It helps. Sounds much like John Locke -- instead of life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness, it's life, liberty and property. And I'm sure I'd agree with much of what you said. It's still too long for me to read. What can I say. I blog for entertainment. When it starts to feel like work, I bail. And believe me -- it says much more about me than about you.LoveIsTruth wrote:The three principles in question are few lines short, indented, and are in bold. Very easy to spot. Are even made them bigger font for your convenience.KMCopeland wrote:You might have. It's just impossibly long. I think I'd like to know what you're saying, but I don't want to know badly enough to struggle through the whole thing. Could you condense it a little?LoveIsTruth wrote:Ok, I elaborated it, and derives 2nd and third from the 1st.
What do you think? Did I get it right?
The rest is just elaboration about them. Is that better?
Thanks.
The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
-
KMCopeland
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2279
- Location: The American South
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
-
freedomforall
- Gnolaum ∞
- Posts: 16479
- Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY?
Take a Constitution class and learn about the privileges and intent of the Founders.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8A1521C99D6ED8CE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Learn the minds of the Founders by reading the Federalist Papers.
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/outlines/gove ... st-papers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
President Benson, 1987
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... n?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Take a Constitution class and learn about the privileges and intent of the Founders.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8A1521C99D6ED8CE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Learn the minds of the Founders by reading the Federalist Papers.
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/outlines/gove ... st-papers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
President Benson, 1987
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... n?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Last edited by freedomforall on September 18th, 2014, 9:36 pm, edited 5 times in total.
-
LoveIsTruth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5497
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
Call the Anti-Police: Ending the State's "Security" Monopoly
By William Norman Grigg
Pro Libertate Blog
September 17, 2014
“How would things be different,” muses Dale Brown of the Detroit-based Threat Management Center, “if police officers were given financial rewards and commendations for resolving dangerous situations peacefully, rather than for using force in situations where it’s neither justified nor effective?”
Brown’s approach to public safety is “precisely the opposite of what police are trained and expected to do,” says the 44-year-old entrepreneur. The TMC eschews the “prosecutorial philosophy of applied violence” and the officer safety uber alles mindset that characterize government law enforcement agencies. This is because his very successful private security company has an entirely different mission – the protection of persons and property, rather than enforcing the will of the political class. Those contrasting approaches are displayed to great advantage in proto-dystopian Detroit.
“We’ve been hired by three of the most upscale neighborhoods in Detroit to provide 24/7 security services,” Brown proudly informed me during a telephone interview. “People who are well-off are very willing to pay for Lamborghini-quality security services, which means that our profit margin allows us to provide free services to people who are poor, threatened, and desperate for the kind of help the police won’t provide.”“Unlike the police, we don’t respond after a crime has been committed to conduct an investigation and – some of the time, at least – arrest a suspect,” Brown elaborates. “Our approach is based on deterrence and prevention. Where prevention fails, our personnel are trained in a variety of skills – both psychological and physical – to dominate aggressors without killing them.” Police typically define their role in terms of what they are permitted to do to people, rather than what they are required to do for them. Brown’s organization does exactly the reverse, even when dealing with suspected criminals.
To illustrate, Brown refers to an incident from a security patrol in which he encountered a black teenager “who was walking in a neighborhood at about 3:00 a.m. dressed in a black hooded sweatshirt, doing what is sometimes called `the drift’ – it was pretty clear he was up to something.”
Rather than calling the police – who, given their typical four-hour response time, wouldn’t have arrived soon enough to be of any help, as if helping were part of their job description – Brown took action that was both preventive and non-aggressive.
“I told him, `There are criminals here who might rob you, so you’ll get free bodyguard service anytime you’re in the neighborhood,’” Brown related to me. “I also asked for his name and personal information for a `Good person file’ that would clear him with the cops next time he decided to go jogging in a black hoodie a three in the morning. He didn’t have to give me that information, of course, but he told me what I needed to know – and we’ve never seen him there again.”
Brown and his associates take a similar approach to dealing with minor problems that usually result in police citations that clog court dockets and blight the lives of harmless people.
“When we see someone who is drunk or otherwise intoxicated, we offer to take their keys and call their families to get them home,” he reports. “This way we keep them safe from harm – and, just as importantly, protect them from prosecution. Again, everything we do is the opposite of what the police do. If you have a joint in your pocket, the cops will be all over you – but if you’re facing actual danger, they’re nowhere to be found, and aren’t required to help you even if they show up.”
That contrast is most visible in confrontations with potentially dangerous people. Brown’s company receives referrals to provide security for people who face active threats, such as victims of domestic violence. One representative case involved a young mother whose daughter had been abducted by a violent, abusive father with a lengthy criminal history. The child was rescued and reunited with her mother without guns being drawn or anybody being hurt.
For reasons of accountability and what the private sector calls “quality assurance,” Brown and his colleagues recorded that operation, as they document nearly everything else they do. However, they weren’t playing to the cameras. The same can’t be said of the Detroit PD SWAT team that stormed the home of 7-year-old Aiyana Stanley-Jones at midnight in May 2010 while filming the assault for a cable television program.
Officer Joseph Weekley, who burst through the door carrying a ballistic shield and an MP5 submachine gun, shot and killed Aiyana, who had been sleeping on the living room couch. By the time she was killed terrified little girl had already been burned by a flash-bang grenade that had been hurled into the living room.
The home was surrounded with toys and other indicia that children resided therein, and neighbors had pleaded with the police not to carry out the blitzkrieg. The cops did arrest a suspect in a fatal shooting, but he resided in a different section of the same building. In any case, the suspect could have been taken into custody without a telegenic paramilitary assault – if the safety of those on the receiving end of police violence had been factored into the SWAT team’s calculations.
Owing in no small measure to public outrage, Weekly has been charged with involuntary manslaughter and careless discharge of a weapon resulting in death. A jury deadlocked on the charges in July 2013. Weekley now faces a second trial that will produce a conviction only if the prosecution can overcome the presumption that the officer’s use of deadly force was reasonable. This is a function of the entirely spurious, and endlessly destructive, doctrine of “qualified immunity,” which protects police officers from personal liability when their actions result in unjustified harm to the persons or property of innocent people.
The rationale behind qualified immunity is the belief that absent such protection competent and talented people wouldn’t enlist as peace officers. In practice, however, qualified immunity merely emboldens incompetent and vicious police officers.
“Police should be subject to exactly the same laws and liabilities that the rest of us face,” contends Brown. “If we don’t have perfect reciprocity, then police should be held to a higher standard of accountability than the rest of the citizenry. If they commit criminal acts that result in injury or death, police should do double the time that a `civilian’ would face, because they’re supposed to be professionals.”
As private sector professionals, Brown observes, “we have double accountability – first to our clients who pay us, and then to the criminal justice system and civil courts if we do something wrong. And because the police usually see us as competitors, they are very eager to come after us if we screw up. But in all the years we’ve been working, we’ve had no deaths or injuries – either to our clients or to our own people – no criminal charges, and no lawsuits.”
Not only do Brown and his associates operate without the benefit of “qualified immunity,” they are required to expose themselves to physical risk on behalf of their clients – something that police are trained to avoid.
“For police officers, going home at the end of the shift is the highest priority,” Brown observes. “For us it can’t be. When we’re hired to protect a client, his home, his business, his family, we’ve made a choice to put the client’s safety above our own, and to make sure that he or she gets home safely at the end of the day.”
When people seek help from the police, Brown points out, they’re inviting intervention by someone who has no enforceable duty to protect them, but will be rewarded for injuring them or needlessly complicating their lives.
“Let’s examine this logically,” Brown begins. “What is this human being – the police officer – going to get out of becoming involved in your troubles? Will be he rewarded for helping you to solve them, especially if this involves a personal risk? Would solving your problem be worth getting injured or killed?”
“We’re dealing with a basic question of human motivations,” Brown continues. “Police are not required to intervene to protect you – there is a very long list of judicial precedents proving this. They’re actually rewarded for not intervening. Here, once again, I emphasize that Threat Management is not comparable to the police. We follow exactly the opposite approach. People don’t have to work with Threat Management, but if they choose to, that’s what we expect of them.”
Some critics of TMC and other private security firms insist that their personnel cannot match the qualifications and experience of government-employed police officers. That objection wildly overestimates the professional standards that must be met in order for an individual to become a government-licensed purveyor of privileged violence.
“An individual can become a police officer in six months,” Brown points out. “Can you become a doctor or an EMT in six months? Is there any other profession in which employees can become `qualified’ to make life-and-death decisions on behalf of other people after just a few months of training?”
By way of supplementing Brown’s point: In Arkansas, an applicant can become a police officer in a day, and work in that capacity for a year, without professional certification of any kind. However, to become a licensed practicing cosmetologist, an applicant must pass a state board examination and complete 2,000 hours of specialized training. For an investment of 600 hours an applicant can qualify to work as a manicurist or instructor.
While Arkansas strictly regulates those who cut hair or paint nails in private, voluntary transactions, it imposes no training or licensing standards whatsoever on armed people who claim the authority to inflict lethal violence on others. This is not to concede that there is any way one human being can become legitimately “qualified” to commit aggressive violence against another.
“Law enforcement attracts a certain personality type that is prone to narcissism and aggression,” Brown asserts, speaking from decades of experience. “People like that get weeded out from our program very early. We protect innocent people from predators, and we can’t carry out that mission by hiring people who are predatory themselves. Our people receive extensive training in firearms and unarmed combat techniques, but they’re also taught to look at all humans as members of the same family. The question we want them to ask themselves is – in what circumstances would you shoot, or otherwise harm a member of your family? They’re trained to apply that standard in all situations involving a potential use of force. People who can’t think that way aren’t going to fit in with our program.”
Brown emphatically agrees that the phenomenon called “police militarization” is a huge and growing menace, but insists that the core problem is “not the military hardware, or the other trappings of militarization, but the system itself. Police agencies attract the wrong kind of people and then tell them, `You’re like God’ – they get to impose their will on others and use lethal force at their discretion. And when someone who is really golden shows up – that is, an ethical, conscientious person who wants to protect the public – they get redirected into a role that will minimize their influence for good by people who are worried about their own job security.”
“Ideally, the best approach would be to abolish the current system and start over,” Brown concludes. “But the very least we should demand would be total equity and complete accountability – which would mean, as a starting point, doing away with this idea of `qualified immunity.’ Police are citizens, and they should be governed by the same laws that apply to all citizens. No exceptions, no special protections.”
