I'm done making excuses for the State

[Travlyr]

There is no reason why a dispute over land would not be settled through voluntary exchange. If someone tried to steal it, he would be arrested.

Never mind.

 

[Travlyr]

The state is but a societal construct of men, a reflection of the people who have developed it and chosen to live in it. When it becomes tyrannical, it is on account of sinful men who have consolidated power with the ability to do violence. It is because they have consolidated power which gives them the ability to do violence and rule in tyranny. Such movement towards growth, consolidation, and, sadly, the natural growth of governments made by fallen man. Some have lasted for centuries, other for much less, but all of them failing at the end, a pattern which will continue until the end of the world.

The Constitution was developed in order to curtail such a regression of power from the people to the bureaucrats whose decisions and actions affect millions. Such a limited role for government has succeeded and is the model we should follow. BUT, such a model can only succeed and thrive when those people who have been chosen as the representatives of the people are honest and abide by the oaths they taken, namely to defend the Constitution and vote and rule in accordance to it and the will of the people. The change we need needs to ultimately find its way into those whom we choose to represent us.

First and foremost the purpose of the State is to distribute land, water, and air. When that fact is accepted, then understanding of land law follows.

 

[Travlyr]

Cuz we live in a bubble here at RPF, i know the stuff talked about here seems so logical and moral but in the real world the vast majority of ppl are utterly clueless. It would take a tremendous amount of education before i think society would be ready for anarchy...not even mentioning the global question, and forces that would threaten libertopia.

It is actually a misunderstanding of the purpose of the State because Mises.org rarely addresses that.

 

[TER]

First and foremost the purpose of the State is to distribute land, water, and air. When that fact is accepted, then understanding of land law follows.

Agreed. It is an essential function of the State. Still, it is a human societal construct precisely to prevent anarchy, which is chaos and the dissolution of order, wherein the violence of force is not to maintain society but to maintain one's own self, even against all of society combined.

 

[Travlyr]

Agreed. It is an essential function of the State. Still, it is a human societal construct precisely to prevent anarchy, which is chaos and the dissolution of order, wherein the violence of force is not to maintain society but to maintain one's own self, even against all of society combined.

Exactly correct. It is based on property rights and justice for violation of those rights along with natural rights.

 

[Echoes]

It is actually a misunderstanding of the purpose of the State because Mises.org rarely addresses that.

The sole purpose of the State is to strip natural rights and consolidate power. Are you suggesting the State's fundamental function is to PROTECT OUR RIGHTS ? Nooo, the number one reason ppl desire a State is for security reasons, and are willing to trade liberty (rights) for it, just a matter of what degree ppl are comfortable with. Forgot the author of this quote but its so true..."the amount of tyranny we live under, is the amount we tolerate."

 

[Travlyr]

The sole purpose of the State is to strip natural rights and consolidate power. Are you suggesting the State's fundamental function is to PROTECT OUR RIGHTS ? Nooo, the number one reason ppl desire a State is for security reasons, and are willing to trade liberty (rights) for it, just a matter of what degree ppl are comfortable with. Forgot the author of this quote but its so true..."the amount of tyranny we live under, is the amount we tolerate."

No that is wrong. It is not for security reasons. First and foremost, the purpose of the State is to distribute land, water, and air.

 

[TER]

The sole purpose of the State is to strip natural rights and consolidate power. Are you suggesting the State's fundamental function is to PROTECT OUR RIGHTS ? Nooo, the number one reason ppl desire a State is for security reasons, and are willing to trade liberty (rights) for it, just a matter of what degree ppl are comfortable with. Forgot the author of this quote but its so true..."the amount of tyranny we live under, is the amount we tolerate."

No, the State's sole purpose as designed by the framers of this nation is to protect our lives, our inalienable rights bestowed upon us by the Creator, and the fruits of our labor. The State plays a necessary role in this, for without it, then there is anarchy. That the government is 'a dangerous servant' does not mean it does not serve, but that it must be restrained lest it follow the path of every government before it and fall away from the people and into the hands of corrupt tyrants. This is why Thomas Jefferson believed that a revolution was probably necessary every generation or so in order to curtail the natural growth and corruption of government created by the actions of greedy men.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I hate logical inconsistencies. Unprovoked physical and/or coercive aggression is objectively, observably wrong and immoral, and logically inconsistent. It is wrong and immoral because the individual is sovereign, and it is logically inconsistent because to engage in unprovoked physical and/or coercive aggression as a sovereign individual is to give explicit sanction to the same being done in return, which is paradoxical to the truth of individual sovereignty. To exist, the state MUST engage in some degree of unprovoked physical and/or coercive aggression against individuals. Therefore, the state is objectively, observably an immoral institution.

