Libertarianism vs. Rule of the People

[Ian Clark]

I went with a compromise on the title.

On the one side is the opinion that natural law exists and that as such the role of government should be to uphold these rights and little else. On the other side is the belief that the role of government should be more populist and enforce the rule of the majority.

I'm going to post my own views in a few hours, but as it's going to be obscenely long I thought it'd be best to get the conversation rolling beforehand.

A few ground rules:

1. This is a philosophical topic more than a political one. It is also even less of a historical topic. Any examples have to clearly demonstrate how the principles of either belief system were put into practice and how it was those principles that led to the success/failure of something. And anyone who mentions Hitler in any context will be shot.

2. This is an intricate and complex issue. Anyone being abusive and/or dogmatic will also be shot.

[Irishsara]

You cannot have this argument until we get the definitions out.

1. What rights? List some, What makes something a right?

2. What are the origin of rights?

[Zig]

I want to rule.

[Ian Clark]

You cannot have this argument until we get the definitions out.

1. What rights? List some, What makes something a right?

2. What are the origin of rights?

That kind of is the discussion, actually.

[Irishsara]

Well where do you way in?

I mean this is your show, lets hear it.

[Ian Clark]

I'm currently writing my reply, but it won't be up until later because there's sort of about a million things going on in my life at the moment.

[Stinger]

Rights are inherent in all individuals and are derived from property rights: "Mine."

You have rights merely because you exist.

I have the right to life, because I own my body; my property.

The shirt I'm wearing is my property, I bought it and so I own it, and thus I can do whatever I want too with it without asking permission from someone else. It is my right to cut my shirt up.

I don't have the right to cut your shirt, because it's your property. You can give me permission to cut your shirt, a privilege, but cutting your shirt is not a right I can ever have. No right can infringe on the right of someone else; i.e. if I ran up and cut your shirt, I will have violated your rights by damaging your property, and would thus be liable to give you redress.

I have the right to bear arms. I don't have the right to a weapon, nor do I have the right to bear arms in your home (or your property).

I have the right to free speech. I don't have the right to come onto your property and say what ever I want to say, nor do I have the right to make you listen to my speech.

[Irishsara]

Where do these personal rights come from? Don't you give up your rights when you enter (or are born into) a social contract ?

[Stinger]

No, my rights come from my Creator (whatever you want to substitute in place of that word) and are unalienable, of which the definition is "Not to be separated, given away, or taken away"

I have my rights regardless of where I go, and no one can take my rights away from me.

[Irishsara]

Wrong. Criminals can be stripped of property and you can be given property in redress (wergild ... because it comes from the common law) . If this can be done then they can be stripped. When Jefferson talked of unalienable rights he meant unalienable because thats how Locke described them. Those rights can be given up willingly by choice. This choice happens when one joins into a social contract according to Locke. The unalienable rights the Thomas Jefferson is talking about had been granted by the British common law (See the Magna Carta, and William Blackstone who was one of the great influences of Thomas Jefferson) .


Also how do creator given rights stand up in a state with the separation of Religion and State. Also, how did the common law exist during the Roman Empire when they were not, in no way, Christian but there were still citizenship rights.

[Stinger]

Criminals have violated the rights of others. They are denied their rights, but they still have their rights.

I don't believe I mentioned Jefferson, or Locke. I'm pretty sure my rights have nothing to do with Thomas Jefferson, or Locke or anyone else. Had Jefferson never wrote the Declaration of Independence and used the words he used, I would still have my unalienable rights.

You can harp on common law all day long, my rights are natural rights based on property and natural law. You seem to have an obsession with what judges and tribunals and courts and governments think and "rule", whereas I could care less about man-made law.

For example, the law says it is illegal for me to smoke weed. I do not drugs, but I definitely have the right to smoke weed if I choose to exercise that right. A government's police force can deny me that right, but they can't take it away from me. I own my body, it is my property. I own the marijuana, it is my property. It is my right to do whatever I wish to do with my property. Which means I can put whatever I want too in my body.

In Alabama it is illegal to gamble. I say I have the right to gamble. I voluntarily exchanged a service (labor) for the Note, thus it is my property and I reserve the right to spend it however I choose.

I have the right to do whatever I want to do, so long as I am not harming another (and by harming another, I mean violating their rights).

What is this "Separation of Church and State" you speak of? Where does it come from?

Past that, "Creator give" simply means by the mere fact that you exist. "I think, therefore I am", well I say "I exist, therefore I have rights". All people have rights, not just Christians. Rights existed before Christianity. The first person on this planet had rights, simply because he existed.

Sara, do I have the right to come into your house?

[Son of Repoman]

Well I was going to reply to this thread, but I think I'm just going to leave things in the hand of my new personal representative Stinger.

Damn fine work there.

[Irishsara]

No, but I dont have a contract with you. I do have a contract with my government. In having my citizenship I give up my rights for the rights they give me. To be part of a society you give up rights. For example, in a world with no government you have all your rights. you have complete self atonomy. In joining a society for the mutual protection and common wealth then you give up your rights. The rights are given by the society and protected by the society. In western society, this is often the Common law which goes at least as far back as the Roman Law. Rights are outlined and protected in history and law. They are a series of privileges that have become so vital that they became laws.

