Recent comments

  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 3 days ago
    Sorry, Wendy and Lew
    Page John deLaubenfels
    Just perusing this thread I came across this "2) Just because there is *not government* enforced IP, does not mean there is no IP, that is an obvious fallacy. If you sign a contract with someone that if their copy of the software you gave them gets out, that they agree to pay a penalty of (for example) $50,000. I think that's pretty powerful incentive not to distribute your IP, and it doesn't need a state to do it". I am not having a problem with this are you? But I am not in this position. Personally I could care less. I would just find sellers that meet my needs. More specifically how does this truck with Kinsella an IP lawyer reserv[ing] IP "rights" he claims do not exist? If he wants an attribution perhaps he has good reason in a division of labor society remnant but embedded in a rat race? Again the context (and I have no idea what his client issues are!) *I live in an unfree world*. Do I tell the truth to the wolf at the door? Does that make me a liar? (Rhetorically speaking, not trying to put myself on the spot) LOL But regarding mind fucks which seems to come to mind--gee I wonder where from? And those too preoccupied with such as evidenced here in the blogsphere link you provided. It is entirely too hard to follow. Looks like those looking for flak and then getting plenty of it thrown around...The nym thing and who is what and so forth on another level is hilarious and true irony of not hacking at the root on a root site no less. http://web.archive.org/web/20070104221959/http://www.no-treason.com/arch... I think you stirred up a hornet's nest and lost credibility with Kinsella. Hmm.... Again perhaps you should pursue Part II of your questions. Which is a repeat of Part I with Kinsella's replies excerpted. Again what are you doing in that arena that's different if at all? And how is it working for you? I missed that in Part II and I am missing that here.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 3 days ago Web link Westernerd
    BZZZZZT!!!! No, but thanks for playing! http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking As you can see from the list at the above link, the freest economies are the richest places in the world and you'll find they are generally the best places to live. On the other hand the last holdouts for communism are the poorest countries and the worst places in the world to live. That's excellent evidence that freer capitalism will lead to even better results.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 3 days ago
    Sorry, Wendy and Lew
    Page John deLaubenfels
    "I read Kinsella's response and it seemed reasonable" How is it reasonable for an IP lawyer to reserve IP "rights" he claims do not exist? How is it reasonable for such a lawyer to threaten state violence on behalf of clients to secure rights he claims don't exist? "I am on several projects right now. But by all means press Kinsella if you are unsatisfied. I for one think you should [might want to] apply such questions to your own issues... such as your take on mini-archy." Kinsella is an an anarchist, as am I. He has not wanted converse with me since I caught him spamming my blog with anonymous (he thought) comments: http://web.archive.org/web/20070104221959/http://www.no-treason.com/arch...
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 3 days ago Web link Westernerd
    Essentially a government is a legal monopoly of force. Ditto for state.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 3 days ago
    Sorry, Wendy and Lew
    Page John deLaubenfels
    Wonderful that Kinsella provides you some hints as to one size does not fit all in the remnants of a division of labor society... I read Kinsella's response and it seemed reasonable--In my words--Just because Ayn Rand did not pay for her taxi ride with silver coins does not mean she was a hippocrit. Kinsella is telling you there is a context and it is? The elephant in the room is the State... Well yeah!! Perhaps you should pursue Part II of your questions. Which is a repeat of Part I with Kinsella's replies excerpted. What are you doing in that arena that's different if at all? And how is it working for you? I missed that in Part II. I am on several projects right now. But by all means press Kinsella if you are unsatisfied. I for one think you should [might want to] apply such questions to your own issues... such as your take on mini-archy. I don't have the link handy. Perhaps I recollect incorrectly but I do not remember if you were merely playing devils advocate or embracing a defense for mini-archy but here is what I would add to that... Here an author who makes another appeal for Truth in Labeling (as called for in the original post of a discussion). And again, he is is NOT disputing your view of government, only what you are or appear to be (mis)calling it. Statism exists on a continuum ranging from TOTAL STATE (Totalitarianism) thru Communism, Fascism, Democracy, "Limited" Republic, mini-statism, micro-statism, nano-statism...but there is no MINARCHY. It is a made-up word that is devoid of sensible meaning! You either have NO government (Anarchy) or you have some government of varying degrees of severity as described above. The general usage of the made-up word "minarchy" refers to some unspecified, presumably small, amount of government. If it means "a few rulers", it means statism of some measure. You cannot have "degrees" of anarchy (min-archy, max-archy, total-archy) because you cannot have degrees of NO GOVERMENT!! Anarchy means NO RULERS! ZERO, ZIP ZILCH.There is no "mini-zero" or "minzero" and there cannot be such.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 3 days ago Web link Westernerd
    Define "State." Define "government" (even though you did not use the term, And State = Civilization does not count.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 3 days ago Web link Westernerd
    It's time to start judging the failure of "Free" Market Capitalism with the same honesty as we judge the failure of Socialism/Communism: WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get.) The people saying "but PURE® Capitalism actually requires...." sound just like the people saying "but TRUE™ Communism actually requires...." Both Capitalism and Communism have now failed, both because of internal contradictions, even though their True Believers think it's because they were implemented wrong or corrupted by economic-sinners.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 3 days ago Web link Westernerd
    Anybody who supports the agricultural city-State (civilization) is a Statist. The city and State are an indivisible whole cultural package, just like jet-airplane is an indivisible whole package. The jet noise isn't going to "wither away" and the airplane magically keep flying without jets roaring. People who say we must have jet aviation, but label people who accept the extreme noise as "jetists" are...well, how would you judge them?
