Property Rights

[Catatonic]

I was posed a hypothetical - all technology is wiped out, and the only source of clean water for hundreds of miles is owned by one man who does not feel inclined to share.

Is it wrong for him not to share, and is it wrong for the people to take what they need if this is the case?

This was my answer, please let me know what you think. I wrote this based entirely on my understanding without going to any outside sources.


Both actions are immoral. If he really hates humanity enough to attempt to kill every living person around him, he's going to have to consider the consequences. People will abandon right and wrong if they feel its justified. That doesn't change the fact that its wrong.

Hopefully they are compassionate collectivists and only take his resources rather than hurt him physically. Hopefully 51% of them don't then decide the other 49% of them, being of another race, do not deserve access to these resources. But if they do then that is okay because they have the will and the force to do so. (end sarcasm)

That man has a natural right to defend his property from this desperate mob if he chooses to do so.

The simple truth is that there is no need for conflict, even if this guy hates humanity. The people in this society are going to have skills and items that he needs, just as they need his water. Technology is destroyed after all, and while water is vital, its not everything. And that is also human nature, to find a solution that benefits everyone instead of using force to take what you want.

So he may claim the water as his own, but they will claim the surrounding land, which means access to food, roads, etc. All of which could be available to him, in exchange for water. If this is not acceptable, other sources of water can be found. There's no such thing as a person that controls all of one resource, even if that resource is scarce.

This is the only reason collectivists are able to advocate what they advocate today. They don't have to actually take what they feel they need from their neighbors, the government does it for them so they don't have to feel bad about it. They don't even have to acknowledge it as theft.

Cliffs - They'd both be morally wrong, that is why it is human nature to resolve disputes amicably whenever possible.

[noxagol]

Yeah, it's an impossible situation. IF the guys water is the last on Earth, it is obviously highly valuable and people are going to offer him a good deal and he will be able to live pretty good.

[Matt Collins]

Think of emergency situations.... a life boat that holds 20 people but 50 are trying to get in. David Boaz of Cato discuses this in his book Libertarianism: A Primer.

Also the honest truth is this situation is so unlikely and impractical that it really doesn't even merit serious thought because it will never happen.

[Kludge]

Offer him your virgin daughter.

[Catatonic]

Think of emergency situations.... a life boat that holds 20 people but 50 are trying to get in. David Boaz of Cato discuses this in his book Libertarianism: A Primer.

Also the honest truth is this situation is so unlikely and impractical that it really doesn't even merit serious thought because it will never happen.

i just started rothbard's book on ethics but i will check this out next.

I think the life boat is a little bit different too since no one can claim to have owned the boat previously, so its first come first serve until there's no more room. What if one person actually owned the boat and refused to share it with any of the other 49, even though it can hold 20 total?

[Matt Collins]

http://www.amazon.com/Libertarianism-Primer-David-Boaz/dp/068484768X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258090773&sr=8-2

[Icymudpuppy]

I would argue that the man is morally wrong not to share his water. Likewise the people would be morally wrong to take it without permission.

However, the law of Nature suggests that any animal capable of taking what it needs can and will do so, and only a greater force will prevent it. If the man does not budge, nature will take over, and the mob will take what it needs, just as if a solitary Hyaena guarding a waterhole in the Kalamari cannot keep even a small pack of weak jackals from drinking from his waterhole. If the Hyaena tried to fight off the jackals, the whole pack will take him out.

Nature's laws are harsh. Be selfish with your resources at your peril.

[axiomata]

Hypothetically a natural monopoly of an essential good as you described is possible. Practically, it does not happen so I would not worry too much about it.

[TheEvilDetector]

I was posed a hypothetical - all technology is wiped out, and the only source of clean water for hundreds of miles is owned by one man who does not feel inclined to share.

Is it wrong for him not to share, and is it wrong for the people to take what they need if this is the case?

This was my answer, please let me know what you think. I wrote this based entirely on my understanding without going to any outside sources.

Is it possible to own ALL air and ALL the sunlight (the other essentials to human life)?

Why is it possible to own the ONLY source of water?

Did someone sell him this only source of water?

I don't think so, unless the person was suicidal.

How did the present owner survive before taking possession of the only source of water? What about other people?

Did the present owner come to ownership through conquest? He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

Was the present owner simply the first one there? How did he survive without water until coming into contact with the only source of it?

This argument has much more to it than the above however:

Do you share that which is in excess of that which you personally need to survive, when you know that if you don't share others will surely die?

Selfishness and Private Property can be difficult to work out.

This is similar to the idea of a man dying of hunger, knocking on your front door, asking for some food.

Do you feed the man, don't you feed the man etc.

If you don't, you could be accused of being too cold hearted and have a guilty conscience, especially if it turns out that the person who came by died soon after.

If you do, you can have crowds coming to your door, moving you into poverty to join their ranks.

Where do you draw the line. It is not easy.

[Catatonic]

Is it possible to own ALL air and ALL the sunlight (the other essentials to human life)?

Why is it possible to own the ONLY source of water?

Did someone sell him this only source of water?

I don't think so, unless the person was suicidal.

How did the present owner survive before taking possession of the only source of water? What about other people?

Did the present owner come to ownership through conquest? He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

Was the present owner simply the first one there? How did he survive without water until coming into contact with the only source of it?

This argument has much more to it than the above however:

Do you share that which is in excess of that which you personally need to survive, when you know that if you don't share others will surely die?

Selfishness and Private Property can be difficult to work out.

This is similar to the idea of a man dying of hunger, knocking on your front door, asking for some food.

Do you feed the man, don't you feed the man etc.

If you don't, you could be accused of being too cold hearted and have a guilty conscience, especially if it turns out that the person who came by died soon after.

If you do, you can have crowds coming to your door, moving you into poverty to join their ranks.

Where do you draw the line. It is not easy.

In this scenario, there's some kind of catastrophy that destroys all technology and wrecks the environment, so the man is suddenly the only source of water.

