Justification of a Coercive Government

[Hugo]

If your property has been stolen your moving is not a remedy as it won't restore your property.

If I left Canada, would I get my taxed income back? What about my EI payments towards a pension I'll never claim?

We do [make the law], through our institutions.

Did you make the law? I don't recall making the law. Even accepting the fact that Parliament makes law, you then have to reconcile that with the fact that a government (lawmakers) is usually elected by less than half of the electorate. Technically, they get to make the law, or at least, select the people who are going to make the law. Then you have the problem of the judiciary.

The fact that a holder of power exercises their power against the law does not make the power arbitrary.

The government can exercise its will over me without my consent. That is arbitrary. A non-arbitrary transaction is one in which both parties have input.

Again, I don't see the connection to our subject, and don't see the merit in the assertion. Attempts to 'regulate government' have a history of success stretching back to Magna Carta at least.

The sad fact is that government today is far more involved in the lives of citizens and has monopolised far more institutions than any government before the Magna Carta. Examples: healthcare, taxation, policing, etc.

Again, I don't see the connection to our subject, and don't see the merit in the assertion. The mere fact that government is bigger does not make it more coercive.

It wouldn't, if every expanse of government power were not a monopoly backed by violence.

when you used your immigrant visa to come to Canada. And in fact, the contract was not with the "government". It was with other people living in Canada.

The contract, then, is illegal and void. I have made two types of transactions since I came to Canada and, indeed, in coming to Canada. The first is private transactions, with individuals, businesses etc. No matter how much the "people of Canada" other than the parties to the contract would like to interfere in these dealings, the fact is that they have no right to as defined in property law. One of them cannot interfere, and if one cannot, many cannot, and if many cannot, they cannot defer interference to another body e.g. government.

The second type is public transactions, or my use of "public property." However, there is truly no such thing as public property. For things that are owned by everybody, there is no consensus as to how these things shall be used. Therefore, some people will be prevented from using public property as they see fit, therefore, they can have no property rights over it. Because of that, there is no such thing as public property, only widely-held (at best) private property, and that takes us back to my point above.

If you want to say that the guy at McDonald's is my slave while he cooks my food, fine.

You are violent towards McDonald's employees? Shocking!

But you yourself described, using David Friedman's example, how justice could be entirely private and contracts enforced. It sounded violent to me.

Explain how it is violent, please. All that I see is people exercising their right to deal with persons of their choosing. If that is violent, then I hate to point it out to you, but you are doing massive violence to thousands of people in the Third World while you refuse to send them all of the money and goods you have, over and above a subsistence level of existence for yourself.

As to the use of the word initiation, I can argue that you initiated the violence when you chose to come to Canada.

Against whom am I being violent? Nevermind "the people", because my wife, my children, my wife's relatives, my friends, my employer etc. are Canadian people and they positively want me to be here, i.e. they have waived any claim that I did violence to them. Therefore, please tell me which individuals, by name, I committed violence against.

You agree with me that private clubs/private communities exist which provide public goods to everyone's enjoyment by somehow "taxing" everyone.

I'm sorry, where did I say that?

When two people agree to have children, it is understood that either or both must pay to raise the child. Would you describe the enforcement of child support payments as "initiation of force"?

No, I would describe the default as an initiation of force against property. By withholding money that is rightfully bequeathed to another, one is stealing from them. Therefore, to use force to reclaim that payment (if it was even necessary to) would not be an initiation of force.

Someone might call me sympathetic too.

Except, of course, that you called anarchism "silly".

[The Terrible Sweal]

If your property has been stolen your moving is not a remedy as it won't restore your property.

If I left Canada, would I get my taxed income back? What about my EI payments towards a pension I'll never claim?

I'm having real difficulty understanding this little tour around the mulberry bush. Why would you get your taxes BACK? You got the benefit of living here while you paid them, so there is no basis on which you should get them back.

(Also, you have incorrectly conflated EI and pensions. EI payments purchase a current benefit of coverage if you become unemployed. While you pay them, if you become unemployed you get the coverage. When you stop paying them the coverage stops. Do you get car insurance premiums back when you sell your car? No. Same thing. Pension payments do purchase a future benefit and after vesting your benefit stays with you at that level even if further contributions cease.)

The fact that a holder of power exercises their power against the law does not make the power arbitrary.

The government can exercise its will over me without my consent.

No. You have consented. You can withdraw your consent by departing.

The sad fact is that government today is far more involved in the lives of citizens and has monopolised far more institutions than any government before the Magna Carta.

That is not 'fact'. And whether it is not 'sad' is purely a matter of opinion.

Your argument has become threadbare.

[Hugo]

Why would you get your taxes BACK? You got the benefit of living here while you paid them, so there is no basis on which you should get them back.

Well, I haven't used the healthcare system at all, for a start. Can I get that portion of my taxes back?

If you argue that I paid like an insurance policy (pay whether you actually use or you don't), you're justifying monopoly (which you railed against in another thread). I am forced to "buy" the government's services whether I want them or not, I cannot avoid buying them, I cannot get a refund if I don't use them.

Can you explain this self-contradiction in your political philosophy?

No. You have consented. You can withdraw your consent by departing.

Somebody can apply rules to their own property, correct? You can't apply rules to somebody else's property. I can't tell you that you must use your computer to visit my website twice a week, it's none of my business.

So, the government of Canada has the (dubious) right to tell me to desist using public property if I don't want to pay taxes, but as the vast majority of Canada is privately owned, by what right does the government insist I leave the entire country if I don't want to pay taxes, exactly?

This contradicts any notion of property rights.

That is not 'fact'. And whether it is not 'sad' is purely a matter of opinion.

I gave you examples. You aren't refuting them, just telling me I am wrong without evidence or argument.

Your argument has become threadbare.

If you say so. You are the one flailing around, contradicting himself on policy towards monopoly and on property rights. Your argument is not consistent, and if I want to refute you all I need to do is play the mutually exclusive parts of your argument off against each other.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Why would you get your taxes BACK? You got the benefit of living here while you paid them, so there is no basis on which you should get them back.

Well, I haven't used the healthcare system at all, for a start. Can I get that portion of my taxes back?

But you certainly have used the health care system. The health care system keeps typhoid from threatening you and your relatives. The health care system fixed the broken leg the bus driver had so she could be there to pick you up.

Hugo, your position seems to stand on a determination to be reductionist -- it's a foundation of sand.

If you argue that I paid like an insurance policy (pay whether you actually use or you don't), you're justifying monopoly (which you railed against in another thread).

?? I don't think I ever railed against monopoly. There are cases where it is the most efficient organizational choice.

I am forced to "buy" the government's services whether I want them or not,

NO. You can leave. How many times can you ignore this point and pretend you are conversing with people?

No. You have consented. You can withdraw your consent by departing.

