Trump's lies

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

I said I might take the view that Trump isn't a pathological liar seriously enough to respond to an attempted refutation of the obvious, but warned I might not get around to it.

I won't.

As with Gavin's silly stuff about straw-man misrepresentations of the consent, it just does not make it onto my priority list. Silly stuff has to be sacrificed in favour of serious stuff. I'm too tied up with something serious, a research-intensive paper to be presented at an international conference on the Economics of LNT.

For those interested in a theory -- one of many -- about Trump's breathtaking propensity to lie, and the inclination of politicians generally to lie, here's a link worth skimming through:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/donald-trump-lies-liar-effect-brain-214658

--

Leon Louw

work:          +27-11-884-0270

mobile:       +27-84-618-0348

www.freemarketfoundation.com

#leonmlouw

[Jaco Strauss]

No surprise really. 

I obviously understand that real world stuff keeps everybody busy from time to time, but you have been pushing this "pathological liar" ruse without backup for a very long time now. Even though you have never been able to provide a single, specific, good example of the pathological fakenews you are spreading in the process. 

Posting a link to the debunked fake list of the Washington Post says more about the accuser than the accused. With almost 80% of WaPo's liar claims being exposed as lies themselves, they are the real liars. Four fingers are pointing straight back at them. The WaPo is in fact so disgusting that they recently "fact checked" Sarah Huckerbee Sanders as "lying" over a journalist wanting to see her "choked". WaPo deemed it a "lie" because, apparently, the journalist in question wanted to "wring her neck", not "choke" her. Those hacks would do well in kindergarten where such linguistic gymnastics carry some sort of contemporary, localised weight. 

Anyway, your continued inability to come up with anything substantive in support of these silly claims you keep regurgitating, leaves you looking like a mindless CNN / WaPo / Politico talking head. I know that is not what you are, making this Trump Derangement Syndrome an even more fascinating phenomena to observe.

J

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

--
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]

Hi Leon,

The way you keep on coming back to Gavin and consent and running me down is revealing in itself!!

Perhaps what you can’t live with is -  that in a room full of libertarians and anarco-capitalists -  the best you, the "god of “consent” and "Mr Libertarian”, could do was to DRAW against me in a debate on the propostion that “libertarianism is based on a jurisprudence that goes beyond and supersedes consent" . 

The truth hurts! or is it “humiliates"?

What you are instead are confessing is that my ‘silly straw man arguments” are taken seriously by many seriously minded libertarians, who, perhaps, see through your "silly ad hominem" manner of debating serious libertarian findamentlas that distinguish folksy "anarchist libertarianism" from a more substantial "state libertarianism” based on notions on law, and justice instead of the NAP and consent that are not sufficient in themselves to ground a reasonable libertarianism.

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.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

For the record, Gavin, I found your arguments against consent to be infuriatingly flimsy and Leon's responses remarkably calm in the face of such poorly phrased and vague an attack. If anything, your arguments against consent made my support for it stronger. To now see that you considered it a draw is almost amusing.

S.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

I'm glad you feel flattered.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

@Stephen

For what it's worth, Stephen, I was astounded when one the brightest people (he'd agreed with Gavin) explained in what he thought Gavin was saying, not realising that he'd been completely mistaken. He'd fallen for the false -- actually absurd -- premise that being for or against consent was akin to being for or against anarchy. Person X hadn't realised how ridiculous that rendered the ensuing argument entailing derivative false (seemingly plausible) premises, non-sequiturs, pseudo-intellectual straw-men etc. X had assumed that coherent logic and valid assumptions were buried beneath discombobulated rhetoric.

The reason I cite that example of wasted time and effort is because it's the best shared illustration of pointless communication in this group. If I think of an alternative that'll leave Gavin ego intactus, I'll use it. I could, for instance, say a given debate is as pointless as debating whether the earth of flat.

Yes, that's it, I;ll refer to the "flat earth diversion". That'll let Gavin off the hook. 

 

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

I felt bad about what I said below, the moment I hit the Send button. It was a very personal and inconsiderate way of phrasing my disagreement with Gavin. I do think Gavin is one of the smartest folks I've met and he consistently questions things which others seem happy to take at face value, which I certainly also appreciate. That is why the whole consent thing was so strange to me - I found it out of character. So, I hope that we can get to a point where we can again play the issue and not the man and I'm sorry for having contributed to that.

S.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

@Stephen

Relax, Stephen.

Calling twaddle twaddle isn't ad hominem.

You and I commented on what Gavin said. He, on the other hand, spewed ad hominem vitriol.

[Gavin Weiman]

@Stephen

Well, i never said I was ‘against’ consent.

My argument was that these (consent and NAP) were not the ‘foundation’ - the 'axiomatic bedrock' on which libertarianism is based. 

My point was that to find that bedrock we need to go deeper. These deeper principles evolved with the human mind and gave rise to our reason and a cultural sense of 'what-is-just-or-right’ our reason and morality in fact.

We don't aggress against others without their consent because we recognise that to do so in ‘unjust’ or wrong. But equally we don’t accept what passes for ‘consent’ when a very young girl appears to consent to a violation. It’s not because of a lack of apparent consent, its because we recognise that in the context the consent is ‘wrong’ and we forbid the action despite consent. We try to explain that consent has to be ‘informed’. We have a whole jurisprudence around ‘consent’, it meaning and when is permissible to act on someones consent. These rules are derived from our cultural traditions and sense of right. We also don’s ask a person who is attempting to kill us if he consents to our defending ourselves.Our sense of justice ‘knows’ that no consent is necessary. Thats why, for example, the libertarian NAP only speaks of ‘initiated’ violence and not ‘retaliatory’ violence. 

But he exception always proves the rule. The mere fact that we say ‘because in that case there was not consent’ or 'because in that case he was defending against aggression' etc. shows the deeper principle is there.

The danger in taking consent or NAP to be foundational is their inappropriate use in contexts where they are not valid.

Leon views my looking my looking deeper as creating a ‘straw man’ view of consent or being ‘unimportant'. I think he sees what I saying as implicit in consent as a legal notion itself. But Leon can take this legal backdrop into account because he is trained in it. Libertarians who have little idea of law and legal philosophy and do not see the framework in which consent and coercion exist, often try to re-invent thousands of years of legal frameworks, and use consent in contexts that can literally produce absurd results. Like Trevors notion, that he now disavows, that because very young children cannot consent they are to be treated a property.

I'm for ‘consent' and NAP when it is just. When it results in injustice I look for appropriate  guidance to liberal jurisprudecne or to reason.

I am not an anarchist. I believe that the law (some call it the state i.e. those people who seek to provide this legal service to the community) has a legitimate role in society and can use aggression to achieve its ends and against those who intentionally seek to undermine it.

I am an individualist. But I also believe that there is a legitimate role for the community and the collective that goes beyond the rights of the individual.

I struggle to understand where the lines are to be drawn and can not find an easy one-liner such as: ‘just ask if there was consent’.  I realise that: ‘Is it just?’ is a more complex question.

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

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

[Erik Peers]

There is a natural tension between reinventing the wheel and innovative thinking. 

[Stephen vJ]

I used to think that people outside of a particular field could come up with novel ideas, not having been brainwashed by the establishment... then I got to know some physics, accounting, maths, statistics and other real sciences. People who know nothing about telecommunications sound to people in it like a person talking about earth, wind, water and fire would sound to a chemist. People with a bit of knowledge are often very dangerous, especially when mixed with a healthy dose of confidence.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Stephen vJ]

But, you see, it seems like you’re saying the foundation of libertarianism is an innate sense of justice... and before I disagree with that, maybe you can indicate if that is what you meant ? Because I’m not sure that’s what you meant, though your explanation below is already much clearer than last time around. It’s an interesting idea, but I disagree on grounds that a rather large number of people think it is just to pay taxes, an injustice to have to work for a living and a complete mockery of justice for paler skinned peoples to own land. Somehow the reality of it does not seem to be very libertarian.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Stephen vJ]

To the vast majority of people, libertarianism must appear entirely unjust. Some of that sentiment is clearly reflected in law.

S.

[Trevor Watkins]

It is rather sad that in our dotage we would rather rehash these arguments than spend the effort finding and summarising the original discussions from a year or so back.

Gavin is a conservative in the best sense. He pines for the good old days, he believes we were much smarter in the past than we are today, that rules and regulations formulated over centuries are more valuable than any recently developed theories, by definition. He believes that a theory subscribed to by many people is more likely to be correct than an unpopular one. This the core of his jurisprudence. And, of course, he is sometimes right.

Stephen has already disposed of the "'what-is-just-or-right’ cultural argument. Over the centuries, culture and popular opinion have given rise to the most heinous unjust acts. We have a better sense of what is right and wrong today because of the enlightenment philosophers than all their predecessors lumped together.

Is the concept of "consent" as espoused by Leon and myself a new and foundational bedrock on which libertarian thinking can be based going forward? I think this is the question that sticks in Gavin's craw. To concede this point would require him to question his training, his existing belief system, and probably his sanity. 

But if we can justify our theory through reason and logic, by demonstration in the real world, and by peer review and acceptance (ie, by using the tools of the scientific method), should this not convince Gavin and others?

Let's try.

1. Libertarianism is a system that favours individual liberty. Unlike many other systems, it does not favour individual safety, nor individual prosperity,  nor a particular (say Christian) morality, nor individual equality, etc. Just liberty, the freedom to choose for oneself. Libertarians believe, but cannot prove, that the libertarian system optimises their chosen values such as peace, fairness, comfort, prosperity. etc.
   
   
2. The concept of individual informed consent (as articulated in the Consent Axiom and elsewhere) is more consistent with libertarianism than other competing concepts such as NAP, democracy, socialism, western jurisprudence, various religions, etc. All of these competing concepts involve a compromise of the core concept of individual freedom of choice.
   
   
3. Just as the concept of democracy or jurisprudence requires some additional explanation, so does the concept of consent.
   
   
4. I don't think you can mathematically prove the correctness of a social construct, so one must develop thought experiments to evaluate the pros and cons of the concept. If a majority of these thought experiments favour rather than contradict the proposition, then you can draw some statistical conclusions. Nevertheless, not everyone will be persuaded by this process.
   
   
5. Unlike almost all the competing concepts, libertarianism and consent involves only relationships between individuals. It does not require an entire society to adopt the concept, only interacting individuals. It is an interaction algorithm for individuals, rather than for entire societies.

Trevor Watkins

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

This is primarily a communication to Stephen. I was about to send it only to him, but then thought someone else might be interested.

For what it's worth, Stephen:

1. I agree fully with your point about the need for expertise in a field vs the propensity of non-experts to hold forth as if they are competent and innovative thinkers.
   We, in the FMF, deal with this on a daily basis. It's what we do.
   We get involved, for instance, in the "data must fall" discourse and proposed government telecommunication controls. We start knowing close nothing about relevant complexities appreciated only by experts.
   Almost everyone who has anything to say speaks as if they have expertise. Joe Blogs holds forth at dinner table and in government hearings about supposed network provider "collusion", "high" data charges, insufficient "coverage", lack of "transformation" etc.
   It's very rare for those with lots to say even to know what such terms mean.
   We routinely start by becoming experts ... on, in this case, bandwidth, telecommunications tech, subsidised handsets, digital migration, spectrum allocation, tower refarming etc, We do so by copious reading, research and long sessions with experts. From then on, it's a nightmare reading and hearing what ignoramuses say with bluster and bravado. Which is lots!
   
2. I also agree with you about being unsure about what Gavin is saying. In anticipation of our pointless LibSem "debate", I did what we do at the FMF, I became an expert on what he'd written. Which is lots!
   Even so, which was clear in the debate, core elements remain hidden beneath a veneer of ponderous rhetoric.
   You're right about it having something to do with (concepts of) "justice". It also has lots to do with institutions conducive to promoting and defending justice (as opposed to liberty).
   What was and remains lacking was a coherent definition of liberty (that is without needless avoidance of the obvious word, "consent"), or, more precisely, a standard definition of libertarian (also without "consent"). A secondary problem was what precisely he doesn't like about consent and/or non-aggression (other than the phony anarchy strawman).
   
