LP Challenge to GOP
Libertarian Party Headquarters
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
1528 Pennsylvania Avenue SE
Washington DC 20003
-----------------------------------------
For immediate release: January 10, 1995
For additional information:
Bill Winter, Director of Communications
(202) 543-1988
-----------------------------------------
Libertarian Party issues "Challenge to the Republicans"
The Libertarian Party has challenged the Republican Party to live up
to its 1994 campaign promises, and "drastically reduce the size of the federal
government."
In a strongly worded "Challenge to the Republicans" - hand-delivered
to the offices of Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, House Majority Leader
Richard Armey, and Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole - Libertarian Party
National Chair Steve Dasbach urged the GOP to immediately abolish 21 federal
programs, agencies, and policies.
"The ball is in the court of the Republican Party now. The next six
months will determine if Republicans can be trusted to start eliminating or
defunding many of the federal government programs and agencies that have no
place in a free society," said Dasbach.
On the Libertarian Party's 21-item "hit list" were Amtrak, the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Civilian Marksman Program, Steamtown
USA, the National Endowment for the Arts, the Selective Service, the Economic
Development Administration, the Appalachian Regional Commission, Fossil Energy
Research, the Davis Bacon Act, the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the
National Service Program.
Also included were FCC controls on 900 lines and cable TV, subsidized
grazing fees, the space station, the DC Domestic Partners regulation, shipping
quotas and subsidies, the Overseas Marketing Board, the semi-automatic weapons
ban, several "War On Drugs" civil liberties violations, and unnecessary NATO
and UN military spending.
"This is not just some idle wish list," stressed Dasbach. "Legislation
has previously been introduced in the House or Senate to abolish most of the
items on the Libertarian list. In the past, these efforts have been defeated.
Often, many Republican members of Congress failed to support attempts to
abolish these wasteful and useless government programs. Now is the time to
act!"
If fully implemented, the "Challenge to the Republicans" would produce
immediate savings to the taxpayers of at least $4.5 billion, and could
ultimately reduce the federal budget by hundreds of billions of dollars.
"The eyes of the Libertarian Party - and the eyes of all American
voters - will be on the Republicans. How successful will they be? Will they
carry out the mandate given to them by the American voter last November? Will
they drastically reduce the size of the federal government? As America's third
largest political party, we will be closely evaluating the job they do," vowed
Dasbach.
# # #
--
The Libertarian Party America's third largest political party
1528 Pennsylvania Avenue SE (202) 543-1988
Washington DC 20003 Internet: LP...@digex.net
***Send email or call 1-800-682-1776 for free information package by mail***
Heather Downs
>In a strongly worded "Challenge to the Republicans" ... Libertarian Party
>National Chair Steve Dasbach urged the GOP to immediately abolish 21 federal
>programs, agencies, and policies.
>On the Libertarian Party's 21-item "hit list" were Amtrak, the
>Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Civilian Marksman Program, Steamtown
>USA, the National Endowment for the Arts, the Selective Service, the Economic
>Development Administration, the Appalachian Regional Commission, Fossil Energy
>Research, the Davis Bacon Act, the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the
>National Service Program.
>Also included were FCC controls on 900 lines and cable TV, subsidized
>grazing fees, the space station, the DC Domestic Partners regulation, shipping
>quotas and subsidies, the Overseas Marketing Board, the semi-automatic weapons
>ban, several "War On Drugs" civil liberties violations, and unnecessary NATO
>and UN military spending.
Twenty of those items make perfect sense, but what is "DC Domestic
Partners regulation" doing in there? What does it even mean? Surely the
Libertarian Party isn't supporting a *repeal* of whatever domestic
partner legislation exists in Washington, DC? If there is concern over
"special rights" for married people, the proper course of action is to
get the government out of the marriage business *entirely*, not to make
a special attack on a politically weak group when (some) marriage
rights are extended to same-sex couples. I suppose tomorrow I'll see an
LP press release supporting a new bill allowing Christian-owned
businesses to ignore minimum wage laws, the right for males to keep and
bear arms, and a repeal of the income tax for whites only?
Someone please tell me I've totally misunderstood the LP's stance on
this issue, because if I haven't I'll have to get busy writing letters
of apology to all the leftists I laughed at when they accused me of
supporting a "right-wing" party. I'll also have to find some other
party to support...
Heather Downs
Joe Dehn
Heather Downs <rel...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Twenty of those items make perfect sense, but what is "DC Domestic
>Partners regulation" doing in there? What does it even mean? Surely the
>Libertarian Party isn't supporting a *repeal* of whatever domestic
>partner legislation exists in Washington, DC? If there is concern over
According to LP National Chair Steve Dasbach, the "regulation" in question
(which the LP is opposing) is an action by Congress to _overrule_ a
domestic partners bill passed by the local DC government. Perhaps
somebody from DC can provide a more complete explanation.
--
Joe Dehn PO Box 2372, Stanford, CA 94309
jw...@dehnbase.fidonet.org 415-858-1842
Don't blame me -- I voted <a href="http://www.lp.org/lp/">Libertarian</a>
Rich Puchalsky
: lp...@access.digex.net (Libertarian Party Headquarters) writes:
: >Also included were FCC controls on 900 lines and cable TV, subsidized
: >grazing fees, the space station, the DC Domestic Partners regulation, shipping
: Twenty of those items make perfect sense, but what is "DC Domestic
: Partners regulation" doing in there? What does it even mean? Surely the
: Libertarian Party isn't supporting a *repeal* of whatever domestic
: partner legislation exists in Washington, DC? If there is concern over
Yes, it is. The call to repeal the Domestic Partners law was a Republican
gay-bashing standard; Libertarians have apparently picked it up.
: Someone please tell me I've totally misunderstood the LP's stance on
: this issue, because if I haven't I'll have to get busy writing letters
: of apology to all the leftists I laughed at when they accused me of
: supporting a "right-wing" party. I'll also have to find some other
: party to support...
Start writing.
Steve Brinich
> Yes, it is. The call to repeal the Domestic Partners law was a
>Republican gay-bashing standard; Libertarians have apparently picked
>it up.
As you would know if you had done your homework, the measure the LP wants
repealed is a Congressional mandate demanding that DC repeal its local law.
In summary, Mr. Puchlasky has gotten it ass-backwards, as usual.
--
Steve Brinich | If the government wants us | Finger PGP key
ste...@digex.net | to respect the law, | 89B992BBE67F7B2F
GEnie: S.BRINICH | it should set a better example. | 64FDF2EA14374C65
Rich Puchalsky
: >ri...@access2.digex.net (Rich Puchalsky) wrote:
: > Yes, it is. The call to repeal the Domestic Partners law was a
: >Republican gay-bashing standard; Libertarians have apparently picked
: >it up.
: As you would know if you had done your homework, the measure the LP wants
: repealed is a Congressional mandate demanding that DC repeal its local law.
: In summary, Mr. Puchlasky has gotten it ass-backwards, as usual.
What a complete and easily-detected lie. If you look back at the original
press release, you will see "DC Domestic Partners regulation" listed amongst
the government programs to be cut.
All right; get comfirmation from the LP. If they insist that your
interpretation is true, it will show that they are political novies who can't
write a press release. If, as is more likely, they simply were against
DC Domestic Partners because it's a vulnerable government program, I'm
going to make sure that the non-Usenet community hears about this.
Steve Brinich
>interpretation is true, it will show that they are political novies
>who can't write a press release.
On the contrary; this whole thread shows that Mr. Puchlasky can't read
very well, and ran into some comprehension difficulties with the header
which identified the twenty-one items on the list as _Federal_ laws (those
passed by Congress) and made no mention of _local_ laws.
jeffrey woodford
: Also included were FCC controls on 900 lines and cable TV, subsidized
: grazing fees, the space station, the DC Domestic Partners regulation, shipping
: quotas and subsidies, the Overseas Marketing Board, the semi-automatic weapons
: ban, several "War On Drugs" civil liberties violations, and unnecessary NATO
: and UN military spending.
Sigh. Why is the space station being bashed yet again? How are we as
a nation supposed to advance technologically if we don't explore
beyond our horizons? This type of project is just too large for any
private organization to fund. (Same with the supercollider.)
We need a return to *fundamental science* in this nation if we are
ever going to overcome our limitations.
-Jeff
--
Jeffrey N. Woodford | "All the world's indeed a stage, And we are merely
jwoo...@unlinfo.unl.edu | players, Performers and portrayers..." -- Rush
Physical Chemistry Graduate Student, University of Nebraska - Lincoln
DeWayne Filppi
jeffrey woodford <jwoo...@unlinfo.unl.edu> wrote:
>Libertarian Party Headquarters (lp...@access.digex.net) wrote:
>: Also included were FCC controls on 900 lines and cable TV, subsidized
>: grazing fees, the space station, the DC Domestic Partners regulation, shipping
>: quotas and subsidies, the Overseas Marketing Board, the semi-automatic weapons
>: ban, several "War On Drugs" civil liberties violations, and unnecessary NATO
>: and UN military spending.
>
>Sigh. Why is the space station being bashed yet again? How are we as
>a nation supposed to advance technologically if we don't explore
>beyond our horizons? This type of project is just too large for any
>private organization to fund. (Same with the supercollider.)
>
>We need a return to *fundamental science* in this nation if we are
>ever going to overcome our limitations.
>
could buy a space station with a super-collider built in! ;-)
--
DeWayne Filppi finger d...@kaiwan.com for PGP public key
d...@kaiwan.com
Bruce Baugh
>
>Sigh. Why is the space station being bashed yet again? How are we as
>a nation supposed to advance technologically if we don't explore
>beyond our horizons? This type of project is just too large for any
>private organization to fund. (Same with the supercollider.)
For what it's worth, my father retired two years ago after thirty-five
years at Jet Propulsion Labs. Virtually everyone he came in contact with
from Houston and Atlanta hoped devoutly that the space station would be
killed. If it's built, they predict, we'll end up with the Challenger
disaster redux, and for precisely the same reason: Congress long ago
decided to disregard the engineers and let lawyers set about modifying
the design. That's not workable. A great many folks at NASA would very
much like to see their senior administrators say, "You're not going to
approve a safe and useful design, and we won't take the fall for your
meddling. We'll come back when you show some sign of being serious."
A _lot_ of NASA folks are hoping that the new Congress may remove some
of the barriers against private space enterprises, given that NASA has
become essentially useless for the purpose. (One of the things that
motivated Dad to retire at 69 - he'd as soon have kept working - was
the realization that on his last big project, he literally spent more
time in or preparing for design review meetings than designing.)
As for the supercollider, Freeman Dyson points out that the same amount
of money could have funded ten Fermilabs, or a hundred biological
installations, or a thousand geological installations of various kinds.
In every case, had the budget gotten trimmed, something useful could
have emerged. Physics is important, but it's not the only science out
there, and it's gotten a disproportionate chunk of government attention
for a long time.
bru...@teleport.com * Bruce Baugh, posting from but not for Teleport
List Manager, Christlib, where Christianity and libertarianism intersect
(E-mail to majo...@teleport.com, "subscribe christlib" in body)
"The white cells are for loading and unloading only."
Heather Downs
>Heather Downs (rel...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: Twenty of those items make perfect sense, but what is "DC Domestic
>: Partners regulation" doing in there? What does it even mean? Surely the
>: Libertarian Party isn't supporting a *repeal* of whatever domestic
>: partner legislation exists in Washington, DC? If there is concern over
>Yes, it is. The call to repeal the Domestic Partners law was a Republican
>gay-bashing standard; Libertarians have apparently picked it up.
Actually, you are mistaken; my worries were unfounded. I recieved email
from three different members of the Libertarian Party, including LP
National Committee Chairman Steve Dasbach, who assured me that the LP
position was not anti-DP. Here is an excerpt from the long version of
the press release, meant to clarify the LP positions on all the issues
mentioned:
"The Libertarian Party challenges the Republican Party to live
up to its 'libertarian' promises, and immediately abolish or
defund every one of these programs, agencies, and policies,"
said National LP Chair Steve Dasbach.
. . .
* DC Domestic Partners regulation: Specifically prohibits the
District of Columbia from offering domestic partners (unmarried
gay or straight couples) group health insurance, even at higher
premium rates. "The government should not discriminate on the
basis of sexual orientation," said Dasbach. HR 4649, amendment
by Barton (R-TX), July 13, 1994. LP position: Overturn ban, end
government discrimination.
Heather Downs
jeffrey woodford
: jwoo...@unlinfo.unl.edu (jeffrey woodford) wrote:
: >Sigh. Why is the space station being bashed yet again? How are we as
: >a nation supposed to advance technologically if we don't explore
: >beyond our horizons? This type of project is just too large for any
: >private organization to fund. (Same with the supercollider.)
: For what it's worth, my father retired two years ago after thirty-five
: years at Jet Propulsion Labs. Virtually everyone he came in contact with
: from Houston and Atlanta hoped devoutly that the space station would be
: killed. If it's built, they predict, we'll end up with the Challenger
: disaster redux, and for precisely the same reason: Congress long ago
: decided to disregard the engineers and let lawyers set about modifying
: the design. That's not workable. A great many folks at NASA would very
: much like to see their senior administrators say, "You're not going to
: approve a safe and useful design, and we won't take the fall for your
: meddling. We'll come back when you show some sign of being serious."
Well duh. We'd need a real space station, not this "Freedom Lite" BS.
: As for the supercollider, Freeman Dyson points out that the same amount
: of money could have funded ten Fermilabs, or a hundred biological
: installations, or a thousand geological installations of various kinds.
: In every case, had the budget gotten trimmed, something useful could
: have emerged. Physics is important, but it's not the only science out
: there, and it's gotten a disproportionate chunk of government attention
: for a long time.
Really? Sorry if I don't see it the same way, but I would say most of
the emphasis is with biochemistry and pharmaceuticals. In fact it's
rather difficult to get money for physical chemistry research project.
(Yes I am partially crazy for choosing this field! :-) Because all of
the NSF money is going towards developing new drugs.
And besides, physics is THE fundamental science. (By definition.)
: bru...@teleport.com * Bruce Baugh, posting from but not for Teleport
: List Manager, Christlib, where Christianity and libertarianism intersect
: (E-mail to majo...@teleport.com, "subscribe christlib" in body)
: "The white cells are for loading and unloading only."
-Jeff Woodford
Lizard
>
>In article <3fhr44$7...@ralph.vnet.net>, Lizard <liz...@vnet.net> wrote:
>
>>Rich, if the Libertarian candidate for President were to walk on water
>>across Lake Michigan, you would write the headline as "Libertarian
>>Candidate fails in effort to swim."
>
>You stole this line. Jesse Jackson uses it consistently. He may have
>appropriated it also.
I first encountered in a book of political jokes, and the target there
was an Australian newspaper with a pronounced anti-government slant. So
what? It's still a good line. :)
--
Evolution Doesn't Take Prisoners:Lizard
Democracy:The Crude Leading the Crud:Florence King
Misanthropology:The study of why so many people are so stupid, and why
most of them should die, soon!
