No, WWII Did Not End The Great Depression
No, War is NOT Good for Echonomy.
The lies we are being taught:
Read more here:
Frederic Bastiat: That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen
and
http://www.infowars.com/no-wwii-did-...at-depression/
OK. You do agree that you are going off on your own on this then, right? You do know that you are disagreeing with Rothbard, Hoppe, Lew Rockwell, Walter Block, and the vast majority of libertarians for whom you have admiration and who have provided your ideas. The men whose writing adorns this thread. I just want you to be clear on this: none of these men would agree with your position, as you have stated it so far.Originally Posted by Foundation_Of_Liberty
Of course it would.Let's take a simpler example. Suppose Utah governor issued and order saying that all people with blue eyes and helmuth_hubener were no longer allowed to drive on I-15. Would that be just?
Actually, it would be. So there is no reason. The only thing that could make it unjust is if I somehow had an ownership claim on I-15. But I do not. So, my non-existent right to I-15 cannot be violated.Why not?
Now in this special case, everything that the state does is unjust simply by the nature of what the state is and how it operates. It is unjust for the state to have a forcibly-maintained monopoly on the road industry. When one agency arrogates to themselves such a monopoly, why, you could make the case that any limits or restrictions are unjust, even things like mandatory speed limits and traffic signals. But in a normal, private property society, obviously it would not be unjust in the least for the road owner to determine whatever rules and limitations he chooses for his road.
The goal is for all roads to be privately owned. This is not a particularly hard goal to accomplish. Read Walter Block's book (you can read it for free! You should!) on privatizing the roads.
Consider this: under your crazy proposed system of communist roads, how could any road ever be moved or removed? Is this "public" road, bathed in the mystical and unexplainable aura of "publicness", ordained to remain that way to all eternity? No, you will say, the people can vote it out in some democratic process. Let me tell you, I have little to no respect for the democratic process. This is a stupid system. It is a horrible system. It is nothing but mob rule. And Winston Churchill was an idiotic, mass-murderous drunk.
The owner, once there is an owner, is justified in doing arbitrary things with his property. Yes. Obviously. The governor is not the owner, never claimed to be the owner, and no one believes that he is the owner, and yet his bureaucracy does control what happens regarding the road -- and thus the root of many of our problems today.What is the principle of justice that is operating here that determines right from wrong? Is the governor justified in carrying out any arbitrary order concerning I-15?
We should have an actual owner. Not a brain-dead, proven to fail, idiotic system like that myth we call "public property". I am just shocked, shocked!, that anyone as thoughtful as you could believe in such a blatant absurdity. It is an inherent contradiction. Do you also believe in the Nicean Creed? That God is everywhere and nowhere, three but only one, etc.? Public property is no less nonsensical and impossible.
Because we currently live under a crazy system of mob-rule on this continent, and a communist road system happens to be a part of our particular brand of crazy.I agree. You seem to believe that you have zero claim of ownership upon I-15, yet by your vote you might influence how I-15 is managed. Why is that?
OK. No one in Nevada, then? Just the legal residents of Utah, right? And no one from Mexico, Canada, Panama, or anywhere else, right? I want to get your story straight.I think I-15 is public property, that is, it is collectively owned by the people of UT, therefore it can be governed by the voice of the majority of the people. Thus, YOU have a right to travel on I-15, and so is everybody else in UT.
You, of all people, should know that names mean nothing. Authority means nothing, except it be from God. These men made great contribution to the cause of liberty, and I highly respect them for it, however, I believe I have a case, and I can prove it. Truth speaks for itself and is independent of anyone's opinion of it.
See here we disagree. Strongly. It would be highly unjust, and intuitively most people understand it. But I will show you WHY it is unjust.
You, and almost everyone in the country have been robbed, under threat of lethal violence to pay for I-15, whether you used it or not. Why? Because I-15 uses Federal funding, which is extracted through taxation. Since YOUR property has been violated to pay for I-15, according to justice, it makes you a part owner of it, as part of restitution of the violation.
Correct.
Correct.
Correct. Except that the proof of exclusive ownership of I-15 does not currently exist, hence the best approximation currently available (until better proof is produced) is equal ownership, i.e. public property by definition.
Maybe yes, maybe no. Why? Is it inconceivable that residents of a certain geographical location, whose ownership in a road is so profoundly intertwined might decide to treat it according to assumption of equal ownership by all the users? It is possible, and certainly just, until a better proof of ownership is produced AND a decision is made by the owners to restrict free entry into such ownership. For a just arrangement, two elements must be present:A) proof of ownership, and
B) decision by the owners as to government of property.
Of course it can be accomplished. But UNTIL it is accomplished (meaning A and B) the best guesstimate is equal ownership, which is the definition of public property.
So once again, a conversion to private property (and a bar to unrestricted entry into ownership) can be accomplished through the process we discussed earlier. But if this process is not followed, and/or if the users decide not to restrict free entry into co-ownership, public property exists by definition of the term.
“Communist roads” imply the use of AGGRESSIVE violence. The arrangement of just public property (as described in the Third Fundamental Principle) has no aggressive violence in it, and is therefore just by definition.
There is nothing wrong with democratic process as long as it is applied to the things that the group actually owns. Publicly traded companies are governed by the voice of the majority of the shares. That is just, as long as the property of no one is violated in the process. Will you say that Joint ownership of property is a) impossible and b) inherently unjust? I say no. Joint ownership of property can be perfectly just, as long as no aggressive violence is used, and as long as the share of each individual is not violated.
Joint ownership of property is a fact, and there is nothing inherently unjust in it, therefore it has a perfect right to exist.
Right. But what does it have to do with anything?
Right.
What you are missing, however, is that you, and thousands upon thousands of people ARE the owners because they:a) have been using it for years (i.e. First Use is indistinguishable), andtherefore, according to justice they have become part owners of it.
b) they have been forcibly robbed to pay for I-15,
Please show me the contradiction.
Partially.
Public property is the best approximation of ownership available, until a better proof can be given. Therefore it is just. Proof is king. The best available PROOF rules. This is key to this discussion.
Fine. That is the point. Via tradition of the people, and the criminal activity of the state, the ownership claims of thousands if not millions of people upon roads are indistinguishably intertwined (until a better proof can be produced). Therefore the best proof (i.e. the best approximation) must prevail (until a better proof is given). Short of the process you and I described earlier, the best working approximation available is EQUAL ownership by all the residents/users, which is the definition of Public property. If you don't like it, produce a better proof, and have the owners make decisions. UNTIL it is done, Public Property rules (as described in the 3rd Fundamental Principle) must justly prevail.
All the residents of the geographic location who have been users of it, especially if they have been forcefully taxed (i.e. robbed) for it.
Friend, I apreciate your spirited debate. But your response seems to be overly emotional.I prefer cold logic and reason. We are talking science after all.
Logic is king.
Reason is king.
Let's start there.
Thanks.
Last edited by Foundation_Of_Liberty; 07-12-2014 at 09:06 AM.
Walter Block’s new book Toward a Libertarian Society covers a wide variety of topics from the death penalty to secession, and from war to macroeconomics. Dr. Block recently spoke with the Mises Institute about just a few of these. Mises Institute: You say in your book that it is a contradiction in terms to be both libertarian and to be for an aggressive foreign policy. Why is this?
Walter Block: The essence of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle (NAP). This means it is legitimate to use force only in defense, or retaliation, but not to initiate it. However, an aggressive foreign policy is an attempt to export democracy, or the American way of life, or to make things easier for US business, at the point of a gun or a bomb. Thus, this policy necessarily initiates violence against foreigners, but not in defense of their attack on us, nor in retaliation against such. Thus, there is a contradiction. It is as if A were to have the policy of punching B in the nose, where B did not first use violence against A. Clearly, A would be violating the NAP. This is true, however, whether it applies to an individual or a large group, such as a nation. But what about 9-11? Did they not attack us first? No. They were “over here” because we were first “over there.” This was blowback. Had we not stuck our stick into hornet’s nests in that part of the world, they would not have attacked us. They were retaliating against the prior use of force on the part of the US government.
MI: When it comes to the compatibility of libertarianism and labor unions, you say, “it depends.” What does it depend on?
WB: It depends upon whether organized labor violates the NAP. They need not do so in order to pursue their goals, which is an improvement in the wages and working conditions of their members. For they do have one legitimate weapon in their arsenal: the mass quit. If one person goes to the boss demanding improved pay, he is likely to be shown the door. But if he says that all 500 employees will walk out of the factory unless their demands are met, or at least negotiated, the boss is more likely to make a counteroffer. If the union limits itself to this sort of threat, it is entirely legitimate and is acting in accordance with libertarian requirements. However, unions rarely, if ever, limit themselves to a threatened mass quit. They also use violence against those who try to pass through their picket lines, such as replacement workers, or raw materials entering the firm’s property, or finished goods leaving it. It is as if a husband divorces his wife, but they surround her house with his friends who threaten to beat up any potential suitor of hers. Leaving her, a quit, is justified; using violence against competitors, is not.
MI: When it comes to building a better economy, you say that it is production that counts and not jobs. What does this mean?
WB: The goal is not jobs, but the goods and services jobs bring about. If we could have the latter without the former, that is, banish scarcity, all would be lovely. We could play (do whatever we enjoyed) the live-long day. Unfortunately we want more things than is available; that is why we have to work for them. Suppose that the “jobs” consisted of digging holes in the ground, and filling them up again, and that everyone did this and nothing else. At the end of the day, we would have had mass employment, and we would all starve to death because these “jobs” produced nothing to keep us alive.
MI: One should not be surprised at all that you oppose the drug war, but what is the most important reason to oppose the drug war?
WB: There are many reasons to oppose the drug war. It creates havoc in the lives of drug users. It promotes crime. As a result of it, we have all too many people in jail. It is a victimless crime, when limited to consenting adults. But the most important reason to be against it is that the drug war violates the NAP. It uses violence against peaceful users, and entrepreneurs who supply this good to them.
MI: How do you cure poverty? What is the best short answer to this question when a non-libertarian asks about it?
WB: A very short answer is: promote private property rights, laissez faire capitalism, and the NAP of libertarianism. A longer answer would mention the fact that in the free enterprise system, the only way to become wealthy (that is, cure poverty), is to engage in commercial interaction. But this necessarily improves the well-being of all parties to the exchange. Whenever Bill Gates sold a computer to someone for $500, that person valued it at more than this amount, otherwise he would not have purchased it; and it cost Bill Gates less than that figure to produce the computer. Otherwise, he would have gone broke. Each and every commercial transaction, buying, selling, renting, bartering, borrowing, lending, employing, etc., is mutually beneficial at least in the ex antesense of anticipations (we engage in the market since we expect to gain thereby). Free enterprise is necessarily in this sense a wealth creating institution. How else can poverty be cured, but by creating wealth?
MI: You’ve also written extensively on environmentalism and free markets. Without government, wouldn’t we all have to drink filthy water and breathe dirty air?
WB: Private property rights, along with the NAP, are the two sides of the libertarian coin. Both are essential. But what is pollution, whether air or water borne, other than a trespass of smoke and dust particles onto the property, and into the lungs, of other people? The government unfortunately, for many years, has not allowed people to sue each other for such trespasses. If they had allowed this to occur, the challenge of filthy water and dirty air would have long ago been overcome.
