Do you support unlimited immigration into US

[r3volution 3.0]

Since we are theoretically dealing with the founding of a new group in ancient times then the answer is no.

So then, if my money was already owned (by me), it can't have been homesteaded by the group, can it have?

This question brings up another way of thinking about territorial control that might suit you better even though I prefer the one I have already laid out: You could say that territorial control is a "tax" on a certain portion of the citizens property rights that is required for the group to perform it's function of protecting the citizens right to control who may join the group and benefit from their protection.

In other words, the group appropriates some of the property rights of individuals.

The question is: how? Not by homesteading, since one cannot homestead already owned things.

[Swordsmyth]

So then, if my money was already owned (by me), it can't have been homesteaded by the group, can it have?



In other words, the group appropriates some of the property rights of individuals.

The question is: how? Not by homesteading, since one cannot homestead already owned things.

The money and the "rights taxation" (an alternative theory I created for you) are the "dues" one pays in return for the group's protection services.
My primary theory says that "territory" wasn't and couldn't be owned by individuals as I explained above.

[r3volution 3.0]

The money and the "rights taxation" (an alternative theory I created for you) are the "dues" one pays in return for the group's protection services.

Is this a voluntary exchange, like paying dues to a country club one chooses to join?

My primary theory says that "territory" wasn't and couldn't be owned by individuals as I explained above.

And your theory for how the group comes to homestead "territory" doesn't work, as you just acknowledged.

So, again, using whatever language you please to label the rights of the group, how did it acuire those rights?

[Swordsmyth]

Is this a voluntary exchange, like paying dues to a country club one chooses to join?

We dealt with that earlier in this thread, since you aren't an anarchist I don't know why you keep bringing it up.
You believe in taxes to enable the state to carry out it's legitimate functions so it shouldn't be to hard to understand the "rights taxation" argument for the state to carry out the function of controlling group membership, all that remains is to decide whether you believe that controlling group membership is a legitimate government function.
Earlier you said it wasn't, if that is still your position then we will never agree and can quit wasting our time.

And your theory for how the group comes to homestead "territory" doesn't work, as you just acknowledged.

So, again, using whatever language you please to label the rights of the group, how did it acuire those rights?

I acknowledged no such thing, I created a different argument that worked with your view of property rights and territory.
I still maintain that "territory" is a group function that doesn't exist without the group so the individuals can't have owned it before the group was formed, the group not only works the "territory" it created the "territory" which is a stronger claim to ownership than homesteading.

[r3volution 3.0]

I acknowledged no such thing, I created a different argument that worked with your view of property rights and territory.
I still maintain that "territory" is a group function that doesn't exist without the group so the individuals can't have owned it before the group was formed

Can rights conflict, as a matter of logic?

We dealt with that earlier in this thread, since you aren't an anarchist I don't know why you keep bringing it up.
You believe in taxes to enable the state to carry out it's legitimate functions so it shouldn't be to hard to understand the "rights taxation" argument for the state to carry out the function of controlling group membership, all that remains is to decide whether you believe that controlling group membership is a legitimate government function.

You've put forth several explanations (e.g. quasi-homesteading, quasi-contract) for how the group acquired it alleged rights.

I'm pointing out how those explanations are inconsistent with liberalism.

[Swordsmyth]

Can rights conflict, as a matter of logic?

Sure, your right to swing your fist is absolute yet it ends when it conflicts with my right to stand next to you in the public square.

You've put forth several explanations (e.g. quasi-homesteading, quasi-contract) for how the group acquired it alleged rights.

I'm pointing out how those explanations are inconsistent with liberalism.

By that definition of liberalism only the anarchists are liberal, if you wish to claim the title "classic liberal" for yourself while allowing the state to tax money to perform legitimate functions then you can't deny it to me because I allow the state to "tax" property rights in order to perform a legitimate function.

Our fundamental disagreement is whether or not controlling group membership is a legitimate function.

