PDA

View Full Version : A new declaration - Shire Society




tremendoustie
07-04-2010, 12:10 AM
Happy independence (from Britain) day!

A new declaration a number of people are signing in NH -- curious as to your thoughts and opinions (whatever your political views). Yes, it's on hemp paper :D:

http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/replicate/EXID17122/images/ShireLibra_web.jpg

CCTelander
07-04-2010, 12:30 AM
It looks very similar to L. neil Smith's Covenant of Unanimous Consent. You can look that over here:

http://www.lneilsmith.org/new-cov.html

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-04-2010, 12:38 AM
It looks very similar to L. neil Smith's Covenant of Unanimous Consent. You can look that over here:

http://www.lneilsmith.org/new-cov.html

I like that one.

CCTelander
07-04-2010, 12:39 AM
I like that one.

I liked it enough to become a signatory. :D

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-04-2010, 12:43 AM
I liked it enough to become a signatory. :D

You win. :D

CCTelander
07-04-2010, 12:46 AM
You win. :D

:D:cool::D

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-04-2010, 05:32 AM
This is great and I've been following it for a while. I would definitely sign up in a heartbeat, and yes, I would actually sign it, not for everyone through time in that area, but for myself! :) (Ugh, can't wait to get out of the rat hole that is Milwaukee)

FSP-Rebel
07-04-2010, 11:47 AM
I signed the SS declaration at porcfest. I figured it would eventually garnish thousands of signatures in the future, so I'll get to be on page one.:cool:

Fredom101
07-04-2010, 11:48 AM
That's more like it!

Forget about all the nostalgia surrounding the DOI or constitution, this says it all.

Vessol
07-04-2010, 12:08 PM
Sounds pretty interesting.

How ironic, I was watching the Fellowship of the Ring last night and I was thinking how much of a volunteerism society it is.

This post inspired me to write this.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=251870

CCTelander
07-07-2010, 12:18 AM
This deserves a bump.

BuddyRey
07-07-2010, 01:19 PM
Bump!

heavenlyboy34
07-07-2010, 01:22 PM
that's an awesome idea! :cool:

CCTelander
07-07-2010, 01:39 PM
that's an awesome idea! :cool:


Hey, anyone who's willing to sign, or even just verbally agree to abide by either of these 2 is A-OK in my book!

fisharmor
07-07-2010, 01:48 PM
Not only would I sign it, but I would pen it.
Can't you people find a calligrapher in NH?
/nitpick

heavenlyboy34
07-07-2010, 01:52 PM
In regards to the First section, it should be clarified so as to exclude IP as "property". JMHO.

Elwar
07-07-2010, 01:58 PM
It needs a rule about robots killing humans.

heavenlyboy34
07-07-2010, 02:00 PM
It needs a rule about robots killing humans.

funny, but rather true! :D:eek: (we should keep the sexbots, though, IMHO)

JeNNiF00F00
07-07-2010, 03:00 PM
..

tremendoustie
07-07-2010, 03:04 PM
Not only would I sign it, but I would pen it.
Can't you people find a calligrapher in NH?
/nitpick

It was done by a calligrapher! :)

CCTelander
07-07-2010, 03:04 PM
Personally, I like Smith's Covenant of Unanimous Consent (linked to in my 1st post) the best, but I'd accept either one.

JeNNiF00F00
07-07-2010, 03:13 PM
..

Travlyr
07-07-2010, 03:23 PM
That's more like it!

Forget about all the nostalgia surrounding the DOI or constitution, this says it all.

Don't you mean... almost... says it all? Property rights are important.

CCTelander
07-07-2010, 03:39 PM
Don't you mean... almost... says it all? Property rights are important.


One of the reasons I like Smith's Covenant of Unanimous Consent better. It specifically mentions them. Here's a link:

http://www.lneilsmith.org/new-cov.html

To be fair, simply by proscribing the initiation of force property rights ARE protected.

tremendoustie
07-07-2010, 03:45 PM
You sure? Looks like a calligraphy font.

It does look remarkably regular -- reports are that it was done by a calligrapher by hand -- the artist even talked about it. I guess either he's just that good or he's quite a scammer.

The "l" in "obligations" in the fourth section does look a little different to me.

JeNNiF00F00
07-07-2010, 03:48 PM
..

CCTelander
07-07-2010, 03:50 PM
One thing I'm not too keen on is the similarity of the seal with that of the UN.

A minor quibble to be sure, but it's still something I'd change.

Travlyr
07-07-2010, 03:55 PM
One of the reasons I like Smith's Covenant of Unanimous Consent better. It specifically mentions them. Here's a link:

http://www.lneilsmith.org/new-cov.html

To be fair, simply by proscribing the initiation of force property rights ARE protected.

The property rights language is not explicit enough in either declaration.
The exact same problem exists under these declarations that currently control our republic.
Somebody will control the money and consequently society. How do either of these declarations prevent that?

osan
07-07-2010, 03:59 PM
Personally, I like Smith's Covenant of Unanimous Consent (linked to in my 1st post) the best, but I'd accept either one.

I like SMith's better - more complete and better wording. I love the bit about interpretation - "insofar as it shall please them" Great stuff.

CCTelander
07-07-2010, 04:01 PM
The property rights language is not explicit enough in either declaration.
The exact same problem exists under these declarations that currently control our republic.
Somebody will control the money and consequently society. How do either of these declarations prevent that?

You're looking at it from the standpoint of a legal document, which is intended to control the way people act.

Neither of these are so intended. They are simply declarations of intent to treat each other in a specific way.

No document will ever secure anything that it's signatories are not committed to respecting individually.

tremendoustie
07-07-2010, 04:17 PM
One thing I'm not too keen on is the similarity of the seal with that of the UN.

A minor quibble to be sure, but it's still something I'd change.

Here's the full color version:

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/3585/shireemblemgoldsmall.jpg

tremendoustie
07-07-2010, 04:22 PM
One thing I'm not too keen on is the similarity of the seal with that of the UN.

A minor quibble to be sure, but it's still something I'd change.

Apparently the bird's tail crossing the boundaries "tells people how to find the Shire - Enter through Peace".

CCTelander
07-07-2010, 04:24 PM
Apparently the bird's tail crossing the boundaries "tells people how to find the Shire - Enter through Peace".


Don't get me wrong. I like the design.

But it still bears a strong resemblance to the seal of the UN. Personally I'd want to avoid any possible connection to the UN.

tremendoustie
07-07-2010, 04:34 PM
Don't get me wrong. I like the design.

But it still bears a strong resemblance to the seal of the UN. Personally I'd want to avoid any possible connection to the UN.

I hear ya. At least it's not THAT similar. The leaves are, of course, but not a whole lot besides that.

CCTelander
07-07-2010, 04:36 PM
I hear ya. At least it's not THAT similar. The leaves are, of course, but not a whole lot besides that.


Agreed. And I DO really like the dove.

Theocrat
07-07-2010, 04:47 PM
Happy independence (from Britain) day!

A new declaration a number of people are signing in NH -- curious as to your thoughts and opinions (whatever your political views). Yes, it's on hemp paper :D:

http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/replicate/EXID17122/images/ShireLibra_web.jpg

The ironic thing is those people who believe we can't have a just, free, and prosperous society by following the principles on a sheet of paper called "The U.S. Constitution" (or the Bible, for that matter) are the same ones excited to sign the above piece of paper, as if it will guarantee those same blessings.

Travlyr
07-07-2010, 04:49 PM
You're looking at it from the standpoint of a legal document, which is intended to control the way people act.
Actually, what I am pointing out is that it doesn't matter what declaration people do or don't make. If society has no viable system to stop manipulators from controlling your life, they will control your life.
"Whoever controls the money supply controls society." Money, possessions & property rights are at the root of power control. "He who has the gold makes the rules."

Neither of these are so intended. They are simply declarations of intent to treat each other in a specific way.
Who, besides those in control of the money supply, don't already live by these declarations? Almost everybody else does. These are feel good declarations... which fail to deal with the root cause of the loss of liberty.

No document will ever secure anything that it's signatories are not committed to respecting individually.
This is patently false. There will always be times when society has to force others to conform. i.e. stop controlling. Documents designating rules to live by are a necessary element of any society, and those documents must deal explicitly with property rights.
You can have a monarchy, a dictatorship, a voluntary society, a republic, a democracy, an oligarchy, or simply exist... and whoever controls the money supply, controls society... always.

This is why I argue for giving the people the power of controlling the supply of money... empower the people to control society. Then, and only then, can societies be free.

CCTelander
07-07-2010, 04:50 PM
The ironic thing is those people who believe we can't have a just, free, and prosperous society by following the principles on a sheet of paper called "The U.S. Constitution" (or the Bible, for that matter) are the same ones excited to sign the above piece of paper, as if it will guarantee those same blessings.


As usual, you are in error.

But I'll leave it to others to explain to you, hopefully in short, simple terms, why.

I've been down that road enough times to know better.

tremendoustie
07-07-2010, 04:54 PM
The ironic thing is those people who believe we can't have a just, free, and prosperous society by following the principles on a sheet of paper called "The U.S. Constitution"


The U.S. constitution specifically condones injustice, and unfreedom.

Of course, if we followed the principles of the constitution, we certainly would do better than we currently are.



(or the Bible, for that matter)


Sure, but the Bible is much more broad (and deep) than simply a set of principles people agree to for interactions among themselves. The purpose of the Bible is not the same as that of the constitution, and that of neither is the same as that of this document.



are the same ones excited to sign the above piece of paper, as if it will guarantee those same blessings.

It's a statement of principles the signatories will abide by, in their interactions among themselves and with others. Nobody's deluding themselves into believing a piece of paper is going to guarantee anything.

CCTelander
07-07-2010, 04:58 PM
Actually, what I am pointing out is that it doesn't matter what declaration people do or don't make. If society has no viable system to stop manipulators from controlling your life, they will control your life.
"Whoever controls the money supply controls society." Money, possessions & property rights are at the root of power control. "He who has the gold makes the rules."

Who, besides those in control of the money supply, don't already live by these declarations? Almost everybody else does. These are feel good declarations... which fail to deal with the root cause of the loss of liberty.

This is patently false. There will always be times when society has to force others to conform. i.e. stop controlling. Documents designating rules to live by are a necessary element of any society, and those documents must deal explicitly with property rights.
You can have a monarchy, a dictatorship, a voluntary society, a republic, a democracy, an oligarchy, or simply exist... and whoever controls the money supply, controls society... always.

This is why I argue for giving the people the power of controlling the supply of money... empower the people to control society. Then, and only then, can societies be free.


Travlyr, have you ever read any of the literature on agorism?

I would recommend it as the concept actually answers a lot of your objections better than I could in a few short words here.