Mark.O.Wilson
>
>jeffrey woodford <jwoo...@unlinfo.unl.edu> wrote:
>>Sigh. Why is the space station being bashed yet again? How are we as
>
government
>for Gilligan's Island scales up well to a couple of hundred million
people
>living in a complex society where self-reliance has given way to
efficient
>specialization.
You know Tim. You really should refrain from speaking when you knowledge
level is so low. It makes you look like an idiot.
Do you have any evidence that minamalist government is not possible?
Or are you objecting to the fact that under a Libertarian government,
you would no longer be able to steal from those who work, so that
you personally will no longer have to.
>This is one of the reasons Libertarians rarely win election to any
office
>higher than town dog catcher.
Still speaking from ignorance. We have several state legislators. The
number grows with each election.
Mark.O.Wilson
>
>Lizard (liz...@vnet.net) wrote:
>: In article <3fcss3$7...@crcnis3.unl.edu>, jeffrey woodford says...
>: >Sigh. Why is the space station being bashed yet again?
>
>: Because it is being built by the government.
>
>Just because it is being built by the government does not necessarily
>mean that it will be bad. (OK, the current plans aren't too
>promising, but they might change...)
It's not the technology that is being criticized, it is the funding.
If it is funded with stolen money, it is bad.
>: >How are we as
>: >a nation supposed to advance technologically if we don't explore
>: >beyond our horizons?
>
>: We aren't, which is why we need to remove government limits on
scientific
>: research.
>
>So let me get this straight: We aren't moving beyond our horizons, so
>we need to spend *less* money on research. I don't quite follow your
>logic.
Less government money on research.
>: > This type of project is just too large for any
>: >private organization to fund.
>
>: One word:Bullshit.
>
>: Private organizations routinely spend billions -- if not as individual
>: companies, as consortiums. Forget 'pure research' -- there's money to
be made
>: in space, and, as the global economy develops and new resources become
harder
>: and harder to come by (since Third World nations will switch to
capitalism
>: and make it harder for foreign companies to attain monopoly control
over
>: native resources), businesses will reach for space. There's GOLD in
them thar
>: stars!
>
>Well sure private corporations spend billions on R&D. Rightfully so.
>But that's mainly for consumer products research. Making better
>shampoos, etc. And since most corporations are consumer-driven, I
>don't see how many Marketing V.P.'s would be willing to invest huge
>sums of money into a project that won't provide any consumer dividends
>for many many many moons.
You don't get out much do you. Companies can and do, much basic
research.
>: > (Same with the supercollider.)
>: >
>: If it had any practical (profitable) use, it would have been built
already.
>
>What if I told you that there is the potential for profit from a
>supercollider, but it would take years before anybody would know for
>certain, and even then the answer may be "not much"? Do you think you
>could convince a corporation to fund this project?
SOme might. Why do you assume the right to take other peoples money,
without their permission to spend on the things that you want.
>: >We need a return to *fundamental science* in this nation if we are
>: >ever going to overcome our limitations.
>: >
>: Government science is a contradiction in terms:Ayn Rand.
>
>Like it or not, the government funds much of the research at the
>universities in this nation. Open any scientific journal and you'll
>see in the acknowledgement section of most every paper "Funded by the
>NIH" or "Funded by the NSF" etc. And all of these journals are filled
>with new developments in many different fields. But I bet you
>couldn't find a practical use for half of them. Does that mean we
>shouldn't be pursuing them?
It means we shouldn't be funding them with government money.
jeffrey woodford
: In article <3fke1o$g...@crcnis3.unl.edu>, jeffrey woodford says...
: >
: >Lizard (liz...@vnet.net) wrote:
: >: In article <3fcss3$7...@crcnis3.unl.edu>, jeffrey woodford says...
: >: >Sigh. Why is the space station being bashed yet again?
: >
: >: Because it is being built by the government.
: >
: >Just because it is being built by the government does not necessarily
: >mean that it will be bad. (OK, the current plans aren't too
: >promising, but they might change...)
: It's not the technology that is being criticized, it is the funding.
: If it is funded with stolen money, it is bad.
The money is not stolen any more than the $3 I just spent at Burger
King was thievery. In the purest of capitalist senses, we are paying
for goods and services that we receive from the government in the form
of taxes. Sure we don't all agree on what these goods and services
should be. And sure, we may be overcharged for these goods and
services. But we are actually purchasing something with our taxes.
What do we purchase?
- National defense
- An interstate highway system
- Operating expenses for the government
- A judicial system
- A police department
- A fire department
- Etc., Etc.
If you think you're being overcharged, or you think there aren't
enough goods and services, or too many, then that's one thing. But
since ALL of us consume these services on a DAILY basis, then taxation
is NOT thievery. It is the cost of being a citizen in this nation,
just like the cost of a Burger King's Whopper Meal Deal is $2.99 (plus
tax) for those who consume this product.
: >: >How are we as
: >: >a nation supposed to advance technologically if we don't explore
: >: >beyond our horizons?
: >
: >: We aren't, which is why we need to remove government limits on
: scientific
: >: research.
: >
: >So let me get this straight: We aren't moving beyond our horizons, so
: >we need to spend *less* money on research. I don't quite follow your
: >logic.
: Less government money on research.
So the government also spends money on funding for basic research
(through agencies such as the NSF, NIH, DoD research divisions, etc.)
and this has you upset. Well. You may have heard in the news about
one research lab developing "artificial blood" to be used in
emergencies. A lot of this research was no doubt funded by the
government. Another one of the labs here at UNL is going to go out
into the field to test water samples for pesticide contamination.
This project is being funded with government money. The lab I work in
is studying the dynamics of polymeric solutions. Our research is
funded by the government. And when these researchers make a
breakthrough they will benefit all of society.
Just think how much money was spent developing different kinds of
plastics. This money PALES in comparison to the value that plastic
has brought to our society.
If you are willing to forego technological advances like these then I
suppose you should be in favor of cutting NSF et. al. Because if
government-sponsored research money is cut, then many more projects
will go unfunded. There are only so many private foundations to go
around. And corporate R&D divisions engage in consumer-driven
research. All of which are VERY BAD for FUNDAMENTAL research.
And furthermore I'm not sure why you are in favor of cutting money for
research when there are many more larger targets to aim your
Libertarian axe at. NSF's budget is less than CPB's!
: >: > This type of project is just too large for any
: >: >private organization to fund.
: >
: >: One word:Bullshit.
: >
: >: Private organizations routinely spend billions -- if not as individual
: >: companies, as consortiums. Forget 'pure research' -- there's money to
: be made
: >: in space, and, as the global economy develops and new resources become
: harder
: >: and harder to come by (since Third World nations will switch to
: capitalism
: >: and make it harder for foreign companies to attain monopoly control
: over
: >: native resources), businesses will reach for space. There's GOLD in
: them thar
: >: stars!
: >
: >Well sure private corporations spend billions on R&D. Rightfully so.
: >But that's mainly for consumer products research. Making better
: >shampoos, etc. And since most corporations are consumer-driven, I
: >don't see how many Marketing V.P.'s would be willing to invest huge
: >sums of money into a project that won't provide any consumer dividends
: >for many many many moons.
: You don't get out much do you. Companies can and do, much basic
: research.
Ultimately though the research that corporations engage in is
consumer-driven. Else why would they pursue it?
: >: > (Same with the supercollider.)
: >: >
: >: If it had any practical (profitable) use, it would have been built
: already.
: >
: >What if I told you that there is the potential for profit from a
: >supercollider, but it would take years before anybody would know for
: >certain, and even then the answer may be "not much"? Do you think you
: >could convince a corporation to fund this project?
: SOme might. Why do you assume the right to take other peoples money,
: without their permission to spend on the things that you want.
Why do you assume the right to enjoy the fruits of research without
paying for them? Every citizen of this nation enjoys these benefits
every day. If you don't want to pay for them then maybe you should go
live in a cave instead.
: >: >We need a return to *fundamental science* in this nation if we are
: >: >ever going to overcome our limitations.
: >: >
: >: Government science is a contradiction in terms:Ayn Rand.
: >
: >Like it or not, the government funds much of the research at the
: >universities in this nation. Open any scientific journal and you'll
: >see in the acknowledgement section of most every paper "Funded by the
: >NIH" or "Funded by the NSF" etc. And all of these journals are filled
: >with new developments in many different fields. But I bet you
: >couldn't find a practical use for half of them. Does that mean we
: >shouldn't be pursuing them?
: It means we shouldn't be funding them with government money.
What you propose is a lose-lose situation. So the government won't
fund it, and corporations presumably won't fund it either (because it
has no practical use) so the project, which might actually lead in a
practical direction, won't happen. It's a lose for the researcher and
a lose for the taxpayer as well.
You're not a scientist, are you? :-)
Lizard
>
>Mark.O.Wilson (Mark.O...@AtlantaGA.ncr.com) wrote:
>: In article <3fke1o$g...@crcnis3.unl.edu>, jeffrey woodford says...
>: >
>: >Lizard (liz...@vnet.net) wrote:
>: >: In article <3fcss3$7...@crcnis3.unl.edu>, jeffrey woodford says...
>: >: >Sigh. Why is the space station being bashed yet again?
>: >
>: >: Because it is being built by the government.
>: >
>: >Just because it is being built by the government does not necessarily
>: >mean that it will be bad. (OK, the current plans aren't too
>: >promising, but they might change...)
>
>: It's not the technology that is being criticized, it is the funding.
>: If it is funded with stolen money, it is bad.
>
>The money is not stolen any more than the $3 I just spent at Burger
>King was thievery. In the purest of capitalist senses, we are paying
>for goods and services that we receive from the government in the form
>of taxes.
Suppose you were simply billed three dollars a day, every day, whether
you ate a hamburger or not -- or were a vegetarian?
Suppose further that you were told that you had to pay six dollars for a
hamburger, because you had a good job, and the man behind you only had to
pay a quarter, because he was unemployed?
Suppose you found out that Burger King was ONLY going to serve Chicken
Tenders, because 51% of the customers liked them best -- and that you
were going to pay for Chicken Tenders, even if you were allergic to
poultry...but don't fret, because they'd be doing another marketing
survey in two years and, if you're in majority then, everyone will be
forced to eat hamburgers?
--
Evolution Doesn't Take Prisoners:Lizard
Usenet is a marketplace of ideas, but the majority of the vendors have
nothing to sell:Also Lizard
Please Take Note:New Provider! New Address! Same Old Ranting!
Paul Houtz
>Lastly, you equate taxes with extortion. Now this may be a popular
>view of late, but we do need to pay for the services we consume from
>the government. We *do* consume such things as national defense and
>the highway system. Thus I don't think it would be right if we
>*didn't* pay any taxes.
Just to make it clear to everyone, this same silly straw man keeps comin
up over and over again. Most libertarians are willing to pay taxes
to support the legitimate role of government, i.e., national defence
and protecting individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness.
> Clearly taxation to fund a space station is a
>questionable idea. But I firmly believe that it would be in the
>nation's (and actually, humanity's) best interest to build a space
>station, and that any costs that would be incurred would be more than
>repaid by technological advancements made from the knowledge gained.
>(Do you think that the money spent on plastics research was worth it?
>You bet your Tupperware it was!) In the spending bill perhaps there
>could be a clause that the government would get a cut of profits from
>all of the patents that came as a direct result from research
>conducted on the space station, until the bill was repaid. This seems
>reasonable to me.
If you so firmly believe this, then please feel free to contribute
your money to it. That is the best way to demonstrate your
belief.
But why should you wish to strip us of our own judgement by forcing us
to pay for it?
If it is such a good idea, don't you think that it will get off the
ground voluntarily?
By the way, I think it is interesting that many of the same arguments
that are currently being used to argue that taxes are necessary for
entitlement programs, etc., are incredibly similar to arguments that
previously were used to show that the draft was necessary.
However, since we went to an all-volunteer armed forces, it appears
that we have to turn people away who want to be soldiers, and we
have more than we know what to do with, and further more, those people
are happier because they LIKE being soldiers.
Think about it.
Give us a choice about this. Grant us the same right to make up our
own minds that you reserve for yourself.
Mike Huben
>Rich, if the Libertarian candidate for President were to walk on water
>across Lake Michigan, you would write the headline as "Libertarian
>Candidate fails in effort to swim."
More likely this would occur AFTER a libertarian candidate was elected
president, when the pollution grew to the point where it would be safe
to walk on the lake except that it was inflammable.
Mike Huben
(Check out the Critiques Of Libertarianism web page. The URL is
http://draco.centerline.com:8080/~mrh/liber/)
Why reach for the musket when the custard pie will do?
- Lebovitz Button Catalog
Jason P. Sorens
: The money is not stolen any more than the $3 I just spent at Burger
: King was thievery. In the purest of capitalist senses, we are paying
: for goods and services that we receive from the government in the form
: of taxes. Sure we don't all agree on what these goods and services
: should be. And sure, we may be overcharged for these goods and
: services. But we are actually purchasing something with our taxes.
Exactly wrong. When you buy the Big Mac or whatever, you're choosing
what product to buy. With the government, there is no choice. I am
forced to fund the National Endowment for the Arts, NASA, the military...
you name it. It is not voluntary, like market exchange. It's theft,
pure and simple. What if a thief said to you, "I'm going to steal eight
percent of your income, but in exchange you can get it back when you
retire in ... years." Social Security. I doubt you would roll over and
say, "Ok, take my money, this is perfectly legal, and you make me happy
with this service you're providing me." The fact is, the state imposes
taxes on each one of us, whether or not we consent. I don't want to pay
for all the things I do, and I wouldn't mind doing without the "services"
in exchange. But I am not allowed to do that, because I am dealing with
the almighty and sovereign government, before which I must grovel.
: -Jeff
: --
: Jeffrey N. Woodford | "All the world's indeed a stage, And we are merely
: jwoo...@unlinfo.unl.edu | players, Performers and portrayers..." -- Rush
: Physical Chemistry Graduate Student, University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Laissez faire,
Jason P Sorens
"'Tolerance, tolerance,' But you can't tolerate me And so you stereotype
And I keep asking you why The truth is too hard and too true For me to
give it to you And you can hate me but You
Can't
Break
Me!"
-- Precious Death
Mike Huben
It's neither. While I don't expect Heather to accept the arguments of
the Non-Libertarian FAQ, this is too ludicrous (and often repeated) to allow
to remain unchallenged.
[begin]
5. Taxation is theft.
Two simple rebuttals to this take widely different approaches.
The first is that property is theft. The notion behind property is
that A declares something to be property, and threatens anybody
who still wants to use it. Where does A get the right to forcibly
stop others from using it? Arguments about "mixing of labor"
with the resource as a basis for ownership boil down to
"first-come-first-served". This criticism is even accepted by
some libertarians, and is favorably viewed by David Friedman.
