Quote: Original post by mhamlin
Of course I think a society should have a legal code. If I'm arguing on a platform of property rights I could not believe otherwise.

Then I'll ask you. By what authority does any law-making body lay claim to restricting a person's actions (trespassing laws, etc)?



To cut to the chase, I'd guess that any answer you give can reasonably be applied to other areas you apparently disagree with.

Quote: Original post by mhamlin

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
If you don't "flee from the robbery," then you KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY choose to be subject to it. Next time someone is is getting mugged in a dark alley, let's see if they can say, "whoa hey ... how about I just leave and we forget about this thing?" Unless something like THAT works ... taxation will continue to bear precious little resemblence to "robbery."

Wow, really you believe that? The fact that a person KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY chooses to be subject to robbery doesn't legitimize it. Many people KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY cooperate with muggers for their own safety.

You can bandy about the word "robbery" all that you like, but paying a cost (even for services you may dislike) is NOT robbery when you've agree to it ... even if your agreement is only tacit and especially when you have numerous alternatives.

Hell ... if "robbery" consists of merely being charged for things I don't like even when I've decided to continue engaging in the activity for which I will be charged, I've been robbed by: meter maids, casinos (on losing days), restaurants who've served less-than-stellar meals, etc etc.

[Edited by - HostileExpanse on October 25, 2009 7:57:12 PM]

Quote: Original post by ManaStone

Quote: Original post by d000hg
That's a pretty poor argument from the start then, because it's very rarely a good idea to rewrite software from scratch:

Quote: They did it by making the single worst strategic mistake that any software company can make:

They decided to rewrite the code from scratch.

Worth a read, even if it is tangential to bitching about politics.

Really? I'm a bit surprised by that. I haven't done professional programming, but from what I've learned in my systems analysis and software engineering courses, that was supposed to be standard procedure.

It is VERY often tempting to start over, and this temptation can make it seem the best or only option. But no matter how terrible your code is, there will be a huge amount worth saving.

Also, theory is only what you start from. [wink]

Quote: Original post by mhamlin

Quote: Original post by LessBread
No, that wouldn't make you an authoritarian. It's pretty obvious, however, that you're really asking about taxes and implying that taxes are theft. If you benefit from government services but refuse to pay taxes, you're stealing from the government and thus from everyone who pays taxes. The government can arrest you for tax evasion without being authoritarian. If that arrest consists of knocking down your door in the middle of the night and hauling you away never to be seen or heard from again, that would be a strong indicator of authoritarian government.

We can also take my example to mean that a person insisting that other people cease from engaging in illegitimate activities to not be authoritarian.

In that case your example wouldn't have any bearing on the discussion.

Quote: Original post by mhamlin
I disagree with your analysis. Suppose the purpose of the group of thieves I alluded to earlier somehow benefited me. This does not change the fact that they still engage in thievery. I would also say that it is not possible to steal from the state as the state has no legitimate claim to tax and its supposed property in the first place.

And suppose the moon was made of cheese, that would not change the fact that you really are asking about taxes and implying that taxes are theft. The state has a legitimate claim to tax. It follows from the consent of the governed. And, sadly, it is possible to steal from the state. Stealing from the state amounts to stealing from taxpayers, past, present and future. The claim that it's not possible to steal from the state actually encourages and legitimizes stealing from the state. It's flimsy cover for the waste, fraud and abuse practiced by military contractors, pharmaceutical corporations and financial tycoons.

Quote: Original post by mhamlin
Okay, let's assume this definition of "authoritarian." How is the "Tenther", that is, strict, interpretation of the Constitution particularly authoritarian?

Let's assume both definitions, because they both belong together. As I wrote, the one leads to the other. Tenther's aren't strict constructionists. They have a radical agenda to roll back the social advances of the 20th century that they obscure with false claims about the intent of the framers. They deny the fact that their central argument was refuted several times during the 19th century. They are reactionary, nationalistic, opposed to women's rights, social equality and pluralism in general. They complain about Federal power only when it thwarts their efforts to employ state and local power in the maintenance of their privilege. They aren't alarmed by excessive use of force by local police. They aren't alarmed by concentrations of private power. They aren't alarmed by Federal efforts to dilute habeas corpus or the 4th and 5th Amendments. They rally behind politicians who call for further expansion of government police power and more war.

