French Mayors Panic As Migrants Overwhelm Cities, Beg Macron For Help

[Jaco Strauss]

It is winter in Europa, so I  suppose the classic libertarian solution to this problem is actually quite a simple one... 

Just leave them in the public spaces where they can freely freeze to death in their own time. (Not sure who should pay for their removal once spring arrives though) 

French Mayors Panic As Migrants Overwhelm Cities, Beg Macron For Help. https://tiny.iavian.net/kp0m

Sent from phone

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

So churches, Red Cross, Lions, Rotary... all crowded out by the French government already ? Pity.

Is the call for more of it a solution ?

S.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jaco Strauss]

All the contributors from the churches, Red Cross (Red Crescent?).Lions, Rotary, etc would be an allocation of scarce resource away from where it would otherwise have gone.

A societal loss due to the inablity of its trustees (also called government) to honour the social contract

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

I'm sorry, but I don't follow. Every allocation of scarce resources is an allocation away from where it would otherwise have gone... in the case of contributions to private charities, presumably to a less beneficial allocation, seeing as the contributions would have been voluntary and thus "optimal" in that the givers would have considered that their best course of action with said scarce resources, lest they allocated it otherwise. So I don't know what you're saying there. I'm even more clueless w.r.t. your reference to the social contract.

S.

[Jaco Strauss]

There is a finite amount of charitable donations to go around and when it is spent on a refugee it cannot go to a hungry orphan anymore. Economics 101.

In this context I refer to the "social contract" as the implied agreement between the populace and the overlords under which the latter is supposed to act in the interest of the former. By throwing open the borders to the extend bemoaned in the article, the result of their shortsighted policies is becoming not only a social burden, but also presents a monetary cost to the native populace.

So my original question remains unanswered: If the crisis grows beyond the ability of private citizens to voluntarily fund a solution, what would your libertarian answer to it be? Expect the evil government to sort it all out, or let them all freeze to death in the "public" places where you and Trevor believe they are all free to roam and die at leisure? And once the snow starts melting, who will pay for the removal of the thawing corpses?

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

[Stephen vJ]

There are people dying of preventable problems in Syria right now, not to speak of India and China. How are those lives worth less just because they sit on the wrong side of an arbitrary line on the ground ? The Syrian refugee comes to Germany because he thinks his chances of dying there are less than where he was. If he dies, he made a bad choice... why should I as German tax-payer be forced to pay for his mistake ? And similarly, how can I care less because he died in France or in Syria or in Pakistan ?

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Jaco Strauss]

That is not the point Stephen.

The reality is that the optics of your hardcore libertarian "solution" is not going to look good. Remember that dead baby boy on the Turkish beach? Freezing babies in public spaces are going to lead to money being appropriated from good folks like you and thrown at the problem...

You can claim it is irrelevant where they die while Trevor will withhold and shove them off to the dumb "Germans" if he can still find the border. Either way, you guys are going to have equally little success in demonstraing "libertarian inaction in action" in a Western country

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

We seem to have exactly the same problem with roads.

S.

[Jaco Strauss]

No we don't.

Roads are a necessity. The large scale imporation of unassimilable mostly military age men, often illitterate (even in their own languages) who believe gays should be thrown off buildings and adultresses stoned to death, is not.

So, what do you make of the crisis described in the OP? Does it illustrate a maket failure? Not only the market, but also charities and even local authorities all failed to cope with the current influx. And the borders are not even officially "open" yet!

You do not have to be a clairvoyant genius to figure out what happens next: The government you hate so much is going to confiscate money at gunpoint - also from people who opposed this lunacy from the outset - and throw it at the problem. How does that contribute to more Liberty over the short, medium and long terms?

If you still want to argue that the "real libertarian" solution to this crisis would have been to let them all freeze to death in the "public" square, I would urge you to consider the rather more humane alternative of giving each migrant a unicorn and shovel with a map to a nearby rainbow in order to aleviate their plight.

The optics woud be so much better... 

 J 

[Stephen vJ]

Well, sadly I don’t see us moving any closer to agreement here. I stand firmly by the inscription on the Statue of Liberty and believe in privately owned roads even when the biggest killer of humans is the internal combustion engine in cohort with same said roads. Maybe I don’t mind people dying, so long as they have a choice in the matter. Maybe Liberty is a pipe-dream. Maybe there is a hockey-stick effect; a point at which more liberty will be bad for us. Maybe I’m more a product of the Reagan era than I’d like to admit. All I know is, in 40 years, I have never heard even one argument for more government that was even remotely convincing... and certainly not for a lack of trying to find one. Nothing below convinces me that this is any different. Unless someone comes up with something really solid, I see no reason to shift a single iota from my totally anarchist position.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Jaco Strauss]

Or maybe I just treasure the long term survival of liberty more than short term ideological virtue signalling... 

If you cannot see how the situation described in this thread leads to more government, higher taxation and less liberty then at least it serves as a good example as to why "libertarian anarchism" finds it hard to gain any real traction. 

Perhaps as a final thought I should add that I would not oppose an "open border" ideal if it be presented as a global one, implemented simultaneously everywhere while at the same time acknowledging a universal right to secession by absolutely everybody anywhere on the planet.  

Unlike the European migrant crisis, that would be a pipe dream for more liberty worth entertaining

J

 

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

[Stephen vJ]

I’m not sure borders need to all go at the same time everywhere... but I agree that the state with borders and welfare will not do well in an otherwise Libertarian, borderless, stateless world. But that is a question of how to get there, not where to get to.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Erik Peers]

As demand for a good or service naturally increases as the price declines; surely if there are no borders, people will flock to a state that provides free lunches (or health care, education, housing etc)?

In effect that state is paying people to immigrate there, legally or illegally.

Thus will continue until that state's resources are exhausted and a new equilibrium is established.

The better France treats the "refugees" travelling from non free lunch countries, the more immigrants they will get.

This leaves only two alternatives; stop giving free lunches or tighten up the borders. 

As I understand economics there is no right nor wrong, only actions and consequences.

Immigrants will arrive until the narginal immigrant is left to freeze in the park. Even then more may arrive as in France there is more hope of not freezing in the park and less hope in the country of origin.

Johannesburg is no different. Zimbabweans will arrive until the poverty of the marginal immigrant = that of the poverty in Zim. 

Thus on the margin, given no borders, poverty will equalise in any given area.

This is no different to individual wealth. Your personal wealth, given no border to your house, will decline until there is less to steal than the next borderless house. The same applies to unsecured bank accounts.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

There is also the supply-side of the market... as people are taxed more heavily to provide for those social services, they should leave those countries for places with less / lower taxes. Thus one could conclude that open borders would, due to market forces, be one of the greatest economic equalizers... the pro-equality bunch should love that.

However, this is not what we see happening in reality. Free people flock to countries with less social services and lower taxes. Healthcare is free in Cuba, yet folks on make-shift rafts row right by it to get to Florida. There are places with all sorts of pension plans, yet Syrians walk and swim right through them to get to Germany.

Eventually things should equal out, but it seems the refugees actually voting with their feet, are voting for places with more economic freedom, less taxes and only minimal social services. Someone recently called them Schrodingers' immigrants - at the same time taking our jobs and leaching off our unemployment benefits.

S.

[Jaco Strauss]

The Welfare state in the West will not be dismantled any time soon - especially as newcomers are often drawn to those countries specifically because of it. They therefore generally support it even more fervently than the natives do. 

State welfare combined with open borders functions as a Trojan horse time bomb that would eventually take down western liberal democracies through Steinhoff level implosions and/or massive civil wars. Recognize that threat to individual liberty and consider the Dark Age that would certainly follow and ask yourself whether a blind belief in one interpretation of an ideological principal is really worth it....

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

[Erik Peers]

@jaco I agree. 

@stephen in the long term I agree. However in the current era those without wealth are invading countries like France and Germany which alleviate their short term plight.

To my mind it's a simple exercise of market equilibrium. The market will always equalise supply and demand. As you say the supply and demand for free lunches.

However the process hampered by socialist ideologies causes vast disruption in the process.

[Stephen vJ]

So are you also in favour of maintaining the welfare state then ?

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Stephen vJ]

So are you saying that in the short term you prefer socialism, because taking down the wall would be too much of a disruption and cause too much suffering ?

Hmmm... for the first time in ages I feel compelled to quote former US presidents. Ich bin ein Berliner.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Jaco Strauss]

Stephen, there is a phrase for this particular fallacy you love to flaunt... It is called a Non Sequitur. When a retort starts with "So....." you can almost always bet your bottom dollar that some BS non sequitur is going to follow!

You oppose abortion, "so you hate pregnant women and poor people?". You believe Milo has a right to free speech "so you are a neo nazi?". You oppose unfettered opportunist migration "so you are also in favour of maintaining the welfare state"

I recognise the problem of the welfare state and believe it is easier to fight it with a majority populace opposed to its underlying premise than one who don't. I believe that it is easier in a democracy to convince a supportive target populace of 60% to take the country down their ostensibly preferred better path than to convince 75% of the (new) populace of the errors of their ways. Especially as those logical "errors" more often than not convinced them to move their in the first place....

To answer your fallacious non sequitur: No, I am not "in favour of maintaining the welfare state", but my opposition to it does not reflect a desire to see the destruction of Western civilisation simply to prove that moot point.  

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

[Jaco Strauss]

Yet another mail starting with a "so"..... and again it is hard to follow your logic.

Not sure what you are trying to say, but the Berlin wall was to keep people in, not out... 

BTW, you still have not addressed my question as to at what point a gated community becomes too big and loses control over its gates?

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

[Stephen vJ]

As far as I can see, your only objection to my point is that I used “so” rather than “thus”... how else should I start a sentence confirming the conclusions you come to ? You can label it anything you like in any foreign language you like, the fact remains that your support of closed borders hinges on the existence of the welfare state, as far as I can see... that’s not very Libertarian.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Stephen vJ]

I like starting sentences with “so”. It is better than starting them with “I” or “nice”, according to my St 2 English teacher. Nice me no get it, so me start with so.

So, I missed your question previously, sorry. It becomes “too big” (which is the wrong way of determining the problem) when there is no opting out and it taxes those inside, rather than people subscribing and being levied. In short, I don’t have a problem with rules, only with the use of force / lack of consent.

The Berlin wall was an example of keeping people in... because the Eastern side was the one with the bigger welfare state. That should make my point all by itself... although I was referring simply to Reagan using those words to urge a start to talks and an end to socialism - the wall being merely symbolic in that speech.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Jaco Strauss]

If, after all of this, you really think that my "only objection" had been to your use of “so” then I really don't know. 

Please read my mail again (it is not very long) and look for "Non Sequitur"

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

2017-12-22 20:52 GMT+02:00 Stephen vJ <sjaar...@gmail.com>:

As far as I can see, your only objection to my point is that I used “so” rather than “thus”... how else should I start a sentence confirming the conclusions you come to ? You can label it anything you like in any foreign language you like, the fact remains that your support of closed borders hinges on the existence of the welfare state, as far as I can see... that’s not very Libertarian.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

On Dec 22, 2017, at 08:37, Jaco Strauss <jacos...@gmail.com> wrote:

Stephen, there is a phrase for this particular fallacy you love to flaunt... It is called a Non Sequitur. When a retort starts with "So....." you can almost always bet your bottom dollar that some BS non sequitur is going to follow!

You oppose abortion, "so you hate pregnant women and poor people?". You believe Milo has a right to free speech "so you are a neo nazi?". You oppose unfettered opportunist migration "so you are also in favour of maintaining the welfare state"

I recognise the problem of the welfare state and believe it is easier to fight it with a majority populace opposed to its underlying premise than one who don't. I believe that it is easier in a democracy to convince a supportive target populace of 60% to take the country down their ostensibly preferred better path than to convince 75% of the (new) populace of the errors of their ways. Especially as those logical "errors" more often than not convinced them to move there in the first place....

[Jaco Strauss]

In blue below

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

2017-12-22 21:00 GMT+02:00 Stephen vJ <sjaar...@gmail.com>:

I like starting sentences with “so”. It is better than starting them with “I” or “nice”, according to my St 2 English teacher. Nice me no get it, so me start with so.

And as demonstrated earlier, it is also often a handy BS alarm sensor to warn of those coming non sequiturs...  

