Posted on 02/20/2006 6:24:40 AM PST by Shalom Israel
In a recent article, Carl Milsted uses Rothbard to argue it would be permissible to use force to make people pay for a service of which their benefit is at least double its cost. His conclusion is that it is reasonable, and even preferable, to establish a minimalist state if it is to people's advantage.
As has already been argued by N. Stephan Kinsella, he totally misses Rothbard's point. Furthermore, he fails to show why people would not choose to voluntarily pay for services which would benefit them double, as has been pointed out by Bob Kaercher.
Even so, I wish to offer another analysis of Milsted's reasoning. His article is a good example of why statists always seem to get it wrong — and why they always fail to understand what we're talking about. The bottom line is that they fail to realize the costs of force due to their unwillingness to see the state for what it is. I will therefore use Milsted's own example to shed light on his fundamental mistake.
Milsted takes the case of national defense, which is commonly considered an institution that would face the free rider problem if supplied on the market. Argues Milsted: "suppose the majority assesses a tax on everyone to spread the burden of supporting the new defense system. This is theft of the minority. However, suppose that the economies of scale are such that this tax is less than half of what people would have had to pay for defense on their own."
That's the argument, plain and simple. If it is morally permissible to steal when the victim is compensated double, the equation seems to fit. Well, let's look into this in more detail and see if it really does.
First, consider a situation where everybody benefits, say, $10,000 on a yearly basis from being protected by a national defense. That would mean, if the premise is correct, that it would be morally permissible to force costs of no more than $5,000 on everybody.
Were it a company supplying a service worth $10,000 to each of its customers paying only $5,000 for it, this would be easy. Anyone willing to pay the $5,000 would get the service, and the costs associated with administration and so forth would have to be covered by the $5,000 paid. But Milsted argues the $5,000 should be taxed, and that makes it much more difficult.
First of all, we know state-run businesses and authorities (especially if they are monopolies) tend to be much less efficient than private enterprises. That means people in Milstedistan would get less than they would in a free market society. But even so, there is still the cost of coercion totally neglected by Milsted in his article.
Forcing people to pay for a service means there will always be someone who tries to avoid paying or even refuses to pay. So "we" (i.e., the state) need to invest in collection services to get the money. Now, let's say Murray, who is one of the people we're trying to coerce, goes out to buy a rifle and then declares that he's "anti-government, so get the hell off my property." Perhaps he even threatens to kill the collection agents. Dealing with him would take a whole lot more out of the budget, meaning there is even less to provide for the defense (which is the reason we're in business in the first place).
But that's not all. Let's say Murray won't give us the money no matter how much we ask or threaten him. We will simply have to take it by force, so we need to invest in the necessary tools and we go out to hire a dozen brutes to do the forcing. (More money down the drain … ) It is already pretty obvious we're in a very expensive business; there will not be much defense left if there are a lot of Murrays in our society.
Now imagine our hired brutes go down the street to Murray's house and knock on his door. He sticks his rifle out the window and shouts something about having the right to his property and that he will shoot to kill. Anyway, the brutes try to open his door only to find it is locked and barred. They will have to break in to finally get their hands on Murray's cash.
Our small army goes back to their van to get their tools, then returns to break down Murray's door. Going inside, they manage to avoid all the bullets Murray is firing and they tie him up and put him in the closet. They eventually find that he does not have any valuables and that he keeps his cash in a locked safe. So they have to break it to get the money.
Now we have a problem. To make this operation morally permissible, the benefit to Murray, which we know is $10,000, must be at least double the cost forced on him. The cost is now a whole lot more than the cost of the national defense; it includes administration and collection costs, hiring the brutes and their tools, as well as the broken door and safe, and the time and suffering (and perhaps medical expenses) Murray has lost while we were stealing from him. How much do you think is left from the original $5,000 to invest in a national defense? Not much.
What if Murray suffers from paranoia and therefore had invested $1,500 in an advanced special security door and $2,000 in an extra security safe? Then the total cost of simply getting into Murray's safe would probably exceed the $5,000 we are "allowed" to steal. What then? Should we break in anyway since it is a mandatory tax, only to give him a check to cover what's above the $5,000 mark? That doesn't sound right.
But on the other hand, if we just let him be, more people would do the same as Murray only to get off, and we would have a huge problem on our hands. This is a typical state dilemma: it costs too much to force money from some people, but it would probably be much more "expensive" in the long run not to. It's a lose-lose situation.
Now, what if Murray is very poor and doesn't have the $5,000? Then we would have to take whatever he's got and make him work off the rest. We need to get the $5,000 to cover our expenses of the national defense, and we have the right to take that amount from him. It could, of course, be argued he couldn't possibly benefit $10,000 from a national defense if he has no money and no property. If we trust Austrian economics, that might very well be correct; the benefit of national defense would, like any other product or service, be valued subjectively and thus the benefit would be different for each and every individual.
If this is true, it means we have an even greater problem: the state can rightfully levy costs of a maximum of half the subjective benefit enjoyed. Well, that's a task that would keep an army of Nobel Prize winners busy for a while. If possible, I wonder how much that would cost in the end.
This is the problem statists face on an everyday basis when discussing philosophy and politics. It is easy to make nice equations and formulas, and theorize on great systems and cheap solutions neatly enforced by the state. But when consistently failing to realize the costs of coercion it makes their reasoning fundamentally flawed. Just scratching the surface reveals they really have no clue whatsoever.
Per Bylund works as a business consultant in Sweden, in preparation for PhD studies. He is the founder of Anarchism.net. Send him mail. Visit his website. Comment on the blog.
You keep using that term,
I do? Weird.. -- This is my first post to you on this thread.
even though I've argued that it doesn't stand on Hobbesian grounds, nor w.r.t. the meaning of the term "contract". So it's far from clear what you're trying to get me to affirm.
My question above is clearly in standard English. What's with your feigned confusion?
