Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 149

Thread: The Case for the State

  1. #1
    Staff - Admin
    Houston, TX
    Bryan's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    3
    Posts
    8,282
    Join Date
    May 2007

    Default The Case for the State

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

    --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [Note: Part 2 will address the "just leave" argument].
    This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.

    Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.

    I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    It's easy. Government is no problem so long as everyone has the right to opt out without physically relocating. The radical right to peaceful secession in situ.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  4. #3

    Default

    The state is institutional chaos.
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddyRey View Post
    Do you think it's a coincidence that the most cherished standard of the Ron Paul campaign was a sign highlighting the word "love" inside the word "revolution"? A revolution not based on love is a revolution doomed to failure. So, at the risk of sounding corny, I just wanted to let you know that, wherever you stand on any of these hot-button issues, and even if we might have exchanged bitter words or harsh sentiments in the past, I love each and every one of you - no exceptions!

    "When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will." Frederic Bastiat

    Peace.

  5. #4

    Default

    @Bryan-

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

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

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

  6. #5
    Staff - Admin
    Houston, TX
    Bryan's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    3
    Posts
    8,282
    Join Date
    May 2007

    Default

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

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

    Thank you for the reply.
    This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.

    Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.

    I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.

  7. #6
    Staff - Admin
    Houston, TX
    Bryan's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    3
    Posts
    8,282
    Join Date
    May 2007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry Rogue View Post
    The state is institutional chaos.
    Could you please expand on your statement or provide a direct counter argument to one of my points?

    Thank you.
    This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.

    Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.

    I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.

  8. #7

    Default

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

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

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

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

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan View Post
    Could you please expand on your statement or provide a direct counter argument to one of my points?

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

  10. #9
    Staff - Admin
    Houston, TX
    Bryan's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    3
    Posts
    8,282
    Join Date
    May 2007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    The problem is that "people banding together to prevent X" needs to be defined.
    Why is this a problem? Did I use this phrase in my argument?


    I don't have a right to band together with my neighbors in order to lynch all of the prostitutes.
    Of course not, was there anything in my argument that indicated that you could have this right? If so, please explain.

    I do have a right to sign an agreement with willing neighbors that none of us will be or buy the services of prostitutes. But it is obvious that such an agreement would not be a State.
    Agreed on the right to sign an agreement, and certainly, this alone would be a stretch to consider a state, but this same signed agreement could be expanded to include a justice system for those accused of violating their agreement, it could be expanded to define a border security system, it could be expanded to define a funding model, it could be expanded to do just about everything that one would associate with a state.


    Also, I'd bet money that no statist of any kind could come anywhere near beating Tom Woods in a debate.
    The arguments stand on their own merit.


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

    Thank you.
    This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.

    Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.

    I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.

  11. #10

    Default

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

    --

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

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

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

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

    With that, we have the construct for a state based on a free society. This argument undoubtedly can leave some of those who oppose all forms of a state as claiming this isn't a state, which leads back to the issue of semantics. Can the described volunteer construct be considered a state or not? By all accounts, it does match the definition of creating a monopoly of power over the defined territory. Anti-state supporters can still argue however that it's not a state, and effectively have to uphold the position that states can not be voluntary, even though nothing in the definition of a state says it can't be. Ultimately, the matter does comes down to whatever personal semantics one subscribes to, but this leads to the third point: messaging.
    At what point in history did semantics become a dirty word? I believe this is the third time this week I've heard it used to dismiss an argument. Rights vs. Privilege, semantics. Automatic rifle vs. Semiautomatic rifle, semantics. State vs. Voluntary contract, semantics. I recall a thread where a company put a stipulation in its on line agreement, that the buyer shall face a $500.00 fine if the buyer writes a bad review of the company. A woman did write a bad review, the company did demand a fine be paid. Was it paid? No. Did the company show up at the womans door in SWAT gear, break down her door, throw flash bangs in her bed? The answer is No. Should the company execute such an act, the woman and/or associates if armed, could very well dispatch the intruders. Ignore the State's penalty and you will undoubtedly recieve a visit and even if you do when one battle, you will surely loose the last.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan View Post
    In pursuit of a free society, liberty seekers must engage others who disagree with them and present an argument to change their world view, one quickly finds out this is no easy task. In talking with an individual who supports victimless crime laws and who wants to have a controlled society they are in effect arguing in favor of a state or something functionally equivalent to it. For example, many people don't want to have prostitutes and drug dealers (or whatever) on every street corner. Part of a voluntarily society allows congregation of individuals with similar social standards, and if they want to congregate as such and call that a state, then why wouldn't you let them? Is there really functional value in trying to convince someone to not call something a state when it has all the attributes of what they seek and they in fact want to call it a state? Why make things hard on yourself?

