In an interesting turn of events I've found myself rejoined with an old friend. Apart from the usual hoopla of discussing my own beliefs of liberty, the only one might I add, with my usual group of the New Mexico State chapter of Young Americans for Liberty who are fellow libertarians I dwindled into a group of young philosophizers. It's interesting because with my typical group of Constitutional Libertarians I have quite the task at hand already denouncing the State in general. With the new group of students who study ethics, morality, and logic I've encountered a whole new obstacle in not only believing my own beliefs but being able to give a coherent and logical defense of the beliefs, something I strive to do and something I hope is the reason you read my posts.
Being an engineering student I don't have the ability to take formal classes in philosophy like I'd like to, so discussing at lengths the beliefs of liberty with these people have opened my eyes to new ideas. Something I'm more then joyful to receive as I love nothing more than to learn.
As most of you, which also includes me, have probably done is flow down from listening to Ron Paul, learning about what he talks about, start dwelling into Austrian Economics, and finally Anarcho-Capitalism. For me the next step has been trying to define the ethics involved for showing liberty to be the right path. Then after this is defining from the nitty gritty of philosophy, the logical arguments for that ethic.
For many of you reading the idea of Self-Ownership, the axiom of which our philosophy is based off, is obvious. Even many of the scrutinizing philosophers have no problem admitting Self-Ownership is probably true. But Self-Ownership DOESN'T tell us WHY murder, theft, and general aggression is wrong. It can only say it is wrong because if you use force on another person you've impeded on their right to Self-Ownership, which begs the question. When we discuss murder and theft it is usually obvious to everyone that it is wrong, but there is no defense to why it is wrong. Just because Self-Ownership is it doesn't follow that because of that we ought to not murder and steal.
So does this incompatibility necessarily dictate that we are wrong? Does Self-ownership then not give us a way to show how we should interact with other?
To me the answer is no, for if I claimed it did I probably wouldn't be writing this.
Then how can we use the axiom of Self-Ownership to bring about the ideas of our philosophy?
Now I am no philosophizer by any means, and I'm not trying to be, but Self-Ownership still holds. For you to even deny the existence of Self-Ownership you must control your body to make that claim.1 Although I still don't believe it holds why things should be, it gives us a rational starting point to how we should act.
This is why Self-Ownership is an axiom, it is the starting point that cannot be taken as false because your act of attempting to negate it implies Self-Ownership. Since it is true we can then deduce from it our philosophy of liberty. We say this should be the way we live because if not then as Murray Rothbard puts it, "the human race will cease to exist", and no such discourse could continue to occur. It is enough, at least for me, to say that since if we don't act in accordance to the principles of liberty bad things ensue for everyone regardless of why man should follow such principles.
So when we try to explain why to non-libertarians that liberty is the right choice or to non-anarchist libertarians why the State is wrong it's not because we can't explain the validity of our claims to be morally true or false, but that if we don't accept the path of liberty and the removal of the State we will all be worse off.
To continue my journey into the philosophy of liberty my next book is going to be a book by the formidable logician Gerard Casey, Libertarian Anarchy. Here is the review from the Mises Academy by David Gordon. I urge you to start reading these types of books not only to further understand the principles but to be able to argue for them effectively.
1Argumentation Ethics- Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
A peaceful rEVOLution is the only rEVOLution worth doing.
For most of us the goal of our discussions, blog posts, REAL debates, and back and forth bickering is education. The reasons I write and participate with local groups is because I hope to give some knowledge and insight to free society thought. If I have reached but only one mind and made that mind think for itself, question the status quo, and question the State then I truly believe I have been successful. Through my writings and through my hopeful education of others then my ultimate goal is to begin the revolution against the State and dissolve it completely.
This definitely is NOT to say that we need a violent overthrow of our current government. This has to be perfectly clear for those of us that want a free society. Why? One, because it would be an illegitimate use of aggression on our part which goes against our very foundation of the Non-Aggression Principle. Two, a violent attempt would most likely fail completely even if it were morally permissible. And three it would only justify extending the tyranny that is already held over us. I don't even really care about the latter two because the first is everything I need to understand violence isn't the answer.
Some might argue that since the State, or the individuals in control of the apparatus, have aggressed on individual rights they have lost their rights and therefor violent force would be legitimate. But we must remember that there is proportionality in the recourse one can make when aggressed upon. Rothbard has mentioned that if a person has stolen a stick of bubble gum from the store and the store owner shoots the person claiming his rights were infringed upon, the store owner himself is now the criminal. This is because when committing an act you only lose UP TO the rights you have infringed upon. If you have stolen a stick of bubble gum you should obviously repay the cost of that stick and most likely an extra stick which comes from common law. Proportionality obviously shows it would be wrong to kill the stealer.
So, although I agree are rights as individuals have been infringed upon a violent overthrow surely cannot be justified.
If a violent overthrow cannot possibly be justified the only other recourse we have is an intellectual rEVOLution.
"The pen is mightier than the sword."
Our ideas and convincing others to accept our ideas is the only way we can become free. Once people start realizing the evils of the State we can begin a complete system of ignoring the State. Once the masses have ignored the State's coercion it will no longer exist.
As this will obviously take time our objective now is to continue to discuss, continue to read, continue to blog, and continue to bicker.
In order to be completely free you must be able to think for yourself, never stop learning and never stop spreading what you learn.
This definitely is NOT to say that we need a violent overthrow of our current government. This has to be perfectly clear for those of us that want a free society. Why? One, because it would be an illegitimate use of aggression on our part which goes against our very foundation of the Non-Aggression Principle. Two, a violent attempt would most likely fail completely even if it were morally permissible. And three it would only justify extending the tyranny that is already held over us. I don't even really care about the latter two because the first is everything I need to understand violence isn't the answer.
Some might argue that since the State, or the individuals in control of the apparatus, have aggressed on individual rights they have lost their rights and therefor violent force would be legitimate. But we must remember that there is proportionality in the recourse one can make when aggressed upon. Rothbard has mentioned that if a person has stolen a stick of bubble gum from the store and the store owner shoots the person claiming his rights were infringed upon, the store owner himself is now the criminal. This is because when committing an act you only lose UP TO the rights you have infringed upon. If you have stolen a stick of bubble gum you should obviously repay the cost of that stick and most likely an extra stick which comes from common law. Proportionality obviously shows it would be wrong to kill the stealer.