Several studies have shown that there are between three and four times as many private peace officers – such as security guards, armored truck drivers, and private investigators – as sworn law enforcement officers in the United States. That fact demonstrates that the security market is completely unserved by government law enforcement agencies. This shouldn’t be surprising, since – as I have observed before – police agencies serve the interests of those who plunder private property, and thus can’t be expected to protect it.
Police personnel practice aggressive violence from the shelter of “qualified immunity.” The absence of such protection doesn’t deter talented, motivated people such as Dale Brown and his associates – and others providing similar services in Houston, Oakland, and elsewhere — from seeking employment as private security officers who actually accept personal risk to protect property.
Why not abolish qualified immunity for all security personnel? Critics of that proposal might protest that this would undermine the state’s monopoly on the provision of “security” by requiring its employees to compete on equal terms with the private sector. Which is precisely the point.
The Best of William Norman Grigg
William Norman Grigg [ [email protected]]send him mail ] publishes the Pro Libertate blog and hosts the Pro Libertate radio program
Copyright © 2014 William Norman Grigg
Previous article by [email protected]]William Norman Grigg : Cadging Donuts and That’s About It
By William Norman Grigg
Pro Libertate Blog
September 17, 2014
“How would things be different,” muses Dale Brown of the Detroit-based Threat Management Center, “if police officers were given financial rewards and commendations for resolving dangerous situations peacefully, rather than for using force in situations where it’s neither justified nor effective?”
Brown’s approach to public safety is “precisely the opposite of what police are trained and expected to do,” says the 44-year-old entrepreneur. The TMC eschews the “prosecutorial philosophy of applied violence” and the officer safety uber alles mindset that characterize government law enforcement agencies. This is because his very successful private security company has an entirely different mission – the protection of persons and property, rather than enforcing the will of the political class. Those contrasting approaches are displayed to great advantage in proto-dystopian Detroit.
“We’ve been hired by three of the most upscale neighborhoods in Detroit to provide 24/7 security services,” Brown proudly informed me during a telephone interview. “People who are well-off are very willing to pay for Lamborghini-quality security services, which means that our profit margin allows us to provide free services to people who are poor, threatened, and desperate for the kind of help the police won’t provide.”“Unlike the police, we don’t respond after a crime has been committed to conduct an investigation and – some of the time, at least – arrest a suspect,” Brown elaborates. “Our approach is based on deterrence and prevention. Where prevention fails, our personnel are trained in a variety of skills – both psychological and physical – to dominate aggressors without killing them.” Police typically define their role in terms of what they are permitted to do to people, rather than what they are required to do for them. Brown’s organization does exactly the reverse, even when dealing with suspected criminals.
To illustrate, Brown refers to an incident from a security patrol in which he encountered a black teenager “who was walking in a neighborhood at about 3:00 a.m. dressed in a black hooded sweatshirt, doing what is sometimes called `the drift’ – it was pretty clear he was up to something.”
Rather than calling the police – who, given their typical four-hour response time, wouldn’t have arrived soon enough to be of any help, as if helping were part of their job description – Brown took action that was both preventive and non-aggressive.
“I told him, `There are criminals here who might rob you, so you’ll get free bodyguard service anytime you’re in the neighborhood,’” Brown related to me. “I also asked for his name and personal information for a `Good person file’ that would clear him with the cops next time he decided to go jogging in a black hoodie a three in the morning. He didn’t have to give me that information, of course, but he told me what I needed to know – and we’ve never seen him there again.”
Brown and his associates take a similar approach to dealing with minor problems that usually result in police citations that clog court dockets and blight the lives of harmless people.
“When we see someone who is drunk or otherwise intoxicated, we offer to take their keys and call their families to get them home,” he reports. “This way we keep them safe from harm – and, just as importantly, protect them from prosecution. Again, everything we do is the opposite of what the police do. If you have a joint in your pocket, the cops will be all over you – but if you’re facing actual danger, they’re nowhere to be found, and aren’t required to help you even if they show up.”
That contrast is most visible in confrontations with potentially dangerous people. Brown’s company receives referrals to provide security for people who face active threats, such as victims of domestic violence. One representative case involved a young mother whose daughter had been abducted by a violent, abusive father with a lengthy criminal history. The child was rescued and reunited with her mother without guns being drawn or anybody being hurt.
For reasons of accountability and what the private sector calls “quality assurance,” Brown and his colleagues recorded that operation, as they document nearly everything else they do. However, they weren’t playing to the cameras. The same can’t be said of the Detroit PD SWAT team that stormed the home of 7-year-old Aiyana Stanley-Jones at midnight in May 2010 while filming the assault for a cable television program.
Officer Joseph Weekley, who burst through the door carrying a ballistic shield and an MP5 submachine gun, shot and killed Aiyana, who had been sleeping on the living room couch. By the time she was killed terrified little girl had already been burned by a flash-bang grenade that had been hurled into the living room.
The home was surrounded with toys and other indicia that children resided therein, and neighbors had pleaded with the police not to carry out the blitzkrieg. The cops did arrest a suspect in a fatal shooting, but he resided in a different section of the same building. In any case, the suspect could have been taken into custody without a telegenic paramilitary assault – if the safety of those on the receiving end of police violence had been factored into the SWAT team’s calculations.
Owing in no small measure to public outrage, Weekly has been charged with involuntary manslaughter and careless discharge of a weapon resulting in death. A jury deadlocked on the charges in July 2013. Weekley now faces a second trial that will produce a conviction only if the prosecution can overcome the presumption that the officer’s use of deadly force was reasonable. This is a function of the entirely spurious, and endlessly destructive, doctrine of “qualified immunity,” which protects police officers from personal liability when their actions result in unjustified harm to the persons or property of innocent people.
The rationale behind qualified immunity is the belief that absent such protection competent and talented people wouldn’t enlist as peace officers. In practice, however, qualified immunity merely emboldens incompetent and vicious police officers.
“Police should be subject to exactly the same laws and liabilities that the rest of us face,” contends Brown. “If we don’t have perfect reciprocity, then police should be held to a higher standard of accountability than the rest of the citizenry. If they commit criminal acts that result in injury or death, police should do double the time that a `civilian’ would face, because they’re supposed to be professionals.”
As private sector professionals, Brown observes, “we have double accountability – first to our clients who pay us, and then to the criminal justice system and civil courts if we do something wrong. And because the police usually see us as competitors, they are very eager to come after us if we screw up. But in all the years we’ve been working, we’ve had no deaths or injuries – either to our clients or to our own people – no criminal charges, and no lawsuits.”
Not only do Brown and his associates operate without the benefit of “qualified immunity,” they are required to expose themselves to physical risk on behalf of their clients – something that police are trained to avoid.
“For police officers, going home at the end of the shift is the highest priority,” Brown observes. “For us it can’t be. When we’re hired to protect a client, his home, his business, his family, we’ve made a choice to put the client’s safety above our own, and to make sure that he or she gets home safely at the end of the day.”
When people seek help from the police, Brown points out, they’re inviting intervention by someone who has no enforceable duty to protect them, but will be rewarded for injuring them or needlessly complicating their lives.
“Let’s examine this logically,” Brown begins. “What is this human being – the police officer – going to get out of becoming involved in your troubles? Will be he rewarded for helping you to solve them, especially if this involves a personal risk? Would solving your problem be worth getting injured or killed?”
“We’re dealing with a basic question of human motivations,” Brown continues. “Police are not required to intervene to protect you – there is a very long list of judicial precedents proving this. They’re actually rewarded for not intervening. Here, once again, I emphasize that Threat Management is not comparable to the police. We follow exactly the opposite approach. People don’t have to work with Threat Management, but if they choose to, that’s what we expect of them.”
Some critics of TMC and other private security firms insist that their personnel cannot match the qualifications and experience of government-employed police officers. That objection wildly overestimates the professional standards that must be met in order for an individual to become a government-licensed purveyor of privileged violence.
“An individual can become a police officer in six months,” Brown points out. “Can you become a doctor or an EMT in six months? Is there any other profession in which employees can become `qualified’ to make life-and-death decisions on behalf of other people after just a few months of training?”
By way of supplementing Brown’s point: In Arkansas, an applicant can become a police officer in a day, and work in that capacity for a year, without professional certification of any kind. However, to become a licensed practicing cosmetologist, an applicant must pass a state board examination and complete 2,000 hours of specialized training. For an investment of 600 hours an applicant can qualify to work as a manicurist or instructor.
While Arkansas strictly regulates those who cut hair or paint nails in private, voluntary transactions, it imposes no training or licensing standards whatsoever on armed people who claim the authority to inflict lethal violence on others. This is not to concede that there is any way one human being can become legitimately “qualified” to commit aggressive violence against another.
“Law enforcement attracts a certain personality type that is prone to narcissism and aggression,” Brown asserts, speaking from decades of experience. “People like that get weeded out from our program very early. We protect innocent people from predators, and we can’t carry out that mission by hiring people who are predatory themselves. Our people receive extensive training in firearms and unarmed combat techniques, but they’re also taught to look at all humans as members of the same family. The question we want them to ask themselves is – in what circumstances would you shoot, or otherwise harm a member of your family? They’re trained to apply that standard in all situations involving a potential use of force. People who can’t think that way aren’t going to fit in with our program.”
Brown emphatically agrees that the phenomenon called “police militarization” is a huge and growing menace, but insists that the core problem is “not the military hardware, or the other trappings of militarization, but the system itself. Police agencies attract the wrong kind of people and then tell them, `You’re like God’ – they get to impose their will on others and use lethal force at their discretion. And when someone who is really golden shows up – that is, an ethical, conscientious person who wants to protect the public – they get redirected into a role that will minimize their influence for good by people who are worried about their own job security.”
“Ideally, the best approach would be to abolish the current system and start over,” Brown concludes. “But the very least we should demand would be total equity and complete accountability – which would mean, as a starting point, doing away with this idea of `qualified immunity.’ Police are citizens, and they should be governed by the same laws that apply to all citizens. No exceptions, no special protections.”
Several studies have shown that there are between three and four times as many private peace officers – such as security guards, armored truck drivers, and private investigators – as sworn law enforcement officers in the United States. That fact demonstrates that the security market is completely unserved by government law enforcement agencies. This shouldn’t be surprising, since – as I have observed before – police agencies serve the interests of those who plunder private property, and thus can’t be expected to protect it.
