Comments (67)

• Dave Meleney

  Professor Katz:

  I suspect you believe in samaritan rights more than you let on. Sometimes these questions get so far from the real world...Possibly comparable to my tennis coach imploring the 3 principles of a proper backhand stroke without us ever getting on the court to try them out?

  
  If my daughter were dangling helplessly out of a two story window in a house that was fully engulfed with flames, I might have but two minutes to save her. If the only tall ladder nearby is firmly held by Mr.McGrinchy Nonsamaritan Libertarian, what do I do when he says: "No!"?

  
  1)take the ladder
  2)offer him my entire life savings
  3)offer to be his slave for life
  4)say "Goodby" to my daughter, Lisa
  5)bargain elements of 2,3,& 4 but never any of 1
  6)substantial elements of 2 and 3, but then 1 before 4

  
  If you prefer 5 to 6... then be sure to let your fiance know this before marrying her.... and, well, just how fast can she get away from a guy like you? Would you even want your kids to marry someone like yourself?

  
  So where does that leave our "perfectly principled" libertarianism? And don't we actually face choices exactly like those when we wrestle with the politics of:

  1.immigration from countries where many kids die for lack of the cheapest of precautions,
  2.cumpulsory immunization here and abroad, and
  3.letting a billion people rot behind the iron curtain for 3 to 6 decades?

  
  Would it be so bad if we had to rebuild the classic American belief that "initiating force on a friend or stranger is to be avoided at ALMOST any cost, or whenever possible"?

  
  I know, I propose planting our flag on a very slippery slope. But the alternative is planting it atop a mountain of bs... and continuing to try to plant it without the help of my neighbors here in Littleton who are mostly pretty decent and reasonable folk.

  Published: April 20, 2006 2:15 PM

• jeffrey

  I've never found these kinds of scenarios very troubling or otherwise ideologically destabilizing. In this case, you take the ladder if you can and then face the legal repercussions later: i.e., if you steal someone's property (let's say you have a very good reason) then you must be prepared to compensate the owner later in whatever way the (legitimate) law requires. The same goes for looting a cabin for food on a cold night in winter, or whatever other situation you can come up with. The person who tramples on property takes a risk that the owner will later press charges. But let's say that you can't grab the ladder and the owner refuses to give it to you. Let's turn the tables: should you permitted to kill the guy to get his ladder? Is his life worth less than that of the dangling daughter?

  Published: April 20, 2006 2:44 PM

• Paul Edwards

  I'm with Jeffrey. When the courts understand the context, there will most likely be some leniency if possible, in the decision against you, the ladder thief.

  There are a couple other observations i'd like to make. It strikes me it is often the most absurd and unlikely scenarios which people like to contrive to dispute libertarian principles and advance the cause of the state. They use them to attempt to show how aggression and coercion indeed are or can be the higher road and that the benevolent state is qualified to provide altruistic and protective aggression.

  They are forever casting the individual person acting independently as the private tyrant disinterested in reason and intent on inflicting pain on his fellow men. At the same time, they like to overlook the blatantly real and nasty consequences that we live and suffer with (and die from) due to our very failure to uphold and value consistent libertarian justice. They fail to recognize the painful and brutally obvious truth that by far the greater instances of man's inhumanity to man occurs while man is acting inhumanly as an agent of the inherently inhuman state.

  It is really something else to listen to the contradiction that occurs with someone pretending to value human life and dignity and using those very ideas as the pretext to trample on them. Yuk.

  Published: April 20, 2006 3:56 PM

• D. Saul Weiner

  Dave,

  I would also question the wisdom in compulsory immunizations that you referred to.

  There is a growing body of evidence that is showing that many of the vaccines that we are utilizing are causing great harm, possibly far in excess of their alleged benefits. See this article for a good analysis:

  http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller15.html

  Needless to say, the government health agencies have completely dropped the ball on this one.

  This is an excellent example of a situation where we were propagandized into thinking that we should use compulsion in order to be humane, but look where that road has led.

  Published: April 20, 2006 4:20 PM

• averros

  "Samaritan rights" is a kind of newspeak... it should be rather "compulsory Samaritan duties".

  The pure private property system does not preclude taking others property without prior authorization -- one may presume that authorization will be given retroactively, etc. The point is that whoever decides to violate somebody else's rights must be prepared to stand the trial and to compensate the owner in full. A judge may decide that the intent was not malicious and waive the punitive damages, or may not.

  If the owner of the property is present and has spoken against taking it, one can still proceed taking it - and face the same consequences; if the owner is physically resisting, taking the property turns would require violence against the owner, which is a serious crime.

  In any case, the situation where temporary use of somebody's property is needed for saving someone else's life and the owner is against such use is highly hypothetical and unrealistic. First of all, most people are good and would be willing to help even at some cost to themselves. Second, everyone refusing to help would find himself ostracised from the community - which is a very serious, but non-violent, punishment. Just as he had the right not to help, all others have the right not to have any dealings with him, unless bound with pre-existing contracts.

  The "selfish jerk" scenario, essentially, assumes that neighbours are somehow compelled to have business with the jerk - by anti-discrimination laws, the need to share use of a public property, and such. It is a fair assumption under the social-democratic system, but is false under the anarcho-capitalist system.
  

  Published: April 20, 2006 4:45 PM

• Dave Meleney

  Jeff and Paul:

  So you both seem to agree to "borrow" the guys ladder and deal with the consequences later...but neither of you seem to feel that doing so relates to the samaritan argument. If I can take your ladder and then expect that you as a judge would be lenient, perhaps very lenient after the fact... Why can I not expect such an understanding view from you when I want to use taxpayer dollars to fund the George McGovern-Bob Dole International School Lunch Program. Their program saves many more lives per dollar than are saved in the "borrowed" ladder scenario, even under the modest assumption wherein Mr.McGrinchy Nonsamaritan Libertarian charges me a modest $30 for the dang ladder.

  Is it that Indonesian and Bolivian kids don't count as much?

  Is it that you don't see kids dying of starvation and simple disease as in just the emergency situation that my theoretical daughter is in?

  Is it that you fear that if we don't stand foursquare against government predation on principle, we'll never be able to convey how important it is to make government small? And that lives are at stake either way we turn?

  
  McGovern is on tour promoting his book about ending World Hunger, in spite of the fact his wife just had open heart surgery... if he's at a book store near you why not go hear him, he has quite a story to tell.

  D. Saul:

  I didn't mean to suggest that I or anyone else has all the answers to the tough questions of compulsory immunizations, mass immigration, or freeing billions from communism. I happen to be for pretty darn open immigration and pretty darn little compulsory medicine...I bet you are the same on these two.

  What I meant was that:
  1. If you'd "borrow" the ladder you don't seem very sensible to say that "taxation is theft" in the context programs that do save a lot of lives per dollar.
  and
  2. You can get a lot of progress with the resentful taxpayers you meet at the post office on April 15 if you argue that giving the gov all that money is kind of questionable and we ought to be getting the government under some limits...
  and
  3. We need a sales pitch that is more honest and more realistic if we are going to get my neighbors on board and see a libertarian society here in my lifetime.

  Published: April 20, 2006 5:02 PM

• INTJosh

  I agree with averros with regard to naming the rights. Shouldn't it be "Jewish rights", since the Jew was the one who had the "right" to help from the Samaratin? That would stir things up. But also, didn't Jesus say not that the Jew had the right to be saved, but that the Samaratin (and a fortiori, Jews) would do good to help the Jew? Doing good isn't even always a duty, so these "Samaratin rights" are really "Jewish ethical recommendations".

  Published: April 20, 2006 5:10 PM

• Brian Drum

  Dave, you are the only one calling the taking of the ladder 'borrowing'. I think that Jeffrey, Paul, and averros would agree that it is still technically theft and that it would be legitimate for the rightful owner to press charges against the thief. Whether or not he does is of course up to him (in a private law setting), however the important distinction is that it is still theft and the owner still has a right to be compensated.

  The analogy between the ladder scenario and taxation for 'good' purposes does not hold. The two situations are entirely different. As I have already described, in the ladder scenario the owner as a right to recourse, since his rights have been violated. Under a system of taxation this important point is explicitly denied. Under taxation a taxpayer is coerced into delivering his property to the taxpayer. The taxpayer does not have any recognized right to press charges against the thief, i.e the taxman. The property is considered the just property of the taxman. It will be the taxpayer that will be forced at gunpoint to 'donate' to the state. No one considers taxation to be 'borrowing' as in the ladder scenario. In fact it is quite the opposite. The coerced taxpayer, not the taxman, will be considered the criminal if he attempts to resist the taxman.

  Published: April 20, 2006 6:08 PM

• Brian Drum

  Under taxation a taxpayer is coerced into delivering his property to the taxpayer.

  Oops, should read: Under taxation a taxpayer is coerced into delivering his property to the taxman.

  Published: April 20, 2006 6:10 PM

• D Saul Weiner

  One could analyze the ladder situation from the legal standpoint (as above), but I think it is more germane to point out how the 2 scenarios (using ladder and taxing for the common good) are different from an operational standpoint.