This justifies property taxes or extraction taxes on land or
extractable resources if you presume that the government is a
holder in trust for natural resources. (However, most people who
question the creation of property would agree that after the
creation of property, a person is entitled to his earnings. Thus the
second argument)
The second is that taxation is part of a social contract. Essentially,
tax is payment in exchange for services from government. This
kind of argument is suitable for defending almost any tax as part
of a contract. Many libertarians accept social contract (for
example, essentially all minarchists must to insist on a monopoly
of government.) Of course they differ as to what should be IN the
contract.
15. Extortion by the state is no different than extortion by the
Mafia.
This is a prize piece of libertarian rhetoric, because it slides in the
accusation that taxation is extortion. This analogy initially seems
strong, because both are territorial. However, libertarians
consider contractual rental of land by owners (which is also
fundamentally territorial) ethical, and consider coercion of
squatters by those owners ethical. The key difference is who owns
what. The Mafia doesn't own anything to contract about. The
landowner owns the land (in a limited sense.) And the US
government owns rights to govern its territory. (These rights are a
form of property, much as mineral rights are a form of property.
Let's not confuse them with rights of individuals.) Thus, the
social contract can be required by the territorial property holder:
the USA.
16. There's no such thing as rights to govern territory!
You'd have to ignore an awful lot of history to claim this sort of
PROPERTY didn't exist. The US government can demonstrate
ownership of such rights through treaty, purchase, bequeathment
by the original colonies and some other states, and conquest. The
EXACT same sources as all other forms of land ownership in the
US. Also note that governance rights are merely a subset of the
rights that anarcho-libertarians would want landowners to have.
For example, insistence on contractual obedience to regulations
and acceptance of punishment for violations.
[end]
Mike Huben
(Check out the Critiques Of Libertarianism web page. The URL is
http://draco.centerline.com:8080/~mrh/liber/)
"Now, the Libertarian Party, is a *capitalist* party. It's in favor of what
*I* would regard a *particular form* of authoritarian control. Namely, the
kind that comes through private ownership and control, which is an *extremely*
rigid system of domination -- people have to.. people can survive, by renting
themselves to it, and basically in no other way... I do disagree with them
*very* sharply, and I think that they are not..understanding the *fundamental*
doctrine, that you should be free from domination and control, including the
control of the manager and the owner." Noam Chomsky
Chuck Romberger
Boy are you confused!!!
>
>In article <relayerD...@netcom.com>,
>Heather Downs <rel...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>Technically, taxation is extortion, not theft.
>
>It's neither. While I don't expect Heather to accept the arguments of
>the Non-Libertarian FAQ, this is too ludicrous (and often repeated) to allow
>to remain unchallenged.
>
>[begin]
> 5. Taxation is theft.
>
> Two simple rebuttals to this take widely different approaches.
>
> The first is that property is theft. The notion behind property is
> that A declares something to be property, and threatens anybody
> who still wants to use it. Where does A get the right to forcibly
> stop others from using it? Arguments about "mixing of labor"
> with the resource as a basis for ownership boil down to
> "first-come-first-served". This criticism is even accepted by
ALL LAND IN THE 'US' is already owned, your talking about last century!
> some libertarians, and is favorably viewed by David Friedman.
> This justifies property taxes or extraction taxes on land or
Why are you taxing my body (property)
> extractable resources if you presume that the government is a
You didn't presume, you ASSumed.
> holder in trust for natural resources. (However, most people who
What if the "resource" is built of common sand, and a few exotic metals.
Oh yeah, them someone clever comes along and makes doritos chips.
> question the creation of property would agree that after the
> creation of property, a person is entitled to his earnings. Thus the
I am NOT entitled to the earnings of my CHILD. That is the ONLY creation
of new property I KNOW of. Oh yeah, that social security thing says other-
wise. I am entitled to the earnings of my CHILD and GRANDCHILD.
Repeat after me, My primary property is my body!!! It is one of our
countries greatest "natural resources".
> second argument)
You need a first to have a second!
> The second is that taxation is part of a social contract. Essentially,
I didn't sign no stinking contract. Please e-mail ALL interested parties
what "YOU" think is in this "vile" document.
> tax is payment in exchange for services from government. This
What if I don't receive services for payment rendered on a contract?
Can I terminate for non-performance?
> kind of argument is suitable for defending almost any tax as part
> of a contract. Many libertarians accept social contract (for
> example, essentially all minarchists must to insist on a monopoly
What the sam hell does MONOPOLY, a game, have to do with a CONTRACT???
> of government.) Of course they differ as to what should be IN the
> contract.
Show me your non-existant contract, show me anyone who agrees to what is
in it and you will have made ONE point.
> 15. Extortion by the state is no different than extortion by the
> Mafia.
>
> This is a prize piece of libertarian rhetoric, because it slides in the
> accusation that taxation is extortion. This analogy initially seems
> strong, because both are territorial. However, libertarians
> consider contractual rental of land by owners (which is also
Land is not what we are talking about, WE we talking about PROPERTY!!!!!
> fundamentally territorial) ethical, and consider coercion of
> squatters by those owners ethical. The key difference is who owns
> what. The Mafia doesn't own anything to contract about. The
And the government owns everything! EVEN you!
> landowner owns the land (in a limited sense.) And the US
> government owns rights to govern its territory. (These rights are a
> form of property, much as mineral rights are a form of property.
> Let's not confuse them with rights of individuals.) Thus, the
I'm not the one who is confused!
> social contract can be required by the territorial property holder:
> the USA.
>
> 16. There's no such thing as rights to govern territory!
>
> You'd have to ignore an awful lot of history to claim this sort of
> PROPERTY didn't exist. The US government can demonstrate
> ownership of such rights through treaty, purchase, bequeathment
YOU show me one treaty that we haven't torn up when it became
convenient to do so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> by the original colonies and some other states, and conquest. The
> EXACT same sources as all other forms of land ownership in the
> US. Also note that governance rights are merely a subset of the
> rights that anarcho-libertarians would want landowners to have.
> For example, insistence on contractual obedience to regulations
> and acceptance of punishment for violations.
I wish to not have people violate the rights of MY BODY!!!! That means
you too, plus the system that enforces those rights!!!
>
>Mike Huben
>
>(Check out the Critiques Of Libertarianism web page. The URL is
> http://draco.centerline.com:8080/~mrh/liber/)
>
>"Now, the Libertarian Party, is a *capitalist* party. It's in favor of what
WHO the hell told you (Noam) that gem, A capitalist party, snurk snurk!
>*I* would regard a *particular form* of authoritarian control. Namely, the
>kind that comes through private ownership and control, which is an *extremely*
>rigid system of domination -- people have to.. people can survive, by renting
>themselves to it, and basically in no other way... I do disagree with them
>*very* sharply, and I think that they are not..understanding the *fundamental*
>doctrine, that you should be free from domination and control, including the
>control of the manager and the owner." Noam Chomsky
I love Noam, have red many of his works. He see's certain forms of oppresion
as good too. The only problem with domination and control is whom's hand
it is in. Renting oneself to the system is sometimes call producing the
goods I wish to consume.
Alza Corporation
>Mark.O.Wilson (Mark.O...@AtlantaGA.ncr.com) wrote:
[A lot of good debate deleted for the sake of brevity.]
>
>: Less government money on research.
>
>So the government also spends money on funding for basic research
>(through agencies such as the NSF, NIH, DoD research divisions, etc.)
>and this has you upset. Well. You may have heard in the news about
>one research lab developing "artificial blood" to be used in
>emergencies. A lot of this research was no doubt funded by the
>government. Another one of the labs here at UNL is going to go out
>into the field to test water samples for pesticide contamination.
>This project is being funded with government money. The lab I work in
>is studying the dynamics of polymeric solutions. Our research is
>funded by the government. And when these researchers make a
>breakthrough they will benefit all of society.
>
>Just think how much money was spent developing different kinds of
>plastics. This money PALES in comparison to the value that plastic
>has brought to our society.
>
>If you are willing to forego technological advances like these then I
>suppose you should be in favor of cutting NSF et. al. Because if
>government-sponsored research money is cut, then many more projects
>will go unfunded. There are only so many private foundations to go
>around. And corporate R&D divisions engage in consumer-driven
>research. All of which are VERY BAD for FUNDAMENTAL research.
>
>And furthermore I'm not sure why you are in favor of cutting money for
>research when there are many more larger targets to aim your
>Libertarian axe at. NSF's budget is less than CPB's!
>
[More good debate deleted.]
>: It means we shouldn't be funding them with government money.
>
>What you propose is a lose-lose situation. So the government won't
>fund it, and corporations presumably won't fund it either (because it
>has no practical use) so the project, which might actually lead in a
>practical direction, won't happen. It's a lose for the researcher and
>a lose for the taxpayer as well.
>
>You're not a scientist, are you? :-)
>
>-Jeff
The following reply IS from a scientist (and a physical chemist to boot
:)). The question is not whether or not government sponsored research is
good or not, certainly much good has come from government-sponsored
research, but whether or not the government or the market makes better
decisions on the best research to fund. I don't profess to know the
answer but there are good arguments to show the market doing a better
job.
For the first argument it is most illustrative to refer to a book written
in the fifties (I forget the author and title but will post it when I
find it). The jist of the book was that there was great concern that the
pace of technological innovation was becoming too rapid and that society
could not keep up and that this was destabilizing. An eminent scientist
was consulted for ideas to slow the pace of scientific discovery. After
much thought he designed the following system. First, it was necessary
to pool all money for funding scientific inquiry in a government
beauracracy. Second, in order to get money one would have to write a
detailed proposal on the make-up and merits of their particular project.
The result of such a system would be that scientists would spend so much
time writing proposals and fighting to get research funding that there
would be little time for productive research. This author foresaw
exactly the situation that exists today. The reason I chose industrial
over academic science was that while working on my degree I witnessed
first hand the great difficulty the faculty members had in acquiring
funding. One has to write six grant proposals to get one funded.
Second, pooling of research finding into government organizations leads
to the inevitable politicization of the process. One just needs to ask
any immunologist not working on AIDS what can happen to your funding
based upon purely political issues. Cancer and heart disease are the
first and second most prevalent fatal diseases yet AIDS gets far more
funding than the other two combined. The market does a much better job
of assuring that the most pressing problems get the biggest share of the
funding. To use your argument, there are quite a few companies
developing 'blood substitutes'. One might say argue that the basis for
their developing these products was government funded research. However,
giver that the government grabs such a large share of the basic research
funds in this country, it's hard to find a development in which they didn't
have at least a small contribution.
To see how the market operates freely in funding research one must go
back to the period before the cold war, before the government got into
the research business in a big way. Private industry and foundations did
quite a bit of fundamental research. The total government contribution
to the development of the polio vaccine was $0.00. Much of the early
investigation into the fundamental tenets of thermodynamics was done by
those building steam engines for railroads. The competition to build
stronger, faster engines resulted in tremendous research into
thermodynamics. The very unit of power those of us still backward enough
to still use the English system of units use, the horsepower, was chosen
because it was focused on a practical, industrial problem. How many
horses could mechanical pumping machines replace in pumping water out of
coal mines.
To say that if the government doesn't do the research, no one will is
unsubstantiated by history. Oh, well! Gotta go. I hope you'll consider
these arguments. I'd be happy to read any replies.
Steve Prestrelski
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
Vernon R Imrich
|> In article <relayerD...@netcom.com>,
|> Heather Downs <rel...@netcom.com> wrote:
|> >Technically, taxation is extortion, not theft.
Let's strain down the Huben rebuttal:
|> Two simple rebuttals to this take widely different approaches.
|>
|> The first is that property is theft.
Therefore theft/extortion of property cannot exist as a concept PERIOD,
whether by the government or anyone else, since whatever they take from
you was not yours to begin with. (Note also the stupidity of this
argument. How could theft -- a violation of property rights -- exist
or be defined without a concept of property rights to begin with?)
|> The second is that taxation is part of a social contract.
[and who's in the contract...]
|> government owns rights to govern its territory. (These rights are a
|> form of property, much as mineral rights are a form of property.
|> Let's not confuse them with rights of individuals.) Thus, the
|> social contract can be required by the territorial property holder:
|> the USA.
[ok, but on what basis...]
|> You'd have to ignore an awful lot of history to claim this sort of
|> PROPERTY didn't exist. The US government can demonstrate
|> ownership of such rights through treaty, purchase, bequeathment
|> by the original colonies and some other states, and conquest. The
^^^^^^^^
Thus, contracts can be unilaterally imposed without the consent of
those they are imposed on, simply through the force of law, and still
be considered "contracts."
So again, extortion cannot exist as a concept PERIOD, whether by
the government or by anyone, since they can unilaterally impose a
"contract" of their choosing on you for the property in question,
at the very least justifying their claim through the concept of
"conquest" listed above. The two arguments are functionally the same.
Either we can make no claim on property 'a priori, or any claim we could
make is no more valid than any others' claim.
So Mr. Huben's argument is basically:
Taxation is not theft or extortion because neither theft nor
extortion can exist at all.
If this is something you can believe, then you really have found the
libertarian flaw. Good luck to you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| Vernon Imrich | market failure, n. The inabilty of the |
| MIT OE, Rm 5-329b | market to recover from a blow by |
| Cambridge, MA 02139 | intervention. (the Exchange) |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| MIT LP: http://www.mit.edu:8001/activities/libertarians/home.html |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
R.L.Rush
>
> 16. There's no such thing as rights to govern territory!
>
> You'd have to ignore an awful lot of history to claim this sort of
> PROPERTY didn't exist. The US government can demonstrate
> ownership of such rights through treaty, purchase, bequeathment
> by the original colonies and some other states, and conquest. The
> EXACT same sources as all other forms of land ownership in the
> US. Also note that governance rights are merely a subset of the
> rights that anarcho-libertarians would want landowners to have.
> For example, insistence on contractual obedience to regulations
> and acceptance of punishment for violations.
> [end]
[not end]
In the United States, all of the above (treaty, purchase, bequeathment
by the original colonies and some other states, and conquest) are
subordinate to and interpreted by the Constitution of the United States.
In no case, within the Constitution, is the Federal government granted
*any* RIGHTS. The Federal government has *no* RIGHTS. What the
Federal government *does* have, are POWERS. Those POWERS are
derived from and GRANTED to the Federal government BY the States
and the People. The RIGHTS of the People cannot, Constitutionally and
involuntarily, be revoked. Any law, treaty or other instrument calling
for same is unconstitutional, and therefore null-and-void, irrespective
of any success in enforcing it. The enforcement of such an instrument is,
thus, unlawful and tyrranical. The POWERS of the Federal government
*can* be revoked, checked or changed, at will, by the People (or by
their States) via Amendment.
Irrespective of your 'FAQ', one can not demonstrate or cite a single
case of the Federal government having even a single RIGHT. Therefore,
your point 16 refutation is fallacious.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Richard Rush | Richard....@nd.edu
Room 112D Computing Center | University of Notre Dame
Numismatics is not a sexual perversion!
jeffrey woodford
: jeffrey woodford (jwoo...@unlinfo.unl.edu) wrote:
: : The money is not stolen any more than the $3 I just spent at Burger
: : King was thievery. In the purest of capitalist senses, we are paying
: : for goods and services that we receive from the government in the form
: : of taxes. Sure we don't all agree on what these goods and services
: : should be. And sure, we may be overcharged for these goods and
: : services. But we are actually purchasing something with our taxes.
