It’s one of the buzzwords in the world of politics: compromise. People talk about moving to the center of the aisle and coming together. But is compromise always possible? This is one of the dilemmas of the libertarian in the political world.
Imagine this: you and I are hanging out one morning. You ask how I would like to spend the day with you. I reply by saying, “I want to kill 100 people.” You respond with, “Whoa. No way, I’m not killing anyone!”
I answer, “Fine, we’ll compromise. We’ll kill 50 people today.”
What’s the problem here? Why is the “compromise” so unfair to you?
We do not agree on the end. I want to kill people, you don’t. Because of this, the numbers involved are meaningless, making this is a clear cut example.
Now look at the libertarian in the political realm. For example, since libertarians are against taxation, and nearly all statists favor some form of it, there is no compromise by trying to agree to come up with a tax rate somewhere in the middle. This could work if one party wanted a 10% rate and the other wanted a 35% rate. Maybe they could agree on a 20% tax rate.
For the libertarian, taxes are just out of the question, just like killing people is for any sane person.
Okay, so a day of murdering is a little extreme, I get that. Here’s another example to illustrate a further point.
We have the same scenario: you and I are both looking for something to do. I suggest that we each drink a 6-pack of beer. You’re not interested in drinking, so you say, “No, I don’t want to drink any beer.” As you might expect, Mr. Compromising Me replies, “Fine, we’ll evenly split a 6-pack.”
In this situation, you’re free to simply tell me that I can drink the beer by myself. You’re not interested and you won’t participate. But what happens if I refuse to accept that you won’t participate? This doesn’t sound like something a good friend would do. In fact, I don’t sound like a friend at all. You don’t see me as your friend. I’m the one telling you that we’re friends, but I’m making you act against your free will.
This is akin to taxation and any other sort of government intrusion into the individual’s life. The libertarian will be forced to participate simply because he or she exists within a certain geographical area.
The state is the bad-idea-machine friend who forces you to engage in some form of the activity they suggested, no matter what.
I like reading this blog. It provides me a clearer understanding of what at least one or two people think is libertarian ideology.
What about a sales tax? If gas taxes actually translated directly to road repair, would that be acceptable to team liberty?
The most “fair” way to tax would be to apply usage fees, just like legitimate businesses. At the food store, I pay a dollar for an apple. If I want two apples, I pay two dollars. I don’t pay more for an apple over someone else because I make more money. The problem with government is that it establishes monopolies for itself in markets in which it engages. If it didn’t there would be no way that people would pay the absurd prices that government charges for its cut-rate goods and services.
How bedrock is the Libertarian’s opposition to taxation? I consider myself fiscally conservative but with more Libertarian leanings every day. That being said, I feel that a low flat tax of 10% is reasonable. Does that disqualify me as a card carrying Libertarian in your book? I pose the question because it seems like Libertarians are more interested in purifying their base than expanding it. For a political movement that consistently polls in the single digits for major elections, I think the Libertarian Party makes a huge error when it excludes voters like me.
Taxation is the seizing of property without permission from the owner, so it’s an initiation of force against a peaceful individual. Yes, you would be disqualified from being a libertarian if you were not opposed to taxation. That doesn’t mean that we wouldn’t accept you and want a dialogue (we do, afterall, really appreciate your comments here on this blog).
One important thing to remember is that being a libertarian doesn’t equate you with the Libertarian Party. I’m still actually registered as a Republican (because I just don’t really care enough to change it to anything else), but I don’t see the Libertarian Party as a group that I really want to get behind. Better than the Republicans and Democrats? Sure, but not what I consider to necessarily be good.
Libertarians can do a better job of being more accepting of those who don’t quite see eye to eye on everything. That said, I won’t compromise my beliefs (assuming you don’t show me that my logic and reason is incorrect). I want to include you in the movement and we’ll unite on the points that we agree on, but I don’t see a reason for me to advocate for taxation so that all of our views are in agreement.
I’m not interested in a political movement…libertarianism transcends that. I’m not trying to get a certain candidate elected as President. I’m trying to get people to see that they don’t actually need government in their lives.
I hope that clears some things up!
LOL at the examples of “compromises”. But compromise requires a shared goal. In the case of taxation though, there is a shared goal that Libertarians clearly admit to, the protection of their right to property. If someone is stealing your car while you’re sleeping, you’d like your neighbor to call the police, right? Well, he will only be willing to do that for you if you do the same for him.
