Tyrrany versus Freedom

[Black Dog]

August 1991:

It is too often assumed that the major debate of the past century was between the "left" and the "right". Depending on how you view this, the "left" represents the poor and weak and the "right" the rich and powerful. Or, the "left" represents socialism and the "right" capitalism. You can characterize these terms however you want.

In fact, I'd argue that the major theme of the 20th century was the dispute between "tyranny" and "freedom".

I can see the appeal in such simple bianaries, but the fact is, the real world is too complex to be shoved into such boxes.

For instance, a look back at the 20th Century includes such bianary defying events as the freedom-loving U.S.A.'s support for murderous tyrranical regimes in Latin America and the Communist Vietnamese's overthrow of the genocidal Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

Frankly I find terms like "freedom" and "tyrrany" to be golden examples of what Orwell called "meaningless words": that is: "words with several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another."

You cannot claim that there exists a universal definition of freedom and tyrrany, therefore such pronouncements as the one you make above.

If you wanted to be really percise, I'd say the 20th century was characterized by mass and hugely costly (in human terms) conflicts between economic systems. And in that sense, I'd say that for the vast majority of the world's population, the 20th Century was dominated by a clash of tyrranies.

[Melanie_]

The problem with words like "tyranny" and "freedom" is they are too easily misused as emotional hot buttons to manipulate people into supporting a political end. Anyone who doesn't support Bush, for example, is painted as not supporting freedom and democracy - as if his policies are the only hope of freedom and democracy for the world.

Semantics are all about the spin - the only difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is which side of the war you're on.

[August1991]

I don't think there is confusion about such terms as "tyranny" and "freedom".

A simple test of tyranny is whether a change of government only occurs through death or violence. Also, in tyrannical regimes, the government is free to exercice arbitrary power over the individual. IOW, there are no respected conventions or rules (such as our Charter of Rights) which restrict the powers of the government.

Freedom refers to the ability of an individual to choose.

For instance, a look back at the 20th Century includes such bianary defying events as the freedom-loving U.S.A.'s support for murderous tyrranical regimes in Latin America and the Communist Vietnamese's overthrow of the genocidal Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

It is impossible to consider US foreign policy between 1945-1990 without reference to the Cold War. God knows why the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia, or why the Chinese invaded Vietnam.

Frankly I find terms like "freedom" and "tyrrany" to be golden examples of what Orwell called "meaningless words": that is: "words with several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another."

You cannot claim that there exists a universal definition of freedom and tyrrany, therefore such pronouncements as the one you make above.

I have always preferred Milan Kundera's term kitsch to describe such usage. Tyranny typically removes all meaning from words. In 1984, Orwell was imagining a world made up entirely of tyrannies (dictatorships).

We suffer a minor variant now with political correctness. When there is a free market in ideas, it is not hard to define the value of words.

If you wanted to be really percise, I'd say the 20th century was characterized by mass and hugely costly (in human terms) conflicts between economic systems.

That's the "traditional paradigm" to which I object. Typical political debates of the 20th century concerned whether communism or capitalism was right. Some argued that we should have a bit of both - the golden mean. I am suggesting that that wasn't the issue at all. It was between the freedom of the individual from a tyrannical government, religion or tradition.

As to the economic question, I would argue that the tyrant's plea for power is more seductive when it is accompanied by an apparent gift.

The problem with words like "tyranny" and "freedom" is they are too easily misused as emotional hot buttons to manipulate people into supporting a political end. Anyone who doesn't support Bush, for example, is painted as not supporting freedom and democracy - as if his policies are the only hope of freedom and democracy for the world.

No doubt all manner of politicians use hot or cold buttons to influence opinion. Bush Jnr is no different from Winston Churchill or Adolf Hitler in this regard.

But a person such as Michael Moore would not exist in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. So I see a stark difference between Dr. Goebbels and Karl Rove.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

But a person such as Michael Moore would not exist in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. So I see a stark difference between Dr. Goebbels and Karl Rove.