Here's and essay on the subject well worth reading:
The Social Contract and Constitutional Republics
Address:http://www.constitution.org/soclcont.htm
"--- Under the theory of the social contract, those rights which the individual brings with him upon entering the social contract are natural, and those which arise out of the social contract are contractual. Those contractual rights arising out of the constitution are constitutional rights. However, natural rights are also constitutional rights.
The fundamental natural rights are life, liberty, and property.
However, it is necessary to be somewhat more specific as to what these rights include.
Therefore, constitution framers usually expand them into such rights as the right of speech and publication, the right to assemble peaceably, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to travel over public roadways, and so forth. --"
The author amusingly cites that as a clarification of "life, liberty and property". The author is confused.
Read much? The author enumerates some of our rights, and you're 'amusingly confused'.. Again, - bizarre reaction.
" -- The exercise of such natural rights may be restricted to the extent that they come into conflict with the exercise of the natural rights of other members of society, but only to the minimum degree needed to resolve such conflict. --"
Again he's confused. My rights never come into conflict with yours.
They don't? Why then are our Courts filled with lawsuits?
-- Your comments are really strange.. Why?
Any purported case of conflict always turns out, on examination, to be an imaginary "right", such as the nonexistent "right to swing my arm [anywhere]." The result is profound-sounding but idiotic statements like, "My right to fling spears willy-nilly ends at the boundary of your cranium."
Whatever. Perhaps you just need 'rest'. Take a couple of aspirin and get back to me in the morning when you're lucid.
Thank you very much...the article is an interesting read.
Ah, you caught me. I don't recognize people; only arguments. Since your argument was a continuation of KrisKrinkle's, so was my reply.
My question above is clearly in standard English. What's with your feigned confusion?
None, if you were merely asking whether I like the Constitution. However, I rather laboriously objected to the term "social contract," so your insistance on using the term appeared to suggest there was more to your question.
Read much? The author enumerates some of our rights, and you're 'amusingly confused'.. Again, - bizarre reaction.
Read it again: I'm amused; he's confused. "Public roads" are not property, therefore the right to use them is not a property right. Instead, the assumption of a government monopoly over roads is in fact a usurpation of property rights. Yet the confused author cites it as a protection of same. Thus my amusement.
BTW, it was a literal usurpation of property rights. There were originally privately-owned turnpikes in this continent. Courts refused to uphold property rights of the turnpikes' owners, by refusing to enforce payments of tolls, which resulted in their abandonment and their assumption by government.
They don't? Why then are our Courts filled with lawsuits? -- Your comments are really strange..
Talk about strange! You just claimed that a lawsuit represents the conflict between two persons' rights. In reality, most lawsuits arise because one person is violating another's rights--not because both experienced some sort of "rights collision". The closest thing to what you claim would be a contract dispute in which we interpret the contract differently, both in good faith. But that isn't a "rights collision" either; it's what we call in English a "misunderstanding."
Whatever. Perhaps you just need 'rest'. Take a couple of aspirin and get back to me in the morning when you're lucid.
If you read more, you'd recognize that I was directly ridiculing Ollie Wendell Holmes's famous assertion that "my right to swing my arm ends at the tip of your nose." I like Ollie, but his statement was absurd on many levels. First, there is no such thing as a "right to swing my arm." My arm is mine, and I have power over it's use, but there never was a "right" to swing it around anywhere I wish to, so there's nothing to "end at the tip of your nose." Further, this hypothetical limitation does not end at the tip of your nose; well before the tip of your nose, my swing will be interpreted as an intention to assault you, and you will--rightly--defend yourself.
Ollie's other famous claim, that my free-speech rights are limited by a prohibition against yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, is just as stupid, but for a different reason. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.
The differences would be the complaints be about real things rather than imagined.
I took your (rather rude) suggestion and had a look at anarchism.net's forums. I'll stay here, thanks. My first reaction was horror to discover that anarchists' collective IQ is clearly lower even than liberals'. Then, to my relief, I noted a post claiming that the original anarcho-capitalists had been crowded out by the anarcho-socialists. It is kind of humorous that people might imagine they stand on common ground, called "anarchism", when they are in fact deeply divided concerning private property.
Anyway, no. I don't like Mensans--never go to the meetings--but I do like to discuss with people who can fashion coherent sentences, spell English words, and usually reason logically. FR works for me.
You obviously love strawmen, because you've just built another one. I have never claimed this -- indeed, I've told you the opposite at least twice on this thread.
I see no reason to waste my time with you any longer.
You keep using that term,
I do? Weird.. -- This is my first post to you on this thread.
Ah, you caught me. I don't recognize people; only arguments. Since your argument was a continuation of KrisKrinkle's, so was my reply.
Thank you for admitting your idiocy.
even though I've argued that it doesn't stand on Hobbesian grounds, nor w.r.t. the meaning of the term "contract". So it's far from clear what you're trying to get me to affirm.
My question above is clearly in standard English. What's with your feigned confusion?
None, if you were merely asking whether I like the Constitution. However, I rather laboriously objected to the term "social contract," so your insistance on using the term appeared to suggest there was more to your question.
You've forgotten that I wasn't "insisting" in the space of one line? Unbelievable.
Here's an essay on the subject well worth reading:
The Social Contract and Constitutional Republics
Address:http://www.constitution.org/soclcont.htm
"--- Under the theory of the social contract, those rights which the individual brings with him upon entering the social contract are natural, and those which arise out of the social contract are contractual. Those contractual rights arising out of the constitution are constitutional rights. However, natural rights are also constitutional rights.
The fundamental natural rights are life, liberty, and property.
However, it is necessary to be somewhat more specific as to what these rights include.
Therefore, constitution framers usually expand them into such rights as the right of speech and publication, the right to assemble peaceably, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to travel over public roadways, and so forth. --"
The author amusingly cites that as a clarification of "life, liberty and property". The author is confused.
Read much? The author enumerates some of our rights, and you're 'amusingly confused'.. Again, - bizarre reaction.
Read it again: I'm amused; he's confused. not a property right. Instead, the assumption of a government monopoly over roads is in fact a usurpation of property rights. Yet the confused author cites it as a protection of same. Thus my amusement.
