Hugo's defence of anarchy

[Hugo]

It doesn't really hold water, does it? Birth seems to be the act of acceptance of the social contract, and yet birth is a non-consensual act. How can an involuntary act be taken as consent for anything? That's completely illogical.

Lysander Spooner pointed out that constitutions have no inherent authority in No Treason, p.71. He states that social contracts (constitutions) are crafted by men, and no man can bind another man to a contract of his making against the other mans will, and certainly that no man can bind another to his own will if that other is not "consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted either to express their consent or dissent in any formal manner."

The social contract is a misnomer. "Social extortion" is an accurate term.

[The Terrible Sweal]

It doesn't really hold water, does it? Birth seems to be the act of acceptance of the social contract, and yet birth is a non-consensual act. How can an involuntary act be taken as consent for anything? That's completely illogical.

As has been mentioned, IF your society is one that allows you to depart, your consent becomes actual when you attain the age of majority and decide to remain.

You want to wrap your chain around that pole one more time, Fido?

[Hugo]

Well, perhaps you can tell me by what right the government, or the majority that elected them, insists that I must choose between consent or departure.

Don't say "social contract". A concept cannot derive from itself.

You want to wrap your chain around that pole one more time, Fido?

Did you look up "circular argument" yet? I gave you guys a link.

[The Terrible Sweal]

You choose to participate in the contract or you choose not to participate. When you choose not to participate, you are no longer entitled to the benefit of the contract. Part of that benefit is presense within the physical space of the contract's effect.

[Hugo]

Perhaps I'm not being clear. You seem to be assuming that I'm disputing the terms of the contract. I'm not. I'm arguing that one of the parties in the contract has no legitimate right to be a party in it.

You are saying that I agree to the contract by a certain action. I'm saying that's as it may be, but the contract itself is illegitimate and thus null and void, therefore, whether I consent to it or not is wholly irrelevant.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Perhaps I'm not being clear. You seem to be assuming that I'm disputing the terms of the contract. I'm not. I'm arguing that one of the parties in the contract has no legitimate right to be a party in it.

There are some 30,000,000 contractually identical individuals in the contract I'm party to. Which one of us do you mean?

You are saying that I agree to the contract by a certain action. I'm saying that's as it may be, but the contract itself is illegitimate and thus null and void, therefore, whether I consent to it or not is wholly irrelevant.

But by what right do you declare the contract illegitimate?

[Hugo]

There are some 30,000,000 contractually identical individuals in the contract I'm party to. Which one of us do you mean?

Can I see a copy of this contract, with their signatures?

Of course not. The fact of the matter is that they are all in the contract regardless of their consent as well, which doesn't help your claim that the social contract is anything but a social extortion.

Perhaps you can offer a justification of a contract in which some of the parties mentioned and affected did not give consent and, in fact, weren't even consulted? Isn't that basically a justification for theft and slavery?

But by what right do you declare the contract illegitimate?

Because it grants rights and powers over property and people that the drafters of the contract had no claim over.

[The Terrible Sweal]

BTW, you wrote...

...by what right the government, or the majority that elected them, insists that I must choose between consent or departure.

Therein lies another confusion: it is neither the government, nor the majority which holds that right. The incidental votes of the contractors for or against a government administration from time to time do not define or exhaust their status as constituents of the broader social context. As I've pointed out before, the government and society are not identical and co-terminous.

[The Terrible Sweal]

There are some 30,000,000 contractually identical individuals in the contract I'm party to. Which one of us do you mean?

Can I see a copy of this contract, with their signatures?

I thought you weren't complaining about the terms of the contract. One of the terms is that though inchoate, it is deemed to be understood.

...The fact of the matter is that they are all in the contract regardless of their consent as well, which doesn't help your claim that the social contract is anything but a social extortion.

That's not an argument, it's a (tiresomely repetive) assertion. You say presense cannot represent consent. Well, prove it.

Perhaps you can offer a justification of a contract in which some of the parties mentioned and affected did not give consent and, in fact, weren't even consulted?

Strawman. I don't need to offer any such justification, because in this contract the parties have consented.

But by what right do you declare the contract illegitimate?

Because it grants rights and powers over property and people that the drafters of the contract had no claim over.

No, it establishes 'rights' where none existed.

And you missed the point. By what right do YOU purport to decide the contract is illegitimate?

[Hugo]

There are 30,000,000 people in Canada. However, unless they own Canada (which they cannot, by definition, since "society" doesn't exist, being merely an abstract aggregate), they can't attach any conditions to the use of Canada as a whole, only the parts of Canada that they own as individuals.

This means that any contract they draw up about any property but their own is automatically illegitimate, according to our customs of property law. I can attach terms and conditions to the use of my property. I can't attach them to yours, no matter how much I'd like to.

The property right is a natural right, meaning that it is derived from objective observation and is established a priori. If I am free to act, then the products of my actions (my property) must be mine. The material things I use in my actions to generate my property are obtained with the consent of others or are obtained from nature without an equal or greater claim from another (thus preserving their freedom to act).

If not free to use my property as I want, then I'm not free to act. If I'm not free to act, then he who constrains my actions is free while I am not. This means that there must be some scientific, objective basis which establishes why he is free to act and why I am not. This basis does not exist. Therefore, denying freedom of action and property rights is not consistent, not objective, not scientific and logically indefensible.

The social contract amounts to the use of force to violate this right. I own land in Canada. If I stay on that land and never leave it, then I shouldn't have to conform to the rules of anybody else, otherwise they are violating my natural right. After all, if I exclusively own this land, then nobody else can own it, which means nobody else can attach conditions to its use.

But they do.

You argue that government or the social contract creates these notions of property. That's wrong, as Rothbard has demonstrated (law reflects custom, so rules of property existed before laws of property, and the law merely formalized and codified them), but I'll let it pass for now.