  In order to do something good for someone else, there are 2 basic prerequisites. One is that you have the person's best interests at heart. The other is that you know what to do in order to benefit them in some way. If one or both of these conditions does not hold, your actions will not benefit them. In the ladder scenario, both conditions presumably hold. You have your daughter's best interests at heart. You are present and know what needs to be done. In the tax scenario, typically one or both conditions do not hold. The politician or bureaucrat does not really care about your interests (or they are subordinated to some more powerful constiuents' interests). Even if they do have your best interests at heart, chances are high that they do not have the knowledge to do right by you.

  This is why I brought up the vaccination issue. I'm sure the vast majority think that this is the right thing and that it is doing a world of good, thanks to the ceaseless propaganda. Sure, every once in a great while an intervention may be beneficial. But it doesn't make any sense to force an avalanche of compulsions on the chance that a few may pay off.

  Published: April 20, 2006 7:03 PM

• Nelson

  "In order to do something good for someone else, there are 2 basic prerequisites. One is that you have the person's best interests at heart. The other is that you know what to do in order to benefit them in some way."

  Neither of those prerequisites is necessary for one to do good for someone else. Whether or not an action will benefit someone is independant of the reason for the action.

  Published: April 20, 2006 9:38 PM

• D Saul Weiner

  Nelson,

  Technically, I would say that you are correct. But from a practical standpoint, what do you think the odds are that a politician or bureaucrat who does not

  a) care about your interests or

  b) know how to solve the problem that concerns you

  will create rules which will produce outcomes that you will find beneficial?

  I would say pretty low.

  Published: April 20, 2006 10:12 PM

• Joshua Katz

  1-Thanks for the promotion, but I am a student employed as an instructor, not a professor.
  2-I will agree with the original poster that my argument against the existence of these rights is weaker than my argument regarding enforcement of them. I do not have readily at hand an argument that they do not exist - but do not believe in them simply because I also have not been convinced that they do. However, in terms of law and economics, I consider it irrelevant, because, as I wrote in the paper, whether they do exist or not, they are not enforceable. Even in the contrived cases discussed above, they fail as presented by Maloberti. Maloberti would let you steal the ladder only if this presents a small cost to the ladder owner. You, I think, want to go further than Maloberti and steal the ladder even if it is very harmful to the ladder owner. In any event, to answer your question, my answer is to simply reaffirm what I have said before - your distress is not a ticket to aggressing against others. In practice, I would be quite surprised if there was no price at which the ladder could be obtained, but if there isn't, so be it. The ladder owner did not cause the situation which is presented to us, and should not be punished for it. Your argument consists entirely in the expectation that I will sanction an unconscionable act of aggression. I will not. Of course, it is likely in a free society that preexisting arrangements will exist in such a scenario - perhaps all neighbors, knowing that they cannot depend on government assistance, have made a mutual aid arrangement. But I will not assume such as a given.
  3-In response to averros: Maloberti's argument is that the presence of Samaritan rights would imply their enforceability, which gives us precisely compulsory Samaritan rights. Of course a system of private property does not preclude theft - no system can preclude any action. But let's not misunderstand the purpose of the competing courts - that structure exists to deal with deviations from the private property system -that is, misdeeds. It's existence does not imply that it is morally acceptable to steal and pay the consequences later. If that were the case, think how quickly it would ruin the structure of capital markets.

  Published: April 20, 2006 10:40 PM

• Dave Meleney

  Brian and Saul each make some good points...but the situations are not, as Brian says, completely different. In fact, just as you'all would steal the man's ladder... so to would you, under the right conditions, steal a great deal of his money if necessary to get your kid a heart transplant. And as to your willingness to stand trial after the fact... who among you would be willing turn yourself in to the court if you knew that'd mean the death of your kids? In fact rich Americans know very little of the moral dilemmas that face over a billion poor people around the world on a daily basis.

  Now that "gunplay" has been brought out of the closet...the guns that we know must be there if the taxman is to do his job......... is it not fair to consider what levels of force you'all would be willing to employ to get the ladder from the clutching hands of Mr. McGrinchy Nonsamaritan? How satisfying to his widow will be the words that it was an accident and you only wanted his ladder, not his life?

  And don't you all fear that Brian has really left the anarchist fold when he replaces my term "borrowing" for what we all would do to the ladder we need...with his terminology "technically theft"? He claims Jeffrey, Paul, and averros would agree with that terminology...tell me it's not true.

  Saul: Nelson has you on your assertion that to do good for someone, you must intend it before hand. My favorite example is that of Sam Walton who by pushing his suppliers for lower and lower costs caused them to lead the way in transforming a desperately poor China into a country that is now 5 times richer than before. Would that caring liberals could see... that he did what Mother Teresa only dreamed of doing, and who really cares if he did it out of caring or not?

  Are none of you interested in the fact that once your neighbors and relatives understand that you actually consider the President, the dog catcher, and Al Capone to be morally equivalent that they pretty much stop listening? Meanwhile, most of them are very willing to entertain the idea that taxation is often quite a bit like theft.... but when you say "Taxation is theft" and then you drive on public roads and teach at public universities... your explanations get awfully technical and pretty hard to buy.
  

  Published: April 20, 2006 10:42 PM

• Dave Meleney

  Student Instructor Katz:

  You may say that the case of my daughter and the ladder is contrived....but only in the sense that rich Americans seldom face this sort of dilemma short of drastic medical emergencies. So...take the case of your daughter, say her name was Allie..then would you never encourage a tax-funded hospital to spend half a million dollars (which was required beyond what insurance and other assets you could mount)... to save Allie from imponderable difficulties and pain for the rest of her life? Particularly if (as with Maloberti)you could reasonably predict that no single taxpayer would be substantially disadvantaged? If so, do you intend to make sure your wife understands this fully before you marry? Can I also assume you pretty much avoid the post office and the public roads too?

  I suggest that once we admit that at some level of trade-off, we are (nearly)all willing to be the predator...we then are much more able to get others to think carefully about these difficult issues ... and that the examples, far from being contrived are with us everyday. My grandfather would have done most anything to avoid going on any kind of direct public assistance.... and that great reluctance is what we need to reignite in our neighbors and friends. They just won't buy the notion of infinite reluctance here... as even reflected in Brian's term "technically theft."

  If we could ignite a substantial return to the classical American notions here...that were common before FDR and predominant before Woodrow Wilson... wouldn't it be glorious to see what'd happen with government cut to one fifth it's present size? Wouldn't culture and science and GNP grow by 10, 20, or 30% a year?

  Published: April 20, 2006 11:21 PM

• cynical

  Minarchists are great.

  Dave, you are arguing that it is perfectly legitimate to steal a guy's ladder because "it is an emergency". Others have suggested that you take the ladder if you must act quickly, but don't be so arrogant to declare it your right. Somehow, you managed to declare that you are both in favor of theft and against it at the same time... minarchists are great.

  Published: April 21, 2006 12:12 AM

• quasibill

  It does seem to me to be a non-issue, at least from an empirical stand-point. The common law addressed just such an issue, and common law was in large part developed absent state interference before the 1700s. At common law, you had a defense to a trespass action, and IIRC, it was called necessity. In an urgent situation, one would be allowed to commit an intentional trespass, and only be forced to pay compensatory damages.

  Heck, it's not even really necessary to rely on that example, in a tort suit, mr. ladder owner would have to prove damages (and assuming you returned his ladder to him undamaged, that would in most instances be close to 0) as well as make a case for punitives. It would be a rare private arbitrator that would award punitives in that situation - I certainly would end my subscription to any such service upon hearing that ruling. And anyone who would remain a customer of such a court would get exactly the law that they want and deserve...

  Published: April 21, 2006 8:08 AM

• TGGP

  Note to self: stay the hell away from arguments involving ethics and morality in hypothetical situations, and thank god for heuristics.

  Published: April 21, 2006 9:01 AM

• D. Saul Weiner

  Dave,

  You seem to have ignored my clarification to Nelson, which addresses the likelihood of the political process producing outcomes you would find beneficial, when you have little political power and the politician has inadequate knowledge of the problem you care about. I would not argue that self-interest cannot drive benefits to others in the context of a free market.

  Published: April 21, 2006 9:02 AM

• Paul Edwards

  “…rich Americans seldom face this sort of dilemma…�?

  “…rich Americans know very little of the moral dilemmas that face over a billion poor people around the world on a daily basis.�?

  And this fact is tied very tightly to the fact that historically, American law has recognized property rights much more so than its more impoverished foreign counterparts. There just happens to be an economic benefit to respecting property, and perhaps if people could grasp that, they would respect property on that basis even through they might not be convinced of it through a simple ethical appeal to justice.

  Published: April 21, 2006 10:47 AM

• BillG (not Gates)

  Paul Edwards wrote:

  "There just happens to be an economic benefit to respecting property, and perhaps if people could grasp that, they would respect property on that basis even through they might not be convinced of it through a simple ethical appeal to justice."

  BillG responds:

  I am quite sure the "impoverished" foreigners know exactly who directly benefits from the government granted privileges bestowed on property rights - the antithesis of equal justice and equal liberty - in the supposedly "nuetral" legal framework...