Theocrat
07-07-2010, 05:07 PM
The U.S. constitution specifically condones injustice, and unfreedom.

Of course, if we followed the principles of the constitution, we certainly would do better than we currently are.

Sure, but the Bible is much more broad (and deep) than simply a set of principles people agree to for interactions among themselves. The purpose of the Bible is not the same as that of the constitution, and that of neither is the same as that of this document.

It's a statement of principles the signatories will abide by, in their interactions among themselves and with others. Nobody's deluding themselves into believing a piece of paper is going to guarantee anything.

I see what you're saying, but why even bother to sign a document if you already believe in those principles?

In some ways, "Shire Society" reminds me of the call to start Liberal, Missouri (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1814).

QueenB4Liberty
07-07-2010, 05:11 PM
Not only would I sign it, but I would pen it.
Can't you people find a calligrapher in NH?
/nitpick

Me too!

tremendoustie
07-07-2010, 05:12 PM
Actually, what I am pointing out is that it doesn't matter what declaration people do or don't make. If society has no viable system to stop manipulators from controlling your life, they will control your life.
"Whoever controls the money supply controls society." Money, possessions & property rights are at the root of power control. "He who has the gold makes the rules."

This document does not constitute the securing of freedom. Nobody is deluding themselves into believing it does. It's just a statement of principle.



Who, besides those in control of the money supply, don't already live by these declarations? Almost everybody else does. These are feel good declarations... which fail to deal with the root cause of the loss of liberty.

Most (who are not criminals, or members of gangs) abide by these declarations in all but their political interactions. That's the main point pro-liberty people are making -- that people should also abide by these principles in that domain. Governments violate these principles on a routine basis.



No document will ever secure anything that it's signatories are not committed to respecting individually.



This is patently false. There will always be times when society has to force others to conform. i.e. stop controlling.

That's a non-sequitor. By "force others to stop controlling", I understand that you mean self-defense. What CCTelander was saying does not preclude such defense.

He was just saying that if a bunch of people sign a document, and then nobody pays attention to that document or the principles therein, obviously the document is meaningless.



Documents designating rules to live by are a necessary element of any society,


Why? What sort of rules? If the people believe something can they not implement it without resorting to a document? Likewise, if the people do not believe in something, how is a document going to force them to behave in that way anyway?

On what basis do the signatories of a document have a right to force all others to comply with that document, unless the principles therin are universal anyway (e.g., don't steal, we'll stop you if you do)?



and those documents must deal explicitly with property rights.
You can have a monarchy, a dictatorship, a voluntary society, a republic, a democracy, an oligarchy, or simply exist...


While a document can describe the beliefs of the signatories, in itself it does not accomplish anything. Only people can act to implement their ideas.



and whoever controls the money supply, controls society... always.

Good thing we freedom loving folk believe in barter, including hard money, not fiat currency :). No one person or organization can have control over money.



This is why I argue for giving the people the power of controlling the supply of money... empower the people to control society. Then, and only then, can societies be free.

Agreed! :) Let people trade in whatever way they like, with whatever money they prefer!

Actually, this is implied by the contents of that document. In order to force everyone to adopt a particular currency, and in order to prohibit competition, one must initiate force.

tremendoustie
07-07-2010, 05:21 PM
I see what you're saying, but why even bother to sign a document if you already believe in those principles?

To clearly declare, and to communicate those principles to others. If people want to know what this "shire society" thing is about, they need only look and read.



In some ways, "Shire Society" reminds me of the call to start Liberal, Missouri (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1814).

Sure, if you replace atheism with the belief in liberty/peace. There are lots of Christians in the movement (I'd guess about half are), both minarchists and voluntaryists :).

Travlyr
07-07-2010, 05:25 PM
Travlyr, have you ever read any of the literature on agorism? I have and I generally agree with the philosophy, and I live my life in accordance with these declarations, but they are incomplete and infective.

CCTelander
07-07-2010, 07:09 PM
I have and I generally agree with the philosophy, and I live my life in accordance with these declarations, but they are incomplete and infective.


Ineffective at what? What is it, exactly, that you expect such documents to accomplish?

Sorry man, maybe I'm missing something here, but you're just not making sense to me. No offense intended. Maybe you can elaborate?

Travlyr
07-07-2010, 07:17 PM
Ineffective at what? What is it, exactly, that you expect such documents to accomplish?Liberty.

Sorry man, maybe I'm missing something here, but you're just not making sense to me. No offense intended. Maybe you can elaborate?
I think I'm the one missing something. Maybe liberty is not the goal. Because, if liberty is the goal, then property rights must be included and explicitly defined or else declarations are only symbolic.

Travlyr
07-07-2010, 07:19 PM
That's a non-sequitor. By "force others to stop controlling", I understand that you mean self-defense.

I guess I'm a hopeless statist... albeit a minimal state. I wasn't referring to self-defense. Force is necessary to control the unscrupulous. It's naive to believe that everyone is honest. What I mean is that even in the most pleasant of societies, a central banker will take advantage of everyone unless controls are put on people inclined to connive. We will eventually have to deal with these criminals taking advantage of us as a republic. And anarcho-capitalist societies will have to have a method of dealing with those exact same criminals as well.

He was just saying that if a bunch of people sign a document, and then nobody pays attention to that document or the principles therein, obviously the document is meaningless.


Explicit property rights are written in a document. Mary has a nice shiny car. Paul and Mary have agreed to the declaration, but Paul decides to steal Mary's car anyway. Paul broke the agreement. There is a clear violation of property rights. Mary has a method to get restitution. Document is not meaningless.

Property rights are not explicit. Mary has a nice shiny car. Mary and Paul have agreed to the declaration, but Paul decides to steal Mary's car anyway. Paul broke the agreements. Without explicit property rules, there is no foul. Mary has no method to get restitution. Document is meaningless.


Why? What sort of rules? If the people believe something can they not implement it without resorting to a document? Likewise, if the people do not believe in something, how is a document going to force them to behave in that way anyway?
Explicit property rights.

On what basis do the signatories of a document have a right to force all others to comply with that document, unless the principles therin are universal anyway (e.g., don't steal, we'll stop you if you do)?
No man is an island... rules are important... thereby rulers are required.

While a document can describe the beliefs of the signatories, in itself it does not accomplish anything.
It designates the foul.

No one person or organization can have control over money.
Don't bet the farm on that one.

Actually, this is implied by the contents of that document. In order to force everyone to adopt a particular currency, and in order to prohibit competition, one must initiate force.
Implied fails... explicit is necessary.

CCTelander
07-07-2010, 07:39 PM
Liberty.

I think I'm the one missing something. Maybe liberty is not the goal. Because, if liberty is the goal, then property rights must be included and explicitly defined or else declarations are only symbolic.


The goal most certainly is liberty. Apparently though, judging by your response to tremendoustie, that term means something quite different to you than it does to me.

In any event, I don't have the emotional steam to continue this right now. It's getting depressing.

tremendoustie
07-07-2010, 09:20 PM
I guess I'm a hopeless statist... albeit a minimal state. I wasn't referring to self-defense. Force is necessary to control the unscrupulous. It's naive to believe that everyone is honest. What I mean is that even in the most pleasant of societies, a central banker will take advantage of everyone


By what means do you fear a central banker will "take advantage of everyone"? Are you suggesting they could do so without force? Because the implementation of central banking has in every place and time, always required aggressive violence.



unless controls are put on people inclined to connive.


If the people themselves, in their daily lives, are somehow susceptible to such connivers, the institution you create to enforce such "controls" will be doubly so, as we have seen in this country, and in every country throughout time.

You imagine that the imperfection of people will be solved by some central institution with absolute power, but you forget that you're staffing that institution with the same imperfect people. Indeed, far worse -- you're staffing that institution with the people most desirous of power, and most able to get it.

The bankers you fear will be able to use that institution to accomplish their goals far, far faster than they could otherwise.



We will eventually have to deal with these criminals taking advantage of us as a republic.


Luckily, I don't want a republic ;). In a republic, the majority gets to abuse the rights of the minority.

Or, if you prefer to think about it this way, I want a republic with a consitution which simply says, "The initiation of aggressive violence is not permitted, by any person or institution." You can elect representatives if you like, but they will have no power to act outside this bound -- and they will have no moral right to take actions that would not be moral for them as private individuals.



And anarcho-capitalist societies will have to have a method of dealing with those exact same criminals as well.


How do you suspect these criminals will try to accomplish their goals? If you explain it to me, perhaps I can explain how a voluntaryist society might defend against it.





Explicit property rights are written in a document. Mary has a nice shiny car. Paul and Mary have agreed to the declaration, but Paul decides to steal Mary's car anyway. Paul broke the agreement. There is a clear violation of property rights. Mary has a method to get restitution. Document is not meaningless.



Mary has a right to her car, whether I sign anything or not. But, I do agree with written contracts.

It's still true, however, that if everyone ignores a contract, it might as well not exist. You need people who respect contracts, who will modify their behavior based upon the existence of a contract, in order for a contract to be useful.






Property rights are not explicit. Mary has a nice shiny car. Mary and Paul have agreed to the declaration, but Paul decides to steal Mary's car anyway. Paul broke the agreements. Without explicit property rules, there is no foul. Mary has no method to get restitution. Document is meaningless.



Property rights should be enforced whether there's a paper saying so or not. The fact that someone hasn't written "theft is wrong" on a piece of paper doesn't mean I have the right to steal Mary's car.

If some random dude writes "theft is ok", would it suddenly be ok? Of course not. You seem to be ascribing some spiritual, supernatural significance to putting pen to paper, which I frankly don't understand in the least.



Why? What sort of rules? If the people believe something can they not implement it without resorting to a document? Likewise, if the people do not believe in something, how is a document going to force them to behave in that way anyway?



Explicit property rights.


Did you not read the first section? "Each individual is the exclusive proprietor of his or her own existence and all products thereof, holding no obligations except those created by consent."

Also, you didn't answer my questions.



On what basis do the signatories of a document have a right to force all others to comply with that document, unless the principles therin are universal anyway (e.g., don't steal, we'll stop you if you do)?



No man is an island... rules are important... thereby rulers are required.


Of course no man is an island ... how does this address my question?



It designates the foul.

It designates the beliefs of the signers, no more. Are you perhaps referring to a contract?



Good thing we freedom loving folk believe in barter, including hard money, not fiat currency :). No one person or organization can have control over money.



Don't bet the farm on that one.


Do you understand what the word barter means? To have control over money in an economy based on "barter, including hard money, not fiat currency" would imply control over all property.



Actually, this is implied by the contents of that document. In order to force everyone to adopt a particular currency, and in order to prohibit competition, one must initiate force.



Implied fails... explicit is necessary.

