NationStates Jolt Archive

Why should people be liable to follow a law they never once agreed to. That is to say, why are we obliged to obey the law? Never once did I sign a contract to do so. Is it fair that simply by virtue of being born within a designated area of land that I am to have sprawling code of conduct imposed upon me?

Now I am not arguening against the specific letters of the law itself, but rather the terms upon which it is applied to all people regardless of their consent. How free are we after all? If the law is truly such a great thing, then why shouldn't it be consensual? Perhaps if we were to sign a contract upon majority (18 years in most places). At least then the rule of law would be justified. Likewise, I think it is only fair that visitors to a specified region sign a temporary contract to obey the law for the period of their stay, if they want.

Remember those who do not want to obey the law shouldn't have to. Likewise, they shouldn't be entitled to it's protection either.

Why should people be liable to follow a law they never once agreed to. That is to say, why are we obliged to obey the law? Never once did I sign a contract to do so. Is it fair that simply by virtue of being born within a designated area of land that I am to have sprawling code of conduct imposed upon me?

Now I am not arguening against the specific letters of the law itself, but rather the terms upon which it is applied to all people regardless of their consent. How free are we after all? If the law is truly such a great thing, then why shouldn't it be consensual? Perhaps if we were to sign a contract upon majority (18 years in most places). At least then the rule of law would be justified. Likewise, I think it is only fair that visitors to a specified region sign a temporary contract to obey the law for the period of their stay, if they want.

Remember those who do not want to obey the law shouldn't have to. Likewise, they shouldn't be entitled to it's protection either.

"Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short."
~Thomas Hobbes

Since their protection of the law is revoked, wouldn't those who refused to sign and then went and did things which would normally be illegal simply be shot on the spot by the police rather than brought to trial? Who in their right mind would actually revoke the protection of the law?

Why should people be liable to follow a law they never once agreed to. That is to say, why are we obliged to obey the law? Never once did I sign a contract to do so. Is it fair that simply by virtue of being born within a designated area of land that I am to have sprawling code of conduct imposed upon me?

Now I am not arguening against the specific letters of the law itself, but rather the terms upon which it is applied to all people regardless of their consent. How free are we after all? If the law is truly such a great thing, then why shouldn't it be consensual? Perhaps if we were to sign a contract upon majority (18 years in most places). At least then the rule of law would be justified. Likewise, I think it is only fair that visitors to a specified region sign a temporary contract to obey the law for the period of their stay, if they want.

Remember those who do not want to obey the law shouldn't have to. Likewise, they shouldn't be entitled to it's protection either.
You are already free to do as you wish. So is everyone else. If you wish to break a law, you may. If someone else wishes to enforce it, they may. "Laws," "government," "religion," are all inventions of the human mind, and have no true physical existance. We are all as free as we want to be, all we have to do is recognize it.

Why should people be liable to follow a law they never once agreed to. That is to say, why are we obliged to obey the law? Never once did I sign a contract to do so. Is it fair that simply by virtue of being born within a designated area of land that I am to have sprawling code of conduct imposed upon me?

Now I am not arguening against the specific letters of the law itself, but rather the terms upon which it is applied to all people regardless of their consent. How free are we after all? If the law is truly such a great thing, then why shouldn't it be consensual? Perhaps if we were to sign a contract upon majority (18 years in most places). At least then the rule of law would be justified. Likewise, I think it is only fair that visitors to a specified region sign a temporary contract to obey the law for the period of their stay, if they want.

The contract to obey the laws is considered an implicit one. If you move to a country or grow up in a country and stay even when you have the capacity to accumulate the resources necessary to leave then its considered that you gave your consent to follow the laws of the land.

Remember those who do not want to obey the law shouldn't have to. Likewise, they shouldn't be entitled to it's protection either.

So if I don't want to obey your property rights I shouldn't have too?

Since their protection of the law is revoked, wouldn't those who refused to sign and then went and did things which would normally be illegal simply be shot on the spot by the police rather than brought to trial? Who in their right mind would actually revoke the protection of the law?

Or simply shot by the victims never to be seen again. Or perhaps have all of their belongings sacked with no consequence. Yes, being unprotected sucks. It makes sense to subscribe to the law. All I am saying is that it should be an informed and consensual choice.

You are already free to do as you wish. So is everyone else. If you wish to break a law, you may. If someone else wishes to enforce it, they may. "Laws," "government," "religion," are all inventions of the human mind, and have no true physical existance. We are all as free as we want to be, all we have to do is recognize it.
Indeed, and yet these mutually recognised constructs of the social conglomerate are still a force in the real world, though the force of action of individuals who subscribe to their existence. So the problem still exists. Tell the mexican walking to San Diego that the USA doesn't actually exist, and to simply 'wake up' from border control.

Unfortunately, for true freedom to be attained the society must be swayed.

What we are supposed to be able to pick and choose which laws we are to follow? We have government to pass laws it feels that are beneficial to its people. If you don't like a particular law then petition your government to change it and not wish you were able to violate it and escape punishment.

