Personal contract as an alternative to social contract
September 25, 2008 at 1:11 am #3911
Did you catch the fish? Or using the bread example, did you bake the loaf of bread? Do you own your labor or time? Do you own your life? Do you own you? If not, who does? The state? The collective? If you don’t own your life then you are a slave.September 25, 2008 at 9:35 am #3913
Id like to own me, but i cant say i do. If i feel like selling my kidney to you, too bad for me.
When i would move to a seastead, id assert complete ownership over my own body with deadly force. I could do so now and defy the state, but i have little intention of becoming a martyr while there are still realistic options available.
Similarly, i would assert ownership over the fruits of my labor. I would join a community of likeminded people to strengthen these claims.
If i baked a bread, i would want to own it. But id have to own the flour to make it first. If i catch a fish, id like to own it. But id have to make a credible claim to the uncaught fish first. If i dont own the flour, how can i own the resulting bread? If i dont own the fish in the water, how can i own it when its caught?
By mixing my labor with it? Hardly a statisfying answer. I could fertilize the ocean with a bag of nutrients: i will have mixed my labor with it, and now the entire ocean is mine. Do you think it will work? I dont think so. When you lay claim to a limited resource, that only tends to be respected when the value of said resource is insignificant relative to the value you added to it. Or if you have bigger guns, of course.September 25, 2008 at 9:36 am #3914
Did i mention im not too fond of these forums?September 25, 2008 at 4:42 pm #3916
Look at all the non-looting and non-mayhem that took place after Gustav / Ike, all because the people had kept their handguns this time instead of giving them to FEMA 😉
In the real world, the sense that something is right has trumped might over and over and over again. The Holy Emperor Henry the 4th of Germany, effective leader of the whole of Europe in the 11th century and probably the most powerful man of his time (except maybe for China’s ruler ?), was made to walk barefoot in the snow wearing only a hairshirt and apologize, just because someone with no soldier to back his words but with clear moral authority said he was wrong and had to make penance.
Natural rights are firmly rooted in our very own substance, they are as objective as the pain you feel when you cut your finger, as imperative as the urge to pull your hand off a hot pan or to get away from an angry beehive. The only human beings who are incapable of making sane judgements after natural rights are sociopaths and psychopaths – and we tag them as sick for this very reason: it’s a major functional defect for any human being.
That said, I wholly endorse the backing of natural rights with force, as there is no inherent contradiction in that, as I’ve implicitly demonstrated in a lengthy post earlier.September 26, 2008 at 6:25 am #3919
Assume you baked the bread in your own oven from flour that you grew from your own wheat seeds in a garden you built using water you purified, etc. Assume all the equipment, materials and labor to make the bread were provided by you. Would I then have any right to take your bread without any payment or barter? Or could you make a claim that the bread was your property? I’m curious as to whether you think property can ever exist under any circumstance.September 26, 2008 at 5:08 pm #3920
Well, take this laptop for instance. I can do with it what i want, use it in any way i see fit, sell it, set it on fire: it is fully under my control, and in every sense my property. Ownership is control, and you can control a lot of things given enough power. Humans even.
Id like to have power channeled in such a way as to make sure my body, mind and the value i create are under my own control. Finding likeminded people to bundle our power to defend these claims would be the way to go in my opinion.
As for the allocation of property rights over things that would have existed without me anyway, such as land, fishes and water, things are more complicated. I realize they are going to have to be shared, but i dont have strong opinions as to how. But once more, the bottomline is: you own what you control.September 26, 2008 at 8:33 pm #3921
What are you guys talking about? I love these forums! They are great. They make me want to write words like honorificabilitudinitatibus.November 18, 2008 at 10:08 pm #4286
Seeing as there clearly are anarcho-capitalists on this board, I wonder why the book only mentions libertarians who “advocate a minimal government”. Anarcho-capitalists agree that a minimal government will expand into a big government eventually, as was the case with the United States.
The concept of natural rights, by the way, arises not only from convention but from logic.
I think getting familiar with all the current international laws is a wise thing to do, but I’d not put too much trust on their stability – history has shown that laws can be changed quite easily. I mean this in a negative way: just because it might be legal to build a big libertarian dream boat and sail under a flag of convenience, all it takes is a politician who can convince the public that it’s evil, and to the bottom of the ocean the boat goes.
If I were a politician afraid of seasteading luring people in and diminishing my income from taxation, I’d tell the public that these seasteaders are nothing but terrorists seeking to do money-laundering, drug trafficing etc, and get their implicit approval for getting rid of the seasteaders. The public has no idea of libertarian ideas, so they’ll buy into this kind of fearmongering quickly. Jealousy is another strong weapon; just tell the public that these people want to avoid taxes and destroy the poor, and you’ll have them feel nothing but hate towards seasteading.January 2, 2009 at 1:41 pm #4621
idanthologyParticipantJuly 28, 2009 at 12:54 pm #7174
My Civil Order Pact reads as follows:
I/We will not willfully support or defend any public or private action that:
July 29, 2009 at 12:02 am #7185
- intrudes against anyone’s person, property, or mutual transactions,
- restricts anyone’s thoughts, or nonintrusive actions in, on, or with his person or property,
- dictates anyone’s thoughts, or actions concerning his person or property,
- takes anyone’s money, property, time, labor, health, or life, against his will,
- prevents anyone from defending his person, property, thoughts, or actions, or
- obstructs compensation to a victim of the above classes of aggression, or to his estate, for actual losses suffered thereby.
It’s good. But still comes down to “who decides?”.
What about when someone believes you’re not giving them fair compensation. By their definition, you’re breaking the last rule. What do you do then?
– NickJuly 29, 2009 at 4:23 am #7187
Q: Who decides?
A: The marketplace, of course.
Q: What about when someone believes you’re not giving them fair compensation. By their definition, you’re breaking the last rule. What do you do then?
A1: If you’re the insurer and you discover that your compensation is indeed inadequate, make an adjustment.
A2:I f you are the injured party, switch insurance companies.
BTW, while the Civil Order Pact can be used independently for a wide range of associations, I’ve incorporated it into the Constitution of the Autonomous Freezone of Aquia:July 29, 2009 at 3:15 pm #7192
Explicit contract for a free society:
“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.”- Atlas Shrugged
On the privatization of courts, police, etc. and the basis for natural rights, I suggest Murray Rothbard’s For a New Liberty. It’s thorough, logical, researched, and covers just about everything you can imagine. It even mentions homesteading rights for the ocean and the lack thereof as a cause of the plight of the dwindling fish population! For something written in the Seventies, that’s not bad.
PDF of the 1978 version: http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf
This is a really long thread, and I lack the attention span to read all of it. So, if this has already been mentioned, sorry. If not, I hope this helps.
The forum ‘Law and Politics’ is closed to new topics and replies.
Posted on at