3. In the end, he has lots, really lots, to say -- mostly in his areas of expertise (law) -- about institutions and justice in the classical liberal tradition. What I addressed (within my areas of expertise) was the meanings of libertarianism, consent and liberty.
   
4. The strawman against which he debated and wrote copiously -- the absent adversary -- was anarchy. Whether anarchy or archy is most conducive to liberty (ie consent) is a debate -- an important debate -- about institutions -- anarchic, minarchic or classical liberal institutions. NOT about the definition of liberty.
   My impression is that he never got that distinction. He wants a fairly substantial and coercive government. That's fine. That's what most libertarians want institutionally. Instead of sticking to that, he launched vituperative attacks on consent and non-aggression.
5. Then he took I giant leap of logic. A truly giant leap. A deceptive intellectual sleight of hand giant leap.
   Many libertarians fell for it, even very bright ones. He assumed that his preferred size and role of (people called) "government", and the jurisprudential history supporting it, somehow defines the meanings of consent, volition, liberty, non-aggression, libertarianism, libertarian (or whatever one calls the paradigm).
   This is what Rand called "the stolen concept". It confuses and conflates profoundly distinctive concepts. It is, as she pointed out, an extremely powerful didactic ruse.
   
6. The most mundane thing he never got is that being for liberty has little or nothing to do with jurisprudential history.
   You, Stephen, are for (whatever you call it) the principle, virtue, paradigm, axiom, value, philosophy of consent. That's it. It makes no difference to you what Grotius, Voet, Dicey or Aristotle thought about it. That's the principle you want applied to human interaction. Your position is what's called "libertarianism" in English.
7. As an aside, despite my best efforts, I never worked out whether Gavin is for or against the consent paradigm/axiom/value/principle/approach/philosophy/whatever. The essence of what he opposed ab initio was you (I think it was you) being for the "consent axiom". In especially confusing moments thereafter, he said he's not against consent. The only thing we know with certainty is that he does not like two terms: "consent axiom" and "non-aggression axiom", and doesn't like one concept, "anarchy".
   Despite being asked, we were never told if he's against the concept or the terminology. There was a fleeting moment when has said he didn't think "axiom" was the right word. He was invited to use whatever noun he preferred. I don't think anyone attached importance to the word.
   The best I can make of the apparent contradiction (appearing to be for and against consent) is that it's like a heterosexual saying s/he's not against homosexuality -- it's okay, but it's not what lights their fire. Or a non-smoker like me saying I'm not against smoking.
   To extend the analogy, a debate about what smoking is, and about the institutions (of government) that should govern smoking, are two profoundly different things. Gavin never seemed to get that distinction.
   He never came close to getting the third aspect -- where you're coming from -- that being for or against smoking is not debatable. If you say :I'm for smoking", he says "No you're not. That's an invalid concept. You're ignoring a long scholarly tradition on the subject."
   He compounds confusion by unassuming that being for smoking (in our case consent) means you're against hospitals (in our case governments).
   
8. In conclusion, consent lights your fire (and mine), but not his. He's turned on primarily by (classical liberal) (a) institutions and (b) conceptions of justice.
   He will, no doubt, aver that you and I misconstrue his position. To the extent that we do so, it's because, no latter how hard we try in good faith, we cannot work our what, precisely, his position is -- we remain n the dark  regarding his position on the consent and non-aggression .... (insert your own noun).
   
   
   

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

@Trevor

That's one of the best pieces you've written, Trevor. My guess is that spent more time on it than is immediately obvious.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

@Leon Louw 

In my point 7, it should read:

He never came close to getting the third aspect -- where you're espousing -- that being for or against smoking is not debatable. If you say "I'm for smoking", he says "No you're not. That's an invalid concept. You're ignoring a long scholarly tradition on the subject."
He compounds confusion by assuming that being for smoking (in our case consent) means you're against hospitals (in our case governments).

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

@Trevor Watkins 

Having said I agree with you, Trevor, I might disagree that Gavin is a "conservative".

I regard him as a fully-fledged libertarian -- as libertarian as most libertarians. Most are not purists or extremists, just as most people we'd call socialists are not pure socialists.

He's what we might call a soft libertarian.

Also, someone can be a libertarian purist and  a conservative in the non-political sense of the word. A hardcore libertarian purist and anarchist could believe in and live by conservative values. They could be religiously devout, believe in virgin marriage, dress conservatively etc.

Gavin, as far as I know, is not politically conservative. He is not for any (or only very few) of the government controls that characterize conservatism (such as censorship, prohibition of gay marriage etc). He's for (most aspects of) liberty. To the extent we can work out what he's been saying, he's not anti-liberty per se. It's that he's for classical liberal institutions to protect liberty.

PS:

• We could, of course, ask Gavin to speak for himself, but the problem that he's done lots of it and we're none the wiser, so we're forced to do our best to make sense of it.
  
• Why do we invest so much of our time in his views? That's not obvious. I think it's because much of what he's written is really good -- sophisticated and worthwhile jurisprudence and history. It's just that (for the most part) it's not been about what he said he was addressing: consent, coercion, aggression, liberty. If he'd started by saying he wants to explain why he's for traditional classical liberal institutions instead of the sort of thing Trevor espouses in his book and other writings, it might not have been putative. One of the great neglected areas of libertarianism happens to be what, for practical jurisprudential purposes, constitutes liberty.  -- when, precisely, are rights violated? I suspect we all got involved because we thought that what he was debating. Maybe that's for another string on another day.
  

[Jaco Strauss]

The liberty of the lion does not depend upon the consent of his prey. 

Perhaps Gavin is merely pointing out that the notion that person A can only really be free in a society where the equal liberty of person B is recognised (and therefore his consent) presupposes a society that gives a rat's ass about the sensitivities of person B. I suppose Gavin is interested in the make-up of that type of society... How did it come into being.

The "consent axiom" tries to package something neatly that did not miraculously fall off a tree one day. 

Yet ideological groups like these - similar to Marxist ideologues - get so fixated on semantical minutiae that they totally miss the big picture. And this thread is a perfect example of that. Even the subject still refers to "Trump's Lies" even though Leon has consistently failed over years to bring even one proper, good, old-fashioned supposed lie of his to the tabe for debate. 

In fact, Leon has been flogging that dead horse all the time while remaining silent on the purging of libertarians, such as Alex Jones, from the modern day public square; or addressing the mass migration assault on libertarian values WITHOUT THE CONSENT of the resident populations....  

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

[Jaco Strauss]

Gavin, as far as I know, is not politically conservative. He is not for any (or only very few) of the government controls that characterize conservatism (such as censorship, prohibition of gay marriage etc)  - Leon

Leon is claiming that support for "censorship and the prohibition of gay marriage" are conservative traits. Yet it is the Left that has been arguing in favour of all kinds of censorship for the last few decades, not conservatives. The current Social Media censorship purge is merely the latest manifestation of this Leftist way of dealing with opposition.  

As for gay marriage, even Clinton and Barrack opposed it until fairly recently. Obama came out in favour as late as 2012 and Hillary only in 2013 with both of them receiving Politico's "Full Flop" ratings for their flip-flopping...

So, in terms of Leon's definition of "conservative", both Hillary and Obama still qualified as "conservative" in 2012. Not sure where that leaves Gavin....

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/17/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

Le sam. 18 août 2018 à 22:33, Leon Louw (gmail) <leon...@gmail.com> a écrit :

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

Good grief, Jaco. You surely can't be confused enough to quote this silly old myth:

"The liberty of the lion does not depend upon the consent of his prey."

It is easily debunked philosophically. Liberty is a state pf affairs as between people, or animals, if you wish. There's no such thing as the liberty of 1. Until Friday arrives, the question of Robinson Crusoe's liberty doesn't arise. Once there's more than 1, they have liberty, or they don't. The only way to determine that is to apply the consent axiom. As between predator and prey, the same applies. Liberty exists if prey consents. Without consent, there's no liberty.  With consent, there's liberty.

By writing "

Perhaps Gavin is merely pointing out ... etc" you touch on the problem. No one has any idea what he's been "pointing out".

You're right about the need to avoid fixation on "semantical minutiae". That's my point.

Please read what I wrote ... ie that what one calls consent is irrelevant. Regardless of the minutiae semantically, jurisprudentially, linguistically etc liberty is present when those concerned consented and absent when they didn't.

How one defines consent, and what one does about its absence is a complex matter in disparate disciplines.

Regarding Trump's lies, you're also right, I have no intention of wasting more time on the matter.

You seem to have missed the point about my references to Gavin's prolix consent aversion. The point is that I will not repeat the error of pointless engagement ... will not waste time on the Trump "dead horse" the way I wasted time on the Gavin "dead horse". Pursuing either issue is what you say you don't want: "flogging a dead horse".

Surely you must agree, Jaco, that screeds devoted to whether Trump's  lies are lies, what precisely lies are, how Trump's propensity to lie compares with other politicians etc (all of which and more arose ab initio) made it clear that we all have better things to do than pursue the matter. Just as we should have realised early on that we all had better things to do than (to quote you) being "fixated on (Gavin's) semantical minutiae".

Surely you know what would have happened (had we the time to waste): I would have said X was a lie. You would have said it was hyperbole. I would have said Y was a lie. You would have said it's the kind of lie all politicians tell. I would have said Z was a lie. You would have said only if considered out of context. I would say Trump was factually wrong. You would say he's was right.

And so on ad infinitum all the way through his ad infinitum lies (or truths).

You might have the appetite for thousands of words on the issue. I don't.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

Oh no, Jaco. I thought you don't like "semantical minutiae". I don't, frankly, give a damn what you or Trevor define conservative.

My point is that I regard Gavin as libertarian.

And I'm not willing to debate what that means. This is a group for people who do.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

Sorry, hit Send too soon:

Oh no, Jaco. I thought you don't like "semantical minutiae". I don't, frankly, give a damn how you or Trevor define conservative.

My point is that I regard Gavin as libertarian.

And I'm not willing to debate what that means. This is a group for people who do know what it means.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

In case anyone wants to post further comments addressed to me in this string, please note that I'm leaving it and will not be opening it again.

If anyone wants to communicate with my about something other than what Gavin thinks about consent, or what Jaco thinks about Trump's lies, please do so in a separate email.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

I was hoping that Gavin would respond to this, because I can't speak for him, but got the sense that you're not addressing his point. I don't think Gavin was saying that there is something wrong with consent itself or that he misunderstood the meaning of libertarianism as you lay it out below - I think his argument was that consent and libertarianism are not necessarily equal i.e. you could have more liberty while violating consent or full consent without liberty. Explaining liberty and explaining consent and explaining the link between the two, does not address the question whether they are mutually exclusive or not and does not prove that the one cannot exist without the other or that any other options or difinitions for each could be possible. Now, I don't agree with that and personally think that only consent will provide liberty and that liberty cannot be complete without applying consent... thus I accept the use of the word Axiom next to the word Consent, but if I recall and understood correctly, that was Gavin's main complaint - not either word, but their use together. I might be wrong on either or all of these three points.

S.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

I agree with you Leon and can only add that I find Gavin's point interesting, though not convincing (yet)... and on a side note, I find your writing to be very easy to read - I wish I knew how you do it, so I could do it too.

S.

[Gavin Weiman]

@Erik

Its an attempt on my part to explain my (de-)evolving views as a libertarian. I started off simply as a sort of free marketeer, then became interested in anarcho-capitalism and then back to the idea of a liberal state/law society. But any state/leal system, it seemed to me, would have to enforce some behaviour agains the consent of some of its members (perhaps taxation) or even enforcing safeguards like age of consent rules due to knowledge problems. This meant I had to justify consent violations and the initiation of force and define when and under what circumstances these were justified. i.e what was a defensible bases of such a libertarianism, without abandoning it as ‘libertarianism' and calling it simply classical-liberalism.

