[mikema63]

The same one he fails to address, he admits that you cannot sell free will but does not take it to the conclusion that you cannot enforce a slave contract to the extent it must be enforced to call a slave property.

Property can't decide to stop being property whenever it likes, which someone with free will can do by breaking the contract.

[Eran]

Well, of course I do want to call that government, I can't imagine what else you would call it. The question I would bring up is why anyone would set out to make it easy to compete with them.

The normal definition of government involves the notion of a "monopoly on the legitimate use of force". No single organisation having such a monopoly, none would be a government.

However, there is no point entering into a semantic debate. This is the society I am advocating. If that makes me something other than an anarchist by your standards, who cares?

As for why anyone would set out to make it easy to compete with them, how do you explain democratic elections? Can't you see precisely the same criticism made by absolute monarchists against the notion of competitive elections?

The answer, btw, is that societal sensibilities would demand it.

Okay. But I can't even imagine how such a society would come about. Why would defence companies behave that way?

Such a society would only come about if and when the public accepts the NAP as the basis for the legitimate use of force, in just the way that Americans today accept the Constitution (ultimately) as such basis.

IF that is ever the case, defence companies would behave like that for the same reason that the President respects USSC decisions he doesn't like. Because doing otherwise would be considered illegitimate, and would be opposed by the rest of society.

Except, of course, that no one defence company is nearly as powerful, or enjoys as much prestige as a sitting President. Thus the likelihood of a defence company using force against its competitors is lower than that of a President sending the Marines to execute his rivals.

It wouldn't be my first choice, did I mention I'm a commie?, but still better than any quasi-fascist pseudo-liberal monopolist state.

Respect!

Property can't decide to stop being property whenever it likes, which someone with free will can do by breaking the contract.

Mike, you are missing Block's point.

Of course you cannot sell your will. Having signed a "voluntary slavery contract", you can certainly change your mind. Nothing can prevent that.

The relevant question is with respect of the consequences of changing your mind.

Let's say you change your mind and refuse to obey your "owner". That person now whips your body. Is he guilty of aggression? After all, you have signed a contract that explicitly permits him to do so.

I am not voicing an opinion on the question, but rather pointing out that Block's position, while a tiny minority within the libertarian movement (and Nozick, to my knowledge, has since retracted his support of voluntary slavery), isn't illogical or absurd on its face.

In fact, I can fault it emotionally and prudentially, but not logically.

[Nunt]

Let's say you change your mind and refuse to obey your "owner". That person now whips your body. Is he guilty of aggression? After all, you have signed a contract that explicitly permits him to do so.

Imo a person can back out of any contract unilatterally providing he provides compensation to the person he has a contract with. People are free to contractually choose the form in which this compensation comes. However, if monetary compensation is offered, this cannot be refused.

So for example, you have a contract with someone in which the person is allowed to whip you. He is only allowed to do that as long as you agree to be whipped. Once you say that you no longer wish to be whipped, the other person has to stop. It is then for courts to decide how much money you will need to pay for breaking the contract. My intuition would be that to end a slavery-like contract, you would not need to pay much compensation as you have already given so much to the slaver that you do not owe him much.

[Rich]

However, there is no point entering into a semantic debate. This is the society I am advocating.

We're aware of what your advocating, but you like all other Libertarians can't resist pointing to early America as a role model for us to follow and to return to, obviously on route to really wonderful, absolutely amazing, butter wouldn't melt in my mouth Libertarianism.

These are the facts: the slave plantations of the British Caribbean and North America were created by free enterprise. If one ignores the suffering of the slaves then the creation of the sugar industry was truly amazing and a testament to the power of the market. However it was a great evil and it needed government to abolish it. It need huge centralisation and acquisition of power by the Federal government to bring slavery to an end.

A 50% tax rate like Kman suffers in evil Nazi socialist Denmark is not as bad as slavery its not half as bad as slavery, its not in the same league. America was vastly improved by the dominance of the Federal government. Government made things better, much better. That doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, much government regulation and intervention is misguided and counter productive. Government is inevitability bureaucratic and inflexible.

[ingliz]

That person now whips your body

If he is your property, unproductive, and uppity, why not just butcher him? You may not recoup your full investment but, let's face facts here, you are not making owt anyway.

Alive he is useless; dead, and off the top of my head, you could

sell the organs and hair,

maybe use the fat for soap,

and after brain tanning the skin, labour intensive I know but let's assume you want to make a quality product (Each human has just enough brains to tan its own hide so labour would be your only cost and cheap enough in a slave economy), you could make a few bob turning it into novelty lampshades. cigar holders, wallets, etc.

