Comments (87)

• Evans Munyemesha

  An up and coming refreshing voice.

  Published: May 12, 2006 8:58 AM

• rhu

  QUOTE:
  "In March 1933, the Nazis won 43.9% of the vote, giving them and their coalition partner (a similar right-wing party, the German National People's Party) an absolute majority, ..."

  Hi Mr. Phillips,

  Your economical analysis seems quite logical as a whole, but I don't agree in full with your statement above.

  Who's the "similar right-wing" here?
  Just in case you're not fully aware - as many readers in general may also ignore - NAZI stands for "Nazional SOZIALISTISCHE Arbeiterpartei". In fact, Hitler's organization was a left-thinking (? - sorry for the oxymoron) totalitarian group, whose actions clearly revealed no "conservative" or "right-winged" philosophy whatsoever.

  Some examples: large-scale confiscation of private property, heavy restriction on all markets, attack on individual rights, arbitraty distributive policies etc.

  Any identification with socialism/ communism and other similar principles?

  Let's just put things in place, regarding this part of your article.

  Regards to all from Rio/ Brazil.

  
  

  Published: May 12, 2006 9:12 AM

• Roger M

  The Founding Fathers were very much aware of the dangers of democracy, which they considered mob rule. They created our republican form of government in response to the two main dangers of the period—absolute monarchies and mobs. The monarchs of Europe plundered the wealth of the people, contrary to what Hoppe has written. Mob violence in several countries created chaos, destroyed property and murdered people.

  The republican system was an attempt to steer between these two rocks, and it has worked fairly well, if you don’t compare it to the ridiculous imaginary utopias that libertarians and socialists have invented. The major abuses have come about since the Great Depression and we’re working to reverse those.

  Phillips writes “To those who say that government is voluntary and that taxes are equivalent to rent, I ask, what will happen if you attempt to secede from the government and refuse to pay your income tax?�

  You can also look at taxes as the dues you would pay to voluntary associations. But, the libertarian protests, I never agreed to become of citizen (member) of the U.S.! Therefore the association is not voluntary and not legal! But consider that you were given citizenship at birth when you were too young to make the decision for yourself. Now that you’re older and wiser, you can decide if you want to keep your citizenship. Many people have decided not to and have moved to Canada or Europe. We can’t allow you to secede, for our strength against external foes lies in our territorial unity and everyone sharing the burden. The “free rider� problem could destroy us. But you’re free to sell your land to other citizens who want to maintain the agreement. We won’t take your property if you decide to leave. If you choose to stay, you imply consent and agreement with the contract to abide by the laws of the nation or work to change them only by peaceful means.
  

  Published: May 12, 2006 9:20 AM

• quasibill

  rhu,

  you've demonstrated the utter meaninglessness of traditional "right/left" political analysis. The Nazis were "right wing" in cultural matters, and in some respects, economic and nationalistic matters. However, as you note, the economic policies were similar to "left wing" policies. Just so you are aware, the Nazis were an "anti-communist, anti-socialist" party in the Weimar Republic.

  It's all a matter of perspective.

  Published: May 12, 2006 9:28 AM

• David C

  There is a saying "individuals are destined by choices, but nations by circumsatnce", and I think that is true here. From my persepctive, every time I get fusterated with the US govt (which has been a lot lately), I bring up the economic freedom rankings, and the political freedom rankings, and other indicators, and always come to the same conclusion. That in spite of all the problems - whatever force is driving political and economic liberty in the world - it is still in the US.

  Right now, that force is the Internet / information age (IMHO) and it is getting a lot of backlash. Information age forces are killing censorship in all forms, killing the copyright system, and making it impossible for governments to lie to people about value of their money (inplies death of US dollar) while at the same time making easy for people to store wealth and engage in transactions without the government nosing in. Also, I think many unfree countries are under seige even moreso than the US, and are dealing with this by lashing out at western interests in the form of terrorisim.

  Anyhow, my point is that inspite of all the stupid decisions, I don't think the war on terrorisim is being driven by stupidity or even democracy, but by real pressures that are forcing the US to react and contain. Also, my point is that the internet is changing democracy. We are reaching a point where even if 99% of the mob wants to controll what you read, or wants to manage your finances - they will be unable to. Also, accept for the pre-destined doom of the US dollar as a currency, we're not approacing a tragedy of the commons just yet even though it will probably feel like it when the US makes a transition back to gold currency. But the speed of the information age should make this adjustment rather quick after the collapse (which, BTW a dollar collapse appears to be underway these last few days - I hope people have gold)

  Published: May 12, 2006 9:38 AM

• quasibill

  Correction - drop the "anti-socialist" - quite clearly they were socialist. They were, however, anti-communist as a foundation.

  Published: May 12, 2006 9:46 AM

• Michaël Bauwens

  It's somewhat easy to blame 'democracy' for what happened in Athens. It's just as easy (if not easier) to tell such stories about undemocratic regimes, Sparta, for example. The Athenians did demand taxes from their allies, but the Spartans simply killed Helots on a regular basis, as part of a 'training' for their youth. And what to say about democratic Switzerland (far more democratic than Athens as every Swiss citizen is allowed to vote, and incomparable more democratic than the US) with it's eternal peaceful neutrality? Shouldn't that be a plus point for democracy?

  Libertarians complain about cases where so-called democracy (like in the US) leads to the violation of property rights, and I whole-heartedly agree with them on that point, but if you ask the question 'then who is about to rule?' it becomes silent. This article states that "Such a society in not in a state of anarchy; authority is simply decentralized to the lowest possible and most just level — the business, the community, the family."
  Ok then, how much power does the 'pater familias' has over his children? Can he kill them without punishment, like it happened in acient Rome? If not, then who has the power to prevent the father from punishing his children the way he wants (e.g., to death)? The business? Should an employer have the right to interfere with affairs of his employee that have nothing to do with his job? Then who is to rule, or if no one is to rule but 'natural law', then who is going to enforce natural law, or who is going to decide which natural law to follow? 'The community'? But who is that community? Is NYC one 'community'? How is that community going to make decisions? By majority vote? And if not, who is going to decide which decision-making system will be used?
  

  Published: May 12, 2006 9:50 AM

• quasibill

  Roger -

  If I break into your house and point a gun at your head and say "obey my orders or leave" - under your argument, you've consented to my rule. After all, you were free to refuse and leave your house. I'll let you sell your stuff if you want. But you can't keep it if you're not going to obey my orders.

  If you think that's voluntary, then let me know where you live, will ya?

  Published: May 12, 2006 9:52 AM

• rhu

  Quasibill,

  Thanks God, I´m an Engineer and no political analyst or scientist. I don't intend to discuss in depth (and have no technical background for that) the meaning of the "right/ left" concepts (btw, quite a sterile subject) but rather focus on the underlying economic aspects of Mr. Phillips' article.

  If, as you say, "the Nazis were an "anti-communist, anti-socialist" party in the Weimar Republic", in this case I would understand from their economic actions that they were some kind of de facto communist/ socialist parallel organization who diverged from the "mainstream" communist/ socialist ideology, using xenophobic nationalist flags but ultimately aiming at a 100% centrally planned totalitarian expansionist state with illimited power, ruling above all -ideally, over the whole World, as the concept "3rd. Reich (Empire)" tried to summarize.

  Apart from some "cultural" (as you say) aspects, such as the sistematic ethnic hate machine and bizarre megalomaniac race superiority ideas, their government could be placed quite comfortably into the same economic philosophy as the former Soviet Union.

  I would suggest to those with a deeper knowledge, to perform a detailed comparison between both economies.

  Best regards from Rio/ Brazil.

  Published: May 12, 2006 9:59 AM

• Brian Drum

  Rhu,

  The Mises Institute had a whole conference dealing with the economics of fascism in its different varieties: Economics of Fascism

  Published: May 12, 2006 10:21 AM

• Francisco Torres

  Ok then, how much power does the 'pater familias' has over his children? Can he kill them without punishment, like it happened in acient Rome?

  And,

  If not, then who has the power to prevent the father from punishing his children the way he wants (e.g., to death)?

  These are contradictory questions, Michael. One thing is to punish a person for a deed he or she has already commited, and another (QUITE another) preventing such person from commiting a crime.

  Certainly, a government can deliver punishment to a father that kills one of his sons or daughters, but not one outside the family could possibly prevent such. In that regards, the question: "Who is going to prevent?" becomes irrelevant even in the presence of a State.

  What does stop a man from killing his children is his own sense of legacy and decency. If he kills his children, his chance of passing on his genes diminishes. If a man feels it is wrong to kill, he will refrain. And if the children have uncles and cousins willing to avenge, he could be deterred. All of these examples do not require a State, and indeed, a State only acts after the fact, meaning it is just as useful or useless a deterrence as simple vengeance from family members.

  
  The business? Should an employer have the right to interfere with affairs of his employee that have nothing to do with his job?

  YES, he has that right - it is called Right of Free Association. If an employer does not like the idea that an employee is a bad father, the employer has every right to terminate hsi relationship. Only under coercive, envy-driven government do we have employee "protection" like you imply.

  
  Then who is to rule, or if no one is to rule but 'natural law', then who is going to enforce natural law, or who is going to decide which natural law to follow?

  "Natural law" means rules that are self-evident, Michael. For example, you do not have right to kill me, or to steal from me. That is self-evident. Not following such simple, common sense laws make you liable to be detested or even killed by your fellow people. Enforcement can come in many forms, and has been the subject of many interesting essays in mises.org.

  Published: May 12, 2006 11:18 AM

• Curt Howland

  Roger M., I will not take issue with your support of the system as set in place by the Founding Fathers.
  

  If you were to actually propose returning to the limited government as outlined in those documents, you would find that the "utopian libertarians" would support your effort whole heartedly.
  

  Your error, I believe, lies in equating the government(s) we have now with anything similar to what the Founding Fathers proposed.
  

  If you examine the "utopian libertarians" actual proposals, few suggest any less government than what is outlined in the Constitution except as arguments in principle, taking the ideal of "The government that governs least governs best" to its logical conclusion.

  Published: May 12, 2006 11:33 AM

• Roger M

  Quasibill,
  Equating the institution of government with breaking into someone's house is typical of the exageration and illogical passion of libertarians. For taxation to be theft, you have to prove that a government is illegit. You haven't. You've just assumed it to be so. You're analogy is ridiculous.

  Phillips makes some good points about the failures of many government agencies, but he, and all libertarians make a fatal error in logic: They equate the actions of individuals with flaws in the system. I have spent many years in quality control for manufacturing and realize this is a difficult distinction for many people to make. The basic idea in quality is to determine is a failure is systemic or special, in other words, will the failure happen because of the design of my process, or because an operator or machine failed. Transferring the analogy to government, libertarians are incapable of distinguishing between special causes and systematic failures. Nothing in the design of our republican form of government guaranteed the socialist system we have drifted toward. The current socialism has sprung up mostly since 1968. The failure is special, not systemic, and can be corrected without changing the system, but will require years to accomplish while we educate the people about true economics and property rights.

  Published: May 12, 2006 11:41 AM

• quasibill

  "For taxation to be theft, you have to prove that a government is illegit."

  Actually, you have it backwards. Since theft is taking something from another without their consent, and robbery is such by the use of force or threat of force, taxation clearly satisfies those definitions. Now, there are defenses possible, but they are affirmative defenses, meaning the burden of proof is on those asserting them. You can assert that the state is somehow super-human, and therefore liable to none of humanity's flaws, but noone yet has been able to establish that to my satisfaction. You're free to try, but you've got a long road to hoe.