... So, the government of Canada has the (dubious) right to tell me to desist using public property if I don't want to pay taxes, but as the vast majority of Canada is privately owned, by what right does the government insist I leave the entire country if I don't want to pay taxes, exactly?

You persist in regarding 'the goverment' as something distinct from the society. The society establishes institutions including the benefits and obligations of its participants and the government which administers among them. How can you purport to exempt yourself from the obligations but expect society to continue to extend the benefits?

This contradicts any notion of property rights.

"Property" arises out of the 'rules' society establishes to define it. Whatever those rules are, such is property. So, a society's rules cannot contradict a soceity's notion of property rights.

[Hugo]

But you certainly have used the health care system. The health care system keeps typhoid from threatening you and your relatives.

You're pushing your credibility a little too far, I think. If such is the case, you're indebted to pretty much everyone - how do you expect to pay them all? Don't say 'government' - it is not coincidental with 'people'.

Hugo, your position seems to stand on a determination to be reductionist -- it's a foundation of sand.

My position stands on the idea that the initiation of violence is wrong. The state, or government, initiates violence as policy. Therefore, it is wrong. Now, if you're quite done with the insults and obfuscations, perhaps we can move on.

I don't think I ever railed against monopoly. There are cases where it is the most efficient organizational choice.

You said:

...market participants may have opportunities for unfair advantage in the market through collusion or a dominant position, and that taking such opportunities is abusive to the market and overall welfare.

Would you say that a monopoly created and sustained by violence i.e. government was not a "dominant position" and as such conferred no "unfair advantage in the market" and was not "abusive to overall welfare?" It seems to me that to say such a thing would be in direct contradiction of what you had said earlier.

You can leave. How many times can you ignore this point and pretend you are conversing with people?

I am not ignoring it at all. I addressed it at length in my last post. Perhaps you would care to reply rather than pretend I did not?

You persist in regarding 'the goverment' as something distinct from the society.

There are many people in society who are not in the employ of the government, nor do they have a voice in the role and policies of the government, so your inferred statement is necessarily and absolutely false. As long as there are people in society who disagree with the government (77% of the electorate alone, in our case), government cannot pretend to speak for society but only a fraction of it, and that is necessarily a best-case scenario since at least part of the 23% that elected the Liberals last election were compromising on one or more issues.

How can you purport to exempt yourself from the obligations but expect society to continue to extend the benefits?

I don't! Whatever made you think I did?

"Property" arises out of the 'rules' society establishes to define it. Whatever those rules are, such is property.

So, you take a purely nihilistic view of property rights. In that case, one could not expect you to object if "society" or, as you think of society, the smallest portion of the country that can be mustered without making one single other faction more numerous, decided to steal everything you owned. Or, for that matter, even to march you into a gas chamber. Correct? Like Socrates, you would willingly drink the poison that the government gave you, even though you had no wish to die.

[The Terrible Sweal]

But you certainly have used the health care system. The health care system keeps typhoid from threatening you and your relatives.

... If such is the case, you're indebted to pretty much everyone - how do you expect to pay them all? Don't say 'government' - it is not coincidental with 'people'.

I don't quite grasp how debt comes into the picture. But let me try to answer what I think is at issue there ... We all have reciprocal obligations and benefits. As long as I am fulfilling my obligations, it remains in balance against my 'benefits account', if you will.

My position stands on the idea that the initiation of violence is wrong. The state, or government, initiates violence as policy.

Which state are you talking about? So far as I know, the state I live in does not 'initiate' violence.

I don't think I ever railed against monopoly. There are cases where it is the most efficient organizational choice.

You said:

...market participants may have opportunities for unfair advantage in the market through collusion or a dominant position, and that taking such opportunities is abusive to the market and overall welfare.

Come off it. That's a far cry from 'railing against monopolies' as a general proposition.

Would you say that a monopoly created and sustained by violence i.e. government was not a "dominant position" and as such conferred no "unfair advantage in the market" and was not "abusive to overall welfare?"

Government in free societies is no created by violence. It is created from the consent of the governed.

You can leave. How many times can you ignore this point and pretend you are conversing with people?

I am not ignoring it at all. I addressed it at length in my last post. Perhaps you would care to reply rather than pretend I did not?

Your reply was not responsive. You merely reasserted without any support the fallacious premise that government is coercive. You persist in ignoring the central problem with your position: How can it be coercive if you are free to leave?

You persist in regarding 'the goverment' as something distinct from the society.

There are many people in society who are not in the employ of the government, nor do they have a voice in the role and policies of the government,

"Employ"???? What relevance does that have? Anyway, everyone in Canada, even non-voters, is a participant in the role and policies of the government apparatus. I can't help but notice that your position is very sensitive to a set of highly refutable assumptions.

As long as there are people in society who disagree with the government ... government cannot pretend to speak for society

People in Canada who truly disagree with the rest of society can depart. Those who do not depart evidently do not disagree to a fundamental extent.

How can you purport to exempt yourself from the obligations but expect society to continue to extend the benefits?

I don't! Whatever made you think I did?

That seems to be the very essence of your position.

"Property" arises out of the 'rules' society establishes to define it. Whatever those rules are, such is property.

... In that case, one could not expect you to object if "society" ... decided to steal everything you owned.

I really have a hard time understanding your comments.

If society subjects me to invidious treatmen, e.g. depriving me of benefits it extends to others, why would I not object to that?

Further, if I believe that a particular set of rules regarding property is the most beneficial for society as a whole, I may well object to using other rules as being bad policy. Fortunately, in a free country if those rules are really objectionable to me, I can depart and seek a place with rules that suit me better.

[Hugo]

As long as I am fulfilling my obligations, it remains in balance against my 'benefits account', if you will.

How are you fulfilling your obligations? Who set those obligations out for you? It was not the people you are indebted to!

Which state are you talking about? So far as I know, the state I live in does not 'initiate' violence.

The state initiates violence against your property in the form of taxation. If you don't believe this, please define taxation in a way that does not also describe high-minded theft (bear in mind that payment of taxes is not optional before you start on some wrongheaded "money for services" explanation). If you refuse to pay taxes, the state will initiate violence against your person in the form of jailing you.

Come off it. That's a far cry from 'railing against monopolies' as a general proposition.

That's a dodge. Answer the question: does not government exactly fit the description of an entity "abusive to general welfare" that you gave earlier? Were you wrong then or are you wrong now?

Government in free societies is no created by violence. It is created from the consent of the governed.

Are you sure? 77% of the Canadian electorate did not consent to be governed by the Liberal Party, and yet here we are!

The fact is that as long as there is one man in Canada who does not consent to the rule of the current government, their legitimacy does not rest upon the consent of "the governed" but upon "some of the governed." Then, you merely have another tyranny. All you have done is to expand the number of people able to exercise tyrannical rule.

You persist in ignoring the central problem with your position: How can it be coercive if you are free to leave?... People in Canada who truly disagree with the rest of society can depart. Those who do not depart evidently do not disagree to a fundamental extent.

