NationStates Jolt Archive

With a thread title like that, this thread should die quickly.

Anyways, recently I have been kicking around the idea that a totalitarian government may be more suitable to my beliefs than democracy. I have begun to get a strong distaste for democracy, as its adherents seem to believe it grants moral justification for government. They feel that, if everyone takes part in a vote, that all people are obligated to abide the results.

Just skimming around the internet, I found this guy and his book Democracy: The God That Failed, and found that I seem to agree with him on what he has wrote.

In one of his more well known and controversial arguments, he states that monarchy is more justified than democracy, as, in monarchy, the government is private property as opposed to public property.

So, since I am one of the more poorly read NSers, I was wondering if anyone had read this book or anything else by Hoppe, and what they thought about it.

I can't say I've read the book. But that won't stop me from giving opinions on the rest of the post.

I'm opposed to any totalitarian government I'm not a part of. And I'm not positive I would be for it if I were part of it.. It's really a matter of trust really. As incompetent as the rulers in a democracy may be, at least they're gone in fixed number of years.

In one of his more well known and controversial arguments, he states that monarchy is more justified than democracy, as, in monarchy, the government is private property as opposed to public property.I'm more worried that under a monarchy it's likely that the public is private property.
Nor do I see why it's better that something, let alone government, be private property than public.
I suppose he elaborate more on the point in his books..

As incompetent as the rulers in a democracy may be, at least they're gone in fixed number of years.

The ruler of a democracy is the public mob, and it is perpetually incompetent and will never leave.

I'm more worried that under a monarchy it's likely that the public is private property.

I am sure that would run counter to his philosophy as a capitalist and supporter of private property.

Nor do I see why it's better that something, let alone government, be private property than public.

Generally property is the product of labor, and any labor that is not controlled by the individual providing it is slave labor.

So public property always results in slave labor.

While a dictator would be the best solution for government, you are presented with the problem of how to choose a good one, and how to dispose of him if he goes sour.
Mass revolutions are bloody affairs, and best not engaged in out of habit or built into the government (and they end up with mob rule anyway) and if you elect the dictator then you have hardly managed to escape democracy.
So the best solution (IMHO) is a government as ineffectual and narcissitic as the current US one, but with a budget a 10th its size and no option for deficit spending.

The ruler of a democracy is the public mob, and it is perpetually incompetent and will never leave.True, but it's always a different part of the mob. I'm not really worried things will suddenly change drastically for the worse.

Generally property is the product of labor, and any labor that is not controlled by the individual providing it is slave labor.But in a democracy they do control it. Besides which I don't think it's true that labor that's not controlled by the individual providing it is slave labor. Usually there's employer controlling the labor, paying the laborer for his work.
In case of public works, the public pays and control it.

So public property always results in slave labor.If history serves me right, so does monarchy.

I haven't read the book, but from what I can see it sounds interesting.
I have to wonder: Why would customers who bought a book that would suggest centralizing power almost completely, also mainly purchase books by libertarian authors and economists?
Strange indeed.

If history serves me right, so does monarchy.
Indeed...

Centralising power with one person just gives that one person the opportunity to basically pass whatever laws they want. It would be in that person's rational self-interest to widen the scope of government in order to reshape society and the economy according to that person's wishes.

That one would advocate the rule of one single individual without restrictions in order to safeguard against government intervention sounds perplexing to say the least...

So the best solution (IMHO) is a government as ineffectual and narcissitic as the current US one, but with a budget a 10th its size and no option for deficit spending.
You may be far more conservative than I am, but sometimes we can agree 100%. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. More of a minarchist. Realistically, I always come back to minarchism as the choice of reason.

You may be far more conservative than I am, but sometimes we can agree 100%. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. More of a minarchist. Realistically, I always come back to minarchism as the choice of reason.It sounds tempting. But wouldn't you be in danger of other parties (multinationals for example) running away with all the power. Could a minimal government keep them in check?

Now you are beginning to see things my way. I'm closer to a constitutional monarchist than a democrat for various reasons. But I issue a careful warning to you, watch out for Hoppe.

It sounds tempting. But wouldn't you be in danger of other parties (multinationals for example) running away with all the power. Could a minimal government keep them in check?
Actually, many of the problems concerning corporatism are directly caused by the failed attempts at market manipulation by big government. Corporate welfare is just as dangerous to America as socialism. It grossly distorts the market by discouraging competition and further reducing the number of small businesses and start-ups. If the government wasn't there to bail out major corporations, we'd have better choices in the market, and increased diversity.

Democracy and monarchy are both fatally flawed if you ask me. So far, I'm more or less without any ethics and am looking for what to base my ethics on without any success, so from that standpoint, at least, neither is morally superior.

However, from a practical standpoint, there are a number of issues with monarchy that lead me to favor democracy at least a bit. Mainly, birth is a really poor way to decide who rules a nation. Democracy at least gives people the chance if they are willing to work for it, even if it is still fatally weighted against the interests of the average person.

For all the flaws of elected officials, I would say that monarchs are even worse in that regard. Even a dictator launching a coup actually works for their power whereas monarchs have it handed to them. They don't have to work for it at all. Would you really trust your safety to someone who was born into an office without any real qualifications?

Would you really trust your safety to someone who was born into an office without any real qualifications?
We in the US have been doing it for the past 5 years, and we're not quite dead yet.

I'm opposed to any totalitarian government I'm not a part of.

So you would be perfectly fine with being part of an opressive government as long as it ran parallel to your tastes?

So you would be perfectly fine with being part of an opressive government as long as it ran parallel to your tastes?
I can't seem to wrap my brain around this line of logic. That's why I can't in good conscience vote for Republicrat candidates.

I can't seem to wrap my brain around this line of logic. That's why I can't in good conscience vote for Republicrat candidates.
It's called being a political opportunist, mate.

But in a democracy they do control it.

This is exactly what I am talking about. The individual does not control the use of labor. He only controls one vote. The system controls the labor.

In case of public works, the public pays and control it.

Wages are labor. The government takes a portion of the labor, and uses it for public good. The individual is not reimbursed.

This is exactly what I am talking about. The individual does not control the use of labor. He only controls one vote. The system controls the labor.



Wages are labor. The government takes a portion of the labor, and uses it for public good. The individual is not reimbursed.
There is also a flaw in the beliefs as well. In a democracy, or at least a republic, one comes to believe that the state is a reflection of the people. They believe they have a complete say in the matter.

I haven't read the book, but from what I can see it sounds interesting.
I have to wonder: Why would customers who bought a book that would suggest centralizing power almost completely, also mainly purchase books by libertarian authors and economists?
Strange indeed.

He is an anarcho-capitalist. He only points out the benefits of monarchy to expose the downfalls of democracy.

You may be far more conservative than I am, but sometimes we can agree 100%. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. More of a minarchist. Realistically, I always come back to minarchism as the choice of reason.

In my constant moral yawing, I have really come close to becoming an anarchist.

Democracy and monarchy are both fatally flawed if you ask me. So far, I'm more or less without any ethics and am looking for what to base my ethics on without any success, so from that standpoint, at least, neither is morally superior.

However, from a practical standpoint, there are a number of issues with monarchy that lead me to favor democracy at least a bit. Mainly, birth is a really poor way to decide who rules a nation. Democracy at least gives people the chance if they are willing to work for it, even if it is still fatally weighted against the interests of the average person.

For all the flaws of elected officials, I would say that monarchs are even worse in that regard. Even a dictator launching a coup actually works for their power whereas monarchs have it handed to them. They don't have to work for it at all. Would you really trust your safety to someone who was born into an office without any real qualifications?

One of my ideas concerning a totalitarian or monarchial government was that, in a developed economy, it would be severely limited by the will of the people. So incompetence in the position would be no more tolerated in the monarchy than the presidency. In fact, maybe less so, with a democracy there is a feeling of "Well we elected him, we have to stick with him," mentality.

...In fact, maybe less so, with a democracy there is a feeling of "Well we elected him, we have to stick with him," mentality.
And how do you think a revolution could come about without huge losses in both human life and human property?
Seeing the divisions in modern society (especially since you are committed to strengthening and fostering such differences) it is next to impossible that a revolution would go about unopposed, or even with a common goal - with the result being civil war.

There is also a flaw in the beliefs as well. In a democracy, or at least a republic, one comes to believe that the state is a reflection of the people. They believe they have a complete say in the matter.

And even if there isn't that feeling of representation, there is a feeling of duty to compromise yourself to the democratic system.

And why be careful of Hoppe?

So you would be perfectly fine with being part of an opressive government as long as it ran parallel to your tastes?

That's not what he said, what he said (basically) was that he wouldn't mind a dictatorship if he was the dictator, or one of his close associates.

You can interpret that how you will, there are several perfectly legitimate ways, one, he could be joking, two, he believes that he is better able to steer society (a benevolent dictator), three, he wants the perks, or four, he believes he can check its excesses.

Hoppe's argument rests on the long-term nature of monarchies, take the heads of state of two close allies, Australia and the United States. Australia has had the same head of state for 53 years, Queen Elizabeth II. In that time, the United States has had 11 Heads of State (Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, Idiot Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Idiot Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Idiot Clintoon, and Bush 43.). Hoppe argues that the longevity of Monarchy means they'll take the long term view. I think he also pointed to the fact that a royal is trained from childhood to reign, which provides added consistancy and stability. It is incorrect to say that the only qualification for being a Monarch is being born. One must learn to reign.

Another thing that supports Hoppe's claims is what a monarch does near the end of his or her rule, as opposed to a President. When a monarch is close to the end of his rule, he spends his time on his death bed. When Clinton was near the end of his term, he spent his time nicking crockery and cutlery, pardoning those of his mates who were in prison.

I think the balance Australia has struck between Monarchy and Democracy is the best system.

One of my ideas concerning a totalitarian or monarchial government was that, in a developed economy, it would be severely limited by the will of the people. So incompetence in the position would be no more tolerated in the monarchy than the presidency. In fact, maybe less so, with a democracy there is a feeling of "Well we elected him, we have to stick with him," mentality.

Exactly how? What kinds of limits would the people have on a totalitarian government? I can't seem to think of any way to limit a monarchy like what you're describing short of the threat of revolution.

And even if there isn't that feeling of representation, there is a feeling of duty to compromise yourself to the democratic system.

And why be careful of Hoppe?
I'm just saying be skeptical. Hoppe's not exactly the foremost authority on monarchy, although he has some good points.

Well in history we see that only in a Monarchy government has a civilization been able to reach a "golden age" however we also see a long line of idiots after the one great king...
Personally if there was a way of choosing a good king I probably would support a monarchy because sometimes whats best for the country isn't the most popular decision. For example, Bush, when some idiot makes taxes cuts in the middle of a war you know something is wrong.

Democracy is not the best form of goverment. It is the finest safeguard against civil unrest. It ensures stabillity in a country by ensure unstability in it's government.

So you would be perfectly fine with being part of an opressive government as long as it ran parallel to your tastes?I might be. But I have very enlightened tastes. So it's not as bad as it sounds.

You can interpret that how you will, there are several perfectly legitimate ways, one, he could be joking, two, he believes that he is better able to steer society (a benevolent dictator), three, he wants the perks, or four, he believes he can check its excesses.A bit of all four really. I know that I'm not capable of ruling a society well yet; so it's a bit of a joke at the moment.
But if I were certain I could steer society in the right direction, and make things better for everyone on a whole, then I think that might be a good thing to do. Democracy has a tendency to wander aimlessly before improving anything. And there have been examples throughout history were an enlightened dictator modernized his/her country and brought great prosperity to it.
And of course the perks are nice. Although I'm worried that given the chance I might be seduced by them, and stray from the right path; worried more about loosing the perks than doing what's right for my country and people.
I have trouble trusting myself, because I know I have weaknesses. On the plus side that means I would be more carefull not to fall prey to them. So that's a bit of 4) right there, I'd try and keep my excesses in check.
So in conclusion, vote for me as enlightened dictator in the upcoming election of your choice ! :D

Hoppe argues that the longevity of Monarchy means they'll take the long term view. I think he also pointed to the fact that a royal is trained from childhood to reign, which provides added consistancy and stability. It is incorrect to say that the only qualification for being a Monarch is being born. One must learn to reign.That's a good argument. Although there isn't really a reason why it has to be a royal by birth that is trained from childhood to eventually reign. You could pick out a few of the best and brightest every year and start training them to govern. And if the old Monarch dies, have the people choose one, and the rest can fill other positions in government.

I think the balance Australia has struck between Monarchy and Democracy is the best system.Except that then it's the prime minister that ends up nicking the crockery and cutlery at the end of his term. :p
The Queen doesn't really have much to say about government does she? I thought she was more of a figure head. With the real power laying with the prime ministers, who basicly rules the country in her name.

Wages are labor. The government takes a portion of the labor, and uses it for public good. The individual is not reimbursed.Sure he is, he get's to use the public goods. Roads, education etc. They're all things he wants, and would quite probably not be there or in a much worse state if not for a goverment.
Besides which the same things happens under every government, so if it were a problem, it wouldn't jsut be one of democracy.

That's a good argument. Although there isn't really a reason why it has to be a royal by birth that is trained from childhood to eventually reign. You could pick out a few of the best and brightest every year and start training them to govern. And if the old Monarch dies, have the people choose one, and the rest can fill other positions in government.

Keeping it in the family creates a clear line of succession, which no democratic system can do. What you're really arguing for is an elected "monarch", which is a democratic system.

The Queen doesn't really have much to say about government does she? I thought she was more of a figure head. With the real power laying with the prime ministers, who basicly rules the country in her name.

The Australian Constitution provides that the executive of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General (who exercises Royal Powers in the Queen's name), he presides over the Federal Executive decisions, and must give his approval before its decisions are legal. The Governor-General also has significant legislative powers, including the power to dissolve, or refuse to dissolve Parliament. He can also give or withhold Royal Assent to bills. The Royal Powers Act 1953 provided that the Queen, when she is in Australia, may exercise the powers given to the Governor-General.