If a society removes the rights that are given then the contract is broken.

[Stinger]

Is this that same contract that you think makes it okay for a group to sign their great-grandchildren up to fight future wars in defense of a foreign nation?

Government cannot grant rights; rights cannot infringe on the rights of others. The government has given you no rights Sara.

You're all about laws and collectivism aren't you?

Do you value freedom at all?

[Irishsara]

There is no citizen requirement for living in the United States. By willingly staying a citizen and living and working within the society then you give your assent to the social contract. You could, in theory, move to Somalia and do whatever you want. you have the ability to terminate your citizenship. Its a choice. The contract has within it built in rights and privileges (embodied in the bill of rights). Part of these rights started as privileges that became rights as part of the the evolutionary process of the common law. The Church had a large impact on The Common law but the common law itself is older then the church.

The thing is ... I dont disagree with you that we have a complete control of our own rights and they are almost unlimited. BUT i believe that in order to live in a society we give them up to live within their framework of rights.

[Ian Clark]

As I've stated in other threads before, the founding fathers drew considerable inspiration from the philosophical writings of John Locke (not the guy from Lost). More to the point, they drew the idea of natural law from Locke. However, many draw from Locke's political philosophy without sufficient examination of the basics: Locke's theory of metaphysics. Locke didn't just slap down the idea of Natural Law and conclude "That sounds about right", he actually sought out to figure out why we believed in any of the things we believed in, or if it was all just a bunch of imaginary bullshit we came up with one night. His conclusion went like this: We are born into this world as a complete blank state. We are kicked, and we discover being kicked hurts. We see a landscape, and we discover the beauty of nature. We interact with another human being, and we conclude that they have a mind, like ours, and feelings, like ours. If we extrapolate further from this, we reach the conclusion of the rights which should be inherent to all human beings. In other words, natural law must exist because we must get the idea from somewhere ("We hold these truths to be self-evident").

From this, Locke came up with the ideas of property rights, free speech, and so on. However, there is one vitally important thing about Locke's writing which the founding fathers remembered which is not remembered often in these conversations: Natural law is discovered by human reasoning. This is why the constitution begins with "We the people".

Natural law is an idea not exclusive to political theory, it's just that we usually call it "laws of nature". Take gravity, for example, drop a baseball out the window and it's going to fall. This is why we believe in gravity. If, for some reason, you dropped the baseball out the window and it stopped just short of the ground and turned upward, we'd be forced to revisit our idea of gravity. No such proof exists for natural law in the political sphere. I have a right to life, but if someone breaks into my house and shoots me, they're going to find the trigger just as easy to pull as if they were shooting a paint can. As a consequence, we are forced to examine our conceptions of natural law via our own reasoning, we cannot take them as a given.

You will notice that I am not, in this post, coming out in favour of anything. Not healthcare, not abortion rights, not gay marriage. That's what the entire rest of this forum is for. What I am arguing is that the debate of these issues should come down to the merits of such issues, not merely whether or not they meet a criteria which cannot be proven to exist.

[Tito]

What's love got to do with it, got to do with it?

[Ian Clark]

Love... love will tear us apart, again.

[Xavier]

"Natural Rights" and "Natural Laws" are so awkward. I dig taoist individualist anarchism, personally.

A brief overview:

The first libertarian intellectual was Lao-tzu, the founder of Taoism. Little is known about his life, but apparently he was a personal acquaintance of Confucius in the late sixth century B.C. and like the latter came from the state of Sung and was descended from the lower aristocracy of the Yin dynasty. Unlike the notable apologist for the rule of philosopher-bureaucrats, however, Lao-tzu developed a radical libertarian creed. For Lao tzu the individual and his happiness was the key unit and goal of society. If social institutions hampered the individual's flowering and his happiness, then those institutions should be reduced or abolished altogether. To the individualist Lao-tzu, government, with its "laws and regulations more numerous than the hairs of an ox," was a vicious oppressor of the individual, and "more to be feared than fierce tigers." Government, in sum, must be limited to the smallest possible minimum; "inaction" was the proper function of government, since only inaction can permit the individual to flourish and achieve happiness. Any intervention by government, Lao-tzu declared, would be counterproductive, and would lead to confusion and turmoil. After referring to the common experience of mankind with government, Lao-tzu came to this incisive conclusion: "The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished. . . . The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be."

The wisest course, then, is to keep the government simple and for it to take no action, for then the world "stabilizes itself." As Lao-tzu put it, "Therefore the Sage says: I take no action yet the people transform themselves, I favor quiescence and the people right themselves, I take no action and the people enrich themselves. . . ."

Lao-tzu arrived at his challenging and radical new insights in a world dominated by the power of Oriental despotism. What strategy to pursue for social change? It surely was unthinkable for Lao tzu, with no available historical or contemporary example of libertarian social change, to set forth any optimistic strategy, let alone contemplate forming a mass movement to overthrow the State. And so Lao-tzu took the only strategic way out that seemed open to him, counseling the familiar Taoist path of withdrawal from society and the world, of retreat and inner contemplation.