The key flaw in that argument is that this "social contract" that establishes property rights then proceeds to violate its own rules. Why?

[The Terrible Sweal]

There are 30,000,000 people in Canada. However, unless they own Canada (which they cannot, by definition, since "society" doesn't exist, being merely an abstract aggregate), they can't attach any conditions to the use of Canada as a whole, only the parts of Canada that they own as individuals.

Fascinating repetitive assertion once again. But many problems there: why can't an agregate 'own' something? What do you even mean by 'own'? Why should your meaning should be adopted by others?

Anyway, I'll say yet again. Ownership is irrelevant.

The property right is a natural right, meaning that it is derived from objective observation and is established a priori.

That is utter nonsense, as I demonstrated to you many weeks ago with the case of the cherry tree.

If not free to use my property as I want, then I'm not free to act.

I'm sorry, but I will prevent you from using your club on me. I'll prevent you from using your club on others too, if they'll do the same for me.

The social contract amounts to the use of force to violate this right.

But as you have already noted, your version of anarchy is also a social contract government. Accordingly, I return to my comment that anarchy is an empty concept.

I own land in Canada. If I stay on that land and never leave it, then I shouldn't have to conform to the rules of anybody else,...

Even you don't believe that. If you won't pay your property taxes, I suppose you won't mind if the police don't come when someone steals from you, or violates your daughters?

You argue that government or the social contract creates these notions of property. That's wrong, as Rothbard has demonstrated (law reflects custom, so rules of property existed before laws of property, and the law merely formalized and codified them), but I'll let it pass for now.

Whoever Ruthbard is. Anyway, codified or not, custom and law are indistinquishable for our purposes here.

The key flaw in that argument is that this "social contract" that establishes property rights then proceeds to violate its own rules. Why?

It doesn't do that.

[Hugo]

why can't an agregate 'own' something?

Because it does not exist. When an aggregate is said to "own" something, it means that the individuals within the aggregate own something. For instance, a corporation owns things, but the corporation doesn't exist. The things it owns are actually owned by individual shareholders, and their shares tell you exactly what proportion they own.

Ownership is irrelevant... It [social contract] doesn't do that [violate it's own rules].

I think this "social contract" is completely arbitrary and subjective. It isn't based on ownership or property rights, you say. It definitely isn't based upon liberty and freedom, because it gives greater freedom to some and lesser freedom to others. I'm curious to know exactly what principle it's based upon.

It is my interpretation that it is merely based on what a few men decided would make a good social contract or constitution, and as men, their subjective opinion is in principle no different from anybody else's, and therefore cannot justly form the basis of a coercive so-called contract.

I'm sorry, but I will prevent you from using your club on me. I'll prevent you from using your club on others too, if they'll do the same for me.

That would be a correct inference from that principle, indeed.

But as you have already noted, your version of anarchy is also a social contract government.

Yes. In fact, I believe it to be the only social contract "government" because it is fully voluntary. As I have said, what you call "social contract" would be correctly termed "social extortion" because it grants some people power over other people without mutual consent.

Even you don't believe that. If you won't pay your property taxes, I suppose you won't mind if the police don't come when someone steals from you, or violates your daughters?

I can defend myself, or hire somebody else to do it for me. We'll assume that, as I'm not bound by the laws of the land anymore, I can own whatever I want. Therefore, if anyone does try to steal from me or violate my daughters, they should hope that they can win an argument with a volley of 5.56mm rounds from an M249 light machinegun. And in that case, I'd be quite happy if the police didn't come, as they'd be more likely to arrest me for defending myself than to arrest the criminal who violated my rights.

Whoever Ruthbard is. Anyway, codified or not, custom and law are indistinquishable for our purposes here.

Murray Rothbard is a world-renowned economist and the most prominent student of Ludwig von Mises. You should read some of his books. Anyway, custom and law are not indistinguishable. Law is a set of formalised rules set down by the state, enforced by violence. Custom isn't.

[The Terrible Sweal]

why can't an agregate 'own' something?

Because it does not exist.

I'm sorry, Hugo, but that requires accepting an absurd and unworkable definition for 'existing'. Do nations exist? Do families? Your definition would say no, but these things do exist. They have words for them, and they have real effects on our lives.

When an aggregate is said to "own" something, it means that the individuals within the aggregate own something. For instance, a corporation owns things, but the corporation doesn't exist. The things it owns are actually owned by individual shareholders, and their shares tell you exactly what proportion they own.

First, you are mistaken. Individual shareholders do not own the undivided assets of a company.

Second, this discussion of 'existence' is yet another rhetorical dead end. Society defines the 'rights' that its members possess; if such rights are defined to be held collectively by whatever divisions society establishes, that's not a problem (except as a policy question: what particular rights ought to be defined).

Ownership is irrelevant... It [social contract] doesn't do that [violate it's own rules].

I think this "social contract" is completely arbitrary and subjective.

I can certainly understand that you (among others) would perceive it that way. That's the way it is often experienced from an individual perspective. Consider it as an economic phenomenon, however: it is a market that has historic data, and whose form has developed through accreted action of market participants over that time. It is arbitrary in the sense individual participants are price-takers. It is subjective to the extent that market participants have bouned-rationality.

It is my interpretation that it is merely based on what a few men decided would make a good social contract or constitution, and as men, their subjective opinion is in principle no different from anybody else's,

That was and is true to a greater or lesser extent in various places and times. I think that your interpretation is correct about SOME PARTS of any social contract over shorter time-spans and fewer data-points, but that my interpretation, above represents a deeper more sustained reality. Even 'absolute' monarchies typically include a 'social contract' in operation, albeit unbalanced, irrational, and corruptly maintained. Of course, the human lifespan predisposes us to be immediately concerned with your interpretation's time-span rather than mine. A 'free-society' addresses this problem by attempting to make the most appealing social contract possible, and allowing objectors to opt out. A contract you can opt out of is not coercive.

