Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Anarcho-Capitalism  (Read 13946 times)

Herself

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1959
  • Western Science *is* *so* wonderful!
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #15 on: December 26, 2003, 01:23:07 pm »

     L. Neil Smith has employed the idea of "free-market justice" in his fiction.*
     Very approximately, he posits competing "Civil Liberties Companies" who contract in cases of the sort you present, and who have worked out among each other (and therefore, without the emotional component of persons such as the greiveing grandfather or outraged physician) means of resolving questions of interaction when one party hires representation from one firm, and another from a competing group.
     These CLCs then hire the judge, the jail (if any), which are themselves subject to approval by the clients and which are paid for by the clients, and so on.

     It's a fairly creaky system, though not less so than our present system of justice, and one that puts the ambulance-chasing habits of lawyers to positive use: if they show up on the scene soon after a crime (or, in cases like our doctor/grandfather, the doc might have them on retainer, and have security provided by the same firm), justice is served all the quicker.
     Judges would probably be retired CLC reps, and would "compete" for reputation: a judge not felt to be fair would have a difficult time getting work!
     An interesting question would be the establishment of "standing," particularly in the instant case; certainly the parents have standing, and so does the doctor; but do the grandparents?  Do activists on either side of the issue?  Can this be resolved by CLCs or judges?  (While a greater tradition of minding one's own business and nibbing out of the lives of others unless invited would help generally, it certainly would not prevent the situation you pose).

     I don't know if any of this work work or not, but L. Neil's is one of the few descriptions of such systems to be found.  Heinlein outlines a similar but more basic system in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.

     --Herself
___________________________________
* The Probability Broach, The American Zone, The Gallatin Divergence, The Venus Belt, The Nagasaki Vector, Brightsuit McBear, Forge Of The Elders, and more I've forgotten.  (Callisto?  Tom Paine Maru?  --Need to look them up).  Very pleasent reading, highly recommended.  I hope he writes more, soon.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2003, 01:23:53 pm by Herself »
Logged
Civilization in the United States ended by 1913.

RhythmStar

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1886
  • Imagine there's no Heaven.
    • RhythmStar Records
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #16 on: December 27, 2003, 11:16:41 am »

A title isn't a contract, it is a declaration or affadavit, like a will. Now, common law is that an estate must settle debts before it can disperse any assets to beneficiaries. If beneficiaries want to attain property that is left to them, they must clear any liens placed on the property either from other liquid assets they will inherit or from their own pocket. Once an estate is settled, no debt not declared by a creditor during probate can be placed against heirs.

If a title isn't a contract, then how can a deed have covenants that cannot be legally ignored?

Because a condition of purchase is that the buyer agree to be bound by the covenants, and to require that any later purchaser bound by similar conditions of purchase.

Your purchase contract is a separate document from the title declaration. That you don't get posession of title unless you agree to abide by the title declaration covenants does not make the title declaration a contract. You are free to ignore a covenant by not buying the titled property.

What about your son?

RS
Logged
Irony is the innate perversity of circumstance. -- William House

Mike Lorrey

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2745
  • Live Free and Never Die
    • The International Libertarian
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #17 on: December 27, 2003, 12:42:56 pm »

A title isn't a contract, it is a declaration or affadavit, like a will. Now, common law is that an estate must settle debts before it can disperse any assets to beneficiaries. If beneficiaries want to attain property that is left to them, they must clear any liens placed on the property either from other liquid assets they will inherit or from their own pocket. Once an estate is settled, no debt not declared by a creditor during probate can be placed against heirs.

If a title isn't a contract, then how can a deed have covenants that cannot be legally ignored?

Because a condition of purchase is that the buyer agree to be bound by the covenants, and to require that any later purchaser bound by similar conditions of purchase.

Your purchase contract is a separate document from the title declaration. That you don't get posession of title unless you agree to abide by the title declaration covenants does not make the title declaration a contract. You are free to ignore a covenant by not buying the titled property.

What about your son?

The son inherits not the property per se, but the value of the property. He can either accept covenants as a condition of transfer of title, or he can sell the property and buy other property more to his liking.