So, although I agree are rights as individuals have been infringed upon a violent overthrow surely cannot be justified.
If a violent overthrow cannot possibly be justified the only other recourse we have is an intellectual rEVOLution.
"The pen is mightier than the sword."
Our ideas and convincing others to accept our ideas is the only way we can become free. Once people start realizing the evils of the State we can begin a complete system of ignoring the State. Once the masses have ignored the State's coercion it will no longer exist.
As this will obviously take time our objective now is to continue to discuss, continue to read, continue to blog, and continue to bicker.
In order to be completely free you must be able to think for yourself, never stop learning and never stop spreading what you learn.
Fallacious "rights"
As I've mentioned in a previous post about the idea that freedom of speech as a right is a farce I've decided to extend this to other common fallacious claims about certain "rights" people claim to have. This is not to say that we don't possess any rights as humans but that we cannot just claim to have certain rights because we think we have those rights.
So then what rights do we actually have?
To keep this short and move on to farce rights the rights we have stem from self-ownership of our bodies. These are our property rights which extend from our body to our labor to the land from which our labor was mixed with. If it is only ourselves who can claim ownership over our body than it would be illegitimate and wrong for someone to try to claim ownership over your body and thus claim ownership of your labor or land from which your labor was mixed with.
Since you own yourself and it would be wrong for someone to force you to do something it follows that you then have the right to your own life and the right to live free of coercion so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others.
The only rights you have then are over tangible objects like your body and objects you have legitimately obtained or not coerced from someone else.
So this leads us to talk about a couple of "rights" people commonly claim we have but actually don't.
Intellectual Property (IP) Rights:
IP is probably one of the biggest issues that many libertarians argue to the teeth over. Many believe that IP is legitimate property and therefor you have a right over that property. The problem thus becomes convincing these people, libertarians and non-libertarians, that IP is not actually property. As I've mentioned here property is a scarce physical object that no two people could possibly claim ownership at once. If you both could claim ownership to it at once then there would be no need to have property laws, i.e. the air we breath. Ideas are not tangible objects that are scarce. Ideas can be owned by multiple people at the same time. Ideas fail every test of what property is. Some will say that "well if we don't have IP then people won't produce because there's no incentive since someone can just sell their idea that they came up with and worked so hard on." Even if this were fact the utilitarian justification falls short at explaining why we should use force on other people who want to implement the same idea with their own legitimately obtained property. By imposing IP laws you are infringing on the natural rights of people. If an inventor is so worried about his idea being made public then he has one legitimate way of keeping his secret from people, keeping it in his head.
Right to a job/wage:
This is often yelled by those on the Left, socialists, and union workers. That for some reason we are entitled to a job and/or a certain wage. It could be that you are entitled to a job with a minimum wage based off an arbitrary number or off what people consider a living wage, where you get paid enough to live relative to the area you live in. Although it is true that you do have the right to attempt to obtain said job with whatever wage you do not have the right to force someone to give it to you. If you are using force to infringe on the rights of others you cannot possibly claim that your aim is a certain right.
Education:
This is another common "right" that the Left and socialists love to spew. For the very same reason as a job you don't have the right to an education. You do have the right to pursue an education but you in no way have the right to force someone into giving you an education.
Welfare:
The next issue the Left and socialists claim as rights is general welfare. For those that don't work or fully work are somehow entitled to things that work would give them. Housing and food are obvious examples of welfare that are given to the poor. Although a noble cause for sure helping the poor doesn't give the poor a right to such things. That is because they must be financed through force i.e. taxation. No one has the right to steal from another person for themselves or for the appropriation of others. I will also contend that doing this actually hurts the poor more than it helps them. But even if it did help them more than it hurts them the logic doesn't hold, for when illegitimate force is used to obtain a "right" it is no right at all.
Gun/Gay/Women/Children/Ethnic/Relgious Rights:
Now I lump all these into one big group that both the Right and the Left fight so dearly for. The first mistake is to believe that certain groups of individuals have rights. This type of collectivism is misleading and leads to completely wrong conclusions about the essence of rights. Each of these groups have the same characteristic though that is often overlooked, that is they all comprise of only individuals. So it is not to say that since groups don't have rights you don't have a right to guns, to being treated equally regardless of sexual preference, sex, and ethnicity, or to practice or non-practice of a religion. It's exactly that since the group comprises of individuals each individual has individual rights that cannot be infringed upon. As an individual you have the right to obtain (legitimately) guns, to be treated the same as all other individuals, and to pursue spiritually whatever you want. I don't often quote Ayn Rand but she hit the nail on the head when she said this about minorities, "The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."
Now it's especially interesting to talk about rights that are refused to us even though they are rights. Here are a few...
Libel/Slander:
We currently have laws against certain types of speech. Libel and slander are perfect examples of where force will be used to censor your ability to speak. Now in my post about freedom of speech it's not really a right. What you do have a right to do though is express what you want as long as it's on your own property, printed in a newspaper that you can give away or sell, or rent a hall to give a lecture about. Now just because I have said something that is false and malicious towards you doesn't mean you have some right to stop me from saying it. Since I own my body and anything that comes from it I can say whatever I please, so long as I don't infringe on your rights. The only way I would infringe on your rights by speaking is by entering your property and speaking after you've told me to stop. In order for your rights to be infringed upon by my speech then your actual property must be transgressed upon. My actual lie about you does not infringe on your property and the only legitimate recourse you have is to ignore it or produce a counterargument.
Blackmail:
Blackmail is another right that has been taken away by the State. If A knows something about B that B doesn't want people to know A cannot ask for compensation from B to keep the secret. Even if B believes that the cost of paying A is worth less compared to the secret going out, making it a mutually beneficial transaction between A and B. A could go and just tell everyone about the secret though as long as he doesn't ask for compensation, this hardly makes sense. The justification used for the illegality of blackmail is based on the reputation that is "owned" by the person being blackmailed. But as Murray Rothbard and Walter Block have both pointed out is that reputations aren't owned by the person being judged, they are owned by the people who are doing the judging. Since the person cannot claim ownership over his reputation the justification falls on its face.
