Laissez Faireholm RMB

WA Delegate: The Motors of Lincoln Sydney (elected 331 days ago)

Founder: The Federated Realms of Distruzio

World Factbook Entry

Welcome! This is a region conceived for the libertarian minded - the belief that liberty is the primary virtue of humanity and that the State should be minimized to the greatest possible extent.

Anyone who believes in individual free will is welcome. Here you'll find the cure for stateholm syndrome.

Please endorse our regional WA Delegate, The Motors of Lincoln Sydney

Liberty is not a means to a political end. It is itself the highest political end.
- Lord Acton

The ideal Government of all reflective men, from Aristotle onward, is one which lets the individual alone one which barely escapes being no government at all.
- H.L. Mencken

LinkClick here to go to our offsite forums

Embassies: Galts Gulch, Black Mesa Islands, Capitalist Libertarian Freedom Region, Libertatem, Anarchist Alliance, Eastern Roman Empire, Antifa, Hellenic Civilization, Snopesean Archipelago, Weed, Democrats, Eutopia, One big Island, the Land of Power, The Allied Republics, The National Alliance, and 70 others.Maltropian Puppet Confederacy, Persian Tricycle Riders, United Dictatorships, Capitalist Paradise, Cashnatchee, World Alliance, The Alliance Pocket Universe, New Republica, New Europe, Polandia, Zarathustra, Federation of Free States, North Africa, International Republican Union, The Commonwealth Of Furry Peoples, The True Rebirth, United Empire of Islam, Glorious Nations of Iwaku, League of Christian Nations, the council of free nations, NationStates Sesquipedalian Countries, Confederation of Nations, Strategos Prime, Atheist Empire, The Darwin Allied Republics, Zentari, The Burning Aisles, League of Cobalt Nations, Arctic, The Western Empire, Gay, The Statue of Liberty, Territory of Imaginary Numbers, Isles of Socialism, The Federal Islands 2nd Gen, The Illuminati, Ivory Tower, Libertarians, The Land of the Most Compitent, Antista, The Hyatt Islands, Land of Absolute Freedom, Northern Emirates, The Seventh Bay, The Versutian Federation, United Nations in Solidarity, Fusionism, Austritaria, Ministreyl Union, Paraguay, International Commonwealth Of Nations, The Liberty Sector, Transhuman Singularity Research Alliance, Oceanside, Brannack, Glenda Dawson HighSchool, Deutschland, Ankh Mauta, Anarcho Pragmatism, Louisiana Alliance x Alliance Louisiane, Liberty Island, The Christian Nations, The Evil Genius Archipelago, New Region, The Intergalactic Corporate Paradise, Germilar, Anarchy, Head Scratchers, The Atlas Union, and European Region.

Construction of embassies with Swingsack has commenced. Completion expected in 1 day 11 hours.

Construction of embassies with League of Nations has commenced. Completion expected in 1 day 23 hours.

Construction of embassies with The Eastern Annexations of Lichtenfels has commenced. Completion expected in 2 days 23 hours.

Tags: Anti-Fascist, National Sovereigntist, Offsite Forums, General Assembly, Anarchist, Industrial, Monarchist, Independent, Featured, Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian, and 12 others.Regional Government, Democratic, Capitalist, Social, Generalite, Large, Free Trade, Isolationist, Role Player, Anti-Communist, Serious, and World Assembly.

Regional Power: Moderate

Laissez Faireholm contains 60 nations, the 195th most in the world.

ActivityHistoryAdministration

Today's World Census Report

The Least Corrupt Governments in Laissez Faireholm

World Census officials visited a range of government departments and recorded how frequently bribes were required to complete simple administrative requests.

As a region, Laissez Faireholm is ranked 9,709th in the world for Least Corrupt Governments.