Taxation comes in when the two of you have to compromise as to who pays for the police. You see, your car is twice as expensive as his, your loss would be greater. Perhaps you’d like to reduce your costs by getting some of the other neighbors to join in.
As you widen the neighborhood, you encounter more thieves, and now you have to pay for a place to put them. If you only pass the hat, as Libertarians believe you must, then there will be some who will opt out of paying for one reason or another (I’m sending the kid to college, why don’t you cover me).
As a practical matter, everyone should be required to participate. If not, then many will decide they can save money by piggy-backing on your need to secure your property and get thieves off the streets.
“In the case of taxation though, there is a shared goal that Libertarians clearly admit to, the protection of their right to property.”
You’re not protecting property if the means by which you attain that end is achieved through theft of property (i.e., taxation).
“Taxation comes in when the two of you have to compromise as to who pays for the police.”
Why do we have to compromise? Why not purchase our own security services? Do we have to compromise on everything we purchase?
“You see, your car is twice as expensive as his, your loss would be greater. Perhaps you’d like to reduce your costs by getting some of the other neighbors to join in.”
Sure, that’d be nice if other people lowered my cost, but you’re going into the fallacy of the free rider “problem.” I would pay for protection for my car that benefits my neighbors because I have more to gain than doing nothing.
“If you only pass the hat, as Libertarians believe you must, then there will be some who will opt out of paying for one reason or another (I’m sending the kid to college, why don’t you cover me).”
Libertarians wouldn’t expect someone else to pay for something that they decided not to purchase.
“If not, then many will decide they can save money by piggy-backing on your need to secure your property and get thieves off the streets.”
And as long as I’m okay with doing that, what’s the problem?
Sorry to disappear, but I forgot to check the “Notify” box!
First, taxes cannot be theft, because you “signed” the contract in which you agreed to pay them, just like rent. So long as you are a citizen, you are party to the contract. And if you are not a citizen, then the rest of us may charge you rent to pay for the roads you use, etc.
Second, the security forces you wish to hire are currently working for the Vikings, who happen to be taking your car, your house, and your wife. You see, the Vikings pooled their resources for their mutual benefit. They bought a boat, some swords, and an AK-47.
You, on the other hand, chose not to join with your neighbors to form a common police and national defense, so whatever security you think you can afford is not going to cut it.
Because you put quotations around the word “signed,” to me that implies that even you know that I never actually agreed to this contract. And since according to your logic, you don’t actually need me to agree to a contract for it to be valid, what other things will you force upon me?
Did the slaves “sign” the contract? Did the Indians that were uprooted from their homes and forced to live on reservations “sign” the contracts? Did the Japanese-Americans who were forced onto concentration camps during World War II “sign” the contract?
“Second, the security forces you wish to hire are currently working for the Vikings, who happen to be taking your car, your house, and your wife. You see, the Vikings pooled their resources for their mutual benefit. They bought a boat, some swords, and an AK-47.”
This doesn’t really make any sense. And if you’re going to bring up Vikings, make sure you have your facts kind of correct if you’re going to make a comparison: https://mises.org/daily/1121
“You, on the other hand, chose not to join with your neighbors to form a common police and national defense, so whatever security you think you can afford is not going to cut it.”
What about something like a neighborhood watch group?
Maybe people would purchase more of their own security if our money wasn’t already being taken and a legally monopolized version forced upon us.
Every time you refer to yourself as a “citizen” you are asserting your agreement to the contract. Neither the state nor the nation exists except by that contract. Without a state or nation there is no “citizenship”.
As to who became a citizen when, please see Wikipedia. See the 14th Amendment for the current constitutional definition. Indians are citizens of their own nations unless they choose to be citizens of the U.S. But I’m not here to take a quiz.
Hey, as to Mises, thanks for the link, I’ll look it up and get back to you. I love the historical evolution issues.
I’ve read Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom”. I think it was in a Libertarian newsgroup (pre-blog). We actually took a chapter at a time and discussed it. Very interesting, but a tough read for someone of my persuasion. The cool thing was when we got to Chapter 9, Security and Freedom, and Hayek came out in favor of social insurance programs. He would have been crazy about Obamacare, since we dropped the public option and did the whole thing with private health insurance companies.
