Is Government Contractual?

[thorsmitersaw]

bravo my friend

[Elhan2005]

On topic, a nice audio file by Hoppe on how and why intellectuals reinforce the notion of the state's necessity:

mises dot org/multimedia/mp3/25thNYC/15-­Hoppe dot mp3

[adaalman]

The services provided are determined by the constitution, amendments and the decisions of the three branches of government. Your consent of citizenship was given to you by your parents, by birth or you may have struggled to become a citizen. You may leave if you want, there is NOTHING stopping you. You are OVER 18 years old now, you are an adult.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

"...here I am in my property and they don't own it -- at least they haven't given me any argument that they do -- and so, the fact that I am living in 'this country' means I am living in a certain geographical region that they have certain pretensions over -- but the question is whether those pretensions are legitimate. You can't assume it as a means to proving it." -Roderick Long

[adaalman]

Your individual rights do exist, but primarily because a government which respects them has been formed. By nature we are not granted individual rights respected by outside forces, that's what is so great about our democratic republic and that is why paying taxes is a good thing as long as this is being respected.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Bravo. Way to completely dodge the issue. Thanks for playing.

Rights do not come from governments.

[adaalman]

Rights are not given inherently, even your name implies this, as the inherent condition is subjectivity and so rights must be found and defended. In a democratic republic the government plays both roles and not without reason but because it is the strongest force to uphold that defense.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Rights are never given. They might be allowed (though usually suppressed), but they are not given. No one has the authority to "grant" rights to anyone else, including individuals in this mystical entity of yours called "government."

[adaalman]

Rights are not given by nature but are a product of thought, man gives rights to himself based on his condition, this is natural but not inherently available without introspection. So there is no other way to handle this problem but to enforce the rights, the rights themselves are not a lack of enforcement.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

True, rights exist in reality no more than numbers or the scientific method. I don't see how that supports your mystical belief in rights-granting governments, not even from a pragmatic perspective since such entities are comprised of mere people no different than anyone else. I like fantasy fiction, too, but magic isn't real.

[adaalman]

Rights need to be established and protected, there is no doubt about that, it's just a question of who is going to be responsible for that.  There is nothing mystical about this in theory or in practice.

[Kbiomech]

Can you not enforce your own rights? Are you in some way incapacitated? I have two good hands and the ability and WILL to use weapons in defense of my rights. What more do I need? The only people who EVER contest my right to defense of self and property are criminals. Some are dressed in the guise of government, but they are STILL criminals.

[adaalman]

I can't enforce my rights against chemical weapons, poison gasses, fighter jets, tanks, etc...

[Elhan2005]

Then what is wrong with organizing voluntarily, as opposed to using governments?

[Kbiomech]

What government is this that respects my rights? I haven't ever lived under such a government. Neither have you. Try again. Try HARDER!

[adaalman]

Well, you might have a point. This government is highly corrupt, I guess we agree on that at least.

[Elhan2005]

Yes, governments are theoretically instituted to protect rights... they do not grant them, and they can certainly violate them. So what? This still does nothing to justify a pseudo-agreement like the social contract.

[adaalman]

There is no way to enforce rights without force. The need for force arises out of the fact that rights are not inherently given, or granted. Rights need to be found; they are condition of relativity between subjects and they exist as a condition but are not known or given immediately. These rights need to be protected.

[Elhan2005]

Found? Where? If you mean reflected upon and discovered via introspection, perhaps. Enforcing them is a matter of practicality, and for this a government is far from inevitable.

[adaalman]

Rights are not provided by nature but can be found in nature, we grant our own individual rights to ourselves by means of relative self affirmation because nobody else exists to grant it...What other alternative exists?

[Kbiomech]

I am perfectly able to defend my own rights and property against all comers, except government. Why do I need them? They are my enemy in every conceivable sense of the word. They claim the right to my very existence, yet they've done nothing to further it and much to hinder it. Your argument makes no sense at all. I've seen a LOT of statists who were far more convincing. Reexamine your premises.

[adaalman]

Could you protect your property from a warlord with tanks, snipers and hundreds of thousands of soldiers armed to the teeth...could you do that alone? What about someone with chemical weapons and poison gas?

[brainpolice2]

Is this description of a scenario with tanks, snipers and hundreds of thousands of soldiers armed to the teeth not precisely a description of what states do to other territories? It's a self-defeating arguement if you are trying to defend states. It's exactly the type of behavior that states engage in.

[adaalman]

Yes it is. There will always be entities with more power than you have outside of yourself, thousands of multiples more power than you have in fact. It is only a question of whether you want the strongest force to be one which respects your individual rights or one which doesn't.

[Kbiomech]

I already said I could not adequately defend against a government. You are stating that they are necessary to defend you against themselves. Circular argument.

[adaalman]

I am only pointing out an inherent quality of nature. The stronger force holds the ability to overpower the lesser force. Whether this fits into your view of what is logical or moral has no grip in reality. It's an empirical fact of nature. Now, there will always be stronger forces than you out there in the world, it's just a question of what kind of force you want that to be, one which you have some say in or one which you have no say in.

[Kbiomech]

exactly true. And the ONLY one I have any say in is organized Anarchy. My neighbors and chosen VOLUNTARILY subscribed defense agencies banding together. This is why general armament is a PREREQUISITE to freedom. The Founding Fathers of THIS Empire knew that, and warned against EVERYTHING that has come to pass. Read Washington's Farewell adress. Aside from choosing the face of my King, I have ZERO say in what THIS government does. Same as you.

[adaalman]

The people would ultimately vote for the defense agencies which get the job done and only the strongest ones would stand the tide of natural selection. These would be the ones who band together either by merging or overpowering one another and those would form larger defense agencies. So, if the country has anything left after the civil war, you would be left with a militaristic nation wide defense agency.

