Is it time for a "Liberty Manifesto"?

PatriotforFreedom:

Knight asks, "What do you think taxation IS?"

I do not think that an honest and uncoerced agreement may be understood in any way to be a form of "molestation" as you put it.  I am not necessarily in from of "taxation" because it implies that the government is due a portion of the fruit of one's labor.  I am, however, in favor of a just fee paid in return for fair services rendered by a government of and for the people

What about those who do not wish to participate in the services of the government? 

 

PatriotforFreedom:

Sir, if you do believe in Anarchy, then I ask you for the last time to support it by answering the question, How does a society without leaders and government render efficient and consistent justice for all?  Unless perhaps you do not believe in justice for all?

We've been trying to answer you. We are tryign to answer your question with a question.

Who do you think would be a better provider and dsitributor of Milk and milk products to the men in our country.

A) Government managed, run, and operated diary industry?

B) Free trade, priviate companies bringing the goods naturally to meet the demands of consumers.

If you chose B then you have just answered your own question to why and how anarchy works better. Free trade is anarchy. Planned economies cannot work. I doubt you would disagree on that note, unless you are a communist/socialist/ect...

If you want a more direct answer I'll say this. An An-cap society would naturally meet the demands of people via open, free and uncoerced trade.

You have to highlight only what you want, and then hit the quote link.  When you are done, if it needs cleanup, I can do it.

liberty student:

You have to highlight only what you want, and then hit the quote link.  When you are done, if it needs cleanup, I can do it.

I think it was an accident. I must have had the whole page highlighted, I tend to do that...

I also just found the preview page so I'll be using that. Sorry about that.

PatriotforFreedom:

Knight_of_BAAWA replies to my assertion that "in an honorable debate, the debaters agree to answer each others questions, as I have done for you above," saying, "No, they do not. I don't know where you got that idiotic idea, but it's not true."

I refer you to Wikipedia

I refer you to the fact that your question contains an implicit strawman, meaning it has no reason to be answered. If you are unable to grasp that, you need to work on your debating skills. 

 

PatriotforFreedom:

Of course, I recognize that in Anarchy, there are no rules

Yet another strawman.

PatriotforFreedom:

Knight of BAAWA states, "When you create questions which contain within them implicit strawmen (as you've done), there's no requirement to answer."

Then, it is your responsibility to cite the supposed strawman

No, it's really not. However: I did. Why you believe that strawmen do not invalidate your question is quite amusing.

 

PatriotforFreedom:

Regarding the question at hand, "how a society without leaders and government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?" Knight of BAAWA ask the direct question (the preceding was edited for honesty) "Then why ask such a question of us?"

Because, Knight, I believe it points directly at the weakness of the anarchic position.

Except that it doesn't. Clearly, a government doesn't render efficient and consistent justice for all. Since the only other option is anarchy, I fail to see how it could be any worse. It's up to you to show that it would be better. Get to it.

PatriotforFreedom:

To Knight of BAAWAs question, "Yeah--how's that working out?" with regards to the American Constitution, I say it is currently in a state of abuse, which has been compounded by the laziness and failure of the citizens to uphold it.

How nice. Problem is you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too. There's simply no way to limit a government. Not possible. Once you realize the futility of your utopia, you'll come around.

PatriotforFreedom:

 Knight of BAAWA asks (the preceding once again edited for honesty), "Once again, it's not up to us to explain it. YOU have the onus of proof. Not us."

I am not a proponent of anarchy, as are you.

So what? You have the onus of proof. You're saying that it is ok to initiate force. Prove it.

PatriotforFreedom:

Knight then asks, "do you understand the concept of shifting the burden of proof?"
Yes.

Good. Then you won't do it again.

PatriotforFreedom:

Knight continues, "Governments claim monopolies over justice, defense, etc., and say that they "own" the land they govern. By what right did this happen? Show it."

They would be in violation of the Constitution when this has happened in the US.

No, it wouldn't. We're not even discussing the constitution at this point. We're discussing the nature of the state. 

PatriotforFreedom:

Knight asks, "What do you think taxation IS?"

I do not think that an honest and uncoerced agreement

Honest and uncoerced? WTF? If you don't pay your taxes, you go to jail/have your property confiscated. That's not uncoerced unless you live on Bizarro-world!

