The government of Athens was not as wise, efficient, or free as Pericles boasted, writes Eric Phillips. The Athenians ruled over the Delian League which was in theory an alliance but in practice an Athenian-led Empire. US foreign policy is in a similar state, marked by nation-building, foreign intervention, preemptive war, and global government, Washington has created its own Delian League throughout the world. Instead of Sicily we have Iraq. FULL ARTICLE
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/5038/athens-and-the-us-the-decline-and-fall/
Athens and the US: The Decline and Fall
Previous post: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Myth?
Next post: Libertarianism (the real thing) Reborn
{ 87 comments }
← Previous Comments
Peter, I gave my reasons for the legitimacy of the state. Read my posts above. So far, not one ‘Narchist has offered any response except childish insults.
Democracy, when restrained on such limits that preserves the most basic rights of individuals, the right to free expression, the right to decide about his own lives(basic property rights).
The definition of democracy is rule by popular vote; that means it doesn’t respect property rights. That’s precisely the supposed difference between a “democracy” and a “republic”.
On democracy, I think it rests some possibility to fight against the government, when the opposition isn´t totally criminalized. But on tirany, how to fight against absolute power?
How do you fight government when government is “the majority”? In the case of a tyranny, there’s just one or two people to capture/kill (or just wait until they die). AFAIK, no democracy has ever been overthrown from within. On the other hand, no tyranny has ever survived long.
But even when the majority don´t respect this rights, the minority have the right to organize and fight for their rights.
Depends what you mean by “right”. Of course everybody has this right, in the absolute sense, but what most people mean by “rights” are rights that the government respects (and often things that aren’t rights, that the government says are). And no government, democratic or otherwise, ever respects the rights of anybody to “fight for their rights” against that same government (“freedom fighters” are people who fight other governments; “terrorists” are people who fight this government). Unless by “fight” you mean “lobby politicians”.
“Liberalism is therefore far from disputing the necessity of a machinery of state, a system of law, and a government. It is a grave misunderstanding to associate it in any way with the idea of anarchism.”
Well, Mises was wrong; everybody makes mistakes.
Apparently, none of you even understand ‘Narcho theory. So I’ll help you out. The reason you believe the state is illegit is that you believe the right to private property is an absolute right. Nothing and no one has the right to violate private property. The state is illegit, in your minds, because it does just that. Therefore, everything the state does is either theft, extortion or murder.
The reason I can’t go along with you is I believe, building on natural law theory developed over centuries, that the right to survival trumps the right to property, so the right to property is not absolute. In fact, the right to property is built upon the right to survival. Since people also have the right of association and contract, they have the right to form institutions to protect their property rights. Throughout history, people have called those institutions the state, or government. But human beings are contrary people and you can never get all of the members of any group to agree on everything. That flaw in human nature led to the free rider problem, which threatened the survival of the people who formed the state. As I said, the right to survival trumps property rights, so the majority, in order to protect themselves, have the right to take the property of others in the form of taxation in order to support the state. The rules of the state apply to everyone, even the employees of the state, so everyone is treated equally.
As further support for the right to tax, consider that the private security and prosperity that the state provided was a benefit that all within the boundaries of the state would enjoy. If some members decided to enjoy those benefits without paying for them, that would be theft. I know some of you ‘Narchists will complain that states offer no benefits. But if you will study any of the literature of the New Institutional School of economics, you’ll learn that it does, for only those states that have strong institutions for protecting private property rights enjoy strong economic growth. Free markets are not a major factor in economic development if a nation lacks the state institutions to protect property.
Here’s something for ‘Narchists to consider: You have a few examples of at least semi-’Narchist states in history. You take from these examples the lesson that a ‘Narchist state is a possibility. However, the lesson that you should learn, and that screams for your attention, is that none of those instances lasted very long or spread very far. That means that the whole concept of ‘Narchism has a fatal flaw in it; it’s fragil and can’t withstand the harsh demands of reality. The American Republic has stood for 250 years. That should tell you something. Is it flawed? Of course! The American people have become what Arnold Kling calls folk-Marxists and they’ve elected a bunch of folk-Marxists to office. Individuals are trying to wreck it. Just read the article by Rothbard posted Friday. But instead of burning the whole thing to the ground and test driving a fantasy theory that’s every bit as dangerous as Marxism, I’m willing to work to fix it.
I gave my reasons for the legitimacy of the state.