Police personnel practice aggressive violence from the shelter of “qualified immunity.” The absence of such protection doesn’t deter talented, motivated people such as Dale Brown and his associates – and others providing similar services in Houston, Oakland, and elsewhere — from seeking employment as private security officers who actually accept personal risk to protect property.
Why not abolish qualified immunity for all security personnel? Critics of that proposal might protest that this would undermine the state’s monopoly on the provision of “security” by requiring its employees to compete on equal terms with the private sector. Which is precisely the point.
The Best of William Norman Grigg
William Norman Grigg [ [email protected]]send him mail ] publishes the Pro Libertate blog and hosts the Pro Libertate radio program
Copyright © 2014 William Norman Grigg
Previous article by [email protected]]William Norman Grigg : Cadging Donuts and That’s About It
-
ChantDownBabylonNWO
- captain of 10
- Posts: 42
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
I totally agree. I think that D&C 101 has a lot of answers as far as the timeline of Zion being build, but its obvious that the watchtower was never finished as the Secret Combinations are now above us.Original_Intent wrote:I've mulled over these very concerns myself - no answers. At least not until the Lord comes OR Zion is established. And I don;t see how Zion can be established without the lord coming, as even if it were run by the church, we already have people questioning how tithing funds are spent, I can;t imagine the fuss that would be raised in a consecration society run by men, even if they were the best men on earth. There would be so much envy, strife and whining that no work could be done.Thomas wrote:One problem I see here is when one person or small group claims the right to a large percentage or all of the property. It's pretty much the situation we had in the dark ages. That's where we get the term "landlord". We saw this in midevil Japan as well as Europe. Most of the population were peasants working as slaves for the small minority landlords. The Industrial Revolution helped bring about change in this system, moving large groups of peasants into the cities to work in factories. It's easy to forget that, Communism is a relativly new concept on this planet and was conceived as a solution to the slavery of feudalism. Public property is a relativley new concept on this planet. Even to this day, the Monachy of England owns vast tracts of land and roads.
I am not sure what the answer is but a return to feudalism is not the way to go. America has long been a mix of socalism and capitlism. We benefit greatly from public roads,sewers, waters systems, etc.. I know many conservatives want to privatize everything. That would return us to feudalism. We hear a lot about the dangers of communism but I see us moving more in the direction of corporate feudulism with the corporations grabbing up all resources. The distribution of wealth in this country bears that out with an ever shrinking middle class and the top one percent owning almost half of all wealth now.Ten years ago it was around thirty percent. There has to be a way to allow all people an opportunity to make use of the resources God gave to us all, without resorting to the tryranny of communism or feudalism.
I believe a lot will have to do with the remnant and the collapse of the currency will humble a lot of people, especially those who think they "own their homes" haha Yea Mortgage has never ever been ownership, of course the Bankster Gadiantons are cunning but we should have known better! Collapse of the standard of living in the this country will be a great thing and a step toward people allowing themselves to live the law of consecration. Check out D&C 49:8 and Roman 11:4 - 7000 Hidden righteous who have not worshipped Baal (Money) I know I have. The humbling will be vital and the example of the Remnant (seed of Lehi) will help us Babylonians, of course many will just keep chasing that paper fiat!
-
freedomforall
- Gnolaum ∞
- Posts: 16479
- Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
Actually, even after a person pays off their home...they do not own the property it sits on. One has to acquire an Allodial Title at purchase in order to own one's property. Otherwise, we all pay rent, called taxes, to a landlord called the government. Hardly anyone owns their property. And most people know nothing of allodial title.ChantDownBabylonNWO wrote:especially those who think they "own their homes" haha Yea Mortgage has never ever been ownership
For anyone wanting to understand this watch part one: https://archive.org/details/Michael_Badnarik" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
See: http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/allodial-title/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Allodial title is a real property ownership system where the real property is owed free and clear of any superior landlord. In this case, the owner will have an absolute title over his or her property. Property owned under allodial title is referred as allodial land. Allodial lands are the absolute property of their owner, and are not subject to any service or acknowledgment to a superior. In allodial lands there will not be any control by a superior landlord.
An individual’s allodial title is alienable in nature. Alienation can be done in the form of gift, mortgage or it may be distressed and restrained for collection of taxes. The allodial nature of a property will be lost when the property is transferred to more than one person. Therefore, to retain the allodial title s/he can transfer his or her property to another single individual.
For example, when an owner of a property dies leaving ownership to more than one heir, the allodial status of the property is lost.
The following is an example of a case defining allodial title:
Allodial title is defined as one that is free. [Stewart v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 151 Ill. App. 3d 888 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987)]
-
Ezra
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4357
- Location: Not telling
-
freedomforall
- Gnolaum ∞
- Posts: 16479
- Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
From WikipediaEzra wrote:How do you acquire and Allodial title?
Allodial title is a concept in some systems of property law. It describes a situation where real property (land, buildings and fixtures) is owned free and clear of any encumbrances, including liens, mortgages and tax obligations. Allodial title is inalienable, in that it cannot be taken by any operation of law for any reason whatsoever.
I suppose that if a person owns land outright from years ago and it has no liens or tax obligations and the like, it can be given or sold to a successor under allodial title. Otherwise, a title like this is mighty rare.
-
Ezra
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4357
- Location: Not telling
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
I've been doing some studying it's possible but not an easy process to get one. But it requires paying off the share of gov. Debt that the government has attatch to the property. Or an attempt to pay. The writer also says you can sue the title company for not disclosing this debt when you buy the property.
Sounds like a big pain but possible. And once in place no taxation.
Sounds like a big pain but possible. And once in place no taxation.
-
freedomforall
- Gnolaum ∞
- Posts: 16479
- Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
So are you going to give it a whirl?Ezra wrote:I've been doing some studying it's possible but not an easy process to get one. But it requires paying off the share of gov. Debt that the government has attatch to the property. Or an attempt to pay. The writer also says you can sue the title company for not disclosing this debt when you buy the property.
Sounds like a big pain but possible. And once in place no taxation.
-
LoveIsTruth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5497
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
Hans Hoppe is being devastatingly brilliant, as always!
"All men are created equal" only in one way, that is they are ultimately equal before the demands of justice, and therefore are equally obligated not to commit aggression against anyone's property. That's all.
A Realistic Libertarianism
By Hans-Hermann Hoppe
September 30, 2014
If there were no scarcity in the world, human conflicts would be impossible. Interpersonal conflicts are always and everywhere conflicts concerning scarce things. I want to do X with a given thing and you want to do Y with the same thing.
Because of such conflicts – and because we are able to communicate and argue with each other – we seek out norms of behavior with the purpose of avoiding these conflicts. The purpose of norms is conflict-avoidance. If we did not want to avoid conflicts, the search for norms of conduct would be senseless. We would simply fight and struggle.
Absent a perfect harmony of all interests, conflicts regarding scarce resources can only be avoided if all scarce resources are assigned as private, exclusive property to some specified individual. Only then can I act independently, with my own things, from you, with your own things, without you and me coming into conflict.
But who owns what scarce resource as his private property and who does not? First: Each person owns his physical body that only he and no one else controls directly (I can control your body only in-directly, by first directly controlling my body, and vice versa) and that only he directly controls also in particular when discussing and arguing the question at hand. Otherwise, if body-ownership were assigned to some indirect body-controller, conflict would become unavoidable as the direct body-controller cannot give up his direct control over his body as long as he is alive; and in particular, otherwise it would be impossible that any two persons, as the contenders in any property dispute, could ever argue and debate the question whose will is to prevail, since arguing and debating presupposes that both, the proponent and the opponent, have exclusive control over their respective bodies and so come to the correct judgment on their own, without a fight (in a conflict-free form of interaction).
And second, as for scarce resources that can be controlled only indirectly (that must be appropriated with our own nature-given, i.e., un-appropriated, body): Exclusive control (property) is acquired by and assigned to that person, who appropriated the resource in question first or who acquired it through voluntary (conflict-free) exchange from its previous owner. For only the first appropriator of a resource (and all later owners connected to him through a chain of voluntary exchanges) can possibly acquire and gain control over it without conflict, i.e., peacefully. Otherwise, if exclusive control is assigned instead to latecomers, conflict is not avoided but contrary to the very purpose of norms made unavoidable and permanent.
Let me emphasize that I consider this theory as essentially irrefutable, as a priori true. In my estimation this theory represents one of the greatest – if not the greatest – achievement of social thought. It formulates and codifies the immutable ground rules for all people, everywhere, who wish to live together in peace.
And yet: This theory does not tell us very much about real life. To be sure, it tells us that all actual societies, insofar as they are characterized by peaceful relations, adhere, whether consciously or subconsciously, to these rules and are thus guided by rational insight. But it does not tell us to what extent this is the case. Nor does it tell us, even if adherence to these rules were complete, how people actually live together. It does not tell us how close or distant from each other they live, if, when, how frequent and long, and for what purposes they meet and interact, etc.. To use an analogy here: Knowing libertarian theory – the rules of peaceful interactions – is like knowing the rules of logic – the rules of correct thinking and reasoning. However, just like the knowledge of logic, as indispensible as it is for correct thinking, does not tell us anything about actual human thought, about actual words, concepts, arguments, inferences and conclusions used and made, so the logic of peaceful interaction (libertarianism) does not tell us anything about actual human life and action. Hence: just as every logician who wants to make good use of his knowledge must turn his attention to real thought and reasoning, so a libertarian theorist must turn his attention to the actions of real people. Instead of being a mere theorist, he must also become a sociologist and psychologist and take account of “empirical” social reality, i.e., the world as it really is.
This brings me to the topic of “Left” and “Right.”
The difference between the Right and the Left, as Paul Gottfried has often noted, is a fundamental disagreement concerning an empirical question. The Right recognizes, as a matter of fact, the existence of individual human differences and diversities and accepts them as natural, whereas the Left denies the existence of such differences and diversities or tries to explain them away and in any case regards them as something unnatural that must be rectified to establish a natural state of human equality.