That retreat from the State was a dominant Taoist objective may be seen in the views of the great Taoist Chuang-tzu (369-c. 286 B.c.) who, two centuries after Lao-tzu, pushed the master's ideas of laissez faire to their logical conclusion: individualist anarchism. The influential Chuang tzu, a notable stylist who wrote in allegorical parables, was a highly learned man in the state of Meng, and also descended from the old aristocracy. A minor official in his native state, Chuang tzu's fame as a writer spread far and wide throughout China, so much so that King Wei of the Ch'u kingdom sent an emissary to Chuang bearing great gifts and urging him to become Wei's chief minister of state. Chuang-tzu's scornful rejection of the king's offer is one of the great declarations in history on the evils underlying the glittering trappings of State power; it was a fitting declaration from the man who was perhaps the world's first anarchist:

A thousand ounces of gold is indeed a great reward. and the office of chief minister is truly an elevated position. But have you, sir, not seen the sacrificial ox awaiting the sacrifices at the royal shrine of state? It is well cared for and fed for a few years, caparisoned with rich brocades, so that it will be ready to be led into the Great Temple. At that moment, even though it would gladly change places with any solitary pig, can it do so? So, quick and be off with you! Don't sully me, I would rather roam and idle about in a muddy ditch, at my own amusement, than to be put under the restraints that the ruler would impose. I will never take any official service, and thereby I will satisfy my own purposes.

Chuang-tzu reiterated and embellished Lao-tzu's devotion to laissez faire and opposition to state rule: "There has been such a thing as letting mankind alone; there has never been such a thing as governing mankind [with success]." In fact, the world simply "does not need governing; in fact it should not be governed." Chuang-tzu was also the first to work out the idea of "spontaneous order," developed particularly by Proudhon in the nineteenth and by F. A. Hayek of the Austrian School in the twentieth CenNry: "Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone."

Chuang-tzu, moreover, was perhaps the first theorist to see the State as a brigand writ large: "A petty thief is put in jail. A great brigand becomes a ruler of a State." Thus the only difference between State rulers and out-and-out robber chieftains is the size of their depredations. This theme of ruler-as-robber was to be repeated, independently of course, by Cicero and then by St. Augustine and other Christian thinkers in the Middle Ages.

[Stinger]

^ That's great stuff.

I dig Lao-tzu as well. And as my avatar and signature suggest, Rothbard too.

[Irishsara]

WHat do you think are the natural rights of each person and how do you reconcile history and historical views of rights?


Can rights evolve?

[Stinger]

All rights are based on property: mine, mine, mine... and mine.

Can rights evolve in what way?

If you're talking about evolving to where you can say that you have the "right to healthcare", then no.

[Irishsara]

The property of the early church is available for usage by all the believers. There was no private property in the early church. If Private property is creator endowed then why was it not endowed to the 12, and Christ? Why would they preach communal property if it was a right Guaranteed by God? The Didache would mention private property instead they give mention to a communal property society existing within the pagan Roman, private property society. If anything Private property is Pagan in nature and not of god.

And all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and distributed them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, ate their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favour with all the people. (Acts 2:44-47.)

If private property is a GOD blessed right then why don’t God’s chosen have private property?

But that is mostly a theological discussion.

A historical discussion would have me ask the question that why does our earliest anthropological looks at Human society show that it was a communal tribal society, Like the Inuits. If it was inalienable then why does it not exist in our earliest society? UNLESS that its not fundamental and inaliable and INSTEAD being one of the basic and most primary pillars of a developed society based on mutual assent, in other words, a social contract for a society.

[Ian Clark]

There's another massive post coming, but I must warn this one will be a million times bigger and longer than the first.

[Stinger]

You think too much Sara.

It has nothing to do with early church, pagans, Inuits, or anything else. It's not about John Locke, the common law, or anyone or anything that you want to also mention.

You are an individual. A sovereign person.

It doesn't matter your gender, race, nationality, religion, or any other collectivist category that some people care about. All human beings have the same rights. You have rights because you exist. You know what I have in common with a woman in Saudi Arabia and a young boy in Darfur? All three of us are individuals, no better than the other, who have the same rights.

My computer belongs to me, not the community. No one has a right to use my computer except for me, because it is my property. I can grant you permission to use my computer, and I can revoke that permission at any time.

Does the community own your house? Do your neighbors have a right to enter your home whenever they like? Or do you have to invite them in, permission, before they enter?

It's a simple concept... two-year-old's understand the concept of "mine".

You have 5 ounces of gold. That is your property. You can take your property and give me some of it, or you can keep it all for yourself. You have the right to do whatever you want to do with it.

I want your gold though. I can ask you if there is any work you need done in exchange for some gold, and if so then we can enter into a quid-pro-quo contract. We have the right to voluntarily enter into that agreement: my services for some of your gold.

I could knock you down... which violates your rights, which means I don't have the right to knock you down.

I could steal it while you're not looking... which violates your rights, which means I don't have the right to steal your gold.

I could shoot you... which violates your right to life, which means I don't have the right to shoot you.

The above three things I could do violate your rights, which makes me liable for redress. Rights can't violate the rights of others.