If we were to list every possible agressive violence, it would take pages, and it still would not be complete. What do you propose this say? "Thou shalt not kill someone with a blowgun, eat someone's yak, burn someone's loft, poke your sister in the eye, jail people who use currencies you don't approve of, pilfer people's gold, put nails in your neighbor's microwave ..... etc ad infinitum?

The document would be the size of a dictionary, and still not be complete. Someone would look through and discover -- "Hey, the shire society doesn't prohibit riding a lame mule through my neighbor's kitchen!!"

"Each individual is the exclusive proprietor of his or her own existence and all products thereof", and "No [one] has the right to initiate force" covers it all, it's all that's needed.

CCTelander
07-07-2010, 09:53 PM
I think some people have a real hard time getting their minds around how truly simple and elegant the NAP really is.

Don't hurt other people. Don't steal or break their stuff.

Travlyr
07-08-2010, 01:17 AM
Two elements of liberty are "life" and "property." Both elements must be addressed for any society to enjoy liberty. Ignore property rights... forget liberty.

By what means do you fear a central banker will "take advantage of everyone"? For the last several centuries the central banking cabal has been taking advantage of everyone. For the last 100 years that same cabal has enslaved the people with inflation tax. What makes you think they'll just give up?

Are you suggesting they could do so without force?They'll use force. While they are not a government... they own the money supply and can buy anything they want.
Because the implementation of central banking has in every place and time, always required aggressive violence.They don't need or respect laws... they'll crush anyone who gets in their way. They crushed the Articles of Confederation before the AoC's tenth birthday. They will own your voluntary society in less time than that unless you protect property rights... including the money supply.

You mistake the power of the banking cabal for government. They have not organized as a government. They own the money. You have bought into the concept that governments are in control, and I don't buy that misconception. Money controls governments. Money is the controlling force in any society. Whoever controls the money supply, controls society and for the last few centuries central bankers have controlled the money supply. The control of money belongs to individuals... based on rules.

If the people themselves, in their daily lives, are somehow susceptible to such connivers, the institution you create to enforce such "controls" will be doubly so, as we have seen in this country, and in every country throughout time. You imagine that the imperfection of people will be solved by some central institution with absolute power, but you forget that you're staffing that institution with the same imperfect people. Indeed, far worse -- you're staffing that institution with the people most desirous of power, and most able to get it.
I do not agree with your assumption. First of all it is not true that every country throughout time has abused power... though it is common... primarily in dictatorships. But, just because the past has involved people in government who have expanded their control does not mean that governments of the future (a republic) cannot be improved upon.

The bankers you fear will be able to use that institution to accomplish their goals far, far faster than they could otherwise.Thomas Jefferson outed them... Andrew Jackson outed them... the people of the republic can out them again. Who in a voluntary society is going to out them?

Luckily, I don't want a republic ;). In a republic, the majority gets to abuse the rights of the minority.
In a republic, the people have the supreme power by definition. (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=republic) You describe a democracy (mob rule) the majority gets to abuse the rights of the minority.

Or, if you prefer to think about it this way, I want a republic with a constitution which simply says, "The initiation of aggressive violence is not permitted, by any person or institution." You can elect representatives if you like, but they will have no power to act outside this bound -- and they will have no moral right to take actions that would not be moral for them as private individuals.
And I would want someone (a sheriff) to have the authority to stop unscrupulous people.

How do you suspect these criminals will try to accomplish their goals? If you explain it to me, perhaps I can explain how a voluntaryist society might defend against it.They will con the people to give up the control of the money supply, thereby control of the voluntary society. They have done this all over the world, I cannot imagine that a voluntary society could prevent their attacks better than a republic.

Mary has a right to her car, whether I sign anything or not. But, I do agree with written contracts.

It's still true, however, that if everyone ignores a contract, it might as well not exist. You need people who respect contracts, who will modify their behavior based upon the existence of a contract, in order for a contract to be useful.
Contracts are useful. If both parties fulfill the agreement, or if one or both parties breach the contract, someone (a judge) can determine who is right or wrong.


Property rights should be enforced whether there's a paper saying so or not. The fact that someone hasn't written "theft is wrong" on a piece of paper doesn't mean I have the right to steal Mary's car.
But an unscrupulous person stole it anyway. How does a voluntary society deal with theft?

If some random dude writes "theft is ok", would it suddenly be ok? Of course not. You seem to be ascribing some spiritual, supernatural significance to putting pen to paper, which I frankly don't understand in the least.
I subscribe to the fact that not everybody is trustworthy.

Did you not read the first section? "Each individual is the exclusive proprietor of his or her own existence and all products thereof, holding no obligations except those created by consent."
I read it. This is what I meant by: "implicit property rights are too vague and every successful society must have explicit property rights to maintain liberty.


Also, you didn't answer my questions.
Originally Posted by tremendoustie
On what basis do the signatories of a document have a right to force all others to comply with that document, unless the principles therin are universal anyway (e.g., don't steal, we'll stop you if you do)?
In any society, you have to have rules. Rules require rulers. If a non-aggressive diplomatic solution can be found to enforce the rules, then it should be used. What if the unscrupulous person(s) refused to abide by your non-violent diplomacy? In my state the sheriff has the authority. Who has the authority in a voluntary society?

Originally Posted by Travlyr
It designates the foul.

It designates the beliefs of the signers, no more. Are you perhaps referring to a contract?
A written agreement (constitution or contract) (explicit property rights) can determine who is in the right and who is in the wrong in breach. That's all. With implicit property rights... it's tough to know who screwed who.

Do you understand what the word barter means?
I do. Barter is nearly impossible in reality. As a tomato farmer it would take a lot of tomatoes to buy a car... and the tomatoes would likely go bad before the car dealer could eat all of them, etc.

To have control over money in an economy based on "barter, including hard money, not fiat currency" would imply control over all property.
Again, barter is tough because that is mostly a theoretical concept. Hard money works with strict rules... purity of metal and accurate weights.
Fiat currency, if the bankers don't control it, or if not allowed would indicate that property rights are properly protected. This seems easier in a republic than a voluntary society.

If we were to list every possible agressive violence, it would take pages, and it still would not be complete. What do you propose this say? "Thou shalt not kill someone with a blowgun, eat someone's yak, burn someone's loft, poke your sister in the eye, jail people who use currencies you don't approve of, pilfer people's gold, put nails in your neighbor's microwave ..... etc ad infinitum?

The document would be the size of a dictionary, and still not be complete. Someone would look through and discover -- "Hey, the shire society doesn't prohibit riding a lame mule through my neighbor's kitchen!!"
Silly, silly notions... I don't see why you would have to go to those extremes to protect property rights.

"Each individual is the exclusive proprietor of his or her own existence and all products thereof", and "No [one] has the right to initiate force" covers it all, it's all that's needed.

Except for the guy who steals your truck anyway.
And the guy who fences off 1/2 your land.
And the guy who has no respect for your right to breathe and pollutes your world.
And the guy with the arsenal.
And on and on.

tremendoustie
07-08-2010, 03:28 AM
I don't have endless patience for endless discussion -- I encourage you to think seriously and carefully about these ideas. If you have further questions, please ensure they are really carefully, thoughtfully considered, and concise.


Two elements of liberty are "life" and "property." Both elements must be addressed for any society to enjoy liberty. Ignore property rights... forget liberty.

Everyone signing that "Shire Society" document believes in property rights, and will behave accordingly, you needn't worry about that.



For the last several centuries the central banking cabal has been taking advantage of everyone. For the last 100 years that same cabal has enslaved the people with inflation tax. What makes you think they'll just give up?
They'll use force.


Do you believe these people are more powerful than the government, or less so? If more so, then the government could not protect us anyway (even if it wanted to). If less so, then for the same reason, they will be less powerful than the combined force of the people in a free society.



While they are not a government... they own the money supply and can buy anything they want.


If people eschew fiat currency, these people no longer control the money supply, and can't buy anything with it.



They don't need or respect laws... they'll crush anyone who gets in their way. They crushed the Articles of Confederation before the AoC's tenth birthday. They will own your voluntary society in less time than that unless you protect property rights... including the money supply.

Once again, you believe that those in society are incapable of protecting themselves unless ... some people write down some words on paper? What kind of delusion is this?

Either those in the society are capable of protecting themselves from attack, or they are not. What they happen to write down is irrelevant to this.



You mistake the power of the banking cabal for government. They have not organized as a government. They own the money. You have bought into the concept that governments are in control, and I don't buy that misconception. Money controls governments. Money is the controlling force in any society. Whoever controls the money supply, controls society and for the last few centuries central bankers have controlled the money supply. The control of money belongs to individuals... based on rules.

Fiat currency was enacted by government in the first place.



I do not agree with your assumption. First of all it is not true that every country throughout time has abused power... though it is common...


Name one government that has not abused the liberty of the populace.



primarily in dictatorships. But, just because the past has involved people in government who have expanded their control does not mean that governments of the future (a republic) cannot be improved upon.


Right, let's just keep doing the same thing hoping for different results .. that'll work.

The fundamental premise of a republic -- majority rules -- is flawed. Majority opinion does not magically make immoral things moral.



Thomas Jefferson outed them... Andrew Jackson outed them... the people of the republic can out them again. Who in a voluntary society is going to out them?


Ok, I'm going to say this again: The. Government. Has. Created. Every. Central. Bank. In. History.

Nobody in a voluntary society has the right or ability to force everyone to use their chosen currency. Without such a tool, the wannabe central bankers are just about SOL.



In a republic, the people have the supreme power by definition. (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=republic) You describe a democracy (mob rule) the majority gets to abuse the rights of the minority.


What happens when 51% in 3/4 of the states want something? That's right, they get it. We could have full on chattel slavery, or mass genocide, next year, and it'd all be perfectly legal, and constitutional, if enough people wanted it.

Plus, if most of the people don't care, the government can just ignore the constitution. It's not like the piece of paper is going to jump out of the case and go defend somebody.

A republic is mob rule with fancy trimmings.



And I would want someone (a sheriff) to have the authority to stop unscrupulous people.


By "unscrupulous people" do you mean people who have actually harmed others, or their property? Because there definitely will be protection in a free society. "Sheriffs", if you want to call them that.



They will con the people to give up the control of the money supply, thereby control of the voluntary society. They have done this all over the world, I cannot imagine that a voluntary society could prevent their attacks better than a republic.

Yes, then I think you need a little more imagination. All over the world, the state has enforced a fiat currency. It has either outright, or surreptitiously enforced that currency by threat of jail. I will say this again:

They. Have. Always. Used. The. State. To. Accomplish. Their. Goals.

Does it not concern you, that the institution you imagine will somehow protect the people, has been repeatedly the means by which they have been enslaved? To collect all power in a central state, is like christamas morning to the central bankers, and every other megalomaniac around.

Think about it. Why would you collect all the power in one place, so it's ready made for them to take over? It's insanity, or worse.

