Video of Bureaucrats Removing Signs and Flag from Statue and Commentary
Thanks to Lauren Canario:
In response to my discourse on the so called “Civil War”, AnnAmazedReader wrote this in the comments:
Debates regarding the circumstances under which the secession of a town, city, county, state or region from a larger “entity” are potentially interesting, although I would imagine that any enemy of the FSP would welcome the project’s members waxing verbose about the North’s engagement with the South in our Civil War being essentially evil. Arguing on behalf of a region’s supposedly inalienable right to treat human beings as chattel (while making the childish analogy between said chattel and American citizens in our time) on the basis of the sanctity of property rights is probably not a winner, folks. Unless you are actually 1) trying to undermine the movement, or 2) fundamentally non-serious and more inclined towards attention-getting stunts and rhetoric. Sorry.
Well-meaning Americans like Ann have been seriously misinformed. It wasn’t necessary to fight wars to abolish slavery in other parts of the world. There’s no excuse for violence. Hundreds of thousands died, but it didn’t have to be that way. Slavery was wrong, but it would have ended peacefully had Lincoln not been a power-hungry maniac. Of course, it’s the presidency, and he was a politican, so no one should really be surprised.
I thought that a couple of comments from other readers were great responses to Ann’s twisted words, and I wanted to highlight them.
First, from Anarchojesse:
I think you’re misinterpreting the defense of the Confederacy here; most times, libertarians will take a Spoonerite position on that period of time, which is to say, we’re pro-abolition but just as much pro-secession. History has some pretty interesting things to tell us beyond the text book regurgitation of nationalistic ideals being defended by a man who suspended the writ of habeus corpus, instituted a draft, and didn’t actually take the time to free the slaves still in the Union.
Then, Zeus:
Many people erroneously think the Civil War was fought over one issue: slavery. This is just modern fantasy taught by government indoctrination centers (public schools).
The War Between the States began because the South demanded States’ rights and weren’t getting them. The Congress at that time heavily favored the industrialized northern states to the point of demanding that the South sell its cotton and other raw
materials only to the factories in the north, rather than to other countries.The Congress also taxed the finished materials that the northern industries produced heavily, making finished products that the South wanted, unaffordable.
Eventually, these problems boiled over because they weren’t being addressed and southern states began announcing their intentions to sever ties with the Union. After all, what’s the point in staying if the promises aren’t being kept? Abe Lincoln decided that wasn’t going to happen on his watch. He was going to force those states to remain in the Union even if he had to kill thousands of his own countrymen to do it. So he starting raising an army… which pissed off even more southern states and caused them to announce secession. Conflict ensued and people died.
Slavery wasn’t a real factor until the Battle of Antietam in September of 1862 (2 years into the war) when Lincoln decided to free the slaves in the Confederate States in order to punish those states for continuing the war effort.
Lincoln’s decision that the only way to leave the Union was in a body bag resulted in the deaths of 620,000 Americans from both sides of the conflict and increased the power of the Federal government. Rather than actually freeing the slaves, it simply helped to make slavery more equal for all Americans.
No one is defending nor excusing slavery. Far from it. We want it to end completely for everyone across the board. We are the new Abolitionists and our goal is to end slavery in all its forms.
When the Men From Washington not only do nothing to help you make ends meet but actively work against you and then reach their hands into your wallet for a “fair share”, that is still slavery. When the Men From Washington can tell you what you may or may not do with your body as you see fit or they will kill you, that is still slavery. It’s just less visible and more insidious these days.
Comments
109 Comments on Video of Bureaucrats Removing Signs and Flag from Statue and Commentary
It is a fantasy to believe the slaughter of over half a million Americans by their own government is progress. Every other country that abolished slavery during this period did so without civil war. War is a crime on humanity, just as much as chattel slavery. A small minority of southerners actually owned slaves yet the union waged “total war” on the south burning family homes, dislocating peaceful families, and starving thousands.
If the North had the goal of shutting down Southern slavery, why did they not give refuge to fleeing slaves leading up to and during the war, but instead enforced “property remittance” laws that required enforcement of the enslavement?
The larger political-economic theater that surrounded the Civil War, if anything, allowed slavery to continue far longer than in other (North or South) American slave owning areas because the North was so insistent in not letting the South splinter off and find that they didn’t have the numbers to control a slave population that could easily cross into Kentucky or rise up and take control of ports.
The problem we face today is that a LARGE range of the population doesn’t see that secession can be a political issue itself without any reference to slavery, as the ideas have been so heavily correlated in their teaching of “history”.
AnnAmazedReader is correct and the author of this article is wrong. Slavery may have ended in other parts of the world, but the South was intent on keeping their slaves forever, and also on seceding aka committing treason against the Union. Lincoln was not a “power hungry maniac” as you claim. Far from it. Lincoln was a great man who realized that he needed to step in and stop the South, both from enslaving and from committing treason. And that’s just what he did.
I think Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation did not free all salves in the United States, but only freed those in the south. From Wikipedia:
“The Emancipation Proclamation initially freed only a small percentage of the slaves, most of them being behind Confederate lines or in exempted Union-occupied areas. Secretary of State William H. Seward commented, “We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.” Had any seceding state rejoined the Union before January 1, 1863, it could have kept slavery, at least temporarily. The Proclamation only gave Lincoln the legal basis to free the slaves in the areas of the South that were still in rebellion. Thus, it initially freed only some slaves already behind Union lines.”
So how does that make Lincoln a great man? How does freeing the slaves of certain people requesting favors of the power of the presidency, but not freeing other slaves because no one is requesting it, make Lincoln a great man?
Also, Luke, you’re using collective-speak (as are some others) that doesn’t make sense. You said “the South was intent on keeping their slaves forever, and also on seceding aka committing treason against the Union.” Who is “the South?” Which people in the South were intent on keeping their slaves? Were the slaves themselves intent on being slaves forever? You said “the South” wanted to commit treason against “the Union.” Who is “the Union?” Why should “the South” have been held to “the Unions” dictates? What is wrong with “the South” wanting to leave “the Union?” How many individuals in “the Union” wanted “the South” to be allowed to leave “the Union?”
I think it is important to remember that the North didn’t expect the war to last that long when it started. The North actually thought that if they won at the Battle of First Bull Run the war would be over and that would be that. It shouldn’t have lasted as long as it did since the North completely out classed the South. If the Union would have had a half decent general at the start it probably would have only lasted six months at most. Really the most evil figure from the Civil War is Robert E. Lee. If he had taken command of the Union forces when it was offered the war would have been over quickly. He was the one who made it possible for the South to fight as long as they did and was the cause of so much of the misery.
It interesting that ‘treason’ is mentioned by posters since the US Constitution defines ‘treason’ as “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
By this it should be inferred that only individuals could be charged with treason, not States or groups of people without two eyewitnesses to the events. Of course there exists no such thing as treason as a matter of logic as Lysander Spooner has proved with his essay ‘No Treason’. While a difficult read, it is interesting to see him work out the logic.
As far as the disposition of Lincoln, the facts seem to support that the man did do what educational textbooks, which are used by public education. As seen above with the Wikipedia entry regarding his ‘slavery proclamation’. If you actual take the time to look to the facts rather then listen to the textbooks, which cite no sources for their information, you too will find that Lincoln is quite possibly the worst man in this country, if not just in the past, but to the present.
Thanks for highlighting these posts Ian! I missed them.
Some great comments too, I especially liked Zeus’s post! Nice job Zeus(!)
There was no “good” side in the civil war. Many on both sides did a great deal of evil. Supporting slavery is evil, as is using violence to prevent anyone from leaving the union.
Here is the beginning of Abraham Lincoln’s first inagural address, for those afflicted by a public school education, and still under the misconception that Lincoln purposed to free the slaves, and the civil war was fought over it. Lovely guy that he is, he’s even happy to send slaves who escaped back to their “owners”.
He also suspended habeus corpus, and threw newspaper men in jail who disagreed with him, for those who still care about these things …
“Fellow citizens of the United States:
In compliance with a custom as old as the government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly, and to take, in your presence, the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, to be taken by the President “before he enters on the execution of his office.”
I do not consider it necessary, at present, for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety, or excitement.
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
“Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.”
I now reiterate these sentiments: and in doing so, I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace and security of no section are to be in anywise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause — as cheerfully to one section, as to another.
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
“No person held to service or labor in one State under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it, for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the law-giver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole constitution — to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause, “shall be delivered up,” their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not, with nearly equal unanimity, frame and pass a law, by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?
There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by state authority; but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him, or to others, by which authority it is done. And should any one, in any case, be content that his oath shall go unkept, on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?”
With all due respect, I’ll stand by my earlier post; indeed, I think Ian’s defensive response is an indication that more than a few folks in the movement might consider this particular manifestation of political street-theater a loser. Doing things that many people will interpret as mockery of the republic’s greatest trauma is certainly anyone’s right, but if there is a serious point behind this act, it will go largely unnoticed The reasons for the Civil War, as well as Lincoln’s attitude and actions on the issue of slavery, are so complicated that a nuanced exposition may be difficult to come by on an ideologically-based website. Too great a need for heroes and villains, the stuff that gins up traffic and commerce but stifles truly open-minded examination of complex issues.
To say that the Civil War was solely about states’ rights is simply not correct; at the same time, to depict Lincoln as an inveterate advocate for the full liberation of slaves is equally false. But I do think this discussion raises an interesting question, in my mind at least: if the state of Mississippi held a plebiscite tomorrow in which a majority of its citizens voted to secede from the Union because it wanted to enslave its black citizens in order to have a source of cheap labor for its industries, what would you do?