  Published: April 21, 2006 11:39 AM

• Paul Edwards

  “I am quite sure the "impoverished" foreigners know exactly who directly benefits from the government granted privileges bestowed on property rights - the antithesis of equal justice and equal liberty - in the supposedly "nuetral" legal framework...�?

  There is nothing about the theft and fraud of state capitalism that you refer to that can be credited with America's generally vastly superior wealth and standard of living compared to many other parts of the world. America is wealthy despite the existence of its state, not because of it.

  And what do many people propose to solve injustices made possible only by the state? More or a "different" state of course. The theft and fraud that would be carried out if only their brand of state were implemented would be more to their liking. Hence the Georgists argue against an income tax, and advocate a tax on property in land instead.

  It's so often the same thing with a twist:

  Problem: someone else’s state is inherently unethical.
  Alleged Solution: implement my kind of state instead; it will be a coercive monopoly as well, but it will naturally be ethical like i am.

  Fact: where you accept a coercive monopoly with taxing power as necessary, you will get the opposite of what you wanted (unless you are part of this state machinery) and it will be worse than you could have guessed. And this is necessarily true because human nature is what it is and will not be changing soon.
  

  Published: April 21, 2006 12:11 PM

• Dave Meleney

  Saul says: "You seem to have ignored my clarification to Nelson, which addresses the likelihood of the political process producing outcomes you would find beneficial.

  which prompts me to ask.... In a time when billions of people (in China, and Russia, and Eastern Europe... and even in Viet Nam and Ireland for heaven's sake)...are seeing their governments become dramatically less intrusive.... and in a time when OUR government seems to grow in untold ways....how would you rate OUR success with this mixture of libertarianism and anarchism we have been trying to peddle here in the USA?

  To use your terminology, "when you have little political power" what is the "likelihood" of your anarchist approach working in the "political process (and) producing outcomes you would find beneficial"?

  You are exactly right that "the politician has inadequate knowledge of the problem you care about." And that is just why we have to tell a story about the reforms we want that makes sense to our friends and neighbors.... and yes, even to some politicians....

  Saul, honestly, aren't you a little bit tired of holding the fort for this radical idea we call anarchist or pure libertarianism... while you see government grow and grow and grow?

  BTW, when I was at Reason Foundation we sent out packages by UPS or USPS or Fed Ex without any moral distinction... I wondered what more radical libertarians do.... Would you have the Mises Institute try to avoid USPS whenever possible.... or would you have them use the gov whenever they were the lowest price operator?

  If you are still claiming that my ladder example is, as averros said: "highly hypothetical and unrealistic." then you are just copping out. You know as well as I do that opportunities to save lots of lives by commandeering people's property... either temporarily or permanently...abound for anyone who can get food and medicine to needy places. Furthermore you yourself make choices to use government providers all the time and your list of excuses and explanations gets just plain silly and makes it impossible for serious people to take you seriously.

  But, Dave, it is the very lack of respect for property that gives those poor countries their horrid poverty and gives us wealth.... yes, very true...clearly Bolivia and Zimbabwe have gone very far from the optimum size of government. But that's not much of an argument between two folk who see the optimum as being A. around 10% or being B. exactly 0% now is it?

  Published: April 21, 2006 3:11 PM

• Blake

  Except 10% has a tendency to turn into 20 and then 50%. and it probably won't stop there. It hasn't in the past.

  It's not a cop out to say that one could steal the ladder if he decides he must to save a life. This does not make it legally acceptable. It is a personal response to subjective duty, and that person would still deal with the legal consequences, which often might be dropped unless the owner of the ladder was a complete jerk.

  Published: April 21, 2006 8:25 PM

• Peter

  how would you rate OUR success with this mixture of libertarianism and anarchism

  A dangerous mix indeed! Like mixing DHMO with water!

  Published: April 21, 2006 9:41 PM

• BillG (not Gates)

  Paul Edwards wrote:

  "America is wealthy despite the existence of its state, not because of it."

  BillG responds:

  I would change this to read:

  America's wealthy exist because of the state not inspite of it.

  Paul Edwards wrote:

  "And what do many people propose to solve injustices made possible only by the state? More or a "different" state of course"

  BillG responds:

  you are correct of course because many people on the left don't understand that social injustice is rooted in government granted privilege (privi -private, lege - law)...treating some differently than others in the eyes of the law.

  so the philosophically consistent way to achieve social justice within an EQUAL liberty framework is to end the state privileges that allow the few to accrue all the benefits afforded by natural opportunities (via private enclosure) that inevitably shift costs (externalities) that end up being a tax in kind but not in substance on the wages of all those being excluded.

  Paul Edwards wrote:

  "The theft and fraud that would be carried out if only their brand of state were implemented would be more to their liking"

  BillG responds:

  the rich and powerful business & landed interests have ALWAYS used the state's subtle privilege granting abilities which are woven into the supposedly "nuetral" legal framework to their advantage by insulating themselves from the profit robbing capabilities of a "true" free market.

  a simple example is that government regulation raise the barriers to entry into a market and are thus supported by entrenched business interests.

  Paul Edwards wrote:

  "Hence the Georgists argue against an income tax, and advocate a tax on property in land instead."

  BillG responds:

  saying Georgists are advocating for economic rent is like saying Physicists are advocating for gravity.

  they are both naturally occuring phenomena that humans have no control over..in the case of economic rent it appears in the midst of full blown anarchy (no state) as two or more people naturally compete for access to limited locations.

  what the Georgists are advocating for is that the naturally occuring economic rent remain owned in common as an individual right rather than become a tax on the labor of those being excluded if retained by the landowner.

  so in essence it is actually you who is arguing for an income tax - a theft of property rights...while I am arguing to uphold property rights.

  Published: April 21, 2006 10:47 PM

• banker

  How EXACTLY would a Georgist country work? Please include the process in excruiciating detail. I have know idea what your talking about with rents.

  Must include organizations, people involved in decisions. Use a hypothetical situation.

  Published: April 21, 2006 11:00 PM

• Paul Edwards

  banker,

  The georgist needs a state to assess what portion of the income your land generates is not due to the improvements you've made on it, but due rather only to its location or other naturally favorable attributes it possesses. It must collect the tax that it assesses and ensure on threat of violence that you pay this tax. To its credit, it seems it may not even claim to be giving the tax payer something in return for the money it extorts from him. It is slightly refreshing politics perhaps, but still criminal.

  It also must ensure that no other competition in this tax assessing and collecting and wealth redistribution monopoly arises. It must maintain a coercive monopoly over the territory that it claims jurisdiction over. If it didn’t, people might revolt against so many tax collectors and some states might end up wanting.

  This state, would naturally be inclined to grow and arrogate to itself more and more responsibilities and duties and authority over people’s lives. It of course will be subject to all of the influence peddling and favoritism that any state is subject to. It’s a state dressed up in fancy colors but nothing new under the sun.

  Published: April 22, 2006 2:00 AM

• BillG (not Gates)

  Paul Edwards wrote:

  "The georgist needs a state to assess what portion of the income your land generates is not due to the improvements you've made on it, but due rather only to its location or other naturally favorable attributes it possesses"

  BillG wrote:

  the market actually does a very nice job at determining this as two people natural compete for access to scarce locations based on their subjective determination of the economic advantage the location brings.

  or there is always the approach of David Nolan, founder of the Libertarian Party

  "My own preference is for a single tax on land, with landholders doing their own valuation; you'd state the price at which you'd be willing to sell your land, and pay taxes on that amount. Anyone (including the tax collector) who wanted to buy it at that price could do so. This is simple, fair, and minimizes government snooping into our lives and business."

  http://www.lp.org/lpn/9503-essence.html

  Paul Edwards wrote:

  "It must collect the tax that it assesses and ensure on threat of violence that you pay this tax."

  BillG responds:

  how is this any different than a landlord? if all land is legally occupied then we have a choice as to which landowner we will lease from but not a choice as to whether or not to lease or purchase.

  within the territory he controls, a landlord collects taxes (which he calls by the euphemism of "rent"), and makes laws (which he calls by the euphemism of "lease conditions")...in addition, some landlords have their own security guards to defend their territory, just as city and state levels of government have their own police, or a national level of government has its own military...some landlords also have their own arbitration process, just as other levels of government have their own court systems.

  Paul Edwards wrote:

  "To its credit, it seems it may not even claim to be giving the tax payer something in return for the money it extorts from him. It is slightly refreshing politics perhaps, but still criminal."

  BillG responds:

  that because the purpose of keeping the economic rent owned in common as an individual right of community members is to PREVENT a theft of their wages.

  Paul Edwards wrote

  "It also must ensure that no other competition in this tax assessing and collecting and wealth redistribution monopoly arises."

  BillG responds:

  it matters not a whit who does this as long as the full economic rent remains owned in common as an individual equal access right.

  this is not individual "wealth" of the landowner as wealth actually requires labor and the landowner contributes no labor towards the creation of economic rent.

  this is actually common"wealth" as it is created by the labor of those external to the location in question.

  the landowner's appropriation of this commonwealth under threat of the state is THEFT of the labor products of those he excludes.

