Should individuals/groups have the right to secede from the state? (1 Viewer)

[Planck]

D/w ken McCleod thinks we'll find a solution to the economic calculation problem and then make gold statues of Von Mises.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

1. Just because the government has a department for child saving, doesn't mean it actually does a good job at it.

what the flying fuck does that have to do with anything? i demanded that the new society have equal or better protection (including liberty to leave, ra ra ra) than the current government. The current quality is neither here nor there.

2. It's a bit rich of you to suggest that children aren't protected under AC (which they are, generally via the same property rights that extend to adults) - and then turn around and suggest the violation of everybody's property rights via statism. Taxing people and regulating them and throwing them in jail for victimless crimes, yea sure, that demonstrates "equal or greater protection" for children.

Not paying taxes isn't victimless you brainwashed clod, and nor does any sane individual regard paying taxes as a greater evil than the alternative: A world where vital services are insecure and available only to those who happened upon wealth or luck sufficient for them to gain access to vital services. You're advocating replacing a system where services are provided to all as a safety net with an insane, risk-decorated world where nothing is secure and for the small return of the miniscule amount of taxes that you have to pay each year. You're advocating a world where we save $10,000 bucks per year, but at what price? And what in God's name makes you think it would work? HASN'T THE GFC TAUGHT YOU ANYTHING!??!?!

3. Sometimes I feel like you're not even serious about this stuff. Cos it's not the first time that I've told you about the economic calculation problem, which demonstrates why central planning will always be inferior to distribution via price mechanism.

A small offset in accuracy certainly beats the ham fisted free market approach!

4. Supply and Demand do definitely exist, even if you don't have capitalism. What is your understanding of the concept of supply and demand? I suspect you are just using the wrong terms here, so please clarify what you mean

Don't take that tone with me, boy.

 

[volition]

Not paying taxes isn't victimless you brainwashed clod, and nor does any sane individual regard paying taxes as a greater evil than the alternative: A world where vital services are insecure and available only to those who happened upon wealth or luck sufficient for them to gain access to vital services. You're advocating replacing a system where services are provided to all as a safety net with an insane, risk-decorated world where nothing is secure and for the small return of the miniscule amount of taxes that you have to pay each year. You're advocating a world where we save $10,000 bucks per year, but at what price? And what in God's name makes you think it would work? HASN'T THE GFC TAUGHT YOU ANYTHING!??!?!

1. I was suggesting that taxing people, regulating them, and locking them up for victimless crimes are 3 distinct things that the state does that are bad. Looks like you've misread what I said.
2. The very problem is that some of these services have zero competition in their provision and so a monopoly provider (the government) has little incentive to do a good job
3. It's likely that the poor people will still be protected in society - so your assertion that only the rich will have these services is not correct. Just a random example of one idea I've seen: If a crime is committed against a poor person, a rich person could 'buy' their case off them and pursue the monetary reward - so the poor person's rights are still protected. It's also likely that the positive externality of having private security/insurance will apply to poor people, so that they will be protected for free.
4. The GFC is commonly claimed to be a failure of the market, but it is nothing but a demonstration of the idiocy of government regulation and intervention. It is due to the Fed Reserve/central banking around the world, fractional reserve banking, fannie and freddie, CRA, heavy regulation in the financial markets, and heavy regulation in the insurance markets. For the GFC to be fairly blamed on the free market, we should have actually had a free market in the first place - and that's just not the case.

A small offset in accuracy certainly beats the ham fisted free market approach!

You're not even in the right ballpark here. The criticism works at a very fundamental level because there is no way to inter subjectively compare wants, and no way for the distributed information to all be known by the central planner(s), unless they happen to be superhuman.

 

[Ayatollah]

dear sir, why dont you answer my question? why dont you leave?

 

[SylviaB]

rather than according to this non-existant "supply and demand" hogwash.

yeah I mean who cares about facts amirite??