This brought me into conflict with anarcho-capitalist views (big in South Africa) that treated consent and NAP as inviolable basic premises. So, I guess I’m trying to re-invent the wheel. But really trying to get my thought around this into some coherent order. 

Being paced in the centre of libertarian fire (and Ire) is a good place to attempt to refine ones thoughts. If any innovative thinking takes place it will be either accidental or due to the contentions and a bonus.

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

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

[Gavin Weiman]

@Leon, @Stephen & @Trevor

 

I don’t really want to start the debate on ‘consent’ and NAP again. I find it difficult to understand why it is so difficult for you to understand what I am trying to say about these issues. I’m gathering it has to do with conceptions of liberty, institutions and perhaps their interrelationship.

 

Perhaps my mistake was conceptualising consent and NAP within institutional and social (community of individuals) framework, as opposed to purely abstract liberty between purely consensual individuals.

 

I had always believed that the concerns of Hayek, Von Mises and Popper, were in fact concerns of a ‘libertarian’ nature.

 

When Trevor says, “Libertarianism and consent involves only relationships between individuals. It does not require and entire society to adopt the concept, only interacting individuals. It is an interaction algorithm for individuals, rather than entire societies.”, I wonder at the confident way in which makes this assertion about what libertarianism ‘involves.

 

I had always supposed that the individual was conceived, grew and was nurtured in society and, at least in my mind, when I was thinking about libertarianism, what I had in mind was the societal conditions in which individuals might experience individual autonomy of action subject to the fewest constraints.

 

By and large I’ve understood individual liberty to be the condition when an individual is subject to no will other than his or her own.

 

I had always though in my discussions of libertarian issues, that like Hayek and others, we were interested in the social context of the individuals, and not merely in defining liberty for “informed and interacting rational adults,” abstracted from society in which those individual are to be born, become informed, grow to adulthood, trade, succeed and fail and age and die.

 

If I am unable to persuade other libertarians that a simplistic notion of consent is a sufficient premise to answer all that such a society needs to answer, then it must be because they simply refuse to see the society.

 

As to my notion that liberty is based on a fundamental notion of justice, what is so unusual in this idea. Surely our reason and common sense can inform us what is just and right. Surely you’ve adopted the ‘consent’ idea precisely because in your mind it is ‘unjust’ if someone take actions against you without your consent. Surely you qualify “consent“ with the adjective “informed” because you realise it is unjust to take advantage of the very young or mentally compromised. Surely you speak of the NAP as it is wrong to ‘initiate” coercion, but permit defensive violence, because of your sense of the inherent justice in granting certain ’inherent right’s to individuals.

 

So when Trevor, again says of libertarianism that “… it does not favour individual safety, not individual prosperity….Just liberty..”

 

I am again surprised at the confidence with which he feels entitled to assert what libertarianism’s is. Surly liberty, “the freedom to choose for oneself’ (almost identical to my definition above) does not exist as a contextless mental abstraction, but rather in an extended social framework. Surely, safety and other values are important, if the strong can simply take what they want, or the poor must plunder of necessity, will this not compromise freedom?

 

I think Leon does get most of what I am saying. However why he specific finds it incoherent, or calls it useless or suggests it a straw man, or complains about the intellectual framework or rhetoric etc. is unclear to me. Leon seems to be re-arguing his side of the libsem debate proposition without anyone being able to hear my side of the debate.

 

I find it strange that Leon can conclude that “many libertarians fell for (an alleged intellectual sleight of hand on my part) it, even very bright ones”. How Leon can know the minds of these ‘bright’ libertarians and what they ununderstood and proclaim what they ‘fell for’, is something that appears glib and arrogant to me. I think this is more a post-mortem analysis of Leon’s trying to understand what other had and he had failed to.

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

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

[Gavin Weiman]

@Leon, @Stephen & @Trevor

 

I don’t really want to start the debate on ‘consent’ and NAP again. I find it difficult to understand why it is so difficult for you to understand what I am trying to say about these issues. I’m gathering it has to do with conceptions of liberty, institutions and perhaps their interrelationship.

 

Perhaps my mistake was conceptualising consent and NAP within institutional and social (community of individuals) framework, as opposed to purely abstract liberty between purely consensual individuals.

 

I had always believed that the concerns of Hayek, Von Mises and Popper, were in fact concerns of a ‘libertarian’ nature.

 

When Trevor says, “Libertarianism and consent involves only relationships between individuals. It does not require and entire society to adopt the concept, only interacting individuals. It is an interaction algorithm for individuals, rather than entire societies.”, I wonder at the confident way in which makes this assertion about what libertarianism ‘involves.

 

I had always supposed that the individual was conceived, grew and was nurtured in society and, at least in my mind, when I was thinking about libertarianism, what I had in mind was the societal conditions in which individuals might experience individual autonomy of action subject to the fewest constraints.

 

By and large I’ve understood individual liberty to be the condition when an individual is subject to no will other than his or her own.

 

I had always though in my discussions of libertarian issues, that like Hayek and others, we were interested in the social context of the individuals, and not merely in defining liberty for “informed and interacting rational adults,” abstracted from society in which those individual are to be born, become informed, grow to adulthood, trade, succeed and fail and age and die.

 

If I am unable to persuade other libertarians that a simplistic notion of consent is a sufficient premise to answer all that such a society needs to answer, then it must be because they simply refuse to see the society.

 

As to my notion that liberty is based on a fundamental notion of justice, what is so unusual in this idea. Surely our reason and common sense can inform us what is just and right. Surely you’ve adopted the ‘consent’ idea precisely because in your mind it is ‘unjust’ if someone take actions against you without your consent. Surely you qualify “consent“ with the adjective “informed” because you realise it is unjust to take advantage of the very young or mentally compromised. Surely you speak of the NAP as it is wrong to ‘initiate” coercion, but permit defensive violence, because of your sense of the inherent justice in granting certain ’inherent right’s to individuals.

 

So when Trevor, again says of libertarianism that “… it does not favour individual safety, not individual prosperity….Just liberty..”

 

I am again surprised at the confidence with which he feels entitled to assert what libertarianism’s is. Surly liberty, “the freedom to choose for oneself’ (almost identical to my definition above) does not exist as a contextless mental abstraction, but rather in an extended social framework. Surely, safety and other values are important, if the strong can simply take what they want, or the poor must plunder of necessity, will this not compromise freedom?

 

I think Leon does get most of what I am saying. However why he specific finds it incoherent, or calls it useless or suggests it a straw man, or complains about the intellectual framework or rhetoric etc. is unclear to me. Leon seems to be re-arguing his side of the libsem debate proposition without anyone being able to hear my side of the debate.

 

I find it strange that Leon can conclude that “many libertarians fell for (an alleged intellectual sleight of hand on my part) it, even very bright ones”. How Leon can know the minds of these ‘bright’ libertarians and what they ununderstood and proclaim what they ‘fell for’, is something that appears glib and arrogant to me. I think this is more a post-mortem analysis of Leon’s trying to understand what other had and he had failed to.

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

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

[Gavin Weiman]

@Leon, @Stephen & @Trevor

 

I don’t really want to start the debate on ‘consent’ and NAP again. I find it difficult to understand why it is so difficult for you to understand what I am trying to say about these issues. I’m gathering it has to do with conceptions of liberty, institutions and perhaps their interrelationship.

 

Perhaps my mistake was conceptualising consent and NAP within institutional and social (community of individuals) framework, as opposed to purely abstract liberty between purely consensual individuals.

 

I had always believed that the concerns of Hayek, Von Mises and Popper, were in fact concerns of a ‘libertarian’ nature.

 

When Trevor says, “Libertarianism and consent involves only relationships between individuals. It does not require and entire society to adopt the concept, only interacting individuals. It is an interaction algorithm for individuals, rather than entire societies.”, I wonder at the confident way in which makes this assertion about what libertarianism ‘involves.

 

I had always supposed that the individual was conceived, grew and was nurtured in society and, at least in my mind, when I was thinking about libertarianism, what I had in mind was the societal conditions in which individuals might experience individual autonomy of action subject to the fewest constraints.

 

By and large I’ve understood individual liberty to be the condition when an individual is subject to no will other than his or her own.

 

I had always though in my discussions of libertarian issues, that like Hayek and others, we were interested in the social context of the individuals, and not merely in defining liberty for “informed and interacting rational adults,” abstracted from society in which those individual are to be born, become informed, grow to adulthood, trade, succeed and fail and age and die.

 

If I am unable to persuade other libertarians that a simplistic notion of consent is a sufficient premise to answer all that such a society needs to answer, then it must be because they simply refuse to see the society.

 

As to my notion that liberty is based on a fundamental notion of justice, what is so unusual in this idea. Surely our reason and common sense can inform us what is just and right. Surely you’ve adopted the ‘consent’ idea precisely because in your mind it is ‘unjust’ if someone take actions against you without your consent. Surely you qualify “consent“ with the adjective “informed” because you realise it is unjust to take advantage of the very young or mentally compromised. Surely you speak of the NAP as it is wrong to ‘initiate” coercion, but permit defensive violence, because of your sense of the inherent justice in granting certain ’inherent right’s to individuals.

 

So when Trevor, again says of libertarianism that “… it does not favour individual safety, not individual prosperity….Just liberty..”

 

I am again surprised at the confidence with which he feels entitled to assert what libertarianism’s is. Surly liberty, “the freedom to choose for oneself’ (almost identical to my definition above) does not exist as a contextless mental abstraction, but rather in an extended social framework. Surely, safety and other values are important, if the strong can simply take what they want, or the poor must plunder of necessity, will this not compromise freedom?

 

I think Leon does get most of what I am saying. However why he specific finds it incoherent, or calls it useless or suggests it a straw man, or complains about the intellectual framework or rhetoric etc. is unclear to me. Leon seems to be re-arguing his side of the libsem debate proposition without anyone being able to hear my side of the debate.

 

I find it strange that Leon can conclude that “many libertarians fell for (an alleged intellectual sleight of hand on my part) it, even very bright ones”. How Leon can know the minds of these ‘bright’ libertarians and what they ununderstood and proclaim what they ‘fell for’, is something that appears glib and arrogant to me. I think this is more a post-mortem analysis of Leon’s trying to understand what other had and he had failed to.

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

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

[Erik Peers]

I have found the lack of a societal context by some Libertarians perplexing. Other than going into hiding, it is impossible for someone to be totally free all by himself. There will always be bands of people willing to take from an individual by force, unless the free individual is protected by another group of people. Whether we call this other group "society" or not is moot.

[Jaco Strauss]

Yes, tough to hunt woolly mammoths alone... and even tougher to develop one's own individual language. 

Perhaps our distrust of societal context stems from a deep seated opposition to collectivism and collectivist solutions. Yet we cannot divorce ourselves from the societal collective we are inevitably part of.  Unfortunately the inherent (and almost exclusive) libertarian focus is on the individual (and his consent) while disregarding any notion of societal consent. 

"Open borders" serves as a good example of this inherent contradiction with many libertarians completely disregarding any lack of consent by the resident population. 

 

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

AHA ! I think I get it now ! Gavin says that there are bad people and that those people need to be kept in check or held to account somehow. He assumes that Anarchists, like myself, would either let those bad people be (chaos) or that we think those people do not exist (delusion). He thus concludes that anarchists are utopian or nuts or both and that minarchism is the more realistic answer, since it would allow mainly freedom, but also some check & accountability on bad people. If I'm correct in this, then the problem is much easier to solve than I thought.

There are bad people, for sure, but natural consequences (of which the market is just one mechanism) is more than sufficient to keep people in check and hold them to account. For example, rich people tend to get shorter jail sentences, but they also suffer greater losses as a result of their jail time and almost never recover to a fraction of their former positions, since the higher paying jobs are also the ones requiring greater trust. So there is nothing a legal system needs to do to adjust to inequality - it is built into the nature of things.