Ann
Ann is going to tell me why I was fighting other people like me. Obviously, since my family had slaves. . .it wasn’t about slavery.
But Ann knows everything. . . continue on.
Ann,
I think that was the best post of yours yet 
I agree, I don’t think this form of protest is most effective, although I also don’t think Ian is “defensive”, just supporting his ideas. I don’t think the protester was in the wrong, as I say, only perhaps this was not the most effective approach. Although, I do question whether most people will connect this with the civil war at all.
You are definitely right that neither side of the civil war was anything close to “good”. Really, one government supported slavery, the other imperialism.
I think, if Missisipi wanted to secede for the reasons you cite, I would do the following:
1. Support letting them leave.
2. Help fund and organize crack teams to go and help black people to leave the state, and to free anyone from any attempt at enslavement. Force would be used if necessary.
3. Organize a boycott of all services and products from that state.
On reflection, let me modify step 3 to read, “Organize a boycott of all services and products from that state not known to be produced without slave labor”
I realize that Wikipedia articles on controversial topics are not necessarily objective, but this seems like reasonable coverage of the topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights
In particular:
Northern Arguments
Some historians and commentators are of the opinion that the States’ Rights argument made by supporters of the Confederacy was in fact a thinly disguised justification of continued slavery in the southern states, and/or moves by the Southern states to violate the states’ rights of Northern states.
Historian Henry Brooks Adams explains that the anti-slavery North took a consistent and principled stand on states’ rights against Federal encroachment throughout its history, while the Southern states, whenever they saw an opportunity to expand slavery and the reach of the slave power, they often conveniently forgot the principle of states’ rights – and fought in favor of Federal centralization:[2]
“Between the slave power and states’ rights there was no necessary connection. The slave power, when in control, was a centralizing influence, and all the most considerable encroachments on states’ rights were its acts. The acquisition and admission of Louisiana; the Embargo; the War of 1812; the annexation of Texas “by joint resolution” [rather than treaty]; the war with Mexico, declared by the mere announcement of President Polk; the Fugitive Slave Law; the Dred Scott decision — all triumphs of the slave power — did far more than either tariffs or internal improvements, which in their origin were also southern measures, to destroy the very memory of states’ rights as they existed in 1789. Whenever a question arose of extending or protecting slavery, the slaveholders became friends of centralized power, and used that dangerous weapon with a kind of frenzy. Slavery in fact required centralization in order to maintain and protect itself, but it required to control the centralized machine; it needed despotic principles of government, but it needed them exclusively for its own use. Thus, in truth, states’ rights were the protection of the free states, and as a matter of fact, during the domination of the slave power, Massachusetts appealed to this protecting principle as often and almost as loudly as South Carolina.
Paul,
Thanks for your posts. In terms of your Step 2:
“2. Help fund and organize crack teams to go and help black people to leave the state, and to free anyone from any attempt at enslavement. Force would be used if necessary.”
Could you define the term “crack teams” (where would they come from, what would their make-up be, who would send them, etc.)?
Who would make the judgement regarding what constituted an attempt at enslavement?
Are you suggesting that this is a circumstance in which a person’s (in this case, a slaveholder’s) property rights could be morally, ethically and legally circumscribed by an outside force?
Thanks again for your contributions.
Best,
Ann
I think Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation did not free all salves in the United States, but only freed those in the south. From Wikipedia:
“The Emancipation Proclamation initially freed only a small percentage of the slaves, most of them being behind Confederate lines or in exempted Union-occupied areas. Secretary of State William H. Seward commented, “We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.” Had any seceding state rejoined the Union before January 1, 1863, it could have kept slavery, at least temporarily. The Proclamation only gave Lincoln the legal basis to free the slaves in the areas of the South that were still in rebellion. Thus, it initially freed only some slaves already behind Union lines.”
So how does that make Lincoln a great man? How does freeing the slaves of certain people requesting favors of the power of the presidency, but not freeing other slaves because no one is requesting it, make Lincoln a great man?
I will admit that the Emancipation Proclamation was a political move rather than a measure that truly helped the vast majority of the slaves. But that hardly matters, since all slaves were totally freed 4 years later with the 13th Amendment, which Lincoln set the stage for with his defeat of the South. It is this, and not the Emancipation Proclamation, which is Lincoln’s greatest achievement wrt slavery.
Also, Luke, you’re using collective-speak (as are some others) that doesn’t make sense. You said “the South was intent on keeping their slaves forever, and also on seceding aka committing treason against the Union.” Who is “the South?”
Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, North Carolina, Arkansas, South Carolina.
Which people in the South were intent on keeping their slaves?
The slaveholders, especially the large slaveholders, who dominated politics in the antebellum South.
Were the slaves themselves intent on being slaves forever?
Of course not. But the slaveholders were intent on keeping them that way.
You said “the South” wanted to commit treason against “the Union.” Who is “the Union?”
At the time, the Union was California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Washington DC, and all the relevant territories.
Why should “the South” have been held to “the Unions” dictates?
It wasn’t “held to dictates”. It had proportional representation in Congress, a proportional number of electoral voted in the Electoral College, and everything else.
What is wrong with “the South” wanting to leave “the Union?”
The southern states had ratified the Constitution and thus had become a permanent part of the nation. By leaving the Union after that point, they would be seceding, and secession is treason.
How many individuals in “the Union” wanted “the South” to be allowed to leave “the Union?”
I can’t say there weren’t a few traitor-weasels up in the North, but most Northern citizens were loyal to the Union and wanted to follow Lincoln and do what they had to do to get the South back into the Union.
It interesting that ‘treason’ is mentioned by posters since the US Constitution defines ‘treason’ as “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
A declaration of secession is tantamount to a declaration of war.
But I do think this discussion raises an interesting question, in my mind at least: if the state of Mississippi held a plebiscite tomorrow in which a majority of its citizens voted to secede from the Union because it wanted to enslave its black citizens in order to have a source of cheap labor for its industries, what would you do?
That’s easy. I would do the exact same thing that my Michiganian forefathers did in 1861 when Mississippi seceded the first time. I would march right down to the state capitol in Lansing, and demand that Lansing get together a regiment full of troops to go after Mississippi. And that regiment would be combined with 48 other regiments from the 48 other non-treasonous states. And all those regiments would combine and with so many troops, tanks, ships, planes, bombs, and missiles, Mississippi won’t stand a chance. Then the rebels would be defeated and law and order would be restored, just like in 1865.
The Civil War is over. You can look at it a million ways, but it’s over. Really.
I don’t have the time to get into a Civil War discussion with you, Luke (my girlfriend is more knowledgable than I am anyways), but this really stood out–
I can’t say there weren’t a few traitor-weasels up in the North, but most Northern citizens were loyal to the Union and wanted to follow Lincoln and do what they had to do to get the South back into the Union.
This seems to be contradictory to the drafts that were instituted (which seems to display a reluctance to actually fight the war by Northern citizens), and the riots that followed (which seems to confirm this reluctance).
Ann–
I’m going to answer this question here:
Are you suggesting that this is a circumstance in which a person’s (in this case, a slaveholder’s) property rights could be morally, ethically and legally circumscribed by an outside force?
This all seems to rest on the uncontested supposition that slaves are legitimate property; simply put, they aren’t, and can’t ever be. First, it is in violation to the first two principles of self-ownership: (1) You own yourself and (2) Other individuals own themselves. Denial of either is to essentially lay a foundational basis for slavery, but that basis isn’t a priori and must be proven. Second, because a slave must functionally be an automaton, we arrive at the metaphysical problem of separating the essence from existence– I can’t will myself to lack will, or not be my own property. The act of doing either is committing a performative contradiction.
Thanks for your posts. In terms of your Step 2:
“2. Help fund and organize crack teams to go and help black people to leave the state, and to free anyone from any attempt at enslavement. Force would be used if necessary.”
Could you define the term “crack teams” (where would they come from, what would their make-up be, who would send them, etc.)?
Who would make the judgement regarding what constituted an attempt at enslavement?
By “crack” I mean, “highly trained and competent”. I guess perhaps it’s slang.
They would be made up of people like me, who will not permit enslavement of their neighbors. If necessary, we might hire some specialists. It’s kind of the same idea as Luke’s, except instead of going to government, I would go to my neighbors, and that instead of being an immoral initiation of force, it would be a moral use of force, to prevent violence (slavery) being committed against innocent people.
Are you suggesting that this is a circumstance in which a person’s (in this case, a slaveholder’s) property rights could be morally, ethically and legally circumscribed by an outside force?
Self defense, and defense of innocents is justified. If someone were to try to attack you or an innocent, it would be your right to use force to defend yourself or them. Attempting to enslave someone certainly counts as an aggressive use of force.
I also believe in restitution, after the fact. So, force is also justified, if necessary, to recover damages against a person who has harmed another.
The Non Aggression Principle is that the initiation of force is wrong. Using force to defend innocents is often moral.
A declaration of secession is tantamount to a declaration of war.
That’s easy. I would do the exact same thing that my Michiganian forefathers did in 1861 when Mississippi seceded the first time. I would march right down to the state capitol in Lansing, and demand that Lansing get together a regiment full of troops to go after Mississippi. And that regiment would be combined with 48 other regiments from the 48 other non-treasonous states. And all those regiments would combine and with so many troops, tanks, ships, planes, bombs, and missiles, Mississippi won’t stand a chance. Then the rebels would be defeated and law and order would be restored, just like in 1865.
What a great moral code you have, willing to murder people who have not harmed anyone, just for leaving your group. So, if someone wants to leave your chess club, do you also burn their house down and kill their wife?
I like this Ann lady. She and I think alike. This guy Luke has the right ideas too. I hate people enough to shoot them for leaving my group too. God Bless America!
