Should government exist?

Personally, I would prefer a constitution under which people are not free to make arbitrary land claims. I would prefer that any unused land may only be claimed by homesteading and actually putting that land to use. I would prefer that nobody be able to simply claim huge tracts of land without actually using it.

 

You're intent makes sense but you do realize such expectation would lead to immediate development of everything whether necessary or not... it is typically the unintended consequences that make them perverse.

 

Here's an idea: Stop telling me what I mean. What you wrote is psychotic.

Nowhere, in this thread or anywhere else, have I attempted to justify murder. In the story being discussed people with guns show up at the place where a man lives, and tell him that he no longer lives there. They offer him three options; cooperate with them, leave or die. I specifically said that the justification of what they did would depend on whether or not it is necessary. If there is no other place for them to live and farm, then farming that land (the same land of which I said that I'm not sure if farming it should constitute permanent ownership or not) would be something they are justified in doing. But no real justification was given in the story for them to do any of it, let alone remove him from his house. When I asked you what gave you the idea that I want want to justify murder, you wrote:

This is false. If you don't understand why it's false, let me know, and I'll show you how to falsify a conditional proposition.
You seem to understand this on some level because the actual justification you offered was that there is not enough room for them:

This has nothing to do with property ownership, no matter how absolute you think it to be. I'm not interested in speculating about what may, or may not justify the murder of newborn babies. What you offer though, in an attempt to reduce what you call absolute ownership of land to absurdity, is nothing like a sufficient justification, so it it doesn't even work for its own sake.
But, if you remember what I had asked you for, you should know that what you were supposed to show us was why you believe that I want to justify murder. But instead of doing that you go on to make a series of false or dubious statements about ownership in the abstract, none of which have anything to do with me.

What I want is a judicial system which decides each case on its own merits according to natural law. The nonaggression principal would play a key roll in this system. There can be no case against any person unless there is a complaining party. In every single case, the questions should be asked "Is there an injured party?" and "Has either party initiated force or fraud? If so, which party?". If these questions can be answered, the offending party can be identified and the case can proceed. If they cannot all be answered, then it cannot be shown that a crime has been committed and the case cannot proceed.

I'll refrain from openly speculating about why you only seem to be able to ever talk about anything other than land, and why so many of the presuppositions that show up in your presumptuous statements about the beliefs of others are false, because, regardless of what I suspect, I can't know any of that unless I ask you. (Hint: I'm pretending to set a good example for you to follow. Stop being so (*)(*)(*)(*) presumptuous!)

 

You should expound on this. I can't tell what you mean by reading what you wrote. Also, I have to guess that you're talking to Longshot, and I don't see anything he wrote that would justify the inference you seem to have drawn.

 

I have a question for you. How many people have to "misunderstand" what you are saying before you start to believe you are not communicating very well? If you really want to know why so many people think you are saying something you are not saying maybe I can help.

Except for the fact you didn't. Here's a bit of the story addressing that exact point.

Everybody else reading the story assumes that the statement "you claimed it all" means there is no more left. This was your response.

All you say is that Al is wrong. People read in the story that there is no land left. You say that Al is wrong to farm it. What else can one assume except that you think Al should go off and starve. If you meant something else, you certainly didn't say it. I don't know why you failed to read that part, but it would seem to me that people's reactions to your actual statements are far from psychotic.

We can even go back to my first question

I don't think that any reasonable person could argue that this is not an open ended enough to question. It's not leading in any way. You are free to answer in any way you choose. Here was your answer.

I, of course, noticed that you referenced Locke without mentioning the proviso, but I let it go because I was curious to see if you would ever get around to mentioning it on your own. I've read your answer several times now and I fail to see any hint that scarcity of resources limits someones ownership claim. You say that some resources are finite, but you do nothing at all with that. I am not about to go through all of your posts and show them here, but you make no mention of hoarding or suggest that ownership is anything but complete and permanent until an aside remark in responding to my story. And then all you say is you don't know if one maintains ownership when he is not using a resource. And now you say that, of course, people have a right to invade somebody else's property if they really need to eat. And somehow you don't see that that is a direct contradiction of all the justifications of property you offered up to that point.

So, maybe if you are really concerned about people misrepresenting your position, you should explain it better.

