Jim,

You certainly know how to put words in someone’s mouth!

As I have consistently said on this site, while I despise the term anarcho-capitalism — BOTH words being counterproductive in a world in which anarchy is associated with chaos (think New Orleans) and capitalism with corporatism (think Halliburton) — I embrace the notion that government should limit itself to the protection of life, liberty, and property and that the state is not only not necessary for this purpose but is inimical to it.

I do NOT owe “our American forefathers respect and thanks,” nor do I believe in constitutionalism, agreeing with Lysander Spooner in this matter (“No Treason”) that one has no obligation to abide by a document to which one has not given consent.

As for “hands-off” morality, I believe in no such thing beyond the non-aggression principle that is central to libertarian thought. Respecting the rights of others to their life, liberty, and property, is a very hands-on morality insofar as the social enterprise in general depends on its constant application.

As for the state — which is not synonymous with government but is mere a form thereof — because it is founded on aggression (see Franz Openheimer’s “The State”), it is fundamentally immoral, and whatever good it does for one or another group, it does far more harm to the remainder of society.

Nor is the American state — which was founded in conquest and subjugation — in any way an exception, especially now that it has metastasized into a welfare-warfare colossus bent on world domination.

David White – We owe thanks to a great many people: mathematicians, businesspeople, statesmen, (hopefully) good parents, etc. many of whom did not reap the benefits of their work. Newton said he could see farther because he stood on the shoulders of Giants. Mises.org is a non-profit as well … What gives?

We disagree as to the sphere of proper government action. Shared morality is broader than the non-aggression principle, as easily demonstrated by the list of “hard cases” already given. The Federal government (being a centralized authority) has no business legislating the kind of morality desired by Pat Robertson, but smaller state governments (or towns and cities) should and do.

It sounds like Lysander’s ideology presumes an alternative universe: one cannot simply imagine away the problems of commons or of inherited benefits (and costs). Example: what about a land-owner that becomes surrounded by other owners? How does “pure individualism” handle that case if the surrounding landowners should forcibly defend their property? Can landowners surround an individual and prevent him from crossing their land so he dies? Can people refuse to sell food to minorities? Really, a functional legal system makes many determinations that “violate” libertarian property principles – but they do so in the name and purpose of protecting the individual.

All surviving social structures are “founded on aggression” meaning that to prevail, they must exercise violence to protect their lives, liberty, and property. America was founded not ONLY on conquest and subjugation, but also by the principles of her Constitution. There’s no reason to believe in only one side, irrespective of our current (and unfortunate) large government.

Jim,

So what, Mises.org is a non-profit organization? What exactly is your point? That we should bow down and worship the government for not stealing all of our money, for allowing some institutions (with specific organizations) to go untaxed?

Shared morality is broader than the non-aggression principle, yes. The non-aggression principle, as noted, however, is a principle of political ethics, of law: what should be prohibited by force. There are many things that may be immoral — incest, adultery, disrespectfulness, arrogance, hatred, lust, gluttony, sloth, worshipping of false idols — but that are not, or should not be prohibited by law (that is, that shouldn’t be prevented by coercive force, that we’re not justified in preventing by coercive force). Regarding these things, I’d note that Hoppe’s conception of community covenants allows people to voluntarily segregate into relatively homogenous groups with shared moralities, thus allowing for alignment and order within a community.

As for the problem of the commons, this is a problem created by State intervention, when private property (homesteading) is not allowed. This ties into a bunch of silly fallacies by mainstream economists about externalities, all of which are refuted by Rothbard and Block.

Your example of new homesteaders homesteading around an existing property owner, and preventing him from getting off of his property, is quite ridiculous. This property owner would already have homesteaded an easement to get off his property, and no homesteading of of property around him could alter that. Title insurance could also deal with such a thing.

