Income tax: Ever calculated how wealthy you'd be without it?

[Travlyr]

Are you opposed to all theft?

No matter what?

No, I'm not. Are you really? No matter what? It all depends upon your definition of theft. Do you pick-up a quarter you see lying on the ground and put it in your pocket? It is not yours.

I grew up on a farm. We all had to pitch-in and do our chores in order to raise crops and livestock. Some of my siblings worked harder and more hours than others. Is that theft? Yes. It is minor theft. The gray area. Grandma and Grandpa sat around and didn't do much farm work at all, but they got to eat, stay warm, and dry too. Me and my siblings all got the same pay... food, housing, and clothing.

[helmuth_hubener]

No, I'm not.

That is a moral failing.

Are you really? No matter what?

Yes. Really and no matter what.

It all depends upon your definition of theft. Do you pick-up a quarter you see lying on the ground and put it in your pocket? It is not yours.

Clearly your definition of theft is lousy. A long-lost quarter will be, in most situations, abandoned property. You can't steal something which has been abandoned and thus has no owner. You homestead it.

Taking this principle even further is the dumpster-diver. This is a perfectly legitimate activity, and definitely in no way engaging in theft. The former owner has signaled to the world, via accepted convention, that he no longer wants whatever he put in the dumpster. Taking it is no longer theft.

I grew up on a farm. We all had to pitch-in and do our chores in order to raise crops and livestock. Some of my siblings worked harder and more hours than others. Is that theft? Yes. It is minor theft.

It is in no way theft. It is up to the owner of the business (in this case the head of the family) to decide how much to compensate his workers and how or if to monitor them to judge how much value their labor is providing him.

Grandma and Grandpa sat around and didn't do much farm work at all, but they got to eat, stay warm, and dry too.

Oh, were they sneaking in at night or holding your father at gun point? They were taking these amenities from the owner against his will, yes? Because, umm, that's what theft is. Taking someone else's stuff without his permission.

Me and my siblings all got the same pay... food, housing, and clothing.

Again, this was without your father's permission? You seem to have confused "taking someone else's stuff without his permission" with "getting someone else's stuff with his permission." Understandable. Easy mistake to make, but I trust now that it's been pointed out to you, you will correct your thinking.

It's interesting that you have chosen to defend the state not by claiming that they are not stealing. Nor even by questioning the morality or immorality of stealing. No, you have gone all the way down, as far as you could go, and attacked the legitimacy of morality itself! "Absolutely morality itself doesn't exist!", you say. After all, your brother was lazy. That proves it. And your mom picked up a penny in the parking lot. Any doubt left lingering after the lazy-brother proof should be wiped out altogether by this decisive blow.

[Travlyr]

I am okay with you stealing someone else's quarter and having you justify it as homesteading it if that makes you feel better.

When you get really old, and the state is still around, you can look back on your life and accept the fact that it would have been easier to accept its existence, and work with that fact of life, than fight it. You really don't have to live an angry life.

[Steven Douglas]

I disagree with Rothbard about the existence of the state. I think it is fairy tale land to work to eliminate it.

I find it interesting that I agree with both of you, at least in part, in principle. The only conflict, or conundrum that I see, has nothing to do with my values or beliefs, but rather an acknowledgment of the reality of the natures of others.

In the absence of a state there will always be a Napoleon who will claim to have found a crown lying on the ground. All that little ambitious man has to do is get one more to second his self-nomination, and yet another to enforce it, and subjugate me into that grouping, with or without my consent. A state is nothing more than a very organized gang, and human nature is such that we will ALWAYS tend to form packs, no differently than dogs and other social animals. Thus, the existence of the state as a "whether-or-not-we-should" is not even a question for me. So while I see a stateless society as an ideal, I don't believe in it, and would never place any faith in it (unless it's just me, out in the wilderness, and there's always that too, to whatever extent).

I had a friend years back who could not conceive of a relationship that is simply one of mutual respect. Someone had to be dominant, or master. And we freely talked about it. I told him, point blank, that I wasn't interested in being master or slave, but if he insisted on this paradigm, it was a guarantee that he would end up the slave, not me.

Since I believe that states will always, naturally, invariably form and exist, I can conceive of no other way to preempt or limit the damage of a state except by saying, "If a state is inevitable (which I believe it is), let it be one of my influence and making, if but to keep yours at bay." I see a prior state as a requirement, if but for no other purpose than to serve as a placeholder; a thing to show that the "state void" is already occupied. No void to fill.

And I'm not so naive, either, as to think that because I deliberately invoked the genie, and unleashed it from its bottle, that I'm somehow its default master, or an exception to anything at all. I know it's a "Feed Me, Seymour!" Little Shop of Horrors from its inception. It's a pet alligator. You can raise it for years, but don't ever think it won't think twice about snapping down and putting you into a death roll. There is no benevolence in states. Only in individuals, and only at times.

[helmuth_hubener]

I am okay with you stealing someone else's quarter and having you justify it as homesteading it if that makes you feel better.

See, you're just trying to undermine all morality. "You're stealing, he's stealing, we're all stealing: why worry about it?"

Do you believe in absolute morality, Jonathan? Do you believe in right and wrong?

When you get really old, and the state is still around, you can look back on your life and accept the fact that it would have been easier to accept its existence, and work with that fact of life, than fight it.