 

So, I missed your question previously, sorry. It becomes “too big” (which is the wrong way of determining the problem) when there is no opting out  like people moving from SA to Canada? and it taxes those inside, rather than people subscribing and being levied.  In other words semantics? As long as you call the money you are obligated to pay the governing body of the place you inherited a "levy", its all good?  In short, I don’t have a problem with rules, only with the use of force / lack of consent.  Similar to a bigger gated community called a country, the smaller versions also have rules in place to which you did not necessarily explicitly consent - especially when you have inherited the property. But Body Corporates (sometimes also called governing bodies or even governments(!)) frequently make bounding decisions whether you like them, or not. If you don't like them, you could elect a new body or move to another gated community - but strict rules of entry inevitably always apply to any of the worthwhile ones. Common or public areas exist in all kinds of gated communities, but people from outside the community still cannot go and pitch tents or open shops there.  You and Trevor argue that they should - as long as it is bigger than the gated communities you reside in.

 

I still have not received any answer as to the exact point at which Trevortopia loses the libertarian right to bus the labourers out, while simultaneously conferring upon those same labourers (and others) the right to go and squat on any of Trevertopias public spaces....  

The Berlin wall was an example of keeping people in... because the Eastern side was the one with the bigger welfare state. That should make my point all by itself... although I was referring simply to Reagan using those words to urge a start to talks and an end to socialism - the wall being merely symbolic in that speech.

You are confusing two speeches: 

• "Ich bin ein Berliner" of John F Kennedy implying that Berlin is a symbol of Freedom for everyone (while simultaneously claiming to be a jam doughnut) 
  
• "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall" by Reagan when he wanted to pressure the Russian leader to follow through on his Glasnost and Perestroika policies
  

The German Democratic Republic was as far removed from a modern Western welfare state as its claim of being "Democratic". Your suggestion that the DDR was a welfare state that needed a wall to keep people in is so preposterous that it is hard to figure out if your are not just being facetious.

J

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

You have accused my points of being straw men, non-sequitors and something else I purposely ignored, since you may well be right on me being an idiot and a lout, but those are not counter-arguments to the border issue. Me being generally wrong-minded is not a strong argument for me being wrong in this case... so, thusly, hence, I urge you to summarize your point againts open borders such that we can focus on the argument, rather than my choice of words or character. ;-)

I have read your response, but see little argument for border restrictions aside from the welfare system being a honey pot (which I countered by pointing out that people tend to go where there is LESS welfare) and the potential abuse of the welfare system (which I countered by saying that it is in itself worthy of abuse, it being inherently socialist). Those are in addition to my former and central point, that government intervention into the market for movement of people is, same as every other market intervention, bad and counter-productive, if not immoral.

That is my summation of the debate to date - please fill in where I have missed anything. I still stand by the inscription on the Statue of Liberty, but am still open to persuasion... though I will skip all argument or corrections of spelling, grammar, tone or classification of argument type, since I am not convinced that those add anything to the central argument, which is whether borders should be open or closed (or should exist at all).

S.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

I'm glad that you recognize the two speeches and my mix-up of the two. It was deliberate, but not facecious. Side-note to spectators - both speeches are on YouTube and well worth a watch.

It's not just semantics - I am against a thing called government, which is defined by very particular attributes, particularly the use of force. When you change or remove those attributes, it becomes something else which I am not necessarily against. When you take away certain features of government (like taxation) and change it into a body corporate, then you have changed the thing I was against - it is no longer government, it is a body corporate.

I don't like governments. I have nothing per se against the average body corporate (though some may be bad). Changing a government into a body corporate may or may not change it into something which I approve of - I couldn't answer that ahead of knowing the attributes of the body corporates, aside from saying that in general I don't have a problem with them, insofar as no government is involved and market forces apply.

It has absolutely nothing to do with size. You could comapare very small government with an enormous body corporate and I would still be against the government and ambivilent towards the body corporate. I worked for a multi-national corporation with more than 200 000 employees, quite happily following their corporate rules. I would not feel the same about a government of a community of 1 000 people. The one uses force and that is the point.

I cannot answer for Trevor and Trevortopia... I suspect that was a coversation I missed, so I'm skipping over that question - maybe Trevor will answer that. As for the DDR, most certainly it was a welfare state and more so than Western Germany. That is what socialism is - a welfare state. You could also reverse the two - a welfare state is socialism. The welfare state is most certainly not a product or attribute of a free market.

S.

[Jaco Strauss]

In blue below

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

2017-12-23 3:23 GMT+02:00 Stephen van Jaarsveldt <sjaar...@gmail.com>:

You have accused my points of being straw men, non-sequitors and something else I purposely ignored, since you may well be right on me being an idiot and a lout, but those are not counter-arguments to the border issue. Me being generally wrong-minded is not a strong argument for me being wrong in this case... so, thusly, hence, I urge you to summarize your point againts open borders such that we can focus on the argument, rather than my choice of words or character. ;-)

Calling out fallacies should not be seen as a personal attack and claiming they are probably constitute a logical fallacy of its own ;-) Anyway, we are all guilty of them

 

I have read your response, but see little argument for border restrictions aside from the welfare system being a honey pot  You might, or might not, like the fact that I have a honeypot for family members on my porch or in the public square of my community. That still does not give anyone from outside any "right" to it   (which I countered by pointing out that people tend to go where there is LESS welfare  One element from one example decades ago is not a "counter" to the fact that people tend to move to functioning states with MORE welfare. Eastern Europe had a non functioning system that eventually collapsed as did Venezuela recently. I would NOT like to see a similar collapse in the world's functioning democracies and instead hope it could be averted by enforcing property rights  ) and the potential abuse of the welfare system (which I countered by saying that it is in itself worthy of abuse, it being inherently socialist  hence my opposition to it. as well. But chucking the baby with the bathwater is not the best solution of getting rid of the bathwater ). Those are in addition to my former and central point, that government intervention into the market for movement of people is, same as every other market intervention, bad and counter-productive, if not immoral.  Our central point point of difference is your fixation with the word "government" and its supposed inherent evilness. I believe in property rights (individual and communal) and I recognise man's need to entrust power in an authority to protect those rights. You do not believe in property rights so perhaps that is the main reason why we cannot find common ground.

  

That is my summation of the debate to date - please fill in where I have missed anything. I have nothing to add, perhaps Erik or Gavin can chip in and offer further clarification I still stand by the inscription on the Statue of Liberty  that little poem never reflected the actual real immigration policies of the US, ever, but am still open to persuasion  Still open to persuasion nogal? After proudly proclaiming not changing one iota over 40 years? Perhaps if you actually seriously read my arguments you would display a willingness to alter your view. I went from Anarchist to Minarchist during our chat and if you succeed in convincing me that libertarianism inherently oppose the enforcement of property rights I would gladly shed that label too  ... though I will skip all argument or corrections of spelling, grammar, tone or classification of argument type, since I am not convinced that those add anything to the central argument, which is whether borders should be open or closed (or should exist at all).

 Merry Christmas, I am off 

[Stephen vJ]

Maybe “change” should have been “change towards collectivism”, since I did change substantially over 40 years, just not to the left (US left, which is French right). I do think I get your point Jaco, and though I don’t agree on principle, I do appreciate an attempt at pragmatism in what you are saying. I’m a bit disturbed that you would go so far with it as to re-label to minarchist, but you would certainly have more company and support in that circle. I like the statue of liberty, because it represents what should be, not what is... and since I get that, I think we do have common ground here.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Trevor Watkins]

Sorry for the delay in replying. I have been busy. 

I agree with Stephen that it all boils down to the issue of consent. Jaco wishes to empower an arbitrary group of people (politicians) with the authority to restrict the Freedom of Movement of another set of people who happen to be on the wrong side of an arbitrary line relative to him, without their consent. 

Restricting immigration seems like a valid option because we do it all the time. But if you choose an  unconsented action that is not common, such as allocating the right of Prima nocte (the right of your leader, Lord or Baron to be the first to sleep with your new wife on her wedding night) to politicians for example, then one immediately sees the deep Injustice of not requiring consent of all involved.

You cannot defeat Your Enemy by becoming him. The enemy of Libertarian anarchists is the state which enforces it's will through coercion without consent. You cannot deny an individual his freedom because of what you think he might do in the future. You can only act on the basis of what he has actually done.

Trevor

[Erik Peers]

Darn sure I will deny an individual for what he might do in the future. I don't want any strange men on my property at night, precisely because of what they might do.

[Jaco Strauss]

And yet you have no problem in empowering an arbitrary group of people (body corporate, governing body, Trevor's mates) with the authority to restrict the Freedom of Movement of another set of people who happen to be on the wrong side of an arbitrary line around Trevortopi, without their consent.  

If those bussed in labourers of your refuse to be bussed out of Trevortopia, how are you going to remove them after "asking nicely" does not work? Will you use the muscle employed by you or phone SAPS? You know, those guys paid through taxes to enforce your property rights?

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

[Gavin Weiman]

Consent - is always an easy answer. One could choose not to take your next breath of air, to create words and grammar of your own or to view human behavior as peculiar arbitrary choices. Yet overwhelmingly people make the same is similar choices on innumerable issues. Is this a ‘coercion’ of nature? To what extent is this reuse or free ‘consent’?

Sent from my iPhone

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Gavin Weiman]

@ Anarchism vs Minarchism

Firstly have a great christmass one and all.

While both Anarchists and Minarchists aspire to the Libertarian tag, they are actually intellectual enemies. The only thing they share in common is the premise that Liberty of individuals is a core value for the ‘good life’. They don't even always agree on the meaning of ‘liberty'

Anarchists take the notion of liberty to an absolute extreme. I intentionally did not state ‘logical extreme’ because the anarchis extreme is in fact grotesquely irrational and inimical to the value of liberty as understood by the Minarchist.

However to the Anarchist the Minarchist is simply a ‘statist’ and a ‘collectivist’ who stands for a system of ‘authoritarian' rules that will permit some persons the right to initiate coercion even to the horrific extent that it is directed against non-aggressors and consenting and on-conseing persons alike. 

The two (Minarchists and Anarchist) share a common enemy that places them in their libertarian ‘alliance.’ This is the vision of a totalitarian authoritarian state that controls all aspects of individual and social life.

Anarchists have been creative in trying to show that an Anarchy is possible in the real world, but the truth is that neither of the extremes are tenable in reality.

Between Anarchy and Totalitarianism is a 'golden mean’ a balance where social live and individual happiness synergise. 

It is in this ’sweat spot’  that the Minarchist seeks to understand, find, achieve and protect.

The Minarchist has an extremely difficult and complex argument to make. Indeed one that is almost impossible to make with any degree of accuracy as he must immediacy concede that between the two hypothetical extreems lies an infinite spectrum of ‘third ways.’ Who is to decide which third way is optimal. No one elected him and made him god to decide these things. And this is the truth.

But the Minarchist points out to the Anarchist that the moment he says ‘provided he grants an equal liberty to others, or subject to consent, or based on property rights, etc, the so-called anarchist is simply declaring for a third way of his own. Merely in an obtuse manner and using word games to replace his instruments of coercions with alternative that he feels semantically more comfortable with - some ‘machinery of freedom’ in my experiece.

The modern Minarchist has the "demonstration effect" hundred of states, their histories, their laws and methods to analyse to assist in contending for and defining the new constitution of liberty.

However the Minarchist, I belive, has in mind 

• a state with and exclusive territory able to treat with other nation states and to protect its sovereignty and citizens. 
• a Limiting Liberal Constitution based on libertariain refinement to ensure that a mechanism is found to mediate between state power, individual right to liberty. 

Included in their armoury of methods are improvements to the traditions of 

• separation of powers,
• decentralisation and 
• rule of law. 

Other potential mechanise might include performance management - (something like praetorian law) , all legislation to must meet standards or will lapse and need to be re-enacted.

Some minarchist speculate that the content of this power ought to be laws (with inbuilt  libertarian tests and principles) establishing and maintaining

• the liberal constitution
• a criminal justice system with policing power to protect life, persons, property and the narrow interests of society
• a law of persons, property and obligations
• courts where private mediation and arbitration fails.

In the mean time a libertarian government would have to find ways to resolve a myriad of issues it stands to inherit,

• education systems 
• medical systems
• and other social legislation on environmental, health, and safety issues.

The work of great think tanks on how these issues should best be resolved within a liberal dispensation is the really important work. Not the debate between Anarchist and the Minarchists.

