Politics is an immoral dead-end

[John Edward Mercier]

Isn't a 'marriage license' a misnomer having more to do with property rights?

[Eli]

In my state it's a requirement for a state recognized marriage.  The court may recognize a common law marriage, but the attendant state benefits don't apply.

[Russell Kanning]

Interesting article by Rothbard:

http://www.mises.org/story/2801

Are libertarians anarchists?

[ethanpooley]

I must object vehemently to Vitruvian's original statements. Even if the state is entirely corrupt and has no right to exist or to undertake even one of its functions -- even if it is merely an organization of criminals -- I do not violate the non-aggression principle by paying taxes to it under duress, nor by voicing my preferences for the organization's leadership. Just as when the mafia has an iron grip on my town and comes to my shop to demand "protection" money, I do not violate your natural rights by allowing them to take it. And if they are in the habit, for whatever reason, of asking my opinion when a new Don is chosen I do not violate your natural rights by stating it.

Indirectly making your goals harder to reach is not immoral unless I do so by a violation of the non-aggression principle. There are many words that make the gap seem small -- you might say that I am "participating in" or am "complicit with" the state -- but they only sound that way because they are inexact and imply things that are not true. To participate in some aspect of or conversation about the state does not translate to participation in any aggression that it undertakes. The moral weight of its aggression falls on the hand that holds the gun, and on those individuals who specifically advocated or commanded their actions. It does not fall on one whose only act as a participant was to voice his opposition to those individuals, or to have his money stolen by them, or to voice his preference for the most benevolent out of a lineup of dictators.

It is indeed morally praiseworthy to withhold all aid from the state, even that which you know they will attempt to take by force and to your own detriment, but it is supererogatory. I have no duty to behave in such a fashion. As Thoreau said, "I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad." Thoreau did believe that the payment of taxes constituted some form of allegiance to the state, but ironically that is only because he viewed the state in a better light than you or I; when one views the state as a mere criminal organization one must cease to equate cooperation with endorsement. I do you no wrong when I hand money over to a dictator in light of his superior firepower; it is he who does you wrong when he uses that money to oppress you. The test comes when the dictator commands something of me that is itself a violation of the non-aggression principle, for example commanding me to capture or harm you. At that point I must refuse, cost what it may. I would pass that test. Until then, or until a revolution has some chance of success, I will peacefully pursue my own interests as best I can in the midst of an evil society.

I ask everyone currently involved in political activities (including the so-called Ron Paul Revolution) either to renounce said activities or to provide an airtight moral justification for their actions.

If my actions violate the non-aggression principle then no justification is possible; if they do not, no justification is necessary. Therefore in no event will I be providing a justification of my actions. But if you mean to convince me that they are immoral you must draw a clearer picture for me. Exactly how does my participation in an election constitute aggression against you?

[John Edward Mercier]

It doesn't... it implies 'individual sovereignty' in that you have freely chosen your path and are willing to endure the outcome what ever it may be.
Anarchy implies the pursuit of one's own interest.

[ethanpooley]

It doesn't... it implies 'individual sovereignty' in that you have freely chosen your path and are willing to endure the outcome what ever it may be.
Anarchy implies the pursuit of one's own interest.

I'm confused. Is that a distinction? Is it something about tacit consent? I don't understand what you are trying to tell me.

[John Edward Mercier]

Your acting in your own self-interest... this is the basis of anarchy. No 'State' to direct your actions.

Others are 'imposing' and 'defining' the non-aggression policy... which is a statist act.
Not much different than making a law with popular, but not unanimous support.
Aggression in various formats is an inherently natural human behavior... much like acting in one's own self-interest.

Once philosophy, becomes policy... you've made the jump from a 'mental construct' to a 'social construct'; ala statism.

[ethanpooley]

I don't think we speak the same language. All I am doing is engaging in the a search for the answer to this question:

"How ought I to act?"

