Freedom rexamined.

[Mr Carcer]

Much of the disagreement in here about how best to fuck up organize society seems to stem from which account of freedom one prefers, i.e whether you are in favour of negative or positive freedom?

But what if freedom isn't freedom from coercion or freedom to do fulfill your own potential? What if freedom is a character trait that we all possess in differing degrees? In which case one wouldn't say, "these are the conditions of freedom..." Instead one would say, "there is a free woman, she acts as free woman shoud act." What if freedom isn't a condition but a way of being?

If this is true than maybe you can no more make people free than you can make the fearless. (It would be interesting if we were to try this. On the one side would be those who claimed fearless means living without anything to fear and on the other would be those who claimed it was overcoming fear itself... but I digress). My point is that maybe when it comes to freedom there is nothing that can be done by the political parties that we vote in. Sure they can (and in my opinion should) create an environment where the free person can flourish, but they cannot make anyone be free. They cannot turn a unfree person who does what is characteristic of an unfree person into a free person; into someone who questions authority and is defiant, stubborn, wilful, and at times perhaps even chaotic (assuming that these are the characteristics of a free person and I admit that they may not be).

[DougP]

"Freedom is something you assume, and you wait until somebody takes it away from you. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free."
-Utah Phillips

[toth8]

We would be free without government.

Freedom stems from self-ownership and government only seeks to undermine this.

[Nice Squirrel]

We would be free without government.

Freedom stems from self-ownership and government only seeks to undermine this.

Of course without government, more entities would undermine it. Unless we are talking a Viktor Franklesq freedom.

[Nice Squirrel]

Much of the disagreement in here about how best to fuck up organize society seems to stem from which account of freedom one prefers, i.e whether you are in favour of negative or positive freedom? Or how best to manage those things we coin "Freedoms"

But what if freedom isn't freedom from coercion or freedom to do fulfill your own potential? What if freedom is a character trait that we all possess in differing degrees? In which case one wouldn't say, "these are the conditions of freedom..." Instead one would say, "there is a free woman, she acts as free woman shoud act." What if freedom isn't a condition but a way of being?One difficulty is the definition of freedom. As we ever really free and can we agree on a freedom? (Such as Freedom in a concentration camp?)

[Mr Carcer]

We would be free without government.

Freedom stems from self-ownership and government only seeks to undermine this.
There are some people who will never be free no matter how much or how little government there is in their lives.

[toth8]

A person is free as long as they have self-ownership.

[gargoyle]

A person is free as long as they have self-ownership.

I hear your longing for the mystical and primal natural state and I assure you that Rousseau has already concluded that:

The passage from the state of nature to the civil state produces a very remarkable change in man, by substituting justice for instinct in his conduct, and giving his actions the morality they had formerly lacked. Then only, when the voice of duty takes the place of physical impulses and right of appetite, does man, who so far had considered only himself, find that he is forced to act on different principles, and to consult his reason before listening to his inclinations. Although, in this state, he deprives himself of some advantages which he got from nature, he gains in return others so great, his faculties are so stimulated and developed, his ideas so extended, his feelings so ennobled, and his whole soul so uplifted that, did not the abuses of this new condition often degrade him below that which he left, he would be bound to bless continually the happy moment which took him from it for ever, and, instead of a stupid and unimaginative animal, made him an intelligent being and a man.

Let us draw up the whole account in terms easily commensurable. What man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything he tries to get and succeeds in getting; what he gains is civil liberty and the proprietorship of all he possesses. If we are to avoid mistake in weighing one against the other, we must clearly distinguish natural liberty, which is bounded only by the strength of the individual, from civil liberty, which is limited by the general will; and possession, which is merely the effect of force or the right of the first occupier, from property, which can be founded only on a positive title.

We might, over and above all this, add, to what man acquires in the civil state, moral liberty, which alone makes him truly master of himself; for the mere impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescribe to ourselves is liberty. . . .

Toss that bad boy at you libertarian friends and watch them scramble for cover!

[Syphor]

There's a conflict between individual freedom and societal wellbeing. A balance must be struck between the two, and it should be acknowledged that individual freedom is not a constant; that it may need to be manipulated as circumstances dictate.

[David Deas]

Freedom is a social construct. It is something that a person is granted rather than something that a person is born with.

[coloradoatheist]

Freedom is a social construct. It is something that a person is granted rather than something that a person is born with.

Definetely the difference between the parties, but I disagree. Freedom is something you are born with and the govt can only take it away if it violates someone else and it's the least restrictive way of doing it.


Mike

[gargoyle]

Freedom and civil liberty is something you receive because you have given up natural freedom by participating in a social contract with those who have done the same in the society that we have constructed.

You are not born free - it exists outside of you or it does not at the time of your birth.

Governments role in the social contract is to ensure your freedom not take it from you.

Locke said 'men when they enter into society give up ... liberty of a kind; yet it being only with an intention in every one the better to preserve himself, his liberty and property,' (the power conferred) 'can never be supposed to extend farther than the common good, but is obliged to secure everyone's property,'

You are not free to own property without, equality, security, the rule of law and impartial justice.

[David Deas]

Definetely the difference between the parties, but I disagree. Freedom is something you are born with and the govt can only take it away if it violates someone else and it's the least restrictive way of doing it.

Thats disregarding. You can't be born inside of a social vacuum.

Freedom is best defined as a social construct involving action without consequence. If you are allowed something without consequence, then that something was free. If you are not allowed something without consequence, then that action is not free.

Picture you and me locked in a room. If I allow you to perform a certain action without enforcing consequences, then I have allowed you freedom to commit that action. OTOH, if I enforce a consequence when you perform a certain action, then I have not granted you the freedom to commit that action.

[Bonniedundee]

We would be free without government.

Freedom stems from self-ownership and government only seeks to undermine this.
I agree.

If the individual has a right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny. Hence the necessity of abolishing the State.
Benjamin R. Tucker

[Bonniedundee]

I hear your longing for the mystical and primal natural state and I assure you that Rousseau has already concluded that:

Toss that bad boy at you libertarian friends and watch them scramble for cover!

I take your Rousseau and raise you a Herbert Spencer.

http://www.constitution.org/hs/ignore_state.htm


Upholders of pure despotism may fitly believe state-control to be unlimited and unconditional. They who assert that men are made for governments and not governments for men, may consistently hold that no one can remove himself beyond the pale of political organization. But they who maintain that the people are the only legitimate source of power — that legislative authority is not original, but deputed — cannot deny the right to ignore the state without entangling themselves in an absurdity.

For, if legislative authority is deputed, it follows that those from whom it proceeds are the masters of those on whom it is conferred: it follows further, that as masters they confer the said authority voluntarily: and this implies that they may give or withhold it as they please. To call that deputed which is wrenched from men whether they will or not, is nonsense. But what is here true of all collectively is equally true of each separately. As a government can rightly act for the people, only when empowered by them, so also can it rightly act for the individual, only when empowered by him. If A, B, and C, debate whether they shall employ an agent to perform for them a certain service, and if whilst A and B agree to do so, C dissents, C cannot equitably be made a party to the agreement in spite of himself. And this must be equally true of thirty as of three: and if of thirty, why not of three hundred, or three thousand, or three millions?

[Bonniedundee]

Freedom and civil liberty is something you receive because you have given up natural freedom by participating in a social contract with those who have done the same in the society that we have constructed.
It is not a contract, contracts are consentual, this is not. You either obey the state or leave, there is no contract here, it is just tyranny.

Where does the state gets its power from?

You are not free to own property without, equality, security, the rule of law and impartial justice.
Where is this rule of law? I've only ever known of the rule of men, men to make, interpret and carry out the laws, the rule of law is a myth.

And where are you going to get impartial justice? No one is impartial.

[toth8]

A person is free as long as they have self-ownership.

I hear your longing for the mystical and primal natural state and I assure you that Rousseau has already concluded that:

The passage from the state of nature to the civil state produces a very remarkable change in man, by substituting justice for instinct in his conduct, and giving his actions the morality they had formerly lacked. Then only, when the voice of duty takes the place of physical impulses and right of appetite, does man, who so far had considered only himself, find that he is forced to act on different principles, and to consult his reason before listening to his inclinations. Although, in this state, he deprives himself of some advantages which he got from nature, he gains in return others so great, his faculties are so stimulated and developed, his ideas so extended, his feelings so ennobled, and his whole soul so uplifted that, did not the abuses of this new condition often degrade him below that which he left, he would be bound to bless continually the happy moment which took him from it for ever, and, instead of a stupid and unimaginative animal, made him an intelligent being and a man.

Let us draw up the whole account in terms easily commensurable. What man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything he tries to get and succeeds in getting; what he gains is civil liberty and the proprietorship of all he possesses. If we are to avoid mistake in weighing one against the other, we must clearly distinguish natural liberty, which is bounded only by the strength of the individual, from civil liberty, which is limited by the general will; and possession, which is merely the effect of force or the right of the first occupier, from property, which can be founded only on a positive title.

We might, over and above all this, add, to what man acquires in the civil state, moral liberty, which alone makes him truly master of himself; for the mere impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescribe to ourselves is liberty. . . .

Toss that bad boy at you libertarian friends and watch them scramble for cover!

There is no such thing as a social contract.

[Bonniedundee]

There is no such thing as a social contract.
I agree, but you are gonna have to do better than that to convince anyone.

It is not too hard, social contract theory is some of the most purile rubbish, not only as Hume stated is it supported by precious little actual historical data but it rests on extremely weak logical grounds. The state is presumed to have power over the very territory over which it we are arguing about its power over, so it is a circular argument. It rests on consent that cannot be taken away, it relies generally on the idea that the state is democratic will of society of which few if any historical states have ever really represented, our states are as Marx said the executive committees of the ruling classes; plutocratic oligarchies, and the authority of this democratic will over the individual is rarely shown in anyway.

Really it is extremely weak stuff, so you should be able to put up an actual argument.

And what's more if it is excepted that the democratic will of society has the authority over the individual it would take a radically decentralised, direct democracy for this to be properly represented, so we get close to our positions by following this route anyway.

[Canard DuJour]

It is not a contract, contracts are consentual, this is not. You either obey the state or leave, there is no contract here, it is just tyranny.Yes there is. You observe the democratic will or choose to leave, you just said so.