He was enumerating our right to travel, Izzy, not a property right. -- You're confused, and it's amusing.
" -- The exercise of such natural rights may be restricted to the extent that they come into conflict with the exercise of the natural rights of other members of society, but only to the minimum degree needed to resolve such conflict. --"
Again he's confused. My rights never come into conflict with yours.
They don't? Why then are our Courts filled with lawsuits?
-- Your comments are really strange.. Why?
Talk about strange! You just claimed that a lawsuit represents the conflict between two persons' rights. In reality, most lawsuits arise because one person is violating another's rights--not because both experienced some sort of "rights collision".
Amusing nitpicking -- you admit that "most lawsuits arise because one person is violating another's rights" yet claim this isn't a conflict.
The closest thing to what you claim would be a contract dispute in which we interpret the contract differently, both in good faith. But that isn't a "rights collision" either; it's what we call in English a "misunderstanding."
Yep, often its a misunderstanding about where your rights end, and mine begin.
Any purported case of conflict always turns out, on examination, to be an imaginary "right", such as the nonexistent "right to swing my arm [anywhere]." The result is profound-sounding but idiotic statements like, "My right to fling spears willy-nilly ends at the boundary of your cranium."
Whatever. Perhaps you just need 'rest'. Take a couple of aspirin and get back to me in the morning when you're lucid.
If you read more, you'd recognize that I was directly ridiculing Ollie Wendell Holmes's famous assertion that "my right to swing my arm ends at the tip of your nose."
My nose is not imaginary, and if you start swinging you fist around near it, be prepared to face the consequences.
I like Ollie, but his statement was absurd on many levels. First, there is no such thing as a "right to swing my arm." My arm is mine, and I have power over it's use, but there never was a "right" to swing it around anywhere I wish to, so there's nothing to "end at the tip of your nose." Further, this hypothetical limitation does not end at the tip of your nose; well before the tip of your nose, my swing will be interpreted as an intention to assault you, and you will--rightly--defend yourself.
Thereby proving Ollies hypothetical, which is not "absurd". -- Only your sophomoronics about it are absurd.
Ollie's other famous claim, that my free-speech rights are limited by a prohibition against yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, is just as stupid, but for a different reason. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.
We readers await more pearls of 'wisdom' from you izzy.. You really are funny.
Thank you for clearly identifying yourself by means of your behavior. Some people remember names better than others--so sue me. I'm a mathematician. I forget names, but I never forget arguments.
You've forgotten that I wasn't "insisting" in the space of one line? Unbelievable.
Assuming you can read, and read the subthread you were joining, you must have been quite familiar with my objections to the term social contract. You approached someone who objects to the term, but used it anyway. Although it's the first time you used it, in context, that's "insistance". I apologize for your confusion.
He was enumerating our right to travel, Izzy, not a property right. -- You're confused, and it's amusing.
Yes, I realize that of "life, liberty and property," the right to use public roads probably comes under "liberty" rather than "property". Like a typical statist, the author believes that some "liberties" trump "property". Of course that means that government's job is self-contradictory: it must protect property, and simultaneously protect other rights that require the violation of property. Under those circumstances, you can do whatever you want: from contradictory hypotheses, anything can be proven.
Naturally, you ignored the observation that private turnpikes existed at one point, but those property rights were trampled by the courts.
Amusing nitpicking -- you admit that "most lawsuits arise because one person is violating another's rights" yet claim this isn't a conflict.
Not nitpicking: that's the heart of your confusion. If you punch me in the nose, our "rights" haven't come into conflict. I have rights; you violated them; your rights have nothing whatsoever to do with this case. You acted entirely outside your rights, in violation of mine.
My nose is not imaginary, and if you start swinging you fist around near it, be prepared to face the consequences.
Again, I exhort you to read carefully. My "right to swing my arm" is imaginary. This would be more clear if Ollie had said, "Your right to fire stinger missiles ends at my property line." WHAT right to fire stinger missiles? To what right is he referring? An imaginary right.
Similarly, he might say, "Your right to shine laser beams ends at my cockpit window (or the lens of my eye)." Equally absurd: this "right to shine laser beams" of which he speaks is fictional.
Thereby proving Ollies hypothetical, which is not "absurd".
He postulates "limits" to a right I don't have. That's absurd.
We readers await more pearls of 'wisdom' from you izzy
I'll ignore your mockery and answer the question, since it apparently eluded you. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater has nothing whatsoever to do with free speech. It has to do with property rights--Ollie's consistent achilles heel. He doesn't "get" property rights. The theater is not my property; by buying a ticket, I gain permission to enter from the owner. But that permission comes with an implied contract that I'll abide by the house rules. Primarily, the rule that I should shut up and watch the movie. If I yell anything in a crowded theater, including of course, "Fire!", then I'm in breach of that contract. In this case the owner can't should "Fire!" either, because the implied contract also guarantees that the patrons will be permitted to watch the movie in peace.
If I want to, however, I can open my own movie theater, whose rules clearly stipulate that fire-drills will be conducted regularly. As the owner, I will occasionally holler "Fire!" in my theater, or more likely pull a fire alarm, and empty the theater. If people don't like it, they'll stop coming to my theater, and I'll go broke. But contrary to Ollie's assertion, no wrong-doing of any sort has occurred.
Sorry, I suddenly understood your post. Brain was fogged at that ridiculous hour. Thanks for your excellent contributions to this thread.
I deduced the above from his consistent way or making (subtle) mistakes that stem from a failure to appreciate property rights, so it was gratifying to find the following in Wikipedia:
Oliver Wendell Holmes the younger, (March 8, 1841 – March 6, 1935) was an American jurist noted for his concise, pithy rejection of the prevailing property-rights ideology embraced by other judges of his time, and for his deference to the decisions of democratically-elected legislatures.
...
He became known for his innovative, well-reasoned decisions, balancing property rights with rule by the majority, with the latter taking precedence over the former.
...