One of my points that you will not be able to get around is that the security of your property is already being provided through an association which you joined of your own free will.
I don’t have a choice whether or not I’m a citizen. If I attempt to remove myself, men armed with guns will come to my house and throw me into prison. How that is a voluntary agreement is beyond me.
“Indians are citizens of their own nations unless they choose to be citizens of the U.S. But I’m not here to take a quiz.”
You’re skirting those questions. The Indians were taken from their land and forced to move to reservations chosen by the Federal Government. One of those forced movements was the famous Trail of Tears. And you know that I’m talking about that and not about how an Indian might choose to become a citizen of the US in the year 2013.
As far as Hayek goes, I’ll have to reread chapter 9, but to say that he would have loved Obamacare is a bit much especially considering that the rest of the book was a warning against central planning. Anyway, I’m not sure if you’re trying to get a checkmate there, but while I agree with a lot of what Hayek says, my views align more closely with someone like Murray Rothbard and the rest of the Austrian school. That said, just because Rothbard (or any other economist that I may agree with) says something does not mean that I worship their opinion. If you want a general starting point for my views, however, Rothbard is a good place to look.
“One of my points that you will not be able to get around is that the security of your property is already being provided through an association which you joined of your own free will.”
You’re begging the question that I’ve joined under my own free will. I don’t want to be a part of it, but I know that if I don’t send the money to the state, there will be violent repercussions. That’s not free will.
You are always free to shop around for a different nation, or even to move to a deserted island (I thought the Libertarians were buying one somewhere).
So if you’re still here, you are here by choice.
And yes, you are required to pay taxes like the rest of us, even if you’re not a citizen. It’s no different from the rent you pay your landlord or your share of a pizza that your club ordered. To claim that the landlord or your club is a “thief” for requiring you to pay your share is both false and acting in “bad faith” with the rest.
I suggest that if you want to restrict free will, you go find somewhere else. Why do I have to leave?
“So if you’re still here, you are here by choice.”
I knock on your door and when you open it, I state, “I’m going to come back tomorrow. If you don’t give me $100, I’m going to beat you up. If you run away and leave, I won’t follow you.” If you stick around, are you permitting me to take $100 from you?
Does a woman who lives in a bad area with a high rate of rape permit men to rape her? She doesn’t leave, so she must be okay with being raped, right?
“It’s no different from the rent you pay your landlord or your share of a pizza that your club ordered. To claim that the landlord or your club is a “thief” for requiring you to pay your share is both false and acting in “bad faith” with the rest”
If’s completely different. I make distinct and definite choices to rent from a certain landlord or be a part of a certain club. I wasn’t born into either and I have the choice to opt in and out as I so choose.
You’re comparing apples to oranges.
Again, if you want to leave the restaurant, then pay your bill and leave. The world is full of restaurants.
Again, you are here by choice. If you incur a bill, we expect you to pay it before you leave. Force will only be used by us if you attempt to leave without paying your bill. To do so would make you a thief.
If you wish to stay, we still expect you to pay your bill, to accuse us of coercing you to do anything is a lie. Coercion is only used to if you plan to steal from us by refusing to pay your share of the bill, because that means you’re a thief.
You’ve got no problem with someone knocking on your door and demanding that $100?
Here’s a good video that refutes this “you can just leave” argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fasTSY-dB-s
The restaurant argument makes no sense because I wasn’t forced to use the restaurant in the first place. If you’re going to make an example, use the facts that the state operates under.
Turns out you were born in the restaurant. But now that you’re a responsible adult, you remain here by your own free will, as an exercise of your “self-ownership” if you wish.
If you understand the video that refutes this, then by all means refute it.
Well, first of all, the restaurant has a rightful owner of the land, building, etc. It’s not that quite cut and dry with the state. And I can leave the restaurant without necessarily going to another restaurant.
As far as the video goes, I understand what the video is about and have been invoking similar ideas to refute your views. I linked it because it was so similar to our conversation, and I think you’ll be able to better understand my views if you see this condensed, and maybe more eloquent presentation, of my views. It will take about 11 minutes of your time, but I think it would be well worth it!
Okay, saw the video. Here is where you and the video are mistaken:
A) You and I, and every other citizen, are the state.
