The Case for the State

[erowe1]

Can one morally sell one's self into slavery?

Yes. I don't see why not.

[Christian Liberty]

At least in the cases of robbery and kidnapping, consent on the part of the victims would mean that those things aren't robbery and kidnapping.

But when people desire the things that Nock criticizes as elements of the state, what that means is that the desire to see someone commit robbery and kidnapping against non-consenting victims. The fact that some (or even a majority of) people actually desire these things doesn't make them less worthy of criticism.

Exactly. Its like whining that there's no place in which you can legally rob your neighbors. People need to grow up.

[TheTexan]

Doesn't somebody have to deceive somebody else in order for it to be fraud?

Now where there definitely is fraud is when somebody sells something they don't rightfully own in the first place.

Most people in the US think they own land. They don't. This fraud is part of the reason the state is allowed to exist.

[Tod]

Yes. I don't see why not.

If liberty is an unalienable right and you are saying that it is......which one is wrong?

[erowe1]

If liberty is an unalienable right and you are saying that it is......which one is wrong?

Am I saying that liberty is an unalienable right? I'm not sure that I am. But if so, then so be it.

[Ronin Truth]

Can one morally sell one's self into slavery?

The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude (pdf)

[Ronin Truth]

The Philosophy of Ownership

Robert LeFevre

The significance of property ownership has rarely been fully appreciated, writes Robert LeFevre.

He proceeds to present the entire libertarian case for private ownership, with his characteristic clarity of exposition. He makes what is a radically hard-core case for the absolute integrity of self ownership and property ownership but in a way that comes across as common-sense. He shows that how a society thinks about the issue of ownership is not just a matter of details; our very survival depends on it.

Here is an excellent overview of a topic that Mises said was the foundational idea of liberalism itself. But it's more than an overview: it is a strong case for iron-clad, impenetrable, and no-exceptions social rules on ownership.

Publication Information Rampart College Press, 1966.
Updated 1/13/2012

http://mises.org/document/3151/The-P...y-of-Ownership

https://mises.org/books/ownership.pdf

[ProIndividual]

If someone else has ultimate authority on what you can or cant do on your land, that person owns it... not you.

Not if you consent to the conditions. How would you ban such masochistic agreements without you being the coercer? People do masochistic things...and masochism is sometimes perception (like drug use). We can't ban masochism of a voluntary nature, only sadism of a coercive nature. That's what voluntaryism is all about....tolerance for people's stupidity if it is voluntary.

[ProIndividual]

At least in the cases of robbery and kidnapping, consent on the part of the victims would mean that those things aren't robbery and kidnapping.

But when people desire the things that Nock criticizes as elements of the state, what that means is that the desire to see someone commit robbery and kidnapping against non-consenting victims. The fact that some (or even a majority of) people actually desire these things doesn't make them less worthy of criticism.

Well that's a fair argument...it would be voluntary expropriation by surprise (voluntary contractual "theft"), voluntary arrest by surprise (voluntary contractual "kidnapping") and voluntary euthanasia by surprise (voluntary contractual "murder"). But you get what I'm trying to say, despite our semantical problem you aptly point out. I'm referring to voluntary masochism, not victimizing non-consenters. Good point.

[ProIndividual]

Exactly. Its like whining that there's no place in which you can legally rob your neighbors. People need to grow up.

But would you coerce people who voluntarily contracted to such a thing? If they were agreed voluntarily and contractually to reject property, and only "stole" from ech other, and created no victims by actual theft against non-consenters? That was my point. That's how AnComs are able to exist in voluntaryism. Unlike AnComs, we're willing to allow them to co-exist with us (they don't generally reciprocate, although a few do, and they all COULD), and this is precisely how. And what about voluntary "murder"? Like a duel with pistols where no non-consenter was effected in any way? See my point now?

A free market for law entails these types of agreements can exist. There is no set standard of law in polycentric/customary legal systems. It's whatever you voluntarily contract for.

[ProIndividual]

If liberty is an unalienable right and you are saying that it is......which one is wrong?

If you want to coerce people into NOT contracting voluntarily in such masochistic ways, how is that compatible with voluntaryism exactly? It isn't. It's coercion of non-victimizers. You objecting to their behavior is totally separate from whether or not it creates a victim. Not everyone shares our particular values.

Also, see Chaos Theory by Robert Murphy...his voluntary "prisons" in a free market for law when one wants an alternative to the sure death of outlawry is exactly that...selling yourself in to "slavery" of a voluntary nature. There are also historical examples of this in statelessness via anthropology. Do you think only outlawry is allowed, but not voluntary imprisonment to remunerate victims and spare the life (if it be deemed so in the negotiations between legal insurers of the victimizer and victims) of the perpetrator? The market would surely produce such voluntary "prisons", and therefore voluntary "slavery" (it's not real slavery because it is voluntary, albeit masochistic).