Some libertarians have the bizzare notion that they should be able to buy some undeveloped property that is cheap because it is encumbered by significant development covenants, and be able to ignore the covenants (or zoning). Excuse me, but you PAID for those covenants (by getting a cheap price). If you don't want em, go find some property elsewhere that is no so encumbered, and pay the proper market value of such unencumbered property.
Logged
The International Libertarian: The Journal of Liberty For Everyone, Everywhere, All The Time

Terry 1956

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2889
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #18 on: December 27, 2003, 03:55:53 pm »

Quote
However in order to do that Government must first steal through taxation.

How can we trust somebody to protect our property when it must first steal it to protect it.

Government then, is a contradiction. Frankly, I'm willing to live with that contradiction, I'm not quite an anarchist, but I definetly am sympathetic to it.

What is the funding is not taken by force? Such as fees for contract enforcement or deed enforcement?
Then it would be legit, although it would be best the service  not be a monoply above  a small local level. Although it could be but that would be foolish.
Logged

Terry 1956

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2889
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #19 on: December 27, 2003, 03:59:04 pm »

Can a contract survive the signer and bind their descendants?

RS
No they have a right of exit. I think also it is common for covenants to be reviewed every 10 years.
Logged

Terry 1956

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2889
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #20 on: December 27, 2003, 04:05:37 pm »

"Libertarians frequently disagree (sometimes rather violently) over what constitutes objective law and justice - some believing in patents and copyrights, others not; some supporting libel and slander laws, others not; some opposing abortion, others not; some denouncing capital punishment, others not; and some defending animal rights, others not.  

So, the question is: objective law and justice ~as judged by whom~? No one "retaliates" thinking that he's not objectively justified in doing so. If he didn't think that the force he is using were justified retaliation, then he would view it as the ~initiation~ of force, not as retaliatory force!  

How then do you reconcile conflicting ~claims~ to what constitutes objective law and justice - to what constitutes justified retaliation? After all, one person's retaliation is often another person's aggression; one person's justice, another person's crime. For example, suppose that I, as a doctor, have just performed a
partial-birth abortion on your daughter, thereby terminating the life of a son that she would otherwise have given birth to. You, as the prospective grandfather, are incensed at my action, and arrive at my office to arrest me for the murder of your grandson.  I, on the other hand, see the arrest as a violation of my right to perform a legitimate medical procedure.  So I call the office security guard to protect me from someone whom I regard as an anti-abortionist thug.

Question:  Who has the objective right to "retaliate" here?  Well, if you're an anarchist, it depends on your view of partial-birth abortion, doesn't it?!

Anarchists may nevertheless reply that there is an ~objective~ right and wrong, even if people disagree about what it is.  ~Either~ partial-birth abortion is a right, in which case, the father is objectively wrong for trying to arrest me, ~or~ partial-birth abortion is the ~violation~ of a right, in which case, the father is
objectively right for trying to arrest me.  If the former, then the father has no objective right to retaliate; if the latter, then I have no objective right to retaliate.  

Very well. Then who has an objective right to retaliate?  Most anarcho-capitalists would probably claim that I do - that partial-birth abortion should be legal.  But there are a lot of people in our society who would disagree, claiming that the procedure is tantamount to infanticide.  Observe that a commitment to individual rights doesn't help us here, for this is a question concerning the
proper ~interpretation~ of the principle of individual rights.

The problem with the anarcho-capitalist position is quite simple: Since you and I disagree about which action is just, there is no practical way for us to ~implement~ the idea that it is only the party with objective justice on its side that has the right to retaliate. In order to implement such a principle, we would first have to agree on the justice or injustice of partial-birth abortion.  But if we were in agreement, then it is unlikely that the issue would have arisen to begin with.  Either I wouldn't have performed the abortion, or you wouldn't have been trying to arrest me.  

In order to be practiced - in order to be implemented - moral principles have to be accessible to human judgment; they have to be capable of being recognized.  Yes, there is an "objective" principle of justice here, but it is of no practical value in an anarchist society, if people cannot agree on what it is.  The idea that whoever has objective justice on his side has the right to enforce it means that whoever ~thinks~ that he has objective justice on his side ~must view himself~ as having the right to enforce it, which can easily lead to a state of violent conflict and eventually to civil war.