There is no such institution, to make such a pronouncement, or enforce it, in a free society.

Again, you have a society of people happily trading amongst themselves, with gold, silver, and barter. Please explain how big bad central banker is going to convince everyone to switch to his worthless pieces of paper.




Contracts are useful. If both parties fulfill the agreement, or if one or both parties breach the contract, someone (a judge) can determine who is right or wrong.


Sure, I agree contracts can be useful.



But an unscrupulous person stole it anyway. How does a voluntary society deal with theft?

Ah, now here's a good question :).

Here's one way: The thief is apprehended by the protection agency of the victim. If the thief and the victim can agree on fair restitution, that's fine. Otherwise, they use the arbitration court designated for disputes between their protection agencies (or another arbiter, if they can agree on one), with designated options for appeal.

Appropriate restitution is determined there. If the perpetrator is not able to pay in one lump sum, a portion of his wages will be sent to the victim until the restitution is paid off.



I subscribe to the fact that not everybody is trustworthy.


There's a big difference between written contracts between consenting individuals, and a bunch of my friends and I writing down a bunch of arbitrary rules we expect everyone else to obey -- or imagining that the fact that we have written those rules magically means everyone will follow them.

Often, I am not sure to which you refer.



I read it. This is what I meant by: "implicit property rights are too vague and every successful society must have explicit property rights to maintain liberty.


"You are the exclusive proprietor of all products of your existence". Can't get much more explicit than that.



In any society, you have to have rules. Rules require rulers.

That's absolutely false. There is such a thing as consensus. For example, there should be no one person, or small group of people in society, who may say "theft is now ok", and have everyone else go along with it.

Nobody should tolerate theft, no matter who tells them different. This is a rule in society that arises by consensus. You don't need a ruler, and a bunch of braindead zombies who will do whatever the ruler says, in order to have rules.

It is principles themselves to which people should compare their actions -- not the arbitrary diktats of some dude in a robe or suit.

We need a consensus in society that to initiate aggressive force/violence is wrong.



If a non-aggressive diplomatic solution can be found to enforce the rules, then it should be used. What if the unscrupulous person(s) refused to abide by your non-violent diplomacy?


You keep using the word "unscrupulous", which seems unclear. Do you mean someone who's just not a nice guy, or do you mean someone who uses violence against persons and property?



In my state the sheriff has the authority. Who has the authority in a voluntary society?

Wrong question. There is no "who", whose diktats everyone complies with. People comply with the Non Aggression Principle. This means that you can't get corrupt, power hungry persons in these positions of "authority", as always occurs (the corrupt power hungry people tend to like those positions).

If any person or organization does not abide by the NAP, they will be held accountable by other persons and competing organizations.

The people need not implement their will by voting for a few individuals who will have nearly arbitrary power. Instead, the people can implement their will directly, by deciding which organizations to support with their wallets, which to do business with, and which, both directly and through their agencies, to forcefully oppose.




A written agreement (constitution or contract) (explicit property rights) can determine who is in the right and who is in the wrong in breach. That's all. With implicit property rights... it's tough to know who screwed who.

A real contract is one thing. It can't ensure justice is carried out, but it can help determine what justice is. It's still true that if everyone ignores the contract, it's useless, though.

Regarding a "constitution", how do me and a bunch of my buddies have a right to scribble some stuff down, and enforce our arbitrary will on everyone else? That's a bit like writing a one sided contract, and then acting as if everyone else agreed to it, is it not?



I do. Barter is nearly impossible in reality. As a tomato farmer it would take a lot of tomatoes to buy a car... and the tomatoes would likely go bad before the car dealer could eat all of them, etc.

Sure, that's why people select certain forms of money, to facilitate transactions. Usually, in a free economy, this is silver or gold -- but it could be anything -- shells, pelts, grain, etc.



Again, barter is tough because that is mostly a theoretical concept. Hard money works with strict rules... purity of metal and accurate weights.

Do you seriously think you need government mandates to ensure purity and have accurate weights? People trade in PMs all the time with little or no government interference (except reporting and tax requirements).

There are many respected mints, and respected purveyors of bars and coins, who have earned people's trust, as well as test kits and scales of all kinds.



Fiat currency, if the bankers don't control it, or if not allowed would indicate that property rights are properly protected.


Just let people trade by whatever means they want. Thus, there is no one currency, let alone a fiat currency, ergo nothing for the bankers to control.

Once you create a central power that can mandate things, you've created the very tool the bankers will use to take over.



This seems easier in a republic than a voluntary society.


Given that it's the government (e.g. republic) itself that's created every central bank in history, your assertion seems rather bizarre.

It's like saying, "Well, the guard fox has eaten the hens the last ten times we've put him in charge of guarding the henhouse, but it seems like it'd be harder to guard the hens without a guard fox, so I guess we'll put him out there again".

HELLO?!?! THE FOX IS THE PROBLEM!!!!

Sorry, I couldn't help myself there for a moment.




Silly, silly notions... I don't see why you would have to go to those extremes to protect property rights.


Except for the guy who steals your truck anyway.
And the guy who fences off 1/2 your land.
And the guy who has no respect for your right to breathe and pollutes your world.
And the guy with the arsenal.
And on and on.



And you think a piece of paper will stop this? What you're asking for is protection of property, which I fully support. Writing crap down on paper wouldn't magically stop the thieves. It also wouldn't magically make theft wrong. Theft is wrong, whether it's written down or not.

But yes, to address your concerns, in each of these situations, the perpetrator would be caught and held accountable.

Travlyr
07-08-2010, 03:26 PM
I don't have endless patience for endless discussion -- I encourage you to think seriously and carefully about these ideas. If you have further questions, please ensure they are really carefully, thoughtfully considered, and concise.
I'm one of the lucky ones because I have both time and patience for discussion. Yet, I have nothing but rhetorical questions for you because you misunderstand history and the definition of words.

So, why put the cart in front of the horse? You'll never go anywhere.
First things first:

Understand your enemy.
Regain liberty.
Set-up whatever society trips your trigger.

While I happen to find the "Shire Society" a "pie-in-the-sky" fantasy that is generations from fruition, the republic has the power to reestablish liberty in short order.

The republic is currently in place and the wrongs against liberty can be corrected if the people could just wrap their mind around this one concept. Money controls people.
Thomas Jefferson said, "The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." My hat is off to Mr. Jefferson for accomplishing that goal in 1811 (http://www.answers.com/topic/bank-war). Now that the central bankers again (Federal Reserve Act of 1913) forced themselves into our republic, it may require force to get it back... like it or not. But the people must get control of the money supply before they can regain liberty. Whoever controls the money supply, controls society. I, like President Jefferson & President Jackson, prefer the people control society rather than the elite.

Let's debunk a few myths:

Governments control people.
Money controls people. Money is power. Everybody has a price. Unlimited power to print money buys a military to create an empire. No government is needed.
Government's (how you organize a society) are powerless without money.


A republic is the same as a democracy.
Definition of a republic. A republic is very different than a democracy. As a matter of fact, a republic, by definition, is the type of organizational structure that a voluntary society would necessarily have to implement to achieve their goals.
Definition: republic - "a state (of being) where the supreme power rests with the people."
Definition: democracy - common people," originally "district" (see demotic), + kratos "rule, strength" (see -cracy). A democracy is majority rule (mob rule).


Governments form central banks.
Central banks are not creations of governments. Alexander Hamilton wanted a central bank. He was not alone. Mr. Hamilton did not have a government behind him... he had international bankers backing him. International bankers conspired to tear down a virtual volunteer society (AoC) to inject a central bank into government. The republic did not seek the central bankers. December 23, 1913 central banks again connive the people and inject themselves into our republic.
The following examples can not be considered creation of a central bank.

President Thomas Jefferson outed the central bank in 1811.
President Andrew Jackson outed the central bank in 1836.
The people out the central bank in 2010?




Ok, I'm going to say this again: The. Government. Has. Created. Every. Central. Bank. In. History.
This is not true. History is on my side. The bankers injected their control of our money into our republic... three separate times!

What happens when 51% in 3/4 of the states want something? That's right, they get it. We could have full on chattel slavery, or mass genocide, next year, and it'd all be perfectly legal, and constitutional, if enough people wanted it.
Again, do not confuse a republic with a democracy. Democracy: majority rules.

A republic is mob rule with fancy trimmings.
And you are mistaken. A republic, by definition, is the supreme power rests with the people.

By "unscrupulous people" do you mean people who have actually harmed others, or their property?
"Words mean things." If you don't know the definition of a word, look it up in the dictionary. (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php)

All over the world, the state has enforced a fiat currency. It has either outright, or surreptitiously enforced that currency by threat of jail. I will say this again:

They. Have. Always. Used. The. State. To. Accomplish. Their. Goals.
Again you are mistaken. They. Have. Always. Used. Money. To. Accomplish. Their. Goals.


Does it not concern you, that the institution you imagine will somehow protect the people, has been repeatedly the means by which they have been enslaved? To collect all power in a central state, is like christamas morning to the central bankers, and every other megalomaniac around.

Think about it. Why would you collect all the power in one place, so it's ready made for them to take over? It's insanity, or worse.
Nowhere have I ever said that a central power should be all powerful. I said, if you don't protect individual property rights including control of the money supply, you forfeit liberty. That's all.

"You are the exclusive proprietor of all products of your existence". Can't get much more explicit than that.
Explicit:c.1600, from Fr. explicite, from L. explicitus, variant pp. of explicare "unfold, unravel, explain,"

You keep using the word "unscrupulous", which seems unclear. Do you mean someone who's just not a nice guy, or do you mean someone who uses violence against persons and property?
Machiavellian - 1560s, "cunning, deceitful, unscrupulous,"

Regarding a "constitution", how do me and a bunch of my buddies have a right to scribble some stuff down, and enforce our arbitrary will on everyone else? That's a bit like writing a one sided contract, and then acting as if everyone else agreed to it, is it not?
No, it is not. Protection of life and property is the proper function of governments to preserve liberty. Rules are necessary and therefore, rulers are necessary. Without rules, and some way to enforce the rules, the strongest rules. I know it's a tough one for ancaps to believe, but study history. The strong control the weak.

Do you seriously think you need government mandates to ensure purity and have accurate weights? People trade in PMs all the time with little or no government interference (except reporting and tax requirements).
Coins can be counterfeited. Are you going to accept coins on the trustworthiness of others or weigh it every time a trade is made? While we don't need government mandates to ensure the purity and weight, we need rules so that trade is equitable. Those who violate the rules, should not be allowed to do so at the expense of others, at will.

There are many respected mints, and respected purveyors of bars and coins, who have earned people's trust, as well as test kits and scales of all kinds.
And this will work, as long as, everybody is on the same page.

