Anarcho-Capitalism: A Branden ‘Blast from the Past’

[Dglgmut]

I'm only halfway through The Law by Bastiat, but already I'm seeing things clearer; and it seems to me that law itself must be voluntary. Law is the result of organized force as an extension of the individual's right to protect his life, liberty and property. However, if the individual has no desire to protect these natural rights, his contribution to the collective will be negative. The only option is to exclude these type of contributions.

When dealing with "legal plunder," Bastiat said the violated group has the option of either stopping the plunder or using the system to the groups advantage by plundering others. We need to choose the first option.

He gives three simplified paradigms of society: 1. The few plunder the many. 2. Everybody plunders everybody. 3. Nobody plunders anybody.

Organized force is where real power is. And the only civilized function of such power is to protect individuals. There are organized forces all over the world that are meant to violate people's natural rights, we need one that is meant to protect them. There's no point begging a corrupt government to change, or an idiotic nation to stop being idiotic.

Ethical people need to defend themselves and organize on behalf of what makes them ethical. They need to do this opposed to waiting for others to embrace their behavior and join in voluntarily. The United States became the most powerful country in the world by avoiding militarism for so long and having a prosperous country, and this shows that organized force meant entirely for defensive purposes is the strongest kind.

Bastiat put it nicely, that the solution to plunder is to make plunder more difficult than work.

[Brant Gaede]

"Voluntary law" is an oxymoron. Law is legalized force.

--Brant

[Xray]

Bastiat put it nicely, that the solution to plunder is to make plunder more difficult than work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Law_%281850_book%29

Life, faculties, production—in other words, individuality, liberty, property—these are man. And despite the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation and are superior to it.

Do you endorse Bastiat's theistic premise as well?

[Selene]

Bastiat put it nicely, that the solution to plunder is to make plunder more difficult than work.

http://en.wikipedia....Law_(1850_book)

Life, faculties, production—in other words, individuality, liberty, property—these are man. And despite the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation and are superior to it.

Do you endorse Bastiat's theistic premise as well?

Spake the a-theist evermore!

[Xray]

Spake the a-theist evermore!

I'm an agnostic.

[Selene]

Spake the a-theist evermore!

I'm an agnostic.

My apology. I have been one also.

[Brant Gaede]

Bastiat put it nicely, that the solution to plunder is to make plunder more difficult than work.

A lot more difficult. Ignorance and stupidity and biological and cultural programming have to be discounted.

--Brant

[Mikee]

Not only more difficult, but hazardous to your health.

[Dglgmut]

"Voluntary law" is an oxymoron. Law is legalized force.

--Brant

What I mean by voluntary is that one must contribute to the protection of his own rights voluntarily. We assume that we are all protected because we pay taxes or because we are simply part of an established system. We make no choice as to whether we have rights or not. I'm starting to believe there is no way around this choice. If you don't choose to have rights, you won't.

If we try to create a system in which the law protects even those with no desire to protect themselves, we're overextending the function of law.

[Dglgmut]

Bastiat put it nicely, that the solution to plunder is to make plunder more difficult than work.

http://en.wikipedia....Law_(1850_book)

Life, faculties, production—in other words, individuality, liberty, property—these are man. And despite the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation and are superior to it.

Do you endorse Bastiat's theistic premise as well?

I don't understand why that matters. God or some miraculous fluke makes no difference to me; life is important to me, and from that I assume it could be important to everyone else. We should be fair so that we can all do our own thing without worrying so much about what other people are doing.

[anthony]

Bastiat put it nicely, that the solution to plunder is to make plunder more difficult than work.

http://en.wikipedia....Law_(1850_book)

Life, faculties, production—in other words, individuality, liberty, property—these are man. And despite the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation and are superior to it.

Do you endorse Bastiat's theistic premise as well?

I don't understand why that matters. God or some miraculous fluke makes no difference to me; life is important to me, and from that I assume it could be important to everyone else. We should be fair so that we can all do our own thing without worrying so much about what other people are doing.

Agreed, whether deist, theist or Buddhist, is superfluous : Bastiat was remarkable.

I found this in Wiki (without seeing any further reference to a deity) -

"We cannot doubt that self-interest is the mainspring of human nature.

It must be clearly understood that this word is used here to designate a universal,

incontestable fact, resulting from the nature of man, and not an adverse judgment ,

as would be the word selfishness." [F. Bastiat, 'Economic Harmonies'.]

[Brant Gaede]

"Voluntary law" is an oxymoron. Law is legalized force.

--Brant

What I mean by voluntary is that one must contribute to the protection of his own rights voluntarily. We assume that we are all protected because we pay taxes or because we are simply part of an established system. We make no choice as to whether we have rights or not. I'm starting to believe there is no way around this choice. If you don't choose to have rights, you won't.

If we try to create a system in which the law protects even those with no desire to protect themselves, we're overextending the function of law.

Rights are not a choice; they are all actions you take that do not violate the rights of others. To say they are voluntary is to say you have the right to violate rights, a contradiction. As for the function of law, it is usually, but not always, a matter of whether the purported victim wants to press charges. We can gin up with some complexity here, but to no point. This is why rights are "unalienable" or inalienable."