Where does the state gets its power from?Democratic consensus. What other authority should there be? Individual whim? That defaults to rule of the strongest. No thanks.

[Bonniedundee]

Yes there is. You observe the democratic will or choose to leave, you just said so.
But this is tautology, we are trying to prove whether the democratic will has authority over the individual, this presupposes it does. So the answer to this given is the absurd circular argument that the democratic will has authority over you in its territory because you are in territory where it has authority.
Democratic consensus. First where does it get its authority from?

Second this doesn't describe any state today nor most any societes ever. The only way this could be done would in a radically decentralised, direct democracy, almost what I'm advocating anyway.

What other authority should there be? Individual whim? That defaults to rule of the strongest. No thanks.
No I'm talking about the rule of equal freedom. Ie self-ownership.

[unrealist42]

Individual freedom implies individual rights
But, where the state exists individuals have no rights
Only privledges granted by tyrants
and easily removed by them.

[Dryhad]

A person is free as long as they have self-ownership.
Full self ownership. Nobody else can be a part owner.

[untermensche]

We would be free without government.

Freedom stems from self-ownership and government only seeks to undermine this.
You would be free from some gang that wanted everything you had?

[empty]

Individual freedom implies individual rights
But, where the state exists individuals have no rights
Only privledges granted by tyrants
and easily removed by them.

however, in a direct democracy there are no tyrants, if I am correct.
edit. or rather, tyrants, if they do arise, are much more easily contained.

[coloradoatheist]

Individual freedom implies individual rights
But, where the state exists individuals have no rights
Only privledges granted by tyrants
and easily removed by them.

however, in a direct democracy there are no tyrants, if I am correct.


What's preventing a direct democracy from saying that all redheads should be shot?

Mike

[empty]

however, in a direct democracy there are no tyrants, if I am correct.


What's preventing a direct democracy from saying that all redheads should be shot?

Mike

in reality, nothing besides the absurdity of the idea.
once that idea is perceived to be not absurd is when we have a problem.

[coloradoatheist]

What's preventing a direct democracy from saying that all redheads should be shot?

Mike

in reality, nothing besides the absurdity of the idea.
once that idea is perceived to be not absurd is when we have a problem.


Germany, not very long ago, religion in countries, intellectuals in Cambodia...

Mike

[empty]

in reality, nothing besides the absurdity of the idea.
once that idea is perceived to be not absurd is when we have a problem.


Germany, not very long ago, religion in countries, intellectuals in Cambodia...

Mike

all good points, but are any direct democracies?

[coloradoatheist]

Germany, not very long ago, religion in countries, intellectuals in Cambodia...

Mike

all good points, but are any direct democracies?

Since direct democracies require the population to be very small then no except maybe for cambodia which really had no system. So you have to provide a mechanism where it wouldn't happen.

Mike

[empty]

all good points, but are any direct democracies?

Since direct democracies require the population to be very small then no except maybe for cambodia which really had no system. So you have to provide a mechanism where it wouldn't happen.

Mike

im going to relate this back to familiar america.
in our case i would suggest that 'mechanism' would be the elimination of the federal government in favor of direct democracies made up within the individual states, but remaining at a representative, confederate like system at a national level, if only to preserve the identity of the united states, maybe not so much unlike the EU.

[Loren Pechtel]

What's preventing a direct democracy from saying that all redheads should be shot?

Mike

in reality, nothing besides the absurdity of the idea.
once that idea is perceived to be not absurd is when we have a problem.

What about "All gays should be shot"?

[gargoyle]

There is no such thing as a social contract.
I agree, but you are gonna have to do better than that to convince anyone.

It is not too hard, social contract theory is some of the most purile rubbish, not only as Hume stated is it supported by precious little actual historical data but it rests on extremely weak logical grounds. The state is presumed to have power over the very territory over which it we are arguing about its power over, so it is a circular argument. It rests on consent that cannot be taken away, it relies generally on the idea that the state is democratic will of society of which few if any historical states have ever really represented, our states are as Marx said the executive committees of the ruling classes; plutocratic oligarchies, and the authority of this democratic will over the individual is rarely shown in anyway.

Really it is extremely weak stuff, so you should be able to put up an actual argument.

And what's more if it is excepted that the democratic will of society has the authority over the individual it would take a radically decentralised, direct democracy for this to be properly represented, so we get close to our positions by following this route anyway.

Insults asside.

Libertarianism is unable to provide a rational and believable answer to the simple statement rousseau writes here.

What man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything he tries to get and succeeds in getting; what he gains is civil liberty and the proprietorship of all he possesses.

This is the most simple and direct explaination of why all libertarian theory is reducable to chaos and anarchy. Without security there is no freedom. Without law there is no right to ownership. Without government there is no law.

[gargoyle]

I hear your longing for the mystical and primal natural state and I assure you that Rousseau has already concluded that:



Toss that bad boy at you libertarian friends and watch them scramble for cover!

There is no such thing as a social contract.

Of course there is. You were born into one. It is what protects your speech in this very forum.

[Bonniedundee]

This is the most simple and direct explaination of why all libertarian theory is reducable to chaos and anarchy. Without security there is no freedom. Without law there is no right to ownership. Without government there is no law.

This is not an ethical argument, it is a utilitarian assertion, it does not prove either the historical reality of social contract nor the moral position of it, it may provide what you say, it may be the best of a bad choice but that doesn't make it moral unless you are a utilitarian and all that matters to you is what the most individuals think is "best for society".

[Bonniedundee]

What's preventing a direct democracy from saying that all redheads should be shot?The same thing as a oligrachy like our systems, popular feeling.

At least in a direct democracy there are is no ruling class to try and harness popular feeling to its cause, in a direct democracy it would actually have to come from the people themselves that they wish to shoot redheads.

Laws and "checks and balances" are worthless, they have no power independent of people, the only thing that really checks tyranny is the will of the people to resist it.

[Canard DuJour]

But this is tautology,But it isn't. The tautology is presupposing some deontological right that supersedes it. Because when you try to apply deontological rights in the real world of conflicting interests, you run smack bang into what Nozick called 'the paradox of deontology' - you cannot resolve conflicting claims to natural rights except on utilitarian grounds. Otherwise you have to enforce disutility against peoples' will or let the strongest prevail.

we are trying to prove whether the democratic will has authority over the individual, this presupposes it does. So the answer to this given is the absurd circular argument that the democratic will has authority over you in its territory because you are in territory where it has authority.No it isn't. No one presents that argument but you.


First where does it get its authority from?Here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=4513664&postcount=8)

Second this doesn't describe any state today nor most any societes ever. The only way this could be done would in a radically decentralised, direct democracy, almost what I'm advocating anyway.Why? I'm all for as much direct democracy as is practicable, but whether 40 defer to 60 or 40 million defer to 60 million, you still have deference to consensus. And so long as humans have conflicts of interest the alternative is rule of the strongest.

What other authority should there be? Individual whim? That defaults to rule of the strongest. No thanks.
No I'm talking about the rule of equal freedom. Which defaults to rule of the strongest. No thanks.

Ie self-ownership.Try living in a state of nature. When a bear or bandits invade your homestead, try telling them about self-ownership. It does not follow from self-ownership that we have the right to deprive others of objects outside ourselves. Neither does it follow that others will respect any such right without some means of enforcing it.

[Bonniedundee]

But it isn't. The tautology is presupposing some deontological right that supersedes it. Because when you try to apply deontological rights in the real world of conflicting interests, you run smack bang into what Nozick called 'the paradox of deontology' - you cannot resolve conflicting claims to natural rights except on utilitarian grounds. Otherwise you have to enforce disutility against peoples' will or let the strongest prevail.
I realise this, he wasn't advocating utilitarian as a base for moral philosophy though, just a secondary role for it, much like I do.

but this still doesn't change the fact that it is circular reasoning to say the state gets its authority over you in its territory by you living in its territory where it has authority.



No it isn't. No one presents that argument but you.You gave that argument and you have failed to show where it gets its authority from.


Here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=4513664&postcount=8)This is just a vauge utilitarian argument that fails to prove where the authority comes from, do you have an actual argument or are you a utilitarian(an aweful basis for moral philosophy, particularly for a leftwinger) and suggesting it gets its authority because it is "best for society".

Why? I'm all for as much direct democracy as is practicable, but whether 40 defer to 60 or 40 million defer to 60 million, you still have deference to consensus. And so long as humans have conflicts of interest the alternative is rule of the strongest.
Huh? The only way to have the democratic will of society rule is through direct, radically decentralised democracy. Our current gov'ts and all historical reprresentative "democracies" have always been plutocratic oligarchies.

Which defaults to rule of the strongest. No thanks.So you are saying people shouldn't have equal freedom? Why do some have more rights than others, where do they get this authority from?

Try living in a state of nature. When a bear or bandits invade your homestead, try telling them about self-ownership. It does not follow from self-ownership that we have the right to deprive others of objects outside ourselves. Neither does it follow that others will respect any such right without some means of enforcing it.
Why is a coercive state, founded by conquest, run by and for one class that exploits the rest better than this, even if your strawman wasn't true.

[Canard DuJour]

But it isn't. The tautology is presupposing some deontological right that supersedes it. Because when you try to apply deontological rights in the real world of conflicting interests, you run smack bang into what Nozick called 'the paradox of deontology' - you cannot resolve conflicting claims to natural rights except on utilitarian grounds. Otherwise you have to enforce disutility against peoples' will or let the strongest prevail.
I realise this, he wasn't advocating utilitarian as a base for moral philosophy though, just a secondary role for it, much like I do.Wrong, he is pointing out that utilitarian considerations will fulfill the primary role in any case, hence it is deontological arguments which are redundant.


but this still doesn't change the fact that it is circular reasoning to say the state gets its authority over you in its territory by you living in its territory where it has authority.and neither does it change the fact that no one presents that argument but you.


You gave that argument and you have failed to show where it gets its authority from.

This is just a vauge utilitarian argument that fails to prove where the authority comes from, do you have an actual argument or are you a utilitarian(an aweful basis for moral philosophy, particularly for a leftwinger) and suggesting it gets its authority because it is "best for society".It's a specific consequentialist justification. If you assert that some deontological right must supersede it, you must present some "actual argument" as to why. Otherwise it actually is an actual argument, actually.