The Best of Walter E. Block
Dr. Block [send him mail] is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending the Undefendable, The Case for Discrimination, Labor Economics From A Free Market Perspective, Building Blocks for Liberty, Differing Worldviews in Higher Education, and The Privatization of Roads and Highways. His latest book is Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty.
Celebrating the Overthrow of Tyranny
Ron Paul on the real meaning of July 4th.
I wasn't saying "you are wrong because you disagree with Rothbard." I wasn't making an argument from authority, or an argument at all. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page and that you realized you were going off on your own on this deviation. We are, and you do. Perfect.
You will show me why it would be unjust to deprive me of the use of property that isn't mine. OK, let's see how that is:See here we disagree. Strongly. It would be highly unjust, and intuitively most people understand it. But I will show you WHY it is unjust.
Yes, we both understand this. The principle is simple:You, and almost everyone in the country have been robbed, under threat of lethal violence to pay for I-15, whether you used it or not. Why? Because I-15 uses Federal funding, which is extracted through taxation. Since YOUR property has been violated to pay for I-15, according to justice, it makes you a part owner of it, as part of restitution of the violation.
A thief took my stuff.
I should get it back.
You and I both agree to that principle, the principle of restitution.
But do I have the right to the eternal and perpetual use of the thief's living room? That would be the principle:
A thief took my stuff.
I shouldn't get it back.
I, and my descendants, and their descendants, should get to party in the thief's living room perpetually and eternally.
That doesn't seem like quite as good a principle.
Nobody stole the road from me. I never did own I-15. I didn't homestead it, I didn't build it, nothing. What they did steal was my money. And what I'd like back is my money. It's so simple!
What requirements and restrictions will be imposed on the usage of I-15 is an internal management decision, not a Great Moral Question. The moral problems are the monopoly on road provision and the theft funding it all.
This communist system of ownership is not desirable. It does not work.Maybe yes, maybe no. Why? Is it inconceivable that residents of a certain geographical location, whose ownership in a road is so profoundly intertwined might decide to treat it according to assumption of equal ownership by all the users? It is possible, and certainly just, until a better proof of ownership is produced AND a decision is made by the owners to restrict free entry into such ownership. For a just arrangement, two elements must be present:A) proof of ownership, and
B) decision by the owners as to government of property.
There are many, many, many types and modes and regions of property where the historical and legal provenance is anything but perfect and rigorous, like a mathematical proof. What about areas that were used as communal farming grounds by peasants? Do we need to restore all of that to its former communist glory? Shared hunting grounds? The problems that you see with privatizing roads and waterways exist also with essentially all land in general. Do you want to abolish private property in land altogether, then?
I believe it does. How are these“Communist roads” imply the use of AGGRESSIVE violence. The arrangement of just public property (as described in the Third Fundamental Principle) has no aggressive violence in it, and is therefore just by definition.communist"just, public" roads paid for and maintained? By "just, public" taxes! The users use the "just, public" process of "just, public" democracy to "justly, publicly" decide how much I should pay for their forsaken road, and to "justly, publicly" kick in my door and take it if I don't like it. Am I right? If not, explain how all the "just, public" property is going to be paid for and maintained.
The whole point and definition of so-called "public" property is that one can't define the group. Once the group is defined, it's no longer public property.There is nothing wrong with democratic process as long as it is applied to the things that the group actually owns.
Fundamental: "I think I-15 is public property, that is, it is collectively owned by the people of UT, therefore it can be governed by the voice of the majority of the people. Thus, YOU have a right to travel on I-15, and so is everybody else in UT."
Helmuth: "OK. No one in Nevada, then? Just the legal residents of Utah, right? And no one from Mexico, Canada, Panama, or anywhere else, right? I want to get your story straight."
Fundamental: "All the residents of the geographic location who have been users of it, especially if they have been forcefully taxed (i.e. robbed) for it."
Asking again: So no one in Nevada, then? Those who are users, but not residents of the geographic location, have no just right to travel on the road. Those who live in Las Vegas have no just right to travel on I-15 from Provo to Salt Lake, not being residents there. Right?
If you read through my posts over the past many years, you will see I always use about the same style. I do like to try to make my writing colorful, and as you say, "spirited," rather than dry and boring. Please do not confuse that with being emotional -- I think you'll find me very calm and level-headed. I worry from your comment you may have taken my somewhat confrontational style personally. Please understand that I did not mean it personally in the least.Friend, I appreciate your spirited debate. But your response seems to be overly emotional.
Just ownership theory states that the rightful owner of the property is either the first user of it, or recipient of it from a previous owner via voluntary gift, bequest or sale. A) The first user is unknown. B) You have been robbed to pay for it, which means you are a part owner of it until a restitution can be made. From this, the best approximation must be made as to ownership of I-15. Unless a detailed analysis is made and a process that we described earlier applied, the best available approximation is equal ownership by all the users. This approximation must hold until a better and convincing proof is given. It takes work to produce such a proof and to identify rightful owners. Until that is done, equal ownership is the best guesstimate i.e.: you have just as much right to travel on that road as the next man.
It very well might not be desirable in most cases, but it will have to do, until you have a convincing proof of ownership and have the owners arrive at a decision.
Not at all. I simply point out the justice of the view that status quo of ownership must prevail until a convincing, just proof can be given to alter the status quo. No proof = no change of ownership. I think you will agree that it is reasonable and just.
Public property user fees. That is the only just way to do it. You use it, you pay for it. You don’t, you don’t.
I beg to disagree. Let me give you a for instance. Suppose there is a rich guy who says to himself I own a beautiful park. It is truly a masterpiece. I as the owner decide that I donate this park to all the citizens of the city I live in. It shall be managed by the voice of the majority of the residents of the city, from this time onward. So that any new resident of the city becomes voting part-owner of the park as long as he maintains a residence in the city.
Can this man do that? Yes. Is it just? Yes.
In essence, that’s what current public property, de facto, is. This current status quo of joint-ownership cannot be justly changed unless A) a better proof is given, and B) the owners make a decision to alter status quo.
A federal interstate should be equally owned by the residents of the states through which it passes. This should prevail until (A) and (B) are satisfied.
Fair enough. Thank you. I enjoy your posts. Bring on reason, logic and truth.
Last edited by Foundation_Of_Liberty; 07-12-2014 at 09:02 AM.
There are two broad categories of issues that your posts put forth, and which I'd like to address.
1. Transitional difficulty in switching over from the current, statist system to a new, 100% private property system.
2. A belief model in which you think so-called "public property" can fit into a just libertarian system.
The first category is minor. The second goes to the fundamental nature and definition of what "public property" is.
1
Transitional Difficulties
The first should not be all that difficult to address. Privatizing roads is not actually that difficult of a problem. You should just read and absorb Walter Block's book on the matter. Privatizing playgrounds, and duck ponds, and whatever other so-called "public" property about which you may be concerned are tasks even less difficult -- that is, it requires even less imagination to see how these could be done without causing any disruptions nor widespread difficulties.
What about privatizing the electrical grid, or the water supply network, or the wireless spectrum? These are complex problems indeed; probably far more complex than simple primitive roadways like I-15 between Salt Lake and Provo. Yet you have no disclaimer in your philosophy for them. You make no jarring exception to your consistency for them. Am I right? You just believe -- as do I -- that the electricity industry should simply be completely private. Am I right?
What about privatizing Social Security? Very difficult transition! So what do you say to that? "Well, let's leave it in place as a so-called 'public' system until/unless the participants can get everything sorted out and agree on a solution via majority rule"?
What about privatizing the police, the prisons, and the court system? Talk about a very difficult transition! The mind boggles! Yet you do not shy away from advocating just such a transition. Do you? You do not. And rightly, and courageously, so.
All these transitions are difficult. But the pay-off for going through them -- for replacing so-called "public" ownership and management with true private ownership and management -- is worth it in every case. There are no exceptions. And so difficulty is really no excuse at all. The right action may not always be the easy action. But difficulty is not the same as impossibility. Though it may not be easy, yet the right thing should always be done.
Let me address a specific thing you have written:
The first owner is unknown in many cases of existent property! This doesn't really mess anything up. As you say, "Status quo of ownership must prevail until a convincing, just proof can be given to alter the status quo." This is a fine rule of thumb. "Possession is 9/10th of the law" after all.
Right now, the status quo is not that "everyone" somehow "equally" owns I-15. That is total bunk. The status quo is that the USA federal government owns it. They hold title to it. They manage it. They pay for it. They decide who may and who may not travel on it. They have complete and utter dictatorial control over it. This institution is unquestionably the owner. Period. Everyone does not currently have some sort of equal right to access and use I-15. Obviously they do not. A very limited group of persons may use it, in very limited and restricted ways.
The status quo would be for the federal government to remain the owner. This is a more or less unacceptable status quo to us because we think the federal government is an immoral institution which should be stripped of all its ill-gotten properties. There is ample proof of this. And so, an alteration in the status quo is made: the federal government auctions off the interstate highway system piece by piece to the highest bidder, and, ideally, gives the proceeds to the taxpayers as (partial, meager) restitution for years and years of abuse.
Am I a part owner of the contents of the refrigerator of the welfare mother down the street? Does all her food, her house, and her clothing, become the equal property of me and everyone else until some sort of ridiculous majority vote can decide otherwise? Is that the "best approximation"?B) You have been robbed to pay for it, which means you are a part owner of it until a restitution can be made.
I would say this is the worst approximation. This is an approximation which:the best available approximation is equal ownership by all the users.
1. bears no relationship to reality, and, even more importantly,
2. is completely unworkable and disastrous
Point two has been thoroughly and convincingly proven by sound social science and by the historical record.
What if the majority votes otherwise? What if they would rather fund it through taxation? What if the user fees don't cover maintenance costs and I-15 becomes impassable -- then no one can travel on the road? What if they charge too much and I can no longer afford to commute on the road, which I count on for my livelihood? What if they charge just me specifically too much? What if they charge an extra $1,000 per trip for purple Volkswagon Bugs? What if they vote to charge double to non-Mormons? Would any of these actions be... unjust?[How is public property paid for?] Public property user fees. That is the only just way to do it. You use it, you pay for it. You don’t, you don’t.
2
So-called "Public Property" can be Just and Libertarian
You defend public property as possibly just, and give what you think is an example of just and rightful public property:
Actually, no and no. Now don't get me wrong, the principles you're basing this instance on are sound. But you're a bit off in the details.I beg to disagree. Let me give you a for instance. Suppose there is a rich guy who says to himself I own a beautiful park. It is truly a masterpiece. I as the owner decide that I donate this park to all the citizens of the city I live in. It shall be managed by the voice of the majority of the residence of the city, from this time onward. So that any new resident of the city becomes voting part-owner of the park as long as he maintains a residence in the city.
Can this man do that? Yes. Is it just? Yes.
Rich Guy can give gifts, including parks, to whatever arbitrary group of people he choses. True. Mr. Guy can give $10 each to all red-headed women 6 feet and over. Or he can give 1/5,042nd share of a park to everyone living within the boundaries of some circle he draws on the map, as you propose. Great.