The 'stark difference' is that Rove has his hands tied by the laws against murder in the USA. He stooped about as low as one can legally go, though, (and in fact this action was illegal, and should have been punished) when he declared the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson as 'fair game' and ostensibly had her exposed as a CIA operative, in retribution for Mr. Wilson publicly debunking the Nigerian yellowcake documents as false.

A simple test of tyranny is whether a change of government only occurs through death or violence.

A simple test of tyranny is whether a change of government only occurs through death or violence.

Monarchies belie this, for they are not inherently tyrannical, though they often have been. Democratic socialists states are the theoretical anithesis of tyranny, for they purport to put equal power in the hands of everyone.

[Hugo]

Also, in tyrannical regimes, the government is free to exercice arbitrary power over the individual.

Then all governments are tyrannical, since all require the imposition of arbitrary power. It can be seen as arbitrary because the government itself is able to break the laws of the land at will: its agents may steal, murder, kidnap, forcibly confine, trespass, and so forth under the protection of the same law that forbids such behaviour in citizens.

I'd say the 20th century was characterized by mass and hugely costly (in human terms) conflicts between economic systems.

Hugely costly in any terms. Both in terms of human life and in economic costs, the wars of the 20th Century have been incredibly destructive.

Democratic socialists states are the theoretical anithesis of tyranny, for they purport to put equal power in the hands of everyone.

No, they do not. What they do is give everybody a chip for a gaming table at which they play, "who gets to be the tyrant? (and therefore exercise all the power)?"

[August1991]

Also, in tyrannical regimes, the government is free to exercice arbitrary power over the individual.

Then all governments are tyrannical, since all require the imposition of arbitrary power.

*Sigh* Not again.... I see a difference between a dictator and a politician that faces re-election. There's a difference between Leonid Brezhnev and Richard Nixon.

Government is useful but dangerous. Like fire. (Not arson.)

Democratic socialists states are the theoretical anithesis of tyranny, for they purport to put equal power in the hands of everyone.

No, they do not. What they do is give everybody a chip for a gaming table at which they play, "who gets to be the tyrant? (and therefore exercise all the power)?"

The evidence is that we don't get democratic socialism, or at least we don't get it for long.

Among methods of selecting a government, democracy has weaknesses. But it does tend to prevent against absolute tyranny if only because the bastards get thrown out before they can do much harm. And they can't do too much harm anyway because they have to get re-elected.

Hugo noted one weakness: everyone gets one chip. Here's another: no one has any interest in playing at the gaming table.

[Hugo]

I see a difference between a dictator and a politician that faces re-election. There's a difference between Leonid Brezhnev and Richard Nixon.

What difference? Both, for instance, conscripted their nation's youth against their will and sent them off to fight and die in far-away lands for causes they did not necessarily believe in (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia). The democratic process in the USA did not prevent this and could not have before over 58,000 Americans were killed.

The principal difference is that the group who allowed Brezhnev to remain in power was much smaller, but more powerful. The main result was that Nixon could expect a shorter but more guaranteed reign. Brezhnev stood to reign for longer if only he could hold on to power. In any case, the power to remove both rested in the hands not of the whole nation, but in a much smaller group within that nation. It is also the case that with both the Brezhnev and the Nixon governments, most of the nation never consented to be governed by them.

Additionally, consider Hoppe's theory that democratic governments tend to be more irresponsible than autocratic governments, especially hereditary ones, since the time-preference for government is drastically shortened i.e. the democratic government only has to worry about the results of its policies within the next few years, whereas the autocracy has to think decades into the future.

Among methods of selecting a government, democracy has weaknesses. But it does tend to prevent against absolute tyranny if only because the bastards get thrown out before they can do much harm. And they can't do too much harm anyway because they have to get re-elected.

