RoR: Forum

Individual subscribers alone are not sufficient to form a government. To protect individual rights, boundaries on a map are required. True or False?

I voted false for several reasons.

First, most governments weren't originally formed by "individual subscribers", which implies consent in forming that government. Most governments in existence were originally formed by a few people using violence to kill or intimidate anyone who got in the way of their drive for power. The British monarchy was originally formed when a band of Norman thugs in 1066 invaded England and killed the reigning king, who himself had acquired power by similar strongarming.

Second, there isn't a government anywhere in the world today where people "subscribe" to it or are even asked for their consent to being ruled, other than their reluctance to pack up and move to a different geographic locale and get forced by a different pack of thugs to submit to their rule. If you are born somewhere, by default you are subjected to the rule of whoever controls that area unless you pack up and move. No one, in any country in the world, is ever asked whether they consent to being governed by the rulers of the place they were born.

When I subscribe to a magazine or newspaper or any other voluntary association implied by the word "subscribe", I have the option of ending that subscription and moving my purchases to a different provider without having to pack up and physically move, and have the option of not subscribing to any organization at all. So it is not meaningful or accurate to use the word "subscribe" to describe being forced without your consent to pay taxes to a government for "services" you do not have the right to decline having thrust upon you, and which you are forced to pay for even if you do not value them, even if you think you are worse off for having those "services" imposed upon you.

It would be meaningful to use the word "subscribe" to a government only if citizenship was based on people asking to join that government's rolls, and had a choice of competing providers of government services, and had the right to decline to join any government at all if they so chose. This would be consenting to governance.

As for the assertion that government has to be based on physical geographic boundaries, that is an unspoken false statist assumption that virtually all of us have been brainwashed into accepting by the governments that rule us.

It is theoretically possible (however unlikely it may be of happening anytime in the near future) to have a country or a continent or even the entire world based on libertarian principles of CONSENT, where government services are offered by competing providers with no fixed geographic borders. Where, for example, an individual born in California (as I was) would as an adult be solicited by various competing governments to buy some or all of their services, and I could choose among those providers or decline them all. Where, for example, I could accept the offer of the Libertarian Government Services contractor to provide for my personal protection against theft, murder, assault or whatnot in exchange for their subscription fee this year, and then next year switch to the Republican Government Services contractor for those particular services, and decline all the offers to have government supply me with health care.

Geographic borders and monopoly government within those boundaries enforced by violence against anyone who objects to this imposition are how governments enserfs or enslaves us and take away our freedom.

It is theoretically possible to replace this violent imposition of monopoly government with a truly voluntary association of free individuals who protect each other's rights via a consensual arrangement, by voluntary subscription to optional mutually beneficial services offered by competing providers in a free marketplace. Yes, this vision is deemed impossible by Objectivist doctrine, but that doctrine is WRONG, and is an unexamined false premise caused by statist indoctrination by governments, occurring essentially from birth.

Post 1

Sunday, February 21, 2010 - 7:51am

You don't choose jurisdiction. It is a process applied the facts of an action, the action's context, and existing laws. Jurisdiction requires that there be one set of laws and one process of jurisdiction - built in as part of the law. Jim's idea that an identical act could be committed by a subscriber to a Libertarian government and by a subscriber to a Republican government, identical acts in every other way, yet be treated differently is more than foolishness - it is anarchy wearing a clown costume. When there are different laws, only geographical boundaries keep them separate. It is a critical and required part of jurisdiction.

I didn't, and won't answer this poll because you don't subscribe to a government. You are subject to a government. If the government is based upon individual rights you are subject to freedom. Individual rights cannot be imposed upon you, but any deviation from them can. That is the unique difference between a government based upon individual rights and all others. No one has a right to 'subscribe' to any government that is not based upon individual rights since it would be an instance of joining a conspiracy to violate rights.