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 3 days ago Web link Westernerd
    Mises and Rothbard are both as easily refutable as Marx or Keynes, which are just as screwed up. The Marx-Mises axis of religioeconomic dogma is pure statist. Yep, Mises is as statist as Marx, even though he thinks he's not. Civilization is the City-State. There's no city without a state. There's no state without a city. It's like a jet-airplane. There is no flying without the jet. Libertarians are ignorant enough of freshman-level anthropology to love jet-airplanes but complain about the oh-so-evil "jetist" noise. Thomas Jefferson had a clue when he said, "When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe." Civilization = City-State. Civilization is Statist. Civilization supporters are Statists. Marx and Mises are just two different variations of Statism, complaining about the "jetist" noise, and hoping it goes away - but we can still keep jetting somehow.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 3 days ago
    Sorry, Wendy and Lew
    Page John deLaubenfels
    "Re: "I [John] could certainly understand Kinsella using the Creative Commons CCO Public Domain Dedication, since it allows the author to ensure that no IP rights for the material can be claimed". That would appear to be at odds with John's prior post: "Oh and I just took a look at the web site for the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom, of which Kinsella is the director. http://c4sif.org/about/ The Center actively opposes IP yet *oddly* reserves some IP rights under it's Creative Commons license"." It's not at odds all: The Public Domain Dedication insures that no rights are reserved for anyone, which is what I would naturally expect someone would want if they believe there are no IP rights. Instead c4sif *reserves* IP rights Kinsella claims he believes doesn't exist. "But more specifically why not ask Kinsella? Regarding these issues?" In fact I've already posted a link to a thread where I asked Kinsella that same question about his own site, and he responded: http://web.archive.org/web/20061121090001/http://www.no-treason.com/arch... I make clear, in the other two threads I posted, why his answer is unsatisfactory. Since you seem to thing the choice made sense I thought perhaps you had a reason for thinking so. Do you?
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 3 days ago Page tzo
    Re: "How can you presume to know the subject of someone's mind--a dead man's no less--without citing something specific that they have written on that subject?" " Interestingly you do indeed have selective reading. "How can you presume to say somebody--Spooner a dead man--would not sign something that he has not read (the Covenant of Unanimous Consent)? This was the first question. You still have not answered it. You hold others to a standards you don't follow yourself (hypocrisy). And still nothing *specific*. Re: "If you did quote Spooner at length demonstrating he would think this supposed covenant was idle wind because it adds nothing to anyone's moral obligations" Then you missed the point... If your own moral obligations are not important enough to state--as if your own writings here are in dispute by your own reckoning, who knows?--And if it is not for you to know explicitly and improve on; And for others to know you--without binding them down (your words)--Then Of course nothing regarding an inter-relationship Covenant could filter thru such blank outs, let alone a dead man. Re: "I have explained how that transfer of consequences occurs and how one man can commit more evil than he can possibly be made to repay. And I have explained the solution. " Re: That's not what you said in the staement (sic) I originally disputed and it's certainly not what the Tannehills said in the passage you quoted. The transfer of consequences explains how your Presidents get away with murder on a grand scale. It is not something you seem to be able to provide to the discussion. Work-It-Out John.... I unconditionally reserve the right to become more intelligent about any subject. That being the case, what critical significance should we assign to me not re-typing enough of a book on this blog and me finally clarifying and improving a point you made? Right now, the world is on fire (to cite just two examples) aggressive war and aggressive fiat currency inflation — the former being nothing other than mass murder, the latter being massive theft through official fraud*. SOOooo…. The REAL scandal here is that I did not catch your obtuse examples and did not attribute that you were on to something I missed? Re: "If you are in outrage that "Justice"--a man made concept is indeed not a natural law and that it was unclear or misleading. Get to the point. That's your argument? Got it! I am not going to throw the Tannehill's seminal work out the window because of that one mis-cue." Re; Who asked you to throw away anything? It would be nice, for you I think, if you could admit when you've said something mistaken and someone's called you on it. Really, it feels good to fold a losing hand once you get the hang of it. But it's no skin off my nose. You dismissed it (the book). Indeed you won't read it. In fact you can't even get to the point. Apparently you are more interested in making sure I am wrong and you are right. I don't see you providing any solutions but parables with assertions and conclusions without support that amount to social metaphysics and despair. I see you as what you are--a sophist and a troll. Serves me right for feeding a troll.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 4 days ago
    Sorry, Wendy and Lew
    Page John deLaubenfels
    Re: "I [John] could certainly understand Kinsella using the Creative Commons CCO Public Domain Dedication, since it allows the author to ensure that no IP rights for the material can be claimed". That would appear to be at odds with John's prior post: "Oh and I just took a look at the web site for the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom, of which Kinsella is the director. http://c4sif.org/about/ The Center actively opposes IP yet *oddly* reserves some IP rights under it's Creative Commons license". But more specifically why not ask Kinsella? Regarding these issues?