Holmes gained significant admiration from liberals of his time, such as Frankfurter and Brandeis, as a strong critic of the Supreme Court's "liberty of contract" doctrine, which was frequently invoked to strike down progressive economic legislation, most famously in the 1905 case of Lochner v. New York. Holmes's dissent in that case, in which he wrote that "a Constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory," is one of the most-quoted in Supreme Court history. Holmes's personal views on economics were influenced by Mathusian theories that emphasized struggle for a fixed amount of resources.
Unfortunately, this means I'll have to re-evaluate my earlier claim that I like the man. In this précis of his bio, I don't see much to like.
Our author, quoted above, was enumerating our right to travel, Izzy, not a property right. -- You're confused, and it's amusing.
Yes, I realize that of "life, liberty and property," the right to use public roads probably comes under "liberty" rather than "property". Like a typical statist,
Vin is not a "statist", and your unsupported opinion insisting he is makes you look like a 'troll'. Is that your intent?
the author believes that some "liberties" trump "property".
Prove it. Show us where..
Of course that means that government's job is self-contradictory: it must protect property, and simultaneously protect other rights that require the violation of property.
Again, who is advocating the violation of property, - and where?
Under those circumstances, you can do whatever you want: from contradictory hypotheses, anything can be proven. Naturally, you ignored the observation that private turnpikes existed at one point, but those property rights were trampled by the courts.
Amusing nitpicking, - [also applies to the above] ---- you admit that "most lawsuits arise because one person is violating another's rights" yet claim this isn't a conflict.
Not nitpicking: that's the heart of your confusion. If you punch me in the nose, our "rights" haven't come into conflict. I have rights; you violated them; your rights have nothing whatsoever to do with this case. You acted entirely outside your rights, in violation of mine.
You are confusing the enforcement of criminal law, -- with lawsuits/disputes between conflicting parties.
-- My nose is not imaginary, and if you start swinging you fist around near it, be prepared to face the consequences.
Again, I exhort you to read carefully. My "right to swing my arm" is imaginary.
How droll. You can swing all you want izzy, it's your right; -- but not near my nose.
This would be more clear if Ollie had said, "Your right to fire stinger missiles ends at my property line." WHAT right to fire stinger missiles? To what right is he referring? An imaginary right. Similarly, he might say, "Your right to shine laser beams ends at my cockpit window (or the lens of my eye)." Equally absurd: this "right to shine laser beams" of which he speaks is fictional.
Whatever. Obviously you imagine you're making a logical point. Dream on.
My nose is not imaginary, and if you start swinging you fist around near it, be prepared to face the consequences. -- Thereby proving Ollies hypothetical, which is not "absurd".
He postulates "limits" to a right I don't have. That's absurd.
See your absurdity above.
We readers await more pearls of 'wisdom' from you izzy...
I'll ignore your mockery and answer the question, since it apparently eluded you. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater has nothing whatsoever to do with free speech.
You have no right to 'freely' yell FIRE! in a crowded theater and cause a panic, izzy. -- Unless there is a fire. -- Get it yet?
It has to do with property rights--Ollie's consistent achilles heel. He doesn't "get" property rights. The theater is not my property; by buying a ticket, I gain permission to enter from the owner. But that permission comes with an implied contract that I'll abide by the house rules. Primarily, the rule that I should shut up and watch the movie. If I yell anything in a crowded theater, including of course, "Fire!", then I'm in breach of that contract. In this case the owner can't should "Fire!" either, because the implied contract also guarantees that the patrons will be permitted to watch the movie in peace. If I want to, however, I can open my own movie theater, whose rules clearly stipulate that fire-drills will be conducted regularly. As the owner, I will occasionally holler "Fire!" in my theater, or more likely pull a fire alarm, and empty the theater. If people don't like it, they'll stop coming to my theater, and I'll go broke. But contrary to Ollie's assertion, no wrong-doing of any sort has occurred.
Lordy, but you do babble on. Do you really think you've made some point, or are you trying to baffegab us with quantities of bull? -- Grow up izzy.
He believes in a state monopoly of roads. He may be less statist than, say, your average democrat, but he is indeed statist.
Prove it. Show us where..
Can't you read? He has stated his belief in "public", i.e., state-owned, "roads". Public roads means the state acquiring property, in order to "protect" the "freedom" of travelling on said state-owned property. Thus, "liberty" (of travel) "trumps property."
Again, who is advocating the violation of property, - and where?
Do you imagine to yourself that the road fairy comes at night and lays down pavement? If not, how did you imagine it was done? More to the point, how did you imagine it was paid for, and how did you imagine land is acquired for new roads?
You are confusing the enforcement of criminal law, -- with lawsuits/disputes between conflicting parties.
It would be helpful if you'd give an example of a lawsuit in which two parties' "rights" come "into conflict". I'll then explain why "conflicting rights" have nothing to do with it. That might help clear up your confusion.
How droll. You can swing all you want izzy, it's your right; -- but not near my nose.
You are mistaken, but you can be forgiven for using language so sloppily. What does the phrase "right to swing your arm" mean? Does it mean, "the right to swing my arm anywhere I please"? If so, there's no such right. There are plenty of circumstances in which arm-swinging is not permitted, and rightly so. I do have a "right to swing my arm on my own property when I'm alone," since that's a special case of my property rights: my arm belongs to me. There are other cases in which my property rights imply that I may swing my arm. But the right that I have is ownership of my arm, not Holmes's hypothetical "swinging rights".
Usually we use the phrase "I have the right" in exactly this sloppy manner. I might say, "I have the right to have sex with my wife," but in fact do I? We have a marriage, which is essentially a contract, and it includes conjugal responsibilities, but I don't have the "right" to have sex with her against her will, or on a bus, or under a bridge, or on home plate at PNC park. Rather, we have property rights--to our bedroom, and to our own bodies--that imply the permissibility of sex in those places. There is in fact no "right to have sex."
The sloppy common usage is normally adequate, but it can cause confusion--and this is exactly one of those cases. You're confused.
You have no right to 'freely' yell FIRE! in a crowded theater and cause a panic, izzy. -- Unless there is a fire. -- Get it yet?