 

PatriotforFreedom:

may be understood in any way to be a form of "molestation" as you put it.  I am not necessarily in from of "taxation" because it implies that the government is due a portion of the fruit of one's labor.  I am, however, in favor of a just fee paid in return for fair services rendered by a government of and for the people.

There's no such thing. Period. That you believe such shows how brainwashed you are. Governments are not based upon providing a service and charging a just fee; governments make you an offer such that your refusal guarantees that you will go to jail. They are worse than mafiosi, since at least the mafia is honest enough to say that it's all done for the mafia, rather than spouting platitudes about "the good of the citizens" and other such bullshit. Not only that, but governments make legal for itself that which is illegal for the rest of the citizens. This is wholly abhorrent to all moral people.

 

PatriotforFreedom:

Knight writes, "Consent theory requires unanimity or else you violate the rights of those who do not consent."

Not everyone will agree in this world, but that does not mean that a majority approved contract

What about the minority? What right has the majority to impose that upon the minority? Show me where the majority gets this right. Show me now.

 

PatriotforFreedom:

The assumption that unanimous assent should be required for all contracts

Strawman.

This is not a place for lovers of theft, initiatory force, and logical impossibilities.

filc has now directed us to the German constitution and social contract stating that "it was completely within the states’ rights to murder those Jews and it was of no loss to personal liberty to the Jew to die in such a way, as it was completely morally, ethically, and legally in the right to do so."

I am no student of the German social construct of the time, so will you please point me to the precise location in their governing document which supports your claim?  And if there was such a statement in their governing constitution, I would not be in support of it.  I have not accused everyone of sidestepping every point. 

But I do accuse you of sidestepping this question:   "Please explain how a hypothetical "society" without a government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?"

filc has stated, with regards to Constitution, "The present government has the tools to amend the constitution to how it sees fit."

Of course the Constitution does not grant them any such tools, and  if and when asserted such "tools" wold be in abuse of the Constitution, not in support of it. 

filc asks, "How will your system prevent such abuse in the long rung? What previsions will you place that will bring more protection than what the founders left us?"

Excellent questions, thanks.  I am concerned with a manifestation of the rights of Liberty, not necessarily with provisions to protect same, though I am interested in debating precisely the answers to your questions.  Right now, I would answer, that we must find better ways to provide checks and balances and so protection.  There were some thoughts on this proposed in draft one of the Manifesto including the new right of "citizens' initiatives", and "citizen's oversite boards."

filc asks, "And how would you deal with folks who didn't agree to that social construct?"

They would have the right to petition their grievances, address them in a court of law, choose to comply, or choose to leave after converting their property and non-liquid assets to cash and taking that with them.

filc asks, "Name one current country that has transpired into a fair and just government."

I find your question to imply a position for which I am in agreement -- that corruption finds its way into governments because men and women are not perfect.  But I do not find this to be an argument for Anarchy, since you still have the same problem of human imperfection under that philosophy, and all citations and arguments presented here show Anarchy as arbitrary, inefficient, and so ineffective.

Please explain how a hypothetical "society" without a government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?

filc asks, "What about those who do not wish to participate in the services of the government? "

I have already answered this above.  They are free to petition for grievances, address their differences in a court of law, comply, or leave in position of the cash value of all their possessions.

filc continues: "Who do you think would be a better provider and dsitributor of Milk and milk products to the men in our country.

• A) Government managed, run, and operated diary industry?
• B) Free trade, priviate companies bringing the goods naturally to meet the demands of consumers.

If you chose B then you have just answered your own question to why and how anarchy works better. Free trade is anarchy. Planned economies cannot work. I doubt you would disagree on that note, unless you are a communist/socialist/ect...

My answer, as you guessed, is B.  But your conclusion is without merit.  I am not proposing a government to manage, run and operate the dairy industry.  I don't believe that government should be in any business that is better left to the free market system.  But I do believe there are things a government can do better than a corporation, such as raising and operating a Navy.  Would you prefer a company like "Blackwater" do that work?

filc then makes this conclusion:  "An An-cap society would naturally meet the demands of people via open, free and uncoerced trade."