In reality, the Governor-General always acts on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Democracy has a tendency to wander aimlessly before improving anything. And there have been examples throughout history were an enlightened dictator modernized his/her country and brought great prosperity to it.Given a choice between the two, I would rather live in the least effective democracy than under the most enlightened dictatorship. Having a choice about how things are run is always better than not having a choice.

Keeping it in the family creates a clear line of succession, which no democratic system can do. What you're really arguing for is an elected "monarch", which is a democratic system.Yes, but a significantly different one from the ones we have. There are flaws in the current one, as in every system. But that doesn't mean variants on the theme can't be better.

Given a choice between the two, I would rather live in the least effective democracy than under the most enlightened dictatorship. Having a choice about how things are run is always better than not having a choice.But do you have a real choice under democracy? It's a dictatorship of the majority. And the majority of people are idiots that never seem to want what is best for them.
No matter how much I vote, I never get what I want. I don't have a choice in the matter. It's an illusion I'm not buying into. I'll still vote on the off chance of getting lucky, but I won't hold my breath.

But do you have a real choice under democracy? It's a dictatorship of the majority. And the majority of people are idiots that never seem to want what is best for them.
No matter how much I vote, I never get what I want. I don't have a choice in the matter. It's an illusion I'm not buying into. I'll still vote on the off chance of getting lucky, but I won't hold my breath.Well, I've only lived in a representative democracy as opposed to a direct democracy, so I don't know if I'd have a real choice in a direct democracy. But I have to agree that representative democracy isn't very good.

Yes, but a significantly different one from the ones we have. There are flaws in the current one, as in every system. But that doesn't mean variants on the theme can't be better.

He would still be subjected to the temptations of everyone who runs for elected office, to do stupid things that are popular instead of doing good and necessary things that are unpopular.

He would still be subjected to the temptations of everyone who runs for elected office, to do stupid things that are popular instead of doing good and necessary things that are unpopular.If he/she is elected for life there really isn't a reason to just do popular things. He'd have to do something pretty bad to be ousted.

Hoppe's argument rests on the long-term nature of monarchies, take the heads of state of two close allies, Australia and the United States. Australia has had the same head of state for 53 years, Queen Elizabeth II. In that time, the United States has had 11 Heads of State (Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, Idiot Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Idiot Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Idiot Clintoon, and Bush 43.).
I think the balance Australia has struck between Monarchy and Democracy is the best system.

OK, I don't know how to begin. First of all, I don't understand how can you call idiot CLinton and not the silliest US president I've ever known (I'm too young to remeber before tha Reagan). Anyway we don't know nothing about the inteligence of Elizabeth the second, because she never had to prove it.

In second place, in Australia, or Spain, my country there's not a "balance" between Democracy and Monarchy, because they are both democracies. The queen or the king are not playing a real political role, that's why are democracies.

Anyway, I think Republic it's better because everybody can try to be Head of the State, although there're few posibilities, 'cause there is a big filter within the social and economicals roots. That's the real problem of capitalist democracy, anyway, as Churchill said, the worst sistem but the others. And remember the democracy was born to end with the problems and abusses of the kings.

In second place, in Australia, or Spain, my country there's not a "balance" between Democracy and Monarchy, because they are both democracies. The queen or the king are not playing a real political role, that's why are democracies.

You didn't read Section 64. The Governor-General of Australia exercises in the Queen's name reserve powers that have the ability to restrain an elected government is it goes too far, or is unable to govern.

Their role is Constitutional, not political.

If he/she is elected for life there really isn't a reason to just do popular things. He'd have to do something pretty bad to be ousted.

The point is that he has to get in.

First of all, I don't understand how can you call idiot CLinton and not the silliest US president I've ever known

Clinton's Administration was a litany of crime and failure.

The point is that he has to get in.So? He has no power to do anything stupid beforehand, and no reason to afterwards. All candidates would be properly trained and selected on actual merit, rather than birth or other irrelevant things.

You're suggesting a dishonest campaign, which contradicts your proposal. The election would be farcical. So why have it?

As for actual merit, the democratic process hasn't produced such a person before, and there's no reason to believe that it will in the future.

You're suggesting a dishonest campaign, which contradicts your proposal. The election would be farcical.What makes you say that? I don't recall making any such suggestion.
I'm just saying that if anyone is going to rule us for his lifetime, it should foremost be someone qualified, and second someone of our choice. I don't see where dishonesty comes in, that's not something that would make one qualified imo.

Obviously he will have to propose something to get himself elected, he can't just stand in front of the camera and demonstrate his Royal Wave, and as you yourself say, he will have no reason to do it after he gets in.

As to qualification, can you point to a democratic process that consistantly elects people who are actually qualified to rule, as opposed to the shower of steal and spend idiots who get aghast that we don't thank them for the honour? You can either have qualified rulers, or democracy. I can't see how a democratic process could produce a qualified ruler.

Selection of candidates on the basis of "qualification" (as it appeared to the selectors) is not democratic. All a candidate has to do in most democracies to be allowed to run is get his signatures, and pay the fee, and he's on the ballot. Iran (widely acknowledged as not democratic at all) uses the basic system you describe (although your idea of qualified and theirs would I think differ greatly)

Obviously he will have to propose something to get himself elected, he can't just stand in front of the camera and demonstrate his Royal Wave, and as you yourself say, he will have no reason to do it after he gets in.Why should he propose things to get elected? He has to prove to his future people that he's worthy of ruling them. Making empty promises doesn't prove that.
You'd get better results from an 'idols' style process (but instead of singing and performance they'll have to show of their fitness to rule. Although ability to sing may be a plus.)

As to qualification, can you point to a democratic process that consistantly elects people who are actually qualified to ruleNo. That's why I propose that it's a necessary condition to be electable at all. Pretty much every democracy already has requirements, no criminal record, over 40, etc. I don't see a problem with adding a certain measure of intelligence and skill in government to that.

Selection of candidates on the basis of "qualification" (as it appeared to the selectors) is not democratic.The qualifications would be laid down in the constitution. So there needn't be mouch room for the subjectiveness of "selectors".

Why should he propose things to get elected? He has to prove to his future people that he's worthy of ruling them. Making empty promises doesn't prove that.

That is in fact my point. Making promises, empty or otherwise, doesn't demonstrate fitness to rule, it is however an election winning formula. Your argument is based on the premise of an electorate trained to do what no electorate ever does. Its a case of putting into practice something East German communists only joked about: for the government to dissolve the people, and elect another people.

The assumptions upon which your argument is based are simply wrong. You simply cannot assume that the people will elect those fit to rule because they never have before. The closest they've ever gotten was removing greviously incompetant governments, but you would argue that such a government would never have gotten into office in the first place.

No. That's why I propose that it's a necessary condition to be electable at all. Pretty much every democracy already has requirements, no criminal record, over 40, etc. I don't see a problem with adding a certain measure of intelligence and skill in government to that.

There is a fundamental difference between existing requirements in a normal Western democracy (no criminal record, over a certain age, etc), and intelligence and skill in government.

Attributes such as no criminal record, and age can be objectively measured. We can check the police files, we can check his Birth Certificate. Measures of intelligence and skill in government are not objectively measurable. In Australia, the Coalition will always argue that when Labor were in office, the country was badly run by people with no idea, and Labor will always argue that the current government has lost the plot, if it ever had it in the first place.

The qualifications would be laid down in the constitution. So there needn't be mouch room for the subjectiveness of "selectors".

The room is there.

With a thread title like that, this thread should die quickly.

Anyways, recently I have been kicking around the idea that a totalitarian government may be more suitable to my beliefs than democracy. I have begun to get a strong distaste for democracy, as its adherents seem to believe it grants moral justification for government. They feel that, if everyone takes part in a vote, that all people are obligated to abide the results.

Just skimming around the internet, I found this guy and his book Democracy: The God That Failed, and found that I seem to agree with him on what he has wrote.

In one of his more well known and controversial arguments, he states that monarchy is more justified than democracy, as, in monarchy, the government is private property as opposed to public property.

So, since I am one of the more poorly read NSers, I was wondering if anyone had read this book or anything else by Hoppe, and what they thought about it.
Nope. Never read it.

The assumptions upon which your argument is based are simply wrong. You simply cannot assume that the people will elect those fit to rule because they never have before.I don't know what you're reading, but it's obvisouly not what I post.
If the only people that can possibly be elected are those fit to rule, then people that vote can't possibly elect anyone not fit to rule. I don't understand why you keep bringing up that they would anyway. It's just not logically sound to do the impossible.

Measures of intelligence and skill in government are not objectively measurable.I disagree.

I find it strange that the greatest advocates of individual liberty on these boards have, sometime or another, turned to authoritarian governments with hope for better rule. If I didn't know any better, and perhaps I should question now whether I do or not, then I would think that all of the talk from such individuals glorifying individual rights is nothing but an unprincipled self-interest to possibly pay less taxes. This would certainly be confirmed as a democratic socialist state is argued to be "totalitarian" while a capitalist monarch is some kind of utopia.

Although I generally respect and often agree with your arguments Vittos Ordination and I realize that you are asking a question and not defending a position, you are way off here.

Wages are labor. The government takes a portion of the labor, and uses it for public good. The individual is not reimbursed.

This is a peculiar deficit in understanding. Public property is not no one's property it is everyone's property. We have all equal claim to it and equal power to control it. Obviously we have to exercise such claim through an agent, the government, so that much is lost in the political process. However, keep in mind the difference between a public park and a private park. A public park is something you have paid for and may use at your leisure. You have equal access to a public park assuming you obey the laws. You have no right whatsoever to a private park. By the very existence of the public park the individual is compensated. Even if you don't go to one particular park, the benefits of the open park reverberate and multiply throughout the whole economy. Now turn that park into private property. A much more limited audience may enjoy it. The benefits are still there, but they are far more reduced and localized.

One of my ideas concerning a totalitarian or monarchial government was that, in a developed economy, it would be severely limited by the will of the people.

Yes but exactly how? Anything less than elections is a either decoration or at best a stop-gap measure.

In fact, maybe less so, with a democracy there is a feeling of "Well we elected him, we have to stick with him," mentality.

And in a monarchy the feeling of total detachment from the government makes the citizen either totally submissive (far worse than democratic apathy) or outright violent (the government is no longer my problem to correct, but my enemy to destroy).

Hoppe argues that the longevity of Monarchy means they'll take the long term view. I think he also pointed to the fact that a royal is trained from childhood to reign, which provides added consistency and stability. It is incorrect to say that the only qualification for being a Monarch is being born. One must learn to reign.


Which is total nonsense. No amount of "training" will dehumanize the monarch. If your ordinary rational actor can fail to look to the long-term or have reasons to look to the short-term, then why would a monarch be any different?

Another thing that supports Hoppe's claims is what a monarch does near the end of his or her rule, as opposed to a President. When a monarch is close to the end of his rule, he spends his time on his death bed. When Clinton was near the end of his term, he spent his time nicking crockery and cutlery, pardoning those of his mates who were in prison.

Naturally, because with absolute power he would have done so before the time of his death. A civilian executive is vulnerable to the electoral process. A civilian executive is vulnerable to social judgment. Clinton had to limit his shenanigans by their timing and level. A monarch has absolutely no restrictions other than this wishy-washy "will of the people" nonsense.

As to qualification, can you point to a democratic process that consistantly elects people who are actually qualified to rule, as opposed to the shower of steal and spend idiots who get aghast that we don't thank them for the honour? You can either have qualified rulers, or democracy. I can't see how a democratic process could produce a qualified ruler.

Ah, so you aren't arguing a true monarchy. More of a meritocracy, like the Socratic/Platonic state in The Republic.

Well ok, but get ready to find another reason to protect rights because these are the very principles at stake here. When choosing a dictator, for any qualification, you are placing that person above everyone else. He has become the state. He has become the law. You are trading all your political and civil rights to protect your economic rights. Cutting off you head to save your right arm.

Now I suppose you want to argue for a limited dictator. A constitutional monarchy. Basically you are making baby steps toward a modern day democratic republic. You will get there, eventually.

How are we going to choose the most qualified ruler? We have to choose the qualifications don't we? And then we need to have some kind of panel to judge who is the most qualified. So then I guess we are going to need qualifications for that post as well, and a body to choose members of that commission. And so on and so forth. You are going to either infinitely regressive into a system of setting up qualifications and judging panel to place members on a higher up panel who will place members on a higher up panel and on and on until you reach the monarch. Or you will eventually have to given and realize you may as well give the people a choice as to what they think their leaders should be like.

It seems to me that support of a monarch is the kind of thinking that results from disappointment in the government. Maybe it's too "socialist" or too "capitalist", surely my kind of monarch would be better. That really is the immature prattle of people who do not truly understand what it would mean to be beholden to the state. You really have no idea what that means if the best you can come up with is "taxes are theft."

Nikitas, I for one am not seriously arguing for it. From my point of view, Damor and I are arguing the best implementation of Hoppe's premise and ideas.

Ah, so you aren't arguing a true monarchy. More of a meritocracy, like the Socratic/Platonic state in The Republic.

No, I'm arguing a true monarchy, because it won't be subject to the chicanery inherient in the democratic process where by steal and spend idiots are elected by the recipients of stolen property.

Naturally, because with absolute power he would have done so before the time of his death. A civilian executive is vulnerable to the electoral process. A civilian executive is vulnerable to social judgment. Clinton had to limit his shenanigans by their timing and level. A monarch has absolutely no restrictions other than this wishy-washy "will of the people" nonsense.

He does have restrictions imposed by upbringing.

I don't know what you're reading, but it's obvisouly not what I post.
If the only people that can possibly be elected are those fit to rule, then people that vote can't possibly elect anyone not fit to rule. I don't understand why you keep bringing up that they would anyway. It's just not logically sound to do the impossible.

You've not shown that its impossible. You've not shown that the only ones that can be elected are those fit to rule. You said that the criteria would have to be laid out in the Constitution, now, whether or not such criteria are objective or subjective matters less than the fact that the Constitution must be approved by the people, therefore the criteria must be approved by the people, therefore it is still subject to the vagaries of the democratic process.

I disagree.

You're moving against the evidence. All the evidence shows that everyone will interpret fitness to rule according to their political prejudices.

