Modern American conservatism and libertarianism

Laws against theft, rape, murder do not mess with individual liberty. Obviously you don't know what individual liberty is - yet - despite my explaining this do you numerous times.

Alas - perhaps your failing as a student is my failing as a teacher

 

No I didn't say that or anything like that. Maybe you should read it again?

 

Please note I said individual freedom of action and that freedom and liberty are not the same.

 

There is a reason why I used the term "individual liberty". If you want to change the topic to something else - "move the goalposts" - let me know.

Please note - What you said was

- no individual freedom.

As per my response " laws against rape, murder, theft" do not mess with individual liberty - your claim is false.

 

And that is an entirely debatable.conclusion. There is always tension between social contract and freedom and liberty. And as I have pointed out to you before your defintion of liberty is flawed.

 

Its not my definition... it is "THE" definition .. as per the founding principles.

If you want to make up a new definition... go ahead... please then state what you think the definition should be ... "and why" .. and why it is better than the one the founders came up with.

 

I think the one thing that makes a person libertarian is the desire to be free from force, fraud or coercion and the willingness to accept the concomitant personal responsibility that freedom entails. Outside of the inclination to freedom, the details and ideas of any "libertarian" are so varied as to make that a group affiliation impossible. Words and labels, especially political ones, are too malleable to be particularly useful so I won't address "Conservative" as I believe that means different things to every individual that uses it.

I agree.

I don't believe a social contract exists, other than as a scam to steal the liberty of the individual. It should be enough that the limits of individual liberty are the equal rights of others. As long as this is true the only use for a social contract is to obligate, and therefore reduce the liberty of, the individual to perform some duty beyond leaving others to their own devices and rights.

To the extent a government could exist while only exercising the same rights and freedoms possessed by the individual, I agree. When the government can do anything that is forbidden to the individual, that is government exceeding its legitimate delegated power. A person who isn't allowed to hold a person as a prisoner for example, can not delegate that authority to any other person or entity.

I believe these things are deserving of respect and appreciation but that they are not the purview of government at any level. On your property you can have a rule about languages spoken, but to impose that on your neighbor, on his property would be an infringement of his rights.

but no enforcement of anything to do with flag, Constitution or values

Unabridged free speech, press, religion, association and all others within the limits of the rights of others.

So long as this is limited to protecting the rights and liberty of the individual. If this isn't the limit, who defines "reasonable"?

This would infringe the individual's freedom of association. If I want to invite an Italian person to my home, where does government get the right to forbid it? I can forbid a person from entering my property but I don't have the authority to keep them from your land. If I don't have that power, how can I delegate it to government?

Complete free trade. The only place for any governmental involvement in trade should be to protect the individual from force and fraud. No voluntary transaction regardless of the goods involved should be the purview of government or any entity not involved in the transaction. Buying drugs, sex, guns or anything else should be completely unrestricted.

This is inevitable in a place where the rights and liberty of the individual are sacrosanct.

Agree.

See Frederic Bastiat's The Law

The right and the personal responsibility.

Anything beyond protection of individual rights and liberty is an imposition and a contradiction of previously stated items. If the people decide the general welfare requires taxing some to provide for the indigent, we're doing what was forbidden above as was stated: "...nobody has the right to demand that others provide that for them." A group demand "the people" is no more legitimate than an individual's demand for something they don't have a right to demand.

No laws should be made. Guidelines (common law) should arise from agreements between interested parties and arbitration used to sort out the conflicts when they arise.

Courts should be private arbitration companies limited to arbitrating cases between citizens.

I'm an anarcho-capitalist libertarian because I believe its wrong to steal, to kidnap, to threaten aggressive violence or force anyone to do anything against their will. Government's nature is to do all these things as its normal operating procedure.

 

I don't want to ignore or pass over your post after you so carefully addressed the points of the OP which I very much appreciate. I have a personal prejudice against chopped up posts that destroy context and are confusing and sometimes difficult to address without the context. But as your post didn't change the context, I will try to address at least parts of it.

You describe yourself as an anarcho-capitalist libertarian. In my never to be considered humble opinion , that sets you into a particular group that, while it will share some conservative/libertarian values and concepts, will generally be far more authoritarian than what most conservative/libertarian/classical libertarians would want or even tolerate. It inevitably limits or infringes both freedom and liberty.

IMO, to deny people the right or ability to cooperatively organize themselves into a society that they prefer--the simplest definition of social contract--is as authoritarian and liberty restricting as government dictating what our society must be and how we must live our lives.

And a society without implied or legally enforceable rules, regulations, laws will inevitably be a society of survival of the fittest with the strong and selfish/evil preying on the weak. And in order to insure that all unalienable rights are acknowledged and respected for all, some form of government, however primitive or simple, is necessary to enforce the rules, regulations, law. And I think it is practical and reasonable that all do business with that government in the same language.

 

I don't have to and I put in bold what you said or didn't say.

 

When you bold a phrase and claim that it means something entirely different than it means when you include the full context, you are either trolling, being intentionally blatantly dishonest, flaming, or perhaps are just plagued with massive reading incomprehension. Or you misread it. Take your pick.