You have stated no premises for this conclusion, and since you can cite no historic examples, it is academic at best.

What are the "demands" it would meet?  If it meets such "demands" then how is it not a "social contract"? 

Finally, How are An-cap operation principles more efficient and just than those proposed in the American Constitution?

PatriotforFreedom:

filc has now directed us to the German constitution and social contract stating that "it was completely within the states’ rights to murder those Jews and it was of no loss to personal liberty to the Jew to die in such a way, as it was completely morally, ethically, and legally in the right to do so."

I am no student of the German social construct of the time, so will you please point me to the precise location in their governing document which supports your claim?  And if there was such a statement in their governing constitution, I would not be in support of it.  I have not accused everyone of sidestepping every point. 

Please don't place words in my mouth. I never stated that the germen constitution gave such powers, though I wouldn't be suprised if some clause was feasibly capable of producing such a tragedy. My point is social-contracts can be made to grant abusive powers which are detrimental to the people they are suppose to protect and represent. 

PatriotforFreedom:

But I do accuse you of sidestepping this question:   "Please explain how a hypothetical "society" without a government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?"

I have answerd this. My answer was extremely clear. I will not re-word. Instead I will quote myself.

filc:

We've been trying to answer you. We are tryign to answer your question with a question.

Who do you think would be a better provider and dsitributor of Milk and milk products to the men in our country.

A) Government managed, run, and operated diary industry?

B) Free trade, priviate companies bringing the goods naturally to meet the demands of consumers.

If you chose B then you have just answered your own question to why and how anarchy works better. Free trade is anarchy. Planned economies cannot work. I doubt you would disagree on that note, unless you are a communist/socialist/ect...

If you want a more direct answer I'll say this. An An-cap society would naturally meet the demands of indepdendant people via open, free and uncoerced trade.

Now please answer my question, choose option A or B.

PatriotforFreedom:

filc asks, "How will your system prevent such abuse in the long rung? What previsions will you place that will bring more protection than what the founders left us?"

Excellent questions, thanks.  I am concerned with a manifestation of the rights of Liberty, not necessarily with provisions to protect same, though I am interested in debating precisely the answers to your questions.  Right now, I would answer, that we must find better ways to provide checks and balances and so protection.  There were some thoughts on this proposed in draft one of the Manifesto including the new right of "citizens' initiatives", and "citizen's oversite boards."

So in other words, you offer nothing better then what has already been done.

PatriotforFreedom:

filc asks, "And how would you deal with folks who didn't agree to that social construct?"

They would have the right to petition their grievances, address them in a court of law, choose to comply, or choose to leave after converting their property and non-liquid assets to cash and taking that with them.

What if they were property owners and decided they would rather stay on the land that they worked for and earned?

PatriotforFreedom:

Please explain how a hypothetical "society" without a government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?

It will not be consistent, but it will be effecient and probably more just. Errors or wrong doings will be isolated to individuals and perhaps a small group around those individuals.

The difference is, when a human being makes a mistake they pay for it one way or another. When the government makes a mistake it's a blanket error for all. That is not just or effecient. Shall I start naming the number of error's which have effected every last individual in this country? By the time I'm done it would make even a serial killer look good by comparisson.

Let me re-word your question and direct it at you.

Please explain how a hypothetical "society" with government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?

 

PatriotforFreedom:

filc continues: "Who do you think would be a better provider and dsitributor of Milk and milk products to the men in our country.

• A) Government managed, run, and operated diary industry?
• B) Free trade, priviate companies bringing the goods naturally to meet the demands of consumers.

If you chose B then you have just answered your own question to why and how anarchy works better. Free trade is anarchy. Planned economies cannot work. I doubt you would disagree on that note, unless you are a communist/socialist/ect...

My answer, as you guessed, is B.  But your conclusion is without merit.  I am not proposing a government to manage, run and operate the dairy industry.  I don't believe that government should be in any business that is better left to the free market system.  But I do believe there are things a government can do better than a corporation, such as raising and operating a Navy.  Would you prefer a company like "Blackwater" do that work?

Slippery slope. By what divine power or right can you objectively judge what is better for "Government" to operate and what is better for "Free Market" to operate. On that note, in your opinion what industries are better left to the government? 