  Paul Edwards writes:

  "It must maintain a coercive monopoly over the territory that it claims jurisdiction over."

  BillG responds;

  all dominion over a territory is either initiated via force or at some point maintained via force as the exclusive use of locations beyond Locke's proviso FORCES a legal and monetary obligation on those being excluded.

  no exceptions...the only time then when there is no force is prior to the sustianable yield of occupancy (Locke's proviso) because it matters not a whit where anyone else locates - no one is economically harmed by the enclosure.

  Paul Edwards wrote:

  "If it didn’t, people might revolt against so many tax collectors and some states might end up wanting.
  This state, would naturally be inclined to grow and arrogate to itself more and more responsibilities and duties and authority over people’s lives. It of course will be subject to all of the influence peddling and favoritism that any state is subject to. It’s a state dressed up in fancy colors but nothing new under the sun."

  BillG responds:

  if the state goes beyond it's just and rightful fiduciary mandate of maintaining the natural commons as a public trustee and insuring that individual equal access opportunity rights are not infringed upon by enclosure, then people have the legal right to secession leaving those who want an expanded role for the state to themselves.

  Published: April 22, 2006 9:25 AM

• Tim B

  This article defines Samaritan rights as "the right to be saved." This is a meaningless definition, since rights only apply to action. More specifically, a right is the ability to execute an action while maintaining moral stature (adapted from Robert LeFevre). By using the passive voice ("the right TO BE saved"), the right is not applied to an actor. The person claiming the right is not executing an action. One could just as truthfully say that each individual has a right to be left to die, a right to be killed, etc. These are true statements, but they say nothing about the morality of any action, thus they are meaningless.

  A reformulation of this definition of Samaritan rights that is meaningful would be "the right to force someone to save you if that person is able." In the ladder example in the above comments, a "Samaritan" should say that the girl hanging from a window has a right to force the guy with the ladder to save her, perhaps by authorizing her father to hit him upside the head and take the ladder on her behalf. A libertarian would instead say that the girl has the right to do everything in her power, without initiating force, to convince the guy to give up his ladder for her.

  The moral dilemma is thus simplified: Are there any conditions under which it is morally right for an individual to initiate force? I would say no. If the father uses force to convince the guy to give him his ladder, he is morally wrong and must accept some punishment, whether it's simply guilt over his breach of morality or a justified forceful retribution from the ladder guy. I think the father would accept any punishment up to and including his own death if he knew that was the price he would pay to save his daughter's life.

  I think invoking meaningless "passive" rights is a big problem these days. When people say that each individual has a right to be saved, a right to be protected, a right to be educated, a right to be given health care, they are really implying that each individual has a right to initiate force to obtain salvation, protection, education, or health care. I for one don't think anyone is ever morally justified in initiating force for any purpose, including saving a life. However, I would give up my morality before I gave up my daughter.
  

  Published: April 22, 2006 10:56 AM

• Peter

  how is this any different than a landlord?

  You're right: it isn't different. So you're now admitting that there's no private property in your system, right? The government is everybody's landlord: they're not owners. Now that we've got that settled...

  this is actually common"wealth" as it is created by the labor of those external to the location in question.

  No it isn't. It's created by their mere presence. If there was nobody else around when the landowner took possession of the land, there's still "as much and as good" for others, right? It's only when other people move in nearby that suddenly his ownership becomes contentious (to you). So now he suddenly has to pay for something he had for free before -- therefore the presence of others in the vicinity is a negative externality on him -- therefore his neighbors should be paying him, not vice versa. How's that for "geoist" logic! :)

  Published: April 22, 2006 11:26 AM

• BillG (not Gates)

  Peter wrote:

  "you're now admitting that there's no private property in your system, right? The government is everybody's landlord: they're not owners. Now that we've got that settled..."

  BillG responds;

  land ownership is not a single right but actually a bundle of rights any one of which can be alienated.

  1. use
  2. exclusion
  3. possession
  4. transferability
  5. economic rent

  if land all starts out as owned in common (Lockean) it is right and just that individuals enclose portions for exclusive use (it adds to the common good) only up to the sustainable yield of occupancy (Locke's proviso) because beyond, the appearance of the economic rent (if collected by the landowner) is a FORCED monetary obligation on those being excluded denying their absolute property rights to their labor.

  inorder to protect their superior property interests the economic rent must remained owned in common as an individual right - it must be shared directly and equally between neighbors in a community.

  Peter wrote:

  "No it isn't. It's created by their mere presence."

  BillG responds:

  technically it is the result of both (labor and presence)

  Peter wrote:

  "If there was nobody else around when the landowner took possession of the land, there's still "as much and as good" for others, right? "

  BillG responds:

  presumably if by taking possession you mean he homesteaded and left "enough and as good in common for others".

  Peter wrote:

  "It's only when other people move in nearby that suddenly his ownership becomes contentious (to you). So now he suddenly has to pay for something he had for free before -- therefore the presence of others in the vicinity is a negative externality on him -- therefore his neighbors should be paying him, not vice versa. How's that for "geoist" logic! :)"

  BillG responds:

  they do...the landowner directly compensates his neighbors for exclusive use of what should be equal access for all and the neighbor compensates him for the same.

  in essence if the landowner pays compensation of $5K and receives $4K in return from his neighbors then he has an 80% homestead exemption on the economic rent.

  Published: April 22, 2006 11:51 AM

• Paul Edwards

  "if the state goes beyond it's just and rightful fiduciary mandate of maintaining the natural commons as a public trustee and insuring that individual equal access opportunity rights are not infringed upon by enclosure, then people have the legal right to secession leaving those who want an expanded role for the state to themselves."

  Leaving aside the basically flawed ethic of the principle of taxation for a moment: What if the state deems a person's motive for choosing to secede is not pure? Let's assume he finds his particular tax burden unfairly high, or thinks previously profitable, wealthy and well established firms who can “contribute" to campaign funds are given unfair tax advantages against their upstart competition. But what if the state in contrast thinks all is well, just vote yourself in a trustee more to your liking next time? LOL.

  Will he still have the right of secession? Such faith in the political process, you have Bill.

  But let me guess at the answer: under the georgist scheme, because of the fairness of the tax system, there will be no profitable, wealthy well established firms with the resources to buy influence and favor from our “trustees�?. Any "excessive" profits a company makes will obviously be due to unfair economic rents on land and will be promptly taxed away.
  

  Published: April 22, 2006 12:17 PM

• Joshua Katz

  Tim - I believe you have just removed all negative rights in a single stroke. If there are no passive rights, how can there be negative rights? An attempt might be made to say "A negative right really means the right to defend yourself against some aggression - which is active." In that case, I believe your argument about my phrasing becomes silly, because it is just as legitimate to turn my 'right to be saved' into 'the right to force someone to save you, under certain circumstances.'

  Dave - By it's nature, the government funded hospital differs from the ladder case. In the hospital case, the money has been stolen, and my not making use of it does nothing to return it to its rightful owner. Conversely, the ladder has not yet been stolen, and my action would be stealing it. It is consistent, even if I don't personally say it, to accept large reluctance with regard to government funded institutions and still practice infinite restraint with regard to things presently held by their rightful owners.

  Published: April 22, 2006 9:42 PM

• Peter

  if land all starts out as owned in common (Lockean)

  Which it doesn't. The mere idea is quite literally insane.

  it is right and just that individuals enclose portions for exclusive use

  No it isn't. If it starts out owned in common (ignoring the impossibility of that insane idea), then enclosing portions for individual use would be theft, and ought to be punished. (Of course, that would include enclosing portions of fruit, vegetables. or animals that would, if originally unowned, be available as food, therefore there could be no living creatures bearing this "original common ownership" ethic)

  in essence if the landowner pays compensation of $5K and receives $4K in return from his neighbors then he has an 80% homestead exemption on the economic rent.

  OK, so if he pays $5K and receives $5K, which is the only way the mere presence of his neighbors is not a "negative externality" upon him, and thus the only legitimate, fair, method of taxation, there's not a whole lot of point collecting and then paying out the tax, now is there? QED.

  Published: April 22, 2006 10:25 PM

• BillG (not Gates)

  peter wrote:

  if it starts out owned in common, then enclosing portions for individual use would be theft, and ought to be punished.

  BillG responds:

  actually ownership in common is an individual equal access opportunity right so long as your use does not in any way infringe on the equal claim of any other individual.

  Published: April 22, 2006 10:41 PM

• Roger M

  The problem with the anarchist analysis of private property is that it ignores the fundamental right of self-preservation. I spent the weekend reading “Natural Law and the Theory of Property�? Grotius to Hume�? by Stephen Buckle. The natural law theorists demonstrate that the right to property is derived from the right to self-preservation, therefore the right to self-preservation trumps the right to property in the special occasions when life is threatened. By following the much more sound and thorough reasoning of the natural law theorists, we can avoid dilemmas so as the one in which our neighbor forces us to steal his ladder in order to save our daughter’s life in a burning house. The taking of another’s property for self-preservation, or the preservation of the life of another, is not theft.

