14 Aug 2014

You Might Be in Serfdom

Big Brother, Shameless Self-Promotion 178 Comments

With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy, my latest LibertyChat article. Lots of pictures! An excerpt:

* If the FAA imposes a no-fly zone above Ferguson “to provide a safe environment for law enforcement activities,” then you might be in serfdom.

* When the police start arresting peaceful journalists covering the story, then you just might be in serfdom.

* When the same two political parties have controlled the White House since the Pierce Administration in 1853, you might be in serfdom.

178 Responses to “You Might Be in Serfdom”

  1. Robert says:

    None of those things have anything to do with serfdom. You’re just listing things you don’t like and saying serfdom. Seriously, airport security is a pain, but its a joke to call it serfdom.

    • Tel says:

      Well it would be difficult to call it “freedom”.

      • Robert says:

        There is obviously a middle ground between the two

        • Richie says:

          But eventually the middle ground gets wider between the two due to the scope creep of “security.”

        • Ben B says:

          How tenable is this middle ground? We’d be more likely to sustain an Anarcho-Capitalist society than a “middle-ground” society.

        • Grane Peer says:

          What is the obvious middle ground between freedom and serfdom? Condom?

    • Bob Roddis says:

      Serf: a person in a condition of servitude, required to render services to a lord, commonly attached to the lord’s land and transferred with it from one owner to another.

      Airport security is the lord forcing the serf to grovel.

      • Robert says:

        You do know that airport security don’t do their job just for the fun of it? They do it over genuine security concerns not just to humiliate people.

        • LK says:

          Not to mention (1) that the airport doesn’t “own” you like a serf, (2) all private airports could just as easily require the same security checks to use their facility.

          So maybe bob roddis has proven that private airports would force serfdom on their clients! lol..

          • Richie says:

            1) The airport is not providing “security”, the TSA is, which is a government agency, and

            2) Sure, all airports could require all of the same security checks, but if consumes use other methods of travel and airlines begin losing money, one airport will ease the security requirements. They don’t have that option now. Why? See (1).

            • Richie says:

              Consumers*

              • Philippe says:

                “one airport will ease the security requirements. They don’t have that option now”

                A plane potentially exploding over a city is not just the concern of a private company and its customers.

              • Matt S says:

                Phillipe said: “A plane potentially exploding over a city is not just the concern of a private company and its customers.”

                Why would a company not be concerned about letting their expensive equipment falling into the hands of terrorists and killings hundreds of people and causing massive amounts of property damage and lawsuits against them?

              • Richie says:

                “Ease” does not mean “none.”

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “A plane potentially exploding over a city is not just the concern of a private company and its customers.”

                Right. It is the concern of a few.

                It isn’t the concern of the entire world. You know, like how you are not concerned about certain past airplane crashes as you occupy your mind on this site.

          • Tel says:

            (2) all private airports could just as easily require the same security checks to use their facility.

            A marketplace would impose two-way pressure, resulting in a balances trade off.

            People feeling greatly inconvenienced would seek out the private airport with the easiest security checks, people worried about terrorists might go for the most thorough checks. Thus, the power of giving choice to the customers automatically delivers profits to the airport doing what people want.

            With government, you don’t get a choice, so there is no tradeoff, so it goes in one direction only.

            • Ken B says:

              No flights paths over Sydney?

              • Tel says:

                There’s heaps of flight paths over Sydney. Supposedly there’s a curfew to help us sleep at night but I can tell you from experience it is honoured in the breach. Funny how the law works for some.

                Not quite so sure what the relevance of this might be, isn’t difficult for an aircraft to head off on a different flight path. For that matter someone might put a bomb on a truck and take it just about anywhere, what would our government saviours do? Pick up the pieces afterwards and find yet another reason to take away our freedom.

                It really will be a one way trip until the population in general pulls finger and decides that police work is better handled locally by the community rather than an isolated paramilitary force, which also implies police can’t enforce majority decisions regarding lifestyle.

              • Ken B says:

                You mentioned markets with two way pressure. This is a three way matter. Unsafe or hijacked planes affect others who do not fly. Such as people in tall buildings or on flight paths. So an analysis which omits that is unconvincing.

              • Tel says:

                Yeah, and truck bombs affect people who don’t know how to drive, and suitcase bombs affect people with poor dress sense, and sometimes you get this guy who farts in the elevator right before he gets out at his floor. I mean what’s with that?

                There’s lots of ways for people to initiate violence if they want to, so your point is, “look an aeroplane!”

            • scineram says:

              People feeling greatly inconvenienced would seek out the private airport with the easiest security checks, people worried about terrorists might go for the most thorough checks. Thus, the power of giving choice to the customers automatically delivers profits to the airport doing what people want.

              How is that going to help me when an attacked plane falls on me?

              • Gamble says:

                You should purchase the home with reinforced roof.

        • Ben B says:

          You do realize that being against the TSA’s security protocol is not the same as being against airport security in general, right?

        • Mike T says:

          If by security concerns you also include the financial security concerns of people like the former head of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff getting paid directly by Rapiscan after securing a $173 million contract to provide naked body scanners to TSA personnel while he was taking the media tour promoting that company’s product without disclosing they were a client of his. How convenient.

        • Major.Freedom says:

          Robert,

          “You do know that airport security don’t do their job just for the fun of it?”

          That is a grossly inaccurate generalization.

          http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/tsa-screener-confession-102912_full.html

        • Grane Peer says:

          Robert, how do you know the motivations of people who do what they are told?

    • Major.Freedom says:

      Frog in a currently cold but heated pot of water yells he might be in a pot of boiling water.

      Thankfully, the frog’s neighbor Frogbert is there to ensure accuracy is made more important than the frog being in a pot of water that will soon feel pretty uncomfortable.

      Good thing we have Frogbert. Don’t want to insult those frogs who were actually killed by boiling water, or, you know, his sensitivity and wanting to remind himself and others that we should not exaggerate.

  2. Harold says:

    Serf: “a person in a condition of servitude, required to render services to a lord, commonly attached to the lord’s land and transferred with it from one owner to another.”

    Apparently there were different classes of serfs. Villeins were the highest class. From Wiki: “As part of the contract with the landlord, the lord of the manor, they were expected to spend some of their time working on the lord’s fields. The requirement often was not greatly onerous, contrary to popular belief, and was often only seasonal, for example the duty to help at harvest-time. The rest of their time was spent farming their own land for their own profit… Villeins were tied to the land and could not move away without their lord’s consent and the acceptance of the lord to whose manor they proposed to migrate to.”

    If we say Government instead of Lord of the Manor, this is rather like the relationship we have with the state today. Some may argue the only difference is the in the old days the requirement was not greatly onerous, whereas today it is much more so! However, it is a bit of a stretch to compare the entire country with a manor. Villeins were not able to move freely within a limited distance.

    • Philippe says:

      that’s funny, because a common complaint against anarcho-capitalism is that it would be a form of neo-feudalism in practice.

      • LK says:

        Yes, anarcho-capitalism resembles feudalism — a system of private contractual arrangements where defence and justice are contacted out.

        The power relations in an anarcho-capitalist society would appear to be rather like feudalism: you “contract” with a private protection firm, except there is no cental power like a king or even any criminal laws.

        If history is any guide, a movement towards anarcho-capitalism might well result in the kind of incessant violence and warfare between private warlords/protection agencies, as in medieval feudalism. With no monoply on force to make people obey the law, what’s to stop every powerful warlord from refusing to obey the law and bribing or attacking any private defence agency who gets in his way?

        • Bob Roddis says:

          1. Obviously, a strict, meticulous and widely practiced prohibition on the initiation of violence will cause much more violence. Further, employing violence and SWAT teams to deal with perceived but contrived problems of “sticky prices” won’t invariably lead to much more violence. That make sense.

          2. Two very slow learners are stumped by the simple, true and self evident concepts of value and price in Austrian economics:

          http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2014/08/value-and-price-in-austrian-economics.html

          • LK says:

            ” meticulous and widely practiced prohibition on the initiation of violence”

            And how do you know that the “prohibition on the initiation of violence” will actually be widely enforced in Rothbardtopia? What of people who can’t afford protection services? What if some initiators of violence like warlords are powerful enough to fight off any opposition?

            • Bob Roddis says:

              If the NAP is not widely practiced and enforced both formally and culturally, it means that AnCap has not been established.

            • Bob Roddis says:

              This is like where a guy chugs two fifths of vodka and smokes 3 packs of unfiltered cigarettes every day and complains to the doctor that he is in bad health. The doctor begs him to stop drinking and smoking. He keeps on and dies.

              LK shows up and explains to everyone that not drinking and not smoking killed the guy AND that proposing he stop drinking and smoking was a fantasy.

              • Philippe says:

                Your ideology is not about ‘prohibiting the initiation of violence’.

                According to the ‘non aggression principle’, what constitutes aggression depends on who legitimately owns what.

                So for example, according to the NAP, if tax revenue is the legitimate property of the state then requiring payment of tax or enforcing payment is not ‘aggression’.

              • Philippe says:

                Bob, you just avoided LK’s questions with your typical nonsense.

                1. how do you know that the “prohibition on the initiation of violence” will actually be widely enforced in Rothbardtopia?

                2. What of people who can’t afford protection services?

                3. What if some initiators of violence like warlords are powerful enough to fight off any opposition?

              • Bob Roddis says:

                how do you know that the “prohibition on the initiation of violence” will actually be widely enforced in Rothbardtopia?

                I don’t. But if it isn’t widely understood and enforced then you can’t call it “Rothbardtopia” can you? See the cigarette example above.

                Slow learners.

              • Bob Roddis says:

                Regarding “affording justice”, the reason “justice” is so expensive now is the same reason medical care is so expensive. A complex predatory bureaucracy and “rent seekers” grabbing and running the serfs through the system for the benefit of people living off the system.

                Slow learners.

              • Philippe says:

                “I don’t. But if it isn’t widely understood and enforced then you can’t call it “Rothbardtopia” can you?”

                So when your imagined utopia predictably turns into a crime and violence-ridden chaos, you’d just shrug your shoulders and say ‘it’s not really rothbardtopia’, just like the soviet union ‘wasn’t really communism’.

                Moron.

              • Philippe says:

                “the reason “justice” is so expensive now…”

                typical evasion and unsubstantiated assertions. You have no good answers, only moronic rhetoric.

              • Bob Roddis says:

                “when your imagined utopia predictably turns into a crime and violence-ridden chaos”

                The NAP didn’t “turn into” anything such as its opposite. If people do not understand, abide by and enforce the NAP, then it has not yet been established. See the vodka and cigarette example.

              • Philippe says:

                Your imagined utopia is not ‘the NAP’.

                Rothbardism is a specific fringe political ideology, based on particular beliefs about property and justice. It is not ‘the NAP’.

                You don’t even understand the basic point that ‘the NAP’ is largely meaningless without agreement about who legitimately owns what, and on what terms, do you.

              • Bob Roddis says:

                Rothbardism is a specific fringe political ideology, based on particular beliefs about property and justice.

                Philippe:

                Such a marvelous argument in support of your beloved violence. Your analytic and rhetorical skills are without peer.

              • Philippe says:

                you really are a total moron, beyond help.

                There’s nothing ‘non-violent’ about Rothbardtopia.