But you know who else has rights in these gift transactions? Whose rights you have completely and utterly forgotten? The recipients!! They have rights, too! Perhaps I'm a red-head and I don't want to accept his $10; I think it looks improper, or tacky. Guess what? I can mail it back. What if I live in the map circle and don't want a share of a park? I can refuse to accept the share. I can mail it back, or otherwise legally renounce it. In short: I can opt out.
Because, you see, Rich doesn't own the circle he drew on the map, no more than he owns red-headedness, or height. It's not his city (if it is, that's another matter). He almost surely does not actually know who all lives within its borders, and it's none of the owners' obligation to tell him. He most assuredly will not know when people move in and out, and once he has given away all the shares in the property, he has no more say on what happens to it anyway. My 5042nd share remains mine even if I move away. I don't have to give it up. And the park company is certainly under no obligation to give some newcomer a share just because he moved in.
So our friend Rich Guy can indeed do these things:
1. Form a corporation
2. Give the corporation ownership of any property he rightfully owns
3. Give all the shares of that corporation away to whatever individual or group he chooses
4. Watch helplessly as the new owners do whatever they want to do with their new-found property
He cannot:
5. Decide what group of people will own the park. ("He donates this park to all the citizens of the city he lives in.") They can refuse to own it. They can opt out.
6. Have any on-going say on how the property is managed after he is no longer the owner ("It shall be managed by the voice of the majority of the residence of the city, from this time onward"). Owners decide. Non-owners don't.
7. Give any new shares to new move-ins. ("any new resident of the city becomes voting part-owner of the park"). Mr. Guy has no shares to give. You can't give what you don't have.
8. Make people give up their shares when they move out. ("as long as he maintains a residence in the city"). Mr. Guy is out of the picture. He can do squat.
Doing 1 through 4 is perfectly normal and fine. It also has nothing to do with public property. The group that owns the park is perfectly and clearly defined at every stage. There are exactly 5042 people, each with a precise 1/5042nd share, and a certificate to prove it. There's no conflict. There's no confusion. There's no majority ruling over a minority. There's unanimous consent and nothing but perfectly voluntary interaction.
Doing 5-8 would be madness. And that, my friend, would be public property. Or at least bear some resemblance to it -- the ownership would still be better-defined than in public property as we know it.
With private property, one can opt in. And one can opt out. With so-called "public" property? One can't. That is a problem. That is unjust.
The whole point and definition of so-called "public" property is that one can't define the group. If the group is defined, it's not public property.
So, by this rule, if I am understanding you correctly, the residents of Montana, Idaho, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and California, all should be given equal title to the road(s) called I-15. But I-15 between Salt Lake and Provo only passes through Utah. Why should it matter that some other road in Nevada happens to have the same name? What if it had a different name -- changed its name at the border? Would that matter? If so, why? If not, why not?A federal interstate should be equally owned by the residents of the states through which it passes. This should prevail until (A) and (B) are satisfied.
Thanks. All the best!Fair enough. Thank you. I enjoy your posts. Bring on reason, logic and truth.
Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 07-10-2014 at 11:45 AM.
Difficulty was never the argument against privatization. Choice was. The only point I made was that residents of a certain location, being the best provable owners, may CHOOSE to leave certain things in public domain, to be governed according to justice by the voice of the majority of the residents of the location. It is conceivable that such a choice may be made by residents of certain locality. Heck, communist/socialist farms were voluntarily created in some places, then why not public property. All I am saying, IT IS A CHOICE. And as long as no aggressive violence is involved in the process it is perfectly just, and therefore has a right to exist. Do you get my point? Some things (probably most things) should be privatized, but some things can be left in a public domain if the owners choose so.
Secondly, public property exists de facto, until and unless transition to private property is made. Transition is possible, often extremely desirable and worthwhile, but it must be made first. And until such effort is undertaken, public property exists as the best approximation of just ownership. Don’t like it? Provide a better proof of ownership, and get the owners make a decision. Until then, however, status quo, i.e. equal claim of ownership by the residents, must justly prevail. I emphasize again, justly changing status quo requires two things: A) proof of ownership, B) decision by the owners.
You are right. However you forget, that if a majority should vote it will decide the use of the road. That is the way the current system is defined.
Are you saying “a very limited group of persons may use” I-15? That is obviously incorrect. I bet hundreds of thousands are using it every day. Many millions have used it over the years.
The way this ownership defined now IS public property. Predations of the current government notwithstanding, the definition is public property. They themselves violate it, but rational definition under which I-15 exists, IS public property. The arrangement is just as long as no aggressive violence is to be used, and it must prevail until a better proof is produced and a decision is made by the owners.
I am not sure that would be just. Think about it. They PRINT money out of thin air, and you going to give them the highway system? No. For such an auction to be just the owners must first agree to the auction. Federal government is supposed to be, and pretends to be, a publically held company. Therefore the shareholders of the company, i.e. legal residents of US must decide what to do with public property, not a small group of banksters who hijacked the government and who will sell public property to themselves because they, literally, can legally counterfeit ALL the money they want. That is not just. The shareholders must decide whether or not they want such an auction. And in some instances, they very well may choose such an option, but it has to be their decision for this transaction to be just.
Yes.
No. Just the food you paid for.
If she bought it with money stolen from everyone, Yes.
Yes. And most of the food she ate, and the closings on her back should be probably forgiven her, because it is the most practical, and humane, and merciful thing to do.
The reason for this approximation is the very fact that government, as it should be, and as it claims itself to be, is a publically held company governed by the voice of its shareholders, i.e. its citizens. That is the status quo. And were there no aggressive violence involved it would have been a just status quo. It is possible and just to have public property, as long as the owners agree, and no aggressive violence is being used. Whether it is “unworkable” is not yours to decide. The owners must decide.
It may be convincingly proven that it stupid and unhealthy to eat too much fried chicken. However, it is not your decision to make.
Moreover, it is conceivable, that citizens of a certain community may decide to hold some resources in common. There is nothing sinister or evil about such an arrangement as long as no aggressive violence is involved. In fact, it is the rule in heaven. But the key here, of course, is the absence of aggressive violence, and VOLUNTARY participation.
The only thing they can vote about is that which they own. Thus they can vote about the property they jointly hold, but not about the property they do NOT own. Public taxation of private property is immoral precisely because the public does not own you neither your property. Therefore, according to justice, such taxation has no right to exist.
That is on them. They own it, they have to pay for their stupidity.
The vote is proportionate to ownership. You vote with your share. Since everyone in the locality has equal claim of ownership, everyone’s vote is equal in power. Therefore, to be just such vote is subject to two conditions:
- Everyone must be treated equally, since everyone has equal claim of ownership in it. And
- The property of no one must be violated in the process.
That is just.
The unequal treatment violates point (a).
In case of the poor, charity should be used as the solution.
Not necessarily. He can have an executor of the estate, with rules applied to the estate: anyone who lives within the borders of the city, (as long as he lives there) has a voting share in managing the park, to decide how it is operated, as long as everyone is treated equally, since all residents of the city, according to the conditions of the bequest, have equal voting share in the management of the park.
That may or may not be true. If the condition imposed on the park is that ANYONE who resides, or will reside, in the borders of the city has an equal voting share with anyone else who lives in the city, then your statement is false.
That depends on the rules of the company, as decided by the owners.
Technically he can, if he has a contractually bound executor who grants equal voting privileges to all residents of the city. Even if he does not have an executor, the people of the city may decide to uphold such a rule. It is their choice.
See the answer above.
In any jointly held company, majority does rule over minority. It is also just, as long as the share of no one is violated.
That is not true. No one forces you to use public property, and if you do not use it, no one can force you to pay the user fees.
Not true. The group is perfectly defined, i.e. residents of a locality.
A case can be made to segment the road as you described. But it must be decided by the owners. Again the two things of which I spoke must exist: A) a proof of ownership, and B) decision by the owners.
Last edited by Foundation_Of_Liberty; 07-12-2014 at 09:04 AM.
The whole point and definition of so-called "public" property is that one can't define the group. If the group is defined, it's not public property.
To intentionally leave any property in such a ill-conceived, undefined state is asking for trouble. What we need instead for avoiding conflict is clarity, simplicity, and sharply-drawn boundary lines. Leaving some things in the so-called "public" domain fails all of those standards. A public domain is a domain begging for conflict. It lends itself to conflict. Since the whole point of the social order is to avoid conflict... it's a bad idea.
All property should be private. Easy! Blinding in its clarity. Tear-jerking in its elegant simplicity. Euclidian in its straight, black lines and borders. Total private property is what we need. Maintaining a "public" domain ghetto rather than converting everything to the superior system would be inexplicable. It's inexplicable that you would advocate such a course.
Status quo = state ownership.justly changing status quo requires two things: A) proof of ownership, B) decision by the owners.
My proposed change = turn it over to the free market.
I shouldn't need to prove anything to you to do that. My way is obviously better.
Many, many more billions may not use it. There are all kinds of requirements and standards and rules that one must meet and keep and follow in order to be permitted to use I-15 between Provo and Salt Lake. These are all what we call "limits". If you wrote all these limits in the same font as the speed limit signs and put them on a sign on the on-ramp, labeled "Limits on Who May Use this Road", the sign would be the size of the entire state of Utah.Are you saying “a very limited group of persons may use” I-15? That is obviously incorrect. I bet hundreds of thousands are using it every day. Many millions have used it over the years.
Obviously not everyone is freely and equally permitted to use the road right now. Rather, the Federal Government owns the road, and allows people to use it only as it pleases them.
You already agreed we can and should make the government create a company that owns I-15 and issue equal shares to everybody who got ripped off. Having an auction and giving everyone who got ripped off the proceeds is just a superior and quicker way of accomplishing what amounts morally to the same thing. Equally just. Much more practical.I am not sure that would be just.
The point is, you're not going to get retribution for all the money stolen from you for welfare. That money is gone. Nor from Medicare, nor from 99% of all the idiotic government programs in existence. Only very few programs have produced capital infrastructure that still has any value whatsoever. Now the value of that capital should go back to the taxpayers somehow, that's true. But in the big picture, it's a relatively very minor point. The much, much, much bigger issue is that the free market take over everything and the state be eliminated. That is what has long-term consequences.No. Just the food you paid for.
If she bought it with money stolen from everyone, Yes.
Yes. And most of the food she ate, and the closings on her back should be probably forgiven her, because it is the most practical, and humane, and merciful thing to do.
Publicly held companies have nothing to do with "public" property. This is a confusion you have introduced. No more than a restaurant advertising it's open to the public. It happens to use the same word, but is totally different. The whole point and definition of so-called "public" property is that one can't define the group. A publicly held company is just a company with a lot of owners. Exactly who the owners are is clearly and perfectly defined. This is not the case with "public" property. The whole point and definition of so-called "public" property is that one can't define the group that owns it....a publically held company governed by the voice of its shareholders...
The key is private property. The key is always private property. If the boundaries are not defined, how do you know if aggressive violence is taking place? I will tell you: you cannot. If I cannot opt out of participation in ownership, how do you know my participation is voluntary? I will tell you: you may know of a surety that it is not.Moreover, it is conceivable, that citizens of a certain community may decide to hold some resources in common. There is nothing sinister or evil about such an arrangement as long as no aggressive violence is involved. In fact, it is the rule in heaven. But the key here, of course, is the absence of aggressive violence, and VOLUNTARY participation.