You assume, of course, that the democratic government won't set about assuring its own supremacy after it is elected. The Nazis came to power constitutionally and afterward set about putting the machinery of the state to work in their favour. The Federal Liberals in Canada have done much the same thing, albeit on less grand a scale (appointing Liberal-friendly senators and judges, campaign funding rules, Adscam, the CBC etc). The same thing also happens in the US: favourable judges are picked, the Federal Reserve is packed with friendly officials, and so forth. Ostensibly independent bodies become anything but. The Fed is, on paper, independent of government, but ever since FDR it has always done exactly what the President wants. Since 1865 the Federal government in the US has also progressively stripped power from the states and granted it to itself, resulting in a far more centralised government than was initially allowed for in 1789.

As Hayek pointed out, democracy where the government has control or the potential to control the economy won't last long, because such a democracy is all about raw, naked power, and the people who are attracted to stand for the leadership of such a government will tend overwhelmingly to be those interested in power. Consider the US. For the last 140 years, the government has been steadily accumulating power and influence until now, the US is more socialist than "Communist" China. No party or candidate wants to change or reverse this, the only debates that occur are about the direction in which government power should grow.

[Black Dog]

I don't think there is confusion about such terms as "tyranny" and "freedom".

A simple test of tyranny is whether a change of government only occurs through death or violence. Also, in tyrannical regimes, the government is free to exercice arbitrary power over the individual. IOW, there are no respected conventions or rules (such as our Charter of Rights) which restrict the powers of the government.

Freedom refers to the ability of an individual to choose.

This goes back to a previous discussion we had wherein (IIRC) you argued that he simple reality of having a choice was more important than whethe rthat choice had any meaning.

The thing about choice is you need to have distinct options to choose from and those choices have to make a difference. If you look at the history of democracy, in particular in North America, its hard to argue that the political choices of the populace have led to any significant changes, no matter what political partyy they picked. There's a good reason for that and that is because, in a democracy, true decision making power is consolidated beyond the reach of the masses.

It is impossible to consider US foreign policy between 1945-1990 without reference to the Cold War. God knows why the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia, or why the Chinese invaded Vietnam.

That's my point, though. the Cold war was about competeing tyrranies. the people who were repressed by anti-Communist regimes weren't much better off than their Communist bretheren.

*Sigh* Not again.... I see a difference between a dictator and a politician that faces re-election. There's a difference between Leonid Brezhnev and Richard Nixon.

Government is useful but dangerous. Like fire. (Not arson.)

Elections are symbolic. They create the illusion of chocie and freedom, when in fact they are essentially meaningless. I remember when Saddam Hussein won his last "election". Western pundits and comics made light of the fact that the elections were a sham, not realizing that the main diference between their system and ours is that everyone there knows the system a sham.

Among methods of selecting a government, democracy has weaknesses. But it does tend to prevent against absolute tyranny if only because the bastards get thrown out before they can do much harm. And they can't do too much harm anyway because they have to get re-elected.

Tyrrany, as I've maintained all along, comes in different stripes. Democracy is simply not as overt a form of maintaining tyrrany as a dictatorship. Instead, there is an elaborate and complex system designed to, as I said, give citizens the llusion of choice, even though their voices and their interests are not considered. It's interesting that every democracy is designed with mechanisms to keep the power of the "rabble" in check; to ensure that political and economic power is kept in the hands of a few.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Law is the tyranny of the weak over the strong.

[Hugo]

Government is useful but dangerous. Like fire. (Not arson.)

I would say that government is useful but dangerous like a stick. You can poke somebody's eye out with a stick, but you can also use a stick as a tool. For every use of a stick, however, there is a better and more efficient tool available. The reason we have the stick is because the owner of the stick keeps beating us with it to make us accept it, not because it is inherently better.

[August1991]

Elections are symbolic. They create the illusion of chocie and freedom, when in fact they are essentially meaningless. I remember when Saddam Hussein won his last "election". Western pundits and comics made light of the fact that the elections were a sham, not realizing that the main diference between their system and ours is that everyone there knows the system a sham.

ARGGGHHHHH!!!

Sorry, BD, but this is the kind of left wing nonsense that drives me around the bend. Because two political parties appear similar, one concludes there is no difference with a one-party state. Because all gasoline stations charge the same price, one concludes there is a cartel. And because cars advance when the light turns green, one concludes green lights make cars go.