#NationWA CategoryMotto
31.The Republic of Pict-landInoffensive Centrist Democracy“Noli me tangere!”
32.The Most Serene Confederation of The Merchant RepublicsCorporate Bordello“Omni Homo Est Suum Regem”
33.The Free Confederacy of VecherdAnarchy“Sic semper evello mortem Tyrannis”
34.The Commonwealth of North Western GAJTCorporate Bordello“We shall have an association free from class antagonism”
35.The Federation of Asocial partnersAnarchy“Money should roll”
36.The Confederacy of John Birch SocietyCompulsory Consumerist State“Dont Tread On Me”
37.The New Freedom Loving Land of Nova Freedom LandWA MemberAnarchy“New land of the brave and free!”
38.The 3rd Republic of Evil the GreatCapitalist Paradise“Honneur et Patrie”
39.The Federal Republic of CassariaAnarchy“It's YOUR life. Live free.”
40.The Protectorate of FrearsCompulsory Consumerist State“Economics!”
Page:  «  1  2  3  4  5  6  »

Regional Poll • Is Chuck Berry a good musician?

Poll called by The Motors of Lincoln Sydney

Voting opened 4 days ago and will close in 9 days. Open to all nations. You cannot vote as you are not logged in.

Regional Happenings

More...

Laissez Faireholm Regional Message Board

The Tchaikovskydom of Arkolon wrote:The fruits of your labour however, are private property, or entitlements to such.

Of course private property has to he compensated for. If you don't think so, you have a pretty weird vision of distributive justice. If a mother renounces ownership of chocolate cake and leaves it on the table for her two children-- but no specific one child, as to render it common between them-- is one child eating it ALL justifiable? I would say not: the child would have had to compensate at least a bit for this theory of distributive justice to actually be a cogent theory of distributive justice.


False comparison, since the homesteading principle is what justifies land ownership. The children have not "homesteaded" or have done anything to deserve the cake.

Plus, you are thinking in anarchic terms - in order for this comparison to work, the mother would in still be an actor that ensures each portion the child worked for is justified (and upheld on said basis, reactively.) That being said, if justice was misdone, the courts (compromised of maybe, the other siblings in a democratic minarchist state) have always provided a means to fix it.

The Tchaikovskydom of Arkolon wrote:LOL. When a druggie does it it's called doing heroine, but when a doctor does it it's called "vaccination."

Literally the crux of your argument relies on one institution to be identical to the other.


They are identical.

The only difference between the mob and this government is that the mob doesn't kill children.

The Voluntary Society of Sibirsky wrote:Compensated to whom, and for what reason?

To those whose rights have been diminished. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockean_proviso

The Voluntary Society of Sibirsky wrote:Private agencies would have a contractual obligation to provide protection. There is no such thing for the state.

Again: what is the state but a PDA with a monopoly and coverage of free riders?

The Voluntary Society of Sibirsky wrote:We have an obligation to pay taxes. Many people have gone to prison for tax evasion. The state has no obligation to protect us. Why? Because the state makes the rules, obviously.

We don't have the obligation to pay the state (in the very general sense) the same way the state has no obligation (in the very general sense) to protect us. A state can still be a state even if it runs off a state-owned enterprise, or if it organises a lottery, or if it is run by magicians that make valuable money appear out of thin air. The state is still then a state, and no one has any obligation to that particular state. The state can order for the compensation for the appropriated private property in its jurisdiction, under the form of taxes (which is legitimate in this sense) to fund itself, in which case we would have the obligation to compensate for the injustices to be rectified.

The Voluntary Society of Sibirsky wrote:One of many such cases...

https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
What are you talking about? Wesley Snipes (albeit, a high profile case, and not typical) served three years in prison despite being acquitted of tax evasion, acquitted of conspiring to defraud the United States, acquitted of filing false claims.

He was found guilty of three counts of willful failure to file income tax returns.

The man's crime, is literally, not giving the government pieces of paper.

I don't see how this is an attack against me or my arguments, seeing as I just tackled claims on the legitimacy of taxation. These events have been given no attention to either of us until now, mostly because they are tangential to the centre of the topic. What do you want me to say to something I never posited in the first place?

The Voluntary Society of Sibirsky wrote:indoctrinated just like you

Big words, little backing: I was once a libertarian, and remain very interested in the ethics and philosophy behind it all, and the formed opinions I have made for myself are hardly an indoctrination. At this stage, we should really be asking ourselves which one of us is the one spouting the rhetoric, and which one is giving their individually-formed opinions.