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 4 days ago
    Sorry, Wendy and Lew
    Page John deLaubenfels
    I could certainly understand Kinsella using the Creative Commons CCO Public Domain Dedication, since it allows the author to ensure that no IP rights for the material can be claimed. But the license used at c4sif reserves attribution rights. According to Kinsella, and I think Carson, there are no legitimate IP rights to reserve. Maybe I'm missing something. Can you explain why one would claim to reserve rights one did not believe existed and which one believed would be immoral to attempt to enforce?
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 4 days ago
    Sorry, Wendy and Lew
    Page John deLaubenfels
    For those interested, Creative Commons license makes sense regarding those who oppose IP: such as at Study of Innovative Freedom at http://c4sif.org/about/ Download with Introduction and explanation is provided here. http://thepowerofopen.org/ So let us add to the evidence presented by Kevin Carson on IP and the "murder"--if there is malice aforethought--of a division of labor society (which consist of individuals).... http://www.strike-the-root.com/intellectual-property-is-murder#comment-3359
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 4 days ago Page Per Bylund
    I would add three things.... How the Covenant of Unanimous Consent fulfills the promise of Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. It pertains to relationships between lovers... http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2006/tle381-20060820-04.html There is *No We*: Challenge the Premise. http://zerogov.com/?p=2334 Is there a difference between those who seek to build a system, and those who only seek to build? Happy Great Thanksgiving Hoax.... http://lewrockwell.com/orig10/maybury1.1.1.html
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 4 days ago Page Per Bylund
    I just stumbled upon the comment thread where Micha decided I wasn't married: http://web.archive.org/web/20061121042622/http://www.no-treason.com/arch... We discussed the the gay marriage issue at length. The thread has a lot of good discussion relative to this issue.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 4 days ago Page tzo
    Hi, Suverans2 I like the quote and the book that supports it... "While it is generally recognized that man's physical and even his mental nature are subject to the rule of natural law it is just as generally assumed that in the area of morality, and specifically moral human relationships, is completely outside the scope of natural law. This assumption is held tacitly, rather than identified and defended, simply because it can't be defended. It is completely foolish to assert that man is a being with a specific nature and therefore subject to the rules of principles derived from that nature in all areas...except when he deals with other men. Do men men cease to have a specific nature when they come into relationship with other men? Of course not!".... Read on Dear Reader, I'd love to read a refutation of the book especially given what is at stake... ...Paraphrased: Natural laws are objective and compulsory (they cannot be passed over). The tacit assumption that they do not apply to human relationships led men to believe men must have a central system of Statutory Laws to fill the gap and maintain social order. (The principle behind a Statutory Law written a priori cannot be made to fit all circumstances. Its application is unobjective and misses value structure objectivity of profit and loss calculations). This market price breakthru came from Mises's 1920 paper refuting Socialism. The Market for Liberty Morris and Linda Tannehill http://mises.org/resources/6058 Book review--Freedom Naturally http://alpha.mises.org/daily/5305/Freedom-Naturally PS "The free market is a product of the working of natural laws in the area of human relationships, specifically economic relationships". Consequences are inescapable. (Notice how no system is referred to)
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 4 days ago Page tzo
    Happy Thanksgiving, Everyone!!