The contract to obey the laws is considered an implicit one. If you move to a country or grow up in a country and stay even when you have the capacity to accumulate the resources necessary to leave then its considered that you gave your consent to follow the laws of the land.
Right, and yet nobody ever tells us the laws in their entirety, nor the potential punishments for disobeying these laws, nor when either of the above is changed. No, if the government expects people to follow the laws, they should pursue a formal contract for that purpose.


So if I don't want to obey your property rights I shouldn't have too? Only if you don't mind not having them yourself. Remember, my property rights will be protected by the law, yours won't.

What we are supposed to be able to pick and choose which laws we are to follow? We have government to pass laws it feels that are beneficial to its people. If you don't like a particular law then petition your government to change it and not wish you were able to violate it and escape punishment.
You seem to have misunderstood. This is not about the laws in specific. This is about the premise upon which they are enforced.

Did someone steal your weed and you are mad you can't call the cops?

But seriously, do you see one as consent to each individual law or to all laws? What about different jurisdictions -- federal, state, local? What happens when the jurisdicition adopts a new law -- does everyone opt in or out of that law or do they opt in or out of the new cumulative laws?

Indeed, and yet these mutually recognised constructs of the social conglomerate are still a force in the real world, though the force of action of individuals who subscribe to their existence. So the problem still exists. Tell the mexican walking to San Diego that the USA doesn't actually exist, and to simply 'wake up' from border control.

Unfortunately, for true freedom to be attained the society must be swayed.

The Mexican already knows. There are only people.

You seem to have misunderstood. This is not about the laws in specific. This is about the premise upon which they are enforced.

By agreeing to live in any country you are making an implicit agreement with the government that you will follow its laws. Why must you sign a document to this effect? It should be general understanding that when you are in specific territory that you will follow the law in that territory. It is merely common sense. Governments have the responsibility to protect its citizens and in return the citizens follow its laws. I don't see how the citizens should feel oppressed by being "required" to follow these laws simply because they never agreed to each and every one.

Besides you say in your opening post that we should be able to follow only the laws we want. That seems to imply that this can and is about certain specific laws you do not care for. You seem to be advocating a hodgepodge of laws that some agree to follow and others don't and government is supposed to respect the wishes of all which is just ridiculous.

Did someone steal your weed and you are mad you can't call the cops?

But seriously, do you see one as consent to each individual law or to all laws? What about different jurisdictions -- federal, state, local? What happens when the jurisdicition adopts a new law -- does everyone opt in or out of that law or do they opt in or out of the new cumulative laws? I would imagine each bracket of laws would require a seperate signature, yet the binding agency (In the this case, the government) would require the complete set or none at all.

In response to the first jostle, I am actually an anarchist (market) who is playing with a bit of political philosophy. Getting a few variations from my own opinion, looking for some new perspectives, flaws, and bonuses to consensual governance.

Well, I've been arguing something like this myself in another thread, so I'll just sit back and watch this time round.

Right, and yet nobody ever tells us the laws in their entirety, nor the potential punishments for disobeying these laws, nor when either of the above is changed. No, if the government expects people to follow the laws, they should pursue a formal contract for that purpose.

All of the above is on the public record. People just are find it too costly and boring to learn about them all.

Only if you don't mind not having them yourself. Remember, my property rights will be protected by the law, yours won't.

How would people who didn't consent be identified?

By agreeing to live in this country you are making an implicit agreement with the government that you will follow its laws. In what way is simply existing in a designated area the same as providing consent to a complicated and exhausting code of conduct? For something as exacting and far reaching as the law, don't you think it would be wise to have a concrete understanding between the agencies that uphold justice, and the citizens who benefit from it? Why must you sign a document to this effect? The same reason you have to sign a document stating you will not extort money from a business partner in a corporate contract (i.e. to set out in writing a mutual agreement between two responsible parties, in case of the need to ever reference such an agreement in future). It should be general understanding that when you are in specific territory that you will follow the law in that territory. It is merely common sense. The law makes no room for 'general understandings' and 'common sense'. Why should it in this situation? Governments have the responsibility to protect its citizens and in return the citizens follow its laws. I don't see how the citizens should feel oppressed by being "required" to follow these laws simply because they never agreed to each and every one. Nobody is feeling opressed (or at least nobody has expressed these sentiments). I am just attacking the legitimacy of the rule of law over individuals who (for the most part) have never read these laws, do not know what the punishments are, and never even provided a consent to the said laws. If they are beneficial, then there should be no need for force.

Besides you say in your opening post that we should be able to follow only the laws we want. If my words carried that meaning, I apologise. I at no point intended to support a 'pick and choose' approach. Rather I am calling for a legitimate foundation for which the rule of law to be based upon (other than simply existing within a set area). That seems to imply that this can and is about certain specific laws you do not care for. You seem to be advocating a hodgepodge of laws where some agree to follow and others don't and government is supposed to respect the wishes of all which is just ridiculous. Indeed such an approach would be ridiculous. But, as I said, I never endorsed this.

