Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: Journey into a Libertarian Future: Part IV – The Journey into a Libertarian Past
Source:
Naked Capitalism
URL Source: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011 ... y-into-a-libertarian-past.html
Published: Dec 2, 2011
Author: Andrew Dittmer
Post Date: 2011-12-02 11:12:39 by lucysmom
Keywords: Indians had no right to the la
Views: 3170
Comments: 4
This is the fourth installment of a six-part interview. For the previous parts, see Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. Red indicates exact quotes from Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s 2001 book “Democracy: The God That Failed.”
ANDREW: The GLOs in your future libertarian society will be continuations of GLOs that exist now – basically large corporations and high net worth individuals. And the modern GLOs are continuations of GLOs that existed in the past.
CODE NAME CAIN: True – GLOs have a long and proud history.
ANDREW: In our society and in the past, both GLOs and regular governments have certain legal rights.
CNC: That’s right. But the legal rights of the governments are all completely illegitimate, whereas the legal rights of GLOs are all completely legitimate. That’s why I act morally when I hide my assets from the U.S. government.
ANDREW: How did it come to happen that the GLOs split into two kinds – the good non-government kind and the bad government kind?
CNC: As the libertarian Robert Nozick says, “Whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just.” When rights were first created, the non-government GLOs legitimately claimed them. Since then, they’ve handed them down to their heirs and traded them among themselves. All of these transactions were strictly voluntary, and so all of the rights of modern GLOs are legitimate. On the other hand, governments seized all of their rights unjustly, and nothing that has happened since can transform their illegitimate rights into legitimate ones.
ANDREW: Maybe you should tell us the whole story.
CNC: Prepare to be surprised – mainstream sources have mutilated this history almost beyond recognition.
A long time ago, everybody lived in a state of liberty. Now, in any society that is not entirely primitive, a few men acquire elite status. Owing to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, [or] bravery… some individuals come to possess “natural authority,” and their opinions and judgments enjoy widespread respect. Moreover, because of selective mating and marriage and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority are more likely than not passed on within a few noble families.
…. it is these very leaders of the natural elite who typically act as judges and peacemakers, often free of charge, out of a sense of obligation required and expected of a person of authority or even out of a principled concern for civil justice, as a privately produced “public” good. [71]
ANDREW: So the first security GLOs were noblemen, and they got their power because other people recognized their superior leadership qualities. These nobles were basically like little governments, except better because they were non-coercive and respected natural rights.
CNC: Exactly. The great philosopher John Locke understood this principle well. Some bonehead living in Locke’s time had said that governments had much more authority than GLOs… because they sometimes led men into battle. Locke retorted,
A Planter in the West Indies has more [than three hundred slaves in his household], and might, if he pleased… Muster them up and lead them out against the Indians, to seek Reparation upon any Injury received from them, and all this without [being] a Monarch…
In other words, GLOs, such as planters in the West Indies, had the same rights that governments did as far as war-making was concerned.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
#1. To: Not Badeye, A K A Stone, Fred Mertz, Godwinson, go65, war, no gnu taxes, Skip Intro, ferret mike, jwpegler, mininggold, brian s, Capitalist Eric, mcgowanjm (#0)
Now what does “original appropriation” mean? It means that you find something that no one else owns and you claim it. Whenever you claim rights in this way, it makes some people better off and no one worse off. I didn't realize until now that a neighbor who had a habit of using my stuff without asking was a libertarian. One time he changed the oil in his truck and poured the old oil in my planter box; when I asked him about it, he said, "you weren't using it". For CE: more references in and after the article for you to check.
I made the mistake of reading the first few installments of this, before I realized it was propaganda, pure and simple. I recognize it, but you're a trusting fool. You LOVE the state. You LOVE totalitarianism. You LOVE being a parasite on the body politic. Your articles are unworthy of serious consideration, as are your comments.
I recognize it, but you're a trusting fool. You LOVE the state. You LOVE totalitarianism. You LOVE being a parasite on the body politic. Your articles are unworthy of serious consideration, as are your comments. Actually it shows you to be pretty much the poster boy libertarian here.
There are no replies to Comment # 4. End Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestCNC: That’s right. Now let me tell you about the history of territory GLOs. This part of the story is even more important – you see, libertarianism… is a systematic law code, derived by means of logical deduction from a single principle, the validity of which… cannot be disputed without falling prey to… contradictions…. This axiom is the ancient principle of original appropriation [200].
#2. To: lucysmom (#1)
#3. To: Capitalist Eric (#2)
I made the mistake of reading the first few installments of this, before I realized it was propaganda, pure and simple.
#4. To: mininggold (#3)
Actually it shows you to be pretty much the poster boy libertarian here.
Replies to Comment # 4.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]