How can the next-door neighbour be a thief if he steals your TV and you are free to move house? How can a wife-beater be a criminal as long as his wife is free to leave his house?

Furthermore, would you have said this to German Jews in the 1930s - that they agreed to their oppression and murder because they did not leave?

You should note, most importantly, that 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 cannot have your conclusion as an assumption in your own argument, you know.

Anyway, everyone in Canada, even non-voters, is a participant in the role and policies of the government apparatus.

Explain how.

I can't help but notice that your position is very sensitive to a set of highly refutable assumptions.

What are they? If they are what you have listed above, then one notes that you are having great difficulty refuting them, so your comment is necessarily wrong.

That seems to be the very essence of your position.

I asked you to tell me what made you think that I planned to "exempt myself from the obligations but expect society to continue to extend the benefits".

Instead of answering, you have said, "well, that's what you think." Once again, you are assuming what you need to prove.

If society subjects me to invidious treatmen, e.g. depriving me of benefits it extends to others, why would I not object to that?

Because you have said that society gets to make the rules. If they make the rules and you object, then this means that either you believe that there must be an underlying set of rules that society could break, or you believe your own objection is immoral.

Fortunately, in a free country if those rules are really objectionable to me, I can depart and seek a place with rules that suit me better.

Can you? Where are you going to go, exactly?

[The Terrible Sweal]

How are you fulfilling your obligations? Who set those obligations out for you? It was not the people you are indebted to!

1. Irrelevant. 2. Society, I said. 3. Who?

Which state are you talking about? So far as I know, the state I live in does not 'initiate' violence.

The state initiates violence against your property in the form of taxation.

Nonsense. Taxation is not violence.

If you don't believe this, please define taxation in a way that does not also describe high-minded theft 

Are you paying attention or are you just dicking around?

(bear in mind that payment of taxes is not optional before you start on some wrongheaded "money for services" explanation). 

If I don't like the taxation in Canada I am free to leave.

Come off it. That's a far cry from 'railing against monopolies' as a general proposition.

That's a dodge.

It's not a dodge. :angry: Pay attention to the discussion or step off.

Answer the question: does not government exactly fit the description of an entity "abusive to general welfare" that you gave earlier?

No.

Government in free societies is no created by violence. It is created from the consent of the governed.

Are you sure? 77% of the Canadian electorate did not consent to be governed by the Liberal Party, and yet here we are!

If you insist on not paying attention to my comments and simply chanting your beliefs over and over again, this discussion will not go anywhere. The entire population of Canada consents to be governed by the government apparatus as set up by Canadian society. They consent by remaining rather than leaving.

You persist in ignoring the central problem with your position: How can it be coercive if you are free to leave?... People in Canada who truly disagree with the rest of society can depart. Those who do not depart evidently do not disagree to a fundamental extent.

How can the next-door neighbour be a thief if he steals your TV and you are free to move house?

What?????

How can a wife-beater be a criminal as long as his wife is free to leave his house?

If it really is 'his' house, and he declares that persons who choose to live there are subject to his beatings, persons who choose to live there are implicitly consenting to his conditions.

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

Are you still fallaciously separating government from society?

We are trying to establish whether the government has legitimate authority over Canada, or if that authority is obtained by illegitimate means (violence).

I am indicating to you that government is merely the instrument of society and that in a free society your choice to remain is a choice to be subject to the rules that society selects.

If you claim that those who don't like it should leave, then you are assuming that the government has legitimate authority over Canada

Canadian society is a voluntary association wherein the membership in the association requires acceptance of obligations to obtain the benefits it confers. You seem to believe that this quid pro quo is illegitimate, but you have been unable or unwilling to demonstrate a valid basis for that point of view.

Anyway, everyone in Canada, even non-voters, is a participant in the role and policies of the government apparatus.

Explain how.

For example, everyone in Canada, voter or not, citizen or not, can bring a constitutional case before the courts.

I can't help but notice that your position is very sensitive to a set of highly refutable assumptions.

What are they?

The ones I have been refuting all along. Do you perhaps need to re-read the thread?

If society subjects me to invidious treatmen, e.g. depriving me of benefits it extends to others, why would I not object to that?

Because you have said that society gets to make the rules.

Society is comprised of the people in it and the institutions (rules) established among them. Just because it CAN establish a rule which invidiously harms me doesn't mean I have to LIKE that rule.

If they make the rules and you object, then this means that either you believe that there must be an underlying set of rules that society could break, or you believe your own objection is immoral.

I disagree. BTW, here is another one of those faulty assumptions of yours.

Fortunately, in a free country if those rules are really objectionable to me, I can depart and seek a place with rules that suit me better.

Can you? Where are you going to go, exactly?

That's my problem, not society's.

[Hugo]

1. Irrelevant. 2. Society, I said. 3. Who?

The first question is not irrelevant. If you are repaying such a vast, diverse and unindentifiable group as "society" I want to know how you think you are doing that.

Nonsense. Taxation is not violence... Are you paying attention or are you just dicking around?

So I take it that you have no answer, then? If taxation were not violence I think it would be no great problem for you to define it in such a way that did not define robbery. But you cannot.

Answer the question: does not government exactly fit the description of an entity "abusive to general welfare" that you gave earlier?

No.

And why not, exactly? Your extremely brief, insulting and uninsightful comments are not doing your argument any favours.

The entire population of Canada consents to be governed by the government apparatus as set up by Canadian society.

This comment is made in complete disregard for what I have said on the subject. It is as if I never spoke! Your accusations that I am "repeating mantras" are a mere smokescreen to hide the fact that that is exactly what you are doing. You are still assuming your conclusion.

If it really is 'his' house, and he declares that persons who choose to live there are subject to his beatings, persons who choose to live there are implicitly consenting to his conditions.

But according to you, nobody may leave his house or be free from his abuse until they have found another house-owner to take them in.

How can the next-door neighbour be a thief if he steals your TV and you are free to move house?

What?????

You heard me. Enough of the insulting, one-liner or one-word replies. Debate like an adult.

Are you still fallaciously separating government from society?

Until I see some evidence from you that the two are not seperate I shall indeed. I have offered my arguments as to why the two are separate, namely, the fact that there are many people in Group A (society) who do not agree with or consent to the actions of Group B (government), therefore, the two groups cannot be one and the same unless we are literally a nation of schizoids.

I am indicating to you that government is merely the instrument of society and that in a free society your choice to remain is a choice to be subject to the rules that society selects.

I want you to justify the legitimacy of government to me. Until you can do that, the "like it or leave it" argument is moot.

I am going to state, yet again, that as long as there are those in society who disagree with government, government cannot be an instrument of society.

For example, everyone in Canada, voter or not, citizen or not, can bring a constitutional case before the courts.