: Exactly wrong. When you buy the Big Mac or whatever, you're choosing
: what product to buy. With the government, there is no choice. I am
: forced to fund the National Endowment for the Arts, NASA, the military...
: you name it. It is not voluntary, like market exchange. It's theft,
: pure and simple.
I was merely talking about the IDEA of taxation. The details are just
that, details. You don't want your money to support NASA or NEA?
Fine. Then work to change the laws. But saying "I'm don't choose to
purchase national defense so thus taxation is thievery" is absurd.
The fact of the matter is:
- Any organized society needs a government to provide for goods and
services that no one person or organization can provide on its own.
- People disagree as to what goods and services the government should
provide, but generally everybody agrees that one of them should be
national defense.
- Since the government is defending us from foreign invasion, then it
should be us who pays the bill through taxation.
You don't want to pay for national defense? Then you can work to
abolish the military if you so wish. But I would recommend moving to
Antarctica if you think you don't need a government to defend you.
: What if a thief said to you, "I'm going to steal eight
: percent of your income, but in exchange you can get it back when you
: retire in ... years." Social Security. I doubt you would roll over and
: say, "Ok, take my money, this is perfectly legal, and you make me happy
: with this service you're providing me."
No I don't like SS either. I didn't say "All taxation is good". SS,
NASA, etc. are just details.
: The fact is, the state imposes
: taxes on each one of us, whether or not we consent. I don't want to pay
: for all the things I do,
Well that's just Too Damn Bad. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
: and I wouldn't mind doing without the "services"
: in exchange. But I am not allowed to do that, because I am dealing with
: the almighty and sovereign government, before which I must grovel.
Fine. Work for a smaller government. Work for a minimalist
government. Work for no government, if you so desire, if you think
you could do without some of the government's services such as
national defense, highways, and police protection. Me, I'm willing to
pay a part of my income for such services.
Mike Huben
Vernon R Imrich <vim...@athena.mit.edu> wrote:
>In article <3gte7f$r...@wcap.centerline.com>, m...@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>|> In article <relayerD...@netcom.com>,
>|> Heather Downs <rel...@netcom.com> wrote:
>|> >Technically, taxation is extortion, not theft.
>
>Let's strain down the Huben rebuttal:
>
>|> Two simple rebuttals to this take widely different approaches.
>|>
>|> The first is that property is theft.
>
>Therefore theft/extortion of property cannot exist as a concept PERIOD,
>whether by the government or anyone else, since whatever they take from
>you was not yours to begin with. (Note also the stupidity of this
>argument. How could theft -- a violation of property rights -- exist
>or be defined without a concept of property rights to begin with?)
Shame on you, Vernon, for such an uncharitable (or more likely blinkered)
interpretation. Try these:
1) Private property is theft of common property.
2) Private property is theft of opportunity of usage of the unowned.
That said, taxation on unproduced resources (or some fraction of produced
property representing value derived from unproduced resources) can be
considered recompense.
>|> The second is that taxation is part of a social contract.
>
> [and who's in the contract...]
>|> government owns rights to govern its territory. (These rights are a
>|> form of property, much as mineral rights are a form of property.
>|> Let's not confuse them with rights of individuals.) Thus, the
>|> social contract can be required by the territorial property holder:
>|> the USA.
>
> [ok, but on what basis...]
>|> You'd have to ignore an awful lot of history to claim this sort of
>|> PROPERTY didn't exist. The US government can demonstrate
>|> ownership of such rights through treaty, purchase, bequeathment
>|> by the original colonies and some other states, and conquest. The
> ^^^^^^^^
>Thus, contracts can be unilaterally imposed without the consent of
>those they are imposed on, simply through the force of law, and still
>be considered "contracts."
Nonsense. Contracts are insisted on by PROPERTY OWNERS: that's not an
imposition by libertarian standards. For example, it doesn't matter how
your landlord acquired his property: he still may insist that you either
contract or vacate and enforce that condition. If you question whether he
is really the owner (say because he acquired it by conquest), YOU are not
automatically owner, nor free to live in your apartment for nothing: the
rights of the real owner would need to be respected, even if he was not
immediately discoverable (someone would be appointed to represent the
owners interests until ownership was resolved.)
As I pointed out, all forms of unproduced property ownership come from these
same sources: treaty, purchase, bequeathment, and conquest. There's hardly
any land in the US that can't be traced to conquests even before the arrival
of Europeans. Only a fraction of the US can be traced to conquest by the
US or the states. And the vast majority of private lands are even more
proximally traced to purchase or bequeathment from states. Thus, you'll
have a hard time overturning state owership on grounds of "conquest" without
overturning the vast majority of private ownership as well.
>So again, extortion cannot exist as a concept PERIOD, whether by
>the government or by anyone, since they can unilaterally impose a
>"contract" of their choosing on you for the property in question,
>at the very least justifying their claim through the concept of
>"conquest" listed above. The two arguments are functionally the same.
>Either we can make no claim on property 'a priori, or any claim we could
>make is no more valid than any others' claim.
"Valid" in what sense? Look up the word. Property by conquest has clearly
been a valid means of attaining unproduced property in most societies for
milennia.
My solution to the problem of ownership of unproduced property is to view it
as commonly owned. This solution resolves various interpretations of "taxation
is theft" and "property is theft" simultaneously. Then the question is how it
is to be administered for the common benefit as best fits the common will.
>So Mr. Huben's argument is basically:
>
> Taxation is not theft or extortion because neither theft nor
> extortion can exist at all.
>
>If this is something you can believe, then you really have found the
>libertarian flaw. Good luck to you.
I'm always amazed at the straw men that can be constructed from the
creative misinterpretation of a statement written for brevity.
Mike Huben
(Check out the Critiques Of Libertarianism web page. The URL is
http://draco.centerline.com:8080/~mrh/liber/)
"...Then anyone who leaves behind him a written manual, and likewise
anyone who receives it, in the belief that such writing will be clear
and certain, must be exceedingly simple-minded..." Plato, _Phaedrus_
Mike Huben
R.L.Rush <Richard....@nd.edu> wrote:
>In article <3gte7f$r...@wcap.centerline.com>, m...@centerline.com (Mike Huben) wrote:
>> 16. There's no such thing as rights to govern territory!
>>
>> You'd have to ignore an awful lot of history to claim this sort of
>> PROPERTY didn't exist. The US government can demonstrate
>> ownership of such rights through treaty, purchase, bequeathment
>> by the original colonies and some other states, and conquest. The
>> EXACT same sources as all other forms of land ownership in the
>> US. Also note that governance rights are merely a subset of the
>> rights that anarcho-libertarians would want landowners to have.
>> For example, insistence on contractual obedience to regulations
>> and acceptance of punishment for violations.
>
>by the original colonies and some other states, and conquest) are
>subordinate to and interpreted by the Constitution of the United States.
>In no case, within the Constitution, is the Federal government granted
>*any* RIGHTS. The Federal government has *no* RIGHTS. What the
>Federal government *does* have, are POWERS. Those POWERS are
>derived from and GRANTED to the Federal government BY the States
>and the People. The RIGHTS of the People cannot, Constitutionally and
>involuntarily, be revoked. Any law, treaty or other instrument calling
>for same is unconstitutional, and therefore null-and-void, irrespective
>of any success in enforcing it. The enforcement of such an instrument is,
>thus, unlawful and tyrranical. The POWERS of the Federal government
>*can* be revoked, checked or changed, at will, by the People (or by
>their States) via Amendment.
>
>Irrespective of your 'FAQ', one can not demonstrate or cite a single
>case of the Federal government having even a single RIGHT. Therefore,
>your point 16 refutation is fallacious.
Wow, this would be a brilliant refutation if only the word "rights" had only
one meaning. Unfortunately, those of us who are somewhat familiar with the
various usages of the word know that it does have more than one meaning.
Section 15 of the FAQ (which, in justice, may not have been included in the
original post) clearly explains WHICH meaning of "rights" I'm talking about:
"These rights are a form of property, much as mineral rights are a form of
property. Let's not confuse them with rights of individuals."
And right in the first sentence, I'm calling "rights to govern territory"
PROPERTY.
I appreciate that you must have gotten an A in your civics class: your brief
and lucid explication of rights and powers is really good. Try to work on
your grade for English comprehension next. :-) I'll try to work on being less
snotty next time.
Mike Huben
(Check out the Critiques Of Libertarianism web page. The URL is
http://draco.centerline.com:8080/~mrh/liber/)
Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of
government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however
it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural
rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.
John Jay in FEDERALIST No. 2
Vernon R Imrich
m...@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
|> (Check out the Critiques Of Libertarianism web page. The URL is
|> http://draco.centerline.com:8080/~mrh/liber/)
|>
Mike, did you ever respond to my question, given your faq, what
actions *could* constitute theft/extortion by government and why?
If taxation is exempt for the reasons you cite, what is not
(or might not be) exempt and why?
For that matter, if anyone has any examples of trading activity
that *could NOT* be considered as "interstate trade" under the
Wickard desicion, I'd be appreciative.
Mike Huben
Vernon R Imrich <vim...@athena.mit.edu> wrote:
>Mike, did you ever respond to my question, given your faq, what
>actions *could* constitute theft/extortion by government and why?
>If taxation is exempt for the reasons you cite, what is not
>(or might not be) exempt and why?
Sorry if I missed your question earlier: between being busy lately and having
my net access down alot, I've not been very attentive.
The answer to your question can be derived simply from the FAQ. Consider the
condominium analogy once again. What actions *could* constitute
theft/extortion by the condo association and why? If condo fees are exempt,
what is not (or might not be) exempt and why?
The answer is theft/extortion are extra-contractual. Not by one party's
interpretation of what the contract means: but by the interpretation of the
third party jointly selected to judge such disputes. For the US, that is the
independent Judiciary branch.
Mike Huben
(Check out the Critiques Of Libertarianism web page. The URL is
http://draco.centerline.com:8080/~mrh/liber/)
"Now, the Libertarian Party, is a *capitalist* party. It's in favor of what
Rich Puchalsky
: jeffrey woodford wrote:
: |> - Any organized society needs a government to provide for goods and
: |> services that no one person or organization can provide on its own.
: IMHO These are the two basic arguments against markets encapsulated neatly
: together. In my experience everything boils down to them.
: 1. Monopolies - no one can provide the services freely because dominant
: providers can exclude others from providing.
: a) because there is limited supply (i.e. "you can't make more")
: b) because coercion can be used to prevent people from generating their
: own supply. (i.e. "I can stop you from making more.")
: 2. Free Riders - no one can provide the services freely because they
: can't deny them to those who would choose not to pay. Used
: to justify all remaining (but possibly competitive) services.
: I've never had a political/economic argument with someone that didn't come
: down to one of the other or both of these issues. 1a is the most
Then you've lived a sheltered life. One common argument against leaving
governmental solutions to markets is that markets are basically amoral.
For instance, markets in human slaves could spring up without governmental
sanction to eliminate them. Most people agree that some limitations on
what the market can buy and sell is desirable; a government is a way of
enforcing a society's moral decisions on the market.
The problem of negative externalities is another common one. Libertarians
generally like to push all such problems off to the courts; i.e. the
government in another form.
Now, these are not arguments about who should provide goods, but even in that
area there are common arguments that don't fall under your categories.
Economy of scale, for instance, favors the government as a providor for
certain services.
Erich Burton
:One common argument against leaving
:governmental solutions to markets is that markets are basically amoral.
Markets do not exist separately from the individuals that comprise them.
Saying the market is amoral is equivalent to saying that the people
are amoral.
There is absolutely no reason to think that the people who make up a market
are less moral than those people who make up a state, and certainly there
are numerous examples of less-than-moral people acting on behalf of others
using the machinery of the state to accomplish great evil.
:For instance, markets in human slaves could spring up without governmental
:sanction to eliminate them.
Do you seriously contend that purchasing a slave is not an immoral act?
I would argue that slavery is immoral regardless of whether it is
approved of by the state (which it often is).
:Most people agree that some limitations on
:what the market can buy and sell is desirable; a government is a way of
:enforcing a society's moral decisions on the market.
An over-reaching government is a way of enforcing someone's moral decisions
on someone else who doesn't share the same morality, that much is clear.
Morality cannot be imposed by force, only tyranny.
__
Erich Burton
William B. Vogt
Mike Huben <m...@centerline.com> wrote:
>In article <3hnfaf$q...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>,
>Vernon R Imrich <vim...@athena.mit.edu> wrote:
>>Mike, did you ever respond to my question, given your faq, what
>>actions *could* constitute theft/extortion by government and why?
>>If taxation is exempt for the reasons you cite, what is not
>>(or might not be) exempt and why?
>The answer is theft/extortion are extra-contractual. Not by one party's
>interpretation of what the contract means: but by the interpretation of the
>third party jointly selected to judge such disputes. For the US, that is the
>independent Judiciary branch.
And how does one interpret changes in interpretation? Does the
meaning of the contract actually change when the interpretation
changes? Or do the courts sometimes interpret incorrectly? If
the former, isn't your position that the contract doesn't really
mean anything? If the latter, what is wrong with the assertion
that the court's current interpretation is wrong and that we all
did not _in fact_ agree to the social contract as currently
interpreted?
-- Bill
den...@flowbee.interaccess.com
...
: Morality cannot be imposed by force, only tyranny.
: __
: Erich Burton
Do you have any idea how nonsensical the above statement sounds?
(I'm sure you have an idea of what you *mean* to say, but
that absurd sentence just doesn't cut it.)
Erich Burton
:Erich Burton (ebu...@buphy.bu.edu) wrote:
:
:: Morality cannot be imposed by force, only tyranny.
:
:Do you have any idea how nonsensical the above statement sounds?
:
:(I'm sure you have an idea of what you *mean* to say, but
: that absurd sentence just doesn't cut it.)
OK, how about this:
"Morality is not imposed by force. Tyranny is imposed by force."
Sorry if the previous statement was unclear, I did not intend to imply
that morality could be imposed by tyranny.
__
Erich Burton
Mike Huben
These are problems of ALL CONTRACTS. They are not unique to our social
contract.
No matter what libertarian system you set up, if it allows contracts and
somehow resolves disputes over them, then it will encounter these exact
same PRACTICAL problems. But as long as your libertopia is imaginary, I
guess you can't be bothered to imagine that it is imperfect.
Mike Huben
(Check out the Critiques Of Libertarianism web page. The URL is
http://draco.centerline.com:8080/~mrh/liber/)
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always
so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
-- Bertrand Russell
Ken Creffield
consent to and actually want, at least in principle. They want police,
army, air force, schools, fire brigades, etc.
They "buy" them with their taxes and they entrust politicians with
the task of doing the shopping. Maybe it's the politicians who
are the problem.
We can always be anarchists if we want. There's nothing natural
or God-given about the existence of nations, governments or taxes.