As for refusing to sell a good to a minority, yes, that is the right of a private property owner. Any transgression of that constitutes a violation of natural law. This is no different than throwing a party in one’s house, and refusing to allow minorities in. It is the right of the property owner to do such, and the minority’s rights were not in any way violated. Of course, someone refusing to sell a good to a minority is passing up a profit opportunity, and leaves that open to his competitors; namely, he incurs a natural cost of such behaviour. It is ridiculous to assume that on the free market, no-one would be willing to sell anything to minorities; extremely ridiculous, if you consider that minorities can also open up stores.

Also, you haven’t provided one iota of an argument against Spooner’s No Treason. He thoroughly demolishes any arguments for the legitimacy of the US Constitution.

“parents homestead custodial rights” !!!

It never fails to amaze me, the kind of fanciful abstractions you folks advance. Ownership does not apply to children, nor does endangerment or abandonment alter its criminality by notifying the neighbors, for pete’s sake.

Fransisco:

By the end of your first paragraph you had me convinced that you were saying that evolution is an “assumption”. And i thought that you put up a pretty good argument on that front. i was quite prepared to agree with you that the existence of gravity does nothing to provide evidence of evolution.

So i was surprised when your second paragraph began with the contrary assertion that evolution is an observable fact.

I am always curious when someone holds that evolution is a fact; do they believe this because they believe the fossil record substantiates it, or despite the fact that it does not. Is it not important what the paleontologists and geologists have to say about the lack of evidence for evolution in the fossil record? I would think it should have caused quite a stir by now. In fact it remains one of the best kept secrets of “science” of all time, and understandably so. (In case anyone reading assumes that the fossil record confirms evolution i have a news flash: it does not.)

Really, I think Darwin has been the physical science’s answer to Keynes. Well marketed and powerfully promoted ideas, strongly held by the masses to have sound merit, and only a very small and elite group understand and keep to themselves the magnificent weaknesses of their own theories. And then off to the side there is a small group of dissenters who see through the exaggerations and misrepresentations. What a fun parallel between economics and science, mixed with some cruel irony.

By the way, as it has been said before, this is not the proper forum to discuss evolutionary theory. I will restrain myself from further discussion on the matter.

David – The first point is that you do owe thanks to many people, whether it’s offered or not. The second point is there’s probably no (reality based) way that a universal “non violence” morality will work. Enough examples were given (abandonment of children, forced starvation, land-locked ownership, x-rated materials to kids, drugs or alcohol to children, etc.) to demonstrate it. I think the theory of libertarianism falls down especially hard in the cases of children.

I think your best argument (which you indirectly made) is that a libertarian society will have a shared morality enforced by the right to buy or sell with people with whom you morally agree and you may legally refuse to deal with anyone else. Refusing to prosecute might solve other intractable instances like a 30 yr old man making advances to their 13 yr old star-struck daughter. I’d bet most of the framing fathers (who had an amazing libertarian streak!) would go about threatening (or achieving) the liberation of his soul from his body. Interesting their practical and non-libertarian viewpoint even from a non-violent act …

Franciso – I think you’ve one part backwards and an important part correct. Natural selection is an observable fact (the fittest / most adaptable survive). However “the rise of man from muck over 4 billions years” is flat out speculation (and actively contradicted by fossil evidence) not even worthy of the word “theory”. The facts are in opposition to the theory. NO interspecies transfer, NO intermediate forms, NO measurement, Specified Complexity, General trend toward extinction, etc. etc.

Forensic science, oil exploration science — all those are based on things we can measure right now, things we have measured recently, things that can be verified, and on facts we can observe to be true. Since when have scientists got 4 billion year old measurements of the “speed of light” or any other data necessary? Frankly, evolution borders on the absurd to be taught in science class.

