Questioning Some Libertarian Sacred Cows

[Lamp]

[MallsRGood]

Funny because it's true.

Every social order is maintained by force, including the libertarian one.

This inevitably follows from the fact that people disagree about things.

[otherone]

Bender gets reps. Although Hypnotoad may be more apropos.

[Suzanimal]

@Suzanimal

On a related note, I'm curious what you think of voluntary slavery.

If you oppose it, how do you justify that exception to freedom of contract?

The distinction between a man's alienable labor service and his inalienable will may be further explained: a man can alienate his labor service, but he cannot sell the capitalized future value of that service. In short, he cannot, in nature, sell himself into slavery and have this sale enforced — for this would mean that his future will over his own person was being surrendered in advance. 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. 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; whereas, if he later changed his mind and the master enforced his slavery by violence, the slavery would not then be voluntary. But more of coercion later on.

https://mises.org/library/crusoe-soc...#ixzz0nx4DiTmB

[BUTSRSLY]

NO, IT'S WHETHER THE ETHICALLY LOADED CHOICE WILL/SHOULD/COULD PROMPT A)PRE-EMPTIVE B)REACTIONARY FURTHER ACTION

IT'S NOT WHETHER YOU ARE WITHIN RIGHTS TO SHOOT THE PERSON ON THE POLE

IT'S WHETHER YOU WILL SHOOT THE PERSON WHO JUST SHOT THE PERSON ON THE POLE

OR TRY THEM IN COURT (KIDNAP THEM)

[MallsRGood]

https://mises.org/library/crusoe-soc...#ixzz0nx4DiTmB

Rothbard's argument against voluntary slavery is illogical (Block addresses it in the essay linked).

The distinction between a man's alienable labor service and his inalienable will may be further explained: a man can alienate his labor service, but he cannot sell the capitalized future value of that service. In short, he cannot, in nature, sell himself into slavery and have this sale enforced — for this would mean that his future will over his own person was being surrendered in advance. 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. 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; whereas, if he later changed his mind and the master enforced his slavery by violence, the slavery would not then be voluntary. But more of coercion later on.

The basic flaw in his reasoning is that he conflates "will" and "body." A voluntary slavery contract doesn't purport to transfer the slave's will to the master (whatever that would even mean). It purports to transfer to the master the right to use the slave's body (as, for instance, by beating him when he doesn't obey).

Voluntary slavery is not impossible, or self-contradictory, etc, as some people try to claim. The fact is that it follows logically from libertarian principles of self-ownership and freedom of contract. The only argument against it would be a consequentialist argument (i.e. we should restrict people's freedom of contract in this case for their own good).

[osan]

@osan

You're refusal to respond to the hypothetical is itself a telling response.

I most certainly did respond. To wit:

"I would also point out that even if it came to such a pass, it could only do so through the violation of human rights on a massive scale. To wit: just because someone rents your third floor apartment, it does not follow that as part of the lease agreement that you can demand they waive their basic rights. You could not, as a land owner, demand they sever the pinky of their dominant hand so you can wear it on a necklace. You cannot, as landlord, demand the tenant let you into his house, raid his refrigerator, and screw his daughter. I'm sure you get the point.

Similarly, landowners are not the only people with rights. If landowners all decided to go pink, it would not follow that the non-landowning people were obliged to follow suit."

Obviously, you don't fancy the idea of world communism, even it came about by voluntary means.

But it CANNOT come about by voluntary means precisely because I am not volunteering. Such a thing can be voluntary ONLY if every soul in question in fact volunteers. Otherwise, it is a tyrannical imposition, even if 6,999,999,999 out of 7 billion agree to the arrangement.

RIGHTS ARE NOT ADDITIVE. HERRO?!!

So as you see, your little hypothetical fails no matter how you slice the pie, except in the trivial and virtually impossible case where every last person on the planet volunteers. This is called "pissing up a rope".

Yet you don't want to deal with this conflict between theory and practice.

I have dealt with it as assuredly as the sun rises every morning, and have done a fair to middling job of it without having had to exert myself very much at all. There is, after all, not that much to say about it because the truth is clear as a bell and very sharply delineated from the rest.

Finally, I would point out that even if every last one of those 7 billion souls did as you specify, anyone would be free to alter his choice at any time, for any reason including no reason at all. That is why we call it "freedom". Our rights are absolute and are non-additive. My right to live my life as I see fit, within the very meager restrictions of the Cardinal Prohibition, outweighs the will of any arbitrarily large population seeking to violate them, for which they have no just authority, singly or severally.