Furthermore, if there is no single, objectively identifiable body of law, people have no idea what is expected of them - what they can and cannot do without offending someone who has the power to enforce his own private version of justice against anyone who happens to violate it. Imagine living in such a society, never knowing whom you're going to offend next, and whose "retaliation" you're likely to incur for some unknown crime that you've just unknowingly committed.  The fear and insecurity would be devastating.  

The only way to employ retaliatory force without precipitating both violent conflict and extreme insecurity is to assign its use to a monopolistic agency, which has the ~exclusive~ right to decide what is objectively just - to determine what is and is not permitted - and to enforce its decision.  The alternative is the very "chaos and anarchy" which anarcho-capitalists typically dismiss as a caricature of their position.  In fact, it is not a caricature at all, but the actual result of attempting to put their ideas into practice.  

Anarchists will often reply that the market can provide the kind of dispassionate arbitration and adjudication that is required to eliminate the influence of whim on the prosecution of an alleged crime.  A government, they say, is not required.  But an exclusive arbiter is a de facto government, regardless of whether or not it is called that by its proponents, since it assumes the right to enforce its decision against any and all dissenters.  What you would have under anarcho-capitalism in that case is competing governments - agencies competing for a monopoly of law within a given geographical
area.

The market for justice must have some objective guidelines as to what constitutes proper adjudication, retaliation and punishment, and these guidelines must be enforced. Otherwise, a lynch mob would have as much right to decide my guilt or innocence as anyone else. Who determines these guidelines?  Whoever does is declaring himself a legal monopoly - i.e., a government."

     Who can refute this argument?

Randy Barnett's ideal of a polycentric constitution gives that objectivty to competitive  security and court services.
Logged

Terry 1956

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2889
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #21 on: December 27, 2003, 04:33:46 pm »

"Libertarians frequently disagree (sometimes rather violently) over what constitutes objective law and justice - some believing in patents and copyrights, others not; some supporting libel and slander laws, others not; some opposing abortion, others not; some denouncing capital punishment, others not; and some defending animal rights, others not.  

So, the question is: objective law and justice ~as judged by whom~? No one "retaliates" thinking that he's not objectively justified in doing so. If he didn't think that the force he is using were justified retaliation, then he would view it as the ~initiation~ of force, not as retaliatory force!  

How then do you reconcile conflicting ~claims~ to what constitutes objective law and justice - to what constitutes justified retaliation? After all, one person's retaliation is often another person's aggression; one person's justice, another person's crime. For example, suppose that I, as a doctor, have just performed a
partial-birth abortion on your daughter, thereby terminating the life of a son that she would otherwise have given birth to. You, as the prospective grandfather, are incensed at my action, and arrive at my office to arrest me for the murder of your grandson.  I, on the other hand, see the arrest as a violation of my right to perform a legitimate medical procedure.  So I call the office security guard to protect me from someone whom I regard as an anti-abortionist thug.

Question:  Who has the objective right to "retaliate" here?  Well, if you're an anarchist, it depends on your view of partial-birth abortion, doesn't it?!

Anarchists may nevertheless reply that there is an ~objective~ right and wrong, even if people disagree about what it is.  ~Either~ partial-birth abortion is a right, in which case, the father is objectively wrong for trying to arrest me, ~or~ partial-birth abortion is the ~violation~ of a right, in which case, the father is
objectively right for trying to arrest me.  If the former, then the father has no objective right to retaliate; if the latter, then I have no objective right to retaliate.  

Very well. Then who has an objective right to retaliate?  Most anarcho-capitalists would probably claim that I do - that partial-birth abortion should be legal.  But there are a lot of people in our society who would disagree, claiming that the procedure is tantamount to infanticide.  Observe that a commitment to individual rights doesn't help us here, for this is a question concerning the
proper ~interpretation~ of the principle of individual rights.