This whole discussion is about voluntaryist ethics translated into their practical application in stateless legal theory. Anarchist legal order has no set laws...it's whatever the market produces and distributes to meet consumer demands and preferences. Law is emergent via nonviolent dispute resolution services and their contractual arrangements. Anything goes, provided it is voluntary...and to stop that, you require coercion, and therefore a state by another name.

[ProIndividual]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery

"Libertarian Murray Rothbard criticized the term as self-contradictory.[8]"

Why? Because if it is voluntary, no matter how detrimental to the willing individual capable of consent, it cannot be slavery. It's therefore able to occur in voluntaryism, and interfering in it is the coercion, not the voluntary masochism.

A Crusoe Social Philosophy by Murray Rothbard:

http://mises.org/daily/2459#ixzz0nx4DiTmB

"The concept of "voluntary slavery" is indeed a contradictory one, for so long as a laborer remains totally subservient to his master's will voluntarily, he is not yet a slave since his submission is voluntary..."

This is also why I mentioned the renewal periodically of the contract that voluntarily "enslaves" the individual. No contract is without its limits, in time or scope, or both:

"...whereas, if he later changed his mind and the master enforced his slavery by violence, the slavery would not then be voluntary."

So, as I said, voluntary "slavery" is certainly allowed in voluntaryism. It's just a masochistic contractual relationship, and as such it has limits on time and scope:

"In short, a man can naturally expend his labor currently for someone else's benefit, but he cannot transfer himself, even if he wished, into another man's permanent capital good. For he cannot rid himself of his own will, which may change in future years and repudiate the current arrangement. "

If it were permanent, it wouldn't be contractual or voluntary, and therefore would not be voluntary "slavery"...it would be coerced slavery. Contracts usually have time and scope limitations for this reason; man cannot know his future opinions, and if they change, so does his will to be in said agreement.

[TheTexan]

Not if you consent to the conditions. How would you ban such masochistic agreements without you being the coercer? People do masochistic things...and masochism is sometimes perception (like drug use). We can't ban masochism of a voluntary nature, only sadism of a coercive nature. That's what voluntaryism is all about....tolerance for people's stupidity if it is voluntary.

Masochism has nothing to do with it. You either own the land or you don't. If you must ask permission from the King to allow you to raise farm animals on your land, guess who really owns that land. Not you.

See allodial title for a more formal definition of owning land (and not the watered down US bastardization of it)

[Christian Liberty]

But would you coerce people who voluntarily contracted to such a thing? If they were agreed voluntarily and contractually to reject property, and only "stole" from ech other, and created no victims by actual theft against non-consenters? That was my point. That's how AnComs are able to exist in voluntaryism. Unlike AnComs, we're willing to allow them to co-exist with us (they don't generally reciprocate, although a few do, and they all COULD), and this is precisely how. And what about voluntary "murder"? Like a duel with pistols where no non-consenter was effected in any way? See my point now?

A free market for law entails these types of agreements can exist. There is no set standard of law in polycentric/customary legal systems. It's whatever you voluntarily contract for.

I agree with you, but the NAP needs to be the default. Nobody has the right to aggress against you without your consent.

I guess I wasn't sufficiently clear. Anarcho-communists are welcome to all contract with each other to steal from each other all they want. Duels: same thing, people can duel if they want. But at the end of the day, private property and the NAP are still the only things that allow them to do that. I have the right to use violence to protect my property from a community full of an-coms who want to violently take it. And that, ultimately, leads to a rejection of the State. What you are suggesting is GOVERNMENT but not the State.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery

"Libertarian Murray Rothbard criticized the term as self-contradictory.[8]"

Why? Because if it is voluntary, no matter how detrimental to the willing individual capable of consent, it cannot be slavery. It's therefore able to occur in voluntaryism, and interfering in it is the coercion, not the voluntary masochism.

A Crusoe Social Philosophy by Murray Rothbard:

http://mises.org/daily/2459#ixzz0nx4DiTmB

"The concept of "voluntary slavery" is indeed a contradictory one, for so long as a laborer remains totally subservient to his master's will voluntarily, he is not yet a slave since his submission is voluntary..."

This is also why I mentioned the renewal periodically of the contract that voluntarily "enslaves" the individual. No contract is without its limits, in time or scope, or both:

"...whereas, if he later changed his mind and the master enforced his slavery by violence, the slavery would not then be voluntary."

So, as I said, voluntary "slavery" is certainly allowed in voluntaryism. It's just a masochistic contractual relationship, and as such it has limits on time and scope:

"In short, a man can naturally expend his labor currently for someone else's benefit, but he cannot transfer himself, even if he wished, into another man's permanent capital good. For he cannot rid himself of his own will, which may change in future years and repudiate the current arrangement. "

If it were permanent, it wouldn't be contractual or voluntary, and therefore would not be voluntary "slavery"...it would be coerced slavery. Contracts usually have time and scope limitations for this reason; man cannot know his future opinions, and if they change, so does his will to be in said agreement.