 

You have, you just don’t recognize it. Take a strong, healthy, wild cat (mountain lion) and remove him from access to the natural resources of the earth by placing him in a cage. Then don’t feed him (as that would be akin to welfare), just let him be. He will soon die of starvation, isn’t that right? Now you might want to pretend that you didn’t kill that cat, you might want to pretend that the cat died by his own lack of ingenuity, but we all really know that you killed that cat, and that you did it by removing his access to nature.

Now you do support private ownership of land, right? So what happens when all the land titles are issued and all the land is legally claimed. What about those who didn’t receive a land title? These land titles which are all owned by others, remove everyone else's right to access the earth and all the natural resources thereon, the same as the cage removed the cats access.

Now you can argue that these deprived individuals can regain access to the earth by giving most of what their labor produces to someone who holds a land privilege. And that might keep at least some of them from starving to death. But the fact is, even this relief lever of being able to buy access to land from parasitic landowners was not enough to prevent the Irish Potato Famine, where tens of thousands died of starvation. Even during the famine, Ireland was a food exporting country, with cartloads of meat, butter, cheese and other produce being carted passed trenches piled with the dead. That food going to absentee landowners in the form of rent.

In this very country, in days gone by, when land scarcity was at a fraction of what it currently is, the system of unconditional landownership has been used by landowners to push a great number of people to the brink of starvation and beyond. Thus was born the welfare state. Under the system of near unconditional landownership, landowners pushed the envelope of their great power, and thus was introduced a new relief, called the “new deal”. That new deal did nothing to right the wrong that landowner privilege has laid onto the masses, it simply relieved the subsequent poverty produced by landowners, by taxing the middle class producers in order to provide assistance to those impoverished by the system of landowner privilege.

No need to speculate, I can answer that question right here, right now: I hate governement-issued privilege, I hate economically destructive taxes which burden production and trade. Unconditional land titles are the most destructive privilege society can grant to individuals. Unconditional land titles spur the corruption of government and contribute to unnecessary government growth, as landowners try to get government to tax others in order to provide infrastructure and services which will increase the economic value of their land title privileges.

If the day should ever come when this privilege is abolished and people can access land on equal terms, as dictated by a free market in land, then and only then will I turn my focus to the elimination of other unjust privileges, the next in line being the privilege of monopolistic money creation by the banking industry.

So while the government is enabling many individuals to do wrong through the privileges they hold. These privileges must be attacked in a certain order, lest the abolition of one privilege should just lead to the strengthening of another. I know that abolishing other privileges or reducing government waste would simply strengthen the privilege of landownership by increasing the market value of that privilege. That is why I consider it crucial to take out that privilege first. My ultimate goal is a government which does not issue privileges and does not tax people for being productive or for engaging in consensual trade, both of which are very beneficial to society, especially so when they are not hindered by burdensome taxation.

 

It would be fun to repeat the arguments of Locke and Rousseau, but, since they have already been done and are readily available, try reading them for a discussion of whether or not government is necessary. Fascinating stuff.

 

What can I say, you guys fascinate me.

I would love to see examples of what you consider "color".

If I have misapprehensions, it's not for lack of trying to get you to state and justify what you believe. As I already shown above, I've asked you a couple dozen questions. You've directly responded to maybe four or five.

So let me get this straight. You start a thread calling everybody like me who supports the common definition of government evil, and I'm the who initiated the contemptuousness? Can you really not see how some might consider that maybe a itsy bitsy teeny weeny offensive? Do you really believe you could do anything to come off as more arrogant than that? I have to admit, you have some brass ones.

And just for the record, where I come from, calling someone a MF means nothing. How could it? Nobody believes anybody anybody is having sexual relations with their own mothers. It is used for dramatic effect. I just assumed you would understand that.

Of course you never argued it. It's just that every statement you write assumes it. What I find interesting is that you can't see that.

 

If you wanted the reader of that story to get the impression that Ian's land was the only land left in the world or at least, the world for those people, you should have made that explicit. I remember reading this line:

But it never occurred to me that you intended to convey the idea that there was literally no other land available. Probably because the context where "as much and as good" implies other land. How is the reader supposed to know that Al and friends are not just picky. And the instruction for the old man to look around seems to indicate an area that is not very large.