Bribes:
Now bribes is a little more tricky to understand and I go with Rothbard's train of though on this, which he talks about in The Ethics of Liberty. There is nothing wrong, in a legal sense, to offer someone a bribe in order to get something. You have not violated natural laws by giving someone 100,000$ to favor my product over another. In the example of DJ's who have a contract to play the music that best fits the taste of the consumers there's nothing wrong with me giving him 100,000$ to play the type of music I'd like him to play. The illegality does come into play when the DJ has, by contract, stated he would only play what best suited the consumers. Now, by playing music outside of this scope he has not only broken his contract but deprived the ability of other music to be played even though they paid and agreed to the same contract as everyone else.
Insider Trading:
Now insider trading is something we don't really hear much about but I think it is definitely worth mentioning. What is the justification for making it illegal to tell someone something you know about a company and for that person to act on it? I really don't think there is one other than well it's not fair because not everyone is privy to that information. Well what kind of justification is that? People make investments, which are inherent with risk, without fully knowing what's going to happen. People make or don't make investments because they think there is or isn't going to be a return. Someone might have made a large investment into Product A but little did they know Product B was about to be released that would destroy the value of Product A. Well, then by the same logic, since that person wasn't privy to the information that Product B would make his investment a net loss shouldn't we stop the bringing of Product B to the market? Obviously the answer should be no. So just because not everyone knows about the information can you justify the use of force on someone to stop them from investing in whichever way they like based off whatever reasoning they have or don't have.
So then what rights do we actually have?
To keep this short and move on to farce rights the rights we have stem from self-ownership of our bodies. These are our property rights which extend from our body to our labor to the land from which our labor was mixed with. If it is only ourselves who can claim ownership over our body than it would be illegitimate and wrong for someone to try to claim ownership over your body and thus claim ownership of your labor or land from which your labor was mixed with.
Since you own yourself and it would be wrong for someone to force you to do something it follows that you then have the right to your own life and the right to live free of coercion so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others.
The only rights you have then are over tangible objects like your body and objects you have legitimately obtained or not coerced from someone else.
So this leads us to talk about a couple of "rights" people commonly claim we have but actually don't.
Intellectual Property (IP) Rights:
IP is probably one of the biggest issues that many libertarians argue to the teeth over. Many believe that IP is legitimate property and therefor you have a right over that property. The problem thus becomes convincing these people, libertarians and non-libertarians, that IP is not actually property. As I've mentioned here property is a scarce physical object that no two people could possibly claim ownership at once. If you both could claim ownership to it at once then there would be no need to have property laws, i.e. the air we breath. Ideas are not tangible objects that are scarce. Ideas can be owned by multiple people at the same time. Ideas fail every test of what property is. Some will say that "well if we don't have IP then people won't produce because there's no incentive since someone can just sell their idea that they came up with and worked so hard on." Even if this were fact the utilitarian justification falls short at explaining why we should use force on other people who want to implement the same idea with their own legitimately obtained property. By imposing IP laws you are infringing on the natural rights of people. If an inventor is so worried about his idea being made public then he has one legitimate way of keeping his secret from people, keeping it in his head.
Right to a job/wage:
This is often yelled by those on the Left, socialists, and union workers. That for some reason we are entitled to a job and/or a certain wage. It could be that you are entitled to a job with a minimum wage based off an arbitrary number or off what people consider a living wage, where you get paid enough to live relative to the area you live in. Although it is true that you do have the right to attempt to obtain said job with whatever wage you do not have the right to force someone to give it to you. If you are using force to infringe on the rights of others you cannot possibly claim that your aim is a certain right.
Education:
This is another common "right" that the Left and socialists love to spew. For the very same reason as a job you don't have the right to an education. You do have the right to pursue an education but you in no way have the right to force someone into giving you an education.
Welfare:
The next issue the Left and socialists claim as rights is general welfare. For those that don't work or fully work are somehow entitled to things that work would give them. Housing and food are obvious examples of welfare that are given to the poor. Although a noble cause for sure helping the poor doesn't give the poor a right to such things. That is because they must be financed through force i.e. taxation. No one has the right to steal from another person for themselves or for the appropriation of others. I will also contend that doing this actually hurts the poor more than it helps them. But even if it did help them more than it hurts them the logic doesn't hold, for when illegitimate force is used to obtain a "right" it is no right at all.
Gun/Gay/Women/Children/Ethnic/Relgious Rights:
Now I lump all these into one big group that both the Right and the Left fight so dearly for. The first mistake is to believe that certain groups of individuals have rights. This type of collectivism is misleading and leads to completely wrong conclusions about the essence of rights. Each of these groups have the same characteristic though that is often overlooked, that is they all comprise of only individuals. So it is not to say that since groups don't have rights you don't have a right to guns, to being treated equally regardless of sexual preference, sex, and ethnicity, or to practice or non-practice of a religion. It's exactly that since the group comprises of individuals each individual has individual rights that cannot be infringed upon. As an individual you have the right to obtain (legitimately) guns, to be treated the same as all other individuals, and to pursue spiritually whatever you want. I don't often quote Ayn Rand but she hit the nail on the head when she said this about minorities, "The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."
Now it's especially interesting to talk about rights that are refused to us even though they are rights. Here are a few...
Libel/Slander:
We currently have laws against certain types of speech. Libel and slander are perfect examples of where force will be used to censor your ability to speak. Now in my post about freedom of speech it's not really a right. What you do have a right to do though is express what you want as long as it's on your own property, printed in a newspaper that you can give away or sell, or rent a hall to give a lecture about. Now just because I have said something that is false and malicious towards you doesn't mean you have some right to stop me from saying it. Since I own my body and anything that comes from it I can say whatever I please, so long as I don't infringe on your rights. The only way I would infringe on your rights by speaking is by entering your property and speaking after you've told me to stop. In order for your rights to be infringed upon by my speech then your actual property must be transgressed upon. My actual lie about you does not infringe on your property and the only legitimate recourse you have is to ignore it or produce a counterargument.
Blackmail:
Blackmail is another right that has been taken away by the State. If A knows something about B that B doesn't want people to know A cannot ask for compensation from B to keep the secret. Even if B believes that the cost of paying A is worth less compared to the secret going out, making it a mutually beneficial transaction between A and B. A could go and just tell everyone about the secret though as long as he doesn't ask for compensation, this hardly makes sense. The justification used for the illegality of blackmail is based on the reputation that is "owned" by the person being blackmailed. But as Murray Rothbard and Walter Block have both pointed out is that reputations aren't owned by the person being judged, they are owned by the people who are doing the judging. Since the person cannot claim ownership over his reputation the justification falls on its face.
