Who says there is no contract....
Mike Huben
who made the claim that because there was no social contract, goverment action
was immoral coercion. The article expired, and I didn't save it, but I checked
the few articles I've saved and found these examples.
The following people have cited "No Treason" by Lysander Spooner in opposition
to social contract theory:
Tim Starr, Robert Blumen, Roger Collins, David Friedman (page 113 of "The
Machinery of Freedom".)
Spooner said:
"The Constitution having never been signed by anybody; and there being no other
open, written, or authentic contract between any parties whatever..."
thus
"this secret band of robbers and murderers, who now plunder, enslave, and
destroy"
Other more direct quotes:
12 Jul 1993 John Bierwagen:
"Quite simply, Libertarians believe that forcing one person to pay for
the problems of another through government coercian (read taxes) is immoral."
17 Sep 1992 Michael Lee:
"There is no such contract. Show me my signature.
What you describe as a contract is more like the "protection racket""
14 Sep 1992 Adam L. Schwartz:
"the moral justification for libertarian philosophy (that it is NOT OK for a
governent to coerce, using force, unreasonable taxes from its citizens..."
These are merely the quotations I've happend to save in passing. I've seen
alot more that I haven't saved.
Also, I've seen portions of the argument more times than I'd want to count.
Most libertarians seem to reject the notion of a social contract.
Most libertarians seem to think government behavior is coercion
Sorry, Cliff, I'm more willing to acknowledge the diversity of libertarian
thought than you are. I'm even willing to admit that some libertarian arguments
are to my liking (including some that you make.)
Now it's my turn to ask you a question. Presuming you're a minarchist, on
what basis do you inflict your minarchy on anyone (if not my social contract
argument)? On what basis do you say that yours is the only government that
can exist in a territory?
Mike Huben
"Enough of acting the infant who has been told so often how he was found under
a cabbage that in the end he remembers the exact spot in the garden and the
kind of life he led there before joining the family circle." Samuel Beckett
c...@ardi.com
>A few days ago, Cliff (c...@ardi.com) challenged me to produce some libertarians
>who made the claim that because there was no social contract, goverment action
>was immoral coercion. The article expired, and I didn't save it, but I checked
>the few articles I've saved and found these examples.
Mike has me confused with Ken perhaps. I didn't make the above statement.
I think Ken Arromdee may have made something similar.
Just as a reminder Mike, I'm the one that says you're incredibly sloppy
with respect to providing direct quotes of those you criticize. For
whatever reason, you have a pronounced tendency to rebut memories of posts
rather than actual posts. This is a perfect case in point.
>...
>Sorry, Cliff, I'm more willing to acknowledge the diversity of libertarian
>thought than you are. I'm even willing to admit that some libertarian arguments
>are to my liking (including some that you make.)
Sorry, Mike. You're still not willing to respond directly to my posts.
It is for this reason that the Mike Huben FAQ will be produced at some
unspecified date. I'd really like to include the e-mail correspondence
we had a while back, because I think it's a fine illustration of the
Mike Huben character. I've asked you repeatedly for permission to include
it, and I assure you, I'll include every word we both sent back and forth,
but so far, you have not even deigned to say no, much less agreed to allow
me to include the correspondence... I ask you again:
May I put complete, un-editted transcripts of our little
e-mail exchange of a few weeks ago into my Mike Huben FAQ?
I've not only acknowedged the diversity of libertarian thought several times
before (and am even on your side vs. Ken and Paul Sand in another thread),
but I've also pointed out repeatedly that this is Usenet. Learning about
and debating libertarianism via usenet is just as foolish as learning about
and debating good computer science practice. Actually, since political
"science" is softer than computer "science", it's much more foolish.
>Now it's my turn to ask you a question. Presuming you're a minarchist, on
>what basis do you inflict your minarchy on anyone (if not my social contract
>argument)? On what basis do you say that yours is the only government that
>can exist in a territory?
As I've stated before, I personally believe that a voluntary minarchy
is possible and is something to strive for. I have no qualms
whatsoever with a true social *contract* that all the inhabitants of
my libertaria would be party to.
I am not sure that only one government *can* exist in a territory, but there
is a chance that such is the case. I appeal to pragmatism. My particular
belief is that there will be a worldwide paradigm shift in my lifetime that
will result in the vast majority of the earths inhabitants realizing that
current governments are *incredibly* sub-optimal, and that it makes sense
to use a marketplace of governments to help ascertain significantly more
optimal structures.
