Where is Ron Paul? At the 30th Anniversary of Mises Institute!

[ClydeCoulter]

Labels appear to be useless in this conversation.

 

[Travlyr]

While it's true that fees aren't theft, when a service is monopolized by one entity (like the post office and various road/highway/travel departments) it is theft.

Some of us understand the reason that the Post Office, and Post Roads, were installed in the Constitution. Do you? While I disagree with the Post Office, it made sense to the founders because they looked at government as a necessary good that included anyone who was going to approach someone's property daily should be accountable to elected officials who could be taken out of office if they betrayed the people. It was all about accountability to them.

The monopoly that should be focused on, if people want to live free, is monopoly money. End the monopoly money and the people win their freedom.

 

[archangel689]

Income taxes are theft, but Clerk & Recording fees (taxes) are fees for service and there are other legitimate taxes.

You are claiming that only the state can provide some services, i.e. that some services can never be provisioned on the market. It is incumbent upon the statist to back their claim. Period.

It was all about accountability to them.

No. You must prove that ONLY the state can provide these services, otherwise there is no justification for outlawing competition (supposing everything is paid for with fees).

 

[Travlyr]

You are claiming that only the state can provide some services, i.e. that some services can never be provisioned on the market. It is incumbent upon the statist to back their claim. Period.

Yes, only the state can provide land owning Clerk & Recording services and legitimate Justice. Those fundamentals are important to liberty. Read John Locke.

 

[Travlyr]

Labels appear to be useless in this conversation.

Labels are only useful for those who apply the labels to themselves. For example, I do not claim any label. I claim to promote the classical liberal philosophy, but I am not a classical liberal, a libertarian, or anarchist. I am a man without a label other than Travlyr, and my given name.

When others paint labels on others then they have an agenda they want to promote. It is dishonest.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

You are claiming that only the state can provide some services, i.e. that some services can never be provisioned on the market. It is incumbent upon the statist to back their claim. Period.



No. You must prove that ONLY the state can provide these services, otherwise there is no justification for outlawing competition (supposing everything is paid for with fees).

Fair warning: Don't bother trying to have any sort of discussion with him. We're well aware of the semantics issues, as Trav has been over this with several of the posters in this thread pretty much constantly for years. He's admitted to responding to certain groups/people here with an agenda to censor them rather than to get to the bottom of divisive issues. Don't take him too seriously, it's a mistake.

 

[Travlyr]

I must prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that only the state can provide these services, eh? It is actually easy for me to see it, so I'm not sure at what level you are, but I'll try. Just like a shoe store provides shoes, the state provides law, and government, which protects property.

You are claiming that only the state can provide some services, i.e. that some services can never be provisioned on the market. It is incumbent upon the statist to back their claim. Period.



No. You must prove that ONLY the state can provide these services, otherwise there is no justification for outlawing competition (supposing everything is paid for with fees).

The very first concept to understand about the necessity for the state is property. Individuality generally and property specifically. Land rights are at the heart of the origin of the state. Kings ruled over land and the resources contained in his land. Land owners are kings of their own castle. Just like kings protected their land ... homeowners must also protect their land.

The State is a monopoly of force in a given territory. The minimalist state is individualism. As individuals we have the duty to protect our own life. That is ours and ours alone. (i.e. we have a monopoly of force in our given territory.) In other words, however far we can swing our arms to protect ourself. If an individual has a gun then that territory expands to the limits of the gun. The individual with a gun expands his monopoly of force from the swing of his arms to perhaps a few hundred yards. His/her monopoly of force has expanded to a greater circumference. If a group of individuals get together and build a nuclear weapon, then the monopoly of force expands even greater perhaps for miles upon miles. If that nuclear weapon is put on a rocket then the monopoly of force expands even greater still and can become offensive rather than defensive for hundreds or thousands of miles. Indeed, any individual can become offensive rather than defensive. An offensive individual, or group of individuals, must be restrained in order to protect liberty. So, the weapon can be used, by individuals, or a group of individuals, for defense or offense. If used for defense, then it, protects liberty, and is a legitimate state. If it is used for offense, then it, fails to protect liberty, and is an illegitimate state.

When land is claimed to be "owned" by someone, then along with the ownership claims comes rights. For example, the right to exclude anyone from trespassing. (i.e. no one is allowed to come into your home without your permission... even... no one is allowed to set foot on your property without your permission.) Who protects that right? The land owner. Who backs the land owner up if he/she kills a mean bully who steps on your land and rapes you? The State. That is the purpose of the legitimate state.

Mises said it best,

We call the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion that induces people to abide by the rules of life in society, the state; the rules according to which the state proceeds, law; and the organs charged with the responsibility of administering the apparatus of compulsion, government.