I accept the state's existence. I work with that fact of life. Why is that incompatible with opposing theft? I see no contradiction nor difficulty. In fact, it is difficult to see how (and why) one would fight something which one does not believe to exist.

Do you accept the state's existence? Really accept it? Or are you hiding from its true nature, unwilling to confront the truth?

You really don't have to live an angry life.

Are you living an angry life because you hate counterfeiting? Or are you living a happy and fulfilling life and simply happen to oppose the evil of theft via counterfeiting?

I oppose all theft. Does this mean I live an angry life? Where is the causality there?

[helmuth_hubener]

human nature is such that we will ALWAYS tend to form packs, no differently than dogs and other social animals. Thus, the existence of the state as a "whether-or-not-we-should" is not even a question for me.

We have not always had states. The feudal system of Europe in the middle ages was predominantly voluntary. The king did not have a coercively-enforced monopoly on adjudication.

http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=66

The natural order is not egalitarian, and it is not atomistic, but neither is the state part of it. The state is an aberration from the natural order. People form tribes and other groupings and organizations (packs if you prefer), yes, but that doesn't mean states.

[Travlyr]

I find it interesting that I agree with both of you, at least in part, in principle. The only conflict, or conundrum that I see, has nothing to do with my values or beliefs, but rather an acknowledgment of the reality of the natures of others.

In the absence of a state there will always be a Napoleon who will claim to have found a crown lying on the ground. All that little ambitious man has to do is get one more to second his self-nomination, and yet another to enforce it, and subjugate me into that grouping, with or without my consent. A state is nothing more than a very organized gang, and human nature is such that we will ALWAYS tend to form packs, no differently than dogs and other social animals. Thus, the existence of the state as a "whether-or-not-we-should" is not even a question for me. So while I see a stateless society as an ideal, I don't believe in it, and would never place any faith in it (unless it's just me, out in the wilderness, and there's always that too, to whatever extent).

I had a friend years back who could not conceive of a relationship that is simply one of mutual respect. Someone had to be dominant, or master. And we freely talked about it. I told him, point blank, that I wasn't interested in being master or slave, but if he insisted on this paradigm, it was a guarantee that he would end up the slave, not me.

Since I believe that states will always, naturally, invariably form and exist, I can conceive of no other way to preempt or limit the damage of a state except by saying, "If a state is inevitable (which I believe it is), let it be one of my influence and making, if but to keep yours at bay." I see a prior state as a requirement, if but for no other purpose than to serve as a placeholder; a thing to show that the "state void" is already occupied. No void to fill.

And I'm not so naive, either, as to think that because I deliberately invoked the genie, and unleashed it from its bottle, that I'm somehow its default master, or an exception to anything at all. I know it's a "Feed Me, Seymour!" Little Shop of Horrors from its inception. It's a pet alligator. You can raise it for years, but don't ever think it won't think twice about snapping down and putting you into a death roll. There is no benevolence in states. Only in individuals, and only at times.

This is very well said.

I wish the state did not have to exist, but because of the nature of others, and property, it is better for it to exist than not. And since the state does exist then it is better to participate than be ruled by a dictator or monarch because as we see today an oligarchy will rise if they are not restrained.

"Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you." - Pericles, 430 B.C.

[Steven Douglas]

We have not always had states. The feudal system of Europe in the middle ages was predominantly voluntary. The king did not have a coercively-enforced monopoly on adjudication.

http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=66

The natural order is not egalitarian, and it is not atomistic, but neither is the state part of it. The state is an aberration from the natural order. People form tribes and other groupings and organizations (packs if you prefer), yes, but that doesn't mean states.

In that context, a primary defining characteristic or attribute of a state, as you have it defined, appears to be "a coercively-enforced monopoly on adjudication"? Meaning that if a "government"/tribe/grouping/organization was structured in such a way that it did not have a coercively-enforced monopoly on adjudication, you would see that as something other than a state?

To me, as first order principles, all individuals are states, and all groupings - couples, friends, families, associations, villages, cities, etc., on up to countries, allies, etc., are just different manifestations of statehood, having nothing to do with whatever powers are established (by any mechanism). The rules, powers, etc., will always take on unique forms, including different encroachments on others (whether it be two states colliding in conflict, or two person-states within a state in conflict). I probably wouldn't conflict too much with your views on a monopoly on adjudication, although I don't know the specifics, because I believe in self-government and personal sovereignty, first and foremost, and I think our pyramided monopolistic judicial system is fundamentally flawed -- corrupt even, from the beginning. But that's not a determining factor for me on what is a state and what is not, but only what form a state takes. And that could be just semantics.

I do still, however, still see a "bigger fish swallowing the littler fish" problem, as states cast wide nets, and throw big lassos around tribes, gangs, communities, etc., incorporating and arrogating with or without their consent. And I do consider that the natural order (not right, not good -- just natural and inevitable), as a natural consequence of populations as they grow, converge, speak common languages and form networks of common interests. That all spells "ripe for the political plucking". It doesn't even matter if there's no "natural demand" for a state to begin with. There will always be a natural ("opportunistic human nature") supply that will look to create the illusion of demand.

