NationStates Jolt Archive

There's something I have to get off my chest.

Lately, I've been having intellectual sparring matches with many friends who insist that big government is good for us all. I'm a devout libertarian and minarchist, and so such arguments tend to infuriate me.

So I have turned to you, my fellow NationStates-ians, to tell me whether my philosophy of life and government's role in it is brilliantly insightful or hopelessly deluded. Below, I have posted an elucidation of exactly how I view the world, and then, if anyone's interested, we can debate and discuss the relative merits and flaws of my argument. Basically, I want to get a feel of how many agree with me and how many don't, and in doing so, fine-tune my own point of view.

So here goes:

"The philosophy of liberty is based on the principle of self-ownership. You own your life; to deny this is to imply that another person has a higher claim on your life than you do. No other person, or group of persons, owns your life, nor do you own the lives of others.

You exist in time: future, present, past; this is manifest in life, liberty and the product of your life and liberty. To lose your life is to lose your future, to lose your liberty is to lose your present, and to lose the product of your life and liberty is to lose that portion of your past that produced it.

A product of your life and your liberty are your property. Property is the fruit of your labor, the product of your time, energy, and talents; property is that part of nature which you turn to valuable use; property is the property of others that is given to you by voluntary exchange and mutual consent. Two people who exchange property voluntarily are both better off or they wouldn't do it; only they may rightfully make that decision for themselves.

At times some people use force or fraud to take from others without voluntary consent. The initiation of force or fraud: to take life is murder, to take liberty is slavery, and to take property is theft. It is the same whether these actions are done by one person acting alone, by the many acting against the few, or even by officials with fine hats. You have the right to protect your own life, liberty, and justly acquired property from the forceful aggression of others, and you may ask others to help defend you, but you do not have the right to initiate force against the life, liberty, and property of others; thus, you have no right to designate some person to initiate force against others on your behalf.

You have the right to seek leaders for yourself, but you have no right to impose rulers onto others. No matter how officials are selected, they are only human beings and they have no rights or claims that are higher than those of any other human beings. Regardless of the imaginative labels for their behavior or the number of people encouraging them, officials have no right to murder, to enslave, or to steal; you cannot give them any rights that you do not have yourself.

Since you own your life, you are responsible for your life. You do not rent your life from others who demand your obedience, nor are you a slave to others who demand your sacrifice; you choose your own goals, based on your own values. Success and failure are both the necessary incentives to learn and to grow.

Your action on behalf of others or their action on behalf of you is virtuous only when it is derived from voluntary mutual consent, for virtue can exist only where there is free choice. This is the basis of a truly free society; it is not only the most practical and humanitarian foundation for human action, it is also the most ethical.

Problems in the world that arise from the initiation of force by government have a solution. The solution is for the people of the earth to stop asking government officials to initiate force on their behalf.

Evil does not arise only from evil people, but also from good people who tolerate the initiation of force as a means to their own ends; in this manner, good people have empowered evil people throughout history.

Having confidence in a free society is to focus on the process of discovery in the marketplace of values, rather than to focus on some imposed vision or goal. Using governmental force to impose a vision on others is intellectual sloth and typically results in unintended, perverse consequences. Achieving a free society requires courage to think, to talk, and to act, especially when it is easier to do nothing." --from Ken Schoolland's The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible: A Free Market Odyssey

What do you all think? Am I a genius or am I completely off my nut? What have I got right? What have I got wrong?

It loses focus along normal questions:

If we can only act upon our own behaves, what happens when we encounter a problem or issue so large that only by collectively working together could we overcome or meet it?

As a second part to that, we can assume that MOST people would, in times of need such as stated above, be willing to give to the team in order to meet said challenge, but some would not for whatever reason. What then? Do we force compliance or do we ignore it and hope like hell that the ammount currently gathered will work or that seeing those who do not contribute does not inspire other to jump ship as it were?

Finally, the notion of self-reliance is indeed a very good one, but it's easy to be self-reliant when you have the means to, what happens when bad things happen (as they tend to do) and you suddenly lack those means? What then?

I'm not reading all that. But I prefer smaller governments. I HATE bureaucracy.

It loses focus along normal questions:

If we can only act upon our own behaves, what happens when we encounter a problem or issue so large that only by collectively working together could we overcome or meet it?

As a second part to that, we can assume that MOST people would, in times of need such as stated above, be willing to give to the team in order to meet said challenge, but some would not for whatever reason. What then? Do we force compliance or do we ignore it and hope like hell that the ammount currently gathered will work or that seeing those who do not contribute does not inspire other to jump ship as it were?