I can say whatever I want to say in my house, that's my right to free speech. I cannot enter your home and say whatever I want to say, because you may not like what I'm saying and can tell me to leave as a result. My right to free speech does not extend to your property.

The 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms (it doesn't grant that right). That doesn't mean I have the right to a weapon. I can buy one so long as someone is willing to sell me one, or I can make my own. But I don't have a right to one.

You do not have the right to healthcare, to food, to a house, to water, to an abortion, to electricity, etc. These are goods or services, and they are impossible to ever have the right to.

For example, we both live on a beach somewhere. I have plenty of bottled water stockpiled in my home. You don't have any stored. There's a hurricane that does a lot of damage. Stores are empty, roads are damaged and blocked, preventing new deliveries for days or maybe even weeks. I have plenty of water, and you have none. If you had a "right to water" then you could simply take mine... but you can't have that right because it'd be a violation of my rights (via theft).

Society, via it's moral "social contract", deems drugs, gambling, and prostitution to be dangerous vices that are illegal in most places in the USA. That's group think and it's bullshit. I'm against all three personally, but it should all be legal. You have the right to drugs that you own. You have the right to gamble your money. You have the right to offer sexual service.

Those are rights because it's based solely on property. I own my body and I own the drugs, it's all my property. I can do whatever I want with my property, so into my body goes my drugs. I own my money, it's my property, and so I can spend it however I please. That's my right. Women, and men too, have the right to sell sex to others because it's their body, thus their property to do with as they please.

You are free to do whatever you want too, so long as you do not harm another person (violate their rights).

[Irishsara]

Ok good. We got that out of the way. It has nothing to do with God. It has nothing to do with fundimental individual rights, they have not always existed. The inuit boy does not own his coat because his coat is not his property but the property of the tribe. Tribal ownership exists which means that all people do not have the right to individual property.

It has everything to do with the particularly western philosophy of individualism. Its what, through my drunken haze that I was able to accomplish. It is the western theory of individualism and the legal theory of John Stewart Mill. In case you havent read him, it basically comes down to the individual ought be free to do as he wishes unless he harms others, BUT Mill also believed in social justice and that the majority should protect and defend the rights of the minority. The problem with this is that he makes the assumption that people are both logical and basically good. I disagree with both.

The rights to property are some of the most ancient rights in the common western social contract. Those rights dont exist in other cultures because their social contract is different from ours. individual rights may be better but they are not fundamental to humanity.

I think the best historical examples of personal liberty taken to the extreme with a good dose of social darwinism (because the best rise to the top and it is their property so the government should not be allowed to give advantages to others because thats Big Government getting involved) was the time period between 1865-1901. The people who owned the busnesses had complete control over their property, the government could not get involved. They could hire and fire, it was up to them everything from safety regulations to how their money was spent in the public. The Gosple of wealth meant that most rich donated hugely, it was just not on anything that actually mattered.

The problem is that this era had huge social problems. The labor tensions nearly resulted in full class warfare and there were many violent clashes between rich and poor. It resulted in a huge wave of strikes, economic depression and the Panic of 1873. Historically we tried your way and it fails and it fails hard.

The second Amendment protects the right to own a gun. But does it protect the right for a convict, convicted 4 times of armed robbery and assult with a deadly weapon, the right to own a gun? Ofcourse he doesnt. His actions violated the social contract which gave the government the power to strip him of that right. Its not inalienable if they can be taken away justifiably. Rights and privileges are granted by the society. it is the way its always been.

For property,
The items are yours for as long as you agree with the social contact. If you break the rules then the government can strip you of those rights. The government can take those goods, like in taxes or even take your land and give you value for it. Your property is yours because you exist in an agreement.
For example, if we were in Somalia, in a state of nature, And i was stronger and more vicious and had more guys, and i came in and took all your stuff, and there was no society, no social contract, and nothing to inforce that social contract, then how are my acts in violation of anything. Its proved by your lack of recourse.

So, in your thinking, individuals have no obligation to society? I mean you know, like paying taxes, getting drafted, obeying the social rules set down by the social contract? Its not individual freedoms if, against your will, you have to contribute to society and to your own protection, then that is forcing you to give up your property and thus against your rights?

Oh and I thought that a woman has the right to her own body, how is an abortion a violation of rights?

[Durandal]

Really, abortion? You want to have a logical debate, and you bring in a hot-button issue? That's going to sidetrack this thread, and you knew it would sidetrack the thread when you posted it. But fine, you want a response, you'll get one. This isn't my position on the abortion issue, but a libertarian one.

A woman has a right to her body, sure. When she lets a man have sex with her, then she is giving him the privilege of sharing her body. If a woman becomes pregnant as a result, however, she cannot revoke that privilege, because through conception that gives the man a new right: the right to have his child safely delivered (which he can choose not to value, if he wishes). The woman still has the right to her body, but if she aborts the child against the man's wishes, then it's violating his rights, and she has wronged him.

[Irishsara]

I didnt bring up abortion ...

Y
You do not have the right to healthcare, to food, to a house, to water, to an abortion, to electricity, etc. These are goods or services, and they are impossible to ever have the right to.