The problem with the anarcho-capitalist position is quite simple: Since you and I disagree about which action is just, there is no practical way for us to ~implement~ the idea that it is only the party with objective justice on its side that has the right to retaliate. In order to implement such a principle, we would first have to agree on the justice or injustice of partial-birth abortion.  But if we were in agreement, then it is unlikely that the issue would have arisen to begin with.  Either I wouldn't have performed the abortion, or you wouldn't have been trying to arrest me.  

In order to be practiced - in order to be implemented - moral principles have to be accessible to human judgment; they have to be capable of being recognized.  Yes, there is an "objective" principle of justice here, but it is of no practical value in an anarchist society, if people cannot agree on what it is.  The idea that whoever has objective justice on his side has the right to enforce it means that whoever ~thinks~ that he has objective justice on his side ~must view himself~ as having the right to enforce it, which can easily lead to a state of violent conflict and eventually to civil war.

Furthermore, if there is no single, objectively identifiable body of law, people have no idea what is expected of them - what they can and cannot do without offending someone who has the power to enforce his own private version of justice against anyone who happens to violate it. Imagine living in such a society, never knowing whom you're going to offend next, and whose "retaliation" you're likely to incur for some unknown crime that you've just unknowingly committed.  The fear and insecurity would be devastating.  

The only way to employ retaliatory force without precipitating both violent conflict and extreme insecurity is to assign its use to a monopolistic agency, which has the ~exclusive~ right to decide what is objectively just - to determine what is and is not permitted - and to enforce its decision.  The alternative is the very "chaos and anarchy" which anarcho-capitalists typically dismiss as a caricature of their position.  In fact, it is not a caricature at all, but the actual result of attempting to put their ideas into practice.  

Anarchists will often reply that the market can provide the kind of dispassionate arbitration and adjudication that is required to eliminate the influence of whim on the prosecution of an alleged crime.  A government, they say, is not required.  But an exclusive arbiter is a de facto government, regardless of whether or not it is called that by its proponents, since it assumes the right to enforce its decision against any and all dissenters.  What you would have under anarcho-capitalism in that case is competing governments - agencies competing for a monopoly of law within a given geographical
area.

The market for justice must have some objective guidelines as to what constitutes proper adjudication, retaliation and punishment, and these guidelines must be enforced. Otherwise, a lynch mob would have as much right to decide my guilt or innocence as anyone else. Who determines these guidelines?  Whoever does is declaring himself a legal monopoly - i.e., a government."

     Who can refute this argument?

Something else to think about is while a law may be good, enforcement might be better at the level where knowledge of the act is best. For example murder should be against the law but it was not always a federal law and for good reason. Seperation of Powers are the better way to go. It would be better above a small local level to have enforcement seperate from the courts and to have public institutions for those as well as private. it would be better to have an actual constitutional order with the right of secession as well  the right to blackball a member. It would be better that the public courts above the local government only be between the local governments and the higher public courts only be between higher public bodies and not between individuals. A local government could of course takes a individuals case before the public courts. If an individual was not satisfied he could move or take it up before the private courts. The exception in individual cases would be public courts would have a right to demand a individual be allowed to move from a local government.
Logged

Terry 1956

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2889
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #22 on: December 27, 2003, 05:11:03 pm »

It would be best not to have any public law enforcement above the small local level  except maybe Marshalls to  serve a court order  to local government leaders. Higher public defense institutions above the small local level would be for defending the local governments, at the request of one or more local governments. A higher body such as a confederation would only defend the lower confederations of local governments at the request of one or more of the lower confederation. private security could work in any of the local governments  if the local government did not forbid the private group and the private group followed the confederations laws for private security. private security could work in a local government without its permission if the local government had seceded or have blackballed from membership and declared by the lower confederation public courts an outlaw government. On the other hand if another lower confederation admitted the local government for membership the private security firm would have to stay clear. Lower confderation B could then take other lower confederation A( the one that  blackballed  and outlawed the local government) to court in the high public court confederation,  Lower confederation A could counter sue and ask the higher court to declare lower confederation B guilty of harboring a crimnal government. To actually declare A or B lower confederation a crimnal public body the higher confederation would have to blackball the lower confederation  first.  The blackballed lower confederation could take the higher confederation to court for payment at a previously agreed on constitutional tribunal that is only for  the purpose of deciding debt payment in cases of secession or being blackballed. Two lower confederations could blackball any one other lower confederation but  it would be wise to consider that any two remaining could blackball one of them or 4 could blackball the both of them.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2003, 05:21:29 pm by Terry 1956 »
Logged