Various other examples exist - I specifically chose a bad one, with some (presumably) state involvement, just to keep it spicy. Normal workings of the market, relationships ending (or flourishing), living standards... whatever you care to use, I'll bet nature will outperform government and the legal system in its tyrannical constraints and the exacting, speedy response it dishes out in the face of injustice. In fact, nature is often harsher than any dictator could wish. You try crossing a highway without looking both directions - instant death sentence.

It is thus very simple to resolve the disagreement. Starting now and ending some infinite amount of time in the future, Gavin can supply examples where natural consequences do not sufficiently keep in check or hold to account bad people and we can dispell those examples one by one until someone cracks. [sits with grin, rubbing hands in anticipation]

S.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

The distinction is clear and simple;

- Collectivist / non-libertarian; you are part of this tribe and therefore you must hunt mammoths with us or you will be cast out to starve.

- Individualist / libertarian; you are welcome to hunt mammoths with us, should you choose to and you will be rewarded with a share of the meat.

The first lacks consent and that is the only difference between making it unjust and the latter just.

Side-note; I never consented to you sitting over there in your house having a smoke all by yourself... and guess what ? It does not matter ! I have no say over YOUR property. You do not need my consent to do something which I find dispicable to your property. Similarly, "society" or any other such vaguely defined group of people, cannot consent to letting people into "their" "country", because they do not own it - it is not theirs to consent to. If someone comes into my property without my consent, that is something else, but I do not own the borders, have no say in who crosses them and have no part in what is within those borders aside from my own property, which I absolutely have all the say over. So whether it is my neighbour coming onto my property or someone from the other side of the planet, is not relevant - only that it is my property. That someone crosses a border has nothing to do with me who does not own it, whether that person is my neighbour or the person from the other side of the planet - the fact remains that I do not own the border or anything inside it aside from my own property. There is no such thing as public property or collectively owned property in the sense that would allow people to consent to others crossing borders. But I'm wasting my breath, because the response is just going to be "HOA = Government" and "residential estate = country", right ? For the first time in my life, I'm ready to agree to disagree.

S.

[Jaco Strauss]

All these points have been dealt with and debunked before, so I won't revisit them here. 

The only thing I might care to add, is that the naivety on display elucidates the difficulty libertarianism has to be taken seriously. Open border libertarians claim to have all the answers, but without borders they do not even have a theoretical country from which to postulate the questions!

They essentially argue against the existence of the kind of society they ostensibly favour.... SMH

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

Well that is exactly where we differ in view, on both counts;

1. I appreciate that you find it hard to imagine a world without public borders, just like other socialists can't imagine a world without public roads or public schools or public hospitals. That does not mean that this view is indefensible or should be abandoned or discredits libertarians - on the contrary, I think particularly the public roads thing is gaining popular traction through the persistent effort of principled libertarian thinking. Also, I already conceded the point that, under current circumstances and given specific threats from "outside", the prudent and realistic thing to do would probably be to defend the "public property" first and then debate it's philosophical justification for existing after the threat has passed. In the same way as I would not advocate a complete and immediate shut-down of the entire government on one single day, but would rather phase it out over a few months to allow for the structure of the economy to adjust. That does not mean I am in any way for government... or borders, for the exact same reason. We can be both practical and principled at the same time.

2. Society can be defined in very many ways - borders are not the only way and are in fact a very poor way. I can still belong to the libertarian society, even though I am sitting on the opposite side of the planet. You can still belong to the stamp club and the home owners association, even if you resigned from the chess club and changed jobs several times. I can still be part of my family even though I am divorced and strangely, my family looks very different now than it did when I was growing up - great grand-parents and grand-parents died, cousins and cousins children were born, uncles and aunts left school, got jobs and had kids... if you define your entire existence by nationality and if your only society is the nation, then you have a very sorry life indeed. For most people, the loss of nation from their list of societies and associations will go entirely unnoticed and in the cases where it does get noticed, that will probably be because the change is a positive one, considering the substantial burdon some nations place on their members.

S.

[Trevor Watkins]

I wonder at the confident way in which makes this assertion about what libertarianism ‘involves.

  

Firstly, can we ALL accept that what is written on this group is the PERSONAL OPINION of the writer. Prefixing every statement with "In my opinion" is just a waste of everyone's time. For now, none of us is the king of libertaria, so none of us have enforcible powers.

Secondly, there are 2 distinct issues at play which are constantly conflated. 

The 1st issue is "what would the best possible rule for promoting a peaceful and prosperous society look like". Most of this debate should revolve around the definition of the word "best" in this context.

The 2nd issue is "how would you implement this rule within broader society".

To help focus this debate, join me for a thought experiment. Imagine that an alien showed up at the next libdin. The alien tells us that he thinks this incredibly smart group of people are the best qualified to define the terms of a new world order for the entire planet. Using his advanced technology, he will enforce whatever proposal we develop across all of humanity for the next 1000 years, thus bringinging peace and prosperity to our troubled world.  In other words, the alien has removed the problem of "how", leaving us to just consider "what". What would be the "best" rule to regulate human interactions for the next 10 centuries.

My definition of "best" (IMO) would be:

1. Brief, simple and widely understandable across all cultures
2. No contradictions, no divided middle.
3. Applies equally to all, smart and stupid, young and old, rich and poor, with the fewest exceptions and special cases.
4. Protects life, dignity, individual choice, property.
5. Provides a reasonable conflict resolution mechanism.

We can immediately rule out the NAP (would outlaw contact sports), democracy (divided middle), authoritarian systems, existing western law or jurisprudence (complex, not widely understood, riddled with contradictions). I believe (IMO) that the fairest and simplest system would allow individuals to make their own choices, subject to the consent of those affected by those choices.  (Consent violations would be dealt with by the alien).

Having resolved "what", we could now begin to  work on "how". But there is no point in discussing "how" until we have satisfactorily identified "what".

Trevor Watkins

[Erik Peers]

The first challenge is selecting a system that would be imposed. That would violate the consent axiom.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

Not necessarily. If the alien zaps whoever violates someone else's consent with a death ray, I'm pretty sure the person being zapped would be zapped without their consent. However, under communism they would be sent to Siberia, under socialism they would starve, under democracy they would be forever cursed with the title of leader, under a judicial system they would be locked up... there is no system under which these bad people would not have something done to them against their will. Even under the "mainstream" libertarians there would be NAP which they would argue is okay, because "he did it to me first", which I (and Trevor, it seems) find rather childish and unsophisticated. You must admit though that self-defense is a better argument than sheer majority or a god-given crown. I would go even one step further and say that the enforcement needs no formal system and that nature would dole out sufficient justice... so imagine the alien being a force of nature, his ray gun a cloud spewing lightning, if you want. In this last case, there is something happening to a bad person without his / her consent, but it is not a consent violation because the mover of the action is nature (or the market or some other impersonal force) and we do not ascribe guilt or blame to impersonal processes. You play golf in the rain, you will get punished by being struck by lightning - we do not have a court case to determine the guilt of the clouds or debate whether nature is unjust or how it could be made to be more just. Had the lightning been premeditated by an alien or a king or a democratically elected leader or handed down by a judge, it would be a different story. In nature, there is no reward or punishment, only consequences. Mother nature is unforgiving, yet always innocent. And if we mortal men think we can improve on that... well, so far the natural consequences of our trying has not been particularly encouraging.

S.

[Jaco Strauss]

A long-winded attempt that fails to counter Erik's gotcha over Trevor's wish to force consent onto everyone... 

Fighting for peace and fornicating for virginity next? 

My request to the aliens would simply be to support and underwrite all secession and UDI attempts by private/homestead land owners and to protect the new domains' borders. 

Numerous competing libertarian and anarchist states would result and if you don't like any of them, you could go and create your own through homesteading / purchase etc

Then build beautiful walls and get the alians to pay for it... 

Sent from phone

[Trevor Watkins]

Shame, Jaco. Not for the first time, you completely miss the point.

[Erik Peers]

Trevor the whole fundemental point of Libertarianism is individual choice. If the cleverest decide for others because they know better, then the others no longer have individual choice. In a truly free society some can decide to become slaves. Your solution precludes this.

From the moment you used the word "enforce" you ceased to be for liberty.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

I read your mail three times, but don't get what you mean. Is it possible to rephrase ?

S.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

I feel like you guys (Erik & Jaco) are speaking a foreign language. I can't make heads or tails of what you're saying.

S.

[Jaco Strauss]

Using his advanced technology, he (the alien) will enforce whatever proposal we develop across all of humanity for the next 1000 years  

Trevor wants consent to be "enforced" while I would rather enforce secession. My request will not violate either NAP or "Consent Axiom" while Trevor's violates both.

I don't understand what you do not understand about this, or why Trevor reverted to a shameful reaction.... 

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

[Stephen vJ]

Ok, I understand now. I agree that Trevor challenged any other cases and yours apparently does... but that does not mean that Trevor’s proposal violates consent, so one can either achieve liberty through consent or through property rights. However, I think Trevor’s use of “enforce” was more like “implement”, since the alien violating consent to achieve consent would be a logical contradiction, whereas enforcing property rights is an actual enforcement. In Trevor’s example, the alien seems to be a substitute for Nature or nature or forces of nature, whereas in yours the alien is a substitute for government / law. That said, I would not be opposed to freedom through property and individual sovereignty... I just don’t see how bad people will be prevented from misbehaving without consent violations, whereas Trevors would not [necessarily].

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Erik Peers]

And Ramaphosa's use of expropriation only means land that is lying idle therefore he won't be taking land from anybody (Financial Times). In other words expropriation increases property rights.

And Trevor's "enforce" doesn't mean enforce on the reasoning that if enforce means enforce then that destroys your argument.

[Dewald Pieterse]

Next month idle means you can't effectively farm greater than 12000 ha.

Next year idle land means less than one cow per hectare, more than one cow per hectare means exploitation ala Venezuela.

Dewald Pieterse

Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism, page 55: "A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper. He must free himself from the habit, just as soon as something does not please him, of calling for the police.".

[Jaco Strauss]

And in the process we witness yet another example of Trump coming through on the right side of history.... 

Also ironic to witness how the same talking heads who encouraged international interference in SA before 1994, now condemn it on the same grounds the Nats' did back in the day. And apparently "racial division" is encouraged by those drawing attention to race based land expropriation without compensation - not the ones doing it... Blaming the victims and shooting the messengers, standard procedure en route to #shithole status...

 

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

[Gavin Weiman]

Hi Stephen & Leon

I think I understand why the discussion was so polarised and why we seemed to be talking past each other.

In an earlier post, in response to Trevor, I indicated that I do not see the liberty of the individual as being divorced from the social context and the institutional framework in which humans are to act. Hayek, Von Mises, Popper, Sowel and others treat liberty in the context of the social framework in which this liberty was to be experienced. 

When Trevor writes (in another post which Leon approves off) that:

1. Unlike almost all the competing concepts, libertarianism and consent involves only relationships between individuals. It does not require an entire society to adopt the concept, only interacting individuals. It is an interaction algorithm for individuals, rather than for entire societies.”

I am disquieted by the authority with which people like Trevor speak about what libertarianism ‘involves’ as if their ‘say so’ makes it so. Leon also confidently asserts an innate expertise on the meanings of 'libertarianism, consent and liberty’ (in Leon’s paragraph 3 below). Leon it seems is also of the view that ‘institutions’ as he calls them have nothing to do with the meaning of liberty.

IF I am right then it seems our difference is that I see libertarianism as a philosophy that has as its objective the creation of a society in which, AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, each individual has maximal autonomy and is least subject to the will of others commensurate with individual co-existanse in society. Trevor and Leon think Liberty = Consent (Institutions are a different discussion altogether). If any one had read anything I wrote it must have been clear, as I expressly stated it over and over, that I see Libertarianism as a political theory about how society is to be structured. So how was what I was saying unclear.