This would be a government court. In this case, this is not a chance for everyone in Canada to be a part of and have a say in government policy, it is merely a chance for everyone in Canada to be subjected to government policy.

The ones I have been refuting all along. Do you perhaps need to re-read the thread?

Well, you have done what I specifically warned you not to. The fact that the debate has gone on this long, and that you are contradicting yourself rather than me, means that these points are not highly refutable at all.

Society is comprised of the people in it and the institutions (rules) established among them. Just because it CAN establish a rule which invidiously harms me doesn't mean I have to LIKE that rule...

If they make the rules and you object, then this means that either you believe that there must be an underlying set of rules that society could break, or you believe your own objection is immoral.

I disagree.

Then what is your third alternative?

[The Terrible Sweal]

1. Irrelevant. 2. Society, I said. 3. Who?

The first question is not irrelevant. If you are repaying such a vast, diverse and unindentifiable group as "society" I want to know how you think you are doing that.

How is it relevant?

There is no 'repaying'. There are reciprocal benefits and obligations.

If taxation were not violence I think it would be no great problem for you to define it in such a way that did not define robbery.

I'm losing patience with you, I'm afraid. I have already done so numerous times.

Answer the question: does not government exactly fit the description of an entity "abusive to general welfare" that you gave earlier?

No.

And why not, exactly? Your extremely brief, insulting and uninsightful comments are not doing your argument any favours.

I have already explained this to you several times as well.

The entire population of Canada consents to be governed by the government apparatus as set up by Canadian society.

This comment is made in complete disregard for what I have said on the subject. It is as if I never spoke!

I heard you, and I disagreed with you and I described why.

You are still assuming your conclusion.

I don't believe that I am.

If it really is 'his' house, and he declares that persons who choose to live there are subject to his beatings, persons who choose to live there are implicitly consenting to his conditions.

But according to you, nobody may leave his house or be free from his abuse until they have found another house-owner to take them in.

I never said that. Nothing of the sort.

How can the next-door neighbour be a thief if he steals your TV and you are free to move house?

What?????

You heard me. Enough of the insulting, one-liner or one-word replies. Debate like an adult.

So if I can't penetrate your convoluted, hastily composed rants, somehow I fail to be 'adult'??? Riiiiiight.

Are you still fallaciously separating government from society?

Until I see some evidence from you that the two are not seperate I shall indeed.

To me it is self-evident. Where else do you imagine government springs from, if it doesn't come from society?

I have offered my arguments as to why the two are separate, namely, the fact that there are many people in Group A (society) who do not agree with or consent to the actions of Group B (government),

Well, there's part of the problem. You seem to see the government as a group of people. I see the government as an institution.

I am indicating to you that government is merely the instrument of society and that in a free society your choice to remain is a choice to be subject to the rules that society selects.

I want you to justify the legitimacy of government to me. Until you can do that, the "like it or leave it" argument is moot.

It is legitimate because people can leave, so when they don't the have consented to the conditions attached to staying.

I am going to state, yet again, that as long as there are those in society who disagree with government, government cannot be an instrument of society.

But can you give any reason why that statement is valid?

For example, everyone in Canada, voter or not, citizen or not, can bring a constitutional case before the courts.

This would be a government court.

In the larger sense, there is no other kind of court.

In this case, this is not a chance for everyone in Canada to be a part of and have a say in government policy, it is merely a chance for everyone in Canada to be subjected to government policy.

I think we are coming up against what in my opinion is your reductionist take on government. Government is more than the persons sitting in the cabinet.

If they make the rules and you object, then this means that either you believe that there must be an underlying set of rules that society could break, or you believe your own objection is immoral.

I disagree.

Then what is your third alternative?

My objection does not have to appeal to alternate rules. I could have a unique perception of a situation, or, I could be purely self-interested (which does not make it immoral).

[Hugo]

How is it relevant? There is no 'repaying'. There are reciprocal benefits and obligations.

There is 'repaying'. In a restaurant, you get a benefit (food) and an obligation (paying the bill). You are telling me you get benefits, so to whom are you paying your obligations?

I'm losing patience with you, I'm afraid. I have already done so [define taxation in such a way that did not define robbery] numerous times.

Then perhaps you shall be so good as to cut-and-paste for me, or provide a link, because I don't recall such a description being given. I even tried to help you out by doing a search for posts made by you containing the word "taxation" and found nothing of the sort.

I have already explained [that government is not an entity "abusive to general welfare"] to you several times as well.

Once again, you will have to refresh my allegedly faulty memory, because I don't recall any such explanation. You made a statement that a monopoly was abusive to general welfare, then made a statement that monopoly was not abusive to general welfare, but I did not see an intervening and reconciliatory argument.

I never said that [nobody may leave his house or be free from his abuse until they have found another house-owner to take them in].

You said that if I didn't like being forced to buy government services I should leave the country. This is the same argument, since my departure from Canada presupposes that I have somewhere to go, another country willing to take me in.

Where else do you imagine government springs from, if it doesn't come from society?

Where do criminals spring from, if not from society (since society is people)? Is criminal behaviour therefore justified?

Well, there's part of the problem. You seem to see the government as a group of people. I see the government as an institution.

Is this not just splitting hairs? Institutions can and usually do consist of people (in fact, I can't think of an institution without people, off the top of my head). You have said that government is derived from the people (an inclusive definition), I have said that it is derived only from some people. Whether you call it an institution or not is neither here nor there.

It is legitimate because people can leave, so when they don't the have consented to the conditions attached to staying.

But this is still a circular argument. 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. I can't legitimately insist that you follow rules while you are on a given piece of property until I prove that it is legitimately my property - do you follow?

But can you give any reason why that statement [as long as there are those in society who disagree with government, government cannot be an instrument of society] is valid?

Yes, I can. If A does not equal B then B does not equal A. If society consists of the people of Canada, and some of society does not recognise the government as their tool, then government is not a tool of society.

In the larger sense, there is no other kind of court [than government court].

I don't think that is true. The Law Merchant was a court and was not backed by any government.

I think we are coming up against what in my opinion is your reductionist take on government. Government is more than the persons sitting in the cabinet.

Oh, government is much more than that. Government is, amongst other things, over 50% of the economy (I believe). However, the size of government will not transform it into "society" as you have claimed until there is not one person in the entire country who disagrees with anything the government does.

My objection does not have to appeal to alternate rules. I could have a unique perception of a situation, or, I could be purely self-interested (which does not make it immoral).

Then you either believe that society is "breaking the rules" (your rules, if you are self-interested, or the rules that would correctly govern the situation, if you believe you have a unique perception), or you believe that your own objection is immoral (if you believe that society is right but you still disagree).

[August1991]

TS: Is it a dog? After all, it has fur.

H: True it has fur, but it's a duck.

TS: Does it bark? The sound it makes is a yap.

H: True, it'a yap but it's a duck.

TS: Does it have four legs? I see four paws.

H: True, there are four paws but it's a duck.