    Worse, if people only see statements such as "the state is illegitimate" in some headline without processing a logical argument then they can be driven further away from your viewpoint as it may be deemed radical, unsafe and undesirable. The point to this is that if you want to engage in good messaging you should use language that your target audience can understand and not expect them to understand your definitions off-hand, particularly when you are not engaged in a direct two way interaction with them.
    I agree with this. If an anarchist can't convince a libertarian, he/she will have little luck convincing a totalitarian. I do find value in moving the Liberty meter and I refrain from actively pushing the stateless message on RPF, except when voluntarism is directly challenged, as it has been in this thread. Personally, I doubt I have ever convinced anyone of anything on this forum, that they didn't already believe themselves. That is probably the case for most, I would guess.

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

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

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

    [Note: Part 2 will address the "just leave" argument].
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddyRey View Post
    Do you think it's a coincidence that the most cherished standard of the Ron Paul campaign was a sign highlighting the word "love" inside the word "revolution"? A revolution not based on love is a revolution doomed to failure. So, at the risk of sounding corny, I just wanted to let you know that, wherever you stand on any of these hot-button issues, and even if we might have exchanged bitter words or harsh sentiments in the past, I love each and every one of you - no exceptions!

    "When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will." Frederic Bastiat

    Peace.

  12. #11
    Staff - Admin
    Houston, TX
    Bryan's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    3
    Posts
    8,282
    Join Date
    May 2007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    The problem is that the terms aren't actually agreed upon.
    Agreed to a point, but also see my third argument on Messaging. If you are to engage someone to try to change their viewpoint you are likely better off using language that they understand and relate to.

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

    I find it odd that a Ron Paul supporter would argue that one is "bound" to obey the law whatever it happens to be...
    I agree, this is the crux issue, and the points that I will address in part two. None-the-less, the fact that states control basically the entire planet doesn't change the meaning of a state.
    This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.

    Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.

    I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.

  13. #12

    Default

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

  14. #13

    Default

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

    Many who argue against the state generally characterizes this as "a monopoly of power over a defined territory", which functionally matches the dictionary but just puts the terms more bluntly.
    This, I wouldn't agree with. These, in my view, are weasel words. The latter, that is.

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

    This becomes a contradictory comparison of definition.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 08-22-2014 at 09:58 PM.

  15. #14

    Default

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

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

    Thank you for the reply.
    All contracts are breachable; such is the nature of contracts. And those contracts are also voided when the land is inherited; otherwise you'd be born into a contract you did not agree to.
    Last edited by TheTexan; 08-22-2014 at 09:52 PM.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Rand Paul (Vice Pres) 2016!!!!

  16. #15
    Staff - Admin
    Houston, TX
    Bryan's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    3
    Posts
    8,282
    Join Date
    May 2007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    The State is legalized crime (theft via taxation, murder via war, etc.) which one is not legally "allowed" to defend himself against.
    You don't have to defend yourself, all you have to do is not purchase land or live within the jurisdiction of a state you don't like. My initial argument however indicates that while this is a valid point there is an equally valid counter point of "where are they to leave to?" -- to which I will address in part two.



    The main problem people have with "anarchy" is that people would steal from and kill each other, well, the State gives itself legal right to do these things.
    This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.

    Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.

    I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan View Post
    You don't have to defend yourself, all you have to do is not purchase land or live within the jurisdiction of a state you don't like. My initial argument however indicates that while this is a valid point there is an equally valid counter point of "where are they to leave to?" -- to which I will address in part two.
    The problem is no moral requirement to simply not live in areas where powerful gangs with legal monopolies exist simply because people have illegitimately created such institutions.

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

  18. #17
    Staff - Admin
    Houston, TX
    Bryan's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    3
    Posts
    8,282
    Join Date
    May 2007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry Rogue View Post
    At what point in history did semantics become a dirty word? I believe this is the third time this week I've heard it used to dismiss an argument. Rights vs. Privilege, semantics. Automatic rifle vs. Semiautomatic rifle, semantics. State vs. Voluntary contract, semantics.
    I'm not sure where I am saying semantics is a dirty word? I am saying that it is understandable that different people can have a different understanding of what constitutes a state and what doesn't-- which gets to my third point on messaging (where we agree) that you should engage someone with semantics that they understand.