I'm sorry, but I will prevent you from using your club on me. I'll prevent you from using your club on others too, if they'll do the same for me.

That would be a correct inference from that principle, indeed.

It invalidates your position, if you think about it.

But as you have already noted, your version of anarchy is also a social contract government.

Yes. In fact, I believe it to be the only social contract "government" because it is fully voluntary.

Except for the involuntary parts.

As I have said, what you call "social contract" would be correctly termed "social extortion" because it grants some people power over other people without mutual consent.

You have said that again and again. But you ignore the point that free societies (such as Canada), by allowing you to withdraw from the contract, are consensual.

Even you don't believe that. If you won't pay your property taxes, I suppose you won't mind if the police don't come when someone steals from you, or violates your daughters?

I can defend myself, or hire somebody else to do it for me.

Hire? Hire who? You live alone in the wilderness. What will you pay them with ... you've just been robbed. And what would stop your protector from stealing from you?

We'll assume that, as I'm not bound by the laws of the land anymore, I can own whatever I want.

Okay, but we need to know how you're going to get it.

Therefore, if anyone does try to steal from me or violate my daughters, they should hope that they can win an argument with a volley of 5.56mm rounds from an M249 light machinegun.

Where did you get that from? Who brings your ammunition? What did you exchange for it?

Oh, and by the way ... you can't stay awake forever, and maybe I'll bring a tank. Maybe I'll just waft mustard gas over you. Whatever.

... a world-renowned economist and the most prominent student of Ludwig von Mises.

Anyway, custom and law are not indistinguishable. Law is a set of formalised rules set down by the state, enforced by violence. Custom isn't.

... WHICH, is an irrevant distinction for the purposes or our discussion.

[Hugo]

Do nations exist? Do families? Your definition would say no, but these things do exist.

I'm sorry, this is probably my fault. I meant "exist" as in a physical sense. Concepts like family "exist" but they are metaphysical, they don't have any atoms, they don't exist in the physical world. It's my opinion that metaphysical concepts are different from physical entities, and that metaphysical things can't own anything.

First, you are mistaken. Individual shareholders do not own the undivided assets of a company.

Well, no, a bank or other lending institution probably owns some part as well. Basically, the company is owned by the individual investors, rather than by an abstract concept i.e. itself.

Second, this discussion of 'existence' is yet another rhetorical dead end. Society defines the 'rights' that its members possess

I'd have to disagree with that. I think people have rights, and what society assigns people may coincide with what their rights are or may not. For instance, Jews have a right to live, but the Nazi German society denied them that right. I don't think that, at that time, Jews had no right to live, because I think that rights stem from being human and nothing more. I agree that society does make rules, but I think we're actually just disagreeing about definitions and not the fundamental concepts. I think you'd agree that Jews have a right to live, so the Nazis didn't destroy this right, but rather violated it.

I can certainly understand that you (among others) would perceive it that way. That's the way it is often experienced from an individual perspective. Consider it as an economic phenomenon, however: it is a market that has historic data, and whose form has developed through accreted action of market participants over that time.

I don't think that's true, either. In the history of any government there are always distinctly non-market phenomena, all states have gained or sustained power through war, violence, extortion and other non-market methods. Can the product of these coercive acts truly be said to be non-coercive?

It invalidates your position, if you think about it.

I don't think it does. If all humans are equal in status and rights, and all humans have the right to be free from violence and to be free from the constraint of other humans on their actions, then it follows that the limit of any humans freedom is when he coerces another. That's a perfectly logical and consistent deduction.

Except for the involuntary parts.

Obviously we are all constrained by physical laws. The point is that one should strive towards a voluntaryist society, where the rights I laid out immediately above are fulfilled as far as humanly possible. It's inevitable that people will violate these rights, and there will certainly have to be exceptions. David Friedman raises an interesting point that, if a principle of non-aggression is strictly followed, you would be committing an act of aggression by turning on the lights in your house, since the photons from your lightbulbs would hit your neighbours house. Therefore, he suggests that perhaps a principle of choosing the path of least coercion is more reasonable.

This is why I suggest that you read more on anarchist thought, there are countless books on this stuff.

But you ignore the point that free societies (such as Canada), by allowing you to withdraw from the contract, are consensual.

Bam! Circular argument.

Hire? Hire who? You live alone in the wilderness.

If I live in the wilderness, who's robbing me? You can't have it both ways! You assume that I live in a society of many individuals when it comes to crime, but that I live alone on a mountaintop when it comes to buying goods and services. It's inconsistent.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Do nations exist? Do families? Your definition would say no, but these things do exist.

I'm sorry, this is probably my fault. I meant "exist" as in a physical sense. Concepts like family "exist" but they are metaphysical, they don't have any atoms, they don't exist in the physical world. It's my opinion that metaphysical concepts are different from physical entities, and that metaphysical things can't own anything.

Which, of course, turns on your opinion of the meaning of 'ownership'.

Second, this discussion of 'existence' is yet another rhetorical dead end. Society defines the 'rights' that its members possess

I'd have to disagree with that. I think people have rights, and what society assigns people may coincide with what their rights are or may not.

Yes, this is probably the fundamental point in which we are at odds in this treadmill discussion. It seems to me that you interpolate a normative understanding of 'rights' into a descriptive/prescriptive stance. To the extent you use it prescriptively, you need at least to first support or justify that norm. But more fundamental is that your norm doesn't perform well in a descriptive function.

For instance, Jews have a right to live, but the Nazi German society denied them that right. I don't think that, at that time, Jews had no right to live, because I think that rights stem from being human and nothing more.

But the 'right to live' is only really 'the right not to be deprived of your life by the action of other humans'. The bears and the wolves and the cold don't give a fig about your 'rights'.

I think you'd agree that Jews have a right to live, so the Nazis didn't destroy this right, but rather violated it.