Quote: Original post by mhamlin

Quote:
Your claim invites ambiguity to the degree that it lumps together all forms of government, thus confusing authority with authoritarian. The claim leaves no room for distinguishing the difference between liberal democracy and police state dictatorship. Injecting an imaginary distinction between "individual freedom" and "state freedom" furthers the ambiguity.

My claim does leave room for distinguishing between various forms of government. The fact of the matter is that in both a liberal democracy and a police state the state subordinates personal freedom. However, a police state subordinates a greater degree of freedom that the said democracy. But, both subordinate personal freedom.

Your claim asserts that all governments are authoritarian governments to varying degrees. As with your claim that stealing from the state is not stealing, this claim invites the devolution of all government into authoritarian government. This one sided view confuses authority with authoritarian. It's ripe for abuse.

Quote: Original post by mhamlin

Quote:
Human beings are social creatures. We don't live outside of society. Even the lives of monks and hermits are conditioned by the societies they seek to escape. To borrow from Hobbes, life outside of civilization is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short", conditions not well described by the word freedom. The distinction between "individual freedom" and "state freedom" invites a person to turn a blind eye to the reality that civilization is the foundation of freedom. The claim that all state power is necessarily authoritarian reinforces the confusion of authority with authoritarian. It reduces government by consent to the equivalent of government by force and thus confers the legitimacy of government by consent to government by force.

Certainly I would agree that humans are social animals and that society is a necessary thing. However, I would ask that we not conflate the state with society nor should we conflate the state with civilization.

I'm not conflating the state with society or with civilization. I am noting that the state is a necessary component of both. A civilization without the state only exists in the fevered imaginations of anarchists and malefactors of great wealth.

Quote: Original post by mhamlin

Quote:
It indicates that he thought the government based on that Constitution could be a valid party to a sales contract with slave owners. In so doing he gives that government his tacit consent. More to the point, "No Treason" expresses Spooner's dissent from the way that slavery was resolved, so his view of how slavery should have been resolved is relevant to the argument. In "No Treason" he argues that those who would not govern by consent should nevertheless have been governed by consent and allowed to secede. This undermines his entire argument. "A man's natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime..." -- Spooner fails to acknowledge that slavery is a crime and slave owners criminals deserving arrest. In spite of that omission he goes on to make pronouncements that undermine his argument: "On the other hand, if he denies that B's or any other particular man's consent is necessary, he thereby necessarily admits that neither his own, nor any other man's is necessary; and that government need to be founded on consent at all." So applied to slavery, if a slave owner denies that the slave's consent is necessary, he necessarily admits that his own consent isn't necessary and that government need not be founded on consent. Spooner unwittingly justifies the actions of the North during the Civil War.

No, it is not relevant. We must evaluate the arguments he presents in "No Treason" independently of arguments he makes elsewhere. Certainly you are correct that Spooner exhibited inconsistencies and that is relevant if we are evaluating the Lysander Spooner and his work in general. But we aren't. Suppose I make an argument that A -> B and somewhere else I make an argument that A <-> not B. I think we should evaluate each argument on its own merits and not declare that one argument somehow undermines the other. Obviously at least one argument must be wrong, but they do not otherwise have bearing on each other.

It's relevant to Spooner's larger project. However, I evaluated the arguments presented in "No Treason" on their own terms (hence the quotes) and found them wanting. You asked what has changed since Spooner penned that polemic. What has changed is that we no longer view slaves as subhuman. Infringement of the natural rights of slaves is a crime. Confederate soldiers fought on behalf of that crime. At the least they were criminals. Furthermore they denied that the consent of slaves was necessary and so by Spooner's argument forfeited the requirement of their consent. Thus they engaged in treason against the United States.

Quote: Original post by mhamlin
Hobbes was wrong. I reject the idea of some implicit social contract, such a thing is immoral and frankly doesn't make sense. People are "nasty, brutish, and short," therefore let's give a concentrated group of people (remember, these people are also "nasty, brutish, and short," because that's just human nature) dominion of our lives and property. Of course, that situation is ridiculous. If people are "nasty, brutish, and short" why in the world would they be given power of anyone else?

You don't seem to have ever read Leviathan. The quote wasn't about people, it was about the "life of man" in the state of nature. What he said of people was that they were competitive, diffident and vain. From "Part I: Of Man"

Quote:
...
So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory.

The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation. The first use violence, to make themselves masters of other men's persons, wives, children, and cattle; the second, to defend them; the third, for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and any other sign of undervalue, either direct in their persons or by reflection in their kindred, their friends, their nation, their profession, or their name.

Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man. For war consisteth not in battle only, or the act of fighting, but in a tract of time, wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known: and therefore the notion of time is to be considered in the nature of war, as it is in the nature of weather. For as the nature of foul weather lieth not in a shower or two of rain, but in an inclination thereto of many days together: so the nature of war consisteth not in actual fighting, but in the known disposition thereto during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is peace.

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. 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, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
...

Quote: Original post by KaptainKomunist
On one hand, it would be nice to go back to a system where states have more power. Then people in California can smoke their weed in peace.

But on the other hand, civil rights in this nation would be so much worse off than they already are.

Some states are more progressive than other states, and I think that while the federal govt isn't as progressive as some would like, it's not the worse thing in the world.

The constitution is fine. It's the enforcement of it that leaves much to be desired.

I can't believe I'm agreeing with someone named "KaptainKomunist", but hey, well stated, comrade. Pretty much my sentiments.

I see I'm a bit late into this discussion so I'll be brief: The constitution is fine when it's interpreted as the founders wished for it to be interpreted. It's when people such as the Supreme Court start acting like they can make it mean whatever they want it to mean (and most lawyers back that theory) then we are in trouble. If congress doesn't have the integrity or backbone to impeach unlawful justices we are in more trouble. Lastly, if the existing federal judges leave us nothing to be hopeful about when looking for future justices stand for the same corrupt practices of the current ones, we are in a big heap of trouble.

The checks and balances are there, it's just the current generation of people in office that aren't practicing those checks and balances that we're running into mischief or worse. BTW, the tenth amendment is coming to light primarily because of this. This country needs reform of the legal system but it's not because of the constitution, rather it's in spite of the constitution.

Quote: Original post by ManaStone
I think the Supreme Court should have a final say, but change how it is made up. I think a simple and more balanced alternative would be to have each Supreme Court Justice only serve one 9 year term. Each year, the house, the senate, and president would alternate in selecting a new Justice.

However, I think a better more complex solution would be to have a special body that can select federal judges and then be able to remove them with a 75% consensus. Each state would elect a number of members to this body proportional to its population. In order to vote for one of these body members, you’d need to have a law degree or some other kind of certificate saying that you know the constitution and basic law. The sole purpose of this body would be to review how judges are handling particular cases.

Those are interesting ideas. In regard to the 9 year term proposal and the rotation of appointments, three doesn't evenly go into four. A President may get one appointment or two depending on whether his year to pick coincides with his first year in office or his second or third. It also seems to me that a confirmation process of some kind would still be necessary as a check on the power. In regard to the 75% extrasupermajority threshold for removal, I find that anti-democratic. What's wrong with 50% + 1?

Quote: Original post by ManaStone
In addition, instead of just the Federalist Papers, there should have been official documents for interpreting the constitution signed by each of the drafters. These documents would go into the detail and philosophy behind each clause and give examples of how to apply them.

The Federalist Papers were originally written to promote the adoption of the Constitution. They came to be seen as interpretations to the extent they explained the workings of the Constitution. The absence of official documents of interpretation indicates that the Constitution was intended to expand and contract and change as the Republic changed.

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
I find it strange how libertarian types ramble endlessly about freedom, yet they never seem to actually take advantage of it....

They take advantage of the freedom to rant! It seems that they resent paying taxes, perhaps because they don't directly benefit from them or aren't aware of the ways they benefit from them. They might also have a need to cling to that resentment as a denial of their frailty and a source of self-righteousness. The closer the government gets to providing a universal benefit, such as health care, the more unhinged their opposition to that benefit becomes.

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
I find it strange how libertarian types ramble endlessly about freedom, yet they never seem to actually take advantage of it....

They take advantage of the freedom to rant! It seems that they resent paying taxes, perhaps because they don't directly benefit from them or aren't aware of the ways they benefit from them. They might also have a need to cling to that resentment as a denial of their frailty and a source of self-righteousness. The closer the government gets to providing a universal benefit, such as health care, the more unhinged their opposition to that benefit becomes.

If anybody wants to get a feel for what a nation without strong central government looks like, you don't have to look much further than Somalia.

No useful central government [check]
No arms control [check]
No government funded services, including health care, roads, national army, police force, navy, communications, etc. [check]

Yes, truly this is the Libertarian Utopia. This is the promised land spoken to us by the prophet Ayn Rand.