 

Again, that would be none of the above. You can claim all those things but what you said is there for all to see.
How, pray tell, was it taken out of context.

 

It appears that you're conflating a lack of authoritarian rule with a requirement for a lack of organization. That isn't the case at all. In a place where no one has the right to tell you what you can or can't do, who is going to stop you from organizing? You can have a society where everyone agrees with the basic rules without having someone impose arbitrary rules coercively. The only rule in a libertarian society is the non-aggression principle and even that has to be enforced by the people themselves. That will leave you free to engage in socialist, communist, capitalist or fascist activities as far as that is possible on a voluntary basis, you just can't force people to comply with your socialism et.al.. Participation has to be voluntary.

As far as I'm aware none of the fraternal organizations like the Elks, Shriners and Lions clubs use force, fraud, theft or violence on their memberships yet they manage to achieve their objectives. Why would it be that people can organize voluntarily at that level but a government must reserve the right to steal your property, force you to do (or not do) things and imprison you when you don't comply? Nowhere did I say you can't have a society or organization. In a society there are rules of conduct and practices that people in that society agree to. That is very different from a social contract that allows people to impose duties and costs on you. Wearing a tie to a fancy restaurant is something a society might require. Paying taxes is something a social contract might require. Since its not actually a written contract, it can require anything of a member of society. Failing to follow societies rules may get you shunned from that society, failing to follow the social contract can get you incarcerated. Social contracts are excuses enabling government to loot and restrict as if the government rules are societies rules.

If the only limit on people in a given geographical area is that they can't use force or fraud on their fellow inhabitants, the resulting society would necessarily be a cooperative one. If everyone is capable of defending themselves or hiring security to protect themselves, their property or their group, wouldn't that make for a relatively peaceful society?

If you don't have a government you have to interact with, you don't need a government to enforce a common language.

Finally, is the ruling elite we have today better than an alternative without a ruling elite? I won't go into the huge number of problems caused and exacerbated by government as that would require volumes. Instead I'll recommend this little gem: Anatomy of the State by Murray Rothbard



The video is an hour long but well worth the time.

 

If you can't read what I wrote and understand the context, I can't explain it any better. So I'll advise you that I generally have little respect for those who deliberately misquote or misrepresent what others say and will wish you a good afternoon.

 

We will just have to disagree. And please forgive me if I don't want to listen to an hour long video promoting anarchist views that you won't convince me is the way things should be. I respect your opinion and appreciate your input. I just dont' agree with you.

 

Your call, but if you don't listen to opposing views how do you know your point of view is correct?

 

There are a number of things I posted. In what particulars do you disagree?

I stated in essence, that anything that government does that is illegal for the individual to do is illegitimate because government power is delegated by the people to the government. If the individual can't do a thing, he also can't delegate that thing to anyone else.

I mentioned examples of voluntary organizations that don't use force but still manage to function and meet objectives. I implied that societal organization could be similarly achieved without a ruling elite to force compliance.

I talked about the difference between social mores, rules, which are legitimate and a social contract, which is not.

I suggested that the system we have today with massive government intervening in every aspect of the lives of individuals might not be superior to a system that had no leviathan parasite.

My overall point in posting was to take issue with the idea that no government is legitimate that isn't limited to powers that can be delegated to it from the people. When a government initiates force or imposes laws that exceed what your neighbor could require of you, it exceeds its legitimate authority.

If you could be a little more specific about the details of your disagreement that would be a good thing.

The links I posted previously for Frederic Bastiat and Murray Rothbard are extremely well thought out and expressed philosophical works that are worthwhile regardless of your political inclinations. Bastiat's "The Law" was published in 1850 and remains today a cogent critique of government then and now. Rothbard was a brilliant economist, historian and philosopher that anyone would benefit by reading or listening to in the case of the links. I recommend both without reservation.

 

I am strongly in favor of government doing no more than what can be done more efficiently and effectively in the private sector whether or not the private sector chooses to do it. I don't see that the Constitution provides any authority for a central government to provide any form of charity or get involved in any other social issues.

We disagree, however, on a common language, recognition and respect for our unique culture, secure borders, and the necessity of government for starters. And when we disagree so strongly on those points, we aren't going to find much common ground.

 

Modern American conservatism is doing everything it can to distance itself from libertarianism.

 

I don't anticipate agreement but it seems worthwhile to discuss the reasons for disagreement. Without that we're all just sitting in our bubble thinking everyone else is evil or stupid. I got to the point I am by finding and analyzing alternative views. I appear to the world to be pretty calcified in my opinions now but that is because arguments sufficient to make me rethink have become exceedingly rare. I'm still looking though, as I'm sure I don't have all the answers.

It isn't impossible that you could convince me I'm wrong about one thing. For example: The rationale for the existence of government in the United States is that the people have delegated their individual rights to government to act on their behalf. Delegation of rights has to be limited to rights the individual actually possesses, so the government cannot legitimately claim to have a right to do anything that would be illegal for the individual to do. This means that if I don't have the legitimate right to stop my neighbor from smoking weed, neither does the government. I can't delegate a right that I don't have.

