The Case for the State

It's easy. Government is no problem so long as everyone has the right to opt out without physically relocating. The radical right to peaceful secession in situ.

The state is institutional chaos.

@Bryan-

The problem is that "people banding together to prevent X" needs to be defined.

I don't have a right to band together with my neighbors in order to lynch all of the prostitutes. I do have a right to sign an agreement with willing neighbors that none of us will be or buy the services of prostitutes. But it is obvious that such an agreement would not be a State.

Also, I'd bet money that no statist of any kind could come anywhere near beating Tom Woods in a debate. And "free state" is an oxymoron.

Originally Posted by Acala

It's easy. Government is no problem so long as everyone has the right to opt out without physically relocating.

I disagree with this premise. If someone bought some property knowing there were limitations to their use and signed a contract that they would opt-in to those limitations, then how would it not be a violation of their moral obligation to decided that they later opted out? This construct applies to something like a home owners association all the way up to a state, when you buy a house within a defined jurisdiction you know what the deed restrictions/ordinances/laws are and you are bound to follow them, you can not opt out without physically relocating. No ones liberty is violated by enforcing the contract that was agreed upon.

In theory, the solution is simple, don't buy land where you don't agree with the terms. (In practice, this isn't so easy...)

Thank you for the reply.

Originally Posted by Henry Rogue

The state is institutional chaos.

Could you please expand on your statement or provide a direct counter argument to one of my points?

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Bryan

I disagree with this premise. If someone bought some property knowing there were limitations to their use and signed a contract that they would opt-in to those limitations, then how would it not be a violation of their moral obligation to decided that they later opted out? This construct applies to something like a home owners association all the way up to a state, when you buy a house within a defined jurisdiction you know what the deed restrictions/ordinances/laws are and you are bound to follow them, you can not opt out without physically relocating. No ones liberty is violated by enforcing the contract that was agreed upon.

In theory, the solution is simple, don't buy land where you don't agree with the terms. (In practice, this isn't so easy...)

Thank you for the reply.

The problem is that the terms aren't actually agreed upon. Monopoly-States control basically the entire planet. Its like saying you consent to get robbed by walking through dark alleyways at night, only worse because you actually can realistically avoid walking through dark alleyways at night.

I find it odd that a Ron Paul supporter would argue that one is "bound" to obey the law whatever it happens to be...

Originally Posted by Bryan

Could you please expand on your statement or provide a direct counter argument to one of my points?

Thank you.

The State is legalized crime (theft via taxation, murder via war, etc.) which one is not legally "allowed" to defend himself against. The main problem people have with "anarchy" is that people would steal from and kill each other, well, the State gives itself legal right to do these things.

Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic

The problem is that "people banding together to prevent X" needs to be defined.

Why is this a problem? Did I use this phrase in my argument?

I don't have a right to band together with my neighbors in order to lynch all of the prostitutes.

Of course not, was there anything in my argument that indicated that you could have this right? If so, please explain.

I do have a right to sign an agreement with willing neighbors that none of us will be or buy the services of prostitutes. But it is obvious that such an agreement would not be a State.

Agreed on the right to sign an agreement, and certainly, this alone would be a stretch to consider a state, but this same signed agreement could be expanded to include a justice system for those accused of violating their agreement, it could be expanded to define a border security system, it could be expanded to define a funding model, it could be expanded to do just about everything that one would associate with a state.

Also, I'd bet money that no statist of any kind could come anywhere near beating Tom Woods in a debate.

The arguments stand on their own merit.

And "free state" is an oxymoron.

Perhaps it depends upon ones definition of "free", and "free state". Could you please provide your definition?

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Bryan

Preface: This message is geared towards those who support voluntarism and is a response to "Are There Any Good Arguments for the State? Tom Woods Video" (So it took me a while to get this out!) This is the first part of a two-part series.

--

(RPFs) Arguing against the state can be counter productive towards the advancement of liberty as there are alternate superior positions that can be upheld. The case for the state rests on three points: semantics, voluntarism and messaging.

For our purposes, the merriam-webster dictionary defines a state as "a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign".

Many who argue against the state generally characterizes this as "a monopoly of power over a defined territory", which functionally matches the dictionary but just puts the terms more bluntly.

Those against the state also argue that in a free society one can own property free from cohesion from a central authority, which is an agreed axiom. But does this point preclude a "state" from existing? What if someone acquired a large piece of property by means of voluntary exchange and then decided to subdivide it out for sale, but with strings attached to each sale. A simple attached string could be that you will keep your property orderly. Other possible and logical attached strings could be that you would limit the use of the property to certain criteria, or help cover expenses for a common security parameter. These are all voluntary arrangements not unlike what many home owners associations use today. The level of strings attached could also be much more significant, even defining its own enforcement agents and dispute resolution system. In sum, the terms could establish a central authority over the property. Of course, if the terms of a deal are unfavorable then there likely won't be anyone interested in buying one of the subdivided pieces of property but that is a matter of personal choice. If this was a voluntarist society then there would be no other authority to claim power over it, and it being a voluntarist society the individuals could agree to whatever terms they wish, regardless of how good or bad they are.