I agree that the right was violated, but as I point out above, not on the source of that right. The Nazi's violated the social contract.

I can certainly understand that you (among others) would perceive it that way. That's the way it is often experienced from an individual perspective. Consider it as an economic phenomenon, however: it is a market that has historic data, and whose form has developed through accreted action of market participants over that time.

I don't think that's true, either. In the history of any government there are always distinctly non-market phenomena, all states have gained or sustained power through war, violence, extortion and other non-market methods.

(Digression: the merits of war and violence cannot be judged without consideration of the reasons and the circumstances. )

Don't you believe that the market has inherent means of self-correction? That's what the evolution of the social contract is.

It invalidates your position, if you think about it.

If all humans are equal in status and rights, and all humans have the right to be free from violence and to be free from the constraint of other humans on their actions, then it follows that the limit of any humans freedom is when he coerces another. That's a perfectly logical and consistent deduction.

But that's only the surface. It being accepted that your freedom is bounded by the freedom of your fellows, it follows that you must have some means of identifying these boundaries.

The point is that one should strive towards a voluntaryist society, ...

Oh, I agree.

David Friedman ... suggests that perhaps a principle of choosing the path of least coercion is more reasonable.

That doesn't sound like 'anarchy' to me. In fact, that's my point.

But you ignore the point that free societies (such as Canada), by allowing you to withdraw from the contract, are consensual.

Bam! Circular argument.

Nope. Not at all. Where is the circular part???

Hire? Hire who? You live alone in the wilderness.

If I live in the wilderness, who's robbing me? You can't have it both ways!

Don't be peurile. An evil band of city-dwellers have come out to steal your oil.

You assume that I live in a society of many individuals when it comes to crime, but that I live alone on a mountaintop when it comes to buying goods and services. It's inconsistent.

Not in the least. It's a far cry from roving bandits to a market and a logistical infrastructure. Why don't you actually try to answer those questions I posed? Because you'd find it impossible.

[The Terrible Sweal]

BTW, Hugo, in your system, does a parent have any obligations toward his or her infant? If so, why?

[Hugo]

It seems to me that you interpolate a normative understanding of 'rights' into a descriptive/prescriptive stance. To the extent you use it prescriptively, you need at least to first support or justify that norm.

I think I've been over this before. All humans have free will. Any human can be distinguished from another form of life, but distinctions between humans are arbitrary and fleeting at best. Therefore, if all humans have free will, and there's no objective way of discerning if any humans are better than other humans, it seems logical to me that all humans must have the natural right to exercise their free will to the limits of physical laws and to the point where they start to encroach on the natural rights of others.

But the 'right to live' is only really 'the right not to be deprived of your life by the action of other humans'.

Exactly, and this is a key concept right here: negative rights. The only real rights are negative ones, not to be harmed, not to be killed, not to be coerced, etc. They don't require any other human to do anything, just not to do something. A positive right, e.g. the "right" to a minimum standard of living, is not the same. Somebody else needs to take action to guarantee that right.

I agree that the right was violated, but as I point out above, not on the source of that right. The Nazi's violated the social contract.

What social contract is that? If the social contract is something different than government, and the social contract can even preclude government, that wouldn't make a good argument for government based on social contract, would it?

Don't you believe that the market has inherent means of self-correction? That's what the evolution of the social contract is.

No, it isn't, because as I said, the evolution of the social contract involves violence and coercion, which are non-market concepts. A market means mutual consent, whereas violence and coercion necessarily don't (or they wouldn't be needed). The value and results of the wars are really irrelevant. The very fact that they happened destroys the premise that the social contract is a market outcome.

It being accepted that your freedom is bounded by the freedom of your fellows, it follows that you must have some means of identifying these boundaries.

That's right. But getting away from that for a minute, if you don't agree with this premise of equal natural rights, then you agree that it is just or right for some humans to impose their will on others - more freedom for some people than for others, to put it another way. I'm interested to know what your argument for that is.

That doesn't sound like 'anarchy' to me. In fact, that's my point.

"Anarchy" has a lot of connotations that aren't necessarily true. What it really means is absence of political power, absence of coercion. Of course, humans being what they are, you can't eliminate coercion, but you can try to avoid it. Of course, when we do this, it's important to recognise that governments are the biggest perpetrators of coercion on the planet, so they have to be first to go.

Nope. Not at all. Where is the circular part???

I have been over this so many times, it just isn't funny anymore. Let me just cut and paste for you.

...in claiming that those who don't like the government should leave, you are assuming what you are trying to prove. We are trying to establish whether the government has legitimate authority over Canada, or if that authority is obtained by illegitimate means (violence). If you claim that those who don't like it should leave, then you are assuming that the government has legitimate authority over Canada - which is exactly what you must prove!

You say that the government of Canada has legitimate pretensions over Canada. You then say that people within Canada agree with these pretensions because they are free to leave, which presupposes that the government of Canada has legitimate pretensions over Canada, or else they would not have to leave in order to disagree.

But in all of this, you don't get around to saying what gives the government legitimate pretensions over Canada. We have established that it is not property rights (since the government does not own the country), nor is it the will of the people (since some of them - most of them, currently - disagree), and being an atheist I imagine you reject any notion of divine right or ordainment, so what is it? Until we establish what gives the government legitimate pretensions, the "like it or leave it" argument is moot.

To summarise: the government says that you must leave their jurisdiction if you don't like them. Then they say that the country is their jurisdiction because you didn't leave. It's circular.

Don't be peurile. An evil band of city-dwellers have come out to steal your oil.

Why wouldn't a good band of city-dwellers come to work for me as security guards, if I've got oil?

It's a far cry from roving bandits to a market and a logistical infrastructure.

You don't need a logistical infrastructure for a market. Do you think that before we had currencies and stock exchanges human trade was impossible? Of course not. A guy could turn up at my door, and offer to work as a guard in exchange for food and board (and maybe a cut of the profits from this oil I suddenly have).