In other words, the state says, by law, NO mean bullies have the right to rape another human being. If a mean bully comes into your home and tries to rape you of your person or your property, then the state will back you up when you stop him. You have a monopoly of force in your given territory.

That is the purpose of the legitimate state. The protection of property, liberty, and peace.

 

[Travlyr]

Fair warning: Don't bother trying to have any sort of discussion with him. We're well aware of the semantics issues, as Trav has been over this with several of the posters in this thread pretty much constantly for years. He's admitted to responding to certain groups/people here with an agenda to censor them rather than to get to the bottom of divisive issues. Don't take him too seriously, it's a mistake.

I always support the position of Ron Paul and Ludwig von Mises because I have done my homework and understand their positions. This is, after all, Ron Paul forums.

 

[archangel689]

Yes, only the state can provide land owning Clerk & Recording services and legitimate Justice. Those fundamentals are important to liberty. Read John Locke.

Under current law, ownership of real (immovable) property is proved by records kept by government offices. Of course, in a private society this function would be handled by private agencies. But not surprisingly, the state coopts this function in order to know who the owner is and what the “market value” is so as to enable it to extract taxes. (For more on how the state coopts key institutions to gain increasing power over its subjects, see Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Banking, Nation States and International Politics: A Sociological Reconstruction of the Present Economic Order, pp. 62-66.) For example, a main purpose of the Domesday Book, an English land survey in 1086, “was to determine who held what and what taxes” were owed. And as noted in the fascinating study by Mayer & Pemberton, A Short History of Land Registration in England and Wales:

The Romans introduced a form of land registration to England and Wales [, to form] the basis of a land tax called tributum soli.

Similarly the Anglo-Saxons had a land tax (Danegeld), which would have required details of land ownership. The culmination of this system was the Domesday Book (1086)—an unique and almost complete survey of landowners, at least at manorial level, it is the crowning achievement of the administrative system of Anglo-Saxon England.

… According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, William the Conqueror “by his foresight … surveyed so carefully that there was not a hide of land in England of which he did not know who held it and how much it was worth”.

The Domesday Book was just about the last land register in this country for taxation purposes.
So, yes, there would be private land title records services in a free market, just like there would be private roads, even though today’s state has arrogated to itself the monopoly right to provide these services. For movable property (personalty), other evidentiary and procedural rules would develop as to how to prove ownership–such as the maxim “possession is nine-tenths of the law“.

So, in a private order society we would have claims to scarce resources such as land proved by records filed with private record-keeping agencies. When someone buys property they hire experts (lawyers, title companies) to examine the records to verify that the putative owner has good title; and they would probably purchase title insurance to compensate them if some defect in title showed up. The point is: for every scarce resource that matters, that is valuable to actors and potentially contestable, owners would have an interest in having a way to prove their ownership in the event of such a contest. For every such resource, whether movable or immovable, there would be a way to determine the owner. And in a libertarian society, that rule would be based on the idea of Lockean homesteading and contractual title transfer. (See my What Libertarianism Is.) This means that the person who is the first (or earlier) owner, or someone who can trace their title to such a person, “wins” in a contest over a “latecomer.”

 

[ClydeCoulter]

You have to spread some around before giving it to Travlyr again

 

[Travlyr]

Under current law, ownership of real (immovable) property is proved by records kept by government offices. Of course, in a private society this function would be handled by private agencies. But not surprisingly, the state coopts this function in order to know who the owner is and what the “market value” is so as to enable it to extract taxes. (For more on how the state coopts key institutions to gain increasing power over its subjects, see Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Banking, Nation States and International Politics: A Sociological Reconstruction of the Present Economic Order, pp. 62-66.) For example, a main purpose of the Domesday Book, an English land survey in 1086, “was to determine who held what and what taxes” were owed. And as noted in the fascinating study by Mayer & Pemberton, A Short History of Land Registration in England and Wales:

The Romans introduced a form of land registration to England and Wales [, to form] the basis of a land tax called tributum soli.

Similarly the Anglo-Saxons had a land tax (Danegeld), which would have required details of land ownership. The culmination of this system was the Domesday Book (1086)—an unique and almost complete survey of landowners, at least at manorial level, it is the crowning achievement of the administrative system of Anglo-Saxon England.

… According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, William the Conqueror “by his foresight … surveyed so carefully that there was not a hide of land in England of which he did not know who held it and how much it was worth”.

The Domesday Book was just about the last land register in this country for taxation purposes.
So, yes, there would be private land title records services in a free market, just like there would be private roads, even though today’s state has arrogated to itself the monopoly right to provide these services. For movable property (personalty), other evidentiary and procedural rules would develop as to how to prove ownership–such as the maxim “possession is nine-tenths of the law“.