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 4 days ago Page B.R. Merrick
    "That’s right. Those two IRS employees were innocent, at least, in as far as most ordinary people are. Yes, they are part of a massive bureaucracy that steals money to survive and thrive. Guess what? So are my parents. As former government school teachers, my parents are living off of pensions provided by everyone else in the state at the point of a gun." The difference: Teaching is an honorable and valuable profession that has simply been captured by the state, as so many things have. Tax collecting is a moral crime in principle.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 4 days ago
    Never Volunteer
    Page Paul Hein
    I do not consent to government. As a sovereign my word is the rebuttal. What is it precisely you would have me do? And can you clarify what you mean by member-only benefits? Could mean a lot of things.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 4 days ago Page Per Bylund
    I think even committed statists would do well to evict the state from their marriages. What do you have in mind with individual secession?
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 4 days ago Page Per Bylund
    Have a good Thanksgiving yourself Suverans2. By the way, I have no problem with Micha, he's a good guy and we've had many enjoyable debates. Neither my wife or I are the least bit troubled by those who think we're not married. The don't really have a say in the matter.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 4 days ago Page tzo
    G'day AtlasAikido, Thank you for the quote, and contrary to what I am about to write, I do like it and have saved it. The first portion of the first sentence shows us how little the author understands what natural law, or law of nature, as opposed to the laws of nature, are, a confusion of terms all too common. 3. Law of nature, is a rule of conduct arising out of the natural relations of human beings...existing prior to any positive precept. Thus it is a law of nature, that one man should not injure another, and murder and fraud would be crimes, independent of any prohibition from a supreme power. 6. Physical laws, or laws of nature. The invariable tendency or determination of any species of matter to a particular form with definite properties, and the determination of a body to certain motions, changes, and relations, which uniformly take place in the same circumstances, is called a physical law. Earlier I wrote, and it bears repeating, IMO: One the saddest things I see is that some people who argue against the "Natural Law" apparently don't have a true understanding of what the Natural Law of Man is. "The natural law is defined by Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, "honorary 'professor of ethics and the law of nature' at the University of Geneva", to be “a rule which so necessarily agrees with the nature and state of man that, without observing its maxims, the peace and happiness of society can never be preserved.” And he says “that these are called “natural laws” because a knowledge of them may be attained merely by the light of reason, from the fact of their essential agreeableness with the constitution of human nature..." ~ A Dictionary of the Law (Black's 1st c. 1891), page 694 So, as you can readily see, to say, "Natural law does apply to human relationships", is a silly statement, it shows us that the author really doesn't understand what the "natural law of the human world" is. I should have also said, in my original posting of the above, "and even some proponents of the Natural Law apparently don't have a true understanding of what the Natural Law of Man is."
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 4 days ago
    Never Volunteer
    Page Paul Hein
    “We the People” are not who we think they are. “The popular leaders, who in all ages have called themselves “the people.” ~ Blackstone's Commentaries 438/Ballentines Dictionary "...if that were true Reid would be right because in consenting to government you'd be consenting to those taxes - making them voluntary." So, if you are not "consenting to government", why not formally rebut the presumption that you are, why not secede, i.e. formally withdraw from membership in the group (body politic/political corporation), and quit taking all member-only benefits?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 4 days ago Page Per Bylund
    In the article you posted the link for, we read, "The Sovereign Individual argues instead, that one must simply evict the state from one’s own marriage." The only way this can really be done is to "evict" ourselves from membership in the state - individual secession, (not expatriation). Anything less is just a "placebo", that makes us feel better, but does nothing to really cure what's wrong.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 4 days ago Page Per Bylund
    Happy Thanksgiving, John. A big thumbs up to everything you wrote here. And, if you don't already have them, here are a few Maxims of Law you can lay on the Micha Ghertner's of the world, not that you need them, but because common sense doesn't suffice for them. Matrimonia debent esse libera. Marriages ought to be free. Consensus non concubitus facit nuptiam. Consent, not lying together, constitutes marriage. Conjunctio mariti et faeminae est de jure naturae. The union of a man and a woman is of the law of nature. The union of PERSONS, who are cattle, i.e. chattel property, on the other hand, is quite another matter.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 4 days ago Page tzo
    "This becomes an exercise in confusing different meanings of nature and natural law. If man's nature is defined as what he can do then obviously nothing he does is contrary to his nature. Physics is natural law and I doubt that anything we observe contradicts physics, so physics is inescapable. But this is not what is meant by Natural Law when speaking of morality." ~ John T. Kennedy What he said, what I've been saying; people confuse the law of nature, i.e. the "natural law of the human world" with the laws of nature, i.e. physics, quite commonly, and, I suppose, quite understandably. "There is nothing mysterious about the natural law of the human world. To repeat, it is the order of natural persons -- human beings that are capable of rational, purposive action, speech and thought." ~ Natural Law by Frank van Dun, Ph.D., Dr.Jur. - Senior lecturer Philosophy of Law.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 4 days ago Page tzo
    Delete double post.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 4 days ago Page tzo
    "Natural law never went away those who ignore it will (are) continuing to experience the consequence as witnessed the slow motion collapse of all the western financial systems." ~ AtlasAikido Absolutely, positively, correct!!
