A Libertarian Puzzle

A reader writes:

I am writing from India, a country cloaked in Socialist government policies. I came across Austrian School of Economics on the Internet, and was surprised that even after studying Economics for five years, my coursework included not a shred of any work from the Austrian school. It’s been a year since I started reading on Austrian economics, and am more or less convinced by the logic of free markets. I have been debating my friends and explaining to them how free market works. It’s been great having discussion with my interventionist friends and convincing them regarding the merits of free markets.

However, a close friend recently put across a question to me and I do not know how to answer her. Following was her argument- 1) Libertarianism says that an individual should be left free to make his own choices. 2) In India, we have a well functioning democracy. 3) Through this democracy, and the exercise of their voting rights, the people have put in power a Government which strongly believes in interventions. 4) So, people out of their free will, have chosen an interventionist Government. 5) Then, why do the free marketers crib when Government regulates and intervenes? Its the people’s choice – they have voted for more intervention.

I am confounded by this argument and do not know what to make of it. If the Indian people themselves have chosen Government over free markets, who are the Libertarians to come and say that their choice is wrong?

Here is my answer. Libertarianism does not say “an individual should be left free to make his own choices.” It says, “An individual should not initiate aggression against anyone else.” As long as that dictum is observed, he may make all the choices he likes. But they must not involve the initiation of force against the innocent. The government interventions that your friend thinks are responsible for improving people’s living standards — in fact, of course, the interventions retard living standards (see the “anti-Marxist Insight” section of this old article of mine) — involve the initiation of force against peaceful individuals. They are therefore not defensible from a libertarian point of view.

Second, you ask rhetorically, “Who are the Libertarians to come and say that their choice is wrong?” This question implies that libertarians consider individuals to be infallible, that people’s choices are sacred and holy, and thus beyond question. This is not the libertarian view at all — again, the libertarian view is simply that people cannot initiate violence. Libertarians, just as much as anyone else, are perfectly free to criticize the choices made by others, and they are in no way inconsistent when they do so.

Anonymous

Tom,

Well said.

One other resource I always like to direct individuals with similar types of inquiries is Rothbard’s Anatomy of the State: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard62.html

Word for word, the essay may be the most rigorous defense of libertarianism and take-down of the state.
Jeff

You might want to mention that these people are perfectly free as individuals to start their own voluntary community in which they all contract to have a powerful agency regulate their businesses and tax themselves, if such an economic system is indeed so beneficial. It seems that the rhetoric of the puzzle suggests that libertarians are suggesting people cannot legitimately through their free will choose interventionism. That is not the case. They simply cannot bind it on those who do not consent to the deal. If every single citizen of India agreed to it, the system would be legitimate. The fact that this would not actually occur also seems to show a flaw in premise four.
Justin

Thanks, Tom. That post has helped me further identify what makes Libertarianism distinct.
http://plenarchist.wordpress.com/ plenarchist

>> The government interventions that your friend thinks are responsible for improving people’s living standards — in fact, of course, the interventions retard living standards…

He should read Herbert Spencer’s Social Statics if he hasn’t and understand these two most important ideas… ever:

1) Sociocultural evolution is the product of Lamarckian use-inheritance via the individual. Call this social Spencerism and not “social Darwinism” which is the exact opposite. Spencerism is “nurture over nature” and Darwinism would be “nature over nurture.” And…

2) Social evolution is only possible with Spencer’s first principle of equal freedom. As in “every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man.” I elaborate on this with the Spencer Equilibrium of equal freedom, equal political power and equal justice. Plenarchy promotes the SE.

So, if you want to see an end to poverty in India and everywhere. Disease. Hunger. Illiteracy. War. Global social Spencerism is the key I think.
http://www.facebook.com/dean.sandin Dean Sandin

I think it is worth pointing out that the argument is fallacious even if you take the original definition of ‘libertarianism’ as given. The story is that individuals voluntarily give up their rights and then complain about it later? Doesn’t make much sense. “The people” isn’t a real thing, and how anyone can reason as if democracy turns 51% into 100% boggles my adult mind.