----

Hugo, you are free to move to another town where local taxes are lower. If you don't move, it is because you accept the taxes where you live. Hence, you have voluntarily entered into a contract whereby you will receive municipal services and you accept to pay local taxes. The municipality may use force to collect those taxes.

Hugo, if you buy a condo, you accept to pay common fees. Hence, you have entered into a contract and the other condo owners, through the condo co-operative/management may use force (kick you out) if you don't pay the fees...

Hugo, you are free to not buy a Big Mac. If you buy a Big Mac, you have entered into a contract with McDonald's. McDo may use force to enforce the contract...

And so on.

This is really, really silly (yes, silly) and it's not even useful.

The more interesting question is: if we are to have a government, what services should it organize and how should the cost of these services be shared?

----

Lastly, I can't help but suspect that you have obtained your Libertarian ideas from reading American web sites. Americans too often cannot imagine that there is a world on the other side of either ocean.

[Guest eureka]

Thanks for the chuckle.

[Hugo]

Hugo, you are free to move to another town where local taxes are lower. If you don't move, it is because you accept the taxes where you live.

You are caught in exactly the same circular argument as Sweal. If I must move, it is because the government has legitimate jurisdiction. But that is what you are trying to prove, that is what I am disputing. You are assuming your conclusion.

Lastly, I can't help but suspect that you have obtained your Libertarian ideas from reading American web sites.

Yes, those famous Americans, Leo Tolstoy, Mikhail Bakunin, Max Stirner, et al.

[August1991]

Yes, those famous Americans, Leo Tolstoy, Mikhail Bakunin, Max Stirner, et al.

I have heard Tolstoy described as a pan-Slavist but never as someone who denied the possible benefits of a government. In his old age, I know he did some weird things. He was on his way to Bulgaria when he died.

Bakunin? A Communist, anti-semite. At what point in his life did he conclude that government is never beneficial?

Stirner? I only know him as some German philosopher who followed Hegel (as did Marx, and probably Bakunin). I have a deep, deep dislike for Hegel. Did Stirner at some point say/write that he didn't need a management committee in his condo complex?

BTW, why don't you note Kropoktin? I think he retired to Capri.

----

Hugo, I can't speak for TS but I AM NOT suggesting that government is at all times good. Rather, I happen to believe that like marriage and family, government can be a useful or beneficial institution. It is also capable, like marriage and family, of creating a living hell.

I am also truly astonished by the person who, several thousand years ago, created numbers so that co-operation became possible using clear terms of trade, prices.

This price method is not impervious to cheating or gaming and it also doesn't always work. It requires pre-conditions such as defined (defendable) property rights.

Whether this institution "government" is called a "condo management committee" or a "town council", it still amounts to a method for people to co-operate and make collective services available.

For heaven's sakes, Hugo. Have you never gone to a resto with friends and then split the tab? [it's easier that way, avoids messy calculations and preserves some friendships.]

You are caught in exactly the same circular argument as Sweal. If I must move, it is because the government has legitimate jurisdiction. But that is what you are trying to prove, that is what I am disputing. You are assuming your conclusion.

I frankly would prefer to avoid this line of argument of freedom to move to a place where there is no tax and no government and no social contract.

I dislike it because, in effect, it means ostracism. The logical consequence of your argument is that you want to live entirely alone.

Why do I say this? Because as soon as you live with others, you will immediately discover that many beneficial trades cannot occur through spot markets, and adding contingent markets won't solve your problems either. The terms of trade are not clear, nor contract conditions. Such is the daily affair of family.

On Capri, or in the South Pacific, your hut will be struck by lightning and you'll suddenly need your neighbours' help to rebuild. But you'll suspect their effort is not as great as when you helped to fix their water supply.

Your claim of a "circular argument" is simply an argument stating that you refuse all commitments, or long-term contracts - unless such commitments, contracts, deals guarantee that you win.

Where risk is at issue, I'm sorry to say that no one will ever sign such a contract with you - unless you commit to compensate them.

----

We haven't discussed corporations.

Hugo, if I choose to work for Microsoft, how is that different from your choice to live in Canada?

[Hugo]

BTW, why don't you note Kropoktin? I think he retired to Capri.

Why did I mention any of them? Simple: to refute your ridiculous anti-American slander. You rolled two fallacies into one: first, that anarchy is an American movement, second, that American opinions are somehow less valid than those of others.

I have heard Tolstoy described as a pan-Slavist but never as someone who denied the possible benefits of a government.

Peter Kropotkin on Leo Tolstoy:

Without naming himself an anarchist, Leo Tolstoy, like his predecessors in the popular religious movements of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Chojecki, Denk and many others, took the anarchist position as regards the state and property rights, deducing his conclusions from the general spirit of the teachings of Jesus Christ and from the necessary dictates of reason. With all the might of his talent he made (especially in The Kingdom of God is Within You) a powerful criticism of the church, the state and law altogether, and especially of the present property laws. He describes the state as the domination of the wicked ones, supported by brutal force.

Bakunin? A Communist, anti-semite. At what point in his life did he conclude that government is never beneficial?

Bakunin was a left-anarchist or anarcho-socialist. Please do not make the naive mistake of confusing them with Communists, they will find it very offensive.

Mikhail Bakunin on anarchy:

Crime is the necessary condition of the very existence of the State.

I do not hesitate to say that the State is an evil but a historically necessary evil, as necessary in the past as its complete extinction will be necessary sooner or later, just as necessary as primitive bestiality and theological divinations were necessary in the past. The State is not society; it is only one of its its historical forms, as brutal as it is abstract in character... From its very beginning it has been - and still remains - the divine sanction of brutal force and triumphant iniquity. Even in the most democratic countries, like the United States of America and Switzerland, it is simply the consecration of the privileges of some minority and the actual enslavement of the vast majority.

-- from Ethics: Morality of the State

Stirner? I only know him as some German philosopher who followed Hegel (as did Marx, and probably Bakunin). I have a deep, deep dislike for Hegel.

Stirner believed, as he wrote in The Ego and Its Own, that all religions and ideologies are based on empty concepts, and that all institutions which supported said ideologies (church, state etc) are similarly empty and are destroyed by individualism.

Your notion that he was some follower of Hegel is completely wrongheaded. Stirner spent a lot of his intellectual life attacking his contemporaries, such as Ludwig Feuerbach and the other Young Hegelians, for the emptiness of their ideologies - nationalism, statism, humanism etc. Stirner taught egoism and as such was an anarchist.

Hugo, I can't speak for TS but I AM NOT suggesting that government is at all times good. Rather, I happen to believe that like marriage and family, government can be a useful or beneficial institution.

Marriage and family - when successful - are trades and transactions. They break down when they stop being trades and transactions and become coercive monopolies, when one person begins to use force.

The state sets out from the beginning to use force. Therefore, the state is not a useful institution but a broken one, one that arises because it has destroyed or replaced a useful institution.