Exactly how? What kinds of limits would the people have on a totalitarian government? I can't seem to think of any way to limit a monarchy like what you're describing short of the threat of revolution.

Yes, revolution would be the way in which people would remove the totalitarian government (barring the rise of competing governments, but that gets us into anarchy). However, it is the threat of revolution that keeps the government in line. The monarch, who owns the government as private property, has an expressed interest in avoiding revolution, as it would severely hurt his economic standing. A democracy, on the other hand, is public property, and those running it have no interest in maintaining it if it doesn't suit their needs, thus being much more likely to allowing armed conflict to oppress.

Democracy is not the best form of goverment. It is the finest safeguard against civil unrest. It ensures stabillity in a country by ensure unstability in it's government.

Democracy does not insure instability in a government, and I think the American history has shown the ability of democracy in pitting the majority against the minority in the streets. The minority is not represented in a democracy, and their only outlet is civil disobedience.

I find it strange that the greatest advocates of individual liberty on these boards have, sometime or another, turned to authoritarian governments with hope for better rule.

Your first mistake, I haven't read the rest of this post yet, but this is probably the most important part. Totalitarian does not mean authoritarian, it only means that there is extremely centralized policy making. As Melkor pointed out with the original structure of his party, a libertarian can be a totalitarian. A truly objective totalitarian would be completely justified, as political rights would have no utility to the individual.

If I didn't know any better, and perhaps I should question now whether I do or not, then I would think that all of the talk from such individuals glorifying individual rights is nothing but an unprincipled self-interest to possibly pay less taxes. This would certainly be confirmed as a democratic socialist state is argued to be "totalitarian" while a capitalist monarch is some kind of utopia.

Refer to the my first comment. Any democratic system would decentralized policy making and wouldn't be totalitarian, any socialist system would be authoritarian. Any monarchy would be centralized policy making and would be totalitarian, but any capitalist system would not be authoritarian.

So:

Democratic socialist state = Authoritarian, not totalitarian
Capitalistic Monarchy = Totalitarian, but not authoritarian

If a government is truly not authoritarian, then it does not matter if it is totalitarian or not.

The difference is in the property rights. A capitalist monarch, while owning the government, would be required to respect the individual's property rights in all private matters. I think that a developed society could possibly support this system. It might require an elimination of taxation.

This is a peculiar deficit in understanding. Public property is not no one's property it is everyone's property. We have all equal claim to it and equal power to control it.

Impossible, property cannot have completely mutual use.

Obviously we have to exercise such claim through an agent, the government, so that much is lost in the political process. However, keep in mind the difference between a public park and a private park. A public park is something you have paid for and may use at your leisure. You have equal access to a public park assuming you obey the laws.

There is someone who did not approve of the park and will not use the park, therefore he/she recieves no utility from the exchange of property. Contractual property exchange can only be voluntary to be valid.

You have no right whatsoever to a private park. By the very existence of the public park the individual is compensated. Even if you don't go to one particular park, the benefits of the open park reverberate and multiply throughout the whole economy. Now turn that park into private property. A much more limited audience may enjoy it. The benefits are still there, but they are far more reduced and localized.

That is a perfectly good argument for unlimited eminent domain, which would be a system of government granted property rights. If the government can seize property to benefit the society, they should have the ability to do it right?

The fact is that those public works are guaranteed to have extremely varying amounts of utility, yet the cost per individual is calculated completely arbitrarily.

And in a monarchy the feeling of total detachment from the government makes the citizen either totally submissive (far worse than democratic apathy) or outright violent (the government is no longer my problem to correct, but my enemy to destroy).

There would be no more detachment from government than there is in democracy. Furthermore, the nature of the political inclusiveness of democracy would cause more submissiveness than being excluded by monarchy. In a developed capitalistic society, the threat of violence from the people carries much more weight than it did when monarchies actually held power. In fact, it is the growth of private property ownership that ended monarchies in the first place.

Nikitas, I for one am not seriously arguing for it. From my point of view, Damor and I are arguing the best implementation of Hoppe's premise and ideas.


So noted.

No, I'm arguing a true monarchy, because it won't be subject to the chicanery inherient in the democratic process where by steal and spend idiots are elected by the recipients of stolen property.


Alright then, let's call it a meritocratic monarchy to distinguish it from a traditional monarchy. The problems I proposed still stand.

He does have restrictions imposed by upbringing.

That isn't a restriction so much as a very influential code of conduct. People change. Christians become atheists. Communists become capitalists, or at least more moderate. Children do not always follow the profession of their parents.

It wouldn't be impossible for a monarch raised to be a benevolent steward of the people to turn into an oppressor.

Your first mistake, I haven't read the rest of this post yet, but this is probably the most important part. Totalitarian does not mean authoritarian, it only means that there is extremely centralized policy making. As Melkor pointed out with the original structure of his party, a libertarian can be a totalitarian. A truly objective totalitarian would be completely justified, as political rights would have no utility to the individual.

Absolutely incorrect.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=totalitarianism

Note some of the lovely features such as "the individual is subordinate to the state".

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=authoritarianism

They are not exactly the same. But the theme is similar. In my experience authoritarianism is a broad category that a number of more specific types of governments are shuffled under.

But... meh... what's in a name? I think either way you turn you are subverting individual liberty.

The difference is in the property rights. A capitalist monarch, while owning the government, would be required to respect the individual's property rights in all private matters. I think that a developed society could possibly support this system. It might require an elimination of taxation.

Might require the elimination of taxation? What is worse than private funds being transferred into public property? How about private funds transferred into another's private property of which the transferee has absolutely no recourse or subsequent rights?

Your private ownership monarchy cannot possibly provide any public services whatsoever unless the monarch uses the profits from the use of his property. So we are going to need an altruistic ruler.

Impossible, property cannot have completely mutual use.

We can't share roads? We can't share parks?

There is someone who did not approve of the park and will not use the park, therefore he/she recieves no utility from the exchange of property. Contractual property exchange can only be voluntary to be valid.

Even if he doesn't use the park the beneficial affects of others using the park will eventually flow to him as well. Hard to imagine with parks, not hard to imagine with roads for example.

I suppose you want to refute or deny social contract theory.

That is a perfectly good argument for unlimited eminent domain, which would be a system of government granted property rights. If the government can seize property to benefit the society, they should have the ability to do it right?

No. It only justifies public ownership and the benefit of public property. We can easily construct a democratic republic with no power of eminent domain. The government will have to acquire public property by purchasing it out on the market.

There would be no more detachment from government than there is in democracy. Furthermore, the nature of the political inclusiveness of democracy would cause more submissiveness than being excluded by monarchy.

How can there possibly be more detachment in a democracy than a monarchy? The people in a democracy can at least participate in the political process.

Furthermore, a pluralistic democracy does not require that the people submit, only comply with the possibility of political resistance.

In a developed capitalistic society, the threat of violence from the people carries much more weight than it did when monarchies actually held power.

So you would prefer constant armed rebellion to an open forum of discussion and election? Unless there is constant armed rebellion the threat of such is as ethereal as the threat of impeachment for a president.

In fact, it is the growth of private property ownership that ended monarchies in the first place.

So how exactly does that not suggestion to you that these are opposed systems which cannot tolerate eachother for long?

Absolutely incorrect.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=totalitarianism

Note some of the lovely features such as "the individual is subordinate to the state".

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=authoritarianism

They are not exactly the same. But the theme is similar. In my experience authoritarianism is a broad category that a number of more specific types of governments are shuffled under.

Eh, so my definition of totalitarianism is incorrect, I am not willing to abandon my logic just yet.

But... meh... what's in a name? I think either way you turn you are subverting individual liberty.

All forms of government are a subverting of individual liberty, I am trying to figure out which one would be most likely to uphold individual liberty, and I am doubtful that it is democracy.

Might require the elimination of taxation? What is worse than private funds being transferred into public property? How about private funds transferred into another's private property of which the transferee has absolutely no recourse or subsequent rights?

Alright, will require the elimination of taxation. My only worry is national defense.

Your private ownership monarchy cannot possibly provide any public services whatsoever unless the monarch uses the profits from the use of his property. So we are going to need an altruistic ruler.

Why an altruistic ruler? As I said, the threat of losing his property to armed revolution would keep him in line.

We can't share roads? We can't share parks?

We could share bubble gum, but that doesn't mean we will get equal utility from it.

Even if he doesn't use the park the beneficial affects of others using the park will eventually flow to him as well. Hard to imagine with parks, not hard to imagine with roads for example.

Is the exchange of property voluntary?

I suppose you want to refute or deny social contract theory.

Why would I deny it? Hobbes was a theocratic authoritarian, and he was really the first to articulate a social contract. In the end it all depends on what you think is most beneficial to the individual.

People enter society for mutual benefit. I believe that mutual benefit lies with mutual liberty.

No. It only justifies public ownership and the benefit of public property. We can easily construct a democratic republic with no power of eminent domain. The government will have to acquire public property by purchasing it out on the market.

If it justifies the seizure of money for public works, you can justify the seizure of land for public works. As money is simply a representation of unclaimed property. Seizing $5,000 dollars from a farmer is no different from seizing a years worth of productivity from an acre of farmland.

How can there possibly be more detachment in a democracy than a monarchy? The people in a democracy can at least participate in the political process.

The relationship between the individual and the government is approximately the same, only in one, the individual must abide the rule of the majority, in the other the rule of the king.

Furthermore, a pluralistic democracy does not require that the people submit, only comply with the possibility of political resistance.

To assume pluralism, individuals must compromise their beliefs to the majority belief. It gives moral justification to the compromise of individualism by saying the majority knows better than the individual.

So you would prefer constant armed rebellion to an open forum of discussion and election? Unless there is constant armed rebellion the threat of such is as ethereal as the threat of impeachment for a president.

In every company there is a constant threat of worker strike, yet they very rarely come to fruition.

It also doesn't even have to be armed rebellion, it can be civil disobedience that costs more to stop than to appease those who are upset.

In one of his more well known and controversial arguments, he states that monarchy is more justified than democracy, as, in monarchy, the government is private property as opposed to public property.


Problems occur, however, when this "private property" is put to the use of exerting public power.

The defining characteristic of private property is the absolute authority of the owner over the property. Additionally, government must have someone to rule. To arbitrarily extend absolute authority over the ruled is to convert the ruled into private property as well. Any system of government that makes people into property is, in the not so humble opinion of this rabid individualist, completely and totally illegitimate. People cannot be property.

Generally property is the product of labor, and any labor that is not controlled by the individual providing it is slave labor.

So public property always results in slave labor.

Incorrect. Property is a process of distributing limited resources. Human beings regularly claim property in that which they cannot possibly have produced themselves, the most obvious example being land. Not to mention pretty much every other kind of natural resource. The fact that the bolded statement above must be qualified with "generally" demonstrates that labor has nothing to do with it.

Incorrect. Property is a process of distributing limited resources. Human beings regularly claim property in that which they cannot possibly have produced themselves, the most obvious example being land. Not to mention pretty much every other kind of natural resource. The fact that the bolded statement above must be qualified with "generally" demonstrates that labor has nothing to do with it.

My arguments for naturally occuring resources being made into property because of the excursion of labor:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9790253&postcount=14

I don't put too much weight on it myself, I'm not really convinced that anyone can have a right to property. But anyway, that's a bit of a hijack.

Edit to add: I just realized that you also posted in that thread, so you probably don't care...

He does have restrictions imposed by upbringing.Why would that only work for offspring of the monarchy? Wouldn't it work just as well for any random person brought up under the same circumstances. Giving a somewhat larger pool to choose the eventual heir from?

You've not shown that its impossible.Yes I have, it is logically impossible. That's the strongest for of impossibility there is.
You've not shown that the only ones that can be elected are those fit to rule.There is no one else but those fit to rule that could be elected. If there is no such person, then we have quantification over an empty domain and it's still true.

You said that the criteria would have to be laid out in the Constitution, now, whether or not such criteria are objective or subjective matters less than the fact that the Constitution must be approved by the peopleSince when? There's plenty of constitutions that haven't been approved by the people, even in democracies. I've never voted on our constitution, never had the chance to, have you?

You're moving against the evidence.I'm not, I'm just not overly enthousiastic to try and argue with someone that disregards what I try to bring across and simply invents another position to argue against and pretends it's mine.

All the evidence shows that everyone will interpret fitness to rule according to their political prejudices.But that's only a problem if interpretation is an issue. And there's no reason it should be.
If royal offspring can be trained from birth to rule, than so can anyone else. And there's no reason why you shouldn't have a school dedicated to training future policy makers. To make sure only people with at least half a brain get to office. And that they have some notion about the different philosophies behind running a state, like works by Rousseau, Plato, Mills etc. About economy, Adams, Keynes, etc. And dozens of other subjects that are known to be important no matter what your political prejudice.
That way you end up with someone that knows what he's doing, whatever his brand of politics is.

Why would that only work for offspring of the monarchy? Wouldn't it work just as well for any random person brought up under the same circumstances. Giving a somewhat larger pool to choose the eventual heir from?

Because there's nothing to pass down. There's no reason to believe that a random set of parents will say "I'll bring him up to be King".

With the offspring of Monarchy, there are traditions and customs to pass down.

Yes I have, it is logically impossible. That's the strongest for of impossibility there is.

No you haven't. You've asserted that it is impossible. I could say that it is impossible for you not to turn into a pink gabbage in the next five minutes.

There is no one else but those fit to rule that could be elected. If there is no such person, then we have quantification over an empty domain and it's still true.

Argument by assertion.

Since when? There's plenty of constitutions that haven't been approved by the people, even in democracies. I've never voted on our constitution, never had the chance to, have you?

There are slight problems with someone born in 1983 voting on a Constitution which came into force in 1901.

I'm not, I'm just not overly enthousiastic to try and argue with someone that disregards what I try to bring across and simply invents another position to argue against and pretends it's mine.

You've not shown how a democratic method of selection will vary from the normal results of democratic selections.

But that's only a problem if interpretation is an issue. And there's no reason it should be.

Rubbish. The phrase "fitness to rule" is so ambiguous as to render it practially meaningless. Everyone will determine it based on his own views. There is no reason for people to agree a standard, comprehensive set of rules.