But your other comment is really on target. “One cannot start to KNOW things if one does not start from an assumption.” And that’s exactly what Christianity says… you can’t get to God without first believing he exists and he rewards those who seek him. Seeing that Creationism is a “competitor” of sorts with evolution, it’s ironic that it isn’t given the same respect with regards to the necessary assumptive starting point of knowledge, and unfortunate that Christianity is seen as “religion” while evolution is seen as “science”. They are both religion …

“I am not aware…”

And you are not alone in your unawareness. As i said, it’s a trade secret amongst the paleontologists. At any rate: Niles Eldridge and Stephen Jay Gould. Now you are aware, although I have heard it is hardest to wake a man who is only feigning sleep. And now i will desist as well.

David – Unless I’m mistaken, this is the first time you’ve tied “thanks” to taxes. No doubt we share common ground in taxes.

I believe we agree that property rights and “initiating aggression” are not the only legitimate moral boundry able to be prescribed by law (or “covenant”) — unless you want to do severe damange to the definition of aggression.

As far as the rest of the exchange, the idea that people either join into a community and it’s covenants or are forcibly excluded seems dramatically like our present situation, a situation you say is untenable because you personally didn’t sign up for the Constitution or the laws in your town … What gives?

Externalities are not refuted by Rothbard and Block, but both authors correctly point out the absurdity to which the statists have taken the argument. However the same absurdity can be leveled at Rothbard for his views on incest (yes it should be illegal) and other issues.

And Jesus was a pacifist because he is the Son of God sent to earth for a specific reason — contrary to you and I who are fallen men: a dramatic difference. I don’t think you or I believe in pacifism, so I left it alone.

The practical effects of Lysander’s position if you present it correctly (I’ll have to read it) are that we never get off the ground and we have a different government incapable of passing on wealth and a shared morality to succeeding generations and a government incapable of uniting various state governments or for providing for the common defense. This is simply fantasy. I appreciate good libertarian arguments that are practical.

“A representative government is always and ultimately “imposed by force” by the citizenry … that’s why we have a 2nd Amendment.”

I can’t figure out whether that is the smartest or the dumbest thing I have ever read on here.

If you had said only that “A representative government is always and ultimately “imposed by force”, I’d have to agree with you!

But to say that the justification for the 2nd Amendment is to impose representative government by force is simply perverse.

I do happen to agree with you when you assert that the Declaration of Independence was an idealist manifesto.

The Constitution, however, was a good deal less based on idealism, and most of its signers died of old age, snug in their beds. It was completely a product of self-interest – the fact that it supported a modicum of liberty for 70 years or so was simply a coincidence, a matter of the pace of industrial and economic development at the time, rather than some sacred trust.

Jim said,

“You may not acquire nuclear secrets. You may not marry your sister. You may not copulate on the front lawn (unless you happen to live somewhere where you can’t be seen). You must support your children. You cannot distribute X-rated material to minors or entice them to smoke or drink or gamble. ”

You seem to believe that such things are rare under the current system, and that forcible government punishes each instance of such. If you look carefully, the opposite is true. Forcible government does not effectively prohibit or punish such behavior, but rather drive it underground, making it much harder for moral or legal force to act upon it.

David J –

If a “covenant” could be used by force to violate (what otherwise would be) an owner’s private property rights – we’re back to where we started. Each state or city has “covenants” (in a matter of speaking) as well. Cities may also sign on to pre-emption of local authority in order to accomplish a broader standard for trade (such as the UCC code).

That fact makes your points moot. It is legitimate to force a parent to pay to feed their children (or garnish wages for child support), or prevent a person from posting x-rated materials in plain view of minors (on their own land even) or some other negative “spiritual” acts which aren’t handled by property rights. And in fact, provision would likely be made for townspeople to amend their charter to include things not yet needed — very much the situation we have now.

That means a trade-off between what a larger government is allowed to do and what towns and cities can do with their political power. But it is not “libertarianism everywhere”… it cannot be. Congrats … we’re about back to reality in which some things are hands off at the Federal level but are open to states.

Externalities are agreed as positive or negative by the majority within limits as proscribed by a common adherence to individual rights, as that is the only practical way of making political decisions in a free country.