[idiom]

1 For the kingdom of heaven of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 And after agreeing with the workers for the standard wage, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 When it was about nine o’clock in the morning, he went out again and saw others standing around in the market place without work. 4 And he said to them, “You go into the vineyard too and I will give you whatever is right.” 5 So they went. When he went out again about noon and three o’clock that afternoon, he did the same thing. 6 And about five o’clock that afternoon he went out and found others standing around, and he said to them, “Why are you standing here all day without work?” 7 They said to him, “Because no one has hired us.” He said to them, “You go and work in the vineyard too.”

8 When it was evening, the owner of the vineyard said to his manager, “Call the workers and give the pay starting with the last hired until the first.” 9 When those hired about five o’clock came, each received a full day’s pay. 10 And when those hired first came, they though they would receive more. But each one also received the standard wage. 11 When they received it, they began to complain against the landowner, 12 saying, “These last fellows worked one hour, and you have made them equal to us who bore the hardship and burning heat of the day.

13 And the landowner replied to one of them, “Friend, I am not treating you unfairly. Didn’t you agree with me to work for the standard wage? 14 Take what is yours and go. I want to give this last man the same as I gave to you. 15 Am I not permitted to do what I want with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous? 16 So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

The pernicious thing about the income tax is that it truly is voluntary. Unless you were unaware that the jurisdiction you chose to work in charged an income tax before you started work, then you chose to engage in work there on those terms.

Any state claims final ownership of everything within its borders. It can do what it wants with what it owns. Challenge the state or move out of its borders or accept its claim of ownership.

[helmuth_hubener]

In that context, a primary defining characteristic or attribute of a state, as you have it defined, appears to be "a coercively-enforced monopoly on adjudication"? Meaning that if a "government"/tribe/grouping/organization was structured in such a way that it did not have a coercively-enforced monopoly on adjudication, you would see that as something other than a state?

Bingo. That is the accepted definition of the state; not just among libertarians, but among political scientists in general is my understanding. They usually put it more like:

The state is a compulsory political organization that has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a certain territory.

I like the tweaked definition of Hoppe: An institution which claims, and to a large extent achieves, a coercively-enforced monopoly on ultimate decision-making.

And that could be just semantics.

Well, that's not a minor issue, though. You have a definition of "state" that is totally different. I can roll with yours, but in that case I am not anti-state. Who could be? To oppose states would be to oppose humans, since even individuals are states in your nomenclature. So communicating using your system, I would have to say yes, you're right, states aren't bad, and can't and shouldn't be abolished -- abolishing the state would mean exterminating humanity. Since states are individuals, and we already have the word "individuals," I don't know what advantage even using the word "state" has then. i don't understand at all what your alternative definition for state is, other than it appears to encompass all individuals, and groups, and, well, everything. It seem to simply be muddled thinking.

But anyway, I'll go along with it. In that case, going along with your system, what I oppose is indeed a particular form a state takes. I am opposed to:

Murder
Slavery
Theft
All other aggression

Those are the defining characteristics of the form of state which I oppose. Those behaviors all seem morally outrageous to me. One would think that their abolition would not be controversial. Unfortunately, we live in an age of euphemism and of muddled thinking. Mass murder is called "war for freedom". Slavery is called "regulation" and "reasonable requirements". Theft is called "taxation".

"Paying your fair share," "doing your part," "helping society," "furthering the greater good," -- who could oppose any of these noble euphemisms? And so atrocity is given a different name, and the people then can no longer see their true nature. Your neighbor does not support mass murder. never! After all, he is a decent bloke. No, he supports "wars for freedom."

And thus it goes.

There will always be a natural ("opportunistic human nature") supply that will look to create the illusion of demand.

The lecture series I linked to by Hans-Herman Hoppe Economy, Society, and History, based on a book project he's working on I guess, talks all about this kind of stuff. It's a lot of time, and he talks slowly, so maybe you should just wait for the book. But it could be enjoyable, especially if you can play mp3s at 1.5 speed. Anyway, there will naturally be various institutions formed by men. There will even be a natural aristocracy. Some people are more intelligent, more wealthy, more respected than others. People will look to them as leaders and thus they will have power. All that is natural. But one can have all that power and inequality and still have the individual ultimately sovereign. One can still have a society wherein murder, slavery, theft, and all other forms of aggression are not permitted, even (or especially!) by the aristocracy. One can hold all individuals to the same standards of conduct. That is the natural order.

[helmuth_hubener]

Any state claims final ownership of everything within its borders.

But is this claim valid?

It can do what it wants with what it owns. Challenge the state or move out of its borders or accept its claim of ownership.

I see this as a circular-ish argument. I should accept the claim of the lords of the Maryland swamp to own the continent, because the lords of the Maryland swamp claim to own the continent.

But what if I don't think their claim is legitimate? What if I think they're just a bunch of blood-thirsty goofballs who live in a swamp in Maryland and are completely deluded to think they own anything other than what they actually legitimately own (things like their houses, and, for most of them, their law practice)? In that case, I can shake my head, point out the truth, and keep working to bring to light the true nature of these usurpers' operation. As well as keep living my life and achieving my goals. Just because the Mafia claims to own my neighborhood does not obligate me to move out of the neighborhood, not if that neighborhood is the best one for fulfilling my ambitions.

[helmuth_hubener]

Do you believe in absolute morality, Brother Jonathan? Do you believe in right and wrong?

[Travlyr]

Do you believe in absolute morality, Brother Jonathan? Do you believe in right and wrong?