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

i just think it's abhorrently unjust, and inefficient!

a league of power, that decides where to allocate wealth, is a much better option even slight inaccuracy. volitions objection is nought but a fallacy - rough estimations based on societal opinion can offer a fair approximation to the value that a job is worth. certainly to a greater ability than this "FREE MARKET"

1. I was suggesting that taxing people, regulating them, and locking them up for victimless crimes are 3 distinct things that the state does that are bad. Looks like you've misread what I said.

I apologise, I thought you said that those problems were linked.

Not that I have a problem with regulation or justice for the right reasons.

2. The very problem is that some of these services have zero competition in their provision and so a monopoly provider (the government) has little incentive to do a good job

they have an incentive: popularity. and while i agree that profits are a great incentive, they aren't a great incentive for a profitless activity - that's why we need glorious government. no company is going to care about joe hobo if he can't offer a profit since they have no direct responsibility to him. certainly their popularity may fall...possibly, but the same can be said about government, who have the added incentive of the hobo being their direct responcibility! replace hobo with hospital, school, or retard and you see my point comrade.

3. It's likely that the poor people will still be protected in society - so your assertion that only the rich will have these services is not correct. Just a random example of one idea I've seen: If a crime is committed against a poor person, a rich person could 'buy' their case off them and pursue the monetary reward - so the poor person's rights are still protected. It's also likely that the positive externality of having private security/insurance will apply to poor people, so that they will be protected for free.

im sorry, but i don't see the incentive for the man with the money to 'buy' the poor persons case. explain this and perhaps i'll convert to the dark side!?!?!

4. The GFC is commonly claimed to be a failure of the market, but it is nothing but a demonstration of the idiocy of government regulation and intervention. It is due to the Fed Reserve/central banking around the world, fractional reserve banking, fannie and freddie, CRA, heavy regulation in the financial markets, and heavy regulation in the insurance markets. For the GFC to be fairly blamed on the free market, we should have actually had a free market in the first place - and that's just not the case.

yeah you're right there. it wasn't the fault of reckless risk, spending, and frivolous responcibility that caused the gfc, IT WAS THE FAULT OF DA BIG GOVERNMENT!

You're a nutcase if you believe any of what you said. An utter nutcase.

 

[John McCain]

But anyway, as far as being able to actually secede - I think part of the reason is that when you buy land in most countries, the government does not allow you allodial title - they only actually allow some weaker claim over the property.

I think it comes back to whether or not the government is the legitimate owner of the land in the first place though. And given that land established via conquest is generally stolen land, it's generally illegitimately gained imo. But you know, "Terra Nullius" and all.

I think this is the heart of the matter.

The government claimed the land first. They never truly transfer complete ownership, free of obligations. Your ownership, control and use of the land is strictly limited by government powers. When you purchase land, you agree to abide by the conditions the government imposes. What about the governments property rights?

While it might be good for individuals to be allowed to secede, the government, as the true legal owner of the land, is justified in using force to prevent this if it wishes.

They're also justified in taxing you for the use of their land, enforcing every law and limitation on the use of your property, and generally fucking with your shit. This may be a bad situation. But it is their land after all, who's to argue?

You could well argue the indigenous population should have claim to the land, as it was illegitimately stolen from them. This has been recognised by the state, and the recognition of native title has provided a rare instance of allodial ownership where it has been recognised

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

if it's possible, i'd appreciate it if you libertarian nutcases stopped referring to the government as if it was something other than a representation of the citizens of the country.

plz.

just stop.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

if it's possible, i'd appreciate it if you libertarian nutcases stopped referring to the government as if it was something other than a representation of the citizens of the country.

Please quote the post that said the government was something "other than a representation of the citizens of the country."

Sure it is a representation of the majority of citizens, but what gives the majority a right to impose their will on the minority?

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

I think this is the heart of the matter.

The government claimed the land first. They never truly transfer complete ownership, free of obligations. Your ownership, control and use of the land is strictly limited by government powers. When you purchase land, you agree to abide by the conditions the government imposes. What about the governments property rights?

While it might be good for individuals to be allowed to secede, the government, as the true legal owner of the land, is justified in using force to prevent this if it wishes.

They're also justified in taxing you for the use of their land, enforcing every law and limitation on the use of your property, and generally fucking with your shit. This may be a bad situation. But it is their land after all, who's to argue?

You could well argue the indigenous population should have claim to the land, as it was illegitimately stolen from them. This has been recognised by the state, and the recognition of native title has provided a rare instance of allodial ownership where it has been recognised

The government initially took the land by force, not by homesteading (look it up). Does this mean that if a superior power such as another government or a military coup overthrows the government by force, it becomes the new legitimate owner?

Your argument seems to be nothing more than a ghastly rendition of the idea that "might is right."

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Please quote the post that said the government was something "other than a representation of the citizens of the country."

Sure it is a representation of the majority of citizens, but what gives the majority a right to impose their will on the minority?

well because you've elected to reside in a country where that's the case

if you don't like it fuck off to somalia or some shit

tyranny of the majority. lol go back to year 12 m8

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Please quote the post that said the government was something "other than a representation of the citizens of the country."

Sure it is a representation of the majority of citizens, but what gives the majority a right to impose their will on the minority?

omg good idea lets be rid of government and live in tyranny
*gets raped*
*gets murdered*
*gets raped*

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

*gets raped*
*gets murdered*
*gets raped*

You must be thinking of the state run prisons which are packed full of non-violent offenders.

 

[Iron]

i dont know how to spend my ocean of monies
feel awkward being a st george toasting dragon hoarding it all in my cave halp

 

[John McCain]

The government initially took the land by force, not by homesteading (look it up). Does this mean that if a superior power such as another government or a military coup overthrows the government by force, it becomes the new legitimate owner?

Your argument seems to be nothing more than a ghastly rendition of the idea that "might is right."

In some instances they took it by force. I agree, and the australian legal system agrees, by recognising native title in some instances, and transferring ownership.

Perhaps there is an argument for transferring greater or lesser contemporary aboriginal ownership of the land.

In many other instances, the british colonists faced no opposition or indications of ownership, and would seem to have a legitimate claim on uninhabited land. There was no nation of aboriginal people, at best they can claim certain regions.

wtf is homesteading?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

shes from da bloc

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

In some instances they took it by force. I agree, and the australian legal system agrees, by recognising native title in some instances, and transferring ownership.

Perhaps there is an argument for transferring greater or lesser contemporary aboriginal ownership of the land.

In many other instances, the british colonists faced no opposition or indications of ownership, and would seem to have a legitimate claim on uninhabited land. There was no nation of aboriginal people, at best they can claim certain regions.

wtf is homesteading?

You have to trace it further back than that. How did the British Empire ever come into existence?

Here's a hint: it wasn't by people coming together and voluntarily agreeing to by bound by a government and signing a social contract.

 

[John McCain]

Okay so they may have taken control of the UK, some other territories, illegitimately.

Doesn't invalidate later, legitimate claims to uninhabited land.

 

[loquasagacious]

Relevant blog-post from Freakonomics about Charter cities:

Weak institutions and bad rules are some of the most significant obstacles to economic growth in developing countries. Paul Romer, an economist known for his work on economic growth, has a plan to change that and recently resigned his tenured teaching position at Stanford to devote his full energies to the challenge.

Romer’s plan calls for the establishment of Hong Kong-like “charter cities,” special zones within developing countries with better rules and institutions.

The project has already attracted quite a bit of attention from both economists and the media. William Easterly, the development economist, told Newsweek, “There’s a thin line between revolutionary and crazy. Paul Romer has been adept at walking that line throughout his career, staying just out of the crazy part. He’s still tiptoeing along that line with this new idea.”

See the link for Q&A with Paul Romer: Can “Charter Cities” Change the World? A Q&A With Paul Romer - Freakonomics Blog - NYTimes.com

 

[SylviaB]

if it's possible, i'd appreciate it if you libertarian nutcases stopped referring to the government as if it was something other than a representation of the citizens of the country.

of course it's not