Lines 1 and 4 contradict each other. Government intervention is the opposite of individuals being left free to make their own choices. No argument with a contradiction can be valid, even if you love democracy.

To summarize, you can’t take a premise about “an individual”, point at something “the people” do, and then conclude anything.

My refutation has the virtue of not requiring a person to believe or really understand libertarianism before they see that this kind of argument is horrible.
Citizen

There are many other world views that support this fundametal “Libertarian” truth
1. Hypocratic Oath… simply stated… Do no Harm
2. Do unto others…. that you wish to be treated fairly and equitably like others
3. Love thy Neighbor… permitting others liberty and freedom
4. LIve and let live…. none interference with others lives
etc.
The antithesis to Libertarianism is
Socialism / Marxism / Islam ALL seek to interfere and regulate others by whatever coersive means necessary to achieve a theoretical greater good.
Under totalitarian idealogies, personal freedoms are repressed by threats of physical voilence or death.
Bryan

Bastiat’s The Law would be a great resource for this young man. As usual, great answer Dr. Woods.
Ravi Saraogi

Thank you Tom for the reply. The post and the comments by readers have clarified my misconception. Cheers !!
NJDave

This confirms my theory that most objections to libertarianism are rooted in ignorance of what it actually is.
Dave Carroll

I think a significant challenge to us is that most people on the face of it would agree with the premise of not initiating violence, but they don’t understand that to be what government actually does. So the difficulty comes in actually illustrating to people that government interventions that they currently see as keeping peace and order are in fact initiations of violence and immoral. For example if someone was shooting heroin, most people’s response would be that someone should intervene & stop them and that it’s government’s role to do that. Our position is that it’s actually immoral to use force in order to try and stop them. Most people wouldn’t see it that way. People just can’t leave others alone. They don’t realize that not only is it a person’s right to put what they want into their body but that that person has to *want* to stop the behavior themself and that no one can force that on them. In fact that’s what they always say on the drug rehab shows.
Dave Carroll

I don’t think those arguments work because that voluntary community would have to be self-sustaining and wouldn’t be able to use redistribution of wealth from outside sources in order to fund it. So they probably wouldn’t go along with that.
Mike

He says people of their own free will have chosen an interventionist govt.
But have they? I would say maybe half haven’t chosen the government, if it is a functioning democracry. That is somewhere shy of 50% did not get what they chose.

The other thing to point out is that there is no “opt out” option. You either choose one of the govts on offer or you choose not to, at which point you get stuck with one anyway.

Is it really free choice if you can’t say no?
http://www.facebook.com/srinivas.libertarian Anarcho Libertarian

Hey Ravi, check this https://www.facebook.com/indianlibertarians

We are anarcho-capitalists and seek to advance libertarianism(primarily anarcho-capitalism and Austrian economics) in India.
http://www.facebook.com/srinivas.libertarian Anarcho Libertarian

Also, please see this http://mises.org/daily/2616
http://www.facebook.com/srinivas.libertarian Anarcho Libertarian

1) Libertarianism says that an individual should be left free to make his own choices.

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-aggression

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Argumentation_ethics

“It shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another.” – Walter Block?

2) In India, we have a well functioning democracy

This is just plain wrong. India does not have a functioning democracy. Voting does not mean democracy is working A-OK.

Here you go THE INDIAN APATHY TO POLITICS, A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE – http://centreright.in/2012/09/the-indian-apathy-to-politics-a-historical-perspective/#.UG6Gs5jMjj4

3) Through this democracy, and the exercise of their voting rights, the people have put in power a Government which strongly believes in interventions.

Of course individuals will want goodies from government because that is what they have been taught since 1947. This is true for all nations. The State sustains by keeping individuals as serfs. Divide and rule works too!

4) So, people out of their free will, have chosen an interventionist Government.