  

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

http://www.weiman.co.za
Cel: 082 510 0186

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

"All the contributors from the churches, Red Cross (Red Crescent?). Lions, Rotary, etc would be an allocation of a scarce resource away from where it would otherwise have gone."

That's true, Jaco .... as it is for every allocation ever made, including your email.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, libertarians assume voluntary allocations are always, according to the allocator's subjective preference, preferable to gazillions of alternatives.

Leon Louw

work:          +27-11-884-0270

mobile:       +27-84-618-0348

www.freemarketfoundation.com

#leonmlouw

[Stephen vJ]

Well that is a question of property, not borders. How do you keep vagabonds from stealing your Christmas turkey off your plate before you eat it ? I specifically say property and not property right here, because right implies an appeal to authority, which I don’t agree with. Firstly, it is important to note how infrequent this happens... we sometimes forget this, living in Africa, but humans are social animals and a big part of that is amicable cooperation, rather than looting and plundering. The default in human nature is to talk you out of your turkey, rather than to take it by force. In the unlikely case of force, you may choose to (maybe reluctantly) share your turkey or employ a band of neighbours to mutually defend each others’ turkeys or build a wall around your turkey... that is a cost benefit analysis nobody can make for you, not knowing or being able to know your subjective valuation and thus opportunity cost willing to forgo in order to retain all or part of your turkey. Should your Turkey be invaded, that would be a shame and wrong on the part of the invaders... but I don’t see why your neighbours should force you to contribute to an imaginary system of pass books and stamping of permits to prevent unlikely invasion.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Stephen vJ]

Sometimes one must accept forces of nature and not confuse them with willful or premeditated use of force. When the wind blows my Christmas turkey off my plate, that is not a use of force and is not the same as it being stolen off my plate. The wind is not guilty of any crime or acting immorally. I certainly don’t consent to the wind taking my turkey, but that is a silly thing to expect to be able to do.

S.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

Gavin, I agree with most of your post, I find it a fairly good summary and I echo your final sentence / conclusion. However, I must disagree and object to your view on anarchism, since you seem to assume that anarchists (like myself) live in some kind of la-la land where everyone consents to everything... which you then quite rightly take to be ridiculous.

And that is just it - do you really think that otherwise intelligent people would expect an anarchist world to suddenly be populated by fathers who never scream at their children to get up and go to school right now ? Do you really think they expect a world in which farmers don't break in horses or bosses don't tell their employees to pitch up to work at 08:00 or else ? Really ?

You accuse anarchists of being logically inconsistent, but then you describe the minarchist problem of logical inconsistency / third solutions... the only logical inconsistency is with minarhism, as per your last paragraph; "... libertarian government...". There cannot be a "libertarian government", because libertarianism = freedom and government = collectivism.

The anarchist is logically consistent in saying that ALL uses of force / breaches of consent are wrong / immoral / unethical. HOWEVER, please do not confuse that with an expectation of human nature or how the world will function. Every anarchist I know will tell you that human nature includes inclinations to force and defraud. The anarchist does not expect a world of angels, as you suppose.

The question for anarchists (and minarchists and libertarians alike), is how do deal with breaches of consent and violations of freedom. You suggest a few and I appreciate all of them. The minarchist is logically inconsistent in suggesting that some breach of the consent axiom should be allowed and vested in a central authority i.e. the minarchist supports "freedom, except for X".

The anarchist supports freedom without qualification or exception, which is thus the only logically consistent flavour of libertarianism. But for the anarchist too, the question remains, how do we deal with breaches of freedom in the real world. The anarchist will not cede to malice by admitting to, or allowing for, exceptions. But he still has to answer how breaches are to be dealt with.

So, in a socialist world, when my neighbour takes the government granted Christmas turkey from my plate by force, we could assume the socialist to support sending such neighbour to Siberia or something. In the social democratic world, the solution is to increase taxes with which to distribute more turkeys, so that my neighbour can have his equal share of turkey. In a minarchist world, the neighbour would be dragged in front of the court and put in jail (or in Jaco's world, body corporate and have his levies increased or club-house priviledges revoked). In the anarchist world, I would be left to defend my own turkey by myself or to make some private arrangement for the protection of my turkey.

In none of these worlds do we assume that no thieving will happen. Nobody can possibly be that naive.

S.

[Gavin Weiman]

@ Stephen

I think the ‘operative' part of my summary and the once that should resolve most of your complaint, is the paragraph which states

"But the Minarchist points out to the Anarchist that the moment he says ‘provided he grants an equal liberty to others, or subject to consent, or based on property rights, etc, the so-called anarchist is simply declaring for a third way of his own. Merely in an obtuse manner and using word games to replace his instruments of coercions with alternatives that he feels semantically more comfortable with - some ‘machinery of freedom’ in my experience.”

The serious anarchists you speak of are not really ‘anarchists', but are rather extreme & lateral ‘minarchists’ just off the border of the ‘la la land’ of absolute, and therefor impossible absence of all law and authority. 

IF there is a spectrum of 'third ways’ the intelligent ‘anarchist’ sits just off or close to the bottom of the spectrum "absolute individual self determination', where a totalitarians state sits just of or near the the top of total “total absence of individual determination".

Regards

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

http://www.weiman.co.za
Cel: 082 510 0186

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Jaco Strauss]

And luckily we have developed the concept of division of labour... My neighbours are as disinterested in me "to form an armed band" to protect anybody's turkey (or anything else).

We pay for armed security to do so on our behalf while we pursue more cost effective endeavours to pay for such services. Another division of labour results in a governing body to administer the exercise and voila! 

Our community model has a better track record than a merry band of brothers downing tools every so often to chase down random people... 

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

[Trevor Watkins]

@GAVIN: I tire of knocking down your stream of straw men, and thank Stephen for doing the job quite adequately. However, I love your Freudian slips, and wonder if they are perhaps deliberate. So, your "sweat spot" as the place you go to when you miss the sweet spot is just brilliant. It has subtle overtones of both tennis and sex.

​

Anarchists have been creative in trying to show that an Anarchy is possible in the real world, but the truth is that neither of the extremes are tenable in reality.

 

​Anarchy is the original state of mankind in a hunter-gatherer society. If you didn't like the self-appointed leader in a hunting group, you just turned left with your family when the the group turned right​ and struck out on your own. Civilisation, with all its advantages and disadvantages, also brought leaders and gov

ernment

​, and significant loss of individual freedoms.​ Of course we have had functioning anarchies over centuries in places such as mediaeval Ireland and Iceland.

​I like anarchy because it is consistent. For me, minarchy quickly deteriorates into "Animal Farm', where some are more equal than others, some are more righteous and some have more powers than others. When I claim the exclusive right to force in a minarchy, using what principle do you deny me? You're not the king or his son? You didn't get enough votes? God is not on your side?

Sure I am compelled to accept many statist, authoritarian compromises in my daily life. But I aspire to something better, not just half better.

​

Trevor Watkins

[Hügo Krüger]

I dont buy that anarchy is the original state of mankind, the idea of having a nobal savage society just doesn't stack up to evidence. Chimpanzees for example have organised social structures with a military running around and patrolling the tribes. They also commit genocide and rape people who are not part of their in group. Humans have a need for dominance, which eventually imposes some kind of social heirechy. This of course does not mean that we should entertain it, we moved from Kings, Dictators etc to our current liberal societies. We will probably move further away from most government functions in the coming future. 

 I believe that minarchist/anarchistic developments is something rather new in the human expiernecE. 

[Gavin Weiman]

@Trevor

It sounds quite fancy - and pompous - that you knock down a ‘stream of straw men that I set up’ you need to identify at least one of the stream to give context to your assertion.

The quoted section is not one - at least in the context I wrote. 

Henry Main ‘Ancient Law’ suggests that in hunter gatherer societies the eviction from the tribe was  a slightly lesser sentence than death for an infringement of tribal taboo

Survival outside the tribe was impossible - in primitive times even survival if the tribe was challenging- having said this we know very little of the mores and laws of hunter gatherer society - suffice to say they were unlucky to be anarchy’s or tolerant to conduct that threatened group survival.

Autocorrect is not Freudian  - but if it amuses you

Sent from my iPhone

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Hügo Krüger]

Taking Anarchy to its logical extremes does come down to denying human nature. I can really suggest Steven Pinker's book "the blank slate" as a good start. It made me rethink a lot of anarchistic ideas. I simply don't see it as in our nature to have a society that is totally based on concent and with very little cohersion. That however doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to optimise it and live "anarchistic". 

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

I disagree with Trevor when he says that anarchy is the original state of man, but maybe just because of how he phrased it. I also disagree with Hugo in saying that it is a new development and with Gavin in that anarchy is impossible / impractical. When you are alone in your home, listening to music or cooking a meal, that is anarchy - you doing what you want without prescription or direction from anyone else. When you walk through a busy mall and peruse the millions of products on display, that is anarchy - nobody is compelling you do to anything. When you are visiting friends, having a drink and gossiping about others in your social cricles, that is anarchy. There is nothing unreal, imaginary or impossible about it... and I think that might be what Trevor meant by "man in his original habitat", rather than a reference to cave-men or men of some unrecorded, bygone era. Anarchy is man doing what he wants, unrestrained and without coercion from others. One could go a step further and say that culture, language, tradition, social pressure, gossip, fear of rejection, social angst, etc. are forms of compulsion... and those would all still be "man in his natural habitat"... which I think is where Gavin was headed. If you consider one of those institutions natural to man's nature to be government, then you would be a minarchist... but none of the other attributes would disappear as a result.

S.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

If it was part of human nature to rape, kill and canibalise (which I guess one could argue that it is), what difference would that make to any analysis of morality or ethics. Just because a third of the population are dictatorial, authoritarian assholes and the other two thirds very happy to oblige them, doesn't make it right or moral or ideal. Oppressing people is wrong. The fact that people like to oppress and generally capitulate easily to oppression, does not cause oppression to suddenly become acceptable. If rape is wrong, but impossible to stop without removing a "rape gene" central to the species (thus effectively killing off the species and replacing it with another non-raping species), then surely that is what should be done rather than justifying rape on account of it being in the nature of the species ?

S.

[Gavin Weiman]

@ Stephen

In my original summary of the gulf between Anarchist and Minarchist - I was indicating that Anarchy (as one side of a spectrum of human action (entirely unconstrained by social authority i.e. 100% individual self activation was not tenable (as a social construct) nor could ‘authority’ ever succeed in being total (in denying any individual autonomy.

I was not trying to argue against small aspects of autonomy such as you sitting in your home alone, I was discussing nations, communities or groups. i.e. the social order and the individual!

I was also making the point that so-called anarchists were not ‘absolute’ anarchists in the ‘absolute unconstrained' sense but were in fact a kind of 'micro-minarchist sect’ since they still envisaged social control by manners, and physical coercion in defence of certain rights - such as their property, bodies etc. I made the point that their 'state or government’ simply existed in an ‘out of the box’ semantically different manner to modern language - that they created alternative social organs of coercion, such as defence agencies etc.

I alleged that the Anarchist were basically just very confused people about concept like states, law, etc. Most of them want the state to cease to exist. But they still want the benefits of some law, many only want the law as far as it suites them and claim ‘anarchy exemptions’ the moment law no longer suites them.

Every one of Trevors contemplated Libertarias over his life time, would have had a contract or agreement consented to by its members (this is a constitution) These constitutions would have provided all the functions of a state. The illusion was that it was consented too. Most nation states today (Hayek’s Great Society) are simply too large to get everyone to consent (and what about the children). The ‘allegiance’ to the state, out of feudal norms has become a legal fiction. The best we can now do is "vote with our feet" when we are old enough to become refugees. 

“Anarchy' on a small scale may still have a role to play as we move into space or sea-stead - but not on any serious national or regional level in the real world.

The net result is that Anarchy should merely be treated as a mental experiment to test ideas of social orders and law. Not as something ‘real.’

Libertarians should be looking at reducing the Leviathan to a Minarchy.

Of course there is nothing wrong with a “How I found Freedom in an Unfree world” Harry Brown type of anarchy within the nations we live in. In fact because of government failure we have an extraordinary amount of ‘liberty’ and lawlessness.