There are two ways to stay ahead of your opponent, improve yourself, or
retard your opponent. In zero sum games, they are the same. Culturally
much of the world still thinks of wealth creation as a zero sum game, and
anyone questioning the status quo a potential *traitor*. There appear to
be very few Americans sitting around hoping that some new country will just
whomp the hell out of us economically so as to set a better example that
we can follow. The paradigm shift that I describe above is when most of
the world's inhabitants *do* think along those lines, and don't penalize
those who work hard to see such advancements made.
The above is more directly related to meta-governments and applying the
scientific method (predict, test, evaluate, modify) to governmental
systems than it is to libertarianism per-se. However, as I've
mentioned before, some frameworks are more amenable than others as
meta-governments that allow diversity, hence the libertarian government.
--Cliff
c...@ardi.com
c...@ardi.com
>who made the claim that because there was no social contract, goverment action
>was immoral coercion. The article expired, and I didn't save it, but I checked
>the few articles I've saved and found these examples.
I've already pointed out that it wasn't I who issued this particular challenge.
However, upon thinking about it, most of Mike's examples below don't even match
the challenge as he himself states it above.
Consider Anti-Sodomy laws. Libertarians are opposed to these laws.
Many libertarians would even claim that these laws are immoral. Many
of the same libertarians would claim that your social contract isn't
binding. However that does not imply that the objection to the laws
is *because* "there was no social contract".
>The following people have cited "No Treason" by Lysander Spooner in opposition
>to social contract theory:
>
>Tim Starr, Robert Blumen, Roger Collins, David Friedman (page 113 of "The
>Machinery of Freedom".)
>
>Spooner said:
>"The Constitution having never been signed by anybody; and there being no other
>open, written, or authentic contract between any parties whatever..."
>thus
>"this secret band of robbers and murderers, who now plunder, enslave, and
>destroy"
Fine. That still doesn't show that Tim, Robert, Roger or David claim that
bad government action is immoral *because* there is no social contract.
>Other more direct quotes:
>
>12 Jul 1993 John Bierwagen:
>"Quite simply, Libertarians believe that forcing one person to pay for
>the problems of another through government coercian (read taxes) is immoral."
No reference to the social contract at all.
>17 Sep 1992 Michael Lee:
>"There is no such contract. Show me my signature.
>What you describe as a contract is more like the "protection racket""
No reference to morality.
>14 Sep 1992 Adam L. Schwartz:
>"the moral justification for libertarian philosophy (that it is NOT OK for a
>governent to coerce, using force, unreasonable taxes from its citizens..."
No mention of the social contract.
>These are merely the quotations I've happend to save in passing. I've seen
>alot more that I haven't saved.
>
>Also, I've seen portions of the argument more times than I'd want to count.
>Most libertarians seem to reject the notion of a social contract.
True. To my eyes, as you present it, it is silly. I understand what you're
getting at, but I don't believe it's a contract any more than I believe
that my post that claims all of North America is a contract.
>Most libertarians seem to think government behavior is coercion
True. Much government behaviour is coercion. Minarchists actually believe
that some coercion is necessary, although it can be self imposed (a social
contract, if you will).
The big thing to notice is that even if one is a libertarian that reject
your notition of a social contract *and* think that government behaviour
is coercion, one is *unlikely* to believe that it is the lack of a social
contract that makes the coercion immoral. Many libertarians shy away from
the word "immoral" irregardless of circumstances.
So again, were the Jim Crow laws moral, *because* of the social contract?
That appears to be what you're implying.
--Cliff
c...@ardi.com
Mike Huben
>It is for this reason that the Mike Huben FAQ will be produced at some
>unspecified date. I'd really like to include the e-mail correspondence
>we had a while back, because I think it's a fine illustration of the
>Mike Huben character. I've asked you repeatedly for permission to include
>it, and I assure you, I'll include every word we both sent back and forth,
>but so far, you have not even deigned to say no, much less agreed to allow
>me to include the correspondence... I ask you again:
>
> May I put complete, un-editted transcripts of our little
> e-mail exchange of a few weeks ago into my Mike Huben FAQ?
