[From Norman Hovda (2000.04.24.0915 MST)]
[from Mary Powers 2000.04.24]
Norman Hovda
What a strange discussion this is. Complaining that you never signed a
contract with the government so it's all coercive cooperation is like a kid
complaining about things he's required to do by whining "I didn't ask to be
born".
Heeeeyaaahh. That hurts. I can accept that you do not value my
position since I'm not a salesman <g>. I have no interest in persuading
anyone to my POV. I'm merely trying to state my POV as clearly as I'm
able because my read of B:CP, et.al., speaks volumes to my position
and I'm baffled at the acceptance of political machinations which seem
so contradictory to my PCT understanding, particularly chap 17.
Please remember there are important connotations / distinctions
between systems concepts of anarchy = chaos v. anarchy = no
leaders.
The point is, we live in society, in relationship with others, and because
some people abuse that fact, we have devised laws which have penalties if
broken. These are the contracts.
Contracts? Hmmmm... are you saying the Constitution is a valid
contract? Between whom? You and me? Ever read Lysander Spooner's
"No Treason"?
http://www.tigerden.com/~berios/spunk/Spunk498.txt
So? Have I denied my "relationships with others", that there are laws in
jurisdictions where I dwell?
You claim to have signed none, but I
rather imagine, for instance, that you have a signed driver's license,
which gives you the right to use government-built roads. In return, you
implicitly agree not to abuse that right by speeding, running red lights,
driving drunk, etc. If you do those things, you break the contract and lose
the right.
Did we just leap to signed contract from no contract? Was I forced to
sign it? Did I object to my speeding tickets? Do I disagree that those
found guilty of DUI should not lose their driving privileges? (Sorry, driving
is not a "right".)
A libertarian can insist all he wants that it should be perfectly okay to
drive 90 mph through the middle of town. His choice, isn't it? Having to go
slower is being coerced, right?
No. I think you entirely misrepresent my position and what little I know
of the official libertarian party line. Liberty is not license to run amuck.
It is coercion in the technical sense which was endlessly discussed wrt the
RTP program - that is, ANY limitation on the free behavior of another
person.
And the point I am trying to make (very poorly I perceive) is that if
consenting adults voluntarily agree to limits within a particular context
there is NO coercion. The fact that there is "***ANY limitation*** on the
free behavior of another person" is NOT a criteria for coercion IMO.
I am not against limits, contraints, boundaries, etc. I am against
coercing, forcing, cajoling me or anyone else into a jurisdiction of laws,
a context of rules and regulations, particularly where ends justify the
means. IF an adult _willingly_ agrees to the constraints of a particular
game or context, THEN it is expected that that person will be held
accountable for compliance.
This definition does not take into account the requirements of
living in a society (an almost universal situation) in which some
constraints must exist, like speed limits [or school rules - the point of
the coercion argument was not that there shouldn't be any, but that it
should be acknowledged that there always is some].
Straw man. Has anyone here argued against speed limits or
"requirements of society" so-called? What exactly is "required"?
IMO, a civil society "requires" voluntary consent. A political society
requires compulsion. I prefer a civil society to a political one.
We differ on what is "required". For example: School does not have to
require _compulsory_ attendance and that those children who wish to
attend need to therefore comply with existing rules. No problem.
Your complaint is that
some of the constraints restrict you too much; for instance, you don't like
paying for them (taxes for police salaries, etc.) You'd rather that a
volunteer posse went out and nailed the speeder? Taking time from work,
losing salary, etc. to do it? Government does have its uses.
No, my complaint is that I don't like my property to be stolen... legally. I
do not adhere to the principle the ends justify the means. One possible
legitimate use of gov is a neutral party, an umpire to settle disputes, but
even that primary process is sooo slow, sooo easily distorted that
private arbitration is increasingly viewed as more effective and less
expensive.