I would say that government is useful but dangerous like a stick. You can poke somebody's eye out with a stick, but you can also use a stick as a tool. For every use of a stick, however, there is a better and more efficient tool available.

I'd agree with the comparison except we have no suitable substitute for the stick.

As individuals, we use several institutions to cooperate: family, corporations, markets and government. The choice of institution depends on transaction costs. Until someone finds a better "stick" than government, we're stuck with it. And until someone finds a better way to reign in government, we're stuck with democracy.

To get back to the thread's title, if we look at the past 200 or so years of history, there's reason to be optimistic. People use appropriate institutions to cooperate much better now than before. One has only to look at the current basket case countries to see where we could be now if we hadn't got it right.

[Hugo]

I'd agree with the comparison except we have no suitable substitute for the stick.

Sure we do! We have voluntary, noncoercive methods to do the same. We just don't exercise them (because if we did, we'd get beaten with the stick).

As individuals, we use several institutions to cooperate: family, corporations, markets and government.

First off, family operates like a market (see Becker - again). Secondly, markets are not an institution. Institutions are monolithic and have goals. Markets are not monolithic and have no goals. Thirdly, government is apart from the others because it alone uses violence as its sole means of obtaining cooperation.

[Black Dog]

Sorry, BD, but this is the kind of left wing nonsense that drives me around the bend. Because two political parties appear similar, one concludes there is no difference with a one-party state. Because all gasoline stations charge the same price, one concludes there is a cartel. And because cars advance when the light turns green, one concludes green lights make cars go.

Your gasoline analogy is fairly acurate, actually. There's choice, but the product and price is always going to be more or less comprable. So is the choice meaningful? That's my point: choice alone itself is not enough.

Green lights don't make the cras go, the coercive power of the state to enforce traffic laws makes cars go at the green signal.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

government is apart from the others because it alone uses violence as its sole means of obtaining cooperation.

If you are going to use Occam's Razor to whittle down to your theory the essence of gov't, you can't just stop there. All property ownership and rights come down to the same thing. Violence and the overwhelming use of force are the sole base factors in deciding ownership. Yes, including your own body.

I don't agree with it, but there it is.

Dear August1991,

ARGGGHHHHH!!!

Sorry, BD, but this is the kind of left wing nonsense that drives me around the bend. Because two political parties appear similar, one concludes there is no difference with a one-party state. Because all gasoline stations charge the same price, one concludes there is a cartel. And because cars advance when the light turns green, one concludes green lights make cars go.

Not quite so simple, but not so difficult, either. Lobby groups decide the course of gov't more than politicians or voters do. Let's take Bill Clinton's promise of Universal health care in the US. Powerful pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies don't want it, and they donate millions of dollars to whomever will do as they say. That becomes whomever would like to get elected/re-elected and they who would like their re-election coffers to overflow. So, it doesn't really matter who is in power, their basic policy decisions will always reflect a main benefit to a third party on whom they depend, and it sure isn't the voter.

[Hugo]

Violence and the overwhelming use of force are the sole base factors in deciding ownership. Yes, including your own body.

Explain how. Just because you say it does not make it so.

For instance, I go out into the unclaimed wilderness and find a nugget of gold. I pick it up and take it home. What violence was committed?

If you are going to use Occam's Razor to whittle down to your theory the essence of gov't

The definition of a government or state is an institution which monopolizes at least the services of law enforcement/provision and justice within a given geographical area. Since monopoly can only be held using violence or the threat thereof, governments are therefore inherently violent. That is the essence of government.

Your gasoline analogy is fairly acurate, actually. There's choice, but the product and price is always going to be more or less comprable.

The coincidence of price and product does not necessarily signal a cartel, however. With gasoline, it just so happens that gasoline is a commodity and as such is pretty much identical between providers, and the prices are very close because (after the distortions applied by various governments are applied) that is the natural market-clearing price. Minor variations are the products of minor differences within the individual providers and supplies.