The people will choose what is presented to them. It is like voting for the best fast food chain(McDonalds, KFC etc)

5) Then, why do the free marketers crib when Government regulates and intervenes? Its the people’s choice – they have voted for more intervention.

Free marketers crib? Gee, I wonder why the upper middle class Indians in the cities crib, when govt increases taxes and continues to keep price controls, gives out subsidies to the poor and grants monopolies to corporations.

Anyone who thinks India is the world’s biggest democracy and that is just all sunshine and lollipops(Tom’s phrase?) is deluded.Democracy is a form of tyranny and we have social democracy! It is so suffocating in India, I wonder how this will all end.
Ravi Saraogi

Yes, what you said makes a lot of sense. In a rule by majority, the minority do not have an “opt out” option. So for the minority, its not free choice. This is one of the biggest fallacy in the argument.
Ravi Saraogi

Wow.. Will definitely check this out.. India is the last place in which I expected to see an anarcho-capitalist group
Ravi Saraogi

Lets say there is a economy X with five people. X is a democracy. The choice in this democracy is between two political parties – Party A, which believes in free markets, and Party B, which believes in intervention. In an election, all the five citizens vote for Party B and Party B forms the government. If the government then initiates actions which severely constraints personal freedom, it is with the consent of all the voters. In this case, would the action of the State be consistent with Libertarianism?
Ravi Saraogi

Hi Jeff

I posted the below question in the common comment thread. Am also posing this question specifically to you. Would you kindly let me know your opinion.

“Lets say there is a economy X with five people. X is a democracy. The choice in this democracy is between two political parties – Party A, which believes in free markets, and Party B, which believes in intervention. In an election, all the five citizens vote for Party B and Party B forms the government. If the government then initiates actions which severely constraints personal freedom, it is with the consent of all the voters. In this case, would the action of the State be consistent with Libertarianism?”
http://plenarchist.wordpress.com/ plenarchist

>> In India, we have a well functioning democracy.

People really need to understand that electing public officials is *not* democracy. Democracy means “the people rule”… not “the people vote.” Ancient Athenian democracy was based on every citizen having an equal chance to hold high office through sortition. Almost all Athenian citizens could say they had been the President during their lifetime (the President served for a day). They had no elections. No political parties. No ruling political class. And that included the courts. And the Athenians must have liked their democracy because they re-instituted it after two coups.

There are *no* democracies in the world today. They’re all oligarchies (plus a few dictatorships). When Americans believe we are “spreading democracy” via war, we’re really only killing and dying in their game of Reality Risk. We might as well be saying, “Our oligarchs have better hair than your oligarchs and I’m willing to kill you or die for them.”

And many people who are anti-democracy believe it to be “mob rule” but that is wrong also. Democracy does not have to involve direct voting because it’s not the voting that matters but rather who holds power. In democracy, the political power is *distributed* through sortition to every citizen. But of course the oligarchs don’t want people to understand this concept so through lies and disinformation, voila! … oligarchy becomes “democracy” (or “republic”) and people are convinced to kill and die for them! They love it and we’re chumps.
Conza

The best answer there is: http://conza.tumblr.com/post/13025817558/rothbard-my-conversion-to-anarchism-was-a-simple
http://www.facebook.com/matthew.swaringen Matthew Swaringen

That’s a complete non-sequitur. The fact they voted does not mean they consented. They could have been voting for the lesser of 2 evils in some other way. There is rarely (or never) a case where you are looking at 2 groups where 1 is good and the other all bad. It’s also possible they believed in certain types of interventions of Party B, but not the actual implementation. They can also change their mind. What binds them to stick to it? There is no permanent contract brought about merely by voting.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Gord-Hicks/1106074939 Gord Hicks

Sorry I missed the part where India has a “well functioning democracy”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_India
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/thiruvananthapuram/Corruption-stalls-nations-economic-growth-Hegde/articleshow/16679053.cms
MonsieurMadeleine