This seems to be contradictory to the drafts that were instituted (which seems to display a reluctance to actually fight the war by Northern citizens),
Although a draft was instituted in March 1863 (about halfway through the war), most Northerners who fought in the war fought as volunteers. Only a small minority were actually drafted.
and the riots that followed (which seems to confirm this reluctance).
There were indeed draft riots in New York City for one week in 1863, but in most other places/times, Northerners did not riot over the draft, and were willing to do what they needed to do to bring the South back into the Union.
What a great moral code you have, willing to murder people who have not harmed anyone, just for leaving your group.
By committing treason, they harmed the entire nation.
So, if someone wants to leave your chess club, do you also burn their house down and kill their wife?
The USA is a nation, not a chess club. It is not something that you can join and then leave a whim. The South had their chance not to be in the Union. If they didn’t want to be in the Union, then they should never have ratified the Constitution.
There’s no need to insult Ann and Luke by associating them with the KKK. It’s puerile and entirely contrary to the points they’ve been making. You should be attacking arguments, not the people making them. Luke’s advocation for mass murder (“Join us or die!”) is a good place to start.
I agree with Paul. While I support the right to secede (leave a group or association of one’s own free will), I do not support slavery of any kind, thus I would also aid Mississippi slaves to freedom in whatever manner was best suited i.e. boycotting, commando-style raids, etc.
As AnarchoJesse pointed out quite deftly, slavery is an abomination that violates the very foundations of the philosophy of liberty.
To summarize, Mississippi would be free to leave the Union, but it would not be free to enslave others.
The USA is a nation, not a chess club. It is not something that you can join and then leave a whim.
Does that sound like freedom, Luke?
By committing treason, they harmed the entire nation.
How does no longer associating with a group cause harm?
The USA is a nation, not a chess club. It is not something that you can join and then leave a whim. The South had their chance not to be in the Union. If they didn’t want to be in the Union, then they should never have ratified the Constitution.
1. They didn’t leave on a whim. The Constitution promised them certain things and their grievances were being ignored.
2. Many of the people of the South who ratified the Constitution were nearly hundred years dead by then. This is about the people of 1861, not 1789.
Your suggestion is akin to me telling you “Well, if you didn’t want to be American, your grandparents shouldn’t have moved here from Farawayastan.”
You have no control over what your grandparents did, you didn’t exist. You can only affect the here and now. Saying that the Southerners of 1861 shouldn’t have allowed the Southerners of 1789 to join the Union is absurd.
Actually the Civil War was just a continuation of fighting from the Old World. It was really about the Scots-Irish southerners hating the English northerners. 99% of the southerners who fought didn’t even own slaves. They were just dirt poor herders who felt their land was being attacked by the hated English.
Does that sound like freedom, Luke?
It wasn’t meant to sound like freedom. It was meant to sound like reality.
How does no longer associating with a group cause harm?
The USA is much more than a simple “group”, it is a nation, the greatest nation in the world I might add. And when you commit treason against your nation, you are harming your entire nation.
1. They didn’t leave on a whim. The Constitution promised them certain things and their grievances were being ignored.
Yes they did leave on a whim. They got everything the Constitution promised them, and they seceded aka committed treason anyway.
2. Many of the people of the South who ratified the Constitution were nearly hundred years dead by then. This is about the people of 1861, not 1789.
Well then maybe the southerners of 1789 should have thought harder when they sat down to ratify the Constitution. Because once you’ve ratified, you’ve ratified, and whichever state you’re ratifying for is a permanent part of the nation, forever.
Your suggestion is akin to me telling you “Well, if you didn’t want to be American, your grandparents shouldn’t have moved here from Farawayastan.”
You have no control over what your grandparents did, you didn’t exist. You can only affect the here and now. Saying that the Southerners of 1861 shouldn’t have allowed the Southerners of 1789 to join the Union is absurd.
That doesn’t matter. Once you’ve ratified and you’ve been admitted by Congress to the Union, you are a state, you are a state for good, and so are your children, your grandchildren, and all their progeny, unless they move somewhere else. If that doesn’t sound good to you, then there is a very simple solution, which is don’t ratify.
Actually the Civil War was just a continuation of fighting from the Old World. It was really about the Scots-Irish southerners hating the English northerners. 99% of the southerners who fought didn’t even own slaves. They were just dirt poor herders who felt their land was being attacked by the hated English.
This is absolutely not true. It wasn’t just the Northeast English-Americans that fought the Civil War against the South, but the entire North. Michigan which is the state that I live in had and has a plurality of German-Americans, as did/does most of the rest of the Midwest, which of course fought on the side of the Union during the Civil War.
OK Luke, I want to not ratify right now. Where do I go to do that?
I, too dwell within the geographic region known as ‘Michigan’
OK Luke, I want to not ratify right now. Where do I go to do that?
Do you live in one of the territories of the US that isn’t a state yet?
I live in my home, with my family and have no political associations, nor do I want any.
I signed no contract or Constitution binding me to the will of any governmental entity, and I am a bit offended that you think I should be forced into one. Justify this with Logic, please.
Also, for the record, I definitely did NOT ‘ratify’ anything. I would remember that.
The USA is much more than a simple “group”, it is a nation, the greatest nation in the world I might add. And when you commit treason against your nation, you are harming your entire nation.
A nation isn’t physical thing, Luke, anymore than a state or a town are. It’s just groups of individuals, often with a common purpose, concentrated in a certain geographical region.
Jingoism aside, you still didn’t explain how choosing to no longer be part of the group would harm anyone?
That doesn’t matter. Once you’ve ratified and you’ve been admitted by Congress to the Union, you are a state, you are a state for good, and so are your children, your grandchildren, and all their progeny, unless they move somewhere else. If that doesn’t sound good to you, then there is a very simple solution, which is don’t ratify.
So what you’re saying is that if anyone (including people who weren’t alive at the time and who signed no contract agreeing to any of this) disagrees with your statement above and chooses to disassociate themselves with the group, they deserve to die?
I, too dwell within the geographic region known as ‘Michigan’
First of all, Michigan is not a simple “geographic region”. Michigan is a state. Secondly, you are out of luck, since Michigan has been in the Union since 1837, so there is no way for Michigan to leave the Union without committing treason.
But Luke, I am not ‘Michigan’. I am an individual. How do you bridge this disconnect in your reasoning?
Luke, what is ‘The State of Michigan’? Factually?
I live in my home, with my family and have no political associations, nor do I want any.
I signed no contract or Constitution binding me to the will of any governmental entity, and I am a bit offended that you think I should be forced into one. Justify this with Logic, please.
Also, for the record, I definitely did NOT ‘ratify’ anything. I would remember that.
It doesn’t matter that you personally didn’t sign/ratify the Constitution, because the founders of the state of Michigan, which is the state that you live in, ratified the Constitution back in 1836.
You are not being forced into any governmental entity, as you could always leave and move to Somalia where there is no government.
Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution says:
‘Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid or Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.’
Nothing about Secession there. Secession does not consist of saying, ‘I am your enemy’. It only says ‘I don’t want to be in your Union anymore’. You statement that secession is tantamount to treason is simply False, Luke.
‘It doesn’t matter that you personally didn’t sign/ratify the Constitution, because the founders of the state of Michigan, which is the state that you live in, ratified the Constitution back in 1836.’
So what? What does that have to do with me?
Jingoism aside, you still didn’t explain how choosing to no longer be part of the group would harm anyone?
Yes I did. I said that a nation is more than just a “group”.
So what you’re saying is that if anyone (including people who weren’t alive at the time and who signed no contract agreeing to any of this) disagrees with your statement above and chooses to disassociate themselves with the group, they deserve to die?
No that’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that every state in this Union had a choice of whether or not to ratify the Constitution, and once they ratified, they’re in for good, and if any citizen of any of those states doesn’t want to be in the Union, then the recourse is to leave the United States.
Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution says:
‘Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid or Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.’
Nothing about Secession there. Secession does not consist of saying, ‘I am your enemy’. It only says ‘I don’t want to be in your Union anymore’. You statement that secession is tantamount to treason is simply False, Luke.
I already said on here that a declaration of secession is tantamount to a declaration of war.
If you claim I signed a ‘social contract’ with your ‘state’ at birth, I’m claiming two things
1. Don’t remember it
2. Under duress
Now what?
‘It doesn’t matter that you personally didn’t sign/ratify the Constitution, because the founders of the state of Michigan, which is the state that you live in, ratified the Constitution back in 1836.’
So what? What does that have to do with me?
It has everything to do with you because you are a citizen of the state of Michigan and thus legally bound by the 1837 union of Michigan with the rest of the United States.
‘I already said on here that a declaration of secession is tantamount to a declaration of war.’
I know you said that, but it’s NOT TRUE. Read the section of the constitution again. Nothing about secession. Things are not so simply because you believe they are or want them to be.
If you claim I signed a ’social contract’ with your ’state’ at birth, I’m claiming two things
1. Don’t remember it
2. Under duress
Now what?
I’m not claiming that you signed anything. You didn’t need to sign anything to be bound. You are bound by the fact that you live in Michigan, and Michigan ratified the Constitution back in 1836, and thus became part of the Union in 1837.
Also, Article 4, Section 3, Subsection 2:
‘…nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.’
So if my ‘state’ claims it can secede, it can. There is no ‘no secession’ law.
‘You are bound by the fact that you live in Michigan, and Michigan ratified the Constitution back in 1836, and thus became part of the Union in 1837.’
How am I bound by this? What is the mechanism that makes this so?
To be more precise, in 1836 and 1837 men calling themselves the “state of Michigan” signed some papers. How am I responsible for and beholden to their actions?