Bribes:
Now bribes is a little more tricky to understand and I go with Rothbard's train of though on this, which he talks about in The Ethics of Liberty. There is nothing wrong, in a legal sense, to offer someone a bribe in order to get something. You have not violated natural laws by giving someone 100,000$ to favor my product over another. In the example of DJ's who have a contract to play the music that best fits the taste of the consumers there's nothing wrong with me giving him 100,000$ to play the type of music I'd like him to play. The illegality does come into play when the DJ has, by contract, stated he would only play what best suited the consumers. Now, by playing music outside of this scope he has not only broken his contract but deprived the ability of other music to be played even though they paid and agreed to the same contract as everyone else.
Insider Trading:
Now insider trading is something we don't really hear much about but I think it is definitely worth mentioning. What is the justification for making it illegal to tell someone something you know about a company and for that person to act on it? I really don't think there is one other than well it's not fair because not everyone is privy to that information. Well what kind of justification is that? People make investments, which are inherent with risk, without fully knowing what's going to happen. People make or don't make investments because they think there is or isn't going to be a return. Someone might have made a large investment into Product A but little did they know Product B was about to be released that would destroy the value of Product A. Well, then by the same logic, since that person wasn't privy to the information that Product B would make his investment a net loss shouldn't we stop the bringing of Product B to the market? Obviously the answer should be no. So just because not everyone knows about the information can you justify the use of force on someone to stop them from investing in whichever way they like based off whatever reasoning they have or don't have.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
What social contract?
One of the most common and most ridiculous arguments for the justification of the State's actions is "social contract". From the left we see them yell for the social contract to justify taxes on the rich to help the poor. From the right we see them yell for the social contract to justify "helping" spread democracy world wide. We even hear it from Constitutional libertarians justifying the monopoly the State has on defense and judicial services.
But what exactly is the social contract that they claim has power over individuals? What justification is used to apply this social contract in government legislation? Is there even a justification for a social contract?
To be short the social contract is a utilitarian justification. The greater good of all of society justifies its very use. If taking from the rich and giving to others increases the greater good of everyone else it's justified.
To even attempt to give a justification to the social contract we should first start with trying to define what society exactly is.
Here there will lie some disagreeing on what society is. But what you cannot argue is that society itself only contains the individuals that comprise it. Basically, society could not exist without individuals. Society therefor is an imaginary construct of the mind, there is no physical characteristics of "society". When we use the word society it is only to save time in describing any given group of individuals. For example when talking about a baseball team, we say baseball team because it is much easier to express than naming every individual that partakes in the actions of hitting a ball, throwing a ball, and catching a ball. There is no such physical entity as a baseball team, only a physical entity of the individuals that partake in the actions associated with the sport of baseball. In this regard it is then simpler to realize that society doesn't exist, it's only an expression used to talk about the multitude of individuals within some certain area.
Next it is as vitally important to discuss what contract is and how it is formed.
When two or more individuals express an interest in cooperating with one another for any given circumstance they are voluntarily (without coercion) accepting some type of agreement. If this agreement wasn't mutually beneficial for everyone involved it would simply not be agreed upon. When these agreements are made these individuals have formed a contract.
For example, Matt agrees to pay 100$ to Sam to renovate his yard. The payment can come before the labor is done or after, it doesn't matter. If Sam believes this 100$ is a greater want than the labor and time he will have to expend he'll agree to the terms and vice-versa if Matt believes the labor for the renovation is a greater want than the 100$ he too will agree to the terms. The two have entered a voluntary contract and neither are forced partake in the contract. So Sam will do the work and Matt will pay him. If Sam takes the money before the labor and doesn't renovate the yard he has stolen from Matt and if Matt doesn't pay Sam after the labor is done he has stolen from Sam. In both cases contracts have been violated.
The main point to be made here is that contract can only be made to protect physical properties. In our case it would be Sam's physical labor and Matt's money which comes from his physical labor.
Therefor, if society doesn't even exist outside of an imaginary construct then it cannot possibly have any physical properties to which a contract can be created. Society only comprises of individuals who can make contract with other individuals but society itself cannot hope to create a contract with society itself or over other individuals.
You disagree that society can't claim a contract over others? Fine. But there's also the other crucial entity that lies within any type of legal contract, the absence of coercion. You cannot possibly have a legal contract when someone is forced into it. Matt cannot point a gun at Sam's head and tell him if he doesn't renovate his yard he will shoot him. Sam would most likely choose to renovate the yard instead of getting shot, but since he was coerced into the situation Matt cannot claim he had a contract with Sam. Matt's threat of violence has infringed on the rights of Sam and therefore the contract is illegitimate.
So to those that say "social contract" is legitimate are completely wrong merely on the fact that if I disagree with this "contract" I must be forced to abide by it violating what contracts really are.
Furthermore, this "social contract" is a completely subjective term. Since it is a subjective term then my idea of a "social contract" or another person's idea of what it is has the same moral and legitimate claim to force it over you. It wouldn't matter if you thought my idea was right or wrong since there is no right or wrong in subjectivity.
The only legitimate contracts are those made by individuals voluntarily. If this is true then the most important law to uphold is the axiom of self-ownership. Since all individuals have self-ownership the greater good of all (which is utilitarian logic) can only be held if self-ownership is protected.
1Social Contract
But what exactly is the social contract that they claim has power over individuals? What justification is used to apply this social contract in government legislation? Is there even a justification for a social contract?
Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights.1
To be short the social contract is a utilitarian justification. The greater good of all of society justifies its very use. If taking from the rich and giving to others increases the greater good of everyone else it's justified.
To even attempt to give a justification to the social contract we should first start with trying to define what society exactly is.