Dear Reader,

Please see “Anatomy of the State” by Rothbard, Murray N. 55 pgs. pocket sized edition. Your question is addressed on page one. $5.00 from mises.org/store and probably available in free pdf.

https://mises.org/store/Product2.aspx?ProductId=588
MonsieurMadeleine

Also consider reading Bastiat’s “The Law.” Another short but fundamental gem. If the government uses force on others against their will, it violates man’s natural law.
Dan

“In a country, or a world, of totally private property, including streets, and private contractual neighborhoods consisting of property-owners, these owners can make any sort of neighborhood-contracts they wish. In practice, then, the country would be a truly “gorgeous mosaic,” … ranging from rowdy Greenwich Village-type contractual neighborhoods, to socially conservative homogeneous WASP neighborhoods. Remember that all deeds and covenants would once again be totally legal and enforceable, with no meddling government restrictions upon them. So that considering the drug question, if a proprietary neighborhood contracted that no one would use drugs, and Jones violated the contract and used them, he fellow community-contractors could simply enforce the contract and kick him out. Or, since no advance contract can allow for all conceivable circumstances, suppose that Smith became so personally obnoxious that his fellow neighborhood-owners wanted him ejected. They would then have to buy him out—probably on terms set contractually in advance in accordance with some “obnoxious” clause.”

Rothbard, from his 1991 Rothbard-Rockwell Report article, “The ‘New Fusionism’: A Movement For Our Time”
http://twitter.com/srchrist s. christ

Rothbard addresses this in “For A New Liberty.” His argument replies directly to this reader’s friend:

“Under this reasoning… Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; they must have “committed suicide,” since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and therefore anything the government did to them was only voluntary on their part… There is no way out of such grotesqueries for those supporters of government who see the State merely as a benevolent and voluntary agent of the public…

We must conclude that “we” are not the government; the government is not “us.” The government does not in any accurate sense “represent” the majority of the people, but even if it did, even if 90 percent of the people decided to murder or enslave the other 10 percent, this would still be murder and slavery, and would not be voluntary suicide or enslavement on the part of the oppressed minority. Crime is crime, aggression against rights is aggression, no matter how many citizens agree to the oppression.”
Chris Laforest

To answer this persons question quite simply; it is a non-starter to assume democracy and then demand that the Libertarian, opposed to the very principle of democracy, answer for its consequences. Ceterus Perebus, as shown through the praxeological method, democracy is by no means given.

The Libertarian’s treatment of this answer is simply that democracy is the system by which, as Bastiat aptly pointed out, “everyone lives at the expense of everyone else”. This is an extension of the popular fallacy that says that “we” are the government, and that the government is “us”. However, the direct opposite is the case. “We” are individuals with rights, not some abstract play-doh to be moulded by our fellow fallible brethren. The state, on the other hand, is an abstract gang. It seeks to individualize itself by principally setting itself above the abstract “society” and wholly diverting attention from its collective inherent nature, as seen in its constant failures, as remote anomalies of corruption. This, obvious to Libertarians, has been the saviour of the principles on which Socialism was founded long after its repeated and dismal failure.

Democracy bears an inherent spirit of positive, activist justice; rather than the negative justice of Liberty propounded by Bastiat. Democracy is fundamentally Platonist, while Liberty is Lockian.
pravin

why is voting such a sacred action -that it anoints the chosen ones with unimaginable powers?. what you describe is a majoritarian society (at best). even democracy lovers (no hoppean would be one) understand that you atleast need a constitutional democracy as a starting point.
Evgeny

I would answer like that:
In general unlimited democracy contradicts libertarianism and basic human rights!
Very important to understand that.
Moreover unlimited democracy means dictatorship in most cases.
And here is why – majority can’t decide on every issue!
In western tradition even democracy says that human rights above democracy and that is being forgotten by many of us now.
Western democracies do have constitution which limit issues to be answered by ballot.