All of the above is on the public record. People just are find it too costly and boring to learn about them all. Compare to this situation. A young hot thing marries a rich old man. Years later they divorce. She wants half. He says "Actually there was a prenup which says you get nothing". She says "But I didn't sign any prenup! I didn't even know there was a prenup". He says, "Well by living in my house you effectively signed the prenup, and the terms of the prenup were freely available for you to look at at any time had you have asked."

There needs to be a clear, concrete commitment. Especially for something as serious as the law.



How would people who didn't consent be identified?It would be tattooed across their forehead.

Seriously, I am not going into the multitude of different ways of implementing such a system, and the benefits and drawbacks of each. Perhaps later, in a different thread, but I actually have to go home now. Anyhow, in a nutshell, the only system in which I would implement this kind of approach would be a market anarchy. The provider of the laws would be competeing justice agencies.

See. A whole new can of worms.

In what way is simply existing in a designated area the same as providing consent to a complicated and exhausting code of conduct? For something as exacting and far reaching as the law, don't you think it would be wise to have a concrete understanding between the agencies that uphold justice, and the citizens who benefit from it? The same reason you have to sign a document stating you will not extort money from a business partner in a corporate contract (i.e. to set out in writing a mutual agreement between two responsible parties, in case of the need to ever reference such an agreement in future). The law makes no room for 'general understandings' and 'common sense'. Why should it in this situation? Nobody is feeling opressed (or at least nobody has expressed these sentiments). I am just attacking the legitimacy of the rule of law over individuals who (for the most part) have never read these laws, do not know what the punishments are, and never even provided a consent to the said laws. If they are beneficial, then there should be no need for force.

If my words carried that meaning, I apologise. I at no point intended to support a 'pick and choose' approach. Rather I am calling for a legitimate foundation for which the rule of law to be based upon (other than simply existing within a set area). Indeed such an approach would be ridiculous. But, as I said, I never endorsed this.


The simple problem is, how would society function? How would the police, the legislature, the justice system as a whol know who "opted out" and who didn't?

If you opt out of the legal system, what's to stop you from still calling 911? How would the responding police know that you are not someone they need to help?

While there are numerous problems with your question, the biggest one I can think of is "how would such a system work in practice?"

Seriously, I am not going into the multitude of different ways of implementing such a system, and the benefits and drawbacks of each. Perhaps later, in a different thread, but I actually have to go home now. Anyhow, in a nutshell, the only system in which I would implement this kind of approach would be a market anarchy. The provider of the laws would be competeing justice agencies.

See. A whole new can of worms.


Ah, but there is the rub. The devil is in the details.

(BTW, I still think Hobbes answers your question.)

Ah, but there is the rub. The devil is in the details.

(BTW, I still think Hobbes answers your question.)Hobbes absolutely does. We cede personal freedom in exchange for security and stability. Simple as that.

Why should people be liable to follow a law they never once agreed to. That is to say, why are we obliged to obey the law? Never once did I sign a contract to do so. Is it fair that simply by virtue of being born within a designated area of land that I am to have sprawling code of conduct imposed upon me?

Now I am not arguening against the specific letters of the law itself, but rather the terms upon which it is applied to all people regardless of their consent. How free are we after all? If the law is truly such a great thing, then why shouldn't it be consensual? Perhaps if we were to sign a contract upon majority (18 years in most places). At least then the rule of law would be justified. Likewise, I think it is only fair that visitors to a specified region sign a temporary contract to obey the law for the period of their stay, if they want.

Remember those who do not want to obey the law shouldn't have to. Likewise, they shouldn't be entitled to it's protection either.

Read Coventry, a short story by Robert Heinlein on this very subject.

We do not need more bureaucracy...

But we do sign a contract (in effect) with the government whenever we vote. The thing about a representative democracy is that, by our vote, we establish a good-faith contract with those we elect to lead us to do so effectively, more effectively, in fact, than we ourselves can do so, with the voting citizens being held to their part of the terms of the contract by the enforcement of law and the elected lawmakers being held to their part by the approval (or disapproval) of voters. The rub, in this case, comes when citizens don't vote. Since they refuse or can't be bothered to participate in the contract, they shouldn't be held to its terms, right? However, they also fail to enforce the terms of the contract for those they elect (or rather are elected without their participation), so they must be forced to accept that the elected will likewise not consistently abide by the contract. Those who don't vote deserve who they get stuck with, in other words.

As for the matter of ignorance of the laws, that seems (in many cases--there are notable exceptions, where laws are deliberately misleading, incomprehensible, or vague) to be more the fault of those who can't be bothered to learn about the laws relevant to them. Understandably, the average citizen simply doesn't have the time to become intimately familiar with the minutiae of, say, the latest Farm Bill, but the basic principles of laws and the rights and/or restrictions they provide should be made known. Sometimes this is a failure of government. Transparency, on both sides, is the essential component of a successful social contract. Such a contract (admittedly an implicit one under any circumstances) cannot be said to exist in a non-democratic government, or in a government with subjects that arbitrarily lack the right to representation (such as slaves; it can be argued that convicted felons have implicitly revoked their rights to citizenship, although this is a sticky issue in and of itself).