I find it inconsistent to randomly mark some goods better left to the government but others not. If a free market can better manage the distribution of a potato, it can also equally better manage the distribution of security., roads, healthcare ect... Your whole argument is inconsistent and hipocritical. You are the one who is without merit or consistency.

PatriotforFreedom:

filc then makes this conclusion:  "An An-cap society would naturally meet the demands of people via open, free and uncoerced trade."

You have stated no premises for this conclusion, and since you can cite no historic examples, it is academic at best.

I think the premise for my argument has been stated clearly enough several times now. But if you must require busy work of me, here is my premise.

PatriotforFreedom:

Finally, How are An-cap operation principles more efficient and just than those proposed in the American Constitution?

The constitution only addressed the needs of the majority at the time(And that may not be true, as a rational person I am highly doubtful that the constitution was created with the expressed needs of the majority at the time. More like the majority of an elite few). Libertarian principles however address the needs of all majorities’ and minorities alike on true equal grounds at all times.

On the matter of efffeciency I'll also quote myself from before

filc:

 The difference is, when a human being makes a mistake they pay for it one way or another. When the government makes a mistake it's a blanket error for all. That is not just or effecient. Shall I start naming the number of error's which have effected every last individual in this country? By the time I'm done it would make even a serial killer look good by comparisson. 

PatriotforFreedom:

What are the "demands" it would meet?  If it meets such "demands" then how is it not a "social contract"? 

 Any demand imaginable by an individual. Is purchasing milk a social contract? Why is this confusing?

 

PatriotForFreedom:

I asked you what you thought, Juan. Are you saying that LeFevre expresses the answer better than you could do?

Indeed =] He was more clever and learned than I and a native speaker of English.

Anyway, disregarding the (long) list of flaws in the constitution and assuming instead that it was a 'perfect' document, what would you say about the fact that in the United States, SLAVERY was 'legal' when the constitution was enacted, and remained legal after the constitution was enacted ?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof,

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas,

To declare War,

To raise and support Armies,

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,

That's a 'minimal' government ? And who agreed to those terms anyway ?

Strawman (from wikipedia): "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position." 

In reply to this question, Please explain how a hypothetical "society" without a government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?", Knight of BAAWA wrote: "I refer you to the fact that your question contains an implicit strawman, meaning it has no reason to be answered."

Sir, since you have referred to something, unstated, which you believe I have implied, please state what you believe I implied, so we can see if it does not represent your position. 

To, "Of course, I recognize that in Anarchy, there are no rules", BAWAA replies, "Yet another strawman."

Ok, perhaps I'm guilty, but the definition of Anarchy at Wikipedia is "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."

To me this says there are no rules, "lawlessness" in Anarchy.  If that is not your position, please clarify it for us.

BAAWA writes, "Clearly, a government doesn't render efficient and consistent justice for all. Since the only other option is anarchy, I fail to see how it could be any worse. It's up to you to show that it would be better."

My proposition is that a government by and of the people is better than Anarchy.  Because Anarchy is lawless, I hold that a government would then be more efficient since it would be unnecessary to continually reinvent the rules under which honest and just law and order may be maintained.

And it still remains your responsibility to show how a hypothetical "society" without a government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?" or, to state clearly what you believe the "implied strawman" is in the question.

Next, BAAWA writes, "There's simply no way to limit a government. Not possible. Once you realize the futility of your utopia, you'll come around."

You have not supplied any support for your first statement.  To the contrary, I refer you to a number of ways that governments have been limited via bills of rights reserved by the people:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_rights

A utopia is defined as "a name for an ideal community or society", and I have not argued for such a utopia, nor given human imperfection do I believe any Utopia may be achieved. So, BAAWA, your statement fits precisely the definition of a "strawman."

And, constitutional governments have been entered into and are observable throughout world history, but no known historical example of an effective, just and efficient Anarchy may be shown, so I submit that your position is actually in greater peril of being regarded as fantasy.

BAAWA states, "You're saying that it is ok to initiate force. Prove it."
Did you mean force without freedom of redress, and other options?  Or did you mean force applied as agreed to by and for the people (ie. police)?  The first would be a strawman position, and since you profess expertise in that you must mean the second.  So once again, I submit that force granted of and for the people and exercised under just principles is ok. 