[Suzanimal]

Rothbard's argument against voluntary slavery is illogical (Block addresses it in the essay linked).



The basic flaw in his reasoning is that he conflates "will" and "body."

A voluntary slavery contract doesn't purport to transfer the slave's will to the master (whatever that would even mean).

It purports to transfer to the master the right to use the slave's body (as, for instance, by beating him when he doesn't obey).

I guess I disagree with Walter Block.

voluntary
[vol-uh n-ter-ee]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adjective
1.
done, made, brought about, undertaken, etc., of one's own accord or by free choice:
a voluntary contribution.
2.
of, relating to, or acting in accord with the will:
voluntary cooperation.
3.
of, relating to, or depending on voluntary action:
voluntary hospitals.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/voluntary

slav•er•y (ˈsleɪ və ri, ˈsleɪv ri)

n.
1. the condition of a slave; bondage.
2. the keeping of slaves as a practice or institution.
3. a state of subjection like that of a slave.
4. severe toil; drudgery.
[1545–55]
syn: slavery, bondage, servitude refer to involuntary subjection to another or others. slavery emphasizes the idea of complete ownership and control by a master: to be sold into slavery. bondage indicates a state of subjugation or captivity often involving burdensome and degrading labor: in bondage to a cruel master. servitude is compulsory service, often such as is required by law: penal servitude.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slavery

[Suzanimal]

NO, IT'S WHETHER THE ETHICALLY LOADED CHOICE WILL/SHOULD/COULD PROMPT A)PRE-EMPTIVE B)REACTIONARY FURTHER ACTION

IT'S NOT WHETHER YOU ARE WITHIN RIGHTS TO SHOOT THE PERSON ON THE POLE

IT'S WHETHER YOU WILL SHOOT THE PERSON WHO JUST SHOT THE PERSON ON THE POLE

OR TRY THEM IN COURT (KIDNAP THEM)

IS POLE SHOOTING A LIFE SKILL I SHOULD MASTER BEFORE THE COMMIE HIPPY APOCALYPSE?

[osan]

what if he was wearing a wing suit?

As I was formulating the question, the first thing that came to mind was whether some wiseacre was going to bring this up.

Congratulations, ye boothole.

no quite serious; in essence we have bitch on the flag pole aboard the Master's ship

Was it a woman? Shemale?

1781; the act of jettisoning slaves in lieu of "more valuable cargo"; a metaphor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zong_massacre

Ah... learn something new every day. Holy $#@!, that is depraved.

sure but therein you'll have to look at the apprehensions of the property owner. Does he fear the pirate? Or does he see the blameless neighbor in distress? And if he sees the blameless neighbor in distress; apprehends a ward in his care... and thereafter closes the window... is that a crime of omission?

Not quite following you fully here. Remember that I am not that smart.

They're not necessarily that extreme; as I said... last year a hang glider landed about 200 feet from my front door in the cow field; these things indeed happen.

Agreed, and how many times out of the totality to they result in what hindsight would tend to label as a "needless tragedy"?

I think the flag pole situation adds an interesting slant in that not only are we discussing one's "land" but the curtilage of one's inner home.

Well, yes and no. It's all well and good to bounce it around a bit as an almost pedantic exercise, but the utility is rather limited, methinks. For me the truth is clear: the property owner holds the ultimate right to defend against trespass and nobody holds any moral authority to pass judgment on his actions, no matter how reprehensible they may seem. These are freakishly rare events, in the grander scheme of human affairs, and as we readily see, the media have not been reporting jags of people shooting up the baskets of hot air balloons descending upon their front lawns. On the whole, people are pretty reasonable, despite their manifold other failings.

[MallsRGood]

I guess I disagree with Walter Block.

You can disagree with Block that voluntary should be allowed (I myself tend to think it should be prohibited for practical reasons).

But Rothbard's argument is illogical.

"I cannot give someone else control over my will, therefore I cannot give someone the right to hit me with a stick" = non sequitur

If you're opposing voluntary slavery, you must be doing it on consequentialist grounds.

...which is my point (you're making a practical exception to freedom of contract in this case, as I am in the corporate commies case).

[presence]

IT'S NOT WHETHER YOU ARE WITHIN RIGHTS TO SHOOT THE PERSON ON THE POLE

IT'S WHETHER YOU WILL SHOOT THE PERSON WHO JUST SHOT THE PERSON ON THE POLE

that heavy even for you BUTSRLY

[MallsRGood]

@osan

You have a strange idea of landlord-tenant relations. Putting aside the raping of daughters and the like, a landlord can set any conditions he pleases, certainly any rent he pleases. Suppose CommieCo owns all land on the planet. Every person in the world is paying rent to it. It can set whatever rent it pleases, there being no competition or possibility of exit. It can set rent so high that it soon acquires all other property. Now CommieCo owns everything, i.e. world communism.

...all accomplished by voluntary means.

Again, what would be your reaction to such a turn of events?

No objections?

Doesn't matter that communism is a horrible form of social organization which will result in extreme poverty et al?

All good because it came about voluntarily?

[presence]

didn't AF recently say something about how this place hasn't had any good new members in a long time?


must have missed mallsrgood and hitokichi

welcome to rpf you two, thanks for contributing; questioning; seeking liberty

[otherone]

didn't AF recently say something about how this place hasn't had any good new members in a long time?

That's what happens when you build a wall...

[osan]

Funny because it's true.

Every social order is maintained by force, including the libertarian one.

This inevitably follows from the fact that people disagree about things.

Force is not always wrong.

You attempt to mug me. I draw a weapon and stop you. Force is my righteous friend.

The question is not of force per sé, but of the circumstance under which it is applied.

When one has a provable set of principles in hand, as well as the demonstrably valid Laws that derive therefrom, force becomes a valid means of securing that Law and compliance to it. The nature of the principles and attendant derivatives are the keys to propriety. This perforce dictates the principles be few and "atomic"; that the fundamental assumptions be irreducible. When you drive the level of conceptual abstraction down to the most primitive level, you may know that you are in the right ballpark.

When seeking these principles, always ask whether they address things that all people want, save perhaps some handful of lunatics and those who are contrary for its own sake. So for example, one can reasonably say that all people want to live (even those who say otherwise or even commit suicide want to live - this is in the flesh, and just because it can be overcome with an iron will to do so, it does not follow that the desire is absent. The simple fact that an iron will is required should serve as prima facie proof of this). Therefore, all people claim their own lives as their just property, thereby establishing their right to life. Right there we have already established the very basis for all human Law. It is literally that simple and obvious, which in turn is for me prima facie proof of the beneficence of "God". We have been given EVERYTHING we need to live good and worthy lives, and we turn our backs to the Gift. It slays me to think about it.

Where we keep the conceptual level low, we gain the most commonality, and THAT should be the clue that tips people off that they are on the right track. From that one simple derivation we made above, we can further derive the rest of the principles, the entire set being something like 4 or 5. From that set, the entire body of actual and demonstrably proper human Law (vis-a-vis mere and mostly invalid statute) follows naturally and with almost no burden of effort for men of nominal intelligence, honesty, and minimal courage. The entire body of Immutable Law is composed of about half a dozen edicts that I can recall. Murder, theft, battery, assault, fraud, trespass - that's about it. I once made a special case for rape until I realized there was not rationally valid basis for it. So far as I can tell, these six simple prohibitions that derive directly from the principles of proper human relations, are sufficient for dealing with all human conflict. Yet, we have enacted millions of laws across this land alone, 99.999% of them not only invalid, but criminal in that they violate the rights of men.

This world could be a paradise, and yet it will likely never he because we turn our backs to freedom.

What a wicked and shameful species we have become.

[otherone]

This world could be a paradise, and yet it will likely never he because we turn our backs to freedom.

What a wicked and shameful species we have become.

YOU, my erudite friend, are an idealist.
Home Sapiens has always been a wicked and shameful species.

[osan]

@osan

You have a strange idea of landlord-tenant relations.

Then I must conclude you have missed my point.

That notwithstanding, it is no stranger than your hypothetical. It is, in fact, far less so.

Putting aside the raping of daughters and the like, a landlord can set any conditions he pleases, certainly any rent he pleases.

He CAN, but MAY he?

Again, you go too far in the extremity of your assertions. Yes yes, they can do as you claim, and who is going to accept if the requirements of tenancy soar to stratospheric heights of the ridiculous and even dangerous?

Suppose CommieCo owns all land on the planet. Every person in the world is paying rent to it.

Suppose nothing, this is already the case. Note how property tax is universal across the globe, or very nearly so.

It can set whatever rent it pleases,

Not if it wants to stay in business. There are these things called "markets" and such things will bear certain prices for certain goods and services, but no more. So if they demand too much rent and the people don't have it, then what? Again, let us keep things somewhere in the ballpark of real.

there being no competition or possibility of exit.

And possibly no ability to pay. The landlord thereby cuts off his nose to spite his face.

It can set rent so high that it soon acquires all other property. Now CommieCo owns everything, i.e. world communism.

To what practical end?

...all accomplished by voluntary means.

FAIL. It is NOT by voluntary means. It is by imposition upon the whole, a set of arbitrary rules concocted by a subset population who appear to think that their rights supersede those of the rest and that their rights are additive whereas they hypocritically assume that those of the others are not.

This is a dead horse. I have little interest in beating it further.

Again, what would be your reaction to such a turn of events?

I've already answered this in previous posts.

You've posed the hypothetical and I have demolished it. There is nowhere left to go here, save in circles, which interests me in no degree.

[Suzanimal]

You can disagree with Block that voluntary should be allowed (I myself tend to think it should be prohibited for practical reasons).

But Rothbard's argument is illogical.

"I cannot give someone else control over my will, therefore I cannot give someone the right to hit me with a stick" = non sequitur

If you're opposing voluntary slavery, you must be doing it on consequentialist grounds.

...which is my point (you're making a practical exception to freedom of contract in this case, as I am in the corporate commies case).

I oppose it because it doesn't make sense to me. You can not voluntarily be a slave. If you voluntarily sign up for it, then why is slavery defined as "involuntary subjugation"?

[osan]

YOU, my erudite friend, are an idealist.

I am certainly that, but I do not turn my eyes away from reality. I wish I could because it has worn me out in good measure. One of the greatest intellects I have ever known told me when I was 22 that I was doomed to a life of misery. He was, unfortunately, correct. He told me that I had been cursed with the very bad habit of questioning everything around me and warned that it would lead to much anguish. He said I would one day come to envy the average simpleton who grows up questioning nothing, gets a job, and so long as the beer and football game are available, all is right with the world. He was mostly correct on that point too, though I would never want to be one of those people. I'd rather be aware and miserable than oblivious and content. I'm the sort who, facing a firing squad, would refuse the blindfold. I want to see it coming, no matter how terrible a thing may be. Clearly, I am not well.

Home Sapiens has always been a wicked and shameful species.

Has it? In some capacity I am sure in that there have always been such men. But were they as predominant in tribal anarchies as we find them today? I find that implausible in the extreme and damned nearly impossible to believe.

I've read a fair amount on such "primitive" societies and have seen various documentary films on several. In no case do I find the same brands and ubiquity of strident grasping for wealth and position. It's just not there. The perceptual landscape of such people strikes me as utterly alien to that of the peoples of Empire. This is not to say that such people have no problems between them - I am confident they have their share, but I see no evidence that they are as pervasive nor as destructive as that which we find here in the "modern" world, which is pure Empire.

I do in fact believe that given the right perceptual orientation to oneself and the world "out there" that includes one's fellows, this world could become vastly different and improved through the edification of life in preference to its disparagement and destruction. You'd still have thieves and killers. So what? There are no guarantees in this life, so that doesn't bother me in the least. But to reduce these gratuitous and self-imposed hazards to near-vanishing could be nothing other than an improvement. To live in a land where people actually respected one another... what a concept. Alas, it seems to hold no appeal beyond the confines of my paltry skull.

Bob Costello was right - I'm a functional retard. But that's OK because I will never give in to the filth and squalor. Theye will have to kill me first.

[Suzanimal]

@MallsRGood

What about prostitution? It's most likely harmful to the prostitute, would you interfere in those contracts?

[otherone]

I am certainly that, but I do not turn my eyes away from reality. I wish I could because it has worn me out in good measure. One of the greatest intellects I have ever known told me when I was 22 that I was doomed to a life of misery. He was, unfortunately, correct. He told me that I had been cursed with the very bad habit of questioning everything around me and warned that it would lead to much anguish. He said I would one day come to envy the average simpleton who grows up questioning nothing, gets a job, and so long as the beer and football game are available, all is right with the world. He was mostly correct on that point too, though I would never want to be one of those people. I'd rather be aware and miserable than oblivious and content. I'm the sort who, facing a firing squad, would refuse the blindfold. I want to see it coming, no matter how terrible a thing may be. Clearly, I am not well.



Has it? In some capacity I am sure in that there have always been such men. But were they as predominant in tribal anarchies as we find them today? I find that implausible in the extreme and damned nearly impossible to believe.

I've read a fair amount on such "primitive" societies and have seen various documentary films on several. In no case do I find the same brands and ubiquity of strident grasping for wealth and position. It's just not there. The perceptual landscape of such people strikes me as utterly alien to that of the peoples of Empire. This is not to say that such people have no problems between them - I am confident they have their share, but I see no evidence that they are as pervasive nor as destructive as that which we find here in the "modern" world, which is pure Empire.

I do in fact believe that given the right perceptual orientation to oneself and the world "out there" that includes one's fellows, this world could become vastly different and improved through the edification of life in preference to its disparagement and destruction. You'd still have thieves and killers. So what? There are no guarantees in this life, so that doesn't bother me in the least. But to reduce these gratuitous and self-imposed hazards to near-vanishing could be nothing other than an improvement. To live in a land where people actually respected one another... what a concept. Alas, it seems to hold no appeal beyond the confines of my paltry skull.

Bob Costello was right - I'm a functional retard. But that's OK because I will never give in to the filth and squalor. Theye will have to kill me first.

HA! A KINDRED SPIRIT!

My freshman history teacher told me I was too young to be a cynic!
I wrestle every day with trying to accept that the world is as it is supposed to be.
Taoism has taught me that the cause of disharmony in my life is me.
My GF on occasion watches "Jerry Springer", to which I cry:
"ECCE H0M0!"

[MallsRGood]

Force is not always wrong.

You attempt to mug me. I draw a weapon and stop you. Force is my righteous friend.

The question is not of force per sé, but of the circumstance under which it is applied.

Yes I know, that's my point.

As I've been saying, everyone (from libertarian to communist) wants to force people to do/not do certain things.

The difference lies in what specifically we want to force people to do/not do.

When one has a provable set of principles in hand

Ethical principles cannot be proved.

Ethical principles are expressions of subjective preference.

Any ethics invariably benefits some people at the expense of others.

e.g. A prohibition on murder benefits would-be victims at the expense of would-be murderers.

There is no such thing as a universal morality so long as people disagree about things, have mutually exclusive desires.

Hence, ethics is always about imposing one's will on others by force.

[MallsRGood]

@MallsRGood

What about prostitution? It's most likely harmful to the prostitute, would you interfere in those contracts?

Nope, different situation entirely.

The problem with CommieCo isn't that it's harmful for the people who voluntarily form it.

It's that it permanently screws up the market economy, by essentially taking the land out of it.

It's akin to the situation in the medieval period, where land would be owned inalienably by the monasteries. Over time they accumulated large amounts of valuable land, which they mismanaged, but which - by law - they could not alienate. The market economy sorts out inefficiencies but not if the law prohibits the current, inept owners from being replaced by new, competent owners.

[otherone]

I've read a fair amount on such "primitive" societies and have seen various documentary films on several. In no case do I find the same brands and ubiquity of strident grasping for wealth and position. It's just not there. The perceptual landscape of such people strikes me as utterly alien to that of the peoples of Empire. This is not to say that such people have no problems between them - I am confident they have their share, but I see no evidence that they are as pervasive nor as destructive as that which we find here in the "modern" world, which is pure Empire.

The Bushmen of South Africa are the purist example of "H0m0". They seem pretty happy. I suppose those that live in harmony with nature, with no fear of the future, would be happy. Or, more to the point, those with no expectations outside of circumstances, would be. I sometimes wonder what influence H0m0 neanderthalensis DNA had on our species.

[MallsRGood]

I oppose it because it doesn't make sense to me. You can not voluntarily be a slave. If you voluntarily sign up for it, then why is slavery defined as "involuntary subjugation"?

By whom? Webster? I guess because that's the common use of the term.

But when libertarians like Block or Rothbard are talking about voluntary slavery, we're talking about a person voluntarily selling himself into slavery.

This actually happened quite a lot throughout history; many of the early arrivals to the American colonies were indentured servants.

i.e. bound themselves to labor service for a period of time, in exchange for transport across the Atlantic and (eventually) a piece of land

[Suzanimal]

By whom? Webster? I guess because that's the common use of the term.

But when libertarians like Block or Rothbard are talking about voluntary slavery, we're talking about a person voluntarily selling himself into slavery.

Yeah, I get that, I just hate the term.

This actually happened quite a lot throughout history; many of the early arrivals to the American colonies were indentured servants.

i.e. bound themselves to labor service for a period of time, in exchange for transport across the Atlantic and (eventually) a piece of land

I don't have a problem with that, at all.

[MallsRGood]

FAIL. It is NOT by voluntary means

You say "fail," but nowhere did you show why the arrangement is involuntary.

Landlords may offer their places for rent at whatever price they please - basic freedom of contract.

If you're claiming that tenants should be able to force landlords to rent for less than they want, well...

....that's a much much larger exception to freedom of contract than the esoteric one I'm proposing re CommieCo.

[MallsRGood]

I don't have a problem with that, at all.

Then you don't have a problem with voluntary slavery, since it's the same thing, except the term of service may be life.

[A Son of Liberty]

How are murderers entitled to their ends?