Yes, that is more clear. Thank you, Ian
Yes I did. I said that a nation is more than just a “group”.
Webster’s definition is thus: “a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government”.
So how is a nation fundamentally different than a group? Isn’t the United States composed of people who make up towns (groups of people) which make up states (larger groups of people) which make up the nation (a massive group or groups of people)?
And how does disassociating oneself with a nation (group or not), cause harm to that nation? There’s no physical harm done. Leaving is not the same as assaulting or stealing. If I get into an argument with several people and decide to no longer associate with them and they attack or try to kill me, I haven’t harmed them, they’ve harmed me.
It makes no sense unless you’re saying the nation is like a gang and the only way out is to die or to leave the hood.
‘It has everything to do with you because you are a citizen of the state of Michigan and thus legally bound by the 1837 union of Michigan with the rest of the United States.’
Again, this ‘citizenship’ was obtained under duress, but beyond that you claim that I am legally bound. How?
Also, Article 4, Section 3, Subsection 2:
‘…nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.’
So if my ’state’ claims it can secede, it can. There is no ‘no secession’ law.
Yes there is a \’no secession\’ law, because there is a \’no treason\’ law, and secession is treason.
‘You are bound by the fact that you live in Michigan, and Michigan ratified the Constitution back in 1836, and thus became part of the Union in 1837.’
How am I bound by this? What is the mechanism that makes this so?
The mechanism that makes you bound by it is the fact that you live in Michigan.
To be more precise, in 1836 and 1837 men calling themselves the “state of Michigan” signed some papers. How am I responsible for and beholden to their actions?
You aren’t beholden to anything that the Michigan people signed because you don’t live in Michigan. You are beholden to what the New Hampshire people signed because you live in New Hampshire. If you don’t want to be beholden to anything then you need to go live in Somalia. I’m not saying this to try to be mean, I’m saying it because this is the way the world is, and in fact you guys accepted that it would be this way when you pulled out all those charts and laid them side by side and compared all the states in the US and decided which one had the laws that you felt that you could comply with, and then you all moved to that state.
Yes there is a ’no secession’ law, because there is a ’no treason’ law, and secession is treason.
Not according to the legal definition of the Constitution of the United States.
Are you attempting to usurp the definition of The Laws of this Nation? That is Treason, Sir! Treason most foul.
in fact you guys accepted that it would be this way when you pulled out all those charts and laid them side by side and compared all the states in the US and decided which one had the laws that you felt that you could comply with, and then you all moved to that state.
We don’t move because we feel we can comply with their laws, we move because they have the least overall tyranny of the 50 states. Perhaps in the state with the least tyranny, we may have a reasonable chance at reducing, slowing or abolishing the tyranny that remains. If so, perhaps other states will follow.
Webster’s definition is thus: “a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government”.
So how is a nation fundamentally different than a group? Isn’t the United States composed of people who make up towns (groups of people) which make up states (larger groups of people) which make up the nation (a massive group or groups of people)?
And how does disassociating oneself with a nation (group or not), cause harm to that nation? There’s no physical harm done. Leaving is not the same as assaulting or stealing. If I get into an argument with several people and decide to no longer associate with them and they attack or try to kill me, I haven’t harmed them, they’ve harmed me.
It makes no sense unless you’re saying the nation is like a gang and the only way out is to die or to leave the hood.
Irrespective of what Webster says, a nation is much more than a simple “group”. And treason harms a nation, even though that harm might not be visible physical harm of the type that occurred on 9/11, for instance.
‘It has everything to do with you because you are a citizen of the state of Michigan and thus legally bound by the 1837 union of Michigan with the rest of the United States.’
Again, this ‘citizenship’ was obtained under duress, but beyond that you claim that I am legally bound. How?
I can almost guarantee you that you didn’t obtain your citizenship under duress. Citizenship is either given to you automatically when you are born, or you are somebody who was born overseas or in another state, and you either gained it automatically after living in Michigan for a certain number of years, or you went and applied for it (I’m not quite sure exactly how Michigan naturalization works).
Michigan I don’t think even once in its history has kidnapped somebody out of their bed in another state/nation and taken them to Michigan and forced them to become a Michigan citizen. So there’s no way in hell you were forced under duress to become a Michigan citizen.
“It is a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
You keep saying that it’s much more than a simple group, an association of individuals uniting for a common purpose, but you never explain how.
Likewise, you claim that secession is treason with nothing to back up that claim and immediately jump to the conclusion that secession causes harm but you don’t explain how.
Your statements are completely empty. There isn’t anything backing them up but your claims. It’s circular logic.
It’s as if I said “The moon is made of cheese. Why? Because it is.”
So there’s no way in hell you were forced under duress to become a Michigan citizen.
Of course he was. You said so yourself:
Citizenship is either given to you automatically when you are born
So they forced it upon an infant who had no say in the matter. Despicable!
I imagine it thusly:
The men in dark clothes enter the nursery, grim determination on their faces. They enter a room where a mother lays in her hospital bed, cradling her newborn child.
“It is time.”, says one.
“No, please… he’s just a baby…”, the mother pleads.
One of the others takes the child from her forcibly, presenting it to the leader.
The leader takes out a small device, places it on the child’s forehead and depresses the button. The word “citizen” appears on the child’s skin, created from raised blood vessels.
“Welcome to America, Citizen.”, the leader says. He hands the infant back to the mother.
“His first tax bill and draft notice will arrive within a few days. You are the guardian so you will sign them on his behalf. Disobedience is treason. The penalty for treason is death.”
He clicks his heels and the men move on to the next room.
Luke,
I am interested in your response to this thought experiment: Suppose at the creation of the world I find myself living near two other people. Now, suppose myself, and my first neighbor, wish to steal from the other. My second neighbor simply wishes to live in peace. We could, since we have more guns, and there are two of us, simply overwhelm him and take his stuff. I assume you would call that theft.
Instead, my first neighbor and I hold a “constitutional convention”, and determine by two thirds majority, that we will have a democracy. We then vote to steal from our neighbor, and the motion passes by two thirds majority, which of course is binding, since we have already determined that we shall live in a democracy. It’s now the law that we shall take the property of our neighbor, and since there are two of us and one of him, overwhelm him by force and do so immediately. Or, of course, we could give him a chance to leave, at which point we get his farm anyway.
Do you consider this scenario any different, or more moral, than the first — common theft?
Luke,
I am interested in your response to this thought experiment: Suppose at the creation of the world I find myself living near two other people. Now, suppose myself, and my first neighbor, wish to steal from the other. My second neighbor simply wishes to live in peace. We could, since we have more guns, and there are two of us, simply overwhelm him and take his stuff. I assume you would call that theft.
Instead, my first neighbor and I hold a “constitutional convention”, and determine by two thirds majority, that we will have a democracy. We then vote to steal from our neighbor, and the motion passes by two thirds majority, which of course is binding, since we have already determined that we shall live in a democracy. It’s now the law that we shall take the property of our neighbor, and since there are two of us and one of him, overwhelm him by force and do so immediately. Or, of course, we could give him a chance to leave, at which point we get his farm anyway.
Do you consider this scenario any different, or more moral, than the first — common theft?
I don’t know. To be honest I’ve never thought of it that way before.
That’s why we’re here, Luke, because we think about these things exhaustively. It is difficult sometimes to reach past the ‘it is because it is and it just is’ kind of circular reasoning that gubments love, because most of us were educated in their schools and led to believe that that is indeed the way it is.
I just want to be left alone by those people, Luke, that honestly is all I want. When I hear about ‘health care reform’, all I can think is, ‘Please, Mr. Obama, just leave us alone.’ I speak from terrifying experience in that regard because I am a cancer survivor, and it terrifies me to think what would have happened to me and my loved ones in a ‘universal’ health care environment.
I unserstand those who are afraid of a world without government. I was one of them. Now, Luke, go forth and read The Market For Liberty, and then read Rothbard and Mises and Bastiat. Sitting home with cancer gave me the opportunity to do those things and changed my life.
Enjoy your reading, I only regret that I don’t have more time to read more stuff.
Also the Liberty Radio Underground is a great primer for people who are looking for logical ways to see the world.
Happy trails, sir, it has been a pleasure chatting with you!
Andy in Michigan
I do not know what your religious convictions are, Luke, if any (I myself am a Christian), but I do want to say that the beginning of Market for Liberty sometimes has anti-religious overtones, and some places even appears to oppose altruism. I recommend starting at chapter 3 to avoid most of the philosophizing . Also, Market for Liberty mainly regards a free market approach to justice, whereas Rothbard, although an economist, tends towards political philosophy and history, while Mises is more of a pure economist. Hazlitt and Hayek (who is a Nobel laureate) are also good. Mises.org has a lot on economics (including free books and audio books under Literature and Media, respectively).There are a lot of other resources out there too — if you let me know what you’re interested in, I can make a recommendation. =)
And I recommend Complete Liberty (audio or pdf) instead. I prefer the audio (the first 10 episodes) version. Wes is entertaining and precise. No High Muckamuck economics and whatnot necessary.
That’s true, everybody says things we don’t all agree with or says things with which we do not completely agree. Part of the learning process, and indeed, the process of life itself, is to take from everything the things you want and to discard those you do not. I think one would be remiss, however, to not at least examine the ideas presented, even if they don’t necessarily fall within your own framework of belief. I know my framework of belief has shifted over the years, and I understand the value of an open mind. Great comment, Paul, I didn’t much think about the parts of TMFL that some might find offensive. BUT, I have to recommend that it all be read, and those ideas found distasteful be rejected if you want.
Luke said
The USA is much more than a simple “group”, it is a nation, the greatest nation in the world I might add. And when you commit treason against your nation, you are harming your entire nation.