  "They equate the actions of individuals with flaws in the system"

  Because we understand that a political system is nothing more than the action of many individuals. Absent individual action, no political system would accomplish anything.

  "I have spent many years in quality control for manufacturing and realize this is a difficult distinction for many people to make"

  Nice appeal to authority - just realize that I spent 6 years of my life in quality control R&D for an international pharmaceutical - so your claim to authority on the subject impresses me little.

  "Nothing in the design of our republican form of government guaranteed the socialist system we have drifted toward. "

  You need to read some of the Public Choice school economists - it certainly was guaranteed. In fact, that (and a subsequent career change involving the legal system) is what turned me from a minarchist - republics - every one in our history - have inevitably devolved into empire. Once you breach the ethical rule against robbery and theft, lawyers and lobbyists get involved and make the case that their vision of the public good is sufficient to justify theft and robbery.

  Once again, the burden is on you to demonstrate that it is possible for a Republic to last more than a few generations (besides, if you know about early American History, you'd know that from the very beginning, we started ignoring the Constitution).

  Published: May 12, 2006 11:54 AM

• quasibill

  rhu,

  "their government could be placed quite comfortably into the same economic philosophy as the former Soviet Union."

  Exactly - that's why traditional "right/left" is pointless. Again, the Nazis were reactionary - a party mainly motivated by anti-communism. On the traditional right/left scale, Nazis would be right, as they believed in the superiority of a certain race/culture/nation. In contrast, communists would be left, as they believed in the equality of all men.

  However, both belief systems led them to frighteningly similar totalitarian states.

  Published: May 12, 2006 11:58 AM

• Paul Edwards

  Roger M,

  “You can also look at taxes as the dues you would pay to voluntary associations.�

  But I prefer to look at taxes as they are: extortion.

  “But, the libertarian protests, I never agreed to become of citizen (member) of the U.S.! Therefore the association is not voluntary and not legal! But consider that you were given citizenship at birth when you were too young to make the decision for yourself. Now that you’re older and wiser, you can decide if you want to keep your citizenship.�

  The libertarian asks this: on what basis is the group of individuals we refer to collectively as the state, justified in bestowing citizenship on and extorting taxes from the rest of us. The answer is… on no basis at all.

  “Many people have decided not to and have moved to Canada or Europe. We can’t allow you to secede, for our strength against external foes lies in our territorial unity and everyone sharing the burden.�

  “We can’t allow you to secede�? “We� is an interesting term. Anyways, Roger, have you ever read the declaration of independence? It’s an important document I believe you would put weight on and it has something contrary to say about secession.

  “The “free rider� problem could destroy us.�

  LOL. Roger. Your “Republic� is certainly going to destroy us.

  “But you’re free to sell your land to other citizens who want to maintain the agreement. We won’t take your property if you decide to leave.�

  LOL! How gracious! Surely this is too generous! But seriously. I must really be an off the wall radical because the sentiments expressed in those two sentences are leaving me without an answer. This is a satisfactory situation to you? What does property mean, if it doesn’t mean no one can arbitrarily force me to sell it and get my sorry behind out of a territory because I don’t consent to being aggressed against?

  “If you choose to stay, you imply consent and agreement with the contract to abide by the laws of the nation or work to change them only by peaceful means.�

  If I choose to stay, it implies I prefer to suffer the given injustices under the present tyranny rather than to undergo all the pain and costs of picking up and moving. The notion that there is some legal contract that I voluntarily entered into, binding me to the government is absurd, in a rather surreal way. That so many buy into it with such zeal actually makes my head spin.

  Published: May 12, 2006 12:03 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Curt,

  You addressed this comment to Roger, “Your error, I believe, lies in equating the government(s) we have now with anything similar to what the Founding Fathers proposed.�

  I believe the more substantial error which is very commonly committed, is in equating the constitution with something of legal authority such as a voluntarily entered into, signed and binding contract. The error is in presuming the framers had authority and were legitimate representatives of the people. The error is in not noticing that the rat that Patrick Henry could smell so long ago is still stinking up the place even as we speak.
  

  Published: May 12, 2006 12:26 PM

• Roger M

  Quasibill, if states are legit institutions, and you agree to reside in within the boundaries of the state rather than move, then taxes can't be theft. That's why you have to prove that state's are not legit. And you're burden of proof is high because you have virtually no historical evidence for the success of stateles societies. If you're such an expert in quality, why can't you recognize the difference between special and systemic causes of failure? And if the Republican system carried the seeds of the current failures, why did it take 150 years for them to show up?

  Paul, you wrote, "If I choose to stay, it implies I prefer to suffer the given injustices under the present tyranny rather than to undergo all the pain and costs of picking up and moving." You're freedom must not be very important to you. Millions of people would love to trade place with you and endure the awful oppression you suffer in under this horrible republic.

  Published: May 12, 2006 12:34 PM

• quasibill

  "and you agree to reside in within the boundaries of the state rather than move,"

  And if you agree to live after I've issued my ultimatum to you...

  Prove I'm illegitimate in a way that doesn't make the state illegitimate.

  "And you're burden of proof is high because you have virtually no historical evidence for the success of stateles societies."

  Actually, you can do a search on this very site for history of Iceland and Ireland. Apparently, you'll be surprised by what you read.

  "If you're such an expert in quality, why can't you recognize the difference between special and systemic causes of failure?"

  Because they have little to with political systems, as I've noted. Or perhaps, if it appeals better to your way of thinking, you are assuming away a systemic cause of failure in your very first step of reasoning - that states are legitimate and they people consent to them just by being born. By that logic, slaves consented to their status - after all, they had opportunities to escape.

  "if the Republican system carried the seeds of the current failures, why did it take 150 years for them to show up?"

  Because it didn't take 150 years. It took less than 8. Read about the Whiskey Rebellion. Then read about Hamilton, and the National Bank. Then look at the war between the states.

  Heck, all you have to do is look at the Constitutional Convention itself, and look at what the delegates were actually empowered to do there - hint, it wasn't "draft a new Constitution that created a stronger federal government".

  "You're freedom must not be very important to you. Millions of people would love to trade place with you and endure the awful oppression you suffer in under this horrible republic."

  And millions of people in Africa would have gladly traded places with the people of the Soviet Union. You must think that was a wonderful, legitimate institution as well!

  Published: May 12, 2006 12:45 PM

• Curt Howland

  Paul, indeed I was trying to first point out a distinction he might accept, without allowing him to dismiss me out of hand as a "utopian". It's amazing how people misuse that word, since "Utopia" was a perfect world because of total government regulation. "Utopians" are people who believe in the government control, by definition. There can be no such thing as a "utopian libertarian".
  

  Roger M., “You can also look at taxes as the dues you would pay to voluntary associations.�
  

  The error in your statement here is that taxation is by definition not voluntary. The only difference between being mugged by the IRS and being mugged by someone in competition with the IRS is that government calls the second party a criminal.
  

  In terms of "left" and "right", recently I read a cute one: "Left and right are irrelevant. The only difference between Hitler and Stalin was the colour of their uniform."

  Published: May 12, 2006 1:19 PM

• George Gaskell

  The major abuses have come about since the Great Depression

  Quasbill has already touched on this a little, but the "major abuses" began the first time someone declared he had the authority of government over others.

  Even by your own limited understanding, Roger, the "major abuses" certainly began when Lincoln invaded to reverse a legal and peaceful secession, conquer a sovereign country, and bring it into the "Union" at gunpoint. From at least that point on, the government of the United States, regardless of what any of us think about governments in general, ceased to exist. At that point, it became something else entirely.

  Now that you’re older and wiser, you can decide if you want to keep your citizenship. Many people have decided not to and have moved to Canada or Europe.

  ... to become a "citizen" of another illegitimate State. How couldyou think that this point possibly supports your argument?

  The phrase "social contract" is the most harmful utterance in human history. It dragged the good name of contracts through the mud when it was twisted into an absurd analogy with rule by force.

  We can’t allow you to secede, for our strength against external foes lies in our territorial unity and everyone sharing the burden.

  We can't allow you to assert this pretense of authority over us. Seems we're at an impasse.

  The “free rider� problem could destroy us.

  The free rider problem is a myth. To the extent free riders exist, they are not a genuine problem.

  But you’re free to sell your land to other citizens who want to maintain the agreement.

  Please tell me which dictionary you are using so I can look up what you mean by "agreement." You are using it in precisely the opposite sense of its conventional meaning.

  If you choose to stay, you imply consent and agreement with the contract to abide by the laws of the nation or work to change them only by peaceful means.

  The "laws" you seek to impose on others are not peaceful. Legislation is inherently an act of aggression. No one has the right to pass "laws" and force them on others. Natural laws exist. Like all forms of science, it is up to us to discover them. Men cannot create new ones. When they do, they are not laws at all, but simply edicts and commands.

  Published: May 12, 2006 1:28 PM

• Roger M

  What do you 'narchos call you're current situation? You know the rules of the game, i.e., the laws of the nation, yet you remain here. If that's not consent, agreement, or contract, what is it? By staying here, you agree to abide by the laws of the nation.

  I've got an idea for you. A recent post on this web site suggested that Somalia is as close to an anarcho society as you can get on this planet. So why don't you guys sell your property here, move there and prove us "statists" wrong? Based on your writings, it would be so very easy to do.

  Published: May 12, 2006 1:36 PM

• Roger M

  You guys still miss the distinction between special and systemic problems. For a problem to be systemic, it must be designed into the original system. Here's an example of a systemic problem with the US: The original constitution counted slaves as 3/8 of a person. That's a systemic problem that produced consistenly bad results until it was changed. The acts of individuals, such as Lincoln or FDR, are by definition special causes, because the acts of individuals are not part of the system. The system is the constitution plus the institutions of the president, congress, the supreme court and the states. Individuals operate the system just as individuals work the system on an assembly line. Individuals often make mistakes, but they're easily corrected. Systemic failures, such as allowing slavery, take much longer to correct and that correction can be violent. So quit bringing up the acts of individuals as evidence of systemic failures. They're not!

  Published: May 12, 2006 1:43 PM

• quasibill

  Roger,

  Once again, you're assuming away the basic systemic failure - human nature. If you're relying on a human being to be totally altruistic for your system to work, well, there is a systemic error. If you don't count on the fact that humans, and by extension groups of humans, will act in a way that is contrary to morality, you have systemic error.

  Our constitution contains exactly that systemic error.

  Published: May 12, 2006 1:52 PM

• Urbanitect

  Free to leave? Picture a slave chained at the leg. The slave master tells him he may leave at any time, but he only has to chop off his foot and leave it behind (as well as control the bleeding somehow while he runs away). Since the slave does not chop off his own foot, it must mean he consents to his enslavement.

  Published: May 12, 2006 1:56 PM

• George Gaskell

  I reject the proposition that you or anyone else gets to set the "rules of the game."

  When I pay taxes, I do so as a simple economic calculation -- I assume that some person I do not know, someone like you who is deluded into believing he is somehow exempt from the basic principles of non-aggression and human decency, will call up his buddies and they will all show up at my house with guns and harm me and my family. It is a tribute, paid at the point of a gun that its wielder has repeatedly shown that he will use.

  So, I'd call the current situation extortion.

  It is not consent because I never agreed to give this money to anyone. It is not consent since I pay it only because I will be attacked if I decline to pay it.