The Right recognizes the existence of individual human differences not just with regard to the physical location and make-up of the human environment and of the individual human body (its height, strength, weight, age, gender, skin- hair- or eye-color, facial features, etc., etc.). More importantly, the Right also recognizes the existence of differences in the mental make-up of people, i.e., in their cognitive abilities, talents, psychological dispositions, and motivations. It recognizes the existence of bright and dull, smart and dumb, short- and far-sighted, busy and lazy, aggressive and peaceful, docile and inventive, impulsive and patient, scrupulous and careless people, etc., etc.. The Right recognizes that these mental differences, resulting from the interaction of the physical environment and the physical human body, are the results of both environmental and physiological and biological factors. The Right further recognizes that people are tied together (or separated) both physically in geographical space and emotionally by blood (biological commonalities and relationships), by language and religion, as well as by customs and traditions. Moreover, the Right not merely recognizes the existence of these differences and diversities. It realizes also that the outcome of input-differences will again be different and result in people with much or little property, in rich and poor, and in people of high or low social status, rank, influence or authority. And it accepts these different outcomes of different inputs as normal and natural.
The Left on the other hand is convinced of the fundamental equality of man, that all men are “created equal.” It does not deny the patently obvious, of course: that there are environmental and physiological differences, i.e., that some people live in the mountains and others on the seaside, or that some men are tall and others short, some white and others black, some male and others female, etc.. But the Left does deny the existence of mental differences or, insofar as these are too apparent to be entirely denied, it tries to explain them away as “accidental.” That is, the Left either explains such differences as solely environmentally determined, such that a change in environmental circumstances (moving a person from the mountains to the seaside and vice versa, for instance, or giving each person identical pre- and post-natal attention) would produce an equal outcome, and it denies that these differences are caused (also) by some – comparatively intractable – biological factors. Or else, in those cases where it cannot be denied that biological factors play a causal role in determining success or failure in life (money and fame), such as when a 5 foot tall man cannot win an Olympic gold medal in the 100 meter dash or a fat and ugly girl cannot become Miss Universe, the Left considers these differences as pure luck and the resulting outcome of individual success or failure as undeserved. In any case, whether caused by advantageous or disadvantageous environmental circumstances or biological attributes, all observable individual human differences are to be equalized. And where this cannot be done literally, as we cannot move mountains and seas or make a tall man short or a black man white, the Left insists that the undeservedly “lucky” must compensate the “unlucky” so that every person will be accorded an “equal station in life,” in correspondence with the natural equality of all men.
With this short characterization of the Right and the Left I return to the subject of libertarianism. Is libertarian theory compatible with the world-view of the Right? And: Is libertarianism compatible with leftist views?
As for the Right, the answer is an emphatic “yes.” Every libertarian only vaguely familiar with social reality will have no difficulty acknowledging the fundamental truth of the Rightist world-view. He can, and in light of the empirical evidence indeed must agree with the Right’s empirical claim regarding the fundamental not only physical but also mental in-equality of man; and he can in particular also agree with the Right’s normative claim of “laissez faire,” i.e., that this natural human inequality will inevitably result also in un-equal outcomes and that nothing can or should be done about this.
There is only one important caveat, however. While the Right may accept all human inequalities, whether of starting-points or of outcomes, as natural, the libertarian would insist that only those inequalities are natural and should not be interfered with that have come into existence by following the ground-rules of peaceful human interaction mentioned at the beginning. Inequalities that are the result of violations of these rules, however, do require corrective action and should be eliminated. And moreover, the libertarian would insist that, as a matter of empirical fact, there exist quite a few among the innumerable observable human inequalities that are the result of such rule-violations, such as rich men who owe their fortune not to hard work, foresight, entrepreneurial talent or else a voluntary gift or inheritance, but to robbery, fraud or state-granted monopolistic privilege. The corrective action required in such cases, however, is not motivated by egalitarianism but by a desire for restitution: he (and only he), who can show that he has been robbed, defrauded or legally disadvantaged should be made whole again by those (and only those) who have committed these crimes against him and his property, including also cases where restitution would result in an even greater inequality (as when a poor man had defrauded and owed restitution to a rich one).
On the other hand: As for the Left, the answer is an equally emphatic “no.” The empirical claim of the Left, that there exist no significant mental differences between individuals and, by implication, between various groups of people, and that what appear to be such differences are due solely to environmental factors and would disappear if only the environment were equalized is contradicted by all everyday-life experience and mountains of empirical social research. Men are not and cannot be made equal, and whatever one tries in this regard, inequalities will always re-emerge. However, it is in particular the implied normative claim and activist agenda of the Left that makes it incompatible with libertarianism. The leftist goal of equalizing everyone or equalizing everyone’s “station in life” is incompatible with private property, whether in one’s body or in external things. Instead of peaceful cooperation, it brings about unending conflict and leads to the decidedly un-egalitarian establishment of a permanent ruling-class lording it over the rest of the people as their “material” to be equalized. “Since,” as Murray Rothbard has formulated it, “no two people are uniform or ‘equal’ in any sense in nature, or in the outcomes of a voluntary society, to bring about and maintain such equality necessarily requires the permanent imposition of a power elite armed with devastating coercive power.”[1]
There exist countless individual human differences; and there exist even more differences between different groups of individuals, since each individual can be fit into countless different groups. It is the power-elite that determines which of these differences, whether of individuals or of groups, is to count as advantageous and lucky or disadvantageous and unlucky (or else as irrelevant). It is the power elite that determines how – out of countless possible ways – to actually do the “equalizing” of the lucky and the unlucky, i.e., what and how much to “take” from the lucky and “give” to the unlucky to achieve equality. In particular, it is the power elite, by defining itself as unlucky, that determines what and how much to take from the lucky and keep for itself. And whatever equalization is then achieved: Since countless new differences and inequalities are constantly re-emerging, the equalizing-job of the power elite can never ever come to a natural end but must instead go on forever, endlessly.
The egalitarian world-view of the Left is not only incompatible with libertarianism, however. It is so out of touch with reality that one must be wondering how anyone can take it seriously. The man-on-the-street certainly does not believe in the equality of all men. Plain common sense and sound prejudice stand in the way of that. And I am even more confident that no one of the actual proponents of the egalitarian doctrine really, deep down, believes what he proclaims. Yet how, then, could the Leftist world-view have become the dominant ideology of our age?
At least for a libertarian, the answer should be obvious: the egalitarian doctrine achieved this status not because it is true, but because it provides the perfect intellectual cover for the drive toward totalitarian social control by a ruling elite. The ruling elite therefore enlisted the help of the “intelligentsia” (or the “chattering class”). It was put on the payroll or otherwise subsidized and in return it delivered the desired egalitarian message (which it knows to be wrong yet which is enormously beneficial to its own employment prospects). And so the most enthusiastic proponents of the egalitarian nonsense can be found among the intellectual class.[2]
Given, then, that libertarianism and the egalitarianism professed by the Left are obviously incompatible, it must come as a surprise – and it is testimony to the immense ideological powers of the ruling elites and their court intellectuals – that many who call themselves libertarian today are, and consider themselves to be, part of the Left. How is such a thing possible?
What ideologically unifies these left-libertarians is their active promotion of various “anti-discrimination” policies and their advocacy of a policy of “free and non-discriminatory” immigration. [3]
These “libertarians,” noted Rothbard, “are fervently committed to the notion that, while each individual might not be ‘equal’ to every other, that every conceivable group, ethnic contingent, race, gender, or, in some cases, species, are in fact and must be made ‘equal,’ that each one has ‘rights’ that must not be subject to curtailment by any form of ‘discrimination.’ “ [4]
But how is it possible to reconcile this anti-discrimination stand with private property, which all libertarians are supposed to regard as the cornerstone of their philosophy, and which, after all, means exclusive property and hence, logically implies discrimination?
Traditional leftists, of course, do not have this problem. They do not think or care about private property. Since everyone is equal to everyone else, the world and everything on and in it belongs to everyone equally – all property is “common” property – and as an equal co-owner of the world everyone has of course an equal “right to access” to everywhere and everything. Absent a perfect harmony of all interests, however, you cannot have everyone have equal property and equal access to everything and everywhere without leading to permanent conflict. Thus, to avoid this predicament, it is necessary to institute a State, i.e., a territorial monopolist of ultimate decision-making. “Common property,” that is, requires a State and is to become “State property.” It is the State that ultimately determines not just who owns what; and it is also the State, then, that ultimately determines the spatial allocation of all people: who is to live where and allowed to meet and have access to whom – and private property be damned. After all, it is they, the Lefties, who would control the State.
Read the rest of this brilliant article here.
"All men are created equal" only in one way, that is they are ultimately equal before the demands of justice, and therefore are equally obligated not to commit aggression against anyone's property. That's all.
A Realistic Libertarianism
By Hans-Hermann Hoppe
September 30, 2014
- “Libertarianism is logically consistent with almost any attitude toward culture, society, religion, or moral principle. In strict logic, libertarian political doctrine can be severed from all other considerations; logically one can be – and indeed most libertarians in fact are: hedonists, libertines, immoralists, militant enemies of religion in general and Christianity in particular – and still be consistent adherents of libertarian politics. In fact, in strict logic, one can be a consistent devotee of property rights politically and be a moocher, a scamster, and a petty crook and racketeer in practice, as all too many libertarians turn out to be. Strictly logically, one can do these things, but psychologically, sociologically, and in practice, it simply doesn’t work that way.” [my emphasis, HHH]
- Murray Rothbard, “Big-Government Libertarians,” in: L. Rockwell, ed., The Irrepressible Rothbard, Auburn, Al: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2000, p. 101
If there were no scarcity in the world, human conflicts would be impossible. Interpersonal conflicts are always and everywhere conflicts concerning scarce things. I want to do X with a given thing and you want to do Y with the same thing.
Because of such conflicts – and because we are able to communicate and argue with each other – we seek out norms of behavior with the purpose of avoiding these conflicts. The purpose of norms is conflict-avoidance. If we did not want to avoid conflicts, the search for norms of conduct would be senseless. We would simply fight and struggle.
Absent a perfect harmony of all interests, conflicts regarding scarce resources can only be avoided if all scarce resources are assigned as private, exclusive property to some specified individual. Only then can I act independently, with my own things, from you, with your own things, without you and me coming into conflict.
But who owns what scarce resource as his private property and who does not? First: Each person owns his physical body that only he and no one else controls directly (I can control your body only in-directly, by first directly controlling my body, and vice versa) and that only he directly controls also in particular when discussing and arguing the question at hand. Otherwise, if body-ownership were assigned to some indirect body-controller, conflict would become unavoidable as the direct body-controller cannot give up his direct control over his body as long as he is alive; and in particular, otherwise it would be impossible that any two persons, as the contenders in any property dispute, could ever argue and debate the question whose will is to prevail, since arguing and debating presupposes that both, the proponent and the opponent, have exclusive control over their respective bodies and so come to the correct judgment on their own, without a fight (in a conflict-free form of interaction).