BTW, Hugo, in your system, does a parent have any obligations toward his or her infant? If so, why?

It depends. I'll tentatively answer that (this is an area where anarchist debate goes on, and I haven't studied it in much detail) if the child is not able to leave, to fend for itself or find an alternative caregiver, then yes, because the parents "coerced" the child into being born, as it was done without the consent of the child, and therefore they owe it something.

[The Terrible Sweal]

It seems to me that you interpolate a normative understanding of 'rights' into a descriptive/prescriptive stance. To the extent you use it prescriptively, you need at least to first support or justify that norm.

... if all humans have free will, and there's no objective way of discerning if any humans are better than other humans, it seems logical to me that all humans must have the natural right to exercise their free will to the limits of physical laws and to the point where they start to encroach on the natural rights of others.

As justification, you need to go further to include the particulars of the limits and manner they are implemented which your position entails.

But remember I also said that the concept of 'natural' rights fails descriptively. The comment you make above explains why notionally 'equality of freedom' looks preferable, but it does not explain what makes that 'natural' rather than 'artifactual'.

But the 'right to live' is only really 'the right not to be deprived of your life by the action of other humans'.

Exactly, and this is a key concept right here: negative rights. The only real rights are negative ones, not to be harmed, not to be killed, not to be coerced, etc. They don't require any other human to do anything, just not to do something.

My point there is that the constraint applies only to other humans. That being the case, it follows that my rights require the participation of others.

A positive right, e.g. the "right" to a minimum standard of living, is not the same. Somebody else needs to take action to guarantee that right.

Digression: I'm not sold on the importance of that distinction.

I agree that the right was violated, but as I point out above, not on the source of that right. The Nazi's violated the social contract.

What social contract is that?

The social contract, where and whenever manifest.

If the social contract is something different than government, and the social contract can even preclude government, that wouldn't make a good argument for government based on social contract, would it?

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying there.

Don't you believe that the market has inherent means of self-correction? That's what the evolution of the social contract is.

No, it isn't, because as I said, the evolution of the social contract involves violence and coercion, ...

Sigh. No, the social contract has confronted and evolved (with some success) against those things. (Of course this is just another iteration of the fundamental issue.)

It being accepted that your freedom is bounded by the freedom of your fellows, it follows that you must have some means of identifying these boundaries.

That's right. But getting away from that for a minute, if you don't agree with this premise of equal natural rights, then you agree that it is just or right for some humans to impose their will on others - more freedom for some people than for others, to put it another way. I'm interested to know what your argument for that is.

As for the red portion of the quote: I don't accept that rights are 'natural' in the sense you appear to mean it. Nature gives you no rights. Your accord with your fellow man gives you your rights.

As for the remaining imputation, no that is not what I think, so I decline to offer any such 'argument'.

That doesn't sound like 'anarchy' to me. In fact, that's my point.

"Anarchy" ... really means is absence of political power, absence of coercion. Of course, humans being what they are, you can't eliminate coercion, but you can try to avoid it.

Right. Now explain how that prescription differs meaningfully from fullly liberal democracy.

Of course, when we do this, it's important to recognise that governments are the biggest perpetrators of coercion on the planet, so they have to be first to go.

Yes, it is "important to recognize" that because otherwise it's not a all clear or obvious.

...in claiming that those who don't like the government should leave, you are assuming what you are trying to prove.

Okay, one more time then. I have demolished that. First, I have never said or suggested "those who don't like the government should leave". This is a strawman response and thus invalid.

Second, I am not assuming what I am trying to prove ...

We are trying to establish whether the government has legitimate authority over Canada...

,

Not me. I'm saying that the freedom to opt out of the social contract in Canada (by departure) qualifies it as consensual.

You say that the government of Canada has legitimate pretensions over Canada.

I doubt it. I don't even know what you mean by that.

You then say that people within Canada agree with these pretensions because they are free to leave, which presupposes that the government of Canada has legitimate pretensions over Canada,

You keep talking the government, but I don't know why. And why do you keep saying I'm saying things I'm not saying? There's the circular argument ... you're having it with yourself!!!

But in all of this, you don't get around to saying what gives the government legitimate pretensions over Canada.

Why would I do that? I don't even know what the f*** a "legitimate pretension" is.

We have established that it is not property rights (since the government does not own the country),

That's quite a surprise, -- since I haven't yet been able to get you to agree to (or even posit) a coherent notion of property rights.

... Until we establish what gives the government legitimate pretensions, the "like it or leave it" argument is moot.

I don't see what "the government" has to do with that matter. I'm not talking about the government. I'm talking about the social contract.

To summarise: the government says that you must leave their jurisdiction if you don't like them. ...

That is not my argument.

Don't be peurile. An evil band of city-dwellers have come out to steal your oil.

Why wouldn't a good band of city-dwellers come to work for me as security guards, if I've got oil?

You're counting on charity then???

It's a far cry from roving bandits to a market and a logistical infrastructure.

You don't need a logistical infrastructure for a market.

Of course you do.  And you definitely need if for machine guns and ammunition.

Of course not. A guy could turn up at my door, and offer to work as a guard in exchange for food and board (and maybe a cut of the profits from this oil I suddenly have).

There you go hoping for charity again. What induces him to work for your food rather than cut your throat and live on 'your' oilpatch?

BTW, Hugo, in your system, does a parent have any obligations toward his or her infant? If so, why?

... if the child is not able to leave, to fend for itself or find an alternative caregiver, then yes, because the parents "coerced" the child into being born, as it was done without the consent of the child, and therefore they owe it something.

Interesting. Three questions more then: How does the infant secure this obligation from a defaulting parent? Having coerced someone into existence, does the obligation then last forever -- if not, why not? How is it possible to coerce something that doesn't exist?

Oh, and by the way, you never did get back to addressing this ...