Here there will lie some disagreeing on what society is. But what you cannot argue is that society itself only contains the individuals that comprise it. Basically, society could not exist without individuals. Society therefor is an imaginary construct of the mind, there is no physical characteristics of "society". When we use the word society it is only to save time in describing any given group of individuals. For example when talking about a baseball team, we say baseball team because it is much easier to express than naming every individual that partakes in the actions of hitting a ball, throwing a ball, and catching a ball. There is no such physical entity as a baseball team, only a physical entity of the individuals that partake in the actions associated with the sport of baseball. In this regard it is then simpler to realize that society doesn't exist, it's only an expression used to talk about the multitude of individuals within some certain area.
Next it is as vitally important to discuss what contract is and how it is formed.
When two or more individuals express an interest in cooperating with one another for any given circumstance they are voluntarily (without coercion) accepting some type of agreement. If this agreement wasn't mutually beneficial for everyone involved it would simply not be agreed upon. When these agreements are made these individuals have formed a contract.
For example, Matt agrees to pay 100$ to Sam to renovate his yard. The payment can come before the labor is done or after, it doesn't matter. If Sam believes this 100$ is a greater want than the labor and time he will have to expend he'll agree to the terms and vice-versa if Matt believes the labor for the renovation is a greater want than the 100$ he too will agree to the terms. The two have entered a voluntary contract and neither are forced partake in the contract. So Sam will do the work and Matt will pay him. If Sam takes the money before the labor and doesn't renovate the yard he has stolen from Matt and if Matt doesn't pay Sam after the labor is done he has stolen from Sam. In both cases contracts have been violated.
The main point to be made here is that contract can only be made to protect physical properties. In our case it would be Sam's physical labor and Matt's money which comes from his physical labor.
Therefor, if society doesn't even exist outside of an imaginary construct then it cannot possibly have any physical properties to which a contract can be created. Society only comprises of individuals who can make contract with other individuals but society itself cannot hope to create a contract with society itself or over other individuals.
You disagree that society can't claim a contract over others? Fine. But there's also the other crucial entity that lies within any type of legal contract, the absence of coercion. You cannot possibly have a legal contract when someone is forced into it. Matt cannot point a gun at Sam's head and tell him if he doesn't renovate his yard he will shoot him. Sam would most likely choose to renovate the yard instead of getting shot, but since he was coerced into the situation Matt cannot claim he had a contract with Sam. Matt's threat of violence has infringed on the rights of Sam and therefore the contract is illegitimate.
So to those that say "social contract" is legitimate are completely wrong merely on the fact that if I disagree with this "contract" I must be forced to abide by it violating what contracts really are.
Furthermore, this "social contract" is a completely subjective term. Since it is a subjective term then my idea of a "social contract" or another person's idea of what it is has the same moral and legitimate claim to force it over you. It wouldn't matter if you thought my idea was right or wrong since there is no right or wrong in subjectivity.
The only legitimate contracts are those made by individuals voluntarily. If this is true then the most important law to uphold is the axiom of self-ownership. Since all individuals have self-ownership the greater good of all (which is utilitarian logic) can only be held if self-ownership is protected.
1Social Contract
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Is the State a gang of thieves writ large?
"The State is a gang of thieves writ large" is a popular quote by Murray Rothbard. Rothbard is regarded as the founder of common libertarian thought and Anarcho-Capitalism. Was he right with this very controversial statement? I think the statement is exactly correct. Especially when people generalize gangs to be bad, the distinction of the State as a gang is spot on. The hidden part lays in the fact of why gangs, as we are accustomed to thinking about, come into play in society and the positive aspects they do have.
Why do gangs exist? I don't think many people question this enough and provide an adequate answer when they do. We typically hear that gangs have existed in the past because certain things were illegal. Although this is true I think we miss the important economic factor that creates gangs.
That economic factor is simply the fact that SINCE a certain product is illegal that is wanted by consumers, regardless of its legality, you have created a need in the market. A need that cannot be accommodated by a "legal" market so the black market is going to supply it. Entrepreneurs see a need in the market and they work to get it filled. Typically those entrepreneurs that are willing to take the risk in this market to provide the need are violent and will use violence to keep their share of the market from those intruding in their area.
Those products that are provided by gangs are prostitution, drugs, and high interest loans. The moral aspects of these products really have no say in the legitimacy of the services rendered. All that matters is that since there is a market for these products they are going to be provided. People voluntarily choose to purchase these products from the gangs.
There lies the essential difference between a gang and the State. With a gang you are not forced to buy their products but with the State you are. For the most part gangs aren't trying to provide some type of service to you and if you don't pay send strangers into your house kidnap you and throw you in jail or simply seize all your property. This is exactly what the State does. For those few times that gangs do do this and you deplore such an aggressive act you should deplore the very same act done by the State for the process is one in the same.
Just because the State says they are taxing you to provide a service doesn't justify it. Tax is theft and can only be taken through coercion.
So is the State a gang of thieves writ large? I think the answer is yes, but much worse than your regular ole gang down the street. The violence we see from gang warfare, although horrible for sure, is nothing compared to the violence committed by the State to society writ large.
Why do gangs exist? I don't think many people question this enough and provide an adequate answer when they do. We typically hear that gangs have existed in the past because certain things were illegal. Although this is true I think we miss the important economic factor that creates gangs.
That economic factor is simply the fact that SINCE a certain product is illegal that is wanted by consumers, regardless of its legality, you have created a need in the market. A need that cannot be accommodated by a "legal" market so the black market is going to supply it. Entrepreneurs see a need in the market and they work to get it filled. Typically those entrepreneurs that are willing to take the risk in this market to provide the need are violent and will use violence to keep their share of the market from those intruding in their area.
Those products that are provided by gangs are prostitution, drugs, and high interest loans. The moral aspects of these products really have no say in the legitimacy of the services rendered. All that matters is that since there is a market for these products they are going to be provided. People voluntarily choose to purchase these products from the gangs.
There lies the essential difference between a gang and the State. With a gang you are not forced to buy their products but with the State you are. For the most part gangs aren't trying to provide some type of service to you and if you don't pay send strangers into your house kidnap you and throw you in jail or simply seize all your property. This is exactly what the State does. For those few times that gangs do do this and you deplore such an aggressive act you should deplore the very same act done by the State for the process is one in the same.
Just because the State says they are taxing you to provide a service doesn't justify it. Tax is theft and can only be taken through coercion.
So is the State a gang of thieves writ large? I think the answer is yes, but much worse than your regular ole gang down the street. The violence we see from gang warfare, although horrible for sure, is nothing compared to the violence committed by the State to society writ large.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Is religion compatible with a free society?