Luke, suppose I replaced “USA” with “British Empire” and attempted to side with the British is the Revolutionary War. What would be your reaction to that?
You see, there is actually a legal precedent for secession in the United States that predates the Civil War. First, the original thirteen colonies seceded from Great Britain. Since you speak so highly of the “USA,” I would assume you believe their secession to be legal. Second, the States seceded from the Articles of Confederation in order to sign the Constitution.
I also take issue with your attempt to use the Constitution as a binding contract.
First, not everyone who resided in the United States at the time of its signing approved it. Are you suggesting that a bunch of random people can get together and sign a contract on behalf of thousands of other people who never consented?
Second, by the time the Civil War started, none of the men who ratified the Constitution were alive. How can one sign a contract on behalf of someone that’s not yet alive?
And finally, contracts that do anything but set conditions for the exchange of property are not ethically enforceable by violence. For them to be, it would have to be possible for a person to alienate his or her will which is impossible because as long as one possesses one’s will, it is possible to change one’s mind. It’s literally impossible to promise someone that you will do something because you don’t know what the future entails. Because of this, any contract you make that promises that you will do anything is simply not valid.
‘It’s literally impossible to promise someone that you will do something because you don’t know what the future entails. Because of this, any contract you make that promises that you will do anything is simply not valid.’
I can’t agree with this, Andrew. People make promises all the time and are expected to keep them. Those who do not suffer harm to their reputations, if not ‘legal’ action. The advice for such a circumstance is often ‘Don’t make promises with your mouth that your feet can’t keep’. If I contract with someone to mow their grass once a week for 4 weeks and I only show up once, I have violated that contract. Whether I ‘changed my mind’ or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that I defrauded the man I contracted with. On what basis would you consider that contract to be invalid? How could anyone ever contract for services if non-property based contracts were not valid?
It’s literally impossible to promise someone that you will do something because you don’t know what the future entails. Because of this, any contract you make that promises that you will do anything is simply not valid.
I agree that this is a ludicrous statement for the same reasons LP points out above. Perhaps there is a mistranslation here?
I think Andrew’s heart is in the right place, Zeus. I also have been known to overthink an issue and say something asinine. Usually it’s whenever I comment in a charley hardman thread; that guy is really smart…
Luke’s statement regarding ‘once you are born here, you are a citizen’ reminds of the a time when slaves had children their children were automatically born into the same slavery.
It sounds like to me, that Luke endorses slavery.
Let us not also forget the 9th and 10th amendment’s which state that what ever is in the constitution does not deny a right to the people and what is not in the Constitution is a right of the states or the people. That being so, since the Constitution does not speak to ‘secession’, that this is a right of the states or of the people. To which the NH constitution art 10 says, “Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.”
Since the smallest unit of any government is the individual, it is the right of the individual, to rebel against his government, if he believes whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, that the right to reform, or establish a new government, shall be his. To wit, I abolish this government, and establish a new government the form of which is self-government. You are free to do what you wish so long as it does not violate another’s life, liberty, or property.
So there.
Also, Luke, you’re using collective-speak (as are some others) that doesn’t make sense. You said “the South was intent on keeping their slaves forever, and also on seceding aka committing treason against the Union.” Who is “the South?”Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, North Carolina, Arkansas, South Carolina.
Do you think this answer resolves previous collective-speak?
Once you’ve ratified and you’ve been admitted by Congress to the Union, you are a state, you are a state for good, and so are your children, your grandchildren, and all their progeny, unless they move somewhere else.
That is a radical departure from the organization of any other group. Why does the literal text of the Constitution fail to specify such a significant concept?
Finally, you’ve claimed here that a state is “more than a simple group” (implying that it is a group), and that one can live in a state, and that one can be a state. These seem like contradictory positions. I, at least, am not aware of anything that can simultaneously instantiate even two of the three abstractions “group”, “residence”, and “person”. So Luke, to generalize Lpviper’s question: factually, what is a State?
Y’all don’t have to beat him (Luke) about the head and neck. He’s been given a lot of information and is trying to recast his thoughts. We all have been there
Folks,
It has been interesting reading this thread. In response to my hypothetical scenario:
“if the state of Mississippi held a plebiscite tomorrow in which a majority of its citizens voted to secede from the Union because it wanted to enslave its black citizens in order to have a source of cheap labor for its industries, what would you do?”
there seems to be a consensus to participate with like-minded individuals in a physical effort to free these slaves. Which would be a fine thing, I suppose. It would also be:
1) an invasion of people’s property rights (this quasi-military force would certainly trespass on Mississippi people’s private lands to accomplish the task of freeing the slaves)
2) an initiation of violence against other human beings (in this case, the slaveholders, whom we can assume would physically contest the invasion on their privately-owned lands, as well as the freeing of said slaves
3) a effort undertaken, to a truly significant and determinative extent, on the basis of subjective notions of right and wrong (i.e. “I think what you are doing is wrong, so I’m going to invade your property and attack you”)
Rights in conflict. Choices.
Cheers,
Ann
Ann, I really thought you were beginning to understand the philosophy of liberty but your proclamations are absurd. What’s particularly galling about them is that so many individuals throughout this thread have explained in great detail as to why they are absurd and you reiterated them anyway. One last time:
1) an invasion of people’s property rights (this quasi-military force would certainly trespass on Mississippi people’s private lands to accomplish the task of freeing the slaves)
You have no idea whether or not these “quasi-military forces” will trespass on the lands of non-slavers. Could be, they might fly in a chopper at night. Or gain permission (or pay for it) from sympathetic abolitionists on the inside. Others may wait outside the borders to aid escaped slaves.
If there is a legitimate grievance of trespass, let it be brought up in a court of arbitration where it can be solved between the parties. If the verdict is guilty, then appropriate restitution should be paid.
It seems like you’re saying: “Well, you might trespass on someone’s private property while rescuing those slaves so you better just give up on this whole liberty thing, it’s obviously flawed.” And that mindset is completely ridiculous.
2) an initiation of violence against other human beings (in this case, the slaveholders, whom we can assume would physically contest the invasion on their privately-owned lands, as well as the freeing of said slaves
Self-ownership is the very root of the philosophy of liberty. You cannot have a just, moral claim to own anyone else nor can they own you. It is an initiation of aggression on the intended slaves and it is an abomination to liberty, the ultimate affront.
By enslaving others, they have already initiated aggression. The slaves have a just, moral right to defend themselves and to seek out others who will assist in defending them from that aggression.
You do not have a right to begin aggression. You do have every right to stop it.
3) a effort undertaken, to a truly significant and determinative extent, on the basis of subjective notions of right and wrong (i.e. “I think what you are doing is wrong, so I’m going to invade your property and attack you”)
It isn’t subjective at all. The philosophy of liberty is reasoned, logical and objective. We didn’t just crap it out one night after a few beers, Ann.
These are many of the same concepts Jefferson, Franklin, Locke and Paine trumpeted 230+ years ago. The same concepts in the Magna Carta written nearly 800 years ago. The same concepts of the ancient greek philsophers of two millennia ago.
It has been refined, debated ad infinitum and forged into the principled, logical and reasoned philosophy it is today. If the logic does not speak truth to you that is one thing, but if you choose to make excuses for tyranny despite agreeing with the logic of liberty, then nothing else we say will change your mind and our discussion is over.
1) an invasion of people’s property rights (this quasi-military force would certainly trespass on Mississippi people’s private lands to accomplish the task of freeing the slaves)
2) an initiation of violence against other human beings (in this case, the slaveholders, whom we can assume would physically contest the invasion on their privately-owned lands, as well as the freeing of said slaves
3) a effort undertaken, to a truly significant and determinative extent, on the basis of subjective notions of right and wrong (i.e. “I think what you are doing is wrong, so I’m going to invade your property and attack you”)
1) Do all bounty hunters trespass when bringing people in? And when falling short of a no-trespass standard, are they liable for any damages caused?
2) One cannot initiate violence against a slaveholder by freeing slaves. Violence was initiated with the act of enslavement.
3) There is nothing subjective about the moral status of slavery. It is an obvious contradiction to claim self-ownership while denying it to others.
1) an invasion of people’s property rights (this quasi-military force would certainly trespass on Mississippi people’s private lands to accomplish the task of freeing the slaves)
That’s not necessarily true at all, there are many ways to get around without trespassing. If you mean the slaveholders land, they lost the right to be left alone when they tried to enslave people. Just as, you can’t murder someone, then retreat to your private land, and expect no one to come get you.
2) an initiation of violence against other human beings (in this case, the slaveholders, whom we can assume would physically contest the invasion on their privately-owned lands, as well as the freeing of said slaves
I think there’s a misconception here. To initiate force means to begin it. In this case, the slaveholders initiated force by attempting to enslave people against their will. A forceful response, to protect innocents, is not an “initiation of violence”, it is defense.
It would, however, be an initiation of violence to use it against peaceful people who only happened to be in the state which seceded, but did not participate in slavery.
3) a effort undertaken, to a truly significant and determinative extent, on the basis of subjective notions of right and wrong (i.e. “I think what you are doing is wrong, so I’m going to invade your property and attack you”)
What do you propose as a better definition of right and wrong? Whatever the government says it is?
Everything Hitler did was legal. Thank goodness for the men and women of the white rose society who chose do what was right, rather than what was legal.
Slavery was legal. Thank goodness for the men and women of the underground railroad who chose to do what was right, rather than what was legal.
Segregation was legal. Thank goodness for the men and women of the civil rights movement who chose to do what was right, rather than what was legal.
The government does not define right and wrong, and it is a very dangerous trend when the people begin to believe it is so. Good men and women stand up for what is right, if necessary, against what is legal.