It being accepted that your freedom is bounded by the freedom of your fellows, it follows that you must have some means of identifying these boundaries.

[Hugo]

I'm saying that the freedom to opt out of the social contract in Canada (by departure) qualifies it as consensual.

Let me put it another way.

I tell you that you have to give me $5 per hour as long as you are in a certain building. I promise to use force and shake you down if you don't provide it, but I say that I'm not being coercive because you are free to leave the building whenever you want.

This is fair if I own the building, or if I was the legitimate authority over it as designated by the owners.

However, if I don't own this building, and I am not an authority designated by the owners of the building, this is grossly unjust and is an act of coercion. Imagine if you owned the building, how unjust that would be were I to come into your house, demand money, promise to beat you up if you didn't provide, and said it wasn't coercive because you could get out whenever you wanted?

Therefore, in order to see whether I am being just or unjust, coercive or noncoercive, we need to establish whether or not I am the legitimate authority over this building before we go any further.

This is an analogy for government. You haven't established whether or not the government has legitimate authority over Canada, therefore, this argument that it is not coercive because I am free to leave does not prove anything.

It's circular, because your argument is supposed to prove that government is legitimate and consensual (which would mean non-coercive), but your argument already assumes that it is legitimate and consensual in its premises.

But remember I also said that the concept of 'natural' rights fails descriptively. The comment you make above explains why notionally 'equality of freedom' looks preferable, but it does not explain what makes that 'natural' rather than 'artifactual'.

I think it natural because it's objectively reasonable. Other interpretations are subjective, and a subjective opinion is not defensible.

My point there is that the constraint applies only to other humans. That being the case, it follows that my rights require the participation of others.

A negative right does not actually require the participation of anyone. Your right not to be aggressed against would just as easily be upheld (more easily, perhaps) if you were the only human in the universe, therefore, how can it possibly require the participation of others?

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying there.

I'm saying that you have a self-contradiction here. You say that the social contract means that one must respect the instructions of the government, or leave the country.

The Nazis came to power constitutionally, by the social contract if you will, and were always careful to give their actions a facade of legitimacy. By the letter of the social contract, the Weimar constitution, they were legal. However, you have said that some of their actions were a violation of the social contract.

Therefore, you say that social contract justifies government, but also that social contract precludes government.

No, the social contract has confronted and evolved (with some success) against those things.

If you can show me a state that arose without any violence or war, go ahead. But even those gains made for freedom in the social contract were often gotten from violence - the American Revolution, the Wat Tyler revolt, the English Civil War, the French Revolution and so forth.

Now explain how that prescription differs meaningfully from fullly liberal democracy

What powers are you going to allow your "fully liberal democracy", first of all? The term is quite subjective, so I want to know what this liberal democracy can do. Can it tax? Can it outlaw competition for the services it provides? Can it initiate violence in any circumstance, and so forth?

That's quite a surprise, -- since I haven't yet been able to get you to agree to (or even posit) a coherent notion of property rights.

No, I did. I think it was in this thread, actually.

You're counting on charity then???

No. It is a known fact that humans tend to co-operate rather than fight. Therefore, if I'm not alone in this hypothetical world, I'm assuming that any other people I meet are more likely to try and trade or work with me than to attack me.

Of course you do.  And you definitely need if for machine guns and ammunition.

First off, no, all you need for trade is two people with different goods and services to offer each other. As for machineguns, well, if I can't have them I assume others can't either, so I'll take my longbow, or my slingshot, or what-have-you instead.

But anyway, this is ridiculous. You say that anarchy is not valid because if I lived alone on an oilpatch, did not have any means of making or buying weapons, and everybody else in the whole world wanted to kill or rob me, and they were able to get weapons or to overpower me, I might get robbed.

The original point was that, if I lived on my own land and was self-sufficient, should I not have the right to refuse to pay taxes and to receive government services?

Oh, and by the way, you never did get back to addressing this ...

I identify these boundaries using my brain, as do my fellow men. And if we can't agree, then we have to agree on an arbitrator to use his brain. And if we can't agree to that, then I suppose we'll just have to duke it out - but then we both end up as net losers, so that would be rather irrational to say the least.

Three questions more then: How does the infant secure this obligation from a defaulting parent?

Probably by hiring someone to represent them. We'll assume the money will come from a loan, a charity or something (don't play another thought experiment to see how convoluted and unlikely circumstances can become before anarchy "fails"). If they aren't old enough to speak or seek help, then a relative, friend of the family or teacher might step in.

And if all of that fails, then I suppose that the child won't be able to secure what's theirs.

Having coerced someone into existence, does the obligation then last forever -- if not, why not?

In cases of coercion, one has to decide upon a fitting restitution. In this case, the child and the parents would have to agree on when the child could consider itself "paid back" - perhaps at 15, perhaps after graduation from university, whatever. If they can't agree, once again, they'll have to agree on a third party to mediate.

How is it possible to coerce something that doesn't exist?

The coercion brings it into existence, yes?

[The Terrible Sweal]

I tell you that you have to give me $5 per hour as long as you are in a certain building. I promise to use force and shake you down if you don't provide it, ... Therefore, in order to see whether I am being just or unjust, coercive or noncoercive, we need to establish whether or not I am the legitimate authority over this building before we go any further.

There are four people in the known world. They all live in a hut on an idylic tropical island. After every windstorm it is necessary to patch the hut or it provides no protection from rain. Three of them work on patching the hut, but every time the fourth of them refuses to help and eats the building materials. Can the three exclude the one?

This is an analogy for government. You haven't established whether or not the government has legitimate authority over Canada, therefore, this argument that it is not coercive because I am free to leave does not prove anything.  It's circular, because your argument is supposed to prove that government is legitimate and consensual ...

?! What does it take to get through to you...I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT.

...but your argument already assumes that it is legitimate and consensual in its premises.

