What the signers of some 200 year-old document may have believed when they signed it is of no significance whatsoever. The constitution is no more binding on others than if someone were to sign a contract with his best friend providing that all commenters on Mises.org calling themselves “Lael” shall henceforth be the signers’ slaves. Such claims are “mere idle wind.”

The signers of the constitution also believed in the legitimacy of slavery. Their opinions on the subject did not make it valid. Slavery is an illegitimate claim of property in something that never was property, never could be property and never will be property. It was illegitimate and void, and thus a crime, regardless of anything written to the contrary in any ancient document.

I was not a party to the constitution. No living person was a party to it. I did not consent to it. Consent cannot be extracted by force.

It’s that simple.

Lael, are the latest piece of evidence in support of [the theory that] the State is an outgrowth of [some people's] experience as children in dysfunctional and abusive families. [...] The idea that the State is the father, whose contract is somehow binding…is, well, beyond reason. [Your] errors are the product of deep psychological issues related to fathers and families.

I will admit that I come from a dysfunctional family. But it wasn’t my father that was dysfunctional, rather my mother. Regardless, my views on the State, specifically ours, is rooted in what I have read and inferred, correctly or incorrectly, in the Constitution. I am not concerned with the contracts that other nations have made. I am concerned only with what drove the framers of the Constitution to erect government, knowing it would live on after them, if, as Spooner suggests, they could have in NO WAY intended it to be binding on posterity.

It seems to me that Spooner is reading into the Constitution. My question was one of the era in which the framers of the Constitution lived. Spooner may feel that contracts are not binding on posterity but what was the prevailing belief about contracts in the days of the framers of the Constitution and did they agree with it? What did the framers of the Constitution mean when they included in the preamble …and our posterity? Spooner provides no commentary by any framer of the Constitution on this passage. I am suppose to just accept that Spooner knows better what the Founders believed than they did.

I agree with Spooner that contracts should not be binding on posterity, but is that how the framers of the Constitution understood contracts?

I can already see where this is going. Lael will recite a few more well-worn statist cliches, continue to dodge everyone’s direct questions, change the definitions of essential terms, attempt to re-frame the debate, and when he’s finally cornered and forced to confront his fallacies and finds that his errors cannot be maintained, he’ll simply disappear.

One can expect that two individuals of differing beliefs and understanding, having never encountered the other belief or having only a cursory acquaintance with it, and utilizing the same vocabulary will run into confusion. It is often called “talking past each other” and it happens in religion all the time. But this doesn’t mean one is trying to deceive the other. It just means they don’t understand eachother.

Nor should a person forsake a belief simply because one premise has been debunked. Entreating all premises upon which belief is founded should not be construed as re-framing the argument. Again, nothing deceptive here.

Finally, if I am shown the light and come to a recognition of my fallacious reasoning, why should I stick around. Shouldn’t I disappear spreading the good news? Or are you suggesting I should continue to play devil’s advocate? That is something a person with psychological problems might do I suppose.

What? What obligation? Your parents can’t sign you up to any contract they agree to.

No, contracts are absolutely not binding on children, nor are they binding on anyone who is not a party to that contract. That’s very simple, and the fact that you so profoundly misunderstand it is, I believe, the essence of your error and confusion.

Dude, that’s seriously screwed up.

This is why government, even if not directly entered into, is binding. Because it is a contract entered into by our parents by which, they having failed in their obligations, we are required to make good. Until the contract is fulfilled, our posterity will continue to suffer the burden. Remember, government is a contract entered into by the masses amongst themselves.

I have believed for some time that people’s basic belief in the State is an outgrowth of their experience as children in dysfunctional and abusive families. You, Lael, are the latest piece of evidence in support of this theory.

The US Constitution as a contract? Really? Read Spooner’s No Treason No. 6. He demolished that whole contract idea 150 years ago. (http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-6.htm)

I can already see where this is going. Lael will recite a few more well-worn statist cliches, continue to dodge everyone’s direct questions, change the definitions of essential terms, attempt to re-frame the debate, and when he’s finally cornered and forced to confront his fallacies and finds that his errors cannot be maintained, he’ll simply disappear.