1. Prove that force granted of and for the people and exercised under just principles is not ok.
2. Prove that force in your version of Anarchy, whatever it is, is justified, or that total lack of force in Anarchy is to be desired.

BAWWA writes, "Honest and uncoerced? WTF? If you don't pay your taxes, you go to jail/have your property confiscated."
This is why I am not in support of the current system.

BAWWA writes, "..governments make legal for itself that which is illegal for the rest of the citizens. This is wholly abhorrent to all moral people."
Agreed.

BAWWA asks, "What about the minority? What right has the majority to impose that upon the minority? Show me where the majority gets this right.""
This of course is at the core of your position in support of Anarchy.  I submit that a system of law and order, and justice for all is better for all citizens than lack thereof, and that Anarchy, by definition can never provide such a system.

BAWWA writes, "Strawman," in reply to a statement I wrote where I assumed he believed that "unanimous assent should be required for all contracts."
So, this means that you do not stand for unanimous assent?  Odd that you argue for it in asserting that in majority rule, the conflicting rights of the minority are in question.  Illogical.  Inefficient. Ineffective.

Ok, perhaps I'm guilty, but the definition of Anarchy at Wikipedia is "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder.

You should take a look at this :

The Production of Security

PatriotforFreedom:

You have not supplied any support for your first statement.  To the contrary, I refer you to a number of ways that governments have been limited via bills of rights reserved by the people:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_rights

This is a poor defense since your Bill of Rights did nothing to protect the citizen's of this nation. Here is but one example of direct violation of the citizen's.

I challenge you to cite a single country  on this planet where a government's growth and abuse has been restricted and limited?

PatriotforFreedom:

And, constitutional governments have been entered into and are observable throughout world history, but no known historical example of an effective, just and efficient Anarchy may be shown, so I submit that your position is actually in greater peril of being regarded as fantasy.

And throughout the history those observed governments have been abusive, every single last one of them. Your not giving yourself much of a defense my friend. I repeat myself

I challenge you to cite a single country  on this planet where a government's growth and abuse has been restricted and limited?

I'd like to repeat your question but directed at you.

Please explain how a hypothetical "society" with government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?

Hate to butt in on a this conversation...

1. What makes you think that government will render efficent justice for all? Why would anyone in this government continue to abide by a piece of paper? Indeed, it would be in their interests to violate it, and the probability of a populace resisting this is (Through "legitimate" channels) low, as we have already seen limited states become quite unlimited ones throughout history. There is ALWAYS a probability that a legal system will make unjust rulings, but a monopolist is much less likely to be efficent at this. 

2. What "people" do you speak of? When was this people formed? What traits define this people? What is this mystical entity that is continually referenced? Furthermore, even if we have a people that precedes the government, once a government is established in their name, where does their authority come from?

 

"A straw man* argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position." (Wikipedia)

filc asks, that "don't place words in my mouth," after claiming that I was in support of a supposed contract which granted the German government "rights to murder those Jews and it was of no loss to personal liberty to the Jew to die in such a way, as it was completely morally, ethically, and legally in the right to do so."

filc then states, "My point is social-contracts can be made to grant abusive powers which are detrimental to the people they are suppose to protect and represent."

Such contracts would then not be legal in the best interests of Liberty, and therefore not enforceable.

And, since you used the example of a German "social contract" which supposedly made it legal and ethical to unjustly treat Jewish people, please cite the specific social contract to which you referred, and show how it was a legal contract.

To the answer, "that we must find better ways to provide checks and balances and so protection.  There were some thoughts on this proposed in draft one of the Manifesto including the new right of "citizens' initiatives", and "citizen's oversite boards."  filc asks, "So in other words, you offer nothing better then what has already been done."

That fits the definition of a "*straw man", since I specifically named two things which have not been done before.  And since you are in firm grasp of the tactic of straw men, I can only conclude that it is your preference when it suits you.

filc asks, "What if they were property owners and decided they would rather stay on the land that they worked for and earned?"

Then they may stay and comply with the laws of the land.

To the question, "Please explain how a hypothetical "society" without a government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?", filc finally is bold enough to venture an answer, which is really a conclusion with no premises for supporting it: "It will not be consistent, but it will be effecient and probably more just. Errors or wrong doings will be isolated to individuals and perhaps a small group around those individuals."

Your first statement that it would not be consistent proves that it could not be just, since principles of justice, such as Liberty, are ideas which do remain consistent in definition and so in regulation.  "More just"?  You have stated that but proved it not at all.  Efficient?  How can an inconsistency be efficient?  Illogical. 

filc attempts to this position, I think (?) by writing, "The difference is, when a human being makes a mistake they pay for it one way or another. When the government makes a mistake it's a blanket error for all. That is not just or effecient."
You have stated no proof for your belief that a person pays for mistakes but governments don't.  In fact, since governments are composed of persons, your position is illogical.

filc then asks, "Please explain how a hypothetical "society" with government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?"

The justice would be efficient and consistent because the laws would be only encoded (written down for all to see, debate, and reach consensus) once, and they would be based on principles of divine rights for all human beings.  When there were flaws in the laws, they could be addressed and changed.  This is much more efficient than an "inconsistent" society because you do not have to continually debate and reinvent the law.

PatriotforFreedom:

Laughing Man writes, "You presuppose that the government's right to maintain its monopoly over land it never aqcuired is in fact more important then an individual's right to live peaceably on his/her land without molestation by the government."

Of course, you have not proven this.  Property may be understood as a storage place for value.  Since any person is free to sell his property and move on, then the government has not "molested" that individual.  And since the same individual is free to petition the government in the court system, plus work for repeal and reform of any encroaching laws, then once again the person is at liberty to address problems and injustice in the system.

C'mon.  Are you pretending to be completely unaware of court cases won by individuals against government encroachments?

You fail to state that an individual, while on his/her property MUST follow the government by use of complusion. If I am on my own property then I am sovereign. I must only follow natural law and anything else is my choice. The government is not owner of the property I reside on therefore I must not listen to anything they say.

Juan cites a number of powers granted in the US Constitution, then asks, "That's a 'minimal' government ? And who agreed to those terms anyway?"

Yes, I believe it is minimal.  All thirteen states ratified the constitution.

Juan also referred me to a page with the writings of Molinari on which he takes up the problem of "security" for protection of the fruits of labor from other men who would unjustly steal it.

Molinari :  "Under a regime of liberty, the natural organization of the security industry would not be different from that of other industries. In small districts a single entrepreneur could suffice. This entrepreneur might leave his business to his son, or sell it to another entrepreneur. In larger districts, one company by itself would bring together enough resources adequately to carry on this important and difficult business. If it were well managed, this company could easily last, and security would last with it. In the security industry, just as in most of the other branches of production, the latter mode of organization will probably replace the former, in the end. "

I find Molinari's arguement to be absurd on the grounds of the arbitrary nature of what is proposed.

Let's say that two different groups contract with a security company and that the two groups and their respective companies disagree as to who owns a particular herd of cattle.  This exact example may be researched in the "wild west" period of our history.  Molinari has thought of no efficient and principled ways to proceed, and so his whole case falls away.

I again submit that an army, navy or police force raised by a government of and by the people and sworn to do justice for the people is better in every way than an independent force of mercenaries like "Blackwater."

---------------

filc asks, "I challenge you to cite a single country on this planet where a government's growth and abuse has been restricted and limited?"

I will give you two citations:

1. France during it's revolution of 1789–1799 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
2. England during and via the American revolution.

In both cases the current governments growth and abuse was limited, or in effect ended, and restrictions were put in place for the future.  I agree with you that the tendency of a government is to grow beyond its boundaries, and so it falls back to the responsibility of the people to address any injustice.

----------

Mlee now appears in the thread... hello Mlee.

Mlee asks:
1. What makes you think that government will render efficient justice for all? Why would anyone in this government continue to abide by a piece of paper? Indeed, it would be in their interests to violate it, and the probability of a populace resisting this is (Through "legitimate" channels) low, as we have already seen limited states become quite unlimited ones throughout history. There is ALWAYS a probability that a legal system will make unjust rulings, but a monopolist is much less likely to be efficent at this.