Huh? The only way to have the democratic will of society rule is through direct, radically decentralised democracy. Our current gov'ts and all historical reprresentative "democracies" have always been plutocratic oligarchies.doesn't address the point to which it ostensibly replies.


So you are saying people shouldn't have equal freedom? No, I'm saying the nearest we can get in this world is the social contract. Otherwise equal freedom defaults to rule of the strongest.


Try living in a state of nature. When a bear or bandits invade your homestead, try telling them about self-ownership. It does not follow from self-ownership that we have the right to deprive others of objects outside ourselves. Neither does it follow that others will respect any such right without some means of enforcing it.
Why is a coercive state, founded by conquest, run by and for one class that exploits the rest better than this, even if your strawman wasn't true.I can't tell what you're asking or saying or how it addresses the point to which it ostensibly replies.

[gargoyle]

[QUOTE]

[QUOTE]This is not an ethical argument, it is a utilitarian assertion, it does not prove either the historical reality of social contract nor the moral position of it, it may provide what you say, it may be the best of a bad choice but that doesn't make it moral unless you are a utilitarian and all that matters to you is what the most individuals think is "best for society".

The social contract is not the "best of a bad choice" it is the term used to
describe the existing reality that has been created in social democracies in the west because of a culmination of the best choices expressing the best system possible given human history and human behavior.

You still have not dealt with this:
"What man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything he tries to get and succeeds in getting; what he gains is civil liberty and the proprietorship of all he possesses."

[Bonniedundee]

[QUOTE=Euro_agnostic;4516926][QUOTE]



The social contract is not the "best of a bad choice" it is the term used to
describe the existing reality that has been created in social democracies in the west because of a culmination of the best choices expressing the best system possible given human history and human behavior.

You still have not dealt with this:
"What man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything he tries to get and succeeds in getting; what he gains is civil liberty and the proprietorship of all he possesses."

Okay, you may be right, this may be the best system possible, although it is not really very democratic more plutocratic.

But this does not prove the reality, sanctity and authority of the social "contract".

[Bonniedundee]

Wrong, he is pointing out that utilitarian considerations will fulfill the primary role in any case, hence it is deontological arguments which are redundant.
No he is not, he's a disciple of Rothbard, he would not do that.

And you realise utilitarianism is the philosophy of conservatives? It is tyrannical and illogical. Really no good for a socialist.

and neither does it change the fact that no one presents that argument but you.
By replying that to prove the legitimate authority of the state over territory that I accept the social contract by living in "its" territory you are making this argument. You assume its authority to prove its authority, circular reasoning.

Where does the democratic will of society gets it authority from?

It's a specific consequentialist justification. If you assert that some deontological right must supersede it, you must present some "actual argument" as to why. Otherwise it actually is an actual argument, actually.No, I don't accept utilitarianism, it is not like utilitarianism is some default position, we are critiquing social contract theory here, the ball is in your court.

I can make arguments for self-ownership, and when you have finished trying to show where the democratic will of society gets its authority from, I may make them here.


doesn't address the point to which it ostensibly replies.Yes it does, the only way to allow the democratic will of society to rule is to have a direct and radically decentralised democracy, almost what I want anyway.



I can't tell what you're asking or saying or how it addresses the point to which it ostensibly replies.
I was just making the comment that even your strawman may be better than the state. No anarchy had death camps.

[Canard DuJour]

Wrong, he is pointing out that utilitarian considerations will fulfill the primary role in any case, hence it is deontological arguments which are redundant.
No he is not, he's a disciple of Rothbard, he would not do that.I wouldn't know whom Nozick worships, but he did point out the paradox of deontology and advocated "act consequentialism". He's a tit anyway.

And you realise utilitarianism is the philosophy of conservatives? It is tyrannical and illogical. Really no good for a socialist.Yeah, real socialists are market fundamentalists who hold property rights above life. Left and right are no more defined by utilitarian vs deontological than by state vs anti-state.


By replying that to prove the legitimate authority of the state over territory that I accept the social contract by living in "its" territory you are making this argument. You assume its authority to prove its authority, circular reasoning.But I didn't. The authority bit comes from democratic consensus which you reject for reasons you refuse to divulge. The bit about choosing to remain in a locale and accept its rules addressed the voluntarism question.

Where does the democratic will of society gets it authority from?

No, I don't accept utilitarianism, it is not like utilitarianism is some default position, we are critiquing social contract theory here, the ball is in your court.But it is the default position. It is everywhere the most stable equilibrium point of social evolution and all unstable societies seek to emulate it. If you claim that it's somehow wrong and the true way is immanent in the world, you cant just expect people to take it on faith.


I can make arguments for self-ownership, and when you have finished trying to show where the democratic will of society gets its authority from, I may make them here.We're already past that. You reject the consequentialist staus quo and assert that deontological rights must supersede. Why? It's no use insisting that people come up with a deontological argument just because you don't like utilitarian ones for reasons known only to you.


Yes it does, the only way to allow the democratic will of society to rule is to have a direct and radically decentralised democracy, almost what I want anyway.How? Whether 40 defer to 60 or 40 million defer to 60 million, democratic consensus still trumps deontological rights. How does changing the label change that?



I can't tell what you're asking or saying or how it addresses the point to which it ostensibly replies.
I was just making the comment that even your strawman may be better than the state. No anarchy had death camps. Then you're wrong. Anthropological studies reveal that, since at least the agricultural revolution, people in pre-state societies are vastly more likely to be murdered than people in modern states, even after the wars of the last century are taken into account. "If the wars of the twentieth century had killed the same proportion of the population that die in the wars of a typical tribal society, there would have been two billion deaths, not 100 million." - Stephen Pinker. To be fair, it seems you only want to go back to the Middle Ages, since when murder rates per capita have only declined a measly hundredfold.

[Bonniedundee]

I wouldn't know whom Nozick worships, but he did point out the paradox of deontology and advocated "act consequentialism". He's a tit anyway.You really don't belong in these upper forums.

Yeah, real socialists are market fundamentalists who hold property rights above life. Left and right are no more defined by utilitarian vs deontological than by state vs anti-state. Marxists aren't utilitarians and most libertarian socialists aren't utilitarians so that is most socialists.

What kind of socialist are you anyway? Because both Marxists and anarchist want a stateless society which you despise so much.
But I didn't. The authority bit comes from democratic consensus which you reject for reasons you refuse to divulge. The bit about choosing to remain in a locale and accept its rules addressed the voluntarism question. I don't refuse to divulge it, I just want you to finish showing where this democratic consensus gets its authority from.

If I go into my feelings you will mysteriously forget about answering this.

So where does the democratic consensus get its authority from?

But it is the default position. It is everywhere the most stable equilibrium point of social evolution and all unstable societies seek to emulate it. If you claim that it's somehow wrong and the true way is immanent in the world, you cant just expect people to take it on faith.
What? Utilitarianism is not a default position. There is no defualt position.

If anything Plato is the default position in philosophy and he is not a utilitarian.

We're already past that. You reject the consequentialist staus quo and assert that deontological rights must supersede. Why? It's no use insisting that people come up with a deontological argument just because you don't like utilitarian ones for reasons known only to you.
What? Can you please just answer where the democratic consensus gets its authority from?

To argue that authority comes from this isn't utilitarian btw, it is deontological. Unless you believe it gets its authority because it is best for society, is this your claim?

How? Whether 40 defer to 60 or 40 million defer to 60 million, democratic consensus still trumps deontological rights. How does changing the label change that?
Huh? What are you saying? To be democratic every decision would have to be the one wished for by the majority, choosing representatives is not good enough, this is not true democracy.

And to work out direct democracy practically it would have to be radically decentralised.

Again what kind of socialist are you? You don't strike me as any kind of socialist, you seem just like a liberal or social democrat and a pretty conservative one at that.

Utilitarianism is a conservative position, Carlyle said patriotism was the last refuge of scoundrel, he was wrong utilitarianism is.

Then you're wrong. Anthropological studies reveal that, since at least the agricultural revolution, people in pre-state societies are vastly more likely to be murdered than people in modern states, even after the wars of the last century are taken into account. "If the wars of the twentieth century had killed the same proportion of the population that die in the wars of a typical tribal society, there would have been two billion deaths, not 100 million." - Stephen Pinker. To be fair, it seems you only want to go back to the Middle Ages, since when murder rates per capita have only declined a measly hundredfold.But those aren't anarchies. You can't just call any society you feel like anarchy, the positive social theory of anarchism does actually mean something.

[Canard DuJour]

I wouldn't know whom Nozick worships, but he did point out the paradox of deontology and advocated "act consequentialism". He's a tit anyway.You really don't belong in these upper forums.

Marxists aren't utilitarians and most libertarian socialists aren't utilitarians so that is most socialists.

What kind of socialist are you anyway? Because both Marxists and anarchist want a stateless society which you despise so much.
I don't refuse to divulge it, I just want you to finish showing where this democratic consensus gets its authority from.

If I go into my feelings you will mysteriously forget about answering this.

So where does the democratic consensus get its authority from?


What? Utilitarianism is not a default position. There is no defualt position.

If anything Plato is the default position in philosophy and he is not a utilitarian.


What? Can you please just answer where the democratic consensus gets its authority from?

To argue that authority comes from this isn't utilitarian btw, it is deontological. Unless you believe it gets its authority because it is best for society, is this your claim?YES. I've said it so often I can't imagine what else you think I mean. People cede the natural right of all to all because it defaults to rule of the strongest. That is both the origin and justification of the social contract.

The unfounded assertion is that there must be some deontological justification beyond this.

People don't want to go back to a tribal pre-state or the Middle Ages or end up with anything like anarchocapitalism. If you say there's some reason they ought to whether they want to or not, then people are more than a teeny weeny bit entitled to ask why. If you say because it's natural and proper for man to rely on private defence militias and weave electric cables in his backyard, then people are entitled to laugh and move on.


Huh? What are you saying? To be democratic every decision would have to be the one wished for by the majority, choosing representatives is not good enough, this is not true democracy.

And to work out direct democracy practically it would have to be radically decentralised.

Again what kind of socialist are you? You don't strike me as any kind of socialist, you seem just like a liberal or social democrat and a pretty conservative one at that.

Utilitarianism is a conservative position, Carlyle said patriotism was the last refuge of scoundrel, he was wrong utilitarianism is.doesn't address the point to which it ostensibly replies.