Whether this institution "government" is called a "condo management committee" or a "town council", it still amounts to a method for people to co-operate and make collective services available.

No. A market is a method for people to co-operate. The state operates by coercion, so there is no market where the state is involved.

I frankly would prefer to avoid this line of argument of freedom to move to a place where there is no tax and no government and no social contract.

I bet you would, because you're caught in a circular argument you can't get out of.

The logical consequence of your argument is that you want to live entirely alone.

Fallacy of false dilemma. The logical consequence of my argument is that I want to consent to all the transactions I have with other human beings and to be coerced into none of them. Voluntaryism.

Your claim of a "circular argument" is simply an argument stating that you refuse all commitments, or long-term contracts - unless such commitments, contracts, deals guarantee that you win.

Fallacy of slothful induction. I merely refuse to honour a commitment or long-term contract that I did not consent to, or consented to under coercion.

Hugo, if I choose to work for Microsoft, how is that different from your choice to live in Canada?

"Microsoft", or the shareholders, are demonstrably the legitimate owners of the company and all holdings and as such, have a right to place stipulations on any transactions involving those holdings.

The government of Canada is not demonstrably the legitimate owner of the country of Canada. Therefore, the government of Canada does not have a right to place stipulations on any transactions involving the country of Canada.

[The Terrible Sweal]

How is it relevant? There is no 'repaying'. There are reciprocal benefits and obligations.

There is 'repaying'. In a restaurant, you get a benefit (food) and an obligation (paying the bill). You are telling me you get benefits, so to whom are you paying your obligations?

It seems to me you are being deliberately obtuse. Re-read the thread for your answer.

I have already explained [that government is not an entity "abusive to general welfare"] to you several times as well.

Once again, you will have to refresh my allegedly faulty memory, because I don't recall any such explanation.

How can you have forgotten the entirety of this very thread???

You made a statement that a monopoly was abusive to general welfare, ...

I did not. Desist from false imputations please.

I never said that [nobody may leave his house or be free from his abuse until they have found another house-owner to take them in].

You said that if I didn't like being forced to buy government services I should leave the country. This is the same argument,

No, it is not the same at all. If you persist in claiming I am saying things which I am not saying at all, mistating and distorting my position, you in effect concede that you are incapable of meeting my actual arguments. Thank you.

Where else do you imagine government springs from, if it doesn't come from society?

Where do criminals spring from, if not from society (since society is people)? Is criminal behaviour therefore justified?

Why change the subject? Why not answer my question? Incapability.

Well, there's part of the problem. You seem to see the government as a group of people. I see the government as an institution.

Is this not just splitting hairs?

It seems more than that to me. In fact, as I said, it seems to be the basis on which you and I diverge. (At least it is the only divergence that explains the inability for you to address my points germanely.)

Institutions can and usually do consist of people (in fact, I can't think of an institution without people, off the top of my head).

More reductionism. A mob is not an institution, so there must be more to an institution than merely the people in it.

You have said that government is derived from the people (an inclusive definition),

Woud you PLEASE stop distorting my comments?

It is legitimate because people can leave, so when they don't the have consented to the conditions attached to staying.

But this is still a circular argument.

You're saying so does not make it so.

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

Where did I say that?

You then say that people within Canada agree with these pretensions because they are free to leave,

Pretensions??? What pretensions???

One more time, what I say is this: Canadian society constitutes itself in certain ways. Individuals in Canada are free to leave if those ways do not suit them. Ergo we can conclude that those who have not left find those ways sufficiently suitable.

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

This fabrication of 'legitimate pretensions' is yours, not mine and I have no call to be answerable for it.

I can't legitimately insist that you follow rules while you are on a given piece of property until I prove that it is legitimately my property - do you follow?

Who can make 'the rules' for Canadian society if not Canadian society itself?

But can you give any reason why that statement [as long as there are those in society who disagree with government, government cannot be an instrument of society] is valid?

If society consists of the people of Canada, and some of society does not recognise the government as their tool, then government is not a tool of society.

Your reasoning is fallacious: Set A is Canadian society and it comprises subsets including subset Z (those who do not recognize). Then you assert that the viewpoint of subset Z trumps any other.

In the larger sense, there is no other kind of court [than government court].

I don't think that is true. The Law Merchant was a court and was not backed by any government.

What laws did it interpret and enforce? How did it enforce?

I think we are coming up against what in my opinion is your reductionist take on government. Government is more than the persons sitting in the cabinet.

Oh, government is much more than that. Government is, amongst other things, over 50% of the economy (I believe).

Come on, please. Government may ACCOUNT FOR some proportion of economic activity, but to say it IS 50% of the economy is conceptually nonsensical in this discussion.

My objection does not have to appeal to alternate rules. I could have a unique perception of a situation, or, I could be purely self-interested (which does not make it immoral).

Then you either believe that society is "breaking the rules" (your rules, if you are self-interested, or the rules that would correctly govern the situation, if you believe you have a unique perception), or you believe that your own objection is immoral (if you believe that society is right but you still disagree).

You've just completely ignored what I said and simply restated your utterly wrong construction of my position. Do you want to have a discussion or a monologue?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Hugo, you are free to move to another town where local taxes are lower. If you don't move, it is because you accept the taxes where you live.

You are caught in exactly the same circular argument as Sweal. If I must move, it is because the government has legitimate jurisdiction.

Again you revert to your tired double-barrel red-herring:

On the one hand a vague and conveniently reductionist take on 'the government' as some free-standing self-generating entity, and on the other hand a fanciful concept of 'legitimate' jurisdiction or ownership.

Society provides for a set of benefits and obligations. They are not severable. Taking the former, you become subject to the latter. If this arrangement is intolerable for you, you may withdraw entirely.

[Hugo]

It seems to me you are being deliberately obtuse. Re-read the thread for your answer... How can you have forgotten the entirety of this very thread???

It isn't there. First, tell me how you are repaying the whole of society (and as I said, taxes are not enough, because there are no guarantees that your tax money will reach the people who helped you in the proportions that they helped you).

Secondly, here is what you said (again):

...market participants may have opportunities for unfair advantage in the market through collusion or a dominant position, and that taking such opportunities is abusive to the market and overall welfare.

Now, the government has definitely taken a dominant position in some markets. It is the exclusive provider of law, policing and many other things besides. You said that to hold such a dominant position would definitely have a negative impact on overall welfare and would be abusive to the market. You did not qualify your statement with anything, and you said that participants might obtain dominance (which government has) and that that dominance will decrease overall welfare (which government is therefore doing).

You have a self-contradiction. You have not reconciled it. How are you going to clean up your mess?

I did not [make a statement that a monopoly was abusive to general welfare]. Desist from false imputations please.

I quoted you saying that right above. If you did not write what you meant, that's not my problem. I can only go on what you write, and I'll assume that you are writing the truth or what you believe to be the truth unless otherwise advised. Since you have not told me that your statement above was a joke, I have to assume you meant it.