  To "agree" to something means that one has the option of either doing or not-doing something, and no aggression will result from selecting either option. It means that one gets to choose the most advantageous option -- either the status quo, or something that one expects will improve the status quo. In contrast, by not doing as my armed-robbers command me, I will end up with a result that is far worse than the status quo. I will be actively, aggressively harmed. How anyone could call that "consent" or "agreement" is beyond comprehension.

  As for Somalia, I don't know enough about it to say. To move, I would need more than a mere lack of government. I would look for a society that has a large number of people who believe in peaceful cooperation and reject aggression.

  Besides, who are you to tell me to move? I own this patch of earth and everything on it. The moral, decent thing to do is for you and your compadres to stop threatening to assault me for doing things that aggress on no one and cause no one any harm whatsoever (like wanting to keep what I earn and what is rightfully mine, for example).

  Published: May 12, 2006 1:57 PM

• Michaël Bauwens

  These are contradictory questions, Michael. One thing is to punish a person for a deed he or she has already commited, and another (QUITE another) preventing such person from commiting a crime.
  Certainly, a government can deliver punishment to a father that kills one of his sons or daughters, but not one outside the family could possibly prevent such. In that regards, the question: "Who is going to prevent?" becomes irrelevant even in the presence of a State.
  Granted, I did use the terms 'preventing' and 'punishing' in a confusing way. I think the overarching term 'coercive power' would have been better.

  a State only acts after the fact, meaning it is just as useful or useless a deterrence as simple vengeance from family members.
  And what if it's a conflict between different families? Or a conflict/murder between a powerful family and a weak, small family? Don't you need a state in such a situation, i.e. wouldn't a democratic state be useful in such a situation?
  

  YES, he has that right - it is called Right of Free Association. If an employer does not like the idea that an employee is a bad father, the employer has every right to terminate hsi relationship. Only under coercive, envy-driven government do we have employee "protection" like you imply.
  That was not what I implied. I certainly grant an employer the right to fire an employee who is a bad father, I was wondering whether that employer had the right to punish that father beyond simply ending his professional relationship with him (as the author of the article stated that "business" should be one of the three sources of authority).
  

  

  "Natural law" means rules that are self-evident, Michael. For example, you do not have right to kill me, or to steal from me. That is self-evident. Not following such simple, common sense laws make you liable to be detested or even killed by your fellow people. Enforcement can come in many forms, and has been the subject of many interesting essays in mises.org.

  
  Self-evident according to whom? For some people it's self-evident that promiscuity should be punished by stoning someone to death. For a lot of people in my country, it's self-evident to tax rich people up to 80%. If it's self-evident for certain people to kill someone if he offended their prophet, and it's self-evident for other people to kill anyone who kills someone for no reason, you'll end up in a lot trouble I think. The US constitution says that certain principles are self-evident (and I agree with those principles), but saying that they are self-evident clearly hasn't been enough to protect them.
  Feel free to recommend me some of those articles on (state-less?) law enforcement.

  Published: May 12, 2006 2:03 PM

• George Gaskell

  Here's your systemic problem, Roger. I have highligted the systemic portion for you:

  When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

  There is no such thing as "one people." That is an immoral, and irrational, collectivization. There are many people. That's why we call them "individuals." So, there's a sign that a systemic error is not too far away.

  But the rest is pretty good, as far as it goes. Here's where the real trouble sneaks in:

  We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

  The third item on the list should have been "property," not the "pursuit of Happiness" which, in truth, is the same thing as "liberty." Strike two.

  Then comes the biggie: the proposition that one creates a government to secure these basic rights is the real "systemic problem." It doesn't get any more systemic than that. Government is organized force. It is the prime violator of rights. It is the fox guarding the henhouse. It is like taking all of your property and decision-making authority, then finding some hardened ex-convict sociopath and giving him the keys to your life and saying, "here, now you'll use all of this for my benefit, right?"

  Published: May 12, 2006 2:13 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Roger,

  That’s an interesting proposal. However, since it is not the anarchists who are promoting aggression, I suggest this counter proposal: The anarchists should stay where they are and all the statists move to countries where the people would spit on the Declaration of Independence and who endorse the tyranny and despotism of the state. With everyone together with such like-mindedness, taxation would in some sense, amount to club dues in a voluntary association and you could prove all us narchos wrong without imposing your tyranny on us. It’s perfect.
  

  Published: May 12, 2006 2:15 PM

• Francisco Torres

  Roger M wrote,
  I've got an idea for you. A recent post on this web site suggested that Somalia is as close to an anarcho society as you can get on this planet. So why don't you guys sell your property here, move there and prove us "statists" wrong? Based on your writings, it would be so very easy to do.

  It was me who posted it, but not to exaltate that particular region. I posted it as an example of a place where market forces are unhindered. However, it is one thing to have a free market in a place and another benefiting from people that are nice to you, which probably is not the case (yet) in Somalia. However, even if some of us would not go and invest there (I don't have the money right now), certainly MANY investors are sending their goods over there and selling in profitable markets, like telecom companies.

  Many left-leaning or statist reporters usually indicate the worst problems that Somalia faces (like here, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4017147.stm) and are immediate to blame the free market and the lack of a government, but by the phraseology and the spin they apply to their writtings, it is clear they are creating pamphlets for the State as an idea. Somalia is just recuperating from a dictatorship and years of civil war, with much to thank for the chaos to the USA, who entered that country just to murder a couple thousand people. So the State was not MUCH better than what they have now, except there is more opportunity for economic growth right now than when they had a "government". It will be some time before civility imposes itself by custom. However, the best way is still through market forces.

  Anyway, it is one thing to have a people that have yet to figure out it is better to live under natural law than to have a people that considers natural law a part of their lives, like Westerners and not few Asians. In the US people lived more or less without government, during the XIX Century, especially in the Frontier. Economic activity was thriving in the Old West, especially by the trade of goods taken by rail. So it is not like all people were living then under the tutelage of a centralized monstrosity such as the current US Gov.

  Published: May 12, 2006 2:18 PM

• Roger M

  Quasibill--"Once again, you're assuming away the basic systemic failure - human nature." It's not part of the system; the system was designed to control it to a limited degree.

  George, "So, I'd call the current situation extortion." That's irrational! If state's are legit institutions, they have a right to tax. For the third time, you have to show that states are not legit for taxes to equal theft!

  Also: "In contrast, by not doing as my armed-robbers command me, I will end up with a result that is far worse than the status quo." How so? You can sell your property and re-invest it in Somalia. If anarchism is so wonderful, you should be much better off than you are here! What are you waiting for?

  I give George B+ for his efforts to understand the difference between special and systemic causes. He's closer than any others. Still, George, to get an A you have to show the problems those phrases have caused. What you have pointed out are not problems, but a disagreement over definitions or words.

  Paul--"The anarchists should stay where they are and all the statists move..." There's only 5 anarchists in the country. It would be easier for you guys to move. Besides, you're the ones at odds with the system, not us.

  Somalia has a good chance of becoming your anarcho Disneyland. Those of you who refuse to go help build, I suggest this whole discussion is just a parlor game for you.

  Published: May 12, 2006 3:03 PM

• Francisco Torres

  
  Michael wrote:
  And what if it's a conflict between different families? Or a conflict/murder between a powerful family and a weak, small family? Don't you need a state in such a situation, i.e. wouldn't a democratic state be useful in such a situation?

  Such cases of two families fighting each other are rare. Second, let us say the bigger family has more political clout that the weaker - in a democracy, the bigger family would have even MORE power than under, let us say, a monarchy, where the King would not owe alliance to any family. Under a Stateless society, the only influence a bigger family would have is with numbers, but if such were the case, other smaller families would feel threatened and side with the weaker family in order to deter the bigger family. That would be enough to stop a conflict - people want to go about their business unhindered.

  That was not what I implied. I certainly grant an employer the right to fire an employee who is a bad father,

  Fair enough :-)

  I was wondering whether that employer had the right to punish that father beyond simply ending his professional relationship with him (as the author of the article stated that "business" should be one of the three sources of authority)


  To what the other poster was refering is the idea of private justice institutions, i.e. judges, bounty hunters, investigators, lawyers, etc. and not a State monopoly.

  Self-evident according to whom? For some people it's self-evident that promiscuity should be punished by stoning someone to death.

  Is it, really? Self evident means it is understood as truth by everyone because it is a logical conclusion, after looking at all alternatives and consequences. For example, would you like the idea of me killing you? If not, it becomes SELF EVIDENT that killing you is wrong - you do not like it! The same goes for me - I would not like the idea of being killed. If the two of us arrive at the conclusion that killing each other is not nice, then we can conclude that pretty much everybody else would think the same. So, the logical conclusion is that killing is wrong - nobody would like to be killed. Another conclusion - you should NOT kill. This is where the Golden Rule comes from.

  There are other rules that are NOT self evident, like stoning somebody to death just because he or she was excercising his/her freedom. First, stoning violates the "do not kill" natural law. Second, it violates the Golden Rule. So no, it is NOT self evident - many people would not like the idea of being stoned for whatever reason. On the other hand, stoning is not a free excercise but a State-sanctioned punishment. Many societies in the world do not indulge in stoning adulterers.

  If you figured out, natural law refers to rights in the negative form, and not the positive form. For example: It is wrong to kill, you do not have that right. It is wrong to steal, you do not have that right. Saying that you have a right to life, in the positive form, is not evident in itself since you WILL die sooner or later, so you do NOT have a right to live - you simply do. You can say you have a right to health, but again: microbes and contaminants do not care if you think you have a right to health. So, again, it is not self evident.

  One right that may be considered in the positive form is: You have a right to pursuit your happiness. However, it would create a set of problems because, if you have that right, then others have no right to hinder you in your pursuit - but what if your happiness comes from torturing people? Would you not have the right to receive happiness from their suffering? This is why one cannot say you have a right to happiness, but you certainly have the FREEDOM to pursuit your happiness as long as you do not violate other people's freedoms.

  For a lot of people in my country, it's self-evident to tax rich people up to 80%.

  Really? Have you asked them what would they think if there were no rich people and everybody was taxed 80% of their income? Maybe it would not be as self-evident as you think. Self-evident means that you arrive at that conclusion after looking at all alternatives and consequences. You arrive at such truths by deduction. A person that thinks rich people should be taxed 80% does so out of pure belief and not out of deductive reasoning.

  If it's self-evident for certain people to kill someone if he offended their prophet, and it's self-evident for other people to kill anyone who kills someone for no reason, you'll end up in a lot trouble I think.

  Worry if you have to live under such a society, but nevertheless, people are free to believe what they want - however, the "kill the infidel" is not a self-evident issue. Not all people believe that.

  Feel free to recommend me some of those articles on (state-less?) law enforcement.

  Sure! Here are the links:

  http://mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_5.pdf
  http://mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_3.pdf
  http://mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf

  They posit some very interesting solutions, some of them already in existence.

  Published: May 12, 2006 3:10 PM

• Andrew

  Roger M wrote "you have to show that states are not legit for taxes to equal theft"

  Perhaps you can expound upon what qualifies a state to be "legit", since you have yet to prove that it is such.
  

  Published: May 12, 2006 3:36 PM

• Roger M

  Andrew--"Perhaps you can expound upon what qualifies a state to be "legit", since you have yet to prove that it is such."

  The burden of proof lies with the 'narchos. The state exists and is almost universally accepted as legit. It has worked relatively well in the US. Most people see its legitimacy as self-evident. 'narchos disagree. So tell us why.