You're right about where to draw the line...but thats the beauty of individualism to me. I know where to draw my line, and if I over extend myself then I can accept responsibility for that. Allowing the collective to determine where the line must be drawn means you have to wrong a lot of people, and anyone that gets over extended is going to resent the system that forced this upon them, even if they may have made the same choices without being forced to do so.

Collectivism to me doesn't seem like it can exist without constant strife and conflict. Neither can individualism, but at least with individualism you can stand up for yourself instead of having to wait until you're being stepped on so hard you have no choice but to resist.

[wizardwatson]

Lifeboat Situations, Murray Rothbard, Ethics of Liberty Chapter 20

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twenty.asp

[TheEvilDetector]

Lifeboat Situations, Murray Rothbard, Ethics of Liberty Chapter 20

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twenty.asp

" To sum up the application of our theory to extreme situations: if a man aggresses against another’s person or property to save his own life, he may or may not be acting morally in so doing. That is none of our particular concern in this work. Regardless of whether his action is moral or immoral, by any criterion, he is still a criminal aggressor against the property of another, and the victim is within his right to repel that aggression by force, and to prosecute the aggressor afterward for his crime."

I struggle to come to terms with the summary here.

How can you ignore morality in this manner?

What I take from this discussion is the following sentiment:
(using a hypothetical situation)

You are driving past a burning wreck of a traffic accident, with a victim who clearly requires emegency hospital care stumbling towards your car hoping to get a lift to a medical facility (which is not that far away by car), however you don't open the door for this person and instead you punch him so that he backs off and follow that up with a drive to the nearest police station and request that a criminal investigation to take place for attempted criminal trespass having taken a video which shows the badly injured victim desperately trying to open a door to your car after you clearly told the victim to back off and even punched him in defence of your property.

Morality is not of our concern in this case. The accident victim tried to trespass. If the victim survives he will be put in jail, which he so richly deserves.

I suppose what Rothbard is doing is separating the rights of the individual from subjective morality and showing us that sometimes the two can clash.

I think in most humans the two are very deeply connected and people try to not to violate one to preserve the other.

It would be difficult for most people to be an "asshole" and behave like the driver in the hypothetical situation above while at the same time choosing to enforce his right to his private property.

[wizardwatson]

" To sum up the application of our theory to extreme situations: if a man aggresses against another’s person or property to save his own life, he may or may not be acting morally in so doing. That is none of our particular concern in this work. Regardless of whether his action is moral or immoral, by any criterion, he is still a criminal aggressor against the property of another, and the victim is within his right to repel that aggression by force, and to prosecute the aggressor afterward for his crime."

I struggle to come to terms with the summary here.

How can you ignore morality in this manner?

What I take from this discussion is the following sentiment:
(using a hypothetical situation)

You are driving past a burning wreck of a traffic accident, with a victim who clearly requires emegency hospital care stumbling towards your car hoping to get a lift to a medical facility (which is not that far away by car), however you don't open the door for this person and instead you punch him so that he backs off and follow that up with a drive to the nearest court house and request for criminal investigation to take place for attempted criminal trespass having taken a video which shows the badly injured victim desperately trying to open a door to your car after you clearly told the victim to back off and even punched him in defence of your property.

Morality is not of our concern in this case. The accident victim tried to trespass. If the victim survives he will be put in jail, which he so richly deserves.

Rothbard is just saying that although the moral thing to do may be to violate a property owners rights in a lifeboat situation, it does not diminish those rights.

[Catatonic]

" To sum up the application of our theory to extreme situations: if a man aggresses against another’s person or property to save his own life, he may or may not be acting morally in so doing. That is none of our particular concern in this work. Regardless of whether his action is moral or immoral, by any criterion, he is still a criminal aggressor against the property of another, and the victim is within his right to repel that aggression by force, and to prosecute the aggressor afterward for his crime."

I struggle to come to terms with the summary here.

How can you ignore morality in this manner?

What I take from this discussion is the following sentiment:
(using a hypothetical situation)

You are driving past a burning wreck of a traffic accident, with a victim who clearly requires emegency hospital care stumbling towards your car hoping to get a lift to a medical facility (which is not that far away by car), however you don't open the door for this person and instead you punch him so that he backs off and follow that up with a drive to the nearest police station and request that a criminal investigation to take place for attempted criminal trespass having taken a video which shows the badly injured victim desperately trying to open a door to your car after you clearly told the victim to back off and even punched him in defence of your property.

Morality is not of our concern in this case. The accident victim tried to trespass. If the victim survives he will be put in jail, which he so richly deserves.

I suppose what Rothbard is doing is separating the rights of the individual from subjective morality and showing us that sometimes the two can clash.

I think in most humans the two are very deeply connected and people try to not to violate one to preserve the other.

It would be difficult for most people to be an "asshole" and behave like the driver in the hypothetical situation above while at the same time choosing to enforce his right to his private property.

He's talking about relative morality. Consder the hypothetical I was posed....lets say the guy with the resource needed to save everyone is a sadistic lunatic that would love nothing more than to watch them all die.

Is a father morally wrong for violating the man's property rights to save his children? Yes and no, obviously, but regardless of the justification, it is still criminal. Crime is crime whether it is justified, or even moral, or not.

I think that is important to keep in mind, because when people start getting the idea that moral justification makes it okay to break the law, the law becomes meaningless. And in this case we're talking about natural law.

YOU know the point at which you feel it acceptable to break natural law and do something you know is wrong. Here a collectivist will say "Well, then its okay for me to decide that it is acceptable to take your earnings to pay for my health care. And if 2/3 of the country agrees with me, then there's nothing you can do about it".

And I think the answer to that is, if you're going to break the law, natural or not, you have to be willing to accept the consequences. Using collectivism to break the law, through justification from a majority opinion or through a representative authority like the government, removes those consequences. You don't even have to acknowledge that theft and crime against natural law is going on.