  By the way, Buckle also explains what Locke and the other natural law theorists meant when they wrote that in the golden age the earth was given to man in common. They didn’t use the term as we use it today, but in the sense that God gave the right to use the earth to everyone, i.e., the right was common to all and no one had a special position. Private property rights developed from that common use-right. They were not early communists.
  

  Published: April 24, 2006 9:33 AM

• BillG (not Gates)

  I believe if you look carefully you will also find in Locke's writings something called the "spoilage priviso" (along with the ;enough and as good" proviso) that has been made irrelevant by the advent of money...

  essentially it says that if at harvest time the farmer can not gather all of his crop into storage and it is instead left rotting in the field, then it is perfectly just for people to take it for their own use without it being considered theft.

  Published: April 24, 2006 9:50 AM

• Paul Edwards

  Roger,

  "the right to property is derived from the right to self-preservation, therefore the right to self-preservation trumps the right to property"

  But 1 + 1 = 2 is derived from the fact that 1 = 1.

  Does 1 = 1 trump 1 + 1 = 2?

  Perhaps the two are inextricably intertwined truths that cannot be true or false independently.

  What this ethic of yours implies, Roger, is that the people of third world countries are justified (if only they had the military might to act) in forcefully taking resources from people of non-third world countries to feed their starving, house their homeless, and perhaps go so far as to even out living standards across cultures.

  Do you really think this represents any kind of an ethic at all? You can't aggress unless you need to. That's the ethic we have right now in fact, it's just that you as victim, might not agree with the aggressor's criterion of what constitutes "need". News flash: unless you're the aggressor yourself rather than the victim, you never will.

  People seem too willing to risk being a victim of theft and murder for the opportunity to become a member of a gang of thieves and murderers. In a system of murky ethics, where property is an elusive thing, it is the sly, corrupt and intelligent who take advantage of the masses, who are merely corruptible and open to being deceived by the ruling demagogues. There are either property rights or there are not. There is no middle ground of maybe having property rights depending on someone else’s financial status.
  

  Published: April 24, 2006 10:30 AM

• Roger M

  The theorists included in the book include Grotius, Pufendorf, Locke, Hutchison, and Hume, all of whom pretty much agree and provide very sound logic and reasoning for a definition of morality, how to arrive at moral ideas, and the origins of property rights. They are very close to the anarchist position, but don't give property rights absolute status for good reasons. However, they safeguard property rights from the abuses that Paul Edwards describes.

  I don't have space here to delineate the whole argument. However, I have read Rothbard and Hoppe on the same subject, especially property as an absolute, and think the natural law group does a much better job. Here's the main criteria: How well does theory match human nature, especially our common concept of morals (not the artificial definition proposed by anarchists). The natural law group fits best. The Katz article on positive rights provides a good example, because allowing someone to die in order to protect another's property is repugnant to just about everyone.

  Published: April 24, 2006 12:18 PM

• BillG (not Gates)

  Roger,

  in your mind what is the difference between self-ownership and self-preservation?

  I believe there is a distinction that can be made between a positive obligation to provide something that has been produced via someone's labor to another person for immediate self-preservation and a negative obligation to allow exclusive use of something that is not produced via human labor so long as the use does not infringe on the individual equal access rights of any other individuals...in the case of land, the collection of economic rent by landowner's denies the absolute right to our labor product and hence self-ownership.

  if you have a direct access opportunity right to the earth at least you can attempt to sustain yourself via your own efforts.

  Published: April 24, 2006 12:36 PM

• Roger M

  Bill,
  Natural law wouldn’t conclude that “collection of economic rent by landowner's denies the absolute right to our labor product and hence self-ownership.�? They’re almost as strict about property rights as the anarchists. The landowner has a right to rent because he forgoes the use of the land while the tenant benefits from it. Natural law doesn’t make a large distinction between self-ownership and self-preservation, and the writers disagree. Grotius thinks voluntarily putting one-self into slavery is acceptable, while the other agree that the right of self-preservation makes that immoral. But all of them severely restrict the right to play the self-preservation card, and in most cases, the use of another’s property for self-preservation should be considered a loan and repaid if possible.

  Published: April 24, 2006 1:33 PM

• tz

  The ladder example is only a paradox if you don't consider life more important than property.

  I remember a story about a wealthy roman that would go around with a bag of coins, and after striking a fellow citizen very hard, he would give out a (badly inflated) 5 drachma coin as the 12 tables specified the penalty.

  In your society, if someone was very close to death, and I shot them, i.e. the value of their remaing hours was less than the medical expenses, would I get a refund from the estate for saving them money? Their body might have been their property, but it would be in a very delapidated state. Worth very little. (Actually if the execution was done right, the organs might have value, as China is doing).

  For the ladder case, it is an emergency only because a life is at stake and preserving it requires immediate action so anything within those parameters is fair game.

  Until we can raise the dead, something reversible like borrowing and returning a ladder (if anyone even notices it is gone) is trumped by preventing an irreversable death.

  To say we cannot discern an "emergency" from other times when violations are theft or trespass is like saying we can never really determine who owns property (did you really put enough labor, is a clear view really part of what attaches, are the obnoxious natural smells better than the neighbor's barbecue?). At some point there has to be some set of rules and perhaps referees (judges) to decide if someone thinks they have been broken. If we can make and judge grand rules, we can do so with petty rules.

  I would not hold to samaritan rights as I believe Natural Law only requires enforcement of the Silver rule - First, do no harm. It doesn't require the active help the Golden rule does. It would be a sin against charity not to help, but charity is not the business of the state.

  Writ large, the samaritan rule - the moment you give it to the state allows the state to maintain a militia at taxpayer expense to try to prevent any grave injury or death.

  As far as a right to life is concerned, it is a complication since we have cases where medical treatment can be sufficiently expensive to actually cause other deaths on the margin if taxes are raised (indirectly, but something like when the FDA doesn't approve a drug, we don't see those who would have survivied but didn't because they lacked it). Also there is a distinction between a treatment that will allow many productive years (getting over a hump) and one that costs the same and only adds a few days or weeks to a life that is ending. Making it even more complicated is that we know too little - people at the edge of death recover completely, and an otherwise healthy individual can decline rapidly or even keel over and we can't predict it - and statistics are no substitute for individual consideration.

  Something very similar happens without a market when a disaster forces the emergency services to do triage. The dead don't matter. Those who will be dead in minutes can't be saved, regardless of other means (any who might help can't reach them). Those who are critical but treatable get the highest priority, with those who are badly hurt but will survive without treatment put back.

  There is no auctioneer at such a site allowing bids from people - who wouldn't be in shape to bin anyway.

  If you have a better way to handle such disasters, I would be interested. If not, we have a standard for "emergency help".

  I would add one other thing as a potential. As part of a minarchical setup, there would be need for at least some incarceration, and food, shelter, and clothing would be part of that. I would simply extend it so that anyone who is in need (their life is threatened by starvation or hypothermia) could stay in the facilities.

  We all should worry and act to prevent unnecessary death. Property is the right of the living and not the dead, so if you are for property rights, you ought to be for a right to life.

  (I've noted that some logical extremes of economic models are perfected only when robots create things for robots - far more efficent than meeting human wants - the humans can all starve and the robotic factories and consumers can grow asymtotically, and am derided because economic value is subjective, but the subject of human desire, reason, and emotion, so there cannot be calculation without humans. But this is the same thing of trying to have property rights without having living human beings).
  

  Published: April 24, 2006 1:55 PM

• Paul Edwards

  "…but [they] don't give property rights absolute status for good reasons. However, they safeguard property rights from the abuses that Paul Edwards describes."

  It perhaps, would be nice if such safeguards to property were possible given the scenario that respect for property rights is not absolute. Then we could attempt to force people to behave in a manner that "we" consider to be moral, not just ethical. However, both theory and practice have shown that such safeguards to property are impossible under this relaxed treatment of it.

  The constitution was fraudulently presented as an authoritative document which would bind the government from acts of tyranny. It was nothing of the sort when it was written and is even less such a document today. Nothing but a complete respect for property and contracts, enforced privately, can have a chance at providing the safeguards to property that we justifiably demand.

  Constitutions enforced by coercive decision making monopolies necessarily lead to what we presently have: legitimized theft, fraud and murder executed on a massive scale.
  

  Published: April 24, 2006 2:28 PM

• BillG (not Gates)

  Roger wrote:

  "Natural law wouldn’t conclude that “collection of economic rent by landowner's denies the absolute right to our labor product and hence self-ownership.�? They’re almost as strict about property rights as the anarchists."

  BillG responds:

  I disagree...Thomas Paine the Deist was a follower of natural law and proposed what I do in "Agrarian Justice".

  Roger M wrote:

  "The landowner has a right to rent because he forgoes the use of the land while the tenant benefits from it."

  BillG responds:

  now you can see why idle lands (speculation) and idle hands (no work) are so closely linked...

  Published: April 24, 2006 3:24 PM

• Roger M

  Paul,
  Actually, John Adams and others warned that the constitution was a mere spider's web is people lost the self-restraint brought by religion. I think most of them knew how vunerable it was.

  BillG, I don't know about Tom. The book I read only went up through Hume. But even with idle lands, there shouldn't be idle hands in a really free market.