What if it's against my religion to own a park? Does Mr. Rich Guy have the right to force me to won it against my will? But yet that is exactly what you say he has the right to do in your "for instance."
I cannot opt out from owning it at all. Public property defines ownership in arbitrary and impossible ways, and forcibly assigns ownership to people who may not want ownership. For instance, your statement: "He donates this park to all the citizens of the city he lives in." To do such a thing, literally, would be unjust. All the citizens may not want it. Shoot, none of the citizens may want it!That is not true. No one forces you to use public property, and if you do not use it, no one can force you to pay the user fees.With private property, one can opt in. And one can opt out. With so-called "public" property? One can't.
Who owns the park after he gives it to the city-dwellers, Fundamental?Not necessarily. He can have an executor of the estate, with rules applied to the estate: anyone who lives within the borders of the city, (as long as he lives there) has a voting share in managing the park, to decide how it is operated, as long as everyone is treated equally, since all residence of the city, according to the conditions of the bequest, have equal voting share in the management of the park.
If the estate executor still owns it, then yes, that estate executor can continue perpetually managing it however he wishes. This includes the possibility of acting as if the city-dwellers are the owners and abiding by their wishes. This would create a sort of virtual or holographic situation of ownership for the city-dwellers. But it would only be a simulation. The city-dwellers would, in point of fact, not own the park at all. The estate executor would own it.
If, instead, Rich actually gave the park to the city-dwellers, as you specified, then they now own it and he does not and the estate executor does not.
In both possibilities, the park is total private property and nothing to do with "public" property at all. In the first, it is the private property of Mr. Guy, or his estate. In the second, it is the private property of 5042 people who happen to have been given shares of the park. The whole point and definition of so-called "public" property is that one can't define the group. If the group is defined, it's not public property.
Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 07-11-2014 at 01:58 PM.
You forgot to address one more point:
Not true. The group is perfectly defined, i.e. residents of a locality.
The problem with your position is that you think that public property is some kind of unimaginable evil and a highway to aggressive violence of totalitarianism.
It is not. Public property, as any other property type, is built upon the concept of private property, which is the most fundamental type. It is, or rather can be, built upon it without the use of any aggressive violence whatsoever. How? Simple.
Let’s take the park from the previous example. Mr. Rich voluntarily gives the park to the city, all 5042 people in it, with a condition that they become part owners of the park as long as they live in the city, and with a covenant that they will make any new resident of the city an equal part owner with themselves if the new resident desires it, and that they will impose the same contract upon anyone else who receives a share from them. The 5042 accept the terms of the contract. You will agree that they are the rightful owners now, subject to the contract they have made, and that they have equal claim of ownership in the park. It is nothing more or less than a publicly held company with 5042 voting shares, which represents all the people who accepted this ownership, and the contract that came with it. No violence has been used. No aggression committed.
You may think it is stupid to make such contract (I don’t see why, the new owners now have more property than they had before, and Mr. Rich fulfilled his desire to share his park with the residents of the city in perpetuity). You may think it is weird, unti-Rothbardian, and all together stinks of communism, and painfully reminds you of the present system. But you have to admit that no aggressive violence was used at any step of this process. No one’s rights or property has been violated. No permission was given to rob or plunder anyone. And since exactly ZERO aggressive violence was used, this arrangement, however un-liked by you is still JUST, and therefore has a perfect right to exist. Heck, Mr. Rich could have burned the park down, for all you care (of course, only if he found a way to do it without polluting the environment of his neighbors), and it would have been just, because it is his, and if he is not a wise steward over it he will have to answer for it to God who owns the Earth and everything on it. But it is not your call to make, because it is not yours. It now belongs to the residents of the city subject to the contract. That is public property by definition. It is perfectly defined. It is just. It is un-ambiguous. It is built upon private property rights, and thus has a perfect right to exist, and you have no say in it, because it is not yours. You are free and welcome to refuse such a contract for esthetic reasons, but I wouldn’t because it gives me more property than before, and gives me a chance to influence the use of property for good.
Do you see my point here? The key to the whole thing is the ABSENCE OF AGGRESSIVE VIOLENCE. If you can point out aggressive violence at any step of this process then you are right in calling it unjust. But if you cannot, you must let it be, because it has a perfect right to exist, because it is JUST.
Last edited by Foundation_Of_Liberty; 07-12-2014 at 09:21 AM.
Oh. Well... thank you for correcting me.
The words "residents of a locality," especially as you have explained and described them, do not perfectly define a group. I do not think they perfectly define a group. I cannot tell you for sure who is in that group and who is out of it. That means it's not defined.
Let's go to the root of the disagreement. You have drawn some parallels repeatedly enough now that I think I can say I understand your position and thus can address it. You say:
Jointly-owned property = public property
But, in point of fact, it does not. Jointly-owned property is private property, through and through, which just happens to be owned by a bunch of individuals. It has absolutely nothing to do with so-called "public" property. It is simply private property. The number of owners makes no difference.
You also say:
Publicly-traded companies = Public property.
But this is not the case. A publicly-traded company is just like any other company, and it is private property no question about it -- private property which just happens to have a bunch of owners. The number of owners does not affect its status as private property. Just as the square acreage of a property may be subdivided indefinitely and still remain private property, so too can the ownership be subdivided.
In your "for-instance" about the park, if what Rich guy did was, as you assert, just, then one way or another the park is, will be, and was all along: private property. That's it. If the owners are defined -- as in giving exactly 5042 people a precise, defined ownership stake in the park -- then it is private property. It is the private property of those 5042 people. Again, the number of owners does not affect its status as private property.
It is only when the owners are left undefined and ambiguous that the property can be called "public" property. That is what so-called "public" property is! That's what it means to be so-called "public" property! If the owners are clearly defined, it's not public property, it's private property.
Private Property = I can point to the owners and to the property and say "those people own that thing."
Public Property = I can't.
Are we all cleared up now and on the same page? Did I address that point well enough?
Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 07-12-2014 at 01:32 PM.
You have just proven my point that public property is a subset of private property, or in other words, public property is a construct based on private property. Or simply put, public property is private property. (Which, of course, does NOT mean that private property is public property; just like every cat is an animal, does not mean that every animal is a cat.)
Public property is a publicly held company where ownership/just control is conditional upon individual's place of residence. You live in the defined location, you have just control over the public property assigned to it, and if you don't, you don't.
I say it again, you are right:
Public property is private property.
(But not the reverse.)
And as a form of private property it has a right to exist. Think of the contract described above that was made by Mr. Rich with the 5042. Can you point out any injustice (i.e. aggressive violence) in that contract? If not, then it is a just contract by definition. What do you have against justice? What do you have against private property? Is not Mr. Rich free to use his own as he will, and give it to whomsoever he will on whatever condition he wants, as long as he does not violate the property of another?
And yes, the owners/just controllers ARE clearly defined. The definition of "residence" can be further honed by Mr. Rich, and be made as precise as you wish.
Precision is not the problem here at all. You can have all the precision you care for, indeed, absolute precision, and still have public property, according to its definition.
I guess the problem here is in definitions.
I defined public property thus: "Public property is property to which all residents of a specific location have equal claim of ownership. (Ownership is defined as a just range of control)."
Please give your definition of the term Public property, then we will see if we are talking about the same thing.
Last edited by Foundation_Of_Liberty; 07-12-2014 at 02:28 PM.
How Minimum Wage Laws Promote Racial Discrimination
Gary North - July 18, 2014
...
He said that minimum-wage legislation discriminates against teenage black males. This has been known by economists since at least the mid-1950's. The statistical evidence on this was overwhelming. But high school teachers had not heard this.
...
He made the observation, which nobody challenged: the teenage black males are considered undesirables by the general population. In other words, they are discriminated against. They suffer from the stereotypes attached to their particular group.
He asked the obvious question: "How does someone who is part of a group that is discriminated against find a way to prove to somebody doing the discriminating that his assessment is incorrect?" ...
He said that the person who is discriminated against needs to have a competitive edge that will enable him to compete effectively with members of groups that are not discriminated against. The free market offers such a tool, he said: wage competition. Specifically in the case of competition among potential workers who want to be employed, the most effective competitive edge available is the offer to work for less money per hour. This offer is taken seriously by employers.
Minimum-wage legislation makes it illegal for employers to take advantage of such offers. This removes the most effective single competitive strategy that is available to a person who is considered undesirable because of his membership in a particular group that is widely considered undesirable. This economic analysis applies to all sorts of groups.
Statistically, economists in 1974 knew that unemployment rates for black teenage males began to exceed the unemployment rate for white teenage males when the system of minimum-wage legislation was first enacted by the federal government. The statistics on this go back as far as the legislation.
...
By making an offer to work for less than members of desirable groups are willing to work for, members of undesirable groups gain an edge in the marketplace. As soon as an employer is made aware of such an offer, he now faces a cost for any future discrimination. If he refuses to take the offer, he is going to have to pay a higher wage to a member of a desirable group. This is going to increase his cost of doing business. In other words, he suffers an economic loss. "Cost" is defined as "that which you have to give up in order to gain what you want." The employer wants low-cost workers. He wants to pocket the difference between the price he pays for their output and the money he receives from consumers of their output. It is "buy low, sell high." If an employer refuses to hire someone who has made an offer to work for less, this increases his cost of doing business. From an economic standpoint, this imposes the cost of discrimination on the employer.
Williams understood that some employers, meaning employers at the margin, want to gain a competitive edge against other employers. They will therefore be willing to accept offers from certain individuals who are willing to work at wages that are lower than average in the industry. By making the offer, the member of an undesirable group imposes the cost of discrimination on anybody who will not accept his offer.
There is no question about the origin of minimum-wage legislation. It came from trade unions. Trade unions did not want to face competition from workers who were not members of a union. They wanted to make it illegal for businessman to take advantage of offers to work for less than what the trade union members were able to extract from employers, based on their monopolistic position in the industry. The federal government, through the Wagner Act of 1933, had made it illegal for businesses to offer low-wage jobs, if half of the employees, plus one, voted to unionize the business.
What was happening, union leaders understood, was that blacks were in a position to break the stranglehold of the unions in some industries, because they could go to employers and use their competitive edge: a willingness to work for less money per hour. The way to stop this, the union leaders understood, was to make it illegal for any employer to hire anyone at a wage below the mandated minimum wage. This would stop competition against trade unions.
From a political standpoint, it was incumbent on the trade unions to keep the voters, and also keep Congressmen, from recognizing that minimum-wage laws are discriminatory against groups that already suffer from discrimination. It was seen as politically incorrect in the late 1960's to discriminate against blacks, but this was what minimum-wage laws did from the beginning. So, it was imperative that this line of reasoning be kept away from students in colleges and universities. This was why Williams' argument was devastating. Students and teachers could not refute it. It made them feel guilty, because they were pushing for legislation that imposed additional burdens on members of racial minorities who were already suffering from discrimination. The laws took away the victims' most effective tool for getting employed, and therefore getting an opportunity to prove their worth to their employers and also to coworkers.
The high unemployment rates for young adults in Greece and Spain -- in the range of 50% -- are the result of the same regulatory process. The trade unions can block offers to work for less. Members of groups that are discriminated against -- non-union workers -- cannot get employers to accept their offers to work for less. It is illegal for employers to accept these offers.