The reason it is an issue is simply that people do it. You can't assert it out of existance. There are some people who will say that John Howard is the best Prime Minister Australia's ever had, these people tend to agree with his ideology, others who disagree and vote for the opposite side do not think he is fit to rule.

If royal offspring can be trained from birth to rule, than so can anyone else.

An assertion that totally fails to take environment, and parenthood into account.

The reason Royal children can be trained to rule is that they live among, and are brought up by people who are trained to rule.

Anyway, it is not an argument necessarily for democracy, merely an argument that if a Royal family adopt a child, it can live and grow in an environment and be trained to be a wise ruler, succession laws can easily be changed to provide that adopted children are entitled to serve. You seem to have taken genetics as the primary argument for royalty. The real argument is environment.

Problems occur, however, when this "private property" is put to the use of exerting public power.

The defining characteristic of private property is the absolute authority of the owner over the property. Additionally, government must have someone to rule. To arbitrarily extend absolute authority over the ruled is to convert the ruled into private property as well. Any system of government that makes people into property is, in the not so humble opinion of this rabid individualist, completely and totally illegitimate. People cannot be property.

Government does not have to rule people, it can act as a mediator.

Incorrect. Property is a process of distributing limited resources. Human beings regularly claim property in that which they cannot possibly have produced themselves, the most obvious example being land. Not to mention pretty much every other kind of natural resource. The fact that the bolded statement above must be qualified with "generally" demonstrates that labor has nothing to do with it.

Natural resources and land carry property rights due to the the labor value that is added to them. And property rights are a way of making sure that the person has control over his own labor.

With a thread title like that, this thread should die quickly.

The problem I face with virtually any form of government is that it gives power to one or more people over everyone - in essence, virtually all forms of government are, at the very least on an issue by issue level, a dictatorship of the proletariat.

The people in power in most forms of government are officially or unofficially above the law.

The central assumption is that government is benevolent, and working for the good of all - when in fact it is only working for the good of those in power, or those in the interested majority.

Even those decisions are suspect - because humans are fallible and they make mistakes, any government composed of humans makes mistakes, often in the name of the common good.

I'm waiting for the day Kurzweil says is coming sooner than we know - the day the machines wake up and run our lives for us.

The problem I face with virtually any form of government is that it gives power to one or more people over everyone - in essence, virtually all forms of government are, at the very least on an issue by issue level, a dictatorship of the proletariat.

The people in power in most forms of government are officially or unofficially above the law.

The central assumption is that government is benevolent, and working for the good of all - when in fact it is only working for the good of those in power, or those in the interested majority.

Even those decisions are suspect - because humans are fallible and they make mistakes, any government composed of humans makes mistakes, often in the name of the common good.

I'm waiting for the day Kurzweil says is coming sooner than we know - the day the machines wake up and run our lives for us.

Yes, all forms of government are relatively unjust. The idea I am trying to run with is privately owned government, as it would still represent a contract between individuals.

Yes, all forms of government are relatively unjust. The idea I am trying to run with is privately owned government, as it would still represent a contract between individuals.

How about a contract between each individual and a machine intelligence?

One that would evaluate and arbitrate all needs, wants, and desires amongst all people according to their individual contracts?

No one person or group in charge. We would be literal wards of the machine.

Natural resources and land carry property rights due to the the labor value that is added to them.


This argument assumes that one has the right to appropriate natural resources in order to make it possible to mix one's labor with it in the first place. If I stand in front of a naturally occuring tree, I cannot argue that because I will use it to build a house the tree belongs to me now. To do so is to assume ownership before any actual labor has been exerted upon the resource in question.

In other words, the argument begs the question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

And property rights are a way of making sure that the person has control over his own labor.

Property rights are a way of making sure that a person has control over the limited resources he happens to possess. Labor is just another limited resource. There is nothing special about it beyond that.

My arguments for naturally occuring resources being made into property because of the excursion of labor:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9790253&postcount=14

I don't put too much weight on it myself, I'm not really convinced that anyone can have a right to property. But anyway, that's a bit of a hijack.

Edit to add: I just realized that you also posted in that thread, so you probably don't care...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9911926&postcount=63

Because there's nothing to pass down. There's no reason to believe that a random set of parents will say "I'll bring him up to be King".Is there a reason not to?
I mean, I'd think lot's of parent would like their kid to be the next ruler.

No you haven't. You've asserted that it is impossible. I could say that it is impossible for you not to turn into a pink gabbage in the next five minutes.And it is impossible. Not logically impossible but still.

Argument by assertion.A logically sound assertion. Since when is asserting tautologies wrong?
Every statement anyone makes is an assertion. Consequently you too have done nothing but arguing by assertion.

There are slight problems with someone born in 1983 voting on a Constitution which came into force in 1901.Exactly. So the people of now haven't voted for the constitution.

You've not shown how a democratic method of selection will vary from the normal results of democratic selections.I have, but you refuse to comprehend it. In a normal democracy anyone can be elected, even if they have no merit or qualification. If there are prerequisites that can't happen.

Rubbish.What a brilliant argument. You've really convinced me now.

Just forget it. If you don't want to even try to understand what I'm saying there really isn't any point in pretending there is a discussion.

Government does not have to rule people, it can act as a mediator.

And the authority of the mediator's decisions will be enforced...how? :)

Argumentium ad euphemism.

And the authority of the mediator's decisions will be enforced...how? :)

Argumentium ad euphemism.

With a gun. (Appeal to authority)

With a gun. (Appeal to authority)

Exactly.

Exactly.
Aren't you being a bit formulaic?

Aren't you being a bit formulaic?

how so?

Clinton's Administration was a litany of crime and failure.

... which is different to now how?

This argument assumes that one has the right to appropriate natural resources in order to make it possible to mix one's labor with it in the first place. If I stand in front of a naturally occuring tree, I cannot argue that because I will use it to build a house the tree belongs to me now. To do so is to assume ownership before any actual labor has been exerted upon the resource in question.

In other words, the argument begs the question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

[God, I hate arguments about homesteading. I have absolutely no idea how to justify it.]

Now we have a catch 22. The resource must be considered property in order for the individual to attach his labor to it, yet it cannot be considered property until after they have attached labor to it. The answer is to eliminate property rights, or to allow homesteading.

Property rights are a way of making sure that a person has control over the limited resources he happens to possess. Labor is just another limited resource. There is nothing special about it beyond that.

But labor is the product of a man's body, the method of his existence. That is a very special quality.

And the authority of the mediator's decisions will be enforced...how?

Enforced mediation is not enforced rule. Mediation is the government intervention in disputes between individuals, and, in order to be just, coming to a fair objective conclusion.

Now we have a catch 22. The resource must be considered property in order for the individual to attach his labor to it, yet it cannot be considered property until after they have attached labor to it. The answer is to eliminate property rights, or to allow homesteading.


The solution is to do away with the notion that property originates in labor.


Mediation is the government intervention in disputes between individuals, and, in order to be just, coming to a fair objective conclusion.


1) As concerns "fair objective" conclusions: who mediates when the government itself inevitably becomes involved in a dispute?

2) So we arrive at a "fair objective conclusion." "Oh well," I say, and I walk away and ignore it. Now what?

Is there a reason not to?
I mean, I'd think lot's of parent would like their kid to be the next ruler.

Of course there is. Nothing for them to pass down. A sitting monarch can certainly instruct her children and grandchildren, because he or she knows what is required. A boiler-maker won't know.

In a Royal Family, there is a body of knowledge about what is required to rule, and it can be readily passed down in an environment appropriate to it, by people who fully understand their role. There is no reason for that to exist in any other environment, and it is not for me to show proof of this, it is for you to show that proof that such an environment could exist, and would.

Something similar to the educational arrangements you propose exists in France, and it has produced people like France's President and Prime Minister, corrupt failures.

The National School of Administration (École nationale d'administration)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_nationale_d%27administration

Also among its alumni is the chap who drafted the EU Constitution.

You may claim that a school dedicated to supporting your system will be different, but there isn't reason to believe it.

And it is impossible. Not logically impossible but still.

You've still not shown that it is impossible. You've asserted that it is impossible.

A logically sound assertion. Since when is asserting tautologies wrong?
Every statement anyone makes is an assertion. Consequently you too have done nothing but arguing by assertion.

Its not logically sound, and you haven't addressed it.

Exactly. So the people of now haven't voted for the constitution.

Nitpick. The fact is that the Constitution was approved at the time it was put, and I am required to vote on any referenda that seek to change it.

I have, but you refuse to comprehend it. In a normal democracy anyone can be elected, even if they have no merit or qualification. If there are prerequisites that can't happen.

But you propose a highly subjective set of prerequisites, and people will be required to judge the candidates according to them. They will propose the people who agree with their political prejudices.

What a brilliant argument. You've really convinced me now.

Just forget it. If you don't want to even try to understand what I'm saying there really isn't any point in pretending there is a discussion.

You give nothing to understand. Just a lot of vague talk about prerequisites, and criteria. You've tried to prove by assertion, and have ommitted key details that are essential for making your system work as well as, or better than a royal family.

In a Royal Family, there is a body of knowledge about what is required to rule, and it can be readily passed down in an environment appropriate to it, by people who fully understand their role. There is no reason for that to exist in any other environment, and it is not for me to show proof of this, it is for you to show that proof that such an environment could exist, and would.

And as I have argued before there is no protection against a black sheep.

This argument assumes that one has the right to appropriate natural resources in order to make it possible to mix one's labor with it in the first place. If I stand in front of a naturally occuring tree, I cannot argue that because I will use it to build a house the tree belongs to me now. To do so is to assume ownership before any actual labor has been exerted upon the resource in question.


I think you are mischaracterizing the argument. The tree isn't yours; the house you build with the tree is yours. Furthermore you don't need to presuppose some right to rightfully do something. You are only wrongfully doing something when you have a duty not to do something and you do it anyway or you have a duty to do something but you don't do it. In the above case you haven't demonstrated that you have a duty not to claim the tree. I don't think it is reasonable to restrict an action that is not immoral simply because you have no express right to do it.

Also, the tree can be yours only where you have gone to the trouble of making it ownable where once it was not (like I argued in that post I linked to). If you don't like the idea of "mixing labor with the land" you can instead consider property rights a protection of your liberty to engage in economic freedom (which is the only way I understand property rights to be enforceable).

We could share bubble gum, but that doesn't mean we will get equal utility from it.

False analogy, roads are very much unlike bubble gum for the purposes of the examination at hand.

Is the exchange of property voluntary?

Assuming this person is willing, though begrudgingly, paying taxes? Assuming that this person is deriving a benefit from the taxes being paid? If yes to both then yes to your question.

In every company there is a constant threat of worker strike, yet they very rarely come to fruition.

It also doesn't even have to be armed rebellion, it can be civil disobedience that costs more to stop than to appease those who are upset.

We can probably go on debating public property forever, I'm just going to focus on the restriction by rebellion idea.

Do you agree that for the threat of rebellion to be tangible then there will have to be some actual instances of rebellion?

Let's assume for now that you say yes.

So basically, the monarch will go about protecting his property with his private military and private courts. The people will rebel and eventually, after putting down many such rebellions, he will extend some of the benefits of his military and courts to the people. After many generations the lessons of the past will likely be forgotten. A miserly heir will reduce military and legal protection to the people. Rebellions once again. When the costs of putting down rebellions becomes too great the monarch will give in once again. And this pattern goes on forever.

In summary:

Threat of rebellion too remote >>> Egregious activity by monarch >>> Rebellion >>> Compliance by monarch >>> Threat of rebellion too remote.

There are two problems with such a method of organization:

1) There is no state. If you notice all we have is a super wealthy individual with no duty to the people. Basically, we have the people organizing to force the redistribution of private property (of the monarch) to themselves.

2) The never ending cycle of rebellion for the most basic of services puts the life and liberty of the people at risk. Before the rebellions are successful then some people will give up their lives, some people will be imprisoned, and some people will lose their property. Liberalism becomes a joke.

In a normal democracy anyone can be elected, even if they have no merit or qualification. If there are prerequisites that can't happen.Why couldn't you just change the prerequisites in a normal democracy to make it more restrictive? Why would it be necessary to move to a monarchy?

Enforced mediation is not enforced rule. Mediation is the government intervention in disputes between individuals, and, in order to be just, coming to a fair objective conclusion.Then what would be the different between the system of government that you propose and the system of government which I propose: which people make decisions by direct democratic rule. Couldn't a direct democracy be considered to be a form of mediation?

The solution is to do away with the notion that property originates in labor.

Ok, property does not originate with labor.

Would you say that labor justifies property ownership, even if it does not establish it?

1) As concerns "fair objective" conclusions: who mediates when the government itself inevitably becomes involved in a dispute?

The way that disputes between government and citizenry are always handled. Both sides comes to some compromise in order to avoid violence, or violence occurs.

2) So we arrive at a "fair objective conclusion." "Oh well," I say, and I walk away and ignore it. Now what?

The government acts as an agent for the other individual. It steps in to assure that no outside harm was incurred on the individual. So yes, it rules one party, but only to insure that that party did not exert a ruling force over the wronged party.

Then what would be the different between the system of government that you propose and the system of government which I propose: which people make decisions by direct democratic rule. Couldn't a direct democracy be considered to be a form of mediation?

Certainly, any form of government can institute libertarian policy. I was just arguing against democracy as it has no motivation to not oppress people. A privately owned government would make money by pleasing the people, as a happy tax or due paying citizen is much more profitable than a unhappy violent citizen.

And as I have argued before there is no protection against a black sheep.

No, though strictly speaking your argument is an example of the "perfect solution fallacy".

Would you say that labor justifies property ownership, even if it does not establish it?


Nope. If labor did justify ownership, I could just plant a tree in the middle of my neighbor's yard and thus claim his property. After all, I labored to improve the land, so now it's mine.

A privately owned government would make money by pleasing the people, as a happy tax or due paying citizen is much more profitable than a unhappy violent citizen.