— it is not Jeff or any other individual
— it is not a third party, but you, me, and the rest of us
B) All land is under the authority of the state. Private property exists only because you, me, and the rest of us believe that private ownership is a good and valuable thing. However, it has always been the case that any private land may be claimed for public use so long as the owner is justly compensated. This does not happen often, but it does happen when necessary.
C) The state does not rely upon a “social” contract. It relies instead upon a written contract, called a “constitution” which is ethically and legally binding upon all of the parties (you, me, and everyone else).
D) Under that contract, you have agreed to democratically elect representatives of your choice to act on your behalf and reach additional agreements with the rest of us regarding the laws we will follow and the rights we will respect and protect for each other.
E) Under that contract, you have agreed to be taxed to pay for publicly provided services.
F) Under that contract, you have agreed that laws may be passed which are not agreeable to you personally, but which the rest of us feel are important for all of us.
G) Under that contract, you have agreed that those who do not obey laws that are appropriately created under the contract may be penalized — including yourself.
THEREFORE, refusing to pay taxes is a theft, and an “initiation of aggression” on your part, to which the rest of us may respond with appropriate force to protect our rights under the contract.
Questions?
B. You’re justly compensated unless you’re an Indian and the US government wanted your land. Then you were forcefully removed without compensation. Or for a more modern version, we’ll talk of eminent domain. I really have no choice if the government wants to take my land. They may pay me, but if I don’t agree to give it up, is it really a just compensation? Furthermore, if the state has the final authority over my land, can you really say that I own it? If the ultimate say over my land rests with the state, then I have no private property rights.
C. Then why have you been talking about the social contract? As far as the written contract goes, I’ve definitely never signed one, so how am I to be held accountable to it? Was it ethical that the slaves were held accountable to the Constitution?
D. How can you hold me to something I’ve never specifically agreed to? What other written contracts are there that you can hold someone to that they never signed and/or never made any other such agreement to?
E. Again, you cannot create a document and then arbitrarily claim that some people are going to be held to it. Why not hold the people of Canada accountable to the US Constitution?
F. So you’d accept exterminating the Jews since that’s what is important to the rest of the people?
G. If you lived during the time of slavery in this country, upon finding a runaway slave, would you have returned him to his “master”?
Let me ask you this…do you have the right to personally demand taxes from me? If so, then why have the government do it for you? Why not do it yourself? If not, then how can you delegate a right that you do not have?
If I figure out a way to get out of paying the Social Security tax and do not take any Social Security funds when I retire and reach the age of collection, am I committing theft? How is that an act of aggression?
Are the people who legally don’t pay taxes committing acts of aggression against you?
A. I take it you agree that the state is not a third party, but is you, me, and everyone else.
B. Eminent domain is the historical name for the fact that the people of the nation have a greater claim upon any parcel of land than any one individual. Otherwise, one person could monopolize the water supply and force everyone else into slavery.
C. I’m pretty sure I’ve been talking about the constitution. I don’t think I’ve use the term “social contract” in this conversation. It came up in the video. But the concept is moot if you have a real written contract, as we do.
D. You benefit from the blessings of liberty not to mention your right to possess property within your state, which is protected by the agreement you have with the rest of us. TJ: “to secure these rights, governments are instituted”. And you will damn well pay your share of the rent.
E. You cannot claim to be a citizen and disavow the contract that created the state and nation of which you are a citizen. Every time you call yourself a citizen you assert your concurrence to the contract. If you are not a citizen, then you are here as our guest, and we expect you to follow our laws and contribute to the maintenance costs.
F. Unfortunately, nations and states are not perfect. We rounded up the Japanese-Americans during WWII. We once permitted slavery. And, of course, everyone is subject to the authority of conscience as well as the authority of the contract. People speak, march, are civilly disobedient, vote, etc to peacefully overturn immoral laws, in every nation.
G. see F.
H. Assuming you are a responsible adult, the authority to collect taxes from you originates with you, as an ethical and legal commitment under the contract you have with the rest of us. If you wish to renounce the contract and your citizenship, then you are a guest on our property and we expect you to obey our rules (as you would expect us to behave on your property).
I. You can get out of paying the Social Security tax simply by earning no income.
J. People who legally pay no tax are paying exactly what they owe, so they are meeting their legal and ethical obligation.
“Otherwise, one person could monopolize the water supply and force everyone else into slavery.”
