Sivad wrote:How do you figure?
Keep in mind that liberty is freedom.
The "civil rights" aspect is easy, for given a lack of state, anyone is free to pursue whatever they so choose to do in theory; there is no laws forbidding any form of participation in anything, irrespective of race, religion, etc. So, if there is no state, you can "theoretically" do whatever you want, marry whoever you want, and buy whatever you want because no laws prohibit you, BUT at the same time, there is nothing forbidding people on their own property from participating with whomever they so please either. So though you are free to do as you please, that freedom does not nullify the freedom of others to not associate with you or bar you entry into their homes, businesses, and property.
On my own property, if I make a product, I should NOT be required to sell it to anyone. Its my product on my own property and I should be able to voluntarily associate or disassociate with anyone I so choose. The cardinal error in the civil rights movement was not the enfranchising of blacks politically, but their move to prohibit private discrimination.
I lack liberty if I am not free to choose who I wish to associate with. No one should have a unique right to my property and product irrespective of my will to the contrary.
Thus "civil rights" imply the sacrifice of certain liberties in others.
Regarding "democracy" the answer is split into two sections; the first section will discuss what is opposed to liberty regarding governments
in-themselves, and the second will discuss what in peculiar about social contract democracies is opposed to liberty.
I. What is anti-liberty about the state in general as it applies to democracy specifically. 1. In a state of nature I have absolute liberty in the sense that no third party is restraining my free association. Whether other individuals violate my rights is a separate matter altogether and it is up to my prerogative to defend those rights by my own means. This itself is voluntary.
I must voluntarily choose to defend myself based on my own means if I want to preserve my own natural rights.
2. States exist as a third party monopolist of coercion, their institution is contrary to liberty in the sense that by being under a state, I have given up my own right to coerce wrongs done against me, I have de facto surrendered this right to the state and not only did I get nothing in exchange (except, perhaps, convenience), but I am not also forced to pay for this loss of natural rights via taxation. Not to mention, that giving the state such powers always endangers my other future liberties.
3. All states are involuntary associations in this sense, but in regards to democracy one may be tempted to say that membership in that social contract is "voluntary" because the government is designed as representative of the will of the governed; however, this is only true (at best) of majority vote, not specific and voluntary assent. Since I can remember, I have had to pay taxes that I did not consent to paying. No one asked me specifically if I wanted the services that these taxes pay for, nor did I get a choice in the matter when a % of my money was taken from me to pay for such.
On a scale of free or not-free, what is more free? The choice to pay or not pay for what I want,
or being coerced under threat of force to pay for things that I did not choose?
The answer is obvious.
II. what is anti-liberty about democracy in particular. 1. to begin this section, you must understand that monarchy is superior to the social contract in regards to personal liberty for several reasons and I will argue these not as a defense of going back to monarchy
per se, but only to show the particular anti-liberty aspect of all social contract governments including all parliamentary democracies.
2. It is a universal phenomena that wars after the assent of democracy in the west (WWI and on) were the bloodiest in human history, that spending, debt, and taxes are all higher than any other time in human history, and that the regulatory state is larger and more micro-managing than any other time in human history. These things are the result of an internal necessity in democratic governments that are not true of monarchies. Let me explain now in the following.
3. Monarchies were privately owned by a ruling family who was personally liable for his own estate. Monarchs did not engage in debt-accrual and deficit spending in a manner even remotely commensurate to modern social contract states because a monarch was personally liable for the state as his own property. Likewise, the value of his currency, government, property etc., were all based on his actions as a sovereign. Thus, a king was not only personally liable for his kingdom, but his own capital value was dependent on his actions.
In contrast, social contracts typically have representatives that serve terms and they are not personally liable for the debts they vote on and the capital value of the state is not "intrinsically" connected in their own minds to their own property, and so they tend to spend with impunity and raise deficits. This is because a representative's salary and influence is dependent on a popularity contest won by votes. Thus, representatives tend to offer more benefits while also showing a reluctance to raise taxes. Thus, democracies will predictably increase debts, devaluing the capital value of the state, and will have to raise some taxes just to keep from defaulting. Taxation, welfare programs, and increasing debts and debased currencies are hindrances to personal liberty (something I hope I shouldn't have to explain to a libertarian, of any stripe).
4. Monarchies had to personally hire their armies from their own purse because excessive taxation and oppression put them at risk of being overthrown. Hence, monarchies tend to wage smaller wars over concrete goals regarding territorial disputes etc., such wars are less gruesome as they are wars which are often fought between noble families that are usually related by marriage in some manner (so certain lines aren't likely to be crossed regarding cruelty etc)., lastly, monarchs are not as likely to piss of the nobility in their own lands with excessive taxes (and thus excessive wars etc), because it puts their own family and estate at risk.
By contrast, a representative governement has not nearly so much to lose in waging expensive wars, raising taxes, and infringing upon rights, for representatives are not likely to lose their own life, estate, or family like a deposed king would. Thus, representatives having no familial relationship to the democracies of other nations, and able to raise massive armies on public debt via outrageous taxes, can wage likewise massive and impersonal wars.
The rights of citizens via more taxes and regulations at worse can only lead to a party being temporarily deposed until the next voting cycle.
All of this is predictable given human nature (praxeology).
Hence democracies tend towards the increased growth of the state because personal liability and private ownership is removed from the principle of governance that existed under monarchy. Thus states can increase taxes, debts, deficits, wars, military size, and regulations in a way that was impossible even under even the absolutist monarchs. Do you really think Louis XIV could have survived had he passed a decree equivalent to America's prohibition on alcohol? He would have been sent to guillotine within 48 hours because he was responsible and would have been seen as such (rightfully so). Not so easy in a republic, for the masses are not likely going to track down 200 representatives, not all of which voted for the measure, and decapitate them, especially when they are temporarily in office via terms and will justly rebut;
"well you voted me in, so its partly your fault!" Sivad wrote:So basically there will be private unaccountable tyrannies taking over all state functions?
Besides the fact that nature will prevent a single family under stateless conditions from ascending to the size of our current states (that we would rightfully call tyrannical), one must ask what keeps you from becoming a tyrant yourself? That seems like a defeatist attitude. I for one intend to set up my family of humble origins to be of the aristocracy in the age to come
Under decentralized conditions in western europe in the late middle-ages through the renaissance their were hundreds of independent manors, duchies, fiefdoms, small kingdoms, alliances, and free-cities. This is what it would look like without a state. In Arizona, you would likely have 50 little regional powers, all privately owned. Phoenix would likely be a free city state, outside of Tucson ranchers with 16,000 acres would be their own lords with a large peasantry and their own privately funded security force. You would have more options than you have now, more mobility, and the ability to choose a territorial ruler with laws that you like best.
You could join a voluntary commune in the desert, become a serf for a rancher in exchange for security, move to a free-city to become an artist, etc., much like the polymaths could during the renaissance often did, jumping from venice to lombardy to a swiss canton etc.
That is liberty.
- By wat0n
- By Godstud