[A recent thread gave a lot more perspectives on this subject; this is just my own view.]

You are already free to do as you wish. So is everyone else. If you wish to break a law, you may. If someone else wishes to enforce it, they may. "Laws," "government," "religion," are all inventions of the human mind, and have no true physical existance. We are all as free as we want to be, all we have to do is recognize it.

here here!

People must also be able and willing to eliminate their very one government if nessiscary, if the goverment fails to rule by the will of its people...the people need to be the government, the gov should fear the people.

The contract to obey the laws is considered an implicit one. If you move to a country or grow up in a country and stay even when you have the capacity to accumulate the resources necessary to leave then its considered that you gave your consent to follow the laws of the land.
By agreeing to live in any country you are making an implicit agreement with the government that you will follow its laws. Why must you sign a document to this effect?
Which of course first assumes that the government actually has any sort of right to make rules on a given slot of land.

What if I grow up within the boundaries of an entity called Australia, but I don't automatically buy into the idea that the government owns all land and makes my use of any part of it conditional on me following their rules?

Fact of the matter is that I never actually gave consent. Just because I don't happen to have as many guns as the government does doesn't mean that I consented to their idea of what the world should be like.

To the OP, have a look at this little essay: http://www.constitution.org/jsm/liberty.htm

It's probably one of the more coherent bits of ideology out there, based on a combination of utilitarianism (which to most people seems intuitively right, I find) and the respect of individual rights (which again most people seem to enjoy quite a bit).

That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do other wise.

*Snippity*
In response to the first jostle, I am actually an anarchist (market) who is playing with a bit of political philosophy. Getting a few variations from my own opinion, looking for some new perspectives, flaws, and bonuses to consensual governance.

Statism (Social Democracy) FTW!

Which of course first assumes that the government actually has any sort of right to make rules on a given slot of land.

What if I grow up within the boundaries of an entity called Australia, but I don't automatically buy into the idea that the government owns all land and makes my use of any part of it conditional on me following their rules?

Fact of the matter is that I never actually gave consent. Just because I don't happen to have as many guns as the government does doesn't mean that I consented to their idea of what the world should be like.

Of course we made an assumption. I mean what if I don't buy into the idea that people other than myself have property rights? Fact of the matter is I never gave my consent to recognize their/your property rights. Just because I don't have as many guns as individual property owners, protective agencies, and/or the government doesn't mean that I consented to their idea of what the world should be like. This is all under the assumption that consent of any kind matters.

To the OP, have a look at this little essay: http://www.constitution.org/jsm/liberty.htm

It's probably one of the more coherent bits of ideology out there, based on a combination of utilitarianism (which to most people seems intuitively right, I find) and the respect of individual rights (which again most people seem to enjoy quite a bit).

There are some inconsistancies with Mill's harm principle

Though this principle seems clear, there are a number of complications. For example, Mill explicitly states that "harms" may include acts of omission as well as acts of commission. Thus, failing to rescue a drowning child counts as a harmful act, as does failing to pay taxes, or failing to appear as a witness in court. All such harmful omissions may be regulated, according to Mill.

He also made self-ownership inalienable, i.e. you can' sell yourself into slavery. This seems to violate the his Harm Principal pretty decisively.

In what way is simply existing in a designated area the same as providing consent to a complicated and exhausting code of conduct? For something as exacting and far reaching as the law, don't you think it would be wise to have a concrete understanding between the agencies that uphold justice, and the citizens who benefit from it? The same reason you have to sign a document stating you will not extort money from a business partner in a corporate contract (i.e. to set out in writing a mutual agreement between two responsible parties, in case of the need to ever reference such an agreement in future). The law makes no room for 'general understandings' and 'common sense'. Why should it in this situation? Nobody is feeling opressed (or at least nobody has expressed these sentiments). I am just attacking the legitimacy of the rule of law over individuals who (for the most part) have never read these laws, do not know what the punishments are, and never even provided a consent to the said laws. If they are beneficial, then there should be no need for force.

If anyone should sign some sort of contract then it should be the people agreeing to follow the laws of the government. If they say no then it would mean immediate deportation. Besides, we would only be talking about this "contract" in situations where the government is worth a damn so the people wouldn't have much to complain about anyway. If the people do not understand the law then perhaps that is their own fault. I'm sure that this is just an excuse anyway, what is someone going to claim they didn't know not to rob that guy? Or that identity theft is wrong? The people may not know the exact sentences are but they certainly know what is illegal. Besides, whenever someone votes for their political leaders they have to simply live with the laws passed by them and if they disagree then the people need to push for the law to be repealed. You know also that even an obviously beneficial law will be broken and will have to be forced on some which is why police and the legal system are needed. Someone out there will always be wanting to ignore them.

If my words carried that meaning, I apologise. I at no point intended to support a 'pick and choose' approach. Rather I am calling for a legitimate foundation for which the rule of law to be based upon (other than simply existing within a set area). Indeed such an approach would be ridiculous. But, as I said, I never endorsed this.