In government, we have much the same thing. Very little choice, no discernable cartel. It is just the nature of government to expand, as "Cato" said almost three centuries ago, as Ibn Khaldun said about three centuries before that, and so on. So the choice being offered the electorate is basically, "By what road shall we proceed towards becoming a totalitarian, Communist welfare-warfare state?" That is where all states are destined to end up, just as in a market all prices are ultimately destined to drop towards zero.

[August1991]

PART I

Sure we do! We have voluntary, noncoercive methods to do the same. We just don't exercise them (because if we did, we'd get beaten with the stick).

*Sigh*. No we don't. In North America, people regularly move between cities and states or provinces. In each, they find little to lots of government. By and large, government is a useful mechanism and that's why it exists.

First off, family operates like a market (see Becker - again).

Few families use the price mechanism to allocate resources. More often, Mom or Dad decides. Minor tyrannies. Becker, as I've said before, uses the assumption of individual rational behaviour to draw conclusions about families, for example. I don't think Becker has ever advocated selling on ebay the right to use the family bathroom next Saturday afternoon.

Secondly, markets are not an institution. Institutions are monolithic and have goals. Markets are not monolithic and have no goals.

Replace "institution" by the word "mechanism".

Thirdly, government is apart from the others because it alone uses violence as its sole means of obtaining cooperation.

Do you count the threat of violence? Because my Mom used to have a big belt. So I guess you'd have to include families.

But we've been down this route before Hugo. Why limit yourself to violence? There are carrots (benefits) and sticks (costs). Ostracism following an opportunistic breach of contract is just a cost - a form of violence if you will.

Let me be plainer. I think on Pitcairn Island they have no need for "government" because they are all in the same "family". Or I guess you could say their government is one big family.

Your gasoline analogy is fairly acurate, actually. There's choice, but the product and price is always going to be more or less comprable. So is the choice meaningful? That's my point: choice alone itself is not enough.

My gasoline example is a terrible analogy. In a competitive market, one would expect to see the same price everywhere. Competitive? Well, how many markets advertise their after-tax price in huge numbers visible hundreds of meters away. As to the question of choice, I'd argue that a suitable alternative is critical in determining whether monopoly powers exist.

Green lights don't make the cras go, the coercive power of the state to enforce traffic laws makes cars go at the green signal.

I would think it's the self-interest of the drivers that makes the cars go. The coercive power of the State might make them stop at a redlight though. Then again, I'll bet that self-interest makes the drivers stop too. Who wants an accident.

Now, Hugo would argue that private individuals operate traffic lights best and he'd have some hare-brained scheme to pay for private traffic lights (and he may even have historical examples of such). The fact is that it's a lot easier to pay a rough sum of money to local government and let them install the lights. True, visitors get the benefit of our largesse but we get to use their traffic lights when we visit their city. Note that I'm not in favour of a federal Traffic Lights Canada Signalisation Canada.

I can safely argue that the transaction costs of private traffic lights are much greater than the perfidy of local government monopoly.

[August1991]

PART II

Lobby groups decide the course of gov't more than politicians or voters do. Let's take Bill Clinton's promise of Universal health care in the US. Powerful pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies don't want it, and they donate millions of dollars to whomever will do as they say.

Lobby groups clearly play a role. So do opinion polls. And letter writing campaigns, newspaper editorials, blogs. Random chats. Heck, I'll bet elections even play a role! Thelonious, you will be hard-pressed to find much logic to government decisions.

But that's not my point. I'm concerned primarily that government doesn't turn into tyranny.

Democratic government is a terrible way to make collective decisions but it's much, much better than a dictatorship.

All property ownership and rights come down to the same thing. Violence and the overwhelming use of force are the sole base factors in deciding ownership. Yes, including your own body.

You guys have been nattering on about "property" and "rights" in that other thread which I have so far managed to avoid.

You don't necessarily need violence or force to decide ownership. But I agree that property rights need some enforcement mechanism.

Are property rights fair? Is it fair that I own my home and the land underneath it?

The simple answer is that it is not fair but who cares anyway. To obtain the benefits of trade, we require defined property rights. Those benefits are far, far greater than the initial theft of arbitrary ownership.

