Rescinding membership in Free State Project

[d_goddard]

that one time I smoked some pot,

You should fix that 

[d_goddard]

Further more if you look top democrats such as Obama ... That is out right against everything civil liberties are all about in my opinion.

Agreed 100%.
Obama is the man most likely to get full-bore Communism implemented in the USA within our lifetime 

[Sweet Mercury]

Sweet Mercury, I think you will find these two essays quite educational and enlightening, although perhaps disorienting at first.  When I first read Roy Child's argument I was astounded at the conclusion that I was being logically led to accept: market anarchism.  From an Objectivist framework no less!  I never thought it could happen to me, but it did.  Enjoy!

http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=5892.msg103837#msg103837

Interestingly, I just stumbled upon that very essay by Childs last week and read it in full. I think he made a lot of valid points, but I felt that his argument suffered many of the same failings that Rand's do, possibly because he basis his thought on Objectivist presuppositions, which are faulty. Granted, though, it did peak my interest in Rational Anarchy. I have not yet read the Smith essay yet, so I just printed up a copy to read later when I get the time to really devote my attention to it; right now I'm totally absorbing myself in John Stuart Mill's On Liberty.

I wanted to be clear, though, that I have nothing against anarchy as a system. I wouldn't mind it, but I also don't accept the black/white absolutism of all government being inherantly evil no matter what. Now, I'm new to the whole Rational Anarchy idea, but if Child's essay is at all exemplary, I'm not sure that it's proper to even call the sysem "anarchy." Now I have no emotional attatchment or hatred of the word, but I would need to know what he means by "archy" at all. Is "government" even a proper word? Is the authority we speak about one that "governs" the lives of it's citizens? Then I reject it outright. However, the minarchy which I espouse deosn't involve "governing" as we might call it—this "government" exists solely to protect the rights of individual citizens. It's an Agency, not an Authority. What Child's described was similar to what I am describing in that there is no "government," but there is Agency—he merely decentrilizes it, which is fine. The two systems, in their ideal applications, seem more similar than most people would be willing to admit.

In the end, they both have strengths and weaknesses. They are at least similar in one respect: like all government's, the two systems depend entirely on the populace to not degrade into their vulgar counterparts—anarchy into chaos, minarchy into bloated authoritarian bureaucracy. (Degradation of government as an inevitability is a theory I've been nursing for a while now, maybe one day I'll write an essay on it.)

[lildog]

This answer suggests you are more libertarian than conservative.   

I actually see myself as a constitutionalist.  I think we should keep our government within the lines of the constitution. 

I see the need for government so I can't identify with anarchists as I see the need to have some level of protection due to the default setting of human nature.

[FrankChodorov]

but I also don't accept the black/white absolutism of all government being inherantly evil no matter what. ....However, the minarchy which I espouse deosn't involve "governing" as we might call it?this "government" exists solely to protect the rights of individual citizens. It's an Agency, not an Authority

you should definitely take a look at Wendy McElroy's essay on the origin of the state (consent vs. conflict), governance as agency vs. the state, society and privilege as it relates to Nock & Oppenheimer...

http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=237

excerpt:
Two of the most important concepts in any discussion of liberty are state and society. But it is often far from clear what any given person means by those terms. Part of the confusion stems from the fact that the definitions can shift dramatically depending upon the theoretical approach of the speaker. Virtually all individualists agree that there is some distinction to be drawn between a state and a society. But exactly where the line should be drawn has been the subject of active debate, at least since the writings of the seventeenth-century English classical liberal John Locke.

The German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer spearheaded an analysis of these key terms in his classic work, The State (1914). Oppenheimer defined the state as ?that summation of privileges and dominating positions which are brought into being by extra-economic power.? He defined society as ?the totality of concepts of all purely natural relations and institutions between man and man.?1 He contrasted what he termed ?the political means? with ?the economic means? of acquiring wealth or power. The state uses the political means-in other words, force?to plunder and exploit society, which uses the economic means?in other words, cooperation. Thus, for Oppenheimer, the state was the enemy of society.