It seems to me that many of those interested in pursuing the knowledge of a free society have also come to other conclusions outside of our actual acting world. Not all of us have reached these conclusions because ultimately there is no logical deduction to be made to get there as there is with everything else that justifies the free society. These logical deducible axioms aren't abstract fixations on a could be world, no they are natural observations that can be made by acting men about acting men.
It seems though, that along with the idea of our society being of "Rules without Rulers" many others have taken the idea a step further. The new saying a lot of Voluntarists/Anarcho-Capitalists are using is "No Gods No Rulers" obviously showing what their spiritual beliefs are. Now, not all of those that believe in a free society are atheists and that includes me so that should be mentioned.
But why such the broad distaste for religion? Why should a purely individual choice, like so many other choices, be broadcasted with the message? Why turn off individuals that see the evils of the State from our philosophy?
I haven't quite figured that one out yet but it seems it stems from the belief that if you are to have total control and free will over your body, like the axiom of self-ownership implies, then no outside supernatural power should be able to claim it or have the power to do so. If this supernatural entity does then you are obviously not completely free and the axiom crumbles, along with every other conclusion that uses it as its premise.
Can you reconcile this paradox so that you might be able to still justify a free society off this essential axiom? I say yes, and I'm not religious one bit. Here's a great justification for those that believe in a higher being and still want to be able to conform to the idea of self-ownership.
So there is absolutely no need to leave behind your faith, judge others for their own faith, or worse turn the religious off by portraying your dislike in religion so zealously. We can all make our own personal choices in life especially as something as important and no less individualistic than other choices as religion.
1 Feser, Edward, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Volume 18, no. 3, pg.97, Mises Institute
It seems though, that along with the idea of our society being of "Rules without Rulers" many others have taken the idea a step further. The new saying a lot of Voluntarists/Anarcho-Capitalists are using is "No Gods No Rulers" obviously showing what their spiritual beliefs are. Now, not all of those that believe in a free society are atheists and that includes me so that should be mentioned.
But why such the broad distaste for religion? Why should a purely individual choice, like so many other choices, be broadcasted with the message? Why turn off individuals that see the evils of the State from our philosophy?
I haven't quite figured that one out yet but it seems it stems from the belief that if you are to have total control and free will over your body, like the axiom of self-ownership implies, then no outside supernatural power should be able to claim it or have the power to do so. If this supernatural entity does then you are obviously not completely free and the axiom crumbles, along with every other conclusion that uses it as its premise.
Can you reconcile this paradox so that you might be able to still justify a free society off this essential axiom? I say yes, and I'm not religious one bit. Here's a great justification for those that believe in a higher being and still want to be able to conform to the idea of self-ownership.
Regarding the second point, self-ownership is no more inconsistent with God's ownership of us than our ownership of private property is inconsistent with God's ownership of the entire universe. Though the religious believer takes God to own everything, this nevertheless is compatible with the belief that He also allows us to take portions of the external world for our own exclusive use. Relative to Him, we are but stewards of what we possess and He owns; but relative to each other, we are owners of what we possess. (Indeed, there are two Commandments Thou shalt not steal and Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors goods giving divine sanction to claims of private ownership.) But surely the same thing is true, and indeed more obviously true, of ourselves: relative to God, we are but stewards of His property, but relative to each other, we are self-owners. (And of course, this entails that, though we may not be answerable to each other with respect to every use we make of our selves, we are answerable to God for every use.8)1
So there is absolutely no need to leave behind your faith, judge others for their own faith, or worse turn the religious off by portraying your dislike in religion so zealously. We can all make our own personal choices in life especially as something as important and no less individualistic than other choices as religion.
1 Feser, Edward, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Volume 18, no. 3, pg.97, Mises Institute
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Why not voting is voting and actually voting isn't voting at all
It always seems that people are pestering other people about voting. Not really caring who you vote for as long as you participate in the voting process. The term civil duty is often used to show that we have some sort of duty to society to vote. Voting is the magic key that is going to better our nation one vote at a time!
But why does it seem that every election cycle, no matter who is on the ballot, nothing really changes for the better? In fact it seems that most things get getting worse and worse. When a Republican is president after his term no one likes him, so he's replaced with a Democrat. When that Democrat's term is over nothing has really changed from the previous administration and no one likes him. So a Republican often replaces him and the cycle continues. Each new President has promised something often to change something from the past administration. It never happens though, history shows this. President Obama promised to eliminate The PATRIOT Act and instead signed the continuation of it and even instituted legislation much worse, the NDAA. He also promised to be laxer on Medical Marijuana dispensaries but under his administration has raided more dispensaries than Bush did in 8 years. Our soldiers were supposed to be brought home but they weren't and are now being moved to even more countries. Don't take this as some kind of love for Republicans because Romney has said he'll take away Obamacare. If he gets presidency will he? Absolutely not. Nothing will change. Your vote means nothing.
So what has your vote done to better America? Absolutely nothing. Instead your vote has legitimatized every bad piece of legislation that has stripped individuals of their freedoms. Your vote has only helped justify our system of injustice.
Can voting ever be good?
In rare circumstances I believe voting can help. This rare circumstance is when you are voting for someone who actually wants to change the status quo, someone who wants to reduce as much of the State as humanly possible. This is when your vote counts. But it seems most people only vote for those who don't really want us to be free men and women.
So don't vote unless there is someone truly worth voting for. Voting for the lesser of two evils is what has gotten us into the constant spiral of voting for the lesser of two evils.
When you don't vote you are truly voting because you are sending a message to those in power. The message that we no longer believe that they have any ability to wield power for the greater good. The message that we are in disgust with what those in power do. The message that truly has power behind it because when you don't vote you are showing that you don't consent to being ruled.
When the populace as a whole no longer consents to being ruled there are no more rulers, there are only individuals deciding peacefully among each other how to live their own lives.
Live freely, don't vote, don't justify the State.