Read more: http://www.garynorth.com/public/12683.cfm
I cannot conceive of a valid contract that would make what you want to have happen, happen.
It may be possible, but I cannot happen to think of how to construct one myself.
If you think such a contract could be constructed, perhaps you can share what you have in mind.
Yep. I think so. So often is.I guess the problem here is in definitions.
To most people, “public property” means “government property,” on the (dubious) theory that governments hold their property in trust for the public, and administer such property with an eye to the public interest. (source)I defined public property thus: "Public property is property to which all residents of a specific location have equal claim of ownership. (Ownership is defined as a just range of control)."
Please give your definition of the term Public property, then we will see if we are talking about the same thing.
Indeed, it seems to mean that very thing to you, too, since you are calling for public property to be administered, and effectively owned, by "the government."
This is not a type of private property. It is government property. If I am one of the 5042, can I:
- Sell my share to anyone I want? Because that's what you can do with private property.
- Buy more shares from anyone selling? Because that's what you can do with private property.
- Keep my share for as long as I want, even if I move away? Because that's what you can do with private property.
- Gain a sufficient plurality of shares, stage a (so-called) hostile takeover, and turn the park into a office building? Because that's what you can do with private property.
None of the above? Then it's not private property. Unless you can explain to me how to contractually get to a spot where I can't do any of those things with my property, but yet I own it.
I have constructed it here.
Your proposed route to a so-called "public" (actually government) property virgin birth:
I agree with no such thing. You have raised more questions than you answered.
A covenant has two parties. If there's only one party, there's no obligation to the other. Because there ain't no other! Capisce?
As I explained to mencius here, once our friend Rich is gone and out of the picture, well, he's out of the picture! Either he is out of the picture, no longer an owner, or he is not. Either he still has an ownership claim on the property, or he does not.
If he or his estate is still somewhere in the background hanging about, binding the park to perpetually remain a park and all the 5042 to follow whatever ridiculous rules and conditions he wants to make, then guess what? He or his estate is the ultimate owner! Period. Mr. Rich Guy owns the park, and is simply playing a slightly bizarre game with his property. No problem! I'm all for eccentric millionaires. But let's be clear that Mr. Guy is the owner. It's his property. His private property. There is absolutely nothing special about it, certainly nothing requiring the existence of a state or government.
If the 5042 actually are the real owners, true blue, through and through, then guess what? They can do whatever they want with it! They can keep it a park, sure. No problem. But they can also make it into a parking lot. That's what owners can do.
Well, once again there are two options. Either it is nothing more or less than a publicly held company, or it is not nothing more nor less than a publicly held company.It is nothing more or less than a publicly held company with 5042 voting shares, which represents all the people who accepted this ownership, and the contract that came with it.
If it is, in fact, just a publicly held company with 5042 shares, then the owners of those shares can do whatever they wish with them. No one can stop them. It's their company. Theirs, and no one else's.
I hope I have now made this clear enough. Do you understand the problem now, as I see it? If so, could you kindly restate it in your own words? I want us to be communicating effectively and on the same page.
If you do now understand, you will also understand the importance of these questions:
- Sell my share to anyone I want? Because that's what you can do with private property.
- Buy more shares from anyone selling? Because that's what you can do with private property.
- Keep my share for as long as I want, even if I move away? Because that's what you can do with private property.
- Gain a sufficient plurality of shares, stage a (so-called) hostile takeover, and turn the park into a office building? Because that's what you can do with private property.
Could you answer them? Thanks.
Yes. What’s the problem? Did I say one party? I didn’t.
Have you heard of conditional ownership, where ownership is conferred subject to certain conditions? Example: You buy a home in certain community. The sale is subject to you signing a contract that you will abide by the rules of the community (like not running through the streets naked, or not smoking in public, etc). Do you own that home or not? Yes. But your ownership is limited by the conditions of the contract you voluntarily signed before you purchased the home. This is a very common arrangement. There is nothing sinister about it. It is in strict adherence to the NAP, and therefore it is just.
Yes. And what’s the problem?
Who said there was. Yes, It is his private property, but he also gave control/part-ownership to all the other 5042, subject to the contract they voluntarily made with him. NAP is still intact. Justice is not violated. All is well.
Don’t you understand, that according to the contract Mr. Rich made with the 5042, THEY are the government, subject to the covenant they made? And if you define state as ownership (or joint ownership) of real estate by a group, what is the problem here? NAP is still intact. That is the definition of a just state.
Definitions matter. Rothbard’s and Hoppe’s definition of the state is VERY different. They define it as an entity claiming the “right” to violate the NAP, which “right” is an oxymoron. And they are right that SUCH state is UNJUST by definition and has no right to exist. I do not advocate such “state” because it is an abomination, i.e. institutionalized EVIL by definition of the word evil.
However, the state that has a perfect right to exist is the one defined as group ownership of real estate. If NAP is honored, such state has a perfect right to exist.
If the ownership grant was unconditional, then yes.
It may or may not have been the case, depending on Mr. Rich’s wishes.
But even if Mr. Rich transferred ownership to the 5042 unconditionally, the 5042 may CHOOSE to apply residence conditions to the property by a majority vote, with all the residents having equal voting rights regarding management of the park. Which is still public property by definition, i.e. “equal claim of ownership of a property by residents of a certain locality.” NAP is still not violated. Ownership is still clearly defined. And since NAP is intact, it is just, and has a right to exist.
And if grant of ownership was CONDITIONAL by Mr. Rich, then the 5042 are bound by the conditions of the contract they VOLUNTARILY signed when they accepted part ownership of the park. THEY are the owners of the park, provided they abide by the conditions of equality of ownership prescribed by Mr. Rich. And if Mr. Rich resigned from any other control of the park by covenant, then the property is Public by definition of the term, because the residents of the locality have EQUAL claim of ownership upon it, which is the DEFINITION of the term Public Property, that I use. This definition is precise, requires no aggressive violence, and therefore describes a just entity that has a perfect right to exist.
I have a feeling that you have a DIFFERENT definition of the term “Public Property,” hence your apprehensions.
My definition does NOT violate the NAP. Therefore it is just.
Provided the ownership grant was unconditional.Yes to all of the above if:Conditional ownership means partial ownership. It is very common and does not violate the NAP if the conditions are entered into voluntarily, i.e. without the use of aggressive violence.
- the grant of ownership was unconditional, or
- if the conditions of purchase do not prohibit the points above.
NAP is the key here. The beginning and the end.
Last edited by Foundation_Of_Liberty; 08-04-2014 at 08:15 PM.
You did not restate my problem with your position in your own words, Foundation. This is a very effective communication technique and I highly recommend it. It is so difficult sometimes to know if the other guy is understanding at all anything you're saying. You'll note that I have employed this tool almost every single post I have made to you on this topic. I always want to make sure you know what I think you are saying.
But, I press on. Based on your overall post, I think you at least kind-of sort-of understand my point, and possibly may even thoroughly understand.
You actually did, because you said that the 5042 were the owners. Rich Guy was out of the picture, and yet, at the same time, somehow also still in the picture. He had stepped away, was no longer an owner, and yet was still calling the shots over property he had nothing to do with.
That's an impossible contradiction.
So, you have further refined/clarified your proposed virgin birth as follows:
In other words, this park property is something very normal -- nothing but the private property of one Rich Guy. He has made an arrangement with some folks to manage it, just as a restaurant owner may hire a manager to manage his restaurant. The owner remains in ultimate control, because he may fire the manager, or in this case, all 5042 managers. Do we call the local Pizza Hut management team the "state" of Pizza Hut? No? Why not?It is his [Mr. Guy's] private property, but he also gave [conditional-]control/part-ownership to all the other 5042, subject to the contract they voluntarily made with him.
This is why my answer to this question:
"Don’t you understand, that according to the contract Mr. Rich made with the 5042, THEY are the government, subject to the covenant they made?"
is "no." Or at least it was "no." Of course I didn't understand that. Why would I understand that? I am not a mind-reader. You gave me no indication that this was your position.
Here is your position, as I have now pieced it together:
Public Property = group ownership of real estate. Specifically, "equal" ownership (why that is important is beyond me) by persons in a "certain locality" (again, seems arbitrary and unimportant to me)
The State = any management team managing real estate owned by a group.
However, here's more: The State also = a management team (the 5042 and their park corporation) managing real estate owned by an individual (Rich Guy).
So, to reconcile all that and make it all coherent and fit together, here is your real definition of a State, as best as I can tell:
The State = any management team managing real estate.
and here is the definition of public property that goes along with that:
Public Property = group or individual ownership of real estate.
But that seems far too expansive, yes? That would make all real estate "public property" and all real estate management an exercise in statism. When I'm mowing my front lawn, I'm acting as a State? That seems too much. So we must narrow the scope back down somewhat. Here is my proposal:
The State = any management team managing real estate which is open to and used by the general public.
Public Property = group or individual ownership of real estate which is open to and used by the general public.
Now I-15 and Rich Guy's park are "public property" and the individuals or corporations which manage (and probably also own) them are "states," but my front lawn is "private property" and I am not a State. Phew! Dodged the bullet.
This seems to more or less reconcile all the things you've written into an internally consistent position which I can understand. Your type of public property is simply a sub-category of private property, just as you wrote in post #374 ("Public property is private property."). Your type of state is just a publicly-held company or trust or other organization. It is a voluntary organization, of course, per the NAP. It has no special privileges nor features. I-15, Inc., the state managing I-15, is just exactly like Apple, Inc., the corporation managing the various assets under its umbrella. I-15, Inc. just happens to manage "real estate which is open to and used by the general public." So that makes it a state, not a corporation, in your terminology.
Is this a pretty accurate summary of your view? Did I nail it?
~~~
Above, that's the main post, the important thread of the conversation. But I'll reply to the rest of your post, just so you know I understood it all:
Yes, I agree with all that. Did you click on the link I made? There has to be a counter-party. You are abiding by or violating your contract with someone: the home-owners' association. You can't make a contract with the air. There has to be a counter-party and an enforcement mechanism.Have you heard of conditional ownership, where ownership is conferred subject to certain conditions? Example: You buy a home in certain community. The sale is subject to you signing a contract that you will abide by the rules of the community (like not running through the streets naked, or not smoking in public, etc). Do you own that home or not? Yes. But your ownership is limited by the conditions of the contract you voluntarily signed before you purchased the home. This is a very common arrangement. There is nothing sinister about it. It is in strict adherence to the NAP, and therefore it is just.
No problem, if I have correctly formulated your position above.Yes. And what’s the problem?
Well I thought that you had, but clearly I was mistaken, and so I of course agree that all is well in this scenario. Just private property business as usual.Who said there was? Yes, It is his private property, but he also gave control/part-ownership to all the other 5042, subject to the contract they voluntarily made with him. NAP is still intact. Justice is not violated. All is well.
Right, I agree. Hopefully we have now nailed down what your definitions are with some good precision.Definitions matter. Rothbard’s and Hoppe’s definition of the state is VERY different. They define it as an entity claiming the “right” to violate the NAP, which “right” is an oxymoron. And they are right that SUCH state is UNJUST by definition and has no right to exist. I do not advocate such “state” because it is an abomination, i.e. institutionalized EVIL by definition of the word evil.
Agreed.If the ownership grant was unconditional, then yes.
Yes, a corporation may operate however its owners wish. However, I also may stage a hostile takeover. Or, the owners can simply change their mind.the 5042 may CHOOSE to apply residence conditions to the property by a majority vote, with all the residents having equal voting rights regarding management of the park. Which is still public property by definition, i.e. “equal claim of ownership of a property by residents of a certain locality.” NAP is still not violated. Ownership is still clearly defined. And since NAP is intact, it is just, and has a right to exist.
I would say that Rich is still the owner. But regardless, it doesn't really matter. It could be a similar situation to that of a trust.And if grant of ownership was CONDITIONAL by Mr. Rich, then the 5042 are bound by the conditions of the contract they VOLUNTARILY signed when they accepted part ownership of the park. THEY are the owners of the park, provided they abide by the conditions of equality of ownership prescribed by Mr. Rich.
Yes, I already told you I did.I have a feeling that you have a DIFFERENT definition of the term “Public Property,” hence your apprehensions.
Agreed (if I got things right in the main post above.)My definition does NOT violate the NAP. Therefore it is just.
I would agree with this.Conditional ownership means partial ownership. It is very common and does not violate the NAP if the conditions are entered into voluntarily, i.e. without the use of aggressive violence.
NAP is the key here. The beginning and the end.
Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 08-05-2014 at 08:49 AM.
Not necessarily. He diluted his ownership subject to the covenant he made with the 5024 residents of the city.
Again, not necessarily. Mr. Rich transferred part of his ownership to the 5024, subject to the contract. The terms of the contract my preclude him from “firing” them, if they kept their end of the bargain.
I think I gave that indication when I said that Mr. Rich made the 5024 part-owners of the park, subject to the contract.
Ownership = Government. They are one and the same.
Correct.
Not quite... (Though close.)
Public Property is defined as property to which residents of a certain location have equal claim of ownership.
And, yes real estate is the best example of it. And no, it pertains to a group rather than one individual; hence the word “public.”
And yes, public property is derived from, is based upon, and is a subset of private property.
I think there can be at least two definitions of a just state. One is more general, and the other is more specific.
The most general definition of a just state would be (as you partly stated):
State = any management team managing real estate.
And a more specific definition derived from the previous one is:
State = public property and its management.
Not quite.
Public ownership is a GROUP ownership, by definition. Individual ownership cannot be public, or it sounds oxymoronic.
And yes, public is a subset of group ownership, and group ownership is a subset of private ownership, private ownership being the foundational type of ownership.
Or to restate this differently:
ALL is Private Property, but some private property is jointly held, which is a Group Property, and some group property is EQUALLY owned by residents of a certain location, which makes it Public Property by definition. Thus, all of these property types are subsets, or different manifestations of, and are derived from, Private Property, the most fundamental type of property there is.
Correct.
Correct.
Pretty much. Though under broad definition of a state (see above) you could consider a corporation that owns real estate a state as well.
I think we understand each other.
The bottom line is that ANY arrangement that does not violate the NAP has a right to exist.
Thanks.
Last edited by Foundation_Of_Liberty; 08-05-2014 at 06:43 PM.
Yes, yes, I understand all that. You are right, of course.
This is a good, clear statement, and it helps me a lot to understand what you're saying.ALL is Private Property, but some private property is jointly held, which is a Group Property, and some group property is EQUALLY owned by residents of a certain location, which makes it Public Property by definition. Thus, all of these property types are subsets, or different manifestations of, and are derived from, Private Property, the most fundamental type of property there is.
I myself am skeptical as to the usefulness of employing the term "public property" for what you are describing. To almost everyone "public property" means government(or state) property and is a very fuzzy, ill-defined, unfortunate abomination or a concept. It's the monopoly state managing some property and claiming to do so for the benefit of "the public," who really own it. This claim is a lie, of course. And the public are not really owners, because they cannot get out of their alleged ownership. They can't sell their share. And they can't escape their obligation of paying for all the supposed benefits they are getting from their ownership. Furthermore, no one really knows who "the public" is. No one can pinpoint it and define the precise owners and the bounds of their ownership. That's why I kept saying: the key element and indeed the whole point of public property (under this standard understanding) is that one can't define the group. If the group is defined, it's not public property. So those are the characteristics of the standard version of public property.
Your version of public property bears no resemblance to this standard, universally-held understanding of public property. In your version:
1. There is no monopoly state managing things. A forcibly-maintained monopoly violates the NAP.
2. There is no obligation to pay for the alleged benefits. You already explained this earlier:3. Each owner can sell his share and cease being an owner. In fact, he never has to become an owner in the first place. It's just as you said:4. The owners are precisely defined! The "state," as you call it, is nothing more than a corporation, and so like any other corporation, it has shareholders, and each one knows exactly what the bounds, rights, and percentages of his ownership claim are. It's just like Apple.
With these four critical, extremely significant differences, your version of public property becomes so different from what people normally think of as public property as to be well-nigh the opposite of it! No monopoly, no forced payments, free exit from ownership, and well-defined free association throughout: it just bears no resemblance to what we know as public property at all!
So I personally would not call it public property. It took many posts of back and forth before I finally understood (Maybe! I hope!) what you meant by it. Your use of the term "public property" for something so diametrically unlike what I and most everyone else calls public property was the source of more confusion and frustration than enlightenment and understanding.
Just a thought.
I think, at last, we do.I think we understand each other.
True. The only alternative, after all, would be to aggressively ban it! And that, as you like to put it so well: "would not be just."The bottom line is that ANY arrangement that does not violate the NAP has a right to exist.
Thanks for the conversation. I enjoyed it, and I hope you did as well.
I'm giving a talk on freedom at Church this Sunday. Have any thoughts, tidbits, or stories you think I should share?
I think there's something particularly abhorrent about government arbitrarily preventing people from using roads they forced them to pay for.
I think speed limits are illegitimate on government roads as well, since speeding is a "crime" without a victim (private property is different, obviously, if it was a private road the owner could say he was victimized) but its particularly abhorrent when government actually prevents you from using property they made you pay for. And, I do think you have SOME claim to ownership since you are forced to pay taxes.
Similarly, while I believe you have every right to have a "no blacks allowed" sign on your own property, I think ending that practice on public property was justified, and that continuing it would not have been.
Yes, these are all problems. Deviations from justice.
Only indirectly. You have claim upon the taxes that were stolen from you. Whether you get that back in the form of an actual check, part ownership of a road, some armaments from the local military base, some household appliances from the local welfare mother, or what, is morally irrelevant. Most of -- virtually all of -- the taxes are long-gone, wasted with nothing to show for them, and so its just too bad.And, I do think you have SOME claim to ownership since you are forced to pay taxes.
As I wrote earlier to Foundation:
The point is, you're not going to get retribution for all the money stolen from you for welfare. That money is gone. Nor from Medicare, nor from 99% of all the idiotic government programs in existence. Only very few programs have produced capital infrastructure that still has any value whatsoever. Now the value of that capital should go back to the taxpayers somehow, that's true. But in the big picture, it's a relatively very minor point. The much, much, much bigger issue is that the free market take over everything and the state be eliminated. That is what has long-term consequences.
Yes, that sounds reasonable.Similarly, while I believe you have every right to have a "no blacks allowed" sign on your own property, I think ending that practice on public property was justified, and that continuing it would not have been.
Right. However, the CLAIM, (though false one by the government), is that ALL residents of a certain location, “US,” own it equally and manage it by the voice of the majority according to justice. Hence, my use of the term Public Property, to denote the same idea, but this time, delivered INDEED, and without the use of aggressive violence.
Also, the term “publicly held” or “publicly traded” company closely describes this property. Hence, another reason for using the word “public,” with a perfect understanding that this “public” is just another manifestation of private property, the most fundamental property type, from which all other types are derived.
You may mention the profound origins of freedom movement.
It originates with God in Heaven, the author and the ultimate champion of liberty.
The war in heaven was fought over it. What we call “agency” or “free will” is nothing more than self-ownership of individuals.
And if you understand that private property is derived from, and includes the self-ownership of individual, then you can rightly say that the war in heaven was fought over SELF-OWNERSHIP and PRIVATE PROPERTY.
Tell them that the heart and definition of Liberty is the Non-aggression principle, or the principle of Private Property, which originates from God who said: “Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not steal.” Or put in other words: “Thou shall not violate self-ownership and private property of individuals.”
Tell them that this Non-aggression principle, or the principle of Private Property, as taught by God, defines both Justice and Liberty, and that neither Justice nor Liberty have any meaning without it, because Justice is nothing more than non-violation of private property (with the implied right to use equal force to offset/neutralize the aggression of another against your property), and Liberty is nothing more than the right to do with your own property what you will, as long as you do not violate the property of another.
Tell them that all sin is nothing more or less than violation of God’s private property (and by extension an assault on his self-ownership). You live on his planet and are breathing his air, and you should therefore do on it as he directs. Etc.
Tell them that therefore, ALL violence that God uses is strictly DEFENSIVE violence. He is NEVER the aggressor, because aggressive violence is the very definition of evil and injustice, and that the devil is the father of aggressive violence.
Tell them that any “law” that violates private property of an individual, violates both justice and Liberty, and therefore is an abomination before God.
Tell them that the parable of the “Good Samaritan” would have been very different, if instead of using his own money and property the Samaritan pointed the sword at the next person who passed by and forced him to “donate” money and transportation to take care of the one that “fell among thieves,” thus becoming a thief himself, perpetuating the circle of aggressive violence and evil.
Tell them that the only just way to take care of the poor and the needy is the way God prescribed: and that is via voluntary charity, and not at the point of a gun.
In a very real way, God is the ultimate Libertarian.
And that to defend Justice and Liberty is non-other than to defend self-ownership and private property of individual, just like we did in heaven, which allowed us, by the way, to come to this earth.
You can also tell them that the Non-aggression principle is derived from the “Golden rule” on which “hang ALL the law and the prophets” i.e. do unto others as you would have them do to you, as taught by Jesus and the Father.
Good luck.
Last edited by Foundation_Of_Liberty; 08-08-2014 at 06:44 PM.
Thanks so much for all the good ideas, Foundation. I did put in the part about God being the ultimate libertarian, or liberty-lover. I also recommended they all read Benson's The Proper Role of Government. The talk went well. Before you know it, our stake will be seceding from the Union and setting up a kritarchy, Ancient Israel-style.
I think it is the union that seceded from Liberty, Justice and God, which will result in its self-destruction. But on the good side, God will set up a union of his own, that will outlast the earth.
Cheers to that!
Call the Anti-Police: Ending the State's "Security" Monopoly
By William Norman Grigg
Pro Libertate Blog
September 17, 2014
“How would things be different,” muses Dale Brown of the Detroit-based Threat Management Center, “if police officers were given financial rewards and commendations for resolving dangerous situations peacefully, rather than for using force in situations where it’s neither justified nor effective?”
Brown’s approach to public safety is “precisely the opposite of what police are trained and expected to do,” says the 44-year-old entrepreneur. The TMC eschews the “prosecutorial philosophy of applied violence” and the officer safety uber alles mindset that characterize government law enforcement agencies. This is because his very successful private security company has an entirely different mission – the protection of persons and property, rather than enforcing the will of the political class. Those contrasting approaches are displayed to great advantage in proto-dystopian Detroit.