I believe in right and wrong, but I do not believe in absolute morality. For example, it is not morally right to assault another human being, yet there are times when a human being must be assaulted for the betterment of others.

[helmuth_hubener]

I believe in right and wrong, but I do not believe in absolute morality.

No, that is not possible. If you do not believe in absolute morality, then you do not believe there is any absolute right and wrong. Right and wrong in that scenario don't exist. They're fantasy. Everything's relative. Just because something's right for you, doesn't mean it's right for me. That's the boomer credo.

For example, it is not morally right to assault another human being, yet there are times when a human being must be assaulted for the betterment of others.

For example, it's morally right to eat, yet it is not morally right to eat another living human's flesh.

All these supposed "examples" of supposed "contradictions" which you have apparently found it impossible to unravel yourself in 50+ years of living are just lame. You don't want to put forth the real and strenuous mental effort it takes to construct a cohesive and non-contradictory morality. That's what it comes down to. Based on that evidence, why you don't believe in morality? Because you're too lazy to make it work in any way that makes sense.

Their bone-headed rejection of absolute morality is one reason the baby boomers are full of utter failure and lameness. So go for it. You go off and "do your own thing" and have "free love" and "whatever works." I, meanwhile, will continue to have my hair cut. And perhaps bathe occasionally. And live according to time-tested, extremely successful moral principles.

[Travlyr]

No, that is not possible. If you do not believe in absolute morality, then you do not believe there is any absolute right and wrong. Right and wrong in that scenario don't exist. They're fantasy.

For example, it's morally right to eat, yet it is not morally right to eat another human's flesh.

All these supposed "examples" of supposed "contradictions" which you have apparently found it impossible to unravel yourself in 50+ years of living are just lame. You don't want to put forth the real and strenuous mental effort it takes to construct a cohesive and non-contradictory morality. That's what it comes down to. Based on that evidence, why you don't believe in morality? Because you're too lazy to make it work in any way that makes sense.

Their bone-headed rejection of absolute morality is one reason the baby boomers are full of utter failure and lameness. So go for it. You go off and "do your own thing" and have "free love" and "whatever works." I, meanwhile, will continue to have my hair cut. And perhaps bathe occasionally. And live according to time-tested, extremely successful moral principles.

So you are saying that it is or isn't right to assault another human under any circumstances?

[helmuth_hubener]

So are you saying it is or isn't right to eat under any circumstances?

[Travlyr]

So are you saying it is or isn't right to eat under any circumstances?

I think eating is fine. It is one of my favorite pastimes. Your turn. Answer my question.

[helmuth_hubener]

By that same exact token, I think being non-violent is fine. It's one of my favorite pastimes.

[Travlyr]

By that same exact token, I think being non-violent is fine. It's one of my favorite pastimes.

And I am the same... yet...

It is quite telling helmuth... that you do not want to pick either is or isn't because it defeats your absolute morality argument. It is morally right to kill another human in certain circumstances, but it is not morally right to go around killing just anyone and everyone. Absolute morality fails the real world test.

[helmuth_hubener]

And I am the same... yet...

It is quite telling helmuth... that you do not want to pick either is or isn't because it defeats your absolute morality argument. It is morally right to kill another human in certain circumstances, but it is not morally right to go around killing just anyone and everyone. Absolute morality fails the real world test.

And I'm just playing with you a bit because I think it so ridiculous that you think this is a hard question to answer at all. Much less one that devastates absolute morality. I hope you won't hold my playfulness against me.

Do you see how one could invent an unlimited number of arbitrary moral imperatives and say, "Look, see, this is usually true, but there are exceptions! EXCEPTIONS!!!!! AAAACK!" For example:

Eating we did. So drinking: It is usually true that one is free to drink water from the stream flowing through one's land. Exception: you have already used up all the gallons allotted in your water rights (which were determined by libertarian homesteading, of course).
It is usually true that one is free to breathe whenever one wants. Exception: one has signed up as a member of an orchestra and part of your contract stipulates that during concerts and practices, you must breathe only at the correct moments indicated by the sheet music.
It is usually true that one is free to read whatever one wants. Exception: the book you are reading is one you broke into Joe's house and stole.
It is usually true that one is not free to break into houses and take books. Exception: the book was originally yours and Joe stole it 30 years ago.

Do you see? Please tell me you see. For physical assault, the rule is very simple:

Physical assault is fine, as long as it's not aggressive. You may physically assault someone if he has agreed to it, as in boxing. You may physically assault someone to a certain extent, determined by convention, without his explicit agreement -- for example putting a hand on his shoulder, brushing up against him, or even punching him playfully. You may physically assault someone when it is in self-defense. You may physically assault someone to defend a third party he is assaulting. This list of exceptions is not exhaustive. There are all kinds of situations in which physical assault is certainly not immoral, and may even be positively moral. So your moral assertion:

it is not morally right to assault another human being

is just a false moral assertion. It's just wrong. It's lousy morality and sloppy thinking. That doesn't show that morality is a failure. It shows that your morality is a failure.

[Danan]

No, that is not possible. If you do not believe in absolute morality, then you do not believe there is any absolute right and wrong.

Correct.

Right and wrong in that scenario don't exist. They're fantasy. Everything's relative.

Wrong. Being subjective doesn't make them non-existend. Not believing in absolute, objective, universal morality does not make you a moral relativist!

Just because something's right for you, doesn't mean it's right for me.