I agree with the liberty lovers above and I also would like to thank Ann for participating in so many spirited discussions on this site and for continuing to discuss, even when things get heated.
I would like to think that logic will win out in the end, and don’t forget, people also have a right to be governed by others if that is what they want. What that right doesn’t do is allow others to govern me.
Keep reading, Ann, maybe you’ll find something here that moves you toward advocating a voluntarily interacting society of individuals acting in their own self-interest. I found that path through reading, listening, and trying to keep an open mind.
Thanks
Andy in Michigan
Dear Zeus, Paul, Richard and Andy,
Some quick responses, and a summation:
“Ann, I really thought you were beginning to understand the philosophy of liberty but your proclamations are absurd. What’s particularly galling about them is that so many individuals throughout this thread have explained in great detail as to why they are absurd and you reiterated them anyway”.
Zeus, you write about what you call “the philosophy of liberty” as if it was a fixed, immutable entity, the understanding of which is not amenable to varying interpretations and viewpoints. It’s almost as if you believe you’re talking about gravity. I continued my inquiries because I found many of the responses incomplete and illogical.
“You have no idea whether or not these “quasi-military forces” will trespass on the lands of non-slavers. Could be, they might fly in a chopper at night. Or gain permission (or pay for it) from sympathetic abolitionists on the inside. Others may wait outside the borders to aid escaped slaves.”
I’d guess that most people would find these scenarios significantly less likely (and more fanciful) than one in which an invading force physically trespassed on private property to free slaves being held in captivity.
“Self-ownership is the very root of the philosophy of liberty. You cannot have a just, moral claim to own anyone else nor can they own you. It is an initiation of aggression on the intended slaves and it is an abomination to liberty, the ultimate affront.”
Agreed.
“You do not have a right to begin aggression. You do have every right to stop it.”
Even if the aggression isn’t directed towards you? Any limits to this “right” to “stop it”?
“The philosophy of liberty is reasoned, logical and objective. We didn’t just crap it out one night after a few beers, Ann. These are many of the same concepts Jefferson, Franklin, Locke and Paine trumpeted 230+ years ago. The same concepts in the Magna Carta written nearly 800 years ago. The same concepts of the ancient greek philsophers of two millennia ago…..It has been refined, debated ad infinitum and forged into the principled, logical and reasoned philosophy it is today.”
Again, Zeus, you refer to a “philosophy of liberty” as if it were a fixed object, and it’s that compensatory mis-perception that does indeed sound like it was “crapp[ed] out one night after a few beers”. Because writers like Jefferson (slave-owner), Franklin, Locke (up to his neck in the colonial slave-trade), etc. were not slaves to the sort of intellectual and ideological dogma that tends to make too many of the opinions expressed on this site so cartoonish. It’s the depth and complexity of these writers’ thoughts and ideas that have kept them essential, valuable and relevant through the years.
“One cannot initiate violence against a slaveholder by freeing slaves.”
This is regurgitated nonsense. If you have not been victimized yourself by a slaveholder, and then decide to take action against him in a physical manner (even if it’s on behalf of a noble cause), you have initiated violence. It’s not self-defense; that would be the legitimate form of violence used by slaves trying to free themselves. Why lapse into logical absurdity simply to preserve some sort of ego-bound notion of ideological purity? Why not just admit that in some situations, you would feel comfortable with the idea of harming another human being who hadn’t harmed you? Life is filled with such exceptions, inconsistencies and contradictions. Although I do understand that acknowledging that reality would require giving up your rhetorical cudgels.
“That’s not necessarily true at all, there are many ways to get around without trespassing. If you mean the slaveholders land, they lost the right to be left alone when they tried to enslave people. Just as, you can’t murder someone, then retreat to your private land, and expect no one to come get you….To initiate force means to begin it. In this case, the slaveholders initiated force by attempting to enslave people against their will. A forceful response, to protect innocents, is not an “initiation of violence”, it is defense.”
Talk about absurd sophistry. You are saying that simply because a private land-owner does something reprehensible, he/she immediately loses their private property rights? By what statute? And this loss would be compelled by random individuals, acting on the basis of their individual ethical assessments? And this compelling would be legitimate simply because these random individuals say it is? And finally, how far are you prepared to take this notion? For instance, if a judge puts someone in jail for a month or more simply because they refuse to give their name, would it be legitimate for you to pull that judge from his home and hold him hostage in a cell for an equivalent amount of time?
One of the less salutary aspects of this site is the tendency of posters to exercise a quasi-fundamentalist mindset that seems to be inspired by incomplete and tendentious “understandings” of the writings of people such as Grotius, Hobbes, Locke, Jefferson, Rousseau, Lord Acton, et al, as well as concepts such as social contract theory, natural law, etc. It is simply an undeniable fact that these writings and ideas are subject to an extremely wide range of interpretations; many forests have been felled to facilitate these interpretive debates. Such discussions reflect the human impulse to understand the challenges of existence and find ways to move forward. As a result (and as a reflection of my own life experiences), I am extremely suspicious of dogma, which is almost always intellectually unsupportable and is often just a manifestation of psychological or existential insecurity. Perhaps that’s why I find this site to be, at times, quite interesting; I have to confess that it’s morbidly fascinating to encounter people who hold themselves so rigidly apart from the complexities that inform the realities of human existence.
If a poster disagrees with the prevailing belief system on this site, it’s all-too-often asserted that this disagreement arises either from delusion or inadequate understanding. Deluded “slaves” such as myself are counseled that we don’t “understand”, and that with additional reading we will some day “find the light”. This is sometimes accompanied by the faux-compassionate, passive-aggressive cliche “I used to see things the way you do”. This is the mentality of religious fundamentalism.
But of course there is another possibility: in some cases, I’ve read what you’ve written or done, and I simply think you are wrong. I may find the assertions illogical, unrealistic or simply incorrect. And thus we engage. For me, the primary turf for that engagement is defined not by rhetorical fancies, but rather by establishing, in realistic terms, WHAT YOU WOULD ACTUALLY DO when faced with difficult, real-life situations and choices. Lacking that, I’m afraid you’re just hooting from the cheap seats.
Ann
Ann,
It’s quite simple. I believe it can be morally acceptable to use the minimal violence needed to defend oneself, OR to defend innocents. Do you really think this is an irrational position? Would you not defend a nearby victim from an attack, if you could?
Let me respond to your questions, in turn
Talk about absurd sophistry. You are saying that simply because a private land-owner does something reprehensible, he/she immediately loses their private property rights?
Not exactly. I am saying that if I attempt to harm someone, that person has a right to defend themselves (or be defended), even if that defense harms my person or property.
For example, if someone were to see me assault an old lady, and were to shoot me, that would certainly harm my person — yet, that would be justified, since they were defending the lady. Similarly, if someone is enslaving others, it would be justified to enter their property to protect the innocent. Do you disagree with this principle?
By what statute? And this loss would be compelled by random individuals, acting on the basis of their individual ethical assessments?
Let me give you a few examples of “random individuals, acting on the basis of their individual ethical assessments”:
- The white rose society, and other Nazi resistance groups
- Gandhi
- Rosa Parks
- MLK
- Susan B Anthony
- Sam Adams (and all other american revolutionaries)
- Harriett Tubman (and others who supported the underground railroad)
- The Tienanmen square protesters
- The apostle Paul (and most early church members)
etc.
Think carefully about what you propose here. Are people to ignore the dictates of their moral beliefs, and allow the state to make all moral determinations for them? Perhaps Rosa Parks should have moved to the back of the bus after all, and the white rose society should have shut down and supported Hitler.
You must decide. If a person’s moral code dictates that they pursue a certain action, but the government says no, do you propose that they should act according to what they believe to be moral, or obey what is legal? Consider the examples above.
And this compelling would be legitimate simply because these random individuals say it is?
No, of course not. They are legitimate only so far as their ideas are legitimate. For example, to extend the list above, here are more examples of “random individuals, acting on the basis of their individual ethical assessments”:
- KKK leaders
- Unabomber
- 9/11 hijackers
- Timothy McVeigh
Now, what is the difference between this list, and the one above? They are both lists of individuals or groups willing to act for what they believe in, against the law if necessary. The difference is simply that the first are obeying right moral laws, whereas the others are obeying false ones.
My problem with the unabomber, for example, is not that he acted on what he believed, against what is legal. If I were to oppose that, I would also oppose Rosa Parks. No, the problem was what he believed in: blowing innocent people up.
Thus, if we are to behave morally, we must be willing to act on our moral beliefs despite all opposition, and we must also have right moral beliefs. If we fail on either score, we are likely to take immoral action.
I am proposing that the moral law exists above man and above government, and each of us conforms or does not conform to it in our actions. It is not changed at the whim of the majority, or of leaders, or of ourselves.
What do you propose? Do you propose that morality is defined by government?
And finally, how far are you prepared to take this notion? For instance, if a judge puts someone in jail for a month or more simply because they refuse to give their name, would it be legitimate for you to pull that judge from his home and hold him hostage in a cell for an equivalent amount of time?
Well, firstly, it is not only a matter of legitimacy, it is a matter of prudence. Before acting, one should consider the consequences of that act. I believe any action against a judge in the current environment would lead to nothing good.
Also, it is a matter of personal conviction. For example, although I believe I have a right to self defense, as a Christian I may choose to “turn the other cheek”, and not exercise that option in a particular situation.
Furthermore, especially for meting out compensation, I believe some sort of arbitration system is preferable. I would in most cases probably not feel comfortable taking matters into my own hands to get compensation for someone, while I certainly would feel comfortable taking matters in my own hands to defend the innocent from an attack — as in the slavery case.