                Your particular, very unusual beliefs about property and justice have almost nothing to do with the views of the overwhelming majority of people. Your beliefs are those of a tiny, weird cult.

              • Richie says:

                “you really are a total moron, beyond help.”

                The civility of Austrian opponents is heart-warming.

              • Philippe says:

                you never have much to say, do you Richie.

              • Bob Roddis says:

                The civility of Austrian opponents is heart-warming.

                So is their insight.

                LK: The upshot is, according to Austrians, that subjective value cannot be measured with any objective unit at all, but market prices are objective as units of money that emerge in exchanges between buyers and sellers

                Philippe: I’m not sure how that makes sense.

                http://tinyurl.com/lgyuopl

              • K.P. says:

                “Your particular, very unusual beliefs about property and justice have almost nothing to do with the views of the overwhelming majority of people. Your beliefs are those of a tiny, weird cult.”

                With all sincerity, who cares?

                Tiny, weird cult doesn’t mean incorrect.

              • Bob Roddis says:

                K.P.: I think it’s important for us to understand that no matter how tiny and weird we might be, our opponents are threatened to the core of their being by us and, because they cannot refute us, they instead ignore, suppress and insult us. I find their response fascinating.

                It probably means things are hopeless, but it’s still fascinating.

              • Scott D says:

                Philippe:

                “So for example, according to the NAP, if tax revenue is the legitimate property of the state then requiring payment of tax or enforcing payment is not ‘aggression’.”

                In Australia, fuel tax rates were recently increased. Please logically explain how the Australian government legally owns a share of each person’s income that is indexed to the amount of fuel they consume. Also, please explain why the government did not own this share of income before an act of parliament made it so.

                Thanks.

              • Philippe says:

                “they instead ignore, suppress and insult us”

                That’s hilarious given that you are completely ignorant of economics in general, you make no attempt to really understand anything that does not conform to your strange belief system, and you constantly insult people who do not share your strange beliefs.

              • Tel says:

                So when your imagined utopia predictably turns into a crime and violence-ridden chaos,

                Like Detroit and Chicago you mean? Those lands of Progressive over-governing.

              • Tel says:
              • Harold says:

                Bob Roddis. I rather like your smoking and drinking example, but I am not quite sure what you mean.

                It seems to me that Rothbardtopia is where nobody smokes or drinks to excess becasue they know it is bad for them, so everybody is pretty healthy. LK points out that this state of affairs isn’t likely to be achieved simply by telling people that smoking is not healthy. BR then points out that any society where people do smoke is clearly not Rothbardtopia, so such arguments are moot.

              • Scott D says:

                Is it just silly of me to ask for Philippe to justify his views on taxation? I just want to know how, other than an arbitrary decision of parliament, the Australian government gets property rights to its citizen’s wealth that is proportional to the amount of fuel they consume.

                In other words, are we saying that all wealth created within a some lines on a map belongs to the government that claims that region, and the government is generous enough to let people keep some of their wealth (ie. slavery).

                Or, are we simply saying that choosing to occupy space and continue breathing within the region bound by the lines on the map claimed by the government means that the citizen automatically agrees to any and all future claims that the government should make on that person’s income? And is that really any different?

            • Grane Peer says:

              “What if some initiators of violence like warlords are powerful enough to fight off any opposition?”

              Do you mean like government? What is your complaint, that rothbardtopia will look no different than today?

        • Reece says:

          “Liberalism resembles feudalism, because in both cases there is a centralized government.”

          “Liberalism resembles Stalinist communism, because in both cases there is a centralized government.”

          “Anarcho-capitalism resembles Stalinist communism because in both cases there are humans involved”

          I could make hundreds of these. Resembling a few parts of another system in no way means it would be anything like it.

          The private contractual arrangements are completely different. Most importantly, the lords are contracting with property that isn’t rightfully theirs. If you think anarcho-capitalism is just everything being privatized, then logically you must think that anarcho-capitalists have no problem with individuals stealing; property would just be switching from one private hand to another. Serfs also couldn’t leave at all in most systems without their lord’s permission – how can there be a valid contract under those circumstances? Even if it was valid, can you really say that the parents can bind their CHILDREN to the same contract (or any contract with the lord, actually)? And what about the slaves that many lords owned? And the violence that the lords enacted on people in other areas through warfare? The lords committed so many violations of any reasonable rights theory, that even if the land was theirs (which it wasn’t) they would certainly lose any right to it.

          The lack of a king, as you said, is a big difference too. For example, if there was an inefficient firm, they could sell it without needing permission from a king (unlike under feudalism). They also could significantly free the serfs without needing permission from the king. Do you really think a king helped limit the feudal system?

        • Reece says:

          “With no monoply on force… what’s to stop every powerful warlord from refusing to obey the law and bribing or attacking any private defence agency who gets in his way?”

          1) Angering the population due to increased fees and moral issues. Note that anarchy beats the state here; people can switch to a different defense agency, while they can’t do so under a state. One could argue that they could use force to stop people from switching, but this would be a radical change, further angering the people (it would be like suspending the vote in the current United States – possible, but unlikely, and would likely lead to rebellion).
          2) The money could go toward other ends instead. The warlord could buy a mansion, for example, rather than paying for an army. Since politicians cannot directly spend tax money on themselves, they have less other options – so it’s more likely that politicians would become the warlords under government, than powerful private warlords popping up under anarchy or governments.
          3) It’s difficult to bribe other people, due to them wanting to get something more in return. Since government officials can’t keep the money they control, they would be willing to make a trade costing their taxpayers more than what they got from the warlord. A private individual would not be willing to be bribed more than what they expected to lose from the bribe (revenue from their customers). So, anarchy easily wins on this point.

          Why don’t countries constantly invade each other despite no monopoly of violence above them?

          Anarcho-capitalism wouldn’t be perfect, but it would likely be better than the state, and certainly not worse.

          • Philippe says:

            “Angering the population due to increased fees and moral issues… people can switch to a different defense agency”

            People ruled by warlords they don’t like could choose to opt for a different warlord?

            “The warlord could buy a mansion”

            Or maybe he could buy loads and loads of mansions by seizing control of those oil fields and weapons depots over there.

            “A private individual would not be willing to be bribed more than what they expected to lose from the bribe”

            So people will accept bribes (of course), but you simply imagine that they might, for some vague unsubstantiated reason, be less likely to in imaginary ancap world.

            • Reece says:

              “People ruled by warlords they don’t like could choose to opt for a different warlord?”

              No, I was talking about if a private defense organization was the warlord or if the warlord collaborated with the private defense organization. People could switch in those cases. If they went beyond the very essence of the society, then it would be like someone overthrowing the democracy in this country – there would be quite a bit of outrage. So, either warlords would be less likely (if the anarchy/democracy remained) or it would be the same likely (if the anarchy/democracy was overthrown).

              “Or maybe he could buy loads and loads of mansions by seizing control of those oil fields and weapons depots over there.”

              Indeed. That could happen under government too. But, the difference between the government doing it and a private individual is that often the government cannot choose to buy the mansion instead.

              “So people will accept bribes (of course), but you simply imagine that they might, for some vague unsubstantiated reason, be less likely to in imaginary ancap world.”

              “…vague unsubstantiated reason…”

              As I explained in my post, government officials can offer more for less. If I bribe a government official $10,000 to spend $50,000 on something, then he may take it. But if I bribe a defense company $10,000 to do something that would cost him/his customers $50,000, he would be highly unlikely to do it.

              • Philippe says:

                “there would be quite a bit of outrage”

                There would be quite a bit of outrage if warlords started attacking people. What would people do about it?

                “People could switch in those cases”

                Do you understand what warlord means?

                If people don’t like being abused by the mafia, do they have the option to switch to another criminal gang?

                “the difference between the government doing it and a private individual is that often the government cannot choose to buy the mansion instead.”

                If you had a dictator who could spend whatever he wanted on himself, do you think that would make him less likely to want to be a violent, ruthless, exploitative dictator?

                “government officials can offer more for less”

                So again, you think that dictators are less likely to be corrupt?

              • Reece says:

                “There would be quite a bit of outrage if warlords started attacking people. What would people do about it?”

                They could rebel, volunteer to other resistance tactics, give money to resistors, offer money to any organization that helped them, etc. What could people do if the president overthrew the democracy and declared a dictatorship? At least in an anarchy, they would have a harder time preparing for this overthrow since it would be fairly expensive (which would push consumers to competitors).

                “Do you understand what warlord means?
                If people don’t like being abused by the mafia, do they have the option to switch to another criminal gang?”

                Please re-read what I wrote. I named two specific cases. One, where someone completely violates the rules of the society (overthrowing the democracy/anarchy) and the other where the warlord just takes down other defense organizations (other countries/private agencies). Both of these would fit into any reasonable definition of warlord, and both are possible.

                As for dictators – Since dictators come in through force (often from former democracies), are often unlikely to hold onto their title for significant periods (or be able to trade it or pass it on), and usually don’t have people recognizing their right to take as much as they like, no. If you look at the British monarchy for example, they had to create government granted monopolies in order to funnel money to themselves – it would obviously be more efficient to just take more money. Private defense organizations or other private individuals cannot be reasonably compared to dictators. If the concern is them becoming warlords, then clearly they are not yet a warlord and so would 1) Be around average on their ethical considerations of killing a bunch of people 2) Have the ability to trade and pass on their property 3) Have the population recognize their property titles. Remember, most dictators only become dictators because they are the type of people that take expansionary risks and have low moral considerations. So comparing the average dictator to the average democratic leader is ridiculous. A better example (but still weak example due to most people thinking they have a right to not have enormous amounts of their property taxed) would be comparing long-term monarchies (like Liechtenstein) to long-term democracies (like the United States). I think it’s clear US politicians are far more likely to take bribes and far more likely to start wars.

              • Philippe says:

                oh you think monarchs are a peaceful bunch do you. I guess you didn’t study history at school.

              • Reece says:

                “oh you think monarchs are a peaceful bunch do you. I guess you didn’t study history at school.”

                Come on, Philippe. I never said that, and I actually find it insulting to be mischaracterized in that way.

                If you read what I wrote, I said “[dictators] are often unlikely to hold onto their title for significant periods (or be able to trade it or pass it on), and usually don’t have people recognizing their right to take as much as they like.” I went on to apply this to the British monarchy in the past.

                The closest thing in my post I can find to saying monarchies are “a peaceful bunch” is when I said long-term stable monarchies (i.e., ones without their heads ever getting cut off) are probably more likely to avoid war than long-term stable democracies. That doesn’t mean ANY monarch is peaceful, let alone ALL monarchs.

                I’m an anarchist. I don’t think any government is peaceful.

        • Major.Freedom says:

          LK:

          Anarcho-capitalism is anti-feudalism.

          It not only does not “resemble” it, but ironically your ideology of statism is closest to feudalism. State lords extract rent from the citizen serfs. State lords are final arbitrator of disputes between the citizen serfs and the state lords themselves.

        • Grane Peer says:

          Yes LK, if we had an ancap society it might devolve into the exact same world we have today.

  3. DanB says:

    The resemblance between Matt Walsh and pajama boy is quite striking.

  4. Z says:

    Stop serf-shaming people Bob. STOP IT!!