    I recall a thread where a company put a stipulation in its on line agreement, that the buyer shall face a $500.00 fine if the buyer writes a bad review of the company. A woman did write a bad review, the company did demand a fine be paid. Was it paid? No. Did the company show up at the womans door in SWAT gear, break down her door, throw flash bangs in her bed? The answer is No. Should the company execute such an act, the woman and/or associates if armed, could very well dispatch the intruders. Ignore the State's penalty and you will undoubtedly recieve a visit and even if you do when one battle, you will surely loose the last.
    I'm not sure where this is applied to my points. Otherwise, yes, the company would possibly be in its right to pursue a judgement against the lady, if the agreement was really legally binding (which I'd think it might not). The counter (and smart) position is to not do business with anyone who wants to suppress legitimate negative reviews since that can't lead to anything good.

    Huh?
    I'm not following you here. Are you saying that you don't agree that most states will let you leave?
    This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.

    Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.

    I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.

  19. #18
    Staff - Admin
    Houston, TX
    Bryan's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    3
    Posts
    8,282
    Join Date
    May 2007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    Bryan, the issue is that I (And most people here) would assert that people actually DON'T have the right to gather together and impose laws against prostitutes and drug dealers.
    You seem to be construction an argument that I am not presenting. No where do I say that people have a right to IMPOSE LAWS, I am only saying that individuals can be upheld to contracts they agree to in advance.

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

    Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.

    I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.

  20. #19
    Staff - Admin
    Houston, TX
    Bryan's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    3
    Posts
    8,282
    Join Date
    May 2007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    This, I wouldn't agree with. These, in my view, are weasel words. The latter, that is.

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

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

    Thank you.
    Last edited by Bryan; 08-22-2014 at 11:06 PM. Reason: fixed typo
    This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.

    Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.

    I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.

  21. #20

    Default

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

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

    Thank you for the reply.
    Social contract theory is a joke--legally, morally, and logically.

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

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

    ETA: Read the OP.
    Last edited by kcchiefs6465; 08-22-2014 at 10:44 PM.
    “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell

    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    In terms of a full spectrum candidate, Rand is leaps and bounds above Trump. I'm not disputing that.
    Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump

  22. #21

    Default

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

  23. #22

    Default

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

    Thank you.
    Well. For the purpose of any argument that I would make (meaning that my argument may not be from the perspective that tombo and Michael are bringing over in that other thread. I'd benchmark the definition of state as incorporated with the feds assuming a larger role but morally I'd revert (eventually) to the idea that it is an entity that shares sovereignty with federal government.

    be sure to not (what?) my point on "message."
    Miss?

  24. #23
    Staff - Admin
    Houston, TX
    Bryan's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    3
    Posts
    8,282
    Join Date
    May 2007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bxm042 View Post
    All contracts are breachable; such is the nature of contracts.
    Certainly one can breach a contract, but then one would also be bound to accept the terms of what is to happen when they do breach it, and the entity seeking to collect damages could build a morally just case for obtaining restitution for the breached contract.

    And those contracts are also voided when the land is inherited;
    If one bought some property in an area that was limited by contract then that contract could expressly state that the terms of the contract would apply to any and all future owners. This would be a necessary clause to keep a deed restricted area from quickly devolving.

    otherwise you'd be born into a contract you did not agree to.
    This enters into very interesting discussion ground- I would argue that regardless of the terms of inheritance a "dependent" is still bound to the contract that their parents agreed to within the scope of the property contract. Thus, if the contract said that you can't deal drugs on the property, nor can your children, to which the parent signed the contract, it would be a breech of contract if a child started to deal drugs on the property. This however gets into an entirely different set of issues with dependents. If a dependent wanted to deal drugs they are welcome to acquire land that does not prevent them to do so, they are considered a "dependent" if they are unable or unwilling to do this.
    This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.

    Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.

    I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.

  25. #24

    Default

    I'm probably going to wait for Part II of your question here. Only because anything that I'd add to this part is already elevated to a geo-political level and out of scope of the "neighborhood/moral" theory. Respectfully. Interesting thread though.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 08-22-2014 at 10:54 PM.

  26. #25
    Staff - Admin
    Houston, TX
    Bryan's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    3
    Posts
    8,282
    Join Date
    May 2007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    The problem is no moral requirement to simply not live in areas where powerful gangs with legal monopolies exist simply because people have illegitimately created such institutions.

    I know you love liberty, don't throw it away by giving into statist presuppositions before the conversation even starts.
    I agree with you here to a point, my part two will address this better.