Finally, the notion of self-reliance is indeed a very good one, but it's easy to be self-reliant when you have the means to, what happens when bad things happen (as they tend to do) and you suddenly lack those means? What then?

Your first question was answered in your second: most people would be willing to work towards a common goal if the problem were indeed that large.

The second question is the trickiest. I would argue that the "hope like hell" argument is the most compatible with my philosophy, but I must say that it is not entirely practical. I guess it could also be that if the problem were that pressing, it would not be possible for a significant number of people to refrain from attempting to correct it.

To the third question, I would say that that's where the "you have the right to ask others to act on your behalf" comes in. If you have a problem, you should fix it yourself unless you are unable to do so; then you should seek help from others. Absolute self-reliance is not always necessary.

Your first question was answered in your second: most people would be willing to work towards a common goal if the problem were indeed that large.
Unfortunately the answer to that is normally NIMBY or NMP. We can forsee people banning together to face, say, an invasion, but to build a road?

The second question is the trickiest. I would argue that the "hope like hell" argument is the most compatible with my philosophy, but I must say that it is not entirely practical. I guess it could also be that if the problem were that pressing, it would not be possible for a significant number of people to refrain from attempting to correct it.
The issues of transportation, education, defence, research and devlopment, and others beg to differ. Sadly enlightened self-interest seems to be lacking.

To the third question, I would say that that's where the "you have the right to ask others to act on your behalf" comes in. If you have a problem, you should fix it yourself unless you are unable to do so; then you should seek help from others. Absolute self-reliance is not always necessary.
And if they will not help due to NMP, then what?

You're a plagiarist (http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/Epilogue.pdf).

But anyway - how do you get around monopolies which deprive people of a free and voluntary choice in exchange of goods?

The philosophy of liberty is based on the principle of self-ownership. You own your life; to deny this is to imply that another person has a higher claim on your life than you do. No other person, or group of persons, owns your life, nor do you own the lives of others.Nope. I reject the concept of ownership. This means that I don't own myself, but also that no other person has a higher claim on my life than I do.
People may to grant the right of ownership (and self-ownership) as they wish, though.

You exist in time: future, present, past; this is manifest in life, liberty and the product of your life and liberty. To lose your life is to lose your future, to lose your liberty is to lose your present, and to lose the product of your life and liberty is to lose that portion of your past that produced it.You're correct up until "to lose the product of your life and liberty is to lose that portion of your past that produced it."
While people might agree to protect the right to the product of your labor, there is no inherent right to it.

A product of your life and your liberty are your property. Property is the fruit of your labor, the product of your time, energy, and talents; property is that part of nature which you turn to valuable use; property is the property of others that is given to you by voluntary exchange and mutual consent. Two people who exchange property voluntarily are both better off or they wouldn't do it; only they may rightfully make that decision for themselves.

At times some people use force or fraud to take from others without voluntary consent. The initiation of force or fraud: to take life is murder, to take liberty is slavery, and to take property is theft. It is the same whether these actions are done by one person acting alone, by the many acting against the few, or even by officials with fine hats. You have the right to protect your own life, liberty, and justly acquired property from the forceful aggression of others, and you may ask others to help defend you, but you do not have the right to initiate force against the life, liberty, and property of others; thus, you have no right to designate some person to initiate force against others on your behalf.

You have the right to seek leaders for yourself, but you have no right to impose rulers onto others. No matter how officials are selected, they are only human beings and they have no rights or claims that are higher than those of any other human beings. Regardless of the imaginative labels for their behavior or the number of people encouraging them, officials have no right to murder, to enslave, or to steal; you cannot give them any rights that you do not have yourself.

Since you own your life, you are responsible for your life. You do not rent your life from others who demand your obedience, nor are you a slave to others who demand your sacrifice; you choose your own goals, based on your own values. Success and failure are both the necessary incentives to learn and to grow.Natrually I disagree with the parts about ownership and property here, but I can agree with most of the rest.

Your action on behalf of others or their action on behalf of you is virtuous only when it is derived from voluntary mutual consent, for virtue can exist only where there is free choice. This is the basis of a truly free society; it is not only the most practical and humanitarian foundation for human action, it is also the most ethical.Agreed.

Problems in the world that arise from the initiation of force by government have a solution. The solution is for the people of the earth to stop asking government officials to initiate force on their behalf.How do you propose to keep this from happening? I see no way do to this other than to eliminate the state.

Evil does not arise only from evil people, but also from good people who tolerate the initiation of force as a means to their own ends; in this manner, good people have empowered evil people throughout history.