The problem is that a legitimate government deals only in public goods ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good ). Trying to privatise trade in public goods will lead to a massive problem. For instance, I might agree to pay the "police fee" to the local private "government" (a private business cannot levy involuntary taxes), and thus recieve police protection for my home. My neighbor, however, does not have to pay the fee; by keeping crime low around my house, crime is automatically made lower around my neighbor's house as well. I pay the fee, and my neighbor gets a free ride (see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem ).

This is why minarchists ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchists ), like myself, will argue in favor of public government that provides such genuine public goods, like police, national defense, firefighting, etc. Of course, this necessitates the levying of taxes. Some argue that taxes are theft. In reality, the theft is committed by the free riding neighbor, who recieves a benifit he did not pay for. If he wishes to recieve the benifit, then he can very well pay the fee for it too.

No, though strictly speaking your argument is an example of the "perfect solution fallacy".

I was just specifically refuting the idea that raising leaders from birth will insure good leaders. Basically pointing out that you can have a bad monrach that was supposed to be good just like you can elect a bad representative that was supposed to be good.

My refutation of the monarchy thing is probably best summed up here:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9917502&postcount=75

In reality, the theft is committed by the free riding neighbor, who recieves a benifit he did not pay for. If he wishes to recieve the benifit, then he can very well pay the fee for it too.

I can see what you mean by free riders being theives, but you don't mean all cases of such do you?

When my friend buys the Wall Street journal, reads it, and hands it to me I am technically taking advantage of his investment in the journal for free. Does that make me a thief? It doesn't seem so.

Furthermore, there are cases where I can unintentionally take advantage of a good that I didn't pay for. When I travel to another country as a tourist, assuming it has no sales tax, then I'm cleary taking advantage of the roads, parks, police, and other emergency personnel there. Does that make me a thief? I don't think so.

Vittos Ordination,

No responce to my post #75?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9917502&postcount=75

When my friend buys the Wall Street journal, reads it, and hands it to me I am technically taking advantage of his investment in the journal for free. Does that make me a thief? It doesn't seem so.


The analogy is false (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy). Newspapers are not public goods. :)


Furthermore, there are cases where I can unintentionally take advantage of a good that I didn't pay for. When I travel to another country as a tourist, assuming it has no sales tax, then I'm cleary taking advantage of the roads, parks, police, and other emergency personnel there. Does that make me a thief? I don't think so.


The assumption that there are no sales taxes is probably extremely unsafe. Additionally, I would assume that there are Customs fees, tarriffs, and other assessments that tourists would have to pay: getting a visa that allows one to visit the country, for instance. Even if there aren't any such fees, if a person takes advantage of resources that he did not pay for, then he is a free rider. Whether or not the host nation considers this theft is beside the point.

Dissonant Cognition,

Admittedly my analogies are not very good for the reasons you pointed out. I'm often drawn to reasoning by analogy, but horrible at making up appropriate hypos. Let me lay bare the intended principle question of each analogy.

Newspaper analogy: Can a free rider with consent to act as such be guilty of theft?

Tourist analogy: Can a free rider without consent but without intent to be a free rider be guilty of theft?

This second question requires some qualification. You should also assume for the purposes of this question that this person is acting without knowledge of his freeloading.

Newspaper analogy: Can a free rider with consent to act as such be guilty of theft?


If A voluntarily surrenders his private good to B without payment, B cannot be a free rider. Therefore, this question is irrevelant to the issue at hand. (Clarification: if A can even give consent, we immediately know that we are not dealing with a public good. Consent implies that the item in question is excludable; a public good is, by definition, non-excludable. Thus a free rider, in order to be a free rider, must act without consent.)


Tourist analogy: Can a free rider without consent but without intent to be a free rider be guilty of theft?

This second question requires some qualification. You should also assume for the purposes of this question that this person is acting without knowledge of his freeloading.


The person in question may be ignorant. However, the tax/fee paying citizens of the country which he or she is visiting are not necessarily so.

If A voluntarily surrenders his private good to B without payment, B cannot be a free rider. Therefore, this question is irrevelant to the issue at hand.

But this isn't exactly about an A to B transaction. We are talking about an A to B transaction that somehow benefits C, the free rider. If C has permission to benefit without compensation is C a thief even though he is technically a free rider?

The person in question may be ignorant. However, the taxpaying citizens of the country which he or she is visiting are not necessarily so.

So I can be a thief without an intent? Accidental theft?

But this isn't exactly about an A to B transaction. We are talking about an A to B transaction that somehow benefits C, the free rider. If C has permission to benefit without compensation is C a thief even though he is technically a free rider?


I added a clarification to my post. Here it is again:


Clarification: if A can even give consent, we immediately know that we are not dealing with a public good. Consent implies that the item in question is excludable; a public good is, by definition, non-excludable. Thus a free rider, in order to be a free rider, must act without consent.


Because the good in question is excludable, none of the parties can be a free rider.

So I can be a thief without an intent? Accidental theft?

Which is more important, intent or effect? EDIT: Being without intent may reduce the severity of guilt, but it does not eliminate guilt completely.

Which is more important, intent or effect? EDIT: Being without intent may reduce the severity of guilt, but it does not eliminate guilt completely.

To my understanding this whole thing is about moral culpability. It seems to me that a free rider with consent or without intent is barely guilty of anything so that we shouldn't call what he does 'theft' which carries a great deal of moral baggage.

But even setting the issue of moral culpability aside, is there even a transfer of property here? The 'thief' is neither denying the rightful owner the use of said property, nor is he restricting it in anyway. The 'thief' is merely taking advantage of it.

If my neighbors form a neighborhood watch which reduces crime in the area that subsequently has a positive effect on my business as it is now more appealing to be a customer in an area with reduced crime, am I a thief? Should I have to pay my neighbors? I took advantage of the reduced crime, but so are they. I didn't ask for this. Why should I be responcible for accidental benefit?

Edit:

I just read your addition on excludability, but I think my analogy of the neighborhood watch works. You are right in that any kind of good that needs expressive consent is probably a private good. But when I say consent I mean expressive and implicit consent. Public goods implicitly grant consent for all to enjoy even though not all may be paying for them.

If my neighbors form a neighborhood watch which reduces crime in the area that subsequently has a positive effect on my business as it is now more appealing to be a customer in an area with reduced crime, am I a thief? Should I have to pay my neighbors? I took advantage of the reduced crime, but so are they. I didn't ask for this. Why should I be responcible for accidental benefit?

If your neighbors are nice enough to give away their labor (an excludable resource, by the way) for free, then no, you are not a thief.

However, we simply cannot rely on everyone being able or willing to give away their labor for free. A professional police force, and associated governmental bodies, are going to be very expensive and are going to consist of people who want to be paid for their time.

It is simply a matter of fact that if people can gain a benefit without paying for it, they will not pay for it. This is why a private police force will always fail, and why a public government police force without the ability to levy involuntary taxes will fail. With the private police force, the free rider problem creates a wave of "if he doesn't have to pay, why should I?" which will sweep the society until there is no one left paying. No paying, no profit, no private police force. This is why payment, in the case of such a public good, necessarily becomes involuntary, or becomes a tax, and thus why police become public government entites.

People want the benefit without having to pay for it, thus they must be made to pay (TANSTAAFL, after all....). If the labor is not given away freely, those who accept the benefit without payment consume the labor of others without consent, and are thus comitting theft. Additonally, because of the free rider problem, those who refuse to pay risk destroying the benefit for everyone else, and so are, to a certain extent, working to "steal" that benefit away from their fellow citizens.

But when I say consent I mean expressive and implicit consent. Public goods implicitly grant consent for all to enjoy even though not all may be paying for them.


The public good (say, police protection) is freely consumable by all regardless of consent. The labor that produces that public good, being an excludable resource, is not freely consumable. :)

And how do you think a revolution could come about without huge losses in both human life and human property?
Seeing the divisions in modern society (especially since you are committed to strengthening and fostering such differences) it is next to impossible that a revolution would go about unopposed, or even with a common goal - with the result being civil war.Many a monarch has been deposed without the loss of a single innocent life.

Certainly, any form of government can institute libertarian policy. I was just arguing against democracy as it has no motivation to not oppress people. A privately owned government would make money by pleasing the people, as a happy tax or due paying citizen is much more profitable than a unhappy violent citizen.While it is true that the privately owned government would have motivation to not oppress people, I would think a direct democracy would, too, as the oppressed people could always leave the country.

The problem is that a legitimate government deals only in public goods ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good ). Trying to privatise trade in public goods will lead to a massive problem. For instance, I might agree to pay the "police fee" to the local private "government" (a private business cannot levy involuntary taxes), and thus recieve police protection for my home. My neighbor, however, does not have to pay the fee; by keeping crime low around my house, crime is automatically made lower around my neighbor's house as well. I pay the fee, and my neighbor gets a free ride (see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem ).
It seems strange to me that whenever an anarcho-capitalist or someone from the Austrian school is discussed, the conversation is steered toward the alleged free-rider problem. The simple response to what you're saying is "so what?" If you pay for a service that in your opinion benefits another, how are you wronged by this fact? Where is the problem?


This is why minarchists ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchists ), like myself, will argue in favor of public government that provides such genuine public goods, like police, national defense, firefighting, etc. Of course, this necessitates the levying of taxes. Some argue that taxes are theft. In reality, the theft is committed by the free riding neighbor, who recieves a benifit he did not pay for.

I've spent a few years working as a security guard and most of the business neigbooring the property where I worked did not have their own security personel and my presence apparently benefited them. Did these folks steal this benefit? Hardly, they never even asked for it.

If he wishes to recieve the benifit, then he can very well pay the fee for it too.
And what if he doesn't? What if someone would much rather deal with potential criminals himself? It could be that he gets enjoyment out of it or that he doesn't trust others to solve the security problem. Further, the assumption that modern police forces have an overall positive impact on the level of crime is only an assumption, and one I disagree with. In the US, the biggest piece of law enforcement is the drug war. Eliminate the drug war and you'll eliminate more real crime than the rest of law enforcement ever could. So it is my opinion that I do not in fact benefit from the existance of the modern police. If I had the option, I would not pay for them.

It really does suprise me that the free-rider problem is the first place so many people go when they're opposing free-market anarchy. Personally, I do not consider myself an anarcho-capitalist. I'm just a Rothbardian freedom lover, who frequently ends up arguing the an-cap side.

The simple response to what you're saying is "so what?" If you pay for a service that in your opinion benefits another, how are you wronged by this fact? Where is the problem?


The problem occurs when more people decide to take a free ride than pay the fee. Like I've said in an earlier post in this thread, if a person finds that he can benefit from a service without paying for it, he will choose to not pay and deflect the cost onto someone else; it is completely irrational to pay if one does not need to. (this, btw, is exactly the same free rider problem that I cite in support of free-market environmentalism in another thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9922200&postcount=20 )

When the private "government" police force is spending more to provide a service that not enough people are paying for, it goes out of business. It's that simple.


And what if he doesn't?


He should be prepared to accept the concequences (good or bad, just or unjust) of his choice.


In the US, the biggest piece of law enforcement is the drug war. Eliminate the drug war and you'll eliminate more real crime than the rest of law enforcement ever could. So it is my opinion that I do not in fact benefit from the existance of the modern police. If I had the option, I would not pay for them.


1) http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9923326&postcount=29

2) Finding one specific example of injustice does not eliminate the need for a police force in general. I may as well claim that because firearms are used to murder, we ought to get rid of all firearms...I have a feeling this argument will be rejected, however. :) A misapplication of a tool is not the fault of the tool.

Besides, you might have the time, energy, and expertise to constantly patrol your own property and make a living at the same time. I'm willing to bet that most people don't.


It really does suprise me that the free-rider problem is the first place so many people go when they're opposing free-market anarchy.


The first link above to my post in a discussion on environmentalism will show that the free rider problem is also an excellent place to start when opposing statist interference. Over time, I've found that, in the course of answering a political question, one should always proceed from the assumption that each opposite extreme is equally false. The name I chose for my nation is not an accident. :D

Oh, well, the free rider problem is certainly not the only way to attack such a silly notion as anarchism. It just seemed to be the most relevant to this particular discussion. :)

Nope. If labor did justify ownership, I could just plant a tree in the middle of my neighbor's yard and thus claim his property. After all, I labored to improve the land, so now it's mine.

Not quite, the owner of that land has the right to that land so that he can apply his labor to it. Only through this application of labor to resources can his labor have value, so he has right to the property so that his labor can have value.

If you acquisition his land for your own use, you have effectively taken his labor utility.

The problem is that a legitimate government deals only in public goods ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good ). Trying to privatise trade in public goods will lead to a massive problem. For instance, I might agree to pay the "police fee" to the local private "government" (a private business cannot levy involuntary taxes), and thus recieve police protection for my home. My neighbor, however, does not have to pay the fee; by keeping crime low around my house, crime is automatically made lower around my neighbor's house as well. I pay the fee, and my neighbor gets a free ride (see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem ).

This is why minarchists ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchists ), like myself, will argue in favor of public government that provides such genuine public goods, like police, national defense, firefighting, etc. Of course, this necessitates the levying of taxes. Some argue that taxes are theft. In reality, the theft is committed by the free riding neighbor, who recieves a benifit he did not pay for. If he wishes to recieve the benifit, then he can very well pay the fee for it too.

I have trouble figuring out how taxation-funded government services and goods does not leave us with just another free rider problem. Surely the government cannot adequately grant services based on the amount of taxes a person pays.

False analogy, roads are very much unlike bubble gum for the purposes of the examination at hand.

They are both goods with varying utility based on prior use and individual preference.

Assuming this person is willing, though begrudgingly, paying taxes? Assuming that this person is deriving a benefit from the taxes being paid? If yes to both then yes to your question.

It is a contract that is enforced by threat of violence. That is a contract under duress, and, at least by US law, is considered void. Yet for some reason the US government is morally justified in doing it.

Would I be justified in getting you to sell your car to me by pointing a gun at your head, even if I did give you greater than full market value?

Do you agree that for the threat of rebellion to be tangible then there will have to be some actual instances of rebellion?

Let's assume for now that you say yes.