I can abide a small state as obviously preferrable to a larger state, but there is no logical or moral argument for it, as shown above. Just as one cannot be "a little bit pregnant", it either is, or it is not.

 

[Travlyr]

No, the State's sole purpose as designed by the framers of this nation is to protect our lives, our inalienable rights bestowed upon us by the Creator, and the fruits of our labor. The State plays a necessary role in this, for without it, then there is anarchy. That the government is 'a dangerous servant' does not mean it does not serve, but that it must be restrained lest it follow the path of every government before it and fall away from the people and into the hands of corrupt tyrants. This is why Thomas Jefferson believed that a revolution was probably necessary every generation or so in order to curtail the natural growth and corruption of government created by the actions of greedy men.

I disagree.

That is the intended purpose of the Federation, not the State. The State holds deeds to property in order to publicly prove ownership and boundaries.

 

[Wesker1982]

The State distributes land, water, and air rights in order to live.

As for the kindergarten [level] argument, it does not follow from the fact that the state provides roads and schools that only the state can provide such goods. People have little difficulty recognizing that this is a fallacy. From the fact that monkeys can ride bikes it does not follow that only monkeys can ride bikes. - Hans Hoppe

It does not follow from the fact that the State distributes land,water, and air rights that only the State can provide such services.

It would take a tremendous amount of education before i think society would be ready for anarchy.

If this is used as legitimate grounds to oppose Voluntaryism, you must also oppose limited government. We are about equally likely to achieve them.

I think it is at least a bit encouraging to imagine the slave abolitionists a 100 years or more before slavery was actually abolished. They knew there was a good chance they would never see the results of their efforts, but they still worked to abolish slavery because it was the right thing to do. I believe, especially with the internet, the truth will prevail. I don't know when, but I think it is only a matter of time.

..not even mentioning the global question, and forces that would threaten libertopia.

There has been a lot of writings on "national" defense in a free society. A free society would be more than capable of defending itself.

Also, I think it is unlikely that an educational revolution that would achieve a voluntary society would happen in isolation. The information and knowledge spread that would be necessary knows no boundaries.

The State holds deeds to property in order to publicly prove ownership and boundaries.

It does not follow that only the State can do this.

 

[Travlyr]

It does not follow from the fact that the State distributes land,water, and air rights that only the State can provide such services.

Yes, it does. It is the best method of order offered to the populace.

It does not follow that only the State can do this.

What is the alternative?

When someone's Aunt Hilda dies without a will, then State takes control of her land and looks for heirs. If no heirs are found, then the State auctions the property to the highest bidder. That is a good and proper function of the State.

 

[Jake Ralston]

There is no reason why a dispute over land would not be settled through voluntary exchange. If someone tried to steal it, he would be arrested.

Arrested by whom?

What happens when me and my buddies punk this "authority", whoop his ass and send him off limping?

What kind of message would such disrespect of authority send to the other voluntary citizens?

How long until people realize they can do whatever they want as long as they keep throwing beatdowns?

 

[Travlyr]

As for the kindergarten [level] argument, it does not follow from the fact that the state provides roads and schools that only the state can provide such goods. People have little difficulty recognizing that this is a fallacy. From the fact that monkeys can ride bikes it does not follow that only monkeys can ride bikes. - Hans Hoppe

There is something interesting about Hans Hoppe's career. He worked for the State and indeed retired from the State. While taking money from the State he was philosophizing and writing about Statelessness. Anyone every wonder why (besides the divide and conquer technique) the State would fund Statelessness philosophy? Interestingly, Hoppe doesn't address the first and foremost reason for the development of the State - distribution of land and resources. Why?

 

[Jake Ralston]

There is something interesting about Hans Hoppe's career. He worked for the State and indeed retired from the State. While taking money from the State he was philosophizing and writing about Statelessness. Anyone every wonder why (besides the divide and conquer technique) the State would fund Statelessness philosophy? Interestingly, Hoppe doesn't address the first and foremost reason for the development of the State - distribution of land and resources. Why?

I don't know but you make a good point and bring up valid concerns about Hans Hoppe.

Now i'm not going to name names but there is a certain individual that quotes the guy very often, but fails to realize, as you just stated, that he advocates against the state using harsh language, but then behind everyone's back advocates and accepts money from the state.