  Published: April 24, 2006 5:05 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Yes vulnerable is an understatement. I think all of them knew that it was a massive fraud with no authority to bind anybody to anything. And it hasn't, so we can say its inherent impotence is borne out by the facts of history and by the current acts of the Bush administration.

  Published: April 24, 2006 5:56 PM

• BillG (not Gates)

  Roger M wrote:

  "even with idle lands, there shouldn't be idle hands in a really free market."

  BillG responds:

  you can't treat land as simply capital via state granted privilege in a really free market as the classical liberals proposed and the neo-classical liberals subverted.

  why do you think there was the English enclosure movement?

  how can you get a subsistence farmer to give up the scurity he had in trade for selling themselves into wage slavery?

  you can't...

  Published: April 24, 2006 7:27 PM

• Dave Meleney

  Mr. Katz says: "Dave - By it's nature, the government funded hospital differs from the ladder case. In the hospital case, the money has been stolen, and my not making use of it does nothing to return it to its rightful owner. Conversely, the ladder has not yet been stolen, and my action would be stealing it. It is consistent, even if I don't personally say it, to accept large reluctance with regard to government funded institutions and still practice infinite restraint with regard to things presently held by their rightful owners." -Posted April 22, 2006 09:42 PM

  Which seems to allow (with large reluctance) the acceptance of government largess, so long as someone else has already performed the "dirty deed" of grabbing it and putting it up for "public consumption." Of course many government agencies are able to take more from taxpayers when said agencies are plump with socially convincing "legitimating uses" ... and so you seem to draw a temporal distinction without much moral significance.

  Under your notion that "taxation is theft", aren't you just a downstream buyer (issuing a recurrent and dependable demand ) for "stolen" goods, at this point? .. much like the "fence" your local burglar uses every time he needs to convert household items into cash ("heck, I may as well buy all this silverware from the guy, he sure as heck won't be returning it to the homeowner, now will he?")

  Consequently, you seem to have accepted the major part of my notion that we do all seem to, thru the state, use some "legitimated force" on each other. To be blunt, you don't really seem to believe that "Samaritan rights are simply wrong," so much as you believe that we can all party at the trough a bit, so long as we have some morally decrepit folk to grab the taxpayer's funds and establish a cover for our receipt of said funds. With a great majority of anarchist academics practicing at state-funded Universities, one seems a bit harsh to suggest that IRS agents are such creeps and "we" are so pure, don't you think?

  Again, it seems more honest and eminently more effective to argue for a broad range of limits on the size and scope of government... and to urge a return to the "traditional American suspicion of big government." To those who argue that small government is always in danger of morphing into bigger and bigger government... I can only agree.... and point out that the fairly sizable government we now have can morph into bigger government much more easily than could a government half it's size...or one fifth it's size....

  Why not say: "Taxation can get to be a lot like theft when it is too large." which is what I say to the late tax filers on April 15. Heck, half the people at the IRS and the FDA and Texas A&M can agree with that statement any day of the year.

  Published: April 25, 2006 3:31 AM

• Roger M

  Paul,
  That the writers of the consitution saw its weaknesses doesn't mean they also saw it as a fraud. That's another grand canyon size leap in logic that anarchists regularly trot out. The founders understood that no system short of tyranny could restrain citizens who lacked self-control. I would sympathize with anarchists more if they exhibited similar humility about their system, but they don't. They seem to claim that their system would turn everyone into angels, similar to what Marx claimed for his system.

  BillG, the enclosures in England were an evil thing, but isolated in Western history. In the US, many farmers have sold out and gone to earning wages because they don't see it as slavery, but as a better life. Working for wages is slavery only for Marxists.

  Published: April 25, 2006 8:40 AM

• Paul Edwards

  Roger,

  The fact that anarchy is practicable and optimal has nothing to do with changing people into angels. It is precisely the opposite. It acknowledges that we are highly fallible and that furthermore, the worst and most corruptible of us tend to gravitate to positions of political power.

  As for what the founders did and did not realize, perhaps they did not recognize, despite most of them being educated lawyers, that the constitution was not a contract and that "We the People" was a ridiculous designation of the very few who wrote it and agreed to it (without signing a single thing mind you). Nor were they ever authorized to get together to make such a claim on behalf of "we the people". Nor could they have made such a claim on behalf of the millions of "we the people". Nor did "we the people" ever give express consent to it. One might suspect that they, as lawyers, would realize that the document had no legal power.

  You and i could get together tomorrow and make such a document up and it would have the very same legal standing as the constitution does. The only difference would be that we would not have George Washington's endorsement of it (who many would have gladly made king). And that is the real difference.

  Regarding the arrogance of anarchists, I understand and regret that is how it appears. I think there are sometimes gentler ways that i myself could put my thoughts, but in the end they would be the same thoughts, and i hold them adamantly. I believe i am personally open to correction, on the other hand, if i remain convinced my position is correct, i will not hide this fact.

  At root, I believe it is not arrogance, but rather that the anarchist’s logic demands consistency that is so irritating. We demand it of ourselves and implicitly of those who dispute our position. One might think it should be the same between the minarchist who disputes the logic of the socialist.

  Unfortunately, although the socialist is dead wrong in his position, at least he can be said to be consistent. The minarchist, to my dismay, does not have consistency on his side. And this is a devastating flaw. And no one likes to be shown that their position is inconsistent, unless they are open to changing their views to become consistent. This, in my view, is what the convicted minarchist finds grating about the staunch anarchist. Each time we argue, the same point must come to light: the minarchist’s position is a contradiction.
  

  Published: April 25, 2006 10:36 AM

• Roger M

  My point about the constitution is that the system is not at fault, the people who administer it are. Property rights were protected to a much greater degree before the 1930's than afterwards. The system didn't change but the people did. For anarchism to work, as Hoppe and others have written, people must agree to respect property. What happens if they don't? What happens if the majority turn socialist on you, as they have in the US? No system or set of laws will protect you when the majority opinion has changed.

  As for the consistency of the anarchist position, it is consistent, but its foundations are too weak to support it, as we've discussed before. The anarachist definition of morality is weak, doesn't agree with human nature or how most thinking people in general define morality. And the foundation of private property is too weak for the most important institution in all civilization. Natural law in general (and Christianity in particular) provides a much more secure foundation. From those foundations, natural law is just as consistent as anarchists, and it avoids the morally repugnant traps that anarchists fall into, such as defining all government as evil and allowing people to die to protect property rights.

  Published: April 25, 2006 11:30 AM

• tz

  Neither the Constitution nor Rothbard's ethics nor any other document can bind people (or their collective known as government) from evil (tyranny). The 10 Commandments were written in stone, but tend to fade from the hearts and minds of men when not maintained.

  To confuse the rule-book with the referee is a very bad error. Yet if you admit both books and referees are needed, the latter is a defacto government. The little men on ice or on the field that are not athletes. They don't make up rules, but they judge whether they are being followed and enforce them.

  The fact that anarchy is practicable and optimal has nothing to do with changing people into angels.

  It is either practicable and optimal in a population with 99% socialists and 1% libertarians or it is not. I have found no reason to think it is. Even if the 1% of libertarians had a nuclear warhead, they would still want to trade with the socialists because it would be more efficient (just like the USA trades with China). How long until the libertarians to get trade advantages adopt socialism just to get along? Maybe something will go the other way too, but it won't end up being an anarchy.

  It is precisely the opposite. It acknowledges that we are highly fallible and that furthermore, the worst and most corruptible of us tend to gravitate to positions of political power.

  And if these exact same people gravitate to positions as warlords or toward economic power, everything would be just peachy?

  In this, it shows that the problem with democracy is precisely because it IS representative. People are evil and corrupt, and vote for those who will promise fruits of corruption.

  Yet the market itself also provides lock-picks, bypass devices, and other means of cheating. If there is a demand for property rights violations and even violence, why do you expect the market to not provide it. It does today. There will be a black market under anarchy too.

  BTW, I am NOT an anarchist, yet I define all government as evil. However I make the distinction that the evil is unintentional but necessary (coming under double-effect like a theraputic abortion - no mother ever has one because she wants to, the whole point is that both mother and baby will die without the surgery, but if the surgery is performed the baby will unavoidably and unintentionally die).

  I do not think we can coexist peacefully, every individual with every other individual - the individual wolf will eat the individual sheep. Even if the sheep's estate would have a claim, who would they present it to if there is no universal authority. If they can present a claim (as opposed to a counterstrike - I've noted sovereigns make war as there is no higher authority between them by definition), whomever they present it to is a defacto government. It need not be solid or continuous (and is probably better in an intermittent and amorphous form). But it must exist. Otherwise the Rothbardian sheep has no where to press for defense or retribution against a pack of Marxian wolves.

  In Anarchyland, the fantasies talk about nice and really, really, polite security agents carefully getting (accused) thieves, and never hiring the same evil corrupt thugs that would be working for government today to get back your stuff and break his fingers. Yet the latter is more efficient.