  But I'll be generous: Humbly following in the footsteps of giants such as Grotius, Locke and others, I believe people freely associated and formed organizations for self-protection and protection of property. In order for that organization to achieve its purpose, they gave the organization the power to enforce natural laws. Needing funds to operate, they agreed to taxation. Originally, such taxation was voluntary, but when it became clear that some would take advantage of the benefits of the organization without shouldering the burden, and this threatened their survival, they made taxation mandatory on any person living within their boundaries and therefore enjoying the benefits of security. Eventually, God sanctified these arrangements as being in accordance with His will in the Bible. As Locke and Grotius wrote, God desires the prosperity and security of His people and blessed government as the institution to bring those blessings into existence.

  'Narchos come along and say all of that is nonsense. Well, maybe. Prove it. I can't prove that the fanatasy world of 'Narchos won't work. It's impossible to prove an imaginary thing wrong. That's why I encourage you all to make 'Narchism a reality in Somalia so we can see if it works. The successes and failures of the American experiment are clearly visible for all to see and discuss. Where are similar successes and failures of 'Narchism? You have to actually do something, not just argue, before we can determine whether it will work or not.

  Published: May 12, 2006 4:06 PM

• Brian Drum

  Seeing as the 'state' is not an entity and simply a metaphor for the aggregate actions and beliefs of a group of individuals, ethical pronoucements such the 'the state is legitimate' don't really make sense.

  When someone says the state is legitimate what they are really doing is making an ethical claim that it is legitimate (i.e. justified) for one individual A to take and/or exercise control over any amount of B's property that he so desires, by force if necessary. This is the essence of 'state' behavior.

  On it's face this ethical proposition fails to be universalizable, since it creates two distinct groups of individuals too which different ethical criteria would apply (the rulers, A and the ruled B).

  Surely the burden of proof falls on the individual making the positive ethical claim. However it will not be possible to prove the above claim w/o implicitly assuming it's negative, ala Hoppe.

  Published: May 12, 2006 4:09 PM

• Roger M

  Brian--"Seeing as the 'state' is not an entity and simply a metaphor for the aggregate actions and beliefs of a group of individuals, ethical pronoucements such the 'the state is legitimate' don't really make sense."

  Bad definition of a state. The state as an institution is the equivalent of a contract, such as the constitution. The state employees are also citizens and bound by the same constitution, so there are not two classes of people. The people agree, in the constitution, to delegate a small portion of the work of self-government to the state employees. If the citizens don't like the way the employees of the state act, they can fire them. The citizens delegate the responsibility for enforcing the constitution to state employees so that the citizens can concentrate on their specialties; It's the division of labor principle.

  The American state has worked fairly well. As Winston Churchill said, Democracy is the worst form of government, excepting all others. 'Narchism is the new kid on the block who needs to prove himself. I've given my proof for the legitimacy of the state. What's yours for 'Narchism?

  Published: May 12, 2006 4:59 PM

• George Gaskell

  Bad definition of a state. The state as an institution is the equivalent of a contract, such as the constitution. The state employees are also citizens and bound by the same constitution, so there are not two classes of people.

  "Institution" is one of those words without any real meaning in this context. In the real world, there are people, their behaviors, and various characteristics we recognize in them or attribute to them (such as moral, immoral, legitimate, illegitimate, aggressive, defensive, etc.).

  A State is not a building or a thing. It is certain people, although in a democratic State, it is not even mere people, since one can be "in the government" at certain times and not at others.

  A State is simply a form of behavior (various types of force), coupled with a special status of immunity for doing so. Government is the designation of certain persons as being the final arbiter on the use of force within a geographic territory. Persons acting with governmental authority are given permission to engage in behaviors that others cannot -- i.e., collect money from others by force, for example.

  I would believe this description of the nature of government whether I agreed with anarcho-capitalism or not. I believe this to be an accurate description of gov't, even for someone who believes the State to be legitimate.

  But, to answer your original question, I will first need to know just how deep your error and confusion is. The full proof can be a bit lengthy. It would help to narrow it down.

  Is your dispute with the difference between a minimal state committed to some form of free market and anarchism? In other words, do you see the proper role of the State to be the protection of markets that are as free as possible, wanting the State to be as minimal as possible to achieve this result?

  Or so you believe the State ought to have a role that is substantially larger than that? If so, give us an idea of what you think are proper State activities.
  

  Published: May 12, 2006 6:03 PM

• F L. Light

  Apropos of Athens

  Imbued with Hermes’ disposition, fit
  For clever traffic, Athens thrived by wit.

  Hermes’ commercial supervision most
  Athenians understood who sailed the coast.

  In Athens honorable freedom would
  With Pallas’s authority hold good.

  Published: May 12, 2006 7:21 PM

• Paul D

  Roger M gets wrong some key concepts that Bastiat wrote about so long ago.

  A state is not merely a contractual collection of individuals who organize to protect natural laws. That is governance. A state is people who bend the purpose (with either good or malicious intentions) of this organization to use coercion and violence against those who are not a part of it.

  Governance: man's right to co-operatively seek what he may already seek individually, justice and freedom without violating other men. The most honest and capable men will be elevated and followed in such a society.

  The State: monopolizing violence in a region and forcing those within its bounds to do its will for the purported aims of justice and protection, though it rarely accomplishes either. The most dishonest and malicious men will achieve power in such a society.

  It is sad that some think the burden of proof in this moral debate relies on the victim rather than the violent offender.

  Published: May 13, 2006 4:45 AM

• Mark F.

  The question of whether taxation is theft or not partly comes down to the question of whether ownership of land, in particular, is absolute or not. I believe the answer to that question is not self-evident as some libertarians seem to believe. The idea that each person owns his or her labor absolutely seems to be a universally accepted idea. If I mix MY labor with an unclaimed piece of land...whatever "mix" means...some will say that I then have absolute ownership of that land, but why absolute as opposed to just primary ownership or something like that? That's the part that doesn't seem to be so clear for me. What does "mix" really mean? What if a farmer claimed ownership of 1,000 acres that he only used for grazing. What if an environmental group wanted to preserve 1,000 acres and did nothing with it? Would that be "mixing"? It's one thing to argue that absolute property rights to land provides the best outcome in society, but it's something else to make the moral argument, regardless of the outcome, that you have an absolute right to a piece of land. If we all agree that the ownership of land should be absolute...after we define mixing of course...then the libertarian philosophy is self-evident, but if we do not, then libertarianism is grounded on the same shaky ground as every other political philosophy because the question of land ownership must always be answered first. And in every case, in my view, every political view has no self-evident answer to that question. As a libertarian myself, I believe we have the best answer overall, but that's a whole different question.

  Published: May 13, 2006 6:18 AM

• Roger M

  It's interesting that when I discuss economics, I get into debates about definitions only with 'Narchists. You guys should honestly evaluate your methodology. Every time you run into an obstacle, you try to define it away. That's a sure sign of a weak theory.

  George--""Institution" is one of those words without any real meaning in this context." That's odd! Douglass North and others created an entire branch of economics around institutions. They call it New Institutional Economics. You'll find they have a lot in common with Austrians, but not 'Narchos. As far as how deep my foolishness runs, I admit I know nothing more than what I have learned from Grotius, Locke, Smith, Bastiat and Mises.

  Paul, I've read a lot of Bastiat and know that he was no 'Narcho. He wrote against the abuses of people in positions of state power, but never denied the legitimacy of the state.

  Why are you guys so timid about offering proof that the state is illegit?

  Published: May 13, 2006 7:53 AM

• PR

  Even if there is taxation, there is still absolute ownership of land. The difference is simply that the government is the de facto owner of all land and the rest of us are tenants. If a piece of land is in use at all, then logically, someone has the final say in how it is used, and that someone is the true owner. Libertarians claim that the only ethical and universalizable method to assign ownership is by first use. (Although I agree the precise criteria for "mixing" can be tricky in some cases, this is not insurmountable.)

  Published: May 13, 2006 8:07 AM

• Paul D

  Bastiat didn't approve of the State, but rather of Law.

  "It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder."

  In that sentence, he refers to a system that claims to be the law while stealing from its citizens (among other things). He continues:

  "But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

  "Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system."

  And so it has begun a system, an illegitimate farce masquerading as law. As it has been said over and over here, Roger, it is up to the plunderer to offer proof his theft is somehow legitimately moral; it's not up to the victim to prove otherwise.

  Which part of that plundering process do you claim is legitimate? Which plunderers do you extol as your betters?

  Published: May 13, 2006 9:11 AM

• Mark F.

  PR,

  You said, "If a piece of land is in use at all, then logically, someone has the final say in how it is used, and that someone is the true owner. Libertarians claim that the only ethical and universalizable method to assign ownership is by first use." You are just stating the libertarian conclusion here, but what is the rationale behind such a conclusion? What makes it so "logically" obvious that ABSOLUTE ownership should follow first use? I agree that the first use principle is universal to a certain extent. For example, if you visit a public beach and set-up in a certain area with your friends and family, you have the right to that space, but only to a certain extent. The first use principle works very well in many places because it is a universal part of human nature in my view. People tend not to cut you in line at a movie theatre might be another example. I see no other example where the first use principle is seen as a reason to claim absolute ownership of a space of land. If you want to call us tenants of government or of the community as a whole then that's fine, but I think that's just playing semantics. If one were to look at land as commonly owned and our labor as individually owned, then one could logically claim a primary ownerhip, or a better word might be, a right to manage that property because that person has mixed HIS labor with it. But the person with this view would see a percentage of the value produced by his labor mixed with the land as partly owned by the "people". So let's say a person owned a factory on 20 acres of land and the business earned a profit of $1,000,000 and the land was worth was worth $200,000 then the person with this view could say that the factory owner owed rent or the percentage of value he produced that was made possible by having the land to the "people". I'm not saying I support such a view, but it's no less "logical" than assuming the factory owner has ABSOLUTE ownership of that land because he got their first.

  Published: May 13, 2006 10:15 AM

• PR

  What makes it so "logically" obvious that ABSOLUTE ownership should follow first use?

  Absolute ownership exists in any case, so it's just a matter of who to assign it to. Either the government or the individual. Currently the government through its myriad regulations and taxes, plus the ability to create more on a whim, is the de facto absolute owner of everything within its territory.

  So let's say a person owned a factory on 20 acres of land and the business earned a profit of $1,000,000 and the land was worth was worth $200,000 then the person with this view could say that the factory owner owed rent or the percentage of value he produced that was made possible by having the land to the "people".

  How do you determine that the land by itself is worth $200k? After the factory is built, the unimproved land isn't "worth" anything anymore because it no longer exists. Even if all you want is the land, the factory owner isn't going to sell it to you willingly unless you offer him enough to cover his factory too. To me, that's precisely what it means to mix one's labor with the land: Once mixed you can't "unmix" them.

  Published: May 13, 2006 12:46 PM

• George Gaskell

  I admit I know nothing more than what I have learned from Grotius, Locke, Smith, Bastiat and Mises.

  Roger, I was less interested in your reading list than in your own opinions on the matter. Do you consider yourself a minarchist, a free-market libertarian, but merely not an anarchist? Or do you beleive in a more expansive role for the State than that?

  By the way, I would like to draw your attention to a central theme in Bastiat's writing -- he was a very strong proponent of the idea that when people voluntarily associate together in a group (to provide for their common defense, for example, as you have mentioned), they do not acquire additional rights or powers merely by acting as a group.

  Bastiat was very firm on this point. We can aggregate our ordinary rights and powers to coordinate our efforts and divide labor efficiently, but aggregating does not increase those rights and powers.