Rights cannot be created through. So how can it create a new right. One right also cannot infringe on another, and pregnancy would infringe on alot of a woman's freedoms. Right? I mean am i misunderstanding the philosophy here? I mean I have complete control over my body because I am a logical person, and because I am a logical person then I have all my rights. Including the right to self mutilation if i so choose, the right to use drugs, I mean this is what we are talking about. So why is it that when I am not pregnant I have the right to take drugs but when I am pregnant I no longer have that right.

[Stinger]

It has nothing to do with fundimental individual rights, they have not always existed.

No, they have always existed.

The inuit boy does not own his coat because his coat is not his property but the property of the tribe.

You are implying that Inuits have no concept of private ownership/property (aka "mine"), that they own nothing themselves. This is wrong. Yes they share, but they have things that are theirs alone. They have private ownership. They own things that are theirs solely, not the property of the community.

"nangminiq"

Tribal ownership exists which means that all people do not have the right to individual property.

All people have the same rights, property rights. Everyone has property that they own exclusively. I have the right to piss in my backyard. Just because I don't exercise that right doesn't mean that I don't have that right.

It has everything to do with the particularly western philosophy of individualism. Its what, through my drunken haze that I was able to accomplish. It is the western theory of individualism and the legal theory of John Stewart Mill. In case you havent read him, it basically comes down to the individual ought be free to do as he wishes unless he harms others, BUT Mill also believed in social justice and that the majority should protect and defend the rights of the minority.

Has nothing to do with John Stewart Mill, John Locke or any other John Doe you want to throw at me.

The problem with this is that he makes the assumption that people are both logical and basically good. I disagree with both.

Of course you do. Needless to say, I disagree with you. The overwhelming majority of people are good people. I cannot understand how you can have such a lack of faith in individuals and freedom, yet have so much invested in collectivism and government. Be honest, you'd have no problem living under a King would you?

The rights to property are some of the most ancient rights in the common western social contract. Those rights dont exist in other cultures because their social contract is different from ours. individual rights may be better but they are not fundamental to humanity.

I think all people, indeed all creatures, desire to be free.

I think the best historical examples of personal liberty taken to the extreme with a good dose of social darwinism (because the best rise to the top and it is their property so the government should not be allowed to give advantages to others because thats Big Government getting involved) was the time period between 1865-1901. The people who owned the busnesses had complete control over their property, the government could not get involved. They could hire and fire, it was up to them everything from safety regulations to how their money was spent in the public. The Gosple of wealth meant that most rich donated hugely, it was just not on anything that actually mattered.

So from 1865-1901, Libertarianism and free markets ruled the day?

The problem is that this era had huge social problems. The labor tensions nearly resulted in full class warfare and there were many violent clashes between rich and poor. It resulted in a huge wave of strikes, economic depression and the Panic of 1873. Historically we tried your way and it fails and it fails hard.

I obviously disagree with that last part.

So you're saying "my way" (free market libertarianism) resulted in/caused the Panic of 1873?

But does it protect the right for a convict, convicted 4 times of armed robbery and assult with a deadly weapon, the right to own a gun? Ofcourse he doesnt

Sure he does. I would argue why he keeps getting let out of prison to begin with if he just keeps getting convicted for the same crime. But in the context, if he serves his time and is released, then he has payed his redress to his victim. Who are you, or the government, to tell him that he doesn't have the right to defend his property. Government can't take that right away from you.

His actions violated the social contract which gave the government the power to strip him of that right.

Where did government get that power?

Which part of "...shall not be infringed." is hard to understand?

Rights and privileges are granted by the society. it is the way its always been.

Rights and privileges are not the same thing. All people have the same rights, always have and always will. I'll grant you the privilege part, simply by the fact that privileges can be revoked by the person who gave them.

The items are yours for as long as you agree with the social contact.

What social contract? Who signed this contract? Where can I read it?

If you break the rules then the government can strip you of those rights.

What rules?

The government can take those goods, like in taxes or even take your land and give you value for it.

And the government can sanction slavery and mandate segregation, doesn't mean they have any real authority to do so.

Your property is yours because you exist in an agreement.

No it's mine because I bought it or I made it. Screw the State and your precious "social contract".

For example, if we were in Somalia, in a state of nature, And i was stronger and more vicious and had more guys, and i came in and took all your stuff, and there was no society, no social contract, and nothing to inforce that social contract, then how are my acts in violation of anything. Its proved by your lack of recourse.

Let's say you're in America, and someone breaks into your house while you are out. They took your computer and several books. You call the cops, they say it was the FBI that did it with a self-written search warrant. What recourse do you have? None, because this authorized under the Patriot Act... something that is completely unconstitutional and certainly did not involve your say one bit.

So, in your thinking, individuals have no obligation to society? I mean you know, like paying taxes, getting drafted, obeying the social rules set down by the social contract?

Nope, because I think your social contract theory is a nonsensical myth. Taxation, like the Income Tax, is theft and a military draft is slavery. I did not sign any contract, neither did you.

Oh and I thought that a woman has the right to her own body, how is an abortion a violation of rights?

Well I certainly don't want to turn this to abortion, which I sandwiched between the other items solely because on the previous board you claimed women had a right to abortions.