The best foundation I can think of is a direct democracy approach where the people vote for every single law directly. Of course if future generations are annoyed about what their elders have chosen then they can choose to relook at their decisions. Those who disagree will simply have to agree with what has been decided. I really can't figure on any way to have a law that everyone will agree on.

Perhaps the best thing will be to only have laws that prevent life and property . That would certainly be what some on NS would support. Of course there are gray areas that would have to be looked into for this to work but perhaps for those who don't like government interference this would be the best bet.

we are not free and never were.

we are all held captive by the collective weight of society around us. laws or no laws, we cannot do as we please without regard to the lives of other people--other people will not let us.

the only real question is do we set up a system where SOCIETY is restricted in what it can do to US?

It's probably one of the more coherent bits of ideology out there, based on a combination of utilitarianism (which to most people seems intuitively right, I find) and the respect of individual rights (which again most people seem to enjoy quite a bit).
Eh, before electing a moral system to follow I think most people ought to do some research to see what it entails in full.

Those who disagree will simply have to agree with what has been decided. I really can't figure on any way to have a law that everyone will agree on.
Could they not secede?

Perhaps the best thing will be to only have laws that prevent life and property.
You anti-life or something? :confused:

Remember those who do not want to obey the law shouldn't have to. Likewise, they shouldn't be entitled to it's protection either.Well, then I don't see the problem. If they aren't protected by the law, you can use whatever force and means at your disposal to make them do whatever you want, like, oh, say, enforce law on them.

The truth is, you don't have to obey the law. But, then people may tend to throw you in jail. Contrariwise, if you follow the law, it tries to protect you from being held captive against your will.

Of course we made an assumption.
I just thought I'd point it out. There were many German Jews who refused to flee the Nazis because they didn't want to leave their homes. That doesn't mean that they consented to Nazi policy.

For that sort of thing to work, we already have to attribute government with special powers of ownership. But where do those come from?

There are some inconsistancies with Mill's harm principle
I don't think the fact that acts of omission are bad as well (and remember, Mill was a philosopher of morality, of course he's gonna say that) is really an inconsistency.

Coming from a purely utilitarian standpoint, if we don't have a rule to help people around us when they're in trouble, we're likely to have more unhappy people around. Not to mention that most of us get a bit of a kick out of helping others as well. Regarding taxes, you have to remember the quote that I put there. If we only had laws that protected people from damage done to them by others, I wouldn't mind paying taxes to enforce those laws. It's things like fighting wars overseas, or outlawing drugs, or restricting immigration that I don't want to pay taxes for.

Now, the little thing that you could pick up on is the question whether or not failing to give your money to a beggar is an act of omission. Though then the question is what exactly constitutes harm being done. And the same could be said for things like offending others alá Mohammed cartoons (and in that case Mill seems very committed to free speech).

But yes, Mill is not your Ayn Rand or Austrian libertarian. That's because he comes from a different direction.

The beauty of that is that he's not a nutcase doomed to be ignored for all eternity like Ayn Rand or the Austrians. By coming from a direction that most people intuitively agree with, you can build very convincing arguments that lead you to a much freer society.

He also made self-ownership inalienable, i.e. you can't sell yourself into slavery. This seems to violate the his Harm Principal pretty decisively.
The question is whether "slavery" is just a transaction like any other. Because if you did sell yourself, you couldn't actually get out of the deal ever again (otherwise it would be just normal labour).

Eh, before electing a moral system to follow I think most people ought to do some research to see what it entails in full.
You can think whatever you want. Fact of the matter is that they don't, and that most people I tried to explain radical libertarian philosophies to answered with "What the fuck is wrong with those people?"

Answer to original question:

Take a college-level elementary ethics/philosophy class. Pick a ethical system that has been presented to you. Problem solved.

The question is whether "slavery" is just a transaction like any other. Because if you did sell yourself, you couldn't actually get out of the deal ever again (otherwise it would be just normal labour).There have been many kinds of slavery. And most of them either had limits on the time you'd be a slave, or they'd give you the option to earn money and buy your freedom later on.
The western model of colonial times was of course not one of these, and rather eclipses the other models in scale and recency.. But still

The beauty of that is that he's not a nutcase doomed to be ignored for all eternity like Ayn Rand or the Austrians.

... :rolleyes:

Too bad, of course, that they aren't ignored.

You can think whatever you want. Fact of the matter is that they don't, and that most people I tried to explain radical libertarian philosophies to answered with "What the fuck is wrong with those people?"
Try explaining it to them after thoroughly explaining Utilitarianism, then...

Utilitarianism is flexible enough to justify either statism or libertarianism. D. Friedman tries to justify anarcho-capitalism through utilitarianism (and given that he, like most economists, lacks a good understanding of philosophy, he makes some rather sloppy errors). The philosophy can just as easily justify a society in the style of Brave New World though.

You are already free to do as you wish. So is everyone else. If you wish to break a law, you may. If someone else wishes to enforce it, they may. "Laws," "government," "religion," are all inventions of the human mind, and have no true physical existance. We are all as free as we want to be, all we have to do is recognize it.