I say that the social contract in Canada is consensual because you are free to leave it if it does not suit you. I don't need and don't make any prior assumption about it's "legitimacy".

I think it natural because it's objectively reasonable. Other interpretations are subjective, and a subjective opinion is not defensible.

Which inserts the normative into the descriptive again. I don't see how being reasonable equates to being natural.

My point there is that the constraint applies only to other humans. That being the case, it follows that my rights require the participation of others.

A negative right does not actually require the participation of anyone.

The right costrains the behavior of other humans. Only other humans. It requires their participation to the extent they accept the constraint and don't break it.

I'm saying that you have a self-contradiction here. You say that the social contract means that one must respect the instructions of the government, or leave the country.

I AM NOT SAYING THAT.

The Nazis came to power constitutionally, by the social contract if you will, and were always careful to give their actions a facade of legitimacy. By the letter of the social contract, the Weimar constitution, they were legal.

First, the constitution is not the social contract. Second, I don't believe the Weimar constitution authorized mass executions.

However, you have said that some of their actions were a violation of the social contract.

Therefore, you say that social contract justifies government, but also that social contract precludes government.

I think you're out to lunch. You certainly take an insane approach to interpreting my comments.

No, the social contract has confronted and evolved (with some success) against those things.

If you can show me a state that arose without any violence or war, go ahead.

Are you being obtuse deliberately? Why the hell should I have to show you a state that arose without violence or war??? What does that have to do with what I'm saying???

But even those gains made for freedom in the social contract were often gotten from violence

Yes, there have been violent confrontations. So what?

Now explain how that prescription differs meaningfully from fullly liberal democracy

What powers are you going to allow your "fully liberal democracy", first of all? The term is quite subjective, ...

So is 'anarchy'.

Of course you do.  And you definitely need if for machine guns and ammunition.

First off, no, all you need for trade is two people with different goods and services to offer each other.

Absolutely not. They need the means for them to effect the benefit -- I.e. actually get the bullets to your door, actually collect your oil and take it to their place.

As for machineguns, well, if I can't have them I assume others can't either, so I'll take my longbow, or my slingshot, or what-have-you instead.

How do you get them?

The original point was that, if I lived on my own land and was self-sufficient, should I not have the right to refuse to pay taxes and to receive government services?

Who or what says it's YOUR land? Are you willing to do without the protection of your fellow man?

I identify these boundaries using my brain, as do my fellow men. And if we can't agree, then we have to agree on an arbitrator to use his brain.  And if we can't agree to that, then I suppose we'll just have to duke it out - but then we both end up as net losers, so that would be rather irrational to say the least.

Hasty conclusion. What if I just slit your throat while you sleep? No fuss, no bother. Net gain for the first to do evil.

Three questions more then: How does the infant secure this obligation from a defaulting parent?

Probably by hiring someone to represent them.

Hiring them with what?

We'll assume the money will come from a loan, a charity or something ...

This is ridiculous. Does the infant email them, or compose a letter and deliver it in person to the provider?

If they aren't old enough to speak or seek help, then a relative, friend of the family or teacher might step in.

Alright, even IF they know there's a need to "step in" what recourse do they follow on behalf of the infant???

And if all of that fails, then I suppose that the child won't be able to secure what's theirs.

Well, there we have it. Where your system of anarchy breaks down, that's okay because the Hobbesian war of all against all will take its place.

In cases of coercion, one has to decide upon a fitting restitution. In this case, the child and the parents would have to agree on when the child could consider itself "paid back" - perhaps at 15, perhaps after graduation from university, whatever. If they can't agree, once again, they'll have to agree on a third party to mediate.

And all these balancing rights and interests are just 'natural', I suppose?

How is it possible to coerce something that doesn't exist?

The coercion brings it into existence, yes?

The relevant act occurs prior to the existence, no?

[Hugo]

What does it take to get through to you...I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT.

Calm down. You were using social contract to justify government before. Since you won't state your position clearly, you have no right to be angry at me if I don't interpret you correctly.

I say that the social contract in Canada is consensual because you are free to leave it if it does not suit you.

I don't know how to explain this to you any more clearly. Why does my example not make sense to you?

Which inserts the normative into the descriptive again. I don't see how being reasonable equates to being natural.

Perhaps you'll tell me where I'm going wrong. Are you saying that there are no such things as rights, and the moral limit of human action is what is physically possible? Or are you saying that there are innate rights, and I've just misidentified them?

The right costrains the behavior of other humans. Only other humans. It requires their participation to the extent they accept the constraint and don't break it.

So, to you "participate" can mean "do absolutely nothing." I don't think you understand the meaning of the word.

Participate:

1 To take part in something

2 To share in something

It didn't say "to do nothing." What you have identified is not an action, but an inaction. Now you are scrambling around trying to redefine words in an effort to hide your error. This is very basic rights theory and one assumes that you haven't read much of it, if you don't know this.

First, the constitution is not the social contract.

You're being awfully elusive about what this mysterious "social contract" of yours is. I think I've played enough games trying to draw you out into actually stating your position. It's about time you made your position clear. So far I've been telling you my thoughts, and you've been hiding in the dark, sniping at them. I don't think you have any coherent theory against which you are testing mine - but feel free to prove me wrong!

Are you being obtuse deliberately? Why the hell should I have to show you a state that arose without violence or war??? What does that have to do with what I'm saying???

You honestly can't see? I'm saying that you think this social contract is the result of market action. Market action must be purely voluntary and cannot include force. Wars are force. Social contracts in terms of states (what we're discussing here) have been brought about by war. Clear?

So is 'anarchy'.

No, it isn't. Check the dictionary - again.

Absolutely not. They need the means for them to effect the benefit -- I.e. actually get the bullets to your door, actually collect your oil and take it to their place.

Ah. So for your example to work, we have to assume all humans have no legs, do we?