That is an often used rhetorical tactic, to dare people to prove that something is not or does not exist. However, proper use of logic requires a person to prove positives, not to prove negatives. The legitimacy of the state can be an idea accepted our of pure faith, like you are doing, Roger. You simply state: The state is legit – prove me wrong, and then simply wait for an answer. Well, you will not have an answer, since “legitimacy” is in itself meaningless – it is in the eye of the beholder. What is “legitimate”, anyway? Does it depend on whim or caprice? What does it imply? If 50% + 1 of people believe it is legitimate to kill you, regardless of what you might have done, would you agree? Or do you only consider the State “legitimate” when its actions affect someone else?
What libertarians analyze is not such abstract, vage and meaningless terms as “legitimacy”, but actions and their ethical implications. If a State kills people that have not harmed any one, it does not change the fact that people are dead to call the action “legitimate”. If the State seizes property without just cause, it does not change the fact if called “legitimate”.
If you want to say that a State is legitimate because the people voted it that way, it becomes necessary to ask you to remember what Victor Hugo told Napoleon III: Truths are not subject to people’s whim or vote.
The reason I can’t go along with you is I believe, building on natural law theory developed over centuries, that the right to survival trumps the right to property, so the right to property is not absolute.
Why only the right to property? Why not say that the right of survival trumps somebody else’s right to survival? Again, I think you arrive at those conclusions because you conveniently factor yourself out, thinking you cannot lose your property.
But if you will study any of the literature of the New Institutional School of economics, you’ll learn that it does, for only those states that have strong institutions for protecting private property rights enjoy strong economic growth. Free markets are not a major factor in economic development if a nation lacks the state institutions to protect property.
Amazingly, you do not notice the inconsistency of your argument – one, you state the right to property is trumped by the right of survival. Second, you state that institutions are needed to insure the protection of private property. The problem is, what is logical in one case, is equally logical in the other, and the institution’s survival would trump the people’s private property rights. This means the logical grounds for having the institutions in the first place undermine the cause of protection of private property!
As I said, the right to survival trumps property rights, so the majority, in order to protect themselves, have the right to take the property of others in the form of taxation in order to support the state.
Again, the contradiction: You stated people create institutions to protect private property, so how can violating private property becomes protecting private property? It becomes clear by your contention that people create institutions for the sole purpose of taking property, and not protecting it. How can that be called “legitimate”? You cannot state that institutions require to trump property rights and later state that without institutions there are no property rights! You are contradicting yourself.
So which one is it? Are institutions meant to protect private property? Then they cannot take it, for it would defeat the purpose. Are institutions meant to TAKE private property? Then you cannot say they are protecting it, because clearly they are not.
Yes Peter, I mean “lobby politicians”.
Maybe Americans(I suppose you live on USA) doesn´t have a clear idea about the rest of the world.
You´re blessed, on the start, with great liberty of expression and economy, and I think that the past of your country maybe suggests the idea of decay, and this passage was associated with the discourse of democratism. But its occurs because the solid institutions of your country. So, the only way to be a chief was the “lobby politicians”.
On others parts of the globe, however, government isn´t a solid institution, neither is restrained with several rules. On some countries, people live under the shadow of civil, tribal and religious wars.
Particularly on my country, Brazil, we live under a militar dictatorship during twenty years(1964-1984). It was a “light” dictatorship, compared with the sangrent dictatorship of Argentina, which kills 30.000 human beings. But was a dictatorship, after all.
Now, we live under a democratic-bureaucratized regime. It wasn´t perfect, but now we have the power to openly questioning government and try to change the picture of our nation. It´s important because we have now a change on power, each side of society has access to representative jobs, and we learn to respect the different political views.
So it´s important to value institutions, no matter who occupies the representative job. Here is the great difference between “direct” democracy and representative democracy: the sooner has his value on opinion of majority, and the latter has his value on opinion of majority restrained with the constitutional laws. So, there is a possibility to rewrite the constitution, but only behind a process that was presented on the constitution itself. But it only occurs when we have continuity of the institutions.
The government around the world, non-european and non-us states, aren´t regulated on solid rules. So exists a descontinuous social process, and governmente after government has the impetous to dominate the rest of population and criminalize opposition. It is on this sense that I value democracy. I value property rights, and I believe, like Mises, that democracy is the best way to preserve property rights.
Maybe I should call this regime of Republic, as you´re suggested. But, outside the developed world, the democracy we want, we call the liberal democracy, the representative one, as a good means of live our polical lives.
To finnish my message, I suggest a little book of great economist Mancur Olson, called “Power & Property” which annalizes the economic effects of democracy and autocracy.
That flaw in human nature led to the free rider problem, which threatened the survival of the people who formed the state.