<Patrick>

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 911
  • Radical Capitalist
    • Ayn Rand Institute
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #23 on: December 27, 2003, 08:16:17 pm »

     Thank you for all the information Terry! Have you heard of the UltraMinimal state?

"An ultraminimal state is one in which the state court claims final disposition of cases concerning its citizens. It does not prohibit other courts from competing, nor forbid the opting out of state protection. Parties may freely choose any court to hear their action, but the state court is the court of last appeal and no citizen can be forced to recognise any other. The state court will enforce its judgements against all other courts; but no other court can enforce its judgements against the state court. The state court will not enforce judgement in favour of persons who have opted out of state protection ("independents"); it will enforce judgements against independents. (A minimal state, by contrast, claims a complete monopoly.)

A just ultraminimal state is one in which the state court enforces common law. It provides full restitution for offences and is therefore cost-free for its citizens. It also provides justice for the offender, who pays no more and no less than his due.

The existence (actual or potential) of competing private courts keeps the state court efficient; the existence of the state court keeps the private courts honest."

www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism1.html
« Last Edit: December 27, 2003, 08:21:34 pm by New Intellectual »
Logged
"I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life.  Nor to any part of my energy.  Nor to any achievement of mine… I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others."
-Ayn Rand
http://www.aynrand.org
http://capitalism.org

Terry 1956

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2889
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #24 on: December 29, 2003, 01:43:06 pm »

    Thank you for all the information Terry! Have you heard of the UltraMinimal state?

"An ultraminimal state is one in which the state court claims final disposition of cases concerning its citizens. It does not prohibit other courts from competing, nor forbid the opting out of state protection. Parties may freely choose any court to hear their action, but the state court is the court of last appeal and no citizen can be forced to recognise any other. The state court will enforce its judgements against all other courts; but no other court can enforce its judgements against the state court. The state court will not enforce judgement in favour of persons who have opted out of state protection ("independents"); it will enforce judgements against independents. (A minimal state, by contrast, claims a complete monopoly.)

A just ultraminimal state is one in which the state court enforces common law. It provides full restitution for offences and is therefore cost-free for its citizens. It also provides justice for the offender, who pays no more and no less than his due.

The existence (actual or potential) of competing private courts keeps the state court efficient; the existence of the state court keeps the private courts honest."

www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism1.html
                                                                             
 I think Mr. Birch is on to something. Now if you wish to discuss ideas with him, I think he posts at antistate.com
Logged

Terry 1956

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2889
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #25 on: December 29, 2003, 01:56:58 pm »

 I know people think I get to complex into the details but look at it this way would it not be better to have a 100 or 200 page constitution than to have laws that take up thousands of volumes?
Logged

RhythmStar

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1886
  • Imagine there's no Heaven.
    • RhythmStar Records
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #26 on: December 29, 2003, 03:22:51 pm »

A title isn't a contract, it is a declaration or affadavit, like a will. Now, common law is that an estate must settle debts before it can disperse any assets to beneficiaries. If beneficiaries want to attain property that is left to them, they must clear any liens placed on the property either from other liquid assets they will inherit or from their own pocket. Once an estate is settled, no debt not declared by a creditor during probate can be placed against heirs.

If a title isn't a contract, then how can a deed have covenants that cannot be legally ignored?

Because a condition of purchase is that the buyer agree to be bound by the covenants, and to require that any later purchaser bound by similar conditions of purchase.

Your purchase contract is a separate document from the title declaration. That you don't get posession of title unless you agree to abide by the title declaration covenants does not make the title declaration a contract. You are free to ignore a covenant by not buying the titled property.