Hasty conclusion. What if I just slit your throat while you sleep? No fuss, no bother. Net gain for the first to do evil.

You are trying to distract me.

The original question is this: If I am prepared to do without "public goods" anymore, whatever the consequences, is it right that the state should continue to tax me and demand that I buy its services, these public goods, under threat of violence even though I don't want them?

You are getting caught up in what those consequences might be. It's irrelevant. Answer the question and stop obfuscating.

Well, there we have it. Where your system of anarchy breaks down, that's okay because the Hobbesian war of all against all will take its place.

One assumes we're already in the Hobbesian war, then, because our existing "liberal democracy" fails to prevent thousands of cases of child neglect and abuse, every year.

This just illustrates your blind prejudice. You are prepared to forgive the state massive crimes and injustices and overlook all its failures, but if you can concoct some obscure scenario (huts on islands, robbers and oil-patches, infants with abusive parents in such isolation that nobody even knows they exist) in which anarchy might not produce the absolute best possible outcome, you regard it as a failure.

You are indoctrinated. Biased. Prejudiced. If you could think clearly, you might understand these things. No anarchist thinker claims that anarchy will create heaven on earth and destroy all evil for all time. We just think it will be an improvement.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Perhaps you'll tell me where I'm going wrong. Are you saying that there are no such things as rights, and the moral limit of human action is what is physically possible? Or are you saying that there are innate rights, and I've just misidentified them?

Neither. I am saying that rights are creatures, products or emanations of the social contract.

Participate:

1 To take part in something

2 To share in something

FYI, I mean #2 in this case.

First, the constitution is not the social contract.

You're being awfully elusive about what this mysterious "social contract" of yours is.

You don't remember this? "Social Contract Theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons' moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement between them to form society." link

I think I've played enough games ...

Oh, I agree.

It's about time you made your position clear.

Ever heard the expression 'pompous git'?

Are you being obtuse deliberately? Why the hell should I have to show you a state that arose without violence or war??? What does that have to do with what I'm saying???

You honestly can't see? I'm saying that you think this social contract is the result of market action. Market action must be purely voluntary and cannot include force. Wars are force. Social contracts in terms of states (what we're discussing here) have been brought about by war. Clear?

Clear, but wrong. The social contract acts against violence.

Absolutely not. They need the means for them to effect the benefit -- I.e. actually get the bullets to your door, actually collect your oil and take it to their place.

Ah. So for your example to work, we have to assume all humans have no legs, do we?

You're being obtuse again.

Hasty conclusion. What if I just slit your throat while you sleep? No fuss, no bother. Net gain for the first to do evil.

You are trying to distract me.

Evasion.

If I am prepared to do without "public goods" anymore, whatever the consequences, is it right that the state should continue to tax me and demand that I buy its services, these public goods, under threat of violence even though I don't want them?

If you are prepared to do without the benefit of the social contract, I believe you should be free to withdraw from it.

This just illustrates your blind prejudice. You are prepared to forgive the state massive crimes and injustices and overlook all its failures

What 'this illustrates' is your egregious tendency to make ludicrous imputations.

, but if you can concoct some obscure scenario (huts on islands, robbers and oil-patches, infants with abusive parents in such isolation that nobody even knows they exist) in which anarchy might not produce the absolute best possible outcome, you regard it as a failure.

Pure evasion.

You are indoctrinated. Biased. Prejudiced.

Pure rant. Listen to yourself!

[Hugo]

Where to start?

First off, you quoted more than you posted, which quite apart from being a breach of netiquette is indicative of the true nature of this discussion. Not only that, but the bulk of what you even bothered to write was insults. You refused to answer my questions, to either accept or reasonably deny my analogies, and you even had the nerve to accuse me of evasion when I attempted to bring the topic back on track after you had derailed it, trying to discuss the irrelevant details of an analogy rather than its principle at any cost!

You don't know what "debate" means, evidently, and this is not a great surprise as this is not the first time I have had to define basic terminology for you. A debate is an attempt to arrive at the truth by testing various viewpoints against each other. I am the only one who has posited any viewpoint, so this is not a debate, this is what you might call "nit-picking."

I know that you have cited a link, and you are probably very proud of yourself. You give no indication that you have even read that link, since your citation is the first sentence only. You certainly give absolutely no indication that you've even heard of, say, Ackerman or Nozick, much less their objections to social contract theory. Your discussion revolves around the social contract, but since you refuse to clarify your understanding of the term or even show that you have an understanding gleaned from others, there's no point to it.

This is, apparently, what comprises your "position" - somebody else's web page. Despite my repeated attempts to draw you out, you refuse to actually state a viewpoint. I don't think you have one, I believe you are being argumentative for the sake of it, and your actions so far have proven me right.

Until you actually find a platform to argue from, can show some sign that you know the subject matter, or can show a little maturity, this "debate" is over.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I have attempted to discern anything worth addressing in that post and found very little. However ...

[blah blah, boo hoo...] You certainly give absolutely no indication that you've even heard of, say, Ackerman or Nozick, much less their objections to social contract theory.

I have never heard of them, it's true. But if you have been (against all odds) representing their criticisms correctly, I don't find them persuasive anyway.

Your discussion revolves around the social contract, but since you refuse to clarify your understanding of the term

That's a total falsehood. I have offered a working meaning twice now. Since you even commented on it, I conclude that your statement above can only be a deliberate falsehood.

Despite my repeated attempts to draw you out, you refuse to actually state a viewpoint.

That's just utterly ridiculous given that we have discussed this topic at length.

... this "debate" is over.

Given your disingenuous and disrespectful approach, I must say I am relieved.

[lowly_caterpillar]

Your discussion revolves around the social contract, but since you refuse to clarify your understanding of the term or even show that you have an understanding gleaned from others, there's no point to it.

woah. glean, now there's an awesome verb.

I think i'll go pick up the pieces of my mind that have been blown all over the floor.