Roger, since you apparently refuse to answer my simple questions on the nature and scope of government that you would find to be acceptable, maybe you will answer this one instead: where in recorded history do you find an example of the founding of a State that was expressly justified on the grounds of dealing with the free rider “problem”? (I am looking for a history of actions, not merely words. Words can often be nothing but propaganda, of course, particularly when one is looking to justify aggression.)
You keep repeating this parable: how a once free and idyllic property-respecting people had banded together in a dues-paying voluntary association, but was overcome with free riders and just had to turn to forcible taxation. For the taxed people’s own good, you see.
Since this scenario happened so often, I am sure you will have no difficulty identifying a couple of dozen examples.
The American Republic has stood for 250 years. That should tell you something.
It lasted, at best, 72 years — from its establishment in 1789 until its destruction from within in 1861. The national government was founded as a voluntary association of states, any one of which had the acknowledged and universally understood right to unilaterally withdraw. New York, Viginia and Rhode Island even expressly reserved the right to secede in their ratification acts, which no one disputed at the time, and which were not even necessary. In a court case concerning Lincoln’s having unconstitutionally suspended habeas corpus, his arrest of tens of thousands of northerners and his incarcerating them without trial in military prisons, Chief Justice Taney wrote: Taney wrote, “the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws; but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found.” Thus was Lincoln’s “special” errors translated into “systemic” problems.
The United States has, since then existed in name, but not in substance. Someone who prattles on so often about “systemic” problems should see that the removal of the foundational “systemic” element of VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION of the States, and replacing it with MANDATORY UNION, enforced by military conquest changed the essential character of the US government. (This change is not, of course, merely a “special” flaw; the enduring threat of military conquest that remained after that one “special” event is the “systemic” change that marked the end of the United States as it was created.)
You stated people create institutions to protect private property, so how can violating private property becomes protecting private property?
Maybe Roger believes that, like that proverbial viliage in Vietnam, the Statists he admires so much had to destroy the right to property in order to save it.
Peter, I gave my reasons for the legitimacy of the state. Read my posts above
I did. You gave to “reasons”. The first was “the state exists”, and the second was some claptrap about “God blessed the state”. Well, murderers and rapists exist too, and “God” is a figment of your fevered imagination, so your “reasons” are utterly meaningless.
So far, not one ‘Narchist has offered any response except childish insults.
I can only imagine that your insistence on typing an apostrophe instead of an “a” is intended as some sort of oblique insult to anarchists.
However, the lesson that you should learn, and that screams for your attention, is that none of those instances lasted very long or spread very far.
Funny. Ireland lasted over 1000 years, and Iceland for about 300, IIUC. No democracy comes close.
The American Republic has stood for 250 years.
Which American Republic? The first one lasted a scant 8 years. The second lasted about 80. The tattered remains, another 70. Today, there’s little sign of a republic: it’s a democracy.
Renato wrote:
Now, we live under a democratic-bureaucratized regime. It wasn´t perfect, but now we have the power to openly questioning government and try to change the picture of our nation. It´s important because we have now a change on power, each side of society has access to representative jobs, and we learn to respect the different political views.
Renato, I sympathize entirely with your reasons for putting your trust in a democratically elected government – we in Mexico just changed from a one party dictatorship to a fully democratic government, and the same way, we initially harboured high hopes that a democratic government would result in noticeable change: less infringement on our freedoms, less expropriation. It has resulted in neither.
The problem stems from the fact that, for example, you, being obviously well educated and aware of the reasons behind your country’s problems, are but only one among millions that either do not know, not care or not understand these reasons, and are willing to vote for the first glorified salesman that talks the talk (demagoguery) and walks the walk (political activism), the same problems we must endure in Mexico. I know I cannot change the system when millions more do not care about freedom the same way I do, but at least I harbour no false hopes about democracy. Truly, I do not know if a dictatorship is worse than a democracy, but I do know one has exactly the same chance of changing things on either – none.
Roger, considering the systemic error – we have a system – democracy.The question is, if we could find some feature of this system, that is particular to democracy and make it ‘fail’.
First there should be a definition what an ‘error’ in such a system is – e.g. we expect the state to treat all people equal, to not favour one over another.
The laws are being passed in our parliaments by a certain number of legislators – people. Is there a systemic tendency for these people to give up trying to be impartial?
Do you know the problem with a law favouring small group at the expense of much bigger group? 5% (e.g. farmers) receiving huge benefits at the expense of the other 95%. Since the cost is spread over the 95% of people, the cost of such law for every individual is very low, while benefits for every individual farmer are very high. Thus, the farmers will try to persuade, bribe etc. legislators to pass such law, while the rest won’t try to oppose it.
This is not a systemic error?