Finally, I do not believe in prison except for people who are a continuing and present threat to others. I prefer compensation, which benefits the victim, so, in an ideal world, the “judge” could work for the victim for a period of time.
Hi Ann,
When you asked about The Philosophy of Liberty, it immediately made me think about the YouTube video of the same name. Watch it, it’s about 9 minutes long and for the most part it actually does contain ‘The Philosophy of Liberty’. Most moral and ethical societal considerations lie somewhere within the general scope of the video. Let me know what you think!
Zeus, you write about what you call “the philosophy of liberty” as if it was a fixed, immutable entity, the understanding of which is not amenable to varying interpretations and viewpoints. It’s almost as if you believe you’re talking about gravity.
The basic foundations of The Philosophy of Liberty are found in the 8-minute video of the same name. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough on that since it’s composed of fairly generic words instead of something a bit more unique like “Democracy” or “Zoroastrianism”.
But yes, the ideas and concepts presented in it are the immutable foundation of libertarian, voluntaryist, anarcho-capitalist, neo-abolitionist thought.
Despite all the books on this subject that I have read (and which others will implore you to read), that video had the most impact on me in helping to define and understand the basic foundations of the Philosophy.
With the addition of “Libertarianism in One Lesson” by David Bergland and “Complete Liberty” by Wes Bertrand, I had more than enough information to understand the philosophy we talk about on this site and decided it was an honest, logical, reasoned, peaceful and truthful way of patterning my personal behavior for the better.
I still read and listen to the opinions of others and find new nuances of thought; interesting new perspectives on various subjects and moral dilemmas, every day. I don’t have the answer to every question. I don’t always agree with others on certain subjects outside the basic concepts of self-ownership, the non-aggression principle and so on. But I live and I learn and I see the logic of the path I’ve chosen and believe it to be the best way of reaching my destination, which is a better, richer, more moral and peaceful life “with liberty and justice for all”.
For me, liberty in our lifetimes is the way to achieve that, not mindlessly following the diktats of the corrupt prostitutes in Washington who only take from us and try to control every thing we do. Tyranny leads to misery and that is not the life I seek in this world.
I’d guess that most people would find these scenarios significantly less likely (and more fanciful) than one in which an invading force physically trespassed on private property to free slaves being held in captivity.
Even if the aggression isn’t directed towards you? Any limits to this “right” to “stop it”?
If you have not been victimized yourself by a slaveholder, and then decide to take action against him in a physical manner (even if it’s on behalf of a noble cause), you have initiated violence. It’s not self-defense; that would be the legitimate form of violence used by slaves trying to free themselves.
You are saying that simply because a private land-owner does something reprehensible, he/she immediately loses their private property rights?
Ann, most of us here believe that if you aggress against another person’s natural rights, you sacrifice those same rights of yourself. It’s an ethical paradox. You cannot profess that you deserve freedom while enslaving another. You only have the rights you are willing to reciprocate to others. If you don’t kill people, no one has a right to kill you. If you don’t steal from others, no one has a right to steal from you.
If someone is being enslaved, they have every right to defend themselves or ask others to aid in their defense. Enslavement is aggression. Once initiated, the right to not have one’s property trespassed upon is no longer an option. Don’t initiate aggression, and everything will be hunky-dory.
If you wish to believe that it is moral for someone to violate the rights of another human being and then insist he or she is immune to being violated by others, you can certainly subscribe to such an absurdity but I don’t think we have anything further to discuss at that point.
And finally, how far are you prepared to take this notion? For instance, if a judge puts someone in jail for a month or more simply because they refuse to give their name, would it be legitimate for you to pull that judge from his home and hold him hostage in a cell for an equivalent amount of time?
How would doing the same thing to the person that did it to me make me whole again? I would that give me back the days of life I had stolen from me? There is nothing to gain with such an “eye for an eye” philosophy.
Instead, I would seek arbitration via an impartial third-party (which is in honest competition with other third-parties to ensure it’s impartiality and quality of service) to adjudicate my grievance and come to a peaceful resolution wherein my assailant must pay restitution. It is an idea at least as old as the Germanic concept of “weregild”, the Irish concept of “ericfine” and “vira” in Russia.
Ann, I don’t know if you gave it any thought when I posted it above, but I am also interested in your response to the scenario I asked Luke about. I’ll repost here for reference:
Suppose at the creation of the world I find myself living near two other people. Now, suppose myself, and my first neighbor, wish to steal from the other. My second neighbor simply wishes to live in peace. We could, since we have more guns, and there are two of us, simply overwhelm him and take his stuff. I assume you would call that theft.
Instead, my first neighbor and I hold a “constitutional convention”, and determine by two thirds majority, that we will have a democracy. We then vote to steal from our neighbor, and the motion passes by two thirds majority, which of course is binding, since we have already determined that we shall live in a democracy. It’s now the law that we shall take the property of our neighbor, and since there are two of us and one of him, overwhelm him by force and do so immediately. Or, of course, we could give him a chance to leave, at which point we get his farm anyway.
Do you consider this scenario any different, or more moral, than the first — common theft?
I can’t agree with this, Andrew. People make promises all the time and are expected to keep them. Those who do not suffer harm to their reputations, if not ‘legal’ action. The advice for such a circumstance is often ‘Don’t make promises with your mouth that your feet can’t keep’. If I contract with someone to mow their grass once a week for 4 weeks and I only show up once, I have violated that contract. Whether I ‘changed my mind’ or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that I defrauded the man I contracted with. On what basis would you consider that contract to be invalid? How could anyone ever contract for services if non-property based contracts were not valid?
You seem to be misunderstanding me. What I’m trying to say is that there are limitation on when contracts can be enforced with violence.
If someone makes a contract with you to mow your lawn four times and only mows it once, you don’t have the right to force them to mow it three more times at gunpoint.
If, however, I paid you $100 up front to mow my lawn four times and you only mowed it once, I would be entitled to get $75 back from you because the remaining money would not really belong to you until you met your end of the contract. If you would not return the money, I would be in the right if I used force to get it back.
Of course, in the case of contracts that can’t be violently enforced, I have no problem with using ostracism and other non-violent methods in order to get people to comply. If you really think your lawnmower is going to flake out on you, you can threaten to tell all your friends about it or something like that. After all, reputations are extremely important when it comes to entrepreneurial activity. I suspect that it would be possible to base a legal system largely on the threat of ostracism and that it would often be the most efficient way to enforce agreements since violence tends to be expensive.
‘If someone makes a contract with you to mow your lawn four times and only mows it once, you don’t have the right to force them to mow it three more times at gunpoint.’
‘If you would not return the money, I would be in the right if I used force to get it back.’
Why is one of these OK and not the other? Force may only be employed to obtain money, and not for services due? Your statements seem contradictory…
Why is one of these OK and not the other? Force may only be employed to obtain money, and not for services due? Your statements seem contradictory…
In the first case, the lawnmower is simply exercising his or her right to individual sovereignty. Regardless of what a contract says, it’s not possible to sell your will to another being, even partially, so the use of force cannot be justified to uphold the contract.
In the second case, theft has occurred and it is permissible to use force to get your property back from thieves.
At first I disagreed with Andrew but rereading his words I see that the difference is deceptively subtle.
That difference being that holding a gun up to the lawnmower guy’s head and forcing him to complete the contract is slavery. And two wrongs don’t make a right.
The proper thing to do, since he’s in breach of contract, is to request your money back. If he refuses, pursue arbitration. If he still refuses, you have choice to make.
Is the ding to his reputation for refusing to arbitrate enough? Or is the amount he’s defrauded you out of worth going to war over? Worth dying over? Worth killing over? And are you willing to deal with the consequences should you be forced to kill or maim him in retrieving your rightful property?
This is the benefit of arbitration. If you don’t go, you leave yourself wide open to retribution.
That said, if he stole $20 or some other paltry amount from you and you kill or maim him while attempting to get it back, I’m pretty sure his family will have an arbitration claim against you for using excessive force and you’ll have screwed yourself seven ways to Sunday. The key here is balance. Equal value gained for equal value lost.
So you better think before you act.
What if he went ahead and spent the money?
I’m not convinced by the “two wrongs don’t make a right” point. For example, you might as well say that taking money from him by force is theft, and two wrongs don’t make a right. Obviously, recovering stolen money is not theft. Is recovering stolen labor slavery? I’m inclined to say no — that if there’s no money to recover, and the welcher cannot or is not willing to otherwise work out a payment plan for a return of that money, they are responsible to complete the contract. One way or another, they must provide restitution.
Of course, as noted, in some cases it may be preferable to simply forgive the contract.
Or, you could walk right over to his house and take something of equal or lesser value and call it even. After all, he gave up his just, moral claim to not be stolen from or have his property trespassed on (by you or your designated agent) when he violated your property rights and broke the deal. You get what you give. Had he paid up or arbitrated, this could have been avoided.
If he attacks you while you retrieve the value owed, you’ll have another claim in arbitration court (should he go this time around). It would be a slam dunk case when you show that he broke the contract, refused to pay and refused to arbitrate. And now you’ve got him for attacking you.
The idea is to get what you’re owed, preferably without violence.
Agreed, Zeus. There’s pretty much always going to be a better way to proceed.
So you can hold a man up and take his money when he has defrauded you, but you can’t hold him up and make him cut your grass because you paid him to?
Help me understand what the difference is and why it is significant.
I don’t believe that forcing a man in breach of contract to fulfill his obligation is slavery, but I’m ready to be convinced…
I don’t think it’s slavery either, but I think pretty much every time there’s going to be a better option.
That’s a good way of looking at it
I guess the big question here is this:
When someone aggresses against you, do they lose claim to ALL their rights to you in one big fell swoop, the same rights they violated, or something else?