  We can delegate a portion of our rights and powers to others to act as our agents if we wish, but you cannot rightfully pretend to have obtained additional powers by doing so. You cannot delegate any action to an agent that you could not rightfully do yourself. If you cannot steal, then you cannot appoint someone to steal on your behalf. Two people cannot steal from a third just because they constitute a majority, any more than any one of them could steal from any other on his own.

  Bastiat wrote in The Law:

  But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

  Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

  That is the essence of my opposition to the State. My definition of a State is just that: a pretense that some group of people can legitimately steal from others (or commit other crimes), which they could not do as individuals, merely because they have grouped together and called themselves a government.

  I believe very strongly in the right of free association. It has been degraded to the point of being virtually unknown these days. But associating into a group does not, in itself, empower any of its members (or their agents) to do anything they could not rightfully do as individuals.

  If you agree with Bastiat, then you must accept this basic point.

  Published: May 13, 2006 1:39 PM

• Mark F.

  PR,

  Your points are only relevant to a practical argument not a moral argument. For example, a libertarian might support school vouchers because it's better than nothing in the present reality, but that doesn't mean he believes it's moral to force others to pay for others' education. In the view I brought up that land is commonly owned and labor is privately owned does not mean there's an absolute ownership for government or the individual and nothing in between. A person with that particular view could make the argument that the government/majority could require a percentage of taxes from you BECAUSE they believe land is commonly owned, but that percentage could not be 100% because some, if not most, of the value you created is based on your labor. Will that view crumble in the real world? Maybe, bet any view could crumble. In the real world, the majority, or a minority with power, will impose their view. Luckily, in this country, that view is not communism at the moment. The libertarian view will prevail ONLY when most people argree with it. That's the practical argument not the moral one. Just because the majority today believe it's moral and right to reqire you and me to pay taxes to support public education does not mean they believe it's ultimately okay to kill you for any reason. Ownership is not black and white.

  Published: May 13, 2006 2:09 PM

• Roderick T. Long

  While Athens certainly had its flaws, I have a higher evaluation of it than Mr. Phillips does; I present the case for Athens in my articles The Athenian Constitution: Government by Jury and Referendum and Civil Society in Ancient Greece: The Case of Athens. What the Athenians called "democracy" was in some ways (women and slaves aside, obviously!) much more libertarian/anarchic than what passes for "democracy" today.

  Published: May 13, 2006 3:57 PM

• Renato Drumond

  Forgive my bad english, my first language is portuguese.

  "Indeed, it is not capitalism that leads to exploitation as the Left contends; it is democracy."

  Really? The problem of North Korea is too much democracy? And what about Cuba?

  I think that is a great confusion what Democracy is all about. Yes, democracy is a mean, not a end, this is important to remember. But democracy is a good mean? I think it is. Democracy, when restrained on such limits that preserves the most basic rights of individuals, the right to free expression, the right to decide about his own lives(basic property rights). I agree with the critic that says that democracy never restrained on respect rights. But consider the situation of power´s abuse on a democracy and on a tirany. On democracy, I think it rests some possibility to fight against the government, when the opposition isn´t totally criminalized. But on tirany, how to fight against absolute power? It´s legitimate on itself. Democracy, on the contrary, is legitimate as rule of majority, when this majority respect the rights of minority. But even when the majority don´t respect this rights, the minority have the right to organize and fight for their rights. On theory, aways remains the possibility that majority don´t respect minority and endorses tirany. But, when tirany is engaged, the first thing that the autocrat do is shut the voice of majority.

  The great insight of classic liberals is that an ideal society will never be fully realized on reality. So, our mission is aways defend liberty, but there is only one way to this deffense: behind acts that expands liberty. When the author of this article says:

  "Only in a society where all services are provided through voluntary association, where consumers hold ultimate sovereignty by providing the most efficient producers of necessary and luxury goods with profits can rule of law, individual liberty, and property rights be upheld. Such a society is not in a state of anarchy; authority is simply decentralized to the lowest possible and most just level — the business, the community, the family."

  What the hell he is talking about? He is talking about and idealized society. When Marx talk about communism, his society was perfect too. But, we should say, marxism is based on wrong ideas. The great error of marxism, however, is to reject the possible conflicts that will emerge on communist society. The same error we encounter here. Let´s suppose that such idealized society exists. What happens when a war occurs? "oh, on this society doesn´t exist wars", one should say. How a thing like this is possible? All is private, so the market would regulate the society. But what happens when I don´t know who coerces who? The rule of strongest prevails. When slavery exists, it´s contrary to this decentralized society? I think not. The argument here will be aways the same: On this society, all problems are solved by the market. But when the institutions of market were questioned, what happens? There is no form to regulate society when it happens, so any result is possible.

  We could think a government as a coercive agent. When we negate the necessity of such agent, we don´t finnish with coercion, but we decentralize it. But this act doesn´t leave to the creation of private criminal organizations which are only regulated by the success of theirs acts? When we reject democracy, or any form of government organization, we reject political institutions that were constructed behind time, and are elements of agregation. I agree that government wasn´t an alien that solves the problems of society, but I see government as an institution that was a result of the conflicts between individuals that agree on this matter: being in society is better than foundate any other society.

  Remember Mises:

  "Liberalism is therefore far from disputing the necessity of a machinery of state, a system of law, and a government. It is a grave misunderstanding to associate it in any way with the idea of anarchism. For the liberal, the state is an absolute necessity, since the most important tasks are incumbent upon it: the protection not only of private property, but also of peace, for in the absence of the latter the full benefits of private property cannot be reaped.

  "These considerations alone suffice to determine the conditions that a state must fulfill in order to correspond to the liberal ideal. It must not only be able to protect private property; it must also be so constituted that the smooth and peaceful course of its development is never interrupted by civil wars, revolutions, or insurrections."There is, therefore, in every form of polity a means for making the government at least ultimately dependent on the will of the governed, viz,, civil war, revolution, insurrection. But it is just this expedient that liberalism wants to avoid. There can be no lasting economic improvement if the peaceful course of affairs is continually interrupted by internal struggles. A political situation such as existed in England at the time of the Wars of the Roses would plunge modern England in a few years into the deepest and most dreadful misery. The present level of economic development would never have been attained if no solution had been found to the problem of preventing the continual outbreak of civil wars. A fratricidal struggle like the French Revolution of 1789 cost a heavy loss in life and property. Our present economy could no longer endure such convulsions. The population of a modern metropolis would have to suffer so frightfully from a revolutionary uprising that could bar the importation of food and coal and cut off the flow of electricity, gas, and water that even the fear that such disturbances might break out would paralyze the life of the city."
  [...]
  "Here is where the social function performed by democracy finds its point of application. Democracy is that form of political constitution which makes possible the adaptation of the government to the wishes of the governed without violent struggles. If in a democratic state the government is no longer being conducted as the majority of the population would have it, no civil war is necessary to put into office those who are willing to work to suit the majority. By means of elections and parliamentary arrangements, the change of government is executed smoothly and without friction, violence, or bloodshed."

  http://mises.org/liberal/ch1sec8.asp
  

  Published: May 13, 2006 4:57 PM

• Peter

  I've read a lot of Bastiat and know that he was no 'Narcho.

  The word is "anarchist", Roger. It's not capitalized, and it doesn't take you any more time and effort to type an "a" than it does to type an apostrophe.

  Why are you guys so timid about offering proof that the state is illegit?

  Who's timid? Read something other than the blog comments on this site.

  BTW, the proper burden of proof is on the one who claims something is valid, not the one who says it's not. Why are you so timid about offering proof that the stat is "legit"? So far, the extent of your "proof" has been "the state exists". Well, (private) murderers and rapists exist, too, so their behavior is "legit" to you? (Or only until someone provides proof to the contrary?)

  Published: May 13, 2006 9:17 PM

• Roger M

  Peter, I gave my reasons for the legitimacy of the state. Read my posts above. So far, not one 'Narchist has offered any response except childish insults.

  Published: May 13, 2006 9:24 PM

• Peter

  Democracy, when restrained on such limits that preserves the most basic rights of individuals, the right to free expression, the right to decide about his own lives(basic property rights).

  The definition of democracy is rule by popular vote; that means it doesn't respect property rights. That's precisely the supposed difference between a "democracy" and a "republic".

  On democracy, I think it rests some possibility to fight against the government, when the opposition isn´t totally criminalized. But on tirany, how to fight against absolute power?

  How do you fight government when government is "the majority"? In the case of a tyranny, there's just one or two people to capture/kill (or just wait until they die). AFAIK, no democracy has ever been overthrown from within. On the other hand, no tyranny has ever survived long.

  But even when the majority don´t respect this rights, the minority have the right to organize and fight for their rights.

  Depends what you mean by "right". Of course everybody has this right, in the absolute sense, but what most people mean by "rights" are rights that the government respects (and often things that aren't rights, that the government says are). And no government, democratic or otherwise, ever respects the rights of anybody to "fight for their rights" against that same government ("freedom fighters" are people who fight other governments; "terrorists" are people who fight this government). Unless by "fight" you mean "lobby politicians".

  "Liberalism is therefore far from disputing the necessity of a machinery of state, a system of law, and a government. It is a grave misunderstanding to associate it in any way with the idea of anarchism."

  Well, Mises was wrong; everybody makes mistakes.

  Published: May 13, 2006 9:46 PM

• Roger M

  Apparently, none of you even understand 'Narcho theory. So I'll help you out. The reason you believe the state is illegit is that you believe the right to private property is an absolute right. Nothing and no one has the right to violate private property. The state is illegit, in your minds, because it does just that. Therefore, everything the state does is either theft, extortion or murder.

  The reason I can't go along with you is I believe, building on natural law theory developed over centuries, that the right to survival trumps the right to property, so the right to property is not absolute. In fact, the right to property is built upon the right to survival. Since people also have the right of association and contract, they have the right to form institutions to protect their property rights. Throughout history, people have called those institutions the state, or government. But human beings are contrary people and you can never get all of the members of any group to agree on everything. That flaw in human nature led to the free rider problem, which threatened the survival of the people who formed the state. As I said, the right to survival trumps property rights, so the majority, in order to protect themselves, have the right to take the property of others in the form of taxation in order to support the state. The rules of the state apply to everyone, even the employees of the state, so everyone is treated equally.

  As further support for the right to tax, consider that the private security and prosperity that the state provided was a benefit that all within the boundaries of the state would enjoy. If some members decided to enjoy those benefits without paying for them, that would be theft. I know some of you 'Narchists will complain that states offer no benefits. But if you will study any of the literature of the New Institutional School of economics, you'll learn that it does, for only those states that have strong institutions for protecting private property rights enjoy strong economic growth. Free markets are not a major factor in economic development if a nation lacks the state institutions to protect property.

  Here's something for 'Narchists to consider: You have a few examples of at least semi-'Narchist states in history. You take from these examples the lesson that a 'Narchist state is a possibility. However, the lesson that you should learn, and that screams for your attention, is that none of those instances lasted very long or spread very far. That means that the whole concept of 'Narchism has a fatal flaw in it; it's fragil and can't withstand the harsh demands of reality. The American Republic has stood for 250 years. That should tell you something. Is it flawed? Of course! The American people have become what Arnold Kling calls folk-Marxists and they've elected a bunch of folk-Marxists to office. Individuals are trying to wreck it. Just read the article by Rothbard posted Friday. But instead of burning the whole thing to the ground and test driving a fantasy theory that's every bit as dangerous as Marxism, I'm willing to work to fix it.

  Published: May 13, 2006 9:53 PM

• Francisco Torres

  
  I gave my reasons for the legitimacy of the state.