There are several ways it could be a violation of rights.

To the people who believe life begins at conception: the growing baby that is to be aborted has a right to its life, so aborting it is violating the right of a living entity. (Save your time typing out a refute to this.)

To others, certainly the child is created using the property of two individuals (sperm from the man and the egg of the woman) and thus both creators have equal say... as Durandal pointed out.

While I personally believe in life begins at conception, that way was not my intended argument. My argument in mentioning it was that it was a service like the other listed items. You cannot have the right to a safe abortion, as is always mentioned, because it is impossible to ever have that right. In that sense, you can dig and cut yourself all up and maybe (likely) even kill yourself doing it. But like healthcare, food, water, etc... going into a clinic to get a safe abortion can never, ever, be a right which any woman can have (rhetorical anyway, there is no such thing as "woman's rights", "gay rights", "minority rights", "black rights", etc.

[Irishsara]

To Keep from repeating myself and getting way off track ill start here

What social contract? Who signed this contract? Where can I read it?

We THE PEOPLE signed this contact called the Constitution. The Contract itself is the laws and regulations of the nation. It is The Common Law, It is the Governmental writings and Executive Orders. You can read it and if you disagree you possess the ability to remove yourself from the jurisdiction. You can even refuse your citizenship.

And the government can sanction slavery and mandate segregation, doesn't mean they have any real authority to do so.

Then how did they do it? Why didn’t the slaves just act on their legally actionable human right?

Like the divine Right Theory, the KING gives rights and obligations. The King can take your land if you are just a landowner. He can hang you without trial. He is the state. America is a Constitutional Republic. Our rights come from our laws and our Constitution.

The Founding Fathers created a social compact based on The British Government and using the ideals of natural laws. natural law might be useful in determining the content of the common law and in deciding cases of equity, but was not itself identical with the laws of The Nation. the origin of all civil government, justly established, must be a voluntary compact, between the rulers and the ruled; and must be liable to such limitations, as are necessary for the security of the defined rights of the ruled. The Ruled has the ability to abolish the government and to form a new one. It has the power to reform the social compact.

Rights are not all absolute. They may be limited or withdrawn under certain circumstances. Right? If rights are inalienable then why is it right that they can be stripped from you after you break the law or in emergencies?

How can all these governments exist with violations of human rights? I mean if rights are always there but if they are not legally actionable then what are they? FANTASY

No it's mine because I bought it or I made it.

If you make liquor without a license you go to jail. If you make guns without a license you go to jail. If you don’t pay taxes on it then it can be taken away by the government. If you obtain it legally then the government can strip it from you. Rights are given in the boundaries established by the state.

Let's say you're in America, and someone breaks into your house while you are out. They took your computer and several books. You call the cops, they say it was the FBI that did it with a self-written search warrant. What recourse do you have? None, because this authorized under the Patriot Act... something that is completely unconstitutional and certainly did not involve your say one bit.

I looked into this. Talked to someone who had been searched. According to the Patriot act, the items are like all other items obtained by a warranted search. All things are returned to you if you can prove that you own them and obtained them legally. If you bring it to government attention then you can go claim your stuff. The only people who get screwed by this if they have illegal things (like assault weapons or money not reported or illegally obtained)

Nope, because I think your social contract theory is a nonsensical myth. Taxation, like the Income Tax, is theft and a military draft is slavery. I did not sign any contract, neither did you.

You don’t really mean this … do you? Taxation has been part of the government since the Roman Empire. You signed up for this like you agree to the contract by buying a ticket to a baseball game. By staying and keeping your citizenship then you agree to the obligations of the state. Living under a government has ALWAYS been a structure of Rights and Obligations. You cant have one without the other. Ancient Greece, you were a citizen? You had to fight in the Army. Rights and Obligations. If you were a Noble to the King in Medieval England? You were given rights by your oath-Lord and you gave him money in the form of tithe and Taxes and you gave your strong right arm to fight. Its basic rights and obligations stretching back through history. You only possess the rights that you can act on.

Well I certainly don't want to turn this to abortion, which I sandwiched between the other items solely because on the previous board you claimed women had a right to abortions.

There are several ways it could be a violation of rights.

To the people who believe life begins at conception: the growing baby that is to be aborted has a right to its life, so aborting it is violating the right of a living entity. (Save your time typing out a refute to this.)

To others, certainly the child is created using the property of two individuals (sperm from the man and the egg of the woman) and thus both creators have equal say... as Durandal pointed out.

While I personally believe in life begins at conception, that way was not my intended argument. My argument in mentioning it was that it was a service like the other listed items. You cannot have the right to a safe abortion, as is always mentioned, because it is impossible to ever have that right. In that sense, you can dig and cut yourself all up and maybe (likely) even kill yourself doing it. But like healthcare, food, water, etc... going into a clinic to get a safe abortion can never, ever, be a right which any woman can have (rhetorical anyway, there is no such thing as "woman's rights", "gay rights", "minority rights", "black rights", etc.

The National Libertarian party is pro choice so I am not sure that this is a libertarian issue.