The Free Earth Society of The Liberated Territories wrote:False comparison

It really doesn't matter. This isn't a question about anything else but distributive justice: I don't know why you're bringing homesteading into this. It isn't a false comparison because there is nothing else to compare it to. Is the en masse appropriation of private property, to the detriment of the rights of others to same common property, justified? If you say so, as you have been trying to tell me, you seriously need to back that up with something, as well as to why you suddenly stopped being a libertarian-- yes, dropping libertarian ethics halfway through your argument means you stopped being a libertarian at the same time. If you agree with me, Locke, Nozick, and the rest of the academic right, that it is not fair, then why are you pretending that taxation is illegitimate?

The Free Earth Society of The Liberated Territories wrote:Plus, you are thinking in anarchic terms

Rule number one of political philosophy and the legitimacy of the state: assume everything is in the state of nature, and think always in the state of nature.

The Free Earth Society of The Liberated Territories wrote:- in order for this comparison to work, the mother would in still be an actor that ensures each portion the child worked for is justified (and upheld on said basis, reactively.) That being said, if justice was misdone, the courts (compromised of maybe, the other siblings in a democratic minarchist state) have always provided a means to fix it.

Neither of the children "worked" for it. The cake was unowned: it was the common property of both the children, and they both had the exact same rights to it. If the cake is eaten whole by one child, the second child has lost the rights to accumulate the chocolate cake-- the child has been wronged, their rights diminished, and the basic principles of libertarian ethics contravened. It would be very unfortunate to see you turn to hypocrisy now, TLT.

The Republic of Pict-land wrote:They are identical.

A doctor and a drug addict?

For real, man?

The Tchaikovskydom of Arkolon wrote:It really doesn't matter. This isn't a question about anything else but distributive justice: I don't know why you're bringing homesteading into this. It isn't a false comparison because there is nothing else to compare it to. Is the en masse appropriation of private property, to the detriment of the rights of others to same common property, justified? If you say so, as you have been trying to tell me, you seriously need to back that up with something, as well as to why you suddenly stopped being a libertarian-- yes, dropping libertarian ethics halfway through your argument means you stopped being a libertarian at the same time. If you agree with me, Locke, Nozick, and the rest of the academic right, that it is not fair, then why are you pretending that taxation is illegitimate?

Rule number one of political philosophy and the legitimacy of the state: assume everything is in the state of nature, and think always in the state of nature.

Neither of the children "worked" for it. The cake was unowned: it was the common property of both the children, and they both had the exact same rights to it. If the cake is eaten whole by one child, the second child has lost the rights to accumulate the chocolate cake-- the child has been wronged, their rights diminished, and the basic principles of libertarian ethics contravened. It would be very unfortunate to see you turn to hypocrisy now, TLT.


Taxation is illegitimate, since it violates the axiom of self ownership. If compensation was merely enough, then I could go around and kill anyone who I wanted if I had enough money to pay off the grieving families. But you can see where this fails morally.

There is no detriment of others rights, because nobody has the positive right to property. It is you who have abandoned libertarianism, by suggesting that positive rights are valid here, and here only.

Otherwise, compensation is done in through the homesteading process, when one makes the land valuable, he gives back to society through mutual trade, whatever. No taxes are needed, and if anything, they are detrimental to the full value of compensation.

That being said, I'm still mostly a rule-consequentialist, I believe in it as following the NAP (a moral principle) axiomatically generally leads to good consequences, which I've explained partially above.

The Free Earth Society of The Liberated Territories wrote:Taxation is illegitimate, since it violates the axiom of self ownership.

No. Stop. Listen to what I'm saying, because I don't think you're paying attention to it: the axiom of self-ownership is the basis for natural rights, and these natural rights are contravened when common property is turned into private property. This isn't something I imagine you should disagree with, anyway. I mean, it's part two of Locke's theory of property, so I don't see why you'd be so keen on forgetting about it just because it means changing your worldview. Locke said himself, and this was summarised by the Wikipedia article, "self-ownership allows a person the freedom to mix his or her labor with natural resources, thus converting common property into private property.", adding on that "Locke concludes that people need to be able to protect the resources they are using to live on, their property, and that this is a natural right. Nozick used this idea to form his Lockean proviso which governs the initial acquisition of property in a society. But in order for his ideas of ownership of property to get off the ground and be cogent, he devised the criterion to determine what makes property acquisition just, which is the proviso. The proviso says that though every appropriation of property is a diminution of another's rights to it, it is acceptable as long as it does not make anyone worse off than they would have been without any private property."