  That is an often used rhetorical tactic, to dare people to prove that something is not or does not exist. However, proper use of logic requires a person to prove positives, not to prove negatives. The legitimacy of the state can be an idea accepted our of pure faith, like you are doing, Roger. You simply state: The state is legit - prove me wrong, and then simply wait for an answer. Well, you will not have an answer, since "legitimacy" is in itself meaningless - it is in the eye of the beholder. What is "legitimate", anyway? Does it depend on whim or caprice? What does it imply? If 50% + 1 of people believe it is legitimate to kill you, regardless of what you might have done, would you agree? Or do you only consider the State "legitimate" when its actions affect someone else?

  What libertarians analyze is not such abstract, vage and meaningless terms as "legitimacy", but actions and their ethical implications. If a State kills people that have not harmed any one, it does not change the fact that people are dead to call the action "legitimate". If the State seizes property without just cause, it does not change the fact if called "legitimate".

  If you want to say that a State is legitimate because the people voted it that way, it becomes necessary to ask you to remember what Victor Hugo told Napoleon III: Truths are not subject to people's whim or vote.

  Published: May 13, 2006 10:00 PM

• Francisco Torres

  
  The reason I can't go along with you is I believe, building on natural law theory developed over centuries, that the right to survival trumps the right to property, so the right to property is not absolute.

  Why only the right to property? Why not say that the right of survival trumps somebody else's right to survival? Again, I think you arrive at those conclusions because you conveniently factor yourself out, thinking you cannot lose your property.

  But if you will study any of the literature of the New Institutional School of economics, you'll learn that it does, for only those states that have strong institutions for protecting private property rights enjoy strong economic growth. Free markets are not a major factor in economic development if a nation lacks the state institutions to protect property.

  Amazingly, you do not notice the inconsistency of your argument - one, you state the right to property is trumped by the right of survival. Second, you state that institutions are needed to insure the protection of private property. The problem is, what is logical in one case, is equally logical in the other, and the institution's survival would trump the people's private property rights. This means the logical grounds for having the institutions in the first place undermine the cause of protection of private property!

  As I said, the right to survival trumps property rights, so the majority, in order to protect themselves, have the right to take the property of others in the form of taxation in order to support the state.

  Again, the contradiction: You stated people create institutions to protect private property, so how can violating private property becomes protecting private property? It becomes clear by your contention that people create institutions for the sole purpose of taking property, and not protecting it. How can that be called "legitimate"? You cannot state that institutions require to trump property rights and later state that without institutions there are no property rights! You are contradicting yourself.

  So which one is it? Are institutions meant to protect private property? Then they cannot take it, for it would defeat the purpose. Are institutions meant to TAKE private property? Then you cannot say they are protecting it, because clearly they are not.

  Published: May 13, 2006 10:16 PM

• Renato Drumond

  Yes Peter, I mean "lobby politicians".

  Maybe Americans(I suppose you live on USA) doesn´t have a clear idea about the rest of the world.

  You´re blessed, on the start, with great liberty of expression and economy, and I think that the past of your country maybe suggests the idea of decay, and this passage was associated with the discourse of democratism. But its occurs because the solid institutions of your country. So, the only way to be a chief was the "lobby politicians".

  On others parts of the globe, however, government isn´t a solid institution, neither is restrained with several rules. On some countries, people live under the shadow of civil, tribal and religious wars.

  Particularly on my country, Brazil, we live under a militar dictatorship during twenty years(1964-1984). It was a "light" dictatorship, compared with the sangrent dictatorship of Argentina, which kills 30.000 human beings. But was a dictatorship, after all.

  Now, we live under a democratic-bureaucratized regime. It wasn´t perfect, but now we have the power to openly questioning government and try to change the picture of our nation. It´s important because we have now a change on power, each side of society has access to representative jobs, and we learn to respect the different political views.

  So it´s important to value institutions, no matter who occupies the representative job. Here is the great difference between "direct" democracy and representative democracy: the sooner has his value on opinion of majority, and the latter has his value on opinion of majority restrained with the constitutional laws. So, there is a possibility to rewrite the constitution, but only behind a process that was presented on the constitution itself. But it only occurs when we have continuity of the institutions.

  The government around the world, non-european and non-us states, aren´t regulated on solid rules. So exists a descontinuous social process, and governmente after government has the impetous to dominate the rest of population and criminalize opposition. It is on this sense that I value democracy. I value property rights, and I believe, like Mises, that democracy is the best way to preserve property rights.

  Maybe I should call this regime of Republic, as you´re suggested. But, outside the developed world, the democracy we want, we call the liberal democracy, the representative one, as a good means of live our polical lives.

  To finnish my message, I suggest a little book of great economist Mancur Olson, called "Power & Property" which annalizes the economic effects of democracy and autocracy.

  Published: May 13, 2006 10:45 PM

• George Gaskell

  That flaw in human nature led to the free rider problem, which threatened the survival of the people who formed the state.

  Roger, since you apparently refuse to answer my simple questions on the nature and scope of government that you would find to be acceptable, maybe you will answer this one instead: where in recorded history do you find an example of the founding of a State that was expressly justified on the grounds of dealing with the free rider "problem"? (I am looking for a history of actions, not merely words. Words can often be nothing but propaganda, of course, particularly when one is looking to justify aggression.)

  You keep repeating this parable: how a once free and idyllic property-respecting people had banded together in a dues-paying voluntary association, but was overcome with free riders and just had to turn to forcible taxation. For the taxed people's own good, you see.

  Since this scenario happened so often, I am sure you will have no difficulty identifying a couple of dozen examples.

  The American Republic has stood for 250 years. That should tell you something.

  It lasted, at best, 72 years -- from its establishment in 1789 until its destruction from within in 1861. The national government was founded as a voluntary association of states, any one of which had the acknowledged and universally understood right to unilaterally withdraw. New York, Viginia and Rhode Island even expressly reserved the right to secede in their ratification acts, which no one disputed at the time, and which were not even necessary. In a court case concerning Lincoln's having unconstitutionally suspended habeas corpus, his arrest of tens of thousands of northerners and his incarcerating them without trial in military prisons, Chief Justice Taney wrote: Taney wrote, "the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws; but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found." Thus was Lincoln's "special" errors translated into "systemic" problems.

  The United States has, since then existed in name, but not in substance. Someone who prattles on so often about "systemic" problems should see that the removal of the foundational "systemic" element of VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION of the States, and replacing it with MANDATORY UNION, enforced by military conquest changed the essential character of the US government. (This change is not, of course, merely a "special" flaw; the enduring threat of military conquest that remained after that one "special" event is the "systemic" change that marked the end of the United States as it was created.)

  You stated people create institutions to protect private property, so how can violating private property becomes protecting private property?

  Maybe Roger believes that, like that proverbial viliage in Vietnam, the Statists he admires so much had to destroy the right to property in order to save it.

  Published: May 13, 2006 11:17 PM

• Peter

  Peter, I gave my reasons for the legitimacy of the state. Read my posts above

  I did. You gave to "reasons". The first was "the state exists", and the second was some claptrap about "God blessed the state". Well, murderers and rapists exist too, and "God" is a figment of your fevered imagination, so your "reasons" are utterly meaningless.

  So far, not one 'Narchist has offered any response except childish insults.

  I can only imagine that your insistence on typing an apostrophe instead of an "a" is intended as some sort of oblique insult to anarchists.

  Published: May 13, 2006 11:45 PM

• Peter

  However, the lesson that you should learn, and that screams for your attention, is that none of those instances lasted very long or spread very far.

  Funny. Ireland lasted over 1000 years, and Iceland for about 300, IIUC. No democracy comes close.

  The American Republic has stood for 250 years.

  Which American Republic? The first one lasted a scant 8 years. The second lasted about 80. The tattered remains, another 70. Today, there's little sign of a republic: it's a democracy.

  Published: May 13, 2006 11:52 PM

• Francisco Torres

  
  Renato wrote:
  Now, we live under a democratic-bureaucratized regime. It wasn´t perfect, but now we have the power to openly questioning government and try to change the picture of our nation. It´s important because we have now a change on power, each side of society has access to representative jobs, and we learn to respect the different political views.

  Renato, I sympathize entirely with your reasons for putting your trust in a democratically elected government - we in Mexico just changed from a one party dictatorship to a fully democratic government, and the same way, we initially harboured high hopes that a democratic government would result in noticeable change: less infringement on our freedoms, less expropriation. It has resulted in neither.

  The problem stems from the fact that, for example, you, being obviously well educated and aware of the reasons behind your country's problems, are but only one among millions that either do not know, not care or not understand these reasons, and are willing to vote for the first glorified salesman that talks the talk (demagoguery) and walks the walk (political activism), the same problems we must endure in Mexico. I know I cannot change the system when millions more do not care about freedom the same way I do, but at least I harbour no false hopes about democracy. Truly, I do not know if a dictatorship is worse than a democracy, but I do know one has exactly the same chance of changing things on either - none.

  Published: May 13, 2006 11:58 PM

• andy

  Roger, considering the systemic error - we have a system - democracy.The question is, if we could find some feature of this system, that is particular to democracy and make it 'fail'.
  First there should be a definition what an 'error' in such a system is - e.g. we expect the state to treat all people equal, to not favour one over another.

  
  The laws are being passed in our parliaments by a certain number of legislators - people. Is there a systemic tendency for these people to give up trying to be impartial?
  Do you know the problem with a law favouring small group at the expense of much bigger group? 5% (e.g. farmers) receiving huge benefits at the expense of the other 95%. Since the cost is spread over the 95% of people, the cost of such law for every individual is very low, while benefits for every individual farmer are very high. Thus, the farmers will try to persuade, bribe etc. legislators to pass such law, while the rest won't try to oppose it.

  
  This is not a systemic error?

  Published: May 14, 2006 3:58 AM

• Roger M

  Andy--"Is there a systemic tendency for these people to give up trying to be impartial?" You may be right. Other systemic problems exist in the US Constitution besides the slavery one. The writers weren't perfect; that's why we have ammendments. I think the power of the Supreme Court is another one. I definately think the federal government is way out of bounds on many of its laws and actions, but the courts are preventing us from reigning it in.

  Renato and Francisco, Thanks for the posts. An international perspective always helps. Francisco, don't be so discouraged. Only a few years have passed since your new government was formed and most Mexicans are folk-Marxists, like Americans. Change takes time.

  George, You're trying to make a straw man of my arguments so they're easy for you to defeat. There's no contradiction. The right to survival does not eliminate private property; it just limits it in a small way. If I may make an appeal to authority, I've written nothing but what natural law theorists have written for over five centuries.

  Is giving an institution the authority to protect property a contradiction? Not at all. Otherwise, each individual would have that right to do so and would decide when to use it and to what degree. In tribal societies without such institutions, you get blood feuds between families and you get individuals killing another for stealing an apple. People created government and gave it the right to determine and carry out justice in order to prevent those problems. And it has worked well it that regard. Do every citizen have the right to execute someone for stealing their car? No. We ceded that right to the state so that dispassionate people could determine guilt and punishment.

  The right to property, behind survival, is the single most important institution of Western civilization. It's so precious that we cannot leave the protection of it to individuals.

  Published: May 14, 2006 8:29 AM

• andy

  Roger,
  
  In tribal societies without such institutions, you get blood feuds between families and you get individuals killing another for stealing an apple.
  People created government and gave it the right to determine and carry out justice in order to prevent those problems. And it has worked well it that regard.
  
