Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 91 to 112 of 112

Thread: For a New Libertarian - Jeff Deist @ Mises U 2017

  1. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    They may have been submitting voluntarily.
    If everyone consents to the laws, then Ruritania is an anarcho-capitalist utopia and there's no reason for intervention in the first place. If not everyone consents (as would always be the case in reality, of course), then the new regime wouldn't be doing anything new in forcing itself on the people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
    If there was a state, then you can't criticize the new regime simply on the grounds that it too is a state.
    I did not do so.
    You said "They chose to submit to the old government, [whereas] you would have forced the new one on them with violence."

    So, you're criticizing the new regime for forcing the people to obey, contra the old one which (allegedly) didn't force them to obey, no?

    The best case scenario to justify your invasion.
    I still don't know what you mean.

    That argument only applies to the first person to seize power for himself, if we ignore the possibility of sovereign power being granted by GOD it still can be inherited, whether by a monarch or a member of the citizen partners, if nobody has a better claim then inheritance is a legitimate method of acquiring property.

    Sovereignty is a thing of value held by one or more persons therefore it is property...
    It's inappropriate to treat sovereignty as property in the libertarian sense of the word.

    All ethics concern property. Any time one is making ethical statements about what someone should or should not do, one is speaking of property rights. Communism or shariah is a theory of property rights as much as libertarianism is. Ethical systems differ only in the specific property rules they endorse. For example, libertarianism endorses the rule of freedom of contract, while Shariah does not. One can speak of sovereignty as property only in the general sense in which all ethical concepts concern property. That is the extent of it. It is inappropriate to treat sovereignty as property in the uniquely libertarian sense of the word, because the reasons for which we as libertarians want property to be respected do not apply in the case of sovereignty.

    The deontological justification for property doesn't apply in the case of sovereignty (it was not acquired legitimately, by homesteading, contract, or restitution, and so the "owner" has no fundamental right to it). As for the consequentialist justification, one would have to show that treating sovereignty as you are results in some material advantage resulted; whereas, in fact, by treating sovereignty as property in the libertarian sense, and declaring that the overthrow of a tyrannical state is equivalent to theft, you are creating worse practical results than would obtain otherwise.

    your theories of monarchy are predicated on the monarch owning this property.
    A monarch can be treated as if he owned the country for the purpose of economic analysis. This is very different from the ethical claim that he owns the sovereign power, which, on my view, he most certainly does not. The legitimacy of his power is contingent on how he employs it. If he abuses it, and it is possible to remove him and replace him with something better, that is entirely just: not a theft of "his property."

    I believe that the citizens of our society should hold it collectively and delegate it to someone who will minimize aggression, but I am a member of our society and one of the "partners" who hold title to it's sovereignty therefore I have a say, elsewhere others hold sovereignty wholly or collectively and it is theft to seize it from them and redistribute it to whomever you or I choose.
    Yes, I understand that you believe that sovereignty is the property (in the libertarian sense) of the people; that the legitimacy of a government of the people does not depend on what that government does; that removing such a government, no matter that it is very bad and its replacement very good, is unjust, and equivalent to a theft.

    Suffice it to say, I disagree, for the reason that my goal is aggression-minimization, which the above contradicts.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 08-10-2017 at 06:33 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    If everyone consents to the laws, then Ruritania is an anarcho-capitalist utopia and there's no reason for intervention in the first place. If not everyone consents (as would always be the case in reality, of course), then the new regime wouldn't be doing anything new in forcing itself on the people.
    All that is necessary is an overwhelming majority submitting voluntarily.



    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    You said "They chose to submit to the old government, [whereas] you would have forced the new one on them with violence."

    So, you're criticizing the new regime for forcing the people to obey, contra the old one which (allegedly) didn't force them to obey, no?
    No it is not the same if most of them submitted voluntarily to the old regime.



    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I still don't know what you mean.
    The best case scenario to justify your invasion of Ruritania is that the people are submitting involuntarily and would welcome relief from it's tyrants.
    The worst case scenario is that an overwhelming majority support their current government.
    You can't claim to be justified in your invasion unless you can prove the former or justify it in the face of the latter.



    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    It's inappropriate to treat sovereignty as property in the libertarian sense of the word.