Hayek (in Constitution of Liberty) wrote a great chapter setting out the many different senses in which the word freedom (more or less a synonym for liberty) is used. Libertarians mostly adopt the ’negative’ definition of 'freedom from’. In is quite easy to define liberty as the condition in which the individual actions are not ’subject to the will of another. Easy yes, but also lazy, because once one starts exploring this idea in a social, real world context we must soon come to the realisation that such liberty can never be always and in every circumstance absolute, and that the individual must in certain contexts subject himself, in his own interests, to limit this liberty.

The question is whether using the notion of consent, as a substitute for ‘subject to the will of another’ improves the situation. My argument was that it does not. I'm sure that if I were to re-work what I have written on this topic it would be about all the different ways in which the concept ‘consent’ is (mis)used. In my opinion the ‘consent’ axiom just ‘kicks the ball’ further down the road and, still lazy, beings us no closer to understanding individual liberty in the real world. 

In the real world the individual is born in to a family, is nurtured and educated in society, then trades succeeds, fails, ages and dies in a community. The individual is NEVER in the real world divorced from INSTITUTIONS. The institutions may be informal and traditional, such as family, culture,, language, and law — or more formal, municipal, provincial, state, legislative, regulatory and constitutional.

When I state that ‘consent' cannot be an ‘axiom' from which libertarianism emerges, it is because I see it fall short in addressing many issued that a libertarian society would need to address in its laws and institutions.

I repeat, I am not ‘against’ consent. In a free society the agreements (one meaning of consent - something you have agreed to) of individuals will be respected by institutions (laws). There will be disputes about agreements (whether 'in fact' there was a meeting of minds, or whether there was a miscommunication or misrepresentation. Libertarians courts or arbitrators will need to find the rules and principles to define these. These rules might not be obviously apparent from the word ‘consent’ itself, institutions and jurisprudence will need to ‘unpack’ this.

'Informed consent’ what on earth is this, no one is omniscient - so in some degree NO agreement or consent is totally informed. This lack of knowledge is what make commerce possible. So we are only interested (from a libertarian institution perspective) with the consent of those like children and the mentally challenged, to create special rules for them about consent. This is not imbedded in the concept ‘consent’ but derives from the concept ‘just’ if a person of reasonable age (perhapses 18 or older) makes a poor decision, agreement or consents to something that they subsequently don’t like, we generally say: "well freedom does not guarantee a positive outcome - you are also free to make wrong choices". But some times we worry about some choices - like euthanasia - surely these should have checks and balances - we don’t want to give easy defences to murderers when the victim is not around to say ‘hey  I did not consent’, so libertarian institutions can regulate ‘consent’ in the interests of the libertarian society. This is done on pragmatic public policy basis (justice) to safeguard individual liberty by constraining consent reasonably in this context.

We also need to interdict actions that will (but have not yet) violate consent and freedom BEFORE they happen. Its all fine an well when people are planning hypothetical acts of violence and consent violations (for example when writing a work of fiction). But when these plans go over to acts of consummation perhaps libertarian social institutions will interfere in the freedom to perform these acts before they are completed. There is a whole evolved legal system of situation where consent is overridden in the interests of justice and the protection of peaceful free individuals and their liberty.

It is only in this limited usage of “consent” as an axiomatic (sufficient unto itself) definer of all things libertarian --- that I am ‘against consent’. In the other many meaning of “consent" I am usually for it.

So it goes without saying that my view of what libertarianism ‘entails’ is not the view of Trevor (and I am surprised and a little saddened, to now conclude, or Leon)

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

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

[Gavin Weiman]

Ok Stephen

Lets try this.

How did 'natural consequences' prevent any of the following -

Both world wars, the Conquistadors, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, South Africa, East Germany before the wall came down, most socialist states with collapsing economies, and any other hell hole on earth. Look at the FMF freedom index and look at all those states that lack economic freedoms and social freedoms.

Now point out to me the great sociesties of anarchist communities that have flourished into the 21st century. (or even minarchist communities - governed by natural consequences - that survived, first, as feudalism dominated the western world, and secondly as feudalism was replaced by the current world of nation states,) 

In fact your anarchist communities never existed in the first place. The few that Trevor clutch at were weaker states or traditional law based communities, and were wiped out by the more powerful nation states. 

'The strong take what they want' seems to be what the history of 'natural consequences’ suggest, not the evolution of powerful ancap societies.

IN fact you will be hard pressed just to show me ‘normal market conditions’ in the dirigist world today. 

Hayek in “Law Legislation and Liberty’ was at pains to try explain why and how social institutions fail and how those that are broken might be fixed so we could have a ‘great society'. His fix wasn’t anarchism and natural market forces will suffice. We do know that even greatly hampered markets are busy wiping out poverty and hunger - for now - even as state failures increase.

When the collapse of the nation states accelerate - in this age of government failure - and people search for solutions to stop the implosion of their societies and death and destruction that may likely follow - what do libertarians offer as a solution?

I think libertarians should be there with solutions crafted from the lessons of history, with new ‘model libertarian constitutions', model libertarian legal systems and designer libertarian institutions, that will replace the failed states and corrupt institutions, so that the new ‘great societies’ the new ‘open societies’ based in individual and economy freedom can emerge.

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

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

[Gavin Weiman]

Hi Trevor,

I’ve very carefully considered your comments below. 

Regarding the matter of authors ‘personal opinions’. This could mean one of two things, 1) that what you state about libertarianism is merely your opinion, or 2) in your opinion you consider yourself entitled because of your unique qualifications to speak for the movement. Leon seems to have this latter attitude as do you. Perhaps you should couch your language more carefully so as not to be rudely ’telling’ but rather ‘explaining' your opinion.

Again you assert that the issues you name are ‘constantly conflated’. You don’t state by whom these issues are conflated, or why you conserve this conflation to be “constantly". I believe that you are possibly mistaken on all three of these issues.

The first of the issue you name is "what would the best possible rule for promoting a peaceful and prosperous society look like” (your words). 

You seem to suggest that there exists a singular ‘rule’ as opposed to a complex of contextual rules that will serve the ends you name 'promoting a peaceful and prosperous society.’ 

Coming from you this is ironic and contradictory as you are on record, in your post below my response, as saying "Libertarianism is a system that favours individual liberty. Unlike many other systems, it does not favour individual safety, nor individual prosperity.” If we remove your contradiction, your opinion seems to be that there exists a  “rule that provides for individual liberty” - that your opinion of ‘libertarianism" does not contemplate society, or safety of prospertity seems clear from you own words.

The second issue you name is "how would you implement this rule within broader society.” This second principle seems to echo your assumption in the first issues of a singular ‘rule’. 

In my challenges to ‘consent’ (in your peculiar usage only (as an axiomatic, self-explanatory, singular rule, that everything libertarian can be deduced from))  it is precisely this assumption that I have been at pains to refute. So of all people I have never conflated what I would consider a false assumption with a further false assumption.

The thought experiment, further, has ‘magical’ elements, that ‘advanced technology … will enforce the (rule) … removing the problem of ‘how’. With all due respect you are conflating your thinking with that of a magical alien. This thought experiment merely seeks to make your assumption - that a single rule exists - into a conclusion. I call that sleight of hand.

You then provide an opinion as to what the ‘best’ rule would be (now introducing, at this stage in your position, the possibility of competing rules or multiple rules). For various reasons stated, you come up with the the following: "that the fairest and simplest system would allow individuals to make their own choices, subject to the consent of those affected by those choices.”

This proposition is, unfortunately not a singular rule. (Like Leon Consent = Libertarainism)

It posits a system that is ‘fair’. 

What rules, criteria comprise fairness in all the contexts of human actions and interrelationships?

It posts a system that is ‘simple’ .

What are the rules and criteria for simplicity in the contexts of human and interrelationships”

It must allow humans to 'make their own choices.’ 

It is an irrefutable fact that the human action of choice requires a) alternatives b) a felt sent of unease AND c) data faith that gives rise to the belief that action can remove the senses of unease or at lest stop the unease getting worse. We also know that acting humans come in the form of infants, children, adults, the senile, the insane, the rich, the poor, the strong , the weak and defenceless, the informed, the uniformed etc. 

It seems to me that we ‘allow’ or at least must suffer individuals making choices regardless of wether they are well informed or ill informed in any case. Is this not the very reason why we have many rules about the fairness of the actions that humans take. We call these rules of law or ethics (the former sanction coercion the latter does not). But are you perhaps suggesting that rather than merely allowing individuals to make their own choices, they should have this power as of right? And should we allow infants, the very young or the insane, or very poorly informed to make their own choice. You may answer yes, but is it either simple or fair that they do?

Having previously required ‘fairness’ and 'simplicity’ of your system, you now required of your rule: ‘allowed to make their own choices’ that in doing so the must obtain the consent of those affected by the choice actions. 

Is this simple or fair?

How is the average person to gauge the repercussion of his or her actions on others. What kinds of effects upon other should choosing man have to take into account, slight, significant or only serious affects. Is perfect knowledge of choosing individuals necessary for them to obtain consent.

The whole idea of a system of laws (rules) is that over time we can examine ‘a standards measured person’ in multiple contexts and create such rules so that when followed he will not act unjustly towards others. The rules of law do not always use the word ‘consent’ in each formulation, but there is the basic rule in the law delict that a person may not by his act or omission cause harm to another and must compensate for the ham caused. The contexts and guide action fill libraries. There is also the basic rule about keeping promises. Likewise the contextual applications of this rule fill libraries. What is agreement, what is communication, what mistakes are relevant, what of misrepresentation, both those innocently caused by lack of knowledge but stall cause the other to act to his or her detriment and intentionally fraudulent misrepresentations, what of force majeure events and so on. Complex rules about not harming other and keeping promises. This is not something achieved ‘magically’ its taken social customs centuries to evolve these rules and people like me are interested in studying their evolution and formulation.

Your last  comment “haveing resolved "what", we could now begin to  work on "how". But there is no point in discussing "how" until we have satisfactorily identified "what”.” is also very mistaken in my opinion. 

Hayek makes it clear that all these rules (like the iceberg under the surface) have evolved from human action and are not the result of human design. I would like to state, as firmly as possible without being rude, my opinion that you (at Least your Trevor's “consent” libertarianism) are throwing the baby out with the bath water. You are attempting a 'design’ of a single rule around a vague notion of single, qualified “consent” that asks more questions then it answers. It would latterly require magic to implement (or the more complex systems I am contemplating. Read everything you can about ‘constructivism and scientism etc and you might begin to see the trap I believe has ensnared you.

I cant recall how many times and in how many ways I’ve restated my views above. It seems my logic and language fail me. It seems I am still to be accused of being against consent, conflation, ineffectual sleight of hand, saying much about institutions and noting about liberty, setting up straw men etc.

All I can do is repeat my views until they sink it.

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

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

[Stephen vJ]

There is no moral justification for government, not even WWII. Shit happens - that does not mean we should make it worse by adding government to it.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Jaco Strauss]

There is no "moral justification" for many things, for e.g. eating, sleeping or bathing. Or for the Woolly Mammoth Hunting Party to have a leader. You can call that leader "Igor", "boss", or "government", but he is going to be as much part of any thriving human society as eating, sleeping and (hopefully) bathing would be....

It would be great if libertarianism could offer viable alternatives once the current dispensation collapses. Unfortunately, the hope that aliens would recreate some mythical Icelandic utopia is about as helpful as a leaderless, borderless backwater without any property rights would be. 

J

Regards / Groete / Salutations

Jaco Strauss

[Erik Peers]

Humans follow leaders. This is amoral in the sense that there is no value attached (despite propaganda that one should).

[Jaco Strauss]

Evolution suggests that there is most definitely value in following leaders. 

(Just ask the descendents of the leaderless woolly mammoth hunting parties if you have doubt.)