Exchange, and mediums of doing so, are entitlements to private property. They make people worse off as they are entitled to fewer resources as they otherwise would have been if no resources were claimed. This injustice has to be compensated for through taxation. It's not a bad thing, so don't be so quick to judge it horribly criminal. If anything, withholding your compensation money is more horribly criminal than is the rectification of injustice. I agree that the state is a sometimes nefarious mechanism, and there are plenty of bad points about it. But you really have to look at taxation in the eye, study it, and take it for what it really is: justified.

The Free Earth Society of The Liberated Territories wrote:If compensation was merely enough, then I could go around and kill anyone who I wanted if I had enough money to pay off the grieving families. But you can see where this fails morally.

No, that's nothing like the compensatory system Nozick spent half his book writing about. Please do the man some justice and look this part up before you say things like this.

The Free Earth Society of The Liberated Territories wrote:There is no detriment of others rights, because nobody has the positive right to property. It is you who have abandoned libertarianism, by suggesting that positive rights are valid here, and here only.

There is no positive natural right-- of course not, legal privileges are positive rights, but all natural rights are negative rights. There is a right (a very important one) self-ownership gives us which allows for property to be accumulated within the bounds of legitimacy-- if you drop this one, we can't claim land. If you forget about this one, you have no theory of property. This right is the RIGHT TO ACCUMULATE PROPERTY, emphasis on ACCUMULATE. I have to put it in capital letters because I fear you will skip reading this. When all land is unclaimed, everyone has the right to accumulate all property that is unclaimed. When one part of the land is claimed, you no longer have the right to accumulate that property-- YOUR RIGHTS HAVE BEEN DIMINISHED IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE. After all, if there is a right to accumulate X, how have your rights not been contravened when there is no X left to accumulate? Also note the subtle difference between the RIGHT TO ACCUMULATE PROPERTY, which is immensely important to propertarian ethics (without it you wouldn't have property), and the RIGHT TO PROPERTY, which doesn't exist and is a positive legal privilege.

The Free Earth Society of The Liberated Territories wrote:Otherwise, compensation is done in through the homesteading process, when one makes the land valuable, he gives back to society through mutual trade, whatever. No taxes are needed, and if anything, they are detrimental to the full value of compensation.

That isn't compensation. Not even in the slightest.

The Free Earth Society of The Liberated Territories wrote:That being said, I'm still mostly a rule-consequentialist, I believe in it as following the NAP (a moral principle) axiomatically generally leads to good consequences, which I've explained partially above.

It's all well and good that you're a consequentialist, and I wish you all the best in that, but then (if you are not a deontological libertarian) why are you pretending that deontological libertarianism, the doctrine I followed and the one you don't, posits things it doesn't-- when I am telling you that it does other things instead?

The Tchaikovskydom of Arkolon wrote:No. Stop. Listen to what I'm saying, because I don't think you're paying attention to it: the axiom of self-ownership is the basis for natural rights, a.) and these natural rights are contravened when common property is turned into private property. This isn't something I imagine you should disagree with, anyway. I mean, it's part two of Locke's theory of property, so I don't see why you'd be so keen on forgetting about it just because it means changing your worldview. Locke said himself, and this was summarised by the Wikipedia article, "self-ownership allows a person the freedom to mix his or her labor with natural resources, thus converting common property into private property.", adding on that b.) "Locke concludes that people need to be able to protect the resources they are using to live on, their property, and that this is a natural right. Nozick used this idea to form his Lockean proviso which governs the initial acquisition of property in a society. But in order for his ideas of ownership of property to get off the ground and be cogent, he devised the criterion to determine what makes property acquisition just, which is the proviso. The proviso says that though every appropriation of property is a diminution of another's rights to it, it is acceptable as long as it does not make anyone worse off than they would have been without any private property."


a.) Uhh, no it isn't. Because these natural rights are describing the negative ability to claim property only through the principle of self ownership only. I still have the ability to homestead land, don't I? And even if all the land is taken, my other two natural rights aren't contravened, no?