Let’s imagine (just theoretically) that interventionist in the government got sanction from 90% of population to regulate them in every aspect of their life.

But 10% of population are libertarians they never gave up their rights to government!!

How permission given by 90% to act towards them can affect those 10% without not being called a violence?

90% level of support is given by 90% of people, why they are trying to force same rules for 100% of people?
Anonymous

My libertarianism does say that an individual should be free to make his own choices, but when two individuals interact, both must agree on the interaction; otherwise, one of them isn’t making his own choice.

A majority imposing its will on a minority does not leave a member of the minority free to make his own choices. “Democracy” means the rule of people by themselves, not the rule of minorities by majorities, but regardless of the semantics, majority rule is inconsistent with liberty.

Libertarian democracy is free association, not majority rule. Any group of people wishing to be governed by particular standards should be free to govern themselves so without interference from others.
Gil

Actually the second answer should be “the Libertarian credo is infallible”. Namely, either people are free to choose or others are harming them in some way. It’s binary – there’s nothing to discuss. If someone disagreeing with the Libertarian credo then they’re despicable. There ought to be no middle ground.
Anonymous

wouldnt superior human’s like willie lean towards anarchy……….?
Neil Johnson

The Index of Economic Freedom put out by the Heritage Foundation ranks India in the category “Mostly Unfree” with a ranking of 123.
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
By the way, the U.S. is ranked 10.
2014

Than I am antidemocratic anyways. Put histry aside – I don’t want your system. I really don’t wan random cyclical rulers – what will you do than? I am not comforted at all that there is a chance I would be president – I don’t want to be one either. This doesn’t make any sense.
http://plenarchist.wordpress.com/ plenarchist

Just to be clear, I don’t advocate for democracy as practiced in Athens. But if people are going to use the word, they should use it correctly. My point above is that the notion of “the people rule” has been perverted by the aristocracy in order to exploit the people.

I endorse a political model that has no rulers called plenarchy. Visit plenarchist.wordpress.com to learn what that is.

But it’s important to realize that all citizens have an equal stake in their society and thus should have an equal share of power. And that no human can be trusted with power, so again it should be equally distributed. Democracy did achieve this through sortition (as would plenarchy but with sortition+autoselect and no law making).

In ancient Athens, their president was not the all-powerful dictator modern presidents have become. Their president was basically just a moderator for the Boule (council of magistrates). In a true democracy, you would share power with many other people on councils or other bodies – no one person rules the country (that’s monarchy).

When you say, “I am not comforted at all that there is a chance I would be president” – then who should be? Are you comforted knowing that our politicians have power? I’m not. People who lust for power are the last who should have it.

A civilized society distributes power evenly meaning no one person should have any. I’d rather live in a society based on Spencerian “rule yourself and no one else” instead of our primal Darwinian “rule or be ruled” societies. As long as people compete for power and dominion, we can expect social conflict… until we finally manage to extinct ourselves.
2014

“But it’s important to realize that all citizens have an equal stake in
their society and thus should have an equal share of power.”
Thats a pretty round and arbitrary claim. It could land just as well in communist manifesto. Let me rephrase it:
It’s important to realize that all people are equal and thus there should be no state so that power is distributed accordingly with a stake one has in society.
Personal question: where do you stand on NAP?
http://plenarchist.wordpress.com/ plenarchist

>> Thats a pretty round and arbitrary claim. It could land just as well in communist manifesto.

Not at all. It’s not arbitrary but is essential to the extent it is possible because inequity in power will inevitably be abused and ultimately undo society. Abusing power is in our nature.

And I don’t understand the “communist manifesto” comment. Communism is incoherent because it denies personal property. Equal power though can be rationally promoted with sortition and prohibition on law making.

>> It’s important to realize that all people are equal and thus there should be no state so that power…

That is a fallacy of wishful thinking and as irrational as communism. There can be no equal sharing of power without a state since power would be arbitrarily distributed. Only with a political model that promotes equal power sharing can it be achieved.