Then you're wrong. Anthropological studies reveal that, since at least the agricultural revolution, people in pre-state societies are vastly more likely to be murdered than people in modern states, even after the wars of the last century are taken into account. "If the wars of the twentieth century had killed the same proportion of the population that die in the wars of a typical tribal society, there would have been two billion deaths, not 100 million." - Stephen Pinker. To be fair, it seems you only want to go back to the Middle Ages, since when murder rates per capita have only declined a measly hundredfold.But those aren't anarchies. You can't just call any society you feel like anarchy, the positive social theory of anarchism does actually mean something. They're what happens sans social contract. You can't just imagine any impossible society you like and claim that people ought to live in it for reasons you refuse to divulge.

[Bonniedundee]

YES. I've said it so often I can't imagine what else you think I mean. People cede the natural right of all to all because it defaults to rule of the strongest. That is both the origin and justification of the social contract. But this doesn't explain where its authoirty comes from, this implies an agreement which means they can refuse and ignore the state.

And leaving the country doesn't count because this already presumes the state has authority over the very territory you are trying to prove it has authority over.

My only conclusion is in your amateurish way you are trying to make a utilitarian argument, not only is utilitarianism conservative but tyrannical and also could only work on a direct and radically decentralised level.

You cannot objectively say what is best for society, utility is subjective therefore everyone must choose what they think is best and the choices with the most support must win, this must be done with everything, the only way to do this is radically decentralised, direct democracy, if as is inevitable with representatives they make choices country to what the majority wants it society would not be utilitarian.

Btw do you believe in any independent reality? You probably do, would you say that if a majority voted for death squads and gas chambers it would okay? Because this is the logical conclusion of utilitarianism, it accepts no independent ethics, it is pure tyranny.


People don't want to go back to a tribal pre-state or the Middle Ages or end up with anything like anarchocapitalism. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist.

doesn't address the point to which it ostensibly replies.Nice dodge.

They're what happens sans social contract. You can't just imagine any impossible society you like and claim that people ought to live in it for reasons you refuse to divulge.
First the historical case as, David Hume once commented is even worse than the philosophical one, so I don't know why you are dragging that up. No social contract or agreement was drawn up, almost all states were based on conquest usually external sometimes internal. As the sociologist of the state Franz Oppenheimer wrote.

"The State, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages of its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad. Teleologically, this dominion had no other purpose than the economic exploitation of the vanquished by the victors."

"No primitive state known to history originated in any other manner. Wherever a reliable tradition reports otherwise, either it concerns the amalgamation of two fully developed primitive states into one body of more complete organisation; or else it is an adaptation to men of the fable of the sheep which made a bear their king in order to be protected against the wolf. But even in this latter case, the form and content of the State became precisely the same as in those states where nothing intervened, and which became immediately 'wolf states'." (p. 15)

I don't refuse to divulge them, they come through self-ownership. If the individual owns himself all external government is tyranny. This is all natural law means that I own myself.

It is the default position if there is one, because if I don't own myself who does?

The only other choices are absurdites, either some people own themselves and others while some don't own even themselves or no one own's anyone and we have no wills at all.

In the end even utilitarianism can be boiled down to this, it is about maximising individual utility, utility is subjective so only the individual can decide what is best for himself.

You have offered no alternatives, you have talked about social contract in a vague, unconvincing way offering little in the way of support, you have talked about utilitarianism as if utility was objective when it is subjective and tyrannical, you have completely failed to defend social contract theory.
In the end you'd have been just as convincing if you just repreated the old idea that you "accept" the social "contract" by living in a country and you can "accept" it or leave.

But hey at least you are not alone.

[Canard DuJour]

YES. I've said it so often I can't imagine what else you think I mean. People cede the natural right of all to all because it defaults to rule of the strongest. That is both the origin and justification of the social contract. But this doesn't explain where its authoirty comes from, this implies an agreement which means they can refuse and ignore the state.No it doesn't anymore than freely renewing golf club membership implies freedom to ignore the dress code and crap on the fairway.

And leaving the country doesn't count because this already presumes the state has authority over the very territory you are trying to prove it has authority over.It presumes legitimate authority, not that legitimacy derives from the freedom to leave. Freedom to leave is a necessary but not sufficient condition.

My only conclusion is in your amateurish way you are trying to make a utilitarian argument, not only is utilitarianism conservative but tyrannical and also could only work on a direct and radically decentralised level.

You cannot objectively say what is best for society, utility is subjective therefore everyone must choose what they think is best and the choices with the most support must win, this must be done with everything, the only way to do this is radically decentralised, direct democracy, But I don't "objectively say what is best for society" and people do "choose what they think is best and the choices with the most support must win". It's just that they don't choose a radically decentralised democracy because, if democracy becomes too decentralised, every band of sociopaths, sadists, paedophiles, bigots and god-knows-what will be able to make laws to suit themselves.


if as is inevitable with representatives they make choices country to what the majority wants it society would not be utilitarian.:confused: ..faulty keypad?

Btw do you believe in any independent reality? You probably do, would you say that if a majority voted for death squads and gas chambers it would okay? Because this is the logical conclusion of utilitarianism, it accepts no independent ethics, it is pure tyranny.I don't see how it's the logical conclusion of utilitarianism or what it has to do with belief in independent reality. If the majority votes for the death squads, I'd say the social contract has failed to prevent that which tends to prevail in its absence. When a dam fails, I dont say Ah! It must be that dams cause floods. See, I'm an atheist and I don't have to posit that there is necessarily some perfectible state of human affairs, only damage limitation.


I'm not an anarcho-capitalist.

Nice dodge.

They're what happens sans social contract. You can't just imagine any impossible society you like and claim that people ought to live in it for reasons you refuse to divulge.
First the historical case as, David Hume once commented is even worse than the philosophical one, so I don't know why you are dragging that up. No social contract or agreement was drawn up, almost all states were based on conquest usually external sometimes internal. As the sociologist of the state Franz Oppenheimer wrote.

"The State, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages of its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad. Teleologically, this dominion had no other purpose than the economic exploitation of the vanquished by the victors."

"No primitive state known to history originated in any other manner. Wherever a reliable tradition reports otherwise, either it concerns the amalgamation of two fully developed primitive states into one body of more complete organisation; or else it is an adaptation to men of the fable of the sheep which made a bear their king in order to be protected against the wolf. But even in this latter case, the form and content of the State became precisely the same as in those states where nothing intervened, and which became immediately 'wolf states'." (p. 15) So? The historical genesis of states may well have been as bad or worse than he claims. It doesn't alter the fact that all the evidence indicates that, at least since agriculture, the alternatives were far worse still. Neither does it prove that conquest is a necessary condition of the state. I don't seem to remember the incumbent state invading and conquering.

I don't refuse to divulge them, they come through self-ownership. If the individual owns himself all external government is tyranny. This is all natural law means that I own myself.

It is the default position if there is one, because if I don't own myself who does? No one. The concept "ownership" is a category error in relation to the self. Ownership is a contingent characteristic of external objects not an ontological precondition of selfhood. You own your car, you are yourself. Self ownership would no more confer exemption from social sanctions than car ownership confers the right to drive on the wrong side of the road.



The only other choices are absurdites, either some people own themselves and others while some don't own even themselves or no one own's anyone and we have no wills at all.

In the end even utilitarianism can be boiled down to this, it is about maximising individual utility, utility is subjective so only the individual can decide what is best for himself.Then why should deontological rights supersede such decisions?

You have offered no alternatives, you have talked about social contract in a vague, unconvincing way offering little in the way of support, you have talked about utilitarianism as if utility was objective when it is subjective and tyrannical, you have completely failed to defend social contract theory.
In the end you'd have been just as convincing if you just repreated the old idea that you "accept" the social "contract" by living in a country and you can "accept" it or leave.

But hey at least you are not alone. Y'know, a simple "I remain unconvinced" would have been more effective. You sound like you're trying hard to convince yourself.

[Bonniedundee]

No it doesn't anymore than freely renewing golf club membership implies freedom to ignore the dress code and crap on the fairway.
Hey wait you're doing exactly what I accused you of.

We are trying to show where the state gets its authority on but you are presuming the state already has authority over its territory like a golf club has authority over its property.

It presumes legitimate authority, not that legitimacy derives from the freedom to leave. Freedom to leave is a necessary but not sufficient condition.
But if it presumes authority it is no answer to where the state gets its authority from.

But I don't "objectively say what is best for society" and people do "choose what they think is best and the choices with the most support must win". It's just that they don't choose a radically decentralised democracy because, if democracy becomes too decentralised, every band of sociopaths, sadists, paedophiles, bigots and god-knows-what will be able to make laws to suit themselves. And if it becomes centralised to any degree beyond radical decentralism it isn't democracy anymore, it just becomes a rubber stamp for the ruling classes.




I don't see how it's the logical conclusion of utilitarianism or what it has to do with belief in independent reality. If the majority votes for the death squads, I'd say the social contract has failed to prevent that which tends to prevail in its absence. When a dam fails, I dont say Ah! It must be that dams cause floods. See, I'm an atheist and I don't have to posit that there is necessarily some perfectible state of human affairs, only damage limitation.
How can you say it has failed?

Utilitarianism boils down to rule of the majority with no independent ethics, death squads are allowed if the majority wants them.

Do you believe death squads or gas chambers are wrong in themselves on any grounds but utilitarian?


So? The historical genesis of states may well have been as bad or worse than he claims. It doesn't alter the fact that all the evidence indicates that, at least since agriculture, the alternatives were far worse still. Neither does it prove that conquest is a necessary condition of the state. I don't seem to remember the incumbent state invading and conquering. By incumbent do you mean the US? The US just took over from the British state in North America, this was founded by conquest.

And there is no evidence for any historical social contract.

No one. The concept "ownership" is a category error in relation to the self. Ownership is a contingent characteristic of external objects not an ontological precondition of selfhood. You own your car, you are yourself. Self ownership would no more confer exemption from social sanctions than car ownership confers the right to drive on the wrong side of the road.
Self-ownership just means you have control over yourself and as long as you don't stop someone else enjoying this you have a right to comppletely do what you want.
The answer cannot be no one, someone must have legitimate control over you, I take it you think it is the democratic will of society ie everyone owns everyone, so where do they get this authority from?