[r3volution 3.0]

Sure, your right to swing your fist is absolute yet it ends when it conflicts with my right to stand next to you in the public square.

No, that's not what I mean.

Can "Smith has the exclusive right to eat the apple" and "Jones has the exclusive right to eat the apple" both be true?

Or, more to the point, can "I have the exclusive right to use my money" and "the group has the exclusive right to use my money" both be true?

By that definition of liberalism only the anarchists are liberal, if you wish to claim the title "classic liberal" for yourself while allowing the state to tax money to perform legitimate functions then you can't deny it to me because I allow the state to "tax" property rights in order to perform a legitimate function.

Our fundamental disagreement is whether or not controlling group membership is a legitimate function.

No, it's deeper than that.

As I said before, my argument for the state is consequentialist. The state has no right to do anything except insofar as it minimizes aggression. Your argument is that the state has a right to do certain things regardless of their consequences. If you ask me why I think the state has a right to do X, my answer will always be "because ti minimizes aggression" (a clearly liberal goal). If I ask you why the state has a right to do X, you say...because it homesteaded that right (but, per the liberal conception of homesteading, it clearly didn't, hence this is not a liberal theory).

[Swordsmyth]

No, that's not what I mean.

Can "Smith has the exclusive right to eat the apple" and "Jones has the exclusive right to eat the apple" both be true?

Or, more to the point, can "I have the exclusive right to use my money" and "the group has the exclusive right to use my money" both be true?

"Exclusive" is the question, since making a list of who has the right to eat the apple already excludes those not on the list then using the word "exclusive" must limit the right to only one person, therefore both statements can't be true, the question is whether membership in the apple club involves giving up exclusivity in ones right to eat the apple.

No, it's deeper than that.

As I said before, my argument for the state is consequentialist. The state has no right to do anything except insofar as it minimizes aggression. Your argument is that the state has a right to do certain things regardless of their consequences. If you ask me why I think the state has a right to do X, my answer will always be "because ti minimizes aggression" (a clearly liberal goal). If I ask you why the state has a right to do X, you say...because it homesteaded that right (but, per the liberal conception of homesteading, it clearly didn't, hence this is not a liberal theory).

It is also minimization of aggression to filter out those who wish to join the group but are likely to violate the rights of the other members.

[timosman]

The state has no right to do anything except insofar as it minimizes aggression.

Thread winner.

[r3volution 3.0]

"Exclusive" is the question, since making a list of who has the right to eat the apple already excludes those not on the list then using the word "exclusive" must limit the right to only one person, therefore both statements can't be true, the question is whether membership in the apple club involves giving up exclusivity in ones right to eat the apple.

The point is this.

The group's alleged rights conflict with my own.

When the group acquired "territory" (which includes its right to my money), I lost something (my right to my money).

So then this doesn't make sense.

"territory" is a group function that doesn't exist without the group so the individuals can't have owned it before the group was formed

Whatever the group allegedly gained was something that I lost; that something had not been unowned.

And thus it can't have been homesteaded.

It is also minimization of aggression to filter out those who wish to join the group but are likely to violate the rights of the other members.

That consequentialist argument is perfectly consistent with liberalism, but it's not the one you've been making in this thread.

It's your deontological argument, based on alleged homesteading, which is problematic.

[Swordsmyth]

Whatever the group allegedly gained was something that I lost; that something had not been unowned.

And thus it can't have been homesteaded.

You didn't have a right to control group membership since there wasn't a group or members, when the group was created it was born with the right to control membership, membership control is the essence of territorial control, the group earns it's right to control membership and to collect "dues" by performing it's function to protect it's members.

That consequentialist argument is perfectly consistent with liberalism, but it's not the one you've been making in this thread.

It's your deontological argument, based on alleged homesteading, which is problematic.

If the group has a right to filter new members it has a right to decide how restrictive the filter is, the possibilities range from absolute isolationism to open borders and "at will" citizenship.