So? That would only mean that you have to accept that his morals, just as yours, are created by the human mind and can differ from person to person. What you can do now is either show that your moral code is superior in reaching his goals, or stating that his goals are contrary to what you believe is "good" and tell others why you think this is the case.

For example, it's morally right to eat, yet it is not morally right to eat another living human's flesh.

I most certainly agree that it's moral to eat a cow's flesh, without it "agreeing to it", but immoral to eat a human's flesh against his will. However, I do not claim that my view on this is some kind of "ultimate truth" independed of subjects (i.e. objective). It just freaks me out that someone would walk on the street eating humans and even if I'd be certain that I will never be a victim of this guy, I'd advocate to stop him. But I wouldn't do that because I believe that my morality is "superior" on some kind of objective basis. I'd do it because it feels right, to me and satisfies me. And luckily almost everyone agrees on the position that violent cannibalism is wrong. Where does that kind of morality contradict itself?

Their bone-headed rejection of absolute morality is one reason the baby boomers are full of utter failure and lameness. So go for it.

I'd argue that it's not their (although I don't want to take about them as a collective) refusal to accept "absoulte morality", but their subjective morals that are contrary to mine. That's just as valid.

And live according to time-tested, extremely successful moral principles.

I agree, these moral principles you have are very successful. I'm an anarchist too (which is what I guess describes you also) and I agree that stealing is always immoral. But the NAP's "success" in terms of satisfying human wants and providing an environment that most people would prefere has nothing to do with them being objective or absolute. In fact, objective morals don't even need to satisfy human desires. You could make up a moral code you claim to be "objective" or "absolute" that sounds absolutely aweful to everybody, including yourself. But that morality would be perfectly logically valid. It's just that you couldn't prove the axioms.

[Travlyr]

And I'm just playing with you a bit because I think it so ridiculous that you think this is a hard question to answer at all. Much less one that devastates absolute morality. I hope you won't hold my playfulness against me.

Do you see how one could invent an unlimited number of arbitrary moral imperatives and say, "Look, see, this is usually true, but there are exceptions! EXCEPTIONS!!!!! AAAACK!" For example:

Eating we did. So drinking: It is usually true that one is free to drink water from the stream flowing through one's land. Exception: you have already used up all the gallons allotted in your water rights (which were determined by libertarian homesteading, of course).
It is usually true that one is free to breathe whenever one wants. Exception: one has signed up as a member of an orchestra and part of your contract stipulates that during concerts and practices, you must breathe only at the correct moments indicated by the sheet music.
It is usually true that one is free to read whatever one wants. Exception: the book you are reading is one you broke into Joe's house and stole.
It is usually true that one is not free to break into houses and take books. Exception: the book was originally yours and Joe stole it 30 years ago.

Do you see? Please tell me you see. For physical assault, the rule is very simple:

Physical assault is fine, as long as it's not aggressive. You may physically assault someone if he has agreed to it, as in boxing. You may physically assault someone to a certain extent, determined by convention, without his explicit agreement -- for example putting a hand on his shoulder, brushing up against him, or even punching him playfully. You may physically assault someone when it is in self-defense. You may physically assault someone to defend a third party he is assaulting. This list of exceptions is not exhaustive. There are all kinds of situations in which physical assault is certainly not immoral, and may even be positively moral. So your moral assertion: is just a false moral assertion. It's just wrong. It's lousy morality and sloppy thinking. That doesn't show that morality is a failure. It shows that your morality is a failure.

Who made this rule? Who enforces it?

[helmuth_hubener]

Wrong. Being subjective doesn't make them non-existend. Not believing in absolute, objective, universal morality does not make you a moral relativist!

I thought it did. It was my understanding that one either believes in absolute morality or relative morality. Is there a middle path, a "Third Way," or is there something else I'm missing?

So? That would only mean that you have to accept that his morals, just as yours, are created by the human mind and can differ from person to person. What you can do now is either show that your moral code is superior in reaching his goals, or stating that his goals are contrary to what you believe is "good" and tell others why you think this is the case.

True. I don't want to impose my morality on anyone else, any more than I'd want to impose my scientific or religious beliefs. I'm just saying I think one can seek for truth in this area, rather than reject the possibility of any truth, which is what moral relativity seems to do, to the extent I understand it.

In science, we may disagree on whether mitochondria health is linked to uric acid levels, or whether there's life on Neptune, but we agree that there is some truth out there on this issue, and that conceivably we could find it someday. We don't say "well for you there's life on Neptune, and for me there's not, and both views are just as valid." For certain issues, for instance life on Neptune, we may say that both views are equally valid in the sense that both sides make some good points and we're just too far away to know for sure. (Hypothetically! I don't know of anyone advocating for life on Neptune). But even in those cases, we still hold the world view that either there is life on Neptune or there isn't. And the black and white part of that isn't the essential thing: perhaps there's some middle ground that turns out to be true, like there used to be life on Neptune but it's extinct now, or there's some weird crystal structure and we can't figure out if it's life or not. The essential thing is that there's some sort of truth concerning life on Neptune, and that that truth is the same for everyone.