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 4 days ago Page Per Bylund
    Per, "In fact, this is what my wife and I planned to do from the very beginning. We were not to get married. As anti-statists and atheists, why would we ask for permission? " Did it occur to you to get married without permission? I often see this surprising view from AnCaps, that marriage is defined by state permission. When I tell anarchists that I did not ask the state permission to marry my wife and therefore do not have any of their pieces of paper certifying our marriage, the most common response is: You're not really married. Really? It's like the government said you need permission to take a piss, but I tell an anarchist I just took a piss without permission and he responds: You really didn't piss. It's a silly view. Marriage existed in America long before government declared a legal monopoly on it. Government doesn't produce marriages, it just perverts them. You certainly *can* marry without state permission. Our service was modeled after the wedding of Lazarus and Dora Long: --- Lazarus: I take thee, Dora, to be my wife, to love and protect and cherish—and never to leave you… so long as we both shall live. Don’t sniffle! Lean over here and kiss me instead. We’re married. Dora: I was not either sniffling! Are we really married?” Lazarus: We are. Oh, you can have any wedding ceremony you want. Later. --- See? No state required. Easy-peasy, lemon-squeezy. I'm not saying at all that an anarchist can't go through with the paperwork if that proves useful, but that has nothing to do with being married. To identify marriage with state permission should be scandalous among anarchists. I wrote a lot more on the same subject: http://web.archive.org/web/20071117144856/http://www.no-treason.com/arch... Ha! I just noticed that Micha Ghertner posted in this thread. Micha is an anarchist who told me I wasn't really married.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 4 days ago Page tzo
    "How can you presume to know the subject of someone's mind--a dead man's no less--without citing something specific that they have written on that subject?" " I did quote Spooner at length demonstrating he would think this supposed covenant was idle wind because it adds nothing to anyone's moral obligations. "I have explained how that transfer of consequences occurs and how one man can commit more evil than he can possibly be made to repay. And I have explained the solution. " That's not what you said in the staement I originally disputed and it's certainly not what the Tannehills said in the passage you quoted. "If you are in outrage that "Justice"--a man made concept is indeed not a natural law and that it was unclear or misleading. Get to the point. That's your argument? Got it! I am not going to throw the Tannehill's seminal work out the window because of that one mis-cue." Who asked you to throw away anything? It would be nice, for you I think, if you could admit when you've said something mistaken and someone's called you on it. Really, it feels good to fold a losing hand once you get the hang of it. But it's no skin off my nose.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 5 days ago Page tzo
    First things first: "How can you presume to say somebody--Spooner a dead man--would not sign something that he has not read (the Covenant of Unanimous Consent)? How can you presume to know the subject of someone's mind--a dead man's no less--without citing something specific that they have written on that subject?" Answer the question that was already posed to you regarding your claims. You skipped right over that! Secondly: Regarding that an individual must suffer inescapable consequences. Now what was the context and circumstances of that statement? There were several qualifiers that I provided. The paras are about natural consequences. I have explained how that transfer of consequences occurs and how one man can commit more evil than he can possibly be made to repay. And I have explained the solution. If you are in outrage that "Justice"--a man made concept is indeed not a natural law and that it was unclear or misleading. Get to the point. That's your argument? Got it! I am not going to throw the Tannehill's seminal work out the window because of that one mis-cue. It is the only one you have and it is NO longer something hidden *AND it does not pertain to what they wrote*. Apparently you are not sure what it is yourself. I have provided it for you. I am interested in freedom and liberty and not repeating the mistakes of the past. Perhaps you should look to that.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 5 days ago
    Never Volunteer
    Page Paul Hein
    "And we know from the Preamble of that document that “We, the people . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution.” So it’s “We the people” who delegate the power." You shouldn't believe everything you read. The first three words of the Constitution are a lie, the document wasn't authored or signed by the people. You know very well you didn't sign it. It's true that Reid is being more consistent than most of his detractors on this. While they scoff at the idea that taxes are voluntary most of them still say that this government exercises just powers derived from consent. But if that were true Reid would be right because in consenting to government you'd be consenting to those taxes - making them voluntary. What the scoffing shows is that most people know in their gut that consent is absent, but thinking about that carefully would make them realize their government is not morally legitimate.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 5 days ago Page tzo