[Nunt]

We're aware of what your advocating, but you like all other Libertarians can't resist pointing to early America as a role model for us to follow and to return to, obviously on route to really wonderful, absolutely amazing, butter wouldn't melt in my mouth Libertarianism.

These are the facts: the slave plantations of the British Caribbean and North America were created by free enterprise. If one ignores the suffering of the slaves then the creation of the sugar industry was truly amazing and a testament to the power of the market.

First of all, it is important to have a nuanced view of history. Libertarians like some things about the early America (such as fewer regulations), but dislike other things (such slavery). Personally, I believe that nationalized healthcare is a lesser violation of the nonagression principle than chattel slavery is. However, the choice is not between being free in the choice of health care vs chattel slavery. This is a false dichotomy, we can have both at the same time and this is what libertarians are striving for.

However it was a great evil and it needed government to abolish it. It need huge centralisation and acquisition of power by the Federal government to bring slavery to an end.

I would argue that slavery needed government to maintain it. A government that maintains laws to punish runaway slaves, that makes a distinction between slaves and free men, that protects and enables slave owners, etc. Its not like there was ever a situation where there was no government, and then people formed to government to liberate the slaves. Rather, government was always around and instead of liberating the slaves, government formed institutions and laws to perpetuate slavery.

Furthermore, just because slaves are traded at a market does not mean that the slave trade is a property of the free market. The free market means: "Trade between people is based on all parties recognizing the mutual benefit of the trade and thus entering the trade on their own free will without being physically coerced to enter in the trade".

So we can see that the slave trade is not a free market because the slaves do not enter into the trade out of their own free will. It doesn't matter that the buyer and seller both freely agree to the trade, because the seller is not the one who has to agree to it. Similarly, it doesn't matter whether government and the welfare recipient agree to the trade of someone else's taxes. Its not free trade because two parties have agreed to it. The tax payer hasn't agreed to the trade, so handing out welfare with tax money isn't free trade either.

[Rich]

I would argue that slavery needed government to maintain it. A government that maintains laws to punish runaway slaves, that makes a distinction between slaves and free men, that protects and enables slave owners, etc.

Rubbish slavery was entirely viable both in the Caribbean and in the future United States without any help from the European governments back home. Escapes were impossible on the smaller Islands and on the mainland the White settlers employed the Indians as bounty hunters. Of course the slave owners needed state protection from the depredations of other European states, but they needed that for any form of commerce that was nothing particular to slavery. Private companies may have sought to drag their governments into their conflicts but early European exploitation and imperialisation of the rest of the world was entirely possible and in fact happened without government support. Slavery in the Caribbean was hugely profitable and was quite capable of supporting private security to see off pirates. Slaves escaping to the Northern States and Spanish territory and being aided by Black lovers, may have been an irritation, as it was an irritation to the Nazis when Germans aided Jews, but it was not in any way a significant economic cost against slavery.

Government can pretty much always aid private enterprise in some way, but the genocide of the native Americans was another area which required no help from government. Thats why racist terrorist vermin like Ayn Rand have to make up some pack of lies to justify the genocide. Just think what private enterprise could get up to in places like Somali without the meddling of Liberal European states. A demonstration nuclear bomb could be quite affordable and could be creating net value in no time.

[Nunt]

Slavery and free markets are opposites. They cannot, by definition, exist together. If there is slavery, then there is no free market. In my previous post I have given a definition of a free market. Do you disagree with this? Do you wish to add your own definition?

Your above post seems to be argueing that private persons absent government* can still commit crimes. Well, of course this is true. This does not mean there is a free market, just because there is no government. If certain infringements on rights (as slavery definatly is) are widespread and institutionalized, then the society is not a free market society. It does not matter at all whether this institution of rights violation is a government, maffia or any other organization. As long as such organizations exist, there can never be a free market.

It is true that today libertarians mainly argue against rights violations by the state. The reason for this is rather obvious. States are the only institutions who can legally violate someone's rights and many people believe those actions are also legitimate. There is no reason to argue that private persons should not be allowed to violate someone's rights. The belief that this is wrong and should be punished is widespread.





