-making will cause and provoke conflict in order to settle it to its own advantage. That is, the state does not recognize and protect existing law, but it perverts law through legislation. Contradiction number one: the state is a law-breaking law protector.
   
   
2. Instead of defending and protecting anyone or anything, a monopolist of taxation will invariably strive to maximize his expenditures on protection and at the same time minimize the actual production of protection. The more money the state can spend and the less it must work for this money, the better off it is. Contradiction number two: the state is an expropriating property protector.

I think Hoppe makes some good points here, and they are good words of wisdom for anyone to think about before signing a particular contract that grants a monopoly of power against themselves. These are also seemingly issues one will face if they were born into a state that forbids them from leaving.

However, this is not to say that individuals can still not voluntarily agree to become a part of a state. For example, if someone voluntarily decided to buy land and move to a state that has a monopoly of power over them and forbids them from leaving then that is their choice.

So, given the above it logically follows:

Non sequitur, you have not established this connection- as well, there are open challenges to the premise.

http://conza.tumblr.com/post/6098862162/on-free-immigration-and-forced-integrationOn Free Immigration and Forced Integration

"In an anarcho-capitalist society there is no government and, accordingly, no clear-cut distinction between inlanders (domestic citizens) and foreigners.

Let's take an example from an anarcho-capitalist society as I described above where an individual acquires some property by acts of original appropriation performed by specific individuals at a specific time and location as Hoppe described. Lets say then that that individual develops this property into the foundation of a community, and puts sub-sections of his property up for sale, however, for the sale to be final the buyer must sign a contract that limits what they can do with their property. Let's say that the developer paid to built a fence around the whole community, and also paid for the creation of an internal road system that is only to be used based upon the contracts of those buying land. How does this not make a clear-cut distinction between inlanders vs. not?

This distinction comes into existence only with the establishment of a government, i.e., an institution which possesses a territorial monopoly of aggression (taxation).

As above, I challenge this assertions, and further note, that the taxation isn't even an issue here. As well, if an individual obtains some private property, as described by Hoppe in prior posts, is that not a possession of a territorial monopoly as well?

The territory over which a government’s taxing power extends becomes “inland,” and everyone residing outside of this territory becomes a foreigner. State borders (and passports), are an “unnatural” (coercive) institution.

I can agree these are "unnatural", but if they are agreed upon then how are they coercive? If Hoppe is also arguing for private property, how then is it that those borders to the private property are somehow different and not coercive?

Indeed, their existence (and that of a domestic government) implies a two-fold distortion with respect to peoples’ natural inclination to associate with others.

How is there a distortion of peoples' natural inclination if they agreed to the terms of that domestic government with the purchase of property within its border, or by similarly agreeing by signing a lease contract?

1. First, inlanders cannot exclude the government (the taxman) from their own property, but are subject to what one might call “forced integration” by government agents.

This depends upon the conditions of the land ownership. If the inlander voluntarily agreed to purchase inlander land then they agreed to the terms of the taxman.

1. Second, in order to be able to intrude on its subjects’ private property so as to tax them, a government must invariably take control of existing roads, and it will employ its tax revenue to produce even more roads to gain even better access to all private property, as a potential tax source. Thus, this over-production of roads does not involve merely an innocent facilitation of interregional trade - a lowering of transaction costs - as starry-eyed economists would have us believe, but it involves forced domestic integration (artificial desegregation of separate localities).

I don't see a proof that "a government must invariably take control of existing roads", and I would counter this assertion. Still, I do agree with Hoppe here some, and would add too that a state based postal service is not merely for the innocent facilitation of the delivery of parcels, as "starry-eyed individual" would have us think, but it is a primary way for a state to contact those living within that state. The roads are needed for the postal carriers as well.

Moreover, with the establishment of a government and state borders, immigration takes on an entirely new meaning. Immigration becomes immigration by foreigners across state borders, and the decision as to whether or not a person should be admitted no longer rests with private property owners or associations of such owners but with the government as the ultimate sovereign of all domestic residents and the ultimate super-owner of all their properties.

In some cases, this is correct, but if those were the terms that people agreed to when purchasing land within the state, then what is the problem? Further, if all the road systems are owned by the state then they can decide who has access to those roads and who does not, and thus, it would be considered as trespassing for someone to enter the private property road system owned by the state if they did not have permission to do so.

Now, if the government excludes a person while even one domestic resident wants to admit this very person onto his property, the result is forced exclusion (a phenomenon that does not exist under private property anarchism).

I have explained above how this is not true. I'll repeat if you'd like.

Furthermore, if the government admits a person while there is not even one domestic resident who wants to have this person on his property, the result is forced integration (also non-existent under private property anarchism)". - Hans-Hermann Hoppe

I would agree with Hoppe here.

Open and closed border supporters are arguing second bests,

Says who?

which is why it is often a waste of time and goes no-where. If you would like to discuss/debate the merits of the state and what gives it legitimacy, please feel free to do so.
http://mises.org/daily/2265

Done. In short, what gives it legitimacy is when people voluntarily agree to its terms. The purchasing of land within a states borders can be an indication of such agreement.

 

[Sentient Void]

Equivocation.

/thread

 

[Bryan]

Equivocation.

/thread

Non sequitur, proclaiming as such doesn't make it so. Please support your position.


Here's some more questions for you Sentient Void, Conza88, ClayTrainor, etc. You are claiming that it is impossible for a state to be voluntary, correct? You agree on Rothbard's definition of a state, in that the state will initiate force against people, correct? With that, all states would initiate force against people who oppose it, which you should there-for be against, correct? From this, to end the violence you must end the state, correct? Is your position that ALL states should be abolished?

 

[Sentient Void]

Dude, you are absolutely equivocating. This whole damned thread is my proof.