Having confidence in a free society is to focus on the process of discovery in the marketplace of values, rather than to focus on some imposed vision or goal. Using governmental force to impose a vision on others is intellectual sloth and typically results in unintended, perverse consequences. Achieving a free society requires courage to think, to talk, and to act, especially when it is easier to do nothing.Certainly. However, since I disagree with property rights, to protect property rights is, to me, an initiation of force.

You're a plagiarist (http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/Epilogue.pdf).

But anyway - how do you get around monopolies which deprive people of a free and voluntary choice in exchange of goods?

No, I'm not a plagiarist--that information was freely available on the World Wide Web and is thus in the public domain. I chose to use it because it perfectly describes my philosophy. You're right, though--I'll put quotes around it and be sure to cite it.

Now, in response to your question: though few people view them as positive, monopolies allow people to buy the good at lower prices and in more efficient quantities. Even monopolies are subject to the law of demand--a monopoly can produce as much as it wants, but if that amount exceeds the amount that people are willing to buy, the monopoly is throwing profits away.

Monopolies arise in industries that are characterized by increasing returns to scale (also called economies of scale), which basically means that the average cost of producing a unit of goods goes down as the firm produces more. This is why monopolies provide lower costs--a single firm producing all the available goods means that overhead, costs of doing business, etc., etc. are minimized. In an economy of scale, having many smaller firms is inefficient and creates higher prices.

Here's an example. In most cities, a single company (sometimes the government) provides electricity. The reason is simple--it's far cheaper that way. It makes no sense for me to get electricity from Company ABC if my neighbor is getting his from Company XYZ; ABC and XYZ produce exactly the same product, but require separate power plants, separate power lines, separate service crews, and so on and so forth. That added cost is passed directly on to me.

The bottom line is this--IN THEORY, monopolies arise only where they are more efficient that competitive markets. I'll grant that this may be false in practice, but I've yet to find an example of a truly destructive monopoly.

You're a plagiarist (http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/Epilogue.pdf).

But anyway - how do you get around monopolies which deprive people of a free and voluntary choice in exchange of goods?
Those only exist because of the biggest monopoly of them all: government.

What do you all think? Am I a genius or am I completely off my nut? What have I got right? What have I got wrong?

This:


"The philosophy of liberty is based on the principle of self-ownership. You own your life; to deny this is to imply that another person has a higher claim on your life than you do. No other person, or group of persons, owns your life, nor do you own the lives of others.

You exist in time: future, present, past; this is manifest in life, liberty and the product of your life and liberty. To lose your life is to lose your future, to lose your liberty is to lose your present, and to lose the product of your life and liberty is to lose that portion of your past that produced it.

A product of your life and your liberty are your property. Property is the fruit of your labor, the product of your time, energy, and talents; property is that part of nature which you turn to valuable use; property is the property of others that is given to you by voluntary exchange and mutual consent. Two people who exchange property voluntarily are both better off or they wouldn't do it; only they may rightfully make that decision for themselves.[/

At times some people use force or fraud to take from others without voluntary consent. The initiation of force or fraud: to take life is murder, to take liberty is slavery, and to take property is theft.

Is contra to the very idea of government itself. Governments are coercive territorial monopolists and expropriators. By their very nature, they are engines of theft. Thus, to uphold the idea that only voluntary exchange w/mutual consent is proper AND that government should exist is contradictory. You can have one or the other, but not both.

No, I'm not a plagiarist--that information was freely available on the World Wide Web and is thus in the public domain. I chose to use it because it perfectly describes my philosophy. You're right, though--I'll put quotes around it and be sure to cite it.
You were plagarising. You were very obviously passing it of as your own work and claiming credit for it ('Am I brilliant?'). This interlectual theft is as bad as any percieved theft the governmtnt does on you in the form of taxes. Though thankyou for adding the references.

Now in response to your monopolies response:

Monopolies (and their bastard child - Cartels) DO NOT result in lower prices. They result in higher prices through lack of competition and prevention of competition.

See.... Oil. The cartel drops production and prices rise. The demand is constant and they manipulate the supply to contol the prices. The market does not control the price, the buyer has almost no say - the seller has almost complete control. Where is the free market in providing competition from the other oil producing countries when OPEC decide to cut back to raise profits?

Also... Diamonds... another comodity, though a less essential one, where the supply is strictly controled to atrifically inflate the prices well beyond their realistic value based on a free market and free supply. And why don't the other diamond producers step in with cheaper diamonds to cornerthe market? Cartel.