But I still made my position on the matter of what should be done if there really was no other land available explicit in my first response to that story:

Didn't you read the part where I said "If there is no other land available, then the world is overpopulated, and all bets are off"? How could you miss it? It has a big yellow smiley face next to it.

This whole discussion hinges on who's rights, if those of anyone, are being violated. When I answer this statement

With this:

I'd like to think that my position on that matter becomes clear to anyone who reads it.
Certainly, it doesn't follow from anything I've written, ever, that I advocate killing babies. I can't imagine why anyone would dream of trying to make that connection, unless he knows that it is an absurd notion, and is intentionally trying to impact the emotion of the reader.

 

I think we're talking past each other a bit here, I'm not talking about security, which certainly serves a role since it's not the obligation of state ran law enforcement to protect private assets. What I'm talking about is literally law enforcement, I'm not saying for one second that the current system isn't flawed I just don't believe we'd be better off leasing out that service to the highest bidder. Regime uncertainty, and frankly uncertainty of any variety (particularly regarding the rules of the game and how their enforced) is a poison to markets and increase the need to be more averse to risk.

This is true as well. I have no issues with private contracting and unique and complex sets of rules that govern them, what I don't want is the the underlying specifics of what is fraud, for instance, to be up in the air. Like in Monopoly (the game), nuanced house rules are fine, but it's much easier to play the game when we have some base set of guidelines governing the game.

Sanctioned law enforcement is a privilege (the authority to do so being acknowledged democratically in most cases regardless of whether there is state involvement), any competition to gain access to privilege is inherently wasteful unless there are vast quality differences in how the service is provided and to that I believe there is a ceiling.

Absolutely, which is why I also mentioned competition for ill/misinformed customers, not all transactions are euvoluntary (thanks Mike Munger) and no one ever has any problem with transactions of that nature, but competition for say... organs where the at the bargaining table are at drastically different bargaining positions and the competition for those customers could be harmful.

Here's a couple links to Professor Munger discussing the concept:
http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/280366/michael-munger-euvoluntary-exchange-reihan-salam#
http://people.duke.edu/~munger/euvol.pdf

If entering into a wage-labor agreement is voluntary then so is taxation, self sustenance and self sufficiency are always an option, but a world where we do that is a very poor one and not one that I'd want to live in. Yes, some things we are taxed for are literally theft (bail outs are a good example), but I see taxation for the purpose of the provision of public goods to be a fee paid for services provided.

 

Primarily for the first reason I mention. I don't want an internal arms race, squabbling over jurisdiction or a non-democratically recognized agency granted the privilege of enforcement.

As could a non-state agency, but by the same token I believe that no matter the source, any agency with the privileges we grant to the state would at some point violate this principle from someones perspective. I think you're romanticizing a stateless society, it very well may be better, but at the end of the day it's so utterly unrealistic that it's hard to do anything other than just shrug at the idea.

It's less of a problem when it doesn't have to justify it's own existence and is constrained by a democratic process. Democracy is FAR from perfect, I just find it a preferable avenue for the provision of public to avoid the economic problems associated with them.

Then mutually beneficial exchange makes no sense and doesn't exist. Of course firms could collude to both of their benefit, imagine an oligopoly that colludes to raise prices in a market where entry is difficult or impossible, you could of course bust out some Schumpeterian notions of competition here but I thing that's unlikely you'll do so.

A lack of competition harms innovation but reduces some operating expenses (fixed costs) via scaled economies, you could make a case that competition also impacts innovations in managerial tasks but I think those are marginal.

I don't see any reason to think a private market for it wouldn't do the same, if I look at how other goods are handled we'd have commercials keeping us in a constant state of fear (like pharma companies do) to drum up demand for their product. The demand for most public goods is hard to gauge so efficiency is evoked to answer the question, we've certainly gone past that with our defense department but that happens for another reason entirely (stabilization).

So now we're going to erode the notion of national borders, too be honest, a conversation about "the perfect world" doesn't really interest me as it ignore reality to an extreme. Sure it's nice to dream about Utopia, but in our world there are boarders and sovereign states charged with the duty to protect them and as mentioned, defense is the epitome of a public good, no one is excluded from the benefits provided regardless of whether and in what volume you pay.