Then why should deontological rights supersede such decisions?Because society independent of individuals is a myth, you have the right to decide what is best for yourself, but you(ie the majority.) have no right to decide what is best for others, they should control themselves as long as they don't try and control others.

All these deontological rights boil down is that the individual has the right to do anything that is non-invasive.

Y'know, a simple "I remain unconvinced" would have been more effective. You sound like you're trying hard to convince yourself.Believe me, I'm not. You have offered me little new, you simply have put all the usual statist arguments, that boil down to the individual is nothing the state is all, into one big, unconvincing argument.

[Canard DuJour]

No it doesn't anymore than freely renewing golf club membership implies freedom to ignore the dress code and crap on the fairway.
Hey wait you're doing exactly what I accused you of.

We are trying to show where the state gets its authority on but you are presuming the state already has authority over its territory like a golf club has authority over its property.But I'm not, I'm pointing out that voluntary membership does not entail each member making up the rules.


But if it presumes authority it is no answer to where the state gets its authority from.
And if it becomes centralised to any degree beyond radical decentralism it isn't democracy anymore, it just becomes a rubber stamp for the ruling classes.But it doesn't assume authority, it merely confirms voluntarism, which is a necessary but not sufficient condition. You've repeatedly had the provenance of state authority pointed out you : people cede the natural right of all to all since it defaults to rule of the strongest. You reject this and assert that it must be superseded by deontological rights for reasons which remain unclear.



How can you say it has failed?

Utilitarianism boils down to rule of the majority with no independent ethics, death squads are allowed if the majority wants them.False. Minimisation of human suffering does not vindicate extant human suffering. Quite the contrary

Do you believe death squads or gas chambers are wrong in themselves on any grounds but utilitarian?Not that I can think of. What possible moral significance could they have outside the context of human suffering?


By incumbent do you mean the US? The US just took over from the British state in North America, this was founded by conquest.Why would I mean the US?

And there is no evidence for any historical social contract.But there's abundant evidence. In every stable society, people cede the natural right of all to all since it defaults to rule of the strongest. No one's claiming there's a legal document somewhere.


No one. The concept "ownership" is a category error in relation to the self. Ownership is a contingent characteristic of external objects not an ontological precondition of selfhood. You own your car, you are yourself. Self ownership would no more confer exemption from social sanctions than car ownership confers the right to drive on the wrong side of the road. Self-ownership just means you have control over yourself and as long as you don't stop someone else enjoying this you have a right to comppletely do what you want.
The answer cannot be no one, someone must have legitimate control over you,I've just explained why "self-ownership" doesn't just mean that.


I take it you think it is the democratic will of society ie everyone owns everyone, so where do they get this authority from?No, the concept "ownership" is, in the first place, a category error in relation to the self, as I've just said.

Neither would exemption from social sanctions follow from any such metaphysical nonsense - anymore than exemption from the highway code follows from car ownership.

Neither would it follow from self-ownership that we have the right to deprive others of external objects.

And neither, crucially, would it follow that others will observe any such right without some realistic means of enforcing it.


Because society independent of individuals is a myth, you have the right to decide what is best for yourself, but you(ie the majority.) have no right to decide what is best for others, they should control themselves as long as they don't try and control others.

All these deontological rights boil down is that the individual has the right to do anything that is non-invasive.Then they are a fairy tale. Try living in a state of nature. When a bear or bandits invade your homestead, try telling them about these deontological rights.

Y'know, a simple "I remain unconvinced" would have been more effective. You sound like you're trying hard to convince yourself.Believe me, I'm not. You have offered me little new, you simply have put all the usual statist arguments, that boil down to the individual is nothing the state is all, into one big, unconvincing argument. I think you can take it that, by now, your opinion has been noted.

[Bonniedundee]

]But I'm not, I'm pointing out that voluntary membership does not entail each member making up the rules.It entails him being able to refuse the agreement and him being able to leave is not giving him a free choice as presupposes the authority you are trying prove.


But it doesn't assume authority, it merely confirms voluntarism, which is a necessary but not sufficient condition. You've repeatedly had the provenance of state authority pointed out you : people cede the natural right of all to all since it defaults to rule of the strongest. You reject this and assert that it must be superseded by deontological rights for reasons which remain unclear.
I just make the obvious point that to do this they must have a choice and this isn't just they can leave as this presupposes the authority of the state over the territory that you are trying to prove.


False. Minimisation of human suffering does not vindicate extant human suffering. Quite the contraryHuh?

Not that I can think of. What possible moral significance could they have outside the context of human suffering?



But there's abundant evidence. In every stable society, people cede the natural right of all to all since it defaults to rule of the strongest. No one's claiming there's a legal document somewhere.The social contract theory is about an agreement, this agreement has never taken place.
People don't agree they just don't realise they could change things.


I've just explained why "self-ownership" doesn't just mean that. No you haven't, you have explained nothing except given semantics, I'm getting tired of your crap. I'm looking for actual philospohical debate not purile rubbish.


No, the concept "ownership" is, in the first place, a category error in relation to the self, as I've just said. This is pure semantics, call it control or will or whatever.

Neither would exemption from social sanctions follow from any such metaphysical nonsense - anymore than exemption from the highway code follows from car ownership. But this is metaphysical nonsense you are spouting, you give society an authority of its own independent of the individuals that make it up.

Neither would it follow from self-ownership that we have the right to deprive others of external objects. Many property arguments can follow from self-ownership.

And neither, crucially, would it follow that others will observe any such right without some realistic means of enforcing it.
This is irrelevant when discussing ethics.

Then they are a fairy tale. Try living in a state of nature. When a bear or bandits invade your homestead, try telling them about these deontological rights.Try living in a state when the public feeling allows your social grouping to be persecuted.

[Canard DuJour]

]But I'm not, I'm pointing out that voluntary membership does not entail each member making up the rules.It entails him being able to refuse the agreement and him being able to leave is not giving him a free choice as presupposes the authority you are trying prove.

I just make the obvious point that to do this they must have a choice and this isn't just they can leave as this presupposes the authority of the state over the territory that you are trying to prove.But it doesn't, it merely confirms voluntarism, which is a necessary but not sufficient condition. Ceding the natural right of all to all since it defaults to rule of the strongest is not presupposing authority but granting it.

Huh?Huh? The meaning is quite straight forward.


The social contract theory is about an agreement, this agreement has never taken place.
People don't agree they just don't realise they could change thingsOf course they do. People could vote Libertarian or buy a plot of land to mix their labour with or move to some hell hole where the natural right of all to all prevails unhampered by the state.

But, for some strange reason, they don't.


No you haven't, you have explained nothing except given semantics, I'm getting tired of your crap. I'm looking for actual philospohical debate not purile rubbish.


This is pure semantics, call it control or will or whatever.

But this is metaphysical nonsense you are spouting,Then you'll be able to point out why, rather than just being rude. If there are specific words or concepts you don't understand, I'll explain them.


you give society an authority of its own independent of the individuals that make it up.Where?

Many property arguments can follow from self-ownership.No valid ones that I've seen.


This is irrelevant when discussing ethics.Why?

Then they are a fairy tale. Try living in a state of nature. When a bear or bandits invade your homestead, try telling them about these deontological rights.Try living in a state when the public feeling allows your social grouping to be persecuted.That is the danger. But your alternative simply abnegates even the possibility of protection from persecution.

[unrealist42]

Authority, to be legitimate, must come from the consent of the governed, not a minority or simple majority, or by god, or a by a gun. All those who are to be governed must freely volunteer to be governed.

Those who disagee should be able to leave or conjoin together and form their own consensual government.

Otherwise, all government is illegitimate.

It seems some of you presuppose that government must be territorially based. This is not necessary. Myriad political entities may co-exist within overlapping territorial boundaries because, after all, what is a nation or any other political entity but an abstraction, a mental constuct.

Nature does not draw a national boundaries, they are drawn in the minds of men. So, it is not a far step to ignore nature altogether and have nations of the mind, voluntary nations of like minded people unrestricted by territorial boundaries but nonetheless bound to their nation and its laws.

[Bonniedundee]

But it doesn't, it merely confirms voluntarism, which is a necessary but not sufficient condition. Ceding the natural right of all to all since it defaults to rule of the strongest is not presupposing authority but granting it.
But for it to be able to be voluntaryism you must be able to remove or not grant your consent and leaving the country is not good enough as it presupposes the authority of the state over that which you are trying to argue the authority for.
Basically ther argument if you don't like you can emmigrate is not good enough, it is a circular argument.

Huh? The meaning is quite straight forward.Not really.

Of course they do. People could vote Libertarian or buy a plot of land to mix their labour with or move to some hell hole where the natural right of all to all prevails unhampered by the state.

But, for some strange reason, they don't.See this is a circular argmuent, for it to be an agreement, a contract, people must be able to remove their consent and to say they can by leaving is to presuppose the authority you are trying to prove.


Then you'll be able to point out why, rather than just being rude. If there are specific words or concepts you don't understand, I'll explain them. You have given a metaphysical exsistence to society independent of the individuals who make it up, you have also redefined consent to mean you agree or you are taken to agree.

Where?You are completely unable to show where society gest its authority from. At best you have tried to show voluntaryism where no choices are availble.

No valid ones that I've seen.Sure there are, you own your body, you own your labgour therefore you own what you own the natural resources you shape, as long as they are abundant, this is where property comes from.


Why?Well ethics are independent of what some people might think it best for society, unless you are some conservative, utilitarianism who thinks that what is ethical is simply what is best for society, gas chambers or death squads included.

That is the danger. But your alternative simply abnegates even the possibility of protection from persecution.
My alternative is freedom.

[Canard DuJour]

But it doesn't, it merely confirms voluntarism, which is a necessary but not sufficient condition. Ceding the natural right of all to all since it defaults to rule of the strongest is not presupposing authority but granting it.
But for it to be able to be voluntaryism you must be able to remove or not grant your consent and leaving the country is not good enough as it presupposes the authority of the state over that which you are trying to argue the authority for.
Basically ther argument if you don't like you can emmigrate is not good enough, it is a circular argument.

Not really.

See this is a circular argmuent, for it to be an agreement, a contract, people must be able to remove their consent and to say they can by leaving is to presuppose the authority you are trying to prove.But no one's making that argument. It would be a circular argument if authority were first predicated on freedom to leave. But it isn't.