This is the same type of crony political action we have in the White House right now.

 

[Wesker1982]

Yes, it does. It is the best method of order offered to the populace.

Because it is the best method offered now, it does not follow that it is the best method period.

What is the alternative?

Questions like these are no different than when socialists cannot imagine how all schools could be private. "Sure we could privatize schools, but then poor children would be uneducated because greedy private schools would charge $1,000,000 per student a year bla bla."

Really, when you ask questions like this, it is like I am talking to a socialist. I know you have some knowledge about the free market, try using it.

The alternative would be that this service would be provided through voluntary exchange, and provided more efficiently because it would not suffer from the lack of economic calculation.

[When someone's Aunt Hilda dies without a will, then State takes control of her land and looks for heirs. If no heirs are found, then the State auctions the property to the highest bidder] That is a good and proper function of the State.

Bolded = typical socialist false dichotomy (either the State takes care of this problem or the problem cannot be solved). Could you please debunk the economic calculation problem for me, and explain why a lack of pricing signals is a benefit to the economic calculation for this service? I would also be interested in learning why violent monopolies are more efficient at allocating resources than the market.

Title Registry (Bob Murphy)

In market anarchy, who would define property rights? If someone hands over the money to purchase a house, what guarantees does he have?

This is a complex issue, and I won’t be able to give specifics, since the actual market solution would depend on the circumstances of the case and would draw on the legal expertise (far greater than mine) of the entire community.23* I can, however, offer some general remarks.

Whatever (if any) the abstract or metaphysical nature of property law, the purpose of public titles is quite utilitarian; they are necessary to allow individuals to effectively plan and coordinate their interactions with each other. Specialized firms (perhaps distinct from arbitration agencies) would keep records on the property titles, either for a specific area or group of individuals. Title registry would probably be accomplished through a complex, hierarchical web of such firms.

The fear of rogue agencies, unilaterally declaring themselves “owner” of everything, is completely unfounded. In market anarchy, the companies publicizing property rights would not be the same as the companies enforcing those rights. More important,competition between firms would provide true “checks and balances.” If one firm began flouting the community norms established and codified on the market, it would go out of business, just as surely as a manufacturer of dictionaries would go broke if its books contained improper definitions.


23*My stance may appear slippery, but imagine that a Cuban economist advises Castro to abolish socialism and allow a free market to develop. Must the economist predict beforehand whether and how many shopping malls will exist under his proposal?

In a laissez-faire society, there would be no government to pre-empt the field of registering deeds. Businesses in a free market would take over this function, since it is a salable service. These companies would keep records of titles and would probably offer the additional service of title insurance (a service already offered by specialized insurance companies today). Title insurance protects the insured against loss resulting from a defect in the title of the property he buys (as, for example, if the long-lost niece of a deceased former owner shows up and claims the property by inheritance). It would substantially reduce problems of conflicting claims, since title insurance companies would be unlikely to insure a title without first checking to make sure there was no conflict. In a free society, title insurance might also protect the insured against loss of his property due to aggression or fraud committed against him. In this case, the aggressor would be dealt with in the same manner as would any other aggressor (a subject which will be covered in Chapters 9 and 10).

There would probably be a plurality of companies competing in the field of title registration and insurance, so they would no doubt find it in their interest to maintain a computerized central listing of titles in the same way that other agencies now keep extensive files on the credit rating of consumers. In this way, they would be in the same relationship of cooperative competition as are present-day insurance companies.

Because they would have competition, title insurance companies would have to be extremely careful to maintain a good business reputation. No honest person would jeopardize the value of his property by registering it with a company which had a reputation for dishonest dealing. If he made use of a shady company, other individuals and firms would have doubts about the validity of his title and would be reluctant to buy his property or to loan money on it. In a totally free market, companies would usually act honestly because it would be in their interest to do so. (The question of dishonest companies will be dealt with in Chapter 11.)

The Market for Liberty

 

[Travlyr]

Because it is the best method offered now, it does not follow that it is the best method period.

Agreed. But since it is the best we've got now, I'll stick with it until something better is offered.

Questions like these are no different than when socialists cannot imagine how all schools could be private. "Sure we could privatize schools, but then poor children would be uneducated because greedy private schools would charge $1,000,000 per student a year bla bla."

Really, when you ask questions like this, it is like I am talking to a socialist. I know you have some knowledge about the free market, try using it.