    All ethics concern property. Any time one is making ethical statements about what someone should or should not do, one is speaking of property rights. Communism or shariah is a theory of property rights as much as libertarianism is. Ethical systems differ only in the specific property rules they endorse. For example, libertarianism endorses the rule of freedom of contract, while Shariah does not. One can speak of sovereignty as property only in the general sense in which all ethical concepts concern property. That is the extent of it. It is inappropriate to treat sovereignty as property in the uniquely libertarian sense of the word, because the reasons for which we as libertarians want property to be respected do not apply in the case of sovereignty.
    The deontological justification for property doesn't apply in the case of sovereignty (it was not acquired legitimately, by homesteading, contract, or restitution, and so the "owner" has no fundamental right to it).
    Just because something may have been seized unjustly at some point in it's history does not mean it is not possible to own it.
    The first humans on earth possessed sovereignty over their territory, and every society that split off possessed sovereignty over their territory, that sovereignty was passed down to their descendants except where it was seized by an outsider, but even then after one or more generations of inheritance the ownership became legitimate, the declaration of independence lays out the case for the Americans seizure of sovereignty over their own territory but even if you discount it the sovereignty that we as citizens now share has been legitimized through many generations of inheritance.
    Sovereignty is property just as much as any other thing which a man can posses.

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    As for the consequentialist justification, one would have to show that treating sovereignty as you are results in some material advantage resulted; whereas, in fact, by treating sovereignty as property in the libertarian sense, and declaring that the overthrow of a tyrannical state is equivalent to theft, you are creating worse practical results than would obtain otherwise.
    Unlimited consequentialism is flawed it presumes that man is GOD and has a right to control outcomes even at the cost of violating others rights, it is the basis for communism and tyranny, and it is not compatible with liberty



    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    A monarch can be treated as if he owned the country for the purpose of economic analysis. This is very different from the ethical claim that he owns the sovereign power, which, on my view, he most certainly does not. The legitimacy of his power is contingent on how he employs it. If he abuses it, and it is possible to remove him and replace him with something better, that is entirely just: not a theft of "his property."



    Yes, I understand that you believe that sovereignty is the property (in the libertarian sense) of the people; that the legitimacy of a government of the people does not depend on what that government does; that removing such a government, no matter that it is very bad and its replacement very good, is unjust, and equivalent to a theft.

    Suffice it to say, I disagree, for the reason that my goal is aggression-minimization, which the above contradicts.
    We will have to end this debate because if we disagree about it being property we will never agree on the rest.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  4. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    All that is necessary is an overwhelming majority submitting voluntarily.

    ...

    No it is not the same if most of them submitted voluntarily to the old regime.

    ...

    The best case scenario to justify your invasion of Ruritania is that the people are submitting involuntarily and would welcome relief from it's tyrants.
    The worst case scenario is that an overwhelming majority support their current government.
    You can't claim to be justified in your invasion unless you can prove the former or justify it in the face of the latter.
    Haven't you already agreed that the minarchist regime wouldn't violate the rights of Ruritanians who had been "voluntarily submitting to tyranny" under the old regime, since those people would be free to keep doing whatever it is they were doing?

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    the foreigner has a right to only be subject to his own society
    Those "voluntarily submitting to tyranny" would be able to continue doing what they were doing.

    Those "involuntarily submitting to tyranny" would be positively liberated.

    So I don't know what you mean; what exactly is this right you reference and how would intervention violate it?
    Freedom of association/disassociation, the Ruritanians have a right to only be subject to eachother, and not have to worry about some outsider telling them what to do
    Do you mean they have a right to aggress against one another?

    ...because that is the only behavior that the new minarchist regime would prohibit.
    No I mean they have a right to submit to aggression by their fellows, if you prohibit the aggression you also prohibit the submission, you can't submit to something that is not allowed to happen. There are people who will submit to something they would not do on their own, some of them want to be made to do them, it does not make much sense but not all people are fully rational.
    So, if the raping of redheads had been legal under the old regime, and the new minarchist regime outlaws the raping of redheads, you say that the new regime is violating the rights of the redheads, because they might have wanted to be raped...? No, no one wants to be raped; rape is involuntary by definition. If the redhead wanted to have intercourse, it wasn't a rape. The only sense in which a person can "want to be raped" is in the context of some weird sado-masochistic game, and that, being entirely voluntary (despite appearances to the contrary), would be entirely legal under the new minarchist regime. Hence, no one's rights are violated by outlawing the raping of redheads, nor by the outlawing of any other aggression.
    You are correct that IF the new state allowed people to submit to whatever they wanted from eachother then it could not be a violation of their rights in general, they could simply form a "Ruritanians" club and behave as they liked
    Unless I'm misreading that, it sounds like you've conceded the whole "right to submit to tyranny" argument.

    ...acknowledging that intervention doesn't violate it.

    So your only remaining objection to intervention is that it violates the people's alleged collective property rights, correct?

  5. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Haven't you already agreed that the minarchist regime wouldn't violate the rights of Ruritanians who had been "voluntarily submitting to tyranny" under the old regime, since those people would be free to keep doing whatever it is they were doing?



    Unless I'm misreading that, it sounds like you've conceded the whole "right to submit to tyranny" argument.

    ...acknowledging that intervention doesn't violate it.

    So your only remaining objection to intervention is that it violates the people's alleged collective property rights, correct?
    As with most things property rights are the foundation on which all more complex concepts are built, so I say again:

    We will have to end this debate because if we disagree about it being property we will never agree on the rest.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  6. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    As with most things property rights are the foundation on which all more complex concepts are built, so I say again:

    We will have to end this debate because if we disagree about it being property we will never agree on the rest.
    I'm just trying to focus the debate.

    If we've already settled the "right to submit to tyranny" issue (have we? as it appears?), we can move on to alleged collective property rights.

    What I don't want to do is get deep into a discussion of the latter only to have the former resurface, if it's indeed been settled.

  7. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I'm just trying to focus the debate.

    If we've already settled the "right to submit to tyranny" issue (have we? as it appears?), we can move on to alleged collective property rights.

    What I don't want to do is get deep into a discussion of the latter only to have the former resurface, if it's indeed been settled.
    The right to submit to tyranny is the right to delegate your share of sovereignty to the tyrant, so it is an extension of the property rights issue.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The right to submit to tyranny is the right to delegate your share of sovereignty to the tyrant, so it is an extension of the property rights issue.
    Alright

    Is "the people own the sovereign power" a first principle of yours, or do you justify it by reference to some other, more fundamental principle?

  10. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Alright

    Is "the people own the sovereign power" a first principle of yours, or do you justify it by reference to some other, more fundamental principle?
    First principle: GOD created the universe so he owns it.
    Second principle: All men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are the rights to life liberty and the ownership an control of property, the right to property includes territorial sovereignty.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  11. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    First principle: GOD created the universe so he owns it.
    Second principle: All men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are the rights to life liberty and the ownership an control of property, the right to property includes territorial sovereignty.
    Alright, so then it's fair to say your support for popular sovereignty is deontological, not consequentialist.

    Now, do you recognize that there is a contradiction between popular sovereignty and liberalism?

    Such that interventions which would be justified on liberal grounds are barred by popular sovereignty?

  12. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Alright, so then it's fair to say your support for popular sovereignty is deontological, not consequentialist.

    Now, do you recognize that there is a contradiction between popular sovereignty and liberalism?

    Such that interventions which would be justified on liberal grounds are barred by popular sovereignty?
    Yes, that is what we have been discussing.
    Liberalism is about how a state should be governed, sovereignty endowed either upon a monarch (the divine right theory, which was the case with ancient Israel after the people demanded a king) or upon the people in general (the declaration of independence's theory) determines the existence and territorial extent of the state/s.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  13. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Yes, that is what we have been discussing.
    The point I'm making is that your argument against intervention is not a liberal argument. It's based in popular sovereignty, not opposition to aggression in the liberal sense of the term. You would oppose an intervention which reduced total aggression, if it also violated popular sovereignty. I wouldn't, because I'm a liberal.

    Liberalism is about how a state should be governed, sovereignty endowed either upon a monarch (the divine right theory, which was the case with ancient Israel after the people demanded a king) or upon the people in general (the declaration of independence's theory) determines the existence and territorial extent of the state/s.
    Liberalism is about respecting property rights (i.e. its unique conception thereof) or (what is the same thing) opposing aggression. The form of government is important only insofar as it affects how well property rights are respected/how much aggression there is. Whereas, the view you're espousing grants primary importance to the form of government (namely, that is be democratic and national). Hence, inevitably, it conflicts with liberalism: not only in that it prohibits aggression-minimizing interventions as we've been discussing here, but also in terms of the domestic politics of any state (the socialistic tendencies of democracy we've discussed elsewhere).

  14. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Whereas, the view you're espousing grants primary importance to the form of government (namely, that is be democratic and national). Hence, inevitably, it conflicts with liberalism: not only in that it prohibits aggression-minimizing interventions as we've been discussing here, but also in terms of the domestic politics of any state (the socialistic tendencies of democracy we've discussed elsewhere).
    Popular sovereignty does not dictate a particular form of government, the people could delegate their sovereignty to a king or high priest if they wanted, and what we are discussing is sovereignty as property which is why I mentioned divine right theory.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  15. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Popular sovereignty does not dictate a particular form of government, the people could delegate their sovereignty to a king or high priest if they wanted, and what we are discussing is sovereignty as property which is why I mentioned divine right theory.
    Got it, my mistake. Popular sovereignty people are usually principled democrats, and you are at least a pragmatic democrat, so I just assumed.

    Nonetheless, your version of popular sovereignty still puts liberty second to nation and is therefore illiberal.

  16. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Got it, my mistake. Popular sovereignty people are usually principled democrats, and you are at least a pragmatic democrat, so I just assumed.
    My position is principled, it is just based on a different principle, those you are calling principled democrats would justify invading a monarchy to establish a democracy or a republic, my principles would not.

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Nonetheless, your version of popular sovereignty still puts liberty second to nation and is therefore illiberal.
    Sovereignty is the ultimate liberty, therefore I maintain that I am a Classical liberal, just a different kind.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    My position is principled, it is just based on a different principle, those you are calling principled democrats would justify invading a monarchy to establish a democracy or a republic, my principles would not.
    Yes, that's what I mean.

    Sovereignty is the ultimate liberty, therefore I maintain that I am a Classical liberal, just a different kind.
    Well, no sense in arguing semantics....

    Suffice it to say that we have irreconcilable first principles and no agreement on this particular issue is possible.

    I'm satisfied with having shown that there is no liberal case against intervention: that any sound argument against it must come ex liberalism.

    ...liberalism in Rothbardian sense of the word, shall we say.

  19. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    So, whether it's just to force libertarian principles on people depends on their proximity?

    e.g. Forcing some guy in your town to not steal is just, yet forcing some guy in another state to not steal is unjust?
    Troll of the year.

  20. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  21. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    A lot of the new breed of ''Mises'' writers and politicos have no business even being associated with the name Mises. So a separation must be made in order to acknowledge that reality.

    The person in the op, while he does get some fundamental things right, is one of those people. I can explain why the combined influence of war and socialism has historically existed as an international movement of the working class. And I can explain that war and Socialism have both historically served as the Nationalist's means of economic control. I touched on it in my previous post.

    But I can't make you put two and two to gether, Suz. You're a hard head.

    It's okay. I love you all the same.

    You're doing the right thing by introducing your children to the Mises eductational material. That's something else entirely.

    But this new breed of young politicos who are latching onto the Mises name have much to learn about history. It's the only way they'll realize the shortcomings in their political logic.
    I'm actually not hard headed at all.

    Still waiting for an example of the MI promoting socialism.



    You're doing the right thing by introducing your children to the Mises eductational material. That's something else entirely.
    Interesting you should say that considering how you poo-pooed MisesU in this thread.

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...24#post6508024
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  22. #109
    Suz, this kind of stuff is man's work. Can ya just go make us a sandwich or something?

    Quote Originally Posted by Suzanimal View Post
    I'm actually not hard headed at all.

    Still waiting for an example of the MI promoting socialism.





    Interesting you should say that considering how you poo-pooed MisesU in this thread.

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...24#post6508024

  23. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Suz, this kind of stuff is man's work. Can ya just go make us a sandwich or something?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  24. #111
    I'll have a Reuben, a real one, no turkey or light dressing.

  25. #112
    Still waiting...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.



  26. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234


Similar Threads

  1. Jeff Deist @ Mises U 2017
    By A Son of Liberty in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-04-2017, 11:45 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-14-2017, 01:01 PM
  3. Jeff Deist: The Role of the Mises Institute
    By Suzanimal in forum Family, Parenting & Education
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-23-2016, 03:49 PM
  4. Paul-Martin Foss on Mises Weekends with Jeff Deist
    By ThoBishop in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-27-2015, 03:46 PM
  5. Mises President (Jeff Deist): Another Crash Is Coming
    By Suzanimal in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-11-2015, 12:36 PM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

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