So wait if I am pregnant then I have a right to give myself a self abortion ( like the abortion pill) right? I mean if i have the right to cut myself then this is just a carryover of that. right? I mean if a Man has the right to cut himself and to harm himself then i dont? Or because I am a woman then anything that makes me different from men are not protected?


Does the government have the right to force a man to pay child support?


This is not about my View of abortion but the Libertarian view of Abortion. So I will leave what I think completely out of this.

Ayn Rand showed extreme contempt for the right-to-life movement, about the idea that an embryo should have a right to life " Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable "

She said " Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?”

She also said “An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn)”.

In Conclusion Ayn Rand said “If any among you are confused or taken in by the argument that the cells of an embryo are living human cells, remember that so are all the cells of your body, including the cells of your skin, your tonsils, or your ruptured appendix—and that cutting them is murder, according to the notions of that proposed law. Remember also that a potentiality is not the equivalent of an actuality—and that a human being’s life begins at birth.”

“A proper, philosophically valid definition of man as “a rational animal,” would not permit anyone to ascribe the status of “person” to a few human cells.”

Murray Rothbard (Major Libertarian philosopher) said "no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person's body"

In the Libertarian view, the fetus does not have a right to be inside any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body. And Everyone has an alienable right to control their body. There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another. Right?

If my Kidney were failing, do I have the right to your kidney? I mean you would survive and I would survive. Sure it would complicate your life but it would save mine. Should the government be able to demand that you do it to save my life? Should I have a right to my mother’s kidney after my birth?

This is not my personal view of abortion ( although its not that far from it) This is about the Libertarian view of the issue. Feel free to say Stinger that your views do not line up with a strict libertarian view. I dont want to paint you into a corner.

[Stinger]

We THE PEOPLE signed this contact called the Constitution. The Contract itself is the laws and regulations of the nation. It is The Common Law, It is the Governmental writings and Executive Orders. You can read it and if you disagree you possess the ability to remove yourself from the jurisdiction. You can even refuse your citizenship.

If say 1/3rd favored it, 1/3rd opposed it, and 1/3rd was indifferent to it, is it really "we the people"? Besides that, the Constitution does not apply to you. It created a government... a limited, Constitutionally chained government. Article 1, Section 8 list the only powers that Congress, the Legislative branch, has. Congress has no authority, under the Constitution, to do anything that is not specially given to them in the 17 enumerated powers.

If this is our social contract, then clearly it is the government who breaks it on a daily basis. Which part of the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to prohibit drugs? No part. Even with alcohol, the Statist at the time had the understanding that they had to amend the Constitution to be able to have prohibition.

Which part of the social contract gives Congress the power to pass the Patriot Act (which violates several amendments of the Bill of Rights... of which Congress shall pass no law)? Which part gives the federal government the power to create the Federal Reserve and issue fiat paper notes that are worthless and will ultimately bring suffering to many? Which part gives the government the authority to mandate that "we the people" have to buy health insurance from some company? Which part allows for the government to be involved in healthcare, education, etc? Which part allows the government to make it so you need permission to buy a gun or what kind you can buy? Which part gives the federal government any power over marriage?

Perhaps it is the government that should abide by the social contract that you claim is the Constitution. I don't see where the Constitution tells me to do anything.

Then how did they do it? Why didn’t the slaves just act on their legally actionable human right?

Because there's rarely enough people at any given time, who are connected and communicate, who see the State for what it really is. It's why North Korea is an impoverished nation under the rule a frail dictator. Obedience.

Ever read Etienne de la Boetie's "The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude"?

Like the divine Right Theory, the KING gives rights and obligations. The King can take your land if you are just a landowner. He can hang you without trial. He is the state. America is a Constitutional Republic. Our rights come from our laws and our Constitution.

Our rights don't come from the Constitution. The Bill of Rights just list things the government can't do, and then basically says "just because we didn't list it, doesn't mean you can do it." The Constitution applies to the government only, not you. It doesn't grant you anything.

The Ruled has the ability to abolish the government and to form a new one. It has the power to reform the social compact.

Yeah, the South tried that. But you know, the Union had to be preserved and so lots of people died. Coincidentally, the State grew bigger and assumed more powers.

How can all these governments exist with violations of human rights?

Because people, who are less than cowards, allow it? I can rob you blind, but just because you don't do anything about it, doesn't make it right.

If you make liquor without a license you go to jail. If you make guns without a license you go to jail. If you don’t pay taxes on it then it can be taken away by the government. If you obtain it legally then the government can strip it from you. Rights are given in the boundaries established by the state.

LOL. Honestly Sara. I obviously disagree that the State has any real authority to do any of this. We have a fundamental disagreement here Sara... I'm against the State and think people don't need to be ruled by anyone, let alone another person. I think the State is bullshit. I think if government is to exist, its sole purpose is only to protect rights of individuals (assault, murder, rape, theft, vandalism). I disagree that the State has any authority to do anything to the contrary. I don't trust the government as you do.

Why do you like government so much, particularly big government?

What do you think? Should people need a license to make liquor or open a business? A license to get married? Should the State outlaw things like drugs, gambling and prostitution, or even pornography? Answer honestly please, not quoting what someone else says or what the laws government has or the common law says. What do you think?