    "No matter how cleverly a man schemes, he will suffer if he insists on acting in a manner which contradicts the nature of human existence. The consequences may not be immediate or readily apparent but they are inescapable." There you go - you claim an agressing individual must suffer inescapable consequences. Let's look at Bill Clinton. Forget the sex scandal. As every President does, Clinton violated rights daily, acting "in a manner which contradicts the nature of human existence", as the Tannehills would have it. Will he be hounded to his grave for these crimes? Will he be impoverished? Do you suppose he feels guilty about governing? Do you think he gets less women on the side because of his crimes? Is he less poplular at parties? Please explain how Clinton's crimes will lead to his inescapable suffering.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 5 days ago Page John deLaubenfels
    It's not immoral to call such an agency a government, it misunderstands the essential character of government. You can call a jelly donut a government if you like, but then the assertion "all governments are filled with jelly" won't advance a political discussion much. You could call McDonalds a government, they even have elections like a government along with a charter and bylaws. Is McDonalds a government? You pointed out that we may already legally hire bodyguards and contract for services through a private protection/security company whose function is to protect it's clients natural rights and nothing more. That seems to fit your description of a moral government just fine, so why don't you recognize such a private security firm as a government? Who is the firm governing? If you think about it I think you'll realize you already know there is a difference between such a firm and a government, even if you don't quite recognize what the difference is yet.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 5 days ago Page tzo
    If I have not made the case for inescapable consequences it is because there is book that addresses this issue in a much more complete manner. I prefer to not retype the book here. But this is the *full para that pertains*. Here is the quote from "The Market For Liberty Chapter 12 Legislation and Objective Law" P118: "Natural law does apply to human relationships, and it is just as objective, universal, and inescapable in this area as in any other. The proof of this is that actions have consequences....in the area of human interaction as surely as in the area of human medicine. A man who swallows poison will become ill even if he has complete confidence the poison is nothing more than vitamins pills. A man who aggresses against others will be distrusted, avoided, and probably made to repay his victims (if some government forces do not interfere). A man who cheats his customers will be driven out of business by his more reputable competitors. The consequences of breaking the natural law cannot be avoided. No matter how cleverly a man schemes, he will suffer if he insists on acting in a manner which contradicts the nature of human existence. The consequences may not be immediate or readily apparent but they are inescapable."
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 5 days ago Page John deLaubenfels
    Ah, now I understand, We can "morally" create a government 'whose' sole duty is to "govern defensively, as Thomas Jefferson reportedly, and presumably, wrote", a government which only protects it members natural rights, and nothing more...but it is "immoral" for us to call it a government; we must call it an "agency".
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 5 days ago Page tzo
    Above para should read "Consequences ARE INescapable. but they are transferable from perpetrator to victim and govt action is one major organized method--capable of multiplying the effects and spreading the consequences to large numbers of people--witness the bank bailouts transferred to the tax payers".
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 5 days ago Page Per Bylund
    It started to play, stopped at the same place near the beginning every time, couldn't get it to play any further.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 5 days ago Page Per Bylund
    "I personally identify much more with other anarchists than with minarchists. Of course, there are differences (leftist anarchists’ utter ignorance of what the market is and how it works, is an obvious issue), but the fact is that in a stateless society, our differences do not matter much – we agree that nobody has the right to force their own way of life down other people’s throats. This is unfortunately not the case for minarchists, who by definition support throat-shoving of specific ideals as a means toward their end." Per seems to think that market anarchism will arise from and be sustained by moral and philosophical agreement. I think that's flat wrong. Markets will gain ascendency if and when people become too expensive to govern, regardless of their moral and political views. If you made freely available a device that protected individuals and property from physical attack, all government would be finished and market anarchy would prevail regardless of anyone's moral views or political philosophy. If you could provide a device that could teleport people and property very cheaply across borders, governments would lose the power inherent in a territorial monopoly and they'd effectively become private agencies competing for business, again regardless of philosophy. I think the real path to market anarchy is through the production of goods and services that make people progressively more expensive to govern, and all the talk about morality, political philosophy, movements and alliances is mostly irrelevant to the project.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 5 days ago Page Per Bylund
    Let me offer a possibly defensible form of minarchism. Suppose you understand that the actions needed to implement a minarchy are morally indefensible, yet believe that anarchy will lead to far greater violations of rights. Suppose that while refusing to perform any of the rights violating actions necessary to sustain a minarchy one still preferred to live under a minarchy than under anarchy? Would that preference for minarchy make one a type of minarchist?