For instance, I go out into the unclaimed wilderness and find a nugget of gold. I pick it up and take it home. What violence was committed?

Fair enough, for the first nugget. But then what?

Buried gold is the classic motive to the dramatic, violent stand off. I've got a better one - url addresses.

Hugo, the problem isn't really violence. Something else is.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Violence and the overwhelming use of force are the sole base factors in deciding ownership. Yes, including your own body.

I go out into the unclaimed wilderness and find a nugget of gold. I pick it up and take it home. What violence was committed?

What ownership has been created?

The definition of a government or state is an institution which monopolizes at least the services of law enforcement/provision and justice within a given geographical area.

You mean that is YOUR definition.

Since monopoly can only be held using violence or the threat thereof 

"Since"!?

Since when?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

QUOTE

Violence and the overwhelming use of force are the sole base factors in deciding ownership. Yes, including your own body.

Explain how. Just because you say it does not make it so.

For instance, I go out into the unclaimed wilderness and find a nugget of gold. I pick it up and take it home. What violence was committed?

No violence was committed, yet. However, you are only in possession of the nugget. The unfettered 'right of disposal' is another story. Let's say it was a particularly large nugget, (but it doesn't really matter) and word gets out to others that you are in possession of a humongous nugget of gold. Surely, others will covet it (for that is the base definition of 'commercial value') and possibly seek to 'liberate it from your possession'. 'Ownership' means one has either the power to take it or the power to keep it. You may confront the brigands and thieves with the claim that "Rothbard said we shouldn't do things this way! I request you voluntarily turn yourselves in for trespassing!" Meanwhile, they've buggered your wife, shot your dog and are draggin you out back to slit your throat. The criminal element would like nothing better than to see the abolition of gov't, voluntary punishment and the next two neighbors down the block vigorously negotiating which of them will be next to go outside their castle walls and deliver an empty ultimatum to the bloodthirsty, gold-hungry Highwaymen.

They say necessity is the mother of invention, and social order (and thereby gov't) was borne out of the need to curb anarchy.

[Hugo]

By and large, government is a useful mechanism and that's why it exists.

Sure, it's useful. Nerve gas is useful. Nuclear weapons are useful. The usefulness of a thing really depends on what your objectives are.

Few families use the price mechanism to allocate resources.

Sure they do. They just don't realise it, because prices don't have to be in money. Families generally give things to one another, like trades, and the fact that family members will sometimes estrange themselves or disown other members is an indication that a trade was expected to take place, and the estranging or disowning party felt that they were bilked.

I don't think Becker has ever advocated selling on ebay the right to use the family bathroom next Saturday afternoon.

No, and oil futures are not sold on ebay either. I suppose that means there's no market for oil futures, right? After all, oil futures are analogous to your example - they are the right to use property not currently in your possession at some future time.

Replace "institution" by the word "mechanism".

Then your point is null and void, because institutions are not the same as mechanisms. You have said that people use several institutions to cooperate, but one of those things was not an institution at all!

Do you count the threat of violence? Because my Mom used to have a big belt. So I guess you'd have to include families.

No, because as my definition of government shows quite clearly, the sole qualification to be a government is not the use or threat of force.

Why limit yourself to violence? There are carrots (benefits) and sticks (costs). Ostracism following an opportunistic breach of contract is just a cost - a form of violence if you will.

No, actually it is a response to violence. The breach of contract was the initiation of violence against property. If ostracism is a form of violence, then I should be locked up, because I've never shopped at Price Club. My ostracism of Price Club is an act of violence against them.

In a competitive market, one would expect to see the same price everywhere. Competitive?

Now you are falling into the Chicagoite trap of comparing the real world to "perfect competition", forgetting that perfection is subjective and that perfect competition is unobtainable. The argument is akin to criticising healthcare services because they have failed to achieve immortality.

Now, Hugo would argue that private individuals operate traffic lights best and he'd have some hare-brained scheme to pay for private traffic lights (and he may even have historical examples of such). The fact is that it's a lot easier to pay a rough sum of money to local government and let them install the lights.

If that was the easiest way, what makes you think such a method would not arise naturally without the need to enforce it with violence? If you believe that humans are fallible enough to ignore the best possible solution in favour of a lesser one if they are not coerced, then you are an even bigger fool to give these fallible humans the power of coercive government and legitimised violence!

Similarly, the fact is that we will never know if there is a better alternative, because this is the outcome of monopoly. We replaced torches with oil lights, then gas lights, and now electric lights. Doubtless something better awaits us in the future, but if government mandated that we all use electric light and forbade development of anything better, we'd never get there.

I can safely argue that the transaction costs of private traffic lights are much greater than the perfidy of local government monopoly.

No, you cannot, because the transaction costs of private traffic lights are entirely unknown, having not been tried. What are you basing these forecasts on? If you believe that it would be chaos because there would be no unity in rules of the road, I hate to break it to you, but the free market actually produces conformity wherever it is needed. There is no law stating that all credit and debit cards must be the same size, but they are, because the market has found it expedient to do so.

[Hugo]

Fair enough, for the first nugget. But then what?

It does not matter. Thelonius has proposed that violence is behind all ownership, not some ownership.

Hugo, the problem isn't really violence. Something else is.

How insightful. Is it that you don't know what it is, or just that you aren't willing to discuss it at this time?

What ownership has been created?

My ownership of the nugget.

You mean that is YOUR definition.

Yes, that's right. Until you find an insurmountable problem with it, or you provide a better definition, it's the one I'll go with.

"Since"!?

Since when [can monopoly only be held using violence or the threat thereof ?]

Since forever. The definition of monopoly is the control of a good, service or commodity held by force (against the customers, against potential competitors).

No violence was committed, yet. However, you are only in possession of the nugget. The unfettered 'right of disposal' is another story.

Why? If I possess something, do I not have a de facto right of disposal? And if you say that no violence was committed up until this point, does that not contradict your point that violence is the sole factor in deciding ownership? After all, by your own admission, I can possess something and (if no other human attempts to intervene) dispose of it as I please without violence. If another human does attempt to intervene, then the violence is on his part, not mine, and pertains not to ownership but to the attempt to usurp ownership.

Let's say it was a particularly large nugget, (but it doesn't really matter) and word gets out to others that you are in possession of a humongous nugget of gold. Surely, others will covet it (for that is the base definition of 'commercial value') and possibly seek to 'liberate it from your possession'.

How does that affect my right of ownership? I may have a large plasma TV, too, which doubtless others in this city would covet and seek to liberate from my possession. Do I not own my TV, then?

The criminal element would like nothing better than to see the abolition of gov't

Actually, the biggest criminal element in history and society is government. It has committed more murders than any other individual or group, stolen more money and property, kidnapped, tortured and raped more people, and so forth. Find me a crime and I'll show you that some government somewhere was its biggest perpetrator.

Now, if you're talking about petty criminals, it certainly is not the case. Private law enforcement would be more efficient, results-oriented, and due to competitive pressures far less vulnerable to bribery and corruption. The government monopoly over justice has given us a broken system, with massive prison populations, prevalent recidivism, failed deterrence, corruption and bribery, and many justice agents being little better than the criminals they supposedly protect us from.

They say necessity is the mother of invention, and social order (and thereby gov't) was borne out of the need to curb anarchy.

Government is not synonymous with social order. The best theory for the rise of government is that during the agricultural revolution, pastoral nomads would raid agricultural settlements during hard times to steal their grain. After a while, they realised it would be better to just make the agriculturalists work for them and protect them against other pastoralist raiders, taking a tribute of grain which they could obtain with a lot less effort. In effect, they made the agriculturalists their wards like their herds. And hey presto, you have a government: a body of armed men that expropriate by force in exchange for monopolised services.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Why? If I possess something, do I not have a de facto right of disposal? And if you say that no violence was committed up until this point, does that not contradict your point that violence is the sole factor in deciding ownership? After all, by your own admission, I can possess something and (if no other human attempts to intervene) dispose of it as I please without violence. If another human does attempt to intervene, then the violence is on his part, not mine, and pertains not to ownership but to the attempt to usurp ownership

Possession at the time of disposal is the only the penultimate factor regarding whether you recieve compensation for, or even live to see, the transfer of ownership.

