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

[Bryan]

@ Clay and SV

So which points have they made that haven't been successfully refuted?

 

[Bryan]

The problem here is that you've merely arbitrarily asserted that there can be a 'state' that has the complete voluntary consent of all those governed. You've asserted it, but not provided any a priori nor empirical evidence to suggest it as such. You've made the positive assertion, so the burden of proof is on you - just like it would be on any other individual or 'the general public' if they've made such claims.

If someone laid claim to an unclaimed area, and then others did the same next to them, then they could voluntary agree to form a state.

 

[Wesker1982]

So which points have they made that haven't been successfully refuted?

No time to join right now but afaik all of them.

 

[Bryan]

Well, that ultimately comes down to semantics, unfortunately.

Certainly, and I did start off my OP with an attempt to iron out the semantics.

If you define it in the same way it is defined in social sciences, with regards to politics, (which I think most people accept)

Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)

In the social sciences, a state is the compulsory political institution of a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain territory.

than it's a lot hard to argue that it's voluntary.

That depends. If the agreement to form the state was voluntary, and it created the compulsory political institution, then it is still voluntary.

I tend to regard "the state" as a compulsory organization

So that is an assumption in which you need to prove that is can not be compulsory, no?

Anyways, I don't really see this as a principled discussion on "open/private/capitalist borders" vs "state/national/public/socialist borders" since we can't really seem to get past the semantics of the most fundamental terms.

It seems the only issue at hand is if states can be voluntary. Do you see an issue with my statement of: "If someone laid claim to an unclaimed area, and then others did the same next to them, then they could voluntary agree to form a state. " ?

 

[Bryan]

No time to join right now but afaik all of them.

I need specifics. Please come back when you have time. Thanks!!

 

[Deborah K]

Actually we live under a much more corrupt government which is really the main drive behind their problems.



http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...town-El-Paso&p=3325990&viewfull=1#post3325990

NAFTA wasn't good for anyone except the corporatists, I'm not arguing that point. And I don't know about you, but I'd rather live here than there, and apparently millions of Mexico's people feel the same way.

 

[erowe1]

If someone laid claim to an unclaimed area, and then others did the same next to them, then they could voluntary agree to form a state.

If I were in that position, I would try to form some kind of organized government with other people based on the sovereignty of each individual household, where the only authority that could be delegated to any agent of that government would be such authority as the individual members already had, where the right of secession of anyone down to the level of the household is preserved, and where no parties can be unwillingly subordinated to the authority of that government except those who commit crimes against us. One reason I don't call myself an anarchist is that I don't want to give the impression that I wouldn't be for something like that.

That seems to be the kind of thing you're describing. But I am really not sure that such an arrangement would qualify as a state as the general public uses that word.

 

[LibertyEagle]

That seems to be the kind of thing you're describing. But I am really not sure that such an arrangement would qualify as a state as the general public uses that word.

Actually, I think a great deal of the general public thinks "state" means a geographical territory.

 

[Bryan]

If I were in that position, I would try to form some kind of organized government with other people based on the sovereignty of each individual household, where the only authority that could be delegated to any agent of that government would be such authority as the individual members already had, where the right of secession of anyone down to the level of the household is preserved, and where no parties can be unwillingly subordinated to the authority of that government except those who commit crimes against us. One reason I don't call myself an anarchist is that I don't want to give the impression that I wouldn't be for something like that.

That seems to be the kind of thing you're describing. But I am really not sure that such an arrangement would qualify as a state as the general public uses that word.

I would agree that any voluntary association set forth by a free thinking liberty minded person would look completely different from that of what the general public would arrange. That said, it still doesn't preclude these people from agreeing to what could be seen as the most ridiculous terms ever for the creation of a state, or they could even reuse a Constitution from an already existing state.

 

[erowe1]

I would agree that any voluntary association set forth by a free thinking liberty minded person would look completely different from that of what the general public would arrange. That said, it still doesn't preclude these people from agreeing to what could be seen as the most ridiculous terms ever for the creation of a state, or they could even reuse a Constitution from an already existing state.

Can you offer a definition of a state that fits how you think the general public uses the word that would include that kind of arrangement?

It has to be a definition that does not include things the general public does not call states (such as neighborhood associations) and that includes every example of what the general public does call a state (such as North Korea).

 

[ClayTrainor]

Based on the use of eminent domain and forced taxation, certainly not- and those need to end. The issue is still more complex than that, but that doesn't mean that a state can not exist on a voluntary basis either.

There is no reason for it to be any more complex than any other property rights issue.

Sorry, just a typo- should be just "definition".

And it's your assertion that people in "the public" generally accept this definition, and reject mine, right?

I tend to regard "the state" as a compulsory organization that is financed by taxation, because virtually everyone I talk to understands that taxes are compulsory and are paid out to an organization known as the state and/or "the government".