Post 2

Sunday, February 21, 2010 - 9:39am

"Subscribers" to a government was chosen as a broad neutral term that implies voluntary support. Choice of another more traditional term would come close to begging the question in favor of the traditional answer. Since Rand holds that ultimately taxation would be voluntary, it seems fair to me to call those who chose to pay those taxes in return for services subscribers. If you can suggest better verbiage that doesn't beg the question, Steve, the poll can still be modified.

Also note, if you think that "subscription" is a bad term (I don't), then your belief that subscription is the wrong term is still logically comaptible with a "true" answer. An analogy would be, winged humans alone are not sufficient to form a quidditch match, you still need flying balls. Whether or not humans actually have wings it is true that their possession of wings alone would not be sufficient to play quidditch.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 2/21, 11:43am)

Post 3

Sunday, February 21, 2010 - 12:06pm

Ted,

The voluntary taxes that Rand referred were not subscriptions to a government. They were purchases of a specific service. There might be the purchase of the right to bring a civil suit on a specific contract. Nothing that she spoke of would be in the same category of opting in or opting out for the entire government. And I don't believe she would have advocated anything that made protection of individual rights optional.

At any given moment, you are stuck with the set of laws of your jurisdiction - and that jurisdiction includes geographical boundaries. Boundaries are required by the existence of multiple governments. By its nature a government must have a geographical monopoly for its set of laws - otherwise you have civil war or anarchy.

The nature of individual rights precludes a 'voluntary' form of government to which someone can subscribe. The reason is that individual rights, when defended by a government, are based upon an action and not upon whether a person is a subscriber. If you say that a person can opt out, then you are saying that others can act as if that person has no rights. But they do have rights. And if someone attempts to violate the non-subscribers' rights, the non-subscribers still have a right to self-defense. What that system would do is intitutionalize an environment where non-subcribers could he hunted down and made prey by anyone that chose to. It is a kind of quasi-controlled anarchy.

When you take away the concept of boundaries as a part of law, you get anarchy. When you take away the concept of being subject to laws within a boundary, you get a kind of anarchy.

The purpose of a government based solely upon laws that are based solely upon individual rights is to create an environment that is hostile towards the initiation of force and friendly towards voluntary arrangements. The concept of people who 'opt out' and thereby creating a condition where force, fraud and theft can be used against them doesn't work towards the purpose of government. It would legalize a kind of rights violator. It gives the appearance that rights are purchased from the government instead being ours by nature of being rational animals capable of choosing. It is a bad idea.

Post 4

Sunday, February 21, 2010 - 12:21pm

I am not sure what exactly you mean by subscribe, or why you object to it. (My dictionary says "pay for, buy into, support, endorse.") For the purposes of the question, do you have a suggestion for a better neutral term?

And it still stands that logically, you can answer the question true, since you are indeed denying that mere subscribers (whether there are such or not) are sufficient for a government, and that boundaries are necessary. The question is not whether both A and B are true, but whether B is necessary whether A is true or not. Do you get this point, or is my quidditch analogy unclear?

Post 5

Sunday, February 21, 2010 - 12:58pm

Ted,

In nearly every context, "pay for, buy into, support, endorse" are voluntary actions. The application of laws is not voluntary. That is why I object to the term "subscriber." Do I have a suggestion? Sure, use "citizens."

I chose not to answer a question with a simple 'true' or 'false' when it wouldn't be clear what I am affirming or denying.

I deny that the term 'subscriber' is appropriate to government. I affirm that boundaries are needed to protect individual rights.
------------------

Individual [citizens] alone are not sufficient to form a government. To protect individual rights, boundaries on a map are required. True or False? True, but insipid without the trick question aspect of 'subscriber.'

Post 6

Sunday, February 21, 2010 - 1:19pm

To answer true is not to affirm anything of subscribers, but to deny that they are sufficient, and to affirm that borders are necessary.

You apparently do hold that to protect individual rights, boundaries on a map are required. That alone makes "true" your answer. You also happen deny that subscribers alone are sufficient to form a government � not in the least because you wouldn't call them subscribers.

This is a simple matter of reading comprehension, which I think the quidditch analogy, if you understood it, (you have not said), would make clear. There is no trick, just the "catch" that the truth value of the question depends on the truth of the second clause.