No, it is not the same at all. If you persist in claiming I am saying things which I am not saying at all, mistating and distorting my position, you in effect concede that you are incapable of meeting my actual arguments.

Again, same problem. You did actually say:

The question was whether you are coercively subjected by government. You are not. You CAN leave. If you don't leave that is your choice.

Now, this is the same argument. All we need to do is a little noun substitution:

The question was whether [the wife is] coercively subjected by [her abusive husband]. [she is] not. [she] CAN leave. If [she doesn't] leave that is [her] choice.

To leave a government, I must have somewhere else, another government, to go to. I can't live in the ocean or outer space. So, what you left unsaid was that whether or not I left was not entirely up to me, but also up to whether or not another government wanted to take me in. Once again, we apply that to your statement, substitute the nouns, and we get:

The question was whether [the wife is] coercively subjected by [her abusive husband]. [she is] not. [she] CAN leave [if she can find another husband]. If [she doesn't] leave [or find another husband] that is [her] choice.

Is that clear now?

Why change the subject? Why not answer my question? Incapability.

My question answers your question. Your implied statement is that government springs from society, therefore, government is justified. My answer is that a whole host of unjustified evils spring from society, therefore, because government comes from society does not mean government is just.

It seems more than that to me. In fact, as I said, it seems to be the basis on which you and I diverge.

You choose to call it an institution. An institution cannot exist without people who at least believe in it, therefore, an institution is carried on people. So your argument can also be taken to mean "government is/depends upon some people". In effect, what you say is: "government is not A, it is A."

A mob is not an institution, so there must be more to an institution than merely the people in it.

And what is there to an institution beyond the people in it?

Woud you PLEASE stop distorting my comments [when you claim I said that government is derived from the people]?

Why do you think I am distorting your comments? You said:

Government in free societies is no created by violence. It is created from the consent of the governed.

You did not say, "consent of some of the governed." That is a very different idea. Are you revising your statement?

Where did I say that [the government of Canada has legitimate pretensions over Canada]?

You said:

You have consented [to government]. You can withdraw your consent by departing.

Which takes us back to the circular argument. In order for your statement directly above to be true, the government must have legitimate pretensions over Canada.

Pretensions??? What pretensions???

The pretension that it rightfully owns and controls Canada and the people therein.

Canadian society constitutes itself in certain ways. Individuals in Canada are free to leave if those ways do not suit them.

That statement is self-contradictory. "Canadian society" is composed of individuals. Therefore, if some individuals disagree, then society disagrees with itself. Society cannot leave itself. This tells you that "society" is not an entity you can speak of this way.

This fabrication of 'legitimate pretensions' is yours, not mine and I have no call to be answerable for it.

No, it is not. Either you have a circular argument, in which case your argument is invalid by way of fallacy, or you have to justify the legitimacy of the government in some other way that does not presuppose the legitimacy of the government.

Who can make 'the rules' for Canadian society if not Canadian society itself?

How can Canadian society make 'the rules' if it disagrees with itself on what those rules should be?

What laws did it interpret and enforce? How did it enforce?

Trade contracts, especially international ones. It enforced by boycott.

Come on, please. Government may ACCOUNT FOR some proportion of economic activity, but to say it IS 50% of the economy is conceptually nonsensical in this discussion.

Call it what you like. We can both agree that government is more than Parliament.

You've just completely ignored what I said and simply restated your utterly wrong construction of my position.

No, my construction is logically consistent. It is you who has ignored what I have said, and you have stated that my construction was "utterly wrong" without any logic or evidence in support. I went to some lengths to explain my position and my interpretation of your arguments, you have not offered a word to refute that.

Society provides for a set of benefits and obligations. They are not severable. Taking the former, you become subject to the latter. If this arrangement is intolerable for you, you may withdraw entirely.

I want to withdraw entirely. However, until you establish that the government is the legitimate authority over Canada, it is unjust to ask me to withdraw from the country.

[The Terrible Sweal]

It seems to me you are being deliberately obtuse. Re-read the thread for your answer... How can you have forgotten the entirety of this very thread???

It isn't there. First, tell me how you are repaying the whole of society (and as I said, taxes are not enough, because there are no guarantees that your tax money will reach the people who helped you in the proportions that they helped you).

It is there, in the last several posts. I tire of this disingenuous pretense.

Secondly, here is what you said (again):

...market participants may have opportunities for unfair advantage in the market through collusion or a dominant position, and that taking such opportunities is abusive to the market and overall welfare.

Yes. THAT is what I said. Note how much it differs from what you said I said.

Now, the government has definitely taken a dominant position in some markets. It is the exclusive provider of law, policing and many other things besides. You said that to hold such a dominant position would definitely have a negative impact on overall welfare... 

No, I did not say that. You clearly have some trouble with the meaning of my statement (because you want it to say something other than what it says, I suspect). There are two mistakes in your formulation: First, taking unfair advantage of a dominant position is the problem I identified, not simply the existence of a dominant position. Second, it would be incorrect to characterize all government activity as participation in a market. Some, perhaps, but not all.

I did not [make a statement that a monopoly was abusive to general welfare]. Desist from false imputations please.

I quoted you saying that right above.

You quoted me, then distorted my meaning. Stop it.

The question was whether you are coercively subjected by government. You are not. You CAN leave. If you don't leave that is your choice.

Now, this is the same argument. All we need to do is a little noun substitution:

The question was whether [the wife is] coercively subjected by [her abusive husband]. [she is] not. [she] CAN leave. If [she doesn't] leave that is [her] choice.

NOUN substitution is MEANING substitution. I.e. distortion. Are you merely here to play peurile rhetorical games? If so, be advised I am not interested.

To leave a government, I must have somewhere else, another government, to go to.

This is nonsense. What does it mean to 'leave a government'??? I have be discussing leaving a society, not leaving a government. What's with the slithering around these concepts, Hugo? Can't you talk a straight path?

Anyway, that you feel a need for some other society to go is your problem. THIS society has no obligation to provide you with another option.

If you go to the only barber in town and ask for a price he will not accept, you have not basis to insist simply because he's the only barber in town.

An institution cannot exist without people who at least believe in it, therefore, an institution is carried on people.

It is, nevertheless, more than just the people carrying it on.

A mob is not an institution, so there must be more to an institution than merely the people in it.

And what is there to an institution beyond the people in it?

Are you arguing that a mob is an institution?

Where did I say that [the government of Canada has legitimate pretensions over Canada]?

You said:

You have consented [to government]. You can withdraw your consent by departing.

I obviously did not say that, because you have seen fit to sub in your own words "[to government]" rather than consider mine.

... Either you have a circular argument, in which case your argument is invalid by way of fallacy, or you have to justify the legitimacy of the government in some other way that does not presuppose the legitimacy of the government.