Then why has that never happened before? When has a single person monopolized a good or service? If a single person tried to put everyone else in the world in slavery, they’d pretty much say “Screw you, we’re not listening.”
“I don’t think I’ve use the term “social contract” in this conversation.”
You said it here and have been implying it…
“A state exists in practice, if not in name, wherever a formal or informal set of rules and ruling institutions is agreed to by a social contract, whether verbal or written.”
“But the concept is moot if you have a real written contract, as we do.”
I’m going to sit down and write a contract that says you need to pay me $100 every week. Since it’s written, it doesn’t matter if you sign it or agree to it? How can I be contractually bound to something I don’t agree to?
“And you will damn well pay your share of the rent.”
It’s all fine and good if you’re okay with paying taxes. But what if I don’t want to receive the benefits of the state?
“People speak, march, are civilly disobedient, vote, etc to peacefully overturn immoral laws, in every nation.”
But my desire to peacefully exist outside of the realm of the state isn’t allowed?
“(as you would expect us to behave on your property).”
According to you I don’t have property because my land is subject to the will of the state. And again, you keep talking about this contract, but you haven’t legitimized it.
“You can get out of paying the Social Security tax simply by earning no income.”
Oh, that’s a great choice you left me with.
“People who legally pay no tax are paying exactly what they owe, so they are meeting their legal and ethical obligation.”
So other people get to decide what is ethical for me?
Why hasn’t a water monopoly ever happened before? I presume because the rest of us would not tolerate it. A boycott would not work, of course, because you’d die of thirst. The rest of us may need to compel the owner by force if we cannot get him to listen to reason. ‘Course if he’s a Libertarian, he might not be willing to give up the power he has over others by owning property that contains the main water source for the community.
So would you support his “property right” (acquired by buying up all the land over drillable water sources) or the right of the people to have water at a reasonable price? At what point do they have the right to compel the owner?
By the way, I’ve explained several times now how you are a party to your state’s constitution and the national constitution. There is no “citizen” without a state. You were granted citizenship by birth. But once you become an adult and have a choice, then you are here only by your own choice.
Frankly, I doubt there is any location on the planet which is “outside of the realm” of one state or another. Why is that? I think it has something to do with “The Magnificent Seven”. Farmers are beset by robbers who steal their food and wine. They pool their resources and send their leader to town to hire their own gunmen. Yul Brenner find 6 others and the 7 come to their rescue. Over history, that defensive force was replaced by knights and kings, then parliamentary democracies.
What works, works.
But we have to pay for our police, courts, jails, and armies. So we require everyone to chip in according to what they are able, as judged by their income (state) or property (county).
One of my teachers had a sign up on the wall that said, “Discipline Thyself, or the World Will Do It For You”. So, yeah. If you don’t know what’s ethical then someone else will decide it for you.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but whatever the state decides during any given time period is what’s ethical?
Let me explain ethical. Ethics are rules. Rule systems include ethics, rights, principles, laws, customs…etc.
Rules serve morality. Morality seeks the best good for everyone. So rules are judged by their moral value: To what degree is the rule beneficial? To what degree is the rule harmful?
We answer both to a public judge (law) and a private judge (conscience). In both cases, the rule is judged by the same criteria, moral value.
Two good and honest persons may disagree as to the benefits and harms of a rule of ethics or law. We lack a “God’s eye view” of the ultimate outcomes of our decisions, but must instead estimate the benefits and harms as best we can. This sometimes results in disagreement, both between the representatives considering a law, and between private conscience and public law.
So, the state can tell you what is legal, but you may call the law unethical based on your personal moral judgment.
“We lack a “God’s eye view” of the ultimate outcomes of our decisions”
This is precisely why people should make their own decisions for themselves. The state can be wrong.
I think there are several things we’re just going to disagree on. I completely disagree that I ever agreed to any contract. What if 51% of the population votes to tax the other 49% by 100%? Did those 49% agree to that in some made up contract they signed when they were born, or became legal age and decided to continue living in their home? Obviously that is extreme, but speaking of looking at history, is it that hard to imagine government can get out of control? Governments pretty much have a monopoly on murder, did those murdered agree to that contract? The question is, when does the contract get out of hand? In my ideal world, we could both have our way, I could take care of myself, and you could choose to pool all or a portion of your money with others. We both think we’d be better off that way. What does it matter if I choose to fend for myself?