No. Newsgroups are places for exchange of personal views, not for personal
harassment of the participants. I consider such a character assassination
threat such as a "faq" to be extremely obnoxious, purely ad-hominem, far
outside the usual realm of debate, and quite possibly legally actionable.
Welcome to the world of character assassination, peopled by folks like Thant
who accuse others of psychological illness to discredit their arguments, and
folks like Nixon. Scientologists, and Cliff Matthews who target political
opponents for personal harassment.
Your approach sickens me, but I'm not impressed by your pathetic games.
Mike Huben
"One cannot play chess if one becomes aware of the pieces as living souls
and of the fact that the Whites and the Blacks have more in common with
each other than with the players. Suddenly one loses all interest in who will
be champion." Anatol Rapoport in "Strategy and Conscience" 1964.
c...@ardi.com
>In article <CEuM8...@cobra.cs.unm.edu>, <c...@ardi.com> wrote:
>>It is for this reason that the Mike Huben FAQ will be produced at some
>>unspecified date. I'd really like to include the e-mail correspondence
>>we had a while back, because I think it's a fine illustration of the
>>Mike Huben character. I've asked you repeatedly for permission to include
>>it, and I assure you, I'll include every word we both sent back and forth,
>>but so far, you have not even deigned to say no, much less agreed to allow
>>me to include the correspondence... I ask you again:
>>
>> May I put complete, un-editted transcripts of our little
>> e-mail exchange of a few weeks ago into my Mike Huben FAQ?
>
>No. Newsgroups are places for exchange of personal views, not for personal
>harassment of the participants. I consider such a character assassination
>threat such as a "faq" to be extremely obnoxious, purely ad-hominem, far
>outside the usual realm of debate, and quite possibly legally actionable.
You haven't seen my Mike Huben FAQ, yet you're already condemning it. The
purpose of a FAQ is to answer frequently asked questions so that newcomers
to a newsgroup won't require more keystrokes from people who have already
lived through particular battles that come up with great frequency. How
about if you read it first, then comment on it.
As for asking about the use of e-mail, I did so via e-mail and you ignored
the question. I believe I asked it twice via e-mail, and I asked a few
times here as well. Obviously if I wanted to I could have put it in there
anyway. Get a grip, Mike.
>Welcome to the world of character assassination, peopled by folks like Thant
>who accuse others of psychological illness to discredit their arguments, and
>folks like Nixon. Scientologists, and Cliff Matthews who target political
>opponents for personal harassment.
I've done no such thing. I've always been very careful to include your own
words to show what it is that you do. Now you're getting all huffy about
something you haven't even read.
I've explained it before (and it's going in the FAQ). As a libertarian,
I do not find it appropriate to take goofy arguments made by a few people
and then purport to divine a trend amoung Xists, Xitarians or even
Xentologists. However, I have no problems pointing out when particular
individuals do the same thing time and time again. I do get bored typing
though, that's the purpose of the FAQ.
Perhaps you think I'm going to hire a private investigator and put
embarrassing details of your private life in it. If so, you probably
haven't paid much attention to what I post, for that would certainly
be objectionable, but it is also highly out of my character.
Let's face it, people spend a lot of time replying to your same
pattern of shifting arguments and misrepresentations. Frequently you
refuse to answer peoples' questions, often begging off because of time
constraints. Putting out a FAQ will lessen the temptation of fellow
a.p.l. posters to get caught in the nailing Jell-O (r) to the wall game.
I'd rather see other discussions than the social contract hobby-horse
that you ride around in circles.
>Your approach sickens me, but I'm not impressed by your pathetic games.
Bummer. And I look to you for guidance too. What was I thinking?
--Cliff
c...@ardi.com
c...@ardi.com
assure everyone that the contents of our exchange weren't significantly
different from what goes on in this newsgroup. I wanted to use it because
it was complete; it has a beginning, middle and end, and because I log my
mail and have it in its entirety, unlike news which I only archive here and
there.
As far as I can tell, Mike is way ticked off just at the thought of a Mike
Huben FAQ, as opposed to my asking politely (and respecting his wishes)
about whether or not I can use our conversation in my FAQ.
I point this out because to an onlooker it may appear that I seduced Mike
into revealing some sort of personal material that would be inappropriate
to make public. After all, he protests so strongly, surely I'm up to
something sneaky. That's not the case at all. He certainly has a temper
though. It will be fun to see if it's legally actionable.
--Cliff
c...@ardi.com