I have no right, agreed! But it has nothing to do with "free speech": it's the simple consequence that I don't own the theater. I entered under terms that included an implicit prohibition against shouting "Fire!" Do you get it?
Lordy, but you do babble on.
You just said "yo mamma," but you did at least try to make an argument elsewhere in your post. Can a theater owner, or can he not, conduct fire drills? Simply put, the determination whether an outburst in a theater is acceptable has nothing to do with "limits on free speech rights". It's all about property rights and contractual obligations.
Our author, quoted above, was enumerating our right to travel -- is not a "statist", and your unsupported opinion insisting he is makes you look like a 'troll'.
He believes in a state monopoly of roads.
Having public roads in our republic is "Statist"? -- Weird position.
He may be less statist than, say, your average democrat, but he is indeed statist.
Prove it. Show us where..
-- Again, who is advocating the violation of property, - and where?
Can't you read? He has stated his belief in "public", i.e., state-owned, "roads". Public roads means the state acquiring property, in order to "protect" the "freedom" of travelling on said state-owned property. Thus, "liberty" (of travel) "trumps property." Do you imagine to yourself that the road fairy comes at night and lays down pavement? If not, how did you imagine it was done? More to the point, how did you imagine it was paid for, and how did you imagine land is acquired for new roads?
Well izzy, when we formed the United States we took over claimed & unclaimed lands and reserved to our governments the power to establish needed roads, bridges, etc. - with the understanding that such 'takings' would be for just public uses with just compensation.
-- And in fact, our subdivision of most of America mandated public easements for roads bordering every square mile.
Were you even aware of this?
You are confusing the enforcement of criminal law, -- with lawsuits/disputes between conflicting parties.
helpful if you'd give an example of a lawsuit in which two parties' "rights" come "into conflict".
Let's say you claim the 'right' to ban arms in your company parking lot. As an employee forced to park in your lot, I claim the right to have a gun in my car trunk. --
I'll then explain why "conflicting rights" have nothing to do with it.
Feel free to try.
How droll. You can swing all you want izzy, it's your right; -- but not near my nose.
You are mistaken, but you can be forgiven for using language so sloppily. What does the phrase "right to swing your arm" mean? Does it mean, "the right to swing my arm anywhere I please"? If so, there's no such right. There are plenty of circumstances in which arm-swinging is not permitted, and rightly so. I do have a "right to swing my arm on my own property when I'm alone," since that's a special case of my property rights: my arm belongs to me. There are other cases in which my property rights imply that I may swing my arm. But the right that I have is ownership of my arm, not Holmes's hypothetical "swinging rights". Usually we use the phrase "I have the right" in exactly this sloppy manner. I might say, "I have the right to have sex with my wife," but in fact do I? We have a marriage, which is essentially a contract, and it includes conjugal responsibilities, but I don't have the "right" to have sex with her against her will, or on a bus, or under a bridge, or on home plate at PNC park. Rather, we have property rights--to our bedroom, and to our own bodies--that imply the permissibility of sex in those places. There is in fact no "right to have sex." The sloppy common usage is normally adequate, but it can cause confusion--and this is exactly one of those cases. You're confused.
"-- Yo' momma --"
You have no right to 'freely' yell FIRE! in a crowded theater and cause a panic, izzy. -- Unless there is a fire. -- Get it yet?
I have no right, agreed!
Thanks
But
Inane but.
it has nothing to do with "free speech": it's the simple consequence that I don't own the theater. I entered under terms that included an implicit prohibition against shouting "Fire!" Do you get it?
Ownership of the crowded space has nothing to do with yelling & starting a panic that can cost lives. -- Apparently you cannot 'get' that distinction. Catch 22?
Lordy, but you do babble on.
You just said "yo mamma,"
You bet kid. -- She should be making sure you're in school.
but you did at least try to make an argument elsewhere in your post. Can a theater owner, or can he not, conduct fire drills? Simply put, the determination whether an outburst in a theater is acceptable has nothing to do with "limits on free speech rights". It's all about property rights and contractual obligations.
So you imagine. -- Get some new arguments
That's a question and a remark, not a logical reply. The answer to the question is yes:
Statism is a term that is used in a variety of disciplines (economics, sociology, education policy etc) to describe a system that involves a significant interventionist role for the state in economic or social affairs.
A statist believes that the state should intervene and control X. For some statists, X includes everything. For others, X includes only certain things. The author may be more or less statist, but his position that the state should intervene and control the roads is perfectly clear.
Well izzy, when we formed the United States we took over claimed & unclaimed lands and reserved to our governments the power to establish needed roads, bridges, etc. - with the understanding that such 'takings' would be for just public uses with just compensation.
We? Who's this "we", white man? I wasn't born at the time, so "we" doesn't include me.
However, you put your finger on exactly the problem! Such "takings" must be for a "just" public use, with "just" compensation. Who decides what uses are "just", or what compensation is "just"? Answer: the same one doing the taking. Kelo v New London has made it perfectly clear what that means.
As for "claiming unclaimed lands," that was a statist intervention of the worst sort. "Unclaimed" resources belong to whoever homesteads them; in violation of this, the state pre-empted any and all homesteading claims by declaring itself the owner of all unclaimed lands.
Let's say you claim the 'right' to ban arms in your company parking lot. As an employee forced to park in your lot, I claim the right to have a gun in my car trunk. --
You have no such right, so you can claim all you want. It's my property, and I can dictate the terms under which I will allow you to use it. Thus there is no "rights" conflict: my "right" is conflicting with your "wrong".
Ownership of the crowded space has nothing to do with yelling & starting a panic that can cost lives. -- Apparently you cannot 'get' that distinction. Catch 22?
No, you are again failing to take property rights and contractual obligations into account. When I allow you on my land, there is an implied contract that I won't, for example, shoot you or run you over with my SUV. It may be my land, but I can't invite you onto it and then kill you. Similarly, I can't engage in reckless behavior that threatens you with great harm, because there is an implied contract that I will act with due regard for your health and safety.