The American individualist Albert Jay Nock was one of the main conduits of Oppenheimer?s thought into the United States. He captured his mentor?s sentiment in a book titled Our Enemy, The State (1935). Nock wrote, ?Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators, and beneficiaries from those of a professional criminal class.?2 At this point in his argument, however, Nock introduced a third concept into his discussion of liberty: government. Nock?s government is an agency that protects individual rights within society, presumably in exchange for a fee, such as embodied in a reasonable tax rate.

Degradation of government as an inevitability is a theory I've been nursing for a while now, maybe one day I'll write an essay on it.

I would take a good hard look at the role privilege (private law) plays in law-based property vs. labor-based property and how privilege becomes license to steal the labor of those you exclude because man seeks to satisfy his/her desires via the least amount of effort possible.

the way to do that is via the state issuing of privilege whereas governance as agency is constituted to protect individual rights to the fruits of their labor as the logical extension of the right of self-ownership.

[Sweet Mercury]

but I also don't accept the black/white absolutism of all government being inherantly evil no matter what. ....However, the minarchy which I espouse deosn't involve "governing" as we might call it—this "government" exists solely to protect the rights of individual citizens. It's an Agency, not an Authority.

you should definitely take a look at Wendy McElroy's essay on the origin of the state (consent vs. conflict), governance as agency vs. the state, society and privilege as it relates to Nock & Oppenheimer...

http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=237

Another excellent looking article, especially from the excerpt, I'll grab myself a copy of that as well for later. Thank you.

I would take a good hard look at the role privilege (private law) plays in law-based property vs. labor-based property and how privilege becomes license to steal the labor of those you exclude because man seeks to satisfy his/her desires via the least amount of effort possible.

the way to do that is via the state issuing of privilege whereas governance as agency is constituted to protect individual rights to the fruits of their labor as the logical extension of the right of self-ownership.

You are using some terminology that is unfamiliar to me here. How does private law=privilage? And what is the difference between law-based property vs. labor-based property? Does this have to do with how we define the rights to ownership?

If you could elaborate on this point that would be helpful to me.

[FrankChodorov]

You are using some terminology that is unfamiliar to me here. How does private law=privilage? And what is the difference between law-based property vs. labor-based property? Does this have to do with how we define the rights to ownership?

If you could elaborate on this point that would be helpful to me.

sure...

let's breaking down the word privilege.

privi = private
lege = law

now why do you suppose we as a society would grant someone or group privilege if we are all suppose to be equal in the eyes of the law?

if you go back to the above article and read how Nock differentiates between the state and governance (agency) he said that in a state privilege or law-based property rights are used as a license to steal the labor-based property rights of those being excluded as man seeks to satisfy his desire via the least amount of exertion by either economic means (laboring to create wealth) or political means (license to steal wealth)...whereas governance is specifically constituted to protect the labor-based property rights of those being excluded from having their wealth stolen via state granting of privilege/

[Sweet Mercury]

I actually see myself as a constitutionalist.  I think we should keep our government within the lines of the constitution.

The Constitution is libertarian in spirit, at least, in the sense that it doesn't spell out the privilages of government authority, but places strict limits on it.

I believe, however, that there is a glaring flaw, an ommision, in the Constitution: a flaw that leads to such statements as "well, it's ok for the police to drag children from their parents to public schools from homeschooling situations because the majority voted that all children should be publicly indoctrinated" or "you can't built the kind of house you want, or the shed you want, or etc., because the majority voted for such and such a zoning restriction." Essentially, I believe, as I'm sure most people here believe, that there are limits to the authority that a majority opinion, mandate, or official vote can exercise over an individual. The US Constitution doesn't sufficiantly elaborate on this point. People assume that "democracy" or any incarnation of democracy (like representative republicanism) means that the majority can issue whatever mandate it pleases, even to the usurpation of individual natural rights. This is not democracy, it is mob rule, or ochlocracy.

(I was delighted to recently read Mill's thoughts on this very subject, and happy to see that I had independantly come to the same conclusions of such remarkable intellect—mabe I have some potential after all?  In regards to the possible tyranny of the majority, Mill says: "Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandats at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.
...
There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independance; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political oppression"

Of course, Mill's words are far more eloquent than my own, but the point is the same. Our constitution is missing this provision, and I see the dreadful result of that more and more every day.)

Referring again to my idea that all governments, without the educated support of the people, will degrade into their vulgar counterparts, what's happening in this country is proof. People are not educated as to the true nature of democracy or of rights, and as such believe absolutely in the rule of the mob. Ignorance results in degradation. The Constitution, to help slow or prevent this, needs to clearly spell out the limits of "the majorty" in addition to its clear limitations of "government" in general.

I see the need for government so I can't identify with anarchists as I see the need to have some level of protection due to the default setting of human nature.

Interstingly, the "imperfect human nature" argument can be used both in support of or in criticism of both anarchy and the various forms of archy.

[FrankChodorov]

There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independance; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political oppression"

Of course, Mill's words are far more eloquent than my own, but the point is the same. Our constitution is missing this provision, and I see the dreadful result of that more and more every day.

that because there are actually two founding philosophies at play within our constitutionally limited democratic republic and they have two completely different views of individual freedom.

1. Lockean classical liberalism which creates a "procedural" republic based on rights and contracts of autonomous individuals excercising free will

2. Harrington civic republicanism which creates small-scale, participatory, deliberative civic institutions (Jefferson's ward republics) inwhich people can practice virtuous behavior to attain personal liberty.

http://www.fluxfactory.org/otr/levinerepublican.htm

excerpt:
What is Civic Republicanism? Lets us answer this by briefly comparing it to the pale Liberalism mentioned above. Liberalism is a creed which holds that the primary unit of value resides in the exercise of an individual?s free will. This normative thesis rests upon a prior ?anthropological? view about the will and its relationship to society. To have a free will for the liberal does not require cultivation, training, education, etc. Rather, the will is free in a voluntaristic manner, meaning that the freedom or spontaneity of the will is a biologically given capacity. If the will is in its essence unencumbered, it must be the case that the free will constitutes the institutions and structures of society rather then the other way around. Thus, when one shapes the institutions of any society, one should have as one?s main goal the protection of the individual?s ability to exercise themselves freely. In the political sphere this means enacting a set of rights that protect the individual from political tyranny, while in the economic sphere this means elaborating neutral contract and commercial law. Vis-a-vis agents in both spheres, the state should be neutral, safeguarding the individuals ability to operate freely within the constraints of the law.

In contrast, Civic Republicanism does not have as its highest value the exercise of the individual will. Rather, it thinks of freedom as Aristotle and Machiavelli did (at least in The Discourses), namely, as the ability for agents to determine themselves though the exercise of political power. Instead of holding freedom to be the unhindered exercise of our individual capacities?a type of freedom that does not require acting in the political sphere at all?it sees freedom as that which can only be gained through the political. The American twist on this old idea is its abandonment of the polis. For many writers in the Republican tradition it was though that republican government and the virtue necessary for such government was only possible in a small Polis or a city state like Rousseau?s Geneva.  Even at the time of the founding, the US was not fertile ground for such a polis. Republicanism had to be refashioned for a larger state. Madison achieved this though his doctrine of the division of powers. Power would be divided vertically (Federal, State, Local, etc.) and horizontally (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial). This division of power would allow for many overlapping sites of self-determination. And it would have the added benefit that  Robespierre like perversions of the Rousseauian general will would be lessened. Thus, American Republicanism, while still subject to corruption?the main problem in all republics?is more immune to the corruptions of tyranny.

[Sweet Mercury]

You are using some terminology that is unfamiliar to me here. How does private law=privilage? And what is the difference between law-based property vs. labor-based property? Does this have to do with how we define the rights to ownership?

If you could elaborate on this point that would be helpful to me.

sure...

let's breaking down the word privilege.

privi = private
lege = law

now why do you suppose we as a society would grant someone or group privilege if we are all suppose to be equal in the eyes of the law?

if you go back to the above article and read how Nock differentiates between the state and governance (agency) he said that in a state privilege or law-based property rights are used as a license to steal the labor-based property rights of those being excluded as man seeks to satisfy his desire via the least amount of exertion by either economic means (laboring to create wealth) or political means (license to steal wealth)...whereas governance is specifically constituted to protect the labor-based property rights of those being excluded from having their wealth stolen via state granting of privilege/

Thank you, I think I get what your saying. (This will probably all be clearer once I read the article's you mentioned.) If I'm still not getting it, then forgive me in advance for being so thick.