Andy–”Is there a systemic tendency for these people to give up trying to be impartial?” You may be right. Other systemic problems exist in the US Constitution besides the slavery one. The writers weren’t perfect; that’s why we have ammendments. I think the power of the Supreme Court is another one. I definately think the federal government is way out of bounds on many of its laws and actions, but the courts are preventing us from reigning it in.
Renato and Francisco, Thanks for the posts. An international perspective always helps. Francisco, don’t be so discouraged. Only a few years have passed since your new government was formed and most Mexicans are folk-Marxists, like Americans. Change takes time.
George, You’re trying to make a straw man of my arguments so they’re easy for you to defeat. There’s no contradiction. The right to survival does not eliminate private property; it just limits it in a small way. If I may make an appeal to authority, I’ve written nothing but what natural law theorists have written for over five centuries.
Is giving an institution the authority to protect property a contradiction? Not at all. Otherwise, each individual would have that right to do so and would decide when to use it and to what degree. In tribal societies without such institutions, you get blood feuds between families and you get individuals killing another for stealing an apple. People created government and gave it the right to determine and carry out justice in order to prevent those problems. And it has worked well it that regard. Do every citizen have the right to execute someone for stealing their car? No. We ceded that right to the state so that dispassionate people could determine guilt and punishment.
The right to property, behind survival, is the single most important institution of Western civilization. It’s so precious that we cannot leave the protection of it to individuals.
Roger,
The right to property, behind survival, is the single most important institution of Western civilization. It’s so precious that we cannot leave the protection of it to individuals.In tribal societies without such institutions, you get blood feuds between families and you get individuals killing another for stealing an apple.
People created government and gave it the right to determine and carry out justice in order to prevent those problems. And it has worked well it that regard.
Wrong. If you consider whole word except USA, the governments were not created by all people but by force – most governments where monarchies in Europe. They evolved later into democratic governments. Even in the case of USA it is not correct: SOME people created government. And although I’m not proficient in American history, it seems to me that the formation of US government was not even because the farmers where fighting themselves, but as an opposition to Great Britain. Did you check the cases of Ireland and Iceland? They did not have a government, yet the people did not seem to kill themselves regularly for stealing apples…
WE(individuals) cannnot leave the protection to individuals… that looks like the government is made up of extraterestrials…. forming government of people(individuals) would be obviously too dangerous.
Roger M wrote:
Is giving an institution the authority to protect property a contradiction? Not at all.
Roger, it is not the issue of giving authority to the institutions. The contradiction is in your statements that, basically, gives institutions the right to TAKE property, under the justification that institutions protect property. How can you be protecting someone’s property when you’re taking it? It is a contradiction.
Otherwise, each individual would have that right to do so and would decide when to use it and to what degree.
Well, here is the problem: if people create institutions to protect their property, it follows they have the right to protect their property – the institutions being one way to protect it. This means they would be exercising their individual rights when creating the institution (not necessarily a government). What would then be so bad about exercising your rights in other ways, like installing fences and gates, or painting while lines in the ground?
In tribal societies without such institutions, you get blood feuds between families and you get individuals killing another for stealing an apple.
So it is a question of degree? We create institutions to avoid conflicts and feuds due to petty larcenies? Sounds like a slippery slope argument. So are institutions meant to protect people from being killed when stealing apples, or are they meant to protect property?
People created government and gave it the right to determine and carry out justice in order to prevent those problems.
So institutions are NOT meant to protect property, but to dispense justice. You changed strategy at 2 minutes before the end of the game.
And it has worked well it that regard. Do every citizen have the right to execute someone for stealing their car? No.
The implications here are nightmarish. How then would a person stop another from stealing their property? Unless you think institutions are omnipresent – last I checked, it can take police 20 minutes to never to show up, so I do not know how “well” that has worked.
The frightening thing is the actual implication of what you are saying, Roger: institutions are not relly meant to protect property, or to dispense justice – they are meant to restrict a person’s right to defend his or her property. Why, you could ask? Because you are stating clearly that people cannot or should not act to protect their property, but rely on institutions, because (your words) “People created government and gave it the right to determine and carry out justice in order to prevent those problems” (the problems you are refering to is people defending their property as they see fit).
We ceded that right to the state so that dispassionate people could determine guilt and punishment.
It would be interesting to see where these “dispassionate” people are to be found, unless you are talking about superhumans. The risk is that justice is being dispensed by the same passionate and flawed individuals as those that are receiving the justice.