Leon once likened it to a ‘Constitutional Anarchy"

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

http://www.weiman.co.za
Cel: 082 510 0186

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

I understand what you're saying and I think that is how I also previously understood your position. I still disagree though, but in a rather complex way... I agree with you that Trevor's idea of a Trevortopia is impractical - I also do not see a society functioning with consent-based laws and everything neatly contracted. However, a) I don't think that is 100% what Trevor had in mind and b) I believe that kind of anarchy is already happening when I sign an employment contract with a multi-national corporation like Siemens or Walmart or IBM, while being a member of a stamp collecting club in parallel.

Secondly, I agree with your evaluation that nations and communities cannot be run along anarchist lines, but I disagree with you that we need them at all (which I think was the argument Jaco was making when we were talking about open vs. closed borders). Why can I not simply join the "South African Expats in Canada" group on Facebook and let that be that ? Why do we need to draw a geographical line around that, or any other, group of people ? I see no compelling reason why our communities and associations need to be geographically based, which is the core of your argument, if you look closely.

This may be repetition of a previous discussion, but surely we would be better off if I join my stamp collecting club which may have members only within a particular postal code while you join a brotherhood of common-law club having members all over the globe. We would follow their rules while at the very same time needing to follow the rules of our employers and spouses and churches... none of which have or need geographical delineations, all of which are without government / anarchic / cosent-based in nature. I see no need to add anything more to that.

S.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

This is the usual heavy stuff of libertarian philosophical masturbation.

I add a personal experience of the profit-maximizing nature of charity and benevolence.

When my two brothers and I supported our aged mother, giving a third each, she use to give a third to her church, beggars and sundry causes. The effect was that everything I was giving charitably passed straight through her hands to people for whom it wasn't intended.

We had an indaba. It was not much money. She did not have many of of the amenities of life. We could reprimand her for wasting our money, not buying decent clothes, eat better, buy basic utensils etc. But we concluded that she was maximizing the utility value of what we gave her. Would she be happier, we asked, had she bought new clothes and a toaster that worked?

Our conclusion was that the greatest value to her of 1/3 of our Rands was for her to give it to society's rif-raf.

[Gavin Weiman]

@Stephen,

As I understand your comment, you disagree with my assertion made in my summary of the Anarchist / Minarchist debate, the minarchist position would be that 

• it is critical that Nations with defined boarder exist. 
• The purpose of the boarders is to determine the extent of the jurisdiction of such nation. 
• And that to qualify as a nation there should exist a function within such a nation that protects its boarders and applies laws within that terrirory.

You argue for a law function without boundaries such are currently delimit nation states - a ‘distributed state’. 

Well clearly groups of people (gangs or societies) can have their ‘constitution’ in a distributed manner without boundaries. This might be possible in a world community without any states or boarders as they are currently conceived. I believe that exiting states will lose power as technology enables distributed internationally ‘blockchain’ distributed groups to govern their internal corporate law making. This might well be the manner in which Leviathan is brought to heel in this century.

I think most Minarchists believe current boundaries nations will continue for all practical purposes to exist going forward.

I don’t think of these as being mutually exclusive positions.

gavin....@icloud.com

http://www.weiman.co.za
Cel: 082 510 0186

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

@Gavin

Your anti-anarchy position, Gavin, exasperates me as much as your ant-NAP position. You set up a phony straw man which allows you to feel self-satisfied when you shoot it down -- as if you have demolished a genuine argument.

The least you should do before supposing yourself to have made a case against something is familiarise with it.

I'm not engaging you on anarchy because of the insane straw man arguments you presented at LibSem (and prolic emails) against the NGP and the CA. It was only days later, after wondering how anyone could have voted for your proposition, and asking Neil why he did, that it occurred to me what had happened. You'd essentially argued that advocates of those positions neither want nor understand institutions, that they think a mere principle suffices for it to be upheld and enforced. It never occurred to me that you could be suggesting something so absurd. I kept searching for something of substance, and never found it, hence me saying repeatedly that I could not work out what you were saying. Your argument is as nuts as me denouncing whatever rights you are on the grounds that they cannot be upheld and enforced without institutions.

The point I'm making is that you are as wrong about libertarian anarchy as you are about the NAP and CA. You posit what's not and the attack it. What makes your argument seem to have more substance than it has is that you don't spell it out in plain simple English. You package it in prolix pseudo-intellectual language that provides a veneer of sophistication.

Yes, I know this is ad hominem. It has to be, It's the only way I can think of to expose what really going on here.

Note that I have not implied that I'm an anarchist, only that I know the anarchist arguments on the issues you raise, that are considered and compelling, and that you have written (virtually) nothing that answers them.

[Gavin Weiman]

@Leon

Let me see if I  understand what you have written.

You feel exasperated.

You believe in relation to Libertarian Anarchy that

• I have set up a phoney straw man and shot it down.
• I am not familiar with libertarian anarchist views (but you are)
• I have raised issues to which there are compelling anarchist arguments that I have not written anything to address.

In relation to NAP & CA you believe

• I set up straw man argument against NAP and CA at Libsem
• that i argued that those advocating NAP and CA neither want nor understanding institutions and
• that I argued that they think that a mere principle suffices for it to be upheld and enforced

In regard to all these issues (Libertarian Anarchy, NAP & CA, you believe

the apparent substance of my arguments is the result of 

• ‘prolix pseudo-intellectual language’ and 
• ‘veneer of sophistication’ and
• it took you days to figure this out

You feel exasperated

Let me ask you a single question. 

As YOU understand the positions that are Libertarian Anarchism and Libertarian Minarchism …

Do you believe that they are AT CORE

• In conflict
• In harmony

?

Regards

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

http://www.weiman.co.za
Cel: 082 510 0186

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

@Gavin

Harmony.

[Stephen vJ]

In that case, we are in agreement.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Gavin Weiman]

@ Leon

So at CORE Libertarian Anarchism (sometimes called Anarcho-capitalism) and Libertarian Minarchism are, in (Leons understanding of these terms) in harmony with each other and not in conflict.

I concur, but let me take this a bit further.

My original post is set out at the  end of this piece -  I do concede that I identified Anarchism as ‘No-adjective - Anarchism', and when speaking of Minarchism had ‘Libertarian-Minarchism' in mind,  So I guess the charge of setting up a straw man is correct. But this was not intentional.

Another straw man, perhaps, I shot down, was my claim that (no adjective) Anarchism and Minarchism were incompatible and intellectually incompatible and enemies of each other.

What I did was to simply create measuring tool for SOCIAL SYSTEMS where the scale is individual autonomy.

• 0% on this scale is absolute human autonomy - there are no constraints whatsoever on the individual. This is as close as I can get to the idea of 'no-adjective' anarchism.
• 100% on this scale is absolute servitude/100% or total authoritarianism. In such a totalitarian system no one has any choice.

I'm sure this is not an original though. 

I hope no argument is necessary to show than no SOCIAL SYSTEMS at 0% and 100% can ever be achieved in practical reality.

Everything between these poles must be a sliding scale of autonomy/authority. Herein must lie the golden mean ( a mixture of consent/autonomy vs Constraint/authority. This includes a discussion of means. (State vs defence agencies)

Briefly testing this hypotheses shows than all ‘adjective’ anarchies have some notion of a minarchy enforcing their notion of what would replace a hierarchical state as a Social construct, or, why all 'adjective' anarchism are in-fact forms of minarchy.

The main Wikipedia entry for Anarchism simply sees anarchism as opposing hierarchical organisation of human relations. This would make the 'anti-statist' theme of most types of anarchy merely because most states are hierarchical. 

Hence the Canton system with free movement and direct democracy is a form of relative anarchism. In fact with enough devolution of poor to cantons you could have a Anarcho-Christian Canton, coexisting with an Anarcho-Capitalist system, all enables by a limiting liberal constitutions allowing these decentralised societies to cohabit peacefully.

Philosophical Anarchism (Godwin, Kropotin, Stimer) accept a minimum state as a necessary evil that would wither away. Goodwin advocated extreme individualism, proposing that all cooperation in labour be eliminated etc. Clearly he saw the instruments of coercion as necessary to enforce what would replace the evils of the state.

Mutualism (Prohdhon, Tucker, Green, Warren) wanted markets without intervention, reciprocity, free association, voluntary contract etc. Again a minimum state is assumed.

Social anarchism includes (but is not limited to) collectivist anarchism, anarcho-communism, libertarian socialism, anarcho-syndicalism and social ecology. All require social institutions of coercion (i.e. some idea of a minimum state - states do not need to be hierarchical)

Collectivist Anarchism (Bakunin, Most) Oppose private ownership of property and want its collectivisation, collectivised means of production, works paid not according to ability but need, (or in anarcho communism wages are abolished). They advocated direct democracy, horizontal networks of voluntary associations. (note that some idea of social institutions of coercion would have to attain and maintain this system.)

Individualist Anarchism (Warren, Green, Thoreau) wanted free love, woman's emancipation and rights, free thought etc. 

Anarcho-capitalism - developed out of individual anarchism and anti-state libertarianism.  Draws from Austrian School Economics, studies of law and economics, and public choice theory. Seek to 'eliminate the state' in favour of individual sovereignty in a free market.

How does Anarcho-Capitalism get rid of the state. It doesn't really get rid of the state, instead it recreates the social institutions of coercion with defence agencies, insurance companies running courts, or other speculative institutions contemplated in books like the Machinery of Freedom. 

Most other anarchisms deny that libertarian anarchism can be part of the anarchist movement all and believe that anarchism  is incompatible with capitalism.

Ok - so back to my original comments on Libertarian Anarchism. I stated that Liberian Anarchism was not really and 'anarchy' at all. It was a sort of micro-minarchism with 'out-of-the-box ideas for replicating the institutions of libertarian minarchy with alternate institutions. 

As long as anarcho-capitalists want property rights, right to self defence, contracts and markets there must be institutions to uphold and enforce these rights. It doesn't matter that these are imaginary competing insurance companies, defence agencies.

My real frustration I suppose how people confuse themselves semantics: with property rights > then get rid of the state > then get rid of law > then have voluntary institutions, and then < come back to rights of ownership, < contracts etc, in completely circular, inconsistent and illogical way. We already have an evolved view of a libertarian liberal constitutional state, that can be highly devolved into cantons accommodating most 'personal' anarchical views. So why not focus on what matters.

My original post was the following.

I do concede that I identified Anarchism as ‘no-name’ anarchism, and though of Minarchism and ‘Libertarian Anarchism’ So I guess the charge of setting up a straw man is correct. But this was not intentional.

@ Anarchism vs Minarchism

Firstly have a great christmass one and all.

While both Anarchists and Minarchists aspire to the Libertarian tag, they are actually intellectual enemies. The only thing they share in common is the premise that Liberty of individuals is a core value for the ‘good life’. They don't even always agree on the meaning of ‘liberty'

Anarchists take the notion of liberty to an absolute extreme. I intentionally did not state ‘logical extreme’ because the anarchis extreme is in fact grotesquely irrational and inimical to the value of liberty as understood by the Minarchist.

However to the Anarchist the Minarchist is simply a ‘statist’ and a ‘collectivist’ who stands for a system of ‘authoritarian' rules that will permit some persons the right to initiate coercion even to the horrific extent that it is directed against non-aggressors and consenting and on-conseing persons alike. 

The two (Minarchists and Anarchist) share a common enemy that places them in their libertarian ‘alliance.’ This is the vision of a totalitarian authoritarian state that controls all aspects of individual and social life.

Anarchists have been creative in trying to show that an Anarchy is possible in the real world, but the truth is that neither of the extremes are tenable in reality.

Between Anarchy and Totalitarianism is a 'golden mean’ a balance where social live and individual happiness synergise. 

It is in this ’sweat spot’  that the Minarchist seeks to understand, find, achieve and protect.

The Minarchist has an extremely difficult and complex argument to make. Indeed one that is almost impossible to make with any degree of accuracy as he must immediacy concede that between the two hypothetical extreems lies an infinite spectrum of ‘third ways.’ Who is to decide which third way is optimal. No one elected him and made him god to decide these things. And this is the truth.

But the Minarchist points out to the Anarchist that the moment he says ‘provided he grants an equal liberty to others, or subject to consent, or based on property rights, etc, the so-called anarchist is simply declaring for a third way of his own. Merely in an obtuse manner and using word games to replace his instruments of coercions with alternative that he feels semantically more comfortable with - some ‘machinery of freedom’ in my experiece.