Sent from phone

[Stephen vJ]

When the king of France asked what he could do to improve the place, Voltaire answered nothing, the world turns all by itself. I imagine the king shook his head and thought Voltaire was nuts. In hindsight the king was nuts to think monarchy could last. Thomas Sowell said, when you put out a fire, you don’t ask what to replace it with. A lot of people, including you guys, shake your heads and call him nuts. I agree with Sowell and Voltaire - government is the problem and we should push for less of it. I am not concerned with what would replace it, just like I don’t worry about robots taking all the jobs - it will happen just as slowly and pleasantly as all the previous changes in human history. If you said to someone a 100 years ago that people should stop spanking kids and let them wear anything to school, they would no doubt have asked how you propose that they be stopped from becoming spoiled brats. Yet, we can now look back and say, remember when people thought spanking kids, sending them to bed hungry, feeding them castor oil and telling them scary stories was considered normal ? Kids (particularly here in Canada) are much more respectful and well behaved than their uniformed and whacked predecessors or even contemporaries where whacking still happens. If we keep pushing forward in little steps, the bad things will fade away and there is no need (even if we could) to plan out the details of how the future would work. What you’re asking is for me to imagine how the world would look two hundred years from now and if I say I can’t you’ll no doubt dismiss my whole position. So be it. You guys are barking up an imaginary tree.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Gavin Weiman]

Government in its primary functions - defense and courts is justified. Hampering markets is not.

Sent from my iPhone

> On 24 Aug 2018, at 5:59 PM, Stephen vJ <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> S.

[Stephen vJ]

Yeah, government is my savior and my judge. Sure.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Trevor Watkins]

Oh wow, Gavin. Are you really going to go there?

You may remember that a majority of the audience voted for your position in the pre-debate poll, but voted against your position in the post-debate poll. Fortuitously, 2 votes were found from people who had already left  and did not therefore hear the debate, bringing the count to equal. Some victory.

This was the same audience that was earlier horrified by and voted strongly against the perfectly legal activity of selling guns. 

You accuse me of speaking on behalf of all libertarians, as though I had some authority to do so (a charge which I totally reject). At least I don't underline my presumptuous opinions:  

 notions on law, and justice instead of the NAP and consent that are not sufficient in themselves to ground a reasonable libertarianism

Trevor Watkins

On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 09:35, 'Gavin Weiman' via LibertarianSA <li...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Hi Leon,

The way you keep on coming back to Gavin and consent and running me down is revealing in itself!!

Perhaps what you can’t live with is -  that in a room full of libertarians and anarco-capitalists -  the best you, the "god of “consent” and "Mr Libertarian”, could do was to DRAW against me in a debate on the propostion that “libertarianism is based on a jurisprudence that goes beyond and supersedes consent" . 

The truth hurts! or is it “humiliates"?

What you are instead are confessing is that my ‘silly straw man arguments” are taken seriously by many seriously minded libertarians, who, perhaps, see through your "silly ad hominem" manner of debating serious libertarian findamentlas that distinguish folksy "anarchist libertarianism" from a more substantial "state libertarianism” based on notions on law, and justice instead of the NAP and consent that are not sufficient in themselves to ground a reasonable libertarianism.

Regards

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

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

On 10 Aug 2018, at 22:50, Leon Louw (gmail) <leon...@gmail.com> wrote:

I said I might take the view that Trump isn't a pathological liar seriously enough to respond to an attempted refutation of the obvious, but warned I might not get around to it.

I won't.

As with Gavin's silly stuff about straw-man misrepresentations of the consent, it just does not make it onto my priority list. Silly stuff has to be sacrificed in favour of serious stuff. I'm too tied up with something serious, a research-intensive paper to be presented at an international conference on the Economics of LNT.

For those interested in a theory -- one of many -- about Trump's breathtaking propensity to lie, and the inclination of politicians generally to lie, here's a link worth skimming through:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/donald-trump-lies-liar-effect-brain-214658

--

Leon Louw

work:          +27-11-884-0270

mobile:       +27-84-618-0348

www.freemarketfoundation.com

#leonmlouw

--
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.
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.

[Trevor Watkins]

In red below

Trevor Watkins

On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 at 11:20, 'Gavin Weiman' via LibertarianSA <li...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Ok Stephen

Lets try this.

I've always liked the phrase "You don't have to implement justice. It implements itself, just not in your preferred timeframe."

 

How did 'natural consequences' prevent any of the following -

Both world wars, the Conquistadors, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, South Africa, East Germany before the wall came down, most socialist states with collapsing economies, and any other hell hole on earth.

The Nazis were defeated, the Conquistadors are long gone, as is Stalinist Russia, Pol Pot and many others. It is a 'natural consequence' that every action tends to elicit an opposite reaction. Zimbabwe is trying to self-correct. Neither Venezuela nor South Africa can resist a reaction for much longer. You fail to mention that all these examples were caused by bad leaders heading bad governments.

 

Look at the FMF freedom index and look at all those states that lack economic freedoms and social freedoms.

Now point out to me the great sociesties of anarchist communities that have flourished into the 21st century. (or even minarchist communities - governed by natural consequences - that survived, first, as feudalism dominated the western world, and secondly as feudalism was replaced by the current world of nation states,) 

In fact your anarchist communities never existed in the first place. The few that Trevor clutch at were weaker states or traditional law based communities, and were wiped out by the more powerful nation states. 

Not true, some survived for centuries. While a list of successful anarchist states is short, a list of anarchist states that killed millions is even shorter.

'The strong take what they want' seems to be what the history of 'natural consequences’ suggest, not the evolution of powerful ancap societies.

IN fact you will be hard pressed just to show me ‘normal market conditions’ in the dirigist world today. 

Hayek in “Law Legislation and Liberty’ was at pains to try explain why and how social institutions fail and how those that are broken might be fixed so we could have a ‘great society'. His fix wasn’t anarchism and natural market forces will suffice

Actually, he suggested that spontaneous solutions would arise without intervention or planning.

. We do know that even greatly hampered markets are busy wiping out poverty and hunger - for now - even as state failures increase.

When the collapse of the nation states accelerate - in this age of government failure - and people search for solutions to stop the implosion of their societies and death and destruction that may likely follow - what do libertarians offer as a solution?

Probably more ideas, constitutions, alternatives than any other similar group - just do a search, its overwhelming. Have a look at the list here.

I think libertarians should be there with solutions crafted from the lessons of history, with new ‘model libertarian constitutions', model libertarian legal systems and designer libertarian institutions, that will replace the failed states and corrupt institutions, so that the new ‘great societies’ the new ‘open societies’ based in individual and economy freedom can emerge.

Finally something on which we can agree. However, we are our own harshest critics.

[Trevor Watkins]

@Erik Peers  I suggest you read the consent axiom or the Individualist Movement Manifesto. We are not pacifists. We will happily use force to defend ourselves and others, to resist consent violations, to defend our property. We don't initiate force, unless consent has been given, but we most certainly respond to it.

Trevor Watkins

[Frances Mary Kendall]

I have a suggestion for you guys, an idea I heard from one of Sam Harris’s guests. Leon see if you can state Gavin’s position in such a way that he agrees that is his position. Gavin also try to state Leon’s position in such a way that he agrees it is correct.. That might serve a useful purpose for all of us.

[Trevor Watkins]

@Jaco. First the point you missed. The "alien" was a thought experiment, an aid(e) to focussing  on the  issue of "what" a libertarian solution might look like, rather than "how" it would be implemented. I repeated that 3 times in the piece. There is no alien, get over it.

As replied to Erik earlier, we are not pacifists. Of course we will use force to respond to threats or unconsented force against us, or to defend our property. Let this straw man die.

Trevor Watkins

[Trevor Watkins]

Hi Gavin

Thanks for the considerable effort to set me right.  It is a worthy "Stalingrad" defense. I am far too lazy to reply to all of it.

I like things to be simple, I think you like them complex. So be it. 

The idea of  a consenting society would be fulfilled for me if I could say with confidence "I did not consent to that" when the taxman comes calling, and that fact would be respected. This is not currently so in your state-run, jurisprudential world.

All the many grey areas you refer to are no doubt real and would need to be resolved. Consent does not preclude this. But that is part of "how", not "what".

Trevor Watkins

[Erik Peers]

@Trevor I find your assertion that the reason I might disagree with you is because of a lack or reading, arrogant and condescending. Or maybe you mean well yet struggle with the compilation of non abrasive phraseology. However this is not relevant to the debate.

I am well aware of, and agree with the principle of using violence to defend oneself.

The scenario you sketched is insightful and relevant. I too would love an alien to enforce others to think as I do. This would make a better world. It it weren't for all the stupid people, including leftist academics, everything would be just fine. I wish there was a way to get others to see the light other than painstakingly converting them one by one to reason.

However if I was to use any method other than providing information so that an another could come to his own realisation, and freely choose liberty, then I would transgress the right that I demand for myself, which is to be free of coercion regarding my own choices.

Your scenario, let's say, of the whole world choosing to be libertarian, I agree would be the best system and overcome the shortcomings of democracy etc

However you, inadvertantly I think, touched on how to implement this in the world. If there was one, and only one alien it could be a workable plan. However if there was another alien and he was convinced by others to enforce communism, then by having set the precedent, we would be in trouble.

A case in point is Leon and his view on smokers. I at first disagreed. As tobacco is a addictive drug, and thereby causes its slaves to forego reason and respect for fellow men, the only way to combat it is through force (legislation). However my view changed. If one establishes the precedent of force, then what when the bullies don't like one of my habits... like free speech.

[Gavin Weiman]

Prevent?

Sent from my iPhone

On 25 Aug 2018, at 11:20 AM, Trevor Watkins <bas...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Trevor Watkins]

I have been reading Patrick Campbell's biography of Margaret Thatcher, vol 1 The Grocer's daughter. 

On page 366 he has the following:

Her repeated refrain to colleagues and advisers from the think-tanks who told her what she should do in office was "Don't tell me what. I know what. Tell me how"

As ever, I admire her certainty.

 

Interesting her choice of words. 

If it were possible, Margaret Thatcher was even more reviled by the progressive loony left than Donald Trump. I suspect he will share a place with her in history. I wonder how this prim and proper lady would have reacted to him. 

Trevor Watkins

[Trevor Watkins]

I won't try to state Gavin's position, but I will make an effort to list those areas on which I think we agree.

1. We both reject the initiation of force against others to achieve one's objectives.
2. We both agree that individuals and groups may defend themselves against aggression.
3. We both acknowledge the existence and importance of social structures such as family, clan, tribe, country.
4. We both recognise the principle of consent as an important legal concept.
5. We both agree that it is impossible to draft  a single sentence that will address all the complexities of human interaction.
6. We both agree that life and circumstances will give rise to many grey areas requiring thoughtful resolution by consultation amongst peers and resort to similar precedents.
7. We both agree that libertarians should be there with solutions crafted from the lessons of history, with new ‘model libertarian constitutions', model libertarian legal systems and designer libertarian institutions, that will replace the failed states and corrupt institutions, so that the new ‘great societies’ the new ‘open societies’ based in individual and economy freedom can emerge.
   
8. We both agree that respect for others is a cornerstone of human interaction.
9. We both agree that the right to  own property is fundamental to human freedom.

Areas in which I am not sure we agree:

1. The right to life is fundamental.
2. Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man. (Spencer)
3. If you act against a peaceful person without their consent, you must bear the consequences.
4. As a principle, the common good may not override the rights of the individual.
5. The wisdom of experts may not override the rights of the individual.
6. Simplicity is preferable to complexity. The laws of society must be understandable and accessible to all, including the uneducated. The law should not require a priesthood to interpret and apply it.

This not an exhaustive list, but is perhaps a start.

Trevor Watkins

[Gavin Weiman]

Government actions are varied, some of them are necessary and morally justified, other not. There is no point in lumping it all together as you do.

Libertarians would put out the fires (in government actions) either not replace them - or, if necessary, restore the situation to what it was before the fire was created in the first place.

When things go wrong, there is no justification in showing you hands up and doing nothing. Bad force needs to be contained by goof force. Just like you use force to defend against an attack.

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

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

[Gavin Weiman]

Hi

I’m happy to give it a try.

To come...

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

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

[Gavin Weiman]

Its not just about you. 

Society needs this structure of enforecable contract and enforceable compensation for people injured by the negligent and international acts of others who harm others without their consent, to have markets and a relatively civilised and safe environment in which to transact, specialise their labour etc. You can scrap most of the rest of government.

The fact that most governments exceed their legitimate functions, does not mean there aren’t any social goods and services that need to be provided. Even anarchist recognise this an imagine hypothetical market replacements like ‘defence agencies’ etc. However these have not evolved socially while governments have. So we need to concentrate on what is there, what is wrong with it and fix it, rather than have magical thoughts about what might evolve.

The mental experiments of the ancap 'machinery of freedom' are very useful working considering how the classical liberal institutions might have gone wrong and be fixed. Hayek was one of the bets minds working on this.

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

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

[Gavin Weiman]

Stephen,

Wrong on all counts.

There is a moral justification for government.

When shit happens it should be made better by forcibly stoping the shit. This is the role of good government and people of justice.

You do not answer a problem by refusing to recognise it, or using a favourite slogan. Anarchism makes you crazy!

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

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

[Gavin Weiman]

@ Jaco

I’m of the view that there are moral justifications for eating, sleeping, bathing, having a leader of a hunting party etc. We do them because we ought generally to do things that are beneficial (right).

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

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

[Gavin Weiman]

@ Trevor

Go where?

My response was to Leon’s continual nasty, snide side reference to me and that debate in these posts.

I was not boasting of any victory - merely pointing out, to Leon, that Leon seems troubled by the fact that he did not manage an out an our victory to an audience that should have be receptive to his consent is sufficient position.

I was not underlining my presumptive opinions, but the essence of the proposition that was debated as formalised by Frances. I was for the proposition, Leon against it. 

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

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

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

Well, that is where we disagree. I never said or even implied that it was all about me - we are talking about society and your undying belief in the deity which is government. Society does not need enforcement or compensation, not because I am under the delusion that bad people don't exist, but because the natural consequences of such breaches are much harsher than any artificially constructed system could ever home to achieve. It is not socially evolved - it is unnaturally designed, a legacy of former times of gross oppression. It is not magical - anyone can see innate attributes of humankind, like shame, blushing, fear, social anxiety, etc. which are all actual evolved mechanisms of social checks & balances. The fix is simple - remove government. All of it, because there is no such thing as social goods, less even public goods. Mises seems to have been a far superior mind to Hayek. Now, as you can see, I deliberately tried to take your unsubstantiated statements and simply reverse them, which a) I failed to do completely, since I cannot for the life of me make statements as unsubstantiated as yours even when I try, and b) I'm hoping this makes it clear that you have no argument as such, just statements. Take one and explain why you say it, then maybe we can have a debate. Until then, we will simply continue to state our respective and opposing positions, which does not help at all.

S.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

Well, it seems Leon was right. There is no sense in debating this any further. I'm out.

S.

[Jaco Strauss]

You are writing from a Western perspective, thereby tacitly supporting Gavin's position... 

Where are the "shame, blushing, fear, social anxiety, etc. which are all actual evolved " when honour killings take place in Pakistan ir gays are lynched in Uganda? 

Who blushed when Shaka killed scores of innocents to posthumously accompany his departed mother? Were there more blushing, ululating or murmurings of" lack of consent "? 

Are you going to leave consent flyers and erect consent billboards at the (former) borders to get everybody on the consent bandwagon? .... Also the Sharia crowd who would develop a competing legal system? 

Good luck with that 

In the meantime, you are fixated on "government", yet cannot get around the fact that leader selection is as ingrained as eating or sleeping. You can get on a unicorn and fight it as hard as you like, but if you ever succeed in getting your anarchist paradise one thing is certain... 

The first thing the anarchists will do is get a leader... Elected, appointed, usurped, whatever. 

You better hope he is good, else you will get the one from next door 

Lord of the Flies comes to mind.... You will eventually probably have to beg the guy next door to intervene in your borderless, propertyless, leaderless utopia... 

Sent from phone

[Jaco Strauss]

.... Says those with superior arguments - never. 

The more interesting alternative would be to take Francis' challenge and argue the opponent's perspective... Gavin is up for it! 

Sent from phone

[Gavin Weiman]

@S

As a consequince  of human action states not Ancap defence agencies exist (have evolved/have been constructed). “The fix is simple - remove government. All of it …” how precisely? You deny the existence of social and public goods as a simple assertion, the facts and logic would suggest otherwise. Division and specialisation of labour themselves are public and social goods as is the market phenomenon itself. And the rules and laws that underpin and allow spontaneous order to emerge are social and public goods. 

Governments or institutions have lost their way time an again and libertarians (under various names in different times) are part of the correction mechanism. After von Mises and Hayek libertarians should be in a much more aware position and so much better at fixing these institutions than ever before in history — provided we focus on how to fix things rather than in insisting on "just getting rid of the thing that is broken all together.”

Of course this conversation between an Ancap ‘faith-head’ and a Von Mises- Hayek -“Statist” like me is unlikely to be an easy one.  

  

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

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

[Gavin Weiman]

Hi

Generally yes but do remember that ...

1. Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man. (Spencer)

… means that every man is NOT free to do that which he wills!

Generally also with consent …

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

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

[Gavin Weiman]

So which opponent’s views/perspective  should I try to argue, Leon, Trevor, or Stephen?

What follows is highly summative.

There are nuanced difference between them. 

Leon and Trevor argue that a divorce between the issues of a) what Liberty is (It is ‘Consent’) and b) institutions.

Trevor and Stephen are anti-statist. 

Stephen is an Anarcho-Capitalist. The state, any and all of it, must simply be removed once and for all. Once the state vanishes, human nature and ‘natural’ causes or ‘market forces’ will see the evolution of new market based institutions: Insurance companies will provide security to protect policies holders and their possession. Market bases court to arbitration processes will resolve disputes with market efficiency. Without a state needing to forcibly collect taxes, people will simply voluntarily purchase services in their own best interest. Large business will form coalitions to purchase different competing deterrent services  (like nuclear weapons or militas) so that thugs from other nation states don't try to become a new sate. 

The only consistent and moral position is no-state, pure consent anarchism, not even law (enforced) simply individual action and reaction on good sense, manners and morals, 'natural forces’ and marker forces, left to forge a new society. In the modern area, if we removed the state altogether, because we have markets, these systems would evolve going forward. The reason they did not evolve before was because the world of markets as we now understand them did not exist. So governments would not make a come back.

Trevor and Stephen’s  critique of my position is that ‘governments’ or ‘the state’ always degenerate into totalitarian systems. Any attempt to overcome this by any check and balances and any attempt to fix these, as history shows is futile. Why, because power corrupts, and the corrupt will find ways to circumvent even the best checks and balances. US history is a prime example of this. Even a minarchy who’s function is limited to maintaining a defence, providing a common law property law and contract law regime and courts to resolve disputes, is still not morally justified because it will not function solely on consent, it will need to collect taxes without consent and impose laws like statutory rape laws where the child can be show to have given informed consent, or it cant be disproved, will not allow euthanasia unless sanctioned legal checks veryfy consent etc. From here we have a slippery slope all the way back to socialism and communism and the worst excesses of the authoritarian state.

At to Leon, his argument agains my assertion that libertarianism is based in a jurispurdence that underpins and goes being consent or NAPis, I think the following:

a) since to Leon, Liberty & Libertarianism = Consent, pure and simple, and b) the issue of institutions is a severable discussion. Gavin c) entangles institutions into the equation and use this entanglement fog the issues and to argue agains Consent. Gavin’s argument is a dishonest, in that it sets up a straw man “consent’. The net result is that Gavin is ultimately saying many things about institutions and nothing about liberty. Leon demonstrates some of my ‘arguments’ as follows, 'consent implies informed consent and that Gavin knows this as a lawyer, therefore Gavin is misleading people by suggesting that consent on its own is not enough and you need institutions or consent or 'consent prior principles', to clarify the meaning and content of consent.

The same applies to all the institutional or grey areas Gavin raises, they still don’t mean that Liberty is not Consent, or that jurisprudence, or some other principle, is the premise on which consent or liberty rests. Nor do the institutional issues Gavin entangles, mean that there is any other thing other than ‘consent’ such as NAP, that founds liberty and libertarianism. Consent is from a libertarian perspective primary, sufficient in itself to describe liberty and libertarainism, everything else is contained in it. When Gavin states that other more fundamental principals gives rise to both consent and its content, that is simply false and misleading and irrational.

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

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

[Trevor Watkins]

This is not a new debate...

The Jolly Libertarian

The Birth of Greek Individualism

Posted: 27 Aug 2018 09:09 PM PDT

The liberal philosopher Isaiah Berlin, in his various writings, talks about three great turning points in the history of political thought. He notes that turning points in the natural sciences are pretty clear-cut. New discoveries and new theories lead to a refutation of old ones. "The method is one of clean refutation."

But this "is conspicuously not the case in the great fields of imprecise knowledge - history, philosophy, scholarship, criticism - ideas about the arts and about the lives of men."

We would not be debating Plato today if his ideas were resoundingly overturned in the sense that a new scientific discovery can overturn an old obsolete one. The ancients also had an interest in science, but their views remain uncontroversial. "Plato's physics or his mathematics may be obsolete, but both Plato's and Aristotle's moral and political ideas are still capable of stirring men to violent partisanship. Karl Popper would not attack Plato's social theories with such fury and indignation if these ideas had no more life to them than, say, Plato's conception of the sun and fixed stars, or Aristotle's doctrine that some bodies have weight and others have lightness."

As he so aptly puts it, no one "feels outraged by medieval notions of cosmology or chemistry."

Berlin considers it a paradox that notions of truth and falsity are fairly clear cut in the natural sciences but not so in the social sciences. All too often, in fact, committed ideologues of whatever persuasion do have a sense of truth and falsity about their fondly held beliefs and this has led to, as Steven Pinker discusses in Enlightenment Now, a growing irrationality, especially in politics. "When issues are not politicized," Pinker avers, "people can be altogether rational."

Which brings us back to the three great turning points in Western political thought that Berlin writes about - "three great crises in Western political theory" in which "at least one category was transformed beyond redemption so all subsequent political thought was altered."

One of these categories was "that man has a discoverable, describable nature, and that this nature is essentially, and not merely contingently, social".

Berlin gives a lively account of how this first pillar of Western political thought was challenged in an essay called The Birth of Greek Individualism, included as an auxiliary chapter in Liberty, an expanded version of his classic Four Essays on Liberty. It happened in the Fourth Century BC.

 

The Birth of Greek Individualism

"It is by now a well-worn commonplace that the Greeks of the classical period, and in particular Athens and Sparta in the fifth century BC, conceived of human beings in essentially social terms," writes Berlin. 

Greek drama and history as recorded by Herodotus and Thucydides "take for granted that the natural life of men is the institutionalized life of the polis," he writes. "The notion of resistance to it - in the name of individual liberty or even peaceful retreat from the market-place into private life - is scarcely conceived." The Greek word Idiotes, he notes, means "private citizen". A "person concerned with his own private affairs at the expense of those of the city" was literally an idiot. 

Berlin notes that the two foremost philosophers of the time - Plato and Aristotle - both shared this view. "The emphasis on social values is overwhwelming in their works". He quotes Aristotle: "One should say not that a citizen belongs to himself but that all belong to the polis: for the individual is part of the polis". 

To be sure, Aristotle "qualifies this thesis: there can be such a thing as too much uniformity in the city". Nevertheless, the "virtues that Aristotle discusses are largely the characteristics of human beings in their intercourse with each other within a social context: the ideal figure of the generous, distinguished, rich, public-spirited man with a wide liberal outlook, great dignity and sweep, raised above the heads of the ordinary middle-class citizens, is not conceivable save in the terms of a well-organized, ordered society". 

"Man has been created by nature to live in a polis," writes Aristotle in the Politics. 

Plato shared this view though he is critical of Greek democracy. He is concerned with creating a "society in which the wise man - Socrates - will not be put to death". Plato's views share the belief that "men cannot and should not live outside the State". 

Socrates, Berlin notes, was not condemned because he opposed the state, but because he was "preaching doctrines which made for the rule by an elite, a rational elite perhaps, but still, superior persons raised above the ordinary citizenry, oligarchs who believed in their own superior values and not in equality or majority votes". 

"This was not political detachment but active subversion of a particular type of political life," Berlin continues. Socrates was considered a traitor. In the Crito, Berlin notes, Socrates hypothesizes the Laws of Athens speaking to him and telling him that "he is a child and a slave of the laws... It is the duty of the citizen to obey - there is no question of opting out of such a commitment. The citizen owes more to the laws than to his physical parents... The claims of the social texture are supreme." (Berlin's paraphrase) 

Further, "there is nothing which Plato is more bitterly opposed to than 'a society in which men are allowed to do whatever they like'". (The Republic) Berlin quotes a famous passage from the Laws: "The principal thing is that none, man or woman, should ever be without an officer set over him, and that none should get the mental habit of taking any step, whether in earnest or in jest, on his own individual responsibility. In peace and in war he must live always with his eye on his superior officer, following his lead and guided by him in his smallest actions.... In a word, he must train the mind not even to consider acting as an individual or to know how to do it." 

Unlike Aristotle who believed morals were deducible from politics, Plato wanted to impose his brand of morality on politics. His was an idealist vision but as Berlin notes "Plato clearly thinks of men in a social context." Regardless of whether the cart comes before the horse, both believed in the horse, so to speak.

There is an idea of balance and order here. As Berlin puts it, "when disintegration sets in and men find themselves on their own, that causes degeneration, abnormality. The norm is the equilibrium of forces and characteristics embodied in the city. The worst and most corrosive of vices - injustice - is the upsetting of this equilibrium. The best constitutions are those which keep things in balance, preserve the pattern, and create the framework within which men can socially - and, therefore, morally and intellectually - realize themselves. Men's characters are defined in terms of the kind of society for which they were created by nature."

Such opposition as existed to this paradigm was one over form, not content. "It is an appeal from one social morality to another, not from a social morality to an individual one."

Berlin discusses some of this opposition, noting that "there is no trace here of genuine individualism, the doctrine that there are personal values - pleasure, or knowledge, or friendship, or virtue, or self-expression in art or life - to which political and social arrangements should be subordinated." Everything relates to the polis.

Even the supreme egoist Callicles in Plato's Gorgias "demands despotism, not individualism".

Pericles funeral speech for the war dead where he recites these stirring words: "we live as free citizens, both in our public life and in our attitude to one another in the affairs of daily life; we are not angry with our neighbour if he behaves as he pleases, we do not cast sour looks at him, which if they can do no harm nevertheless can cause pain," is mis-interpreted by some to be an expression of the idea of individual rights according to Berlin. He sees it as an expression of the idea that "we do not need compulsion. What other States have to force their citizens to do, ours perform because they are truly devoted to their city, because they are spontaneously loyal, because their lives are bound up with the city, in which they all have faith and pride."

It is a subtle distinction. But as Berlin argues, "It is a far cry from this to the assertion of the rights of the individual. Schoolboys, however lightly ruled, have no rights against the masters."

However attractive Pericles ideals may be, "they are not identical either with individualism or (a much later state of human development) with the notion of the right of the individual against encroachment by the state."

But then something changed. Sixteen years after the death of Aristotle in 322 BC, "Epicurus began to teach in Athens, and after him Zeno, a Phoenician from Kition in Cyprus. Within a few years theirs are the dominant philosophical schools in Athens. It is as if political philosophy had suddenly vanished away." (Zeno, founder of Stoicism, is not to be confused with Zeno of Elea, famous for his paradox.)

"Personal ethics," he goes on, "are no longer a branch of politics, the whole no longer precedes the parts, the notion of fulfillment as necessarily social and public disappears without a trace. Within twenty years or less we find, in place of hierarchy, equality; in place of emphasis on the superiority of specialists, the doctrine that any man can discover the truth for himself and live the good life as well as any other man".

Berlin continues stressing that the Epicurean and Stoic revolution challenged tradition. Instead of the "organic firing-in of all their parts and functions, there is a world without national or city frontiers," a world where the commitment to politics ("taken for granted by all the major thinkers of the previous age") gives way to "total detachment".

The emphasis is on the personal, the individual, not the public or social. "Above all constant stress on the fact that the highest of all values is peace of soul, individual salvation." And salvation comes not from gradual changes but "by sudden conversion - a shining of the inner light." Berlin compares it to "the sudden puritanism following the Elizabethan Age."

For Epicurus, notes Berlin, "the State hardly exists". His focus is on escaping pain. The goal is "happiness, peace, inner harmony". Hence Epicureanism teaches a sense of asceticism. Don't pursue wealth, power, recognition. Focus on the inner self.

Berlin notes ironically that "Epicurus preaches passionately, as a man who wishes to suppress all passions as sources of pain and trouble, against what today is called an engagé attitude to politics." On the contrary, he suggests the private life, a simple life of personal friendships and simple pleasures is the good life.

Even justice should not be seen as an end in itself but as a means "to avoiding too much friction with others, of getting along," a way "for human beings not to get in each other's way too much."

"There are two ways of being happy," notes Berlin, "by satisfying desires and by eliminating them". Epicurus believed the latter was the true path to happiness because it was wholly within our control. "Independence is everything: the two great Epicurean words are autarkeia and ataraxia - self-sufficiency and imperturbability."

Berlin summarizes the Epicurean philosophy thus: "You have not long to live and might as well arrange yourself as comfortably as possible in your own corner of the world. If you do not interfere with others, or envy or hate them, or seek to alter their lives against their wishes, or try for power, you will get by".

It is a doctrine of rationalism, utilitarianism and personal relationships as the supreme good. "It is a form of retreat in depth, retreat into the inner citadel of the inviolable inner soul, so protected by fortitude and reason that nothing can upset it, or wound it, or throw it off its balance".

Berlin cites a quote from the novelist E.M. Forster as the epitome of "a militant expression of the Epicurean creed". Forster said just prior to WWII, "If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country".  This was, argues Berlin, "a total reversal of previous Greek beliefs".

Berlin next considers the Stoics. He tells us Zeno and the Stoics were more influential than the Epicureans and also much more radical. It involved not just an asceticism, but a certain fatalism. "To understand the world truly is to understand that everything in it is necessary," comments Berlin, "and what you call evil is an indispensable element in a larger harmony. To achieve this understanding is to cease to feel the common desires, fears, hopes of mankind, and dedicate yourself to a life led in accordance with reason or nature - which to Zeno are the same, for nature is the embodiment of the laws of universal reason."

"If pain is part of the design," continues Berlin, "it must be embraced." Today the word "stoic" means "a person who can endure pain or hardship without showing their feelings or complaining". (Google Dictionary)

The Stoic ideal, notes Berlin, is apathia - passionlessness. "The Stoic sage is impassive, dry, detached, invulnerable; he alone is king, priest, master, god".

Commenting on the politics of the early Stoics, Berlin notes that "Only the wise can live in peace and concord. They can live in any city; it doesn't matter where, for being passionless they will feel no special attachment to any body of men. The ideal dwelling-place will have no temples to the gods, no statues of them, no law courts, no gymnasia, no armies or warships or money, for the wise do not need these things; if you live in the light of reason, the conflicts, the fears and hopes that lead to the erection of these institutions will melt away".

He goes on to quote Zeno to the effect that "We should not live by cities or demes, severally according to our own idea of what is just, but should consider that all men are demesmen and fellow citizens; there should be one life and one world, just as of a herd feeding together, nurtured by a common pasture". In a footnote, Berlin remarks that the Greek word for "pasture" also means "law".

"What is plain is that while Plato and Aristotle desired to organize, to create and preserve an order....Zeno wishes to abolish this."

Zeno and his followers also advocated extreme licentiousness: "Sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, incest, the eating of human flesh, permission to do anything that is not forbidden by physis - nature - for all contrary rules and traditions and habits, when examined, will be found to be artificial and irrational". Undoubtedly, had mind-altering drugs been available to the ancient Greeks, the Stoics would have supported their use as well.

Elaborating on this, Berlin writes: "When you look into yourself... you will find some rules are graven upon your heart by nature herself, while others are mere human inventions, ephemeral and directed to irrational ends, nothing to the wise man".

Berlin notes that some have said Zeno "believed in a world State," and certainly his comment about the herd nurtured by a common pasture seems to indicate this, but Berlin says this is a misinterpretation. Zeno "has no interest in the State at all. In sharp contradiction to Plato and Aristotle, he believes that wisdom is to be learned and exercised not in the ideal polis, but in a world filled with wise men".

Although we can't avoid society altogether, Zeno opposes the earlier notion that ethics are "deducible from society". In fact, "the proper route is the other way about: to regulate public affairs in accordance with the rules of private morality".

"The distance between the Epicurean ataraxia - imperturbability - and the Stoic apathia - passionlessness - is not great," he adds. "Whatever their differences, they were as one against the public world of Plato and Aristotle and the major Sophists. The break is immense and the consequences great. For the first time the idea gains ground that politics is a squalid occupation, not worthy of the wise and the good. The division of ethics and politics is made absolute; men are defined in individual terms, and politics, at best, becomes the application of certain ethical principles to human groups, instead of the other way around. Not public order, but personal salvation is all that matters".

Berlin continues for another ten pages, first contemplating how such a sea change in thinking could occur in just two decades, something I won't go into here. Suffice to say that there were some lesser known philosophical forebears of Epicurus and Zeno, including the hedonist Aristippus who reportedly "said that he wished 'neither to rule nor to be ruled'". (Quote is from Xenophon's Memoribilia 2.1) Others include Antisthenes, the Sophist Antiphon, Diogenes and Crates. All, argues Berlin, "marginal figures in the development of Greek culture. But were they indeed marginal?"

Berlin thinks otherwise. "They are the true predecessors of the new individualism".

Berlin ends by summing up the import of Epicurean and Stoic revolution:

"Politics and ethics are divorced. The natural unit is no longer the group... but the individual. His needs, his purposes, his solutions, his fate are what matter". 

"The only genuine life is the inner life; what is outer is expendable. A man is not  man unless his acts are dictated by himself and not forced upon him by a despot from without or by circumstances which he cannot control". 

"The ethics are the ethics of the individual, but this is not the same - and this point is of some importance - as the notion of individual rights or the sacredness of private life." Indeed, Berlin notes that these ideas emerged over a period of centuries. "The notion of freedom from State control... is wholly alien to the ancient world".

Nevertheless, the importance of this revolutionary change in thinking cannot be gainsaid. "This is the moment that marks the birth of the idea that politics is unworthy of a truly gifted man, and painful and degrading to a truly good one... Public and individual values, which had not been discriminated before, now go in different directions and, at times, clash violently". 

Berlin clearly admires this change in thought and defends it against critics who bemoaned "the new age of individualism" as "an age of decadence". Moreover, Berlin argues that much of the thought of Epicurus and Zeno's predecessors has been lost, perhaps even actively suppressed. Most of our knowledge of the pre-Hellenists comes from Aristotle and Plato, witnesses biased by their own statist outlook. 

To critics of the Hellenistic age such as Cornford or Barker, Berlin counters: "The individualism of the Hellenistic age is attributed by these thinkers to men's loneliness in the new mass society. Yet perhaps what they felt was not loneliness, but a sense of suffocation in the polis? Far from being a sad, slow decline, it meant expanding horizons".

This is a fascinating essay. Its relevance to modern libertarianism is clear. 

Trevor Watkins