I would say, if someone agresses against you, you are justified in using the minimal necessary force to defend yourself, and obtain fair restitution.
Agreed, Paul, but that doesn’t answer the question posed.
If a burglar breaks in he commits trespassing, b&e, theft and, if armed, may aggress against your life. Many would say you have a right to use deadly force on him whether he’s armed or not.
It’s a given between you and I that you should use the bare minimum amount of force required to subdue or chase him off, but the question remains:
By aggressing against you, does he temporarily lose his rights (just, moral claims) to not have his property be trespassed upon, his property vandalized, his property stolen, his life killed or his body maimed by you or your designated agent (since you were the one aggressed against) until restitution is achieved? Or does he only forfeit some of those rights (which ones?) or more than those rights i.e. all of them?
If the burglar temporarily loses all his rights, does that also apply to the lawnmower guy?
I don’t look at it in terms of rights. To me, saying someone has a right to do something is the same as saying it would be immoral to use force to prevent them.
So, I suppose in the context of rights, the burglar loses whatever minimal rights must be abridged in order for the victim to defend himself.
A person should not be considered an aggressor for shooting the thief, if no safe alternative prevented itself. In that case, the burglar has forfeited the right to live.
Suppose, however, that it was somehow known to the victim that the burglar was unarmed, and that evicting him with less than lethal force would be a valid, safe option. I would say in that case, shooting the burglar would be murder — and so the burglar has not forfeited the right to live in that case.
Not every action which is permissible is advisable, of course. If (it’s hard to imagine how) the absolute only way to stop someone from stepping on my rhododendrons was to shoot them, I’d just let them keep stepping.
I suppose the term “right” might have some meaning after all, then. Since, in that situation, I would consider it immoral to shoot the trespasser, but I would not say the trespasser has a right to step on the flowers.
So, in my impossible situation in which a better alternative doesn’t exist, the flower stepper loses the right to live, and the homeowner has the right to shoot. But, I would still consider it immoral for him to exercise that right.
I have no disagreement with you regarding discretion in the use of justified force when it comes to correcting an aggression.
Rights to me are “valid, moral claims” to justify one’s actions. In other words, actions that do not violate the non-aggression principle.
Obviously, eating a turkey sandwich you purchased with money you earned aggresses against no one so it’s completely justified. Few, if anyone, could or would dispute this.
The question I’m concerned with is what happens to a person’s moral claims (rights) if they aggress against another. Perhaps I’m concerned with technicalities here.
Obviously, if someone grabbed your turkey sandwich and ate it in front of you, shooting them in the face would be excessive force and unjustified. You have not achieved equal recompense with your actions. You have taken from them far more than was taken from you (everything, should they die). You’ve violated their moral claims far more than they violated yours. And you deserve to reap what you sow in that regard.
The question on the table isn’t how you *should* respond to aggression (we agree on that) but whether or not the aggressor forfeits certain moral claims, or all of them. Right now, I’m leaning toward the former.
The more I think about it, I suppose it depends on the type of aggression used and the value of the harm done to you.
In the example of stealing your turkey sandwich, taking their life is unjustified. But what if it was $20,000 in cash, a gold brick, a classic muscle car in pristine condition, or something else of much greater value than that turkey sandwich? Does that change the situation?
If someone tries to murder, assault or rape you, I think deadly force is justified in that case as a defensive measure. Your life and your body, the two greatest things you will ever own, are under threat.
But perhaps theft, fraud and vandalism are different? Certainly, you would be justified in attempting to apprehend or chase off someone on your property attempting to do those things but is deadly force justified? Did they forfeit their moral claim to life by choosing to do those things?
It’s a bit murky and when things are unclear, I tend to look for a simple, logical moral formula so I know ahead of time how to deal with such situations.
I would likely also consider it immoral, but the flower stepper has done wrong as well. His title in my memory would be ‘dumb ass’.
Here’s an example of the formula thus far.
This doesn’t seem right to me. There must be a different way of handling it than basing it on the value of the property lost vs the value of the aggressor’s life, right? As far as I know, there is no value lost from trespass other than your right to control what is or isn’t done with your property. You can remove that person with violence if necessary but deadly force?
And if the proposed method for handling those situations *is* true, what criteria determines the value of the aggressor’s life? I’m not sure that’s even possible. I know it was done in the age of weregeld but that doesn’t mean it was appropriate.
A thief has implicitly determined that no agreement exists regarding the ownership of certain goods, and thus defaulted to raw action as the arbiter. You, believing in minimal response to infringement, may therefore use as much force to recover your property as the thief is willing to use to keep it. The amount of force you are willing to use will depend on the property’s subjective value.
It would benefit you to have far more potential force at your disposal than the thief is willing to employ. Third-party arbitration leverages a majority sense of fairness to provide precisely this condition… but is unfortunately only available after the fact. The thief has already initiated force in pursuit of your property, and will be (temporarily) victorious in the conflict over it unless you mount a superior defense. This would still be true if you tracked em down, but at that point arbitration is probably a much more attractive option than direct force—for both of you.
I’m not sure that the above can be accurately cast into the language of “rights”. My best effort would be to state that thieves have the same rights as everyone else, except to the extent that their actions defend theft.
I don’t think rights have anything to do with the value of what has been damaged. You have a right to defend your property — you don’t have a right to use more force than is necessary.
If someone is threatening to steal your sandwich, it is nearly 100% certain that there are alternate, less violent ways to prevent it than shooting them. That’s what determines that you have no right to shoot them — not the value of the sandwich.
If someone has already stolen your sandwich, the goal switches from prevention to restitution. In that case, you then have the right to use the minimum force necessary to obtain fair restitution.
In both cases, minimum force necessary is the key — not the value of the good.
The value of the good only comes in when determining whether it is moral to exercise a right. So, although I have a right to use whatever minimum force is necessary to prevent someone from stealing from me, I may decide that that force is too severe, and that I would prefer to lose the property, and so do not exercise that right.
The difference is, if a person acts outside of their rights by using more force than is necessary, they should be required to provide restitution. If a person exercises their rights in an irresponsible manner, by using the minimum necessary force in a situation when forgiveness would be more appropriate, ostracism is an appropriate response, but restitution should not be forcefully required — they have acted within their rights.
So, the gun to the landscaper’s head is an excessive use of defensive force, and the lawn owner will suffer damage to his reputation for doing such a thing instead of arbitrating his dispute.
While the gun action is not intrinsically immoral, it would definitely be considered to be in poor taste and would raise questions about one’s fitness to act within society.
That cover it?
Next time he’ll cut his own damn grass
To simplify, what both of you seem to be saying is this:
1. If you are aggressed against in the form of theft/fraud, vandalism and trespass (murder, rape and assault being givens), any amount of force — including deadly — is on the table.
If so, this confirms my theory that until the aggression is resolved, the aggressor temporarily forfeits all valid, moral claims (rights) to not be aggressed against by you. Quid pro quo.
2. The aggressed must decide how important the aggression is to them and choose to either forgive the aggressor or to resolve the aggression with violence.
3. If the aggressed chooses violence, they must determine for themselves how much is required in order to correct the situation and use the minimal amount necessary to achieve resolution.
4. Choosing overkill, however, could have very negative consequences for the aggressed.
Regarding 1, I think it makes more sense to first look at it from the perspective of the victim. So, the victim has the right to use the minimal necessary force in defense of himself. Logically, then, the aggressor loses those rights which that minimal defense will violate. He maintains all others.
I certainly don’t think he loses all rights. In most cases, defense does not require deadly force. Even if it did, there are obviously things the “victim” could do which would be not within his rights, such as killing the attacker slowly.
Regarding 4, I would say overkill, meaning use of more violence than reasonably necessary for defense, is aggressive violence, and a violation of the perpetrators rights, for which restitution will be required.
The use of minimal necessary violence when simply allowing the attack would be more appropriate, however, is not a violation of rights, nor will it require restitution, but may result in ostracism.
…the victim has the right to use the minimal necessary force in defense of himself [and his other property]. Logically, then, the aggressor [temporarily] loses those rights which that minimal defense will violate. He maintains all others.
That’s about as succinct and clear as it gets. Thanks Paul.
It’s succinct once you cut it out of the rest of my rambling, and it’s correct once you added the extra words 
. Thanks for the discussion, it’s helped me think a little more carefully about some of these ideas, and flesh them out.
Post your comment below. Login in the far right column to get rid of CAPTCHA. If you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
Want to discuss rather than just comment? Visit the Free Keene Forum.
Supporters of FK
Recent Forum Topics- Pledged Free-stater heading to "The Shire" later this year February 8, 2012
- Ruby Ridge February 7, 2012
- FBI is watching February 7, 2012
- New February 7, 2012
- Free Minds Radio 02/05/2012 February 5, 2012
- HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 5, 2012
- Marijuana decrim bills up for vote February 5, 2012
- Episode 35 - Anarch-Elitism February 5, 2012
- HB 1533 -- fines for hurting legislators' feelings February 4, 2012
- HB 1494 -- "Your papers, please" February 4, 2012
- Recent Forum Posts
- Re: FBI is watching February 8, 2012
- Re: Avoiding Federal Cell Phone Tax February 8, 2012
- Re: Pledged Free-stater heading to "The Shire" later this year February 8, 2012
- Pledged Free-stater heading to "The Shire" later this year February 8, 2012
- Re: FBI is watching February 7, 2012
- Ruby Ridge February 7, 2012
- Re: FBI is watching February 7, 2012
- FBI is watching February 7, 2012
- Re: Bearcat petition at city council meeting February 7, 2012
- Re: Bearcat petition at city council meeting February 7, 2012