--Brant

[Xray]

I don't understand why that matters.

I think it matters a lot because if one tries to justify decisions in political ethics (in all ethics actually) by referring to the intentions of a god, one has no objective arguments.

God or some miraculous fluke makes no difference to me; life is important to me, and from that I assume it could be important to everyone else. We should be fair so that we can all do our own thing without worrying so much about what other people are doing.

Would you agree that no god premise is necessary for the justification of ethical issues?

[Xray]

I have been one [agnostic] also.

Which side of the fence have you come down?

I don't kow if I'll ever definitely come down on one side; I find myself constantly wavering back and forth.

[anthony]

I think it matters a lot because if one tries to justify decisions in political ethics (in all ethics actually) by referring to the intentions of a god, one has no objective arguments.

Would you agree that no god premise is necessary for the justification of ethical issues?

That's an example of 'presentism' - that by known standards today, so-and-so should not have believed such-and-such.

It also presumes the perfectability of an individual and his knowledge.

By these premises, everything discovered or thought by all past scientists and philosophers - theists or deists, nearly all of them - should have been automatically disqualified by the moderns.

It begs the question, do you as agnostic, neither atheist nor believer, have the capability and moral right to "justify decisions in...ethics"? So did Bastiat.

He made his ethical conclusions from observation - "resulting from the nature of man" - i.e. a metaphysical assessment.

In this light (an objective understanding of man's nature) the fact that he attributed the creation of man to God, was an inessential error, and disconnected from it - imo.

Additionally, his writing on "self-interest" as the "mainspring of human nature", and other references, indicate that his premises were directly in conflict with the ethics of Christianity - in his time, particularly. So, deist, or whatever, God and religion had no say in his conclusions.

[Dglgmut]

"Voluntary law" is an oxymoron. Law is legalized force.

--Brant

What I mean by voluntary is that one must contribute to the protection of his own rights voluntarily. We assume that we are all protected because we pay taxes or because we are simply part of an established system. We make no choice as to whether we have rights or not. I'm starting to believe there is no way around this choice. If you don't choose to have rights, you won't.

If we try to create a system in which the law protects even those with no desire to protect themselves, we're overextending the function of law.

Rights are not a choice; they are all actions you take that do not violate the rights of others. To say they are voluntary is to say you have the right to violate rights, a contradiction. As for the function of law, it is usually, but not always, a matter of whether the purported victim wants to press charges. We can gin up with some complexity here, but to no point. This is why rights are "unalienable" or inalienable."

--Brant

When people have asked Ron Paul about free health care he's said, "You have a right to your life and your liberty, you don't have a right to someone else's services."

Police are a service, though. How can we have a right to that service? It would be nice if we truly had that right, but in reality what we have is a gigantic protection racket. We don't pay for the service of protecting our rights, we are extorted so we can have the illusion of rights. We don't protect ourselves in any sense, we live with what we're allowed by the government.

[Brant Gaede]

Who's sayng thngs are okay in River Cty?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

A "right to" something is the right to pursue personally chosen actions. A right to police protection is the right to be given something out of at least an implicit contract and if you don't get it you might consider buying better locks or guns or taking such actions as necessary to secure your life and property just like you should be doing right now regardless. The specific actions are determined by your understanding and context.

--Brant

[Dglgmut]

What's the contract? The police are supposed to protect everyone indiscriminately.

[Brant Gaede]

What's the contract?

Let me know.

--Brant

[Dglgmut]

Expectations are what is killing society. They think the law is omnipotent and the government is capable of more than the people it presides over.

It's fraud is what it is.

[Dglgmut]

I just thought: Why do people claim the role of government should be limited to protecting liberty? It's because it's incapable of doing anything else right... but why does the buck stop at protecting rights? Why is the government so inadequate in every other role it has appointed itself, but optimal when it comes to providing justice?

[Brant Gaede]

I just thought: Why do people claim the role of government should be limited to protecting liberty? It's because it's incapable of doing anything else right... but why does the buck stop at protecting rights? Why is the government so inadequate in every other role it has appointed itself, but optimal when it comes to providing justice?

It is because government does such a mediocre job at best in protecting rights that you want to keep it out of other business for government is only force, as so stated George Washington.

--Brant

[Dglgmut]

I'm starting to read The Ethics of Liberty, by Rothbard and I'm excited. I just started the introduction, but already an interesting point has been made:

The right to own property is the right to defend property; meaning the right to retaliate against violators. In fact, ALL rights revolve around the right of self-defense.

If you are not allowed to defend your property, it isn't yours. You're borrowing it--from the government, in all of our cases. They let us use what we have, and say that nobody else can use/dispose of it... except of course themselves, if they ever wanted to. No rights can be enforced by government; it all has to be an extension of the individual's right to self-defense, and that can only be bridged to a third party by contractual consent!

[Xray]

When people have asked Ron Paul about free health care he's said, "You have a right to your life and your liberty, you don't have a right to someone else's services."

"Right is the child of law." (Jeremy Bentham).

A law could therefore well include the right to "someone else's services", like e. g. free health care by the state (if the state can afford it).