What you didn't notice is that right next door to my movie theater is my dance club. Every night people crowd into the mosh pit, where they experience exactly what you would in my theater if someone yelled "Fire!" Sometimes people are injured, or even killed, in that mosh pit. Yet I've never been arrested for it. Why not? Simple: in the theater, there's an implied contract that I won't subject you to a frenzied stampede--but in the mosh pit, there's an implied contract that you expect to be subjected to a frenzied stampede.
Ollie Holmes, by contrast, would have upheld statutes banning mosh pits, on precisely the same grounds that he believed it illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The two cases are different precisely because of the relevant contracts--but Mr. Holmes didn't believe in the liberty of contract.
The experience of the Continental Army may have motivated both sides in the Civil War to establish conscription, as well as during both World Wars and the Cold War era (including Korea and Vietnam). The Northern Civil War and Vietnam era drafts were unpopular and led to riots and demonstrations. Support for a war has to be held by a large majority of the population for a draft to be effective.
The answer to the question is yes: The author may be more or less statist, but his position that the state should intervene and control the roads is perfectly clear.
Our Constitution is perfectly clear on the subject, and the author & I support it on that issue.. You, quite irrationally, - do not.
Well izzy, when 'we the people' formed the United States we took over claimed & unclaimed lands and reserved to our governments the power to establish needed roads, bridges, etc. - with the understanding that such 'takings' would be for just public uses with just compensation.
We? Who's this "we", white man? I wasn't born at the time, so "we" doesn't include me.
You've renounced your citizenship Izzy, and left?
As long as you live in this country, you are subject to our 'Law of the Land'.
However, you put your finger on exactly the problem! Such "takings" must be for a "just" public use, with "just" compensation. Who decides what uses are "just", or what compensation is "just"? Answer: the same one doing the taking. Kelo v New London has made it perfectly clear what that means.
Kelo will be reversed. 'We the people' are still in charge izzy.
As for "claiming unclaimed lands," that was a statist intervention of the worst sort. "Unclaimed" resources belong to whoever homesteads them; in violation of this, the state pre-empted any and all homesteading claims by declaring itself the owner of all unclaimed lands.
Again, -- 'we the people' will prevail over statism izzy. Calm yourself.
Can you give an example of a lawsuit in which two parties' "rights" come "into conflict".
Let's say you claim the 'right' to ban arms in your company parking lot. As an employee forced to park in your lot, I claim the right to have a gun in my car trunk. --
You have no such right, so you can claim all you want.
Izzy, - you're denying my right to carry a gun in my car trunk, - the car trunk is my property.
It's my property,
"-- Yo' momma reaction --".. My car trunk is my property.
and I can dictate the terms under which I will allow you to use it.
Nope, your property right cannot trump my property right, nor my right to carry a gun in my trunk.
Thus there is no "rights" conflict: my "right" is conflicting with your "wrong".
Another "Yo mamma" reaction izzy. I'm not "wrong" in keeping a gun in my trunk; - hell, it's an American tradition.
Ownership of the crowded space has nothing to do with yelling & starting a panic that can cost lives. --
Apparently you cannot 'get' that distinction. Catch 22?
No, you are again failing to take property rights and contractual obligations into account. When I allow you on my land, there is an implied contract that I won't, for example, shoot you or run you over with my SUV.
An "implied contract" izzy?
An "implied social contract" izzy?
Shot yourself in the foot izzy?
It may be my land, but I can't invite you onto it and then kill you. Similarly, I can't engage in reckless behavior that threatens you with great harm, because there is an implied contract that I will act with due regard for your health and safety. What you didn't notice is that right next door to my movie theater is my dance club. Every night people crowd into the mosh pit, where they experience exactly what you would in my theater if someone yelled "Fire!" Sometimes people are injured, or even killed, in that mosh pit. Yet I've never been arrested for it. Why not? Simple: in the theater, there's an implied contract that I won't subject you to a frenzied stampede--but in the mosh pit, there's an implied contract that you expect to be subjected to a frenzied stampede. Ollie Holmes, by contrast, would have upheld statutes banning mosh pits, on precisely the same grounds that he believed it illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The two cases are different precisely because of the relevant contracts--but Mr. Holmes didn't believe in the liberty of contract.
Rave on of your mosh pit kiddo. -- You've made yourself look foolish. -- Yo momma too...
You need to work on your powers of reasoning. Describing the position that roads should be socialised as "statist" does not tell you whether I agree or disagree with that position. Either way, it's an accurate description.
You've renounced your citizenship Izzy, and left?
You said that "we" formed the United States. Independence was declared 229 years ago, so neither you nor I were there. Yet you used the word "we", even though you clearly didn't mean "we". I called your attention to it with a question. You replied, as I expected you to, that "we" doesn't mean "we", it means "we the people." As in, "society". The "nation". "America." That "we the people."
The reason I called your attention to this is to address another significant fallacy you hold. You believe that there is an entity, called "society," which has special rights and needs superseding those of the individual. For example, "society" needs roads, even if I were utterly convinced that roads are a bad idea. And "society" needs my garbage to be collected, which gives "society" the right to tax me for that service, even if I'd rather burn it, bury it, or dispose of it in some other way.
In reality there is no such entity with rights of its own; only individual human beings have rights. "Society" or "the state" is a term which gives a certain interpretation to the deeds of individuals. For example, if one man in jeans shoots someone, we say that he killed somebody. If another man, in a blue uniform, shoots someone, we say "the police" killed somebody. If yet another man lethally injects someone, after being so ordered by a man in a black robe, we say that "the state" killed the man. In every case, the killing was done by a specific person. We attribute some people's deeds to an imaginary individual, "the state", to express the interpretation that his actions represent the carrying out of law.
The importance of this becomes clear why you use the term "we the people". "We the people" instituted a drinking age of 21, and until ten years ago or so, a speed limit of 55 mph. What does that mean? In reality, some men in suits declared these to be "laws." and other men in blue uniforms began imprisoning people who violated those laws. When you say "we the people" did it, you mean that "the government" did it, which in turn really means that certain individuals did it.