National defense is not insurance but even if we view it through that window, missile defense protects my neighbor just as much as it does myself and there's no way, other than via force or coercion, that I can extract payment from him for the service that I'm providing. In a sense, we've made a contract with the state to provide this good, and tax folks so we can assure that we're all contributing to the good being provided.

 

I've thought a little about Anikdote's objection to this idea. It has caused me to retrace my steps and try to understand exactly what it is I'm proposing. Here's a quick review of my idea:

I am laying out the institutions that would be necessary for a people to have a government that does not initiate violence against person or property. The first question asked was, "Who will arbitrate disputes?" The solution is that the disputants choose an arbitrator to judge their dispute, with the arbitrator's decision then constitutionally having the force of law.

Anikdote's next question is then, "Who then has the authority to enforce this judgement." In retrospect, I DON'T think it should be a security firm. It think the appropriate legal enforcer ought to be the winning disputant, the one to whom the judge awards a judgement. This person is the only logical choice.

Remember, this form of government is very truly a form of self-government, in which the people themselves ARE the government. For example, when the two disputants elect another citizen to act as a judge, that citizen is temporarily performing a government role, and the result of his actions are fully legal according to the (proposed) constitution.

Therefore, it should be the same with enforcement. When the judge renders his judgement, the winning disputant ought to perform the legal role of executing that judgement. There ought to be no competition for who is the legal executor. The constitution should specify that it is the winning disputant who always legally is given this government role.

With that question settled, there is still the issue of how the legal executor acquires the means necessary to carry out the judgement. However, this is not an insoluble legal question, and it has a very practical solution. The (proposed) constitution could simply allow for the legal executor to deputize as many other citizens as are necessary to help him execute the judgement.

With that tweak, I think the problem can be solved quite easily, without introducing the idea that there will be competing law enforcement authorities. Instead, I propose that single enforcer of that judgement ought to be the winner of the dispute.

 

We do this on some large scale already, local judges are often elected, are you suggesting that instead for each and every dispute that we go through a similar process and moreover wouldn't we both want an arbitrator bias towards our argument? I think the answer to that is obviously yes and why the electoral process is used to resolve this issue.

I understand the logic, but what if I don't have the means to accomplish this task? What then? Am I just SOL because, despite the fact that I've won the case I'm unable or don't have the skills, knowledge or assets to make myself whole, further... this means that I have to expend even more resources to settle up, so not only was I wronged initially, but now I'm a loser again because I have to spend either time or energy or resources or all three to exact the judgement. It's a heads you win, tails I lose scenario. I see that you addressed this below, but wanted to reiterate the argument for anyone else reading along.

That's precisely what representative democracy is supposed to be.

So... like a local sheriff, also an elected position. Again, it seems uberwasteful to go through this process for each and ever dispute, why not just have a standing authority to carry out that action for all those in this position. Along with this comes the need to finance the deputized citizens, they're providing a service to the benefit of all those participating, why shouldn't all those reaping the benefits of the service be compelled to pay? Who ought to bear the burden of payment? The winner? The loser?

 

Remember, I am trying to put forth a system of government in which the people in the government may not initiate force against person or property. So remember that many government acts will be off the table from the start, such as taxes for example.

The step of disputants choosing an arbitrator would simply be one small part of the process of bringing suit. I thought we had agreed that the current use of arbitration demonstrates that it is an effective mechanism for dispute resolution.

In a sense, the winner of the judgement would carry out the role of sheriff for that particular judgement. Again, remember that I'm trying to come up with a system in which the people in government may not initiate violence against person or property, so a taxpayer funded sheriff would be off the table.

As to payment, I agree all this enforcing of judgements has a cost. Currently, we pay taxes in order to pay these costs. However, under this proposed constitution people who tried to forcibly collect taxes would be breaking the law, so no such tax-for-enforcement service could legally exist. What might need to happen is that people would insure themselves against the possibility of having to execute a judgement in their favor. That way, if they were to go to arbitration and win, they would be indemnified and have the ability to pay their deputies.

 

Tough starting point since a lack of taxation means some people will be exploiting others, it's a nice though but I don't see how you avoid free rider issue regarding goods and services that are non-excludable. Missile defense for example, if I think it's necessary and am willing to pay for it, but you don't and I build it anyway then you're going to reap the benefits without having to pay, that's exploitation.

Sure, for isolated cases, translating that onto the court system that goes through hundreds of thousands of cases a week would be an onerous and expensive task and it's my belief that those resources could be put to better use elsewhere not to mention the delay it would create in the time between bringing suit and a resolution being achieved.

How is this any different, I understand your goal, I just think you may be ignoring the unavoidable issues with it. The winner is granted the right to use force to make himself whole, but only if he A) has the means to do so himself or B) pays someone else to act on his behalf. The sheriff is the agent from solution B, but one who is paid buy those benefiting from his existence. Like with missile defense earlier, even if I don't want the sheriff but benefit from him, then if I don't pay I'm exploiting all those who do.

That's just another cost being born by individuals, since not having it would be irrational it's no different than tax, since the "choice" of having it is only an illusion.

 

Exploitation? You build what you want and I just mind my own business and I'm exploiting you? That's a pretty low bar. I guess when I go to the beach and enjoy the pretty girls I should be paying taxes to them to pay for their gym memberships, clothes, and make up, since my enjoyment of them would otherwise constitution exploitation.

I am talking about avoiding the actual physical violation of another's person or property. That is an overt act. There is someone actually DOING something to someone else. That's what I am trying to avoid.

You'd have to lay out your arguments for why you think a tax funded monopoly court system would work faster or more efficiently than a system in which people routinely use arbitrators. I don't see why this can simply be asserted.

I agree that it would make sense for people to insure themselves against the costs of enforcing judgements, so I do agree with you that the person will be paying either way. So if the person is paying either way, my proposal is immediately no worse than the current system. But, when one removes government initiation of violence against person and property, that's a win. And also, under my system a person has much more choice with respect to what sort of insurance he wants and from whom he chooses to buy it, that's a win too.

 

Without question, you're reaping the benefits of what I've built without paying me for it. The alternative is a race to the bottom.

Implicit coercion is just as bad as explicit violence. Is "sell me your kidney or starve to death" really a choice? I'd say, obviously not.

If nothing else, just based on the sheer number of transactions that would have to occur. Using the market isn't free, it's why the term transactions costs exists.

If we assume all other things equal, and as I mentioned in the previous comment the number of transactions would increase and as each is a one-off case, the costs of contracting would increase simultaneously. I also think calling a democratically acknowledged and elected authority an initiation of violence is hyperbolic to an extreme. Though perhaps you feel the same way about me calling coercion and violence analogous.

 

So what? You wanted an air defense system, not me. I'm not hurting you at all, or interfering with you. I'm just minding my own business.

I'll agree that implicit coercion is a bad thing, though I'm not sure how you could force someone to starve to death without physically restraining them somehow.

And you're arguing that those same number of cases would be better handled by a government run monopoly. Again, I understand we're talking about high volumes of cases, but people create voluntary systems that handle high numbers of transactions all over the place.

Every case is a one-off, but there's no reason to think that an arbitrator couldn't be set up to run continuously and more efficiently than the monopoly government courts.
It's unlikely that high level disputes are going to be arbitrated by uncle Larry. People will set themselves up to perform efficient and cost effective arbitration for those who need it.

I understand you consider it to be hyperbolic. My proposal is an attempt answer Maximatic's OP and to describe a possible government that does not initiate violence against person or property.

 

So then we'll race to the bottom. I won't provide it because I refuse to bear the costs on my own while everyone else benefits from it. We'll have no defense instead.

Imagine you are a wealthy US citizen and I'm someone living in destitute in some third world cess pool. Do you think it'd be at all possible to bargain over some of my organs fairly if my family is starving? To borrow another term our best alternatives to the exchange are so radically different that euvoluntary exchange is impossible.

I know... we did, it's our current system of courts. For some reason though that emergent solution doesn't satisfy you and you want to undo what has been chosen to impose something you feel is more just.

I don't see the difference between your arbiter and the elected judge anymore.

See above.

Understood, it's been an interesting thought experiment, just not one I think has much application outside of discourse.

 

And do you not paint your house or cut your grass because you refuse to bear the costs on your own while your neighbors benefit?

As I said, I agree that implicit coercion is a bad thing. And with your scenario above you've answered my question about how can I force you to starve to death. The answer is that I can't. I am not forcing you to starve to death. You are doing that on your own.

Yes, more just in that the people in government are not initiating violence against people and their property. If, as you say, we end up in the same place, its a win, because we get the same result without the initiation of violence.

Good, that shows that we can have the same type of system just without the initiation of violence against persons and property.

Again, this is a good thing. If we eliminate the violence but still end up with the same type of court system, I count that as a win.

 

Let's juxtapose this a bit, let's say I don't cut my grass and leave trash piled up in my yard, if I've affected the value or the ability to resell of my neighbor have I not wronged him just the same? What if I want to pour toxic waste in the stream in my backyard, it's my yard I can do what I want... trouble is that stream flows to everyone else down stream and just like me not cutting my grass, though I've not initiated any violence I've undoubtedly wronged many people and I ought to be required to compensate them for that harm.

Actually the predicament is imposed on me by forces out of my control, no it's not you're fault and although our exchange is mutually beneficial, it's also not entirely voluntary.

It's the extension of, I have a gun and you have a wallet. I've not shot you but I think you'd be more than happy to hand me the wallet, the exchange is mutually beneficial and voluntary, but not euvoluntary.

I don't see the violence when the arrangement is emergent, consistent with the preferences of the citizens and voluntary (you can always be self sufficient if you choose)

What I'm saying is that's what we already have.

 

Yes, I would think he would not be very happy with you.

I completely agree, as would a court. You have damaged their property. You are not the sole owner of the stream.

But you never answered my question. Do you not paint your house or cut your grass because you refuse to bear the costs on your own while your neighbors benefit?

I have no serious disagreement here.

I don't agree, nor would a court. You have threatened another with force, and you would be a robber.

I don't agree that emergent systems can't be based upon violence, and if you are arguing that government as currently implemented doesn't rely upon a monopoly on violence, well then you're just flat out wrong. That's what government is.

Not exactly, because the current system allows some people to initiate violence against the person and property of others. I am proposing a governmental system in which this is not allowed.

 

It's not the same, me cutting my grass doesn't provide any positive externality, I can only speak for myself but I assume most do it out of pride and the fact that there's ownership involved. No such mechanism exists for public goods like defense.

I didn't say I'd shoot you with it, the threat is implicit. In either case, my other argument is just an extension of this one, where the alternatives to the exchange or so out of whack that it's not actually voluntary.

I'm not arguing that emergent systems can't be violent, I am arguing that the institutions we have reflect the preferences of those who democratically help shape it. For better or worse, we have what we have because in many cases it's what we wanted.

You owe me a dollar, you don't want to pay despite the fact that you owe me that dollar. How do I peacefully acquire it?... I tried asking nicely already.

 

Doesn't provide a positive externality? Really? Have you done a google of externality+paint lately?

So you're saying that you DO cut your grass and paint your house, and you bear the full cost of doing so, even though others exploit you by benefitting without chipping in? Maybe, just maybe it would work the same way with missile defense.

I think you're being disingenuous, and I suppose a judge would think the same thing. "But your honor, I didn't SAY I'd shoot him. I just pointed my gun at him and said, 'I really need some money.'" Um, okay.

As I said, I don't really have much disagreement that the person in dire straights can be taken advantage of. I'm having trouble connecting that thought to my proposal though.

I understand that the current system is wanted (or at least tolerated) by the majority of people. However, I don't understand why you point this out. What follows from this observation?

According to the constitution I proposed, if we can't work out our problem between ourselves, we would bring it to an arbitrator whose decision would be legally binding.

 

Externality means there would be a benefit to others besides myself, it'd require that me painting my house would actually increase the value of all the homes around me. It doesn't.

It's just a metaphor, maybe you never saw a weapon but just suspected I had one, the result is the same.

It related to the coercion caused by free riders, I benefit from something you provide without compensation, the alternatives are so dire that I might provide defense anyway even if you're able to exploit my desire to be protected.

That some how you'd have to undo and remove the existing institutions that some majority want against their will, eroding the entire purpose of doing so.

I know, I still won't give you that dollar though. Now what?

My only point here is pacifism is unrealistic when you go to an extreme.