If there is no answer then this entire conversation is moot, because being correct is no better than being incorrect. If there is no "ought" then statism isn't any less moral than anarchy, only less pleasant. If there is an answer then I must find it, and I may err in doing so. Furthermore I must by definition apply my answer not only to my own actions, but also to the actions of others. The only way that I can know whether it is permissible to use violence against you, for example, is to determine whether it would be self defense or aggression, and the only way I can know that is to know whether you have breached your own realm of permissible actions. What standard could I apply but the one that I apply to myself as well? I understand that due to unknown errors on my part it may be an incorrect standard, either for me, or for you, or for both of us, but I have nothing else to use so I must do the best that I know. My only alternative is to adopt pacifism so that I can be assured of never leaving my realm of permissible actions.

To get 'statism' out of that most basic philosophical activity of mine, if that is what you are suggesting, is a move I don't understand. My nature as a subjective, sentient entity with limited understanding places me in a tight epistemic spot, especially with regard to ethics. All I can do is the best I can think to do. I don't see what society has to do with this... to me this is by definition an individual activity.

[MaineShark]

To get 'statism' out of that most basic philosophical activity of mine, if that is what you are suggesting, is a move I don't understand. My nature as a subjective, sentient entity with limited understanding places me in a tight epistemic spot, especially with regard to ethics. All I can do is the best I can think to do. I don't see what society has to do with this... to me this is by definition an individual activity.

Don't bother.  J.E.M. thinks that might makes right, and can't imagine that there is anything wrong with that.  He doesn't imagine that voluntary order can exist.

Joe

[Jacobus]

Interesting article by Rothbard:

http://www.mises.org/story/2801

Are libertarians anarchists?

One quote:

Yet [the individualist anarchists] did tend to underestimate the crime problem, and as a result never recognized the need for a fixed libertarian constitution. Without such a constitution, the private judicial process might become truly "anarchic" in the popular sense.

The answer to "are libertarians anarchists?" depends on how one defines government.  While Rothbardians are opposed to general taxation and government regulation, they are not opposed to its enforcement of laws, so long as they agree with those laws.  They support court systems and some form of mechanism for enforcing the decrees of the court. 

This is where I believe Rothbardian libertarians go astray and cannot really claim to be anarchists.  First, I do not classify this as anarchism because a court system that claims enforcement powers is a government, even if it is supported through fees and/or voluntary contributions.

Next, I don't believe the Rothbardian ethics of crime and courts are libertarian.  Framed in terms of rights, his view requires that you give up your rights, or some portion of your rights, if you infringe upon someone else's.  This opens a can of worms to questions that cannot ever be answered: what is the just punishment for crime x?  For in claiming that it is libertarian to force restitution after a crime, the onus is on Rothbard and libertarians to articulate exactly what the correct restitution is for every crime; for to extract "too much" would be to infringe upon the criminal's rights, and "too little" upon the victim's. 

This leads to another quote in his piece:

Here we should note still a third variety of anarchist thought, one completely different from either the collectivists or individualists. This is the absolute pacifism of Leo Tolstoy. This preaches a society where force would not even be used to defend person and property, whether by State or private organizations. Tolstoy's program of nonviolence has influenced many alleged pacifists today, mainly through Gandhi, but the latter do not realize that there can be no genuinely complete pacifism unless the State and other defense agencies are eliminated. This type of anarchism, above all others, rests on an excessively idealistic view of human nature. It could only work in a community of saints.

Rothbard does not say anything against the Tolstoyian ethic, only that it would never work (ironically, a dismissal I am sure Rothbard faced many times in expounding his ideas).  Here is what Tolstoy has to say for himself (The Kingdom of God is Within You, p. 37):

"The question amounts to this: In what way are we to decide men's disputes, when some men consider evil what others consider good, and vice versa?  And to reply that that is evil which I think evil, in spite of the fact that my opponent thinks it good, is not a solution of the difficulty.  There can only be two solutions: either to find a real unquestionable criterion of what is evil or not to resist evil by force.

"The first course has been tried ever since the beginning of historical times, and, as we all know, it has not hitherto led to any successful results.

"The second solution - not forcibly to resist what we consider evil until we have found a universal criterion - that is the solution given by Christ."

Rothbard's approach is the first: to try to hash out the correct, universal laws that ought to be enforced in all human interaction.  Until everyone agrees, though, these ideas lead to violence and war.  Let's consider two groups of libertarians: the pro-choice and the pro-life.  The pro-life decide to enforce their ethic by violently interfering in the surgical procedures (and perhaps also by collecting restitution for the unborn).  If a doctor resists them, they respond with in-kind force (just like any government does) until either the doctor submits or is dead.  The pro-choice group decides to defend the doctors' lives and enforce the ability to provide abortions.

Tolstoy offers a way out of this dilemma, so that our ideas (carried out in theory at least) do not inevitably lead to physical conflict and violence.     

[Vitruvian]

I do not violate the non-aggression principle by paying taxes to it under duress, nor by voicing my preferences for the organization's leadership.

I agree that an act, such as the paying of taxes, cannot be moral or immoral when one is forced at gunpoint to act.  However, as we have discussed in this thread already, the act of voting is a different animal because it is freely chosen.

[MaineShark]

For in claiming that it is libertarian to force restitution after a crime, the onus is on Rothbard and libertarians to articulate exactly what the correct restitution is for every crime; for to extract "too much" would be to infringe upon the criminal's rights, and "too little" upon the victim's.

Not speaking for Rothbard, but the correct restitution for harm done to me, is that which puts me at a state equivalent to that which I was at prior to the harm.  You can't "un-harm" someone, but you can restore them to an equivalent state.

For example, if you walk up to John Doe and punch him in the face, you can never "un-punch" him, but perhaps you could buy him dinner at a nice restaurant, if he feels that the positive thing (nice dinner) would be of equal import to him as the negative effect (punch in the face) was.

The only one who can make that determination is the victim.  What restores one person might not even scratch the surface for another.

Joe

[MaineShark]

I do not violate the non-aggression principle by paying taxes to it under duress, nor by voicing my preferences for the organization's leadership.

I agree that an act, such as the paying of taxes, cannot be moral or immoral when one is forced at gunpoint to act.  However, as we have discussed in this thread already, the act of voting is a different animal because it is freely chosen.

Voicing an opinion is not an aggressive act.

Joe

[Jacobus]

For in claiming that it is libertarian to force restitution after a crime, the onus is on Rothbard and libertarians to articulate exactly what the correct restitution is for every crime; for to extract "too much" would be to infringe upon the criminal's rights, and "too little" upon the victim's.

Not speaking for Rothbard, but the correct restitution for harm done to me, is that which puts me at a state equivalent to that which I was at prior to the harm.  You can't "un-harm" someone, but you can restore them to an equivalent state.

For example, if you walk up to John Doe and punch him in the face, you can never "un-punch" him, but perhaps you could buy him dinner at a nice restaurant, if he feels that the positive thing (nice dinner) would be of equal import to him as the negative effect (punch in the face) was.

The only one who can make that determination is the victim.  What restores one person might not even scratch the surface for another.

Joe

Your example works well in a situation where the victim and the agressor come to an agreement about amends and all parties voluntarily pursue it.  In this situation there is no use of force required to compel restitution. 

But what about the situation where the agressor does not voluntarily agree to amends, or even does not agree that he did anything wrong?  Is it then just to force restitution?  And if yes, what is the correct restitution?   

[MaineShark]

Your example works well in a situation where the victim and the agressor come to an agreement about amends and all parties voluntarily pursue it.  In this situation there is no use of force required to compel restitution. 

But what about the situation where the agressor does not voluntarily agree to amends, or even does not agree that he did anything wrong?  Is it then just to force restitution?  And if yes, what is the correct restitution?

For whom to force restitution?

Joe