[adaalman]

These are two separate problems. Are you against the formation of a union or are you just anti-force? If the former, you have some explaining to do, how could you keep a union from forming without having a union already in existence to keep it from forming? If the later, how could you keep your unionized defense agency from becoming what is in existence now or worse?

[brainpolice2]

Precisely the point. It is a self-defeating arguement.

[adaalman]

The argument isn't self defeating. I am taking my argument from empirical reality, while the anarchist argument is entirely theoretical. There are no other options available; the stronger powers will always overpower the lesser powers in nature, and the stronger power will arise regardless of whether you think that is moral or fair. The best way to deal with this unfortunate circumstance so far is to attempt to control that power democratically within a republic.

[Kbiomech]

You're running in circles, and I'm done arguing. There have been many UNPLANNED anarchies in history, and they have worked, for quite a while in some cases. WITHOUT modern communication and armament.

If we are to go with the system that is most EFFICIENT, rather than most conducive to liberty, then Monarchy is the better option.

[adaalman]

Which anarchist societies worked in history, any in modern times? I hear Somolia was an anarchist country for a while if I'm not mistaken.

[Kbiomech]

Ireland, prior to the British takeover (which took CENTURIES due to the fact that they could not get any "authority" to agree to their invasion), Iceland for a very long time, Pennsylvania prior to the Revolution. These just from the top of my mind. Somalia IS a functional anarchy, and the less it's been interfered with the more prosperous it's becoming. Anarchy is the state BEFORE the thugs manage to convince people like you that they are necessary.

[adaalman]

I honestly appreciate your examples but I don't know enough about these to comment about them. I will research them and get back to you in the future.

[Kbiomech]

Fair enough. At the moment, my time is very limited. I'll attempt to do some videos about all of the above, and any other historical examples I can think of. Here's another, though apocryphal: Israel, according to the 'record' of Genesis, Exodus, Chronicles and Kings. Prior to Saul, the closest thing to a central authority was first the Judges and then the Priesthood. Neither had a lot of power over the average Jew most of the time.

[adaalman]

(SomAlia, my mistake)

[adaalman]

First, your defense agency better be the strongest, because only the stronger power will have the ability to overpower the lesser ones. Outside of our defense agencies it's wildlife and nobody will have any recognition of neither your individual rights nor the defense agencies of one another.

[Elhan2005]

Even if he couldn't, why force him to?

[Elhan2005]

Inalienability also negates slave contracts, such as that that binds one to the State.

[brainpolice2]

How can I be bound by a contract that I never signed? The idea of the state as a "social contract" really amounts to implicit slavery from birth, for I am assumed to be bound under a such a "social contract" merely for being born within the territory.

[adaalman]

Well, you probably have a social security card, a passport, a birth certificate, a state ID and a bank account, nobody is forcing you to own those or to stay here. If you don't want to pay taxes and benefit from them you should find another place to live, I hear Somalia was anarchist for a little while, cross your fingers, maybe another wartorn dump will become available for you.

[brainpolice2]

The "find another place to live" arguement is fallicious. If the government was truly voluntary, I should be able to simply cancel my "subscription" while still keeping my property. If I wish to stop patronizing McDonalds, I am not forced to move. I can just stop going there and still keep my home. Government clearly does not work this way. The fact that my only alternative is to move merely demonstrates that it exercises a coercive territorial monopoly.

[adaalman]

I don't think it is fallicious. The reason you can't "cancel your subscription" is because this is a body of land. If you were in a restaurant and didn't want to pay for services you couldn't just not pay and stay at your table telling them to leave you alone all the while complaining that they are violating your individual rights.

[Elhan2005]

Which assumes the government has rightful ownership to begin with... but it doesn't. It is merely an assigned protector, i.e. a service provider.

[adaalman]

The government exists to defend your claim to certain rights. Your property is private simply because the government respects your privacy. Your assets might be, you could sell your home and leave if you want but the physical property exists within the United States, which you are a part of.

[brainpolice2]

The government does not respect my privacy. By the mere fact that I am forcibly exiled if I do not pay up demonstrates that it is claiming control over my property. My property is rightfully mine. The entire territory, however, is rightfully noones. You assume precisely what you must prove: that the state legitimately controls the entire territory.

[adaalman]

The fact is that you live in a country, not a void. This has been around long before you were born, and you were born into it. You own property on this land in this country, not in a void. You may own stock in Coca Cola...but you can't demand free cokes because you own shares, you can only trade shares and buy cokes with the money.

[stratvic]

The leaving the country argument is also weakened by the existence of a governments cartel on recognition and permission to travel and reside across borders. The cartel is formed on the basis of "legal" recognition of a person by way of a passport. Effectively you are owned by the government that will give you recognition and governments have all agreed to restrict travel based on recognition by another government.

[adaalman]

I admit that this is not something I agree with.  I believe that if a person does not want to live under a government they should always be free to leave.

[Kbiomech]

Then you believe that property, in the form of real estate, cannot be privately owned? Can you justify this position?

[adaalman]

I think that when you have private property in a country the property is privately owned in that you can sell it or use it for example, and it is respected as private by all persons as guaranteed by that gov't. Without the gov't, it all collapses, the respect of rights are relative to who has more firepower.

[Kbiomech]

If it were truly private I could use, exploit, or dispose of it in any manner I wished. Further, I would not have to pay a yearly rent on it. This is not the case in the United States. Your statement is contradictory in itself. The last part is partially true, however. General armament IS the first prerequisite of freedom.

[Elhan2005]

Exactly, it exists as my agent, and no more. When its services are no longer desired, it should live with it. Are you against secession even?