It’s like you guys never took a Social Studies class, Slappy. Sometimes I suspect you’re all homeschooled, like the kid whose parents didn’t want them learning about evolution.
If you don’t claim to be a citizen, then you are free to claim you’re not party to the contract. But what exactly do you think you are a citizen of if you don’t think the contract applies to you??
Under the principle of “equal treatment” under the law, it is impossible for 51% to require anything of the other 49% that does not also apply to the 51%. If you’re thinking that taxes only apply to some, then you’re forgetting that in our free market economy anyone of the 51% may by his or her own efforts and good fortune become one of the 49%, and vice versa.
And another imaginary boogeyman you guys believe in is the idea that government has a “monopoly” on the use of force. That’s total BS. People are murdered, mugged, robbed, and defrauded every day by other private individuals and private organizations (gangs or Enron or crooked contractors, etc.).
One of the reasons we constituted a state was “to secure these rights” to life, liberty, and property against the actions of other private individuals and organizations.
Can governments behave badly? Sometimes. But our government has a lot of
“checks and balances” to prevent abuse. Most of the harm in our society is caused by private individuals and organizations pursuing their happiness at the expense of others.
And why do you think you don’t fend for yourself? People accumulate billions of dollars in this country by their own struggles and efforts. Who is fending for you now, if not you?
Most things can be approached either through private or public institutions. Schools public and private exist in the same neighborhoods. Some jails are privatized. Obamacare, for example, does not have the public option. That means it is all done through the private insurance industry. What more could you want as far as choices go?
The myth you cling to, that government cannot do anything efficiently, is belied by both Social Security and Medicare. One of the Obamacare rules was to limit the administrative overhead costs of private health insurance to 20%, which resulted in refunds last year. I’m pretty sure that Medicare is a heck of a lot more efficient than that.
Like I’ve been saying, the Libertarian point of view is belabored with myths that ignore the evidence, and beliefs that are sustained by congregants reinforcing each others rumors.
Marvin, You’re a very good citizen…
“It’s like you guys never took a Social Studies class, Slappy. Sometimes I suspect you’re all homeschooled, like the kid whose parents didn’t want them learning about evolution. “– I wasn’t home schooled, but I guess we’re even on this one. We think all you people sound like a public school school kids who ate everything their teacher fed them, never once questioning it.
“Under the principal of equal treatment….” I think you’re the first person I’ve ever spoke to who buys into this. Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian…I’d say most people understand that is a myth. I actually admire that you believe that, I used to too. Sure, you could argue that by the letter of the law we have equal protection, but definitely not in practice.
“The monopoly on violence” Of course individuals commit violence. It happens everyday. The monopoly is that the government commits violence legally. What happens if you don’t pay your property taxes because you do not agree to the programs they support? Eventually they come to your house with guns and throw your ass in jail. Imagine if the owner of a 7-11 demanded you pay him for things you do not want, then came to your house with a gun, dragged you out, and locked you in a room for 5 years. Of course that’s an absurd scenario. You can certainly argue that you’re in favor of the government’s violence (I don’t get upset when the police arrest a rapist), but I think you have agree they have a monopoly on it. A monopoly doesn’t have to be a bad thing.
I only mentioned that I was going to write about public vs private retirement programs. I never said anything about schools or Obamacare. I also didn’t say they cannot exist together…They do exist. however there are different economic consequences to each.
Also, when did I mention government efficiency? For the sake of argument, let’s assume Social Security is the most efficient program in the history of the universe. That doesn’t mean they have a right to the money I earn if I choose not to participate in it. If I use my money more efficiently than my neighbor, I don’t have a right to his money.
Happy to start wherever you choose. Since Libertarians have no logically consistent concept of “rights”, why don’t we start there?
I’ve heard you guys use “inherent”, “Natural”, and “God given” to describe the “rights” you wish to claim for yourselves, while denying a black man the right to eat in the same restaurants as everyone else. Somehow you have raised property rights to the top of the pyramid, with no justification other than a rhetorical claim that cannot be backed up with reason. Even personal rights are converted to property rights, which you falsely call “self-ownership”.
The true nature of rights is this: All practical rights arise by agreements between us to respect and protect that right for each other. We institute government to assist protecting these rights.
Practical rights evolve as our moral sense evolves. It used to be that the restaurant owner had a right to practice discrimination against black customers. Because this caused unnecessary harm to the rights of others, we reached a new agreement in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that stripped the owner of that right, and restored the right of all races to participate in the marketplace as equals.
Because rights issue from the people themselves, and people are, well, people, we sometimes get it wrong (like slavery, and like giving the restaurant owner the right to discriminate, etc). But, as Martin Luther King Jr said, “the arc of history bends toward justice” (or something like that).
Please stick to what I say. I could care less what Libertarians say, or Hayek says, or Rollo says. Please stick to my arguments. I never denied any black man any right to eat in a restaurant or ever said anyone should deny anyone of eating in any restaurant.
I don’t think I ever wrote “self-ownership” before.
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution disagree with you that rights change over time.
I never even really commented on Social Security other than to say I want to opt out. I don’t know why that offends you, but it certainly has nothing to do with Martin Luther King Jr. or the Civil Rights Act.
Slappy, one of the tags on this article is “libertarian”, so if you’re “walking, talking, and quacking” like a libertarian then forgive my mistake.
I would be delighted to hear your ideas on where rights come from.
I’ve provided what I believe is the correct answer.
Your assertion that the Declaration and/or Constitution presume a fixed, eternal set of rights is mistaken. The right to life, for example, continues to be worked out even today with the Zimmerman trial. Did Zimmerman have the right to pull the trigger on Travon Martin or not? The evaluation changed as new circumstances came to light, and the jury decision is still in dispute by some.
Even if we imagine a perfect, ideal set of rights, we must admit that our knowledge and understanding of that ideal is still evolving. So the effect is as if the rights themselves are evolving.
Did you want to challenge my explanation of where rights come from, in any way?
If you want to compare the government to a restaurant, then the restaurant would be one that makes food for you, delivers it to your house, and then demands that you pay for it even if you didn’t want it in the first place. And if you don’t pay for it, they’ll bring guns and throw you in prison.
And you’re telling me that I need to be the one to leave and that the restaurant is ethically justified in its behavior?
Dude, you agreed that the fraternity would order out every Friday evening and that everyone would chip in. Sometimes it’s pizza. Sometimes its Chinese. You knew when you joined the fraternity the Friday special would not always be something you like, but would be decided by majority vote. Stop acting like a weasel and pay your share. Next time it might be something I don’t want, and I’ll still pay my share. That’s the way things work in a democracy.
In this fraternity that you speak of, can I simply declare that I am no longer a part of it and they’ll leave me alone and I’ll no longer receive the benefits of being a part of it?
Are you willing to have your tax money to be used to pay for anything? Would you hold these views if you lived in Germany in the early 1940s?
Marvin, I’m jumping in here late, it is late on the east coast and I need to get to bed, so I apologize in advance that I haven’t read all the comments…I’m trying to get to the bottom of your argument. Do you believe in individual freedom and/or property rights? Are we owned by the country we live in, or can I own a piece of property? I’m not talking about legally by the US law, but more philosophically.
I cannot speak for Rollo, but I have a much bigger problem with the federal government than I do local government. If I don’t like the local government I could move 2 miles down the road to another municipality. Leaving the country and your relatives and friends and everything you know, I would say, is a little bit different than a free market decision over Chinese food or pizza.
I honestly do not want Social Security benefits, I can prepare for my retirement on my own. I have plenty of money saved at the moment and I expect to continue saving my whole life. I’d say pretty much everyone on the left and right agree that I will never see a dime of my social security anyway, how is 12.5% paid by me and my employer helping me? Why should I not be able to opt out if we live in a free country with individual freedoms? How am I paying my fair share to something I will never see?
Welcome aboard, Slappy,
1) As far as I know, everyone in the U.S., and everyone around the world for that matter, believes both in individual freedom and in property rights. But no rights are absolute. Like the saying goes, “One man’s freedom to swing his fist stop’s at the another man’s nose”. So, for example, the owner of a restaurant’s freedom to do as he pleases with his restaurant is reasonably limited by the rights of customers, workers, competitors, etc. For example, the owner may not put a “Whites Only” sign in the window and choose to all every other customer to shop except black persons.
2) Yes. Leaving one’s own country to live in another, is a hard thing. But immigrants, legal or illegal, come to this country in large numbers from many other countries. And there’s no restriction on moving out of America like there was in the Soviet Union at one point in history.
3) Saving for retirement is great if you can do it. But not everyone has sufficient income to save that amount, and you don’t really know how long you will live, so you never know whether your savings will run out before you do. Private insurance companies offer something called an “annuity”, where, for a fixed amount, they will pay you a fixed monthly income for the rest of your life. They can do this because, like life insurance, they have “actuarial tables” with statistical projections as to how many people actually live to age 50, 55, 60, etc. So they “pool the risk” of outliving your savings, knowing that some will die sooner and their excess premiums will cover the expense of those who die later. The total amount set aside need only cover the actual life spans rather than each person having to save against the possibility of a very long lifespan.
Social Security is basically a public version of private annuity insurance. Like any insurance, it is important to adjust premiums and benefits as needed to reflect changes in the actual projections, like our longer life spans today.
One of the issues with Soc Sec is that a large part, about $2.7 trillion in premiums, has been borrowed to cut income taxes over the years. Of the $16.7 trillion national debt you hear about, $2.7 trillion is owed to Social Security. So that will debt has to be paid back.
Good news is that even if Social Security runs out, about 70% (I think that’s the correct estimate) of the benefits will continue, simply from the current payroll deductions. So, you can expect some benefits from Social Security, even if nothing is done to fix the current unbalance of premiums and benefits.
Marvin, I do appreciate your contributions to our articles. When we created the blog, this is exactly what we were looking for. Instead of replying in the comment section of another article I am going to write separate articles addressing your comments. At least I plan to, haha, I don’t always have time and sometimes it takes me longer than I plan to get something up.
However, I like that you brought up private vs public retirement plans. Believe it or not, my day job is being an individual life, LTC, DI and annuity wholesaler so I am very familiar with several insurance companies and how they use actuarial tables to price their policies. This will be the first topic I write about.
Also, My grandfather left Ireland with literally nothing but a bag on his back. He made enormous sacrifices to raise his 9 kids in this country and I’m certainly thankful that I was fortunate enough to be born here…I do believe this is the best country in the world, but I’m also not familiar with every country in the world, so I could be wrong. That doesn’t mean I don’t think we should constantly fight for a better society. Freedom is still a relatively new concept in the history of the world, I suspect that as time goes on, even if we’re not alive, the people of the world will continue to have greater liberty. However, if we let people control our lives, they will.
Super. I’m following the blog, so I hope to see notifications in my email for your new articles. I enjoy these conversations as well.
Okay. I read enough of the https://mises.org/daily/1121 article to realize they were talking about actual government and somehow fantasizing that it wasn’t actual government. Instead of states they had tribes. Sorry, but I don’t see any significant distinction. Their tribal chiefs (godi) were both religious and legal authorities, similar to the Jewish tribes. The unique thing about the Icelandic government was that you could switch allegiance to a different chief without moving your location.
Please note, however, that despite these historical idiosyncrasies, Iceland today has a constitutional, democratic government pretty much like everyone else. Whatever benefits the medieval system might have had, they were obviously neither ideal nor sufficient, since they were abandoned.
Frankly, the article’s author’s claim that any society is “stateless” seems unfounded. A state exists in practice, if not in name, wherever a formal or informal set of rules and ruling institutions is agreed to by a social contract, whether verbal or written.
In practical terms, the distinction seems irrelevant.
“The unique thing about the Icelandic government was that you could switch allegiance to a different chief without moving your location.”
That’s the distinction….you weren’t owned by the state. You could choose to be a part of one organization or another.
It wasn’t a perfect system, but it was somewhat of an example of polycentric law.
“A state exists in practice, if not in name, wherever a formal or informal set of rules and ruling institutions is agreed to by a social contract, whether verbal or written.”
More or less, but remember, the state will claim everyone within some geographical boundary as its subjects. That’s the important distinction that will categorize a society specifically as a state.
Howdy this is kind of of off topic but I was
wondering if blogs use WYSIWYG editors oor if you have
to manually code with HTML. I’m starting a blog soon but have no coding
experience so I wanted to get advice from someone with
experience. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
[…] or afford, to live. A few months ago one of our commenters brought up the idea on Rollo’s Compromise? post. The conversation is predictable, you can check it out if you want, but basically the […]