  5. Enopoletus Harding says:

    4. Take Back the Streets: Crush Criminals. And by this I mean, of course, not “white collar criminals” or “inside traders” but violent street criminals – robbers, muggers, rapists, murderers. Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error.
    5. Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear, that is, move from the ranks of the petted and cosseted bum class to the ranks of the productive members of society.

    -Somehow, I don’t think this person would think Ferguson is presently in a state of serfdom.

    • Enopoletus Harding says:

      Given the failure of the tazer, given the outlawing of the choke hold, there was only one thing the cops could do: and that was to beat Rodney King into submission with batons. Except a couple of baton blows couldn’t do it.

      -Somehow, I still don’t think this icon of liberty would have disapproved of the militarization and excessive force of the Ferguson police, or even of the shooting of Michael Brown.

  6. Enopoletus Harding says:

    Before we rush past the riots themselves, the whole point of government, of an institution with a monopoly, or preponderance, of violence, is to use it to defend persons and property against violent assault. That role is not as obvious as it may seem, since the Los Angeles, state, and federal forces most conspicuously did not perform that function. Sending in police and troops late and depriving them of bullets, cannot do the job.
    There is only one way to fulfill the vital police function, the only way that works: the public announcement–backed by willingness to enforce it–made by the late Mayor Richard Daley in the Chicago riots of the 1960s–ordering the police to shoot to kill any looters, rioters, arsonists, or muggers they might find. That very announcement was enough to induce the rioters to pocket their “rage” and go back to their peaceful pursuits.
    Who knows the hearts of men? Who knows all the causes, the motivations, of action? But one thing is clear: regardless of the murky “causes,” would-be looters and muggers would get such a message loud and clear.

    -Again, somehow, I don’t think this person would think Ferguson is presently in a state of serfdom, especially considering
    http://www.ksdk.com/picture-gallery/news/crime/2014/08/11/photos-ferguson-riot-damage/13885193/
    and
    http://www.news.com.au/world/riots-looting-in-ferguson-missouri-after-protest-against-police-for-shooting-death-of-michael-brown/story-fndir2ev-1227020823340

  7. Ken B says:

    If an invisible being owns you and can punish you for eternity then you might be in serfdom.

    If your neighbors can hire thugs to shoot you if you wander close to land they claim, then you might in serfdom.

    • Reece says:

      “If your neighbors can hire thugs to shoot you if you wander close to land they claim, then you might in serfdom.”

      Great point. http://articles.latimes.com/2014/feb/27/nation/la-na-border-killings-20140227

    • Matt S says:

      You’re a serf if I can shoot you for trespassing on my property?

      How so?

      • Major.Freedom says:

        Because Ken B supports foreign navies occupying waters of his coastal town. He supports those foreign navies sending threats of theft and invasion if he doesn’t allow them to pee in his bed while he’s on vacation at the 3 month all inclusive ban resort and ostracizing spa. After all, he wouldn’t be there to pee in his own bed. He wouldn’t be “using” it at that time. He wouldn’t want to impose serfdom on them. Cuz his logic is consistent unlike Bob’s, bwahahahaha

      • Ken B says:

        Where did I say anything about your property? I said what you claimed was your property.

        • Matt S says:

          So they have claimed land that is not rightfully theirs?

          So if they did rightfully own the land you would agree that it would be ok if they did?

    • Z says:

      If a blue freak is able to shoot you with his hunting shotgun, you might be in smurfdom.

      • Grane Peer says:

        Z, I know there are many questions regarding the lifestyle of Smurfette as the only female but I don’t think it is fair to assume they are all freaks.

        • Z says:

          Grane, you’re either with us, or you’re with the little blue freaks. Pick wisely, I warn you.

          • Grane Peer says:

            I don’t join groups

    • Grane Peer says:

      Ken B, I assume your invisible being is god, if so your remark is correct. One caveat: If such a being exists and your comment be his will then there is absolutely nothing to be done about it. You could have just said that if one wishes to live he will be forever a serf to the fulfillment of his hunger. Snore.

      Who is advocating shooting people for being close to property?

      • Ken B says:

        You are missing the context. Bob Murphy argues his god owns people. Yet he raises no objection to that form of “serfdom”.

        • Grane Peer says:

          If and I stress If, Bob is correct then raising an objection would be to no avail. Humanity’s serfdom would be an immutable truth of the cosmos. Just as whatever one would wish to do with their life they can’t overcome having to exert effort to sustain it. You can still bitch about it, I guess, but It won’t change anything. Being subjected to the machinations of the nobility, however unlikely, is not beyond the possibility of alteration.

          • Harold says:

            Since God’s will is ultimately good, then the state of serfdom itself is not one that is necessarily undesirable. One may be in serfdom, but hey, ho, that might be the best way to be.

            The original post implies that serfdom is not a good state to be in. Either that or it is a trivial point.

            Does Bob would agree that God “owns” us. There may be some different metaphysical category to describe our relationship with the postulated god.

            • Grane Peer says:

              Good by who”s measure?

            • Harold says:

              I meant that if you accept the Christian version then God’s will is ultimately good. Thus if you believe you are owned by this being, then you also believe that this is good.

  8. K.P. says:

    So it’s clear, everything might could be serfdom.

    Now, which form of serfdom is the best?

  9. Major.Freedom says:

    Philippe:

    In your exchange with Roddis above regarding “Rothbardia”, I notice why, and can explain, why it is that you find the argument so wrong/unpersuasive/unlikely/etc.

    You wrote these passages:

    “Your ideology is not about ‘prohibiting the initiation of violence’. According to the ‘non aggression principle’, what constitutes aggression depends on who legitimately owns what. So for example, according to the NAP, if tax revenue is the legitimate property of the state then requiring payment of tax or enforcing payment is not ‘aggression’.”

    You continue to use this flawed argument. If what you say here is true, then no ideology is about anything whatever, because you can always use your rhetorical tactic of simply associating any stated ideology with “it depends on who owns what, and I don’t agree, so there.” Your ideology for example can simply be “refuted” by an anarcho-capitalist ideologue saying “your ideology is not what you say it is, because it depends on who owns what, and I disagree with you, so there.”

    You are not actually making a substantive argument. You are just trying to strip away the libertarian argument from its rationalist foundation and turning it into nothing but a series of propositions dependent solely on arbitrary rules, i.e. definitions, for words. Thus, libertarians cannot claim to be anti-violence, because their definition of violence is not another definition of violence. It is just “a” definition.
    Well, according to that logic, you cannot claim that the Nazis were pro-violence, because violence depends on who owns what. So as you say: “If for example the Nazis owned all businesses homesteaded and traded by others prior to 1933, and they owned the bodies of those they threw into ovens, then according to the principle of non-violence, they did not commit any violence. The Nazis were by your rhetorical evasion tactic a non-violent group. It all depends on who owns what. So no Philippe, your ideology that holds the Nazis as pro-violence is false.

    Philippe, if you remain in definitional land, then even though you think you are poking all kinds of holes in libertarianism, what you are actually doing is preventing your own argument from being any better. For everything you say about libertarianism “depending on who owns what” would of course apply to your ideology as well. Your ideology would then also depend on who owns what, and you cannot claim your ideology is what you think it is.

    “1. how do you know that the “prohibition on the initiation of violence” will actually be widely enforced in Rothbardtopia?”

    That is what Rothbardia IS, Philippe. It is that world where enough people DO think that initiations of violence should be prohibited, such that initiations of violence are sufficiently stopped and controlled that states cannot form.

    You keep identifying Rothbardia as a sort of vacuum, when it is not a vacuum at all, but a PRESENCE of anarcho-capitalist activity. When anarcho-capitalist activity is PRESENT, then that IS presupposing an ethic that prohibits violence. What kind of violence? Aggression against who owns what. Who owns what? All ethics presuppose SOME claim as to whoowns what, and in the case of anarcho-capitalist ethics, it is not the late comers with the biggest guns who own the land, but the original homesteaders, however weak or outnumbered they are. That is who libertarians regard as the “who” who owns what. Your ideology by contrast holds that the late comers with the biggest guns who can overpower and intimidate enough homesteaders so as to form a monopoly on final arbitration and dispute resolution, are the “who” who owns what. They own “tax revenues”, which is just another way of saying they are rentiers who extract rent from homesteaders.

    “2. What of people who can’t afford protection services?”

    Then they become citizens like you. You can’t afford defending yourself from the state. You don’t have enough money to buy enough weapons and gunpower to successfully stop the state from taking your money to finance what you are opposed to, nor can you stop it from imposing its regulations on your person and property that you are opposed to.

    But there is a difference in anarcho-capitalism. A huge one in fact. In anarcho-capitalism, if anyone tried to act like a state and impose their will on your person and property, if they take your money to finance what you oppose, and if they tell you what you can and cannot do with your own property, even if your usage does not initiate force against other people’s persons or property, all of this, because we are talking about anarcho-capitalism being practised by enough people so as to make a territorial monopoly on final arbitration impossible, then whoever is victimizing you would be generally understood as a criminal, exactly like most people understand a petty thief or harasser as a criminal, except there are no get out of jail free cards for anyone, and certainly not those wearing badges and calling themselves “the” law.

    In anarcho-capitalism, most of the laws that you regard as just in terms of stopping violent criminals, would apply to those who are right now “statesmen.” They would not just apply to “citizens”.

    In short, anarcho-capitalism is just homesteading ethics. It applies to everyone.

    So if you were victimized by violence against your person or property, then you will have the incredible benefit of being generally known as an actual victim, and not just a “spoiled brat” who wants to “life by his own laws” and “won’t pay his fair share to society” and even one who “wants to free ride” by not paying his aggressor.

    “3. What if some initiators of violence like warlords are powerful enough to fight off any opposition?”

    You mean like the first state in the US? Then it means there are not enough people who believe in non-violence against homesteaders, such that the world looks the way you believe it must look, or should look. You would be fulfilling your own prophecy by believing X must happen, so you act in accordance with it, and if enough people falsely believe their future is predetermined to be statist, then they will also act in accordance with it, and before you know it, lo and behold a state forms.

    Is your argument really just “If people believe states are inevitable, then states will likely form”?

    Gee whizz, the same shallow thought is exactly what led to the rise of Communism during the 19th century. Marxism regards communism as inevitable, as certain as “an inexorability of a law of nature”. Enough people became convinced that communism was inevitable, and that played a huge role in communism actually arising in so many countries.

    Is it really so difficult to accept that your more modest belief that states as such are inevitable, has something to do with states actually existing? If people can think communism isn’t actually inevitable, that humans can choose to avoid it, then why not any other ethic, including all statism?

    Anarcho-capitalism is NOT merely an absence of something, i.e. a state. It is a core component to be sure, but notice that anarcho-capitalism isn’t just anarchism. It is anarchism PLUS the positive component of capitalism, i.e. respect for property rights. It IS that world where enough people learn and understand and accept that initiations of violence is wrong for ANYONE to do, including those who are in the state. What has to happen is for enough people to recognize that what they might believe is non-violent, e.g. taxation, is actually violence because that money rightfully belongs to homesteaders, and not late comers with the biggest guns or popular support from others who themselves don’t understand taxation is violence.