Can’t you have a dictatorship of the people? How come the communists in former East Germany called themselves “German Democratic Republic”? OK, so they lied.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who is mentioned earlier, criticizes Democracy (yet the title on his book reads something like “Democracy, The God that is not a God”, not “the Decadence of Monarchy”). I don’t think he addresses so much the actual political systems of our western countries. He merely questions the ideals that move today’s political actors, and he shows with quite some power how the legitimacy of democracy can be questioned, JUST LIKE that of Monarchy… In doing this he makes a brilliant demonstration that there may be something more interesting than Democracy itself, or Monarchy, worth fighting for. As I understand this, a peaceful anarchy may be the ideal he calls for, but even though I haven’t finished the book, I don’t think he will probably advocate it so clearly. Why is this so important though? If Roger M agrees there’s too much Government, than in a way his ideal is also “libertarian anarchy”, as seen from the outside. If Paul Edwards doesn’t recognize the legitimacy of the Federal taxes, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t pay them…
Sure, as a novice libertarian I found Mises quote on Governement necessity quite a blast of course, and yet I doubt this idea is the most prominent in his or Rothbard’s entire teaching. (If yes, please send other sources!)
I just can’t stand it when someone trots out the old “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. One word describes motivation or goal, the other word describes method. It’s like saying “One man’s architect is another man’s brother”. Perhaps, but that doesn’t really tell us anything.
While I’m not too clear on the history of Ireland (I should be, my great-great-grandfather came to America from there), it was my understanding that Iceland was not a pure anarchist state, with David Friedman stating it would be a 2 on a scale of 0-10 in terms of amount of government or something like that.
The main reason I don’t believe in anarchism is because like everything else, at some point in time government did not exist. Government rose up and I expect that will always be the case where it does not exist. If human beings were not statists there would be no one to work in the government. I believe Madison said something to that effect a long time ago (only referencing angels), and while there were many flaws in the system he helped create, it turned out very well compared to most of the world and it is my belief that other governments would have turned out much worse if not for the example of America.
Since there is only the one centralised authority that Roger M would proclaim as his soverign ruler, the authority to which he would surrender his freedoms, and yet there are myriads of anarchists and libertarians, all of whom are each independently soverign, it would be more practical to have the central authority move. It could make the single command, “move to Somalia” and all its acolytes would have no choice in the matter but to move. They are required to obey, Roger M included.
Of course the libs and anarchists et al would likely as not stay put. Fair enough, as they do not recognise as “legit” the authority of said government and/or its commands. On the other hand Roger M and his comerades are compelled to move as they have agreed to the “social contract” of obediance and acquiesence to govt diktat. Obey slaves, as ye must! Pay tribute to your rulers! Off they would march. By goodness, I’m all in favour of this scenario.
I warn you govt. worshippers though. Do not come anywhere near Oceania or Australia. I’d rather you all went to the bottom of the Atlantic, the Moon, Mars, a straight line to hell even, anywhere but here.
Sione
Roger:
“It’s not part of the system; the system was designed to control it to a limited degree.”
So, you plan on having robots, or emotionless aliens, or angels running your system? Is that how its not part of the system? Because if you want humans running your system, human nature is quite clearly a large part of the system.
This is the problem all statists have. Communists believe that there is nothing wrong with their system, nor do socialists. If only people would follow the rules and policies underlying these systems, they would work fine. Problem is, human nature doesn’t work that way.
Similarly, if politicians would only follow the law and not pander to the LCD, Republicanism could work. Problem is (and once again you’ve completely failed to meet your burden of overcoming this fact) Republicanism has never worked for more than a generation, if that.
“If human beings were not statists there would be no one to work in the government.”
Actually, it is not statism per se that leads to the creation of states. It is gullibility. IIRC, a great american once said you’ll never go broke underestimating the gullibility of the common man. (or essentially that). The state is merely that truth taken to its logical conclusion.
Those people involved with the state don’t ever go broke – they get insanely rich – by telling people that they can give them something for nothing.
That’s why states keep popping back up. Not because people are inherently statist, but because they are inherently gullible. The key is to educate as many as possible about the scam that is the state. Very few people fall for pyramid scams (other than state sponsored ones, like fiat money) anymore, because people understand that the basic scheme is fraudulent. That’s what needs to be done about the state.
Nobody begins as a libertarian and gets swayed by propaganda towards statism. Throughout most of humanity’s evolutionary history we lived in very small bands and knew everyone involved in it personally. Once a certain number is exceeded, usually 50, our understanding breaks down. The market is such a system, and people are not born with an understanding of it. People naturally assume that high prices are caused by the greedy people who run Big Oil, just as children tend to assume a creationist account is the correct one even when raised by atheists. Arnold Kling’s “fold-Marxism” precedes Marx by a very long period of time and both rational ignorance and rational irrationality are going to keep it alive longer than you or I.