Certainly violence doesn't need to be present every time. In fact, the vast majority of the time it isn't present. It is, however, the ultimate trump card.

How does that affect my right of ownership? I may have a large plasma TV, too, which doubtless others in this city would covet and seek to liberate from my possession. Do I not own my TV, then?

Sure you own your TV, as long as you retain an overwhelmingly violent means to keep it. That would be your state sponsored police department. Should they ever become de facto weaker than those that oppose it, your claim of ownership gets cast into doubt.

[Hugo]

Possession at the time of disposal is the only the penultimate factor regarding whether you recieve compensation for, or even live to see, the transfer of ownership.

Irrelevant. What I may gain from property or whether or not I transfer it has no bearing on whether or not I own it, which is the question here.

Certainly violence doesn't need to be present every time. In fact, the vast majority of the time it isn't present. It is, however, the ultimate trump card.

No, that's not what you said at all! This is your original contention:

Violence and the overwhelming use of force are the sole base factors in deciding ownership.

If they were the sole base factors, how could they not be present every time?

Sure you own your TV, as long as you retain an overwhelmingly violent means to keep it.

No. I own my TV until I willingly trade its title. The theft of the TV does not stop me owning it, just possessing it. If this were not true, the police would never investigate robberies, nor would we regard robbery as a crime, because it would just be thieves justly acquiring property, and once robbed, the victim would no longer have a moral claim on his goods.

Right?

Regardless, what you are basically saying is "might makes right", that it is natural and perhaps even just in society for the strong to prey upon the weak, enslave and expropriate them, and this should be the foundation of moral codes. This, certainly, would be a justification for the state, since there is no bigger practitioner of violence and expropriation than the state, and as they are the most violent and strong group in our society, certainly everything we own is basically bequeathed to them.

Where we differ is that I think this is morally wrong, whereas you don't appear to.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

QUOTE

Certainly violence doesn't need to be present every time. In fact, the vast majority of the time it isn't present. It is, however, the ultimate trump card.

No, that's not what you said at all! This is your original contention:

QUOTE

Violence and the overwhelming use of force are the sole base factors in deciding ownership.

If they were the sole base factors, how could they not be present every time?

What I am saying is that the act of violence need not occur every time, but it is always there in some form, be it in the form of a subtle or overt threat, or actual physical form. The subtle threat is the existence of state police, where everyone knows what consequences may occur for a thief, or an overt threat... "Stand and Deliver! Your money or your life!" (In both cases your money is gone)

Where we differ is that I think this is morally wrong, whereas you don't appear to.

No, I don't believe it is right, but as a pragmatist, I am saying 'that is what does be'. Depending on your point of view, it is both the lowest and the highest form of interaction. The lowest form, morally, if you believe in the good of society and the equality society's members, the highest form if you are on the right wing and believe that individual gain is 'the greatest good'.

[Hugo]

What I am saying is that the act of violence need not occur every time, but it is always there in some form, be it in the form of a subtle or overt threat, or actual physical form.

This is, logically, nonsense. Violence is a transgression of property rights, i.e. the right to self-ownership and the right to property ownership. One cannot claim that one has been a victim of violence if one's own person or property has not been aggressed against, and one cannot claim that such aggression is wrong unless one has a better claim to the object of aggression than the aggressor.

What you are saying, therefore, is that property is violence against property, the old Proudhonian fallacy. How can something be a transgression of itself?

No, I don't believe it is right, but as a pragmatist, I am saying 'that is what does be'. Depending on your point of view, it is both the lowest and the highest form of interaction.

That isn't pragmatism, that's resignation. It is not that you believe it is the best and most practical way, it is that you believe it is unjust but are unwilling or unable to do anything about it.