* (however I don't have enough of historical knowledge about the US from 1776-1865 to really dispute the fact that there was hardly any government present. It doesn't seem right to me, but for the sake of arguement, I'll follow you here. I may have misunderstood, but in that period there were laws against slaves running away right? And no laws against slave owners for owning slaves? Seems to me that government was a willing co-conspirator)

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_codes thank god for governments saving the slaves....

[Rich]

If certain infringements on rights (as slavery definatly is) are widespread and institutionalized, then the society is not a free market society.

There was no institutionalizaton of slavery in 15th century Europe what soever. This was different to the Islamic world, a religion founded by terrorists. The driving force for slavery was entirely driven by the private. They very much dragged the government and churches behind them. The free market is just an analytical abstraction. Modern progressive liberal fashion dictates that no human should be a slave regardless of race, but that is not the view held by the majority of humans through out history. Is it a free market to do experiments on chimpanzees? Does the government have a right/ duty to intervene to protect the chimps "rights"? Can a man legitimately pay a fifteen year old girl for sex? The free market means little in the abstract outside of a heavily defined property relations. A Palestianan free market would look very different to a Zionist free market.

What we call the State emerged in Sumer by the fourth millennium BC. Eighty to Ninety percent of people lived in cities, although eighty to ninety percent of the population worked on the land. The State arose to defend private property, although its an arbitrary distinction as government already existed prior to agriculture and even horticulture.

[Eran]

So for example, you have a contract with someone in which the person is allowed to whip you. He is only allowed to do that as long as you agree to be whipped. Once you say that you no longer wish to be whipped, the other person has to stop.

I happen to agree with you. However, Block's position is not inconsistent or illogical.

We're aware of what your advocating, but you like all other Libertarians can't resist pointing to early America as a role model for us to follow and to return to, obviously on route to really wonderful, absolutely amazing, butter wouldn't melt in my mouth Libertarianism.

Where have you seen me pointing to early America as a role model?

In fact, some aspects of early America were better than today's, while many have been significantly worse.

These are the facts: the slave plantations of the British Caribbean and North America were created by free enterprise.

At a time in which, like today, it was government's responsibility to protect people's rights. To the extent that governments allowed slavery, the phenomenon is a clear example of government failure, even setting aside the active assistance to the slavery project offered by governments.

It need huge centralisation and acquisition of power by the Federal government to bring slavery to an end.

Except that (1) slavery ended everywhere else in the world without such power, and (2) the Federal government has initiated a war that cost the lives of 500,000 people.

Even so, the conflict was one of government vs. government, so it is hard to see how you draw any conclusion regarding my position from it.

That doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, much government regulation and intervention is misguided and counter productive. Government is inevitability bureaucratic and inflexible.

I certainly agree with that. We are proposing a direction which will go forward, not backwards. Slavery is the ultimate form of right-violations. We are not proposing more right-violations, but fewer. Thus we are proposing to move even further away from slavery.

If he is your property, unproductive, and uppity, why not just butcher him? You may not recoup your full investment but, let's face facts here, you are not making owt anyway.

That depends on our agreement, I guess...

To be clear, I do not personally support voluntary slavery. But I recognise that my position is one of subjective preference, not objective necessity.

The free market is just an analytical abstraction. Modern progressive liberal fashion dictates that no human should be a slave regardless of race, but that is not the view held by the majority of humans through out history. Is it a free market to do experiments on chimpanzees? Does the government have a right/ duty to intervene to protect the chimps "rights"? Can a man legitimately pay a fifteen year old girl for sex? The free market means little in the abstract outside of a heavily defined property relations. A Palestianan free market would look very different to a Zionist free market.

Not nearly as different as a Palestinian regulated market would be from an Israeli regulated market...

However, I do agree that the principles of free market (or the Non Aggression Principle) do leave some scope for interpretation. So what? So does the Constitution.

Think of the NAP as the constitution of the society we are proposing. Like any constitution, it requires interpretation.

[EastCoastAmerican]

Honestly, I can see where Kman and Eran are coming from in regards to comparing Somalia to Libertarians.

It's not Libertarian because the Non-Agression Principle is not upheld by the ruling factions. The government is decentralized, leaving the markets more room. This causes many Libertarians to (incorrectly) view the place as a free market paradise (like in the Von Mises article). The problem with these Libertarians is that they're viewing things from a very narrow lens of "less centralization=freedom."

Can it really be called "Libertarian" when warlords, pirates, and religious fundamentalists use violence to cow people in line? Can it really be called Libertarian when a large, centralized government is replaced with multiple small, tyrannical governments? Or when warlords demand "tribute" instead of "taxes" for protection from them?