You seem to imply that the existence of government requires actual lawbreakers, whom you correctly but irrelevantly for this question point out would not be immune to the jurisdiction of a government. Yet the question is not whom would the government punish, but who would establish a government under what circumsatnces. It is perfectly valid to call those people subscribers, and they could, they would have established a government whether or not anyone ever broke any laws.

I would not use the word citizen for the poll question because it includes children and because it implies geographical location (native, inhabitant, resident per my dictionary) which begs the question.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 2/21, 1:30pm)

Post 7

Sunday, February 21, 2010 - 1:49pm

Steve: "Jim's idea that an identical act could be committed by a subscriber to a Libertarian government and by a subscriber to a Republican government, identical acts in every other way, yet be treated differently is more than foolishness - it is anarchy wearing a clown costume."

Really? Let's give a concrete example.

A subscriber to the Objectivist Government Service TM (OGS) offers to employ people for $15 per hour. People voluntarily accept that offer. Under the OGS, no action is initiated, because that government service doesn't interfere in voluntary, non-fraudulent, non-coercive employer-employee relationships.

A subscriber to the Democratic Government Service TM (DGS) offers to employ people for $15 per hour. People voluntarily accept that offer. Under the DGS, the perpetrator of this act of underpaying employees is thrown in jail for violating their living wage act, which imposes criminal sanctions for those paying less than $20 per hour.

How is this scenario "foolishness" or "anarchy wearing a clown costume"? Would you, as an employer, be better off under a monopoly government run like the DGS where every employer would be forced to pay at least $20 per hour or else go to jail?

How are you better off having excessive, draconion laws that violate your rights consistently enforced in a geographic region, with no possibility of opting out or choosing a more Objectivist governance?

Do you really prefer consistency of laws, however bad, over a choice between good and bad laws?

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Post 8

Sunday, February 21, 2010 - 1:59pm

Man exists in a material realm. Government must govern action which occurs within its realm. If two governments appear to govern the same jurisdiction where two individuals (who pay subscriptions, say, instead of taxes to the two different governments) have a dispute, and the legal systems of the two different governments find differently, the two will be at odds. Should this occur repeatedly, a war will result between the governments until one gains sovereignty over the jurisdiction.

Post 9

Sunday, February 21, 2010 - 2:48pm

Jim,

Let me show you why the concept of competing governments is an anarchist dressed up in a clown suit.

You said, "A subscriber to the Objectivist Government Service TM (OGS) offers to employ people for $15 per hour. People voluntarily accept that offer. Under the OGS, no action is initiated, because that government service doesn't interfere in voluntary, non-fraudulent, non-coercive employer-employee relationships.

A subscriber to the Democratic Government Service TM (DGS) offers to employ people for $15 per hour. People voluntarily accept that offer. Under the DGS, the perpetrator of this act of underpaying employees is thrown in jail for violating their living wage act, which imposes criminal sanctions for those paying less than $20 per hour."

We have one of two things that you don't mention. One is that there is a supra-government that is over top of all these sub-governments ensuring that their laws are enforced in ways that don't create conflicts. In other words there is really just one government - with different plans you can choose. Just like you can choose to be taxed as a partnership, a corporation, or in individual. And since none of the sub-governments would be able to do anything to the subscribers of the other sub-governments, you really don't have much choice. You can't force the subscribers of other sub-governments to do what you want (whether that is to respect a given right, or to violate a given right). Just one giant government with lots complex choices that will only exist in a narrow range and prove far to complex to ever implement.

The other possibility is that you don't have that over-riding super-government and that means you will end up having war between governments because there is no final arbiter. Your little example is so simplistic and convenient. Instead, try there: a group of DGS subscribers from ACORN start picketing an OGS subscriber who own a business. Under their law they can block people from coming or going. Under OGS law they can't. And where is the NGS (Nazi Governmental Services) who pass a law that no Jews can own property. If they have more guns in their geographic area, what will stop them from taking away the property of the DGS people whose protective forces don't have adequate firepower? It is just like Andrew said, eventually you have civil war.