  Many have pointed to Somalia, but I don't hear any plans to move there. The internet is global, so mises.org and such should be able to operate from there. It is the model anarchy. Why aren't the anarchists flocking there, but staying here and complaining. You are saying either that it works or you can make it work. But like the monk that when asked how many teeth a horse has was criticized for suggesting that they find a horse instead of staying inside and reasoning, the anarchists here would rather stay on the imaginary axis instead of the real one of complex problems.

  If Anarchy is practiable and optimal, then go there and practice and optimize what you preach.

  Otherwise your words in this computer are worth no more than the ink on the parchment of 1789, or any earlier or later document.
  

  Published: April 25, 2006 12:46 PM

• Paul Edwards

  “My point about the constitution is that the system is not at fault, the people who administer it are.�?

  The people who administer it are imperfect, non-angelic human beings who happen to be answerable to nobody because they are members of a coercive monopoly of legislation, protection and courts. They are the ultimate decision makers and we allow this by pretending that the constitution is valid.

  “Property rights were protected to a much greater degree before the 1930's than afterwards.�?

  A study of Lincoln in and around the civil war will suggest otherwise. In fact, it has always only been at the discretion of the administrators of the constitution, that property rights are arbitrarily conceded and also arbitrarily withdrawn. The nature of the constitution did not change, merely its lack of authority was revealed further as time and audacity proceeded on.

  “The system didn't change but the people did.�?

  Neither the basis of the system, nor the basic nature of people changed over that time. The constitution never had the ability to constrain the people forming the government, only popular opinion did to some modest extent. As time went on, people merely added to the government’s reach where their predecessors left off.

  “For anarchism to work, as Hoppe and others have written, people must agree to respect property.�?

  Individual people, for the most part do respect property. Only mobs, criminals and politicians do not respect property. This is the point. Criminals can be contained by a private legal system. People acting as a mob, or especially a mob represented by a tyrant are much harder to contain by any method. The basis of a government is necessarily coercion. It is not reasonable to expect a coercive aggressive entity that takes property that it is not voluntarily given it will protect your life and property.

  “What happens if they don't? What happens if the majority turn socialist on you, as they have in the US? No system or set of laws will protect you when the majority opinion has changed.�?

  From my point of view this question makes assumptions that stand reality on its head. Individual people, for the most part are essentially law abiding and respectful of property. It is when people are offered political power to designate an agent on their behalf to take property from another and benefit themselves that they become corrupt and socialistic. Governments provide this corrupting opportunity. It is precisely the government with its inherent lack of respect for property that is most likely to NOT protect individual rights in any given scenario.

  “As for the consistency of the anarchist position, it is consistent, but its foundations are too weak to support it, as we've discussed before. The anarachist definition of morality is weak, doesn't agree with human nature or how most thinking people in general define morality. And the foundation of private property is too weak for the most important institution in all civilization.�?

  The anarchist position is very simple and very sound. Do not aggress. It doesn’t get simpler than that or any more correct. Any modification to that is less moral than the anarchist's position. Any position that says: do not aggress, unless you are an agent of the government is less moral than the anarchist's position.

  “Natural law in general (and Christianity in particular) provides a much more secure foundation. From those foundations, natural law is just as consistent as anarchists, and it avoids the morally repugnant traps that anarchists fall into, such as defining all government as evil and allowing people to die to protect property rights.�?

  When I hear of Christian ministers coercively confiscating money “donations�? in the form of taxes from their reluctant members in order to do more good in the world, then I will be convinced that Christianity advocates coercion for people’s own good. Until then I will submit that the state is NOTHING similar to the church, and that furthermore, the state’s goals are in constant conflict with Christian premises of morality and proper ethics.
  

  Published: April 25, 2006 1:03 PM

• Roger M

  Paul,
  "The people who administer it are ... answerable to nobody..." They answer to the voters.

  "A study of Lincoln in and around the civil war will suggest otherwise." Oh come on! You don't think Roosevelt destroyed property right during the Depression? Lincoln wasn't perfect, but he was no FDR.

  "Individual people, for the most part are essentially law abiding and respectful of property." You're living in a dream world! 2/3 of this country would vote for confiscation of all corporate property in a heart beat if given the chance. Look at the uproar over gasoline prices.

  You seem to have this idea that only politicians are evil; the people are good and have been duped. I disagree completely. People get the government they deserve, because politicians merely reflect the attitudes and values of the people. I understand now why anarchists think their system would usher in the golden age; they have an unrealistic view of the public and human nature. In fact, it's the same view that Marxists have.

  "...the state’s goals are in constant conflict with Christian premises of morality and proper ethics." Christian premises are similar to those of natural law and therefore not in conflict with the state. All major Christian theologians have upheld the state as a God-ordained institution. The idea of a state conflicts only with the narrow, misguided definitions of morality and property invented by anarchists.

  
  

  Published: April 25, 2006 2:06 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Roger,

  Me: "The people who administer it are ... answerable to nobody..."

  You: “They answer to the voters.�?

  Response: I take it you from this that you voted and that you are very happy with the performance of your government. If this is the case, I cannot argue with success.

  Me: "A study of Lincoln in and around the civil war will suggest otherwise."

  You: Oh come on! You don't think Roosevelt destroyed property right during the Depression? Lincoln wasn't perfect, but he was no FDR.

  Response: Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, jailed people who were outspoken against him, shutdown newspapers and restricted mail access to his opponents. He also executed a very deadly war against people who did not want to be ruled by his regime. And this is government of, by and for the people? LOL. BTW, I’m not suggesting FDR war not a pathetic little dictator who caused great harm to the people. He just wasn’t the first or the only one. And he also won’t be the last.

  Me: "Individual people, for the most part are essentially law abiding and respectful of property."

  You: You're living in a dream world! 2/3 of this country would vote for confiscation of all corporate property in a heart beat if given the chance. Look at the uproar over gasoline prices.

  Response: LOL. This is my point, Roger. Give people access to political power and they will be corrupted. They are used to the game by now. Government is the problem to which you allude; it is certainly not the solution.

  You: You seem to have this idea that only politicians are evil; the people are good and have been duped. I disagree completely. People get the government they deserve, because politicians merely reflect the attitudes and values of the people.

  Response: Roger: the idea I have is this: political power corrupts. Period. Those who are drawn to it may already be corrupt, but there is no question that those who exercise it have been corrupted. It’s human nature. Do you feel you have the government you deserve? I don’t feel I do. Perhaps only anarchists can claim with validity that they did not get the government they deserved.

  You: I understand now why anarchists think their system would usher in the golden age; they have an unrealistic view of the public and human nature. In fact, it's the same view that Marxists have.

  Response: I presume most people have similar values to you and me. Perhaps they are not religious, but they wouldn’t put a knife in you for a buck either. You presume people are mostly criminals, but for a minority such as yourself who will somehow manage to vote in a moral government through a democratic process. Can you explain how that’s going to happen even theoretically?

  Me: "...the state’s goals are in constant conflict with Christian premises of morality and proper ethics."

  You: Christian premises are similar to those of natural law and therefore not in conflict with the state. All major Christian theologians have upheld the state as a God-ordained institution. The idea of a state conflicts only with the narrow, misguided definitions of morality and property invented by anarchists.�?

  Response: OK I’m convinced. You did get the government you deserved. If the state is God-ordained, then what comes from the state must also be God-ordained. I don’t suppose you’d concede at least the right of secession to us anarchists would you?

  Published: April 25, 2006 2:51 PM

• Roger M

  I'm not saying that people are criminals. I'm saying they hold Marxist values. The most common belief in the world is that wealth is limited; for one person, or country to gain, he must do so by taking from another. That believe, which I call pokernomics, goes back to the Greeks and is the heart of Marxism. The vast majority of Americans believe it. That's why they're so eager to take the property of the wealthy and corporations via the government; they believe that the wealthy somehow took it from them. Since they're the majority, the country gets the government the majority deserves. Those of us in the minority can only try to persuade others or leave.

  I don't agree that politics corrupts. In fact, my reading of history has seen politicians restraining the people from the evil they would do in a lot of circumstances, mostly to do with race. Do I agree with everything the government does? Not at all. But it's not because I think all politicians are evil or that government is evil, but that the voters are misguided and generally corrupt. No, most people won't steal, but if they believe that the successful have taken their money, they will use the government to get back some of it.

  Before you can start an anarchist regime in any area, you'll have to persuade people to give up their attachment to pokernomics. But then, if we could do that in the US, we wouldn't need anarchism, since I don't believe politics corrupts, but reflects the will of a corrupted citizenry.

  Published: April 25, 2006 3:38 PM

• BillG (not Gates)

  Roger wrote:

  "I'm saying they hold Marxist values. The most common belief in the world is that wealth is limited; for one person, or country to gain, he must do so by taking from another. That believe, which I call pokernomics, goes back to the Greeks and is the heart of Marxism. The vast majority of Americans believe it. That's why they're so eager to take the property of the wealthy and corporations via the government; they believe that the wealthy somehow took it from them."

  BillG responds:

  individual wealth can only be realized by applying labor with capital (stored labor) on land...

  the commonwealth (all that pre-exists human labor) is privatized for a few entitled without labor inputs and the shifted costs on the many (via force) violate their absolute right to their wealth via their labor.

  the left's attempts at social justice are justified but arbitrary...