    Ideas can and do change. It was “Utopian” for pro-democracy advocates in 1000 AD to claim that the world can become democratic if only people changed their minds about oriental despotism and monarchy. Your quite frankly childish quip that anarcho-capitalism is “fringe” and “Utopian” is really just you trying to intimidate myself and Roddis into abandoning what we believe is right by suggesting that merely being outnumbered is sufficient grounds for us to feel bad and to completely drop what we believe is right.

    Yor rhetorical tactic can be used to justify slavery, by the way. A thousand years ago the thought of prohibiting slavery was a “fringe” belief, that “the majority rejects.”. I am not saying you support slavery, I am just saying your argument can be used to support slavery.

    “So when your imagined utopia predictably turns into a crime and violence-ridden chaos, you’d just shrug your shoulders and say ‘it’s not really rothbardtopia’, just like the soviet union ‘wasn’t really communism’.”

    You are implicitly claiming to know that anarcho-capitalism will look like. You say “predictably” as if you can predict not only your own future knowledge and preferences, but everyone else’s as well.

    You have no rational grounds for making that “prediction”. You are just claiming ex cathedra that no state equals violence ridden chaos. Again, that argument can be used to keep slavery going in an enslaved world. ” If we abolish slavery all the slaves will revolt and we’ll all be at permanent war. We should maintain slavery so that the world doen’t “precictably” turn into a “violence ridden chaos.”

    You know what is actually going on in your mind? No, you are not privy to some secret key of the universe that enables you to discern the course of history. You’re just a little ignorant and a little frightened, and your mind is spinning and that spinning is what you percieve to be what the external world would look like. Chaos, without order, etc. That is just your disordered mind, nothing more. It is like you struggling with a difficult math problem, and you falsely interpreting your stress, anxiety, anger, etc, as you somehow “predicting” the future.

    If anarcho-capitalism arises, it will only arise because enough people support and act on prohibiting initiations of violence against homesteader freedom. If a state should ever “arise” out of that, then it will only be because of a rejection of anarcho-capitalist ethics. It will be because of YOUR ethics becoming more widely believed, accepted, and acted upon. I submit it will be unlikely for a state to form in a world where most people believe states are immoral. But I do not, unlike you, presume to predict the future knowledge and ethical beliefs of the unborn.

    “the reason “justice” is so expensive now…”

    “typical evasion and unsubstantiated assertions. You have no good answers, only moronic rhetoric.”

    Not a valid response to the argument presented. You are just evading it.

    “Your imagined utopia is not ‘the NAP’.

    “Rothbardism is a specific fringe political ideology, based on particular beliefs about property and justice. It is not ‘the NAP.”

    The NAP is fringe, and based on particular beliefs about property and justice.

    What is your point? You are not refuting an argument by calling it “fringe”. Democracy and slave emancipation were once “fringe”.

    ” You don’t even understand the basic point that ‘the NAP’ is largely meaningless without agreement about who legitimately owns what, and on what terms, do you.”

    Your agreement is not required before my understanding of the NAP has “meaning.” You and one other person’s agreements are also not required. Neither is the agreement of you and two others necessary. Notice a pattern? If I am the only one in the world who believes in democracy or the only one who believes in slave emancipation, that does not mean democracy or slave emancipation have “largely no meaning.” They have the same meaning if one or if everyone believes in them.

    Truth and justice are not grounded on popularity contests. The majority cannot turn murder into moral behavior, nor can the majority turn homesteading ethics into immoral behavior.

    “That’s hilarious given that you are completely ignorant of economics in general, you make no attempt to really understand anything that does not conform to your strange belief system, and you constantly insult people who do not share your strange beliefs.”

    Dude, like do you ever engage in self-reflection? Like, ever? You just freaking described yourself, and your own approach towards anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-capitalists.

    Your belief system is strange to those of us who regard initiations of violence against homesteaders as immoral.

    “Angering the population due to increased fees and moral issues… people can switch to a different defense agency”

    “People ruled by warlords they don’t like could choose to opt for a different warlord?”

    Don’t you pro-statists always say that if we don’t like what the government does, we can move to another place ruled by another government? Yes you do.

    “The warlord could buy a mansion”

    “Or maybe he could buy loads and loads of mansions by seizing control of those oil fields and weapons depots over there.”

    Are you one of the state’s advisor wannabes? That is what that criminal gang is doing and has been doing for decades.

    • Raja says:

      A gem.

    • Bob Roddis says:

      Not to ruin the mood, but it seems to me LK has moved in a bit closer while sniffing out the thought-crime of “economic calculation”. He was circling from blocks away, and now he’s halfway down the block.

      http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/08/you-might-be-in-serfdom.html#comment-807708

      • Major.Freedom says:

        LK’s method is to get closer to the truth by mistakingly thinking he intellectually crushed the people who helped him there. I notice a change in his beliefs, for the better, but if he wants to believe he has been demolishing us, then I say good. My goal is to live in a world with more intelligent people, not more of those who like me or agree with me.

        • LK says:

          “I notice a change in his beliefs,”

          Yah, I suppose you imagine a lot of things in the fantasy world you live in, a world where words can be redefined at will and the fallacy of equivocation is your tactic in every argument.

          • Z says:

            Why are you guys still talking about this? None of this is important.

            • Bob Roddis says:

              LK is the NUMBER ONE anti-Austrian on the planet. His obfuscations and distortions are interesting and clever. Plus, he realizes that the concepts upon which he focuses to distort should be the focus of Austrian outreach to the public instead of fighting over minutiae. I find LK far more interesting than, for example, Philippe.

              That’s why.

              • Richie says:

                I’ve never understood why a person that considers Austrian economics “fringe” and “cult-like” would spend so much time trying to debunk it and playing gotchya games.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Because it’s a significant threat, intellectually, to his own beliefs.

                Actually, it’s no longer even a threat. Threats imply that some form of destruction or demolition (to ideas in this case) has yet to occur.

          • Major.Freedom says:

            LK:

            “I suppose you imagine a lot of things in the fantasy world you live in, a world where words can be redefined at will and the fallacy of equivocation is your tactic in every argument.”

            Wait, do you mean to say that you have not learned anything new since, say 4 years ago? Not saying from me personally, but in general, are you claiming that your knowledge and views today are EXACTLY like they were back then?

            If so, well then shame on you.

            If not, then you are clearly so antagonistic you would even refuse to agree with me on something that would actually prevent you from appearing to be a fixed object that does not improve at all.

            In any event, all definitions are made “at will”, so I’m not sure how that is supposed to be a problem. I haven’t changed my own definitions, as far as I can tell, for many years now, so I don’t think you can fault me for redefining my own words if my previous definitions when used would expose one or more of my arguments as flawed.

            Fallacy of equivocation? When I have I used the same word to mean one thing and also another thing in the same argument? You accuse me of these things but I notice you never back them up with any evidence.

            • LK says:

              “When I have I used the same word to mean one thing and also another thing in the same argument? “

              Tell us another fable:

              “Other than the misleading word “immediately”, which can be taken to mean any time at all, since the standard for “short” and “long” periods of time is not objective but subjective, how is that statement idiotic?”
              http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/12/say-repudiated-says-law.html?showComment=1322756770135#c6195980368215469925

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Not an answer to the question. To say immediately can mean any time at all is not equivocation, because I didn’t use another, conflicting definition in the same argument there.

                You don’t even know what fallacy of equivocation means, do you? I suggest you Google it and learn of some examples.

                And saying “another fable” suggests you have shown I told a first one. But you have not shown me telling a fable, so saying another as if I did, is inaccurate.

      • LK says:

        um, no, roddis, I reviewed and critiqued Mises’s section in Human Action on economic calculation a long while ago.

        I’m willing to bet I know much more about Austrian theory here you do, since you’re a man so ignorant that you can’t understand the concept of a tendency to market clearing and its place in Austrian theory — or even answer simple questions about it.

        Oh, and did you ever ask Bob Murphy why housing prices can’t be market clearing price in an asset bubble? Or are you still ignorant of basic economic theory here too? lol

        • Bob Roddis says:

          My point applies not only to asset bubbles but to entire lines of production which “clear the market” due to artificial government and interest rate “stimulus” which is a reason I do not like the term. I’m well aware that Austrian writers use the term quite often which I think is a mistake without some qualification. We’ve been over that a million times before.

          However, what you recently wrote appears to be somewhat new and different which is why I pointed it out. That, plus the cluelessness of “Philippe” in his response which I found interesting.

          • LK says:

            “My point applies not only to asset bubbles but to entire lines of production which “clear the market” due to artificial government and interest rate “stimulus” which is a reason I do not like the term”

            hmm.. So you never asked Bob Murphy why housing prices can’t be market clearing prices in an asset bubble?

            In other words: you are still ignorant of basic economic theory.

            Thanks for that clarification.

            • Major.Freedom says:

              Wait, so if someone does not get an answer to a question from Murphy in particular, then *by definition* they are ignorant of economic theory?

              Murphy is brilliant, but his opinions are not the meaning of economic theory.

    • Philippe says:

      mf,

      “Well, according to that logic, you cannot claim that the Nazis were pro-violence, because violence depends on who owns what. ”

      No.

      ACCORDING TO THE NAP, what constitutes aggression depends on who legitimately owns what.

      “Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

      THE NAP DOES NOT TELL US WHO LEGITIMATELY OWNS WHAT.

      The NAP is useless for determining who legitimately owns what.

      So it is completely incorrect to say that Rothbardism or ancapism is ‘just the NAP’, as Bob Roddis repeatedly and incorrectly asserts.

      I couldn’t be bothered to read the rest of your comment.

      • Bob Roddis says:

        I’m not going to waste my time arguing with people who oppose private property. Average people have a good basic understanding of private property, as do little children (that’s mine, that’s yours).

        The problems come about because of statist indoctrination which insists that there are all types of emergencies that require the violation of private property rights. Average people are just not in touch with that analysis.

        • Philippe says:

          There you go again, pretending that your beliefs are just those of ‘average people’. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of people do not share your beliefs. Your ideology is a fringe belief system, so you should stop pretending that its somehow middle of the road.

          “Average people have a good basic understanding of private property”

          ‘Average people’ are not ancaps or rothbardians, are they bob.

          ‘Average people’ don’t think the United States should cease to exist. ‘Average people’ do not think that the government is a pointless and completely illegitimate organization. ‘Average people’ do not think that the state has no right to collect taxes or to spend money or issue money. And ‘average people’ also have a respect for private property. These views are not mutually exclusive, contrary to your stupid assertions otherwise.

          “Average people are just not in touch with that analysis”

          ‘Average people’ do not subscribe to your ideology or to your ‘analysis’, do they bob. Why do you feel the need to pretend that they do?

          • Major.Freedom says:

            Philippe:

            “There you go again, pretending that your beliefs are just those of ‘average people’. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of people do not share your beliefs.”

            That is false. The overwhelming majority of people SHARE Roddis’ meaning of property. Roddis just takes what the overwhelming majority of people believe about property, and extends it to statesmen. That is not as big a jump in meaning as you want people to believe.

            The reality is that your ideology that a trespasser is the legitimate owner of land homesteaded by someone who is not currently stepping foot on that land, that ideology is fringe, esoteric, and disagreed with by the overwhelming majority of people. You adhere to a fringe, derivative Bakhunin/Proudhon ideology of who owns what.