[r3volution 3.0]

You didn't have a right to control group membership since there wasn't a group or members, when the group was created it was born with the right to control membership, membership control is the essence of territorial control, the group earns it's right to control membership and to collect "dues" by performing it's function to protect it's members.

The underlined is a euphemism for more concrete rights: like the right to my money. I most certainly had that right. If the group gained it, I lost it. What the group gained was not unowned, and hence can't have been homesteaded. It doesn't matter how you play with the language, this argument simply doesn't work. A communist can refer to the state's ownership of everything as a "right to set national economic output," and deny that the state acquiring this right entailed anyone losing anything (since no individual ever had a "right to set national economic output") but this is sophistry; what is actually going on is an appropriation of private property rights, whatever you call it.

[Swordsmyth]

The underlined is a euphemism for more concrete rights: like the right to my money. I most certainly had that right. If the group gained it, I lost it. What the group gained was not unowned, and hence can't have been homesteaded. It doesn't matter how you play with the language, this argument simply doesn't work. A communist can refer to the state's ownership of everything as a "right to set national economic output," and deny that the state acquiring this right entailed anyone losing anything (since no individual ever had a "right to set national economic output") but this is sophistry; what is actually going on is an appropriation of private property rights, whatever you call it.

Group membership is more fundamental than the functions of the group or the obligations of the members, you could form a group of friends with no particular function and zero obligations and the group would still have a right to control it's membership.
The obligations placed on group membership and the group's permissible functions are unlimited in a voluntary group, the members can agree to anything they want, since government is a semi-voluntary group then it may not place obligations on it's members nor assume functions that violate the rights of it's members, so it can't have a "right to set national economic output" but since control of membership is a fundamental aspect of any group it does have that right and function, and that right and function didn't exist without the group so you can't have owned it before the group was formed.

[thoughtomator]

Stop letting yourselves be trolled by the crypto-Marxist, guys. It's way too late to make excuses for not knowing exactly what he's doing, and your wasted time is thus your own damn fault.

[timosman]

Stop letting yourselves be trolled by the crypto-Marxist, guys. It's way too late to make excuses for not knowing exactly what he's doing, and your wasted time is thus your own damn fault.

Zero progress after an entire evening of wrestling. It may suggest he likes it too much. +rep

[r3volution 3.0]

Group membership is more fundamental than the functions of the group or the obligations of the members, you could form a group of friends with no particular function and zero obligations and the group would still have a right to control it's membership.
The obligations placed on group membership and the group's permissible functions are unlimited in a voluntary group, the members can agree to anything they want, since government is a semi-voluntary group then it may not place obligations on it's members nor assume functions that violate the rights of it's members, so it can't have a "right to set national economic output" but since control of membership is a fundamental aspect of any group it does have that right and function, and that right and function didn't exist without the group so you can't have owned it before the group was formed.

So you assert, but that's not true, as I just explained:

The underlined is a euphemism for more concrete rights: like the right to my money. I most certainly had that right. If the group gained it, I lost it. What the group gained was not unowned, and hence can't have been homesteaded. It doesn't matter how you play with the language, this argument simply doesn't work. A communist can refer to the state's ownership of everything as a "right to set national economic output," and deny that the state acquiring this right entailed anyone losing anything (since no individual ever had a "right to set national economic output") but this is sophistry; what is actually going on is an appropriation of private property rights, whatever you call it.

Your "territory" is simply a bundle of individual property rights appropriated by the group. None of them were unowned, none of them can have been homesteaded. That you bundle them together and give them a new name doesn't change that. If you want to claim that the group has these rights, so be it, just don't claim that they homesteaded them in a manner consistent with liberal theory; they clearly did not.

[timosman]

Should Rev3.0 go home?

[osan]

My belief is on average people on welfare support bigger government and people that support themselves support smaller government and it doesn't matter where they came from.

This only holds in the context that supports it. For example, in a land where the incentive for hard work is present, I agree with your assertion. I would even go so far as to say that in such an environment, more and more welfare recipients will come to be motivated to jump ship and strike out for greener economic pastures. This assumes all else equal, such as rationality and the absence of deep individual corruption, of course. But if we make these assumptions, then even the welfare recipient is likely to come to see how enterprise is worth the effort. People around him are well dressed, well fed, low in levels of toxic stress, happy, able to take vacations, and so forth. He who is on the dole lives very meagerly and cannot do the things those around him are able. Some of those people will tire of indolence and boredom, say "screw this", and give industry a shot.

If you only allow the people who support smaller government to vote, government should stay small. I'd rather have someone from Mexico that works voting than someone from the US that's on welfare.

I understand the sentiment, but as stated this would be a potential disaster because human motivations and the decisions that descend therefrom are quite a bit more complicated than your words would imply.

Let's just assume there's two basic ways to achieve a libertarian state. One is to make sure everyone in it has libertarian ideals, the other is to create a system that is self-correcting so that no matter who the citizens are, the government will stay libertarian. I think it makes more sense to try to create a system that is self correcting, otherwise you have go around, try to identify the socialists and kick them out.

Once again, nice sounding, but where's the beef? There is no such thing as a "self correcting" system in such matters, at least in the sense you appear to suggest, if by innuendo. People are ALWAYS subject to changes of heart and are very often unwilling to live and let live. These two factors are central to the reasons the world is so deep in the muck. Freemen are by definition properly moral men. There is no other possibility. By "moral", I mean that they are educated as to the principles of proper human relations, hold an attitude of extreme intolerance toward those who do not share in knowledge, valuation, practice, attitude, and intolerant views necessary to become free and remain that way. Here, "moral" has nothing to do with whether one takes drugs, drinks, gambles, cusses like sailor, or engages in porno-grade gaysex with his neighbor three doors down. Just want to be clear.

Therefore, the only "self-correcting" system possible stems from the proper morality of the people. There is no written-down systemic architecture that can be self-correcting without the people who properly play the roles as written therein. This is why I never completed my New! and Improved! Constitution. As I endeavored to accomplish precisely that which you suggest, it became clear in my work to close up loopholes that there was no way to do what I intended. Why? Because a Constitution is nothing beyond marks on a paper which, given the right mental capabilities, enshrine certain concepts. Those concepts exist only by dint of the existence of said mental capabilities - the intellectual capacity for language and the conceptual thinking for which it provides. This brings us full-circle right back to the individual - what he thinks, how he thinks, and his attitude to tread the better path which demands so much of him, v. the easy path of corruption and decay that demands little to nothing.

Without those moral people, who are perforce well educated and principled, there is no possibility for self-correction save by fluke, which is not something upon which rational men of even corrupt character want to depend for their results.

Intelligence, smarts, decency, responsibility, courage, and grave intolerance as noted above are the qualities without which a free people cannot exist. That is why Americans are not free. Were we such people, we could be free tomorrow because we would simply set down those large and filled-up bags of bricks we've been given to carry by other men, and simply stop complying. If 100K good men in NYC were to come out of their homes this morning with sidearms on their hips, what does anyone think NYPD and the city "government" would be able to do about it? Almost nothing, especially if those men went about in groups of not smaller than 100 bodies, sporting an attitude of extreme intolerance to being violated and the will to drill anyone interfering with them a deep fathom into the earth. The cops would $#@! a ton, grimace in their impotence, hating those men and wishing them dead on the spot, yet would remain devoid of the nerve to act against them because even creatures of intellect as low as they still retain some shred of a sense of self-preservation.

Our servitude could end this afternoon, but it will not because on the whole we are not really interested beyond that which comes to us free of the effort and risk needed to attain freedom by proper means.

The self-correcting system exists. We're just failing to make proper use of it.