“We’ve been hired by three of the most upscale neighborhoods in Detroit to provide 24/7 security services,” Brown proudly informed me during a telephone interview. “People who are well-off are very willing to pay for Lamborghini-quality security services, which means that our profit margin allows us to provide free services to people who are poor, threatened, and desperate for the kind of help the police won’t provide.”“Unlike the police, we don’t respond after a crime has been committed to conduct an investigation and – some of the time, at least – arrest a suspect,” Brown elaborates. “Our approach is based on deterrence and prevention. Where prevention fails, our personnel are trained in a variety of skills – both psychological and physical – to dominate aggressors without killing them.” Police typically define their role in terms of what they are permitted to do to people, rather than what they are required to do for them. Brown’s organization does exactly the reverse, even when dealing with suspected criminals.
To illustrate, Brown refers to an incident from a security patrol in which he encountered a black teenager “who was walking in a neighborhood at about 3:00 a.m. dressed in a black hooded sweatshirt, doing what is sometimes called `the drift’ – it was pretty clear he was up to something.”
Rather than calling the police – who, given their typical four-hour response time, wouldn’t have arrived soon enough to be of any help, as if helping were part of their job description – Brown took action that was both preventive and non-aggressive.
“I told him, `There are criminals here who might rob you, so you’ll get free bodyguard service anytime you’re in the neighborhood,’” Brown related to me. “I also asked for his name and personal information for a `Good person file’ that would clear him with the cops next time he decided to go jogging in a black hoodie a three in the morning. He didn’t have to give me that information, of course, but he told me what I needed to know – and we’ve never seen him there again.”
Brown and his associates take a similar approach to dealing with minor problems that usually result in police citations that clog court dockets and blight the lives of harmless people.
“When we see someone who is drunk or otherwise intoxicated, we offer to take their keys and call their families to get them home,” he reports. “This way we keep them safe from harm – and, just as importantly, protect them from prosecution. Again, everything we do is the opposite of what the police do. If you have a joint in your pocket, the cops will be all over you – but if you’re facing actual danger, they’re nowhere to be found, and aren’t required to help you even if they show up.”
That contrast is most visible in confrontations with potentially dangerous people. Brown’s company receives referrals to provide security for people who face active threats, such as victims of domestic violence. One representative case involved a young mother whose daughter had been abducted by a violent, abusive father with a lengthy criminal history. The child was rescued and reunited with her mother without guns being drawn or anybody being hurt.
For reasons of accountability and what the private sector calls “quality assurance,” Brown and his colleagues recorded that operation, as they document nearly everything else they do. However, they weren’t playing to the cameras. The same can’t be said of the Detroit PD SWAT team that stormed the home of 7-year-old Aiyana Stanley-Jones at midnight in May 2010 while filming the assault for a cable television program.
Officer Joseph Weekley, who burst through the door carrying a ballistic shield and an MP5 submachine gun, shot and killed Aiyana, who had been sleeping on the living room couch. By the time she was killed terrified little girl had already been burned by a flash-bang grenade that had been hurled into the living room.
The home was surrounded with toys and other indicia that children resided therein, and neighbors had pleaded with the police not to carry out the blitzkrieg. The cops did arrest a suspect in a fatal shooting, but he resided in a different section of the same building. In any case, the suspect could have been taken into custody without a telegenic paramilitary assault – if the safety of those on the receiving end of police violence had been factored into the SWAT team’s calculations.
Owing in no small measure to public outrage, Weekly has been charged with involuntary manslaughter and careless discharge of a weapon resulting in death. A jury deadlocked on the charges in July 2013. Weekley now faces a second trial that will produce a conviction only if the prosecution can overcome the presumption that the officer’s use of deadly force was reasonable. This is a function of the entirely spurious, and endlessly destructive, doctrine of “qualified immunity,” which protects police officers from personal liability when their actions result in unjustified harm to the persons or property of innocent people.
The rationale behind qualified immunity is the belief that absent such protection competent and talented people wouldn’t enlist as peace officers. In practice, however, qualified immunity merely emboldens incompetent and vicious police officers.
“Police should be subject to exactly the same laws and liabilities that the rest of us face,” contends Brown. “If we don’t have perfect reciprocity, then police should be held to a higher standard of accountability than the rest of the citizenry. If they commit criminal acts that result in injury or death, police should do double the time that a `civilian’ would face, because they’re supposed to be professionals.”
As private sector professionals, Brown observes, “we have double accountability – first to our clients who pay us, and then to the criminal justice system and civil courts if we do something wrong. And because the police usually see us as competitors, they are very eager to come after us if we screw up. But in all the years we’ve been working, we’ve had no deaths or injuries – either to our clients or to our own people – no criminal charges, and no lawsuits.”
Not only do Brown and his associates operate without the benefit of “qualified immunity,” they are required to expose themselves to physical risk on behalf of their clients – something that police are trained to avoid.
“For police officers, going home at the end of the shift is the highest priority,” Brown observes. “For us it can’t be. When we’re hired to protect a client, his home, his business, his family, we’ve made a choice to put the client’s safety above our own, and to make sure that he or she gets home safely at the end of the day.”
When people seek help from the police, Brown points out, they’re inviting intervention by someone who has no enforceable duty to protect them, but will be rewarded for injuring them or needlessly complicating their lives.
“Let’s examine this logically,” Brown begins. “What is this human being – the police officer – going to get out of becoming involved in your troubles? Will be he rewarded for helping you to solve them, especially if this involves a personal risk? Would solving your problem be worth getting injured or killed?”
“We’re dealing with a basic question of human motivations,” Brown continues. “Police are not required to intervene to protect you – there is a very long list of judicial precedents proving this. They’re actually rewarded for not intervening. Here, once again, I emphasize that Threat Management is not comparable to the police. We follow exactly the opposite approach. People don’t have to work with Threat Management, but if they choose to, that’s what we expect of them.”
Some critics of TMC and other private security firms insist that their personnel cannot match the qualifications and experience of government-employed police officers. That objection wildly overestimates the professional standards that must be met in order for an individual to become a government-licensed purveyor of privileged violence.
“An individual can become a police officer in six months,” Brown points out. “Can you become a doctor or an EMT in six months? Is there any other profession in which employees can become `qualified’ to make life-and-death decisions on behalf of other people after just a few months of training?”
By way of supplementing Brown’s point: In Arkansas, an applicant can become a police officer in a day, and work in that capacity for a year, without professional certification of any kind. However, to become a licensed practicing cosmetologist, an applicant must pass a state board examination and complete 2,000 hours of specialized training. For an investment of 600 hours an applicant can qualify to work as a manicurist or instructor.
While Arkansas strictly regulates those who cut hair or paint nails in private, voluntary transactions, it imposes no training or licensing standards whatsoever on armed people who claim the authority to inflict lethal violence on others. This is not to concede that there is any way one human being can become legitimately “qualified” to commit aggressive violence against another.
“Law enforcement attracts a certain personality type that is prone to narcissism and aggression,” Brown asserts, speaking from decades of experience. “People like that get weeded out from our program very early. We protect innocent people from predators, and we can’t carry out that mission by hiring people who are predatory themselves. Our people receive extensive training in firearms and unarmed combat techniques, but they’re also taught to look at all humans as members of the same family. The question we want them to ask themselves is – in what circumstances would you shoot, or otherwise harm a member of your family? They’re trained to apply that standard in all situations involving a potential use of force. People who can’t think that way aren’t going to fit in with our program.”
Brown emphatically agrees that the phenomenon called “police militarization” is a huge and growing menace, but insists that the core problem is “not the military hardware, or the other trappings of militarization, but the system itself. Police agencies attract the wrong kind of people and then tell them, `You’re like God’ – they get to impose their will on others and use lethal force at their discretion. And when someone who is really golden shows up – that is, an ethical, conscientious person who wants to protect the public – they get redirected into a role that will minimize their influence for good by people who are worried about their own job security.”
“Ideally, the best approach would be to abolish the current system and start over,” Brown concludes. “But the very least we should demand would be total equity and complete accountability – which would mean, as a starting point, doing away with this idea of `qualified immunity.’ Police are citizens, and they should be governed by the same laws that apply to all citizens. No exceptions, no special protections.”
Several studies have shown that there are between three and four times as many private peace officers – such as security guards, armored truck drivers, and private investigators – as sworn law enforcement officers in the United States. That fact demonstrates that the security market is completely unserved by government law enforcement agencies. This shouldn’t be surprising, since – as I have observed before – police agencies serve the interests of those who plunder private property, and thus can’t be expected to protect it.
Police personnel practice aggressive violence from the shelter of “qualified immunity.” The absence of such protection doesn’t deter talented, motivated people such as Dale Brown and his associates – and others providing similar services in Houston, Oakland, and elsewhere — from seeking employment as private security officers who actually accept personal risk to protect property.
Why not abolish qualified immunity for all security personnel? Critics of that proposal might protest that this would undermine the state’s monopoly on the provision of “security” by requiring its employees to compete on equal terms with the private sector. Which is precisely the point.
The Best of William Norman Grigg
William Norman Grigg [send him mail] publishes the Pro Libertate blog and hosts the Pro Libertate radio program
Copyright © 2014 William Norman Grigg
Previous article by William Norman Grigg: Cadging Donuts and That’s About It
Hans Hoppe is being devastatingly brilliant, as always!
"All men are created equal" only in one way, that is they are ultimately equal before the demands of justice, and therefore are equally obligated not to commit aggression against anyone's property. That's all.
September 30, 2014
“Libertarianism is logically consistent with almost any attitude toward culture, society, religion, or moral principle. In strict logic, libertarian political doctrine can be severed from all other considerations; logically one can be – and indeed most libertarians in fact are: hedonists, libertines, immoralists, militant enemies of religion in general and Christianity in particular – and still be consistent adherents of libertarian politics. In fact, in strict logic, one can be a consistent devotee of property rights politically and be a moocher, a scamster, and a petty crook and racketeer in practice, as all too many libertarians turn out to be. Strictly logically, one can do these things, but psychologically, sociologically, and in practice, it simply doesn’t work that way.” [my emphasis, HHH]
Murray Rothbard, “Big-Government Libertarians,” in: L. Rockwell, ed., The Irrepressible Rothbard, Auburn, Al: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2000, p. 101
Let me begin with a few remarks on libertarianism as a pure deductive theory.
If there were no scarcity in the world, human conflicts would be impossible. Interpersonal conflicts are always and everywhere conflicts concerning scarce things. I want to do X with a given thing and you want to do Y with the same thing.
Because of such conflicts – and because we are able to communicate and argue with each other – we seek out norms of behavior with the purpose of avoiding these conflicts. The purpose of norms is conflict-avoidance. If we did not want to avoid conflicts, the search for norms of conduct would be senseless. We would simply fight and struggle.
Absent a perfect harmony of all interests, conflicts regarding scarce resources can only be avoided if all scarce resources are assigned as private, exclusive property to some specified individual. Only then can I act independently, with my own things, from you, with your own things, without you and me coming into conflict.