Rebellion is hardly a tangible measureable thing. It is organic, growing out of society in varying degrees. In that sense, rebellion is constant. It can be assumed that somewhere within society, someone is rebelling. The monarch will, in order to maintain or grow in his economic standings, work to pacify the people, as to keep the rebellion minute and isolated.

So basically, the monarch will go about protecting his property with his private military and private courts. The people will rebel and eventually, after putting down many such rebellions, he will extend some of the benefits of his military and courts to the people. After many generations the lessons of the past will likely be forgotten. A miserly heir will reduce military and legal protection to the people. Rebellions once again. When the costs of putting down rebellions becomes too great the monarch will give in once again. And this pattern goes on forever.

In summary:

Threat of rebellion too remote >>> Egregious activity by monarch >>> Rebellion >>> Compliance by monarch >>> Threat of rebellion too remote.

Rebellion doesn't have to be violent, and this pattern isn't limited to a monarchy.

There are two problems with such a method of organization:

1) There is no state. If you notice all we have is a super wealthy individual with no duty to the people. Basically, we have the people organizing to force the redistribution of private property (of the monarch) to themselves.

Well, there is a state, it is just privately owned. If ran successfully, through an exchange of taxation and services the system will not not need redistribution of wealth. That is the way a free market is supposed to work.

(Note: I am fully aware that I am contradicting myself in espousing taxes. This is because I don't support the monarchy either, I am just opposing it to democracy, which I feel is no more morally justified than monarchy.)

2) The never ending cycle of rebellion for the most basic of services puts the life and liberty of the people at risk. Before the rebellions are successful then some people will give up their lives, some people will be imprisoned, and some people will lose their property. Liberalism becomes a joke.

I could see a socialist arguing against capitalism in the same way.

The problem occurs when more people decide to take a free ride than pay the fee. Like I've said in an earlier post in this thread, if a person finds that he can benefit from a service without paying for it, he will choose to not pay and deflect the cost onto someone else; it is completely irrational to pay if one does not need to. (this, btw, is exactly the same free rider problem that I cite in support of free-market environmentalism in another thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9922200&postcount=20 )
What you're arguing in that thread is a different animal. If you really were using the same concept to argue both for and against the free-market, you'd have a contradiction. But you really aren't doing that. Now, let me just ask you this: do you understand what the margin is?


When the private "government" police force is spending more to provide a service that not enough people are paying for, it goes out of business. It's that simple.Your use of the word 'government' tells me that you're thinking inside the box - a rather tiny box.

People have certain security needs. Different people have different needs. Some of these needs are met or can me met by tax-funded police. Many of them are not and realistically can't be. The ostensible purpose of tax-funded police is to meet some of these needs, but because it is essentially socialized security, it suffers from the same problem as all socialism - there is no profit/loss motivation, no way to know how much to charge for services or which services to provide more of. Now if you leave security to the open market it's quite doubtful that there would be any service that would closely resemble tax-funded police, and more security needs would be met. It may sound like an act of faith when I say this, but it is really a conclusion of my understanding of the laws of economics.



He should be prepared to accept the concequences (good or bad, just or unjust) of his choice.Of course, and I would prefer to live in a world where people are forced to face the consequences of their own decisions. But he cannot choose to not pay taxes.


2) Finding one specific example of injustice does not eliminate the need for a police force in general. I may as well claim that because firearms are used to murder, we ought to get rid of all firearms...I have a feeling this argument will be rejected, however. :) A misapplication of a tool is not the fault of the tool.You can call that a specific example of injustice, but to me, taking my wealth against my will to pay for something I never asked for is inherently unjust. The police in the US are not an exception but an exagerated example of the rule.

Besides, you might have the time, energy, and expertise to constantly patrol your own property and make a living at the same time. I'm willing to bet that most people don't.I don't know about where you live, but nobody is constantly patrolling my property now. Under what circumstances might that become necessary? The one situation I can think of is where a hurricane named Katrina flattens and floods your sub sea-level city, in which case you'd better be prepared to defend your property even if there are tax-funded police.

Oh, well, the free rider problem is certainly not the only way to attack such a silly notion as anarchism. It just seemed to be the most relevant to this particular discussion. :)I must've missed how it came up then.

Not quite, the owner of that land has the right to that land so that he can apply his labor to it.


Right. Ownership is established before labor even becomes an issue.


Only through this application of labor to resources can his labor have value, so he has right to the property so that his labor can have value.


That statement sounds awfully circular.

His labor has value because it is, in and of itself, a limited resource. Whether or not this labor can be expended in any particular way has nothing to do with it.


If you acquisition his land for your own use, you have effectively taken his labor utility.

Nothing is stopping him from acquiring new land or using his labor in some other way. As such, the utility of his labor is not diminished in any way. Besides, are not land owners, by keeping all the land to themselves, then depriving me of the utility of my labor?

What you're arguing in that thread is a different animal. If you really were using the same concept to argue both for and against the free-market, you'd have a contradiction. But you really aren't doing that. Now, let me just ask you this: do you understand what the margin is?


But I'm not arguing for and against the free-market. In this thread I'm arguing that law enforcement is a public good. In the other thread, I'm arguing that environmental protection of land is not a public good. In both cases, the free rider problem demonstrates why.


Your use of the word 'government' tells me that you're thinking inside the box - a rather tiny box.


Whatever that means.



...it suffers from the same problem as all socialism - there is no profit/loss motivation, no way to know how much to charge for services or which services to provide more of.


Of course such motovation exists, the currency is simply measured in political power instead of dollars. When the people believe that the police are doing an adequate job, they continue to give it legitimacy, continue to fund it at whatever level deemed appropriate, and those persons elected to head it continue to have their jobs. If the police do not provide adequate services, the people move to change these things.


Of course, and I would prefer to live in a world where people are forced to face the consequences of their own decisions. But he cannot choose to not pay taxes.


Of course he can. The possibility of having to accept negative concequences does not remove his choice. In order for liberty to have any meaning an individual must always be in total control of his choice, and must always be willing to accept the concequences of said choice. Anything less is to accept the validity of determinism, and to flush libertarian free choice down the toilet.

"I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
-- The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein

"Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does."
-- Jean-Paul Sartre


The one situation I can think of is where a hurricane named Katrina flattens and floods your sub sea-level city, in which case you'd better be prepared to defend your property even if there are tax-funded police.


Well, of course. I'm not telling anyone to simply lay down and not take any responsibility for themselves.

I have trouble figuring out how taxation-funded government services and goods does not leave us with just another free rider problem. Surely the government cannot adequately grant services based on the amount of taxes a person pays.

Taxation solves (or, at least, lessens the impact of) the free rider problem by increasing the concequences a person must accept if he chooses to not pay up. Most rational people will decide that it is better to pay the fee than to risk legal action, fines, or even imprisonment. Thus, more/most people pay for the provision of the public good in question (law enforcement).

Right. Ownership is established before labor even becomes an issue.

That we are agreed upon.

That statement sounds awfully circular.

His labor has value because it is, in and of itself, a limited resource. Whether or not this labor can be expended in any particular way has nothing to do with it.

It is not valuable until it is combined with capital.

Labor is intangible, and must be added to something tangible in order to gain any utility.

Nothing is stopping him from acquiring new land or using his labor in some other way. As such, the utility of his labor is not diminished in any way. Besides, are not land owners, by keeping all the land to themselves, then depriving me of the utility of my labor?

His labor has diminished by the amount of labor it would take to acquire new land and form new plans.

But I'm not arguing for and against the free-market.In this thread you are clearly agruing against it. You are saying that the issue of security cannot be left to the free-market because of the free-rider problem.



Whatever that means.What you're saying is that if people are not forced to pay for government police forces, <GASP!> there will be no government police forces because such an enterprise is not profitable. I really don't know how to prove this to you but if a service is not provided on the open market it is because it is deemed not important by consumers. If there is no government-style police force, it is because there is insufficient demand for one. For you to say that such a force is still necessary is to place your wants above those of would be "free-riders".



Of course such motovation exists, the currency is simply measured in political power instead of dollars. When the people believe that the police are doing an adequate job, they continue to give it legitimacy, continue to fund it at whatever level deemed appropriate, and those persons elected to head it continue to have their jobs. If the police do not provide adequate services, the people move to change these things.Are you serious? Can the political process compare at all to the bottom line of a for-profit business? Not at all. I once tried an orange Mountain Dew. I didn't like it. I never bought one again. I wasn't alone and I don't see that stuff around much anymore. There are a great many of us who don't much care for police, but unlike orange Mountain Dew, they won't stop taking our money and they won't leave us alone.


Of course he can. The possibility of having to accept negative concequences does not remove his choice.
...Let's clarify something here. I'm not arguing against the existance of free will or anything of the sort. This should be clear.

Scenario A: Man can pay for a security force or not. If he chooses not to, he must deal with his security needs personally.

Scenario B: Man can pay for a security force or not. If he chooses not to, the security personnel will come to his house, kidnap him, steal his property, and put him in a prison.

Now when you said that the man should be prepared to accept the consequences of his choice, which scenario were you talking about?

If your neighbors are nice enough to give away their labor (an excludable resource, by the way) for free, then no, you are not a thief.

That's all I was after.

People want the benefit without having to pay for it, thus they must be made to pay (TANSTAAFL, after all....). If the labor is not given away freely, those who accept the benefit without payment consume the labor of others without consent, and are thus comitting theft.

I agree with the above (that is if you add without intent or knowledge as well) and your argument on private v. public police.

I'm not doubting that a free rider can be a thief, I was just proposing a few situations where a free rider wouldn't be a thief.

They are both goods with varying utility based on prior use and individual preference.

"For the purposes at hand." We are talking about public goods.

It is a contract that is enforced by threat of violence. That is a contract under duress, and, at least by US law, is considered void. Yet for some reason the US government is morally justified in doing it.

Would I be justified in getting you to sell your car to me by pointing a gun at your head, even if I did give you greater than full market value?

You would not be justified. But neither is the government in a similar situation. However, social contract theory presupposes a contract with the state before you get into the mess of enforcing the laws.

But heck, we can even step down from theory for a bit and look at reality. What happens when the government resolves a contract dispute through the judicial system? Well it enforces its decision of course. How? Through force if necessary. Does that then make the contract void? No, because the contract was formed without force, it was only policed through force.

The same is going on between the individual and the State. No one forces you to get a job, get a driver's license, get a passport, get a diploma, etc. But by the time you have enjoyed the fruits of the States' protection you owe it for the services rendered. If you don't pay then you are treated like a bad debtor, that is to say rather harshly.

Rebellion is hardly a tangible measureable thing. It is organic, growing out of society in varying degrees. In that sense, rebellion is constant. It can be assumed that somewhere within society, someone is rebelling. The monarch will, in order to maintain or grow in his economic standings, work to pacify the people, as to keep the rebellion minute and isolated.

So then you agree that real rebellion is necessary, that the threat of rebellion alone isn't enough? You are kind of going on a tangent here. I'm only asking if you accept the assumption that for the threat of rebellion to remain credible, actual rebellion must occasionally occur.

Rebellion doesn't have to be violent, and this pattern isn't limited to a monarchy.

1) The people may be nonviolent, but the monarch can be a bastard. People still die.

2) Not limited to a monarchy, but you are suggesting expressly this kind of mechanism for the control of your monarch. You are throwing away life and liberty here because you don't like public property.

Well, there is a state, it is just privately owned. If ran successfully, through an exchange of taxation and services the system will not not need redistribution of wealth. That is the way a free market is supposed to work.


A privately owned state is either contradictory or misleading. Call it a state if you want, but who cares? You are proposing exactly what I described, a super-wealthy individual with substantial economic and political power who we hope will be a kind, gentle person. What a system of governance! Yes, thank God we avoided all those horrible taxes!

I could see a socialist arguing against capitalism in the same way.

If he/she wants. Personally I don't see a reason why people must rebel in a capitalist system if it is democratic and responsive whereas the system you propose requires rebellion as a political mechanism.

Let's clarify something here. I'm not arguing against the existance of free will or anything of the sort. This should be clear.

Scenario A: Man can pay for a security force or not. If he chooses not to, he must deal with his security needs personally.

Scenario B: Man can pay for a security force or not. If he chooses not to, the security personnel will come to his house, kidnap him, steal his property, and put him in a prison.

Now when you said that the man should be prepared to accept the consequences of his choice, which scenario were you talking about?

Oh the drama. You know given the economic ideology of libertarians I find it hard to believe that they are so against paying their bills.

Oh the drama. You know given the economic ideology of libertarians I find it hard to believe that they are so against paying their bills.Where do you get this generalization from? Do libertarians owe you money?

"For the purposes at hand." We are talking about public goods.

Goods are goods, and their nature doesn't change because they are offered by the government. Goods and services will have infinite variations in utility to the consumer, or citizen as the case is with public goods. The fact is that when a good is offered as a public good at the expense of the taxpayer, the variations in utility means that someone will be forced to pay more than the equivalent of the utility he receives from the public good, while someone will pay less than the equivalent.

And just like bubble gum, shared public goods have lower value to some than they do to others.

You would not be justified. But neither is the government in a similar situation. However, social contract theory presupposes a contract with the state before you get into the mess of enforcing the laws.

There are some problems with the social contract, at least in this situation:

1. The social contract presupposes society, not a state. If the government is going above and beyond what is necessary to insure the peaceful interactions amongst the members of society, it is no longer upholding the social contract.

2. If you take the social contract to the logical conclusion, we can justify segregation, slavery, etc.

For these reasons, I feel that the social contract must be chopped down to the libertarian credo of do no harm. Other than that, it doesn't apply.

But heck, we can even step down from theory for a bit and look at reality. What happens when the government resolves a contract dispute through the judicial system? Well it enforces its decision of course. How? Through force if necessary. Does that then make the contract void? No, because the contract was formed without force, it was only policed through force.

The same is going on between the individual and the State. No one forces you to get a job, get a driver's license, get a passport, get a diploma, etc. But by the time you have enjoyed the fruits of the States' protection you owe it for the services rendered. If you don't pay then you are treated like a bad debtor, that is to say rather harshly.

I was never given a choice as to what I should pay for the services of the state, nor what services I deemed necessary from the state. The majority rendered a decision, and I was forced to comply or leave.