I don't think that Somalia is a good model for Libertarianism because coercion is rampant.

[The Immortal Goon]

I don't think that Somalia is a good model for Libertarianism because coercion is rampant.

And this is the point. The libertarian wants a system that is inherently coercive to magically become not coercive.

Case in point, this slavery question. Can you voluntarily change your mind? Can someone fall into debt slavery provided he or she doesn't fulfill a contract? What if the slaves were POWs from a society that understood that if you entered a war and lost, the repercussion was slavery? If virtually any of these questions is a yes than your libertarian society has become a slave system.

The same is true at less severe intersections. What if there's a sit-in amongst workers? Do you have the right to beat them until they leave the factory floor? To kill them? What if a lord opened up a company store that ensured the workers would remain forever in debt to him? What if the workers in an area burnt down the factory and were preparing to march on other factories? All of these things have happened in the US, and they all result in torrents of blood. To pretend otherwise is absurd.

The workers or slaves or whatever aren't going to smile happily under the libertarian lords. As it is, we want to kill you and take what you have. To naively pretend that if we just give up our scant protections we will learn to love servitude is absurd.

[SueDeNîmes]

Slavery and free markets are opposites. They cannot, by definition, exist together. If there is slavery, then there is no free market.

But why not? Assuming self-ownership and freedom of contract, why can't I contract myself into indefinite servitude with conditions specifiable by the other party - effectively chattel slavery? What I own, I can dispose of as I see fit, and I'm either free to reach mutually acceptable terms with others or I'm not.

[mikema63]

You can't dispose of it, under no circumstances can you dispose of your right to break a contract, meaning you can break a slave contract at any time, meaning you can't have slavery without coercion, thus you cannot have slavery in a coercion free market.

[SueDeNîmes]

Then I'm in material breach and the other party can sue either for specific performance (enforcement agency forcibly returns me to servitude as Block suggests) or damages - which, given the dire circumstances of anyone who'd agree to any such contract and the replacement cost of a slave, I almost certainly couldn't pay. So either way I'm shut-in-a-cage by men-with-guns.

[mikema63]

And you seem very intent on telling me what I'm supposed to believe so that you can knock the Strawman down.

I'll let you believe what ever damned fool thing you like if you can't take what I have to say about my own beliefs on good faith.

[Eauz]

meaning you can't have slavery without coercion, thus you cannot have slavery in a coercion free market.

Again, you're assuming that society lives in a vacuum. Regardless if its direct slavery or indirect slavery, coercion exists in any form of socioeconomic system that exists, including libertarianism. Our society is based upon the accumulation of capital and expenditure (consumerism). Before we are born, this form of coercion exists that one must find a way to pay for goods and services in order to survive, regardless if it is legal or illegal. This is the first sign of coercion. To deny this is naive at best. If I am born into a tribal society in the forests of the amazon, coercion already exists in terms of cultural norms of the tribe. To escape these two locations will only result in you ending up in yet another coercive society. The concept of a free market assumes that one assumes a role within the coercive factors that exist in order to participate in the market.

[mikema63]

You know exactly what I mean by coercion, don't play with a different definition than the one in the discussions context.

[Rothbardian]

I am getting sick and tired of various types of statists using Somalia as some sort of example of how freedom does not work, Somalia is not a free country, if I start a factory in Somalia I might not get taxed by the official government but the local ruling warlord will show up at my factory and demand I pay him tribute in order to keep operating, effectively acting just like a government.

Government is force, a warlord threatening you with bodily harm if you dont do what he says is just like any other form of government official demanding you pay or else bad things happen too you.

I don't know if you realize this, but since the socialist republic of somalia collapse, the life of the average somali has improved in almost every way. They are safer, they have better access to health services, education, etc. Somalia is still a hell hole, but to most statists the fact that it's a hell hole because it's government managed monumental failure is not a patch on the wonderful world of government.

It's sort of like how whenever regulations fail the free market gets blamed. It's the first clue that you're dealing with delusional people.

[J Oswald]

I don't know if you realize this, but since the socialist republic of somalia collapse, the life of the average somali has improved in almost every way. They are safer, they have better access to health services, education, etc. Somalia is still a hell hole, but to most statists the fact that it's a hell hole because it's government managed monumental failure is not a patch on the wonderful world of government.

Please provide some evidence for this claim. Thank you.

Also, it would help your argument if whatever source you use is an actual scholarly source rather than some libertarian talking points website.