Come on, let's all abandon this government and taxation nonsense and do as
we please. Let the crooks, con men and anarcho-capitalists do as they
please as well. Life will be great.
--
Allan Best
: This seems a pointless debate to me. Taxation is something that most people
: consent to and actually want, at least in principle. They want police,
: army, air force, schools, fire brigades, etc.
: --
Taxation to support the legitimate and constitutional activities of the Federal
Government is certainly not theft or any other crime. Taxation to support the
many unlawful activities of the Federal Government -- activities proscribed by
the Constitution -- is most definitely criminal and theft is the time honored
name of that activity.
aib
William B. Vogt
Mike Huben <m...@centerline.com> wrote:
>In article <3hrcf3$q...@elaine47.Stanford.EDU>,
>William B. Vogt <wili...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>>In article <3hoq4k$h...@wcap.centerline.com>,
>>Mike Huben <m...@centerline.com> wrote:
>>>The answer is theft/extortion are extra-contractual. Not by one party's
>>>interpretation of what the contract means: but by the interpretation of the
>>third party jointly selected to judge such disputes. For the US, that is the
>>>independent Judiciary branch.
>>And how does one interpret changes in interpretation? Does the
>>meaning of the contract actually change when the interpretation
>>changes? Or do the courts sometimes interpret incorrectly? If
>>the former, isn't your position that the contract doesn't really
>>mean anything? If the latter, what is wrong with the assertion
>>that the court's current interpretation is wrong and that we all
>>did not _in fact_ agree to the social contract as currently
>>interpreted?
>These are problems of ALL CONTRACTS. They are not unique to our social
>contract.
What does this have to do with the question I asked? I wasn't pointing
out any "problems" with anything. I'll repeat: If you admit that
the courts sometimes interpret the putative social contract
incorrectly, why do you object to the libertarian contention that they
did not agree to the current interpretation of the social contract?
It's also worthy of note that the courts are part of the government
(as explicitly set out in the central document of the putative
social contract). Thus, they cannot be put forward as a mechanism
of adjudication in the same sense as they are for normal contracts.
The response that normal contracts may have built in adjudication
mechanisms does not suffice, since there is the additional extra
contractual mechanism of the courts to police the adjudication
of the contractual mechanism in these cases.
Finally, even viewing the judiciary as an intra-contractual adjudication
mechanism, it is hardly independent. Imagine a labor agreement
in which the arbitration mechanism had arbitrators appointed by and
paid by the company --- would anyone really call this adjudication
mechanism independent?
>No matter what libertarian system you set up, if it allows contracts and
>somehow resolves disputes over them, then it will encounter these exact
>same PRACTICAL problems. But as long as your libertopia is imaginary, I
>guess you can't be bothered to imagine that it is imperfect.
Right, since contracts cannot be complete, there will always be problems
of interpretation. When parties disagree over the interpretation,
and their dispute is resolved, one party is likely to be unhappy. This
party may even believe that the contract-as-currently-interpreted
is different from the contract-as-originally-agreed-to, and *gasp*
the party may even SAY out loud that they hold this position. Even
more frightening, they may even marshal arguments and evidence for
their position. Happily, some addle-brained idiot will respond that
the party should shut up since obviously they must have agreed to the
current interpretation of the contract, since they signed the original
one.
-- Bill
Rich Puchalsky
: ri...@access2.digex.net (Rich Puchalsky) writes:
: :One common argument against leaving
: :governmental solutions to markets is that markets are basically amoral.
: Markets do not exist separately from the individuals that comprise them.
: Saying the market is amoral is equivalent to saying that the people
: are amoral.
Silly argument. Try this:
Governments do not exist separately from the individuals that comprise them.
Saying the government is amoral is equivalent to saying that the people
are amoral.
The fact is that collections of people behave differently than individual
people.
: :Most people agree that some limitations on
: :what the market can buy and sell is desirable; a government is a way of
: :enforcing a society's moral decisions on the market.
: An over-reaching government is a way of enforcing someone's moral decisions
: on someone else who doesn't share the same morality, that much is clear.
I guess, by your logic, we should repeal all laws against murder and robbery,
right? After all, aren't we using the government to enforce our moral
decisions on the thief or murderer?
: Morality cannot be imposed by force, only tyranny.
Nonsense. Every time we lock up a murderer, we are enforcing a set of morals
on a member of society by using force.
Vernon R Imrich
|> Vernon R Imrich <vim...@athena.mit.edu> wrote:
|> >Mike, did you ever respond to my question, given your faq, what
|> >actions *could* constitute theft/extortion by government and why?
|> >If taxation is exempt for the reasons you cite, what is not
|> >(or might not be) exempt and why?
|> The answer to your question can be derived simply from the FAQ. Consider the
|> condominium analogy once again. What actions *could* constitute
|> theft/extortion by the condo association and why? If condo fees are exempt,
|> what is not (or might not be) exempt and why?
To which I'd respond, if a condo is considered legit solely because of it's
existence, then nothing is theft. Posession IS the law in that case.
People, on the other hand, resist this view. They are attempting to determine
whether a claim is legit outside of the fact of posession.
How does one judge whether a condo's or a government's claim on something
is legit? This is the whole point of libertarians asserting that
"taxation is theft." We're essentially saying, "we don't accept government's
particular claim on this money to be legitimate."
|> The answer is theft/extortion are extra-contractual. Not by one party's
|> interpretation of what the contract means: but by the interpretation of the
|> third party jointly selected to judge such disputes. For the US, that is the
|> independent Judiciary branch.
How is the judicial branch extra-contractual? It's set up by what
you consider the contract to be -- the constitution. How do we judge
the court to be a valid interpreter?
Ogg the caveman carves a stick into a spear. Mogg his neighbor takes
it from him. Who do you side with? It's not obvious. Maybe Mogg
planted the tree from which the stick was taken. Perhaps both should
have it, perhaps neither. That's what the "taxation is theft"
argument is about. We're stating what arrangement we think is "right."
We're stating that we side with the taxpayer's claim not the government's.
It cannot be fundamentally proved or disproved so much as agreed or
not aggreed to. "Taxation is theft" like "War is murder" is designed to
reach out to someone's hopefully shared sense of just and unjust and
strive for consistency. This is where your FAQ fails. It acts as if it
could "disprove" moral (or meta-moral) assertions.
Our sense of what is just and unjust cannot be defined by the
arrangement itself if what we are trying to do is determine
the justice of the arrangement. "Theft" like "bad" is a moral term,
defined outside and prior to any arrangement. The only way to
resolve such disputes is to appeal to a more fundamental moral
area on which the disputing parties agree and strive for consistency
(which in turn relies on shared notions of that). If no such area
exists then no rhetorical solution can exist.
For relativists this means survival of the strongest. For absolutists
this means survival of the "most real" (i.e. "correct") views that
line up with objective reality.
Mike Huben
William B. Vogt <wili...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>In article <3httrs$p...@wcap.centerline.com>,
>Mike Huben <m...@centerline.com> wrote:
>>In article <3hrcf3$q...@elaine47.Stanford.EDU>,
>>William B. Vogt <wili...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>>>In article <3hoq4k$h...@wcap.centerline.com>,
>>>Mike Huben <m...@centerline.com> wrote:
>
>>>>The answer is theft/extortion are extra-contractual. Not by one party's
>>>>interpretation of what the contract means: but by the interpretation of the
>>>third party jointly selected to judge such disputes. For the US, that is the
>>>>independent Judiciary branch.
>
>>>And how does one interpret changes in interpretation? Does the
>>>meaning of the contract actually change when the interpretation
>>>changes? Or do the courts sometimes interpret incorrectly? If
>>>the former, isn't your position that the contract doesn't really
>>>mean anything? If the latter, what is wrong with the assertion
>>>that the court's current interpretation is wrong and that we all
>>>did not _in fact_ agree to the social contract as currently
>>>interpreted?
>
>>These are problems of ALL CONTRACTS. They are not unique to our social
>>contract.
>
>What does this have to do with the question I asked?
It demonstrates that these are not practical problems in the real world.
>I wasn't pointing
>out any "problems" with anything. I'll repeat: If you admit that
>the courts sometimes interpret the putative social contract
>incorrectly, why do you object to the libertarian contention that they
>did not agree to the current interpretation of the social contract?
If a part of the contract is to abide by the court decision, then you are
agreeing in advance to whatever interpretation the court makes, even if it
is mistaken. That's the way real-world arbitration as well as many
libertarian proposals work.
>It's also worthy of note that the courts are part of the government
>(as explicitly set out in the central document of the putative
>social contract). Thus, they cannot be put forward as a mechanism
>of adjudication in the same sense as they are for normal contracts.
>The response that normal contracts may have built in adjudication
>mechanisms does not suffice, since there is the additional extra
>contractual mechanism of the courts to police the adjudication
>of the contractual mechanism in these cases.
>
>Finally, even viewing the judiciary as an intra-contractual adjudication
>mechanism, it is hardly independent. Imagine a labor agreement
>in which the arbitration mechanism had arbitrators appointed by and
>paid by the company --- would anyone really call this adjudication
>mechanism independent?
From the Non-Libertarian FAQ:
9. Other misc. claims denying the social contract.
Some complain "Any contract where the enforcing agency is one
of the contractors is hardly fair." But the U.S. Constitution is a
contract between SEVERAL parties: the three branches of the
government, the states, and citizens. It's a multilateral contract
where every party is subject to enforcement by one or more of the
other parties, and every party is involved in enforcement for at
least one other. This pattern of checks and balances was
specifically designed to deal with precisely this fairness issue.
In practice, this mechanism has proven quite independent.
>>No matter what libertarian system you set up, if it allows contracts and
>>somehow resolves disputes over them, then it will encounter these exact
>>same PRACTICAL problems. But as long as your libertopia is imaginary, I
>>guess you can't be bothered to imagine that it is imperfect.
>
>Right, since contracts cannot be complete, there will always be problems
>of interpretation. When parties disagree over the interpretation,
>and their dispute is resolved, one party is likely to be unhappy. This
>party may even believe that the contract-as-currently-interpreted
>is different from the contract-as-originally-agreed-to, and *gasp*
>the party may even SAY out loud that they hold this position. Even
>more frightening, they may even marshal arguments and evidence for
>their position. Happily, some addle-brained idiot will respond that
>the party should shut up since obviously they must have agreed to the
>current interpretation of the contract, since they signed the original
>one.
Nobody's telling that party to shut up: happily their stupidity will be
obvious. Their stupidity lies either in their original acceptance of the
contract or in their continued acceptance (as in cases like the social
contract, where you can terminate the contract by emmigrating.)
Mike Huben
(Check out the Critiques Of Libertarianism web page. The URL is
http://draco.centerline.com:8080/~mrh/liber/)
"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change
its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety
with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to
combat it." --Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural, 4-Mar-1801
Vernon R Imrich
|> Vernon R Imrich (vim...@athena.mit.edu) wrote:
|> : IMHO These are the two basic arguments against markets encapsulated neatly
|> : together. In my experience everything boils down to them.
|>
|> : 1. Monopolies - no one can provide the services freely because dominant
|> : providers can exclude others from providing.
|> : a) because there is limited supply (i.e. "you can't make more")
|> : b) because coercion can be used to prevent people from generating their
|> : own supply. (i.e. "I can stop you from making more.")
|>
|> : 2. Free Riders - no one can provide the services freely because they
|> : can't deny them to those who would choose not to pay. Used
|> : to justify all remaining (but possibly competitive) services.
|>
|> : I've never had a political/economic argument with someone that didn't come
|> : down to one of the other or both of these issues. 1a is the most
|>
|> Then you've lived a sheltered life. One common argument against leaving
|> governmental solutions to markets is that markets are basically amoral.
|> For instance, markets in human slaves could spring up without governmental
|> sanction to eliminate them. Most people agree that some limitations on
|> what the market can buy and sell is desirable; a government is a way of
|> enforcing a society's moral decisions on the market.
I didn't clarify, so I guess you are allowed. However, I was talking about
PURELY economic arguments. I don't consider the question of whether something
is moral to be an economic question. I was talking about areas in which
people agree that some product is morally desirable, but disagree as to
the nature of its production/delivery/distribution. That is they disagree
on the ECONOMICS not the MORALITY.
|> The problem of negative externalities is another common one. Libertarians
|> generally like to push all such problems off to the courts; i.e. the
|> government in another form.
Who said there would be no government? If by negative externalities
you mean things like pollution, garbage, added costs generally placed on
the whole, then again this is a legal debate and not an economic one.
The question of how violation of established property rights should be
prevented/adjucated is not an economic question. Economics is about who/how
those property rights should be set up in the first place (private,
public, etc.) for some optimal gains.
|> Now, these are not arguments about who should provide goods, but even in that
Only arguments about who should provide goods and how are purely economic.
There are "economics" involved in other things (like the above) but
they are not really the focus of the dispute.
|> area there are common arguments that don't fall under your categories.
|> Economy of scale, for instance, favors the government as a providor for
|> certain services.
That's a free rider argument. (That is, the economics don't work
out for market competitors because they can't bill for it in
relation to the costs.)
Mike Huben
Vernon R Imrich <vim...@athena.mit.edu> wrote:
>In article <3hoq4k$h...@wcap.centerline.com>, m...@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>
>|> Vernon R Imrich <vim...@athena.mit.edu> wrote:
>|> >Mike, did you ever respond to my question, given your faq, what
>|> >actions *could* constitute theft/extortion by government and why?
>|> >If taxation is exempt for the reasons you cite, what is not
>|> >(or might not be) exempt and why?
>
>|> The answer to your question can be derived simply from the FAQ. Consider the
>|> condominium analogy once again. What actions *could* constitute
>|> theft/extortion by the condo association and why? If condo fees are exempt,
>|> what is not (or might not be) exempt and why?
>
>To which I'd respond, if a condo is considered legit solely because of it's
>existence, then nothing is theft. Posession IS the law in that case.
>People, on the other hand, resist this view. They are attempting to determine
>whether a claim is legit outside of the fact of posession.
You're evading the point: I did not make any claims about existence or
posession: I'm asking whether you are indulging in special pleading. Is there
a significant difference you can name that makes the claim of one legitimate
and the claim of the other theft or extortion?
>How does one judge whether a condo's or a government's claim on something
>is legit? This is the whole point of libertarians asserting that
>"taxation is theft." We're essentially saying, "we don't accept government's
>particular claim on this money to be legitimate."
And I'm asking why. If you want to be honest and say "we don't know, it's
just an irrational feeling", then fine: the vast majority of people will
ignore you. But as soon as you claim to have a reason beyond "because we
feel that way", it can be tested against the condo analogy.
>|> The answer is theft/extortion are extra-contractual. Not by one party's
>|> interpretation of what the contract means: but by the interpretation of the
>|> third party jointly selected to judge such disputes. For the US, that is
>|> the independent Judiciary branch.
>
>How is the judicial branch extra-contractual? It's set up by what
>you consider the contract to be -- the constitution.