>> Personal question: where do you stand on NAP?

Fully endorse it. NAP is essential to maintaining the Spencer Equilibrium and equal freedom. The NAP is the second law of plenarchy after self-ownership and the only offense with a mandatory jail term per the Compact (the contract of citizenship).
2014

“Not at all. It’s not arbitrary but is essential to the extent it is
possible because inequity in power will inevitably be abused and
ultimately undo society. Abusing power is in our nature.”
Oh yes it is – otherwise you would have providded me with a logical explanation, instead you insist that your view of the situation “is correct period”. I’m paraphrasing in case you don’t get this too.
You seem to be blind to the fact that the very moment you say “there will be government” you set in motion precisely what you supposedly oppose. Namely – inequality. If there is government there are people that rule and people being ruled – those are two different classes with very different capabilities regarding power. And you advocate such system – it’s bizzarre.

“And I don’t understand the “communist manifesto” comment. Communism is incoherent because it denies personal property.”
Actually it’s not my problem but I will try to help you. When you say:
“it’s important to realize that all citizens have an equal stake in
their society”
you are plain wrong and what I mean by this is: you can’t prove it. They don’t – people do not have “equal stake in society” and you know it. But you insist that all “citizens” (you’ve made a distinction between people and citizens – ask yourself why and try to answer honsetly) need equal power. Do you know what fallows from this? That all people should also have equal material/economic power – having lots of money gives power to some extent – much less than actual power of government, but still a lot. Ergo if you want to be consistent you have to admit that all “citizens” should have equal economic power also. Obviously egalitarianism is your god – very common tune among all sorts of leftists.

“That is a fallacy of wishful thinking and as irrational as communism.
There can be no equal sharing of power without a state since power would
be arbitrarily distributed. Only with a political model that promotes
equal power sharing can it be achieved.”
You could at least point to an actual logical fallacy – you didn’t, because there is non in this statement:
“It’s important to realize that all people are equal and thus there
should be no state so that power is distributed accordingly with a stake
one has in society. ”
I won’t ask why did you omit the very important second part of it – let it remain a secret.

“There can be no equal sharing of power without a state since power would
be arbitrarily distributed.”
I DON’T WANT TO SHARE POWER EQUALLY WITH YOU. What do you mean it would be arbitrary? It wouldn’t be at all. There simply wouldn’t be power of government. There is no open slavery, nor subjugation of women today – those are things of the dark past. One day there will be no power of government – nobody will recognize state right to rule over him just as today I won’t recognize your right to catch me and put in chains, nor my siblings, nor my neighbours – you would get in big trouble with such acts. One day government will be seen just as barbaric as slavery is today.

Where do you stand on NAP?
“Fully endorse it’
No you don’t if you support government – period.
2014

One more thing. There is one logical mistake that you commit every time you post here and it’s called nirvana fallacy. You talk about equal power distribution I say nirvana – and I’m so right here
http://plenarchist.wordpress.com/ plenarchist

>> You seem to be blind to the fact that the very moment you say “there will be government” …

I didn’t say that. It would be helpful if you would spend more than 2 seconds trying to understand plenarchy before mustering an army of straw men. I hold that it is possible to have a state without a government. What is inescapable is for “no state” to result in some form of government.. if “no state” is actually a possibility in the first place.

>> “it’s important to realize that all citizens have an equal stake in
their society” you are plain wrong and what I mean by this is: you can’t prove it.

Yes it’s easy. By the fact we both exist means that we both have an equal claim on power, justice, and freedom to act. Not on outcomes but on opportunities. This is essential to sustaining a free society and social evolution.

>> If there is government there are people that rule and people being ruled…

Right. Which is why plenarchy has *no government*… It has an authority that does not govern. It is prohibited by law from acting preemptively in society and from interfering with Herbert Spencer’s equal freedom principle.

>> Obviously egalitarianism is your god – very common tune among all sorts of leftists.