Very true - this raises the point that whether an authority is considered "democratic" or not, it still requires the support of a large number of people to have any control.

Too bad, of course, that they aren't ignored.
Number of anarcho-capitalist countries in the world: zero.

Number of governments that adhere to some form of utilitarianism: 193+

Try explaining it to them after thoroughly explaining Utilitarianism, then...
I don't have to. "The greatest good for the greatest number" is something that people seem to get pretty easily.

Utilitarianism is flexible enough to justify either statism or libertarianism.
That's because pretty much every genuine and believable attempt at creating a society has to use it, either explicitly or implicitly.

The western model of colonial times was of course not one of these, and rather eclipses the other models in scale and recency.. But still
Chances are that Mill meant those.

Selling yourself into slavery for a limited amount of time is just like being employed, except that you get paid the wages up-front.

Number of anarcho-capitalist countries in the world: zero.

Number of governments that adhere to some form of utilitarianism: 193+
So, how many governments adhere to Mill's type of liberalism and utilitarianism today? Again, zero (another thing to keep in mind, Austrianism and Randianism also include minarchism, not just anarcho-capitalism).

I don't have to. "The greatest good for the greatest number" is something that people seem to get pretty easily.

Oh, just like 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need'?

That's because pretty much every genuine and believable attempt at creating a society has to use it, either explicitly or implicitly.
Mises held that in utilitarian terms a natural rights system would provide the greatest good. But then, I thought those silly Austrians are just doomed to be ignored...

The fact of the matter is almost all moral theories do have a utilitarian (or rather, consequentialist) bent to them - ie that their proponents believe it'd be good to follow them. That does not mean their principles are utilitarian though.

So, how many governments adhere to Mill's type of liberalism and utilitarianism today?
My point isn't that everyone follows Mill. My point is that Mill's strength comes from the fact that he argues in terms that both the mob and the government agree with, making it easy to get the arguments across.

Oh, just like 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need'?
No, you need to explain that to people. And most of them immediately dislike the idea that their ability doesn't count for shit.

But then, I thought those silly Austrians are just doomed to be ignored...
The only people who care about them are either various academics sitting in their sad little offices, and teens on the web with too much time on their hands, like you and me.

The fact of the matter is almost all moral theories do have a utilitarian bent to them - ie that their proponents believe it'd be good to follow them. That does not mean their principles are utilitarian though.
Which already tells you that ultilitarianism has something to it.

Now, if someone is a utilitarian (and I believe most people are, or quite close to it), would you not agree that it would be easier to get Mill across to them than Mises?

So, how many governments adhere to Mill's type of liberalism and utilitarianism today? Again, zero

The kind of liberal utilitarian thinking that Mill embodied is everywhere in modern politics.

Oh, just like 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need'?

That is a practical proposal, not a moral theory.

My point isn't that everyone follows Mill. My point is that Mill's strength comes from the fact that he argues in terms that both the mob and the government agree with, making it easy to get the arguments across.
Fair enough.

No, you need to explain that to people. And most of them immediately dislike the idea that their ability doesn't count for shit.

And what makes you think you do not need to explain the statement that you just pronounced? The principle sounds really simple prima facie, until you get into the nitty-gritty of it.

The only people who care about them are either various academics sitting in their sad little offices, and teens on the web with too much time on their hands, like you and me.
Neither of us are teens. ;) Young, yes. Anyway, if you're interested in Mill and his argumentation, take a look into Mises' moral theory. You might be surprised. His style of writing was in fact intended for the 'mob' as well as the more cultivated types.

Which already tells you that ultilitarianism has something to it.

No, it tells me that a particular aspect of it has something for it. Not the moral theory wholesale.

Now, if someone is a utilitarian (and I believe most people are, or quite close to it), would you not agree that it would be easier to get Mill across to them than Mises?
Mises was a utilitarian, and all libertarians using utilitarianism evoke arguments highly reminiscent of his. If you want to justify libertarianism via utilitarianism, Mises is one source of inspiration to look for.

The kind of liberal utilitarian thinking that Mill embodied is everywhere in modern politics.
So where are all the classical liberal governments then? Or even major parties supporting them?

That is a practical proposal, not a moral theory.
Yes, highly practical.

My point was to illustrate that the statement is no less simple than that one. Its one of NL's pet peeves, so I thought to bring it up.

So where are all the classical liberal governments then? Or even major parties supporting them?

I don't believe I said anything about classical liberalism.

Mill's view that political decisions should be made so as to maximize happiness, combined with certain kinds of respect for individual rights (especially with regard to victimless crimes), practically define the political debate among fairly liberal, secular people (except on NS.)

Yes, highly practical.

In that it advocates a particular policy, rather than a particular standard for judging policies? Yes.

I don't believe I said anything about classical liberalism.

Mill's view that political decisions should be made so as to maximize happiness, combined with certain kinds of respect for individual rights (especially with regard to victimless crimes), practically define the political debate among fairly liberal, secular people (except on NS.)
I don't deny that Mill has influenced liberal politics significantly - I was countering NL's point that the particular type of State he envisioned has much precedence in the world, if any at all.