  Wrong. If you consider whole word except USA, the governments were not created by all people but by force - most governments where monarchies in Europe. They evolved later into democratic governments. Even in the case of USA it is not correct: SOME people created government. And although I'm not proficient in American history, it seems to me that the formation of US government was not even because the farmers where fighting themselves, but as an opposition to Great Britain. Did you check the cases of Ireland and Iceland? They did not have a government, yet the people did not seem to kill themselves regularly for stealing apples...
  

  
  The right to property, behind survival, is the single most important institution of Western civilization. It's so precious that we cannot leave the protection of it to individuals.
  WE(individuals) cannnot leave the protection to individuals... that looks like the government is made up of extraterestrials.... forming government of people(individuals) would be obviously too dangerous.

  Published: May 14, 2006 9:13 AM

• Francisco Torres

  Roger M wrote:
  Is giving an institution the authority to protect property a contradiction? Not at all.

  Roger, it is not the issue of giving authority to the institutions. The contradiction is in your statements that, basically, gives institutions the right to TAKE property, under the justification that institutions protect property. How can you be protecting someone's property when you're taking it? It is a contradiction.

  
  Otherwise, each individual would have that right to do so and would decide when to use it and to what degree.

  Well, here is the problem: if people create institutions to protect their property, it follows they have the right to protect their property - the institutions being one way to protect it. This means they would be exercising their individual rights when creating the institution (not necessarily a government). What would then be so bad about exercising your rights in other ways, like installing fences and gates, or painting while lines in the ground?

  
  In tribal societies without such institutions, you get blood feuds between families and you get individuals killing another for stealing an apple.

  So it is a question of degree? We create institutions to avoid conflicts and feuds due to petty larcenies? Sounds like a slippery slope argument. So are institutions meant to protect people from being killed when stealing apples, or are they meant to protect property?

  
  People created government and gave it the right to determine and carry out justice in order to prevent those problems.

  So institutions are NOT meant to protect property, but to dispense justice. You changed strategy at 2 minutes before the end of the game.

  
  And it has worked well it that regard. Do every citizen have the right to execute someone for stealing their car? No.

  The implications here are nightmarish. How then would a person stop another from stealing their property? Unless you think institutions are omnipresent - last I checked, it can take police 20 minutes to never to show up, so I do not know how "well" that has worked.

  The frightening thing is the actual implication of what you are saying, Roger: institutions are not relly meant to protect property, or to dispense justice - they are meant to restrict a person's right to defend his or her property. Why, you could ask? Because you are stating clearly that people cannot or should not act to protect their property, but rely on institutions, because (your words) "People created government and gave it the right to determine and carry out justice in order to prevent those problems" (the problems you are refering to is people defending their property as they see fit).

  
  We ceded that right to the state so that dispassionate people could determine guilt and punishment.

  It would be interesting to see where these "dispassionate" people are to be found, unless you are talking about superhumans. The risk is that justice is being dispensed by the same passionate and flawed individuals as those that are receiving the justice.

  Published: May 14, 2006 1:30 PM

• Artisan

  “at least I harbour no false hopes about democracy. Truly, I do not know if a dictatorship is worse than a democracy, but I do know one has exactly the same chance of changing things on either - none.�

  
  Can’t you have a dictatorship of the people? How come the communists in former East Germany called themselves “German Democratic Republic�? OK, so they lied.

  Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who is mentioned earlier, criticizes Democracy (yet the title on his book reads something like “Democracy, The God that is not a God�, not “the Decadence of Monarchy�). I don’t think he addresses so much the actual political systems of our western countries. He merely questions the ideals that move today’s political actors, and he shows with quite some power how the legitimacy of democracy can be questioned, JUST LIKE that of Monarchy… In doing this he makes a brilliant demonstration that there may be something more interesting than Democracy itself, or Monarchy, worth fighting for. As I understand this, a peaceful anarchy may be the ideal he calls for, but even though I haven’t finished the book, I don’t think he will probably advocate it so clearly. Why is this so important though? If Roger M agrees there’s too much Government, than in a way his ideal is also “libertarian anarchy�, as seen from the outside. If Paul Edwards doesn’t recognize the legitimacy of the Federal taxes, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t pay them…

  Sure, as a novice libertarian I found Mises quote on Governement necessity quite a blast of course, and yet I doubt this idea is the most prominent in his or Rothbard’s entire teaching. (If yes, please send other sources!)
  

  Published: May 14, 2006 3:31 PM

• TGGP

  I just can't stand it when someone trots out the old "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". One word describes motivation or goal, the other word describes method. It's like saying "One man's architect is another man's brother". Perhaps, but that doesn't really tell us anything.

  
  While I'm not too clear on the history of Ireland (I should be, my great-great-grandfather came to America from there), it was my understanding that Iceland was not a pure anarchist state, with David Friedman stating it would be a 2 on a scale of 0-10 in terms of amount of government or something like that.

  The main reason I don't believe in anarchism is because like everything else, at some point in time government did not exist. Government rose up and I expect that will always be the case where it does not exist. If human beings were not statists there would be no one to work in the government. I believe Madison said something to that effect a long time ago (only referencing angels), and while there were many flaws in the system he helped create, it turned out very well compared to most of the world and it is my belief that other governments would have turned out much worse if not for the example of America.

  Published: May 14, 2006 5:28 PM

• Sione Vatu

  Since there is only the one centralised authority that Roger M would proclaim as his soverign ruler, the authority to which he would surrender his freedoms, and yet there are myriads of anarchists and libertarians, all of whom are each independently soverign, it would be more practical to have the central authority move. It could make the single command, "move to Somalia" and all its acolytes would have no choice in the matter but to move. They are required to obey, Roger M included.

  Of course the libs and anarchists et al would likely as not stay put. Fair enough, as they do not recognise as "legit" the authority of said government and/or its commands. On the other hand Roger M and his comerades are compelled to move as they have agreed to the "social contract" of obediance and acquiesence to govt diktat. Obey slaves, as ye must! Pay tribute to your rulers! Off they would march. By goodness, I'm all in favour of this scenario.

  I warn you govt. worshippers though. Do not come anywhere near Oceania or Australia. I'd rather you all went to the bottom of the Atlantic, the Moon, Mars, a straight line to hell even, anywhere but here.

  Sione

  Published: May 14, 2006 8:48 PM

• quasibill

  Roger:

  "It's not part of the system; the system was designed to control it to a limited degree."

  So, you plan on having robots, or emotionless aliens, or angels running your system? Is that how its not part of the system? Because if you want humans running your system, human nature is quite clearly a large part of the system.

  This is the problem all statists have. Communists believe that there is nothing wrong with their system, nor do socialists. If only people would follow the rules and policies underlying these systems, they would work fine. Problem is, human nature doesn't work that way.

  Similarly, if politicians would only follow the law and not pander to the LCD, Republicanism could work. Problem is (and once again you've completely failed to meet your burden of overcoming this fact) Republicanism has never worked for more than a generation, if that.

  Published: May 15, 2006 8:12 AM

• quasibill

  "If human beings were not statists there would be no one to work in the government."

  Actually, it is not statism per se that leads to the creation of states. It is gullibility. IIRC, a great american once said you'll never go broke underestimating the gullibility of the common man. (or essentially that). The state is merely that truth taken to its logical conclusion.

  Those people involved with the state don't ever go broke - they get insanely rich - by telling people that they can give them something for nothing.

  That's why states keep popping back up. Not because people are inherently statist, but because they are inherently gullible. The key is to educate as many as possible about the scam that is the state. Very few people fall for pyramid scams (other than state sponsored ones, like fiat money) anymore, because people understand that the basic scheme is fraudulent. That's what needs to be done about the state.

  Published: May 15, 2006 8:29 AM

• TGGP

  Nobody begins as a libertarian and gets swayed by propaganda towards statism. Throughout most of humanity's evolutionary history we lived in very small bands and knew everyone involved in it personally. Once a certain number is exceeded, usually 50, our understanding breaks down. The market is such a system, and people are not born with an understanding of it. People naturally assume that high prices are caused by the greedy people who run Big Oil, just as children tend to assume a creationist account is the correct one even when raised by atheists. Arnold Kling's "fold-Marxism" precedes Marx by a very long period of time and both rational ignorance and rational irrationality are going to keep it alive longer than you or I.

  Published: May 15, 2006 2:48 PM

• Peter

  Yeah, sure. You have any evidence of people "raised by wolves" who are statist creationists?

  Published: May 15, 2006 8:59 PM

• RogerM

  Francisco, You're trying to say that either property rights are absolute, or don't exist at all. That's ridiculous! It's a continuum. We have property rights today under this very imperfect system. A Republic may not permit absolute rights, but that doesn't mean none exist.

  You're assuming your conclusion when you argue that taxation is theft and therefore destroys property rights. You have to show that the state is illegit and therefore has no right to tax. If the state is a legit institution, it has the right to tax citizens without that being theft. If it didn't tax those who would be slackers, it would be allowing the slackers to steal from the tax-paying citizens. And it can also protect property rights better than can individual citizens and without the chaos and bloodshed. If you don't believe it, try living in the Arab world for a while where blood feuds and revenge killings between families have continued for generations.

  No one is trying to force 'Narchos to move to Somalia, but I would think that you would want to move. It's the closest thing to a 'Narchist state that exists today and you guys keep belly-aching about how oppressed and miserable you are in the US.

  Published: May 16, 2006 7:49 AM

• George Gaskell

  You're assuming your conclusion when you argue that taxation is theft and therefore destroys property rights. You have to show that the state is illegit and therefore has no right to tax. If the state is a legit institution, it has the right to tax citizens without that being theft. If it didn't tax those who would be slackers, it would be allowing the slackers to steal from the tax-paying citizens.

  You've repeated this little ditty a few times now, Roger. It has not grown more persuasive as a result.

  As an initial matter, your characterization of the Austrian view of property rights as "absolute" is both inaccurate and misleading. I wonder, for example, how "absolute" your conception of slavery might be. I imagine you are "absolutely" against it. This criticism is meaningless.

  Second, even if we accept this idea of "absolutism," your syllogism is still deeply flawed.

  You state the premise quite clearly (if inartfully): "if the state is legit ..." [sic].

  You then go on to attempt to prove this premise by saying that the state is "legit" because it is necessary to prevent "stealing" by free riders.

  How interesting! You are quite the absolutist when it comes to preventing the "stealing" by supposed free riders! This proposition assumes that the property rights of those who provide services that free riders use are ABSOLUTE, and should thus be protected through the application of force! You go so far to say that doing so is a necessity.

  And yet, you say that Austrian property rights are in error because they are absolutist. If absolutism of Austrian property rights is a fatal flaw, as you claim that it is, then it is also a fatal flaw for your absolutist anti-free-rider proposition as well.

  This is a self-contradiction that disproves your argument.

  QED

  (As a side note, to say that something is "legit" because it is a necessity is not a form of a logical proof. Necessity is the opposite of legitimacy. By definition, the claim of necessity implies an admission of wrongdoing, but defends the action in question on the grounds of exigency and extremis. Necessity is therefore an excuse, but not a justification.)

  Published: May 16, 2006 8:25 AM

• RogerM

  George, You're not reading my posts. I have given my reasons for the legitemacy of the state above. It has to do with the right of survival, not with necessity. None of you 'Narchos has provided a single reason as to why you think the state is illegit. You constantly repeat the idea that taxation is theft, but it can be so only if property rights are absolute and all of society must be organized around them. However, if the right to survival limits property, then the state has the right to tax citizens without it being theft. I only repeat myself because you keep using the same formula: taxation theft. Stop writing that and I'll quit writing that you have to prove the state is not legit before you can say taxation is theft.