If one owns property that has no contractual limitations then they can call it whatever they want. From a practical POV however people might not understand calling it a state and it really comes down to convoying a matter of intent.

So it's merely a "practical preference", as to whether a business defines itself as a "state" or "business"? This is the only difference?

Allow me to rephrase the question....

Does the nature of "property rights" change based on whether or not the store chooses to call itself a "state" or a "business". If so, in what way?

The refutation of the open borders position is that individuals that compose of a contracted geographical area can use contracts to make part of their land open-access to specific individuals, per the terms of a contract.

Only if every single individual represented by the contract, consents to the contract is it valid. The refutation of the state-borders position is that the state does not obtain property in a contractual manner, they obtain it through taxation, aka theft. Maybe a state "can" collect revenue in ways other than taxation... that's kind of irrelevant to the fact that the current states, and a constitutional state DO finance themselves through taxes.

At the very least this refutes that the current state that owns the borders, and a "constitutional" state if it existed as legitimate property owners, because they most definitely are organizations that lay and collect taxes.

The main points against anti-statism still stand as well since states can be both voluntary and involuntary.

Would you argue that the US Government borders today are owned and controlled in a way that is completely voluntary, and consistent with free-market principles?

If no, What's the most voluntary and contractual way to fix such a problem? Who should own them?

 

[cjm]

...where the right of secession of anyone down to the level of the household is preserved...

Secession seems to be the measure of how voluntary any organization or state is. If I buy land free and clear I can always include secession provisions in any contracts or covenants. But what if I buy land under a restrictive covenant where a state exists and one of the strings attached is that I have to pay property taxes on it? One might argue that since all property in today's world is subject to eminent domain and taxes, those purchase agreements are made under duress -- for what are the options?

All of the colonists here in Virginia purchased land under a restrictive covenant (eminent domain of the British Crown) but in 1776 decided to secede from that authority. Was that secession illegitimate? Sure, the Parliament was being a pain and King George wasn't any help, but Virginians were still subject to their original agreements, weren't they?

Sorry, no answers here, just more questions for folks to think about.

 

[Bryan]

Can you offer a definition of a state that fits how you think the general public uses the word that would include that kind of arrangement?

It has to be a definition that does not include things the general public does not call states (such as neighborhood associations) and that includes every example of what the general public does call a state (such as North Korea).

I will stick with my original definition of "a group of individuals within a defined geographical area self-organizing as they see fit." And this can be completely voluntary based on my prior statement of "If someone laid claim to an unclaimed area, and then others did the same next to them, then they could voluntary agree to form a state."

 

[ClayTrainor]

That depends. If the agreement to form the state was voluntary, and it created the compulsory political institution, then it is still voluntary.

Only if every single individual represented by the organization consents to it, and an organization be deemed legitimate, regardless of what you title it. You don't have a right to use compulsion to force other people into the contract.

By your generalized definition,

"a group of individuals within a defined geographical area self-organizing as they see fit."

virtually any organization can be defined as a state, which is essentially useless when trying to have a conversation on the topic of state owned vs privately owned property.

So that is an assumption in which you need to prove that is can not be compulsory, no?

A contract can be compulsory, only for those who agree to the terms before hand.

Do you see an issue with my statement of: "If someone laid claim to an unclaimed area, and then others did the same next to them, then they could voluntary agree to form a state. " ?

It sounds like they are just agreeing to property lines, on a voluntary contractual basis. They have no right to lay claim to what they can't homestead, or trade for and they have no right to lay claim to any legitimately owned property of another.

So, my main claim is organizations financed by coercion and force (taxation) have no legitimate right to exist let alone own property. If this doesn't describe the state to you, than whatever. I'm getting awfully tired of the semantics, and I bet you are too.:o I have no problem with non-coercive institutions, however, I'm not aware of a non-coercive state that has ever existed. Are you?

If a state can exist as a 100% voluntary and contractual institution, consistent with the Non-Aggression principle and Private property rights, than I have no problem with it. However, reality seems to contradict this.

 

[ClayTrainor]

I just wanted to say, I probably won't be able to respond any more for a couple of days. I have to leave early tomorrow morning for a business trip, and won't be back til tuesday night. Gotta go get some shut-eye now.

Peace and Voluntaryism to one and all!

 

[Bryan]

And it's your assertion that people in "the public" generally accept this definition, and reject mine, right?

No, I was merely positioning an argument for the public definition.

So it's merely a "practical preference", as to whether a business defines itself as a "state" or "business"? This is the only difference?

Allow me to rephrase the question....

Does the nature of "property rights" change based on whether or not the store chooses to call itself a "state" or a "business". If so, in what way?