In that it advocates a particular policy, rather than a particular standard for judging policies? Yes.
I was being sarcastic - I understood what you meant though. :)

Because if you don't, they'll have you whacked.

I don't deny that Mill has influenced liberal politics significantly - I was countering NL's point that the particular type of State he envisioned has much precedence in the world, if any at all.
Which of course wasn't actually my point at all.

I was countering NL's point that the particular type of State he envisioned has much precedence in the world, if any at all.

Moderately free-market liberal democracies? Hmm, I see them everywhere.

Moderately free-market liberal democracies? Hmm, I see them everywhere.
He went a lot further than that, didn't he? He had some sort of reorientation later in his life, but his more prominent economic philosophy was always one of laissez-faire. Significantly more so I'd wager than modern market economies.

Significantly more so I'd wager than modern market economies.

Let's say this is true.

How are modern state interventions justified? Usually with references to increasing happiness, or something to that effect. So even in rejecting certain aspects of Mill's economic policy, they embrace his moral philosophy - which is the point Neu Leonstein was making.

I just thought I'd point it out. There were many German Jews who refused to flee the Nazis because they didn't want to leave their homes. That doesn't mean that they consented to Nazi policy.

For that sort of thing to work, we already have to attribute government with special powers of ownership. But where do those come from?

The special powers of ownership supposedly possesed by governments is called sovereignty. Most democratc nation's use popular sovereignty, the state is created by and therefore subject to the will of the people.

Eh. Where do private property rights come from? There's the mixed labor theory, where adding labor to unowned things creates some kind of metaphysical bonds between person and object, and the homestead principle, first come first serve.

I don't think the fact that acts of omission are bad as well (and remember, Mill was a philosopher of morality, of course he's gonna say that) is really an inconsistency.

I find that acts of ommision as causing/inflicting/whatevering harm as inconsistent with the harm principle. Basically the harm principle calls for a negative obligation, don't harm anyone. Mill is calling for the positive obligation of preventing harm happening to others.

Coming from a purely utilitarian standpoint, if we don't have a rule to help people around us when they're in trouble, we're likely to have more unhappy people around. Not to mention that most of us get a bit of a kick out of helping others as well. Regarding taxes, you have to remember the quote that I put there. If we only had laws that protected people from damage done to them by others, I wouldn't mind paying taxes to enforce those laws. It's things like fighting wars overseas, or outlawing drugs, or restricting immigration that I don't want to pay taxes for.

I don't see anything inconsistent from JSM's perspective with having a rule to help others. What I find inconsistent is using government coercion to enforce said rule to be inconsistent with the Harm Principle.

Now, the little thing that you could pick up on is the question whether or not failing to give your money to a beggar is an act of omission. Though then the question is what exactly constitutes harm being done. And the same could be said for things like offending others alá Mohammed cartoons (and in that case Mill seems very committed to free speech).

Gotta love language and ambiguities

But yes, Mill is not your Ayn Rand or Austrian libertarian. That's because he comes from a different direction.

I know. He's well liked by many modern/social/welfare liberals and even a few socialists. I know one, a socialist, who gushes JSM adorations.

The question is whether "slavery" is just a transaction like any other. Because if you did sell yourself, you couldn't actually get out of the deal ever again (otherwise it would be just normal labour).

By selling yourself I meant as in say to pay off family debt or as a hard-core bdsm advocate. Not allowing the selling or giving of one's self violates the harm principle because no harm is being inflicted on anyone besides, possibly, one's self.

Could they not secede?

What, everytime a law is passed that certain people don't like they should just leave the government? Awfully pessimistic, not to mention that such action is really counterproductive. It is hard to make any rules that one can expect to be followed if one must worry about secession at every turn. How do they expect the new nation to have any laws that are to be followed as now they will have the same worry? Chaos will reign.

You anti-life or something? :confused:

Oops. I meant to say "protect life and property".

My bad. :p

If people were allowed to make whatever deals they wanted to, nobody would pay taxes and the government would collapse. I think social contract theory goes hand in hand with giving up some basic personal rights. But aren't we better off with governments and laws? Society is certainly better than anarchy.

Why should people be liable to follow a law they never once agreed to. That is to say, why are we obliged to obey the law? Never once did I sign a contract to do so. Is it fair that simply by virtue of being born within a designated area of land that I am to have sprawling code of conduct imposed upon me?

Now I am not arguening against the specific letters of the law itself, but rather the terms upon which it is applied to all people regardless of their consent. How free are we after all? If the law is truly such a great thing, then why shouldn't it be consensual? Perhaps if we were to sign a contract upon majority (18 years in most places). At least then the rule of law would be justified. Likewise, I think it is only fair that visitors to a specified region sign a temporary contract to obey the law for the period of their stay, if they want.

Remember those who do not want to obey the law shouldn't have to. Likewise, they shouldn't be entitled to it's protection either.

Read the Social Contract by Rousseau and you'll find out.

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.


Heinlein pwns.