But who owns what scarce resource as his private property and who does not? First: Each person owns his physical body that only he and no one else controls directly (I can control your body only in-directly, by first directly controlling my body, and vice versa) and that only he directly controls also in particular when discussing and arguing the question at hand. Otherwise, if body-ownership were assigned to some indirect body-controller, conflict would become unavoidable as the direct body-controller cannot give up his direct control over his body as long as he is alive; and in particular, otherwise it would be impossible that any two persons, as the contenders in any property dispute, could ever argue and debate the question whose will is to prevail, since arguing and debating presupposes that both, the proponent and the opponent, have exclusive control over their respective bodies and so come to the correct judgment on their own, without a fight (in a conflict-free form of interaction).
And second, as for scarce resources that can be controlled only indirectly (that must be appropriated with our own nature-given, i.e., un-appropriated, body): Exclusive control (property) is acquired by and assigned to that person, who appropriated the resource in question first or who acquired it through voluntary (conflict-free) exchange from its previous owner. For only the first appropriator of a resource (and all later owners connected to him through a chain of voluntary exchanges) can possibly acquire and gain control over it without conflict, i.e., peacefully. Otherwise, if exclusive control is assigned instead to latecomers, conflict is not avoided but contrary to the very purpose of norms made unavoidable and permanent.
Let me emphasize that I consider this theory as essentially irrefutable, as a priori true. In my estimation this theory represents one of the greatest – if not the greatest – achievement of social thought. It formulates and codifies the immutable ground rules for all people, everywhere, who wish to live together in peace.
And yet: This theory does not tell us very much about real life. To be sure, it tells us that all actual societies, insofar as they are characterized by peaceful relations, adhere, whether consciously or subconsciously, to these rules and are thus guided by rational insight. But it does not tell us to what extent this is the case. Nor does it tell us, even if adherence to these rules were complete, how people actually live together. It does not tell us how close or distant from each other they live, if, when, how frequent and long, and for what purposes they meet and interact, etc.. To use an analogy here: Knowing libertarian theory – the rules of peaceful interactions – is like knowing the rules of logic – the rules of correct thinking and reasoning. However, just like the knowledge of logic, as indispensible as it is for correct thinking, does not tell us anything about actual human thought, about actual words, concepts, arguments, inferences and conclusions used and made, so the logic of peaceful interaction (libertarianism) does not tell us anything about actual human life and action. Hence: just as every logician who wants to make good use of his knowledge must turn his attention to real thought and reasoning, so a libertarian theorist must turn his attention to the actions of real people. Instead of being a mere theorist, he must also become a sociologist and psychologist and take account of “empirical” social reality, i.e., the world as it really is.
This brings me to the topic of “Left” and “Right.”
The difference between the Right and the Left, as Paul Gottfried has often noted, is a fundamental disagreement concerning an empirical question. The Right recognizes, as a matter of fact, the existence of individual human differences and diversities and accepts them as natural, whereas the Left denies the existence of such differences and diversities or tries to explain them away and in any case regards them as something unnatural that must be rectified to establish a natural state of human equality.
The Right recognizes the existence of individual human differences not just with regard to the physical location and make-up of the human environment and of the individual human body (its height, strength, weight, age, gender, skin- hair- or eye-color, facial features, etc., etc.). More importantly, the Right also recognizes the existence of differences in the mental make-up of people, i.e., in their cognitive abilities, talents, psychological dispositions, and motivations. It recognizes the existence of bright and dull, smart and dumb, short- and far-sighted, busy and lazy, aggressive and peaceful, docile and inventive, impulsive and patient, scrupulous and careless people, etc., etc.. The Right recognizes that these mental differences, resulting from the interaction of the physical environment and the physical human body, are the results of both environmental and physiological and biological factors. The Right further recognizes that people are tied together (or separated) both physically in geographical space and emotionally by blood (biological commonalities and relationships), by language and religion, as well as by customs and traditions. Moreover, the Right not merely recognizes the existence of these differences and diversities. It realizes also that the outcome of input-differences will again be different and result in people with much or little property, in rich and poor, and in people of high or low social status, rank, influence or authority. And it accepts these different outcomes of different inputs as normal and natural.
The Left on the other hand is convinced of the fundamental equality of man, that all men are “created equal.” It does not deny the patently obvious, of course: that there are environmental and physiological differences, i.e., that some people live in the mountains and others on the seaside, or that some men are tall and others short, some white and others black, some male and others female, etc.. But the Left does deny the existence of mental differences or, insofar as these are too apparent to be entirely denied, it tries to explain them away as “accidental.” That is, the Left either explains such differences as solely environmentally determined, such that a change in environmental circumstances (moving a person from the mountains to the seaside and vice versa, for instance, or giving each person identical pre- and post-natal attention) would produce an equal outcome, and it denies that these differences are caused (also) by some – comparatively intractable – biological factors. Or else, in those cases where it cannot be denied that biological factors play a causal role in determining success or failure in life (money and fame), such as when a 5 foot tall man cannot win an Olympic gold medal in the 100 meter dash or a fat and ugly girl cannot become Miss Universe, the Left considers these differences as pure luck and the resulting outcome of individual success or failure as undeserved. In any case, whether caused by advantageous or disadvantageous environmental circumstances or biological attributes, all observable individual human differences are to be equalized. And where this cannot be done literally, as we cannot move mountains and seas or make a tall man short or a black man white, the Left insists that the undeservedly “lucky” must compensate the “unlucky” so that every person will be accorded an “equal station in life,” in correspondence with the natural equality of all men.
With this short characterization of the Right and the Left I return to the subject of libertarianism. Is libertarian theory compatible with the world-view of the Right? And: Is libertarianism compatible with leftist views?
As for the Right, the answer is an emphatic “yes.” Every libertarian only vaguely familiar with social reality will have no difficulty acknowledging the fundamental truth of the Rightist world-view. He can, and in light of the empirical evidence indeed must agree with the Right’s empirical claim regarding the fundamental not only physical but also mental in-equality of man; and he can in particular also agree with the Right’s normative claim of “laissez faire,” i.e., that this natural human inequality will inevitably result also in un-equal outcomes and that nothing can or should be done about this.
There is only one important caveat, however. While the Right may accept all human inequalities, whether of starting-points or of outcomes, as natural, the libertarian would insist that only those inequalities are natural and should not be interfered with that have come into existence by following the ground-rules of peaceful human interaction mentioned at the beginning. Inequalities that are the result of violations of these rules, however, do require corrective action and should be eliminated. And moreover, the libertarian would insist that, as a matter of empirical fact, there exist quite a few among the innumerable observable human inequalities that are the result of such rule-violations, such as rich men who owe their fortune not to hard work, foresight, entrepreneurial talent or else a voluntary gift or inheritance, but to robbery, fraud or state-granted monopolistic privilege. The corrective action required in such cases, however, is not motivated by egalitarianism but by a desire for restitution: he (and only he), who can show that he has been robbed, defrauded or legally disadvantaged should be made whole again by those (and only those) who have committed these crimes against him and his property, including also cases where restitution would result in an even greater inequality (as when a poor man had defrauded and owed restitution to a rich one).
On the other hand: As for the Left, the answer is an equally emphatic “no.” The empirical claim of the Left, that there exist no significant mental differences between individuals and, by implication, between various groups of people, and that what appear to be such differences are due solely to environmental factors and would disappear if only the environment were equalized is contradicted by all everyday-life experience and mountains of empirical social research. Men are not and cannot be made equal, and whatever one tries in this regard, inequalities will always re-emerge. However, it is in particular the implied normative claim and activist agenda of the Left that makes it incompatible with libertarianism. The leftist goal of equalizing everyone or equalizing everyone’s “station in life” is incompatible with private property, whether in one’s body or in external things. Instead of peaceful cooperation, it brings about unending conflict and leads to the decidedly un-egalitarian establishment of a permanent ruling-class lording it over the rest of the people as their “material” to be equalized. “Since,” as Murray Rothbard has formulated it, “no two people are uniform or ‘equal’ in any sense in nature, or in the outcomes of a voluntary society, to bring about and maintain such equality necessarily requires the permanent imposition of a power elite armed with devastating coercive power.”[1]
There exist countless individual human differences; and there exist even more differences between different groups of individuals, since each individual can be fit into countless different groups. It is the power-elite that determines which of these differences, whether of individuals or of groups, is to count as advantageous and lucky or disadvantageous and unlucky (or else as irrelevant). It is the power elite that determines how – out of countless possible ways – to actually do the “equalizing” of the lucky and the unlucky, i.e., what and how much to “take” from the lucky and “give” to the unlucky to achieve equality. In particular, it is the power elite, by defining itself as unlucky, that determines what and how much to take from the lucky and keep for itself. And whatever equalization is then achieved: Since countless new differences and inequalities are constantly re-emerging, the equalizing-job of the power elite can never ever come to a natural end but must instead go on forever, endlessly.
The egalitarian world-view of the Left is not only incompatible with libertarianism, however. It is so out of touch with reality that one must be wondering how anyone can take it seriously. The man-on-the-street certainly does not believe in the equality of all men. Plain common sense and sound prejudice stand in the way of that. And I am even more confident that no one of the actual proponents of the egalitarian doctrine really, deep down, believes what he proclaims. Yet how, then, could the Leftist world-view have become the dominant ideology of our age?
At least for a libertarian, the answer should be obvious: the egalitarian doctrine achieved this status not because it is true, but because it provides the perfect intellectual cover for the drive toward totalitarian social control by a ruling elite. The ruling elite therefore enlisted the help of the “intelligentsia” (or the “chattering class”). It was put on the payroll or otherwise subsidized and in return it delivered the desired egalitarian message (which it knows to be wrong yet which is enormously beneficial to its own employment prospects). And so the most enthusiastic proponents of the egalitarian nonsense can be found among the intellectual class.[2]
Given, then, that libertarianism and the egalitarianism professed by the Left are obviously incompatible, it must come as a surprise – and it is testimony to the immense ideological powers of the ruling elites and their court intellectuals – that many who call themselves libertarian today are, and consider themselves to be, part of the Left. How is such a thing possible?
What ideologically unifies these left-libertarians is their active promotion of various “anti-discrimination” policies and their advocacy of a policy of “free and non-discriminatory” immigration. [3]
These “libertarians,” noted Rothbard, “are fervently committed to the notion that, while each individual might not be ‘equal’ to every other, that every conceivable group, ethnic contingent, race, gender, or, in some cases, species, are in fact and must be made ‘equal,’ that each one has ‘rights’ that must not be subject to curtailment by any form of ‘discrimination.’ “ [4]
But how is it possible to reconcile this anti-discrimination stand with private property, which all libertarians are supposed to regard as the cornerstone of their philosophy, and which, after all, means exclusive property and hence, logically implies discrimination?
Traditional leftists, of course, do not have this problem. They do not think or care about private property. Since everyone is equal to everyone else, the world and everything on and in it belongs to everyone equally – all property is “common” property – and as an equal co-owner of the world everyone has of course an equal “right to access” to everywhere and everything. Absent a perfect harmony of all interests, however, you cannot have everyone have equal property and equal access to everything and everywhere without leading to permanent conflict. Thus, to avoid this predicament, it is necessary to institute a State, i.e., a territorial monopolist of ultimate decision-making. “Common property,” that is, requires a State and is to become “State property.” It is the State that ultimately determines not just who owns what; and it is also the State, then, that ultimately determines the spatial allocation of all people: who is to live where and allowed to meet and have access to whom – and private property be damned. After all, it is they, the Lefties, who would control the State.
Read the rest of this brilliant article here.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us