Declaration of a Free Human

[mczerone]

Declaration of a Free Human:
To declare independence from any organization claiming to represent me without my explicit consent; to benefit from an increase in the efficiency, reliability, and sustainability of essential services by voluntarily funding competing providers; to regulate my own actions and decisions as far as they do not have an effect on others; to foster a sense of productivity through cooperation and trade instead of a sense of division and begging for redistributed wealth; and to live my life to the highest fulfillment of my values I hereby declare myself a Free Human, with absolute right over my body, property, and associations.

Axiomatic Declarations:
I am a free person who owns my personal body and that property which I have taken from a natural state through my labor or have received voluntarily from another person, and nothing else.

I am free to choose my associates and trading partners as best suits my subjective needs, and cannot force another human to associate or trade with me or another.

I may at any time do as I wish with my person or property (including but not limited to selling, leasing, trading, consuming, altering, sharing, gifting, destroying, or improving), and may not control the person or property of another.

I am entitled to the benefits and burdened by the consequences derived from my actions and the products of my property, and may not expropriate the benefits of others nor force others to be burdened by my consequences.

I may only interfere with decisions about someone else’s person or property with their consent, and no one may interfere with my decisions without my consent (including but not limited to decisions of employment, design, religion, nourishment, education, security, charity, justice, family structure, and time preference).

I may live in and use any physical space that I own or have permission of the owner to use, and may not limit the freedom of movement of others that are not on or using my property.

I may use any economic medium that my trading partners are mutually willing to use, and may not force any others to use or not use any specific medium.


Corollaries:
• Police, education, security, defense, public works, industry regulation, and Justice are voluntary services, the current government involvement must be justly privatized
• Only when actions have a victim would be they punishable, through private retribution agreements equivalent to today’s “judgments.”
• Prohibition and regulation offenses (actions that some observers disagree with, but are unharmed by) would be subject to voluntary boycott by consumers, either organized or personal.
• No justification exists for a single, monopolistic agency to provide these services at fixed prices with sub-par efficiency and reliability.
• Consumers would need to be responsible, but consumer’s agencies would be prevalent and cheap, efficient and meeting the exact, specific demands of specific consumers.
• If consumers cared about wildlife preservation, labor exploitation, stolen resources or other production chain issues, they would require a corresponding, privately administered, paper trail.
• Roads, beaches, parks, amusements, coinage, welfare, education, health care, retirement, child care, and food production would all be tailored to the consumer, and would be regulated to the extent required by each consumer’s needs.
• No government, corporation, or individual would be able to monopolize any service, product, resource or trade.


Enforcement:
Any constitution among men must be enforceable, and to achieve this the adherence to any such constitution must be voluntary. By endorsing the above declarations, a person is accepting a constitution, and will be recognized as a Free Human. An actor transgressing against the enumerated behavioral ethics above will tend to reveal that the actor does not truly endorse freedom, and they shall be subject to the boycott and disassociation of Free Humans.


Endorsement:
I have, in my most reasoned judgment, come to believe that being a Free Human is the only way to live peacefully and productively; to raise children and maintain a family; to produce art and cultivate culture; to be open to diversity of thought, biology and ethnicity; and to meaningfully express my personal values. For these and other reasons I must declare my independence, not to overthrow or reconstitute a government but to deny that any single group of men can ever meaningfully, peacefully, or consensually govern a geographically and involuntarily determined populous.

With Love, and in Peace.

[mczerone]

Working Thoughts:


Real World Transitional Problems:
• States are often ‘shields’ of despicable behavior, from allowing sale of pirated or fake antiquities to falsely vouching for laborers conditions or original purchaser information, or mandating State ownership of more land than the State can readily secure.
• People defend the status quo if they have a livable life, they believe any major change will be worse, and that any current problems are not systemic of the government, but can be solved with more effort. They will want you to prove that your system will be “better;” they think “change” requires the burden of proof, but in reality you are a free human who needs to be presented with proof to surrender your liberties.