You have given a metaphysical exsistence to society independent of the individuals who make it up, you have also redefined consent to mean you agree or you are taken to agree.Where?

You are completely unable to show where society gest its authority from.People cede the natural right of all to all since it defaults to rule of strongest. That is, they grant authority, not presuppose it. That dissenters are free to leave is secondary - necessary but not sufficient.

At best you have tried to show voluntaryism where no choices are availble.Where?

Sure there are, you own your body, you own your labgour therefore you own what you own the natural resources you shape, Non sequitur. Even if self-ownership were a coherent concept, it would then be subject to the same strictures as ownership generally. You don't get to own things simply by physically transforming them and you dont get to dictate those strictures simply because you own things.

as long as they are abundant, this is where property comes from.But they aren't. The strong will take the oil field, the weak will end up with turnip fields. Then the strong will buy the turnip fields. Then wage labour and the power of the strong will be absolute.


Well ethics are independent of what some people might think it best for society, unless you are some conservative, utilitarianism who thinks that what is ethical is simply what is best for society, gas chambers or death squads included.Garbage. Ethics is all about what people think is best for people and utilitarianism says nothing of the kind. Minimisation of human suffering does not vindicate extant human suffering. If what can be realised in human interaction is irrelevant to ethics, ethics is irrelevant in human interaction.

That is the danger. But your alternative simply abnegates even the possibility of protection from persecution.
My alternative is freedom.
of the strong. No thanks.

[Bonniedundee]

But no one's making that argument. It would be a circular argument if authority were first predicated on freedom to leave. But it isn't. Then where does it come from? To say it comes from the people's agreement leads to the same problem if this agreement rests on the fact you can leave the country.

Where?You refuse to name where society gets its authority from.

People cede the natural right of all to all since it defaults to rule of strongest. That is, they grant authority, not presuppose it. That dissenters are free to leave is secondary - necessary but not sufficient.
If they cede they can take away, you are suggesting that agree and not leaving is not agreeing as this presupposes the state's authority over what you trying to prove its authority over, your theory has really fallen apart and I think you realise that.

Where?

Non sequitur. Even if self-ownership were a coherent concept, it would then be subject to the same strictures as ownership generally. You don't get to own things simply by physically transforming them and you dont get to dictate those strictures simply because you own things.I'm more than aware self-ownership is very vague on the details of property rights.

But they aren't. The strong will take the oil field, the weak will end up with turnip fields. Then the strong will buy the turnip fields. Then wage labour and the power of the strong will be absolute.And they don't now?


Garbage. Ethics is all about what people think is best for people and utilitarianism says nothing of the kind. Minimisation of human suffering does not vindicate extant human suffering. If what can be realised in human interaction is irrelevant to ethics, ethics is irrelevant in human interaction.
No ethics is about what is right and what is wrong, it is about morality, this is foreign to utilitarian, in utilitarianism there is no ethics just what is best for "society".

No thanks.The state= freedom of the strong.

[Canard DuJour]

But no one's making that argument. It would be a circular argument if authority were first predicated on freedom to leave. But it isn't. Then where does it come from? To say it comes from the people's agreement leads to the same problem if this agreement rests on the fact you can leave the country.But it doesn't rest on the fact you can leave the country

You refuse to name where society gets its authority from.People grant that authority, not presume it, because the alternative is rule of the strongest. That is, not merely because they're free to leave, but because the alternative is rule of the strongest. Which is to say, not merely because they're free to leave, but because the alternative is rule of the strongest - i.e not merely because they're free to leave, but because the alternative is rule of the strongest.

If they cede they can take away, you are suggesting that agree and not leaving is not agreeing as this presupposes the state's authority over what you trying to prove its authority over, your theory has really fallen apart and I think you realise that.Realise what? That's not even a sentence.

Where?

I'm more than aware self-ownership is very vague on the details of property rights.Yet you insist it's sufficient basis for people to adopt a way of life which seems insane and dangerous to them whether they want to or not. Good luck selling that one.

But they aren't. The strong will take the oil field, the weak will end up with turnip fields. Then the strong will buy the turnip fields. Then wage labour and the power of the strong will be absolute. And they don't now?Nearly, in the more capitalist countries. In Norway, for example, the offshore oil fields are largely nationalised and have benefitted the Norwegian people far more than the same fields in the British sector have benefiited us. The only thing your ..I dont know what to call it.. does is remove that.



No ethics is about what is right and what is wrong, it is about morality, this is foreign to utilitarian, in utilitarianism there is no ethics just what is best for "society".Then ethics would be irrelevant to society. I think you'll find, however, that there is a considerable canon of utilitarian ethics.

No thanks.The state= freedom of the strong.Then no one's stopping you from buying some land to mix your labour with and weave electric cables or move to some hell hole where the natural right of all to all prevails unhampered by the state.

[Bonniedundee]

But it doesn't rest on the fact you can leave the countryThen prey tell how is a voluntary agreement.

People grant that authority, not presume it, because the alternative is rule of the strongest. That is, not merely because they're free to leave, but because the alternative is rule of the strongest. Which is to say, not merely because they're free to leave, but because the alternative is rule of the strongest - i.e not merely because they're free to leave, but because the alternative is rule of the strongest. So I'm free to withdraw my agreement, morally speaking?

Nearly, in the more capitalist countries. In Norway, for example, the offshore oil fields are largely nationalised and have benefitted the Norwegian people far more than the same fields in the British sector have benefiited us. The only thing your ..I dont know what to call it.. does is remove that.
It also removes the state and therefore the rich. I'm a leftwing anarchist btw.

Then ethics would be irrelevant to society. I think you'll find, however, that there is a considerable canon of utilitarian ethics.There can't be utilitarian ethics, utiltiarianism is indepedent of ethics, it is just about what is "gives society the most utility".

Then no one's stopping you from buying some land to mix your labour with and weave electric cables or move to some hell hole where the natural right of all to all prevails unhampered by the state.The state does this, land is more expensive due to the state, credit is far more expensive due to the state etc etc


Okay as your social contract argument has imploded let's go about this another way, how do you imagine people living in your ideal society?

[Canard DuJour]

But it doesn't rest on the fact you can leave the countryThen prey tell how is a voluntary agreement.By its not being predicated on freedom to leave. That doesn't mean you're not free to leave.

So I'm free to withdraw my agreement, morally speaking?I don't know what a morally speaking withdrawal is, but you're certainly free to leave if you disagree.


It also removes the state and therefore the rich. I'm a leftwing anarchist btw.I think you'd find that the local warlord who enslaves you is quite rich. These's nothing left-wing about market fundamentalism and deontological property rights btw.

There can't be utilitarian ethics, utiltiarianism is indepedent of ethics, it is just about what is "gives society the most utility".So you repeatedly assert. If that were true, then people would be entitled to disregard ethics.

Then no one's stopping you from buying some land to mix your labour with and weave electric cables or move to some hell hole where the natural right of all to all prevails unhampered by the state.The state does this, land is more expensive due to the state, credit is far more expensive due to the state etc etcThen you'll be able to pop over to Somalia, mix your labour with some land and the local warlords will play nice.


Okay as your social contract argument has imploded let's go about this another way, how do you imagine people living in your ideal society? Dear oh dear that's cheap. No, let's stick to the point.

[Bonniedundee]

By its not being predicated on freedom to leave. That doesn't mean you're not free to leave.No I meant how it is a voluntary agreement if you can't take away the authority of the state over you?

I don't know what a morally speaking withdrawal is, but you're certainly free to leave if you disagree.As already shown this is not good enough to show the agreement is voluntary, it pressupposes the authority of the state that you are trying to prove.

I think you'd find that the local warlord who enslaves you is quite rich. These's nothing left-wing about market fundamentalism and deontological property rights btw.Actually all libertarian socialism is based, however vaguely on deontological rights, so you don't know what you are talking about, it sure as hell is not utilitarian.

And Mutualists like Proudhon, Tucker, Spooner etc are free marketeers.

So you are wrong.

So you repeatedly assert. If that were true, then people would be entitled to disregard ethics.It is true, but the problem is that utilitarianism is tyrannical and crap.

Dear oh dear that's cheap. No, let's stick to the point.What point? For all your crap you have shown that your entire argue revolves around the social contract being voluntary because you can leave the country, which is a completely circular argument as it presupposes the authority of the state you are trying to prove.

Your philosophy seems to be that the state(and the rich that always accompany it.) is all and the individual(ie the worker.) is nothing.

So please tell me what your ideal system looks like.

[Canard DuJour]

By its not being predicated on freedom to leave. That doesn't mean you're not free to leave.No I meant how it is a voluntary agreement if you can't take away the authority of the state over you?In the same way that you can voluntarily renew golf club membership without being entitled to ignore the dress code and crap on the fairway just because you own yourself (whatever that means). That doesn't mean the dress code and toilet rules derive from your freedom to leave. It simply means you're free to leave if you don't like them.

As already shown this is not good enough to show the agreement is voluntary, it pressupposes the authority of the state that you are trying to prove.But it doesn't, it merely confirms voluntarism, which is a necessary but not sufficient condition. Ceding the natural right of all to all since it defaults to rule of the strongest is not presupposing authority but granting it.

Actually all libertarian socialism is based, however vaguely on deontological rights, so you don't know what you are talking about, it sure as hell is not utilitarian.

And Mutualists like Proudhon, Tucker, Spooner etc are free marketeers.

So you are wrong.That's funny because there seem to be plenty of libertarian socialists around here who don't believe - "however vaguely" - in deontological rights.

I personally couldn't care less about Tucker, Spooner etc

It is true, but the problem is that utilitarianism is tyrannical and crap.It's true that people are entitled to disregard deontological ethics? Fine, end of story.


Dear oh dear that's cheap. No, let's stick to the point.What point? For all your crap you have shown that your entire argue revolves around the social contract being voluntary because you can leave the country, which is a completely circular argument as it presupposes the authority of the state you are trying to prove.On the contrary, I've repeatedly said that freedom to leave is necessary but not sufficient condition. On each occasion you've replied by asserting that I've said nearly the opposite and then insisting I defend it :huh:

Your philosophy seems to be that the state(and the rich that always accompany it.) is all and the individual(ie the worker.) is nothing.

So please tell me what your ideal system looks like.No

and no.

[Bonniedundee]

In the same way that you can voluntarily renew golf club membership without being entitled to ignore the dress code and crap on the fairway just because you own yourself (whatever that means). That doesn't mean the dress code and toilet rules derive from your freedom to leave. It simply means you're free to leave if you don't like them.The golf club already has authority over the area, you are pressupposing the authority of the state you are trying to prove, this is a circular argument.

But it doesn't, it merely confirms voluntarism, which is a necessary but not sufficient condition. Ceding the natural right of all to all since it defaults to rule of the strongest is not presupposing authority but granting it.But you must be able to remove your consent for it to voluntary. And being able to leave is not enough, it is circular reasoning.

That's funny because there seem to be plenty of libertarian socialists around here who don't believe - "however vaguely" - in deontological rights.
However vaguely, it is still the basis for leftwing anarchism. You will find no libertarian socialists who support utilitarianism.

The liberty of man consists solely in this: that he obeys natural laws because he has himself recognized them as such, & not because they have been externally imposed upon him by any extrinsic will whatever, divine or human, collective or individual. — Mikhail Bakunin, God & the State


I personally couldn't care less about Tucker, Spooner etc

So? They are still socialists and anarchists which is more than you are.

On the contrary, I've repeatedly said that freedom to leave is necessary but not sufficient condition. On each occasion you've replied by asserting that I've said nearly the opposite and then insisting I defend it But you haven't said where society gets its authority from.

You have said that we "agree" to give it authority, but you haven't made it clear how this "agreement" is voluntary. Of course it is clear that your only answer is that you can leave and you realise that is circular so are refusing to give any argument, it is not hard to see this is what is happening.

[Canard DuJour]

In the same way that you can voluntarily renew golf club membership without being entitled to ignore the dress code and crap on the fairway just because you own yourself (whatever that means). That doesn't mean the dress code and toilet rules derive from your freedom to leave. It simply means you're free to leave if you don't like them.The golf club already has authority over the area, you are pressupposing the authority of the state you are trying to prove, this is a circular argument.What do you mean the golf club already has authority? Some people want to ignore the dress code and crap on the fairway. Why should the golf club be allowed to coerce them? To say that they're free to leave is to assume an unproven authority, this is a circular argument.

But you must be able to remove your consent for it to voluntary. And being able to leave is not enough, it is circular reasoning.In that case people are coerced into golf club membership. And being able to leave is not enough, it is circular reasoning.


However vaguely, it is still the basis for leftwing anarchism. You will find no libertarian socialists who support utilitarianism.

The liberty of man consists solely in this: that he obeys natural laws because he has himself recognized them as such, & not because they have been externally imposed upon him by any extrinsic will whatever, divine or human, collective or individual. — Mikhail Bakunin, God & the State..which is metaphysical bollocks. The only natural liberty prevailing in the absence of consensus is that of the strong. No wonder this stuff never caught on.

So? They are still socialists and anarchists which is more than you are.

On the contrary, I've repeatedly said that freedom to leave is necessary but not sufficient condition. On each occasion you've replied by asserting that I've said nearly the opposite and then insisting I defend it But you haven't said where society gets its authority from.But I have. People grant that authority, not presume it, because the alternative is rule of the strongest. That is, not merely because they're free to leave, but because the alternative is rule of the strongest. Which is to say, not merely because they're free to leave, but because the alternative is rule of the strongest - i.e not merely because they're free to leave, but because the alternative is rule of the strongest.

You have said that we "agree" to give it authority, but you haven't made it clear how this "agreement" is voluntary. But I have :in the same way that you can voluntarily renew golf club membership without being entitled to ignore the dress code and crap on the fairway just because you own yourself (whatever that means). That doesn't mean the dress code and toilet rules derive from your freedom to leave. It simply means you're free to leave if you don't like them.


Of course it is clear that your only answer is that you can leave and you realise that is circular so are refusing to give any argument, it is not hard to see this is what is happening.Yes, it's becoming clear : people who consent to democratic institutions are being coerced because they own themselves and can make up all their own rules for reasons which are "very vague on the details." Therefore they don't have authority to give their consent and must accept rule of the strongest.

[Bonniedundee]

What do you mean the golf club already has authority? Some people want to ignore the dress code and crap on the fairway. Why should the golf club be allowed to coerce them? To say that they're free to leave is to assume an unproven authority, this is a circular argument.
Exactly, your analogy fails, the golf club owns the land already but we are trying to establish where the state gets its authority from so presuming its authority in the first place is circular.

In that case people are coerced into golf club membership. And being able to leave is not enough, it is circular reasoning.No, because the golf club owns the land, you are trying to prove why the state owns individuals, you cannot start proving this by presuming it already owns individuals.

Your argument really has imploded.


..which is metaphysical bollocks. The only natural liberty prevailing in the absence of consensus is that of the strong. No wonder this stuff never caught on.
What stuff? Anarchism and libertarian socialism? Well here we go, you should of been more clear about your authoritarianism.

Libertarian socialism is half of socialism and the good half.


But I have. People grant that authority, not presume it, because the alternative is rule of the strongest. That is, not merely because they're free to leave, but because the alternative is rule of the strongest. Which is to say, not merely because they're free to leave, but because the alternative is rule of the strongest - i.e not merely because they're free to leave, but because the alternative is rule of the strongest.But you can't just presume they grant this authority, you must show how they consent. How do you show this?

Btw making the argument they consent and this is where the state's authority comes from is to acknowledge self-ownership, consent means they have the freedom to consent before they enter society or the state.

But I have :in the same way that you can voluntarily renew golf club membership without being entitled to ignore the dress code and crap on the fairway just because you own yourself (whatever that means). That doesn't mean the dress code and toilet rules derive from your freedom to leave. It simply means you're free to leave if you don't like them.
What is it with you and abuses of logic.

The golf club owns the land, we are trying to establish where the state gets its authority, its ownership from, your analogy fails.

Yes, it's becoming clear : people who consent to democratic institutions are being coerced because they own themselves and can make up all their own rules for reasons which are "very vague on the details." Therefore they don't have authority to give their consent and must accept rule of the strongest.
Firstly you have not shown how people consent, the last time I checked the state wouldn't allow me to stop paying taxes and stop recieving voluntary benefits from it and secede from its jurisdiction. There is no voluntaryism here.

Secondly if you accept consent in theory, you accept that people have rights independent of the state or society, you accept self-ownership.

And lastly you haven't proved that people can't free organise to protect there right indepedent of positively coercive authority ie the state.

Why can't people protect themselves by voluntarily organising without the need for authority or coercion beyond defending rights?

[Canard DuJour]

What do you mean the golf club already has authority? Some people want to ignore the dress code and crap on the fairway. Why should the golf club be allowed to coerce them? To say that they're free to leave is to assume an unproven authority, this is a circular argument.
Exactly, your analogy fails, the golf club owns the land already but we are trying to establish where the state gets its authority from so presuming its authority in the first place is circular.That doesn't answer the question : What do you mean the golf club owns the land already? Some people want to ignore the dress code and crap on the fairway. Why should the golf club be allowed to coerce them? Why should they accept that? To say that they're free to leave is to assume an unproven authority, this is a circular argument.

No, because the golf club owns the land, you are trying to prove why the state owns individuals, you cannot start proving this by presuming it already owns individuals.But you haven't proven why the golf club has authority to own the land. If individuals own themselves, why can't they ignore the dress code and crap on the fairway? You cannot start proving this by presuming it already has authority.

Your argument really has imploded.

What stuff? Anarchism and libertarian socialism? Well here we go, you should of been more clear about your authoritarianism.I think you should have been more clear about yours. First we learn that democratic institutions are superded by self-ownership with all its vagaries. Now we learn that self ownership is superseded by golf club ownership! I've rarely heard of anything more authoritarian.

Libertarian socialism is half of socialism and the good half.

But you can't just presume they grant this authority, you must show how they consent. How do you show this?

Btw making the argument they consent and this is where the state's authority comes from is to acknowledge self-ownership, consent means they have the freedom to consent before they enter society or the state.Before they enter society ?? :eek: What, like in the wheel of karma before birth or something?


What is it with you and abuses of logic.

The golf club owns the land, we are trying to establish where the state gets its authority, its ownership from, your analogy fails.But we haven't established where the golf club gets its authority, its ownership from. We have self-owners who want to ignore the dress code and crap on the fairway. To say they cannot because the golf club already has authority to coerce them is to assume that which you're trying to prove. This is a circular argument.



Firstly you have not shown how people consent, the last time I checked the state wouldn't allow me to stop paying taxes and stop recieving voluntary benefits from it and secede from its jurisdiction. There is no voluntaryism here.Firstly you have not shown how golfers consent, the last time I checked the golf club wouldn't allow me to ignore the dress code and crap on the fairway. There is no voluntaryism here.

Secondly if you accept consent in theory, you accept that people have rights independent of the state or society, you accept self-ownership...but not independent of golf clubs. Weird. What about cricket clubs? Do they trump self-ownership too?

And lastly you haven't proved that people can't free organise to protect there right indepedent of positively coercive authority ie the state.

Why can't people protect themselves by voluntarily organising without the need for authority or coercion beyond defending rights?You tell me. Wherever democratic consensus breaks down, you end up with rule of the strongest. I am, as you say, unable to cite counterexamples.

[Bonniedundee]

That doesn't answer the question : What do you mean the golf club owns the land already? Some people want to ignore the dress code and crap on the fairway. Why should the golf club be allowed to coerce them? Why should they accept that? To say that they're free to leave is to assume an unproven authority, this is a circular argument.You came up with the golf club analogy, I couldn't care less, I guessed you thought the golf club owned the fairway.

It doesn't matter to me, its your golf club analogy, perhaps you shouldn't of mentioned it if it confused you so much.

But you haven't proven why the golf club has authority to own the land. If individuals own themselves, why can't they ignore the dress code and crap on the fairway? You cannot start proving this by presuming it already has authority.The golf club was your analogy, I couldn't care less, stop trying to divert from the topic of this debate; the social contract.

I think you should have been more clear about yours. First we learn that democratic institutions are superded by self-ownership with all its vagaries. Now we learn that self ownership is superseded by golf club ownership! I've rarely heard of anything more authoritarian. Wtf? Your arguments are pitiful, your arguments exploded so somehow by hooking onto some worthless analogy, you came up with you think you can safe face.
You tell me. Wherever democratic consensus breaks down, you end up with rule of the strongest. I am, as you say, unable to cite counterexamples.
We live in rule of the strongest.