You are using the word "privilege" here as a synonym for law-based property rights? In essence, the use of "government" thuggary to assert rights over property as opposed to the basis of ownership being labor (the product of labor, or the labor over a piece of land). And Nock is drawing a distinction between "The State" and "Government" (as an agency) in a similar fashion to how I was distinguishing between "Government" (as an authority or a body that "governs" people) and Agency.

If I have read you correctly, then I am espousing minarchist government which exists only to protect labor-based property rights as well as human rights.

[eques]

lildog, what I don't really understand is your repeated use of the term "default setting" with respect to human nature.  What exactly do you mean by that?  In practice, human beings are not equipped with switches that they can simply turn on or off or sliders they can adjust, so the notion that there is a default setting to human nature doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Please be very specific in your reply.

Furthermore, the term "default setting" implies that you think it can be changed somehow.  Keeping in mind my objection regarding switches and sliders, how would you go about changing human nature?

[FrankChodorov]

You are using the word "privilege" here as a synonym for law-based property rights?

for instance land ownership is a law-based property right because you are privileging someone the exclusive use of a specific location backed by force as the land/location is NOT the result of the owner's labor...man does not produce land it pre-exist human labor.

And Nock is drawing a distinction between "The State" and "Government" (as an agency) in a similar fashion to how I was distinguishing between "Government" (as an authority or a body that "governs" people) and Agency.

I like to use the term "legitimate local governance as agency" rather than "Government"...
throw a Jefferson ward republic...small-scale, face-to-face, deliberative and participatory town meeting where the citizen acts as their own legislator (no delegated authority to a representative) and I think you can start to see the fusing of classicaal liberalism and civic republicanism into a working model.

remember during medievil times you had overlapping authorities that kept each other in check (church, monarch, city/states, guilds, etc)like what we are suppose to have horizontally (exec, legislative, judicial) and vertically (local, state, national) the problem is one of scale and the state's ability to secede being taken away!

[Rocketman]

This answer suggests you are more libertarian than conservative.  

I actually see myself as a constitutionalist.  I think we should keep our government within the lines of the constitution. 

I see the need for government so I can't identify with anarchists as I see the need to have some level of protection due to the default setting of human nature.

I like "constitutionalist" better than "conservative," but I'm more of a Declaration-of-Independence-ist.   

The philosophical term I've come to prefer is minarchist (or Jason Sorens' ultra-minarchist).  Minimum government is where it's at, man.

[lildog]

lildog, what I don't really understand is your repeated use of the term "default setting" with respect to human nature.  What exactly do you mean by that?  In practice, human beings are not equipped with switches that they can simply turn on or off or sliders they can adjust, so the notion that there is a default setting to human nature doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Please be very specific in your reply.

Furthermore, the term "default setting" implies that you think it can be changed somehow.  Keeping in mind my objection regarding switches and sliders, how would you go about changing human nature?

If you look back at history there are wars time and time again.  People killing each other time and time again.  If put in a room people eventually begin to fight with each other.

That is what I mean by default setting.

As for can it be changed?  No I don't think it can, but it can be controlled.  After all, laws keep honest people honest.

[Rocketman]

lildog, what I don't really understand is your repeated use of the term "default setting" with respect to human nature.  What exactly do you mean by that?  In practice, human beings are not equipped with switches that they can simply turn on or off or sliders they can adjust, so the notion that there is a default setting to human nature doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Please be very specific in your reply.

Furthermore, the term "default setting" implies that you think it can be changed somehow.  Keeping in mind my objection regarding switches and sliders, how would you go about changing human nature?

If you look back at history there are wars time and time again.  People killing each other time and time again.  If put in a room people eventually begin to fight with each other.

That is what I mean by default setting.

As for can it be changed?  No I don't think it can, but it can be controlled.  After all, laws keep honest people honest.

Morality keeps me honest.  Laws that restrict freedom make me angry.  Every unjust law or regulation initiates a series of conflicts.  People do fight each other, but government is the primary tool they use against each other.  Look how the aggression of Drug Prohibition has permeated our society, ripple effects in every direction.  The elderly reminisce about how safe their cities used to be, but they don't connect the dots.