And second, as for scarce resources that can be controlled only indirectly (that must be appropriated with our own nature-given, i.e., un-appropriated, body): Exclusive control (property) is acquired by and assigned to that person, who appropriated the resource in question first or who acquired it through voluntary (conflict-free) exchange from its previous owner. For only the first appropriator of a resource (and all later owners connected to him through a chain of voluntary exchanges) can possibly acquire and gain control over it without conflict, i.e., peacefully. Otherwise, if exclusive control is assigned instead to latecomers, conflict is not avoided but contrary to the very purpose of norms made unavoidable and permanent.
Let me emphasize that I consider this theory as essentially irrefutable, as a priori true. In my estimation this theory represents one of the greatest – if not the greatest – achievement of social thought. It formulates and codifies the immutable ground rules for all people, everywhere, who wish to live together in peace.
And yet: This theory does not tell us very much about real life. To be sure, it tells us that all actual societies, insofar as they are characterized by peaceful relations, adhere, whether consciously or subconsciously, to these rules and are thus guided by rational insight. But it does not tell us to what extent this is the case. Nor does it tell us, even if adherence to these rules were complete, how people actually live together. It does not tell us how close or distant from each other they live, if, when, how frequent and long, and for what purposes they meet and interact, etc.. To use an analogy here: Knowing libertarian theory – the rules of peaceful interactions – is like knowing the rules of logic – the rules of correct thinking and reasoning. However, just like the knowledge of logic, as indispensible as it is for correct thinking, does not tell us anything about actual human thought, about actual words, concepts, arguments, inferences and conclusions used and made, so the logic of peaceful interaction (libertarianism) does not tell us anything about actual human life and action. Hence: just as every logician who wants to make good use of his knowledge must turn his attention to real thought and reasoning, so a libertarian theorist must turn his attention to the actions of real people. Instead of being a mere theorist, he must also become a sociologist and psychologist and take account of “empirical” social reality, i.e., the world as it really is.
This brings me to the topic of “Left” and “Right.”
The difference between the Right and the Left, as Paul Gottfried has often noted, is a fundamental disagreement concerning an empirical question. The Right recognizes, as a matter of fact, the existence of individual human differences and diversities and accepts them as natural, whereas the Left denies the existence of such differences and diversities or tries to explain them away and in any case regards them as something unnatural that must be rectified to establish a natural state of human equality.
The Right recognizes the existence of individual human differences not just with regard to the physical location and make-up of the human environment and of the individual human body (its height, strength, weight, age, gender, skin- hair- or eye-color, facial features, etc., etc.). More importantly, the Right also recognizes the existence of differences in the mental make-up of people, i.e., in their cognitive abilities, talents, psychological dispositions, and motivations. It recognizes the existence of bright and dull, smart and dumb, short- and far-sighted, busy and lazy, aggressive and peaceful, docile and inventive, impulsive and patient, scrupulous and careless people, etc., etc.. The Right recognizes that these mental differences, resulting from the interaction of the physical environment and the physical human body, are the results of both environmental and physiological and biological factors. The Right further recognizes that people are tied together (or separated) both physically in geographical space and emotionally by blood (biological commonalities and relationships), by language and religion, as well as by customs and traditions. Moreover, the Right not merely recognizes the existence of these differences and diversities. It realizes also that the outcome of input-differences will again be different and result in people with much or little property, in rich and poor, and in people of high or low social status, rank, influence or authority. And it accepts these different outcomes of different inputs as normal and natural.
The Left on the other hand is convinced of the fundamental equality of man, that all men are “created equal.” It does not deny the patently obvious, of course: that there are environmental and physiological differences, i.e., that some people live in the mountains and others on the seaside, or that some men are tall and others short, some white and others black, some male and others female, etc.. But the Left does deny the existence of mental differences or, insofar as these are too apparent to be entirely denied, it tries to explain them away as “accidental.” That is, the Left either explains such differences as solely environmentally determined, such that a change in environmental circumstances (moving a person from the mountains to the seaside and vice versa, for instance, or giving each person identical pre- and post-natal attention) would produce an equal outcome, and it denies that these differences are caused (also) by some – comparatively intractable – biological factors. Or else, in those cases where it cannot be denied that biological factors play a causal role in determining success or failure in life (money and fame), such as when a 5 foot tall man cannot win an Olympic gold medal in the 100 meter dash or a fat and ugly girl cannot become Miss Universe, the Left considers these differences as pure luck and the resulting outcome of individual success or failure as undeserved. In any case, whether caused by advantageous or disadvantageous environmental circumstances or biological attributes, all observable individual human differences are to be equalized. And where this cannot be done literally, as we cannot move mountains and seas or make a tall man short or a black man white, the Left insists that the undeservedly “lucky” must compensate the “unlucky” so that every person will be accorded an “equal station in life,” in correspondence with the natural equality of all men.
With this short characterization of the Right and the Left I return to the subject of libertarianism. Is libertarian theory compatible with the world-view of the Right? And: Is libertarianism compatible with leftist views?
As for the Right, the answer is an emphatic “yes.” Every libertarian only vaguely familiar with social reality will have no difficulty acknowledging the fundamental truth of the Rightist world-view. He can, and in light of the empirical evidence indeed must agree with the Right’s empirical claim regarding the fundamental not only physical but also mental in-equality of man; and he can in particular also agree with the Right’s normative claim of “laissez faire,” i.e., that this natural human inequality will inevitably result also in un-equal outcomes and that nothing can or should be done about this.
There is only one important caveat, however. While the Right may accept all human inequalities, whether of starting-points or of outcomes, as natural, the libertarian would insist that only those inequalities are natural and should not be interfered with that have come into existence by following the ground-rules of peaceful human interaction mentioned at the beginning. Inequalities that are the result of violations of these rules, however, do require corrective action and should be eliminated. And moreover, the libertarian would insist that, as a matter of empirical fact, there exist quite a few among the innumerable observable human inequalities that are the result of such rule-violations, such as rich men who owe their fortune not to hard work, foresight, entrepreneurial talent or else a voluntary gift or inheritance, but to robbery, fraud or state-granted monopolistic privilege. The corrective action required in such cases, however, is not motivated by egalitarianism but by a desire for restitution: he (and only he), who can show that he has been robbed, defrauded or legally disadvantaged should be made whole again by those (and only those) who have committed these crimes against him and his property, including also cases where restitution would result in an even greater inequality (as when a poor man had defrauded and owed restitution to a rich one).
On the other hand: As for the Left, the answer is an equally emphatic “no.” The empirical claim of the Left, that there exist no significant mental differences between individuals and, by implication, between various groups of people, and that what appear to be such differences are due solely to environmental factors and would disappear if only the environment were equalized is contradicted by all everyday-life experience and mountains of empirical social research. Men are not and cannot be made equal, and whatever one tries in this regard, inequalities will always re-emerge. However, it is in particular the implied normative claim and activist agenda of the Left that makes it incompatible with libertarianism. The leftist goal of equalizing everyone or equalizing everyone’s “station in life” is incompatible with private property, whether in one’s body or in external things. Instead of peaceful cooperation, it brings about unending conflict and leads to the decidedly un-egalitarian establishment of a permanent ruling-class lording it over the rest of the people as their “material” to be equalized. “Since,” as Murray Rothbard has formulated it, “no two people are uniform or ‘equal’ in any sense in nature, or in the outcomes of a voluntary society, to bring about and maintain such equality necessarily requires the permanent imposition of a power elite armed with devastating coercive power.”[1]
There exist countless individual human differences; and there exist even more differences between different groups of individuals, since each individual can be fit into countless different groups. It is the power-elite that determines which of these differences, whether of individuals or of groups, is to count as advantageous and lucky or disadvantageous and unlucky (or else as irrelevant). It is the power elite that determines how – out of countless possible ways – to actually do the “equalizing” of the lucky and the unlucky, i.e., what and how much to “take” from the lucky and “give” to the unlucky to achieve equality. In particular, it is the power elite, by defining itself as unlucky, that determines what and how much to take from the lucky and keep for itself. And whatever equalization is then achieved: Since countless new differences and inequalities are constantly re-emerging, the equalizing-job of the power elite can never ever come to a natural end but must instead go on forever, endlessly.
The egalitarian world-view of the Left is not only incompatible with libertarianism, however. It is so out of touch with reality that one must be wondering how anyone can take it seriously. The man-on-the-street certainly does not believe in the equality of all men. Plain common sense and sound prejudice stand in the way of that. And I am even more confident that no one of the actual proponents of the egalitarian doctrine really, deep down, believes what he proclaims. Yet how, then, could the Leftist world-view have become the dominant ideology of our age?
At least for a libertarian, the answer should be obvious: the egalitarian doctrine achieved this status not because it is true, but because it provides the perfect intellectual cover for the drive toward totalitarian social control by a ruling elite. The ruling elite therefore enlisted the help of the “intelligentsia” (or the “chattering class”). It was put on the payroll or otherwise subsidized and in return it delivered the desired egalitarian message (which it knows to be wrong yet which is enormously beneficial to its own employment prospects). And so the most enthusiastic proponents of the egalitarian nonsense can be found among the intellectual class.[2]
Given, then, that libertarianism and the egalitarianism professed by the Left are obviously incompatible, it must come as a surprise – and it is testimony to the immense ideological powers of the ruling elites and their court intellectuals – that many who call themselves libertarian today are, and consider themselves to be, part of the Left. How is such a thing possible?
What ideologically unifies these left-libertarians is their active promotion of various “anti-discrimination” policies and their advocacy of a policy of “free and non-discriminatory” immigration. [3]
These “libertarians,” noted Rothbard, “are fervently committed to the notion that, while each individual might not be ‘equal’ to every other, that every conceivable group, ethnic contingent, race, gender, or, in some cases, species, are in fact and must be made ‘equal,’ that each one has ‘rights’ that must not be subject to curtailment by any form of ‘discrimination.’ “ [4]
But how is it possible to reconcile this anti-discrimination stand with private property, which all libertarians are supposed to regard as the cornerstone of their philosophy, and which, after all, means exclusive property and hence, logically implies discrimination?