There is no explicit contract between the individual and the state concerning taxation and services recieved.

So then you agree that real rebellion is necessary, that the threat of rebellion alone isn't enough? You are kind of going on a tangent here. I'm only asking if you accept the assumption that for the threat of rebellion to remain credible, actual rebellion must occasionally occur.

What I am saying is that rebellion is a constant, so that threat of rebellion is a constant. Because of this, there is constant pressure on the state to appease the citizens.

1) The people may be nonviolent, but the monarch can be a bastard. People still die.

2) Not limited to a monarchy, but you are suggesting expressly this kind of mechanism for the control of your monarch. You are throwing away life and liberty here because you don't like public property.

I am saying that the need for rebellion will occur very seldom within this system, because the monarch has an expressed interest in pleasing the people. In a democracy the majority only has an expressed interest in pleasing themselves.

This means that oppression and rebellion are more likely to occur in a democracy. America has had large scale violent rebellion as a democracy, The Civil War, the Reconstruction, the Civil Rights movement, mainly due to a minority group that felt like they were being held back by a government.

If he/she wants. Personally I don't see a reason why people must rebel in a capitalist system if it is democratic and responsive whereas the system you propose requires rebellion as a political mechanism.

There is what I am talking about, the idea that a democratic system represents the people, thus forming an individual duty to the system to not rebel when it opposes them. Like I have said several times before, a democratic system has no motivation to be fair to all of the people, only the majority.

Oh the drama. You know given the economic ideology of libertarians I find it hard to believe that they are so against paying their bills.

This is not the payment of bills. This is the forced payment for services unnamed and unrendered.

But he cannot choose to not pay taxes.
Sure he can, he can live in a place that doesn't have taxation.

Sure he can, he can live in a place that doesn't have taxation.
You're either a troll or an idiot. I already clarified what I was saying.

Where do you get this generalization from? Do libertarians owe you money?

From you. Taxes are bills for services rendered.

This is not the payment of bills. This is the forced payment for services unnamed and unrendered.

A receipt for a service rendered is a bill, strictly speaking. All payments can ultimately be policed by some form of coercion.

Goods are goods, and their nature doesn't change because they are offered by the government. Goods and services will have infinite variations in utility to the consumer, or citizen as the case is with public goods. The fact is that when a good is offered as a public good at the expense of the taxpayer, the variations in utility means that someone will be forced to pay more than the equivalent of the utility he receives from the public good, while someone will pay less than the equivalent.

And just like bubble gum, shared public goods have lower value to some than they do to others.

Their nature as goods? No I don't think it changes. I wasn't attempting to argue that, this whole thing is focused on the benefit and ownership of public goods. Is bubble gum analogous to a road as they are both goods? Of course. Is bubble gum analogous to a road as they are both the same kinds of good? No, the former is private and the latter is public.

There are indeed different utilities amongst individuals for public goods, but this is true of all kinds of goods. There are a number of people that would gain far more utility than me from a burrito, yet we pay the same price. Utility doesn't have to match up exactly to price. Now on the market no one pays for a good that wouldn't provide them with a comparative utility to that of purchasing another good. However, in some cases of a public good you can't really pay for more than you receive, there are just some goods so vital that by the very fact that you have more wealth to contribute you are gaining more utility from that good or service (roads, police, firefighters, etc.). However, where you can pay for more than you receive there is clearly a slight injustice. But it doesn't provoke my sense of justice and fairness. The government can take away more from you than it gives you, but so can the market (businesses fail you know, the market owes you nothing). I just don't see why the government must be a kinder mistress than the market.

1. The social contract presupposes society, not a state. If the government is going above and beyond what is necessary to insure the peaceful interactions amongst the members of society, it is no longer upholding the social contract.

2. If you take the social contract to the logical conclusion, we can justify segregation, slavery, etc.

Presupposes society to form a State... that seems fair. But now you are assuming the terms of that contract. A society can form a contract that requires the governing authority to guarantee more than peace. A society can also limit the power of the government in that contract. There is no need for a contract to lead to any particular State posture.

I was never given a choice as to what I should pay for the services of the state, nor what services I deemed necessary from the state. The majority rendered a decision, and I was forced to comply or leave.

There is no explicit contract between the individual and the state concerning taxation and services recieved.

That's true. But it is practically impossible to form a State that will please every single individual. You may not like the current activies of our government, but by your continued residence you are casting a vote and declaring that this is the best place you can get.

What I am saying is that rebellion is a constant, so that threat of rebellion is a constant. Because of this, there is constant pressure on the state to appease the citizens.

I'll accept that the threat of rebellion is constant, but I am also qualifying that threat. I am bascially asking you here, do you agree that sometimes the threat of rebellion is less severe than other times and do you agree that an occasional actual rebellion needs to take place to reaffirm the possibility of future rebellion?

I am saying that the need for rebellion will occur very seldom within this system, because the monarch has an expressed interest in pleasing the people. In a democracy the majority only has an expressed interest in pleasing themselves.

Only when they are on the verge of actual rebellion. Until such time any injustice can be levied against the people.

This means that oppression and rebellion are more likely to occur in a democracy. America has had large scale violent rebellion as a democracy, The Civil War, the Reconstruction, the Civil Rights movement, mainly due to a minority group that felt like they were being held back by a government.

It isn't more likely to occur because a democracy includes other mechanisms for change whereas your system requires a rebellion every time. In a properly formed democracy the minority can petition the legislature, the executive, and the courts for protection. Part of the Civil Rights movement was non-violent civil disobedience, part of it was violent, and part of it was working within the established system. Your peasants do not have such methods to redress their grievances.

There is what I am talking about, the idea that a democratic system represents the people, thus forming an individual duty to the system to not rebel when it opposes them. Like I have said several times before, a democratic system has no motivation to be fair to all of the people, only the majority.

An undisciplined democracy would only concern itself with the majority. Of course then the very same rebellion mechanism you are relying upon will be present in such a system.

But anyway, I am not advocating such a system. I am advocating a disciplined democratic republic ruled by law rather than popular passion. You can't avoid the will of the people, you shouldn't in fact. But you can form such a system so that cooler heads prevail.

I just do not see the wisdom in your position. You are so concerned with the rights of the minority that you take the most extreme possible minority (a single individual) and give him/her the most extreme possible power (the full power and wealth of a formal State without any formal restrictions) and pray that the ethereal threat of rebellion will keep this monarch in check. Perhaps you fancy yourself that monarch, otherwise I can't see any rational person accepting such oppression.

From you. Taxes are bills for services rendered

A receipt for a service rendered is a bill, strictly speaking. All payments can ultimately be policed by some form of coercion.There are many significant differences between taxes and bills. For one, taxes are hardly bills for services rendered. When I get a bill, I'm told how much I have to pay for specific things that I wanted. When I'm expected to pay a tax, rarely is there any hint given as to what the tax is for. When there is, it is often quite vaugue and probably has nothing to do with any services I recieved. If I have recieved these alleged services, I may not have wanted them at all.

Bills are quite different in that, you cannot reasonably be expected to pay for something you didn't ask for or didn't recieve. When you are billed for something the bill always says what it's for.

No the thing that makes a tax a tax is precisely that which makes something different than a bill - coersion. Sure, voluntary contracts can be enforced, but they are still ultimately voluntary.

Now, you made the gross generaliztion that libertarians don't like to pay their bills, but what you meant was that libertarians don't like to pay taxes. Try to speak more clearly.

Their nature as goods? No I don't think it changes. I wasn't attempting to argue that, this whole thing is focused on the benefit and ownership of public goods. Is bubble gum analogous to a road as they are both goods? Of course. Is bubble gum analogous to a road as they are both the same kinds of good? No, the former is private and the latter is public.
What is it then that makes a good a public one?



There are indeed different utilities amongst individuals for public goods, but this is true of all kinds of goods.Of course this is true. That is VO's point.


There are a number of people that would gain far more utility than me from a burrito, yet we pay the same price. Utility doesn't have to match up exactly to price.Utility never matches price. If you expect to gain from the purchase of a burritto, you buy it. If you don't, you don't. So if the price of a burritto is $3.00 and two people value the burritto differently, they may not pay the same price. One may buy one while the other does not. When the state offers a "public good" it does not give you this option. You get to pay for burrittos whether you like them or not.


Now on the market no one pays for a good that wouldn't provide them with a comparative utility to that of purchasing another good.What are you saying?



However, in some cases of a public good you can't really pay for more than you receive, there are just some goods so vital that by the very fact that you have more wealth to contribute you are gaining more utility from that good or service (roads, police, firefighters, etc.).Nonsense.



However, where you can pay for more than you receive there is clearly a slight injustice. But it doesn't provoke my sense of justice and fairness. The government can take away more from you than it gives you, but so can the market (businesses fail you know, the market owes you nothing). I just don't see why the government must be a kinder mistress than the market.The market will never owe you a thing because it will never take anything from you.

There are many significant differences between taxes and bills... Now, you made the gross generaliztion that libertarians don't like to pay their bills, but what you meant was that libertarians don't like to pay taxes. Try to speak more clearly.

:rolleyes:

Alright, I obviously hit a nerve or something.

Can we make strict distinctions between bills and taxes? Yes.

Does that make them totally unlike? No.

Does someone here need to lighten up? Yep...

The comment you are getting caught up in was a joke tagged onto a larger and more serious post on the actual topic at hand. If it makes you feel any better, I'm sure libertarians pay their bills.

What is it then that makes a good a public one?

See my first post on this thread. On page 2 or 3 I believe.

Utility never matches price. If you expect to gain from the purchase of a burritto, you buy it. If you don't, you don't. So if the price of a burritto is $3.00 and two people value the burritto differently, they may not pay the same price. One may buy one while the other does not. When the state offers a "public good" it does not give you this option. You get to pay for burrittos whether you like them or not.

I wouldn't say never, but I also don't want to sit here and split hairs with you. Especially because you just pretty much repeated my point. The only thing you added is the difference in benefit which I addressed in the post you are quoting and in my first post in this thread.

What are you saying?

The language was a bit confusing there, allow me to clear it up. You don't use your money to pay for a good if there is another good that will give you more utility for that money.

Nonsense.

Utility is highly subjective and changes as people change. One factor that can effect personal utility is wealth. Naturally, the wealthier you get the more your personal utility changes. As you get wealthier the utility you derive from some goods decreases while the utility you derive from other goods increases.

Who gets the most value from police? Those who have the most property. Same goes for firefighters. The more you have to lose, then the more you have to gain in preventing that loss. Thus there are certain public goods whose utility increases as you get wealthier.

Now you can interpret my writing in two ways. By interpreting it very strictly I come off as saying you can't ever possibly pay more than you receive for public goods. Obviously that's wrong as we can imagine some exceptions where that is false. Instead you can read what I wrote as I was stating that generally speaking there are goods that as you can afford to pay more you gain more benefit as evidenced by your ability to pay more.

The market will never owe you a thing because it will never take anything from you.

Businesses never fail? Investments always grow? You can't imagine a situation where a reasonably talented businessperson fails because of poor market conditions? I'm not saying that the market is indebted to you, but it has taken from you.

You're either a troll or an idiot. I already clarified what I was saying.
I'm not going to respond to the first sentence. As far as the second sentence goes, which post was it that you clarified what you were saying? (Not that what you were saying needs clarification, it's perfectly clear.)

Their nature as goods? No I don't think it changes. I wasn't attempting to argue that, this whole thing is focused on the benefit and ownership of public goods. Is bubble gum analogous to a road as they are both goods? Of course. Is bubble gum analogous to a road as they are both the same kinds of good? No, the former is private and the latter is public.

There is nothing requiring that roads are public and that bubble gum is private. Those are conditional characteristics depending on government policy, not concrete characteristics. The impossibility of completely equal mutual usage of a good is a concrete characteristic, that is constant regardless of government policy.

However, in some cases of a public good you can't really pay for more than you receive, there are just some goods so vital that by the very fact that you have more wealth to contribute you are gaining more utility from that good or service (roads, police, firefighters, etc.).

The second part of this is true in our present system, although it doesn't explain the first part of the statement. Just because something is vital doesn't mean you can't overpay for it. It is true that the wealthy do recieve a greater amount of utility from government services, but that does not mean they are getting fair return on their taxes.

I'm going to pull a page out of Dissonant Cognition's playbook:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29

However, where you can pay for more than you receive there is clearly a slight injustice. But it doesn't provoke my sense of justice and fairness. The government can take away more from you than it gives you, but so can the market (businesses fail you know, the market owes you nothing). I just don't see why the government must be a kinder mistress than the market.

Because getting financially hurt by the market is upheld by a legal, voluntary, individual contracts. Getting financially hurt by the government is upheld by threat of violence by the public.

There is no need for a contract to lead to any particular State posture.

This is why we need to allow the individual to determine the social contract. With democracy we have the public determining the social contract, and the individual is obligated to live by their decision. And like I said, this leads to situations, such as slavery and segregation, where it is either not a rational decision for the individual to join society, or where the the benefits from joining society are below optimal.

Only through a privately owned state, be it monarchy or anarchy, can the individual actually determine his social contract.

That's true. But it is practically impossible to form a State that will please every single individual. You may not like the current activies of our government, but by your continued residence you are casting a vote and declaring that this is the best place you can get.

So the "If you don't like it, leave," argument makes a lot of sense to you.

It is my belief that no one should be forced to give up those things that he holds dear and has labored for because the mob wishes to oppress him. By the reasoning of this argument, (I'm going to the well one more time) segregation was just because those who disagreed could just leave the country.

I'll accept that the threat of rebellion is constant, but I am also qualifying that threat. I am bascially asking you here, do you agree that sometimes the threat of rebellion is less severe than other times and do you agree that an occasional actual rebellion needs to take place to reaffirm the possibility of future rebellion?

Threat of rebellion is constant, actual level of rebellion is not, but I will agree that actual rebellion will be necessary at times. This cycle of complacency is not limited to one system of government or political activity in general.