The modern Minarchist has the "demonstration effect" hundred of states, their histories, their laws and methods to analyse to assist in contending for and defining the new constitution of liberty.

However the Minarchist, I belive, has in mind 

• a state with and exclusive territory able to treat with other nation states and to protect its sovereignty and citizens. 
• a Limiting Liberal Constitution based on libertariain refinement to ensure that a mechanism is found to mediate between state power, individual right to liberty. 

Included in their armoury of methods are improvements to the traditions of 

• separation of powers,
• decentralisation and 
• rule of law. 

Other potential mechanise might include performance management - (something like praetorian law) , all legislation to must meet standards or will lapse and need to be re-enacted.

Some minarchist speculate that the content of this power ought to be laws (with inbuilt  libertarian tests and principles) establishing and maintaining

• the liberal constitution
• a criminal justice system with policing power to protect life, persons, property and the narrow interests of society
• a law of persons, property and obligations
• courts where private mediation and arbitration fails.

In the mean time a libertarian government would have to find ways to resolve a myriad of issues it stands to inherit,

• education systems 
• medical systems
• and other social legislation on environmental, health, and safety issues.

The work of great think tanks on how these issues should best be resolved within a liberal dispensation is the really important work. Not the debate between Anarchist and the Minarchists.

  

In conclusion I’m not sure how fair Leon’s Ad Hominem attack on me was - I thinks some of it was partial justified, some a bit over the top! But hey this is what we do … right?!!

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

http://www.weiman.co.za
Cel: 082 510 0186

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

@ Stephen

The legitimate enquiry isn't into the nature of liberty -- it's consent -- but under which conditions there's like to more of it.

Minarchists are inclined towards a minimal amount of government; anarchists towards zero government.

What the word "government" means (in this context) should be defined by those who use it.

What I mean by it is a group of people -- virtually indistinguishable from a crime syndicate or protection racket -- who act violently (including murder and execution) against anyone who offers alternatives to what they arbitrarily decide to monopolize.

That fact does not per se mean that it's not the best for which we can hope.

Instructively, the most common argument against the zero "government" ideal is that someone will use force to exclude competitors. In other words, the standard argument against anarchy is that it'll descend into matriarchy. Paradoxically, the argument implies the superiority of anarchy, but argues that it's not sustainable.

The same is, of course true of minarchy. The real world consists of countries where there was once minarchy and is no midarchy or maxarchy.

We can speculate what the degree of government is in individual countries from 0 to 100. I suppose the minarchist ideal is something 5. If so the difference between anarchists and monarchists is (proportionately) trivial.

I've never (in print) declared my preference. I hereby do it for the first time.

1. "Government" is a collective noun for individuals -- what in law would be called a "legal fiction" or "juristic person".
   
2. Those individuals constitute a crime syndicate or protection racket in that they claim and violently (if necessary) enforce a monopoly regarding their right to control subjects and provide specified protection services.
3. In the absence of such a monopoly (called "government"), there would be no coercive monopoly -- protection services would be provided competitively.
4. There is no way of knowing whether there will be more liberty (ie consent) with or without such a monopoly.
5. If the absence of a "government" monopoly is sustainable and better at protecting liberty (ie consent), it would be the libertarian ideal.
   
6. If not, minarchy might the best libertarians can achieve.
7. With or without people called "government", the best libertarians can achieve in the real world is elaborate checks and balances against the escalation and abuse of power and control.
   
8. Such checks and balances include eg:
1. Common law
2. Rule of law (as opposed to "law and order")
   
3. Constitution
4. Devolved democracy
5. Referenda
6. Bill of rights
7. Separation of powers
8. Separation of functions
   
9. Libertarian activism
10. Limited government
11. Critical media
12. Critical civil society
    
13. Property rights
14. Law and order
    
15. etc etc etc
    

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

If this is your definition of anarchism, then I agree, but point out again that I am not that kind of anarchist. ;-)

"As long as anarcho-capitalists want property rights, right to self defence, contracts and markets there must be institutions to uphold and enforce these rights.".

Since you defined the others, I think we're on the same page, or will be as soon as I point out that I am an anarchist, not an anarcho-capitalist. I do not believe in property rights.

S.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

My only disagreement, Leon, is with your point #4. I would say that there is ample evidence that less government is better i.e. people are in fact better off with less of the monopoly as you have defined it.

The question (and possibly what you meant to say with #4) is whether there is a hockey-stick effect i.e. on the scale of 0 government to 100 full central control, where anarchists are at 0 and minarchists at 5, it could be that the minarchists have a point, because all the evidence available to us is above 15 on the scale...

That evidence suggests that as we approach 0, live improves... but it could be that there is a turning-point at 4 or 5 where getting closer to 0 makes things worse, rather than better.

However,

a) this is logically inconsistent when making a moral argument against government,

b) there is no compelling economic or socio-political rationale for expecting a hockey-stick effect and

c) we are so far away from 0 (or 5 for that matter) that it is irrelevant at this point and in practice we should be pushing from wherever we are (typically between 30 and 70, depending on where you live) towards 0 (or 5), since it is unlikely that either will be reached any time soon and all evidence suggests that things will continue to improve, at least up to 5, possibly all the way to 0.

S.

[Trevor Watkins]

I made my case for consent and anarchy in my talk at the Wakkerstroom libsem. As I said there, I am attracted to the consistency of the anarchy position, in terms of consent and coercion, and reject the minarchy position because of its lack of consistency. This is a personal philosophical position. I make no claims for the practicality of anarchy, or its proximity in time, or its utility, or fairness. I never did get the chance at libsem to show the video clips of some of the rather extreme consequences of an anarchic dispensation as portrayed in "Sons of Anarchy".

If you are going to go to the trouble of developing and adopting a philosophical outlook for human coexistence, I feel it should be consistent and rational, free from personal bias, universally applicable. You shouldn't choose an approach just because it is what you were trained in, or because that's how you earn your living, or that's how its always been done, or because we have invested so much in this approach in the past. You can't choose an approach because that's what the majority of people seem to want, or that's what the current crop of intellectuals prefer. You shouldn't reject an approach because it has not yet been demonstrated (all new ideas fall into this category), or because you think it might not work, or because it offends your  moral and ethical beliefs. 

Anarchy proposes a society with no leaders, not a society with no laws. It suggests that no individual or set of individuals is entitled to more rights and privileges than any other. This concept was popular in 1215, and is still popular today, but is rarely given effect. Minarchy differs. 

The Consent axiom suggests that an individual's consent is required for every act that may affect that individual, except in retaliation for a prior consent violation. Minarchy makes an exception for some state-appointed individuals. 

Anarchy is consistent. It does not open the door to statism, to authoritarian acts in the "public" good, to endless restrictions based on reams of poorly written and never read regulations administered by a select few. My libertarian anarchy consists of a few rules taking up less than a page which are not subject to endless re-interpretation.

I do not expect to achieve a libertarian anarchy in my lifetime, anymore than Jesus expected a christian world, or Martin Luther expected to overthrow the pope.  But better to strive in the right direction than succeed in the wrong.

Trevor Watkins 

On 28 December 2017 at 06:44, Stephen vJ <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

[Message clipped]  

[Hügo Krüger]

In fairness a society based on empirial evidence can also be consistent or one based on communal ownership. I just find it a bit out of touch with reality to base everything on logical extremes. I learn towards libertarianism, but I would honestly settle for a semi corrupt minarchist state that uses a bit of force every now and then. I tend to believe that most human beings do tend towards a libertarian ideal, which is why we have people breaking regulations. We hate living in the system or thought of others. 

[Trevor Watkins]

@Hugo

Empirical evidence is not necessarily consistent - it is just what  is. Empirical evidence from Saudi Arabia probably shows that suppressing 52% of the population is good for peace, commerce, and stable government. The evidence against communal ownership is simply overwhelming.

I have a simple test for consistency. Can you explain your position to an intelligent child to the child's satisfaction?

For example: minarchy - you are free to do as you wish except if some people tell you you can't. Which people daddy?  The special people, the important people, the popular people, the strong people, my child. So I'm not really free? Well, you are, except.....

What you settle for and what you strive towards are too very different things. Most people do not strive towards the job they finally settle for.

Trevor Watkins

[Jaco Strauss]

When you are alone in your home, listening to music or cooking a meal, that is anarchy - Stephen

So what makes it "your home" under anarchy? Who will enforce the legal framework to protect your right to your home? Or provide the muscle to protect you inside it? Especially after open borders render your home in (say) Malmö just a little more dangerous and leaving you with very few willing "neighbours" to help protect it.... In fact with most of the new neighbours actually wanting you out of "your house" things could get even more tricky.... 

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

[Jaco Strauss]

There is a very big difference between supporting one's mother and indulging her choices on the one hand and donating to a charity of one's choice, on the other...

If my mother were to feel better for spending my donated money in a specific way, I would be happy for her. BUT I cannot care less about the "feelings" of the bean counter at my chosen charity when he decides to spend my donation in a way other than their advertised intent. 

Put differently; when donating to my mother, the reason for my donation has already been satisfied - even before of the money has been spent. But, after that bean counter at Charity X has receives my donation, it is still only with the middle man and has to be applied as intended. If it were to make them "feel better" spending it on illegal immigrants, I would IMMEDIATELY stop my donations to them. 

Of course, if my mother were to donate to those very same illegal immigrants, it would simply be her choice. 

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

[Jaco Strauss]

@Leon

You started your list as follows:

I've never (in print) declared my preference. I hereby do it for the first time. 

1. "Government" is a collective noun for individuals -- what in law would be called a "legal fiction" or "juristic person".
   
2. Those individuals constitute a crime syndicate or protection racket in that they claim and violently (if necessary) enforce a monopoly regarding their right to control subjects and provide specified protection services.

Wow, that is quite a jump. If you have a Stamp Collectors Club they are going to have a "Government", whether elected, inherited or imposed. How do you get from that, to them automatically constituting a "crime syndicate" or "protection racket"????

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

[Hügo Krüger]

Trevor  your example of Saudi Arabia just a basic correlation causation fallacy.

By empirical evidence I mean observing the world and eliminating other variables or argueing that they are insignificant. I believe that this is the biggest mistake that most economists make with their so called models. I am biased towards models given that I use them to model physical behaviour of buildings. The big issue is that people dont understand the limitations of their models or that they extract models from empirical observations and then try and predict future behaviour. A society based on a concent axiom is also just a model of how the world should work, in political theory we call it an ideology. I am worried about taking ideologies to their logical extremes without looking simple at what works, the reason being that most of the oppression worldwide occured as a result of good men chasing bad ideologies and simply ignoring evidence.

The way I see it is that humans broadly speaking have 2 cognative abilities: Rationalism and Empiricism, we use the former to try and make sense of the world and the latter to try and calibrate our view of the world. If we accept cold fact then we become to authoritarian, if we accept cold logic then we become fanatical. 

This is also broadly the difference between the tragic and utopian view of life or as Thomas Sowell puts it in his conflict of vissions, the restrained and unstratined view. I personally try to build a model of how the world works and if counter evidence occurs then I try to recalibrate it and search for a logical reason as to why or why not it didn't work. Morally I learn towards the libertarian side, but I do conceed that some kind of limited authority is often needed (thus my consent model breaks down). 

I believe that any form of authority must first justify itself to me, if I am a parent that have to get a child they can't swim out of the water then I will do it, whether or not I have his concent. This is justifiable authority, I also don't see myself living life as a logical purist, I probably hold a lot of inconsistent logical views which are based on empirical evidence or as laymens call it, reality. If the government tells me to do something or some kind of company without having a justification (like I concented by signing a contract) then they can go and bugger off. 

[Jaco Strauss]

c) we are so far away from 0 (or 5 for that matter) that it is irrelevant at this point and in practice we should be pushing from wherever we are (typically between 30 and 70, depending on where you live) towards 0 (or 5), since it is unlikely that either will be reached any time soon and all evidence suggests that things will continue to improve, at least up to 5, possibly all the way to 0. - Stephen

Precisely!!!! That is exactly why libertarians everywhere should be (and are) supporting the Trump agenda. It is already bringing the US (and the West) closer to 5... Some accomplishments during his first year:

• Getting rid of thousands of regulations
  
• Getting out of TPP
  
• Getting out of Paris Climate Hoax
  
• Cutting taxes
  
• etc, etc 
  

Remember those prescient Libertarians for Trump during the 2016 campaign? It seems they were onto something really early on already....