I think we can be grateful to Block et. all for pointing out that a lot is workable within the private property paradigm, but to say it’s best to “go pure” is just foolishness. Bottom line for practical reasons, we need to dissolve the Federal Government except for the common defense (and Constitutional “interstate commerce”) and coining money and leave it at that rather than get buried in libertarian fantasies. Mises.org should be contributing to that rather than alienating themselves those conservative brothers that share a lot in common.

(Random thoughts: Never intended to “defend the state” so I’ve no idea what you’re saying about Jesus. As far as being more Christlike, sacrifice for greater evil is not right, only sacrifice for good as a person is led … so universal pacifism is a strange interpretation of Christianity which would spread evil. Not only that, Jesus did what we could not by his sacrifice, we are not called to duplicate Jesus, but to submit to the will of God like Jesus did, but not necessarily in the same way. Sometimes that means aggressive and violent defense of one’s life and property. It certainly did to the early settlers. And yes, I understand that some things are outside the purvue of voting … that’s the reason for “individual rights”.

Jim B says;

“”such things” are made rarer by raising the price of doing them which reduces the activity. That’s straight economics.”

Is THAT why the Drug War is so successful?

David W – I’ve read the texts. I’ve not defended the “moral or intellectual vacuity” of neoconservatism, nor have I “apologized for the state in the name of God”. I think you are uncivilly liberal in your assumptions.

Men survive by aggression. That’s why Spain, France and Britain attempted to colonize and conquer the new world — to do otherwise would invite a huge imbalance of power. I’d like a more libertarian society (well circumscribed and limited powers of the government), but “libertarianism” isn’t the way to get it.

It’s a fantasy (in practice) to believe “there’s no allegiance at all of yourself to the Constitution” unless you’ve the violent power to make your own country (and given that it would take aggressive violence on your own part against people who are not responsible for your plight, how does that work, anyway?)

But that attitude is ludricrous on another level — as if “history started when you were born”. i.e. you are a completely autonomous person who has the right to discard all relations to society once you come of age and can survive “purely by libertarian trade” and further stridently demands that it be so. But it can’t be so. Interactions between men are ultimately governed by the use of force. Decentralizing power doesn’t mean justice, it means a Darwinian struggle whereby naturally stronger and politically connected people dominate others … diametrically opposed to the libertarian fantasy. The transition will cause far less freedom, not more.

Libertarianism share that in common with the left wing. What socialism really is, is denied by socialists. What libertarianism is, is denied by libertarians by definition. But the species call “libertarianism” cannot exist in real life because it is contradictory — not necessarily theoretically, but because it is unachievable by any known method even if the fantasy that men were born “in a state of nature” with their own private property intact.

Frankly libertarianism is only good for a benchmark.

Jim,

SOME men “survive by aggression,” but not all and not even most. On the contrary, a relative few survive my what Oppenheimer called “the political means” — i.e., by theft of that which the vast majority creates by “the economic means” — i.e., work. That the political means has trumped the economic means via an aggressor otherwise known as the state is the very history of the world, and your apology for its actions, as a fundamentalist Christian, is what gives you the moral and intellectual vacuity of the statist neocon that you are.

You’d “like a more libertarian society” but believe that it can’t be achieved without aggression? Seems to me that Gandhi used non-aggression to shame his country’s aggressor into packing up and leaving, having taken the advice of an American libertarian by the name of Henry David Thoreau. And of course there’s Jesus, who seems to have gotten his message across rather well without resorting to the use of force. (Tell me again why it is you worship the guy?)

Then of course you resort to your stock in trade — putting words in my mouth — this time by saying that I belive “history started when [I was] born,” to which I reply by quoting Mises (whom you might want to read sometime, rather than continuing, so rudely, to display your profound ignorance of his ideas):

“Society is concerted action, cooperation…the outcome of conscious and purposeful behavior. … Individual man is born into a socially organized environment. In this sense alone we may accept the saying that society is—logically and historically — antecedent to the individual. In every other sense this dictum is either empty or nonsensical. The individual lives and acts within society. But society is nothing but the combination of individuals for cooperative effort.”