It isn't more likely to occur because a democracy includes other mechanisms for change whereas your system requires a rebellion every time. In a properly formed democracy the minority can petition the legislature, the executive, and the courts for protection. Part of the Civil Rights movement was non-violent civil disobedience, part of it was violent, and part of it was working within the established system. Your peasants do not have such methods to redress their grievances.

Those methods are not inherent or limited to democracy in the least.

You will notice that all of those methods are a situation where an individual who is suffering injustice can appeal to an individual with political power in order to check the the political efforts of the democratic public.

An undisciplined democracy would only concern itself with the majority. Of course then the very same rebellion mechanism you are relying upon will be present in such a system.

Except it would be largely impossible, as the majority would not only have control of the military, but also control of the wealth, and a greater population base.

But anyway, I am not advocating such a system. I am advocating a disciplined democratic republic ruled by law rather than popular passion. You can't avoid the will of the people, you shouldn't in fact. But you can form such a system so that cooler heads prevail.

I am saying that a democratic system avoids the will of a group of people, while a monarchy would be responsive to all people.

I just do not see the wisdom in your position. You are so concerned with the rights of the minority that you take the most extreme possible minority (a single individual) and give him/her the most extreme possible power (the full power and wealth of a formal State without any formal restrictions) and pray that the ethereal threat of rebellion will keep this monarch in check. Perhaps you fancy yourself that monarch, otherwise I can't see any rational person accepting such oppression.

I do not fancy myself that monarch. I do not even truthfully espouse monarchy either. I am only using it to show the downfalls of democracy,

I am also assuming the profit motive will keep the monarch in line, not rebellion specifically.

There is nothing requiring that roads are public and that bubble gum is private. Those are conditional characteristics depending on government policy, not concrete characteristics. The impossibility of completely equal mutual usage of a good is a concrete characteristic, that is constant regardless of government policy.

Alright roads can be privatized. But you also want to argue that roads are like bubble gum in that it is impossible to use them mutually? You are defending a horrible analogy here and I'm not sure why. I only tried to make the outrageous claim that people benefit from public goods even if they don't directly use them. Actually, it's not all that outrageous. You benefit from roads even if you live and work at home. You benefit from police and firefighters even if you have never directly needed their services.

The second part of this is true in our present system, although it doesn't explain the first part of the statement. Just because something is vital doesn't mean you can't overpay for it. It is true that the wealthy do recieve a greater amount of utility from government services, but that does not mean they are getting fair return on their taxes.

I addressed this in my reply to NVA:

Now you can interpret my writing in two ways. By interpreting it very strictly I come off as saying you can't ever possibly pay more than you receive for public goods. Obviously that's wrong as we can imagine some exceptions where that is false. Instead you can read what I wrote as I was stating that generally speaking there are goods that as you can afford to pay more you gain more benefit as evidenced by your ability to pay more.

Admitedly the language I used was horrible and a more thorough edit would have made my point clear.

Because getting financially hurt by the market is upheld by a legal, voluntary, individual contracts. Getting financially hurt by the government is upheld by threat of violence by the public.

You have no legal and voluntary contract with the market for stock exchanges to crash or for your business to fail. You have contracts to exchange stocks and serve clients with your business, but failure is damaging regardless of consent and that is the point I am trying to make here. Also the threat of the possible violence in our modern day democracy (mostly just imprisonment) is not much more serious than losing your livelyhood.

This is why we need to allow the individual to determine the social contract. With democracy we have the public determining the social contract, and the individual is obligated to live by their decision. And like I said, this leads to situations, such as slavery and segregation, where it is either not a rational decision for the individual to join society, or where the the benefits from joining society are below optimal.

The individual isn't obligated to live by the majority. I admit that we can have a social contract state with slavery, but my point is we don't have to have one. Basically it's up to the people to decide. I see that as a virtue, as the perfect complement to liberalism. I don't see how individual decisions can fit in with a monarchy.

Only through a privately owned state, be it monarchy or anarchy, can the individual actually determine his social contract.

You are obsessed with ownership. This is about power. A monarch has absolute power and has no obligation to contract with the individual. The monarch, if he is even attentive of his people, will establish laws and taxes as he sees fit. This is no differant than a democracy in that sense, you aren't going to escape common requirements by the state. The difference is that with a monarchy you have no voice other than by risking your life, liberty, and property. I don't see how you can feel comfortable in such a state.

So the "If you don't like it, leave," argument makes a lot of sense to you.

It is my belief that no one should be forced to give up those things that he holds dear and has labored for because the mob wishes to oppress him. By the reasoning of this argument, (I'm going to the well one more time) segregation was just because those who disagreed could just leave the country.

Not quite. I am saying that by staying you are agreeing to abide by the social contract. But you shouldn't accept force or oppression. If you feel that you can't agree with the current state of the social contract then you should work to change it, the majority isn't hurt by compromise.

You are looking at the social contract in the wrong way. It is neither individually formed, nor must it be. Indeed, it is a social contract. The social contract is also not specific, e.g. a progress tax code with a maximum tax of 75% is government policy not social contract. Finally, the social contract is not timeless, it is a malleable general agreement of social terms of engagement between individuals and between individuals and their government.

Threat of rebellion is constant, actual level of rebellion is not, but I will agree that actual rebellion will be necessary at times. This cycle of complacency is not limited to one system of government or political activity in general.

That's all I was after there. And yes I would expect some the threat of revolution and perhaps some actual revolution in a democracy. THe point is that the whole process of revolution is a threat to individual rights, the best government would minimize the need for revolution while avoiding oppression in doing so. To that end I find a democratic republic is an ideal form of government.

Except it would be largely impossible, as the majority would not only have control of the military, but also control of the wealth, and a greater population base.

So you have well-armed peasants in your system then.

I am saying that a democratic system avoids the will of a group of people, while a monarchy would be responsive to all people.


No that's just wrong. No form of government, other than anarchy, would enact the will of each individual. Such a society is impossible. The monarch will have common laws and common taxes. The monarch will have a common international policy. All States force uniformity. Maybe your real problem is with the idea of compromise.

I do not fancy myself that monarch. I do not even truthfully espouse monarchy either. I am only using it to show the downfalls of democracy,

I didn't need a lesson on the failures of democracy... If you aren't honestly supporting monarchy then why are you bothering defending it? I believe you when you say that you don't, but now you are just wasting time. But because you aren't proposing any other system, I assume you believe a democratic republic is the best form of government available in the real word.

I am also assuming the profit motive will keep the monarch in line, not rebellion specifically.

I understood that part of your argument. The point I am making is that the rebellion mechanism requires the regular sacrifice of rights for the sake of... supporting a system that is supposed to better protect those rights?

It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Alright roads can be privatized. But you also want to argue that roads are like bubble gum in that it is impossible to use them mutually? You are defending a horrible analogy here and I'm not sure why. I only tried to make the outrageous claim that people benefit from public goods even if they don't directly use them. Actually, it's not all that outrageous. You benefit from roads even if you live and work at home. You benefit from police and firefighters even if you have never directly needed their services.

It is a simple analogy, not a horrible one. I only used bubble gum because it was the most obvious example of why mutual usage always results in uneven utility.

This is not a question of benefiting even without use. Here is the history of the analogy:

Impossible, property cannot have completely mutual use.

We can't share roads? We can't share parks?

We could share bubble gum, but that doesn't mean we will get equal utility from it.

This is was my attempt to show that public property doesn't allow for equal mutual use.

Now you can interpret my writing in two ways. By interpreting it very strictly I come off as saying you can't ever possibly pay more than you receive for public goods. Obviously that's wrong as we can imagine some exceptions where that is false. Instead you can read what I wrote as I was stating that generally speaking there are goods that as you can afford to pay more you gain more benefit as evidenced by your ability to pay more.

Admitedly the language I used was horrible and a more thorough edit would have made my point clear.

And I agreed that there are services and goods that the wealthy will consume a higher amount of. Roadways and courts are two easy examples of government provided goods and services that fit this characteristic.

But like I said before, that does nothing to guarantee that one is overpaying for his taxes.

You have no legal and voluntary contract with the market for stock exchanges to crash or for your business to fail. You have contracts to exchange stocks and serve clients with your business, but failure is damaging regardless of consent and that is the point I am trying to make here. Also the threat of the possible violence in our modern day democracy (mostly just imprisonment) is not much more serious than losing your livelyhood.

When you lose money in the market, it is because of your own personal policy, your own personal contract. When you lose money to the government, you do it because the people voted you into a contract.

And I would say that imprisonment is a much more serious punishment than losing a business.

The individual isn't obligated to live by the majority. I admit that we can have a social contract state with slavery, but my point is we don't have to have one. Basically it's up to the people to decide. I see that as a virtue, as the perfect complement to liberalism. I don't see how individual decisions can fit in with a monarchy.

The individual is obligated to live by the majority, if he doesn't the majority sends the police after them.

Liberalism is about the individual, so if the people decide, then it is counter to liberalism.

You are obsessed with ownership. This is about power. A monarch has absolute power and has no obligation to contract with the individual. The monarch, if he is even attentive of his people, will establish laws and taxes as he sees fit. This is no differant than a democracy in that sense, you aren't going to escape common requirements by the state. The difference is that with a monarchy you have no voice other than by risking your life, liberty, and property. I don't see how you can feel comfortable in such a state.

Why does the monarch have absolute power?

Not quite. I am saying that by staying you are agreeing to abide by the social contract. But you shouldn't accept force or oppression. If you feel that you can't agree with the current state of the social contract then you should work to change it, the majority isn't hurt by compromise.

That is the point, the majority is hurt by compromise. In a democratic system, the only way the majority can lose power is to compromise, so they have absolutely no reason to do it.

However, when the government is driven by profit, there is ample reason to reach a compromise, as there will be no profit when there is direct opposition between the the two parties.

You are looking at the social contract in the wrong way. It is neither individually formed, nor must it be. Indeed, it is a social contract. The social contract is also not specific, e.g. a progress tax code with a maximum tax of 75% is government policy not social contract. Finally, the social contract is not timeless, it is a malleable general agreement of social terms of engagement between individuals and between individuals and their government.

It is agreed upon by the individual as a rational decision to join society. So the individual should be allowed to define it.

The social contract does not define laws, but it is used to justify them.

So you have well-armed peasants in your system then.

This isn't the middle ages, and I don't have peasants. The monarch does not own all property, just the government.

No that's just wrong. No form of government, other than anarchy, would enact the will of each individual. Such a society is impossible. The monarch will have common laws and common taxes. The monarch will have a common international policy. All States force uniformity. Maybe your real problem is with the idea of compromise.

The monarch would exert his own will, but it would be a rational decision on his part to have his will meet the will of all people.

I didn't need a lesson on the failures of democracy... If you aren't honestly supporting monarchy then why are you bothering defending it? I believe you when you say that you don't, but now you are just wasting time. But because you aren't proposing any other system, I assume you believe a democratic republic is the best form of government available in the real word.

You obviously don't really accept the failures of democracy, as you are opposing my arguments for monarchy with arguments for democracy, when there is absolutely no difference between the two, other than the decision making process.

And there is no good form of government.

I understood that part of your argument. The point I am making is that the rebellion mechanism requires the regular sacrifice of rights for the sake of... supporting a system that is supposed to better protect those rights?

It just doesn't make any sense to me.

As you have said before, a revolution is only necessary when the people become complacent and do not seek to protect their rights. If they make wise decisions to check the monarch, there is no need for rebellion. While in a democratic system, there is absolutely no recourse for the minority to protect their rights, other than fighting.

I though I'd reserrect this thread to say I agree with Hoppe. I haven't read his book, but I have listened to a series of lectures he gave at the Mises Institute.

His point is not that "totalitarianism" is better than something else, but that:

Feudalist Society > Monarchical State > Democratic State

One simple demonstration of this is that had Germany been permitted to mantain it's monarchy after losing WWI, Hitler would've been prevented from destroying the country, just as Italy's King Vittorio Emanuele III fired Mussolini in 1943.

Monarchs always have much more to lose than elected leaders.

Monarchs always have much more to lose than elected leaders.But they almost always have much more to gain than elected leaders.

But they almost always have much more to gain than elected leaders.
Explain.

How the hell is this thread still going?!!

Explain.
If the only thing that limits a monarch's power is the threat of revolt and a few minor constitutional barriers, the huge number of things that a monarch can do are much greater and wider reaching than the things that an elected official can do.

If the only thing that limits a monarch's power is the threat of revolt and a few minor constitutional barriers, the huge number of things that a monarch can do are much greater and wider reaching than the things that an elected official can do.
I don't quite see it that way, but if I did, how would that mean he has more to gain? And if he actually did have more to gain, would that somehow mean he wouldn't have more to lose?

How the hell is this thread still going?!!
I dug deep into my subscriptions.

With a thread title like that, this thread should die quickly.

Anyways, recently I have been kicking around the idea that a totalitarian government may be more suitable to my beliefs than democracy. I have begun to get a strong distaste for democracy, as its adherents seem to believe it grants moral justification for government. They feel that, if everyone takes part in a vote, that all people are obligated to abide the results.

Just skimming around the internet, I found this guy and his book Democracy: The God That Failed, and found that I seem to agree with him on what he has wrote.

In one of his more well known and controversial arguments, he states that monarchy is more justified than democracy, as, in monarchy, the government is private property as opposed to public property.

So, since I am one of the more poorly read NSers, I was wondering if anyone had read this book or anything else by Hoppe, and what they thought about it.
I am with you on the "Democracy doesn't grant moral justification" argument.
Not that monarchy is better, as I find that in monarchy, instead of being ruled by a mass of people whose will runs contrary to mine, I'd be ruled by one man whose will runs contrary to mine.

Really, I think that the most useful policies in government basically come down to damage control. There is going to be a certain amount of coercion in most any government, but it can be minimized with the right actions, hopefully.

I don't quite see it that way, but if I did, how would that mean he has more to gain? And if he actually did have more to gain, would that somehow mean he wouldn't have more to lose?
The most anyone could lose is their life. Many people would risk that to wield power mercilessly, perhaps to have their own harems or to hold lavish banquets all the time, to do whatever they want, with the exception of a few Constitutional limitations what have to be enforced before the monarch would be held accountable.