The rest of your post was just derailing crap about your own analogy, if this is the best you can then we are done here.

You have failed to show where the state gets its authority from.

[Canard DuJour]

That doesn't answer the question : What do you mean the golf club owns the land already? Some people want to ignore the dress code and crap on the fairway. Why should the golf club be allowed to coerce them? Why should they accept that? To say that they're free to leave is to assume an unproven authority, this is a circular argument.You came up with the golf club analogy, I couldn't care less, I guessed you thought the golf club owned the fairway.

It doesn't matter to me, its your golf club analogy, perhaps you shouldn't of mentioned it if it confused you so much.

The golf club was your analogy, I couldn't care less, stop trying to divert from the topic of this debate; the social contract.

Wtf? Your arguments are pitiful, your arguments exploded so somehow by hooking onto some worthless analogy, you came up with you think you can safe face.But I'm serious - it can't only be me who finds this bizarre. Self-ownership trumps democratic consensus you say. For reasons which remain "very vague on the details," self-owners can make up their own rules, otherwise it's coercion. Except at the golf club. Folks with full ownership of perfectly good selves must submit to coercion at the golf club. Because we must assume the golf club already has greater authority. Yet self-owners who grant authority to democratic consensus make a fallacious presumption..

What if the golf club owner were to acquire, say, Coventry? Or Andorra (a city state)? Do his property rights still trump everyone elses' self-ownership? Presumably poeple under his dictatorship are more free than in a democracy? Is this another natural law or just a golf thing? Are you sure you've quite got the hang of this natural rights business?


You tell me. Wherever democratic consensus breaks down, you end up with rule of the strongest. I am, as you say, unable to cite counterexamples.We live in rule of the strongest.

The rest of your post was just derailing crap about your own analogy, if this is the best you can then we are done here.

You have failed to show where the state gets its authority from.I'm sorry you find analogy so offensive. Perhaps I just need to learn how to call differing opinion "pitiful" and "crap" .

[Bonniedundee]

You came up with the golf club analogy, I couldn't care less, I guessed you thought the golf club owned the fairway.

It doesn't matter to me, its your golf club analogy, perhaps you shouldn't of mentioned it if it confused you so much.

The golf club was your analogy, I couldn't care less, stop trying to divert from the topic of this debate; the social contract.

But I'm serious - it can't only be me who finds this bizarre. Self-ownership trumps democratic consensus you say. For reasons which remain "very vague on the details," self-owners can make up their own rules, otherwise it's coercion. Except at the golf club. Folks with full ownership of perfectly good selves must submit to coercion at the golf club. Because we must assume the golf club already has greater authority. Yet self-owners who grant authority to democratic consensus make a fallacious presumption..

What if the golf club owner were to acquire, say, Coventry? Or Andorra (a city state)? Do his property rights still trump everyone elses' self-ownership? Presumably poeple under his dictatorship are more free than in a democracy? Is this another natural law or just a golf thing? Are you sure you've quite got the hang of this natural rights business?I'm well aware that self-ownership is imperfect like all moral and political philosophies, it just has the least holes and is likely to lead to the least tyranny and most self-determination for the individual.

As you can see social contract theory either leads to self-ownershi, if you accept that the democratic consensus gets it authority from the consent of individuals and logically follow through on what consent must mean or it leads to absurdities like the circular argument about consent being formed on the fact you can leave the country.

This is why I advocate a base of self-ownership with the local community directly deciding on issues where self-ownership throws up more than one valid answer.
This will leave the individual with the most self-determination while mitigating to the lowest degree the authority exercised over him as this power is devolved to the lowest level.

You and me are both socialists, we both want the same thing, ie the end of wage labour and the most freedom for the individuals.

I'm just curious why you think parliamentary "democracy" on a national level, for centuries the domain of the bourgeios, is going to give anything like this to people when it has never done anything like this before and has always been what Marx said it was, the executive committee of the ruling class.

I could understand if you advocated council communism or anarcho-syndaclism or hell even Leninism, but not parliamentary "democracy" .

[Canard DuJour]

But I'm serious - it can't only be me who finds this bizarre. Self-ownership trumps democratic consensus you say. For reasons which remain "very vague on the details," self-owners can make up their own rules, otherwise it's coercion. Except at the golf club. Folks with full ownership of perfectly good selves must submit to coercion at the golf club. Because we must assume the golf club already has greater authority. Yet self-owners who grant authority to democratic consensus make a fallacious presumption..

What if the golf club owner were to acquire, say, Coventry? Or Andorra (a city state)? Do his property rights still trump everyone elses' self-ownership? Presumably poeple under his dictatorship are more free than in a democracy? Is this another natural law or just a golf thing? Are you sure you've quite got the hang of this natural rights business?I'm well aware that self-ownership is imperfect like all moral and political philosophies, it just has the least holes and is likely to lead to the least tyranny and most self-determination for the individual.

As you can see social contract theory either leads to self-ownershi, if you accept that the democratic consensus gets it authority from the consent of individuals and logically follow through on what consent must mean or it leads to absurdities like the circular argument about consent being formed on the fact you can leave the country.But it doesn't. Otherwise you could claim exemption from any law or convention whatsoever on the same grounds. I assert the right to crap on your lawn. I'm busting and surely defaecation is a natural right.

- "But you're free to go to the toilet like everyone else," you say "this is my lawn."

- "But that's assuming the very thing under dispute. Circular argument! Circular argument!"

And if I happen to be bigger and stronger than you, you'll be cleaning a lot of shit off your lawn unless you have recourse to some enforcible social convention. That is why people grant authority to democratic consensus. That dissenters can leave is secondary. Consent is not "formed" by the fact you can leave, anymore than voluntary golf club membership means exemption from the house rules.

This is why I advocate a base of self-ownership with the local community directly deciding on issues where self-ownership throws up more than one valid answer.
This will leave the individual with the most self-determination while mitigating to the lowest degree the authority exercised over him as this power is devolved to the lowest level.Why? Whether 40 defer to 60 or 40 million defer to 60 million, consensus still trumps natural rights. The difference is that it's difficult for sociopaths, paedophiles, sadists, cults etc to make up the rules for 60 million. And if your democratic consensus stretches no further than your village, who'll stop the village hardman from crapping on your lawn if he feels like it?

You and me are both socialists, we both want the same thing, ie the end of wage labour and the most freedom for the individuals.

I'm just curious why you think parliamentary "democracy" on a national level, for centuries the domain of the bourgeios, is going to give anything like this to people when it has never done anything like this before and has always been what Marx said it was, the executive committee of the ruling class.

I could understand if you advocated council communism or anarcho-syndaclism or hell even Leninism, but not parliamentary "democracy" .While I'm all for as much direct democracy as is practicable, I think you're wrong. Historically - and certainly in my own experience - democratic government plus trade unions have been the only effective brake on the power of capital. Big money would like nothing better than a radically decentralised democracy and toothless state for exactly the same reason they want small fragmented unions. Give them that and the company towns would be back within a generation. That's why they finance think tanks to fill the internet with "Libertarian" propaganda.

[Bonniedundee]

But it doesn't. Otherwise you could claim exemption from any law or convention whatsoever on the same grounds. I assert the right to crap on your lawn. I'm busting and surely defaecation is a natural right.

- "But you're free to go to the toilet like everyone else," you say "this is my lawn."

- "But that's assuming the very thing under dispute. Circular argument! Circular argument!"

And if I happen to be bigger and stronger than you, you'll be cleaning a lot of shit off your lawn unless you have recourse to some enforcible social convention. That is why people grant authority to democratic consensus. That dissenters can leave is secondary. Consent is not "formed" by the fact you can leave, anymore than voluntary golf club membership means exemption from the house rules.But you don't say where consent actually comes from, it is not good enough to just say it is granted because the altneratives are bad in your opinion, if I can't remove it there is no consent. For the social contract to be based on consent then I'd be able to ignore the state, stop paying taxes and recieving any wanted benefits and this would be fine.

Why? Whether 40 defer to 60 or 40 million defer to 60 million, consensus still trumps natural rights. The difference is that it's difficult for sociopaths, paedophiles, sadists, cults etc to make up the rules for 60 million.
They always do, the history of all states has been the rule of an exploitative minority.

And if your democratic consensus stretches no further than your village, who'll stop the village hardman from crapping on your lawn if he feels like it?The will of the people, this is the only thing that stops this kind of thing at any size, whether local or at the national level.

While I'm all for as much direct democracy as is practicable, I think you're wrong. Historically - and certainly in my own experience - democratic government plus trade unions have been the only effective brake on the power of capital. I don't see any democratic gov'ts in the west. And what you are talking about is a few safety nets gifted by the capitalists to either make the people more docile or to boost consumption. You are not talking about any real change towards worker's control, no parliament or big labour will give this.

Big money would like nothing better than a radically decentralised democracy and toothless state for exactly the same reason they want small fragmented unions. But big money and the state are the same people, this is what you don't get, it is what Marx understood as did the Anarchists. The moment power is taken away from the real sphere of the people a ruling minority takes over and they are the same people as the corporations.
In a decentralised democracy the people will have actual power.

Give them that and the company towns would be back within a generation. That's why they finance think tanks to fill the internet with "Libertarian" propaganda.They do this for propaganda, they talk free markets and all that but spend the whole time subverting anything like free markets or legitimate property conducive with self-ownership, they get all sorts of support from the state.

This is why Rothbard suggested the publically listed companies be turned over to the workers as they are only outgrowths of the state.

[Canard DuJour]

But it doesn't. Otherwise you could claim exemption from any law or convention whatsoever on the same grounds. I assert the right to crap on your lawn. I'm busting and surely defaecation is a natural right.

- "But you're free to go to the toilet like everyone else," you say "this is my lawn."

- "But that's assuming the very thing under dispute. Circular argument! Circular argument!"

And if I happen to be bigger and stronger than you, you'll be cleaning a lot of shit off your lawn unless you have recourse to some enforcible social convention. That is why people grant authority to democratic consensus. That dissenters can leave is secondary. Consent is not "formed" by the fact you can leave, anymore than voluntary golf