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 5 days ago Page John deLaubenfels
    "We can't "morally" create a government 'whose' the sole duty is to "govern defensively, as Thomas Jefferson reportedly, and presumably, wrote", a government which only protects it members natural rights, and nothing more? Why would that be "immoral", for heaven's sake? " An agency which only protected rights and never violated them is possible and moral, but it would not be a government. "I thought that both individuals and groups hired private body guards all the time. Are you saying that's illegal (if you are a citizen)?" I'm saying that the government reserves complete authority over what private body guards may legally do. If someone swipes your plasma TV and puts it in his house your private security forces can't enter against his will and retrieve it, only police can. The morality of the act is the same for either agency, but the state enforces a monopoly on the legal right to do it. If the government stopped preventing non-agressing private agencies from competing in the production of *all* rights protecting services it would cease to be a government since it would be morally, legally, and functionally indistinguishable from private protection agencies. If it continues to impose a monopoly by force it remains a government, and obviously violates natural rights.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 5 days ago Page John deLaubenfels
    G'day John, We can't "morally" create a government 'whose' the sole duty is to "govern defensively, as Thomas Jefferson reportedly, and presumably, wrote", a government which only protects it members natural rights, and nothing more? Why would that be "immoral", for heaven's sake? I can see it being "illegal", because your government doesn't like competition, but I can't see it being "immoral", i.e. being against the natural law, the law of free unincorporated men. You wrote: "But try making such a contract. A government will tell you that you may not generally contract to defend your natural rights by force, nor even do it on your own. You are not allowed to do the job claimed by the government monopoly police, nor hire anyone else to do it." I thought that both individuals and groups hired private body guards all the time. Are you saying that's illegal (if you are a citizen)? It certainly isn't unlawful for non-members, i.e. non-citizens, i.e. free men.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 5 days ago Page John deLaubenfels
    Let me paraphrase part of a letter from Roy Childs to Ayn Rand : http://www.isil.org/ayn-rand/childs-open-letter.html The quickest way of showing why government must either initiate force or cease being a government is the following: Suppose that I were distraught with the service of the government in my society. Suppose that I judged, being as rational as I possibly could, that I could secure the protection of my contracts and the retrieval of stolen goods at a cheaper price and with more efficiency. Suppose I either decide to set up an institution to attain these ends, or patronize one which a friend or a business colleague has established. Now, if he succeeds in setting up the agency, which provides all the services of government, and restricts his more efficient activities to the use of retaliation against aggressors, there are only two alternatives as far as the pre-existing "government" is concerned: (a) It can use force or the threat of it against the new institution, in order to keep its monopoly status in the given territory, thus initiating the use of threat of physical force against one who has not himself initiated force. Obviously, then, if it should choose this alternative, it would have initiated force. Q.E.D. Or: (b) It can refrain from initiating force, and allow the new institution to carry on its activities without interference. If it did this, then the pre-exisiting "government" would become a truly marketplace institution, and not a "government" at all. There would be competing agencies of protection, defense and retaliation – in short, free market anarchism.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 5 days ago Page John deLaubenfels
    No, you can't morally do it. You may indeed contract with people to declare and defend natural rights, but that is no more a government than McDonalds. But try making such a contract. A government will tell you that you may not generally contract to defend your natural rights by force, nor even do it on your own. You are not allowed to do the job claimed by the government monopoly police, nor hire anyone else to do it. If you don't like McDonalds food you can patronize the Burger King next door or start your own restaurant. If you don't like the rights protection you're getting for your government monopoly you can vote every few years. It is clearly immoral for governments to prevent competition in rights defense, but if they didn't do it they wouldn't be governments any more, they'd just be private contracts.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 5 days ago Page tzo
    Sure, you may call me John. Or Kennedy, or JTK. People call me horrible things. "It is the fact that you have a "just claim" to action A, which makes it moral for you to do A, and which makes it immoral for anyone to prevent you from doing A." No, I actually see that exactly the opposite way around: It's the fact of the immorality of interfering with you that give you a just claim. The morality comes first and the just claim denotes a certain situation.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 5 days ago Page John deLaubenfels
    You cannot govern defensively, as Thomas Jefferson reportedly, and presumably, wrote? "Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights . . . and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him . . . and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into society we give up any natural right." ~ Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Francis Gilmer (c.1816) Notwithstanding that he perhaps should have wrote, "...to declare and [defend] only our natural rights..."