This is the same situation I believe exists in morality. There exist true moral principles. Now some of finding ideal behavior patterns is more like the first example: is mitochondria health linked to uric acid levels? I could say, "I got my uric acid down to 3 and I'm so much healthier," and you could say, "well, my body is different than yours, I'm more healthy when I have a high uric acid level of 4.5." And in so many situations that might actually be true. Thus manners, effective business practices, cultural acceptability, etc., might vary widely from one society, and one individual, to the next. But there are certain moral principals which I believe are universal: don't aggressively murder other people, etc. Boiling down to: respect other people's boundaries.

I most certainly agree that it's moral to eat a cow's flesh, without it "agreeing to it", but immoral to eat a human's flesh against his will. However, I do not claim that my view on this is some kind of "ultimate truth" independed of subjects (i.e. objective). It just freaks me out that someone would walk on the street eating humans and even if I'd be certain that I will never be a victim of this guy, I'd advocate to stop him. But I wouldn't do that because I believe that my morality is "superior" on some kind of objective basis. I'd do it because it feels right, to me and satisfies me. And luckily almost everyone agrees on the position that violent cannibalism is wrong. Where does that kind of morality contradict itself?

My point was not that it contradicts itself, but that it doesn't. For any moral system, someone can come in and make an objection like:

"Your moral system says that sex is bad, except for in marriage, and then sex is good. That's totally contradictory/hypocritical/bogus. Is sex good or is it bad? You can't have it both ways!"

Which is ridiculous. Just like "Is assault good or is it bad? Which is it?"

I agree, these moral principles you have are very successful. I'm an anarchist too (which is what I guess describes you also)

shhhh...

and I agree that stealing is always immoral. But the NAP's "success" in terms of satisfying human wants and providing an environment that most people would prefer has nothing to do with them being objective or absolute. In fact, objective morals don't even need to satisfy human desires. You could make up a moral code you claim to be "objective" or "absolute" that sounds absolutely awful to everybody, including yourself. But that morality would be perfectly logically valid. It's just that you couldn't prove the axioms.

I don't know that you can ever prove the axioms. Unless you use argumentation ethics, like Hoppe. Anyway, the NAP makes sense. You can fit everything together into a logical and coherent political picture. But you're right, that's not why I'm a libertarian. I'm a libertarian because I believe the axiom(s). I want freedom, whether I can prove it or not!

[helmuth_hubener]

Who made this rule? Who enforces it?

I do.

[PaulConventionWV]

I do not calculate as "personal wealth". I calculate it in how much suffering would be alleviated and progress would have occurred without parasites feasting on human chattle. I estimate we would be 50 years advanced, minimum. Probably would have already have colonies on the moon.

Of course, that is all personal speculation and is, in no way, grounded in reality or facts.

[helmuth_hubener]

Of course, that is all personal speculation and is, in no way, grounded in reality or facts.

While all counter-factuals are of necessity speculative, I do not find it in any way divorced from reality. I would imagine the estimate of 50 years worth of progress-inhibition is based on an intuitive understanding of many facts LibForestPaul has observed throughout his life. We have all observed the destructive consequences of having the state and having taxation.

But you do find it to be divorced from reality? How so? Do you have an alternative estimate?

[Danan]

I thought it did. It was my understanding that one either believes in absolute morality or relative morality. Is there a middle path, a "Third Way," or is there something else I'm missing?

Well, it depends. The implication of calling someone a "moral relativist" is normally that this person can not argue against actions of other people he personally finds wrong, as long as they believe subjectively that they are right. That's what I object to. I don't believe in absolute morality, but I can still condemn the beliefs of others, if they are inconsistent with my own subjective morality.

I have to state this, because I heard the "Well then you can't say that what the Nazis did was wrong!"-fallacy often enough. It only follows that there is no abslute/objective/universal "right" and "worng", independent of our individual, personal judgements. But I can still say that I believe that what they did was aweful, wrong and immoral. And I could still take actions against them, even if they believed what they did was just and even if their position were not in any way more objectively "wrong" than mine.

True. I don't want to impose my morality on anyone else, any more than I'd want to impose my scientific or religious beliefs. I'm just saying I think one can seek for truth in this area, rather than reject the possibility of any truth, which is what moral relativity seems to do, to the extent I understand it.

I don't believe that there is objective truth to find in the case of morality. I believe that what Hitler did was dead wrong. And almost everybody on this planet does too, luckily. It seems to be the case that to be empathetic and compassionate is a natural advantage.

But what if not a single person on earth believed that what he did was wrong, and nobody ever will in the future? Would it still be wrong? Obviously it is still wrong to me, but I don't even exist in this scenario. If it was still wrong, then wrong to whom? Morality is subjective by it's very nature, unless you believe that our moral code comes from a higher being. In that case all action that opposes the will of this being is necessarily wrong, no matter what a single human thinks about it. And if this moral code said that we ought to kill eachother, this would be objectively moral and universally, absolutely true, if the premise were true/real. But I wouldn't accept that premise, because I see no reason for this to be true.

In science, we may disagree on whether...

This is the same situation I believe exists in morality. There exist true moral principles...

shortened

There is a difference between the two, though. Natural science trys to describe porperties of the real, physicle world while morality is a philosophical concept.

Maybe you could say, "Morality is objective, because there are nerve fibers, grey matter, etc. in the human brain that determine what the individual believes is right and wrong," but that's not what you're talking about.

Whether or not there is life on Neptun is objectively true or false, independent of us. But without subjects, there is no morality, no right or wrong.