  Published: April 25, 2006 4:10 PM

• Paul Edwards

  tz,

  My hat is off to you for your tenacity. Very little trumps tenacity in life in my books.

  I don't think your position with respect to, or your understanding in regard to the anarchist position has changed since i first started reading your posts. Yours is an inspiring display of mind over matter.

  Published: April 25, 2006 4:29 PM

• Roger M

  BillG,
  Are you arguing Marx's thought that labor creates all value and that capitalists appropriate the excess value that labor creates, thereby keeping labor poor?

  Or are you saying that land is necessary to gain wealth?

  Published: April 25, 2006 4:34 PM

• BillG (not Gates)

  Roger wrote:

  "re you arguing Marx's thought that labor creates all value and that capitalists appropriate the excess value that labor creates, thereby keeping labor poor?
  Or are you saying that land is necessary to gain wealth?"

  BillG responds:

  no, I am saying only labor confers absolute ownership (not the subjective value theory) and you can't have wealth without labor ineracting with capital on land so the return on land (economic rent) is not individual wealth as there are no labor inputs from the owner but rather a social surplus (commonwealth) that if privatized actually violates the absolute rights of those being excluded to their labor products.
  

  Published: April 25, 2006 5:09 PM

• Roger M

  BillG,
  Interesting. I haven't heard that before. I have read a few libertarian writers who argue that labor and use convey property rights to the laborer, but I think they misunderstand theory of the origin of property. The idea that use/labor of a thing, say land, leads to ownership is an explanation of how the ball got rolling toward private property in the "golden age" of prehistory when land was not scarce. From that primitive start, private property rights began to develop, but the use/labor description does not justify private property; it just explains why people began thinking about the issue.

  You can think of the ownership of land and capital as the result of previous labor, either mine or my parents. Now say that because of age or infirmity, I can't labor on my land any more, but allow someone else to work on it. Do I loose the fruit of that previous labor because I can no longer work my land and someone else can? Is that just? Maybe I worked very hard and saved most of my money in order to buy land so that I could rent it out and provide an income for my old age. If only those who labor on the land are entitled to its ownership, I could never do that.

  Published: April 26, 2006 8:49 AM

• BillG (not Gates)

  Roger M wrote:

  "You can think of the ownership of land and capital as the result of previous labor, either mine or my parents."

  BillG responds:

  there are no labor inputs to the production of land because the land itself pre-exists labor.

  there are no labor inputs from the owner for economic rent as it is unimproved land value.

  Roger M wrote:

  "Now say that because of age or infirmity, I can't labor on my land any more, but allow someone else to work on it. Do I loose the fruit of that previous labor because I can no longer work my land and someone else can? Is that just? Maybe I worked very hard and saved most of my money in order to buy land so that I could rent it out and provide an income for my old age. If only those who labor on the land are entitled to its ownership, I could never do that."

  BillG responds:

  all labor on the land by you or anyone you hire is strictly private property as it contributes to improved land value.

  in the system that I advocate there would actually be no purchase price to land just the requirement for exclusive use/possession of a specific location that you share the full economic rent (unimproved land value) with your neighbors (directly and equally) as they are required to do with you.

  this will not violate your labor-based property rights to your efforts (or who you hire) because:

  a. your labor efforts or hired do not produce the land itself as land pre-exists human labor.

  b. your labor effort or hired do not create the unimproved land values (economic rent) - the community of your neighbors do via their presence and labor efforts.

  Published: April 26, 2006 9:36 AM

• Roger M

  I've seen that advocated before. It's interesting. I just haven't thought about it enough to have an opinion. The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma did that before statehood. The tribe owned all of the land and the council would give the right to use the land to certain people for a period of time. Land tenure in ancient Israel during the time of the Judges in the OT was similar, too. However, with the Israelis, the land was divided by tribe and family upon the first settlement, so it was privately owned. But every 50 years, land that had been sold reverted to the original owner. In effect, you couldn't sell land, just least it for 49 years.

  That could work. I don't see any conflict with natural law. But I don't think it would make a huge difference in the distribution of wealth, since productivity and entrepreneurship matter today more than land in determining wealth.

  Published: April 26, 2006 12:38 PM

• BillG (not Gates)

  Roger M wrote:

  "I don't think it would make a huge difference in the distribution of wealth, since productivity and entrepreneurship matter today more than land in determining wealth."

  BillG responds:

  that is maybe because you are under the false impression that economic rent is "individual wealth" it is not because there are no labor inputs from the landowners...it is commonwealth as it is the result of the increased demand on specific locations extrinsic to the labor inputs on the location in question.

  where exactly do you think this "productibity and entreprenuership" can take place - hovering above the ground?

  what percentage of McDonald's on the books "wealth" do you think comes from revenue vs. land value?

  Published: April 26, 2006 12:57 PM

• Björn Lundahl

  Justice, Liberty and the Free Market.

  A pure free market is based upon the axiomatic principle "that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else".
  This is the very principle which the courts and the legal system should follow.

  I hereby quote some old writing written by Elisha Williams (1744);

  "As reason tells us, all are born thus naturally equal, i.e. with an equal right to their persons, so also with an equal right to their preservation...and every man having a property in his own person, the labour of his body and the works of his hands are properly his own, to which no one has right but himself; it will therefore follow that when he removes anything out of the state that nature has provided and left it in, he has mixed his labour with it, and joined something to it that is his own, and thereby makes it his property...Thus every man having a natural right to (or being a proprietor of) his own person and his own actions and labour, which we call property, it certainly follows, that no man can have a right to the person or property of another. And if every man has a right to his person and property; he has also a right to defend them...and so has a right of punishing all insults upon his person and property."

  Corporations are owned by individuals.

  Aggressions against corporations are, of course, aggressions against their individual owners and should be considered crimes.

  In Man, Economy and State, page 1144, for instance, Murray Rothbard wrote and I quote;

  “It should be clear from previous discussion, however, that corporations are not at all monopolistic privileges; they are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such men would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation, and that beyond this their personal funds are not liable for debts, as they would be under a partnership arrangement. It then rests with the sellers and lenders to this corporation to decide whether or not they will transact business with it. If they do, then they proceed at their own risk. Thus, the government does not grant corporations a privilege of limited liability; anything announced and freely contracted for in advance is a right of a free individual, not a special privilege. It is not necessary that governments grant charters to corporations”.
  Go to; http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap15d.asp#3R._Policy_Toward_Monopoly

  Property rights and the theory of contracts.
  I hereby quote from the book “The Ethics of Liberty” (page 133), written by Murray Rothbard;

  “the right to contract is strictly derivable from the right of private property, and therefore that the only enforceable contracts (i.e., those backed by the sanction of legal coercion) should be those where the failure of one party to abide by the contract implies the theft of property from the other party. In short, a contract should only be enforceable when the failure to fulfill it is an implicit theft of property. But this can only be true if we hold that validly enforceable contracts only exist where title to property has already been transferred, and therefore where the failure to abide by the contract means that the other party’s property is retained by the delinquent party, without the consent of the former (implicit theft). Hence, this proper libertarian theory of enforceable contracts has been termed the “title-transfer” theory of contracts”.

  Go to;
  http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/nineteen.asp

  Violation of copyright is a violation of contract and theft of property.

  And this regardless of state laws. If someone sells his property to a person under the condition that the buyer has no right to copy it, the buyer has all rights to the property except the right to copy it. That is, as long as the property is a physical object and is alienable. To find out more on this position go to; http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/sixteen.asp

  Björn Lundahl
  Göteborg Sweden

  Published: October 12, 2006 3:26 PM

• greg

  RE: The ladder taking and states of nature.
  

  The rights of property are societal rules of conduct. (If no society, then no societal rules of conduct.) The presumption is that "society" and its benefits exist to be leveraged by individual actors, if societal rules are to be applied. I think a modern libertarian position on what society is, and what its benefits are, has to do something with choices available to individual actors. A lack of the benefits and choice normally available from society, may provide some level and time of suspension of the societal rules of conduct. This would seem to include some suspension of property rights rules of conduct.
  

  In a dire situation where life is at stake, and a delay of action implied by satisfying the societal rules of conduct, would lead to (perhaps) death, it could be said that society has vanished and the actors are in a state of nature, no longer in society. (The benefits of societal choice are not available in a time frame that would be needed to circumvent transient disaster.) Therefore the societal rules of conduct may be considered diminished, at least. The actors in a state of nature -- those whose lives are in a critical transient state -- do not have the benefits of society, by the problem definition. So it is debatable how much societal rules should even apply to them for the transient situation.
  

  To be sure, we might well expect the state of nature actions to be adjudicated later in a societal court. But I think many reasonable persons and judges will certainly conclude that the situation would at least mitigate the "guilt" of the ladder takers, and perhaps would acquit them altogether. The ladder taking may not be a violation of anyone's rights. Those rights are based on the presense and benefits of society, not on a state of nature.
  

  This reminds me of THE CASE OF THE SPELUNCEAN EXPLORERS. (http://www.nullapoena.de/stud/explorers.html)
  It is only partially applicable.

  Published: October 12, 2006 7:44 PM