Traditional leftists, of course, do not have this problem. They do not think or care about private property. Since everyone is equal to everyone else, the world and everything on and in it belongs to everyone equally – all property is “common” property – and as an equal co-owner of the world everyone has of course an equal “right to access” to everywhere and everything. Absent a perfect harmony of all interests, however, you cannot have everyone have equal property and equal access to everything and everywhere without leading to permanent conflict. Thus, to avoid this predicament, it is necessary to institute a State, i.e., a territorial monopolist of ultimate decision-making. “Common property,” that is, requires a State and is to become “State property.” It is the State that ultimately determines not just who owns what; and it is also the State, then, that ultimately determines the spatial allocation of all people: who is to live where and allowed to meet and have access to whom – and private property be damned. After all, it is they, the Lefties, who would control the State.
Read the rest of this brilliant article here.
-
LoveIsTruth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5497
-
LoveIsTruth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5497
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
Reality check on the New World Order - Foster Gamble (part 1)
-
LoveIsTruth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5497
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
I love his emphasis on love, spirituality, and peaceful voluntary cooperation. These are divine principles...
Again, the machinery of this positive transformation is:
What would it take for us to thrive ? Solutions - Foster Gamble
Again, the machinery of this positive transformation is:
- 1) Truth. Love.
2) Non-aggression.
3) Voluntary creative cooperation.
What would it take for us to thrive ? Solutions - Foster Gamble
-
LoveIsTruth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5497
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
"II. Secession
To wit, and mainly, Cosh denies that libertarianism has anything to say about the optimal size of countries in general, and, in particular, nothing about whether or not Scotland should have seceded from Great Britain. Not so, not so. For the anarcho-capitalist libertarian, the ideal size of each nation is one; that is, if there are seven billion people on the planet, there should be exactly that number of political jurisdictions, one to a customer. We should each have our own country. We should all of us be sovereign over ourselves." -- Walter E. Block
Read more here.
To wit, and mainly, Cosh denies that libertarianism has anything to say about the optimal size of countries in general, and, in particular, nothing about whether or not Scotland should have seceded from Great Britain. Not so, not so. For the anarcho-capitalist libertarian, the ideal size of each nation is one; that is, if there are seven billion people on the planet, there should be exactly that number of political jurisdictions, one to a customer. We should each have our own country. We should all of us be sovereign over ourselves." -- Walter E. Block
Read more here.
-
LoveIsTruth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5497
-
LoveIsTruth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5497
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
Society Without the [plunder] State
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFq6dtO9ZUw#t=550
Recorded at the Mises Circle in Costa Mesa, California, 8 November 2014.
Featuring Ron Paul, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, Lew Rockwell, Jeff Deist, and David Gordon. Enjoy this lively discussion as they answer audience questions on topics of a stateless society, such as private defense,homeschooling, privately produced money, the role of markets, and how stateless legal systems would work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFq6dtO9ZUw#t=550
Recorded at the Mises Circle in Costa Mesa, California, 8 November 2014.
Featuring Ron Paul, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, Lew Rockwell, Jeff Deist, and David Gordon. Enjoy this lively discussion as they answer audience questions on topics of a stateless society, such as private defense,homeschooling, privately produced money, the role of markets, and how stateless legal systems would work.
-
LoveIsTruth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5497
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
All I Want for Christmas is a (Real) Government Shutdown
By Ron Paul
Ron Paul Institute
December 16, 2014
The political class breathed a sigh of relief Saturday when the US Senate averted a government shutdown by passing the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill. This year’s omnibus resembles omnibuses of Christmas past in that it was drafted in secret, was full of special interest deals and disguised spending increases, and was voted on before most members could read it.
The debate over the omnibus may have made for entertaining political theater, but the outcome was never in doubt. Most House and Senate members are so terrified of another government shutdown that they would rather vote for a 1,774-page bill they have not read than risk even a one or two-day government shutdown.
Those who voted for the omnibus to avoid a shutdown fail to grasp that the consequences of blindly expanding government are far worse than the consequences of a temporary government shutdown. A short or even long-term government shutdown is a small price to pay to avoid an economic calamity caused by Congress’ failure to reduce spending and debt.
The political class’ shutdown phobia is particularly puzzling because a shutdown only closes 20 percent of the federal government. As the American people learned during the government shutdown of 2013, the country can survive with 20 percent less government.
Instead of panicking over a limited shutdown, a true pro-liberty Congress would be eagerly drawing up plans to permanently close most of the federal government, staring with the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies not only degrade the average American’s standard of living, they also allow Congress to run up huge deficits. Congress should take the first step toward restoring a sound monetary policy by passing the Audit the Fed bill, so the American people can finally learn the truth about the Fed’s operations.
Second on the chopping block should be the Internal Revenue Service. The federal government is perfectly capable of performing its constitutional functions without imposing a tyrannical income tax system on the American people.
America’s militaristic foreign policy should certainly be high on the shutdown list. The troops should be brought home, all foreign aid should be ended, and America should pursue a policy of peace and free trade with all nations. Ending the foreign policy of hyper-interventionism that causes so many to resent and even hate America will increase our national security.
All programs that spy on or otherwise interfere with the private lives of American citizens should be shutdown. This means no more TSA, NSA, or CIA, as well as an end to all federal programs that promote police militarization. The unconstitutional war on drugs should also end, along with the war on raw milk.
All forms of welfare should be shut down, starting with those welfare programs that benefit the wealthy and the politically well connected. Corporate welfare, including welfare for the military-industrial complex that masquerades as “defense spending,” should be first on the chopping block. Welfare for those with lower incomes could be more slowly phased out to protect those who have become dependent on those programs.
The Department of Education should be permanently padlocked. This would free American schoolchildren from the dumbed-down education imposed by Common Core and No Child Left Behind. Of course, Obamacare, and similar programs, must be shut down so we can finally have free-market health care.
Congress could not have picked a worse Christmas gift for the American people than the 1,774-page omnibus spending bill. Unfortunately, we cannot return this gift. But hopefully someday Congress will give us the gift of peace, prosperity, and liberty by shutting down the welfare-warfare state.
The Best of Ron Paul
Copyright © 2014 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Previous article by Ron Paul: DC Home for the Criminally Insane
Did the GOP Tell the Truth?The Oil Price Collapse
By Ron Paul
Ron Paul Institute
December 16, 2014
The political class breathed a sigh of relief Saturday when the US Senate averted a government shutdown by passing the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill. This year’s omnibus resembles omnibuses of Christmas past in that it was drafted in secret, was full of special interest deals and disguised spending increases, and was voted on before most members could read it.
The debate over the omnibus may have made for entertaining political theater, but the outcome was never in doubt. Most House and Senate members are so terrified of another government shutdown that they would rather vote for a 1,774-page bill they have not read than risk even a one or two-day government shutdown.
Those who voted for the omnibus to avoid a shutdown fail to grasp that the consequences of blindly expanding government are far worse than the consequences of a temporary government shutdown. A short or even long-term government shutdown is a small price to pay to avoid an economic calamity caused by Congress’ failure to reduce spending and debt.
The political class’ shutdown phobia is particularly puzzling because a shutdown only closes 20 percent of the federal government. As the American people learned during the government shutdown of 2013, the country can survive with 20 percent less government.
Instead of panicking over a limited shutdown, a true pro-liberty Congress would be eagerly drawing up plans to permanently close most of the federal government, staring with the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies not only degrade the average American’s standard of living, they also allow Congress to run up huge deficits. Congress should take the first step toward restoring a sound monetary policy by passing the Audit the Fed bill, so the American people can finally learn the truth about the Fed’s operations.
Second on the chopping block should be the Internal Revenue Service. The federal government is perfectly capable of performing its constitutional functions without imposing a tyrannical income tax system on the American people.
America’s militaristic foreign policy should certainly be high on the shutdown list. The troops should be brought home, all foreign aid should be ended, and America should pursue a policy of peace and free trade with all nations. Ending the foreign policy of hyper-interventionism that causes so many to resent and even hate America will increase our national security.
All programs that spy on or otherwise interfere with the private lives of American citizens should be shutdown. This means no more TSA, NSA, or CIA, as well as an end to all federal programs that promote police militarization. The unconstitutional war on drugs should also end, along with the war on raw milk.
All forms of welfare should be shut down, starting with those welfare programs that benefit the wealthy and the politically well connected. Corporate welfare, including welfare for the military-industrial complex that masquerades as “defense spending,” should be first on the chopping block. Welfare for those with lower incomes could be more slowly phased out to protect those who have become dependent on those programs.
The Department of Education should be permanently padlocked. This would free American schoolchildren from the dumbed-down education imposed by Common Core and No Child Left Behind. Of course, Obamacare, and similar programs, must be shut down so we can finally have free-market health care.
Congress could not have picked a worse Christmas gift for the American people than the 1,774-page omnibus spending bill. Unfortunately, we cannot return this gift. But hopefully someday Congress will give us the gift of peace, prosperity, and liberty by shutting down the welfare-warfare state.
The Best of Ron Paul
Copyright © 2014 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Previous article by Ron Paul: DC Home for the Criminally Insane
Did the GOP Tell the Truth?The Oil Price Collapse
-
LoveIsTruth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5497
-
LoveIsTruth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5497
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
When People Defy Corrupt Government
They Rediscover their Humanity and become more Christlike.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWF2JBb ... tion=share
Inspired by real events from 100 years ago.
It commemorates the extraordinary events of Christmas Day, 1914, when the guns fell silent and two armies met in no-man’s land, sharing gifts – and even playing football together.
They Rediscover their Humanity and become more Christlike.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWF2JBb ... tion=share
Inspired by real events from 100 years ago.
It commemorates the extraordinary events of Christmas Day, 1914, when the guns fell silent and two armies met in no-man’s land, sharing gifts – and even playing football together.
-
LoveIsTruth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5497
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
State And Crime
By Peter Bistoletti
January 12, 2015
There are three types of “crimes”, however two of those should not be considered as such. Let me explain.