So, in a private order society we would have claims to scarce resources such as land proved by records filed with private record-keeping agencies. When someone buys property they hire experts (lawyers, title companies) to examine the records to verify that the putative owner has good title; and they would probably purchase title insurance to compensate them if some defect in title showed up. The point is: for every scarce resource that matters, that is valuable to actors and potentially contestable, owners would have an interest in having a way to prove their ownership in the event of such a contest. For every such resource, whether movable or immovable, there would be a way to determine the owner. And in a libertarian society, that rule would be based on the idea of Lockean homesteading and contractual title transfer. (See my What Libertarianism Is.) This means that the person who is the first (or earlier) owner, or someone who can trace their title to such a person, “wins” in a contest over a “latecomer.”

Under current law, ownership of real (immovable) property is proved by records kept by government offices. Of course, in a private society this function would be handled abused by private agencies.

Fixed that for you.

This is a classic example of the failure of Hoppe. The state will abuse people but private industry won't? Come on people at least the state is accountable to election and re-election. Throw the fat bastards out.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

I always support the position of Ron Paul and Ludwig von Mises because I have done my homework and understand their positions. This is, after all, Ron Paul forums.

Clearly you either don't understand or are purposefully obfuscating the truth.

Which is it?

 

[archangel689]

I must prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that only the state can provide these services, eh?

Yes. Organized society existed before coercive governing bodies did, otherwise how would they organize well enough to form a coercive governing body? Prove why a state was necessary.

Just like a shoe store provides shoes, the state provides law, and government, which protects property.

Rights are not granted: permission is. And governments cannot
protect rights while at the same time violating rights. That's like
destroying a village to save it.

Property exists because scarcity exists, it does not exist by fiat.

 

[Travlyr]

Yes. Organized society existed before coercive governing bodies did, otherwise how would they organize well enough to form a coercive governing body? Prove why a state was necessary.



Rights are not granted: permission is. And governments cannot
protect rights while at the same time violating rights. That's like
destroying a village to save it.

Property exists because scarcity exists, not because the state exists.

I never claimed that rights are granted. I argued that the state exists to protect property, liberty, and peace just like Mises explains. If you are a student of the Mises Institute then why are you arguing against Mises?

 

[Travlyr]

Clearly you either don't understand or are purposefully obfuscating the truth.

Which is it?

Neither. I fully support Mises.

"Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism. The liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat of force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace." - Ludwig von Mises

Why don't you?

 

[Travlyr]

And governments cannot
protect rights while at the same time violating rights. That's like
destroying a village to save it.

False argument. "And shoe stores cannot protect shoe wearers while at the same time violate shoe wearers." Either one is barefoot or not. False argument.

Mises understood the "necessary good" of the state. A legitimate state is not offensive... it is defensive. Why don't you understand it?

 

[archangel689]

Under current law, ownership of real (immovable) property is proved by records kept by government offices. Of course, in a private society this function would be handled abused by private agencies.

As opposed to gigantic coercive monopolies, aka governments? Now I doubt that you want monopolies in the business sector, so why the fuck do you want monopolies ruling over you? Be consistent. Either you don't want monopolies ruling over you, or you want monopolies in business. Be fucking consistent.

This is a classic example of the failure of Hoppe. The state will abuse people but private industry won't?

No, that's your assertion. Society existed before the state, ergo you must show where all the wonders of statism have been kept.

Come on people at least the state is accountable to election and re-election. Throw the fat bastards out.

Elections don't do a fucking thing! Do they get rid of the government itself? NO! They just bring in new assclowns. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

 

[archangel689]

False argument. "And shoe stores cannot protect shoe wearers while at the same time violate shoe wearers." Either one is barefoot or not. False argument.

Only if you like false analogies.

 

[archangel689]

Why don't you?

What? Equivocate? Nope, that fallacy is yours.

 

[Travlyr]

As opposed to gigantic coercive monopolies, aka governments? Now I doubt that you want monopolies in the business sector, so why the fuck do you want monopolies ruling over you? Be consistent. Either you don't want monopolies ruling over you, or you want monopolies in business. Be fucking consistent.



No, that's your assertion. Society existed before the state, ergo you must show where all the wonders of statism have been kept.


Elections don't do a fucking thing! Do they get rid of the government itself? NO! They just bring in new assclowns. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

This is where I ask you folks to grow up. Grow some balls.

I am consistent because I read Ron Paul years ago. The monopoly to get rid of is "monopoly money" End The Fed.

Mises said,

"Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism. The liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat of force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace." - Ludwig von Mises

Mises was smarter than you and me. He understood the proper role of government. He understood that a legitimate state would protect your rights rather than roll over them like a steam roller. It is time for you to understand it too.