Just let people trade by whatever means they want. Thus, there is no one currency, let alone a fiat currency, ergo nothing for the bankers to control.
This is how a republic works... if the people want it... for they have supreme power.

Once you create a central power that can mandate things, you've created the very tool the bankers will use to take over.
Or you create the supreme power of the people to out them.

Given that it's the government (e.g. republic) itself that's created every central bank in history, your assertion seems rather bizarre.
Do you have proof that our legislators passed laws and amendments to create the central bank without the international bankers conniving the legislators? Because I have evidence that the international bankers did indeed meet at Jekyll Island and plotted to control our republic. Banks injected themselves into our republic.


It's like saying, "Well, the guard fox has eaten the hens the last ten times we've put him in charge of guarding the henhouse, but it seems like it'd be harder to guard the hens without a guard fox, so I guess we'll put him out there again".

HELLO?!?! THE FOX IS THE PROBLEM!!!!

The money supply in the hands of the elite is the problem. The money supply in the hands of the people, is the solution.


"That's all I have to say about that."

heavenlyboy34
07-08-2010, 05:43 PM
In a republic, the people have the supreme power by definition. You describe a democracy (mob rule) the majority gets to abuse the rights of the minority.

Wishful thinking. Just as in every republic before it, the Elites control what happens, not "the People".

heavenlyboy34
07-08-2010, 05:47 PM
Read the Federal Reserve Act. The government CREATED the monster. :mad::p


I'm one of the lucky ones because I have both time and patience for discussion. Yet, I have nothing but rhetorical questions for you because you misunderstand history and the definition of words.

So, why put the cart in front of the horse? You'll never go anywhere.
First things first:

Understand your enemy.
Regain liberty.
Set-up whatever society trips your trigger.

While I happen to find the "Shire Society" a "pie-in-the-sky" fantasy that is generations from fruition, the republic has the power to reestablish liberty in short order.

The republic is currently in place and the wrongs against liberty can be corrected if the people could just wrap their mind around this one concept. Money controls people.
Thomas Jefferson said, "The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." My hat is off to Mr. Jefferson for accomplishing that goal in 1811 (http://www.answers.com/topic/bank-war). Now that the central bankers again (Federal Reserve Act of 1913) forced themselves into our republic, it may require force to get it back... like it or not. But the people must get control of the money supply before they can regain liberty. Whoever controls the money supply, controls society. I, like President Jefferson & President Jackson, prefer the people control society rather than the elite.

Let's debunk a few myths:

Governments control people.
Money controls people. Money is power. Everybody has a price. Unlimited power to print money buys a military to create an empire. No government is needed.
Government's (how you organize a society) are powerless without money.


A republic is the same as a democracy.
Definition of a republic. A republic is very different than a democracy. As a matter of fact, a republic, by definition, is the type of organizational structure that a voluntary society would necessarily have to implement to achieve their goals.
Definition: republic - "a state (of being) where the supreme power rests with the people."
Definition: democracy - common people," originally "district" (see demotic), + kratos "rule, strength" (see -cracy). A democracy is majority rule (mob rule).


Governments form central banks.
Central banks are not creations of governments. Alexander Hamilton wanted a central bank. He was not alone. Mr. Hamilton did not have a government behind him... he had international bankers backing him. International bankers conspired to tear down a virtual volunteer society (AoC) to inject a central bank into government. The republic did not seek the central bankers. December 23, 1913 central banks again connive the people and inject themselves into our republic.
The following examples can not be considered creation of a central bank.

President Thomas Jefferson outed the central bank in 1811.
President Andrew Jackson outed the central bank in 1836.
The people out the central bank in 2010?




This is not true. History is on my side. The bankers injected their control of our money into our republic... three separate times!

Again, do not confuse a republic with a democracy. Democracy: majority rules.

And you are mistaken. A republic, by definition, is the supreme power rests with the people.

"Words mean things." If you don't know the definition of a word, look it up in the dictionary. (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php)

Again you are mistaken. They. Have. Always. Used. Money. To. Accomplish. Their. Goals.


Nowhere have I ever said that a central power should be all powerful. I said, if you don't protect individual property rights including control of the money supply, you forfeit liberty. That's all.

Explicit:c.1600, from Fr. explicite, from L. explicitus, variant pp. of explicare "unfold, unravel, explain,"

Machiavellian - 1560s, "cunning, deceitful, unscrupulous,"

No, it is not. Protection of life and property is the proper function of governments to preserve liberty. Rules are necessary and therefore, rulers are necessary. Without rules, and some way to enforce the rules, the strongest rules. I know it's a tough one for ancaps to believe, but study history. The strong control the weak.

Coins can be counterfeited. Are you going to accept coins on the trustworthiness of others or weigh it every time a trade is made? While we don't need government mandates to ensure the purity and weight, we need rules so that trade is equitable. Those who violate the rules, should not be allowed to do so at the expense of others, at will.

And this will work, as long as, everybody is on the same page.

This is how a republic works... if the people want it... for they have supreme power.

Or you create the supreme power of the people to out them.

Do you have proof that our legislators passed laws and amendments to create the central bank without the international bankers conniving the legislators? Because I have evidence that the international bankers did indeed meet at Jekyll Island and plotted to control our republic. Banks injected themselves into our republic.



The money supply in the hands of the elite is the problem. The money supply in the hands of the people, is the solution.


"That's all I have to say about that."

mczerone
07-09-2010, 07:02 AM
So, why put the cart in front of the horse? You'll never go anywhere.
First things first:

Understand your enemy.
Regain liberty.
Set-up whatever society trips your trigger.

While I happen to find the "Shire Society" a "pie-in-the-sky" fantasy that is generations from fruition, the republic has the power to reestablish liberty in short order.


You're missing the point of the declaration. The signatories DO NOT CARE about the opinions of others as to their freedom. They do not ask to be free, they themselves simply decide to recognize their chains and strive to free themselves.

The "pie-in-the-sky fantasy" is thinking that you'll be able to influence other people to the extent necessary to alter the system. There are two major problems with this "save the republic" mentality that are simply insurmountable without first having examples of free societies such as this. The first is that the State (Federal) system doesn't respond to popular opinion in many areas that are ran administratively, and the second is simply trying to convince people to turn away from the trough long enough to get them to stop arguing about who is getting better handouts.

There is no fantasy about the Shires, they are currently living in reality where they have vowed to look after themselves and to reject the temptation of using any aggression against any other people, Shires or otherwise. REALITY. They do not have any classes of enemies, only those individuals that wish to use aggression against them.



The republic is currently in place and the wrongs against liberty can be corrected if the people could just wrap their mind around this one concept. Money controls people.

The republic you envision is buried in a massive democratic dictatorship, and the "if" that you mention is impossibly too large, at least in the near-term. I don't disagree that the FedReserve should be foreclosed, but only when money is recognized as any free commodity and the state completely allows people to choose their own unit of account will the people be free from devastating market effects. This includes ALL taxation and subsidization - each a different head of the market-dislocation hydra from the money problem (after all, money is just another commodity).



Let's debunk a few myths:
[LIST]
Governments control people.
Money controls people. Money is power. Everybody has a price. Unlimited power to print money buys a military to create an empire. No government is needed.
Government's (how you organize a society) are powerless without money.


Agreed, except that Governments are powerless without aggression, which they can still wield without controlling the money.



A republic is the same as a democracy.
Governments form central banks.

This is not true. History is on my side. The bankers injected their control of our money into our republic... three separate times!

Again, do not confuse a republic with a democracy. Democracy: majority rules.

And you are mistaken. A republic, by definition, is the supreme power rests with the people.


Really? How do you define "republic"? It seems that the "supreme power" lies with the "representatives" (not representative of anyone but themselves), and that without each property owner being free to do as they wish with their property, they are definitely NOT supremely powerful.



Nowhere have I ever said that a central power should be all powerful. I said, if you don't protect individual property rights including control of the money supply, you forfeit liberty. That's all.

Coins can be counterfeited. Are you going to accept coins on the trustworthiness of others or weigh it every time a trade is made? While we don't need government mandates to ensure the purity and weight, we need rules so that trade is equitable. Those who violate the rules, should not be allowed to do so at the expense of others, at will.

And this will work, as long as, everybody is on the same page.


Do you really want to pin the hopes of the future on "everybody on the same page"? Rules instituted by free associations such as the Shires are vastly more powerful, efficient, and effective than government "rules" could ever be. Standards emerge naturally in a free market, and can change though time due to what the people want - even without making other people change their favorite units. Only under the State does their have to be a single, united, unalterable solution to all these mundane contentions.

That is the root of the problem - never will "everybody be on the same page" about nearly ANYTHING, and the Shires recognize that only free-association society will be able to adapt and evolve to meet the needs of the people without massive distortions and disruptions.




This is how a republic works... if the people want it... for they have supreme power.

Or you create the supreme power of the people to out them.

Do you have proof that our legislators passed laws and amendments to create the central bank without the international bankers conniving the legislators? Because I have evidence that the international bankers did indeed meet at Jekyll Island and plotted to control our republic. Banks injected themselves into our republic.



The money supply in the hands of the elite is the problem. The money supply in the hands of the people, is the solution.

[B]
"That's all I have to say about that."

Bankers were there at the beginning. And they have interests no different than Farmers or Laborers or Management or whatever other classist group you wish to define. They indeed had more money, more liquidity, and offered more to the framers than other groups.

To put "the money supply" into the hands of the people is IDENTICAL to removing aggression against people and their property. A republic could do no such thing, unless, of course, it was a free-association group organized as a republic. I'm not going to debate the merits of any particular firm structure, a republic might be the best solution for you. But please, leave me and my property (money included) out of it. Thank you.


P.S. Money does not control the people. Food (incl. water) controls the people. Money is just a store of value, while food is a necessary daily consumable. People can live without money, they cannot survive without the self-investment of food.

Travlyr
07-09-2010, 08:20 AM
You're missing the point of the declaration. The signatories DO NOT CARE about the opinions of others as to their freedom. They do not ask to be free, they themselves simply decide to recognize their chains and strive to free themselves.

I probably do miss the point of the declaration. I wouldn't sign it.
What I was pointing out was two things:

Governments do not control society; Banking interests control society.
In order for people to enjoy liberty, they will have to remove the controlling chains. Our current republic offers a remedy.


How do you define "republic"?
I don't define words... I look them up in dictionaries. republic is defined by the online etymology dictionary as: "a state which the supreme power rests with the people."

Money is a medium of exchange.

Travlyr
07-09-2010, 08:32 AM
Originally Posted by Travlyr
In a republic, the people have the supreme power by definition. You describe a democracy (mob rule) the majority gets to abuse the rights of the minority.


Wishful thinking. Just as in every republic before it, the Elites control what happens, not "the People".