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

[Jaco Strauss]

@Trevor, you still haven't answered a very basic question about your ideal society:

Imagine those bussed in labourers of yours refuse to be bussed out of Trevortopia and "asking nicely" does not work? How are you going to remove them without their consent? Will you use force yourself, or phone the (tax supported) SAPS to enforce your (tax supported) property rights? 

J

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

[Gavin Weiman]

@ Trevor

(no Adjective) Anarchy, without any reference to a known set of rules, cannot be consistent except in inconsistency. This consistency is an a phantom in your mind.

Hayek made an interesting point about law (even bad ones) is they set up a predicable base line that people can work with - even if their intention is to work around them. There is at least a "rule-NORTH". In anarchy there  in no commas whatsoever - just  the potential ‘consent’/whim of anyone. That why you need your libertarian manifesto “minimum social compact’ or whether you call it. The ‘constitution of your libertarian/Tevorian Anarchy which is then actually a minarchy (not a practical or stable one to be sure) and it will have to be enforced if to is to remain stable - perhaps by your motorcycle gangs.

An anarcho-capitalist anarchy (really an alternative institutions minarchy) on the other hand can create some predictable anf know rules that people can work with in arranging their human actions, trades etc to pursue happiness. Which defence agency to join etc.

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

http://www.weiman.co.za
Cel: 082 510 0186

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

So what makes it my home under anarchy ? Absolutely nothing. I have been evicted from "my home" on at least three occasions now and in not a single one of those cases did I feel that an appeal to authority would help my case. In fact, in two of the three cases, it was the higher authority that caused it. It was easier to just pack up and leave... as my ancestors have done for at least 14 generations and possibly long before that. That too is anarchy. One cannot be free and expect to have no responsibilities or no need to fight or flee when the occasion requires it. Only in some utopian la-la-land does everyone respect your property... in which case there is no need for an appeal to any higher authority either.

S.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

That's a bit like saying we should support Stalin because he is better than Hitler and Mussolini... but if those are your only three options and you are forced to vote (as people in Australia are), then I guess you would vote for Stalin. I personally would spoil my vote (assuming it is anonymous), since I cannot have any part in the protection racket, even if it is a slightly less evil one than the very limited alternatives on the table. I'd rather contribute by supporting CATO, the Fraser Institute or the FMF... which are all valid choices in any election and even outside of elections.

S.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

I think I'm leaning towards Gavin's point on this one... in a proper anarchy, there would be no manifesto or constitution or set of moral principles or consent axiom... only an absence of government (or private alternatives to government, as Gavin puts it). I don't feel like I have shifted my position though, so either I misunderstood Gavin's point until now or he has shifted position.

That said, I don't think Trevor and Gavin can be very far apart in their points of view, since I almost 100% agree with Trevor almost all of the time... the only part I have any issue with, is trying to create a geographically defined society with any kind of guiding principles, since that would not be anarchy / man in his natural state / etc., even if everyone consented. It's a bit artificial.

But really, those are very minor differences, as far as I can see. If Gavin considers private alternatives to law to be a form of government and Trevor considers them to be examples of anarchy / absence of government-proper, then surely it is just a matter of semantics ? I suspect that is why Leon went to definitions below - which I also agree with almost entirely.

S.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

Uniqueness of Western law.

https://t.co/nXARsbYyCj?amp=1

...

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

Some people just don't get it. Their ideological immunity precludes it:

"As long as anarcho-capitalists want property rights, right to self defence, contracts and markets there must be institutions to uphold and enforce these rights." 

It's not about the presence of absence of institutions, but whether they're violently enforced monopolies or peaceful mutually volitional alternatives.

...

[Gavin Weiman]

@ Leon

Your appeal to polylogism aside.

You state: It's not about the presence of absence of institutions, but whether they're violently enforced monopolies (straw man?) or peaceful mutually volitional alternatives.

I would alter this as follows: Its always about the institutions. Whether they are a means appropriate to the ends. If the ends are peace and protection of rights against aggression, then only force is an appropriate means to combat force.

An alternative “coercive enforcer of justice laws” perhaps.  

A 'peaceful’ volitional alternative' sounds, for practical purposes like 'pie-in-the-sky’.  How does a peaceful response stop a predator seeking your/your families/your communities/your nations life or property?

You liken a governement to an criminally gang - and in some respects this is a sad actuality and in all governance today at least a partial truth. But this is not what government OUGHT to be. This is the point of anarchist ideas - a way of having a society as it ought to be.

In the ‘collective' human mind (or our traditions and customs as humans), government is conceived of as something that OUGHT to be different from criminal, OUGHT to be a legitimate, impartial upholder of law that is true, right and just. An overarching institution that provides the benevolence of an equal protection of just laws for everyone in a great and open society, permanently at peace.

That in practice governments fall short does not change the fact that minarchists have this as the vision. This also happens to be the vision of Anarchists who believe government cannot live up to this ideal and hence want to dismantle government and to replace it with something better. The question is whether ‘peaceful volitional alternatives’ whatever they might turn out to be in actual practice (sounds pretty vague to me) will be effective in maintaining the benefits of a market economy, division of labour and protection and mediation of legitimate human interests.

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

http://www.weiman.co.za
Cel: 082 510 0186

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

@Gavin

Your capacity for obfuscation, muddled thinking and intellectual sleight of hand knows no bounds, Gavin. which makes it impossible to have a rational exchange with you about (a) what (libertarian) liberty is, (b) what (libertarian) minarchy is, (c) what (libertarian) anarchy is, and (d) what institutions are.

Without consensus on the essential meaning of those terms, discussion of which institutions are most likely to maximise liberty is doubly impossible.

It is because I realised this impossibility after our email exchange preceding our putative debate that I decided to stop trying to communicate with you about libertarian issues of substance.

Take this, for instance this: "How does a peaceful response stop a predator seeking your/your families/your communities/your nations life or property?"

I'm not going to give a 101 lesson on long-established, widely known and thoroughly documented libertarian conceptions of defence and retaliation, nor on the role of agents and third parties (eg security guards, parents, bystanders, police). If you really don't know the answer to this and banal questions, there's zero chance of dialogue with you going anywhere.

You confuse, deliberately I assume, (1) the nature and existence of institutions, and (2) the nature and legitimacy of protection/retaliation. I think you are too intelligent and informed to really not understand such entry-level concepts. I must therefore assume bad faith. You seem to have a perverse anti-libertarian agenda I don't understand. Those two issues are, as you well know, or ought to know, but choose to obfuscate, entirely distinctive.

I'm beyond satisfied that you are either unable or unwilling to have constructive dialogue about the nature of liberty or institutions most likely to maximise it. There is therefore absolutely no point in responding seriatim to what you write.

I entered this discussion saying that, and have no reason to change my mind.

If you are in good faith -- I still hope you are -- start by trying to grasp the basic concepts involved -- really grasp them -- and then try to appreciate (without necessarily agreeing) what very bright very well-informed libertarian intellectuals are saying.

...

[Message clipped]  

[Gavin Weiman]

@ Leon

I believe you are guilty of the sins you accuse me of - that you seek to obfuscate by intellectual slight of hand any positions I question or illuminate by ad hominem attacks, references to unidentified authority etc. (transference?)

So don't give me a 101 lesson -  rather identify the the texts you approve of that comprise your asserted ‘widely known and thoroughly documentsed libertarian conceptions of defence and retaliation. agency roles”  etc. I will re-read/analyse  these carefully with a view to (re)evaluating both my understanding of them against your assertion that 

• they ‘replace , as you assert, “violently enforced monopolies’ with "peaceful mutually volitional alternatives.”
• (1) the nature and existence of institutions, and (2) the nature and legitimacy of protection/retaliation (the nature and meaning of which you assert that I deliberately confuse and you apparently do not.)

I will try to ‘really grasp', the meaning of these concepts from your listed authorities. Although I suspect, in your case, whenever I disagree with what you assert, you will assert that I have never truly grasped, nor appreciated, what very bright, very informed libertarian intellectuals are saying.

I believe I have may have read some, or all, of the texts you allude to, but some time ago, and I may have missed something - but i don’t want to be in the situation of guessing what you are saying and since you won’t defend what you yourself assert (whether for the reasons you give or simply because, for some weird reason, you feel intimidated by me) let me demonstrate my good faith (and in the process perhapse illuminate which of us (if either) is arguing in bad faith. 

I suspect however that you seek 

• to avoid a ‘critical’ evaluation of libertarian ‘dogma’ as understood by Leon
• to frustrate any attempt as improving on ‘libertarian’ ideology (as understood by yourself) that will make it more relevant in the world today and the time to come when libertarian intellectuals will either be part of designing future institutions or at least relevant to this processes.

For the record, in my mind I do not see myself as having an ‘anti-libertarian agenda’ as you charge. I see my-self as having an intellectual desire to critically appreciate unresolved contractions and weaknesses in libertarian positions and  to improve the quality both of Libertarian debate, but also its content.

Cel: 082 510 0186

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

http://www.weiman.co.za
Cel: 082 510 0186

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

I think Gavin is an anarchist, but the word anarchist carries so much emotional negativity that he would rather find reasons to dismiss every single flavour of anarchism than to admit it.

;-)

S.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

@Gavin

I would do all this had I the time and the appetite for it. Meanwhile you can Google libertarian anarchist sources.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Gavin Weiman]

@Leon

Why did I suspect this would be your response.

I will not engage you again on any matter relating to the intellect as I have no time for intellectual cowards - or sloths!

Have a great life!

Regards

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

http://www.weiman.co.za
Cel: 082 510 0186

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

@Stephen

It occurred to me that Gavin might be a closet anarchist blocked by ideological immunity.

Needless to say I'm not into Scientology. It does, however, have a few worthy insights, some of which are serious counter-intuitive. One of the founding fathers of SA libertarianism was Andre Spies (RIP). He was one of those serious bright young people. He devised and lived the rest of his life off a Blackjack "counting" system that gave him a 5% advantage over the house.

Anyhow, he introduced me to the maxim: What you resist you become.

It seemed crazy to me then, but over the years it became compellingly validated. One of the most obvious examples in SA is how people supposedly resisting racism became the most extreme racists (the premier example being Andile Mngxitama).

I wonder whether Scientology has insights into Gavin's over-the-top (apparent) hatred of consent and non-aggression, and the idea of dis-empowering protection rackets called "government".

Oh dear, I've migrated to garnishing being ad hominem with being patronising. It is the silly season. I might have written any of this any other time of the year -- indeed would probably have written nothing at all on what is (for me at least) a very old over-worked debate.

[Gavin Weiman]

@ Stephen

Any assertion that I supposedly have "an over the top hatred of consent and non aggression and the idea of disempowering the state”, does not make this caricature of my positions true. My intention is to explore the contexts in which these concept apply and should be logically understood.  

Since Leon has become too cowardly to address my directly he now seeks to attack me indirectly in his addresses to others.

I ask that in future you ignore, or be skeptical about, any comment Leon makes about me or what I may believe or stand for. 

Leon has lost all perspective and sanity when it comes to addressing anything regarding me, or what I might say or have to say.

I will not put you in the middle of such a conversation again. 

Regards

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

http://www.weiman.co.za
Cel: 082 510 0186

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Stephen vJ]

My comment was intended to be light-hearted; an attempt to lift the mood a bit... but it seems like emotions have won the day and that you guys have reached a point which could be called irreconcilable differences. It’s sad, but these things happen.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

@Stephen

Gavin is right, Stephen.

You should ignore me while you lock horns with him.

Instead of being "cowardly" he's not ad hominem. Instead of having "lost perspective" he's balanced and rational. Instead of being ideologically immune he's dispassionately seeks truth.

Ignore my view that he's t anti-consent and pro-aggression. He isn't. He's just against the consent and non-aggression principle. His position is very clear, he's a not-pro-consent libertarian. He isn't for violent institutions. He's just against volitional ones.

Don't despair, Stephen. Keep at it in my absence. It'll all fall into place eventually. You're young and not jaded (yet) by the minarchy-anarchy debate. You may feel differently when, like me, you've had half a century of it.

[Gavin Weiman]

I know,

Leon was once my mentor, when i worked for the FMF like Martin.

Perhaps things will cool down later.