The alternative would be that this service would be provided through voluntary exchange, and provided more efficiently because it would not suffer from the lack of economic calculation.

Bolded = typical socialist false dichotomy (either the State takes care of this problem or the problem cannot be solved). Could you please debunk the economic calculation problem for me, and explain why a lack of pricing signals is a benefit to the economic calculation for this service? I would also be interested in learning why violent monopolies are more efficient at allocating resources than the market.

I accept the fact that humans are social beings, and that while self-ownership is self-evident self-dependence is illusive. I personally have no problem with a small degree of socialism to facilitate helping the young, old, and indigent.

Edit: I will not bother with the economic calculation problem because I do not advocate State control of markets. Some violence is necessary in society in order to control those who are out of control.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'd be an anarchist myself if i thought it wasnt impossible. There's *ZERO* chance it would work in todays world, too much hostility and very, very few ppl understand and respect private property. I think the most practical system that'd produce the least violence would be something similar to the articles of confederation except i'd go further and have a federal govt limited strictly to administrative duties, no power on force, security or military.

That doesn't even make any sense either because there is also too much hostility, and very very few people understand and respect private property, so in your estimation why would you prefer a worse system, than the better system, when they both have the same practical problems of not enough adherents? It also doesn't make any sense because all Governments are inevitably going to become monstrous tyrannies. (See: Robert Higgs Crisis & Leviathan (Ratchet effect)).

About as far as I will go to making 'due' with a State would be reminiscent of 14th and 15th Century Europa-City States. I could probably live with City-States. I guess as time goes on and you understand the State better, and human sociology, you come to the Jeffersonian position that every generation needs a revolution, and in time liberty cedes to tyranny. Understanding this, we should aim for the maximum amount of liberty to give us the greatest amount of time to enjoy it, and to make it harder for usurpers. With the State in place, the people who aim to achieve their authoritarian goals all ready have the institutions in place to do so. Why give them this?! It makes little sense, especially logically.

An expropriating property protector is a contradiction in terms.

The goal is to aim for a voluntary society. Any less and you have all ready succumbed to defeat and violated the basic tenets of liberty & Natural Law.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

There is something interesting about Hans Hoppe's career. He worked for the State and indeed retired from the State. While taking money from the State he was philosophizing and writing about Statelessness. Anyone every wonder why (besides the divide and conquer technique) the State would fund Statelessness philosophy? Interestingly, Hoppe doesn't address the first and foremost reason for the development of the State - distribution of land and resources. Why?

Almost to a tee most libertarians use the Oppenheimer-Nock understanding of the origins of the State. It wasn't noble, or grand as you make it to be. It was simply that the robbers, pillagers, and otherwise criminals over time found it to be more efficient to stay put in one area and live off the labor of others instead of constantly roaming and being nomadic. Yes, you could say the State was developed for the purpose of distribution of land and resources; to the criminals, pillagers, looters, and robbers. The State anywhere and everywhere has always been a criminal racket, it's purpose to extract the resources, labor, and property from the productive to the parasitical. Why you defend such a heinous institution and class of people boggles the mind.

"The State, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages of its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad. Teleologically, this dominion had no other purpose than the economic exploitation of the vanquished by the victors."

"No primitive state known to history originated in any other manner. [1] Wherever a reliable tradition reports otherwise, either it concerns the amalgamation of two fully developed primitive states into one body of more complete organisation, or else it is an adaptation to men of the fable of the sheep which made a bear their king in order to be protected against the wolf. But even in this latter case, the form and content of the State became precisely the same as in those states where nothing intervened, and which became immediately 'wolf states'." (p. 15) -- Franz Oppenheimer

 

[Travlyr]

Almost to a tee most libertarians use the Oppenheimer-Nock understanding of the origins of the State. It wasn't noble, or grand as you make it to be. It was simply that the robbers, pillagers, and otherwise criminals over time found it to be more efficient to stay put in one area and live off the labor of others instead of constantly roaming and being nomadic. Yes, you could say the State was developed for the purpose of distribution of land and resources; to the criminals, pillagers, looters, and robbers. The State anywhere and everywhere has always been a criminal racket, it's purpose to extract the resources, labor, and property from the productive to the parasitical. Why you defend such a heinous institution and class of people boggles the mind.

For there is no better option that makes sense to me. Land ownership gives me the opportunity to raise my own food, build my own home, live peacefully without others trespassing on my property without recourse. A chance at liberty and prosperity in my lifetime.