"Wishful thinking?"
heavenlyboy34, words mean things... they have definitions.
Online Etymology (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=republic): "republic" - "a state where the supreme power rests with the people." I did not make this up or just "wish" it were true. Look it up for yourself.
What dictionary do you use?


Read the Federal Reserve Act. The government CREATED the monster. :mad::p

That's a good one... read the Federal Reserve Act to see if it was created by government? :confused:
Folks, I think we are grown up enough to know that legislators do not write the bills. Heck, most of them don't even read the bills! :eek:
International bankers played the major role in getting our current central bank:

Panic of 1907 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1907) - The Bank of England played no small role.
Jekyll Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jekyll_Island_Club) - November 22, 1910 - Role in the history of the Federal Reserve
"Suggested Plan for Monetary Legislation" (http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/historicaldocs/nmc/) - January 16, 1911 by Nelson Aldrich father-in-law of John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
National Citizens' League (http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/cosmic_cointelpro_1911.htm) - 1911
Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. (http://www.whale.to/b/m_ch_two.html) - December 15, 1911 - Testifying before the Committee on Rules
Pujo Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pujo_Committee) - May 1912 to January 1913 - 6000 pages of testimony and Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. was not allowed to testify.
International Banker Paul Warburg - 1913
Paul Warburg before the House Banking and Currency Committee in 1913... “I am a member of the banking house of Kuhn, Loeb Company. I came over to this country in 1902, having been born and educated in the banking business in Hamburg, Germany, and studied banking in London and Paris, and have gone all around the world. In the Panic of 1907, the first suggestion I made was ‘Let us get a national clearing house.’ The Aldrich Plan contains some things which are simply fundamental rules of banking. Your aim in this plan (the Owen-Glass bill) must be the same -- centralizing of reserves, mobilizing commercial credit, and getting an elastic note issue.” - "The Secret of the Federal Reserve" - Eustace Mullins pg 31-32.
September 18, 1913 - The Glass Bill passes the House
December 19, 1913 - The Senate version passes
December 20, 1913 - More than forty important differences between the versions are rectified.
December 22, 1913 - With many congressional members headed home for Christmas the Federal Reserve Act passes the House 282-60 and passes the Senate 43-23.
December 23, 1913 - President Wilson signs the Federal Reserve Act of 1913
Paul Warburg - Governor of the Federal Reserve 1914 - 1918



The preparation was done by central bankers
The passage of the act was rushed through congress at Christmas time when travel for congressmen took several days
The first Governor was mister international banker himself - Paul Warburg.
The first task of the Federal Reserve was payback... finance WWI.

MelissaWV
07-09-2010, 09:11 AM
As a vague Preamble, or a declaration that really accomplishes nothing, it works as a document. I'm surprised at all the praise.

If the document only confirms self-evident rights, then why is the document necessary?

On the other hand, if the document is an agreement between the parties that live in its "domain" (for lack of a better term) to abide by these covenants, then there are other issues.

None of the major terms are defined or even specific within the language except one. Strangely, the word chosen here was "precepts."


A precept (from the Latin: præcipere, to teach) is a commandment, instruction, or order intended as an authoritative rule of action. ... In religion, precepts are usually commands respecting moral conduct.

Is this, then, an unbinding morality code coupled with ample warning to those that would aggress?


In secular law, a precept is a command in writing; a species of writ issuing from a court or other legal authority. It is now chiefly used of an order demanding payment. The Latin form praecipe (i.e., enjoin, command) is used of the note of instructions delivered by a plaintiff or his lawyer to be filed by the officer of the court, giving the names of the plaintiff and defendant.

Princeton University uses the term precept to describe what many other universities refer to as recitations: large classes are often divided into several smaller discussion sections called precepts, which are led by the professor or graduate teaching assistants. These precepts meet once a week to supplement the lectures and provide a venue for discussion of the course material.

The word choice here seems odd to me.

Moving further, we find that each person is the proprietor of their own existence and products thereof. Usually, the first position in a list is reserved for something of monumental performance, but we see that the second statement counters the first. If I am proprietor of my own existence, then why does an outside person, spirit, or rule have dominion over what I can and cannot do (aggress)? The third statement further states that others will be proprietors of my person if I aggress, imposing themselves upon me via self defense.

Taking a step back from all of this, we come to a series of words and phrases which would confound someone not already coming from a similar frame of mind. "Aggression" covers all kinds of things, and what's more alarming is that "self defense" is not qualified in the least. This could very easily mean that if you call me a whore, I may shoot you in self defense, as your aggressive speech inspires me to take action. There is no mention of reasonableness, but yet if it were mentioned that term would imply some judge or authority on the subject.

Atop these things is the overarching question of who can consent. There is nothing to even imply that there is a need for competence associated with consent, and no standard for such. An infant, by nodding his/her head in seeming agreement, might consent to a contract under these terms. They may unknowingly enter into longterm servitude, yet it would conform to the document.

Again, as an incredibly simplistic document, the intention is good... but as the only document in a society, or as actual precepts, they fail to play by their own rules.

CCTelander
07-09-2010, 10:44 AM
I probably do miss the point of the declaration. I wouldn't sign it.


That's unfortunate.

If you would not agree to comport yourself according to the NAP in your interactions with others, which is ALL the the document in the OP or Smith's Covenant of Unanimous consent say anyway, then I'd have to decline interacting with you until such a time as you would so agree.



What I was pointing out was two things:

Governments do not control society; Banking interests control society.
In order for people to enjoy liberty, they will have to remove the controlling chains. Our current republic offers a remedy.



1. Banking interests "control" society THROUGH government. Without government coercion forcing everyone to use their fiat currency, they would be virtually powerless. Sure, they'd still have significant financial clout temporarily, but they would either adapt, become part of the free market instead of corporatists, and thus be no threat, or they'd lose the clout they started with via competition.

2. In order for people to enjoy liberty, all they have to do is withdraw their consent from the coercive powers that have been impeding it. Period. Thus far they've chosen not to do so.



I don't define words... I look them up in dictionaries. republic is defined by the online etymology dictionary as: "a state which the supreme power rests with the people."


Show me a single "republic" anywhere in history where this was actually the case. You'll be looking a while, since no such example exists.

The dictionary definition of the word is irrelevant. In real life republics have never matched the description you present. Never.

Travlyr
07-09-2010, 11:59 AM
That's unfortunate.

If you would not agree to comport yourself according to the NAP in your interactions with others, which is ALL the the document in the OP or Smith's Covenant of Unanimous consent say anyway, then I'd have to decline interacting with you until such a time as you would so agree.
That's fine with me, but I already live my life according to non-violent liberty minded principals. Why should I need to sign a document to interact with others?

1. Banking interests "control" society THROUGH government. Without government coercion forcing everyone to use their fiat currency, they would be virtually powerless. Sure, they'd still have significant financial clout temporarily, but they would either adapt, become part of the free market instead of corporatists, and thus be no threat, or they'd lose the clout they started with via competition.
I don't agree. Banking interests control you with money. Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and Nathan Rothschild all agreed... "whoever controls the money supply, controls society." Why do the people of the 21st century not understand this simple concept? My theory: Government indoctrination.

They use the media (movies, TV, radio, newspaper, internet, books, magazines, etc.) to keep the people scared and under their control. Sure if a few rebels decide to protect themselves then they use the media to demonize those groups. And if the people were to get really out-of-hand they would use law enforcement and military to force the people into submission. But primarily, they use money to buy their control.

2. In order for people to enjoy liberty, all they have to do is withdraw their consent from the coercive powers that have been impeding it. Period. Thus far they've chosen not to do so.
This is my point. The republic gives the people a remedy as stated in the DOI.
'That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,'

Show me a single "republic" anywhere in history where this was actually the case. You'll be looking a while, since no such example exists.
The republic formed by the Constitution for the united States of America in 1787. Benjamin Franklin understood the definition of a republic.

The dictionary definition of the word is irrelevant. In real life republics have never matched the description you present. Never.
Rhetoric is not taught in government schools anymore. That may be by design and it is most certainly why most people think that our government was formed as a democracy. But it wasn't. The united States of America is a republic. Words mean things... definitions are important.

CCTelander
07-09-2010, 01:33 PM
Travlyr: It's clear that this whole thing has become an idee fixe with you. I don't mean that in a dsiparging manner, but until you are willing to seriously question your own preconceived ideas, and make an honest effort to truly understand the positions of your opponents, there's really no point in discussion or debate.

I sincerely hope that what you're seeking really is liberty, and not merely the imposition of your own preferences upon others and, if so, you eventually do get what you desire.

Good luck to you sir.

Rancher
07-09-2010, 03:26 PM
As a vague Preamble, or a declaration that really accomplishes nothing, it works as a document. I'm surprised at all the praise.

If the document only confirms self-evident rights, then why is the document necessary?

On the other hand, if the document is an agreement between the parties that live in its "domain" (for lack of a better term) to abide by these covenants, then there are other issues.

None of the major terms are defined or even specific within the language except one. Strangely, the word chosen here was "precepts."



Is this, then, an unbinding morality code coupled with ample warning to those that would aggress?



The word choice here seems odd to me.

Moving further, we find that each person is the proprietor of their own existence and products thereof. Usually, the first position in a list is reserved for something of monumental performance, but we see that the second statement counters the first. If I am proprietor of my own existence, then why does an outside person, spirit, or rule have dominion over what I can and cannot do (aggress)? The third statement further states that others will be proprietors of my person if I aggress, imposing themselves upon me via self defense.

Taking a step back from all of this, we come to a series of words and phrases which would confound someone not already coming from a similar frame of mind. "Aggression" covers all kinds of things, and what's more alarming is that "self defense" is not qualified in the least. This could very easily mean that if you call me a whore, I may shoot you in self defense, as your aggressive speech inspires me to take action. There is no mention of reasonableness, but yet if it were mentioned that term would imply some judge or authority on the subject.

Atop these things is the overarching question of who can consent. There is nothing to even imply that there is a need for competence associated with consent, and no standard for such. An infant, by nodding his/her head in seeming agreement, might consent to a contract under these terms. They may unknowingly enter into longterm servitude, yet it would conform to the document.

Again, as an incredibly simplistic document, the intention is good... but as the only document in a society, or as actual precepts, they fail to play by their own rules.

Melissa aces it! :)

nayjevin
07-09-2010, 03:35 PM
http://posterous.com/getfile/files.posterous.com/temp-2010-04-27/uhwakxaalmjAizBdDdfkxyjseForbDBdxmJpmEIHbjdphJxdkc kFxmBkvlcD/gandalf.jpg.scaled1000.jpg

Ron Paul is Gandalf. See here he is adopting a strong personal defense, awaiting either voluntary retreat, or under unfortunate circumstances (for whom?), the proper moment for necessary defensive force.