I chose this as an example because it is a central tenet to my point of view. If you'd rather address a different point where you think I'm in error I'll be happy to consider your arguments.

 

Unless it involves smoking a joint..or an abortion...

 

Okay, the U.S. Constitution was a result of social contract that took eleven long years, including a bloody revolutionary war, to achieve sufficient compromise to allow 13 very different colonies/states to form themselves into one cohesive, functioning, mutually beneficial nation. That Constitution provided for a President and the people's elected representatives to agree on sufficient laws and regulation to ensure that the nation would be able to defend itself from enemies from within and outside its borders, and to ensure that the various states would not do physical or economic violence to each other, and that the citizens would be able to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in peace.

Each of the states then and since would set up their own governments based on similar fundamentals.

Evolvement of local government via social contract:

1. Initially unrelated and individual farms and ranches scattered throughout an area.

2. The farmers and ranchers get together at some point to agree to work together to create a farm/ranch to market road shared by all to be able to more easily get to a distant town, suppliers, buyers, etc.

3. An entreprenour acquires a bit of land to build a general store in the midst of all those farms and ranches so that the people didn't have to go many miles to obtain a bag of flour or a brick of lard. And also those with surplus milk, cream, eggs etc. could sell them to general store who would then have that available for others to buy.

4. Then a blacksmith sets up a shop nearby, and a shoe/leather goods/tack and harness shop, somebody starts a church, the area people get together to build a school and hire a school marm. And gradually a small town begins to form.

5. Eventually, after some toughs and rowdies and thieves take their toll, they agree to hire a peace officer. Eventually they form a volunteer fire department. Sooner or later it becomes practical to mutually cooperate on a common well, establish water and electric co-ops, put in a sewer system.

6. Then it is reasonable to elect a mayor with authority to oversee all the various shared services and facilities and in time additional civil servants will handle birth and death certificates, deeds, recording of contracts, etc.

7. In time good infrastructure that always follows economic development will result in paved roads, street lights, traffic lights when that time comes, and more security provided by enforcement of necessary and desirable laws.

And voila, you have government formed via social contract of mutual benefit and actually mutual necessity in some cases.

When the people are in a state of anarchy, it is inevitable that the stronger governed by greed or evil impulses will prey on the weak, and the law of survival of the fittest becomes the norm. And there is no real peace for anybody. Without some mutual agreement on what the laws governing society will be and some means to enforce those laws, i.e. government, all that is left is anarchy. And peace, security, and recognition of rights for nobody.

 

Where is the contract in your social contract? Society has existed since there were two people to interact with each other but that isn't a social contract. A social contract is something society wants to bind you to but without actually providing a written contract. The colonies cooperated with each other to an extent out of their own self interest but any of them could have abandoned the project at any time without contractual obligation - no contract. Eventually there was a written contract of sorts in the Articles of Confederation and then the Constitution but those were purported to be legal contracts, not social ones. When you put those two words together you get undefined obligation to society that changes with the whims of society. Farmers helping each other is social but not contractual. Entrepreneurs opening up shop is contractual but not social. When you get to the point of hiring people as a group, as long as participation is voluntary you're still only as social. If you draft a written agreement with everybody participating with legal obligations and benefits you have a legal contract. If you go to the blacksmith and force him to pay to hire services he didn't want without a written agreement or voluntary cooperation, then you have a social contract, theft and illegitimate use of force. All of the things you mention from point 5 through 7 can be done with legal contracts in a private law society.

When the people are subject to a ruling elite, it is inevitable that the stronger governed by greed or evil impulses will find their way into elective office and prey on the weak and tyranny becomes the norm. That is what we have today. There will always be a small percentage of evil people in the world. Government gives them a tool to magnify their evil where in an anarchic society their evil would be much more limited. This website illustrates this pretty clearly. Their analysis shows that in the 20th century 262 million people were killed by their governments, not including war deaths.

Here is another video by a superlative intellect (Robert Higgs) that is probably too long (also an hour long) that clearly establishes how bad government is.

 

Definition of social contract based on philosophy of people like Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, et al:
Agreement among individuals by which society becomes organized and invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare. (In this context, 'welfare' is defined as mutual benefit.)

All agreements whether by mutual assent or hand shake, informally written, or formally structured, are a form of contract.

 

If a person can be party to a (social) contract without consenting to it because of where they live, its illegitimate.

Hobbes' version of the social contract required giving up all rights to a ruling authority. Locke's version limited only the right to retributive justice. Rousseau's version was a socialist contract yielding all rights to the community. None are legitimate. A person can't be a party to an actual written contract without his knowledge or will. Even a signed contract isn't binding if the person who signed is found to be incompetent to make the agreement. No person is competent to be a party to an unsignable, undefined idea of a contract that can be changed at the whim of the masses, a magistrate or some crack brained philosopher like Thomas Hobbes.