Yeah, sure. You have any evidence of people “raised by wolves” who are statist creationists?
Francisco, You’re trying to say that either property rights are absolute, or don’t exist at all. That’s ridiculous! It’s a continuum. We have property rights today under this very imperfect system. A Republic may not permit absolute rights, but that doesn’t mean none exist.
You’re assuming your conclusion when you argue that taxation is theft and therefore destroys property rights. You have to show that the state is illegit and therefore has no right to tax. If the state is a legit institution, it has the right to tax citizens without that being theft. If it didn’t tax those who would be slackers, it would be allowing the slackers to steal from the tax-paying citizens. And it can also protect property rights better than can individual citizens and without the chaos and bloodshed. If you don’t believe it, try living in the Arab world for a while where blood feuds and revenge killings between families have continued for generations.
No one is trying to force ‘Narchos to move to Somalia, but I would think that you would want to move. It’s the closest thing to a ‘Narchist state that exists today and you guys keep belly-aching about how oppressed and miserable you are in the US.
You’re assuming your conclusion when you argue that taxation is theft and therefore destroys property rights. You have to show that the state is illegit and therefore has no right to tax. If the state is a legit institution, it has the right to tax citizens without that being theft. If it didn’t tax those who would be slackers, it would be allowing the slackers to steal from the tax-paying citizens.
You’ve repeated this little ditty a few times now, Roger. It has not grown more persuasive as a result.
As an initial matter, your characterization of the Austrian view of property rights as “absolute” is both inaccurate and misleading. I wonder, for example, how “absolute” your conception of slavery might be. I imagine you are “absolutely” against it. This criticism is meaningless.
Second, even if we accept this idea of “absolutism,” your syllogism is still deeply flawed.
You state the premise quite clearly (if inartfully): “if the state is legit …” [sic].
You then go on to attempt to prove this premise by saying that the state is “legit” because it is necessary to prevent “stealing” by free riders.
How interesting! You are quite the absolutist when it comes to preventing the “stealing” by supposed free riders! This proposition assumes that the property rights of those who provide services that free riders use are ABSOLUTE, and should thus be protected through the application of force! You go so far to say that doing so is a necessity.
And yet, you say that Austrian property rights are in error because they are absolutist. If absolutism of Austrian property rights is a fatal flaw, as you claim that it is, then it is also a fatal flaw for your absolutist anti-free-rider proposition as well.
This is a self-contradiction that disproves your argument.
QED
(As a side note, to say that something is “legit” because it is a necessity is not a form of a logical proof. Necessity is the opposite of legitimacy. By definition, the claim of necessity implies an admission of wrongdoing, but defends the action in question on the grounds of exigency and extremis. Necessity is therefore an excuse, but not a justification.)
George, You’re not reading my posts. I have given my reasons for the legitemacy of the state above. It has to do with the right of survival, not with necessity. None of you ‘Narchos has provided a single reason as to why you think the state is illegit. You constantly repeat the idea that taxation is theft, but it can be so only if property rights are absolute and all of society must be organized around them. However, if the right to survival limits property, then the state has the right to tax citizens without it being theft. I only repeat myself because you keep using the same formula: taxation theft. Stop writing that and I’ll quit writing that you have to prove the state is not legit before you can say taxation is theft.
I got the idea that ‘Narchos think property rights are absolute from Rothbard and Hoppe, but it’s also obvious by the way you guys think in your posts.
Concerning the issue of survival. Ask yourselves why no ‘Narcho state exists today. I’ll grant that some have existed in the past. Why did they die? They must lack some aspect to ensure their survival. When they come up against monarchies, empires, communist states they lose. Is it possible that making property absolute weakens the ability to resist such invading powers?
Francisco, You’re trying to say that either property rights are absolute, or don’t exist at all. That’s ridiculous! It’s a continuum. We have property rights today under this very imperfect system. A Republic may not permit absolute rights, but that doesn’t mean none exist.
I am not assuming anything. I am merely indicating the contradiction in your statements, that Institutions are meant to protect property, and that institutions need to take property. How can you be protecting someone’s property by TAKING it? Has nothing to do with the absolutism of private property rights.
You’re assuming your conclusion when you argue that taxation is theft and therefore destroys property rights.
I am not assuming anything, again. It is simply that “protecting” and “taking” are not inclusive terms. This is the basis for the contradiction in your statements, which until now you have been trying to avoid.
You have to show that the state is illegit and therefore has no right to tax. If the state is a legit institution, it has the right to tax citizens without that being theft.