Because you believe, in blatant contradiction of your religious beliefs, not in survival by cooperation but in survival by aggression, you are no better than the murderous “Christian” who presently resides in the White House. By what particular form of aggression you yourself survive, I don’t know, but I can tell you one thing: try surviving by aggressing against me, and your ass will be grass.

“A community covenant, as Hoppe discusses it, would have to be completely voluntarily assented to on the part of all whom it binds.”

As I’ve said previously, Hoppe is irrelevant. I do not share Jim’s view, and I have long advanced the notion that government is unable to govern much of anything except their own bureaucracy and its economic hostage contractors. Four out of ten U.S. jobs and miscellaneous household income is disbursed by government, Federal + state + local, so they control a plurality of voters.

Liberty as a benchmark is an extremely dour outlook. But I can see why Jim thinks that state force is a certainty for the future.

I say Hoppe is irrelevant because the question is liberty for our children, who cannot be bound by any covenant entered into by their parents. It is a specific human right to repudiate covenants for cause, and the causes are always numerous. It can be as simple as changing your mind. That’s the meaning of equity jurisdiction, as opposed to common law.

Wolf,

I disagree. Certainly, there are some ways in which covenants cannot bind children. However, there are others in which they can.

An example of a way in which a covenant can’t bind a child would be a covenant for something like molesting children. This couldn’t be binding because it involves initiating aggression against the child.

Other covenant clauses — in-so-far as parents normally can, within their parental rights, restrict/direct the behaviour of their children — could be binding on children, through their parents. E.g., dress codes, rules of behaviour, rules on when there is not to be lots of noise, and so-on and so-forth.

When the child gets older, there’s a very clear decision within a covenant, as there is for every child when living with his or her parents: either obey the rules of the house, or leave. This is because the house belongs to the parents, and the child has to obey whatever rules are established, provided they do not involve the initiation of aggression.

Jim is worried that non-agression equals pacificism. I refuted that notion conclusively here; http://www.libertyguys.org/articles/detail.asp?ArtID=973
Non-aggression does not equal pacifism. Self-defense is always permissible and is in no way the same as aggression. I do not accept the need to aggress to secure my rights. I support anyone who defends his own life or property, just as I understand that a pacificist is perfectly within his rights not to do so, or to pay others to do so, or to rely on the moral approbation of others vs perpetrators of violence.

Vince – Context tells pretty clearly what is meant by the term nonaggression. I understand the difference between “initiatory aggression” versus “self defense”. The problem is what IS “initiatory aggression”. Is amassing troops on a border? Is forcible expansion of Marxist doctrine (Korean and Vietnam War)? Are three thugs surrounding you initiatory aggression so that you are justified in taking one out pre-emptively (perhaps with appropriate warning to back off)?

I don’t see libertarians handling those tough practical questions. The world would certainly be better in some ways if the U.S. pulls back and simply work to promote freedom and markets, but it could turn out the opposite of what libertarians assert. There are times when intervention is required (allowing nukes in the hands of terrorists is certainly one)… That doesn’t fit the libertarian paradigm either.

. It’s interesting the libertarian arguments parallel that of materialism: private property is the sum total of legitimate actionable force, contrary to the fact that man is indeed a spiritual being …

Jim,

I said private property, material AND moral. That should take care of the ‘spiritual’ part. By the way, that spiritual part is exactly the one you don’t really believe that exist. If you did, you would never use violence against a pacific being, because, say, you think his/her sexual conduct is ‘inmoral’. You think people have souls as long as their souls fit your blueprint for ‘morality’.
You are simply advocating the flavour of tyranny you like. Mr Bush’s and co. in this case.

You may ‘accuse’ libertarians of belonging to the leftist camp. It’s exceedingly funny and shows that your understanding of the system is, at best, incomplete.