    Don't get me wrong, under no situation am I saying that anyone should submit to tyranny- that was never said nor implied within my post - but I am making several points in this "part one":

    1. States can exist without tyranny, at least the definition of a state that the average person accepts.
    2. There are better positions then to argue against the state.
    This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.

    Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.

    I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.

  27. #26

    Default

    I've never been fond of the use of the term "moral" where this kind of thing comes up.

  28. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan View Post
    Certainly one can breach a contract, but then one would also be bound to accept the terms of what is to happen when they do breach it, and the entity seeking to collect damages could build a morally just case for obtaining restitution for the breached contract.


    If one bought some property in an area that was limited by contract then that contract could expressly state that the terms of the contract would apply to any and all future owners. This would be a necessary clause to keep a deed restricted area from quickly devolving.


    This enters into very interesting discussion ground- I would argue that regardless of the terms of inheritance a "dependent" is still bound to the contract that their parents agreed to within the scope of the property contract. Thus, if the contract said that you can't deal drugs on the property, nor can your children, to which the parent signed the contract, it would be a breech of contract if a child started to deal drugs on the property. This however gets into an entirely different set of issues with dependents. If a dependent wanted to deal drugs they are welcome to acquire land that does not prevent them to do so, they are considered a "dependent" if they are unable or unwilling to do this.
    This scenario is not unlike that of the current "state" of affairs. Laws are added but rarely removed. Such would be with the contracts on land. With each sale, more stipulations would be added, such that even a HOA would be part of it. As more rules are added, and more dupes found to buy under such conditions (because of a job and distance or whatever) more and more restrictions would be found on every piece of land that could be bought throughout the globe.

    Some stipulations might even be added for revenge and/or sarcasm in the not so distant future.

    Eventually, a common contract across larger and larger areas would be concocted by some keen persons, that would claim to "alleviate" the oppressive rules heaped upon the lands. ... ...
    "When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed." - Bastiat : The Law

    "nothing evil grows in alcohol" ~ @presence

    "I mean can you imagine what it would be like if firemen acted like police officers? They would only go into a burning house only if there's a 100% chance they won't get any burns. I mean, you've got to fully protect thy self first." ~ juleswin

  29. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan View Post
    If one bought some property in an area that was limited by contract then that contract could expressly state that the terms of the contract would apply to any and all future owners. This would be a necessary clause to keep a deed restricted area from quickly devolving.
    I cannot fathom any justification for being born into a contract. Certainly not to protect the sanctity of what essentially amounts to a home-owners association.

    You can still have a HOA, if you like. But don't give the impression that the land contracts you make are sales transactions. You're renting the property out. If the occupants have reasonable reason to believe they own the property, that changes the rules dramatically.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Rand Paul (Vice Pres) 2016!!!!

  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan View Post
    I agree with you here to a point, my part two will address this better.

    Don't get me wrong, under no situation am I saying that anyone should submit to tyranny- that was never said nor implied within my post - but I am making several points in this "part one":

    1. States can exist without tyranny, at least the definition of a state that the average person accepts.
    2. There are better positions then to argue against the state.
    A State is a geographic monopoly on law enforcement, arbitration, and defense services. I think the average person could accept this definition, though it wouldn't cross their minds that someone could actually object to it.

  31. #30
    Staff - Admin
    Houston, TX
    Bryan's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    3
    Posts
    8,282
    Join Date
    May 2007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcchiefs6465 View Post
    Social contract theory is a joke--legally, morally, and logically.
    Could you explain where you see I am arguing in favor of social contracts? I am discussion written contracts that one can voluntarily agree to or not. To make sure we're on the same page, could you define your terms (at least for "social contract theory")

    Ithere is a way for government to operate legitimately (and I hope you touch upon these points). That is, they are founded upon consent and they act within the law.
    That is what I am arguing, a state can be created based on consent.

    They've never done that. Instead they rely on a majority unknowingly ruled by a minority to effect this or that with obscure and made-up-as-they-go-along laws.
    If it's not "never", it's pretty close to that. None-the-less, it still does not prevent such a case by definition.
    This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.

    Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.

    I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast





Similar Threads

  1. TX - Another case of an innocent man being executed by the state.
    By Anti Federalist in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-15-2012, 09:15 PM
  2. Potential GOP candidates state their case on foreign policy
    By tsai3904 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-09-2011, 11:22 PM
  3. How to make the case for ending the welfare state?
    By nodeal in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-14-2010, 11:51 PM
  4. Who Shall Teach: The Case for Separation of School and State
    By FrankRep in forum Education Freedom
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-07-2008, 12:50 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •