Why Statists Always Get it Wrong

The von Mises Institute ^ | Monday, February 20, 2006 | Per Bylund

[tacticalogic]

These people didn't die of old age. They did from famine and disease following the collapse of the central government. So, do you think the prevention of the deaths of a million people from disease and famine is a legitimate function of government?

The prevention of famine and disease can be a legitimate function of government, but there is no reason the it can only be done by government, or that it must be a central government.

The original question? By that I presume you mean do I think any central government could have prevented this? Well, it happened after the central government collapsed, not before.

Then you are drawing conclusions based on flawed logic, easily demonstrated by the simple obseravation that there are many cases of millions of deaths having been caused by disease and famine created by a central government.

[tpaine]

KrisKrinkle:

When tpaine used the word "sign" I infer he meant: The subscription of one's name; signature.

Izzy responds:

I know he did, but he's wrong.
Contracts are created all the time with a word or a handshake. If you read up on contract law, you'll be surprised to learn that the signature is not in fact what creates a contract. A contract is made when a party makes an offer, and another party accepts the offer. A signature is optional, and does not play an integral role. Rather, the signature constitutes evidence that you accepted the offer.
--- you don't understand the actual role of signature in contracts.
--- if you understand contract law: an implied contract is an agreement which, although not explcitly stated, nevertheless exists between the two parties.
To prove that it exists, you must prove that there's an agreement between us. To prove that, you look at whatever explicit agreements we've made, and at our interactions.
--- you can't select two people at random and claim that they have an "implicit contract" between them. There must be evidence of the existence of an agreement.
-407- Shalom Israel

tpaine here:
Izzy, -- anyone could pick two people, at random, off the streets of the USA, and establish with two questions whether they have an "implicit Constitutional contract" between them.

-- The first question: -- Have you ever pledged allegiance to the flag of the USA, and to the Republic for which it stands?

The second: -- Did your pledge mean or imply that you agree with the principles of our Constitution?

The response would overwhelmingly prove that there's an agreement between most ALL of us.

Granted, a few, like you, would answer no. -- Which is fine, - rational people learn to ignore aberrations.

KrisKrinkle comments on #407:

If we can ever agree on the existence of the Social Contract (or Compact as they used to say) perhaps someday we can discuss its nature.

Izzy riposts:

Um, yes: that's exactly the subject under debate.
The founders were quite mistaken in that they did believe in this notion.
I can prove that no actual contract was involved, though!
When the Constitutional convention was over, Mrs. Powel approached Benjie Franklin and asked, "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" In other words, she didn't even know what the new government was--and yet, inside the convention, the founders glibly spoke of a "compact" to which Mrs. Powel was supposedly a signatory.
-411-

Kris, when izzy presents definitive smash down proof like Mrs Powells words, -- what more need be said?

[tpaine]

The Social Contract and Constitutional Republics
Address:http://www.constitution.org/soclcont.htm


-- Duties under the Social Contract --

While a constitution prescribes the legal rights of individuals and the powers of government, the social contract also includes certain duties which members assume upon entry.

Those duties include the duty to avoid infringing on the rights of other members, to obey just laws, to comply with and help enforce just contracts, to serve on juries, and to defend the community.


It is important to recognize that although individuals have a right of self-defense in the state of nature, when they enter into society under the social contract, the pooling of that right transforms it into a duty to defend the community, and therefore to risk or sacrifice one's life, liberty, or property if such defense should require it.
The right of self-defense is no longer supreme, although it survives the transition to society as a duty to defend oneself as part of the community.
Pacifism in the face of mortal danger to oneself or others is therefore not consistent with the social contract, and persons who insist on that position must be considered not to be members of society or entitled to its benefits, and if they live in the same country, have the status of resident aliens.

This duty implies not only individual action to defend the community, but the duty to do so in concert with others as an organized and trained militia.
Since public officials may themselves pose a threat to the community, such militias may be subject to call-up by officials, but may not be subject to their control except insofar as they are acting in accordance with the constitution and laws pursuant thereto, and in defense of the community. Since any official designated to call up the militia may be an enemy of the constitution and laws, and may fail to issue a call-up when appropriate, militias must remain able to be called up by any credible person and independent of official control.


Another important duty is jury duty. Since officials may be corrupt or abusive or their power, grand jurors have the duty not only to bring an indictment upon evidence presented to it by a prosecutor, but to conduct their own investigations and if necessary, to appoint their own prosecutors to conduct a trial on the evidence.
Petit jurors have the duty to not only follow the instructions of the judge to bring a verdict on the "facts" in a case, but to rule on all issues before the court, overriding the judge if necessary.
No matter how despicable an accused defendant might be or how heinous his acts, they have the duty to find that accused not guilty if the court lacks jurisdiction, if the rights of the accused were seriously violated in the course of the investigation or trial, or if the law under which the accused is charged is misapplied to the case or is unconstitutional; and to find the law unconstitutional if it is in violation of the constitutional rights of the accused, if it is not based on any power delegated to the government, if it is unequally enforced, or if it is so vague that honest persons could disagree on how to obey or enforce it.

[tacticalogic]

As long as you keep the term "social" in the proper context. In this case, "civil contract" might be a more appropriate term. The idea that there is an implicit constitutional authorization for the federal government to pursue "social justice" seems to stem from the failure to maintain that context.

[tpaine]

I don't see that anyone here is advocating the -- "idea that there is an implicit constitutional authorization for the federal government to pursue "social justice".

Do you?

[tpaine]

I don't see that anyone here is advocating the -- "idea that there is an implicit constitutional authorization for the federal government to pursue "social justice".

Do you?

In fact, one of the biggest problems on this thread with the whole 'social contract' issue, - is the pejorative assumption being used [primarily by izzy], that the word 'social' somehow implies condoning socialism.

[Shalom Israel]

the pejorative assumption being used [primarily by izzy], that the word 'social' somehow implies condoning socialism.

I've stopped responding to tpaine directly, but for the record, Tactic, I'm of course making no such assumption. Rather, I'm discussing only the implications of the "contract" part of social contract.

As an aside, I've remarked before that the word "social" essentially negates whatever comes next: social security isn't secure; social justice isn't just; social contracts aren't contracts; etc.

[tpaine]

the pejorative assumption being used [primarily by izzy], that the word 'social' somehow implies condoning socialism.

Izzy claims:

I'm of course making no such assumption.

Then contradicts himself in his next line.

I've remarked before that the word "social" essentially negates whatever comes next: social security isn't secure; social justice isn't just; social contracts aren't contracts; etc.

The term cognitive dissonance comes to mind.

[Shalom Israel]

Please stop addressing your idiotic replies to me. In no post, at no time, did I ever link the word "social" in "social contract" with the political philosophy known as "socialism." Go soak your head.

[tpaine]

--- the pejorative assumption being used [primarily by izzy], that the word 'social' somehow implies condoning socialism.

Izzy claims:

I'm of course making no such assumption.

Then contradicts himself in his next line.

I've remarked before that the word "social" essentially negates whatever comes next: social security isn't secure; social justice isn't just; social contracts aren't contracts; etc.

The term cognitive dissonance comes to mind.

Please stop addressing your idiotic replies to me.

Please: NO personal attacks ---- But sure, You quit using & addressing me in your arguments, & I'll reciprocate.

In no post, at no time, did I ever link the word "social" in "social contract" with the political philosophy known as "socialism."

I generalized that a pejorative assumption is being used [primarily by you, izzy], that the word 'social' somehow implies condoning socialism. -- No specific post or 'link' of the word was mentioned.

Go soak your head.

Please; NO personal "yo momma" type attacks.

[Shooter1001]

Privatization of national defense = hiring mercenaries.

Dress it up how you like, hiring a group for pay to defend a nation won't work. When the bullet hits the bone, the hired help can't be trusted. They'll run or worse, change sides. There is no loyalty, they're not fighting for themselves. Its just the $$ and when that runs out, so do the unpaid mercenaries.

Why did the Greeks always post their mercenaries front and center? So they would bear the brunt of the battle and, so they couldn't run away!

Now, if you mean by defense privatization having Halliburton run the mess halls, well, maybe. But you won't find any wing-tipped execu-warriors around when the fit hits the Shan. They'll be running for cover with the Sri Lankan server boys they hire for $3 a day.

While I sympathize with the Libertarian distrust of government, national defense has to stay in gov't hands.

Believe me, I'd love to take my family, the dog, guns, truck, move up to 'Ruby Ridge' and flip Osama a bird and tell him 'come get me you ragheaded motherf'er' but somehow I think the USMC would do a better job.

[Shalom Israel]

Privatization of national defense = hiring mercenaries.

That might be true if big central armies are the cornerstone of defence, but that isn't necessarily true. One approach to national defense is to arm everyone in the place, and let foreigners decide for themselves whether they really want a massively bloody confrontation with tens of millions of causalties, or whether they'd rather just engage in free trade.

Another possibility is all-volunteer local militias. This is actually the same as the previous option, with the addition of a few officers.

While I sympathize with the Libertarian distrust of government, national defense has to stay in gov't hands.

As I said before: it's not that I'm so sure defense can be privatized, but rather that I distrust the casual assumption that it can't be. After all, such a thing hasn't been properly tried in the last 10,000 years. We always think there's only one way to do things, when one way is the only one we know.

Believe me, I'd love to take my family, the dog, guns, truck, move up to 'Ruby Ridge' and flip Osama a bird and tell him 'come get me you ragheaded motherf'er' but somehow I think the USMC would do a better job.

I'll grant that no "private army" could beat the USMC, because no private army could convince people to give them hundreds of billions of dollars--which, of course, the US military is given out of the spoils of tax theft. However, it isn't necessary to do the best possible job; a good enough job will do. The down side of the US military's superiority is that it's also the world's best tool for oppressing the populace, and sooner or later the day will come that it's used for that purpose.

[tpaine]

While I sympathize with the Libertarian distrust of government, national defense has to stay in gov't hands.

Believe me, I'd love to take my family, the dog, guns, truck, move up to 'Ruby Ridge' and flip Osama a bird and tell him 'come get me you ragheaded motherf'er' but somehow I think the USMC would do a better job.
431 Shooter1001

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Shooter; -- no rational libertarian would try to tell you that the USMC will ever be used to suppress US civilians.

Pacifist's may have such nightmares , but the reality of an armed population and our Constituonal contracts principles, - like Posse Comitatus , -- will serve to prevent such acts.

[KrisKrinkle]

“No, I'm making an assumption about your location.”

??? That’s what I said but I added that your assumption was incorrect.


“The starting premise is that we're really talking about his land, not a piece of property whose ownership is in dispute. “

Correct, but it doesn’t lead to your following sentence.


“So you didn't "agree" that you weren't on his land; you really, honest-to-goodness weren't standing on his property.

That I didn’t agree that I wasn’t on his land is correct. You assumed it. I didn’t say one way or the other because it was irrelevant at that point.

Remember, what I said was that when you say “…he can ban anything he wants on his property…” “It looks like you’re saying that if he wants he can ban the life and liberty of others; that if they are on his property, the owner can kill someone at will or prevent someone from leaving.”


“Yes, it does, because he can't issue a ban…”

Agreed and that’s the point I was trying to help you think through to: That “…he can ban anything he wants on his property…” is an overbroad, incorrect statement. That there are situations in which he can not “ban anything he wants on his property,” your example of his having waived the right to do so being (ultimately the only?) one of them


In regard to the end of your post:

You wrote: “Yes, it does, because he can't issue a ban if he has already waived the right to issue it."

Then you quoted my words: “But I already understand that you regard your statement “…he can ban anything he wants on his property…” as a little too broad and all encompassing. “ which your saying “…he can’t issue a ban…” appears to validate."

Then you write: “No.” which is a contradiction of the “yes” you wrote before.

And you continue by writing “You merely misunderstand the statement, because you fail to appreciate the fact that every contract is a limited waiver of certain rights.”

Which appears to invalidate your previous statement “…he can ban anything he wants on his property…” which is the point I was trying to help you think through to.


That’s tempting, very tempting.

[KrisKrinkle]

“Um, er, uh, Yes.”

I repeat with an expansion: No! That’s not what I was saying. (That's in response to your “Doesn't work: you're saying…”) It’s one thing if you made an inference from my words. If I composed badly that’s another thing. But that’s not what I was saying.

[KrisKrinkle]

To rebut your “smash” I don’t have to prove that what you tried to smash was correct. All I have to do is demonstrate your “smash” was incorrect.

As a poor example because you didn’t really smash, in response to: For Hobbes, the contract was an agreement between society and its government.

You said: “Thank you; you stand corrected.”

My rebuttal to your statement is: I merely offered the definitions up for you to smash. I did not say I agreed or disagreed with each, any or all of them therefore such agreement or disagreement is not in evidence and can not be corrected.

See? I didn’t have to do anything but address your smash on its own merits. And you are free to treat my rebuttal the same way.

[KrisKrinkle]

“I own land. It's mine. If I want to "opt out" of this contract I never opted into in the first place, then I must allow my land to be stolen from me.”

"It is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all... It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813.

"A right of property in moveable things is admitted before the establishment of government. A separate property in lands, not till after that establishment. The right to moveables is acknowledged by all the hordes of Indians surrounding us. Yet by no one of them has a separate property in lands been yielded to individuals. He who plants a field keeps possession till he has gathered the produce, after which one has as good a right as another to occupy it. Government must be established and laws provided, before lands can be separately appropriated, and their owner protected in his possession. Till then, the property is in the body of the nation, and they, or their chief as trustee, must grant them to individuals, and determine the conditions of the grant." --Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812.

Others might say: Your ownership of land is dependant on a Social contract. You “signed” your agreement with it by buying land under its terms. (Those terms are implicit but as someone over the age of 18 you’re expected to know what they are.) If you opt out of the contract it is not stealing if your land is forfeit (if it even is, you said it not me), the forfeiture is a penalty for breaking the contract.

Aside from all that, who besides you said the only way you can opt out is by submitting to a violation of your property rights?

Who besides you said you must allow your land to be stolen from you?

I didn’t say that and you posted to me.

[KrisKrinkle]

“But if they don't like it, their only choice is to flee Japan. “

No its not. They can become outlaws. Do not some martial arts weapons descend from farm implements because of this? The peasants took a dim view of being denied arms so went outside the law and turned their farm implements into weapons.

They can also force change and “…institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


“That's not a "contract"; the peasants in this case most certainly never agreed to anything.”

One could argue they “signed” their agreement by not fleeing, becoming outlaws or revolting.


“So this obviously unjust institution fits your idea of a ‘social contract’…”

Unfounded attribution—at least I don’t recall saying any such thing.


“…and the "social contract" in the US has similarly bad implications--for example, that policemen can break into a house, shoot the occupants, explain that they meant to raid the "crack house" next door, and get away with murder. I can't escape this injustice without fleeing the country.”

Looks like an establishment of imitation and approximation probably for the purpose of having an easy target.

[Shalom Israel]

That’s what I said but I added that your assumption was incorrect.

You mean you were always on his property? Since the beginning of time? You're making no sense. If you would like to clearly spell out the scenario you have in mind, I welcome you to do so.

that’s the point I was trying to help you think through to

You cut my sentence right before the most important part: he can't issue such a ban because he already waived the right to do so when he invited you onto his land. If you're on his land uninvited, he can indeed take your life.

[Shalom Israel]

As a poor example because you didn’t really smash, in response to: For Hobbes

That's where thinking skills would serve you so well. Hobbes's definition was already debunked in several prior posts. You really need me to repeat it again? There's no agreement between me and the government, because I never entered such an agreement. QED