What about your son?

The son inherits not the property per se, but the value of the property. He can either accept covenants as a condition of transfer of title, or he can sell the property and buy other property more to his liking.

Some libertarians have the bizzare notion that they should be able to buy some undeveloped property that is cheap because it is encumbered by significant development covenants, and be able to ignore the covenants (or zoning). Excuse me, but you PAID for those covenants (by getting a cheap price). If you don't want em, go find some property elsewhere that is no so encumbered, and pay the proper market value of such unencumbered property.

How is this different from a Constitution voluntarily agreed to by one generation, insofar as the subsequent generations are concerned?

RS
Logged
Irony is the innate perversity of circumstance. -- William House

<Patrick>

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 911
  • Radical Capitalist
    • Ayn Rand Institute
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #27 on: December 29, 2003, 06:03:44 pm »

    Thank you for all the information Terry! Have you heard of the UltraMinimal state?

"An ultraminimal state is one in which the state court claims final disposition of cases concerning its citizens. It does not prohibit other courts from competing, nor forbid the opting out of state protection. Parties may freely choose any court to hear their action, but the state court is the court of last appeal and no citizen can be forced to recognise any other. The state court will enforce its judgements against all other courts; but no other court can enforce its judgements against the state court. The state court will not enforce judgement in favour of persons who have opted out of state protection ("independents"); it will enforce judgements against independents. (A minimal state, by contrast, claims a complete monopoly.)

A just ultraminimal state is one in which the state court enforces common law. It provides full restitution for offences and is therefore cost-free for its citizens. It also provides justice for the offender, who pays no more and no less than his due.

The existence (actual or potential) of competing private courts keeps the state court efficient; the existence of the state court keeps the private courts honest."

www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism1.html
                                                                             
 I think Mr. Birch is on to something. Now if you wish to discuss ideas with him, I think he posts at antistate.com

      I just sent him an email.
Logged
"I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life.  Nor to any part of my energy.  Nor to any achievement of mine… I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others."
-Ayn Rand
http://www.aynrand.org
http://capitalism.org

Mike Lorrey

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2745
  • Live Free and Never Die
    • The International Libertarian
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #28 on: December 29, 2003, 09:06:45 pm »

The son inherits not the property per se, but the value of the property. He can either accept covenants as a condition of transfer of title, or he can sell the property and buy other property more to his liking.

Some libertarians have the bizzare notion that they should be able to buy some undeveloped property that is cheap because it is encumbered by significant development covenants, and be able to ignore the covenants (or zoning). Excuse me, but you PAID for those covenants (by getting a cheap price). If you don't want em, go find some property elsewhere that is no so encumbered, and pay the proper market value of such unencumbered property.

How is this different from a Constitution voluntarily agreed to by one generation, insofar as the subsequent generations are concerned?


Covenants are generally agreed to in an area, for example, a neighborhood that emplaces covenants on all titles against boundary fences more than 4' high, so it is an obligation beyond just the linear relationship from one owner to the next, but among all neighboring owners as well.

With a Constitution, it can be modified by some majority or supermajority of its constituents, depending on how it is written. A covenant can also have such modification clauses if that is so desired, which would require a certain percent of neighboring property owners to agree to the modification, if such is emplaced by the original owners that emplaced the covenant.

If you don't get enough to modify the Constitution, or the covenant, find someplace else to live. Trying to break a covenant for material gain is fraud.
Logged
The International Libertarian: The Journal of Liberty For Everyone, Everywhere, All The Time

RhythmStar

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1886
  • Imagine there's no Heaven.
    • RhythmStar Records
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #29 on: December 30, 2003, 10:46:21 am »

Whaddya know, Mike, we finally agree on something.  :)

It may interest you to know that some folks here have claimed that any such cross-generational obligations were slavery and that the option to simply expatriate did not represent a reasonable choice.   I, on the contrary, say that anyone living in the US as a citizen must be living there voluntarily and is therefore assenting to the Constitution and indicating their willingness to work within the system for change.

RS
Logged
Irony is the innate perversity of circumstance. -- William House
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
 

anything