> In the Elian case government was coercive in the person of INS agents with
guns. In case you weren't paying attention, they went to get Elian after
his Miami relatives blew off every chance at a peaceful negotiation and
broke laws right and left.
I think the jury is still out on that one after rpts from first hand
negotiators indicated a settlement being eminent - right up to the
moment of the raid.
They were never going to come around. The INS
carried guns because they were going into a house with who knows how many
people in it and around it, many quite possibly armed. They were enforcing
a rather reasonable law that said that a father, not a great-uncle, is
entitled to custody of his child.
The father being reunited with his son was appropriate. The storm
trooper means-to-an-end raid was not, IMO. I don't believe for a minute
that all efforts to find a less violent resolution were exhausted.
Of course the government won, because it had more power. But that power is
not being abused: Elian and his father are not on their way back to Cuba
because a court has ruled that other things need to be done first. Examples
of government exceeding the power granted to it by citizens are really
fairly rare, though blown up out of proportion and made to seem to be the
rule rather than the exception by being highly publicized and loudly
protested. This of course has the value of mobilizing people to change
things, but it does unfortunately also encourage paranoia.
Might makes right. "Rare", prolly so. I never seen the stats... unless of
course it knocks on your neighbors' door. "Blown out of proportion",
that's a personal evaluation, but generally I'd agree the press is very
good a puffing it up. The more sinister usurpations of power come in tiny
pieces, eroding our freedoms millimeter by millimeter.
Yes, the double edged sword... let's do be careful not to sacrifice the
good to the perfect.
Besides your driver's license, I assume you also have a voter registration
card, which is a signed agreement between you and the government that you
are qualified to vote. Or is that another one of the contracts with the
government that you want nothing to do with because it interferes with your
freedom? Outrageous, isn't it, that you are required to be 18, a US
citizen, and not a felon. Do you vote, by the way?
Ever read "The Grateful Slave"?
http://pw2.netcom.com/~zeno7/gratslav.html
Once again I read you as jumping to a specific agreement, voluntarily
signed/consented to, from no agreement.
I think people have legitimate complaints about government, and about
capitalism too. The thing is, social systems and institutions are not
control systems. That means that they are inherently unstable and prone to
getting into a positive feedback loop. The rich get richer. They use their
riches to get government to help them get even more rich and powerful.
Their pocketbook votes count for more than the ordinary kind. They can buy
the government that they want to have, with corporate tax "relief" putting
more and more of the burden on individual income taxes, while Medicare
support for home health care is demolished - and so on and on.
Abismal isn't it. For the most part I agree. You've given, more or less, a
good description of our mixed economy that is far more mercantilist
than capitalist.
You're
sitting there kvetching about social security having a measly rate of
return when what's really measly about it is the earnings cap which makes
it so extremely regressive.
Great word "kvetching". Are you discounting my view that low wage
earners ought to be allowed to earn more on their own retirement money
too? Is it too much to ask to let people try for a bigger ROI as long as
the patriarchal gov is taking it from them (for their own good of course)
and isn't likely to give it back except with reduced purchasing power?
If you believe that human beings are living control systems, isn't it better
to allow them greater freedom to control their own retirement money?
There are pleanty of things I hate about government, as do you. The
difference is that you hate the idea of government, while I believe that it
is an instrument of civilization. It may be flawed but it's certainly
better than nothing.
Mary P.
No, I don't hate the "idea" of government. I am frightened of its
increasing power however, and its willingness to use it. You et.al. seem
to see gov as virtue and light, a solution to problems as you define
them. I et.al. see it as the problem; increasing inept, irrelevant impotent -
except for its occasional bursts of bully. By your own admission gov in
bed with big business is "prone" to positive feedback loops which, IMO,
creates more problems than it solves, at great cost, with most benefits
flowing only to well connected.
To the extent that gov is respectful of INDIVIDUAL and voluntary
cooperation, I'm ok with it. When it pulls a storm-trooper raid on a
private residence I'm not ok with it.
Best,
nth