I have the negative ability to live, right at this moment. But I do not have the positive right become entitled to all the food in the world. Nor do I have to compensate the third world every time I eat, as Locke implies in b.)

The Tchaikovskydom of Arkolon wrote:Exchange, and mediums of doing so, are entitlements to private property. They make people worse off as they are entitled to fewer resources as they otherwise would have been if no resources were claimed. This injustice has to be compensated for through taxation. It's not a bad thing, so don't be so quick to judge it horribly criminal. If anything, withholding your compensation money is more horribly criminal than is the rectification of injustice. I agree that the state is a sometimes nefarious mechanism, and there are plenty of bad points about it. But you really have to look at taxation in the eye, study it, and take it for what it really is: justified.

Lol, again you are missing the whole point. Your only entitlement to private property is through the homesteading principle. Other people deserve no entitlements because they have not homesteaded the land. If they did then that assumes they had an original positive right to the land, which is baloney. You could say that if I started polluting on my homesteaded land, and the pollution starting affecting other people, it could be a contravention against their self ownership (and violation of the non-aggression principle), but I do not believe that the ownership of land contravenes this otherwise.

Same thing with exchange, follows the same axiom, yadda yadda.

This is as far as I go until I start justifying compensation consequentially. Because homesteading the land, and using the land and natural resources to sell their fruits of their labor back to people is in effect compensation in it's own terms. Denying this is denying economics and market forces.

[quote=arkolon;9107105]No, that's nothing like the compensatory system Nozick spent half his book writing about. Please do the man some justice and look this part up before you say things like this.


I've read some of Nozick's work. Not all of it mind you, and perhaps not with as much gusto as you, but I did not see anything pretaining to what you are saying here. This is almost like attempting to fuse Rawls with Nozick.

The Tchaikovskydom of Arkolon wrote:There is no positive natural right-- of course not, legal privileges are positive rights, but all natural rights are negative rights. There is a right (a very important one) self-ownership gives us which allows for property to be accumulated within the bounds of legitimacy-- if you drop this one, we can't claim land. If you forget about this one, you have no theory of property. This right is the RIGHT TO ACCUMULATE PROPERTY, emphasis on ACCUMULATE. I have to put it in capital letters because I fear you will skip reading this. When all land is unclaimed, everyone has the right to accumulate all property that is unclaimed. When one part of the land is claimed, you no longer have the right to accumulate that property-- YOUR RIGHTS HAVE BEEN DIMINISHED IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE. After all, if there is a right to accumulate X, how have your rights not been contravened when there is no X left to accumulate? Also note the subtle difference between the RIGHT TO ACCUMULATE PROPERTY, which is immensely important to propertarian ethics (without it you wouldn't have property), and the RIGHT TO PROPERTY, which doesn't exist and is a positive legal privilege.


THERE IS NO RIGHT TO BE ENTITLED TO PROPERTY. That is a POSITIVE RIGHT. There is a right to accumulate property, but that's just that. And deontologically justified positive rights do not exist, whether or not they are derived from natural rights. You have the right to live, but you don't need to be compensated for fvcking trying to stay alive.

Nobody accepts Locke's little diatribe that there should be enough land left over for everyone and should be compensated for. Compensation is guaranteed through the homesteading process, regardless, there is no positive right to land as much as there is a positive right to ah, free wifi.

[quote]That isn't compensation. Not even in the slightest.[/quote]
Lol it isn't? So the Apple corp you don't think has compensated for their original appropriation of land and natural resources several times over already, and still deserves to be taxed by the Federal Gov?

The Tchaikovskydom of Arkolon wrote:It's all well and good that you're a consequentialist, and I wish you all the best in that, but then (if you are not a deontological libertarian) why are you pretending that deontological libertarianism, the doctrine I followed and the one you don't, posits things it doesn't-- when I am telling you that it does other things instead?


Rule-consequentialist. Or moreso a deontological/consequentialist hybrid. Following the NAP (which sprouts from the self ownership axiom) leads to generally positive consequences, not necessary because it is moral. I accept the existence of obvious negative rights, and that allowing people these rights creates the best consequences (through competition, what have you).

To prove that the axioms you take make no sense, maybe?

Forum View

by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics