Anarcho-capitalists, I'm calling you out.... (1 Viewer)

[copkiller]

Sir, we regret to inform you that you have just breached your social contract.

Sincerely,
The Thought Police

Nice.

So the statists have resorted to making fun of themselves.

 

[KFunk]

Nice.

So the statists have resorted to making fun of themselves.

I eat straw men for breakfast.

 

[melaniestrollll]

i believe in the FREEDOM of every humanitarian BEING in EXISTENCE. OK?

apply to economics if you will

 

[murphyad]

I never claimed everyone would be equal.

Is that short term memory loss? Do you remember posting this?

"Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man."

My critique of which still stands as above. The 'equal right' of the worker to contract himself to a property owner who will pay him $1 a year is ridiculous, yet you oppose an infringement of the property owner's 'equal right' to engage in this contract. This is a laughable concept as the property owners are inherently more powerful than the workers, leading to a power differential that is totally against the credos of anarchism. Therefore the AC belief in 'equal freedom' is a farcical delusion. The supposed 'freedom' of the worker is a perfectly Orwellian statement, almost exactly 'Freedom is Slavery'.

What implicit social contract? You could make up anything and say it is an implicit social contract.

I didn't sign that social contract and neither did you. The "social contract" in no way resembles a real contract where all parties agree to be bound by the contract.

The constitution and the laws are our written contracts with the government.

There are several explicit means by which people make the social contract with government. The commonest is when your parents choose your residency and/or citizenship after your birth. In that case, your parents or guardians are contracting for you, exercising their power of custody. No further explicit action is required on your part to continue the agreement, and you may end it at any time by departing and renouncing your citizenship.

 

[copkiller]

My critique of which still stands as above. The 'equal right' of the worker to contract himself to a property owner who will pay him $1 a year is ridiculous, yet you oppose an infringement of the property owner's 'equal right' to engage in this contract. This is a laughable concept as the property owners are inherently more powerful than the workers, leading to a power differential that is totally against the credos of anarchism. Therefore the AC belief in 'equal freedom' is a farcical delusion. The supposed 'freedom' of the worker is a perfectly Orwellian statement, almost exactly 'Freedom is Slavery'.

You're mincing words again. I'm not going to argue with you about the "true" meanings of words here.

Suffice to say that when anarcho-capitalists use the word freedom they mean an absence of violence or threats of violence.

Even in the ridiculous example you gave above, as long as no coercion is used, both parties are both equally free. Of course they are unequal in other ways, as human beings always will be, but the government only makes this worse.

The government is a tool used by the rich and powerful to perpetuate their position of privilege. We never hear the very rich calling for anarcho-capitalism. In fact, wealthy individuals and corporations are the main contributors to election campaigns in democracies all over the world.

They fund the politicians and in return they get lucrative government contracts, government hand outs, laws that restrict competition (particularly from imports), and recently; blatant massive bailouts.

The very rich are easily able to evade most of their tax obligations, while middle class wage earners pay the bulk of the taxation burden and the poor are heavily taxed through inflation.

The constitution and the laws are our written contracts with the government.

Merely writing something down does not make it a contract. How is a bunch of rules you are forced to follow anything like a contract?

There are several explicit means by which people make the social contract with government. The commonest is when your parents choose your residency and/or citizenship after your birth. In that case, your parents or guardians are contracting for you, exercising their power of custody. No further explicit action is required on your part to continue the agreement, and you may end it at any time by departing and renouncing your citizenship.

So I am born into the "contract", and the only way I can opt out is by leaving the country, but the instant I do that and enter another country I will immediately be assumed to have signed that country's "social contract."

So no matter what I do I am always under the control of a "contract" I have no power to negotiate the terms of, and I can never go anywhere on earth without being under the control of a "social contract. "

Furthermore, if contracts can be created in such away without people's express consent, why can't anyone create a social "contract?" Can I create a "contract" that says that anyone who lives in my suburb has to pay me $100 a week, and in return I will patrol the area for criminals? If they wish to opt out of the "contract" they should simply leave the area right?

What gives the government the right to create a "contract," which if created by anyone else would not be considered a contract at all, but rather a serious crime?

 

[murphyad]

You're mincing words again. I'm not going to argue with you about the "true" meanings of words here.

Suffice to say that when anarcho-capitalists use the word freedom they mean an absence of violence or threats of violence.

It's a shame that you consider mine to be an argument only of semantics, because the fact is that by doing so you have ignored what is indisputable the elephant in the room: the role of power. Unfortunately it is you who is equivocating on the meaning of words like 'freedom', which in any rational case is far more broad than the incredibly narrow definition you have offered. By the way, you refer to anarcho-capitalists as a collective in this instance. I thought you could only speak for yourself........

Even in the ridiculous example you gave above, as long as no coercion is used, both parties are both equally free.

In any example I would choose to give, the power differential inherent in an emphasis on property ownership would play a part in making the 'freedom' (even in the sense that you suppose) totally unequal. How can even the freedom from violence be equal, if one party has more power to determine the potential for violence than the other?

They fund the politicians and in return they get lucrative government contracts, government hand outs, laws that restrict competition (particularly from imports), and recently; blatant massive bailouts.

The rich will fund any form of authority, whether it is a government or a DRO, or many DROs. AC will not change a thing in this regard.

The very rich are easily able to evade most of their tax obligations, while middle class wage earners pay the bulk of the taxation burden and the poor are heavily taxed through inflation.

These are arguments for a progressive tax system, not the abolition of government. AC would merely perpetuate the economic inequality that you are so quick to deride, except that no authority would be present to allow any semblance of regulation on this subject.

Merely writing something down does not make it a contract. How is a bunch of rules you are forced to follow anything like a contract?

Now who is arguing over semantics? Under any definition of a 'contract', the laws and constitution remain valid as examples of contracts. In some instances, the terms and contitions may be a bit harsh, but they are contracts nonetheless, which you have entered into and which you are free to leave.

........the instant I do that and enter another country I will immediately be assumed to have signed that country's "social contract."

Wrong. There is such a thing as Statelessness. Furthermore, governments require residents to enter into these contracts, but there are not unique in this requirement. A bank account is a necessity for almost all members of society (and certainly would be under AC), and such an account can only be established through contract.

So no matter what I do I am always under the control of a "contract" I have no power to negotiate the terms of.......

It is not as though there are no other forms of contract with restrictions on negotiation. There are numerous other common sorts of contracts that allow changes by one or both sides without negotiation. Gas, electric, oil, water, phone, and other utility services normally have contracts where at most they need to notify you in advance when they change their rates. Insurance companies raise their rates, and your only input is either pay the new rates or "vote with your feet".

Furthermore, if contracts can be created in such away without people's express consent, why can't anyone create a social "contract?"

They are not created without consent. See my above posts which you have either miscontrued or failed to read.

PS Sorry bout the length.

 

[copkiller]

It's a shame that you consider mine to be an argument only of semantics, because the fact is that by doing so you have ignored what is indisputable the elephant in the room: the role of power. Unfortunately it is you who is equivocating on the meaning of words like 'freedom', which in any rational case is far more broad than the incredibly narrow definition you have offered. By the way, you refer to anarcho-capitalists as a collective in this instance. I thought you could only speak for yourself........

I can refer to anarcho-capitalists collectively here because the non-aggression axiom is the defining feature of anarcho-capitalism.

I'm happy to discuss the role of power if you explain what you mean. Are you saying that all power differentials in human relationships should be regulated or eliminated?

In any example I would choose to give, the power differential inherent in an emphasis on property ownership would play a part in making the 'freedom' (even in the sense that you suppose) totally unequal. How can even the freedom from violence be equal, if one party has more power to determine the potential for violence than the other?

The rich will fund any form of authority, whether it is a government or a DRO, or many DROs. AC will not change a thing in this regard.

Well it would certainly be more equal than now where the government has a total monopoly over the use of force, disarms all citizens and has massive standing armies.

Granted there is always the potential for people to abuse power under anarcho-capitalism, but if DRO's and wealthy individuals start doing this they would be reverting back towards statism.

The main reason the state is able to maintain control is because most people are brainwashed to accept the state. If most people believed in individual sovereignty and had their own weapons, it would be very difficult for these rouge organizations run by greedy rich people to take control and start subjugating them in the way you imagine.

These are arguments for a progressive tax system, not the abolition of government. AC would merely perpetuate the economic inequality that you are so quick to deride, except that no authority would be present to allow any semblance of regulation on this subject.

We have a progressive tax system now. It doesn't work. The very rich pay less of their income in tax than the middle class and they receive all the benefits I mentioned from the government. The idea that the government has authority over the rich is an illusion, the government is funded by the rich, for the rich.

Now who is arguing over semantics? Under any definition of a 'contract', the laws and constitution remain valid as examples of contracts. In some instances, the terms and contitions may be a bit harsh, but they are contracts nonetheless, which you have entered into and which you are free to leave.

I never entered into any social contract. My parents did not do so on my behalf because I never granted them power of attorney. Parents do not have an automatic right to power of attorney over their children to make normal contracts, so why does this fictitious power of attorney apply to the social contract?

You also make it sound unrealistically easy to shop around for different "social contracts." Its not like choosing a bank account. Even your parents have little or no choice in the matter. The United States is the exception with birthright citizenship, although they make it extremely difficult for pregnant women to take advantage of this provision. As a general rule, you simply become a citizen of whatever country your parents are citizens of. If you then choose to opt out of the "social contract" of the country you are a citizen of, you will be treated as a foreigner in other countries and often refused the right to work, and basic rights such a voting, not to mention being held in detention centers and/or being deported straight back to the country you are a citizen of. Actually becoming a citizen of a new country is an extremely expensive, difficult and in some cases impossible exercise.

Wrong. There is such a thing as Statelessness.

No there isn't. All land on earth is claimed by nation states.

They are not created without consent. See my above posts which you have either miscontrued or failed to read.

No I read it and understood it. I did not find any part that convincingly explained how we consent to be bound by the "social contract."

I notice you ignored my questions about why other parties can't create contracts in such a way. If the social contract is a valid form of contract just like any other contract, surely anyone can make a "social contract" just as anyone can make a normal contract.

 

[murphyad]

We have a progressive tax system now. It doesn't work.

Edit: A more progressive tax system.

I never entered into any social contract. My parents did not do so on my behalf because I never granted them power of attorney. Parents do not have an automatic right to power of attorney over their children to make normal contracts, so why does this fictitious power of attorney apply to the social contract?

Actually, they do have this automatic power of attorney. Until a person has reached the age of majority, their parents or guardians are legally required to sign contracts on their behalf. In fact, one of the definitions of the age of majority is the legal ability to enter into a binding contract. Therefore, any contract must be made on your behalf by your parents before this time.

No there isn't. All land on earth is claimed by nation states.

I suggest you go somewhere, anywhere, for confirmation before simply denying my points.

Statelessness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No I read it and understood it. I did not find any part that convincingly explained how we consent to be bound by the "social contract."

This would appear to be because you have denied the premises of my explanation, which I have explained in previous posts as well as this one as being conclusively true.

I notice you ignored my questions about why other parties can't create contracts in such a way. If the social contract is a valid form of contract just like any other contract, surely anyone can make a "social contract" just as anyone can make a normal contract.

More equivocation. The notion of the social contract implies that the people give up some rights to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law. If you cannot be recognised as an authority, you will struggle to establish such a contract. In layman's terms the social contract refers directly to the state, not just to any random contract between two parties.

More on power later, when I have time.

 

[copkiller]

Edit: A more progressive tax system.

Its already very progressive in theory. You need to put forward a system that results in the rich actually paying the tax rates the law states they are required to pay. You also haven't addressed the problem of subsidies and corporate welfare by the state that benefit the rich.

Actually, they do have this automatic power of attorney. Until a person has reached the age of majority, their parents or guardians are legally required to sign contracts on their behalf. In fact, one of the definitions of the age of majority is the legal ability to enter into a binding contract. Therefore, any contract must be made on your behalf by your parents before this time.

Children are not bound to any contract made by their parents or guardians once they turn 18. So if the normal laws of contracts are to be applied to the social contract, then the social contract immediately ceases to be valid once you turn 18.

More equivocation. The notion of the social contract implies that the people give up some rights to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law. If you cannot be recognised as an authority, you will struggle to establish such a contract. In layman's terms the social contract refers directly to the state, not just to any random contract between two parties.

Right so if I get enough people with guns together to command authority I can validly make such a contract?

If the social contract only applies to the state, not just any random contract between two parties, in what sense is it a contract? I submit that it is not a contract at all, but rather a unique relationship between citizens and that state. You can certainly argue that this is a good thing, but it is simply a lie to call it a contract in the general sense.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

copkiller et al, I'm curious as to where this 'my liberties are being crushed' paranoia comes from.
Your not incarcerated or on parole by any chance?

 

[copkiller]

copkiller et al, I'm curious as to where this 'my liberties are being crushed' paranoia comes from.
Your not incarcerated or on parole by any chance?

No but I will be if I refuse to hand over my own money which I have earned to the government. Or if I choose to put certain chemicals in my own body. Or if I purchase a firearm to protect myself ect ect.

I do not obey many stupid laws willingly, I obey only obey them because if I don't I will be kidnapped at gunpoint and locked in a cell where I will be deprived of almost all my liberties.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

I obey only obey them because if I don't I will be kidnapped at gunpoint and locked in a cell where I will be deprived of almost all my liberties.

who are these kidnapper murderer's? are 'the voices' telling you this?

 

[copkiller]

who are these kidnapper murderer's? are 'the voices' telling you this?

No they are the police. In case you didn't realise they routinely forcibly drag people off to prison at gun point for committing victimless crimes.

 

[volition]

Ok I don't check this site very often these days (which explains my late arrival to this thread) but I think I'll jump in anyway. A few things that I want to clear up for the anarcho-capitalist (hereafter AC) case:

(1) An AC society does not necessarily mean a society without rules, or a way to enforce those rules. The enforcement is based more on private property rights than democratically determined methods.

(2) The argument for anarchism does not necessarily mean everyone has to live in an AC town/area, I believe it can be interpreted more as the right to individual secession. For example, you could support the right of other people to secede from the government on their own property, without actually wanting to do it yourself. (eg. just like how a heterosexual person may support the right of homosexuals to marry, even if they have no intention of having a homosexual marriage) So really, all ACists are asking is: If you still choose to be a part of government, that is your choice - but don't force it on other people.

(3) There are 2 main prongs of the argument. The moral based argument (the government has no right to impose itself on people) and the practical based argument (that the government does not actually solve the problem). Both of these can and should be used to argue for AC.

(4) AC is not a utopia. This idea that it is, is nothing but a caricature invented by its opponents to discredit the idea. The argument is supposed to be analysed 'ceteris paribus', which means you keep the other things constant and look for what is an improvement on the other. So with these examples about failed 'free market' areas, it does not necessarily mean that AC is a failed idea any more than a failed democratic state means that democracy is a failed idea. Don't forget that the standards imposed on AC must be reasonable, for eg. it's not reasonable to expect that AC national defense (in a small nation) should be impervious to the world's superpower invading - because if that small country had a democratic national defense it would also fail in this instance.

(5) AC proponents do not propose a violent revolution to bring AC about. Generally, the ways of bringing it about are via talking to other people, encouraging people to abstain from voting, and engaging in agorism (wikipedia it).

 

[Planck]

who are these kidnapper murderer's? are 'the voices' telling you this?

Try not paying your taxes and then not turning up to court when you're summonsed.

 

[volition]

who are these kidnapper murderer's? are 'the voices' telling you this?

I recommend having a read of The Slave Test

 

[murphyad]

No they are the police. In case you didn't realise they routinely forcibly drag people off to prison at gun point for committing victimless crimes.

Just quickly, what about the judiciary? An institution unanswerable to the police and empowered to act against them?

 

[copkiller]

Just quickly, what about the judiciary? An institution unanswerable to the police and empowered to act against them?

What about the judiciary? Their job is to enforce the law as it is written regardless of whether or not it is necessary for the protection of persons and property.

Try arguing to a judge that you don't wish to pay taxes and that to imprison you for refusing to do so is unjust.

 

[murphyad]

What about the judiciary? Their job is to enforce the law as it is written regardless of whether or not it is necessary for the protection of persons and property.

No, that's the police's job. The role of the judiciary is to interpret the law.

Try arguing to a judge that you don't wish to pay taxes and that to imprison you for refusing to do so is unjust.

No judge would acquiesce to that lame-duck defense.

 

[copkiller]

No, that's the police's job. The role of the judiciary is to interpret the law.

Whatever. It doesn't change the reality of people being locked up for victimless crimes, does it? Nor does it change the fact that if you don't pay your taxes you will eventually be locked in prison, which is the problem I was pointing out in the first place.