George – uh yeah … White is black and black is white: nice try. Seduction of underage kids IS immoral and that’s not just “an opinion” it’s necessary for a free and successful society, and so is the traditional view of marriage. I don’t think you’d got Hayek (following his argument over evolution of traditions having imbedded knowledge) to jump on board the massive thrust to change the traditions of the U.S. by the left using “libertarian” arguments. But maybe I’m wrong.

Whether those views are right or wrong it is the case that a good deal of critical and necessary issues aren’t solved by the libertarian paradigm. And what we did have in Constitutional government was not only practical, it was implementable and hugely successful. The whole idea of “covenants” etc. are not useful: we would have a practical implementation of that system already if we returned to Constitutional government.

Vince – Lucky for you a lot of other people don’t believe that. Mobilization is a threat recognized by every nation-state. A free people can, at any time (contrary to the draft), volunteer to liberate any other country from whatever species of dictatorship tyranny they live under as their government has no moral right to rule (not deriving their rule from the consent of the citizenry). That is why we have the right to invade some “sovereign countries” — not that we should or that the reasons that we have were right — but the arguments about hands-off are nonsense. Governments do not own a country, the people do as individuals and collectively. Yes, I do understand that there’s a big contingent (always has been) in our government of “let’s take over the world” and do it with the lives of our children.

jim sez;

“Yes, I do understand that there’s a big contingent (always has been) in our government of “let’s take over the world” and do it with the lives of our children.”

But don’t you see, Jim – that’s ALWAYS true.

“Mobilization”, whatever that means, while it should certainly get one’s attention if it is occurring, is not the same as aggression, and is instead usually used to provoke an aggression. If we listen to you, we will be constantly at war. On second thought, that’s pretty much been our M.O.

Admiral Yamamoto’s quote reflects the truth of the matter – no nation has the ability to successfully invade the continental U.S., at least not militarily (see our porus southern border for an economic example). So what are you so worried about? Let them mass – they will be annihilated the second they cross the border. There is nothing aggressive about that.

Don’t be ridiculous. “It’s a matter of when not if that[sic] it mutates and will be able to spread human to human”. Why is that mutation any more likely than one that renders it completely harmless? (Even assuming it’s actually harmful now. Recent reports say it’s far more widespread than previously believed, and barely affects most people). Do you think it’s a sentient being, deliberately “mutating” itself with malicious intent?

Spending billions of dollars to “deal” with something that affects a few dozen people on the other side of the world and is probably harmless anyway is flat out insane!

Peter,

That was out of the blue. Where did you dig that up from? Anyways you do realize that i was quoting someone else who indicated: “I [he] am [is] not aware”. I was responding to his assertion that all reputable paleontologists and geologists believe there is some evidence of an evolutionary process in the fossil record. Niles Eldridge and Stephen Jay Gould have indicated over and over that there is absolutely no such evidence. (Not that the lack of evidence ever shook their faith in evolution). That’s the big secret.

Thanks Peter,

The entire motivation behind punc-eq. was that Gould and Eldridge were extremely dissatisfied with the fossil record. They stood up and stated what the profession all knew: the evidence didn’t support Darwin’s model of gradual evolution, which is, incidentally what most people outside of the profession think of as evolution.

I did look at your link and thought this comment from Gould was a reflection of the evolutionists’ methodology: “And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.” This is what intrigues me about the evolutionary “scientists”. Biologists, chemists, and physicists, all tend to rely on empirical scientific evidence to back up their conclusions about what is likely to be true. Especially if they are suggesting that their conclusions are fact. In contrast, those promoting evolution are content to call their faith “science” drawing their conclusions as “fact” first, while the evidence lies “yet to be discovered”.

I don’t object to people having faith in evolution. One day, maybe they will actually demonstrate it to be true scientifically. In the meantime, it will continue to bother me that they get away with calling it science. But then the establishment calls Keynesianism economics, so why should one more absurdity be that perturbing?