The simple problem is, how would society function? How would the police, the legislature, the justice system as a whol know who "opted out" and who didn't? Competitive markets of private firms offering the above services in return for money (As opposed to a forced monopoly offering all of the above services by forcibly taking your money). To put it simply, there would be justice agencies (private judiciaries), and security firms (essentially cops). You would subscribe to the services of a justice agency of your choice according to your needs and budget, not unlike one might do so for health insurance. Your justice agency would have its own set of negative-rights-based-laws, and would offer the benefits of legal protection and apprehension in the unfortunate event of an unlawful breach upon your person or property. Security firms would work primarily in co-operation with justice agencies on contract to provide all neccesary services.

If you opt out of the legal system, what's to stop you from still calling 911? How would the responding police know that you are not someone they need to help? Firstly 911 would be one of many competing emergency hotlines. The first thing 911 would ask you for would be your justice insurance details in the event of crime, or emergency insurance details in the event of a general emergency. If you do not have an account with such an agency, they would probably require some kind of up-front credit payment prior to response.

The 'police' would not exist per se. Instead there would be countless security firms performing the different jobs of the police under contract from a justice agency for the said agency's subscribers.

While there are numerous problems with your question, the biggest one I can think of is "how would such a system work in practice?"
Allow me to give an example. Let us meet Billy. Billy is walking home one day from Thai Calligraphy class when he is misfortunately gang raped by an angry dyke with a mohawk and a strap-on and her pack of Irish wolfhounds. As soon as they have done with their messy work, Billy calls his emergency number (say 112), quotes his client number, and explains the situation. Luckily Billy is covered with basic crime and emergency insurance so the emergency hotline sends an ambulance to Billy right away (and charges the cost to his justice agency). In addition to this, as stipulated in Billy's fantastic agreement with his justice agency, he is entitled to 5 immediate apprehension responses by the security firm of his agencie's choosing. So, at his behest, Billy sends a squad of highschool drop-outs with guns after the rabid dyke and her dogs (all generously covered by his value-for-money justice insurance).

When the ambulance arrives, the administer emergency first aid and medical attention. If required, they might ask for his health insurance details to send him to hospital. But he doesn't need to go this time, as all he has suffered is some friction burn in the nether regions. They give him some butt cream and let him go. Meanwhile, the fast and efficient security squad have miraculously managed to track down the elusive dyke and her pack of wolfhounds. They feed the dogs some lead and hogtie the dyke. After dragging her back to their private cells, they call Billy's justice agency and inform them of the successful apprehension. Billy's justice agency gives him a call with the good news, and faces him with a choice; either billy can attempt prosecute the dyke in his agency's private courts or he can let her go. Seeing as he is covered for prosecution, he'd be an idiot to let he go.

Next week, after a week in the security lock-up, the dyke appears before Billy's court. Now the dyke is represented by her own justice agency, though she had the option to opt for billy's if she wanted. If the dyke is found innocent she is free to go, and most probably entitled to a decent level of compensation. However, if the dyke is found guilty she may be liable to pay a hefty fine, or even go to jail for some time (depending on the technicalities in Billy's agency's laws). Billy is covered for 5 years of jail time for a rapist free of charge, after which period he would be liable to upkeep the dyke in jail (so he is probably hoping for a light sentance himself). At billy's option, he can offer a cash settlement at anytime to drop the whole thing. Very very few justice agencies offer capital punishment for the sole reason of the compensation payouts they inevitably face upon an unjust conviction.

Well cut a long story short, the dyke is found innocent after it is shown that billy was walking through the nation dyke's dog park in annual Irish Wolfhound week three days after the 'mohawks for Muscular dystrophy' charity gala. Sucks to be Billy, right? Not really, all of this was covered by his justice agency. However, it does suck to be billy's Security firm, because they are going to find themselves in the dyke's justice agency's courts for wrongful apprehension and mistreatment of a prisoner (being hogtied and dragged to the station isn't exactly fun). However, alls well that ends well, and the dyke decides to opt for a cash settlement rather than proceed with prosecution.

A day in a privatised legal system.

Hobbes absolutely does. We cede personal freedom in exchange for security and stability. Simple as that.
Why not cede personal funds in exchange for security and stability?

Statism (Social Democracy) FTW!
What is uniquely superior about statism that makes you idealise it so?

If people were allowed to make whatever deals they wanted to, nobody would pay taxes and the government would collapse. Wha? I think social contract theory goes hand in hand with giving up some basic personal rights. But aren't we better off with governments and laws? Indeed, but I am not suggesting we do away with government for the sake of. The government serves some very useful purposes. However, I am suggesting that those services would be better provided by a competing freemarket of private firms. Democracy is redundant when people can vote with their credit card. Basically, I am endorsing the notion of reorganising and decentralisng power from a corrupt monopoly to a corrupt market of private firms. At least then you could pick which brand of corruption you disdain the least. Society is certainly better than anarchy.You seem to have misunderstood. Society and anarchy are not mutually exclusive. Any political arrangement with more than one human in it will have 'society'.