It will render more efficient justice for all than Anarchy for reasons consistency previously stated.

Your question as to why anyone in government would remain loyal to its constitution is a question of honor, is it not?  The same question may be applied to any agreement between two or more persons.  Why would either party honor it?  The answer is that they will honor it when they believe it is in their interests to honor it.


And, Mlee asks further:
2. What "people" do you speak of? When was this people formed? What traits define this people? What is this mystical entity that is continually referenced? Furthermore, even if we have a people that precedes the government, once a government is established in their name, where does their authority come from?

The people who wrote, then ratified in state government, the constitution of the United States. And, the people who are now born under its laws as citizens.  Neither of these bodies are "mystical" in my understanding of that term. The authority for a government comes from its body of governing principles known as a Constitution.  Each citizen under a just constitution has the right and duty to challenge and amend it when a better agreement is in order.

Laughing Man wrote, "You fail to state that an individual, while on his/her property MUST follow the government by use of complusion. If I am on my own property then I am sovereign. I must only follow natural law and anything else is my choice. The government is not owner of the property I reside on therefore I must not listen to anything they say."

Sir, you fail to make clear that a person on his/her property is also within the borders of a country or state and so bound by the laws of that land as put forth and ratified in the Constitution for same. 

So, you have also failed to make a case that you are "sovereign" on your own property, since if this were the case you would be in the illogical position of then having to form your own fire department, police force, sewer, water and utility department, etc. and which would then make you a state unto yourself. 

I ask you two questions:

1.  How would the boundaries of your land be determined, recorded, and defended, especially when in dispute with a neighbor?
2.  If you will not "listen to anything" a government under which you live has to say, and that government does not grant you sovereignity, then how will you conduct any business at all with those around you?

C'mon.  Are you really proposing that each person is their own state and country?  Illogical.  Arbitrary. Ineffective.  I rest my case.
 ----------------------------

To all:  Thank you once again for an enjoyable debate.

We disagree, but live in a country where we are still free to do so. And in this sense of Liberty, I expect we are all in agreement, so I wish you well on that common ground.

PatriotforFreedom:

Sir, you fail to make clear that a person on his/her property is also within the borders of a country or state and so bound by the laws of that land as put forth and ratified in the Constitution for same. 

Well I never signed the Constitution so it is not applicable to me.

PatriotforFreedom:

So, you have also failed to make a case that you are "sovereign" on your own property, since if this were the case you would be in the illogical position of then having to form your own fire department, police force, sewer, water and utility department, etc. and which would then make you a state unto yourself.

So because I own a house, you rationalize that I must have my own police department or fire department? Must I also make my own shoes in this idiotic scheme?

PatriotforFreedom:

How would the boundaries of your land be determined, recorded, and defended, especially when in dispute with a neighbor?

Land titles from homesteading that are enforced in common law court systems.

PatriotforFreedom:

 If you will not "listen to anything" a government under which you live has to say, and that government does not grant you sovereignity, then how will you conduct any business at all with those around you?

Voluntary exchanges and contracts.

PatriotForFreedom:

Yes, I believe it is minimal.

"I can't believe that!" said Alice.

"Can't you?" the queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again, draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."

Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said. "One can't believe impossible things."

"I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

--------

Joking aside and granting that the American Gov't was somehow 'limited' or even miminal, what about SLAVERY ?

PatriotForFreedom:

All thirteen states ratified the constitution.

My point is that none of the actual individuals subjected to the 'jurisdiction' of the US government consented to those terms. NONE of the actual people who live today as serfs of the US gov't accepted the terms of the constitution either.

--------

PatriotForFreedom:

I find Molinari's arguement to be absurd on the grounds of the arbitrary nature of what is proposed.

What's absurd and arbitrary about it ?

Let's say that two different groups contract with a security company and that the two groups and their respective companies disagree as to who owns a particular herd of cattle.

That sounds pretty unlikely - I'd say impossible - somebody must have a legitimate title to the cattle and there's no reason why it can't be found out who the actual owner is.

But let's suppose that it can't really be known.

Solution : one of the two groups gets to keep the cattle while the other is covered by theft insurance. The two security companies share the loss. The business of the security companies is to solve disputes, not to wage war against each other.