Roger, it has become an irrelevant issue whether the state is deemed legitimate or not – that becomes a matter of opinion since it is a value judgement. The problem is that you are trying to solve the contradiction by stating that the State is legitimate. But this becomes a non sequitur because the term is meaningless if we take into account actions: either you are protecting someone’s property, or you are taking it – you cannot be doing both. It does not matter if someone sees the action as “legitimate”. I may see them as “blue” or as “corny” or as “pointy”, and it would still be the same action of taking.
If it didn’t tax those who would be slackers, it would be allowing the slackers to steal from the tax-paying citizens.
I don’t see how can one follow the other. If the State is protecting someone’s property, why would it matter if some people are NOT paying to have their property protected? The State could simply stop protecting the property of slackers, if the intention of the State is to merely protect property. Saying that slackers are “stealing” from tax payers seems like stretching logic to an unbelievable level: if slackers are not paying, would not the tax payers give enough income to the State to have THEIR property protected? Tax payers would not have to worry about non-paying “slackers” if the State is effective. On the other hand, not having to protect the “slackers’” property, would not stretch the State’s resources. As a result of this logical analysis, I do not see what is your problem with slackers.
And it can also protect property rights better than can individual citizens and without the chaos and bloodshed.
Roger, the problem is that by the use of the word “better”, you are making a judgement in value which is nothing more than opinion. You cannot say you know something is better in absolute terms, since VALUE IS SUBJECTIVE – it is in the eye of the beholder. As for individuals having to rely on bloodshed to protect their property, I do not see how can this be so unless humans suddendly stopped behaving in a rational way. Even in far, remote areas, people AVOID conflict as much as possible, not seek it at first opportunity. Animals do the same, they tend to avoid crippling conflict whenever possible, and last I saw, humans are still part of the animal kingdom.
If you don’t believe it, try living in the Arab world for a while where blood feuds and revenge killings between families have continued for generations.
Some of my ancestors were Palestinian Christians, and they are no more or less bloodthirsty than everybody else. I believe your statement is prejudiced and not well informed.
Roger, you asserted, “If [the state] didn’t tax those who would be slackers [i.e., free riders], it would be allowing the slackers to steal from the tax-paying citizens.”
Can I take it from your response that you withdraw this allegation?
I understand that you also allege that the free riders present some sort of threat to the very survival of the other tax-payers. But you tried to sneak this “stealing” argument in there, too.
I believe I demonstrated that, as a matter of simple logic, you cannot accuse the free-riders of “stealing” while simultaneously exonerating the statists for their “stealing.” How could you treat the statists’ property rights as absolute, when you say that the free-riders’ rights are not? You would be hard-pressed to argue that preventing theft is a justification for theft.
If you want to withdraw this “stealing” argument and stick to “survival” as your sole justification, just say so.
Roger M., way back there you say, “The burden of proof lies with the ‘narchos.”
Why?
I am not asserting an entitlement to your wealth, your property, your life. I am not telling you what, with who or where you may interact. I am not declaring you to have obligations and associations you have not chosen freely.
It is you who are making these claims, you who are telling others how they must live.
It is you who is asserting authority over others who want only to be left alone.
Since you are the aggressing party, it is only logical that you explain your authority to do so.
I can think of three sources for that authority, if you want some help:
God said you could.
You have the might to extract tribute by naked force.
The mob says you can, and backs you up with naked force. Which is really just a variation on #2 anyway.
Which one of these is you, or do you want to assert something new?
Curt, apparently Roger’s justifications for the state consist of some combination of “God says so” (“Eventually, God sanctified these arrangements as being in accordance with His will in the Bible.”) and several versions of “If we don’t take your property, then everybody’s gonna die.”
He also argued, “We’re taking your money by force so that you don’t steal from us.” I have yet to hear back as to whether Roger wants to stand by this patently self-contradictory argument.
“You would be hard-pressed to argue that preventing theft is a justification for theft.” LOL! Yes. But it seems hard-pressed is a condition in great abundance out there in the world.
Peter, I don’t know much about children raised by wolves. Do they, unlike most kids, accept the libertarian and darwinian view of the world?
Roger, we all support the view that people create organizations to protect their property, but there is nothing about these institutions that justifies coercion, force, and violence. At all. In a free country nothing would prevent you from buying (or creating your own) insurance for your property. You would pay and get protection, but no slacker would.
I don’t quite see where you make the jump from protection in exchange for some payment (i.e. insurance), to a monopolist, absolute centralized violent agency as the State.
Peter, I don’t know much about children raised by wolves. Do they, unlike most kids, accept the libertarian and darwinian view of the world?