So an individualist is driven to wrong another man only when he feels the consequential risk, even if its just feelings of guilt, are acceptable. He is forced to acknowledge his crime for what it is. A collectivist removes that risk by allowing the collective to tell him what is okay and what is not okay, removing all sense of personal responsibility or accountability.

[TheEvilDetector]

He's talking about relative morality. Consder the hypothetical I was posed....lets say the guy with the resource needed to save everyone is a sadistic lunatic that would love nothing more than to watch them all die.


So everyone has property rights. If we are all truly respectful of these rights, then the logical conclusion would be it is proper for 5,999,999,999 to die than to infringe on the property rights of the 1 sadistic lunatic that has a monopoly on an essential life sustaining commodity.

That's the argument at the very core of it all.



Is a father morally wrong for violating the man's property rights to save his children? Yes and no, obviously, but regardless of the justification, it is still criminal. Crime is crime whether it is justified, or even moral, or not.



If you have the only means (possession of some item) available to save someone's life (without any perceivable risk to your own) and you willfully do not provide such means to the one that needs it, could that be codified into a crime?

Basically, I think property rights taken to the absolute extreme lead to justification for the most extensive liquidation of human beings imaginable, while in moderate circumstances property rights secure the well being of many.

What gets to me is the dismissal of all morality in the argument by Rothbard.

[Catatonic]

So everyone has property rights. If we are all truly respectful of these rights, then the logical conclusion would be it is proper for 5,999,999,999 to die than to infringe on the property rights of the 1 sadistic lunatic that has a monopoly on an essential life sustaining commodity.

That's the argument at the very core of it all.

If all of those people were perfect idealists that refuse to do wrong no matter what, then yes, that would be proper. They should all sit on their hands and wait to die.

The reality is that people have a point at which they will revert to a survival instinct, and right and wrong, moral or immoral, will become irrelevant. That doesn't mean it is 'right' for them to do so, but at the same time you can't blame them. If you provoke people to act in a certain way, especially if their response is predictable, then you deserve some measure of responsibility for the outcome. This should be considered on a case by case basis, no one should pick a point at which it should be acceptable or unacceptable and expect everyone else to live by that guideline.


If you have the only means (possession of some item) available to save someone's life (without any perceivable risk to your own) and you willfully do not provide such means to the one that needs it, could that be codified into a crime?

Basically, I think property rights taken to the absolute extreme lead to justification for the most extensive liquidation of human beings imaginable, while in moderate circumstances property rights secure the well being of many.

What gets to me is the dismissal of all morality in the argument by Rothbard.

If you think its a crime to refuse to help people in need then you could argue (loosely) that all libertarians belong in jail. There's an extreme hazard there. Rothbard is asking you to forget morality for a moment because he's talking about legality in the strictest sense. Laws and morals don't always mesh, even when it comes to natural law.

It is ALWAYS criminal to violate property rights. Once you move away from this absolute, you get into the slippery slope of trying to pick when it is and is not criminal, and you know where that leads.....to there being no such thing as private property, or natural rights.

[TheEvilDetector]

If all of those people were perfect idealists that refuse to do wrong no matter what, then yes, that would be proper. They should all sit on their hands and wait to die.

The reality is that people have a point at which they will revert to a survival instinct, and right and wrong, moral or immoral, will become irrelevant. That doesn't mean it is 'right' for them to do so, but at the same time you can't blame them. If you provoke people to act in a certain way, especially if their response is predictable, then you deserve some measure of responsibility for the outcome.


How do you know whether or not you are responsible when you've been taught to have utmost respect for property rights and expect others to have the same?

Actually that brings me back to something else where Rothbard said that first one on the lifeboat owns it. I was wondering, why does he own the whole boat, why not just the seat which he chooses to sit on....



This should be considered on a case by case basis, no one should pick a point at which it should be acceptable or unacceptable and expect everyone else to live by that guideline.


So if each situation has no right or wrong solution, then on what basis do we derive laws? Majority opinion? Isn't that a tyranny in itself? Actually how could any law be valid if it ignores the wishes of anyone.
(the whole consent of the governed thing).



If you think its a crime to refuse to help people in need then you could argue (loosely) that all libertarians belong in jail. There's an extreme hazard there. Rothbard is asking you to forget morality for a moment because he's talking about legality in the strictest sense. Laws and morals don't always mesh, even when it comes to natural law.


Natural Law = Survival Instinct?

In nature we can find tyranny of the majority and tyranny of the minority, I suspect we would struggle for answers here.

What is possession by the way? To me it is a custom more than anything. An understanding that that there are items in existence over which I have authority.

Rothbard does not attempt to discuss right or wrong. I don't even know if it is even possible to do so. I know that we have a custom, which intuitively feels very fair to me, being that I am the beneficiary.

I LIKE the idea of owning things, that others CANT touch without MY permissions. Is it RIGHT or WRONG for such construct to exist?

I don't really know, particularly during emergencies.

ALL I know, is that I LIKE the IDEA of it (I guess it also has something to do with survival instinct), so on that basis I could claim it is the RIGHT viewpoint and claim it as MY RIGHT
(which is what all kinds of people do when it comes to their philosophies).

Right or wrong boils down to drumming up support for a particular view point at the end of the day. Maybe survival instinct goes a long way in shaping our philosophy.

Survival Instinct is generally a self preservation motivation, but I suppose in some cases it can be expanded to preservation of community through personal sacrifice.

The scary thing I realise over time, is that the more you know, the more you learn how much you don't know.



It is ALWAYS criminal to violate property rights. Once you move away from this absolute, you get into the slippery slope of trying to pick when it is and is not criminal, and you know where that leads.....to there being no such thing as private property, or natural rights.

Criminal = Violation of Law = How does this Law find its origin?

I personally believe in individual property rights, but I feel that this topic of emergencies could have been addressed better by Rothbard. I think he took all kinds of shortcuts.