Or let me put this differently: Why is it objectively true that I should not murder anyone? It's obvious why you and most other people (including myself) subjectively belief it's wrong, but what makes this an objective truth? Some people might prefer to see everybody dead, so for them, there is no reason to agree with you, that this would be universally, absolutely wrong, unless you can back up that claim with evidence. Of course we can still stop him from killing other people, no matter if you manage to convince him or not.

It is true, that if your only reason to have a moral code is as a means to certain ends, like a specific environment you want to live in, then we could objectively test if these morals are able to produce the desired outcome. That's not what I understand as "absolute morality", though.

My point was not that it contradicts itself, but that it doesn't. For any moral system, someone can come in and make an objection like:

"Your moral system says that sex is bad, except for in marriage, and then sex is good. That's totally contradictory/hypocritical/bogus. Is sex good or is it bad? You can't have it both ways!"

Which is ridiculous. Just like "Is assault good or is it bad? Which is it?"

I agree with you here. Travlyr's objections to your points were unsound. You could even say that, "Stealing is bad, unless you have a very good reason to do it, like one of the following: ...," is objective morality and that still wouldn't contradict itself. Exceptions in a moral code have nothing to do with its objectivity. That's not what I was talking about though. I didn't defend him.

This actually quite an intersting area. Would you agree, that if you believe that there is some kind of absolute moral code, a set of believes of what is wrong and what is right, that you always ought to act according to this morality?

To make that a little bit more clear: "You are not allowed to kill other human beings!" would obviously mean that even self-defense is forbidden. But as you correctly said, you can have a more precise moral code like, "You are not allowed to use force against other human beings, unless you are coerced against first. And then you can only do.... etc. etc."

The way I understand it, you say that stealing is in every possible situation absolutely wrong, correct? You would have to agree that it's in no case acceptable to act against what is right, otherwise "being morally wrong" becomes completely meaningless. If I'm correct so far, it would follow that in a scenario where you and your family are starving to death it would still be wrong to steal food, even if that's the only way for you to survive. And since you can't just act against what is right and you know that, because you already thought this through, it also follows that you would rather let your family die, then steal the food.

I don't agree with that. I know that I wouldn't let my family die. And since I couldn't possibly let that happen in this scenario, "Don't ever steal!" can't be a sufficient moral code for me. Because a morality I know in advance I can not act uppon in certain circumstances is completely useless to me.

So I believe that there are theoretical scenarios where aggressing against someones property (i.e. stealing) is not wrong, as long I want "being wrong" to mean something. None of that stops me from being an anarchist, though. It only stops me from being dogmatic.

[Steven Douglas]

i don't understand at all what your alternative definition for state is, other than it appears to encompass all individuals, and groups, and, well, everything.

First of all, I don't place any stock in definitions (especially from political scientists, economists, etc.,) as having any authority whatsoever. They are only descriptive, to the extent that they are accurate, but they aren't decrees. So it doesn't matter to me how anyone labels or defines anything, as definitions are mere starting points for common understanding. Once I have someone's definition -- their glass slipper, or yardstick -- I can then use that to see where it fits.

Thus, with any of your definitions, I can prove that, at the core, the purest form of government (the state) is, and has always been, the individual. All other forms (those that encompass other individuals) are nothing more than extensions of that purest form, because any other form is nothing more than action by individuals. Now let's apply that to you, and even the definitions you provided:

In that context, a primary defining characteristic or attribute of a state, as you have it defined, appears to be "a coercively-enforced monopoly on adjudication"?

That is the accepted definition of the state; not just among libertarians, but among political scientists in general is my understanding. They usually put it more like:

The state is a compulsory political organization that has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a certain territory.

As an individual, in principle, you claim to have that very monopoly (sole despotic dominion), over your person only, and within your personal territory. A legitimate use of force would be that which defends against force used against you (and your sleeping space, if that was your only "territory").

I like the tweaked definition of Hoppe: An institution which claims, and to a large extent achieves, a coercively-enforced monopoly on ultimate decision-making.

Once again, since that very power is what you are claiming for yourself, you are the state by either of your definitions. The more salient question is whether you believe that extends beyond yourself and your own personal space.

In that case, going along with your system, what I oppose is indeed a particular form a state takes. I am opposed to:

Murder
Slavery
Theft
All other aggression

And I believe that you, as a person-state, would not exercise the first three against other person-states. It's the fourth one that I question, and that with a question. If you saw another person, or group of persons, murdering, enslaving, or stealing from other persons, but not from you, would you a) leave them alone, or b) use force if that was necessary to stop/oppose them?

If you answer live-and-let-die "b", then at least you are consistent. You are the neutral "Switzerland" person-state, who does not involve himself in matters that do not immediately and directly threaten or concern him. Others can be murdered, enslaved, or stolen from, so long as it is not you. If you actively oppose this on behalf of others, however, then you are engaging in "aggression", if but for the sole purpose of stopping aggression.

Those are the defining characteristics of the form of state which I oppose. Those behaviors all seem morally outrageous to me. One would think that their abolition would not be controversial.

That's the conundrum. How is "abolition" even possible without a coercively-enforced monopoly on ultimate decision-making (a state), if but only for that purpose, and even if only within the confines of a given territorial boundary?