I didn't say the judicial branch was extra-contractual: I said that theft
and extortion were extra-contractual. In other words, they are requirements
outside of contracts.
>How do we judge the court to be a valid interpreter?
The same way you would choose an arbitrator or court in libertopia: as
part of the contract with the owner or provider of whatever you are
contracting for. And if that owner says "I like X, and if you don't
no deal" then you still have your choice.
>Ogg the caveman carves a stick into a spear. Mogg his neighbor takes
>it from him. Who do you side with? It's not obvious. Maybe Mogg
>planted the tree from which the stick was taken. Perhaps both should
>have it, perhaps neither. That's what the "taxation is theft"
>argument is about. We're stating what arrangement we think is "right."
>We're stating that we side with the taxpayer's claim not the government's.
A mere assertion is not much of an argument: it has very little convincing
power. And even assertions can be examined for internal consistancy, and
in this case, be found wanting. Now, if it is more than a mere assertion,
let's subject your explanation to the condo test.
>It cannot be fundamentally proved or disproved so much as agreed or
>not aggreed to. "Taxation is theft" like "War is murder" is designed to
>reach out to someone's hopefully shared sense of just and unjust and
>strive for consistency. This is where your FAQ fails. It acts as if it
>could "disprove" moral (or meta-moral) assertions.
But your statement is more than just a moral assertion. It makes a claim
of equivalence. "Taxation is bad" is a moral assertion where "bad" is an
adjective. "Taxation is theft" can be (remotely) construed as a moral
assertion, but the vast majority of libertarian usage is as EQUIVALENCE.
That's where my FAQ succeeds. It shows that the prevalent usage (equivalence)
is not valid.
>Our sense of what is just and unjust cannot be defined by the
>arrangement itself if what we are trying to do is determine
>the justice of the arrangement. "Theft" like "bad" is a moral term,
>defined outside and prior to any arrangement. The only way to
>resolve such disputes is to appeal to a more fundamental moral
>area on which the disputing parties agree and strive for consistency
>(which in turn relies on shared notions of that). If no such area
>exists then no rhetorical solution can exist.
The vast majority of people will not accept the idea that "doubleplusungood"
cannot be questioned and analyzed merely because it is moral. And their
valid reason is that they've experienced the flaw in Pascal's Wager: there
are LOTS of alternative moral judgements to choose from. Which one do you
choose? It's not "doubleplusungood" or nothing. And all those alternatives
must compete for acceptance. Most alternatives offer some rationale.
And frankly, I think you have one too, but are ashamed to make it publicly.
Instead you are hiding behind some sort of "gut feeling" claim.
Mike Huben
(Check out the Critiques Of Libertarianism web page. The URL is
http://draco.centerline.com:8080/~mrh/liber/)
"... when people begin to philosophize they seem to think it necessary to make
themselves artificially stupid." Bertrand Russell in "Theory of Knowledge".
John M Hall
>In article <3hovbe$c...@news1.digex.net>, ri...@access2.digex.net (Rich Puchalsky) writes:
>|> area there are common arguments that don't fall under your categories.
>|> Economy of scale, for instance, favors the government as a providor for
>|> certain services.
>
>That's a free rider argument. (That is, the economics don't work
Actually I think it is a monopoly argument. The economy
of scale leads to one producer, subjecting the consumers
to the risk of monopoly pricing. But if you can get a free-
rider argument out of it also, then both of your points
apply to the economy of scale argument.
jh
Erich Burton
:Erich Burton (ebu...@buphy.bu.edu) wrote:
:: ri...@access2.digex.net (Rich Puchalsky) writes:
:: :One common argument against leaving
:: :governmental solutions to markets is that markets are basically amoral.
:
:: Markets do not exist separately from the individuals that comprise them.
:: Saying the market is amoral is equivalent to saying that the people
:: are amoral.
:
:Silly argument. Try this:
:
: Governments do not exist separately from the individuals that comprise them.
: Saying the government is amoral is equivalent to saying that the people
: are amoral.
A market is the sum of the human interactions of the individuals that
comprise the market. In a free market, those interactions are characterized
by an absence of the initiation of force. A market has no power over those
who choose not to participate in it.
A centralized government (a State) can also be characterized as the
interactions of the individuals that comprise the State, but those within
the central government are not equivalent to the entire 'society' that
the government has power over. The governing State is a mechanism by
which some individuals (moral or not) can initiate force against other
individuals. Clearly, the State has power of everyone within a given
territory, whether those individuals consent or not.
:The fact is that collections of people behave differently than individual
:people.
Yes, when individuals act in concert they often act differently than they
would if they were acting alone. This does not absolve them of the ultimate
responsibility for their individual actions, however.
:: :Most people agree that some limitations on
:: :what the market can buy and sell is desirable; a government is a way of
:: :enforcing a society's moral decisions on the market.
:
:: An over-reaching government is a way of enforcing someone's moral decisions
:: on someone else who doesn't share the same morality, that much is clear.
:
:I guess, by your logic, we should repeal all laws against murder and robbery,
:right? After all, aren't we using the government to enforce our moral
:decisions on the thief or murderer?
Prohibiting behavior (where such behavior violates the rights of others)
has nothing whatsoever to do with legislating morality. Morality is a
totally internal measure of what an individual deems is right or wrong.
The State can limit an individual's options or impose penalties for certain
choices, but the State is literally incapable of changing a person's own
morality except in the grossest fashion.
:: Morality cannot be imposed by force, only tyranny.
:
:Nonsense. Every time we lock up a murderer, we are enforcing a set of morals
:on a member of society by using force.
Nonsense yourself. When a murderer is imprisoned, it is because of his
behavior, not his morals. A non-murderer who shares the same morality with
the murderer is not imprisoned if no crime has been committed. When a
murderer is imprisoned, this has nothing to do with changing his morality,
and everything to do with punishment and protecting potential victims.
__
Erich Burton
Rich Puchalsky
Me:
: :: :One common argument against leaving
: :: :governmental solutions to markets is that markets are basically amoral.
: :
: :: Markets do not exist separately from the individuals that comprise them.
: :: Saying the market is amoral is equivalent to saying that the people
: :: are amoral.
: A market is the sum of the human interactions of the individuals that
: by an absence of the initiation of force. A market has no power over those
: who choose not to participate in it.
Oh really? Most markets will influence you no matter where you choose to live
(unlike your choice of national citizenship, which you can change). You can't
avoid participating in certain markets (food, etc.) and more and more
basic commodity prices are being influenced by world prices.
: A centralized government (a State) can also be characterized as the
: interactions of the individuals that comprise the State, but those within
: the central government are not equivalent to the entire 'society' that
: the government has power over. The governing State is a mechanism by
: which some individuals (moral or not) can initiate force against other
: individuals. Clearly, the State has power of everyone within a given
: territory, whether those individuals consent or not.
Let's say I'm in a profession that requires the use of computers. Who has
more power over me, Bill Clinton or Bill Gates? Just how did I consent to
Gates setting the standards that everyone uses and which I have to use if I
expect to get a job? Does that mean that Gates has "initiated force"
against me?
: Prohibiting behavior (where such behavior violates the rights of others)
: has nothing whatsoever to do with legislating morality. Morality is a
: totally internal measure of what an individual deems is right or wrong.
: The State can limit an individual's options or impose penalties for certain
: choices, but the State is literally incapable of changing a person's own
: morality except in the grossest fashion.
OK, so with your sophistry aside you do beleive that the State has the
right to limit or penalize behavior. This clearly can include economic
behavior, and we're back where I started; there are moral reasons why
most people want the state to regulate certain market behavior.
Vernon R Imrich
|> In article <3i1b1q$4...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>,
|> Vernon R Imrich <vim...@athena.mit.edu> wrote:
|> >To which I'd respond, if a condo is considered legit solely because of it's
|> >existence, then nothing is theft. Posession IS the law in that case.
|> >People, on the other hand, resist this view. They are attempting to determine
|> >whether a claim is legit outside of the fact of posession.
|>
|> You're evading the point: I did not make any claims about existence or
|> posession: I'm asking whether you are indulging in special pleading. Is there
|> a significant difference you can name that makes the claim of one legitimate
|> and the claim of the other theft or extortion?
Yes. Who created the property? Furthermore, who created the governors of
that property? This is why I used the cavemen example. In the total absense
of law (or for that matter, in the presense of law they disagree with),
libertarians can still decide who is the owner and who is the thief. Just
as, in the absence of murder laws, we can still define murderers.
|> >"taxation is theft." We're essentially saying, "we don't accept government's
|> >particular claim on this money to be legitimate."
|>
|> And I'm asking why. If you want to be honest and say "we don't know, it's
|> just an irrational feeling", then fine: the vast majority of people will
|> ignore you. But as soon as you claim to have a reason beyond "because we
|> feel that way", it can be tested against the condo analogy.
You are deaf to the reasons, because you do not accept the basis of property
rights in general. There is mixing of labor, creation of value, expression
of personhood, and several other theories that escape me at the moment.
It's not as if this hasn't been covered.
Then, beyond that, there is the discussion of the nature of the current
government's governance rights. That which was granted by the people can
be taken away by the people. The government cannot maintain it's (moral)
rights because it currently has the (legal) rights. Whether morality
is just preference or absolute makes no difference.
|> >How is the judicial branch extra-contractual? It's set up by what
|> >you consider the contract to be -- the constitution.
|>
|> I didn't say the judicial branch was extra-contractual: I said that theft
|> and extortion were extra-contractual. In other words, they are requirements
|> outside of contracts.
Agreed. But since interpretation must come from within the contract,
that interpretation is subject to the higher unilateral reflection of
those it bears upon.
|> >have it, perhaps neither. That's what the "taxation is theft"
|> >argument is about. We're stating what arrangement we think is "right."
|> >We're stating that we side with the taxpayer's claim not the government's.
|> A mere assertion is not much of an argument: it has very little convincing
No one said it was.
|> power. And even assertions can be examined for internal consistancy, and
|> in this case, be found wanting. Now, if it is more than a mere assertion,
|> let's subject your explanation to the condo test.
Frankly, if I found my condo morally wanting for some reason and wanted to
express it, I might very well say "under these conditions these fees are
no more than theft!" The framers more or less did the same thing to their
King. The loyalists didn't buy the ensuing argument, the "patriots" did.
It's use is that of declaration. Stating where we are. As a relativist,
you should know the value of this, since you cannot "prove" moral
preferences. Thus in your understanding, stating "taxation is theft" is a
declaration of certain libertarian moral preferences, namely those regarding
our current (or any) government.
|> But your statement is more than just a moral assertion. It makes a claim
|> of equivalence. "Taxation is bad" is a moral assertion where "bad" is an
|> adjective. "Taxation is theft" can be (remotely) construed as a moral
|> assertion, but the vast majority of libertarian usage is as EQUIVALENCE.
|> That's where my FAQ succeeds. It shows that the prevalent usage (equivalence)
|> is not valid.
Only by assuming alternate descriptions of theft (in one case arguing that
property itself is theft, and in the other arguing that theft over and above
the stipulations of a contract cannot exist).
The point of using "theft" instead of "bad" is to imply the lack of
consent of those who give. Theft is: giving up what is yours
without your consent. All we're saying then is: taxation is giving up
what is yours without your consent. The determination of what is yours
and what constitutes consent is the subject and point of the
ensuing discussion that the claim is intended to envoke.
|> >(which in turn relies on shared notions of that). If no such area
|> >exists then no rhetorical solution can exist.
|>
|> The vast majority of people will not accept the idea that "doubleplusungood"
|> cannot be questioned and analyzed merely because it is moral. And their
|> valid reason is that they've experienced the flaw in Pascal's Wager: there
|> are LOTS of alternative moral judgements to choose from. Which one do you
|> choose? It's not "doubleplusungood" or nothing. And all those alternatives
Agreed. "Taxation is theft" is a means of stating where we are and of
finding out where others are.
|> must compete for acceptance. Most alternatives offer some rationale.
|> And frankly, I think you have one too, but are ashamed to make it publicly.
|> Instead you are hiding behind some sort of "gut feeling" claim.
I don't make it with you because, as I've said, you reject the basis
for property claims to begin with. We have no (or little) shared concepts
of "what justifies ownership." I have long since given up trying to
convince those across so deep an intellectual gap. My point in
addressing you is to show the flaws with your assertions about the
internal consistency/rationale of our claims.
In essense, you argue from the position that only contracts determine
ownership (even unilaterally imposed contracts) and therefore the
social contract invalidates our "taxation is theft" claim. I'm just
pointing out that "taxation is theft" appeals to a sense of ownership
higher than whatever contract stipulations currently exist. It is
in fact a way of stating our disapproval of the current contract.
Holger Skok
Vernon R Imrich <vim...@athena.mit.edu> wrote:
...
>How does one judge whether a condo's or a government's claim on something
>is legit? This is the whole point of libertarians asserting that
>"taxation is theft." We're essentially saying, "we don't accept government's
>particular claim on this money to be legitimate."
...
>We're stating that we side with the taxpayer's claim not the government's.
>It cannot be fundamentally proved or disproved so much as agreed or
>not aggreed to. "Taxation is theft" like "War is murder" is designed to
>reach out to someone's hopefully shared sense of just and unjust and
>strive for consistency. This is where your FAQ fails. It acts as if it
>could "disprove" moral (or meta-moral) assertions.
>Our sense of what is just and unjust cannot be defined by the
>arrangement itself if what we are trying to do is determine
>the justice of the arrangement. "Theft" like "bad" is a moral term,
>defined outside and prior to any arrangement. The only way to
>resolve such disputes is to appeal to a more fundamental moral
>area on which the disputing parties agree and strive for consistency
>(which in turn relies on shared notions of that). If no such area
>exists then no rhetorical solution can exist.
>For relativists this means survival of the strongest. For absolutists
>this means survival of the "most real" (i.e. "correct") views that
>line up with objective reality.
Well, you're making a good point here. In fact, what you are trying to
do in claiming that "taxation is theft" is to convince others to accept
the morality that lies behind that claim. Unfortunately, things are not
as easy as they might look at first glance. What is moral and what is
immoral is not easy to decide at all.
One important differentiation of morality is the following:
One can follow a set of rules that state the moral thing to do.
A rule along the lines of "thou shalt not kill" would have to be
followed just like that. At first glance, that sounds like the good
thing to do, but if you consider certain, not very extreme cases, most
people would alter their evaluation: "Thou shalt not kill a crazed
gunman spraying bullets into a crowded tram"? Few would agree (I hope).
So, in order to make sound moral judgements; in order to arrive at a way
to behave that actually works in that it makes living together with
other humans acting that way comfortable and relatively safe, we will
have to consider the consequences of our actions, not just the immediate
situation. What would be the result of acting /not acting ten minutes
from now? - five years from now? fifty years from now? It's in answering
these questions and weighing the answers that ambiguity and uncertainty
enter. It is precisely at this point that absolute moral rules can fail
miserably.