This is all a bit of a side discussion to the main points, but what I was saying is that if someone opens a business in a non-claimed area then they are free to do as they wish. The property rights should not change.

Only if every single individual represented by the contract, consents to the contract is it valid. The refutation of the state-borders position is that the state does not obtain property in a contractual manner, they obtain it through taxation, aka theft. Maybe a state "can" collect revenue in ways other than taxation... that's kind of irrelevant to the fact that the current states, and a constitutional state DO finance themselves through taxes.

If you do not consent to the contract then you could express your non-consent by not using the private lands that are managed by that contract, in other words, all state based road systems. Using them could be viewed as trespassing as these roads are not your property and you do not have permission to use them from the property owner. This isn't to say that you couldn't have your own private road system on your private land.

Would you argue that the US Government borders today are owned and controlled in a way that is completely voluntary, and consistent with free-market principles?

Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that property owners do contractually agree to terms when they buy property, and that gets transferred to leasers and renters as well. Yet, I argue "no" in the sense that there are no "reasonable" alternatives to the choices.

If no, What's the most voluntary and contractual way to fix such a problem?

IMO, the best solution is for people who are born with a state, and declare their personal independence, that they need to be given "reasonable" alternatives to be free from the state contracts, or any state contracts at that, if the so choose. Attributes as to what defines "reasonable" should include:
- alternative must be arable land.
- alternative should be as geographically near as possible.
- alternative must be free of any state contracts.

If a state forms, and other states continue to form around them, at some point options that satisfy this criteria will disappear, thus states should understand there moral obligation to assure there are "reasonable" alternatives. This could be a good use for a form of state territories of sorts, where a state says "we will defend there to never be a state on this land".

 

[dannno]

NAFTA wasn't good for anyone except the corporatists, I'm not arguing that point. And I don't know about you, but I'd rather live here than there, and apparently millions of Mexico's people feel the same way.

I know you don't agree with NAFTA, but one of your statements was similar to the "they have a corrupt government, they should stay there and fix it" argument that I hear a lot. The point is that we shouldn't blame them for their corrupt government when it was our corrupt government that pressured them into taking anti-property rights actions that doubled their poverty rate and made their country much worse.. and there is literally nothing the people of their country could do because their military had the backing of the U.S. govt.

 

[cjm]

If a state forms, and other states continue to form around them, at some point options that satisfy this criteria will disappear, thus states should understand there moral obligation to assure there are "reasonable" alternatives. This could be a good use for a form of state territories of sorts, where a state says "we will defend there to never be a state on this land".

But what happens if some of the people in the reasonable-alternative-area voluntarily decide to form a state?

 

[Bryan]

Only if every single individual represented by the organization consents to it, and an organization be deemed legitimate, regardless of what you title it. You don't have a right to use compulsion to force other people into the contract.

Agreed, hence my statement of "If the agreement to form the state was voluntary"

By your generalized definition,

virtually any organization can be defined as a state, which is essentially useless when trying to have a conversation on the topic of state owned vs privately owned property.

Why would state owned property not be private property? The argument is that state property IS private property, reserved for the exclusive use of the states citizens and other invited guests.

A contract can be compulsory, only for those who agree to the terms before hand.

Agreed, with a side issue of children.

It sounds like they are just agreeing to property lines, on a voluntary contractual basis.

That would be a start, but they could agree to a lot more, even adopting a Constitution with a justice system, executive, etc..

They have no right to lay claim to what they can't homestead, or trade for

Another side discussion, but says who? I understand these is some established theories on the right of first ownership that support this, but what says they are morally correct? I think this is a terrible system with many flaws and there are much better ways to deal with this.

So, my main claim is organizations financed by coercion and force (taxation) have no legitimate right to exist.

I think this could be debatable if you append that there are no "reasonable" alternatives.

If this doesn't describe the state to you, than whatever.

I'm not sure how "whatever" is a good counter argument.

I'm getting awfully tired of the semantics, and I bet you are too.:o

Well, it sure beats paying taxes.

I have no problem with non-coercive institutions, however, I'm not aware of a non-coercive state that has ever existed. Are you?

Not specifically, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of one. There may be some arguments for some non-coercive states at some point in early American history (1700's).

If a state can exist as a 100% voluntary and contractual institution, consistent with the Non-Aggression principle and Private property rights, than I have no problem with it.

I think I have shown how it can exist. Thus, my point that it is tyrannical to deny other peoples ability to self organize into a state by being purely anti-state.

 

[Bryan]

I just wanted to say, I probably won't be able to respond any more for a couple of days. I have to leave early tomorrow morning for a business trip, and won't be back til tuesday night. Gotta go get some shut-eye now.

Peace and Voluntaryism to one and all!

Fair enough, there will be no penalty for resuming later, and I don't think I'll be going away from here. Have a good trip.