Unfortunately, we live in an age of euphemism and of muddled thinking. Mass murder is called "war for freedom". Slavery is called "regulation" and "reasonable requirements". Theft is called "taxation". "Paying your fair share," "doing your part," "helping society," "furthering the greater good," -- who could oppose any of these noble euphemisms?

I agree, that is muddled thinking -- self-deception on their parts. But that is not because states exist, but rather because those particular states (nothing more than collectivized individuals) presume, compulsively and aggressively, to arrogate the rights and powers of other sovereign individuals without their individual consent. I am arguing that this cannot be "opposed" without another state (individual or collective individuals), which presumes ultimate decision-making power to make the opposite decision, and use opposing force to that end.

Anyway, there will naturally be various institutions formed by men. There will even be a natural aristocracy. Some people are more intelligent, more wealthy, more respected than others. People will look to them as leaders and thus they will have power. All that is natural. But one can have all that power and inequality and still have the individual ultimately sovereign.

One can still have a society wherein murder, slavery, theft, and all other forms of aggression are not permitted, even (or especially!) by the aristocracy. One can hold all individuals to the same standards of conduct. That is the natural order.

I agree. My only point is that the only way to "have the individual ultimately sovereign", where all other forms of aggression are "not permitted" (by whom?) is through a state, using any of your definitions.

All muddled thinking comes into play when people buy into the notion that there even is such a thing as 'the state' that is not, at all times, reducible to a) an individual, like a king, or b) individuals, like the king and his horses and men. That's when we stop paying attention to the man/people behind the curtain, and address The Great And Powerful Wizard - that fiery awesome projection in the Great Hall -- as if it really was a single entity, separate from any individual. Fighting that illusion is when you start batting $#@! against the wind. $#@! the puppet, it's not real. Follow the strings that lead to the puppetmaster.

[helmuth_hubener]

Once again, since that very power is what you are claiming for yourself, you are the state by either of your definitions.

My monopoly is not enforced coercively. There is no other human in the space occupied by my body who objects to my decisions.

As a joking aside, even if you consider my body as made up of a conglomeration of separate organisms, none of them ever object either. They just follow my every command. And if they don't, if my arms just won't do another push-up or whatever, I have no way of exercising coercion or enslavement over them.

So anyway, to me if there is no aggressive coercion, there is no state. Nobody being aggressed against? No rights being invaded? It's not a state. And I'm all for it.

I can see what you're saying, though. Your concept of state is a useful concept, too, it's just the word state has too much baggage. So if it's OK, let's just stick with my definition of state for this conversation. It's too confusing otherwise. Plus I don't think it's the best nor most descriptive word to describe your concept. Perhaps "force bubbles"? That is a nice visualization, because you actually can't have two different force bubbles overlapping (think of a Ven diagram) enclosing the same dimension-- or set of decisions -- over the same clump of matter at the same time. Well, you can, but you don't want to, because then you get conflict. It's a physical reality that two different contradicting decisions cannot both be carried out for the same matter at the same time, and so the overlapping claimants will have to duke it out somehow.

There's no particular reason to have one large overarching force bubble enclosing all the other force bubbles within a geographical area. What would this do? There would be perpetual conflict, as every square inch within is under conflict, including the very bodies of those residing there. Unless, that is, everyone's dimensions of force are clearly defined such as they don't overlap. And if that is the case, then everything is hunky dory, I'm all for it, and it's not a state.

Under anarcho-capitalism, every man is king. Everyone is sovereign. And everyone's property is his kingdom. And so in a sense, everyone can set up their own government. So you have all these little force bubbles butting up next to (but not overlapping) each other. You can also subscribe to someone else's government. You can do whatever you want! So you may see some folks buying up land and forming gated communities with some pretty restrictive rules resembling those of our current-day nation-states. But that's OK! Because the territory they claim will actually be theirs, justly acquired, and the legitimate boundaries and dimensions of their force bubble will be clearly defined.

If you saw another person, or group of persons, murdering, enslaving, or stealing from other persons, but not from you, would you a) leave them alone, or b) use force if that was necessary to stop/oppose them?

I see no moral problem with defending third parties on a personal level. Defense is not aggression.

That's the conundrum. How is "abolition" even possible without a coercively-enforced monopoly on ultimate decision-making (a state), if but only for that purpose, and even if only within the confines of a given territorial boundary?

Too much Hobbes.

How is anything ever "abolished"? How does the state abolish things?

However it does that, multiple competing firms and forces on the free market can do the same thing, only better. And non-aggressively. The monopoly aspect is not essential. The coercive aspect is certainly not essential. Being a monopoly and being coercive does not allow the state to abolish things more effectively than non-coercive non-monopolies.

Nobody knows what the market would come up with, but possibly under an-cap you'd see a system of insurance companies, private defense agencies, and free market arbitrators taking over the provision of law and justice.

[Danan]

I agree. My only point is that the only way to "have the individual ultimately sovereign", where all other forms of aggression are "not permitted" (by whom?) is through a state, using any of your definitions.

If I understand you correctly, I'd recommend this presentation of David Friedman's idea of a "stateless society" as a possible answer:



He admits that his system is not "perfect" either and that conflicts would exist there too. But the same is true for the current system.

If offered the choice, I'd take my chances and select an anarchist, private-law society over any other form of social order I've heard of yet. And even if it turns out to be unsustainable, what's the worst thing that could happen? That tyranny emerges once again? Well that happened to "restricted" governments as well.