"Taxation is theft" - maybe, but so is free-riding. What is the value of
peace? What is the value of a prevalent agreement that theft is indeed
bad and should be stopped? You claim that it is possible (if I remember
correctly) to correctly bill every member of society for such services
or prevailing conditions so that free-riding won't be a problem any
more. However, billing people for the services society provides in one
way or another is not any different from taxation. Furthermore, it is
very difficult to exclude people unwilling to contribute from receiving
certain territorial benefits such as defence, fire fighting, pollution
control and the likes. Lastly, it might be too costly in terms of
liberty or invasion of privacy to gather the data needed to correctly
bill people for society's benefits.
Just to give a simple example: billing people for the use of the streets
would make it necessary to record one's movements. You wouldn't want to
be billed a flat fee, would you? That would be akin to taxation and
would therefore constitute theft, wouldn't it? Recording one's movements
on the other hand invites all sorts of misuses - a big brother to know
where you've been? Do you think that that would be a good idea,
conducive to the preservation of our liberties?
Sorry, I'd rather stick to taxation.
If one weighs the benefits and dangers inherent in current, republican
governments and compares them to the benefits and dangers of libertopia
one should end up preferring what we've got - IMO, of course. That
conclusion rests on assumptions about how libertopia will turn out - and
I am quite pessimistic as far as that is concerned. Defenders of
libertopia subscribe to a different view, obviously, but don't you think
that it is unfair to compare real societies to some pie-in-the-sky? The
absolute moral claims, the heated accusations that some libertarians
revel in might sound nice and make the writers feel good and superiour
(Randian autonomy ...?) but they carry very little weight until such
time as the loudmouthed (or rather heavy-fingered ;-) libertarian
disciples decide to live up to their claims. It's easy to denounce
faults - it's much more difficult to avoid them yourself in practice.
Do so, and then get back with us. (and that's not directed against you
personally. I'm thinking of the preachy posters whom I have dealt
insults with. I wish they would put their money where their mouth is)
Ciao,
HSK
--
***********************************************************************
* sk...@itwds1.energietechnik.uni-stuttgart.de *
***********************************************************************
Rich Puchalsky
: have no power over me.
The market has more power, or influence if you prefer, over the average
American than the government does.
Me:
> (unlike your choice of national citizenship, which you can change). You can't
> avoid participating in certain markets (food, etc.) and more and more
> basic commodity prices are being influenced by world prices.
: Since when is there only one market for food?
Try to actually read my post before jerking your keys. I said that world
prices _influence_ local markets, which they undoubtedly do.
Me:
: |> Let's say I'm in a profession that requires the use of computers. Who has
: |> more power over me, Bill Clinton or Bill Gates? Just how did I consent to
: |> Gates setting the standards that everyone uses and which I have to use if I
: |> expect to get a job? Does that mean that Gates has "initiated force"
: |> against me?
: Clinton's power comes by legally forcing you to choose certain options.
: Gates power comes because no one else thinks they can provide you a
: better choice.
Oh really? No better choice for operating system than Windows or DOS?
Certainly not, there are lots of better choices. To understand why society
hasn't settled on one of those objectively better choices, you'd have to
understand some economics. Don't worry, I don't expect you to -- you are
a Libertarian after all.
: The fact that you face limited choices is not significant. It's the
: means by which those choices were limited. Someone limiting your choices
: by deciding not to increase your options is not an act of force over you.
: Someone limiting your choices by preventing you from choosing what you
: would otherwise choose is an act of force over you.
So Gates has not limited my options by driving other products out of the
market? (Understand that I'm not making a serious argument against
Microsoft; I'm trying to get to you to see how silly your ideas are).
: More importantly, Bill Gates power is a consentual power, the same
: kind of power my wife has over me in deciding vacation plans. It is
: a power derived by both parties meeting the values that the other has.
: Your company consents to Microsoft products and Microsoft consents to
: your company when the trade is made (money for product). You consent to
: work for your company, they consent to you (labor for wages). At every
: step the deal will fall through if anyone unilaterally finds the
: deal unacceptable.
And at any stage the deal that you have with your governemnt will fall
through if unacceptable -- you could reject the U.S. government at least
as easily as you could reject Microsoft products while working as a
computer professional.
: Bill Clinton's power can not be stoped by unilateral dissent. He can
: make me buy $400.00 cereal if he gets enough people to support him.
: This is because he can impose a cost on me (jail, taxes, fines, etc.)
: even if I dissent. In the former case, the worst I am is out of
: a box of cereal, which is where I started. In this case, I'm out the
: $396.00 over the $4 maximum price I'd have paid on my own, far worse
: than where I started.
You apparently have a desire to be an American citizen, which gives the
U.S. government leverage over you. If you have the desire to be a
computer professional, Microsoft will have leverage over you. The
government can throw you in jail if you don't pay taxes; Microsoft can cause
you not to be able to get a job in the first place if you don't use their
products. In any case, you can change the officers of the government
more easily than you can change the officers of Microsoft (witness the last
election).
As a liberal I have always supported the Bill of Rights and the other
limitations on U.S. government power. I also support limitations on
corporate power. Let's make a new chart (I'm sure you'll recognize
the form of it :-) ):
Freedom from Government Power Yes Libertarians Liberals
No Conservatives Socialists
No Yes
Freedom from Corporate Power
As you can see, my chart preserves the "traditional" oppositions in
this group of beleifs while making it clear that liberals are the ones
most in favor of freedom.
Erich Burton
I said:
:: A market is the sum of the human interactions of the individuals that
:: by an absence of the initiation of force. A market has no power over those
:: who choose not to participate in it.
ri...@access2.digex.net (Rich Puchalsky) writes:
:Oh really? Most markets will influence you no matter where you choose to live
:(unlike your choice of national citizenship, which you can change).
Influence you? Sure, if you choose to buy your products from the market.
:You can't
:avoid participating in certain markets (food, etc.) and more and more
:basic commodity prices are being influenced by world prices.
You _can_ avoid participating in markets for food -- it's called growing
your own. That you choose not to (usually) is a good indicator that it
is generally more efficient to purchase food and other products from
specialized producers than to be totally self-sufficient. Hardly a
surprising result.
Of _course_ commodity prices are influenced by world prices -- I would be
highly surprised if they weren't. That's because people will generally
shop around for the best prices. If the world market price is lower than
the local price for <foo>, I can make a profit buying from the world market
and selling <foo> locally.
[...]
:Let's say I'm in a profession that requires the use of computers. Who has
:more power over me, Bill Clinton or Bill Gates?
Funny you should mention the two Bills -- I just read a newspaper editorial
that the they played golf together recently. Reportedly, Gates threatened
to move Microsoft offshore if certain anti-trust suits were not resolved
favorably.
Clearly both are influential men, but Clinton has the power to compel others
to do his bidding; Gates, though influential, can only offer people money
(or threaten to withhold money) in order to accomplish his ends.
Even from a purely economic standpoint, Clinton has more influence -- who just
gave Mexico $20B? Does Gates even have $20 billion?
:Just how did I consent to
:Gates setting the standards that everyone uses and which I have to use if I
:expect to get a job? Does that mean that Gates has "initiated force"
:against me?
I don't see how Gates has initiated force against you. By paying other
people to do things he wants?
Gates doesn't have the power to set any standards but his own. If other
people adopt his standards (or allow him to set standards for them) by
buying his products, what business is it of yours? Do you propose to stop
people from buying his products, even though they want to? Sounds like
_you_ want to initiate force against _him_ and his customers.
:: Prohibiting behavior (where such behavior violates the rights of others)
:: has nothing whatsoever to do with legislating morality. Morality is a
:: totally internal measure of what an individual deems is right or wrong.
:: The State can limit an individual's options or impose penalties for certain
:: choices, but the State is literally incapable of changing a person's own
:: morality except in the grossest fashion.
:
:OK, so with your sophistry aside you do beleive that the State has the
:right to limit or penalize behavior.
I recognize the State's _ability_, not necessarily its _right_, to limit
some kinds of behavior. I do not believe that the State has the ability
to micro-manage an individual's morality, however.
__
Erich Burton
John M Hall
>The market has more power, or influence if you prefer, over the average
>American than the government does.
Are you making any claim here that the market is acting
with some particular intent to apply this power to a
specific end? If so, please elaborate. If not, explain
why this is anuy more revelant than the power nature has
over us?
>Oh really? No better choice for operating system than Windows or DOS?
>Certainly not, there are lots of better choices. To understand why society
>hasn't settled on one of those objectively better choices, you'd have to
>understand some economics. Don't worry, I don't expect you to -- you are
>a Libertarian after all.
Why does society need to settle on a particular
operating system? You can already choose one of the
other OSs. The basis on which you "objectively" evaluate
the systems might not be the same as other do, so your
conclusion is suspect from the start -- let's not confuse
economic simplifications, i.e., homogeneous preferences
with reality. Your optimal system might not be mine because
we like to do differnt things or do the same thing in a different
way.
BTW, what part of economics are you alluding to as
the explanation for your market failure?
JH
Mark.O.Wilson
>
>Ken Creffield (K...@porky.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: This seems a pointless debate to me. Taxation is something that most
people
>: consent to and actually want, at least in principle. They want police,
>: army, air force, schools, fire brigades, etc.
>
>: --
>
>Taxation to support the legitimate
Who gets to decide which functions of government are theft?
Those who benefit from them?
If a mugger actually needs the money he takes, does that make it
not theft?
--
Mark.O...@AtlantaGa.ncr.com
It ain't charity if you ain't using your own money.
Just because your mob calls itself a government, does't mean it's
legitimate.
Gun control means hitting your target.
Holger Skok
>the courts sometimes interpret the putative social contract
>incorrectly, why do you object to the libertarian contention that they
>did not agree to the current interpretation of the social contract?
>It's also worthy of note that the courts are part of the government
>(as explicitly set out in the central document of the putative
>social contract). Thus, they cannot be put forward as a mechanism
>of adjudication in the same sense as they are for normal contracts.
>The response that normal contracts may have built in adjudication
>mechanisms does not suffice, since there is the additional extra
>contractual mechanism of the courts to police the adjudication
>of the contractual mechanism in these cases.
>Finally, even viewing the judiciary as an intra-contractual adjudication
>mechanism, it is hardly independent. Imagine a labor agreement
>in which the arbitration mechanism had arbitrators appointed by and
>paid by the company --- would anyone really call this adjudication
>mechanism independent?
It might well be that courts or rather the entire judiciary
misinterpretes the original contract. I've got nothing against
libertarians claiming that that is happening currently. (particularly
since it doesn't concern me over here). But do you also demand to be
allowed to default on all obligations that contract imposes on you?
I'd say that everyone is perfectly justified in demanding that the
social contract respect their human rights. It won't always be simple to
speak up and it will be even more difficult to actually make some
changes in the way societies operate, but one should certainly speak up.
People have done so in the past, people are doing so now. Things like
civil disobedience have been used, the right to demonstrate is protected
to allow people to point out things they consider bad.
The big question is though: Who are you to be wanting to force your
specific interpretation of what your human rights are on others? Or, if
you're less extremist, why do you think you have the right to renedge on
all obligations your social contract imposes on you and still receive
its benefits? Why should anyone respect your rights if you don't respect
theirs, say for example in this right to life that libertarians don't
seem to like. You don't want to contribute to a welfare system
ensuring that even the poorest members of society don't have to starve,
yet you still expect those people to respect the rights you selectively
picked out of the canon of human rights - namely your property rights?
Good luck trying to convince them... ;-)
Your complaints about the judiciary being part of the government and
the resulting lack of independence is a valid one, but impossible to
overcome. The way the judiciary is set up in our societies is a pretty
effective way of making the judges independent of direct political
influence. Supreme justices are appointed for life and can hold their
office until they resign of their own accord. A government official -
and be it the President himself - cannot touch them once they're
appointed. I'd suspect that Richard Nixon was not too happy about that
when it looked as if he would really be impeached.
You should try to look at supreme court decisions in an unbiased
fashion. I don't know many of them (I've heard of Roe vs. Wade), you're
in a much better position to find out. I am convinced that you will find
them to show how well this independence actually functions. You could
also look at other countries for different setups of an independent
judiciary. The recent "mani pulite" investigations which basically
stripped large parts of the Italian elite from political office and
exposed bribery and mafia connections is a prime example of how effective
judicial indepence can be against an executive going wild.
In order for all such setups to work the existence of a CIVIL society is
a precondition.
Tim Starr
>Holger Skok <sk...@itwds2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de> wrote:
>>In article <3i0fgo$o...@elaine35.stanford.edu>,
>>William B. Vogt <wili...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>>>..... I'll repeat: If you admit that
>>>the courts sometimes interpret the putative social contract
>>>incorrectly, why do you object to the libertarian contention that they
>>>did not agree to the current interpretation of the social contract?
>
>>misinterpretes the original contract. I've got nothing against
>>libertarians claiming that that is happening currently. (particularly
>>since it doesn't concern me over here). But do you also demand to be
>>allowed to default on all obligations that contract imposes on you?
>
>it has at any particular time...
Why on earth must it do that?
Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of ISIL,
The International Society for Individual Liberty,
1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; 71034...@compuserve.com
Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com
Harold Brashears
: Holger Skok <sk...@itwds2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de> wrote:
: The way the judiciary is set up in our societies is a pretty
: >effective way of making the judges independent of direct political
: >influence. Supreme justices are appointed for life and can hold their
: >office until they resign of their own accord. A government official -
: >and be it the President himself - cannot touch them once they're
: >appointed. I'd suspect that Richard Nixon was not too happy about that
: >when it looked as if he would really be impeached.
: Federal judges can be impeached. Also, consider FDR's court-
: packing scheme. I'm not familiar w/ Germany's judicial system,
: so I don't know if there are ways around judicial independence
: there or not.
The reference to Richard Nixon is interesting. The Supreme Court
has no constitutional function in impeachment cases. The House
has the sole power of impeachment (Article 1, section2), while
the Senate has the sole power to try impeachments (Article 1,
Section 3).
Regards
Harold
William B. Vogt
Tim Starr <tims...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <3itq0u$a...@elaine51.stanford.edu>,
>William B. Vogt <wili...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>>I sure don't. IMHO, the government must enforce whatever laws
>>it has at any particular time...
>Why on earth must it do that?
For the same reason that I wouldn't subscribe to an inconsistent
enforcement agency --- people are less likely to obey inconsistently
enforced rules, and the gain from having the obedience is
probably greater than the harm of some bad rules.
-- Bill
William B. Vogt
>>>William B. Vogt <wili...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>>
>>>>I sure don't. IMHO, the government must enforce whatever laws
>>>>it has at any particular time...
>>
>>>Why on earth must it do that?
>>
>>enforcement agency --- people are less likely to obey inconsistently
>>enforced rules, and the gain from having the obedience is
>>probably greater than the harm of some bad rules.
>
>deny the possibility of unjust laws? Do you assert that one has any
>obligation to obey unjust laws?