But why does it seem that every election cycle, no matter who is on the ballot, nothing really changes for the better? In fact it seems that most things get getting worse and worse. When a Republican is president after his term no one likes him, so he's replaced with a Democrat. When that Democrat's term is over nothing has really changed from the previous administration and no one likes him. So a Republican often replaces him and the cycle continues. Each new President has promised something often to change something from the past administration. It never happens though, history shows this. President Obama promised to eliminate The PATRIOT Act and instead signed the continuation of it and even instituted legislation much worse, the NDAA. He also promised to be laxer on Medical Marijuana dispensaries but under his administration has raided more dispensaries than Bush did in 8 years. Our soldiers were supposed to be brought home but they weren't and are now being moved to even more countries. Don't take this as some kind of love for Republicans because Romney has said he'll take away Obamacare. If he gets presidency will he? Absolutely not. Nothing will change. Your vote means nothing.
So what has your vote done to better America? Absolutely nothing. Instead your vote has legitimatized every bad piece of legislation that has stripped individuals of their freedoms. Your vote has only helped justify our system of injustice.
Can voting ever be good?
In rare circumstances I believe voting can help. This rare circumstance is when you are voting for someone who actually wants to change the status quo, someone who wants to reduce as much of the State as humanly possible. This is when your vote counts. But it seems most people only vote for those who don't really want us to be free men and women.
So don't vote unless there is someone truly worth voting for. Voting for the lesser of two evils is what has gotten us into the constant spiral of voting for the lesser of two evils.
When you don't vote you are truly voting because you are sending a message to those in power. The message that we no longer believe that they have any ability to wield power for the greater good. The message that we are in disgust with what those in power do. The message that truly has power behind it because when you don't vote you are showing that you don't consent to being ruled.
When the populace as a whole no longer consents to being ruled there are no more rulers, there are only individuals deciding peacefully among each other how to live their own lives.
Live freely, don't vote, don't justify the State.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
NFL Referee strike: When going on strike is good for the market.
Whoa whoa whoa now. Going on strike is good? Don't we hate unions especially when they go on strike? Aren't unions the antithesis of a free market?
Yes going on strike can be good. No we shouldn't hate unions. No unions aren't the antithesis of the free market, but a part of a healthy market.
How could I possibly be saying such things? It's pretty simple, people have the freedom to associate with whomever they want including co-workers. These group of individuals which create a union could very well say that they want to go on strike for higher wages, to keep past benefits, or whatever.
The past NFL Referee strike is a perfect example of a union strike that promotes a healthy market. At the end of the agreement it was a win win for everyone involved. And most importantly this relationship was resolved without the use of force from the government. This is how the market works and how voluntary interactions between the owners, the refs, and the consumers can resolve issues peacefully.
How does this all work though? How can this really be a good thing?
Well if we look at the causes of all union strikes it's typically for better pensions or higher wages. The market has its own way of dictating what wages should be, how this is done is not the intent of this post. If the union decides to go on strike no one should be able to stop them. On the other hand you should not be able to stop other workers from filling in the voids, just as the NFL hired replacement refs.
But the market responds in interesting ways when people's satisfactions aren't being met. The replacement refs just were not up to par and hence were not efficient in overseeing the game. The drop in quality was affecting the game and bringing a poorer product to consumers who in turn brought it to the attention of the commissioner that they were angry.
Purely through market forces and no threat of force from the government a resolution was made.
So yes unions and union strikes are healthy for a market because they can insure that quality products are given to consumers, like the NFL referee debacle. Unions don't need the government to help keep their jobs. Union heads who want to use government aren't doing it for the good of the workers. No they do it to justify their top positions and radically high pay which is taken from the union members. Government cannot help you it only distorts the market and helps the politically connected.
Let's look up to the NFL agreement to realize that humans can interact peacefully to settle disputes. Have faith in each other not in the State.
Yes going on strike can be good. No we shouldn't hate unions. No unions aren't the antithesis of the free market, but a part of a healthy market.
How could I possibly be saying such things? It's pretty simple, people have the freedom to associate with whomever they want including co-workers. These group of individuals which create a union could very well say that they want to go on strike for higher wages, to keep past benefits, or whatever.
The past NFL Referee strike is a perfect example of a union strike that promotes a healthy market. At the end of the agreement it was a win win for everyone involved. And most importantly this relationship was resolved without the use of force from the government. This is how the market works and how voluntary interactions between the owners, the refs, and the consumers can resolve issues peacefully.
How does this all work though? How can this really be a good thing?
Well if we look at the causes of all union strikes it's typically for better pensions or higher wages. The market has its own way of dictating what wages should be, how this is done is not the intent of this post. If the union decides to go on strike no one should be able to stop them. On the other hand you should not be able to stop other workers from filling in the voids, just as the NFL hired replacement refs.
But the market responds in interesting ways when people's satisfactions aren't being met. The replacement refs just were not up to par and hence were not efficient in overseeing the game. The drop in quality was affecting the game and bringing a poorer product to consumers who in turn brought it to the attention of the commissioner that they were angry.
Purely through market forces and no threat of force from the government a resolution was made.
So yes unions and union strikes are healthy for a market because they can insure that quality products are given to consumers, like the NFL referee debacle. Unions don't need the government to help keep their jobs. Union heads who want to use government aren't doing it for the good of the workers. No they do it to justify their top positions and radically high pay which is taken from the union members. Government cannot help you it only distorts the market and helps the politically connected.
Let's look up to the NFL agreement to realize that humans can interact peacefully to settle disputes. Have faith in each other not in the State.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Freedom of speech? A natural right?
Those that consider themselves to be on the left often clamor to civil rights like freedom of speech. Libertarians alike claim the Constitution guarantees such rights and they can't be impeded on. On a Constitutional claim the 1st Amendment only guarantees such rights to not be infringed upon by the government.
But is there such a thing as a right to speak?
My answer to that is no and by the end of this post I hope my argument gives you reason to believe such a claim.
To start off rights are not something that government can claim to give us. Rights are inherent in us being human beings. Rights are natural things that cannot be granted nor taken, they are inalienable.
The rights WE do have are property rights and only property rights. Property rights also include the right to your own body. No one can steal your property, bring damage upon your property, or destroy your property without first infringing upon your natural rights.
But one could simply assert that your vocal cords are part of your body so being able to speak is simply an extension of your body, which is property, and property rights.
I could just as simply assert that your ability to move your arms would give you the right to hit another person. If this were to be stopped your rights to move your arms, an extension of your body, would be infringed upon.
Although a bit extreme I'll admit but it is the exact same logic used for the "right to speak".