Even if my assessment is wrong, his conclusions scare me.

Over all existence of any form of government requires infringement of personal rights and so does the existence of pure anarchy because due to the variability of people's behaviours and views no agreement on respect for property rights could ever be reached.

Constitutionally limited government seems like the lesser of the evils (if personal property rights are used as the measuring stick by which we judge the goodness of a political system).

[Catatonic]

How do you know whether or not you are responsible when you've been taught to have utmost respect for property rights and expect others to have the same?

Actually that brings me back to something else where Rothbard said that first one on the lifeboat owns it. I was wondering, why does he own the whole boat, why not just the seat which he chooses to sit on....



So if each situation has no right or wrong solution, then on what basis do we derive laws? Majority opinion? Isn't that a tyranny in itself? Actually how could any law be valid if it ignores the wishes of anyone.
(the whole consent of the governed thing).



Natural Law = Survival Instinct?

In nature we can find tyranny of the majority and tyranny of the minority, I suspect we would struggle for answers here.

What is possession by the way? To me it is a custom more than anything. An understanding that that there are items in existence over which I have authority.

Rothbard does not attempt to discuss right or wrong. I don't even know if it is even possible to do so. I know that we have a custom, which intuitively feels very fair to me, being that I am the beneficiary.

I LIKE the idea of owning things, that others CANT touch without MY permissions. Is it RIGHT or WRONG for such construct to exist?

I don't really know, particularly during emergencies.

ALL I know, is that I LIKE the IDEA of it (I guess it also has something to do with survival instinct), so on that basis I could claim it is the RIGHT viewpoint and claim it as MY RIGHT
(which is what all kinds of people do when it comes to their philosophies).

Right or wrong boils down to drumming up support for a particular view point at the end of the day. Maybe survival instinct goes a long way in shaping our philosophy.

Survival Instinct is generally a self preservation motivation, but I suppose in some cases it can be expanded to preservation of community through personal sacrifice.

The scary thing I realise over time, is that the more you know, the more you learn how much you don't know.



Criminal = Violation of Law = How does this Law find its origin?

I personally believe in individual property rights, but I feel that this topic of emergencies could have been addressed better by Rothbard. I think he took all kinds of shortcuts.

Even if my assessment is wrong, his conclusions scare me.

Over all existence of any form of government requires infringement of personal rights and so does the existence of pure anarchy because due to the variability of people's behaviours and views no agreement on respect for property rights could ever be reached.

Constitutionally limited government seems like the lesser of the evils (if personal property rights are used as the measuring stick by which we judge the goodness of a political system).

I don't have the answers to all of your questions, but I will point out a couple things...

First of all, Rothbard isn't saying you should forget the idea of morals. He's just saying suspend your belief in morals for a moment so I can make this specific point. The point being, violating property rights is always wrong. There are possibly instances when there is no 'right' answer, and no matter what someone is going to be wronged. Thats the consequence of living in society.

His point is that its essential to acknowledge the wrongness of violating someone's property rights rather than justify it and at the same time convince yourself that what you're doing is completely acceptable. That leads down you to a paradigm where no one really owns anything because all property must be surrendered for whatever is determined to be the 'greater good'.

If you go back to the 1st chapter, Rothbard provides legal definitions for natural rights that should help you to understand the origin. Natural rights is basically the concepts of right and wrong that are inherent to humanity. Absent of law, natural rights are more or less the concepts that would emerge naturally. For example it is wrong to steal, it is wrong to kill. Even murderers and theives know what they are doing is wrong at some level, even if they don't care. The exception being someone that is mentally ill.

Imagine there's no government, and a man knocks on your door and says his family is being held hostage by a man with a gun and he wants your help to rescue them. How would you respond? Would you say 'Well, there's no government here to tell me that what he's doing is illegal or immoral so I don't see why I should' or would that action strike you as wrong on some basic level?

That is natural law. Even the bad guy in this situation knows that he can expect the public to disapprove of his actions. And that is in my opinion the basis of the bill of rights - to enforce natural law.

[TheEvilDetector]

I don't have the answers to all of your questions, but I will point out a couple things...

First of all, Rothbard isn't saying you should forget the idea of morals. He's just saying suspend your belief in morals for a moment so I can make this specific point. The point being, violating property rights is always wrong. There are possibly instances when there is no 'right' answer, and no matter what someone is going to be wronged. Thats the consequence of living in society.

His point is that its essential to acknowledge the wrongness of violating someone's property rights rather than justify it and at the same time convince yourself that what you're doing is completely acceptable. That leads down you to a paradigm where no one really owns anything because all property must be surrendered for whatever is determined to be the 'greater good'.

If you go back to the 1st chapter, Rothbard provides legal definitions for natural rights that should help you to understand the origin. Natural rights is basically the concepts of right and wrong that are inherent to humanity. Absent of law, natural rights are more or less the concepts that would emerge naturally. For example it is wrong to steal, it is wrong to kill. Even murderers and theives know what they are doing is wrong at some level, even if they don't care. The exception being someone that is mentally ill.

Imagine there's no government, and a man knocks on your door and says his family is being held hostage by a man with a gun and he wants your help to rescue them. How would you respond? Would you say 'Well, there's no government here to tell me that what he's doing is illegal or immoral so I don't see why I should' or would that action strike you as wrong on some basic level?

That is natural law. Even the bad guy in this situation knows that he can expect the public to disapprove of his actions. And that is in my opinion the basis of the bill of rights - to enforce natural law.

Thank you for your explanation. However I would guess that natural law would be very much affected by the kind of environment you were brought up in, meaning it may not be so 'natural' after all.

For example, if in your community/family/group of friends people did not think it was wrong to steal from time to time, then you may feel the same way, due to the 'way things are'.

After all, so many today think its ok for government to take by force that which you earn ie. tax. They really believe that. For them it is as natural as the sun rising and setting every day.

I suppose the point I am trying to make is that there are no absolutes. Even falling back to natural law, does not guarantee us being able to know with certainty 'right' from 'wrong'.

We will always have individuals and groups trying to accumulate power and wield their world view over others, each convinced that their view is 'right'.

I think one natural law you can be pretty sure about, is that each individual wants to improve their station in life in some manner, with the method based on environment as well as genetics and individual choice.

Personally I like the idea of owning property, it helps me with feeling of being in control of my life and security. I think bottom line that's what people want, to feel control over their own lives and feel secure.

Seems to me that logically individual property rights have the best chance of offering that to people because no one is more interested in your own security and control than you personally and hence no one can monitor and
adjust for it as well as someone who is constantly interested in this particular subject (ie. you personally).

I think extraconstitutional government fails because more often than not, the individuals entrusted with decision making power (bureaucrats) are placed in such situations where it is not humanly possible to make appropriate
decisions regarding individual security/control wants and needs.

Can a single human, process the needs of millions being mindful of particulars for each individual? Can even a computer do that?

Those bureaucras are physically removed from those same individuals else they would go mad with sensory overload.

No bureaucrat interviews millions of citizens to get an understanding of each individual situation and any poll abstracts away lots of very important nuances.

Simply put, government that does more than the very minimum required of it in the constitution is not a practical system even if the members of it are well meaning and highly intelligent.

As far as government itself is concerned, the extent of its authority should be as follows in my opinion:

1) Laws to protect each individual from aggression by others with respect to life and property (ie. punish assaults against life and property)
(Obligation of the States to respect these laws, and the Federal government helps where requested by the State or Citizenry)

2) Laws to protect the 'nation' ie. geographical area from external aggression (ie. to preserve system of government).

ALL government taxation should be criminalised (no income tax, no sales tax, no tarrifs) and FEDERAL government should support itself solely through the following means:

1) Sell (Voluntary basis) Federally Run (ie. where there is a need for state response coordination or even whole nation coordination) Police / Fire / Ambulance / Road Maintenance / Land Maintenance etc Services
(Allow other accredited agencies to compete against it with LOCAL government having a deciding vote on which companies can compete in its jurisdiction)

2) Collect Registration Fees for Legal Entities where protection of name/trademark is required on a national level.

3) Collect Arbitration Fees for Disputes between States. Where the States decide to go to Federal Government for decisions.

4) Sale of Services via Space Exploration

5) Sale of Time Limited Contracts (which includes caps on what can be charged) to look after National Highways/Parks or any Federal Land.
(where the party who looks after it (ie. cleans/improves/maintains, would be able to collect a small toll (affordable to even the poorest people eg. something like 10c to $1) from users of a particular resource)

6) Sale of Customs Checks for those States who don't want to do it themselves.

(there are probably other things the government can sell or offer in a sustainable manner without pointing a gun to anyone's head)

But absolutely no compulsory taxation of ANY kind. Every dollar raised has to be obtained through a voluntary sale of a service of some kind that a federal government is suited for / has experience in.

In other words, no agent of federal government can take any money out of your pocket, unless you choose to buy something from them (though that can be indirect via your own state's government choices).

I think a government that stops being hypocritical can go a long way to gaining legitimacy in the eyes of even the most hard core critics (eg. anarchists who became that way because they are tired of being abused by the government)

[Catatonic]

Thank you for your explanation. However I would guess that natural law would be very much affected by the kind of environment you were brought up in, meaning it may not be so 'natural' after all.

For example, if in your community/family/group of friends people did not think it was wrong to steal from time to time, then you may feel the same way, due to the 'way things are'.

After all, so many today think its ok for government to take by force that which you earn ie. tax. They really believe that. For them it is as natural as the sun rising and setting every day.

I suppose the point I am trying to make is that there are no absolutes. Even falling back to natural law, does not guarantee us being able to know with certainty 'right' from 'wrong'.

I disagree. Steal from a commie and I'm sure they'll get pissed. Remember theft through taxation is ONLY acceptable to people because they don't have to do it themselves. If they honestly understood what they were advocating and still agreed with it they'd all be thieves, because they wouldn't see what they're doing as theft. It would just be redistribution of property that no one actually owns.

I've never met or heard of ANYONE that is okay with being stolen from, for any reason. You can be the most giving person in the world, but its impossible to have property taken and not feel like a victim.

That is why communism, if you ask me, can ONLY work through anarchy. It HAS to be 100% voluntary, and that means a society of selfless people that no longer have any use for government. If a government is necessary, the system will break because someone will end up being victimized.

Edit: Also, you can teach people to go against their nature, but that just proves my point. You have to be taught that these things are acceptable to be okay with them.


We will always have individuals and groups trying to accumulate power and wield their world view over others, each convinced that their view is 'right'.

I think one natural law you can be pretty sure about, is that each individual wants to improve their station in life in some manner, with the method based on environment as well as genetics and individual choice.

Personally I like the idea of owning property, it helps me with feeling of being in control of my life and security. I think bottom line that's what people want, to feel control over their own lives and feel secure.

Seems to me that logically individual property rights have the best chance of offering that to people because no one is more interested in your own security and control than you personally and hence no one can monitor and
adjust for it as well as someone who is constantly interested in this particular subject (ie. you personally).

I think extraconstitutional government fails because more often than not, the individuals entrusted with decision making power (bureaucrats) are placed in such situations where it is not humanly possible to make appropriate
decisions regarding individual security/control wants and needs.

Can a single human, process the needs of millions being mindful of particulars for each individual? Can even a computer do that?

Those bureaucras are physically removed from those same individuals else they would go mad with sensory overload.

No bureaucrat interviews millions of citizens to get an understanding of each individual situation and any poll abstracts away lots of very important nuances.

Simply put, government that does more than the very minimum required of it in the constitution is not a practical system even if the members of it are well meaning and highly intelligent.

Yep. But thats the problem with the constitution altogether. You can't create a central authority, for ANY reason, even if its set in stone (supposedly) and chained down with iron to keep it minimal. Opportunists will always expand authority, and authority is their aphrodesiac so they will always flock to it.

The constitution was doomed to bring us to this point from day one.

[TheEvilDetector]

I disagree. Steal from a commie and I'm sure they'll get pissed. Remember theft through taxation is ONLY acceptable to people because they don't have to do it themselves. If they honestly understood what they were advocating and still agreed with it they'd all be thieves, because they wouldn't see what they're doing as theft. It would just be redistribution of property that no one actually owns.


There are people who believe taxation is a duty of a responsible citizen, in other words if you don't pay your tax you are taking advantage of others. People who bought the whole we need taxation deal.



I've never met or heard of ANYONE that is okay with being stolen from, for any reason. You can be the most giving person in the world, but its impossible to have property taken and not feel like a victim.


Depends on how you present to them whats going on. I suspect its a matter of education. Taxation has been around a long time, some people think its ok to have money taken out. The fact that there hasn't been
any serious movement (by serious I mean, people demonstrating non stop on the streets, until it is repealed, grinding economy to a halt until it is done) to get rid of income taxation for so long, is proof.



That is why communism, if you ask me, can ONLY work through anarchy. It HAS to be 100% voluntary, and that means a society of selfless people that no longer have any use for government. If a government is necessary, the system will break because someone will end up being victimized.


We have to ask ourselves what concepts government represents. This begins to blur the classical definitions for me.

I see it as a society-wide accepted way of doing things, where deviation is punished.

In the communist anarchy, if a single person deviates and gets punished because of this, there is a de facto government.



Edit: Also, you can teach people to go against their nature, but that just proves my point. You have to be taught that these things are acceptable to be okay with them.


What makes you think, that someone can't come to believe that its ok to steal without being taught its ok to steal? How can you be so sure? It depends on each individuals sense of right and wrong. Some individuals don't share your view that its wrong to steal and some do. Both sides can be taught in this view or come to it naturally. I just don't believe there is inherent limitation there.

Think of it as forces of nature. Is earthquake that kills millions evil? Is a man that kills millions evil? Its nature first of all. I do understand this, and for practical reasons do not wish to see people die from causes over which we have some control, ie behaviour of men. I do not wish for people to die, because I do not want to be one of them. I think for most people this comes from self-preservation.

However those on the side that's doing the killing and stealing, may not even care about any of this, simply enjoying the power and thinking they are not doing anything wrong.

Note: A lot of people will automatically say its wrong to kill, but often that's because it was taught that way. I personally agree with such teachings, but I recognise it for what it is. Such concepts are very important for civil society and so have gained alot of traction. In the past however, there were plenty of killings, without much thought spent on them, think back to very early barbarian horde days when if you wanted something you could simply kill 'owners' of it. It was normal behaviour at the time. I would guess, that if you approached them (barbarians) after their killing spree and tried to explain to them how people have a right to life and property, they may laugh at you, think you are a bit weird, then kill you and laugh some more about the weird man, then tuck their kids into bed and kiss their wives or female partners or whatever and talk about how their day was.



Yep. But thats the problem with the constitution altogether. You can't create a central authority, for ANY reason, even if its set in stone (supposedly) and chained down with iron to keep it minimal. Opportunists will always expand authority, and authority is their aphrodesiac so they will always flock to it.


Of course people will always try to expand power. That is why liberty must be guarded. There is no free lunch. You can't assume that any form of government including lack of government called anarchy will mean you can stop worrying about protecting your freedoms. In fact, I am much more concerned with basic survivability (forget even the basic rights) in an anarchy.



The constitution was doomed to bring us to this point from day one.

Yes, but only through complacency. You can't blame a piece of paper. Founders had courage, conviction and perseverence, but people of modern times have a beer, remote control and a tv to replace it.

[Catatonic]

There are people who believe taxation is a duty of a responsible citizen, in other words if you don't pay your tax you are taking advantage of others. People who bought the whole we need taxation deal.



Depends on how you present to them whats going on. I suspect its a matter of education. Taxation has been around a long time, some people think its ok to have money taken out. The fact that there hasn't been
any serious movement (by serious I mean, people demonstrating non stop on the streets, until it is repealed, grinding economy to a halt until it is done) to get rid of income taxation for so long, is proof.



We have to ask ourselves what concepts government represents. This begins to blur the classical definitions for me.

I see it as a society-wide accepted way of doing things, where deviation is punished.

In the communist anarchy, if a single person deviates and gets punished because of this, there is a de facto government.



What makes you think, that someone can't come to believe that its ok to steal without being taught its ok to steal? How can you be so sure? It depends on each individuals sense of right and wrong. Some individuals don't share your view that its wrong to steal and some do. Both sides can be taught in this view or come to it naturally. I just don't believe there is inherent limitation there.

Think of it as forces of nature. Is earthquake that kills millions evil? Is a man that kills millions evil? Its nature first of all. I do understand this, and for practical reasons do not wish to see people die from causes over which we have some control, ie behaviour of men. I do not wish for people to die, because I do not want to be one of them. I think for most people this comes from self-preservation.

I'm assuming you don't have any kids. People are definatly born with a sense of natural rights. You can't take something from even a 2 year old and not have them get upset. They may be born into a family that believes its okay to steal, but thats another story. It HAS to be taught, therefor it is NOT natural. It is not necessarily good or evil, which is why Rothbard tells you to disregard morality for a moment.

Society can teach you to accept these things, just as anyone can be conditioned to go against their nature. But society doesn't teach you that stealing is okay, even in a socialist system. It only works by convincing people that they are ENTITLED to what they're receiving. And that is why socialism can never work. The reality is that private property DOES exist, and calling it an entitlement doesn't change the fact that someone is having their property rights, a natural concept that can never be completely worked out of the human psyche, violated.

Socialism absolutley has to be voluntary or it is doomed. That is just human nature. If the human condition undergoes some drastic change, then things will be different. Until then, thats reality.

Even in the most collectivist cultures, like in SE asia where people are basically taught to be robots from day one, if the powers that be push too far into violating their natural rights, there are riots and rebellions, whether they have any working notion of what a natural right is or not.


However those on the side that's doing the killing and stealing, may not even care about any of this, simply enjoying the power and thinking they are not doing anything wrong.

Note: A lot of people will automatically say its wrong to kill, but often that's because it was taught that way. I personally agree with such teachings, but I recognise it for what it is. Such concepts are very important for civil society and so have gained alot of traction. In the past however, there were plenty of killings, without much thought spent on them, think back to very early barbarian horde days when if you wanted something you could simply kill 'owners' of it. It was normal behaviour at the time. I would guess, that if you approached them (barbarians) after their killing spree and tried to explain to them how people have a right to life and property, they may laugh at you, think you are a bit weird, then kill you and laugh some more about the weird man, then tuck their kids into bed and kiss their wives or female partners or whatever and talk about how their day was.



Of course people will always try to expand power. That is why liberty must be guarded. There is no free lunch. You can't assume that any form of government including lack of government called anarchy will mean you can stop worrying about protecting your freedoms. In fact, I am much more concerned with basic survivability (forget even the basic rights) in an anarchy.

IMO you think this because society has desensitized us to violence. Again, look at the reaction of children. Violence and death, even just seeing it, has a HUGE impact on them. Humans in an unconditioned natural state abhor serious violence. Even psychos know that what they are doing is wrong on some level.

There's a reason that people who DON'T understand whats wrong with killing are so rare and considered such an extreme form of mental disorder.


Yes, but only through complacency. You can't blame a piece of paper. Founders had courage, conviction and perseverence, but people of modern times have a beer, remote control and a tv to replace it.

There were distractions then too. Remember only 3% of the public even went along with the rebellion. Most of the rest of them were perfectly content to remain British tax slaves.

The sad fact is the anti federalists were right.

[TheEvilDetector]

I'm assuming you don't have any kids. People are definatly born with a sense of natural rights. You can't take something from even a 2 year old and not have them get upset.


But that 2 year old may have taken this very same item from a 3 year old while the 3 year old wasn't looking, smiling while doing so.

You might teach him/her not to do that "Naughty boy, don't take things from your brother". So I don't particularly agree that humans are born with a sense of natural rights (survival instinct on the other hand is a different matter, then again isn't this what all the philosophies are based on?). In fact, while kids are growing up, you spend a lot of time teaching them right and wrong as you understand right and wrong.



They may be born into a family that believes its okay to steal, but thats another story. It HAS to be taught, therefor it is NOT natural. It is not necessarily good or evil, which is why Rothbard tells you to disregard morality for a moment.


Kids learn everything they end up knowing.



Society can teach you to accept these things, just as anyone can be conditioned to go against their nature. But society doesn't teach you that stealing is okay, even in a socialist system.

It only works by convincing people that they are ENTITLED to what they're receiving.


One of the definitions of the word 'steal' is the taking of items without permission by force or secretly.

IRS and some other alphabet soup agencies are trained that they can take items without permission of the owner using force or secretly.



And that is why socialism can never work. The reality is that private property DOES exist, and calling it an entitlement doesn't change the fact that someone is having their property rights, a natural concept that can never be completely worked out of the human psyche, violated.


I would argue that as long as you satisfy survival instinct (survival/control/security needs) of each member you could work out a system where property is shared between members if you wanted to. Simplest example would be shared property in a marriage. However, like I mentioned earlier I personally prefer individual property rights.



Socialism absolutley has to be voluntary or it is doomed. That is just human nature. If the human condition undergoes some drastic change, then things will be different. Until then, thats reality.


I don't think non individual property systems can work on large scale, because corruption within these systems is very damaging to the well being of everyone.

I think individual property systems are the best because they are more self-correcting and satisfy survival instinct of each individual in a more direct and visible manner.



Even in the most collectivist cultures, like in SE asia where people are basically taught to be robots from day one, if the powers that be push too far into violating their natural rights, there are riots and rebellions, whether they have any working notion of what a natural right is or not.


That's the abuse I was referring to earlier. Corruption in such systems has a more profound effect.



IMO you think this because society has desensitized us to violence. Again, look at the reaction of children. Violence and death, even just seeing it, has a HUGE impact on them. Humans in an unconditioned natural state abhor serious violence. Even psychos know that what they are doing is wrong on some level.


In the olden days when you had to get food and protect your tribe/family by throwing spears around violence and death were very much a normal part of life on a daily basis.

Besides, kids fight all the time, sometimes with bad consequences. I would argue, that physical confrontation is as natural a response for some people as breathing.

Bullying is ever present and is nothing more than a display of natural order (based on strongest dominating the weak through violence).



There's a reason that people who DON'T understand whats wrong with killing are so rare and considered such an extreme form of mental disorder.

A lot of people are too scared to kill because of threat of punishment. Take away ALL forms of law enforcement and it may turn out that its not so rare to find people killing each other for even the most trivial of reasons.

"You motherf**** this was my parking spot.. Pow Pow Pow" (sound of body hitting the floor)

"That bitch just tried to chat up my boyfriend.. Pow Pow Pow" (sound of body hitting the floor)



There were distractions then too. Remember only 3% of the public even went along with the rebellion. Most of the rest of them were perfectly content to remain British tax slaves.

The sad fact is the anti federalists were right.

Well not everyone is cut out to be a leader of free men.

[Catatonic]

But that 2 year old may have taken this very same item from a 3 year old while the 3 year old wasn't looking, smiling while doing so.

You might teach him/her not to do that "Naughty boy, don't take things from your brother". So I don't particularly agree that humans are born with a sense of natural rights (survival instinct on the other hand is a different matter, then again isn't this what all the philosophies are based on?). In fact, while kids are growing up, you spend a lot of time teaching them right and wrong as you understand right and wrong.

Children need to be taught empathy. You're not teaching them so much that its wrong to steal, but that its wrong to treat someone in a way you wouldn't want to be treated. In other words if you're going to to get upset at having your own property rights violated, you can't expect anyone else to not react the same way.

Children take things if they're not taught not to because they don't understand the idea of looking at things through anyone else's eyes. But that child understands HIS property rights, and thats where natural law comes from. He can choose not to acknowledge anyone else's rights, but for the purposes of our discussion, property rights either exist or they don't, whether anyone acknowledges them or not.

If there are two children and one of them doesn't understand the nature of property rights as it applies to others, he's going to learn when he tries to take from the other child and ends up getting a beat down.


One of the definitions of the word 'steal' is the taking of items without permission by force or secretly.

IRS and some other alphabet soup agencies are trained that they can take items without permission of the owner using force or secretly.

But if you're taking something that you already own, is that stealing? Even if its done by force without permission? IMO it should say the taking of items owned by another person or entity.


I would argue that as long as you satisfy survival instinct (survival/control/security needs) of each member you could work out a system where property is shared between members if you wanted to. Simplest example would be shared property in a marriage. However, like I mentioned earlier I personally prefer individual property rights.

Sure, as long as its voluntary, why not? Property rights doesn't mean you can't share. Socialist redistribution of wealth involves an authority figure gathering resources by force and then deciding who deserves what.

There's nothing wrong with an individualist government like whats detailed in the constitution serving a socialist society. The issue boils down to volunteerism vs authoritarianism.


I don't think non individual property systems can work on large scale, because corruption within these systems is very damaging to the well being of everyone.

I think individual property systems are the best because they are more self-correcting and satisfy survival instinct of each individual in a more direct and visible manner.

You mean like Jefferson's small farm idea? I think pretty much the same thing.


In the olden days when you had to get food and protect your tribe/family by throwing spears around violence and death were very much a normal part of life on a daily basis.

Besides, kids fight all the time, sometimes with bad consequences. I would argue, that physical confrontation is as natural a response for some people as breathing.

Bullying is ever present and is nothing more than a display of natural order (based on strongest dominating the weak through violence).

Kids fighting is a natural part of adolescence. That doesn't mean they want to kill someone. Outside of kids in a gang situation where they've got a little society of people telling them its okay to kill, you'd have a hard time finding a kid that would not have a problem with killing, or seriously hurting someone. Fighting is a little different. All animals fight as a kind of rite of passage.


A lot of people are too scared to kill because of threat of punishment. Take away ALL forms of law enforcement and it may turn out that its not so rare to find people killing each other for even the most trivial of reasons.

"You motherf**** this was my parking spot.. Pow Pow Pow" (sound of body hitting the floor)

"That bitch just tried to chat up my boyfriend.. Pow Pow Pow" (sound of body hitting the floor)

You're talking about people flying off the handle. If someone is crazy enough or angry enough to kill in those situations, the threat of jail time isn't going to make any difference. And that doesn't mean they wont' feel bad about it later, which was my point.

[TheEvilDetector]

Children need to be taught empathy. You're not teaching them so much that its wrong to steal, but that its wrong to treat someone in a way you wouldn't want to be treated.


Depends on the parent. Some parents tell their children that its wrong to steal, without talking about empathy.

Some parents would steal themselves if they weren't afraid of being punished.

Some people resent being taxed and feel that government stealing indicates that stealing is ok as long as you have enough force to back you up.



In other words if you're going to to get upset at having your own property rights violated, you can't expect anyone else to not react the same way.

Children take things if they're not taught not to because they don't understand the idea of looking at things through anyone else's eyes. But that child understands HIS property rights, and thats where natural law comes from.


What do you think understanding means?

Looks to me like you are talking about primitive survival instincts here which can include violating other people's rights.



He can choose not to acknowledge anyone else's rights, but for the purposes of our discussion, property rights either exist or they don't, whether anyone acknowledges them or not.


Property Rights is an abstract notion that requires acknowledgement, eg in the constitution.

If this was not the case, then constitution would be redundant.



If there are two children and one of them doesn't understand the nature of property rights as it applies to others, he's going to learn when he tries to take from the other child and ends up getting a beat down.


On the other hand he may learn that he needs to use greater violence to get what he wants.



But if you're taking something that you already own, is that stealing? Even if its done by force without permission? IMO it should say the taking of items owned by another person or entity.


IRS takes stuff you own by force away from you for example.



Sure, as long as its voluntary, why not? Property rights doesn't mean you can't share. Socialist redistribution of wealth involves an authority figure gathering resources by force and then deciding who deserves what.

There's nothing wrong with an individualist government like whats detailed in the constitution serving a socialist society. The issue boils down to volunteerism vs authoritarianism.



You mean like Jefferson's small farm idea? I think pretty much the same thing.



Kids fighting is a natural part of adolescence. That doesn't mean they want to kill someone. Outside of kids in a gang situation where they've got a little society of people telling them its okay to kill, you'd have a hard time finding a kid that would not have a problem with killing, or seriously hurting someone. Fighting is a little different. All animals fight as a kind of rite of passage.


Sometimes kids want to kill kids. Its happened on more than one occasion.

Sometimes these kids are acting alone and sometimes in a group.



You're talking about people flying off the handle. If someone is crazy enough or angry enough to kill in those situations, the threat of jail time isn't going to make any difference. And that doesn't mean they wont' feel bad about it later, which was my point.

You just don't know what they will feel in jail. There are people who feel no remorse, but who outside of their criminal careers appeared to be perfectly normal people to others.

In any case I was talking about what people would do when the threat of law enforcement coming after them was non existent.

I feel fairly certain that in lawless situations, normally law abiding people commit crimes. Riots where looting/beatings and murders occur are good examples of that.