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 5 days ago Page tzo
    G'day John T. Kennedy, May I call you John? You wrote: "I would say you have a right to do A if it would not be moral for anyone to prevent you from doing A. In that formulation the primacy is with the immorality of interfering with others and and the word "right" is a placeholder for that content. But it is definitely eiser[sic] to speak in positive terms like "just claim" and I think tey[sic] amount to much the same thing." Indeed they are the same thing. We see this by simply substituting "just claim" for the word "right", when used as a noun. "I would say you have a [just claim] to do A if it would not be moral for anyone to prevent you from doing A." It is the fact that you have a "just claim" to action A, which makes it moral for you to do A, and which makes it immoral for anyone to prevent you from doing A. When I discovered this simple truth, it was like a bright light coming on. That, and the fact that all "rights" are "entitlements" of membership in a group and conformity to its laws, are the two most important things I have learned about "rights". http://www.thoughts.com/IndividualSecession101/what-are-rights-anyway I will not respond to the remainder of what you have written here until pondering it for a time. Your assessment could be right, and may be the very reason that Thomas Jefferson reportedly wrote this, "Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights . . . and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him . . . and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into society we give up any natural right. (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Francis Gilmer [c.1816]) Notwithstanding that he may have used the word "society", where he actually meant "body politic", or "political corporation". This confusion was, and is, very common. Thank you.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 6 days ago Page John deLaubenfels
    "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another" And you cannot govern without committing aggression. If you and I contract by consent the who governs who? Can you explain how American government, for instance, could arise by consent? Do you think it did?
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 6 days ago Page tzo
    "By the way, did you know that Noah Webster, in the only dictionary he personally edited, used "just claim" for "right", when used as a noun, at definitions numbers 5, 6, 7, & 10? At, 8 he uses "That which justly belongs to one." And, at 9 he uses "Property..."" No, I did not know that. I recognize natural rights as essentially negative in character, and "just claim" has a positive ring to it. Well, even "right" has a positive ring to it. I would say you have a right to do A if it would not be moral for anyone to prevent you from doing A. In that formulation the primacy is with the immorality of interfering with others and and the word "right" is a placeholder for that content. But it is definitely eiser to speak in positive terms like "just claim" and I think tey amount to much the same thing. This brings up one interesting point with the definition of a "just claim" though. When you start with the idea of a man in isolation, as tzo did, what is a just claim? There is no one to make a claim against, no one to hear a claim, and no way that injustice can be done. For other purposes the definition will suffice. "Very good, natural rights it is, then. So, what you are saying is that a man cannot, of his own authority, voluntarily consent to alienate himself from any of his natural rights, even temporarily, is that correct?" Correct, that is my claim. "If so, let's start with the natural right of justly acquired property. Are you saying that a free man cannot alienate himself from, let us say, his natural right to his motorcycle which he paid cash for, and for which he has the signed and notarized Manufacturer's Statement of Origin?" He can alienate himself from his motorcycle, but not his right to property. They are not the same thing. "Are you saying that he cannot, of his own authority, voluntarily consent to donate any portion of his justly acquired property to his favorite charity, thus alienating himself from the natural right to that portion of his property? " No, his right to own property is separate from his property rights in particular things. He can trasfer the latter but not the former. "Let us now look at the natural right of liberty. Are saying is that a free man, who has a natural right to his liberty, cannot alienate himself from that right simply by voluntarily consenting to enslave himself to another man, or group of men, for either a limited period of time, or even for the duration of his life, if he so desires?" I am definitely saying a man cannot sell himself into slavery since his natural rights are indivisible from himself. Suppose you sign a supposed slavery contract and agree do whatever your master orders you to do for the rest of your life. In return, he pays for your wife's lifesaving medical treatment. That was the deal. Now he orders you to shoot your wife. Oops. What is your moral responsibility? To fulfill your contract? You have blundered into a supposed contract you cannot morally honor. Even though you signed it would still be wrong to compel you to perform immoral acts. Which is the same as saying you still have a right to disobey, indeed responsibility to do so. You are a moral agent by nature and you cannot legitimately contract to be anything else. I'm saying a slavery agreement cannot be a just claim. This is why in contract law you are not allowed to compel specific performance. Even though Michael Jordan signed a $30 million dollar contract with you to play basketball, you cannot physically compel him to take the court. You can seek money damages for breach of contract if he refuses to play, but you can't force him to play basketball because he retains his inalienable rights to dispose of his life and liberty. "And lastly, there's the natural right to life. Are you saying that a free man cannot alienate himself from his natural right to life, by, for example, voluntarily sacrificing his life so that another might live?" Again there is a difference between a man's life and his right to life. A man may choose to die, or put himself in great danger, but as long as he lives he retains his right to life. Wherever and whenever he exists, that right exists.