With that, we have the construct for a state based on a free society. This argument undoubtedly can leave some of those who oppose all forms of a state as claiming this isn't a state, which leads back to the issue of semantics. Can the described volunteer construct be considered a state or not? By all accounts, it does match the definition of creating a monopoly of power over the defined territory. Anti-state supporters can still argue however that it's not a state, and effectively have to uphold the position that states can not be voluntary, even though nothing in the definition of a state says it can't be. Ultimately, the matter does comes down to whatever personal semantics one subscribes to, but this leads to the third point: messaging.

At what point in history did semantics become a dirty word? I believe this is the third time this week I've heard it used to dismiss an argument. Rights vs. Privilege, semantics. Automatic rifle vs. Semiautomatic rifle, semantics. State vs. Voluntary contract, semantics. I recall a thread where a company put a stipulation in its on line agreement, that the buyer shall face a $500.00 fine if the buyer writes a bad review of the company. A woman did write a bad review, the company did demand a fine be paid. Was it paid? No. Did the company show up at the womans door in SWAT gear, break down her door, throw flash bangs in her bed? The answer is No. Should the company execute such an act, the woman and/or associates if armed, could very well dispatch the intruders. Ignore the State's penalty and you will undoubtedly recieve a visit and even if you do when one battle, you will surely loose the last.

Originally Posted by Bryan

In pursuit of a free society, liberty seekers must engage others who disagree with them and present an argument to change their world view, one quickly finds out this is no easy task. In talking with an individual who supports victimless crime laws and who wants to have a controlled society they are in effect arguing in favor of a state or something functionally equivalent to it. For example, many people don't want to have prostitutes and drug dealers (or whatever) on every street corner. Part of a voluntarily society allows congregation of individuals with similar social standards, and if they want to congregate as such and call that a state, then why wouldn't you let them? Is there really functional value in trying to convince someone to not call something a state when it has all the attributes of what they seek and they in fact want to call it a state? Why make things hard on yourself?

Worse, if people only see statements such as "the state is illegitimate" in some headline without processing a logical argument then they can be driven further away from your viewpoint as it may be deemed radical, unsafe and undesirable. The point to this is that if you want to engage in good messaging you should use language that your target audience can understand and not expect them to understand your definitions off-hand, particularly when you are not engaged in a direct two way interaction with them.

I agree with this. If an anarchist can't convince a libertarian, he/she will have little luck convincing a totalitarian. I do find value in moving the Liberty meter and I refrain from actively pushing the stateless message on RPF, except when voluntarism is directly challenged, as it has been in this thread. Personally, I doubt I have ever convinced anyone of anything on this forum, that they didn't already believe themselves. That is probably the case for most, I would guess.

Originally Posted by Bryan

A final nail in the coffin against the argument for an anti-state thesis, and the idea that states can't be voluntary, is to examine the attributes of most of the current nations that are agreed to be "states". In almost all cases, being a "citizen" of a state is a voluntary act as individual's aren't prevented from leaving.

Huh?

Originally Posted by Bryan

The issue however is that if someone feels they are being subject to the tyranny of a state and are told, "If you don't like it, just leave." where are they to leave to? This is certainly a valid counter point, but it does not change the definition of what a state is or isn't.

While there is a good case for the state, there is an equally important need for a free state, which resolves the "just leave" issue.

[Note: Part 2 will address the "just leave" argument].

Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic

The problem is that the terms aren't actually agreed upon.

Agreed to a point, but also see my third argument on Messaging. If you are to engage someone to try to change their viewpoint you are likely better off using language that they understand and relate to.

Monopoly-States control basically the entire planet. Its like saying you consent to get robbed by walking through dark alleyways at night, only worse because you actually can realistically avoid walking through dark alleyways at night.

I find it odd that a Ron Paul supporter would argue that one is "bound" to obey the law whatever it happens to be...

I agree, this is the crux issue, and the points that I will address in part two. None-the-less, the fact that states control basically the entire planet doesn't change the meaning of a state.

Bryan, the issue is that I (And most people here) would assert that people actually DON'T have the right to gather together and impose laws against prostitutes and drug dealers. Anymore than you have some kind of right to gather together and lynch blacks...

Originally Posted by Bryan

I disagree with this premise. If someone bought some property knowing there were limitations to their use and signed a contract that they would opt-in to those limitations, then how would it not be a violation of their moral obligation to decided that they later opted out? This construct applies to something like a home owners association all the way up to a state, when you buy a house within a defined jurisdiction you know what the deed restrictions/ordinances/laws are and you are bound to follow them, you can not opt out without physically relocating. No ones liberty is violated by enforcing the contract that was agreed upon.

In theory, the solution is simple, don't buy land where you don't agree with the terms. (In practice, this isn't so easy...)

Thank you for the reply.

All contracts are breachable; such is the nature of contracts. And those contracts are also voided when the land is inherited; otherwise you'd be born into a contract you did not agree to.

Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic

The State is legalized crime (theft via taxation, murder via war, etc.) which one is not legally "allowed" to defend himself against.

You don't have to defend yourself, all you have to do is not purchase land or live within the jurisdiction of a state you don't like. My initial argument however indicates that while this is a valid point there is an equally valid counter point of "where are they to leave to?" -- to which I will address in part two.

The main problem people have with "anarchy" is that people would steal from and kill each other, well, the State gives itself legal right to do these things.

Originally Posted by Bryan

You don't have to defend yourself, all you have to do is not purchase land or live within the jurisdiction of a state you don't like. My initial argument however indicates that while this is a valid point there is an equally valid counter point of "where are they to leave to?" -- to which I will address in part two.

The problem is no moral requirement to simply not live in areas where powerful gangs with legal monopolies exist simply because people have illegitimately created such institutions.

I know you love liberty, don't throw it away by giving into statist presuppositions before the conversation even starts.

Originally Posted by Henry Rogue

At what point in history did semantics become a dirty word? I believe this is the third time this week I've heard it used to dismiss an argument. Rights vs. Privilege, semantics. Automatic rifle vs. Semiautomatic rifle, semantics. State vs. Voluntary contract, semantics.

I'm not sure where I am saying semantics is a dirty word? I am saying that it is understandable that different people can have a different understanding of what constitutes a state and what doesn't-- which gets to my third point on messaging (where we agree) that you should engage someone with semantics that they understand.

I recall a thread where a company put a stipulation in its on line agreement, that the buyer shall face a $500.00 fine if the buyer writes a bad review of the company. A woman did write a bad review, the company did demand a fine be paid. Was it paid? No. Did the company show up at the womans door in SWAT gear, break down her door, throw flash bangs in her bed? The answer is No. Should the company execute such an act, the woman and/or associates if armed, could very well dispatch the intruders. Ignore the State's penalty and you will undoubtedly recieve a visit and even if you do when one battle, you will surely loose the last.

I'm not sure where this is applied to my points. Otherwise, yes, the company would possibly be in its right to pursue a judgement against the lady, if the agreement was really legally binding (which I'd think it might not). The counter (and smart) position is to not do business with anyone who wants to suppress legitimate negative reviews since that can't lead to anything good.

Huh?

I'm not following you here. Are you saying that you don't agree that most states will let you leave?

Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic

Bryan, the issue is that I (And most people here) would assert that people actually DON'T have the right to gather together and impose laws against prostitutes and drug dealers.

You seem to be construction an argument that I am not presenting. No where do I say that people have a right to IMPOSE LAWS, I am only saying that individuals can be upheld to contracts they agree to in advance.

To be most clear, there are two very different cases here that we must define:
1. A drug dealer moves into a contractually bound area that prohibits one from dealing drugs. If the drug dealer does deal drugs then they would be in breech of their contract. Here it would be morally acceptable to hold the drug dealer accountable for breaking the contract.
2. A drug dealer moves next to some people who a contract that prohibits one from dealing drugs, but the drug dealer never signs a contract since they don't live wihtin that jurisdiction. Here there is nothing that can be done, the drug dealer never agreed to any contact.

Originally Posted by Natural Citizen

This, I wouldn't agree with. These, in my view, are weasel words. The latter, that is.

Of course, I haven't heard Woods' comments in the other thread that you're linking or even read the rest of your post. I just wanted to stop there and mention my disagreement with accepting that model. Automatically, I remember Koch, Monsanto and Congressman Mike Pompeo getting together and writing legislation that dictates that a state cannot make rules pertaining to the food that their citizens eat. Basically protecting themselves from a free market scenario. Labeling, to be specific.

This becomes a contradictory comparison of definition.

Thanks, I understand and accept your disagreement on the terms- I do later note however, that ones personal definition of the term is of lessor importance then what other peoples definition of the term is. That said, I would suggest you read the whole piece, be sure to not miss point on "message." I would also be interested in your definition of the word "state".

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Bryan

I disagree with this premise. If someone bought some property knowing there were limitations to their use and signed a contract that they would opt-in to those limitations, then how would it not be a violation of their moral obligation to decided that they later opted out? This construct applies to something like a home owners association all the way up to a state, when you buy a house within a defined jurisdiction you know what the deed restrictions/ordinances/laws are and you are bound to follow them, you can not opt out without physically relocating. No ones liberty is violated by enforcing the contract that was agreed upon.

In theory, the solution is simple, don't buy land where you don't agree with the terms. (In practice, this isn't so easy...)

Thank you for the reply.

Social contract theory is a joke--legally, morally, and logically.

I've yet to read your OP (I will) but there is a way for government to operate legitimately (and I hope you touch upon these points).

That is, they are founded upon consent and they act within the law. They've never done that. Instead they rely on a majority unknowingly ruled by a minority to effect this or that with obscure and made-up-as-they-go-along laws.

ETA: Read the OP.

How can an area contract? Either the drug dealer signed a contract or he didn't. If he signed one of his own free will, then he's responsible to uphold it. If not, no. If everyone in an area signed the contract except the dealer, too bad.