Either there is a super-government over all of your competing sub-governments, which means you do have a single, central, monopoly on the law (with lots of options), or you have governments that will go to war. One government per geographic area or anarchy. Claiming to avoid both of those descriptions with something called 'competing governments' is the intellectual equivalent of wearing a clown suit to a formal ball.

Post 10

Sunday, February 21, 2010 - 2:57pm

Clowns are hard working performers in an ancient tradition trading value for value, and you malign them gratuitously.

Post 11

Sunday, February 21, 2010 - 6:38pm

Steve: We have one of two things that you don't mention. One is that there is a supra-government that is over top of all these sub-governments ensuring that their laws are enforced in ways that don't create conflicts. In other words there is really just one government - with different plans you can choose. Just like you can choose to be taxed as a partnership, a corporation, or in individual. And since none of the sub-governments would be able to do anything to the subscribers of the other sub-governments, you really don't have much choice. You can't force the subscribers of other sub-governments to do what you want (whether that is to respect a given right, or to violate a given right). Just one giant government with lots complex choices that will only exist in a narrow range and prove far to complex to ever implement.

False dichotomy. There are many more possibilities than the two you mentioned. What I was talking about could be implemented incrementally, for example:

Start with the current system of monopoly government. Now, implement competing government services for just the one thing I mentioned: minimum wage laws / living wage laws. Everything else remains under a monopoly government.

Now implement competing governments for public schooling.

And then for social services.

You introduce competing Social Security systems, and allow people to opt out entirely.

And ...

Eventually, if you pull out enough of the rubbish laws not related to the minarchist government, you GET to miniarchist government. You have a monopoly government perhaps 10% of the size of the current one that enforces laws for everyone against initiations of force such as murder, theft, fraud, and rape -- everything else is an optional service you can opt out of, or choose between providers.

But you're still not done. You can STILL introduce choice of which police service you will pay for, and show up at your house if you call 911 and report someone violating your rights.

And so on.

But, here's the point: none of what I just described is anarchism. It is a paring down of the current monopoly government, leading to minarchism, to a government that is much smaller and more rights respecting than the current one.

***

There are other possibilities. It doesn't follow that competing governments, SO LONG AS THEY BOTH RESPECT THE NIOF RULE, can't coexist in the same geographic area, and work out their differences without going to war. But, no point in going into that, if you're still calling the above practical way of getting to minarchism names like "clownish". Concede that the above is serious and possible, drop the name calling, then we can argue the harder cases.

Post 12

Sunday, February 21, 2010 - 6:42pm

Your little example is so simplistic and convenient.

No, it is incrementalist. So do you admit that, incrementally and at the margins, competing government services can, given enough popular support, be successfully implemented and produce a more Objectivist government?

Do you admit that, for the "little example" I gave, just that and that alone, it would be an improvement?

Because if so, a LOT more things can be taken out of the monopoly governance. In fact, NEARLY ALL of what is currently run by the government can be pulled out.

Post 13

Sunday, February 21, 2010 - 7:05pm

"Start with the current system of monopoly government. Now, implement competing government services for just the one thing I mentioned: minimum wage laws / living wage laws. Everything else remains under a monopoly government."

What, pardon my French, the hell does this have to do with competition in the protection of rights? This is simply silly self sacrifice which, since it is entirely optional, and one can switch governments, has no actual hold over a person. Is this really what is meant by competition in government services?

Here's my idea of competing governments. Agency One promises to send their agents using falsified passports to foreign countries to hunt down and assassinate terrorist leaders. Agency Two offers to simply nuke the capitals and military bases of countries that harbor terrorists.

I might even hire them both.

Post 14

Sunday, February 21, 2010 - 9:57pm

Jim,

You said, "It doesn't follow that competing governments, SO LONG AS THEY BOTH RESPECT THE NIOF RULE, can't coexist in the same geographic area, and work out their differences without going to war.