Yeah, I guess the debate with the whole "voluntary slavery" bit is whether or not one can permanently sell himself like he can his property. I tend to think no, because self-ownership can't be transferred, but I could see that debated either way.

[enter`name`here]

contract theories of the state are all nice and good, unfortunately most if not all states are the result of conquest and aggression. what this means is that regardless of the moral status of some hypothetical libertarian state, the proper libertarian position is, in my humble opinion, anti-state. which is to say opposition to all states as they have hitherto been constructed.

this is not to say your points are not important, I would merely like to point out it cannot be a justification of the status quo.

for my part I do feel some form of voluntary government (I prefer that term to state) is necessary and good, but I doubt one could build one to be as large and powerful as the modern nation state without the use of violence.

[Ronin Truth]

LewRockwell.com

ANTI-STATE•ANTI-WAR•PRO-MARKET

[nayjevin]

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.

The owner of the property defining the jurisdiction of the common contract will sell or not sell based upon buyer's willingness to sign the contract.

But no one can force the owner of the property to keep the contract the same. The owner could give exemptions, or change the rules entirely. 'We reserve the right' language. Or, 'this contract is null and void under the following conditions' including owner of property selling under a different set of rules. Or, commonly owned land within jurisdiction - requiring 100% agreement among co-owners for sale.

[Christian Liberty]

The owner of the property defining the jurisdiction of the common contract will sell or not sell based upon buyer's willingness to sign the contract.

But no one can force the owner of the property to keep the contract the same. The owner could give exemptions, or change the rules entirely. 'We reserve the right' language. Or, 'this contract is null and void under the following conditions' including owner of property selling under a different set of rules. Or, commonly owned land within jurisdiction - requiring 100% agreement among co-owners for sale.

That would be fine. But, say someone breaks the rules and sells their property to a non-contract signer. The community could go after the seller, but the buyer violated no contract, and thus can do as he wills.

[nayjevin]

Will have to pick important nits here. The case for or against ANYTHING rests on semantics. Without semantics there is no conceptual thought that is possible. Not sure why semantics is specified here. Not sure how voluntarism gets in there, either. Since when are states based on voluntarism? It seems to me they are based on coercive threats of harm, more than anything else. What does one mean by "messaging"? The means of passing messages? Which ones? General messaging or something specific to the topic at hand?

That is a horrible definition, as it tacitly treats all souls within that territory as being on board with what we may conversationally term the greater agenda. The "state" is a conceptual fiction - a script to which people play their roles, willingly or under duress. There is no material reality to "the state" - not even the people. "State" exists in one place only: mind. That which people take as being "the state" is naught but the material manifestations of what mind produces when moving in accord with its understanding of the concept of "state".

Even this is incorrect, again confusing outward manifestations with the truer reality of what constitutes "state". "State" is pure vapor and shade rattling about the confines of people's skulls. It is the misidentification, the faulty assessment that says "state" is more than this that gets us into endless trouble. It is the tacit acceptance of this false belief, which is promoted by those in power that has kept Themme at advantage.

Reality itself precludes a state from having any material existence of its own. State is concept. State is script. People in the infected area choose either to play their respective parts, those which are almost universally handed them y third parties, or they do not. In the vast majority of cases, those who reject their roles as per the script called "state" meet sad ends.

So stipulated.

Only as per your given definition, which is inherently flawed in the sense that a "state" cannot exist in and of itself. That said, the only way "state" as per the given definition can in fact exist is if there is absolute and never wavering 100% non-coerced voluntary acceptance and compliance. If less than 100% of the population in question is on board and force is employed against the dissenting proportion, state or no state, the arrangement is morally unjust and cannot be rationally supported with any righteousness. It is, in fact, by its very fabric a criminal organization insofar as that force results in "the state" perpetrating crimes against its people.

You can consider it as anything you want, including "kitchen sink". The question is not what you call it, but how it is made manifest in the world.

Monopoly of power is not the salient issue. It is the criminal application of that power against a population that bears scrutiny. I agree that in a free land a subset population would be likewise free to arrange themselves in a manner most would recognize as "state". It does not follow that they are justified in committing criminal acts against those in the area in question who do not agree to be part of that arrangement. For example, imagine you own a 640 acre farm that is precisely one mile square. One day a group of your fellows buys up the 8 square sections surrounding you and establish a "state". It may be just or it may be tyrannical, but 100% of those people agree with the form of governance to be taken up there. You, however, do not, are not a party to the agreement, and suddenly find yourself "landlocked". In such a situation, could the residents of the "state" surrounding your property deny you passage through their lands in order for you to get where you need to go? It is an interesting question. What if, for example, the neighboring "state" were some wild aberration of the Amish, forbidding any non-horse drawn vehicle to traverse upon , above, or under their land. They are absolute and uncompromising on this point. You have a truck and you are now stuck either on your property or outside it, at least one mile away. Would this be just? No, because circumstance beyond your control now limits your preexistent right to passage from one place to another - which is another strong reason for maintaining the so-called "commons", which in my view is not land owned by all, but that owned by none.