I know your remark was cool - and not far of the mark. I was once an anarco-capitalitist evangelist - loved David Friedman book.

Anyway - enough for now.  

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

http://www.weiman.co.za
Cel: 082 510 0186

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

Well, I'm at least past half-way in life, so I think "young" is a bit generous, but thank you.

After at least a quarter of a century of this kind of thing, I've learnt that some people and some arguments are a lost cause... only recently have I been able to recognise some of them and walk away from it. I don't think this is one of them, but I may be mistaken. I guess in another 25 years I would get a bit tired of making the same arguments over and over again... as I already am with the fractional reserves topic and as most other Libertarians are with "muh roads". But I do hope that I never tire of my interest in other people or in advancing my own understanding of things... I doubt it, since I seem to be perpetually curious to the point of incessant insomnia with no signs of even slowing down.

Also, I hope that one day, even though the arguments may start to bore me, that I would still appreciate, as you should Leon, how envious younger people are of older people who can get almost instantly to the core of an argument and make it as succinctly and with as much backing with academically references as you do... and as I hope I will be able to do with another 25 years under the belt. I recall on several occasions wondering how you did it and being awed at your ability to make really complex points so very simply and convincingly... now I think there is at least some element of experience and thus hope for the rest of us.

So I understand your impatience with Gavin, but I think that maybe he has just made a bad argument or made a good argument badly... so that impatience with him is not going to resolve any issues or win any arguments. I missed LibSem this year and obviously there are some conversations I missed, so maybe I'm being silly and you can already see that I would be wasting my time... but let me have another go at it, as I am not yet bored with this particular topic and I may just have enough patience left to coax a proper argument out of Gavin, in my own tedious, clumsy and less experienced way. Just before this last round, I felt like we were getting somewhere, so maybe we can resume from there...

S.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

@Stephen

Very sensible stuff there, Stephen.

 Gavin said he wants to proceed without me, on which he and I agree, and Jaco or others might dip in again, so the stage is set for Act 2 Scene 1.

 Go for it.

 As for getting bored with issues, Frances has often said she marvels at the fact that I don't get tired of the same old issues, that I'm willing to spend hours patiently going over the same ground for the umpteenth time. I am and was in this min vs an thread. I suppose what broke the back of the old warhorse was not the same issue and the same arguments, but the seemingly impervious nature of the arguments -- the same arguments with the same person going nowhere slowly. Very slowly.

 My time is better spent, as it will be next week, with young people who have inquiring minds, in this case a group of students from the US.

 About being “old”, Stephen, Frances recently did an exercise, derived from a Sam Harris podcast, in which one considers that fact that you do not have a single molecule in you that was there a few years ago -- you are an entirely different person (in physics). Hypothetically, you could meet your younger self made of the same original particles. If you did that, what advice would you give yourself when you were, say, 20?

 The first thing that came to mind for me was "Hey, Leon, keep an open mind, keep on inquiring, stay mentally young and enthusiastic, seek and celebrate discovery and insight.

 There isn't much that's as satisfying as finding that you were wrong about something, as embracing (what Popper called) error-correction. Remaining where you are, means either you've not grown, not embraced what's on offer, not enriched yourself. Or, if you're very lucky, reinforced (without the blindness of confirmation bias) what was on shaky ground. Of all the available information, you have a mere smidgen. Never stop seeking what you don’t yet know.

 I've had a fabulous propensity to change when confronted with new evidence, on one hand, and have wasted substantial intellectual resources digging my heels in where it wasn't justified. I've had and continue to have seismic shifts in my thinking, values and beliefs. People who knew me then old not recognise me now.

This exchange, for me, ran its course long ago. I deluded myself into thinking it might go somewhere. Hopefully, without me, it will.

[Trevor Watkins]

After the rather dubious debate at libsem, where I was publicly pilloried by Gavin (to such an extent that several people commiserated with me afterwards), I came to much the same conclusion as Leon - there is no point in engaging with people who can't or won't listen to reasoned argument. Beyond sniggering at his spellchecker, that is my position with Gavin now.

In the few years left to me I wish to engage with people who largely share my world view, rather than endlessly debate with those who demonstrate that they don't. Once upon a time I thought this was anyone who adopted the label "libertarian". I see now that is too broad a church. 

Instead of presenting a bitterly divided front to the world, where we are famous for arguing for days over minutiae, I believe we should develop a clear, simple and explicit statement of our beliefs, then market this as a reasonably united group to the many many interested but uninformed people out there. Of course one keeps debating and improving the message, corrects when flaws are proven, constantly seek new insights. But one must be prepared to abandon teaching the unteachable - its just an energy and motivation trap.

I am an evangelist by nature (probably my catholic background). I wrote the consent axiom based on ideas expressed by Leon and maintain various websites and discussion groups as part of this mission to civilise (as Will McAvoy of the TV series "The Newsroom" so quaintly put it). I have fairly recently come to the view that anarchy is the only consistent governing structure for mankind. At the libsem I mentioned the Consent and Anarchy League as a planned structure to which likeminded individuals would actively commit. I plan to pursue this concept further in 2018.

Trevor Watkins

...

[Message clipped]  

[Gavin Weiman]

To All

Just a further short note about the standoff/conflict: Gavin & Leon/Trevor

Much has been said by Leon & now Trevor, about the debate between myself (Gavin) and Leon at Libsem this year.

Trevor, gaining courage from Leon no doubt, now claims that I ‘pilloried him publicly’ (again this is a caricature and exaggeration of what took place). It was in fact Leon, who debated my points mainly on an ad hominem basis, and attempted to misconsrue the position being debated. 

For example on this forum Leon has caricatured my views as being a hatred of consent and non aggression and anti libertarian.

The proposition at Libsem was merely that consent and the NAP are underpinned by jurisprudence (legal theory) and that legal theory also goes beyond consent and the NAP (to fill in gaps where they fail to solve social problems) i.e they are not sufficient in themselves.

The debate was a draw, causing Trevor to comment that this was an ‘un-libertarain conference’. 

Like all Libsems before the proceedings were video taped.

Unlike all Libsems before you will note that the record of the debate has not been made available on you tube or anywhere else (at least to my knowledge). You may draw your own conclusions as to why.

However instead of relying on hearsay reports of what positions were agued, why not ask for the transcripts and judge for yourself whether I am the Libertarian “hater" that Leon and Trevor make out, or whether I said something valid and/or of value (wether your agree with me to not). Perhaps something THEY fear to hear be transparent about or confront.

Regards

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

http://www.weiman.co.za
Cel: 082 510 0186

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Jaco Strauss]

I would like to cut through the ad hominems and a plethora of other logical fallacies and try to cut to the chase

This discussion is taking place under the topic of "French Mayors Panic As Migrants Overwhelm Cities, Beg Macron For Help" with my position being that unfettered immigration / migration into an area does not bode well for liberty if the newcomers care less about liberty than the resident population. I think my position can be defended through numerous current, real world, observable examples, not least the OP. Can any of the anarchists / market absolutists explain the failings described in the OP? If the market is the golden solution to everything why do we have mayors demanding more tax funded solutions from higher political authority?

Trevor's "solution" of moving them (with tax money?) to "Germany" makes no sense under a "borderless ideal".

Stephen's "solution" of letting them freeze to death is not going to convert many to libertarianism

Leon didn't address this issue in any practical way, apparently only interested in attacking Gavin for stating the blindingly obvious

And the "blindingly obvious" is the fact that any principle or law (from the NAP and CA to the Magna Carta) will need muscle to enforce it. You can call that muscle what you like -  neighbourhood watch, police force, gated community armed response - but they are going to act violently and without consent at some point if you want those laws enforced.

Trevor cannot explain at what point Trevortopia would be thrown open.  Stephen will not assist in moving the current scale from 70 to 5 (or 0) while equating the politician who has done more for personal liberty than any other politician since WWII to Stalin and Hitler. Leon went so far in 2016 as to claim that he would accept a bullet to the brain rather than choosing between Hillary and Trump at gunpoint. 

Is this how a Liberty Movement is supposed to be built? Little wonder it remains a fringe movement 

I wasn't at Libsem, but from what I've seen here recently Gavin is the only one making any coherent case while his opponents are off chasing rainbows on unicorns, believing that the pot of gold just has to exist

J

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Frances Mary Kendall]

How unfortunate that people who agree on almost everything should get bogged down in what is mainly semantics and become alienated in the process.

Libertarianism, like capitalism, socialism and other ‘isms means different things to different people. Seems to me we should all just go with that instead of competing for the “right” definition.

Sent from my iPad

[Trevor Watkins]

@Jaco

​

Trevor cannot explain at what point Trevortopia would be thrown open. 

 

​I have not explained this because it seemed so obvious, but since you keep coming back to it, I will reply briefly or be accused of cowardice.

"Trevortopia's" borders will be thrown open at the same time ​as access to any other property I own is "thrown open". When I hire someone from the township to work in my garden or house, I usually don't need a written contract or a policeman to persuade that person to leave after I have paid them. If they rob me while on my property, I resist strenuously if there, call on my neighbours, set my dog on them, call the security company, and even call the police sometimes, if I have a good supply of coffee available. Often they get away scot-free, which is when I call my insurance company.

You may be surprised to know that I never give anyone permission to enter my neighbour's property, and I rarely complain when hordes of workmen do. That is entirely his prerogative. 

The resort in which I stay maintains security facilities as a shared cost, but does not and could not restrict access to visitors or workers without very strong grounds to do so.

BTW, I would never name a proposed Libertaria with a name as grossly conceited as Trevortopia.

 

​

Trevor Watkins

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

@Trevor

Keep up the good work. When we used to have an annual award, you were always on the shortlist. It fell away before you got it. You're certainly worthy of it, Trevor.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jaco Strauss]

Thanks for the reply Trevor

In blue

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

2018-01-01 15:08 GMT+02:00 Trevor Watkins <bas...@gmail.com>:

@Jaco

​

Trevor cannot explain at what point Trevortopia would be thrown open.  

 

​I have not explained this because it seemed so obvious, but since you keep coming back to it, I will reply briefly or be accused of cowardice.

"Trevortopia's" borders will be thrown open at the same time ​as access to any other property I own is "thrown open".

 That is what I expected you to say and that is exactly why Gavin is making such a strong case. "Your property" is only "your property" because you have a piece of paper called a Title Deed, but many people still don't recognize its legitimacy. These range from the so-called BFLFM to your "true anarchist" allies such as Stephen.

Luckily for you, your Title Deed is governed by the laws and constitution of the RSA. The RSA is of course simply also a piece of land with borders around it, but one with sufficient tax-funded muscle to maintain "your property rights" for you. It is therefore ideologically disingenuous to claim as the effective underwriter of your very existence, the very same system you actively aspire to see totally dissolved. What would serve as your excuse for closed borders then? 

Another problem with Trevortopia being "your property" is that it sounds more like a medieval royal fiefdom than a enclave of liberty. What happens when Trevor I has to pass the reign on to Trevor II? It won't really matter much if you are essentially running a private farm with some holiday chalets on it, but anything more complicated could become problematic.  

 

When I hire someone from the township to work in my garden or house, I usually don't need a written contract or a policeman to persuade that person to leave after I have paid them. If they rob me while on my property, I resist strenuously if there, call on my neighbours, set my dog on them, call the security company, and even call the police sometimes, if I have a good supply of coffee available. Often they get away scot-free, which is when I call my insurance company.  Thank you. As you acknowledge here, when push finally comes to shove, you are going to act without the consent of the person you see as a trespasser. So too would your Body Corporate when people start living in the common property of one's Gated Community... 

You may be surprised to know that I never give anyone permission to enter my neighbour's property, and I rarely complain when hordes of workmen do. That is entirely his prerogative. When they decide to stay and (say) have an adverse health and/or crime impact and have a negative impact on "your" property value I suspect your approach might be a little less laissez faire 

The resort in which I stay maintains security facilities as a shared cost, but does not and could not restrict access to visitors or workers without very strong grounds to do so.  Yes "very strong grounds", no doubt. But estates vary and I have mentioned Bel' Aire in Somerset West before. There you cannot gain entry without a valid SA ID or Passport(!) irrespective of whether a resident has vouched for you, or not. Some might even call it "extreme vetting", but all I know is that the more you compare land called "housing estates" and land call "countries", the more similar they prove to be. 