I looked into this. Talked to someone who had been searched. According to the Patriot act, the items are like all other items obtained by a warranted search. All things are returned to you if you can prove that you own them and obtained them legally. If you bring it to government attention then you can go claim your stuff. The only people who get screwed by this if they have illegal things (like assault weapons or money not reported or illegally obtained)

The Patriot Act allows federal agents to write their own search warrants, and makes it illegal for you to tell anyone, including a judge, that you have received a self-written search warrant.

Do you support the Patriot Act? Think it's constitutional, or would you like to see it repealed (as I would)?

You don’t really mean this … do you? Taxation has been part of the government since the Roman Empire. You signed up for this like you agree to the contract by buying a ticket to a baseball game. By staying and keeping your citizenship then you agree to the obligations of the state. Living under a government has ALWAYS been a structure of Rights and Obligations. You cant have one without the other. Ancient Greece, you were a citizen? You had to fight in the Army. Rights and Obligations. If you were a Noble to the King in Medieval England? You were given rights by your oath-Lord and you gave him money in the form of tithe and Taxes and you gave your strong right arm to fight. Its basic rights and obligations stretching back through history. You only possess the rights that you can act on.

When did America get the Income Tax? Why does America need an Income Tax?

It's completely immoral and it is theft. Fuck the State on that, that includes the King, Emperor, Pharaoh, Chancellor, President, Senator, etc. I have the right to keep the fruit of my labor. It is absolutely theft. Just because the government is the one doing the stealing does not negate the fact that it is theft. Obama wants to assassinate a US citizen. Just because he's President does not mean he has the real authority to do it, nor will it negate the fact that it would be murder.

Why are you so supportive of governments? What is it about freedom that you do not like and makes you think you need to be ruled by another person or group of people?

The National Libertarian party is pro choice so I am not sure that this is a libertarian issue.

The Libertarian Party is neutral in that they don't think federal government should rule either way.

Beyond that, that's like saying "The National Republican party is pro-war."

Libertarians are not mindless drones that conform to the belief of the "party" and agree on every issue 100%. There are pro-choice Libertarians and pro-life Libertarians.

So wait if I am pregnant then I have a right to give myself a self abortion ( like the abortion pill) right? I mean if i have the right to cut myself then this is just a carryover of that. right? I mean if a Man has the right to cut himself and to harm himself then i dont? Or because I am a woman then anything that makes me different from men are not protected?

Cut yourself sure. Abortion pill can't be a right itself, no.

Does the government have the right to force a man to pay child support?

They claim to. Should they? No, absolutely not.

To the rest of it regarding the quotes:

Listen Sara, I don't care what other people say or think and neither should you. I like Ayn Rand, but her views are just that... her views. Who cares what she thinks? She was an individual and believed in individualism. Ayn Rand is not the definition of Libertarianism any more than Rush Limbaugh is the definition of Conservative.

As for Murray Rothbard: When you say "(Major Libertarian philosopher)" are you saying that for the benefit of other people or were you letting me know or just generally modifying his name in relation to the topic of Libertarianism? I only ask because I laughed initially, because I read it as you telling me who he was. I found it funny because of the Rothbard avatar and he's in the signature too.

I love Murray Rothbard. His books, newsletters, journals, and columns are some of my favorite reading materials. His book, The Ethics of Liberty, is a fantastic read. Rothbard was not just a Libertarian in the sense that people think of Libertarianism today with the political party, but he was an AnCap (as is Lew Rockwell and many others, all people I admire and read daily).

While Rothbard is a man whose work I greatly respect and who has influenced me quite a bit, I by no means agree with every thing the man has said. Rothbard goes beyond believing that a woman has the right to abortion (in the sense that I was talking about, not in the service of abortion) into believing that parents have no obligation to feed, clothe, or provide education for a child. They can't outright murder the child, or beat it or torture it, but the parents should not be legally compelled to provide food for the child. Few Libertarians hold this position. Rothbard would be the first person to tell you, if he were alive today, that his belief is not the gospel truth that must be followed by any other believer in a limited or no government society.

If my Kidney were failing, do I have the right to your kidney? I mean you would survive and I would survive. Sure it would complicate your life but it would save mine. Should the government be able to demand that you do it to save my life? Should I have a right to my mother’s kidney after my birth?

No to all of the above. And for the record, I think government should stay out of abortion. My political gripe with it is people claiming they have a right to abortion in the safe, clinical sense. Am I personally opposed to it? Absolutely. I'm personally opposed to drugs too...

This is about the Libertarian view of the issue.

There's no such thing, really. This would be a collectivist labeling that all Libertarians believe the same thing and have no differing opinions. This simply isn't true. There are Libertarians on both sides of the issue, including those who were close to Mr. Rothbard.

Feel free to say Stinger that your views do not line up with a strict libertarian view. I dont want to paint you into a corner.

Well there is no corner to be painted into, so no worries. Do I agree with Ayn Rand or Murray Rothbard on every single issue? No, why would I?

I try to worry more about what I think and why I think it, without denying a large majority of it has been influenced by a great many thinkers spanning many centuries, than with conforming to the ideals and beliefs of someone else 100%.