A criminal act harming natural rights is always directed at a private person and/or private property. Natural rights are the basic conditions of peaceful coexistence between human beings and the prerequisite for a market economy with voluntary exchange of goods and services creating prosperity for everyone, a.k.a. capitalism. State-issued statutes, based on violence and force, and natural rights are incompatible. The state often masquerades statutes as entitlements and rights when in reality they are nothing but arbitrarily created and thinly veiled injustice, serving primarily the state’s and its cronies’ interests. Already the ancient Romans knew the difference between statute (lex) and law (ius). They considered law to be ethical rules guiding the coexistence and cooperation between human beings. Statutes on the other hand were issued by the state in order to implement rules and commands which had to be followed by the citizens. The state, based on its monopoly on the use of force usurped a monopoly on issuing statutes in order to exert power over the people, enforcing these rules by violence or threat of violence. Statutes are almost always in contradiction to the people’s sense about what is right and just. They are drafted in an incomprehensible language with the purpose of executing power. That’s why people have to hire attorneys to get help in lawsuits.
What is a “criminal act” directed against the state? For instance tax evasion, refusal to pay taxes and rejection to be called up for military service are deemed “criminal acts”, harming the state. But the so called military duty must be considered as slave labor because it is compelled and always paid for far below any minimum wages. Another crime against the state allegedly is to steal or damage state property, a behavior which was very common in the communist Soviet Union. There was always a lack in toilet paper in Soviet hospitals, light bulbs disappeared as did all things easily removable.
But there is a moral dilemma, which is the crucial point and a priori puts the state in the wrong: actions deemed crimes with regards to individuals, for example to defraud, to blackmail or to resort to violence and kill, are thought to be absolutely legitimate for the state. From not only an ethical point of view but also in legal regards the state therefore should be considered a slave holder, a blackmailer and a murderer. The difference between the state and the Mafia is marginal – the state is bigger, more powerful, and less able to act and think economically. Both use extortion to finance themselves, the only difference being that the state extorts accompanied by deception. How so? Both promise “protection” but usually the Mafia keeps that promise while the state only pretends to and is neither really interested nor very efficient at giving cover. And the state forces every entrepreneur to obey vast amounts of hampering and annoying regulations, causing unnecessary expenses and losses. This suggests the assumption that rule by the Mafia would be economically more favorable for enterprises than state rule.
To prosecute and punish victimless crimes is completely preposterous. Hundreds of new regulations, all of them useless and issued only in the interest of the state and its cronies, are enacted every year, making normal and harmless behavior punishable offenses. But why at all should the state prosecute and punish people when they are not harming anyone? The fundamental question in this context is: who owns you and your body and who should control and decide what you do with or put into your body? It’s none of the state’s business what an individual is doing to his body. Every person is the exclusive proprietor of his own physical body. The state has absolutely no say in one’s decisions on consuming alcohol or using drugs, on alpine climbing, horse-riding or motor biking – all self-endangering activities not jeopardizing or injuring anybody else. It is one’s own private matter. The so-called “war on drugs” is a striking proof of completely futile statutes and regulations in view of victimless crimes and should be finished immediately according to a recent survey from the London School of Economics. This research study proves that the war on drugs is useless, counterproductive, and costing an enormous amount of money and resources. Instead of combating the alleged crimes, this “war” has created a multi-billion dollar black market for drugs and a whole new branch of crime, put millions of young people in jail, making the US the No.1 prison country in the world, and promoted exactly those criminal elements and violent drug dealers it pretended to oppose. The only thing the global war on drugs has achieved was inflating the bureaucracy – and perhaps this was exactly what the states intended with their “war on drugs”. Unaffected from the decades-long “war” the rates of addiction remain unchanged, overdose fatalities are at an all-time high, drugs cost less than ever before and the internet market for drugs is growing at an exponential rate. If all states followed the examples set by Portugal, The Netherlands, and some others and would finish the “war on drugs”, their crime rate would decrease dramatically. Decriminalization would put an end to prison overcrowding, reduce organized crime, and free resources for fighting real crime against people and their private property, unclog the court system and save a lot of (extorted) tax money. Decriminalized drugs would be safer, the rate of contagious diseases like HIV and hepatitis would drop, and the unfettered use of drugs would encourage pharmaceutical companies to invest in the research of safer and healthier drugs. The “war on drugs”, an unbelievably costly human and economic disaster, is financed by (extorted) tax payer money. This shows the entire futility of criminalizing victimless actions.
The ensuring of security as well as the prevention and resolution of conflicts can much better and cheaper be accomplished in a private law society by insurance companies as Hans-Hermann Hoppe proposes with convincing rationale. The overwhelming majority of people believe in the necessity of a state. Without a state, they fear, there would be permanent conflicts. Only the state is supposed to be an independent and neutral arbiter in conflicts between individuals and only the state should have the authority to judge and convict. But this timid persuasion is twofold contradictory to fundamental economic and ethical principles. First, the state is a judiciary monopolist. According to generally accepted economic principles each monopoly pushes the prices of products and services above free-market level while simultaneously lowering their quality. Second, the state allegedly provides “law and order”, but he does it with extorted tax payer money while at the same time being the final decision maker in conflicts regarding its own behavior. Thus the state is an expropriating property protector and a law-violating law preserver – quite preposterous.
Moreover, the state as the monopolist on violence usurped the authority to legislate and implement its perverted statutes without the genuine consent of the people affected. How does the production of “law and order” by the state work in real life? The state as a self-appointed monopolist proves to be notoriously ineffective in preventing crime and providing security. Crime prevention, administration of justice, and rehabilitation of delinquents in the state’s hands has nothing to do with efficiency and results. On the contrary: the basic rule seems to be that for the state a failure is a success! The state has an inherent interest in (1) leaving the rate of crime detection as low as possible in order to not frighten the voters with the real extent of crime and (2) keeping the crime rate high enough for getting more tax money for its alleged fight against crime which in reality is a fight for tax funds; a crime rate too low would be dangerous for the state as it would call into question its necessity. This is one of the reasons why the state continuously increases the number of victimless crimes, because it supposedly proves the state to be a guarantor of peaceful coexistence.
A quite disgusting part of the states’ judiciary is the contempt for the victim. The state does hardly care for the victim of a crime. Victim compensation is ridiculously low and it’s most abnormal that the victims even have to pay for the criminals’ amenities in prison with their taxes.
In most cases of petty crime like theft and robbery the crime clearance rate is extremely low. Police and prosecutors obviously are not interested in prioritizing combating these types of crimes. In the present state-run judiciary system there is no contract with mutual obligations between the state and its citizens. Instead what the state offers is simply this:
The solution to the judiciary system run by the state would be a society based on private law as proposed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. This would be a system respecting natural law and the resulting individual rights. Private companies would provide insurances and security, based on the rules of the free market. In Sweden nowadays there is more “private police” than state police – and it works. In a private law society everyone could conclude a contract with any private company for providing crime prevention and prosecution. And private arbitration courts would decide on lawsuits and penalization. Every person had the right to carry a weapon for self-protection. More guns in the hands of the individual mean less crime, so the right to carry a weapon and to use it in self-defense would be inviolable. This construct of freedom and self-responsibility is completely alien to the current situation in the allegedly “civilized world”. The state solely in his own interest of not having to fear any competition has disarmed almost the entire population and usurped a monopoly on the use of violence. Private security companies on the other hand in their interest of keeping their operating costs down would encourage the possession of weapons and reward the owners with lower insurance premiums, like today they reward those with fewer car accidents or a house alarm system.
In an unhampered market private security companies would also be much more effective in preventing, prosecuting and punishing crimes than the state because of the market pressure for cost effectiveness. For instance they would be more successful in finding stolen goods and thieves because only then they could claim damages, refund the stolen goods, keep down their costs, keep up a good reputation, and stay competitive. Private law societies have existed for thousands of years before the emergence of the state and also in modern times and they were much more successful in terms of economy, preservation of life and decent social interaction than any state society. Even today, state-free created international trade rules and arbitration (International Chamber of Commerce – ICC, Incoterms 2010, Model Contracts and Clauses, UCP 600, URC 522 etc.) are good examples of how well a private judiciary system can work governing international trade and commerce.
Summary:
From an ethical point of view, crimes against the state and victimless crimes are no crimes at all, should not be prosecuted and punished and their prevention and prosecution not be financed by tax payers’ money. Huge resources would be released for useful appropriation if private companies in open competition would prevent, prosecute and punish crimes against individuals, companies, and their property. We could all live in greater prosperity, with more individual freedom and less surveillance. To abolish “crimes” against the state and victimless “crimes” is no utopia but a realistic possibility to break or at least diminish the state monopoly on violence.
Stockholm, 2015-01-03
Peter Bistoletti, MD, PhD [ [email protected]]send him mail ], an associate of the Karolinska Institutet, moved some years ago from Austria to Sweden to live under socialism. The experience turned him into an anarcho-capitalist.
By Peter Bistoletti
January 12, 2015
There are three types of “crimes”, however two of those should not be considered as such. Let me explain.
- 1) Crimes against so called natural rights, conferred by natural law. Natural rights are universal ethical rules, developed over thousands of years and e. g. to be found in the commandments of all large religions. These natural rights link the Non Aggression Principle (NAP) to the respect for private property- you shall not kill, steal, covet your neighbor’s house, use violence or offer violence against any other person except in self-defense etc. Nobody should be coerced into a contract and thus all contracts should be based on voluntariness. The victims of crimes against these natural rights are always individuals.
2) Crimes directed at the state with the state as “victim”. Examples are inter alia tax evasion, tax fraud, objection to military service (i.e. slave labor) and damaging or stealing state property.
3) Victimless crimes against state statutes and rules.
A criminal act harming natural rights is always directed at a private person and/or private property. Natural rights are the basic conditions of peaceful coexistence between human beings and the prerequisite for a market economy with voluntary exchange of goods and services creating prosperity for everyone, a.k.a. capitalism. State-issued statutes, based on violence and force, and natural rights are incompatible. The state often masquerades statutes as entitlements and rights when in reality they are nothing but arbitrarily created and thinly veiled injustice, serving primarily the state’s and its cronies’ interests. Already the ancient Romans knew the difference between statute (lex) and law (ius). They considered law to be ethical rules guiding the coexistence and cooperation between human beings. Statutes on the other hand were issued by the state in order to implement rules and commands which had to be followed by the citizens. The state, based on its monopoly on the use of force usurped a monopoly on issuing statutes in order to exert power over the people, enforcing these rules by violence or threat of violence. Statutes are almost always in contradiction to the people’s sense about what is right and just. They are drafted in an incomprehensible language with the purpose of executing power. That’s why people have to hire attorneys to get help in lawsuits.