            Average people disagree with your notion of legitimate property.

            But that doesn’t make you wrong. It makes you a deluded hypocrite whose own beliefs are what you say are Roddis’.

            When are you going to wake up and smell the roses and realize that any ideology that is “fringe” doesn’t make it wrong? Democracy and slave emancipation were one “fringe.”

          • Bob Roddis says:

            ‘Average people’ do not think that the state has no right to collect taxes or to spend money or issue money. And ‘average people’ also have a respect for private property.

            Philippe:

            1. I thought I just said that. Average people understand private property (the thing you attack) but assume all kinds of exceptions (such as taxation) as helpful and necessary.

            2. I’m the guy who constantly points out that no one other than we libertarians and Austrians understands the NAP, violent intervention and economic calculation. Doesn’t that logically imply therefore that most other people do not understand those concepts? Doesn’t that logically imply that only a small group of people understand those concepts?

            I suspect that you keep pointing this out as a diversion because you really have nothing else of substance to say.

            • Ken B says:

              Average people do have a good understanding of private property. It is is Rothbardians who don’t. Rothbardians substitute some other notion under the same name. You seem to have acknowledged this difference in your latest comments. That is, you have vindicated Philippe’s observation.
              Baby steps.

              • Bob Roddis says:

                That’s been my position for 41 years.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                All the Rothbardians do is take what average people understand about private property, and integrating security and protection into it, i.e. instead of a monopoly on it, there is a marjet for it.

                It is the average person who does not yet fully understand the logical conclusions of where the concept of private property leads.

                That is why education and ideas are needed. It is working. More people understand private property anarchism now thanks to various sources like Mises.org. The number of people who become enlightened about private property has been growing steadily and I expect this trend to continue, considering how most people are good people who want to life a moral life, and are capable and willing to learn that your ethics are disgustingly violent, impoverishing, and quite frankly ancient and primitive.

                An atheist who is a statist is just another theist.

              • Philippe says:

                “most people are good people who want to life a moral life” yet you think their ethics are “disgustingly violent, impoverishing, and quite frankly ancient and primitive”.

                ok.

              • Ken B says:

                Ancient and primitive ethics condemned by a man who would bring back wergild!

              • LK says:

                Not to mention that M_F supports “revenge torture”:

                “but the important caveat is there that if the torturer is wrong, he is liable for restitution, and in my ethics, that includes revenge torture.

                http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2013/05/great-moments-in-paradox-history.html#comment-65542

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                Your ethics are not most people’s ethics.

                Ken B:

                I meant primitive and ancient in thought, not time. I would never condemn any idea on the basis of its age. 2+2=4 is ancient and primitive in terms of time, but it is something I would still strive to think and correct anyone who thought otherwise.

                The right to Wergild never stopped. Just because primitive and ancient institutions like states have for some time banned it, then that doesn’t make the ethic primitive or ancient minded. What is primitive and ancient minded is believing A has a right to steal from B and not only that, but to keep a portion of what he has stolen, as if his suffering is more important to protect than the victim.

                No wonder you and LK are statists. You want some people’s suffering to be regarded as worth more to protect than others. You don’t want equality under the law.

              • Philippe says:

                “Your ethics are not most people’s ethics”

                I’m pretty mainstream really. ‘Left of centre’.

                Bob Roddis likes to pretend that he somehow stands for what ‘average people’ believe in, whilst simultaneously calling for the abolition of practically everything that ‘average people’ believe in. It’s a form of utter intellectual dishonesty.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                LK:

                Nothing unjust about a torturer getting equal torture back.

                The only argument you have given in response to it is the risk of torturing an innocent person. You never actually addressed whether it is just to torture someone who themselves actually tortured. You are talking about whether the state should make torture legal, which I do not claim they should or should not, whereas I am talking about whether it is just or unjust for a torturer to be tortured.

                If a community of freely contracting individuals decide as individuals to ban torture, then I would regard that as ethically just. If A thinks revenge torture is just, whereas B thinks it is unjust, then I see no reason why they can’t come to an agreement, a contract, that would make revenge torture between them legal or illegal.

                I will willingly enter into a contract with you where you can revenge torture me if I torture you (eye for an eye revenge). Of course, what you offer me is likely of little value, so why can’t we just remain independent and allow our watered down land property rights to protect us from each other?

              • Philippe says:

                “You don’t want equality under the law”

                If rape is illegal then equality under the law would mean that it should be illegal in all cases. You on the other hand, think that rape should be legal in certain cases.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “I’m pretty mainstream really. ‘Left of centre’.”

                In terms of your actions, you’re an anarcho-capitalist.

                What you suggest is just and ethical is not what most believe is just and ethical.

                “Bob Roddis likes to pretend that he somehow stands for what ‘average people’ believe in, whilst simultaneously calling for the abolition of practically everything that ‘average people’ believe in.”

                Nah, just the state. The state is not, contrary to what you believe, “practically everything.”

                Most people believe in property rights. He just makes the addition to include the small number of people who call themselves statesmen. It is not as big a jump as you believe. It is just taking what is true for 95% of the population, and including the remaining 5% as well.

                Most people believe it is wrong for them to steal and initiate force and coercion others. You included, in terms of your actions.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “If rape is illegal then equality under the law would mean that it should be illegal in all cases.”

                You’re not thinking clearly.

                Equality under the law can include “If a person rapes anyone, then the victim or their contracted protection has a right to rape that person back.”

                That is equality under the law.

                But so is yours.

                So how do we rectify this? Clearly equality under the law is only a necessary condition.

                I do not mean to argue that ANY equal law is just. I would not for example think that “Anyone has a right to rape anyone else” is a just law, even though it is equality under the law.

                What you are talking about is one among many equality under the law examples. It is silly to then show me one example and then say since I disagree with it, I am somehow against equality under the law as such.

                “You on the other hand, think that rape should be legal in certain cases.”

                If those certain cases of jjst rape apply to everyone should they become victims of rape, and they are not themselves initiatiors of rape prior, then that is an equality under the law example.

                I know your motivation, by the way. You know you don’t favor equality undet the law, e.g. there must be a group of people who are enshrined with the legal right to tax and regulate, and everyone else must pay taxes and obey the regulations, but never the other way around. So to deal with that inequality under the law you support, ypu’re now trying to paint me as anti-equality under the law. Nice try, but your response utterly failed.

              • Philippe says:

                “In terms of your actions, you’re an anarcho-capitalist.”

                No, obviously I’m not. I proactively support many of the things which ancaps are supposedly (by their own declarations) opposed to.

                However I do think that ‘anarcho-capitalists’ are really closet statists. Ancap really demands that people abide by a single system of law.. and the organisation or body that decides what that law is, and which enforces that law, is effectively the state or the government.

                “Most people believe it is wrong for them to steal and initiate force and coercion others”

                But most people don’t think that legitimate taxation or law enforcement is either theft or ‘initiation of force’.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Ken B:

                The anti-Wergild train in action:

                http://m.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/lawyer-county-refuses-pay-medical-bills-toddler-hu/ng3s9/

                This is the “modern”, and “enlightened” approach. Immunity for people with badges.

                The ethics of you, Philippe, and LK are so strange. It is like you cannot even connect what you believe with the world around you.

              • Philippe says:

                “You know you don’t favor equality undet the law, e.g. there must be a group of people who are enshrined with the legal right to tax and regulate”

                You seem to think that the existence of judges means that equality under the law is impossible. Obviously someone has to hold the position of judge, but that doesn’t mean that that person has to be above the law. The law should apply to them as well.

              • Philippe says:

                “Immunity for people with badges.”

                I don’t know the details of that case, but I don’t see how that scenario would be incompatible with ancapism.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “No, obviously I’m not. I proactively support many of the things which ancaps are supposedly (by their own declarations) opposed to.”

                You say you “pro-actively support” statist activity.

                What does that mean exactly?

                If it is anything othet than TALK, i.e. written word, verbal discussions, all constrained to you actively respecting private property rights of others, then yes, you are in fact an anarcho-capitalist in action.

                “However I do think that ‘anarcho-capitalists’ are really closet statists. Ancap really demands that people abide by a single system of law.. and the organisation or body that decides what that law is, and which enforces that law, is effectively the state or the government.”

                We’ve gone over this already. No, anarcho-capitalists do not want to impose anarcho-capitalism on your person or property. If you want to pay and obey Obama and his baby killing thugs, then anarcho-capitalists will not stop you. Where they do say they have a right to stop you is if you use threats or coercion or outright violence to force them to pay and obey Obama as well.

                So no, your claim is totally false. It is you who wants a state to be imposed on others. Ancaps want to be their own sovereign persons, and to allow anyone else who chooses to be sovereign as well. It is not something that even can be forced on others. It can only be chosen by individual.

                Me stopping you from imposing your laws on MY person and MY property is not me forcing my laws on your person and your property. It is stopping you, not imposing on you.

                You make a false claim when you say “effectively”, by the way. I am not “effectively” a state when I defend my person and property from unwanted force. Just because I include murderers and thugs in the government, it doesn’t mean that I myself want to be government over them or you for that matter.

                A state is a territorial monopoly on protection and security. No, anarcho-capitalism is not about forcing our choices of protectors on you. You can choose to pay psychos if you want, just don’t force me to pay the same person as you.

                Since you are not initiating force to compel me to pay Obama, you’re just yapping about it, you are a practising anarcho-capitalist.

                “Most people believe it is wrong for them to steal and initiate force and coercion others”

                “But most people don’t think that legitimate taxation or law enforcement is either theft or ‘initiation of force’.”

                Most people think it is wrong to steal. All Roddis is doing is adding a small group of people’s theft into that equation.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “You seem to think that the existence of judges means that equality under the law is impossible.”

                Not at all. Nothing I said implies or suggests it.

                You favor inequality under the law because you believe only some people should have the legal right to tax, create laws and enforce laws, whereas everyone else must pay taxes, obey the laws, and not enforce laws.

                “Obviously someone has to hold the position of judge, but that doesn’t mean that that person has to be above the law. The law should apply to them as well.”

                But it doesn’t in statism. That is the point. In statism, the supreme court and the state courts rulings are binding on other people’s persons and property, whereas non-state judges rulings are not binding on the judge’s persons pr property.

                You cannot have equality under the law in statism. Coercion and initiations of force against person and property must be legal for some, illegal for everyone else.

                You falsely perceive the obvious laws that are unequal as “exceptions that should be changed”, when they are the rule, not the exception.

                I a society started anarchist, and equality under the law wete practised, then a state could not possibly form. It would be impossible because no individual would be allowed to collect taxes and create and enforce laws, without themselves having to pay those same taxes and obey those same laws created and enforced by others.

                Imagine the world just had you and I in it. Suppose you homesteaded the west hemisphere and I the eastern. Assume you have a family of 1000 people, as do I.

                Assume equality under any and all law.

                Assume there is an alien threat from space.

                How in the world could you form a state given equality under the law here, given I do not want to deal with you?

                “Immunity for people with badges.”

                “I don’t know the details of that case, but I don’t see how that scenario would be incompatible with ancapism.”

                It is incompatible with werbild, which is what Ken B believes is “ancient and primitive”.

              • Philippe says:

                you’re really obsessed with Obama aren’t you.

                “anarcho-capitalists do not want to impose anarcho-capitalism on your person or property”

                Yes they do.

                “if you use threats or coercion or outright violence to force them to pay and obey Obama as well”

                I don’t do that. If you live in the US however, you are legally required to abide by its laws. The US is basically a load of people who live within a shared system of law.

                The real problem is that your ideology is fundamentally confused at a very basic level. What happens is you start out with an emotional hatred of tax and Obama and things like that, and you go down a rabbit hole in the search for some sort of philosophy which might somehow justify your hatreds. But you end up in nonsense land instead.

                “you are a practising anarcho-capitalist”

                No. I don’t do the work of politicians, judges, juries, police officers etc, because I’m not currently any of those things. However I do support those things in different ways. That’s not to say that I support everything they do, however.

                “All Roddis is doing is adding a small group of people’s theft into that equation.”

                As I said, most people, or ‘average people’, don’t think that taxation is in itself theft. They know what taxation is, they are aware that the government exists and it is comprised of certain people who do certain things. And they don’t think that taxation is in itself theft. You and your ilk want to portray it as theft because you believe in a genuinely bizarre and nonsensical political ideology which might benefit from portraying ordinary things such as taxation as deviant behaviours. The problem for you is that no-one other than a small group of fanatical ideologues is falling for your rhetoric or your word games.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                Under statism, not everyone has the legal right to be a judge and set FINAL laws for their own persons and property.

                State judges do have that right, everyone else does not.

                That ia not equality under the law. The actual process of law formation and enforcement is what I am talking about in this instance. There are many more examples WITHIN the laws themselves. Diplomatic immunity, state’s secrets, national security immunity, etc, etc.

              • Philippe says:

                “not everyone has the legal right to be a judge and set FINAL laws for their own persons and property”

                That’s not equality under the law, it’s just everyone making up their own laws. Everyone is judge, jury and executioner. In other words there is no law, only people using force against each other.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “you’re really obsessed with Obama aren’t you.”

                I could have said the name of whoever is President. It doesn’t matter.

                You’re evading the arguments.

                “anarcho-capitalists do not want to impose anarcho-capitalism on your person or property”

                “Yes they do.”

                No, we don’t. If you want to smoke crack all day in your home, or if you want to manufacture life saving medicine in your place of business, then even if the state says you can’t do that without their say so, anarcho-capitalism says yes you can even if we son’t like it. As long as you don’t initiate force against other people’s persons or property, you can do whatever you want.

                This is not imposing anarcho-capitalism on you. If you want to do what the state tells you to do, with your own person, with your own means of production, of life even, then fine, be a sheep and go right ahead. Anarcho-capitalism forbids anyone from stopping you.

                Stop lying in saying that ancaps want to force their laws on you. No, merely stopping you from trying to force your laws on their person or property, which includes your law of “I should have the legal right to change your land by stepping on it, or intrude into your property by stepping into it”, is not imposing laws on you. It is preventing you from imposing your laws on their property.

                “if you use threats or coercion or outright violence to force them to pay and obey Obama as well”

                “I don’t do that.”

                That is why you are a PRACTISING ancap Philippe. You adhere to average, normal, popular common law ethics. YOU adhere to them.

                “If you live in the US however, you are legally required to abide by its laws.”

                Haha, man how awkward was that dodge away from “If you live in the US, then I will step into action and ensure that you…”

                You had to retreat back to saying a ridiculously obvious fact, one that is under debate. I am questioning the validity of the moral legitimacy of that “legality”, Philippe. You know this. Maybe try to engage the arguments? I am not dodging yours.

                “The US is basically a load of people who live within a shared system of law.”

                The fact you said “basically” means you concede my point. That “basically” of course is right. Not everyone is legally obligated to abide by the same laws.

                That’s the problem.

                “The real problem is that your ideology is fundamentally confused at a very basic level.”

                No, the real problem is that your ideology is based on rank contradictions. What you profess as morally just cannot be made universal for everyone. You want different laws for different people. You want some people to be subject to laws of what “statesmen” can and cannot do, and you want everyone else to be subject to laws of what “citizens” can and cannot do.

                You don’t want the same laws for everyone. But you act like an ancap. Which means you don’t practise what you preach. You preach one thing, but you act oppositely.

                “What happens is you start out with an emotional hatred of tax and Obama and things like that, and you go down a rabbit hole in the search for some sort of philosophy which might somehow justify your hatreds.”

                Blah blah blah. You’re a hater. You hate equality under the law. You hate facing the world on your own two feet. You hate feeling inferior to others who are smarter or more wealthy than you. You hate others being free to stay where they are, and choose their own protection and security and not pay or obey your idols in Washington who you seem to have a weird fetish towards for some reason, and you find it psychologically weird for someone to want to not pay that psycho.

                “But you end up in nonsense land instead.”

                You have not shown how.

                “you are a practising anarcho-capitalist”

                “No. I don’t do the work of politicians, judges, juries, police officers etc, because I’m not currently any of those things.”

                That is because you have chosen to live as an ancap.

                You don’t do statism. You do ancapism.

                “However I do support those things in different ways.”

                You support everything the state does? Can you imagine if I told you I supported an institution named Microsoft that sent armies to invade private lands in the middle east, to kill any defenders and to steal their oil? Or to send flying drones in the air and declare that any citizen can be murdered for any reason they wanted, and not have to answer to anyone legally? Or that they threw peaceful drug ingesters into cages to be raped? You’d think I was a pyscho. And yet that is exactly what you are supporting.

                “That’s not to say that I support everything they do, however.”

                But you are willingly paying for all those other things. Why? Why pay for such evil activity?

                “All Roddis is doing is adding a small group of people’s theft into that equation.”

                “As I said…”

                Already addressed.

                “You and your ilk want to portray it as theft because you believe in a genuinely bizarre and nonsensical political ideology”

                Hahaha, I notice you did not say wrong and here’s why. You did not say there is a contradiction and here it is. You did not say it is disproved by your arguments and this is how.

                No, all you did was basically hand wave.

                “Which might benefit from portraying ordinary things such as taxation as deviant behaviours.”

                Slavery used to be perceived as “ordinary.”

                Monarchy and despotism used to be perceived as “ordinary.”

                Telling me I’m wrong because what I say goes against what you believe is “ordinary” means you lost the intellectual side of the debate.

                “The problem for you…”

                Nope.

                “…is that no-one other than a small group of fanatical ideologues is falling for your rhetoric or your word games.”

                You are so blind and scared that you would rather believe in the lie that ancapism is not growing in terms of number of people who think it is the best ethic.

                Ancapism is growing. And it will continue to grow as long as the state does not impair knowledge transfer.

                Calling anything “fringe” and pretending you’ve responded to the arguments is tantamount to saying you can’t refute it.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “That’s not equality under the law, it’s just everyone making up their own laws.”

                OVER THEIR OWN PERSONS AND PROPERTY ONLY.

                That is equality under the law. It is the equal law that effectively says “Every single person with no exception is the final arbiter over the laws concerning their own persons and property.”

                This applies to everyone equally.

                “Everyone is judge, jury and executioner.”

                OVER THEIR OWN PERSONS AND PROPERTY ONLY.

                “In other words there is no law, only people using force against each other.”

                Non sequitur. Everyone being final arbiter over their own persons and property implies that neither you, me, or anyone else can initiate force against anyone else’s persons or property. It is not “only people using force against each other.”

              • Philippe says:

                I can’t be bothered to deal with your endless gish-gallops of ancap nonsense. Your whole belief system is so silly.

              • Philippe says:

                “OVER THEIR OWN PERSONS AND PROPERTY ONLY”

                Moron. The law is precisely about what people can and can’t do with regard to each others bodies, and what they can and can’t do with regard to external objects in the world.

                You say: ‘Everyone should decide for themselves what they can and can’t do with regard to each others bodies and external objects’. So in other words everyone makes up their own laws, and you just have people imposing their individual beliefs on each other through force.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “I can’t be bothered to deal with your endless gish-gallops of ancap nonsense. Your whole belief system is so silly.”

                I am not bothered dealing with your endless gish-gallops of statist nonsense. Your whole belief aystem is so silly.”

              • Philippe says:

                Alternatively you have a legal authority which determines what people can and can’t do with regard to objects in the world, what they can and can’t do with regard to each others bodies, etc. And then you’re back to statism.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “Moron.”

                Looks like the hate is accelerating.

                “The law is precisely about what people can and can’t do with regard to each others bodies, and what they can and can’t do with regard to external objects in the world.”

                Duh. Ancap law is precisely that no individual can initiate force or threaten violence against anyone else’s persons or homesteaded/traded property.

                That is what they cannot do. They can do ANYTHING else.

                “You say: ‘Everyone should decide for themselves what they can and can’t do with regard to each others bodies and external objects’.”

                Are you blind? You did not quote me accurately. I said:

                “Every single person with no exception is the final arbiter over the laws concerning their own persons and property.”

                It is a VIOLATION of ancap ethics for you to just decide on your own what to do with OTHER people’s persons and property. You Philippe are the final arbiter over your property. I am the final arbiter over my property.

                I cannot do ANYTHING to your property without your expressed consent. Similarly, you cannot do ANYTHING to my property without my expressed consent?

                Pardon my French, but how in the hell can you read that as me having final say over what happens to your property?

                “So in other words…”

                Nope.

                “Everyone makes up their own laws”

                FOR THEIR OWN PERSONS AND PROPERTY ONLY

                “And you just have people imposing their individual beliefs on each other through force.”

                Nope. That is illegal in ancap ethics.

                Philippe, what time zone do you live in? Maybe you need some rest? You are making so many errors that I can’t tell if you’re drunk or just really tired.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “Alternatively you have a legal authority which determines what people can and can’t do with regard to objects in the world, what they can and can’t do with regard to each others bodies, etc. And then you’re back to statism.”

                Nope. Saying you do not have a legal right in ancapism to initiate force against the individual’s person or property does not necessitate a territorial monopoly on enforcing that ethic. If only one person succeeds in defending themselves from all aggression including state aggression, that is ancapism to that extent.

                I am not acting as a state by merely defending my person and property. Nor is a state formed if I plus a million individual people do so.

                Just because ancapism calls for a certain treatment of all individuals, it doesn’t mean a state is required. In fact, a state is incompatible with ancapism.

              • Philippe says:

                “Ancap law is precisely that no individual can initiate force or threaten violence against anyone else’s persons or homesteaded/traded property.”

                So in ancap world there is a legal authority which determines the law. It decides what people can and can’t do with regard to each other’s bodies and with regard to external objects. It determines what property is, who owns what property, and what rights ownership of property entails. This legal authority enforces the law, even against those who don’t agree with it, be they the majority or the minority in a given population. Ancapism is just a different form of statism.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “So in ancap world there is a legal authority which determines the law.”

                In ancap world the individual is the legal authority over their own persons and property, and nobody else’s.

                There is no “a” authority that you can point to and say “you enforce “the” law.”. Every individual is lawmaker over their own persons and property.

                This is the necessary and sufficient condition.

                “It decides…”

                What do you mean by “it”?

                “what people can and can’t do with regard to each other’s bodies and with regard to external objects. It determines what property is, who owns what property, and what rights ownership of property entails. This legal authority enforces the law, even against those who don’t agree with it, be they the majority or the minority in a given population. Ancapism is just a different form of statism.”