The purpose of semantics is to provide understanding. The argumentation captioned above is pointless because it addresses issues that are really not relevant. Is it a state or is it not... who cares? What counts is how people RELATE to one another. When relations are proper, one can call it whatever one wishes, it is still a good thing. When they are not proper, a change of label from "communist tyranny" to "free man's haven" changes nothing substantial.

Agreed, but the task is in a sense made easier when approached with greater skill than I have witnessed in most cases. A large plurality of people of the "liberty" camp, to use a term very loosely, appear to me to operate from a tacit, gut-feeling level. They know that liberty is "right", but often are incapable of articulating the why with any clarity and force. This is because they do not possess the requisite knowledge of the basic principles that underpin the righteousness of man's naturally free state as a living being.

Similarly, those same people are not well practiced in the analytics required to dismantle the sad and fallacious arguments employed by the typical statist who relies heavily on appeals to emotion with which they merciless beat those of opposing view as if with iron bars. They really are very good at it, especially in the eyes of those not capable of seeing through the nonsense. I have witnessed many otherwise intelligent adults walk away from, for example, a progressive liberal, badly pummeled about the head and shoulders in the wake of a grand and emotion-laden tirade that employed all the talking points. It is remarkably effective because so many people are so remarkably ill-equipped to clip the wings right off these deluded, if well intending, maniacs.

Once again, this misses the point. Labels run a distant second in importance to principles and the ways in which people behave pursuant to them.

Agreed. Methods of engagement can make or break an endeavor.

Not so fast there tiger... your implication there is that the "anti-state thesis" is a singular, mono bloc affair. My anti-state thesis is very different from that of most others with whom I have had this discussion. Here we see a good example of your notions about "messaging". Words matter and should be chosen with care.

Anyone arguing this is just silly.

But are often prevented from staying.

That may or may not be true, depending on the totality of circumstance, including the functional definition of "state" in a given case.

The "just leave" issue underscores the practically universal and fatal flaw with the notion of "state" as generally understood. As free beings, no man or group thereof hold authority to impose this choice upon us as it violates our claims to life in just about every way imaginable. It is also worthy of note that with "the state", there is a factor of "inheritance" with respect to this issue. An individual born into a "state" is given no choice, save the rotten one: comply or leave, be caged or killed or violated in some other way because we will not tolerate dissent and non-acceptance. By that virtue, even if the individual's parents consented with heartfelt gratitude to the extant arrangement, how does that consent devolve upon their offspring? This becomes especially significant once a child reaches his majority.

Because of this apparent flaw in the inherent character of such agreements, it now becomes questionable whether such political arrangements can be said to retain their force beyond the first-hand voluntary parties to the contract.

In the end, it all boils down to questions of force within the context of the principles of proper human relations. THAT is what must hold focus. The rest is cheap window dressing.

Yes, my post is utilitarian in nature. That is, my argument against the state in this instance is not based on a philosophical argument. Numerous times I have read post implying that anarchy is synonymous with chaos and law is synonymous with order. I can't know if anarchy is synonymous with chaos, as I personally don't know of any examples of anarchy in history. But I can look at examples of states and their laws and find chaos. I certainly find chaos in the state's manipulation of economies. You recently posted an article about mandatory fingerprinting in grocery stores. An attempt by Venezuela to ration food. A fine example. I recall a law that prevented companies own by black people from competing with unionized companies, I believe NYC circa 1950s. That example dovetails from economic chaos into social chaos. I'm not going to expand on that at this point, because I don't have time to right a book. Alcohol prohibition magnified the power of organized crime and drug prohibition resulted in street gang warfare, and a corresponding increase in the scope and power of law enforcement, its funding and the addition of ever more laws. Laws do create chaos, it's evident to me. Not only does one social intervention result in worse problems, but they lead to more laws to solve the problems that it creates. It's a cascading effect. One rolling pebble becomes an avalanche. The state's authority, centrally plan society just as they centrally plan an economy. How chaotic society becomes is proportional to how many laws the state generates and the ability of the state to enforce those laws.

But it isn't just the shear number of laws, it is the inequality of laws. This may appear to be an egalitarian argument, but I believe it it utilitarian as a result. I'm not talking about laws that are not applied equally to every individual, although that is a problem as authority to frequently excludes itself from the judicial process, but instead I mean specific laws the put some above others. These are the laws that give authority its authority. Special privileges and protections are at the very core of the police state, not the toys gifted to local authority. For in these laws, those without authority are banned from protecting themselves while those with authority enjoy exemption from risk and incentive to abuse. Human behavior rules the day, authority or not and this does not result in social harmony. In the end it could just as easily be referred to as law and disorder.

Speaking of semantics, there is a reason killing authority is referred to as assassination, klling subjects is referred to as murder and killing undesirables is referred to as execution. Some animals are more equal than others.

The state cannot exist without A) extortion (some form of taxation, direct or indirect) to fund it, and/or B) threats against competition in the markets they either monopolize, have monopsony over, or cartelize (for themselves, or for their cronies). I'm not sure how any moral case can be made that would be consistently logical which would defend this type of self-legalized criminal organization. Also, pragmatic reasoning amounts to "but who will pick the cotton?" So, in the end, neither an ethical nor a pragmatic case can be made for the state. As I've said many times, the state cannot exist without coercively socializing (coercively collectivizing the ownership over the means of production) particular markets. ANY state is a form of coerced socialism. A capitalist state is merely a minimalist form of coerced socialism (where one or a few markets are coercively socialized), while state communism is a maximalist form of coerced socialism (where all or nearly all markets are coercively socialized). The forms of coerced socialism in between those two extremes are obviously possible as well.

But a free market is completely incompatible with coerced socialism (the state). How can you have a free market economy (an economy in which every market within it is free from intervention of the state) while simultaneously having state socialism in roads (transportation infrastructure), defense insurance markets, legal insurance markets, etc.? You logically cannot.

The state is at all times a form of coerced socialism, and so cannot co-exist with a free market economy (although it can be compatible with a MOSTLY free market economy).

So, if free markets are your goal, the state is counter to that goal. The state is a form of legalized racketeering (extortion organization) and protectionism (the threats against competition for itself and its cronies). Anthropology and history show we (human society) had law, roads, property rights, and defense for over 8,000 years (at least) without the state. So, it isn't necessary.

And it cannot protect your rights while trampling property rights and entrepreneurial ability through extortion and threats against competition. If either exist, then your rights are logically being violated.

Lastly, extortion and threats against competition are antisocial and uncivilized behavior, and therefore logically NOT conducive or a necessary condition to society or civilization. In fact, logically, they are working against those things (hence, when the state becomes too large and centralized it always collapses and takes down the economy and society/civilization with it).

Any argument for the state is necessarily predicated on support for a ruling criminal class (albeit a legalized one - which does not preclude it from being seen as criminal via natural law or standards of stateless customary law of the past) that can either extort or threaten competitors (or keep competitors from existing via those threats), or both. There is no avoiding this. If that's what you see as "liberty" then we really need to define our terms before debate, because there is no way that's how I define liberty. I define it as individual autonomy insofar as I don't create any victims.

"If you have the ability to consent (by age, and lack of severe mental handicap or disturbance), then you have the ability to govern yourself. If you have the ability to govern yourself, then you have the right to govern yourself. If in that self-governance, no other non-consenting person, their properties or possessions, are directly and measurably harmed, defrauded, or imminently endangered, as to create a victim, then logically all external compulsory governance is tyranny." --- Me

The state is logically a form of tyranny, by its mere existence. Minarchism is simply not taking the principles of libertarianism to their logical conclusions. It's just a form of minimalist state socialism.

The above are prime examples of the maximum extremity to which one can continue to enjoy the vicissitudes of undaunted cooperative metaphysical hippopotamonstrosesquipidaelian experiential satisfaction with a reasonable degree of not being an idiot.

[ProIndividual]

Masochism has nothing to do with it. You either own the land or you don't. If you must ask permission from the King to allow you to raise farm animals on your land, guess who really owns that land. Not you.

See allodial title for a more formal definition of owning land (and not the watered down US bastardization of it)

If you VOLUNTARILY CONTRACT with someone to do things other people don't agree with, concerning your land or anything else, you still own it, but have relinquished controls over it VOLUNTARILY and CONTRACTUALLY. Show me in quotes where any free market anarchist philosopher has ever said anything else...because otherwise I question how you defining land property.

Owning the land has ZERO to do with a king (you mentioned a king for some reason)...we are talking about NON-COERICVE CONTRACTUAL REALTIONASHIPS, NOT COERCIVE RELATIONSHIPS. If you CHOOSE to allow contractually someone to run your land utterly and completely (besides the ability to transfer ownership AND while doing so keep all the benefits from that transfer), it does not cease to be yours.

You own it as long as you have rightful claim over it (and see land property theory in anti-state libertarian philosophy for how that occurs). The use and control of the land is separate from your ownership claim (provided it wasn't abandoned or uninhabited beforehand).

If I choose to let my brother run my land any way he wants, even if it hurts my bottom line and land valuation, then that does not cease to be my land and start to be his. We have contracted (verbally in this case) to such an end.

Conflating state control of property or criminal controls of property (redundant) with voluntary contractual control is a huge misstep.

So, yes, masochism has everything to do with it. You seem to want to ban masochistic contracts at some level (depending on how arbitrarily far they go, I'm guessing). If someone wants to do this, they aren't a voluntaryist...they are statist by another name. If I give someone permission to have "ultimate authority on what you can or cant do on your land" then they do not own it...I do. The fact I voluntarily give them such controls over me and my land is not proof they own it, even if it appears that way in practice. It's like comparing rape to S&M sex. One is coerced, and one is not (despite some similarities in appearance to the untrained eye). They are simply there by virtue of a contract with me. No sale or trade or gift has occurred. Rightful ownership has not been transferred.

In the same way I can contract others to make laborious improvements upon my land, and yet not give them ownership rights over the land, is the same way I can give someone all the authority over my land I wish and still be mine. And if they could transfer ownership, that still isn't sufficient to make it now theirs, as I may contract with a realtor to do so.

The only way it ceases to be mine for all intents and purposes (putting aside abandonment) if I give them BOTH permission to transfer ownership AND keep the benefits gotten via that process (liabilities can be transferred to a realtor, so only benefits of the transfer of ownership matter).

If I wanted to (which I never would) give my brother complete authority over my land, except in the case of benefits gotten from transferring ownership of it through trade, sale, or gift, then it is still my land. He still is not the owner.

As to allodial title, if the land isn't abandoned (or otherwise not owned) when occupied and defended, then it isn't yours. "In allodium" pretty much applies to abandoned or uninhabited land. Allodial titles to land are found in a lot of common law systems, not necessarily polycentric/customary (aka free market) legal systems (that may or may not have had common laws between the various differing legal sureties' contracts). Common law isn't the same as stateless legal order, unless it is just a generic term for laws shared between various competitive legal contracts for insurance against victimization by criminality (but that doesn't mean laws common to even most contracts are enforceable on contracts not in agreement).

The fact you contract with someone to use the land in masochistic ways is evidence (the contract itself) of a lack of independence for the person you contracted with from any other land owner (in this case, you). The contract is what keeps it from being yours unless the contract relinquishes the ability to benefit for transfer of ownership.

The only way we will agree here is if I misunderstood you about "ultimate authority on what you can or cant do on your land". If by that you meant the ability to do anything they wished with the land, and to VOLUNTARILY tell you what you couldn't do with it, and (here's the part I could have misunderstood) the power to BOTH transfer ownership of the land AND keep the benefits of that transfer of ownership, then I misunderstood what we were all talking about. I did not assume that you meant specifically the ability to transfer ownership and keep the benefits of that transfer of ownership. I assumed you meant everything short of that. Everything short of that does not transfer ownership, even if it may appear that way on the surface.

If I misunderstood what you meant, I apologize for wasting so much of both of our time.

[ProIndividual]

I agree with you, but the NAP needs to be the default. Nobody has the right to aggress against you without your consent.

I guess I wasn't sufficiently clear. Anarcho-communists are welcome to all contract with each other to steal from each other all they want. Duels: same thing, people can duel if they want. But at the end of the day, private property and the NAP are still the only things that allow them to do that. I have the right to use violence to protect my property from a community full of an-coms who want to violently take it. And that, ultimately, leads to a rejection of the State. What you are suggesting is GOVERNMENT but not the State.



Yeah, I guess the debate with the whole "voluntary slavery" bit is whether or not one can permanently sell himself like he can his property. I tend to think no, because self-ownership can't be transferred, but I could see that debated either way.

I agreed with everything you said. My argument has been against the state, but for a free market in law, from the start. Sometimes discussing the extremes of what that would allow can make it seem as if I'm in favor of those extremes, which I'm personally not. I wouldn't even join a Home Owner's Association, let alone a state (because of limits on my property rights and the free exercise of them).

And as far as self-ownership, we also agree. Hence, I said you cannot permanently sell yourself into the contradictory term "voluntary slavery"...you can only contract your labors in such a masochistic fashion for set periods of time outlined in the contract (and most stateless legal systems didn't have unlimited contractual relationships either; in Ireland for example, contracts for legal sureties were generally one year in length). Every so often you have to opt-in again...which would resemble coerced slavery on the surface if you choose to do that for a lifetime. I would suggest people like serial killers would often opt-in for a lifetime rather than face the sure death penalty (or worse) in outlawry by professional bounty hunters hired by legal insurers of those they victimized (and this would be the stateless voluntary "prison" system explained by Bob Murphy in his writings called "Chaos Theory"). This is also how AnComs would exist in a stateless free market society...they would likely be young idealistic kids (and their professors...lol) who opt-in for a time (like a year), and then gradually abandon the voluntary masochism as time went on and they realized how truly masochistic it is.

I think we agree on everything here.

[ProIndividual]

That would be fine. But, say someone breaks the rules and sells their property to a non-contract signer. The community could go after the seller, but the buyer violated no contract, and thus can do as he wills.

That's exactly why I brought up the contracts of HOAs stipulating that the property can only be sold to back to the HOA that one purchased it from to begin with (or sell it to the HOA that one helped voluntarily form to begin with). The same can be true for the contract stipulating that the property can only be sold by one's estate back to the HOA, and the family of the dead contract-mate isn't therefore held to the contract (they receive what is in the estate, and that would be the proceeds of the sale back to the HOA). At that point, they could also have a clause allowing the HOA to opt-out of the sale back to them if the family member who inherits the proceeds wishes to sign into the HOA contract as their predecessor did.

The point was, the HOA has to buy and sell the land, and the deceased has to either will the land to the HOA or sell it back to the HOA, or coercion is being used on those who didn't sign the contract (the descendants of the deceased home owner who contracted with the HOA to begin with, or in the case of selling directly from HOA member to a new buyer who hasn't signed the HOA contract). Such stipulations in the contract keep such things from being coercive. It also stops disputes therefore.

Again, we agree.

[fisharmor]

You've done a masterful job of adapting the "It's alright baby, I'm just gonna stick the tip in" argument to this topic.

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.

No, it doesn't, because you've left one very important word out: violent. The state is a violent monopoly of power over a defined territory.
In your OP (I haven't read the other four pages of follow-ups) you don't cover the level of violence your "voluntary state" scenario includes.

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.

But what you're not stating (again, only in this first post) is that there is a grand canyon of logical leap between
a) people can conceivably voluntarily agree to contract stipulations
and
b) people must adhere to a social contract they never explicitly agreed to and probably aren't even aware of

This argument is the logical equivalent of
"The federal government has the power to deliver mail, therefore we're going to imprison anyone else delivering a letter"
or
"The federal government has the power to define a path to citizenship, therefore we're going to set up checkpoints 100 miles inside the border"

There's simply no defense for this type of argument. It's a complete non-sequitur, which happens to sound just plausible enough for the weak-minded public-school brainwashed masses to go along with it.

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.

"Love it or leave it"? Ok, pay my ticket. And that of my parents, and any of my siblings and friends who wish to come along, and all their children.
I'm more than willing to pull up stakes and move my entire life somewhere else so I can enjoy the God-given rights which the state suppresses by its very nature. What I'm lacking is the 3-4 million dollars it's going to take to do that.
What you've done is reduced the idea that we have inalienable rights to a financial argument. If I don't like my rights being violated, then I can just spend 50-60 times my yearly salary making a new life somewhere else? You're in effect saying that only the wealthy have rights!

[HVACTech]

The above are prime examples of the maximum extremity to which one can continue to enjoy the vicissitudes of undaunted cooperative metaphysical hippopotamonstrosesquipidaelian experiential satisfaction with a reasonable degree of not being an idiot.

that is EXACTLY what I was thinking!

[Todd]

@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.

In all history there is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent of the interests of the people, to whom war is always pernicious even when successful.

Leo Tolstoy

All violence consists in some people forcing others, under threat of suffering or death, to do what they do not want to do.

Leo Tolstoy

...

[TheTexan]

If you VOLUNTARILY CONTRACT with someone to do things other people don't agree with, concerning your land or anything else, you still own it, but have relinquished controls over it VOLUNTARILY and CONTRACTUALLY. Show me in quotes where any free market anarchist philosopher has ever said anything else...because otherwise I question how you defining land property.

You can voluntarily buy a goat that is actually a dog, but its still a dog. And selling a dog under the claim that it is a goat, no matter how voluntary the transaction is, is still fraud.

Same thing goes for any sale claiming to transfer ownership that isn't allodial. Fee simple 'ownership' is an invention of the state.

There are philosophers that agree with this, already mentioned in this thread I believe. I'm on a phone so cant really help you find it. Shouldnt matter though, the terms allodial and fee simple are fairly well defined, you shouldnt need a philosophers help understanding the definition of those terms.

[osan]

If you VOLUNTARILY CONTRACT with someone to do things other people don't agree with, concerning your land or anything else, you still own it, but have relinquished controls over it VOLUNTARILY and CONTRACTUALLY. Show me in quotes where any free market anarchist philosopher has ever said anything else...because otherwise I question how you defining land property.

Ceding rights to third parties limits one's prerogatives in some specific manner and degree. This could be argued as ceding those aspects of ownership to said parties. The language is, in a sense, irrelevant. What counts is the practical outcome. If you agree to let an oil company drill for oil on your land, that portion of land becomes limited in terms of your prerogatives for disposal. You have ceded certain rights to another.

Owning the land has ZERO to do with a king (you mentioned a king for some reason)...we are talking about NON-COERICVE CONTRACTUAL REALTIONASHIPS, NOT COERCIVE RELATIONSHIPS. If you CHOOSE to allow contractually someone to run your land utterly and completely (besides the ability to transfer ownership AND while doing so keep all the benefits from that transfer), it does not cease to be yours.

I would have to agree with this, but once again the ultimate nature of your ownership has been re-shaped by voluntary agreement and the conditions of that contract may be enforceable.

You own it as long as you have rightful claim over it (and see land property theory in anti-state libertarian philosophy for how that occurs). The use and control of the land is separate from your ownership claim (provided it wasn't abandoned or uninhabited beforehand).

Does breach alter the rightful claim? Interesting question.

If I choose to let my brother run my land any way he wants, even if it hurts my bottom line and land valuation, then that does not cease to be my land and start to be his. We have contracted (verbally in this case) to such an end.

This may be arguable. I believe it is very possible to cede too much authority to third parties.

Conflating state control of property or criminal controls of property (redundant) with voluntary contractual control is a huge misstep.

Completely agree with this.

[ProIndividual]

You can voluntarily buy a goat that is actually a dog, but its still a dog. And selling a dog under the claim that it is a goat, no matter how voluntary the transaction is, is still fraud.

Same thing goes for any sale claiming to transfer ownership that isn't allodial. Fee simple 'ownership' is an invention of the state.

There are philosophers that agree with this, already mentioned in this thread I believe. I'm on a phone so cant really help you find it. Shouldnt matter though, the terms allodial and fee simple are fairly well defined, you shouldnt need a philosophers help understanding the definition of those terms.

Okay, it's clear you didn't bother to read my whole post, or even the purposefully underlined and bolded parts....so I'm not responding to this...beyond saying "lol". Keep in mind that a lack of state means a lack of legalized coercion...and if you require legalized coercion to support your ideas, they aren't compatible with statelessness. Nothing I wrote requires legalized coercion (or coercion at all).

[ProIndividual]

Osan, I just want ask about these (because not much else seemed to go against what I said):

This may be arguable. I believe it is very possible to cede too much authority to third parties.

Isn't "too much" an individual subjective valuation if the transfer of authorities and powers over the land is fully voluntary and contractual, up until the land is able to be sold AND the benefits of that sale are able to be kept by whom you've contracted with?

If my "up until..." conditions aren't met, you still own the land. It's just a really permissive contract with your renter (or relative, or what have you). The moment you contract with them to sell the land and keep the benefits of the sale (or trade, or gift) you no longer own it. But up until that point, it's just a strange, rather masochistic, relationship which is voluntary and contractual. The debate with bxm042 seems to be that he doesn't agree that you still own it unless you have complete control over it...which isn't so in libertarian (land) property theory. I tried to explain this politely to him in that long post you quoted, but he didn't read past the very beginning of it, clearly.

If you agree to let an oil company drill for oil on your land, that portion of land becomes limited in terms of your prerogatives for disposal. You have ceded certain rights to another.

But you still own it, which was my point. Your property may have been used by another (oil company), but that doesn't mean you don't still own the land or mineral rights. We have an oil well on my property...I still own it. I also get money paid to me monthly by the oil company for letting them pump and store the oil on my land. If I move I can sell the land and not the mineral rights, or I can sell both. It's up to me. This isn't a state manifestation, which is what bxm042 seems to be suggesting. He seems to think I no longer own my property via contract if I don't completely control it. That just isn't true...nor would it be a stateless society and free market for law. HE might sign up for such a contract in a free market for legal insurance, but I would not. My contract would allow me to keep ownership if I hire a tree-trimmer, contract with an oil company, etc.

Ceding rights to third parties limits one's prerogatives in some specific manner and degree. This could be argued as ceding those aspects of ownership to said parties. The language is, in a sense, irrelevant. What counts is the practical outcome.

I might not agree here. In the same way Rothbard speaks of the impossibility of "voluntary slavery" (precisely because it is voluntary, it cannot be slavery), and how anyone who signs their labor away can only do so for limited times via contract (because minds change, and you cannot know how you will feel later), land can also be contracted away in most respects for limited terms contractually, but ownership is retained even if the appearance of the "voluntary slave" and the land property ownership appear to be in slavery and not under the control of its actual owner, respectively. When the contracts expire, in both cases, the "voluntary slave" and the land property owner CAN either renew the voluntary contract or refuse to. With the refusal ends the appearance of both slavery and not owning the land, and the actual control over one's labor and their land becomes again apparent.

I just went through this earlier in this thread, quoting Rothbard. It is quoted by someone near the top of this page.

Does breach alter the rightful claim? Interesting question.

Of course breach of contract breaks the contract...but whether or not that amounts to end of rightful claim to land property (or any property) depends on who breached the contract, what side of this contract they were on, and to what degree they breached the contract. Even in the extreme, it may not directly transfer any ownership or rightful claim, but may in the end be equivalent given remuneration for breaching the contract.

I believe it is very possible to cede too much authority to third parties.

As do I...but when the contract time period ends, you get to make a decision to continue it or not. Essentially, the way they use the land or sub-contract with others to use the land doesn't matter insofar as it doesn't go beyond the length of your contract and doesn't give the 2nd party the ability to BOTH sell AND keep the benefits of sale. If all his sub-contracts with 3rd parties do not conflict with your contract with him, then you still own the property in the end. The land being altered or whatever is apart of your original contract. That doesn't cede ultimate ownership.

I think we mostly agree.