Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 112

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

  1. #61
    @Swordsmyth, before responding to your last post in detail, I want to make sure I understand something.

    You acknowledge that intervening to liberate Ruritarians whose submission to the Ruritanian state is involuntary does not violate their rights?
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    @Swordsmyth, before responding to your last post in detail, I want to make sure I understand something.

    You acknowledge that intervening to liberate Ruritarians whose submission to the Ruritanian state is involuntary does not violate their rights?
    In theory yes, it would not violate their rights to aid them in securing their rights. That is why I said it is possible for individuals to help them under the right circumstances.
    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 mankindÖitís people I canít 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. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    "WE" can't know if the overwhelming majority are submitting involuntarily or not
    Why does it have to be an "overwhelming majority"? Let's take it to the extreme and suppose it's just one guy. If you were to replace the Ruritanian state with a minarchist one, you would not be violating that guy's rights (to the contrary), nor would you be violating the rights of the rest of the population (if their practices, e.g. communism, under their former government were truly voluntary, they would be entirely free to continue those practices under the new, minarchist government).

    Members of the same society are bound by it's rules and are subject to their enforcement
    So, it's just for the American state to "make the call for all of us" and force us to support its domestic aggression-suppression operations, but not to do so for foreign aggression-suppression operations? Why? It can't be (as we've now established) that the the foreign operations violate the rights of the foreigners. So what is the reason?

    Another issue: if it's truly impossible to know for sure whether people are submitting to a law voluntarily or not, as you claim, and this applies universally, what would be the argument against any tyrannical law of our own state? I mean, maybe the vast majority of the population voluntarily obeys every federal law in the US, such that those laws don't involve any aggression, right? ...or is that absurd?
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  5. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Why does it have to be an "overwhelming majority"? Let's take it to the extreme and suppose it's just one guy. If you were to replace the Ruritanian state with a minarchist one, you would not be violating that guy's rights (to the contrary), nor would you be violating the rights of the rest of the population (if their practices, e.g. communism, under their former government were truly voluntary, they would be entirely free to continue those practices under the new, minarchist government).
    You would have killed people and destroyed property without just cause.



    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    So, it's just for the American state to "make the call for all of us" and force us to support its domestic aggression-suppression operations, but not to do so for foreign aggression-suppression operations? Why? It can't be (as we've now established) that the the foreign operations violate the rights of the foreigners. So what is the reason?
    I said that the state has no right to tyrannize anyone, people have the right to submit to tyranny but nobody has the right to be the tyrant.
    So long as our society believes in liberty (however misguided their implementation) I will by appropriate means oppose tyranny, if our society falls completely I have laid out my options above.

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Another issue: if it's truly impossible to know for sure whether people are submitting to a law voluntarily or not, as you claim, and this applies universally, what would be the argument against any tyrannical law of our own state? I mean, maybe the vast majority of the population voluntarily obeys every federal law in the US, such that those laws don't involve any aggression, right? ...or is that absurd?
    See above as well as my previous posts. Our society still believes in liberty and I am a member of it, therefore I can and will fight for liberty in our society.
    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 mankindÖitís people I canít 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. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You would have killed people and destroyed property without just cause.
    If you're referring to collateral damage, taxes to finance the operation, etc, those practical considerations aren't relevant to this discussion. Remember, you said that intervention is unjust in itself, regardless of any practical considerations. Since then, you've agreed that intervention to remove a tyrannical state wouldn't violate the rights of that state's subjects who involuntary obey that state's laws. Do you agree with my last post's explanation of how it also wouldn't violate the rights of the remainder, who obey the laws voluntarily? If so, then we're agreed that intervention (in itself) does not violate the rights of the foreigners.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  8. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    If you're referring to collateral damage, taxes to finance the operation, etc, those practical considerations aren't relevant to this discussion. Remember, you said that intervention is unjust in itself, regardless of any practical considerations.
    You can't intervene without physical aggression, it is part and parcel of the concept, the only other option would be some theoretical mind control which would be an even grosser violation of the targeted populations rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Since then, you've agreed that intervention to remove a tyrannical state wouldn't violate the rights of that state's subjects who involuntary obey that state's laws. Do you agree with my last post's explanation of how it also wouldn't violate the rights of the remainder, who obey the laws voluntarily? If so, then we're agreed that intervention (in itself) does not violate the rights of the foreigners.
    Unless an overwhelming majority believe in freedom and request our help intervention would violate the rights of those who wish to submit to tyranny, if the society is overwhelmingly in favor of tyranny the point is obvious, if the society is roughly evenly divided then it would still violate the rights of those who wished to submit to tyranny if we as outsiders intervened in an internal struggle. (Note that we are implicitly talking about a minimum sized society or one with such an even distribution of the members of the two sides that dividing the liberty lovers from the tyranny submissives would not be a possible solution, or one in which the liberty lovers will not accept that solution).
    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 mankindÖitís people I canít 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

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    intervention would violate the rights of those who wish to submit to tyranny
    Those "submitting to tyranny voluntarily" (e.g. happily financing welfare) could continue to do so, voluntarily, in a minarchist state, no?
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  10. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Those "submitting to tyranny voluntarily" (e.g. happily financing welfare) could continue to do so, voluntarily, in a minarchist state, no?
    There are other forms of tyranny, and you would have violated their right to be left alone, and their rights to life and property.
    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 mankindÖitís people I canít 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. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    There are other forms of tyranny
    Allowing them to continue doing what they were already doing is a form of tyranny..?

    and you would have violated their right to be left alone, and their rights to life and property.
    As I said earlier, those issues (collateral damage etc) are irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Are you saying that enforcing libertarianism on foreigners is wrong in itself, regardless of any practical considerations (i.e. even if it could be done as easily as with the domestic population), OR that it is only wrong because of practical problems (attempts would in fact be counterproductive, ala Iraq [pretending for a moment that liberation was what was actually attempted in Iraq])? It sounds like you're taking the first position, but I want to be sure.
    Wrong in and of itself.
    In explaining why intervention is wrong in itself, regardless of practical problems, you can't cite practical problems!
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 08-08-2017 at 05:20 PM.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  12. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Allowing them to continue doing what they were already doing is a form of tyranny..?
    That is not what I meant. I meant that there are other forms of tyranny besides welfare taxation.



    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    As I said earlier, those issues are irrelevant.
    As I said before killing those who resist and/or destroying their property are integral to the concept of intervening, "collateral" damage is killing those who don't resist and/or destroying their property, the only alternative would be mind control which would be theft of the subjects free will.
    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 mankindÖitís people I canít 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. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    As I said before killing those who resist and/or destroying their property are integral to the concept of intervening, "collateral" damage is killing those who don't resist and/or destroying their property, the only alternative would be mind control which would be theft of the subjects free will.
    That applies to ALL aggression-suppressing operations, foreign or domestic.

    Hence it CANNOT provide a basis for opposing the former and supporting the latter.

    There must be some other basis for that distinction.

    So far in the thread, the basis you've advanced is that foreign intervention violates the rights of the foreigners.

    But you've not been successful in explaining HOW it does so, except by citing collateral damage, etc, as you do above, but that is present in domestic aggression-suppressing operations as well, and thus cannot be an argument only against foreign intervention - it can only be an argument against both or neither.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  14. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    That applies to ALL aggression-suppressing operations, foreign or domestic.

    Hence it CANNOT provide a basis for opposing the former and supporting the latter.

    There must be some other basis for that distinction.

    So far in the thread, the basis you've advanced is that foreign intervention violates the rights of the foreigners.

    But you've not been successful in explaining HOW it does so, except by citing collateral damage, etc, as you do above, but that is present in domestic aggression-suppressing operations as well, and thus cannot be an argument only against foreign intervention - it can only be an argument against both or neither.
    The difference is that tyranny in MY society affects me, therefore I have a right to intervene directly or by proxy, tyranny in FOREIGN societies does not harm me therefore it is none of my business.
    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 mankindÖitís people I canít 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. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    First, to get the issue settled once and for all, would you agree that foreign intervention does not violate the rights of the foreigners, except in the same way that our own state's domestic aggression-suppressing activities violate the rights of our own population (collateral damage, etc)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The difference is that tyranny in MY society affects me, therefore I have a right to intervene directly or by proxy, tyranny in FOREIGN societies does not harm me therefore it is none of my business.
    All else being equal, it would be good if there were less aggression in Ruritania, regardless of whether that would personally affect me.

    Agree or disagree?
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  17. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    First, to get the issue settled once and for all, would you agree that foreign intervention does not violate the rights of the foreigners, except in the same way that our own state's domestic aggression-suppressing activities violate the rights of our own population (collateral damage, etc)?
    Almost, but there is the additional factor of intrusion, the foreigner has a right to only be subject to his own society not yours and the Chinese and the Russians etc.



    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    All else being equal, it would be good if there were less aggression in Ruritania, regardless of whether that would personally affect me.

    Agree or disagree?
    Yes on a cosmic scale, but you do not have a right to interfere, that is the business of Ruritanians and GOD.
    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 mankindÖitís people I canít 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

  18. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Almost, but there is the additional factor of intrusion, the foreigner has a right to only be subject to his own society not yours and the Chinese and the Russians etc.
    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?

    Yes on a cosmic scale, but you do not have a right to interfere, that is the business of Ruritanians and GOD.
    One has the right to take any action which doesn't violate someone else's rights - agree?
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Those "voluntarily submitting the 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, if some of them are submitting involuntarily they have the right to leave or try to change their society by one means or another.



    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    One has the right to take any action which doesn't violate someone else's rights - agree?
    Yes, what we are discussing is whether there is a right you are violating.
    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 mankindÖitís people I canít 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

  20. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Freedom of association/disassociation
    ...which the new minarchist regime would respect

    the Ruritanians have a right to only be subject to eachother, and not have to worry about some outsider telling them what to do
    Not sure what that means. 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.

    Yes, what we are discussing is whether there is a right you are violating.
    Got it
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  21. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    ...which the new minarchist regime would respect
    No it would impose itself on them and not allow them to dissociate themselves from it.



    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Not sure what that means. 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.
    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 mankindÖitís people I canít 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

  22. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth
    Freedom of association/disassociation
    ...which the new minarchist regime would respect
    No it would impose itself on them and not allow them to dissociate themselves from it.
    In the liberal tradition, freedom of (dis)association means the absence of forced integration or segregation (it is just a subset of "respecting property rights"). Under a minarchist regime, this would of course be the situation. So, you must be using "freedom of (dis)association" in an entirely different sense, and I'm not really sure what you mean. Your complaint that the minarchist state would "not allow them to dissociate themselves from it" sounds like an argument against the state in general - i.e. no state allows its subjects to "dissociate from it," if that means "not obey its laws."

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
    Not sure what that means. 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.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 08-10-2017 at 12:00 PM.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  23. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    In the liberal tradition, freedom of (dis)association means the absence of forced integration or segregation (it is just a subset of "respecting property rights"). Under a minarchist regime, this would of course be the situation. So, you must be using "freedom of (dis)association" in an entirely different sense, and I'm not really sure what you mean. Your complaint that the minarchist state would "not allow them to dissociate themselves from it" sounds like an argument against the state in general - i.e. no state allows its subjects to "dissociate from it," if that means "not obey its laws."
    But they were already disassociated from it and you would have forced your state on them thereby violating their rights.



    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    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, but you would have deprived them of their national territory and thereby violated their property rights.
    GOD owns the highest form of title to all of creation and therefore has the right to judge them in what is is otherwise their domain, the rest of us do not.
    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 mankindÖitís people I canít 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



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    But they were already disassociated from it and you would have forced your state on them thereby violating their rights.
    Either way, with or without regime change, a state is "forcing itself on them."

    So what's the difference?

    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
    Indeed

    but you would have deprived them of their national territory and thereby violated their property rights.
    The new minarchist regime would of course respect private property rights.

    As for the collective land ownership which you seem to be invoking, there is no such thing.

    The land is not owned by Ruritanians collectively, but by many individual Ruritanians.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  26. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Either way, with or without regime change, a state is "forcing itself on them."

    So what's the difference?
    They chose to submit to the old government, you would have forced the new one on them with violence.




    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The new minarchist regime would of course respect private property rights.

    As for the collective land ownership which you seem to be invoking, there is no such thing.
    Then what does the new regime posses/control?
    Sovereignty over a domain exists, one group had it and then your minarchist state seized it from them through aggression.
    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 mankindÖitís people I canít 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

  27. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    They chose to submit to the old government, you would have forced the new one on them with violence.
    No, the old regime also forced itself on them with violence; that is the nature of the state, any state.

    If obedience to the old regime was truly and universally voluntary, then it wasn't a state at all and Ruritania was an anarchist society.

    Then what does the new regime posses/control?
    Sovereignty over a domain exists, one group had it and then your minarchist state seized it from them through aggression.
    The sovereign power exists, yes. Someone holds it, yes. But who ought that be?

    I say, whoever will exercise it best (i.e. so as to minimize aggression).

    Whereas, for you (apparently), sovereignty is the people's, no matter how badly they exercise it.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  28. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    No, the old regime also forced itself on them with violence; that is the nature of the state, any state.

    If obedience to the old regime was truly and universally voluntary, then it wasn't a state at all and Ruritania was an anarchist society.
    Were they in armed rebellion against their former state?
    Did they resist your invasion with arms?
    Did they call for changes to their society?
    You can choose to decree that Ruritanians were not in a state of voluntary submission, but what of Freedonians or Metrosylvanians? In order to justify your invasion you must prove that it would be just in the worst case scenario because you can't tell if that is the case in Ruritania.



    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The sovereign power exists, yes. Someone holds it, yes. But who ought that be?

    I say, whoever will exercise it best (i.e. so as to minimize aggression).

    Whereas, for you (apparently), sovereignty is the people's, no matter how badly they exercise it.
    It might belong to a monarch for all it matters in this debate, you are declaring a right to seize property and give it to those who will make the best use of it, that sounds like communism or at least tyranny to me, only GOD has the right to redistribute property.
    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 mankindÖitís people I canít 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

  29. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Were they in armed rebellion against their former state?
    Did they resist your invasion with arms?
    Did they call for changes to their society?
    Coercion can make for quiet obedience; such obedience isn't any more voluntary for being quiet.

    Either there was a state in Ruritania pre-invasion, in which case at least people were submitting involuntarily, or there was anarchy.

    If there was a state, then you can't criticize the new regime simply on the grounds that it too is a state.

    In order to justify your invasion you must prove that it would be just in the worst case scenario because you can't tell if that is the case in Ruritania.
    I don't know what you mean. I can't tell if what is the case in Ruritania?

    It might belong to a monarch for all it matters in this debate, you are declaring a right to seize property and give it to those who will make the best use of it, that sounds like communism or at least tyranny to me, only GOD has the right to redistribute property.
    The "property" in question here (i.e. the powers of sovereignty) is not property in the libertarian sense. It wasn't homesteaded, it wasn't bought, or wasn't received as a gift, it wasn't received in compensation from a criminal. Depriving someone of this "property" is in no way analogous to depriving someone of property obtained in one of the aforementioned ways.

    The origin of this "property" is, rather, the realization (which we've both experienced) that anarchy is impossible, and there must be a state. The next step is to ask: who should control it? And one's answer to that question depends on what one thinks the purpose of the state should be. Should it be to allow the persons who control it to do what they like? If so, then assign them the sovereign power unconditionally. Or is it to minimize aggression? If so, then assign it to whoever will use it to do that.

    N.B. This isn't only about monarchy v. democracy. It could be two democracies (perhaps the French people will exercise the sovereign power in the Congo better than the Congolese), or two monarchies (perhaps the Prussian king will exercise the sovereign power in Poland better than the Polish king), or any two states of any form.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  30. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post

    No I mean they have a right to submit to aggression by their fellows
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  31. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Coercion can make for quiet obedience; such obedience isn't any more voluntary for being quiet.

    Either there was a state in Ruritania pre-invasion, in which case at least people were submitting involuntarily, or there was anarchy.
    They may have been submitting voluntarily.

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I don't know what you mean. I can't tell if what is the case in Ruritania?
    The best case scenario to justify your invasion.



    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The "property" in question here (i.e. the powers of sovereignty) is not property in the libertarian sense. It wasn't homesteaded, it wasn't bought, or wasn't received as a gift, it wasn't received in compensation from a criminal. Depriving someone of this "property" is in no way analogous to depriving someone of property obtained in one of the aforementioned ways.
    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, your theories of monarchy are predicated on the monarch owning this property.

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The origin of this "property" is, rather, the realization (which we've both experienced) that anarchy is impossible, and there must be a state. The next step is to ask: who should control it? And one's answer to that question depends on what one thinks the purpose of the state should be. Should it be to allow the persons who control it to do what they like? If so, then assign them the sovereign power unconditionally. Or is it to minimize aggression? If so, then assign it to whoever will use it to do that.
    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.
    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 mankindÖitís people I canít 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

  32. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Do you believe we should invade foreign countries to "liberate" them?
    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 mankindÖitís people I canít 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



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Do you believe we should invade foreign countries to "liberate" them?
    Your use of the the word "right" is what was misleading.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  35. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Your use of the the word "right" is what was misleading.
    Well people do have a right to submit to tyranny, it is not one I would recommend using but they do have it.
    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 mankindÖitís people I canít 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

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


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

Posting Permissions

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