BTW, I would never name a proposed Libertaria with a name as grossly conceited as Trevortopia. I never thought you would - it is merely a way to separate your idea of an ideal utopian libertarian state with similar ones dreamed up by others....

[Gavin Weiman]

@Jaco

Below is an interesting article on the complexity of defining the concept of the modern ‘State’ and a book dealing with the modern State.

In modern international common law State and ‘government' are not identical. Anarchist, among others, often incorrecty conflate’ State' and ‘Government'. 

A State as such is a political association, is usually has a government as its agent, but may have many governments or none. There are even, strangely, government that are not even States.

So when Anarchist claim that the "state is the organisation claiming a monopoly of the use of coercion within a geographic area”  they are making this mistake they mean ‘governemt’. Mostly governments claim this monopoly within a State.

For a full discussion of this see: http://philosophy.wisc.edu/hunt/A%20Definition%20of%20the%20State.htm, or

The Rise and Decline of the State - by Martin van Creveld.

In international common law a State is ‘recognised’ as such by other States who then treat with whatever agency represents it - usually, but not necessarily, as I have indicated, a government. 

However Anarchist would actually seek to have 'no government’ not 'no-state’.  The latter could simply not be possible at all in in modern international law. The closest we have to the idea of a ‘no-state, are treaties about the moon, international waters etc.

Should anarchists replace ‘government’ courts with private voluntary courts, have laws made by these judges, have police and military functions dealt with by free market defence agencies, there may possibly or probably still be a need for these court and defence agencies to meet form time to time and a) collectively inform other states that they represent this anarchical State b) ratify international conventions and treaties if the State wished to do so.

I say possibly, because States have existed, like Somalia, that had no government, but were still recognised as such by other States, So its possible that other states might simply recognise that the larger private defence agencies are the people to treat with.

On the other hand, most States do have governments, who might not like to recognise an Anarcho-capitalist State as they may, for their own political reasons, feel threatened by it and not want to create such a precedent.

I would imagine the the Anarco-Capitalist defence agencies would form a joint-venture to police board gates to keep out undesirables, criminals and ‘competitors’ etc.

If they are ‘peace-full and voluntary market agencies they will recognise consent and NAP, subject to their knock-for-knock arrangements (internally) but will not necessarily recognise the right of foreign military or mafias to encroach on their State territory.(Bad for the rise premiums.)

I really find it hard to go back to trying to work out how anarchical arrangement ‘might happen’ as I’ve simply dismissed them as 'ain't gonna happen’  for so long. For about a decade now, I’ve felt that the libertarian state will in fact have a government that will consent-violate and NAP-violate extremely lightly, and enforce other rights (eg property) heavily as the probably future scenario.Alternatively that we will have to pass though this minarchy before it withers away into Anarcho-something. 

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

http://www.weiman.co.za
Cel: 082 510 0186

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

@Jaco

No Jaco, "your property" does not require a "title deed" for it to be yours. I assume the computer with which you're reading these words is "your property" without a "title deed".

A "title deed" (for land) happens to be a relatively modern (specifically statutory) form of evidence ownership of land (ie a type of property).

That's all a title deed is, evidence.

Despite the meme that title deeds are not conclusive evidence. Title deeds do not "prove" or "secure" ownership under our law, or land law elsewhere. There are various conditions under which (a) "property" (specifically land) can be "yours" (ie owned) in many countries, including SA, without a title deed, and (b) property might not yours even if there is a title deed saying it is. That is why there are procedures for "rectification" or "setting-aside" of deeds.

Also, bear in mind that what I assume you mean by "title deed" happens to be what is called a title deed in SA under our Deeds Registries Act. Needless to say, Trevor is (I assume) not a protagonist of (government) "acts" or "statutes", and believes that things (including land) can be owned without them. 

[Gavin Weiman]

@Jaco

Property or real rights are recognised under our law (Roman or Civil Law) but evidenced by a title deed under our Deeds Registry Act. These are also registered in a public office for the benefit of public knowledge and to help mortgage lenders. This is only because Roman Law did not provide a good method for providing evidence of ownership. 

When modern States evolved out of the earlier feudal modes, under common law (English Law) property rights were proven under English common law by ‘deed’s. An English common law ‘deed’ is judge made law deed - defined as a document signed by its maker as an act and deed,  sealed and delivered to the owner as evidence - a sort of pompous property receipt for immovable property.

In the result there is no difficulty of providing evidence of property ownership under either a State’s government recognised law or under a a States anarchy’s provided private insurance-company-court’s made laws or judicial presidents.

The problem is dealing with trespass or disputed ownership. Governments would usually provide courts of last resort if the parties had failed to agree to arbitration, and would also have laws to forbid ‘self-help’ - taking the law into ones own hands and forcing an agreed to government martial arbitrator/judge. A government type court would also provide sheriffs or bailiff (bouncers or thugs) to cary out their decisions.

An Anarchy might make similar arrangements through insurance company provided courts systems. 

They would also have to make some plan for poorer property owners who were not insured and hence did not have the protection or fall under a private ‘government’/policy regime’. 

The Agencies would also have to have some 

agreed overacting laws of what constituted trespass or unlawful dispossession and 

agreed mediation process between themselves to as a Anarchy ‘court-of-last-resort to avoid ‘war’ between conflicting agencies. 

They would also have to hire mercenaries to give effect to their judgements. So aside from it not being a government there would be more or less the same amount of brute force as in a minarchy government. All the Anarcho-capitalist agencies would agrees against the mutualist and Anarcho-Communists who believe there is no such thing as private ownership and that Trevors property should dispensed on the bases of need and not ability.

AS such imaginatively  creative anarchical institutions have not arisen spontaneous (usually blamed on government for monopolising the situation) these would have to be ‘encouraged’ so a minarchy of a government type would have to steer things  things into these modes before it ‘withered away' or simply became dormant (like a prerogative of the state (night watchman) that might reassert its minarchical perogative if the anarchy became unstable)

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

http://www.weiman.co.za
Cel: 082 510 0186

[Jaco Strauss]

This laptop has a serial number and could be used if needed to settle insurance claims etc/

I referred to "title deeds" in the context of the property or properties Trevor might hold. The simple fact remains that you cannot keep people out of any property without some sort of legally binding and enforceable framework to prove ownership and a Title Deed just makes it easier. 

Whatever legal case Trevor makes to keep his own borders closed, presupposes a legal framework that would recognize his rights and enforce it. Currently that would mean the laws of the South African state. In a borderless world where states like South Africa has become defunct, what would then form the basis of that claim of ownership? Sounds a lot like the feudal kings laying claim to land and defending that claim with might.

Elsewhere Gavin pointed out that in an Anarchy arrangements through insurance company provided courts systems could enforce property rights, but the problem remains that you need borders to define the area covered by these agreements.

It is intellectually dishonest to assert the right for Trevor I to rule over a future Trevortopia with closed borders, while advocating open border for all current jurisdictions. What gives Andorra less right to put a wall around the territory it claims than Trevor?

In the final analysis it suggests that Trevor had no problem with William the Conqueror claiming as his property the entire area known as England. All "public" land simply became crown land and he also built a proverbial wall around "his" property. William ticked all your boxes for closed borders back then, but since all public land doesn't belong to Elizabeth II anymore you believe they have now forfeited that right to a closed border? 

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

[Jaco Strauss]

Thanks for elucidating Gavin

It would be interesting to hear what Trevor regards as the basis of his property ownership claim that uniquely affords him the right to close his borders; especially as he derides borders as "arbitrary lines" for everyone else - many of whose property right claims literally go back thousands of years...

J

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

[Gavin Weiman]

@Jaco

If you like to contemplate weird ideas within our paradigm…

Imagine the ANC, and other political players in SA all have a Damascus moment and convert to liberty/consent/NAP.

They arrange a final sitting of parliament and persuade everyone there to support a final act of parliament in which they 

• revoke the constitution and all legislation on the statute books, 
• give a months notice to all civil servants, and 
• issue a final salary checks for all civil servants 

who then go home. 

Lets imagine further, that all South African people are Trevor clones. 

They like this idea as their ideal has been met. They treat themselves as sovereign individuals an their land as the sovereign property of their personal individual dominium.

Now in terms of international common law the previously recognised State called South Africa (the territorial boarders, and the people living within those boundaries) would continue to exist until the community of States achieve consensus otherwise. 

Perhaps, like with Somalia, they would adopt a wait and see attitude. 

The various ambassadors of these states begin chatting with 

• each other, 
• former political groupings and
• even civil society organisations 

in the hope of finding out who is going to step up to man the ‘board’ of the international juristic entity called ’South Africa that has just been vacated.

But remember NO ONE is going to step up - they are all Trevor clones, minding their own business or driving their motor bikes.

Eventually the ‘penny will drop’ and, perhaps Lesotho or Russia will send a troop carrier, move some soldiers into the abandoned military bases, TV stations, police stations ‘take ownership of these public assets by occupation'. They will either state that they ARE now South Africa, or annex  South Africa as a colony and part of Lesotho or Russia. 

The Trevor clones don't do anything as they have no interest in any property thats not their own. i.e the police stations, army bases, TV stations and public utilities just like they have no interest in their neighbours properties.

The next day Trevor reads of this in a the Newspaper or hears about this on TV and realises he had his dream for a few weeks or months - no government - but now its over and he is back to square one. 

There is someone else claiming to be his government - and since he feels intimidates when they shoot a few peaceful resisters, he begins paying his taxes to them.

If the former corporations in South Africa were Trevor clones with market based organisations step up to become the new defence agencies, private courts etc. I’m not sure.

If the ANC were were minarchists, perhaps  Gavin clones, they might have done something different. 

They might 

• outsource all government functions, prisons, policing, roads, defence, foreign affairs etc on competitive tenders to private firms. The contracts wood all be consent and NAP friendly. 
• Amended the constitution to trim down government and prune legislation to make it consent and NAP frienly. 
• Then simply administer the outsource contracts and do little else, they may even be able to stop collecting taxes as the fees they earn on the outsource contracts might cover administration. 

If they did this the rest of the world might  think were were foolish idealists, but no state would question whether South Africa ought not be recognised as a sovereign State,

;-)

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

http://www.weiman.co.za
Cel: 082 510 0186

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

I have wondered about that question quite a bit over the years - what advice would I give my younger self ? Initially I thought, I would share some facts, like "don't bother with this girl, you're going to end up marrying someone else"... but I soon realized that this would not work as a) I wouldn't listen to myself and b) how else would I get the experience of past / failed relationships in order to make the last one work... some things cannot be skipped. Calms seas don't make a good sailor.

So then I thought for a long time that I would not share any hard facts with my younger self, but simply tell myself not to worry and fret so much, since it will all be okay in the end... but then I realized that a) I wouldn't listen to myself and b) that might make my younger self be even more stupid and wreckless. Lord knows I took some gambles and some of them could have turned out very badly... knowing "it will be okay" would have made me a crazy risk-taker. Best not know the future at all. Now I think, if I were to go back in time and be in a position to speak to my younger self, I would just observe and maybe laugh at myself, keeping what I know about the younger me's future to my future self. Of course, this is all silly, because time travel is impossible... at least to the past. We travel to the future all the time, albeit rather slowly (though very fast in retrospect). So it is very possible (and easy) for the younger self to talk to the older self... and maybe impart some much needed reminders.

To this end, I wrote my future self some notes back in the late 1990's and early 2000's, clearly written on the envelope (and later file name or first page) something like "Do not read until AT LEAST 15 June 2015"... or some such arbitrary date, which seemed unimaginably far in the future at the time. I then forgot about them and only rediscovered them well after the "expiration date". It was very interesting reading. In one, I reminded myself how sad I was for just having lost a certain cat... opening that message almost two decades later, I could hardly remember the cat, but memories came rushing back and I felt rather sad for a few minutes... then realized that what younger me was telling older me is that you can get over basically anything. And that was a rather nice message to get from myself. It's not for everyone, but I rather enjoy getting messages from my older self and so I keep on sending them to my future self. It's great fun.

S.

--

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

I wasn't there and I have not seen any of the footage (yet), so I think I can ask this without prejudice... Gavin, do you feel that jurisprudence / law is a legitimate function of government and that it cannot be done otherwise / by someone else ? I think you do, since you call yourself a minarchist and seem to imply it below, but I don't want to jump to conclusions as to your opinion / argument, so clarification on that point would be appreciated.

S.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.