I don't have to justify the legitimacy of government at all. The legitimacy of society's right to insist you fulfill your obligations arises by your voluntary participation in taking the benefits.

Who can make 'the rules' for Canadian society if not Canadian society itself?

How can Canadian society make 'the rules' if it disagrees with itself on what those rules should be?

Society does not disagree with itself. Whatever outcome society produces is the agreement. Individuals who dissent are not co-equal with the society they dissent from.

What laws did it interpret and enforce? How did it enforce?

Trade contracts, especially international ones. It enforced by boycott.

Who enforces the boycott?

Society provides for a set of benefits and obligations. They are not severable. Taking the former, you become subject to the latter. If this arrangement is intolerable for you, you may withdraw entirely.

I want to withdraw entirely. However, until you establish that the government is the legitimate authority over Canada, it is unjust to ask me to withdraw from the country.

Withdrawal is YOUR choice. "Legitimate authority" is beside the point. You are in an agreement and you are bound by it to fulfill you part. If you will not, there is no reason for your counterparties to provide you your value.

[Hugo]

It is there, in the last several posts. I tire of this disingenuous pretense.

I have been looking for it and cannot find it. If you already said it, cut-and-paste it. I have gone to the trouble of cut-and-pasting a lot of what you have written in this thread, so do me the same courtesy.

There are two mistakes in your formulation: First, taking unfair advantage of a dominant position is the problem I identified, not simply the existence of a dominant position. Second, it would be incorrect to characterize all government activity as participation in a market.

Firstly, that is not the meaning of what you wrote. You said that participants might have the opportunity to gain dominant posistion, and if they take that opportunity it is abusive to overall welfare. Therefore, whoever took the opportunity to become dominant abuses welfare.

Secondly, what government activity is not in a market, or what was a market until government destroyed it? All human interaction is a market unless you involve coercion, in which case the market is destroyed. Government destroys markets.

NOUN substitution is MEANING substitution. I.e. distortion.

I'm sorry, Sweal, the logical and grammatical structure of your statement is intact. By substituting nouns we construct an analogous statement, which was precisely what I was constructing in the first place: an analogy.

This is nonsense. What does it mean to 'leave a government'???

Well, to leave its jurisdiction, one assumes.

I have be discussing leaving a society, not leaving a government.

You told me they were the same thing. And, before you complain, here is where you said it:

You persist in regarding 'the goverment' as something distinct from the society.

Since you believed I was wrong to believe that the government was distinct from society, I can safely infer that you are claiming that government is not distinct from society, i.e. it is society.

It is, nevertheless, more than just the people carrying it on.

What is that?

Are you arguing that a mob is an institution?

Absolutely irrelevant. I don't know where you pulled that from. I'll re-quote the exchange for you:

TS: A mob is not an institution, so there must be more to an institution than merely the people in it.

Hugo: And what is there to an institution beyond the people in it?

I obviously did not say that, because you have seen fit to sub in your own words "[to government]" rather than consider mine.

Then what am I consenting to, exactly? "Consent" is a transitive verb, not an intransitive. You consent to something.

I don't have to justify the legitimacy of government at all. The legitimacy of society's right to insist you fulfill your obligations arises by your voluntary participation in taking the benefits.

Since "society" is rarely, if ever, an acting agent, you cannot make a blanket statement like that.

Society does not disagree with itself. Whatever outcome society produces is the agreement. Individuals who dissent are not co-equal with the society they dissent from.

I see. So, government is society, and society is "some people" - those who don't dissent, basically (dissent from what is something you aren't clear on). What you are defending, then, is the right of some people to hold non-consensual power over other people. Correct?

Who enforces the boycott?

Merchants. It was done on a purely voluntary basis. Basically, if the Law Merchant found that a trader was in breach of contract, they simply published that he was and advised other traders not to deal with him. It was all strictly voluntary and no coercion was involved.

Withdrawal is YOUR choice. "Legitimate authority" is beside the point. You are in an agreement and you are bound by it to fulfill you part.

Legitimate authority is the point. I cannot agree to deal with somebody who does not have a legitimate authority to make the deal we are discussing.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Hugo, I've had it with your dilatory rhetorical contortions.

Unable to sustain your positions by argument, you now resort to disingenuous mischaracterizations of my comments.

You pretend I have said things I didn't say. You ignore explanations and counterpoints. You select elements of my comments and impute meanings to the selections which the totality of the comments does not support.

You have rendered any further discussion with you completely worthless.

[Hugo]

I think the accusation that I have misquoted you or mischaracterized your statements is unfair as I have taken the time to quote you fully in my replies, to justify what I say with argument, defend my analogies and identify them as such.

Just to satisfy your curiosity, I shall let you know where I was planning to continue in this thread.

You had said (and this is what I had been angling for, although you probably realised that):

Society does not disagree with itself. Whatever outcome society produces is the agreement. Individuals who dissent are not co-equal with the society they dissent from.

This was where I was going to continue my argument from. We had gotten to a stage where you acknowledged that government was not, in fact, the whole of the people in the country at all. My continuation of this would have been to point out that 99 men in a room cannot justly decide to rob the 100th man of his rightful property, and if they did not have that right themselves, they could not defer it either.

Therefore, as long as the "society" that formed the government did not include some (at least one) people in the country, it had no right to make decisions for all of the people that affected their property or lives in any direct way.

This would apply to my situation as an immigrant. In order for the government not to be committing a massive violation of property rights, it could only stipulate that, if I withdrew from the "social contract", I was forbidden from the property of and dealing with Liberal voters. Since they only form 23% of the electorate and an even smaller percentage of the overall population, that is a very different proposition from "leave the country." If the government insists on making me leave, it is presuming to take authority over the private property of individuals who never granted them any authority.

Of course, if you were to say that these people had, in turn, granted authority to the government by living in Canada then we have a new circular argument: everybody in Canada came to the country at some point. There are no true natives, not even aboriginals. So, each time you go back an immigrant-generation, the argument repeats itself, until we are left with empty wilderness and still the question never having been answered.

I apologise for any misdeeds I may have committed in this thread, my intention was only for spirited and interesting debate and nothing more. I felt that we were achieving that and I would be pleased if you would consent to a resumption.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I stand by my comments. I am uninterested in discussion characterized by the tactics you put on display.

[August1991]

If the government insists on making me leave, it is presuming to take authority over the private property of individuals who never granted them any authority.

You still don't get it, Hugo.

It makes as much sense to say the "government" insists on making you leaving as to say the "marriage" insists on making you leave. (Or "the condo building" insisted you leave.)

It is your spouse who insists on you leaving and it is the other members of the club called Canada that insist you leave.

You have made valid points that it is costly for you to leave and you must have an alternative club. But those points do not touch the more fundamental issue above.

You have government as soon as several people split a single bill in a restaurant. (Why a single bill? Because it was easier than having separate bills.)