If you have a monopoly government that respects the NIOF rule, you no long have a need for going any further - you've already arrived at minarchy. If they are both based upon individual rights there is no difference between them that justifies the complexity of maintaining a mixed jurisdiction.
--------------

I'm sorry, but the whole idea of creating an entire competing government over social security, another for social services, another for public schools, is silly. 1.) it is never, never going to happen. 2.) it would be too complex to ever manage, 3.) Any conflict between two subscribers to different governments may not be resolvable without a larger government 4.) if you could guarantee that each government would observe NIOF, then you have already solved the problem, 5.) You can't do things like this incrementally - when you subscribe to a government it has to handle all things. Unless you are a member of a single government where you can just pick from a menu for some things (which also won't work in most areas).
------------------

A religious right person signs up for the Right-to-Life government service. Do they get to outlaw abortions for other people? If not, what good is it to them?
------------------

Like I said, you either have a monopoly government (which is minarchist or not), or you end up having anarchy and war. You say that you have a monopoly government but then you say you "...implement competing government services..." for the minimum wage thing, but in the next sentence you say, "...implement competing governments for public schooling. Well, which is it that you are implementing? A service or a government? I shouldn't have to say that those are totally different things.

And if you are able to create the opt out, minarchy option, then why would you want to have statist options? Any incremental evolutionary change would be a compromise between freedom and less freedom - not good.
-------------------

You would have to have taxes tagged to specific programs so that the person who opts in social service x has to pay the costs of social service x. Well, the people who will sign up are the people who want to receive x, and very few of the people who want to pay for x. Again, this is totally unworkable, and unrealistic.
----------------------

If you really think of these as competing governments with no central government over them, it is still a clown, a malicious clown. If they are just different services, it is unnecessary - just get rid of a service and the free market will spring up to supply the demand - if there is a demand. The only thing you need is a single government with a single set of laws that are based upon individual rights and then you will have a truly free market for that to happen.
---------------------

To me, it is stunning that you seriously think this is a workable scheme.

Post 15

Sunday, February 21, 2010 - 11:02pm

So was Hadrians Wall meant to keep people in or to keep people out. One could hypothesize that a project like that could employ many local workers.
A border was possibly only as much land as ones ox could plough. Which leads to another border who gets the ox.
Suppose everyone knows it take three people to form a government two to argue and one to carry out the arguement. Would not that person place a border on the first two?
To protect individual rights one must assume the responsibility of said rights. What are rights but the benefit of the doubt you give your fellow man. Man being a generalization.

Post 16

Sunday, February 21, 2010 - 11:06pm

kvidichtch match . roflmaof.

Post 17

Monday, February 22, 2010 - 2:53pm

Steve: 'If you have a monopoly government that respects the NIOF rule, you no long have a need for going any further - you've already arrived at minarchy. If they are both based upon individual rights there is no difference between them that justifies the complexity of maintaining a mixed jurisdiction."

So, if you have a monopoly grocery store that provides fresh bread and other produce, would you conclude that there was no need to go any further, and allow competing grocers, because you've already arrived at grocery provision? Would efficiency and efficacy and innovation and customer service not really matter? Do you really believe competition does not produce better outcomes, and that avoiding the messy complexity of competition is justification for maintaining a forceable monopoly?

Post 18

Monday, February 22, 2010 - 2:55pm

From Murray Rothbard's "The Ethics of Liberty":

"SO FAR IN THIS book, we have developed a theory of liberty and property rights, and have outlined the legal code that would be necessary to defend those rights. What of government, the State? What is its proper role, if any? Most people, including most political theorists, believe that once one concedes the importance, or even the vital necessity, of some particular activity of the State�such as the provision of a legal code�that one has ipso facto conceded the necessity of the State itself. The State indeed performs many important and necessary functions: from provision of law to the supply of police and fire fighters, to building and maintaining the streets, to delivery of the mail. But this in no way demonstrates that only the State can perform such functions, or, indeed, that it performs them even passably well."

Post 19

Monday, February 22, 2010 - 3:01pm