This distinction is often unimportant, so we say "the cable company" put in our new cable, rather than naming the individual. But it's important to understand the implications of this figure of speech. When you say "the state" banned smoking in private homes in some town, you are saying two things: (1) certain individuals ordered this ban, and (2) you consider their doing so to be proper and lawful. When you say "we the people" did so, you are saying the same thing, but you are implying something more. Namely, you are implying that those individuals were not only acting properly and lawfully, but they were in fact acting on each of our behalves in particular. That is, Bush didn't just pass a humongous budget because he had the power to, but acting as the agent of Shalom Israel, his budget is in fact deemed to be my budget, as if I'd personally ordered him to submit it. The intent is to strengthen the implied legitimacy, as if to say, "If you didn't want Bush to spend so much money, you shouldn't have ordered him to."
Your reasoning is fallacious. Some laws are utterly improper, but by your reasoning this is impossible, since "we the people" made them. Kelo v New London is the rightful law of the land, because "we the people", meaning the SC justices, made it so. The japanese internment was moral and just, because "we the people", meaning Roosevelt, said so. Likewise the Trail of Tears, slavery, Jim Crow, Dred Scott, Prohibition and many other examples. All proper because "we" did it, meaning you, tpaine. You are responsible for slavery and Jim Crow--unless you've renounced your citizenship. Have you?
Izzy, - you're denying my right to carry a gun in my car trunk, - the car trunk is my property.
You can keep anything you want in your car. But you can't bring your car on my property without my permission, and I can set any conditions I wish. There is no conflict of rights whatsoever, because you have no right to bring your car on my land without my permission in the first place. You're simply confused.
An "implied contract" izzy?
An "implied social contract" izzy?
Shot yourself in the foot izzy?
There is no resemblance between an "implied" contract and a "social" contract. You just don't know much about implied contracts. Most of our actions entail certain implicit guarantees. For example, if I invite you onto my property, implicit in that invitation is the promise that I won't rape, torture and murder you. If we have a literal contract for me to "paint your house," which says only that, then implicit in that contract is that I will do so in a workmanlike manner, according to customary practices of the time--so, for example, if I fling a bucket of paint against your house, grab the money and holler "Thanks, sucker!" you can sue me for breach of contract, and win. The defense that I most certainly "painted your house" will not hold up.
Almost all contracts involve implicit obligations of that form, because spelling out absolutely every obligation in full is not possible.
But that has nothing to do with "social contracts". In the cases I've mentioned, two people still reach an agreement voluntarily; the agreement is merely informal. Verbal contracts come under the same heading, because they leave many things unspecified, which are then deemed implicit in the terms of the verbal agreement.
Rave on of your mosh pit kiddo. -- You've made yourself look foolish.
Once again your mockery doesn't constitute an argument. If anyone's actually still reading the thread at this point, they can certainly see who's foolish and who isn't. My example precisely addressed the issue, and you have no logical reply--only the meaningless dismissal, "Rave on."
He believes in a state monopoly of roads. He may be less statist than, say, your average democrat, but he is indeed statist. He has stated his belief in "public", i.e., state-owned, "roads". Public roads means the state acquiring property, in order to "protect" the "freedom" of travelling on said state-owned property. Thus, "liberty" (of travel) "trumps property." Do you imagine to yourself that the road fairy comes at night and lays down pavement? If not, how did you imagine it was done? More to the point, how did you imagine it was paid for, and how did you imagine land is acquired for new roads?
Our Constitution is perfectly clear on the subject, and the author & I support it on that issue..
You, quite irrationally, - do not.
Describing the position that roads should be socialised as "statist" does not tell you whether I agree or disagree with that position.
Your rant above amply shows your position. You disagree with our Constitution.
Have you renounced your citizenship Izzy, and left?
You said that "we" formed the United States. Independence was declared 229 years ago, so neither you nor I were there. Yet you used the word "we", even though you clearly didn't mean "we". I called your attention to it with a question. You replied, as I expected you to, that "we" doesn't mean "we", it means "we the people."
In context, I meant 'we', as 'we the people'. You're simply being a juvenile nitpicker, playing the "yo' mamma" game.
The reason I called your attention to this is to address another significant fallacy you hold. You believe that there is an entity, called "society," which has special rights and needs superseding those of the individual.
More "yo' momma" bull. You're inventing that 'special rights' line.
For example, "society" needs roads, even if I were utterly convinced that roads are a bad idea.
America doesn't need roads? -- You're getting weird again. - We're nearly finished.
And "society" needs my garbage to be collected, which gives "society" the right to tax me for that service, even if I'd rather burn it, bury it, or dispose of it in some other way. In reality there is no such entity with rights of its own; only individual human beings have rights.
And your individual neighbor may have the right to object, Constitutionally, about how you burn or bury your garbage izzy. -- Think about it.
"Society" or "the state" is a term which gives a certain interpretation to the deeds of individuals. For example, if one man in jeans shoots someone, we say that he killed somebody. If another man, in a blue uniform, shoots someone, we say "the police" killed somebody. If yet another man lethally injects someone, after being so ordered by a man in a black robe, we say that "the state" killed the man. In every case, the killing was done by a specific person. We attribute some people's deeds to an imaginary individual, "the state", to express the interpretation that his actions represent the carrying out of law. The importance of this becomes clear why you use the term "we the people". "We the people" instituted a drinking age of 21, and until ten years ago or so, a speed limit of 55 mph. What does that mean? In reality, some men in suits declared these to be "laws." and other men in blue uniforms began imprisoning people who violated those laws. When you say "we the people" did it, you mean that "the government" did it, which in turn really means that certain individuals did it. This distinction is often unimportant, so we say "the cable company" put in our new cable, rather than naming the individual. But it's important to understand the implications of this figure of speech. When you say "the state" banned smoking in private homes in some town, you are saying two things: (1) certain individuals ordered this ban, and (2) you consider their doing so to be proper and lawful. When you say "we the people" did so, you are saying the same thing, but you are implying something more. Namely, you are implying that those individuals were not only acting properly and lawfully, but they were in fact acting on each of our behalves in particular. That is, Bush didn't just pass a humongous budget because he had the power to, but acting as the agent of Shalom Israel, his budget is in fact deemed to be my budget, as if I'd personally ordered him to submit it. The intent is to strengthen the implied legitimacy, as if to say, "If you didn't want Bush to spend so much money, you shouldn't have ordered him to." Your reasoning is fallacious. Some laws are utterly improper, but by your reasoning this is impossible, since "we the people" made them. Kelo v New London is the rightful law of the land, because "we the people", meaning the SC justices, made it so. The japanese internment was moral and just, because "we the people", meaning Roosevelt, said so. Likewise the Trail of Tears, slavery, Jim Crow, Dred Scott, Prohibition and many other examples. All proper because "we" did it, meaning you, tpaine. You are responsible for slavery and Jim Crow--
Good grief man, you've slipped a cog or two. -- My apologies if I've helped set you off, but calm down. - And get some help.