What is a “criminal act” directed against the state? For instance tax evasion, refusal to pay taxes and rejection to be called up for military service are deemed “criminal acts”, harming the state. But the so called military duty must be considered as slave labor because it is compelled and always paid for far below any minimum wages. Another crime against the state allegedly is to steal or damage state property, a behavior which was very common in the communist Soviet Union. There was always a lack in toilet paper in Soviet hospitals, light bulbs disappeared as did all things easily removable.
But there is a moral dilemma, which is the crucial point and a priori puts the state in the wrong: actions deemed crimes with regards to individuals, for example to defraud, to blackmail or to resort to violence and kill, are thought to be absolutely legitimate for the state. From not only an ethical point of view but also in legal regards the state therefore should be considered a slave holder, a blackmailer and a murderer. The difference between the state and the Mafia is marginal – the state is bigger, more powerful, and less able to act and think economically. Both use extortion to finance themselves, the only difference being that the state extorts accompanied by deception. How so? Both promise “protection” but usually the Mafia keeps that promise while the state only pretends to and is neither really interested nor very efficient at giving cover. And the state forces every entrepreneur to obey vast amounts of hampering and annoying regulations, causing unnecessary expenses and losses. This suggests the assumption that rule by the Mafia would be economically more favorable for enterprises than state rule.
To prosecute and punish victimless crimes is completely preposterous. Hundreds of new regulations, all of them useless and issued only in the interest of the state and its cronies, are enacted every year, making normal and harmless behavior punishable offenses. But why at all should the state prosecute and punish people when they are not harming anyone? The fundamental question in this context is: who owns you and your body and who should control and decide what you do with or put into your body? It’s none of the state’s business what an individual is doing to his body. Every person is the exclusive proprietor of his own physical body. The state has absolutely no say in one’s decisions on consuming alcohol or using drugs, on alpine climbing, horse-riding or motor biking – all self-endangering activities not jeopardizing or injuring anybody else. It is one’s own private matter. The so-called “war on drugs” is a striking proof of completely futile statutes and regulations in view of victimless crimes and should be finished immediately according to a recent survey from the London School of Economics. This research study proves that the war on drugs is useless, counterproductive, and costing an enormous amount of money and resources. Instead of combating the alleged crimes, this “war” has created a multi-billion dollar black market for drugs and a whole new branch of crime, put millions of young people in jail, making the US the No.1 prison country in the world, and promoted exactly those criminal elements and violent drug dealers it pretended to oppose. The only thing the global war on drugs has achieved was inflating the bureaucracy – and perhaps this was exactly what the states intended with their “war on drugs”. Unaffected from the decades-long “war” the rates of addiction remain unchanged, overdose fatalities are at an all-time high, drugs cost less than ever before and the internet market for drugs is growing at an exponential rate. If all states followed the examples set by Portugal, The Netherlands, and some others and would finish the “war on drugs”, their crime rate would decrease dramatically. Decriminalization would put an end to prison overcrowding, reduce organized crime, and free resources for fighting real crime against people and their private property, unclog the court system and save a lot of (extorted) tax money. Decriminalized drugs would be safer, the rate of contagious diseases like HIV and hepatitis would drop, and the unfettered use of drugs would encourage pharmaceutical companies to invest in the research of safer and healthier drugs. The “war on drugs”, an unbelievably costly human and economic disaster, is financed by (extorted) tax payer money. This shows the entire futility of criminalizing victimless actions.
The ensuring of security as well as the prevention and resolution of conflicts can much better and cheaper be accomplished in a private law society by insurance companies as Hans-Hermann Hoppe proposes with convincing rationale. The overwhelming majority of people believe in the necessity of a state. Without a state, they fear, there would be permanent conflicts. Only the state is supposed to be an independent and neutral arbiter in conflicts between individuals and only the state should have the authority to judge and convict. But this timid persuasion is twofold contradictory to fundamental economic and ethical principles. First, the state is a judiciary monopolist. According to generally accepted economic principles each monopoly pushes the prices of products and services above free-market level while simultaneously lowering their quality. Second, the state allegedly provides “law and order”, but he does it with extorted tax payer money while at the same time being the final decision maker in conflicts regarding its own behavior. Thus the state is an expropriating property protector and a law-violating law preserver – quite preposterous.
Moreover, the state as the monopolist on violence usurped the authority to legislate and implement its perverted statutes without the genuine consent of the people affected. How does the production of “law and order” by the state work in real life? The state as a self-appointed monopolist proves to be notoriously ineffective in preventing crime and providing security. Crime prevention, administration of justice, and rehabilitation of delinquents in the state’s hands has nothing to do with efficiency and results. On the contrary: the basic rule seems to be that for the state a failure is a success! The state has an inherent interest in (1) leaving the rate of crime detection as low as possible in order to not frighten the voters with the real extent of crime and (2) keeping the crime rate high enough for getting more tax money for its alleged fight against crime which in reality is a fight for tax funds; a crime rate too low would be dangerous for the state as it would call into question its necessity. This is one of the reasons why the state continuously increases the number of victimless crimes, because it supposedly proves the state to be a guarantor of peaceful coexistence.
A quite disgusting part of the states’ judiciary is the contempt for the victim. The state does hardly care for the victim of a crime. Victim compensation is ridiculously low and it’s most abnormal that the victims even have to pay for the criminals’ amenities in prison with their taxes.
In most cases of petty crime like theft and robbery the crime clearance rate is extremely low. Police and prosecutors obviously are not interested in prioritizing combating these types of crimes. In the present state-run judiciary system there is no contract with mutual obligations between the state and its citizens. Instead what the state offers is simply this:
- I, the state, promise nothing. I provide services at my leisure and you have to pay whatever I charge. I don’t pay any compensation if one should not be satisfied with my services. I, the state, have the right to unilaterally price my services and am free to alter my prices whenever and howsoever I want.
The solution to the judiciary system run by the state would be a society based on private law as proposed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. This would be a system respecting natural law and the resulting individual rights. Private companies would provide insurances and security, based on the rules of the free market. In Sweden nowadays there is more “private police” than state police – and it works. In a private law society everyone could conclude a contract with any private company for providing crime prevention and prosecution. And private arbitration courts would decide on lawsuits and penalization. Every person had the right to carry a weapon for self-protection. More guns in the hands of the individual mean less crime, so the right to carry a weapon and to use it in self-defense would be inviolable. This construct of freedom and self-responsibility is completely alien to the current situation in the allegedly “civilized world”. The state solely in his own interest of not having to fear any competition has disarmed almost the entire population and usurped a monopoly on the use of violence. Private security companies on the other hand in their interest of keeping their operating costs down would encourage the possession of weapons and reward the owners with lower insurance premiums, like today they reward those with fewer car accidents or a house alarm system.
In an unhampered market private security companies would also be much more effective in preventing, prosecuting and punishing crimes than the state because of the market pressure for cost effectiveness. For instance they would be more successful in finding stolen goods and thieves because only then they could claim damages, refund the stolen goods, keep down their costs, keep up a good reputation, and stay competitive. Private law societies have existed for thousands of years before the emergence of the state and also in modern times and they were much more successful in terms of economy, preservation of life and decent social interaction than any state society. Even today, state-free created international trade rules and arbitration (International Chamber of Commerce – ICC, Incoterms 2010, Model Contracts and Clauses, UCP 600, URC 522 etc.) are good examples of how well a private judiciary system can work governing international trade and commerce.
Summary:
From an ethical point of view, crimes against the state and victimless crimes are no crimes at all, should not be prosecuted and punished and their prevention and prosecution not be financed by tax payers’ money. Huge resources would be released for useful appropriation if private companies in open competition would prevent, prosecute and punish crimes against individuals, companies, and their property. We could all live in greater prosperity, with more individual freedom and less surveillance. To abolish “crimes” against the state and victimless “crimes” is no utopia but a realistic possibility to break or at least diminish the state monopoly on violence.
Stockholm, 2015-01-03
Peter Bistoletti, MD, PhD [ [email protected]]send him mail ], an associate of the Karolinska Institutet, moved some years ago from Austria to Sweden to live under socialism. The experience turned him into an anarcho-capitalist.
-
LoveIsTruth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5497
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
Secession Begins at Home
Jeff Deist
"Imagine what a committed, coordinated libertarian base could achieve in America! 10 percent of the US population, or roughly thirty-two million people, would be an unstoppable force of nonviolent withdrawal from the federal leviathan."
Jeff Deist
"Imagine what a committed, coordinated libertarian base could achieve in America! 10 percent of the US population, or roughly thirty-two million people, would be an unstoppable force of nonviolent withdrawal from the federal leviathan."
-
LoveIsTruth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5497
-
KMCopeland
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2279
- Location: The American South
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
Do it. Really. I get so sick of hearing these secession threats that never materialize. Go for it. You'll be begging us to take you back inside a year.LoveIsTruth wrote:"Imagine what a committed, coordinated libertarian base could achieve in America! 10 percent of the US population, or roughly thirty-two million people, would be an unstoppable force of nonviolent withdrawal from the federal leviathan."
-
LoveIsTruth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5497
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
Yes, and the sky will fall down, and the earth will fly off its axes and hurl into the Sun without the government. Right? If there will be any begging in this land is to get rid of this government corruption!KMCopeland wrote:Do it. Really. I get so sick of hearing these secession threats that never materialize. Go for it. You'll be begging us to take you back inside a year.LoveIsTruth wrote:"Imagine what a committed, coordinated libertarian base could achieve in America! 10 percent of the US population, or roughly thirty-two million people, would be an unstoppable force of nonviolent withdrawal from the federal leviathan."
So, you are totally wrong!
-
KMCopeland
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2279
- Location: The American South
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
But why don't you seceders ever follow through on your threats to secede?LoveIsTruth wrote:Yes, and the sky will fall down, and the earth will fly off its axes and hurl into the Sun without the government. Right? If there will be any begging in this land is to get rid of this government corruption!KMCopeland wrote:Do it. Really. I get so sick of hearing these secession threats that never materialize. Go for it. You'll be begging us to take you back inside a year.LoveIsTruth wrote:"Imagine what a committed, coordinated libertarian base could achieve in America! 10 percent of the US population, or roughly thirty-two million people, would be an unstoppable force of nonviolent withdrawal from the federal leviathan."
So, you are totally wrong!