                Nope. You still aren’t thinking clearly. I am saying the individual, and you are saying “it” and “the” as if there is one person or group of people who will force ancap laws on your person and property.

                Again, ancap law says that the individual is sovereign. You are included in that. If you don ‘t want to fire Obama, then you don’t have to.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                If you are looking for a ground, a foundation, a source for where and how this whole ancap law works, an “it” to point to and say “That is where you ancaps are deriving your beliefs of what is right”, then the “it” is rationalism.

                You and I obeying “the” law of ancapism, you and I following the authority of “it” is indeed a constricting and absolutist barrier to egoists such as yourself. You sense a statism in the absolutist law inherent in ancapism.

                If you want to define a universally binding law as “statism”, then ancapism is as statist as you can get. If you want to define slavery as others having absolute authority over portions of land (that they homesteaded/traded) in the world that you must obey or else, then ancapism is the most enslaving system there is.

                Define it using any words you want. Use any terms you want.

                On the ground, on Earth, ancapism is the most free and liberating ethic for ALL individuals together to do what they want they want with minimal conflict, violence, and maximum freesom to pursue one’s own interests. If that sounds frightening, it is only because you don’t yet trust yourself or have enough self-esteem to live without having any absolutist backstop mommy and daddy to rescue you when you fall.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                You say ancapism is really statism.

                How is the state in ancapism a state? That is, who would be the state, and how would that state enforce laws on everyone’s lands, given the incredibly vital component of ancap law that says the individual is final law maker over their own property?

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “I don’t know the details of that case, but I don’t see how that scenario would be incompatible with ancapism.”

                How do you that if you don’t know the details of the case? You know enough of the case, but you know it shows how bad statism can get without the cops having any substantive limits to their increasing violence.

                No ancap is saying that something like this CAN’T ever happen in ancapism. Where ancapism excels is that individuals including the victims have much more opportunities to have this behavior corrected/improved, precisely because the best solutions are never illegal.

                In statism, the best solution, which is of course equal and opposite defensive force to stop/counteract this activity, is illegal. The state would consider any defensive force an act of aggression and criminal behavior.

                Criminals have a more difficult time engaging in criminal activity when their intended victims are armed and legally able to defend themselves.

              • Philippe says:

                “ancap law that says the individual is final law maker over their own property”

                Who decides who owns what?

              • Philippe says:

                “ancap law that says the individual is final law maker over their own property”

                Who decides that you can do whatever the f*ck you want on a bit of land you have claimed as your ‘property’?

      • Major.Freedom says:

        Philippe:

        “No.”

        Yes.

        “ACCORDING TO THE NAP, what constitutes aggression depends on who legitimately owns what.”

        According to that logic, YOUR ideology, YOUR ethics, YOUR beliefs of what constitutes violence and what constitutes non-violence, according to YOU, what YOU believe is violence and non-violence, would then depend on on who legitimately owns what.

        And by extension, ANY beliefs of what constitutes non-violence, would depend on who owns what. And, since your claim is ONLY one that contains this sole, abstract “dependency” on views of “legitimacy”, where there are no rational grounds for concluding one view is any more valid than any other, it follows logically that you cannot claim that the Nazis were certainly pro-violence, not can you claim that slavery is violent. After all, violence according to you does not depend on any rational grounds, but simply on a view of who ” legitimately” owns what, where one “view” is no more and no less rationally valid than any other.

        YOU have an ideology of what constitutes violence and what constitutes non-violence.

        You being a moral and intellectual coward such that you never have the courage to explicitly write exactly what you believe is ethically violence versus non-violence, where all you do is antagonize libertarians, does not entitle you to deny that any reference to the fact that you adhere to SOME ethical norms, is off base or a straw man.

        “THE NAP DOES NOT TELL US WHO LEGITIMATELY OWNS WHAT.”

        IT IS NOT MEANT TO TELL US THIS. THE NAP IS AN ETHICAL THEORY, NOT AN ONTOLOGICAL/EMPIRICAL CLAIM REGARDING PROPERTY TITLES.

        “The NAP is useless for determining who legitimately owns what.”

        Combs are useless for bald people.

        “So it is completely incorrect to say that Rothbardism or ancapism is ‘just the NAP’, as Bob Roddis repeatedly and incorrectly asserts.”

        Holy. Crap. Roddis has repeatedly assumed that by “property”, he “just means” the anglo-saxon, common law notion of property.

        Does he have to keep writing out the obvious every time? Most people agree on the fact that you own your house and that Balmer owns Apple. If you want to quibble and hairsplit the point every time, then make a damn argument of how a legitimate ownership title arises.

        “I couldn’t be bothered to read the rest of your comment.”

        Good. Saves me from reading it and cringing.

        • Philippe says:

          “Roddis has repeatedly assumed that by “property”, he “just means” the anglo-saxon, common law notion of property.”

          Another lie.

          According to common law, tax revenue is the property of the state. It is not the property of the individual tax payer. Refusing to pay taxes you owe is a common law offence (in the UK it is referred to as ‘cheating the revenue’).

          • Philippe says:

            if Bob Roddis thinks that the common law notion of property is legitimate, then it follows that Bob Roddis doesn’t think that taxation is ‘aggression’.

            • Bob Roddis says:

              Purposefully conflating two separate concepts. You are such a waste of time.

              • Ken B says:

                You keep insisting the common law would continue under your scheme, but keep conceding ways it would not. It would not; Roddistopia would be rule of the rich flouting comon law traditions.

              • Bob Roddis says:

                The basic libertarian concepts of property are virtually identical to those that already exist. But statist dogma insists upon granting state actors special privileges to violate the existing protections of property that are unavailable to non-state actors because of alleged necessity. There is no such necessity.

                Regardless of the necessity, those acts are violations of the protections of property whether or not they are necessary. You and LK and Philippe are again trying to obfuscate and obscure those distinct concepts.

                WE ALREADY UNDERSTAND THAT MOST PEOPLE CONSIDER THE VIOLATIONS TO BE OK.

                I also submit that by granting state actors the privilege to violate the protections of property due to alleged “market failure”, there can be no conceivable limitation to such a grant of authority to the voting majority to “fix” the alleged “market failure”. All persons and property are thereafter potential victims of mob majority rule. And all to cure problems that don’t actually exist.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Ken B:

                “It would not; Roddistopia would be rule of the rich flouting comon law traditions.”

                Stop pretending to be Nostradamus. You’re making a prediction based on faith. There is no necessary connection between rich people and anti-common law ethics, nor is there any necessary connection between poor people and common law ethics.

          • Major.Freedom says:

            Philippe:

            “Another lie.”

            You haven’t shown me to lie a first time, so saying “another” is inaccurate.

            And no, it’s not a lie. That is what Roddis assumes.

            “According to common law, tax revenue is the property of the state.”

            Yes, there are exceptions.

            A society with Islamic and the Hadith law that contains an exception, is still an Islamic and Hadith law society.

            “It is not the property of the individual tax payer. Refusing to pay taxes you owe is a common law offence (in the UK it is referred to as ‘cheating the revenue’).”

            Cool story.

            • Philippe says:

              “Yes, there are exceptions”

              no, it’s not an exception. It’s part of the common law understanding of property. There isn’t only private property, but also public property and state property.

        • Philippe says:

          “where there are no rational grounds for concluding one view is any more valid than any other”

          I didn’t say that there are no rational grounds for concluding that one view is any more valid than any other.

          Nonetheless, the reality is that there are sometimes irresolvable differences of opinion on such matters and so we need some way to deal with that fact.

      • Major.Freedom says:

        Philippe:

        If the NAP is “useless” because it doesn’t tell us who legitimately owns what, then your attacks on libertarianism are useless, because you are not saying who legitimately owns what and why.

        • Ken B says:

          Ridiculous argument MF. Say Bob claims the Bible answers all questions. I need only show the Bible is a crock to refute him, I need not provide a substitute. Philippe is arguing against certain claims, that is all.

          • Major.Freedom says:

            The question is not whether one “needs” to provide a substitute. The question is whether one is providing a substitute. And when one critiques an argument, one is in fact presupposing a positive claim. It doesn’t have to be explicit. It can be assumed because the truth of the false attribute requires it. That is how knowledge works. If you claim knowledge that there is not $1 in your pocket, then your claim can only be knowledge of truth if you know what is in your pocket that makes $1 an impossibility. It can be nothing but lint, or air, as the positive (and tacit) claim.

            If you say that the Bible is a croc, then the only way you can rationally know that is if you are privy to some positive knowledge of reality that makes the claims of the Bible impossible (I say “impossible” as another way of saying “croc”). I believe the Bible is a croc because I am privy to some basic truths of logic and physics that makes many of the claims impossibly true.

            Philippe’s argument against those “certain claims” applies to his own idea of violence versus non-violence. That is my point. He wants to be able to use certain premises and arguments to poke holes in libertarianism even though by the logical necessity above, they would have to apply to the positive presuppositions concerning violence and non-violence that he has in mind. It is not that I believe he “needs” to provide a substitute, but rather that he is doing so, and I am addressing that.

            Just because he isn’t making his beliefs of what actions constitute violence as clear as I am with mine, it doesn’t mean his premises should be taken as a given, and assumed valid. His argument can only work if it doesn’t undermine the justification for his own version of violence versus non-violence. But the way he is critiquing anarcho-capitalist ethics undercuts his own ethic.

            • Harold says:

              “If you claim knowledge that there is not $1 in your pocket, then your claim can only be knowledge of truth if you know what is in your pocket that makes $1 an impossibility. It can be nothing but lint, or air, as the positive (and tacit) claim.”

              This is not really correct, is it. If you claim to have my $1 coin in your fnurgle, but I know I have it in my hand, I can reject your claim without even knowing what a fnurgle is, or even if such a thing exists. I am making no tacit claim that your fnurgle contains something other than the coin, because I am not sure I even believe your fnurgle exists at all. I am making a claim about the whereabouts of the coin. So whether you have a point depends on whether the question is about the whereabouts of the coin, or the contents of your fnurgle.

              “His argument can only work if it doesn’t undermine the justification for his own version of violence versus non-violence. But the way he is critiquing anarcho-capitalist ethics undercuts his own ethic.” If that is the case, then fair enough – but even if you do demonstrate that he undermines his own ethic you have failed to show that his argument is not correct. There is nothing to stop you both being wrong. If you want to counter his argument you have to actually counter his argument, not merely say he is just as wrong as you. This question is about the contents of your fnurgle – i.e. is your agument sound.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Harold:

                “This is not really correct, is it. If you claim to have my $1 coin in your fnurgle, but I know I have it in my hand, I can reject your claim without even knowing what a fnurgle is, or even if such a thing exists. I am making no tacit claim that your fnurgle contains something other than the coin, because I am not sure I even believe your fnurgle exists at all. I am making a claim about the whereabouts of the coin.”

                Your response is not a correct interpretation of the argument I presented. The argument I am making is that claims that something exists implies knowledge of what does not exist in that same “location” I guess you can say.

                In the case of the coin, if you claim to know you have a coin in your hand, then that implies knowledge of what does not exist in your hand. Similarly, if you claim to know you do not have a coin in your hand, then that implies knowledge of what you do have in your hand, even if it is but air molecules or dust or whatever.

                What you are talking about is two different. You are talking about two separate objects, coins in hands, and fnurgles. You are saying that if you have a coin in your hand, then you know I don’t have that same coin. Saying you don’t know what is in my fnurgle is irrelevant to the argument I am making about your knowledge of what is and is not in your hand. Notice still though that claiming knowlede of what appears to be one thought, namely you having a coin in your hand, logically implies another thought, namely, that I do not have that coin, and so must have something else, if merely air molecules or sweat in my hand or whatever.

                “So whether you have a point depends on whether the question is about the whereabouts of the coin, or the contents of your fnurgle.
                “His argument can only work if it doesn’t undermine the justification for his own version of violence versus non-violence. But the way he is critiquing anarcho-capitalist ethics undercuts his own ethic.” If that is the case, then fair enough – but even if you do demonstrate that he undermines his own ethic you have failed to show that his argument is not correct.”

                Do you know what burden of proof is all about? The burden is not on me to prove a negative. The burden is on the person making a claim to some truth.

                It is sufficient for me to point out that if his premises are in fact true, then his own argument is false. I don’t have to, and I am not burdened to, prove God does not exist.

                “There is nothing to stop you both being wrong. If you want to counter his argument you have to actually counter his argument, not merely say he is just as wrong as you.”

                Not if I realize he can’t be right. That is enough for me to continue the process of elimination in order to get closer to the truth. I can rule out a falsehood.

                You claim I could be wrong. OK, but how?

                “This question is about the contents of your fnurgle – i.e. is your agument sound.”

                To be honest I don’t think your response was sound.

            • Harold says:

              Srry for double reply. “And by extension, ANY beliefs of what constitutes non-violence, would depend on who owns what.” See, this is where your argument falls down. It is wrong to say ANY beliefs of what constitutes non violence depends on who owns what. I may believe violence is physical force against another, totally regardless of who owns what.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Harold:

                If you define violence as one person using physical force against another, then that depends on the other person owning themselves. You didn’t say the universe moving itself. You didn’t say you moving a part of yourself named Major.Freedom. You said violence is physical force AGAINST another. You are attributing self-ownership with that. You don’t even have to consciously admit this or think it necessary in order for your definition to actually depend on who owns what.

                Try to continue thinking of violence in terms of mechanical force of cause and effect, and you’ll eventually no longer have any argument containing one person using physical force against another. You’ll end up with two locations or spacetime events where each causes force on the other no matter motions or momentum either object was going in just prior to the interaction.

                Much like Philippe and Ken B, your argument cannot be true if your premises are true.

              • Harold says:

                Kicking a wild fox is violence. Nobody owns the fox. Or does the fox own itself? How about kicking a cow? Does the cow own itself, or does the farmer own the cow?

                Kicking a tree is violence. Punching a rock is violence. I see no need for ownership in any of these things.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Harold:

                “Kicking a wild fox is violence.”

                Why isn’t the fox’s bodily force against your foot, which you can feel, not violence? Your foot is experiencing force on it.

                “I see no need for ownership in any of these things.”

                Ownership is not an additional thing to what you’re describing. By saying you are kicking the fox, you are presupposing self-ownership.

        • Bob Roddis says:

          I’ve always like Stephan Kinsella’s explanation of property here. We don’t need to constantly re-explain basic stuff to the hostiles.

          http://mises.org/daily/3660

          • Harold says:

            Why do you own yourself? “In the case of one’s own body, it is the unique relationship between a person and his body — his direct and immediate control over his body”
            So when you are asleep, and someone next to you is in direct and immediate control of your limbs but you are not, then they own you?

            • Major.Freedom says:

              Possession is not ownership.

              You might want to read the article more carefully. Kinsella separates possession (your bed partner moves your elbow off their face) and ownership (your bed partner has the final say on whether you are allowed to touch them while sleeping. Given you are sleeping together, typically that right is granted if the discussion comes up, unless you want to disagree to the point of sleeping in separate beds).

              Why do you not own yourself? Why can I own a house, but not my body? Because I “am” my body? Because self-ownership implies a metaphysical dualism that is ultimately untenable? That it implies the existence of a non-physical attribute of me?

              Did you know that dualism does not necessarily imply any theistic or religious “soul”? Consciousness can be consistently regarded as dualist without any reference to any God or supernatural worlds, and still not be “materialist” in the way described by many anti-ownership leftists who are trying to refute self-ownership so as to be consistent when attacking “external object” ownership (they want to eradicate all notions of ownership).

              The talking point we often hear in the anti-ownership arguments is “I don’t “own” my body, I am my body.”. This of course presupposes that the “am”, the being, of me being me, is somehow different from me owning me.

              But that is upon closer inspection not necessarily the case. For me to know I am me, IS for me to “own” me. Or, from another angle, for me to own me, IS for me to “be” me. In other words, I am an owner. My existence is as an owner. That is what makes me me, rather than just a pile or lump of biological mush, or atoms. The thing that makes me arise into existence is my consciousness, which is to say, my self-ownership. There is no separation between the me, and the owner. They are identical.

              • Harold says:

                I don’t necessarily object to owning ones-self, but the justification does not work. He says “each person is prima facie the owner of his own body because, by virtue of his unique link to and connection with his own body — his direct and immediate control over it — he has a better claim to it than anyone else.”

                See -it is quite clear. Because of his “direct and immediate” control.

                He says “Recall that ownership is the right to control, use, or possess,[20] while possession is actual control” Yet he has clearly said that ownership of the body is because of “direct and immediate control” Which is it? He can’t have it both ways.

                Further; “Thus, asking who is the owner of a resource presupposes a distinction between ownership and possession — between the right to control, and actual control.” Yet ownership of the body was because of direct control. If we are to separate ownership from control we cannot say a person owns himself because he has control of himself. It is very muddled.

                It seems reasonable that in the general case, the individual has best claim to own his body if anyone is to own it. But the reason given does not make a good case.

                So if immediate and direct control is not the reason, what is it?

                If we cannot get it defined for the person, then when we get onto objects it is going to be really difficult.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Harold:

                “I don’t necessarily object to owning ones-self, but the justification does not work. He says “each person is prima facie the owner of his own body because, by virtue of his unique link to and connection with his own body — his direct and immediate control over it — he has a better claim to it than anyone else.”

                “See -it is quite clear. Because of his “direct and immediate” control.”

                Right, but the moving of your bed mate’s arm at night when they’re asleep is not direct. It is indirect.

                “He says “Recall that ownership is the right to control, use, or possess,[20] while possession is actual control”

                Yes, the RIGHT. It is an intellectual attribute. You may possess your bed mate’s arm, but you don’t own it.

                “Yet he has clearly said that ownership of the body is because of “direct and immediate control” Which is it? He can’t have it both ways.”

                I don’t see the inconsistency.

                Can you be more specific?

                “Further; “Thus, asking who is the owner of a resource presupposes a distinction between ownership and possession — between the right to control, and actual control.”

                “Yet ownership of the body was because of direct control.”

                Yes, the direct control is due to the intellectual grounding.

                “If we are to separate ownership from control we cannot say a person owns himself because he has control of himself. It is very muddled.”

                Actually, we can say a person owns themselves even with separation of ownership and control. The notion of a separation of ownership and control, or ownership and possession, is a logical distinction, not necessarily a spatial separation.

                As I explained at only a high level before, not all being is material. The patterns are not material, but still have a reality to it that is distinct from the matter itself. You can have a pile atoms on one side, in one pattern, and another exactly identical set of the same atoms in another pile, in a different pattern, and yet one pile can be mush while the other is able to think and speak and have consciousness.

                There is a duality in nature. The duality is content and form. The content is the atoms you are made up of. The form is how those atoms are oriented relative to each other.

                Consciousness has a duality. Consciousness is able to think of content and form, and to think of itself in and of itself. Thinking of the content implies a form, and thinking of a form implies a content.

                Activity is a form and a content. When I think, I act, and when I act, I think.

                Activity centered on a person, which is what you were thinking of when kicking the fox, is you presupposing and object owning itself, or, in other words, instead of you thinking you were forced by the fox while you are a passive reciever of such force, you thought of the events that took place as you kicking the fox. You are thinking of yourself as the cause. You are thinking of your activity as the driver of what took place. You are thinking that you were…in control…of…your body. You were not thinking of the fox controlling your body. No, you were thinking of you yourself being in control. That is the ownership.

                Harold, the problem is not that self-ownership is not justifiable, it is that you don’t know the philosophical history and background of the question.

                “It seems reasonable that in the general case, the individual has best claim to own his body if anyone is to own it. But the reason given does not make a good case.
                So if immediate and direct control is not the reason, what is it?”

                It is immediate and direct control. It is another way of saying the same thing. All definitions are approximations. They may seem totally contradictory to you, but all explanations are themselves exercises of self-ownership. Self-ownership actually cannot be alienated, either on paper or in words. It can only be understood. Every conscious being has it, or rather IS it. It is perhaps the most subtle and elusive aspect of our being.

                “If we cannot get it defined for the person, then when we get onto objects it is going to be really difficult.”

                But we’re already presupposing objects when we think “I am me.”. Thinking that is the act of thinking both a self and a non-self. The range of influence of our self-activity in the non-self world is the domain of our ownership of “external” objects, as opposed the “internal” self. Action IS ownership. Direct and immediate control? It seems to work as a working definition. I have direct and immediate control over my pillow, but not my bed mate. The intellectual ground is not in me for the latter, it is in them.

  10. A Country Farmer says:

    Hilariously done.

  11. JNCU says:

    Bob,

    Totally out of topic. I know you have done tons of stuff on Piketty’s emotional problems with inequality. Has he or any left-winger comment on this passage from Marx:

    “‘[E]qual right’ and “fair distribution,’…. ideological nonsense about right and other trash so common among the democrats and French socialists.

    But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor… This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor…. it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality.”

    Is his french nationality the root of his nonsense?

    • JNCU says:

      “it was in general a mistake to make a fuss about so-called distribution ”

      Karl Marx
      Critique of the Gotha Programme

  12. Tel says:

    I’m looking forward to Bob’s remake of that great Beach Boys classic, Serfdom USA. Needs one of those giant video screens in the background with riot police and plenty of airport security scanners.

    • Tel says:

      If all police were military
      Across the U.S.A.
      Then everybody’d be in serfdom
      Like California
      You’d seem ’em hiding their baggies
      Shoe-bomber sandals too
      A bushy beardy Muslim hairdo
      Serfdom U.S.A.

      Take it easy, take it easy it’s a joke. I’ve got my hands up, I’m gonna lie slowly on the ground now, please don’t shoot.

  13. Ken B says:

    None of this would happen, if only the Tsar knew.

  14. Bob Roddis says:

    When Bob Murphy writes:

    When this president has command of a fleet of flying killer robots……with which he claims the authority to kill even American citizens without trial anywhere on planet Earth, then you just might be in serfdom

    and in response the hostiles begin chanting that the abolition of the initiation of violence will invariably lead to warlords (as opposed to, say, 15 foot long man-eating cockroaches), you might already be in hell.

  15. Bob Roddis says:

    This comic reminds me of the the hairsplitting we endure from the hostiles:

    http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3446#comic

Leave a Reply to Major.Freedom

Cancel Reply