The idea that the State is the father, whose contract is somehow binding on me is, well, beyond reason. His errors are not based on reason, so they cannot be corrected with the application of reason.

His errors are the product of deep psychological issues related to fathers and families. This means that before Lael could possibly accept ideas that refute the State=Father idea, he would have to uproot what I am sure is a lifetime of psychological defenses, assumptions and emotions.

Instead, people’s militias are more effective at negating the conqueror’s control of territory and resources

I understand. If the Framer’s of the Constitution did not think the people’s militia (2nd Amendment) was the best check to conquering governments (including their own), they would never have erected government in the first place.

He [Magnus] doesn’t feel that remaining is consent to government taxation, that he should be allowed to be profitable without having to move his business elsewhere. Why are you so quick to acquiece? Maybe tariffs aren’t the solution and maybe it is easier to move than to fight taxation and regulation.

No, I told this to YOU because you made the assertion that producers had NO OTHER RECOURSE but to ask for protection from competition. I argue that there are always ALTERNATIVES to thievery, which is what protectionism can be construed to be.

What Magnus argues is the morality of taxation itself so as to have as valid to require a quid pro quo from the government in the form of protection from competition from abroad. But taxation itself IS immoral and, as Magnus argues, the OTHER recourse a producer has is to lobby to have his taxes reduced for he has a right to keep the fruits of his labor and his property. I argue that there are also other alternatives just as valid, in contrast with the INVALID (or immoral, unethical) recourse of asking for protectionist impositions.

I agree that government is force but I don’t believe it was ever intended to be a monopoly of force (e.g. 2nd and 10th Amendments to the Bill of Rights.)

You cannot argue the nature of government based on the amendments of the constitution.

I don’t recall the United States government, in its infancy, ever being erected by conquest and direct submission.

Then my advise to you is that you read your history again, and see how the current government was born after a war (however valid the motives to fight it), through a purported “ratification” process that created the federal government, and not through a market process.

It seems that the ideal government is as elusive as the ideal market economy.

Depends on how you define your ideal government. My ideal government would be one that existed in a remote island where people are free to go there and worship it, leaving the rest of us productive people alone. But that is just me.

Can you have one without the other?

Of course you can.

When evil men combine in a government, what is to protect the free market if the people have themselves no government at all?

There’s a contradiction in your question – which makes it loaded. You will have to rephrase it. If evil people combine to form a government, then how can you ask how people are to defend from it SANS a government?

If we do not erect government to protect against evil men who combine into governments are we not leaving our posterity to be conquered and directly subjugated to the will of evil men?

I don’t understand where are you going with this question – it would seem you are asking how can people defend themselves from marauding conquerors without first creating a government to defend the people. However, history shows us that there is no direct relationship between having a government and being able to defend from marauding assailants, the government actually being more of a liability than an asset as it centralizes the monopoly of force, making itself the obvious target. Instead, people’s militias are more effective at negating the conqueror’s control of territory and resources, as the various wars in Afghanistan has shown, currently, or the revolutionary wars in the American colonies have shown in the past.

If men do not choose a government of their own, won’t they have one imposed upon them?

You mean by aliens? Or do you mean if SOME men do not choose a government…?

If my business is not profitable, even if only because of facing taxation, I either move my business elsewhere or I close it.

You should tell that to Magnus. He doesn’t feel that remaining is consent to government taxation, that he should be allowed to be profitable without having to move his business elsewhere. Why are you so quick to acquiece? Maybe tariffs aren’t the solution and maybe it is easier to move than to fight taxation and regulation.

And please don’t answer “No,” else why do anarchists complain?

If we do not erect government to protect against evil men who combine into governments are we not leaving our posterity to be conquered and directly subjugated to the will of evil men? If men do not choose a government of their own, won’t they have one imposed upon them?

I agree that government is force but I don’t believe it was ever intended to be a monopoly of force (e.g. 2nd and 10th Amendments to the Bill of Rights.) I don’t recall the United States government, in its infancy, ever being erected by conquest and direct submission. But for the majority of the world and even here, after the civil war, that may be the case. It seems that the ideal government is as elusive as the ideal market economy. Can you have one without the other? And does the ideal government necessarily have to be no government at all? When evil men combine in a government, what is to protect the free market if the people have themselves no government at all?

If government is evil, then so is a free market.

Ah, and if a free market is not evil, then necessarily government cannot be evil as well. Cute. Unfortunately, both premises are false.

In order for your premise to be correct – that if government is evil, so must be the free market, the nature of both must be the same.

The nature of a free market is voluntary, mutually beneficial interactions between humans. It is called a “Free” market because people are free to seek and indulge in these trades or transactions. Is the government the same?

If government had a purely voluntary nature, then it would follow that it would be the same as a free market. However, the concept of government is the monopoly of aggression. If it did not have this monopoly, it would not be government. Since the free market does not function under a coercive, force-initiating nature, then it CANNOT BE EQUATED to government.

If, you argue, you cannot differentiate the two because both are made by people, then you are committing a Fallacy of Composition. I can argue then that soccer teams and gangs have the same nature since both are made by people, but it is obvious that such conclusion is fallacious.

That is why anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron, a contradiction. Government cannot be inherently evil unless the free market is inherently evil.

You beg the question by concluding from your false premise. The nature of a free market, even if done by evil people, is one of voluntary transactions – the process itself cannot be evil since it does not involve coercion or aggression, but free and voluntary exchange. Government has the monopoly of aggression and uses aggression in order to impose its decisions. You cannot thus say they are the same, for they cannot be.

Government is the result of free markets.

This is a lie. Just by history, governments have emerged through conquest and direct submission. Even the current American government was imposed upon people by purportedly elected “representatives” that made the decisions for everybody else, not by voluntary transactions.

Even anarchy requires a social compact: that all agree there shall be no “government.”

As Etienne de la Boetie showed, such “agreement” is not needed, as governments and tyranny exist by acquiescence and not because people agreed one with another to have a government. If people do not acquiesce to the mandates of a self-named government, it will have no power. So all you need for an anarchist society to exist is for people NOT acquiescing – no social agreement needed. Just as there is spontaneous order in a free market, an anarchist society would be just as spontaneous when each individual, by choice, does not answer to any form of government.

Anarchy creates a paradox, if you know what I mean.

No, it doesn’t, if you understood what I meant.

“Coercion” is the initiation of force, Lael. If a person commits fraud, he already engaged in an initiation of force, or aggression, against the other party’s property rights. Instead, seeking compensation is not initiation of force, hence it is NOT coercion – you cannot steal my dog and then complain that I am “coercing” you when asking you to give it back.

If a free market is based on voluntary human interaction, there can be no protection and no collection.

Never say never – It does NOT FOLLOW that there cannot be protection or collection of debts in a voluntary system of interactions. “Voluntary” does not mean “passive” as if a voluntary system was akin to a colony of polyps.

I suppose the corollary is equally true: There could be no theft, no fraud, no injury because these necessarily require coercion.

If all people were angels, it would follow. But people are not angels – the voluntary aspect of the interactions stem from people seeking improving their situation. In a coercive interaction, only one of the parties improves his situation; however, it becomes rational for the other parties to at least avoid the zero-sum game by either seeking compensation from the aggressor, protecting themselves against the aggressor, or eradicating him.

Doesn’t this make a laissez faire a “utopian” scheme bound for failure because it fails to factor in the shortcomings of human nature?

Laissez faire is not a scheme, Lael – it is simply “letting people be”, or simply letting people pursuit their interests. It is not some sort of top-down imposed idea. It is people that factor in their own shortcomings.

You have accused me of blaming the free market for human nature in the same manner you blame government for it.

Unless you posted as Lyle, I made no such accusation. I replied to your comments about what it read as “dumping”.

I argue that neither a free market nor government are the cause of human nature, they are simply environments in which human nature manifests itself.

That wasn’t your argument above. You made comments about subsidized prices. Again, unless you first posted as Lyle, you made no such arguments last night.

The former [free markets] provides license and the latter [government] restraint.

You are misconstruing both concepts. “License” is not what describes the free market, since “license” implies “permission” or “allow”. A free market implies free and voluntary exchanges or interactions, not simply license. By the same token, a government is not necessarily an agent of restraint, its profligacy and its penchant for taking property hither and tither being proof of the contrary.

Regarding your next reply:

My argument is that while consumers may benefit from the “dumping” of imports, producers do not.

Again, you beg the question – the concept of “dumping” is nonsensical, so saying that it hurts producers is begging the question.

What, then, is wrong with protecting producers from such schemes as dumping?

What’s wrong is that “dumping” is nonsense. What really happens is that some unprofitable producers seek the protection of their markets by coercive actions by a government, regardless of the fact that their costs are higher than their competitors.

I mean, if you, as a producer, were taxed to subsidize your customers’ purchasing power, wouldn’t you raise your prices to offset the injustice?

Lael, this is nonsense – whatever reason exists to be taxed by the state, it does not follow that taxation subsidizes consumers. The answer to taxation is not protection, because that would be like taxing the consumers just to benefit me, which is not different from stealing. If my business is not profitable, even if only because of facing taxation, I either move my business elsewhere or I close it.

In the example of a foreign producer dumping [sic] in our economy,

Lael, quit repeating yourself – dumping is a nonsensical (i.e. fallacious) concept.

[...]the domestic producer has no recourse but to seek a tariff to protect himself.

This is false – he can also close his business, move it to a more business-friendly venue or move overseas. There are always alternatives that do not call for government-sanctioned thievery.

Pursuing free trade gives an unfair advantage to the foreign producer and only ensures the domestic producers demise.

There is nothing “unfair” about allowing people to purchase from whichever producer they choose. Saying that producers have an “unfair advantage” because they can produce at lower costs is a classic example of a Red Herring.

“Do we have some prima facie obligation to explain to all such people the error in their logic?”

I do not believe that we do.

Again, when good men, men of understanding and virtue, do nothing. I think there is a moral obligation. Not everyone in error wishes to remain in their error. Some are honestly seeking the error of their ways. Your inability to show them should not be mistaken as an unwillingness on their part to see.

@RWW

Thanks for giving me something to think about. The questioned begged “Should a son be required to make reparations for breaches of contract by his father?” may be the crux of whether government is necessary or not. I think you are right from a Jeffersonian stand point that once the contract is breached, it is dissolved and has no lasting effect on progenitors.

Why would a victim want to remain in a contract that has no recourse for righting wrongs? To remain would invariably lead to a perpetuation of those wrongs upon oneself. Viewing the breached contract from the perspective of the victim rather than the perpatrator provides clarity.

I do not believe that we do. As the war of words on this blog shows, such attempts are frequently ineffective.

Libertarians have a well-deserved reputation for being argumentative. I have never succeeded at convincing anyone of anything with a long back-and-forth argument. Most people dislike having it pointed out that they are wrong, and respond accordingly.

On social occasions when I am confronted with particularly obnoxious economic fallacies, I try to confront the issue as gently as is possible. I think that the best way is, if I know it, to explain the historical origin of the particular questionable idea, and to describe some of the negative consequences that resulted when governments put the idea into action.

Instead of allowing myself to be drawn into an argument, I change the subject.

By the way, Zombiehero, I enjoyed the essays.

no State claim to any territory is justified

I guess I just don’t see it as a claim made by the State, rather, services rendered as required by contract amongst the people. If I am hired by someone to protect their property, does that really mean I am making claim to it?

I agree that public property redefines the purpose of the State. Instead of government being a contract amongst people, it becomes a party to that contract. It is no longer a tool but a “person.” Nothing could be more absurd.

By granting a coercive monopoly to certain of these presumably flawed beings, it is so arrogant to believe that it can “correct” them?

By “flawed,” I mean malignant. Not all flawed individuals are malignant though all individuals are flawed. Why must malignant individuals necessarily have to be empowered much less granted a monopoly on coercion? I see government as added protection to a man’s own right to defend himself. A compliment, if you will. Not a supplement.

You’re seriously arguing that it’s just for someone to be bound by a contract they never actually consented to? That’s just sick.

I take it you don’t believe I should pay off my father’s debts. That it doesn’t concern me he stole from another or to make right my father’s wrongs.

I suppose I will have to think about that one. Should a son be required to make reparations for breaches of contract by his father?

The existence of evil under a certain system does not make the entire system evil.

That is exactly the point I am trying to make. Government isn’t evil simply because some of its constituent parts are evil.