[mczerone]

Suggested Projects:
Human peace day: Instigate no force against others on a publicized day. Any person who does so without objective justification, whether on their own volition or on orders from others, should be punished according to the victim’s law (however then and there currently defined, most likely to be State law or the law of war), and will be shown to be an enemy of peace. When this idea has gained legs, start asking why every day isn’t peace day – open a dialog for the NAP.

Make fun of other people still paying taxes: If you’re hypocritical, you could still quietly pay yours if you are currently beholden to State funds, but start making the idea of actually funding war, torture, and civil/economic regulation a societal farce. People that are able will stop paying those governments that they disagree with if they can, and even employers will join the act when enough cultural pressure has been created.

Smoke outside day [first thought up before the massive 4:20 celebrations started in NH, but along those same lines]: On a publicized day, pick any arbitrarily outlawed activity to engage in on your own property (or on that of someone whom approves of your actions), but outside in view of the road, your neighbors, or a publicly-used area. If you wish to illustrate the idea promulgated by the State that the people own public areas then use public parks, government buildings, city streets, or public transit centers. Rallies (either on private property or hopefully unlicensed if on public) are encouraged. Of course this does not give liberty to harm others; ideal activities would be possessing or consuming cannabis, being nude, peaceably carrying a weapon, smoking tobacco in well ventilated areas, soliciting prostitution, playing poker with silver and/or gold coins, holding an unlicensed boxing match, or sharing digital media.

Gain signatories to this letter: Set up a petition web site. Give privacy to signers, but verify a unique identity to count numbers without ‘outing’ any individuals to the public as free people. Take zip codes but not addresses, ask for other (uncorrelated) social information after joining to show the spectrum of free humans. Keep an aggregate of links to suggested projects, blogs, news, politics, to expand freedoms, advertize. Make a Marketplace: link to online stores, give locations of brink and mortar stores, who wish to be associated with freedom. This website must be valued property, although it should use the current legal system as little as possible, while retaining strong title-transfer contractual obligations with partner ventures.

Agoristically compete with the State: Start Private, voluntarily funded, service corporations to compete with local forced services.

Get your taxes' worth: Take advantage of entitlements offered by government, while striving to opt out of all support of the government. However, once an individual’s total benefits objectively exceed their contributions (cumulative) to the government, they should stop claiming any more benefits beyond the remaining forced contributions - lest they be accused of stealing from hapless tax payers.

Defense from State: Start a lawyering agency that works to insulate persons from tax collectors, regulators, and policing done by the protectionist state.

[slothman]

So you are for anarchy and not the Constitution?

[mczerone]

So you are for anarchy and not the Constitution?

I am for Liberty, Peace and Prosperity. To the extent that adherence to the U.S. Constitution advances those goals, I am in support of holding the Federal government to those limits. All US governmental action should be (US) Constitutionally authorized.

However it is plain to see that even the Noblest Parchment will not constrain the tyranny inherent in centralized power, and I propose voluntary constitutions - explicit declarations of people and organizations that announce the permissible actions of those beholden to such a document.

I am for a working order of law amongst men, one that cannot be subverted through obfuscations and misdirections of those who swear an oath to a set of principles yet work at every turn to undermine those principles. Monopoly Constitutionalism is anarchy, individual constitutionalism is order.

[furface]

mczerone, I like what you have. However, how would you deal with what I would call "natural commons?" Things like the air, water, & eco-systems that can't belong to anybody and are required for life by everybody.

Should I have the right to vent poison gas on my property? After all, I bought and paid for it.

[mczerone]

mczerone, I like what you have. However, how would you deal with what I would call "natural commons?" Things like the air, water, & eco-systems that can't belong to anybody and are required for life by everybody.

Should I have the right to vent poison gas on my property? After all, I bought and paid for it.

1) If you are not harming anyone, of course you should be allowed to.

2) If people perceive harm from your actions they are free to seek action against you with their own resources and the voluntarily raised funds from supporters of their action. Conversely, anyone who agrees with your right to vent this gas can support you and work against those seeking to harm you.

3) The gas that escapes your property is still yours, you are responsible for your actions. If it causes great harms, you should be held liable for those harms.

4) The current US govt currently excuses most of this "imperceptible" pollution in the name of mercantilism, and when justice is sought in these matters the govt is incapable of rendering any meaningful and binding solution.

5) Admitting that there may be problems in society does not imply the need for a single governmental body. There is a huge leap in logic present in the writings of philosophers from Bentham to Carol Rose that correctly point out problems with property regimes (such as open-access commons leading to inevitable depletion) and assume that the role of the State is to fix those problems. Using the forced funding model to implement solutions both creates moral hazard which tends to exacerbate existing problems, and insulates these solutions from rigorous scientific testing in the real world to see if they are indeed the 'best' solutions.

I don't claim to have all the answers, but what I present is a methodology for finding the answers. The answer to your question depends on, to name a few factors, the fumes you release, who your neighbors are, what kind of air patterns cross your land, and the costs and benefits to all involved in allowing or forbidding such behavior. I can't calculate that, and neither can the best of benevolent dictators or most learned representatives of a majority - only you and the affected parties can truly exert your preferences.

[furface]

1) If you are not harming anyone, of course you should be allowed to.


I think most people would agree with this statement, yet it is the essence of most oppressive environmental laws. There are plenty of people who would claim that driving a car harms them personally because of the CO2 emissions. There are in fact scientist that claim killing a single salamander in a drainage ditch on your property threatens all of humanity because of the loss of biological diversity.

How we gauge environmental harm and what types of limits we put on torts is very important. The environment is one of the stickiest points in any libertarian philosophy in my opinion.

I think we need environmental protections, but they need to have limits on them and most of all they need to be non-coercive.

The right to a life sustaining environment is fundamental. I don't mean that so much in a tree huger sense. I mean it much more in an anti-authoritarian sense. Various governments have cordoned off the environment with their rules and their police forces, there's no place left on Earth where people can live in freedom anymore.

[mczerone]

Enumeration of Grievances:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for persons to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all humans are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the explicit consent of the governed, --That whenever any Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these persons; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present system of Federally Instituted Rulers is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these persons. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.


It (the US Federal government, circa 2010 c.e.) has numerous instances of corruption, leading to laws for money, not for the good of the nation.
It has forbidden its Houses to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, for personal political agendas impede addressing pending national issues in Congress.
It has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, in which the laws would be most beneficial, because of personal ignorance.
It has dissolved its own Representative House meetings repeatedly, for opposing its own invasions on the rights of the people.
It has allowed Immigration Policy to become cumbersome for those wishing to participate in our country, forcing those immigrants to subvert the legal system of citizenry.
It has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing its Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers, or modifying the system by which those powers are established.
It has made newly appointed Judges dependent on the sitting President’s Will alone, for the tenure of their offices.
It has erected a multitude of New Departments and Programs, and sent forth swarms of Officers and Mechanical Surveillance to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
It has kept, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the declaration of war by legislatures.
It has affected to render the Sponsored Military independent of and superior to the Civil Militias.
It has subjected us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving its Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Using our Guard for offensive maneuvers on other Governments:
For protecting the wealthy, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders or other Heinous Crime which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For Cloaking the Truth of International Affairs:
For abolishing our most valuable Laws, not considering valuable law changes made by neighboring and friendly countries; and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending and emasculating Local and State Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

It has plundered our lands, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people in the name of progress and security.
It is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Representatives of a civilized nation.
It has constrained our fellow Citizens to stand quietly or be a vocal ‘patriot’, or to fall themselves by their Imprisonment and Raid.
It has excited domestic and international insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the Fundamental Religious, the merciless suicide bombers of both Islamic and Judeo-Christian faiths, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.


In every stage of these Oppressions there have been Petitions for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions, formal and otherwise have been answered only by repeated injury, judicial inaction, and exhortations to work within the very system perpetuating these evils.

They have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.


[created from a very minimally edited version of the 1776 Declaration]

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I think most people would agree with this statement, yet it is the essence of most oppressive environmental laws. There are plenty of people who would claim that driving a car harms them personally because of the CO2 emissions. There are in fact scientist that claim killing a single salamander in a drainage ditch on your property threatens all of humanity because of the loss of biological diversity.

How we gauge environmental harm and what types of limits we put on torts is very important. The environment is one of the stickiest points in any libertarian philosophy in my opinion.

I think we need environmental protections, but they need to have limits on them and most of all they need to be non-coercive.

The right to a life sustaining environment is fundamental. I don't mean that so much in a tree huger sense. I mean it much more in an anti-authoritarian sense. Various governments have cordoned off the environment with their rules and their police forces, there's no place left on Earth where people can live in freedom anymore.

Sticky points? It's very simple. You are responsible for property damage. Property includes, the air and water. If you harm anothers property you are liable. It is quite simple, and any DRO, Land Association, Tuath, Private Law service, etc. will have courts to resolve property damage disputes. We had them in the old west, and in many cultures.

Killing an animal on your property, is in no way damaging anothers property. Likewise, CO2 is not damaging anyones property.

The damages would find an acceptable balance in the free-market. No one would sign up for a law service that charges undue damages, similarly, no one would join a law service that charged no damages, or, charged very little remunerative compensation.

Besides, this thread is not to discuss Voluntaryism vice Statism. This is a thread for those of us interested in divorcing ourselves from tyranny. If you want to argue Voluntaryism do so in the philosophy sub-forum please.

[furface]

will have courts to resolve property damage disputes. We had them in the old west, and in many cultures.

Also had plague, starvation, a massive illiteracy rate, and a life expectancy of about 45.


CO2 is not damaging anyones property.


The arguments against C02 are very real. If it's really going to raise ocean levels, create crop failures, deserts, etc, these are all very definite harm which should be compensated for. You drive your SUV, you better be prepared to cough up money for the harm you've done to my crops.

[mczerone]

I think most people would agree with this statement, yet it is the essence of most oppressive environmental laws. There are plenty of people who would claim that driving a car harms them personally because of the CO2 emissions. There are in fact scientist that claim killing a single salamander in a drainage ditch on your property threatens all of humanity because of the loss of biological diversity.

How we gauge environmental harm and what types of limits we put on torts is very important. The environment is one of the stickiest points in any libertarian philosophy in my opinion.

I think we need environmental protections, but they need to have limits on them and most of all they need to be non-coercive.

The right to a life sustaining environment is fundamental. I don't mean that so much in a tree huger sense. I mean it much more in an anti-authoritarian sense. Various governments have cordoned off the environment with their rules and their police forces, there's no place left on Earth where people can live in freedom anymore.


I agree with your concerns. However what I am proposing is that those people who wish to promulgate such over-reaching laws as protecting single salamanders can only do so with their own resources, and must be subject to the judgment of others if their actions unjustly infringe on the liberties of the person paving over the drainage ditch. These determinations are necessarily subjective, and as such should not be left to a single legislating body to compromise over, but to peaceful actors making deals.

For instance, if that scientist really thinks the parking lot developer is going to kill all of humanity, he should be willing to donate all of his efforts to raising voluntary funds to protect the salamander. And other actors are able, if willing, to turn around and support the parking lot builder to the extent that they predict benefits from the parking lot. No warring, no lobbying the guys with guns, no funneling money through various interest groups and politicians. Just those who hold a real interest will be involved, and the solutions found between those people are open to the judgment of all of humanity - so that if power is abused by one party to affect a favorable outcome such action may draw supporters to the cause of a party that they don't particularly support, but don't want to see harmed.

In short, each time you used "we", there is no reason to believe that all people intended to be covered by that pronoun will share a common set of values as to how to resolve a situation. "We" must be a voluntary association, and anything else is aggression and is masking inefficiency and injustice behind a cloak of stolen resources.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Also had plague, starvation, a massive illiteracy rate, and a life expectancy of about 45.




The arguments against C02 are very real. If it's really going to raise ocean levels, create crop failures, deserts, etc, these are all very definite harm which should be compensated for. You drive your SUV, you better be prepared to cough up money for the harm you've done to my crops.

Obviously you've never read any Civil War letters from the South. These men were more literate than college graduates today, and most of these men were farmers! Get out of here troll. Go troll the sub-forums please. Let us who wish to divorce ourselves of this tyranny discuss our intent.

Thanks.

[furface]

I'm trying to think of all the logical fallacies in AED's arguments. It's an ad homenim attack of course, and an embarrassing one because he's doing it after having been backed into a logical corner. Here's his logic:

1. You're wrong because you've never read civil war letters.

2. You're wrong because you're a troll.

O.K., fine, whatever you say.

[nayjevin]

Nicely done, OP.

[mczerone]

Also had plague, starvation, a massive illiteracy rate, and a life expectancy of about 45.




The arguments against C02 are very real. If it's really going to raise ocean levels, create crop failures, deserts, etc, these are all very definite harm which should be compensated for. You drive your SUV, you better be prepared to cough up money for the harm you've done to my crops.

Despite AED's concern that this thread is not for debating voluntaryism, it is central to the declaration that these types of issues are addressed.

To the first part of your response: the comparative illness, starvation, illiteracy, and life expectancy rates of different populations are likely to favor the "old west" model - it wasn't government favor that brought improvement to these distributions, it was technological innovations.

To the second part: If you believe that CO2 emissions do cause harm, you are free to join others who share your mindset and use your resources to attempt to enforce whatever standards you wish. To claim that a State is necessary to implement such a program is to deny the legitimacy of any other viewpoint (e.g. those who wish to see more regulation, those who wish to see less, and those who wish to implement differing methods of enforcement), and to take out of the competitive market the question of how best to handle the real (or imagined) problems of civilized society.



This Declaration is central in looking toward a better future for each person, no matter their current political-economic status. The State solution is to favor the rich and politically connected old guard, the discriminators and the hypocrites, the cults of personality and fear.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'm trying to think of all the logical fallacies in AED's arguments. It's an ad homenim attack of course, and an embarrassing one because he's doing it after having been backed into a logical corner. Here's his logic:

1. You're wrong because you've never read civil war letters.

2. You're wrong because you're a troll.

O.K., fine, whatever you say.

I know your type. You are not going to change your position, and you ask inane questions that have absolutely zero relevance, because in the current Minarchist Statist society we enjoy, these problems persist. It's also absurd to think I have every little answer to all your questions. If I did I should be appointed Enlightened Despot and rule over all since I have all the answers. The fact is I don't and it's silly for you to think I do. There is a good Molyneux segment on this.

We had a more literate society in the 1800s. Both Philosophically, and in terms of their grasp of the English language. Coincidentally, we also did not have Government control of schools. It is amazing what voluntary actions accomplish.

If you really want to understand Voluntaryism read For a New Liberty (Rothbard), Market for Liberty (Tannehills), Myth of National Defense (Hoppe), Man-Economy-State Power&Market (Chapters on Private Law), Private Law (Bob Murphy), etc.

I also like this from the Molinari Institute (After Gustave de Molinari the first Voluntaryist)

http://praxeology.net/anarcres.htm

Lots of resources there for you to peruse I also like this from Thomas Paine in his Rights of Man (1792).

Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all the parts of civilised community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their law; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything which is ascribed to government.

So having said that, that is the rest I will address you with. If you wish to further your research and study than you shall do so at your own behest. I do not have the time to matter myself with mundane arguements which have been hashed an rehashed over for a century, to wit they have been rebutted and refuted by others more adept than myself. If you want to argue Voluntaryism as I have said, do so in the Philosophy sub-forum. So now, if you would kindly leave us to our thread and stop hi-jacking.

Ciao.

[mczerone]

Nicely done, OP.

Thank you.

Please post any criticism or concern, as I would like to polish this Declaration as much as possible, and make it both appealing and digestible to individuals in the liberty movement and generally.

[mczerone]

Ciao.

Quoted to add my general endorsement of the resources contained therein. While I don't agree with everything any of those authors may have written, they definitely are on the right track.

Please, however, stick to rebutting arguments made. Making accusations of what type of character a person has does nothing but solidify a divide. In fact, while furface may be hostile to some ideas we're promoting, he limited his comments to the substance of the arguments.

I appreciate both of your contributions to this thread, and if you think someone is going to be belligerent in the face of contradictions or challenges to their argument - the best course is to go to UserCP and ignore them. At the very least, think twice before submitting a comment - I've deleted at least 3 times as many posts as I've submitted because they were feeding trolls, or going to be ignored, or may have been too harsh or unimportant to a thread.

Peace is having an initial Love for others.

[furface]

My point is that the issue of environmental torts is very real; legally, ethically, and historically. It's one thing to say that global warming isn't occurring, but if it is then under a strictly libertarian interpretation of tort theory, people would have the right to sue other people for driving SUVs. This is libertarian logic. If you disagree with me on this point, please give some rational reason as to why. Please don't merely lob irrelevant insults.

There's a saying by Mark Twain, "Whiskey's for drinking. Water's for fighting over." This is a truism that is still in effect today. You can own the ground under a lake or a river, but you can't own the water. Same goes for air and other natural resources like wild game and fish populations.

mczerone is right in that there has to be an element of common sense and limits put on these things. I agree with that. But where those limits exists and to what extent they exist is very much debatable.

Being made to be liable for your CO2 is a a libertarian concept. Forcing me to breath your stinky exhaust is a socialist concept. You're making me a slave of your stupid, irresponsible behavior.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

My point is that the issue of environmental torts is very real; legally, ethically, and historically. It's one thing to say that global warming isn't occurring, but if it is then under a strictly libertarian interpretation of tort theory, people would have the right to sue other people for driving SUVs. This is libertarian logic. If you disagree with me on this point, please give some rational reason as to why. Please don't merely lob irrelevant insults.

There's a saying by Mark Twain, "Whiskey's for drinking. Water's for fighting over." This is a truism that is still in effect today. You can own the ground under a lake or a river, but you can't own the water. Same goes for air and other natural resources like wild game and fish populations.

mczerone is right in that there has to be an element of common sense and limits put on these things. I agree with that. But where those limits exists and to what extent they exist is very much debatable.

Being made to be liable for your CO2 is a a libertarian concept. Forcing me to breath your stinky exhaust is a socialist concept. You're making me a slave of your stupid, irresponsible behavior.

That is not a truism. We had private water in the 19th Century and 18th Century, and people did not die of dehydration in the streets. We also did not have widespread water shortages. Without economic calculation you will always have shortages, due to overuse. The economic incentives as we can see in bottled water (for instance), and as an axiomatic deduction, is that any and all resources will be traded. Similarly, we know that common ownage of any resource is not ownership at all, and therefore runs into the problem of Tragedy of the Commons. Without an owner there is no incentive to take care of that resource. This is also why we have shortages in every economic sphere where this occurs. It is also why in the areas where we do not, we do not see such shortages on such massive and widespread scale.

You are afraid of what liberty entails. I understand. People want to believe that a higher being will be there to make everything ok. The fact is, that is utopian make believe non-sense. Besides I would like this to stay in the general politics area so if you could please take this to the philosophical sub-forum so this thread does not get moved I would appreciate it.

[furface]

You are afraid of what liberty entails. I understand.

Yawn, I was about to respond to your previous reasonable point. But sorry, your insults are too distracting.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yawn, I was about to respond to your previous reasonable point. But sorry, your insults are too distracting.

What else would you have me believe since you apparently believe that the violent monopolization of water/fisheries/etc. is the only answer?

[slothman]

Only when actions have a victim would be they punishable, through private retribution agreements equivalent to today’s “judgments.”

What if the person who committed the injustice doesn't repay?



No government, corporation, or individual would be able to monopolize any service, product, resource or trade.

What happens if there is a monopoly?



...to be open to diversity of ..., biology and ethnicity

What does "being open" mean?
You won't remove the diversity?
You won't remove, for example Chinese people, from your property, just because thar foreign?
You won't kill plants and animals that are rare?



The State solution is to favor the rich and politically connected old guard, the discriminators and the hypocrites, the cults of personality and fear.


In my opinion libertarianism favors the rich.
Poor people can't buy businesses when others don't allow smoking but they want to.
Poor people can't buy up land to prevent someone from killing animals they don't want killed.
Poor people can't afford schooling.

But that last part should probably be in another thread.

P.S. You haven't used Oxford commas.
What kind of evil person are you

[nayjevin]

Thank you.

Please post any criticism or concern, as I would like to polish this Declaration as much as possible, and make it both appealing and digestible to individuals in the liberty movement and generally.


I have, in my most reasoned judgment, come to believe that being a Free Human is the only way to live peacefully and productively; to raise children and maintain a family; to produce art and cultivate culture; to be open to diversity of thought, biology and ethnicity; and to meaningfully express my personal values. For these and other reasons I must declare my independence, not to overthrow or reconstitute a government but to deny that any single group of men can ever meaningfully, peacefully, or consensually govern a geographically and involuntarily determined populous.

I don't know man, that's just so ridiculously well written. What could I say? I guess I can offer the criticism that perhaps biology and ethnicity are not the two most relevant factors to use as examples where you have. But it's just good, real good.


to regulate my own actions and decisions as far as they do not have an effect on others

this could be problematic, as knuckleheads have a history of claiming effect where none exists, and too many believe that feeling affected is the same as being affected.


Police, education, security, defense, public works, industry regulation, and Justice are voluntary services, the current government involvement must be justly privatized

the word 'must' could be problematic, perhaps focusing on why it's just smart for everyone, rather than an unsupported mandate, would be wise.

I like how you avoided the 'speaking for others' problem of traditional parchment solutions by making this a personal declaration, binding no one but yourself to its dictates. I'm just damn impressed with the concept :)

[mczerone]

On my way to bed tonight:

slothman - I'll address your concerns tomorrow if no one else beats me to the punch (some of the answers are 'common knowledge' to the voluntaryists/Rothbardians, and they may adequately answer some of your points before then). I know that I'll have at least one unique answer to your concerns that will compel me to reply.

Nayjevin - Thanks again for the very kind words, and I really appreciate your thoughts on the couple of issues you saw. I'll make a couple changes tomorrow, but also give some explanation why its okay for people to merely "feel" affected, and how that may be addressed. I'm not very verbose, so hearing that something I produced was "very well written" is a great compliment to this "numbers" guy.

[idirtify]

If you believe that CO2 emissions do cause harm, you are free to join others who share your mindset and use your resources to attempt to enforce whatever standards you wish.


While your use of “enforce” here sounds a bit authoritarian, your earlier comments indicate that it isn’t. But for the sake of critiquing your wording as you asked, I just thought I’d mention it.

[idirtify]

My point is that the issue of environmental torts is very real; legally, ethically, and historically. It's one thing to say that global warming isn't occurring, but if it is then under a strictly libertarian interpretation of tort theory, people would have the right to sue other people for driving SUVs. This is libertarian logic. If you disagree with me on this point, please give some rational reason as to why. Please don't merely lob irrelevant insults.

There's a saying by Mark Twain, "Whiskey's for drinking. Water's for fighting over." This is a truism that is still in effect today. You can own the ground under a lake or a river, but you can't own the water. Same goes for air and other natural resources like wild game and fish populations.

mczerone is right in that there has to be an element of common sense and limits put on these things. I agree with that. But where those limits exists and to what extent they exist is very much debatable.

Being made to be liable for your CO2 is a a libertarian concept. Forcing me to breath your stinky exhaust is a socialist concept. You're making me a slave of your stupid, irresponsible behavior.

The ISSUE (concept) of environmental torts may be real, but the question is whether YOUR CASE for an environmental tort is real. Is sneezing in public an environmental tort? Considering the number of people who suffer and die each year from viral infections, and considering your low standard for “harm”, sneezing should be a far greater liability than driving a big SUV. Now if you still think that you would have a good case against my CO2-SUV, in the land of Libertaria you would certainly be free to prove your case – first showing that it would not be frivolous. IOW, exactly how (and how much) did my 10,000 miles hurt you? Note that there are certain inescapable realities that result from sharing a planet with others, and that those realities are not of a sufficient degree of harm to be actionable in court. Also note that infinitesimally indirect degrees of causality are also standard fare with living together in societies, and are therefore non-actionable. Case-in-point: drug use. While my drug use might theoretically do some small degree of harm to you, the reason libertarians do not prohibit drugs is because that end-result “harm” is not direct enough. That’s why sneezing and taking drugs are not considered rights violations – and would seem to apply to your points about global warming and pollution.

[mczerone]

What if the person who committed the injustice doesn't repay?


What happens if there is a monopoly?



1) What would you do if someone didn’t pay you what you thought they owed? Submit the claim to a collections agency. This is all that the current justice system does.
2) What do you mean by a monopoly? On the one hand, no entity would be able to limit competitors from providing services or substitute products. On the other hand, each person has a monopoly over their own unique labor, and any particular scarce resources they may possess. If there is a situation that you perceive as one party using ‘monopoly privilege’ to extort exorbitant costs, you can use your resources to demand reduction in prices, to boycott the monopolist, to claim that the deal offered was unconscionable but the buyer was in a position of immediate need and should be repaid the difference of the market price. Really, the possibilities are endless and the justice served depends on your values, with the most successful, equitable, and reasonable solutions having a forward-looking evolutionary advantage that does not exist when even a marginally ‘good’ State solution is implemented to the exclusion of other possible solutions.

[mczerone]

What does "being open" mean?
You won't remove the diversity?
You won't remove, for example Chinese people, from your property, just because thar foreign?
You won't kill plants and animals that are rare?



3) “Being open” to the listed things means that as a free person I view all other humans as possible cooperators, regardless of their superficial qualities. Only their actions matter to me. Similarly with natural resources – rarity and usefulness are to be prized in normal circumstances. Though I may have the last remaining specimen of a certain species of lily and not care one bit about it, it is up to those who care about that lily to give me economic incentive to preserve it or sell it.
a. As far as excluding people irrationally (e.g. for race or religion reasons), I am free to do so, subject to the reactions of others who may not wish to continue dealing with me.
b. Countervailing this consideration, it may be an explicitly actionable offense to exclude people if I have held myself and my property out as open to the public – where I’ve manifested my willingness to serve all as a doctor, lawyer, restaurateur, or any other service or sales man.

[mczerone]

In my opinion libertarianism favors the rich.
Poor people can't buy businesses when others don't allow smoking but they want to.
Poor people can't buy up land to prevent someone from killing animals they don't want killed.
Poor people can't afford schooling.

4) Libertarian theory doesn't favor the rich, it favors your own values. If you favor helping the poor, you are free to do so, in whatever manner you'd like.

Poor people have empirically have been better off in the most economically free societies. Further, while individual people with little money may be less powerful than others, as a group, the poorest usually control the largest block of capital. so if there is some interest unique to a “poor” perspective, the mass can voluntarily agree to support these issues much more effectively than a gov’t can by funneling stolen funds through a bureaucratic nightmare.

Schooling, along with every other service, good, and technology, is made more available through the free market, at better quality, with lower costs, and toward more useful educations. Govt schools are just propaganda machines that are barely able to ensure the majority of their graduates can read, all the while instilling in students a hatred for books, learning, and thinking.

[mczerone]

a. As far as giving poor people access to schooling there are 2 major issues. First, who pays for the teachers, if not the consumers of their services? Certainly if you feel%2

[idirtify]

1)Really, the possibilities are endless and the justice served depends on your values, with the most successful, equitable, and reasonable solutions having a forward-looking evolutionary advantage that does not exist when even a marginally ‘good’ State solution is implemented to the exclusion of other possible solutions.

I must point out that the State solution is not only inferior, it functions as THE WORST KIND OF MONOPOLY.

[mczerone]

I don't know why my replies were not posting, it might be my wireless connection where I am. I'll fix after I get home tonight.

[mczerone]

Added the explanation in post #31.

I'm currently looking into getting a web designer on board; if anyone thinks they can contribute web space or designing at a rate less than my local contacts, PM me.

This is a real project that I intend to get off the ground, to really help people realize the potential for individual sovereignty as a peaceful alternative to both of the stigmatized "State sovereignty" movement and the Sisyphean effort to control the Fed govt through Constitutional means.