The government versus freedom problem

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't this imply that children (to what exact age is open for debate) does in fact NOT own their own body (or being which i think is a better term).

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Actually, it's the opposite - the fact that the helpless child owns his own body is what obligates the parent to support him. Since the child is helpless, and because the parent is responsible for the child's predicament, the parent *must* care for that child - to do otherwise is to violate the child's self-ownership.

This applies whether the abuse or neglect is invasive or passive, It also applies whether the child was intended or not: if you set fire to a building, you are liable for the lives of those in the building, even if you didn't intend to set the fire. This doesn't mean, however, that those inside no longer have self-ownership.

[r3vbr]

I've read the first two pages of this discussion. Later I'll read the rest but here are my first remarks.

I was a bit troubled upon reading Ed Miller's remarks about the the "propriety rights" system we live in. He states that propriety was obtained illegally and that the poor are being exploited in some way. Also presenting a scenario on a deserted island in wich 1 person gathers all the food an the other does nothing (representing the poor) and is set to starve.

Well, I see it as this way: nowadays, few people generate more wealth than they consume. Almost all our capital/wealth/knowlage is produced by a small protion of the people. This is not because there are few people with oportunities, oportunities are plenty. Especially with freeflow information on the internet. Everyone has access to virtualy all knowlage. But the thing is, few people are born gifted with talent creativity and initiative.

Also, it's not a question of being lazy or not. Many people are dedicated but just have no skill. Therefore they cannot contribute enough to society.

Even the poorest layers of society, they earn almost nothing, but they contribute even less.

The middle class, contributes very little IN RELATION OF WHAT THEY EARN. Think about this a bit.. the middle class lives much better nowadays (health, confort, entertainment) than a King or Nobleman would on the middle ages. Why? because of technological advancements made possible by the brightest of the population. A few geniouses created the cure for most illnesses, the automobile, airplane, internet, etc.

So a poor person can still benefit from most of these things, and his contribution through his own labour is still MUCH less than what he recieves.

Therefore the poor are not so bad off.

Also, if there were no propriety rights, people would have no incentive to work, and overall production of wealth would skew close to zero. Therefore your "utilitarian model" for distribution of wealth is leaving things as it is, enforcing contracts, rights to propriety, the more we do it, the more wealth is generated.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Can't a ... group of people, simply declare their intentions and the beliefs they intend to proceed by without creating a contract?

[/ QUOTE ]

Baby! That is a contract.

That is the most binding contract you'd ever see!

People here, especially those keen on the "libertarianist ideal", make their lives very simple by taking Society our of the equation and solving accordingly. Well, this is fundamentally wrong.

But take comfort, you guys : Even David Sklansky is not immune to that kind of erroneous thinking.

[Ed Miller]

I think you are attributing to me arguments I never made. Really and truly, all I did in this thread was to ask questions. I don't have a viewpoint, agenda, or paradigm to advocate. I merely challenged libertarians to think through their paradigm more thoroughly. To recognize the edge cases. And to see the other side.

I did this because the OP said he wanted to talk about libertarianism. He wanted to understand how to fund the minimal state while respecting absolute property rights. Rand's solution is a state run lottery. To me, that's a less interesting question than some of the others I raised. So I raised those instead.

I know this thread has been thought-provoking to several people. I'm happy. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

(And might I suggest that you think more about the guy that has to live in a 3x3 cage because that's the only property yet unclaimed, and no one will sell him their property or even let him visit. At least I think that idea is interesting.)

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Can't a [person, or] group of people, simply declare their intentions and the beliefs they intend to proceed by without creating a contract?
[ QUOTE ]
Baby! That is a contract.

That is the most binding contract you'd ever see!


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Clearly, if the individuals form a group -- they have contracted among themselves. That wasn't what I said (or what you quoted). I was talking about a declaration. If the individual or group makes a declaration, I see no contract.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
The middle class, contributes very little IN RELATION OF WHAT THEY EARN. Think about this a bit.. the middle class lives much better nowadays (health, confort, entertainment) than a King or Nobleman would on the middle ages. Why? because of technological advancements made possible by the brightest of the population. A few geniouses created the cure for most illnesses, the automobile, airplane, internet, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong. The middle class generates almost all of the wealth.

The middle class of today lives better than the royalty of the middle ages because of productivity increases. Yes, a small number of people made some huge advances here, but a single person can't leverage an invention the way millions can. A single genius might invent an airplane, but he can only fly one airplane at a time.

True "innovation" of brand new ideas is not the only way to create wealth.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
(And might I suggest that you think more about the guy that has to live in a 3x3 cage because that's the only property yet unclaimed, and no one will sell him their property or even let him visit. At least I think that idea is interesting.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Who let him get to the 3x3 plot, if it's surrounded by hostile assholes?

[r3vbr]

I admit I never read anything of Rand (even though I embrace the minimal state ideal)

But I guess I missed the core discussion on this thred wich is how to fund a minimal state. I completely disagree with a state run lottery. How does this lottery guarantee revenues needed? Would this be a monopoly on loteries? prohibiting any competition? How about competition from other kinds of gaming? I mean if people stop buying lottery tickets then there's no funding for the essential minimal state.

The best solution is of course a small tax, so small that nobody would even consider not paying it (like 5% of yearly income). If someone was caught not paying it, they would have to pay a huge sum, enough to discourage them to risk it. They could then make random audits on 1% of the population using minimal resources as possible.

I dont know anything about costs of running a state but i guess 5% of GDP is enough to sustain a small army for defense, police force and justice system, and tax collectors. Of course if someone opted to not use the goverments services and not pay taxes they could do so, but that would be unwise as the cost of having police protection is so small and the benefits so great [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
People here, especially those keen on the "libertarianist ideal", make their lives very simple by taking Society our of the equation and solving accordingly. Well, this is fundamentally wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Society is an abstraction. The concept has uses, but most often it is used as an imaginary "greater good" that individuals must be subjected to.

Libertarians do not "remove" society from the equation - society is not in the equation to start with!

To take your misguided metaphor further, those that put society "into the equation and solve" usually make the same mistake that those that try to add to or subtract from infinity make.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course if someone opted to not use the goverments services and not pay taxes they could do so, but that would be unwise as the cost of having police protection is so small and the benefits so great [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Is your hypothetical government going to give itself a monopoly on protection? If not, why would opting out be unwise when I can go to the market to get competitive protection?