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-09-2010, 04:02 PM
Again, as an incredibly simplistic document, the intention is good... but as the only document in a society, or as actual precepts, they fail to play by their own rules.

The DoI had it's own vagueness but what is the purpose of a declaration? It is a tool to build consensus for a unified belief.

We talk about education working on the assumption people want to be educated. A declaration is a step in the right direction as it is a tool used to build a majority consensus.

I think your criticisms are fair. Terms ought be defined. Consent should be included. I also think an extensive list of grievances should be articulated.

tremendoustie
07-09-2010, 04:24 PM
As a vague Preamble, or a declaration that really accomplishes nothing, it works as a document. I'm surprised at all the praise.

If the document only confirms self-evident rights, then why is the document necessary?

It's a statement of principle. The purpose is simply to explain to others the basic principles held by those who sign it -- and the basic principles by which those individuals will choose to interact with each other, and others.

If someone wonders "what those shire society people are about", or if perhaps if they might want to participate, they need only read this :).

It's not intended to be a contract -- I think perhaps that's the source of some of the misunderstanding here.



On the other hand, if the document is an agreement between the parties that live in its "domain" (for lack of a better term) to abide by these covenants, then there are other issues.

It's simply a description of the basic principles held by the participants, as I say (and there's no "domain", at least not yet).



None of the major terms are defined or even specific within the language except one. Strangely, the word chosen here was "precepts."

Is this, then, an unbinding morality code coupled with ample warning to those that would aggress?

I suppose that's a reasonable description.



Moving further, we find that each person is the proprietor of their own existence and products thereof. Usually, the first position in a list is reserved for something of monumental performance, but we see that the second statement counters the first. If I am proprietor of my own existence, then why does an outside person, spirit, or rule have dominion over what I can and cannot do (aggress)? The third statement further states that others will be proprietors of my person if I aggress, imposing themselves upon me via self defense.


Because you're the proprietor of your own life, not your neighbor's. Just as, if I'm the proprietor of a ship, I still don't have a right to sail it into somebody else's ship.



Taking a step back from all of this, we come to a series of words and phrases which would confound someone not already coming from a similar frame of mind. "Aggression" covers all kinds of things, and what's more alarming is that "self defense" is not qualified in the least. This could very easily mean that if you call me a whore, I may shoot you in self defense, as your aggressive speech inspires me to take action. There is no mention of reasonableness, but yet if it were mentioned that term would imply some judge or authority on the subject.

One could go into a great deal of detail, if the purpose were to provide a document that covers every situation. For example, what constitutes aggression against my property? Breathing carbon dioxide onto it? Spewing huge amounts of smoke? Playing loud music?

The purpose is not to replicate the state, or provide a detailed blueprint for handling every situation that might arise in life. The purpose is to make a basic statement of principle. It will be up to the people to enact those principles in their daily lives.

It simply says one has a right to defense, in general. The point is not to lay out precisely what forms of defense are appropriate for precisely what situations.



Atop these things is the overarching question of who can consent. There is nothing to even imply that there is a need for competence associated with consent, and no standard for such. An infant, by nodding his/her head in seeming agreement, might consent to a contract under these terms. They may unknowingly enter into longterm servitude, yet it would conform to the document.

Certainly, I don't believe young kids are capable of such consent, and I believe most would agree with me. All this document is saying is that explicit consent is required for obligation. It's a statement of basic principle, not an attempt to create detailed contract law.

People should understand that most of those who wrote or signed this document do not believe the behavior of persons should be governed by rigid, written rules, enforced blindly. After all, any rigid rule, in certain circumstances, will end up subverting justice. It is up to the people themselves, in communities to form consensus one what constitutes appropriate behavior.

It's similar to Gandhi's idea of swaraj, if you're familiar with that.



Again, as an incredibly simplistic document, the intention is good... but as the only document in a society, or as actual precepts, they fail to play by their own rules.

I'd say the purpose of this document is to explain the consensus that has been reached among the people intending to participate in this "society". If one agrees with these principles, one is very likely to fit in quite well.

If one does not agree with these principles, one can firstly know that "shire society" is probably not for them, and secondly, one can have some reasonable expectation about how "shire society" folks may behave, if one has occasion for interaction with them.

To put it another way, if this were a chess club, the equivalent document would simply say, "This club is for the purpose of playing chess, and having fun with one another, in a causal, friendly environment". It would not be a list of detailed bylaws about how the treasurer will be selected and how the seeding for tournaments will be determined. :)

MelissaWV
07-10-2010, 06:31 AM
Because you're the proprietor of your own life, not your neighbor's. Just as, if I'm the proprietor of a ship, I still don't have a right to sail it into somebody else's ship.

If you are not the proprietor of your neighbor's life, then how can you be able to take your neighbor's life away if they aggress :)

* * *

All of your post comes back to the original question on my part, which is "why?". You did answer "to state what we believe," but it's a bit circular. Those who live in the Shire Society believe this, and sign it, but if there were actually a physical realm called the Shire, how would you ensure everyone lived by these basic precepts? That would be the assumption to someone stepping onto the Shire.

If its entire purpose is to be vague, then it succeeds as a declaration, leaving a lot of room for specifics or regional amendment. Perhaps different regions of the Shire could use this as a first page, and then add non-conflicting explanations/further declarations afterwards.

CCTelander
07-19-2010, 05:04 PM
Well, I guess it had to happen.

L. Neil Smith has fired back against the folks who have promulgated the Shire Society document, and he's not pulling any punches.

I was previously unaware of Smith's position on IP. Just for the record, I completely disagree with him on this issue, and can't help but feel a bit "let down" by his dogmatic stance.

Below I've appended his latest essay, which is aimed directly at the people behind the Shire Society. After having read this essay over several times now, I'm not only disappointed, but have lost a certain degree of respect for Smith.

His response seems to demonstrate a near total ignorance of the more substantive, philosophical arguments against IP, and focuses mainly on one or two of the lesser arguments. He also relies very heavily on ad hominem and guilt by association, without providing much by way of substantive argument himself.

Just so I'm not in any way misunderstood, it's apparent to me that the folks who "created" thye Shire Society document did, in fact, copy it virtually word for word from Smith's previous, and superior effort. While I don't support IP, I DO think that they should have, at the very least, given appropriate credit, just as a matter of common courtesy.

Anyway, here's Smith's response for your perusal and comment:


Little Criminals: The Context of Consent
by L. Neil Smith

Attribute to The Libertarian Enterprise

Have you ever noticed—in movies, books, or real life—that when a mugger attacks someone, he never says "Give me your money!", but usually says "Give me the money!" or even "Give me my money!" instead?

There seems to be a basic human drive to justify one's actions, no matter how heinous they might actually be. Sometimes it's a matter of self-deception—"I'm doing this for your own good!"—sometimes it's a matter of propaganda: "We had to destroy the village to save it." It's the basis on which millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and others were stripped of their perceived humanity in the 1940s and massacred.

I was probably only eight years old when I realized that socialism is nothing more than a fancied-up excuse for stealing other people's property and killing them if they resist, that collectivism is just a shabby attempt to make theft and murder appear respectable. Later on, I came to understand that this is true of all "philosophies" of government.

We all live in a kleptocracy.

Lately, we have witnessed the rise of a movement—a thuggish crusade wrapped in the tattered robes of academic "respectability" against "Intellectual Property Rights"—dedicated to stripping creative individuals of whatever they create, to expropriate it for some imagined "greater good", and to attack the creators viciously and defame them if they should be so gauche as to object to being stolen from.

Their principal "argument" seems to be, now that almost everything is digitized and can be duplicated, manipulated, and transported by means of electronics, that this somehow removes the moral obligation of civilized beings to respect the rights of others and honor their propriety. It's fundamentally the same argument that victim disbarment advocates make when they claim—ignoring the principle involved—that the authors of the Second Amendment couldn't possibly anticipate machineguns

The rest can be found here:

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle579-20100718-02.html

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-19-2010, 05:20 PM
L. Neil Smith is a complete and utter douche. There is my ad hominem for Smith. You cannot steal ideas. Was Thomas Jefferson supposed to credit Lao Tzu in the Declaration of Independence? What about John Locke, or Thomas Aquinas? This goes beyond absurdity.

The only reason we have property rights in the first place from a utilitarian standpoint is because of scarcity. When it comes to ideas, there is no scarcity. The imagination is unlimited, infinite. L Neil is surely not the first person to think of these ideas. According to him he stole his ideas from previous authors and intellectuals, and so on down the line. Who then was the originator of the idea of freedom and liberty? It was surely over 5000 years ago.

I like to demonstrate the absurdity of IP using what we all use -- the English language. Imagine if the creator of the English Language copyrighted and rubberstamped it with IP. Even by uttering one single word, or writting one single letter you would be "aggressing against his property". Listen to that again -- our very speech shows the absurdity of IP.

L. Neil go away. Its obvious to me you aren't sincere in your beliefs. If you were, you would be overjoyed that your work is being used for real progress, and real strides towards liberty and -- shock -- you might want to actually join in the cause. No, instead you want a monopoly on your idea of freedom, of liberty, which is to say that is no liberty or freedom at all. While I would have liked Ian and the rest to have come up with a more original declaration, this is nonetheless not theft.

Travlyr
07-19-2010, 05:38 PM
The Shire Society reaction... :(


In time, several individuals warned me about what had happened, and I contacted the plagiarists directly, myself. Imagine my surprise when, instead of apologizing humbly and abjectly, as they ought to have done, and sought to make restitution, they became obnoxious and aggressive, so that, in the end, I was considered the villain of the piece, and called names, simply for having defended my own work from theft.

You will be interested to learn—and falling-down amused, if you know me or my work at all well—that I am, officially, a "statist asshole". In part, this is because I politely informed them I was sharing our correspondence with my attorney, to whom I had started blind-copying everything. My attorney is also among my very closest friends, and I had decided to blind-copy him to keep his Inbox clear of the heady liquid excrement (ever see the uncut final sequence of The Magic Christian?) I was having to wade through to protect my rights.

Never forget that I am a statist asshole.

Please note: I had never said that I was planning to sue this gang of little criminals, only that I was blind-copying my correspondence with them to my attorney. It was they who jumped to the conclusion that I wanted to sue them. Even when I told them that I wasn't planning to sue them, and instead mentioned private adjudication—a process, I assume, that can legitimately involve attorneys—they childishly went on calling me a statist, not because it was true, but because it was such a swell smelly ball of excrement to smear on the wall.

This is not unlike the way, whenever they sensed dimly that they were losing the argument at hand, my grandmother Mabel and my wife's grandmother Bertha (no, I am not kidding), both of whom were Roosevelt Democrats with minds so narrow they could look through a keyhole with both eyes, would resort to calling anyone who disagreed with them a communist.

Thus I am a statist asshole.