You do have a right to move your body as you wish as long as it does not reach another person and infringes on their rights. So you can't swing at someone and hit them and by the same reasoning the sound your vocal chords make have no right to hit someone else.
So just as you can move your body and not hit someone you can speak but you have no right to be heard unless prior consent is given.
What does this mean though?
It means when not on your own property or another persons property where you have consent to speak you don't have the right to speak. If you say something on someone else's property and they don't want to hear it they can make you leave, if you don't you've infringed on their rights.
It also means as long as you are on your own property or property you have consent to use from another person you can speak as you wish. Anyone within said property can then hear whatever you have to say since they will have been consensually entering that property and can simply leave if they do not wish to hear what you have to way.
This leads to something especially interesting then. You have no "right to speak" unless property rights are recognized 100%. Without these property rights then it simply doesn't exist. If you want to speak freely then you have to respect property rights and all else that are tied to property rights. This means you can only have "freedom of speech" tied with the acceptance that no one can take from yours or anyone else's property. This means you MUST deny the the acceptance of all forms of theft of property which includes all taxes and forced servitude. Essentially you must reject the State if you want to truly speak freely and be a completely free person.
But is there such a thing as a right to speak?
My answer to that is no and by the end of this post I hope my argument gives you reason to believe such a claim.
To start off rights are not something that government can claim to give us. Rights are inherent in us being human beings. Rights are natural things that cannot be granted nor taken, they are inalienable.
The rights WE do have are property rights and only property rights. Property rights also include the right to your own body. No one can steal your property, bring damage upon your property, or destroy your property without first infringing upon your natural rights.
But one could simply assert that your vocal cords are part of your body so being able to speak is simply an extension of your body, which is property, and property rights.
I could just as simply assert that your ability to move your arms would give you the right to hit another person. If this were to be stopped your rights to move your arms, an extension of your body, would be infringed upon.
Although a bit extreme I'll admit but it is the exact same logic used for the "right to speak".
You do have a right to move your body as you wish as long as it does not reach another person and infringes on their rights. So you can't swing at someone and hit them and by the same reasoning the sound your vocal chords make have no right to hit someone else.
So just as you can move your body and not hit someone you can speak but you have no right to be heard unless prior consent is given.
What does this mean though?
It means when not on your own property or another persons property where you have consent to speak you don't have the right to speak. If you say something on someone else's property and they don't want to hear it they can make you leave, if you don't you've infringed on their rights.
It also means as long as you are on your own property or property you have consent to use from another person you can speak as you wish. Anyone within said property can then hear whatever you have to say since they will have been consensually entering that property and can simply leave if they do not wish to hear what you have to way.
This leads to something especially interesting then. You have no "right to speak" unless property rights are recognized 100%. Without these property rights then it simply doesn't exist. If you want to speak freely then you have to respect property rights and all else that are tied to property rights. This means you can only have "freedom of speech" tied with the acceptance that no one can take from yours or anyone else's property. This means you MUST deny the the acceptance of all forms of theft of property which includes all taxes and forced servitude. Essentially you must reject the State if you want to truly speak freely and be a completely free person.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Never compromise on principle, ever.
On our journey to reach a system of complete justice as set forth by natural law which is the basis for self-ownership, we never fail to find bumps along the way. It should be obvious as a pragmatic person that the State isn't quite going to cease overnight, within a year, and probably still not within the next couple of decades. Are we to just sit back and accept that the State will have rule over us? Are we to just sit and wait for the "inevitable" collapse of the State? Should we do nothing now to eliminate the over-reaching hands the State commands over us essentially throughout every moment of our lives?
The simple answer is no.
Probably to the disappointment of other believers in Anarcho-Capitalism I have no problem going through the system that we are forced to partake in.
I would much rather have the individuals that live in our country become so educated on the subject of freedom that we all band together to ignore the State. When you reject to being ruled then there are no such things as rulers.
But we must understand that this is not an idea that screams of efficacy.
What we must understand is that we must use the State apparatus ONLY to reduce the amount of fingers that are clenched around our throats.
We must take away as much of the State as possible.
In this sense we are forced to use the apparatus to become free. But with the use of this apparatus we must consciously make decisions that are going to be the best for not only ourselves but for everyone else as well. From a business point of view you would try to make the best product for consumers that will also bring you profit, so that everyone involved wins and no one loses.
What is our principle that can never be broken though? What is the ideas that we must cherish ever so dearly so that we are not, for even the slightest moment, to stray away from?
These are still the basic axioms of self-ownership and a extension of that the Non Aggression Principle.
So in whichever way you attempt to eliminate the State or simply bring it down as much as possible. Never compromise your principle to meet some kind of end. As Murray Rothbard has said it "Don't compromise for a new tax to eliminate another tax." as you are still expanding the powers of the State. Instead only do what you can to become more free and never choose to become less free in someway in attempt to be more free in another way.
Freedom will win in the end but what will you do to help mitigate the bumps?
The simple answer is no.
Probably to the disappointment of other believers in Anarcho-Capitalism I have no problem going through the system that we are forced to partake in.
I would much rather have the individuals that live in our country become so educated on the subject of freedom that we all band together to ignore the State. When you reject to being ruled then there are no such things as rulers.
But we must understand that this is not an idea that screams of efficacy.
What we must understand is that we must use the State apparatus ONLY to reduce the amount of fingers that are clenched around our throats.
We must take away as much of the State as possible.
In this sense we are forced to use the apparatus to become free. But with the use of this apparatus we must consciously make decisions that are going to be the best for not only ourselves but for everyone else as well. From a business point of view you would try to make the best product for consumers that will also bring you profit, so that everyone involved wins and no one loses.
What is our principle that can never be broken though? What is the ideas that we must cherish ever so dearly so that we are not, for even the slightest moment, to stray away from?
These are still the basic axioms of self-ownership and a extension of that the Non Aggression Principle.
So in whichever way you attempt to eliminate the State or simply bring it down as much as possible. Never compromise your principle to meet some kind of end. As Murray Rothbard has said it "Don't compromise for a new tax to eliminate another tax." as you are still expanding the powers of the State. Instead only do what you can to become more free and never choose to become less free in someway in attempt to be more free in another way.
Freedom will win in the end but what will you do to help mitigate the bumps?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)