I don’t know what kids raised by wolves believe, never having met one; and I doubt they’d all believe the same things, anyway. (But I’d expect them to be fairly libertarian, yes!) My point was that you don’t know, either. You claimed that certain beliefs (statism, creationism) are “natural”, but you’ve never known anyone who wasn’t heavily influenced virtually from birth by their parents and other people around them, either. Children believe insane things because adults tell them those things are true, and teach them not to think too much about it and not to be “different”, not because there’s anything “natural” about those crazy beliefs.
With regard to the “love it or leave it” debate: there is always the option of Coventry, in which a plot of unused (as of the time of its setup, submarginal) land is politically sequestered from the rest of the nation as a kind of reservation, making the inhabitants of such a compound similar in status to “Indians not taxed.”
The principle governing relations between it and all established levels of government would be: “No Taxes – No Services.” As part of this regime, notice to the United Nations, specifying that any attacks on that particular territory – which are confined to that territory – will not be met with any defensive response except by the territory’s inhabitants themselves, will be presented.
It seems obvious that such a polity would be quite poor at first, capital being a “coward.” But those who wished to live free, could, which would staunch a kind of restiveness amongst anarchists.
[I got this idea from Robert A. Heinlein's novella "Coventry," found in Revolt in 2100. One interesting question left by this scenario is: would such an anarchic reservation wind up paying tribute to the nation's government in exchange for defense-against-external-foes services?]
“No Taxes – No Services.”
That is secession. The right of secession is, of course, implicit in the right of free association.
These rights, even in limited form, have been trampled since at least 1861, when Lincoln invaded.
let’s see how intelligent and civil i can make this.
first, just a correction in some statements made. Hitler was voted in to power in 1933, yes, but he did not gain the complete power through honest elections. Hitler gained elected chancellor of germany through a fake emergency where a fire broke out at the german parliment eventually leading to the granting of unending power to Hitler. from then on, massive amounts of brainwashing (hitler youth), propaganda, and overall traits of a dictatorship (bullying and what not) took place to get the numbers from elections so hitler looked good to the people. really he had complete control.
so what he did wasn’t legal democratically.
i’m sure many of you have read aristotle’s politics. aristotle would say that a large middle class is necessary to keep a democracy fair and just. the tradegy commons is a very valid point, although when you have a large middle class that balances the power of the rich and ‘revolt’ of the poor, everything can be peachy. the US has a large middle class.
the US on a global scale is the upper class. much of africa and south america, for example, is the lower class. but most of the world finds itself somewhere in the middle of these extremes. but world democracy can’t work with the tensions that exist now. and i guess many wouldn’t want world democracy.
just some thoughts.
let’s see how intelligent and civil i can make this.
first, just a correction in some statements made. Hitler was voted in to power in 1933, yes, but he did not gain the complete power through honest elections. Hitler gained elected chancellor of germany through a fake emergency where a fire broke out at the german parliment eventually leading to the granting of unending power to Hitler. from then on, massive amounts of brainwashing (hitler youth), propaganda, and overall traits of a dictatorship (bullying and what not) took place to get the numbers from elections so hitler looked good to the people. really he had complete control.
so what he did wasn’t legal democratically.
i’m sure many of you have read aristotle’s politics. aristotle would say that a large middle class is necessary to keep a democracy fair and just. the tradegy commons is a very valid point, although when you have a large middle class that balances the power of the rich and ‘revolt’ of the poor, everything can be peachy. the US has a large middle class.
the US on a global scale is the upper class. much of africa and south america, for example, is the lower class. but most of the world finds itself somewhere in the middle of these extremes. but world democracy can’t work with the tensions that exist now. and i guess many wouldn’t want world democracy.
just some thoughts.
let’s see how intelligent and civil i can make this.
first, just a correction in some statements made. Hitler was voted in to power in 1933, yes, but he did not gain the complete power through honest elections. Hitler gained elected chancellor of germany through a fake emergency where a fire broke out at the german parliment eventually leading to the granting of unending power to Hitler. from then on, massive amounts of brainwashing (hitler youth), propaganda, and overall traits of a dictatorship (bullying and what not) took place to get the numbers from elections so hitler looked good to the people. really he had complete control.
so what he did wasn’t legal democratically.
i’m sure many of you have read aristotle’s politics. aristotle would say that a large middle class is necessary to keep a democracy fair and just. the tradegy commons is a very valid point, although when you have a large middle class that balances the power of the rich and ‘revolt’ of the poor, everything can be peachy. the US has a large middle class.
the US on a global scale is the upper class. much of africa and south america, for example, is the lower class. but most of the world finds itself somewhere in the middle of these extremes. but world democracy can’t work with the tensions that exist now. and i guess many wouldn’t want world democracy.
just some thoughts.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.