I have a small bet with myself that if I had informed these opponents of common, civilized behavior that I consider what they have done amounts to an act of initiated force against me—with all of the consequences that entails—intervention on their behalf by the State, most likely in the form of badged and uniformed policemen who could prevent me from dealing with them directly, myself, would suddenly, miraculously appear a whole lot more attractive and morally acceptable.

But, statist asshole that I am, I have digressed.

At some point, I realized that the topic of intellectual property rights (about which I have never before been particularly interested) would have to be dealt with in Where We Stand, the volume I'm currently writing on libertarian policy, and that if I were to write an article about this little flapette for my editorial journal The Libertarian Enterprise, it might be suitable for the book. I conveyed that idea to the plagiarists as politely as I could, and put off any further argument with them until the article could be written and published.

The very next thing I knew, I was being defamed, by the leader of these scavengers and parasites, to all sixteen of the listeners to his Internet radio show, and all over the Internet. But, of course, had I decided sue the guy for libel, slander, and defamation, in addition to his plagiarism, that would have made me a statist asshole all over again.

Property rights need to be clearly defined. ;)

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-19-2010, 05:55 PM
The Shire Society reaction... :(



Property rights need to be clearly defined. ;)

Property rights do not need to be clearly defined in a mere declaration. They do need to be articulated though. A declaration (of this kind) is nothing more than a secession document filled with grievances against the former ruler. Philosophically articulating the reasons for such grievances and for what you stand for. Yes, I would have liked the declaration to at least be more piercing, but it does what it is supposed to do.

I've laid out the case against IP. I wonder if the estate of Thomas Jefferson will sue L. Neil Smith over IP infringement on the ideas of liberty, freedom, and a declaration of independence. (See how absurd this is..)

Now imagine if Ian and the rest had never heard of L. Neil. Never read anything, never had any knowledge of anything L. Neil had ever done. They sat down and wrote this document. How can anyone claim that, that is theft?

Travlyr
07-19-2010, 06:11 PM
Property rights do not need to be clearly defined in a mere declaration. They do need to be articulated though. A declaration (of this kind) is nothing more than a secession document filled with grievances against the former ruler. Philosophically articulating the reasons for such grievances and for what you stand for. Yes, I would have liked the declaration to at least be more piercing, but it does what it is supposed to do.

I've laid out the case against IP. I wonder if the estate of Thomas Jefferson will sue L. Neil Smith over IP infringement on the ideas of liberty, freedom, and a declaration of independence. (See how absurd this is..)

Now imagine if Ian and the rest had never heard of L. Neil. Never read anything, never had any knowledge of anything L. Neil had ever done. They sat down and wrote this document. How can anyone claim that, that is theft?
I agree with you on this.

I just cannot agree with a stateless society... it makes no sense... too many issues like this. Yet that's for a different thread. I don't want to derail this one. :cool:

agorist ninja
07-19-2010, 06:16 PM
Edit: Whoops, I got confused. Thought this was about J. Neil Schulman, not L. Neil Smith. Too many Neils makes the brain hurt.

Edit #2, #3, #4: Okay, seeing as how both Neils are copyright proponents, and that J. Neil is posting L. Neil's response at his blog, here is a revised version of my original post:

Yeah, just for the record, IP has no connection to agorism. Every agorist I, personally, know rejects IP outright. Despite J. Neil Schulman's claims, it's his own little personal fetish. Sure, his novel was very important in popularizing some of SEK3's ideas. But that's where it ends. That novel doesn't buy him perpetual immunity to scrutiny. His actions, in this case, are indeed that of a statist. He is helping L. Neil, by cross-posting L. Neil's response to the Shire Society on his personal blog, to justify a potential use of the state, through Intellectual Property rights, against innocent peoples. Both Neils deserve every bit of scorn coming their way.

Also, check the discussion page on agorism's wiki. J. Neil Schulman has been a weasel there, too.

(BTW, SEK3 thought IP was rubbish.)

Edit #5: Deleted my unnecessary insult toward L. Neil.

CCTelander
07-19-2010, 06:25 PM
Just for the record, I didn't post Smith's essay as an opportunity to bash him, though in this case I think he definitely deserves any criticism he receives.

I still hold L. Neil in high regard and, in fact, it was one of his novels (The Probability Broach) that finally enabled me to dispell my last lingering reservations against a stateless society. It isn't that TPB offered any intellectual arguments I hadn't already been exposed to. It was more that it painted a picture, in detail, of how such a society could actually work in the real world.

All that being said, Smith is most definitely wrong on this issue, and deserves any criticism he receives. If for no other reason than it being obvious that he didn't even bother to inform himself regarding the more substantive and compelling arguments against IP before trashing others for "violating" it.

I still think that the folks behind the Shire Society document should have credited Smith, however. And I also still think Smith's Covenant of Unanimous Consent is a superior document.

CCTelander
07-19-2010, 06:50 PM
L. Neil Smith is a complete and utter douche. There is my ad hominem for Smith. You cannot steal ideas. Was Thomas Jefferson supposed to credit Lao Tzu in the Declaration of Independence? What about John Locke, or Thomas Aquinas? This goes beyond absurdity.

The only reason we have property rights in the first place from a utilitarian standpoint is because of scarcity. When it comes to ideas, there is no scarcity. The imagination is unlimited, infinite. L Neil is surely not the first person to think of these ideas. According to him he stole his ideas from previous authors and intellectuals, and so on down the line. Who then was the originator of the idea of freedom and liberty? It was surely over 5000 years ago.

I like to demonstrate the absurdity of IP using what we all use -- the English language. Imagine if the creator of the English Language copyrighted and rubberstamped it with IP. Even by uttering one single word, or writting one single letter you would be "aggressing against his property". Listen to that again -- our very speech shows the absurdity of IP.

L. Neil go away. Its obvious to me you aren't sincere in your beliefs. If you were, you would be overjoyed that your work is being used for real progress, and real strides towards liberty and -- shock -- you might want to actually join in the cause. No, instead you want a monopoly on your idea of freedom, of liberty, which is to say that is no liberty or freedom at all. While I would have liked Ian and the rest to have come up with a more original declaration, this is nonetheless not theft.


AED, I agree with most everything you said here regarding IP, particularly the part I bolded. I think, at times, people tend to let their own egos get in the way of even what they themselves would, or should recognize to be progress.

CCTelander
07-20-2010, 01:01 AM
Looks like *I* was in error in some of my above comments.

After a little searching online I've discovered that the folks behind the Shire Society document DID, in fact, credit Smith's Covenant of Unanimous Consent as their inspiration, and continue to do so.

Therefore I happily retract my criticism of them for failing to do so, and admit my own error in both claiming that they hadn't, and failing to bother to even check before making such a claim.

My sincere apologies to all involved.

J Neil Schulman
07-20-2010, 11:38 AM
[QUOTE=agorist ninja;2799838]Edit: Whoops, I got confused. Thought this was about J. Neil Schulman, not L. Neil Smith. Too many Neils makes the brain hurt.

Edit #2, #3, #4: Okay, seeing as how both Neils are copyright proponents, and that J. Neil is posting L. Neil's response at his blog, here is a revised version of my original post:

Yeah, just for the record, IP has no connection to agorism. Every agorist I, personally, know rejects IP outright. Despite J. Neil Schulman's claims, it's his own little personal fetish. Sure, his novel was very important in popularizing some of SEK3's ideas. But that's where it ends. That novel doesn't buy him perpetual immunity to scrutiny. His actions, in this case, are indeed that of a statist.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Agorist Ninja" (whoever you are in real life):


J. Neil -- not L. Neil -- here. Here's some history of Agorism and CounterEconomics you may not know:

The first ever presentations of Counter Economics and Agorism were at CounterCon I in 1974 and CounterCon II in 1975, organized by Your Truly and the tapes of which licensed by Yours Truly to Robert Kephart's Audio Forum.

SEK3 and I outlined the book Counter-Economics together on the drive across the country from NYC to L.A. in August, 1975. Much of this outline was written by us in Brian Monahan's basement in Kansas City. Brian Monahan and his son Scott were both attendees at Countercon II. My literary agent at the time, Oscar Collier, tried to get us a publishing contract based on our chapters and outline, but failed. The major concepts from our collaboration appeared first in Alongside Night in 1979 (I finished the first draft on May 1, 1976) then a year later -- 1980 -- in The New Libertarian Manifesto. Sam later finished the book on his own and Victor Koman possesses the manuscript and tells me he intends to publish it through KoPubco one of these days.

SEK3 and I both had earlier influences that inspired us in our approaches to countereconomics and Agorism, including but not limited to: Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Robert LeFevre, Robert A. Heinlein, Ayn Rand, Ralph Fucetola, Eric Frank Russell, A.J. Galambos (indirectly), Lysander Spooner -- need I go on?

That the first expression of Agorism first appeared in my novel should be evidence to someone not bound and determined to rewrite history that I didn't just express "SEK3's" ideas. Sam and I had more agreements than disagreements, but we didn't agree on everything; and some ideas which are taken for granted today as originating with SEK3 came from me -- and I'm not sure that even if Sam were able to respond in this forum he'd be able to clarify out of many late-night sessions between us over dark coffee and darker beer which ideas ultimately came from which mouth first.

I will say this. Sam opposed statist copyright, as did Robert LeFevre; but LeFevre endorsed my Logorights article and SEK3 never attempted to refute it, even after I explicitly replied in it to his "Copywrongs" article for Wendy McElroy's Voluntaryist. And one reason might well be that SEK3's own concept of property rights deriving from a person's "egosphere" was the same fundamental theory of property rights I was using for my natural-law and natural-rights defense of created information objects.

And for the record -- SEK3 allowed authors to post copyright notices for their writings in all of his publications.

--J. Neil (not L. Neil) Schulman

hazek
07-16-2012, 12:53 PM
I just found this and I find it really cool!

Keith and stuff
07-16-2012, 12:59 PM
You certainly don't have to live in New Hampshire to sign it. BTW, there is a whole website.
Sign it here http://shiresociety.com/
Add yourself to the map here http://shiresociety.com/map/
Post in the forum here http://forum.shiresociety.com/

hazek
07-16-2012, 01:04 PM
Cool, I'll definitely take a look and possibly also sign. The only reservation I have towards that is the use of the concept of rights that I do not believe can be productive in the long run and prefer the concept of a specific objective goal and the objective requirements for reaching said goal.

Keith and stuff
07-21-2012, 04:01 PM
The new The Shire Society 4x4 inch bumper stickers and static clings are here! Here's one of the designs:
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s720x720/554970_504791339548050_72918191_n.jpg

The sticker comes in orange on black or all orange, and the static cling is orange on black.

You can pick them up in Keene at the Keene Activity Center or in Grafton, NH. Or, get one by mail for free - just follow the instructions here: http://shiresociety.com/tools/