unless you've renounced your citizenship. Have you?
No, I took an oath to protect & defend the Constitution 51 years ago izzy, one I still honor. -- Obviously, you do not.
Izzy, - you're denying my right to carry a gun in my car trunk, - the car trunk is my property.
You can keep anything you want in your car. But you can't bring your car on my property without my permission, and I can set any conditions I wish. There is no conflict of rights whatsoever, because you have no right to bring your car on my land without my permission in the first place.
Employees all over america must use company parking, and some of them are being fired for having a gun in their trunk. Those are the facts izzy.
An "implied contract" izzy?
An "implied social contract" izzy?
Shot yourself in the foot izzy?
There is no resemblance between an "implied" contract and a "social" contract. You just don't know much about implied contracts. Most of our actions entail certain implicit guarantees. For example, if I invite you onto my property, implicit in that invitation is the promise that I won't rape, torture and murder you. If we have a literal contract for me to "paint your house," which says only that, then implicit in that contract is that I will do so in a workmanlike manner, according to customary practices of the time--so, for example, if I fling a bucket of paint against your house, grab the money and holler "Thanks, sucker!" you can sue me for breach of contract, and win. The defense that I most certainly "painted your house" will not hold up. Almost all contracts involve implicit obligations of that form, because spelling out absolutely every obligation in full is not possible. But that has nothing to do with "social contracts". In the cases I've mentioned, two people still reach an agreement voluntarily; the agreement is merely informal. Verbal contracts come under the same heading, because they leave many things unspecified, which are then deemed implicit in the terms of the verbal agreement.
I've been a building contractor for 45 years izzy. -- So find someone else to post your BS lectures to about contracts.. -- I'll even give you the last word. - But do think about getting some help.
Once again your mockery doesn't constitute an argument. If anyone's actually still reading the thread at this point, they can certainly see who's foolish and who isn't. My example precisely addressed the issue, and you have no logical reply--only the meaningless dismissal, "Rave on."
"Must"? You mean, something bad will happen to them if they get dropped off, or take the bus, or walk? They "must"? Who's forcing them? Whoever it is, he's violating those employees' rights.
and some of them are being fired for having a gun in their trunk. Those are the facts izzy.
That's perfectly within the property owner's rights. You don't have, and never did have, the right to bring a weapon onto my private property against my will. That you can't grasp this elementary fact is certainly troubling.
America doesn't need roads? -- You're getting weird again. - We're nearly finished.
"America" needs roads? You're anthropomorphizing again. "America" the piece of land has no needs, because it's inanimate. So what sentient being is doing this needing? You seem to think that America is itself an individual with needs. I deny the existence of this individual. People have needs. Many people will say they "need" roads--but not me: where I live, we travel by dogsled. Yet, amazingly, you are comfortable extorting money from me, who doesn't "need" any roads, and handing it over to other people, who want roads, and you justify it by claiming that "America" has a "need" for those roads.
Once again, you're confused.
And your individual neighbor may have the right to object, Constitutionally, about how you burn or bury your garbage izzy. -- Think about it.
He may, for example if my handling of garbage sends smoke or stink onto his private property. If I refrain from violating his private property rights with smoke, stink, etc., then he has no grounds to object. For example, he can object that I'm not being "environmentally friendly" all he wants, and it don't mean squat.
But you appear to be claiming that this statement of yours justifies forcing me to pay for garbage collection I don't want. This is the heart of the problem: you don't actually believe in private property. You believe that some cases justify your violating your neighbor's property rights, for example if you don't like his rules about guns on his land, or if you don't like his method of handling garbage.
No, I took an oath to protect & defend the Constitution 51 years ago izzy, one I still honor. -- Obviously, you do not.
Ignoring your ad hominem--what else is new--I repeat, then that "we the people" passed Jim Crow laws. That makes them okie-dokie to you. Unless you retract your ridiculous claim that a law must be legitimate whenever "we the people" pass that law.
I've been a building contractor for 45 years izzy. -- So find someone else to post your BS lectures to about contracts
Then you're either lying about your experience, or you're lying when you dispute what I say. Assuming you're an honest businesman, you know that you've done lots of things not specifically listed in the contract, because they were part of doing your job in a workmanlike manner.
If you're a dishonest contractor--there's certainly no shortage of those--then you have done the opposite: you've failed to clean up the site when you finished, because the contract didn't say you had to; you've painted without proper surface preparation, because the contract said you'd "paint", but didn't detail the surface preparation required; you nailed cleats to the roof, straight through the shingles, because it was easier and the contract didn't specify roof jacks... and if all of that is true, then I know your real name, because you recently "painted" my house.
Meanwhile, here's some reading to educate yourself on implied and oral contracts. You'll find it agrees with my summary, though my summary was clearer.
Yep, our defense problems today are imagined. Our border and port security are as tight as drums. No trade concerns at all, either. We don't have a lopsided legal arrangement with most countries that purport to fairly trade with us--they're just single pages of paper which say "you trade with us, no tariffs allowed, we trade with you, no tariffs allowed." Oh, it's nice to post to someone who's part of the real world, instead of imagining things. /sarc
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.