Given a choice between having all obeyed or having only the just
ones obeyed, I would choose the latter. However, I don't believe
that that is a choice we actually confront. It does not seem plausible
that the government's failure to enforce some laws would have no
spillover effect on the compliance with other laws. (I
expressed myself poorly above --- it is not true that I want all
laws obeyed, just all enforced)
I do not deny that unjust laws exist, nor do I assert that one has
any obligation to obey unjust laws; however, I do think the gvt
ought to enforce the unjust laws until said laws are removed ---
for the reasons above stated.
-- Bill
Lee C. Brink
: William B. Vogt (wili...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: >For the same reason that I wouldn't subscribe to an inconsistent
: >enforcement agency
: Why would you subscribe to a consistent enforcement agency?
"The surest way to get a bad law repealed is to strictly enforce it"
I believe it was Lincoln who said that, but I can't remember.
Consistent enforcement has two benefits:
1) If you consistently enforce law X, people will be
less inclined to violate law X because of the
perceived greater risk of being caught.
2) Bad laws get repealed faster because of the uniform
enforcement (Eg: Death penalty sought on ALL
appropriate cases and not on just black defendents,
DWI charges on ALL who violate the law, instead of
just a SMALL fraction, etc).
Lee
+---------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Lee C Brink Office Support Co-ordinator at NPAC |
| l...@nova.npac.syr.edu Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244-4100 |
| 315-443-1722 |
| |
| Please send email to the above address and not to "mailbox.syr.edu" |
| I check that account at most once a week |
| |
| Note: I will post email if appropriate and/or offensive. |
| You have been warned |
+---------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
Tim Starr
William B. Vogt <wili...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>In article <timstarrD...@netcom.com>,
>Tim Starr <tims...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>In article <3j04n8$g...@wisdom.stanford.edu>,
>>William B. Vogt <wili...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>>>In article <timstarrD...@netcom.com>,
>>>Tim Starr <tims...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>In article <3itq0u$a...@elaine51.stanford.edu>,
>>>>William B. Vogt <wili...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>I sure don't. IMHO, the government must enforce whatever laws
>>>>>it has at any particular time...
>>>
>>>>Why on earth must it do that?
>>>
>>>enforced rules, and the gain from having the obedience is
>>>probably greater than the harm of some bad rules.
>>
>>Why on earth would you want all the government's laws obeyed? Do you
>>deny the possibility of unjust laws? Do you assert that one has any
>>obligation to obey unjust laws?
>
>Given a choice between having all obeyed or having only the just
>ones obeyed, I would choose the latter. However, I don't believe
>that that is a choice we actually confront. It does not seem plausible
>that the government's failure to enforce some laws would have no
>spillover effect on the compliance with other laws. (I
>expressed myself poorly above --- it is not true that I want all
>laws obeyed, just all enforced)
Why don't we have the choice of having only the just laws obeyed &
enforced? Are the people incapable of judging the justice of laws for
themselves?
>I do not deny that unjust laws exist, nor do I assert that one has
>any obligation to obey unjust laws; however, I do think the gvt
>ought to enforce the unjust laws until said laws are removed ---
>for the reasons above stated.
I disagree. I think that law-enforcement officers have a duty not to
enforce laws they know to be unjust; prosecutors have a duty not to
prosecute people under laws they know to be unjust; judges & juries
have a duty not to convict or sentence people prosecuted for breaking
laws they know to be unjust.
The alternative is to say that only the legislature may decide whether
laws are just or not, & that people must obey & enforce laws they know
to be unjust. That would make hash of justice.
Holger Skok
Harold Brashears <brsh...@whale.st.usm.edu> wrote:
...
>The reference to Richard Nixon is interesting. The Supreme Court
>has no constitutional function in impeachment cases. The House
>has the sole power of impeachment (Article 1, section2), while
>the Senate has the sole power to try impeachments (Article 1,
>Section 3).
>
>Regards
>Harold
Thanks for the info,
I had had the impression that the president would be tried before the
Supreme Court in impeachment proceedings. Along the lines of the
seperation of powers: impeachment proceedings can be started by
qualified majority in Congress (one or both chambers ?) and would then
be conducted by the Supreme Court. That would have seemed consistent to
me.... Oh well.
So, I assume that the only thing impeachment proceedings allow is to
boot the Prez out of office, right? No punishment in any way, correct?
Criminal charges would be dealt with in the regular courts after the
impeachment succeeded, or how would that work (if, say a president had
been caught embezzling ;-).
Bri Farenell
: In article <3ivflq$o...@server.st.usm.edu>,
: Harold Brashears <brsh...@whale.st.usm.edu> wrote:
: ...
: >The reference to Richard Nixon is interesting. The Supreme Court
: >has no constitutional function in impeachment cases. The House
: >has the sole power of impeachment (Article 1, section2), while
: >the Senate has the sole power to try impeachments (Article 1,
: >Section 3).
: >
: >Regards
: >Harold
: Thanks for the info,
: I had had the impression that the president would be tried before the
: Supreme Court in impeachment proceedings. Along the lines of the
: seperation of powers: impeachment proceedings can be started by
: qualified majority in Congress (one or both chambers ?) and would then
: be conducted by the Supreme Court. That would have seemed consistent to
: me.... Oh well.
: So, I assume that the only thing impeachment proceedings allow is to
: boot the Prez out of office, right? No punishment in any way, correct?
: Criminal charges would be dealt with in the regular courts after the
: impeachment succeeded, or how would that work (if, say a president had
: been caught embezzling ;-).
I believe you are right in the last paragraph. But I was under the
impression that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court served as
judge during the actual impeachment trial in the Senate. I don't believe
s/he serves any other role nor are any other justices involved.
=========BRI FARENELL============FARE...@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU===============
| Bri's WWW hm pg. http://fire.camp.clarkson.edu/students/farenebt/index.html |
| St Lawrence County DA Richard Manning on the death penalty: |
| "I disagree with any statistics that say it won't [act as a deterrent]." |
| US Soccer/Sam's Army in '98...FORZA LAZIO...Major Lg. Soccer in '96 (please!)|
================Hey parents: kids' sports belong to the kids!!=================|
Ken Creffield
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>h
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>h
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>r
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>e
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>d
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>h
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>g
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>o
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>n
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>e
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>o
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>n
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>o
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>o
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>l
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>o
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>n
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>g
--
Tim Starr
Lee C. Brink <lcb...@mailbox.syr.edu> wrote:
>Ram Samudrala (r...@mbisgi.umd.edu) wrote:
>: William B. Vogt (wili...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>
>: >For the same reason that I wouldn't subscribe to an inconsistent
>: >enforcement agency
>
>: Why would you subscribe to a consistent enforcement agency?
>
>
>"The surest way to get a bad law repealed is to strictly enforce it"
>
>I believe it was Lincoln who said that, but I can't remember.
>
>Consistent enforcement has two benefits:
>
> 1) If you consistently enforce law X, people will be
> less inclined to violate law X because of the
> perceived greater risk of being caught.
>
> 2) Bad laws get repealed faster because of the uniform
> enforcement (Eg: Death penalty sought on ALL
> appropriate cases and not on just black defendents,
> DWI charges on ALL who violate the law, instead of
> just a SMALL fraction, etc).
"So long, therefore, as the oppressions of a government are kept within
such limits as simply not to exasperate against it a power greater than
its own... [t]his affords a wide field for tyranny." - Trial by Jury,
THE LYSANDER SPOONER READER, p. 129.
Tim Starr
Holger Skok <sk...@itwds2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de> wrote:
>So, I assume that the only thing impeachment proceedings allow is to
>boot the Prez out of office, right? No punishment in any way, correct?
>Criminal charges would be dealt with in the regular courts after the
>impeachment succeeded, or how would that work (if, say a president had
>been caught embezzling ;-).
All the President's men would shred & erase all the incriminating evidence
& kill off all the witnesses that might testify against him.
Caliban
: >For the same reason that I wouldn't subscribe to an inconsistent
: >enforcement agency
: Why would you subscribe to a consistent enforcement agency?
To have your human rights enforced, probably.
--
Caliban
cal...@gate.net
"Whoever dies with the most skills wins."
Holger Skok
>I disagree. I think that law-enforcement officers have a duty not to
>enforce laws they know to be unjust; prosecutors have a duty not to
>prosecute people under laws they know to be unjust; judges & juries
>have a duty not to convict or sentence people prosecuted for breaking
>laws they know to be unjust.
>The alternative is to say that only the legislature may decide whether
>laws are just or not, & that people must obey & enforce laws they know
>to be unjust. That would make hash of justice.
It's a strange feeling to be agreeing with T. Starr, even if only in
principle. I'd agree with the notion that everybody including judges,
policemen and -women, state prosecutors and the likes, has the
obligation to consider the possibility that one's actions could be
unjust, even if backed by a law.
BUT (big one) it would be have a disintegrative effect on society if
this sort of judgement happened too often. Citizens expect security and
consistence from the judiciary. Whimsical decisions by judges or
prosecutors would be detrimental to the respect for the justice system
that is essential for its functioning. Where private moral judgements
HAVE to enter, though, is in questioning orders and practical
application of the laws. Our courts currently have to deal with the
crimes committed at the German-German border - people trying to leave
East Germany being shot. The Nuremberg trials had to deal with the
atrocities committed against the Jews and other "lesser races" by the
German killing machine. Both cases, although incomparable in scope, raise
the question of the legality of the laws. Is it admissible to obey laws
which are clearly inhumane, which are crimes against humanity in
themselves?
Our judiciary (and the Allied one at Nuremberg) said "No!". Even if
ordered to shoot to kill a person fleeing from the GDR, a border guard
should have had the moral sense to not obey - he could decide to miss
after all. Noone was ever punished for sub-standard marksmanship, after
all. If I recall correctly, a clear verdict of "guilty of aggravated
manslaughter" was returned in the case of a border guard having shot his
already injured and immobilized victim.
So, yes you should question the morality of laws but the executive must
still enforce them and people not obeying them must be sentenced. The
proper measure is the secret of success in this case (success in the
sense of maintaining a just and liveable society).
Ciao,
Tim Starr
Holger Skok <sk...@itwds2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de> wrote:
>In article <timstarrD...@netcom.com>,
>Tim Starr <tims...@netcom.com> wrote:
>...
>>I disagree. I think that law-enforcement officers have a duty not to
>>enforce laws they know to be unjust; prosecutors have a duty not to
>>prosecute people under laws they know to be unjust; judges & juries
>>have a duty not to convict or sentence people prosecuted for breaking
>>laws they know to be unjust.
>
>>The alternative is to say that only the legislature may decide whether
>>laws are just or not, & that people must obey & enforce laws they know
>>to be unjust. That would make hash of justice.
>
>It's a strange feeling to be agreeing with T. Starr, even if only in
>principle.
Careful, you might start liking it. Then you might start doing it more.
Then - IT'D BE ANARCHY!
>...I'd agree with the notion that everybody including judges,
>policemen and -women, state prosecutors and the likes, has the
>obligation to consider the possibility that one's actions could be
>unjust, even if backed by a law.
>
>BUT (big one) it would be have a disintegrative effect on society if
>this sort of judgement happened too often.
A society in which the laws were often judged to be unjust by the people
would deserve to disintegrate. I trust the people to take the fact that
not enforcing unjust laws would tend to reduce people's certainty of
law-enforcement into account when deciding whether to enforce an unjust
law or not - don't you?
>...Citizens expect security and
>consistence from the judiciary. Whimsical decisions by judges or
>prosecutors would be detrimental to the respect for the justice system
>that is essential for its functioning. Where private moral judgements
>HAVE to enter, though, is in questioning orders and practical
>application of the laws. Our courts currently have to deal with the
>crimes committed at the German-German border - people trying to leave
>East Germany being shot. The Nuremberg trials had to deal with the
>atrocities committed against the Jews and other "lesser races" by the
>German killing machine. Both cases, although incomparable in scope, raise
>the question of the legality of the laws. Is it admissible to obey laws
>which are clearly inhumane, which are crimes against humanity in
>themselves?
Not if you can help it.
>Our judiciary (and the Allied one at Nuremberg) said "No!". Even if
>ordered to shoot to kill a person fleeing from the GDR, a border guard
>should have had the moral sense to not obey - he could decide to miss
>after all. Noone was ever punished for sub-standard marksmanship, after
>all.
The U.S. Code of Military Justice specifies that American soldiers have
the positive duty to disobey unjust orders, & a Marine told me that the
higher-ranking officers will usually back up a grunt who refuses to obey
an unjust order from his immediate superior. Also, U.S. infantrymen were
known to frag their officers from time to time when they'd had enough of
being ordered to kill people they had no quarrel with.
>So, yes you should question the morality of laws but the executive must
>still enforce them and people not obeying them must be sentenced.
Even if you find the law unjust? Even if you find the sentence unjust?
Even if you find civil disobedience not only justifiable but necessary?
Not me. I'd willingly trade the certainty that any damn thing the
legislature passes will be enforced to the hilt for the certainty that
any law-enforcement officer, prosecutor, or juror, would veto any law
or application of the law he or she found unjust. I care more about
justice than predictability.
Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of ISIL,
The International Society for Individual Liberty,
1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; 71034...@compuserve.com
http://www.portal.com/~chan/libertarian/isil
ftp://ftp.shell.portal.com/pub/chan/libertarian/isil
John M Hall
>The U.S. Code of Military Justice specifies that American soldiers have
>the positive duty to disobey unjust orders, & a Marine told me that the
>higher-ranking officers will usually back up a grunt who refuses to obey
>an unjust order from his immediate superior. Also, U.S. infantrymen were
I think if you take a good look at the UCMJ you'll
find that "unjust orders" are pretty much defined
within the code, and not subject to the interpretation
of the individual soldier.
Clear something up for me here, Tim. You almost sound
like you are agruing for the individual's freedom to
pick and choose among the rules which constrain his
behavior. This seems to be awefull close to claiming
each should be his own judge. Is this what you are
advocating? If not, what's the distinction?
JH
Harold Brashears
[edited]
: I believe you are right in the last paragraph. But I was under the
: impression that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court served as
: judge during the actual impeachment trial in the Senate. I don't believe
: s/he serves any other role nor are any other justices involved.
You are right, sorry. I shoulda looked it up before I said anything.
I forgot about the Chief Justice serving as impeachment judge during
the senate action.
Regards
Harold
John M Hall
>Right. Same goes for the relationship between natural & positive law. In
>traditional natural law theory, an unjust law is a contradiction in terms,
>strictly speaking, and positive "laws" which are unjust aren't really laws
>which must be obeyed.
Are you familiar with, I believe, Hayek's peice on
"Cosmos and Taxis" by any chance? I have much less
a problem with the natural law view of justice - if
interpreted as a emergant order (Cosmos) - than the
imposed law view of justice - UCMJ (Taxis). But clearly,
if a law is to be just, then what is unjust cannot be law.
It seems that we have little disagreement, other than
how we view the particular example.
Before I drop back out of this thread, let me ask two
final questions -- actually one's more a suggestion
than a question.
Have you seen a book by Albert Hirschman, _Exit, Voice
and Loyalty_? I found it a rather interesting read. Next
question. Do we ever really get out of a state of anarchy?
JH