  I got the idea that 'Narchos think property rights are absolute from Rothbard and Hoppe, but it's also obvious by the way you guys think in your posts.

  Concerning the issue of survival. Ask yourselves why no 'Narcho state exists today. I'll grant that some have existed in the past. Why did they die? They must lack some aspect to ensure their survival. When they come up against monarchies, empires, communist states they lose. Is it possible that making property absolute weakens the ability to resist such invading powers?

  Published: May 16, 2006 11:18 AM

• Francisco Torres

  Francisco, You're trying to say that either property rights are absolute, or don't exist at all. That's ridiculous! It's a continuum. We have property rights today under this very imperfect system. A Republic may not permit absolute rights, but that doesn't mean none exist.

  I am not assuming anything. I am merely indicating the contradiction in your statements, that Institutions are meant to protect property, and that institutions need to take property. How can you be protecting someone's property by TAKING it? Has nothing to do with the absolutism of private property rights.

  You're assuming your conclusion when you argue that taxation is theft and therefore destroys property rights.

  I am not assuming anything, again. It is simply that "protecting" and "taking" are not inclusive terms. This is the basis for the contradiction in your statements, which until now you have been trying to avoid.

  You have to show that the state is illegit and therefore has no right to tax. If the state is a legit institution, it has the right to tax citizens without that being theft.

  Roger, it has become an irrelevant issue whether the state is deemed legitimate or not - that becomes a matter of opinion since it is a value judgement. The problem is that you are trying to solve the contradiction by stating that the State is legitimate. But this becomes a non sequitur because the term is meaningless if we take into account actions: either you are protecting someone's property, or you are taking it - you cannot be doing both. It does not matter if someone sees the action as "legitimate". I may see them as "blue" or as "corny" or as "pointy", and it would still be the same action of taking.

  If it didn't tax those who would be slackers, it would be allowing the slackers to steal from the tax-paying citizens.

  I don't see how can one follow the other. If the State is protecting someone's property, why would it matter if some people are NOT paying to have their property protected? The State could simply stop protecting the property of slackers, if the intention of the State is to merely protect property. Saying that slackers are "stealing" from tax payers seems like stretching logic to an unbelievable level: if slackers are not paying, would not the tax payers give enough income to the State to have THEIR property protected? Tax payers would not have to worry about non-paying "slackers" if the State is effective. On the other hand, not having to protect the "slackers'" property, would not stretch the State's resources. As a result of this logical analysis, I do not see what is your problem with slackers.

  And it can also protect property rights better than can individual citizens and without the chaos and bloodshed.

  Roger, the problem is that by the use of the word "better", you are making a judgement in value which is nothing more than opinion. You cannot say you know something is better in absolute terms, since VALUE IS SUBJECTIVE - it is in the eye of the beholder. As for individuals having to rely on bloodshed to protect their property, I do not see how can this be so unless humans suddendly stopped behaving in a rational way. Even in far, remote areas, people AVOID conflict as much as possible, not seek it at first opportunity. Animals do the same, they tend to avoid crippling conflict whenever possible, and last I saw, humans are still part of the animal kingdom.

  If you don't believe it, try living in the Arab world for a while where blood feuds and revenge killings between families have continued for generations.

  Some of my ancestors were Palestinian Christians, and they are no more or less bloodthirsty than everybody else. I believe your statement is prejudiced and not well informed.

  Published: May 16, 2006 12:27 PM

• George Gaskell

  Roger, you asserted, "If [the state] didn't tax those who would be slackers [i.e., free riders], it would be allowing the slackers to steal from the tax-paying citizens."

  Can I take it from your response that you withdraw this allegation?

  I understand that you also allege that the free riders present some sort of threat to the very survival of the other tax-payers. But you tried to sneak this "stealing" argument in there, too.

  I believe I demonstrated that, as a matter of simple logic, you cannot accuse the free-riders of "stealing" while simultaneously exonerating the statists for their "stealing." How could you treat the statists' property rights as absolute, when you say that the free-riders' rights are not? You would be hard-pressed to argue that preventing theft is a justification for theft.

  If you want to withdraw this "stealing" argument and stick to "survival" as your sole justification, just say so.

  Published: May 16, 2006 12:52 PM

• Curt Howland

  Roger M., way back there you say, "The burden of proof lies with the 'narchos."
  

  Why?
  

  I am not asserting an entitlement to your wealth, your property, your life. I am not telling you what, with who or where you may interact. I am not declaring you to have obligations and associations you have not chosen freely.
  

  It is you who are making these claims, you who are telling others how they must live.
  

  It is you who is asserting authority over others who want only to be left alone.
  

  Since you are the aggressing party, it is only logical that you explain your authority to do so.
  

  I can think of three sources for that authority, if you want some help:
  

  God said you could.
  

  You have the might to extract tribute by naked force.
  

  The mob says you can, and backs you up with naked force. Which is really just a variation on #2 anyway.
  

  Which one of these is you, or do you want to assert something new?
  

  Published: May 16, 2006 1:15 PM

• George Gaskell

  Curt, apparently Roger's justifications for the state consist of some combination of "God says so" ("Eventually, God sanctified these arrangements as being in accordance with His will in the Bible.") and several versions of "If we don't take your property, then everybody's gonna die."

  He also argued, "We're taking your money by force so that you don't steal from us." I have yet to hear back as to whether Roger wants to stand by this patently self-contradictory argument.

  Published: May 16, 2006 1:56 PM

• Paul Edwards

  “You would be hard-pressed to argue that preventing theft is a justification for theft.� LOL! Yes. But it seems hard-pressed is a condition in great abundance out there in the world.

  Published: May 16, 2006 3:31 PM

• TGGP

  Peter, I don't know much about children raised by wolves. Do they, unlike most kids, accept the libertarian and darwinian view of the world?

  Published: May 17, 2006 12:18 PM

• Ulrich Hobelmann

  Roger, we all support the view that people create organizations to protect their property, but there is nothing about these institutions that justifies coercion, force, and violence. At all. In a free country nothing would prevent you from buying (or creating your own) insurance for your property. You would pay and get protection, but no slacker would.

  I don't quite see where you make the jump from protection in exchange for some payment (i.e. insurance), to a monopolist, absolute centralized violent agency as the State.

  Published: May 18, 2006 3:48 AM

• Peter

  Peter, I don't know much about children raised by wolves. Do they, unlike most kids, accept the libertarian and darwinian view of the world?

  I don't know what kids raised by wolves believe, never having met one; and I doubt they'd all believe the same things, anyway. (But I'd expect them to be fairly libertarian, yes!) My point was that you don't know, either. You claimed that certain beliefs (statism, creationism) are "natural", but you've never known anyone who wasn't heavily influenced virtually from birth by their parents and other people around them, either. Children believe insane things because adults tell them those things are true, and teach them not to think too much about it and not to be "different", not because there's anything "natural" about those crazy beliefs.

  Published: May 18, 2006 5:07 AM

• Daniel M. Ryan

  With regard to the "love it or leave it" debate: there is always the option of Coventry, in which a plot of unused (as of the time of its setup, submarginal) land is politically sequestered from the rest of the nation as a kind of reservation, making the inhabitants of such a compound similar in status to "Indians not taxed."

  The principle governing relations between it and all established levels of government would be: "No Taxes - No Services." As part of this regime, notice to the United Nations, specifying that any attacks on that particular territory - which are confined to that territory - will not be met with any defensive response except by the territory's inhabitants themselves, will be presented.

  It seems obvious that such a polity would be quite poor at first, capital being a "coward." But those who wished to live free, could, which would staunch a kind of restiveness amongst anarchists.

  [I got this idea from Robert A. Heinlein's novella "Coventry," found in Revolt in 2100. One interesting question left by this scenario is: would such an anarchic reservation wind up paying tribute to the nation's government in exchange for defense-against-external-foes services?]

  Published: May 18, 2006 9:03 AM

• George Gaskell

  "No Taxes - No Services."

  That is secession. The right of secession is, of course, implicit in the right of free association.

  These rights, even in limited form, have been trampled since at least 1861, when Lincoln invaded.

  Published: May 18, 2006 9:46 AM

• mike orozco

  let's see how intelligent and civil i can make this.

  first, just a correction in some statements made. Hitler was voted in to power in 1933, yes, but he did not gain the complete power through honest elections. Hitler gained elected chancellor of germany through a fake emergency where a fire broke out at the german parliment eventually leading to the granting of unending power to Hitler. from then on, massive amounts of brainwashing (hitler youth), propaganda, and overall traits of a dictatorship (bullying and what not) took place to get the numbers from elections so hitler looked good to the people. really he had complete control.

  so what he did wasn't legal democratically.

  i'm sure many of you have read aristotle's politics. aristotle would say that a large middle class is necessary to keep a democracy fair and just. the tradegy commons is a very valid point, although when you have a large middle class that balances the power of the rich and 'revolt' of the poor, everything can be peachy. the US has a large middle class.

  the US on a global scale is the upper class. much of africa and south america, for example, is the lower class. but most of the world finds itself somewhere in the middle of these extremes. but world democracy can't work with the tensions that exist now. and i guess many wouldn't want world democracy.

  just some thoughts.

  Published: October 18, 2006 7:25 PM

• mike orozco

  let's see how intelligent and civil i can make this.

  first, just a correction in some statements made. Hitler was voted in to power in 1933, yes, but he did not gain the complete power through honest elections. Hitler gained elected chancellor of germany through a fake emergency where a fire broke out at the german parliment eventually leading to the granting of unending power to Hitler. from then on, massive amounts of brainwashing (hitler youth), propaganda, and overall traits of a dictatorship (bullying and what not) took place to get the numbers from elections so hitler looked good to the people. really he had complete control.

  so what he did wasn't legal democratically.

  i'm sure many of you have read aristotle's politics. aristotle would say that a large middle class is necessary to keep a democracy fair and just. the tradegy commons is a very valid point, although when you have a large middle class that balances the power of the rich and 'revolt' of the poor, everything can be peachy. the US has a large middle class.

  the US on a global scale is the upper class. much of africa and south america, for example, is the lower class. but most of the world finds itself somewhere in the middle of these extremes. but world democracy can't work with the tensions that exist now. and i guess many wouldn't want world democracy.

  just some thoughts.

  Published: October 18, 2006 7:25 PM

• mike orozco

  let's see how intelligent and civil i can make this.

  first, just a correction in some statements made. Hitler was voted in to power in 1933, yes, but he did not gain the complete power through honest elections. Hitler gained elected chancellor of germany through a fake emergency where a fire broke out at the german parliment eventually leading to the granting of unending power to Hitler. from then on, massive amounts of brainwashing (hitler youth), propaganda, and overall traits of a dictatorship (bullying and what not) took place to get the numbers from elections so hitler looked good to the people. really he had complete control.

  so what he did wasn't legal democratically.

  i'm sure many of you have read aristotle's politics. aristotle would say that a large middle class is necessary to keep a democracy fair and just. the tradegy commons is a very valid point, although when you have a large middle class that balances the power of the rich and 'revolt' of the poor, everything can be peachy. the US has a large middle class.

  the US on a global scale is the upper class. much of africa and south america, for example, is the lower class. but most of the world finds itself somewhere in the middle of these extremes. but world democracy can't work with the tensions that exist now. and i guess many wouldn't want world democracy.

  just some thoughts.

  Published: October 18, 2006 7:25 PM