Just equal freedom, equal power, and equal justice – not equal anything else like economic or employment equality.

>> I DON’T WANT TO SHARE POWER EQUALLY WITH YOU. What do you mean it would be arbitrary? It wouldn’t be at all.

Sounds like a “nirvana fallacy”… So you really think that without government, people would just suddenly turn into angels and all conflict, criminality, and desire for power would simply vanish from humanity… poof! A political model that promotes equal power sharing is essential to keeping the inevitable state in check.

You say you don’t want equal power, so by that you’re saying you want to either aggress against me or are ok if I aggress against you. My point is that *someone* is going to have political power (ie the ability to aggress with impunity – government or “no” government) and I choose a political model that distributes that power evenly by design lest society devolve into a primal political system.

>> nobody will recognize state right to rule over him just as today I won’t recognize your right to catch me and put in chains, nor my siblings, nor my neighbours

That’s fine. Plenarchy is a *voluntary* state. You don’t become a citizen unless you give your express consent by signing the citizen’s contract, the Compact. Don’t sign it and you have no worries and can live the life of a slave you seem to want so badly.

>> You talk about equal power distribution I say nirvana – and I’m so right here

How can you be “so right” when your comments show you don’t understand plenarchy at all? You need to take some time to understand the ideas you’re attacking before attacking. Go to plenarchist.wordpress.com and try to understand the concept then attack all you want but leave the straw men at home.
2014

Lets leave all the things I disagree about to save time. I could point out for example that strawman is precisely what you did in the last point talking about nirvana while I never did it since I can’t misrepresent something I have no idea about and I am not writing about since we are just posting antagonistic answers because noone corrected you on TomWoods page while you’ve posted yet another nonsensical statement as you’ve made me accustomed to. Put comas wherever you please.

Lets go with definisions, describe: power, freedome, justice and than describe those things with your prefix – equal.

There is justice and social justice. Which I translate justice and injustice. Because everything different from justice is injustice. By the definision of justice you will provide.

No, don’t count on me reading your thingy until you solve this and sice it’s impossible to eat cake and have it…
2014

“By the fact we both exist means that we both have an equal claim on power, justice, and freedom to act.”
But you see I don’t – and it’s your problem. I live and have no claim on power at all. Depends also on the definision of power, but if we’re talking about political one – I don’t. So by the very existence of myself I disprove your claim.
You like such mumbling? It’s basically BS. It means nothing, it has no substance and why you spew that on us is a mystery to me.
2014

“Plenarchy is a *voluntary* state. You don’t become a
citizen unless you give your express consent by signing the citizen’s
contract, the Compact. Don’t sign it and you have no worries and can
live the life of a slave you seem to want so badly.”
Slave – of what? Go to Robert Murphy’s blog for more information about stateless society – what would I fear in absence of government? Emerging one? And how about your nonstate – wasn’t it conquered simply? Why sin’t it here any more?
Than what you talk about it’s not a state, it’s a voluntary association.
How nice. That’s actually very nice. Does it include children? Born in this NONstate? Because if it does, I don’t think you are a harmless proteus anymore. If so – you’re a child molester and a an odd one out mumbling nonscnsical statements waisting time of honest voluntarist. You should be ashamed of yourself.

You know what, you should take one of those Woods’s logic courses – you’d get cured from plenarchy disease of yours in notime.
http://plenarchist.wordpress.com/ plenarchist

>> If so – you’re a child molester…

>> You like such mumbling? It’s basically BS.

I’m being civil and you’re responding like an enraged animal. I make an argument and you make a personal attack. From that I think we can conclude you have no argument and that I’m wasting my time on this thread.
2014

You can think whatever you want – I DON’T CARE about it and I shouldn’t because you should have no power over me until I grant one to you. What I mean is you can be totally crazy and I shouldn’t have any reason to care. Unfortuantely I have reasons – you vote. So you can think I have no argument and in your mind it might seem so – I think your capabilities are fairly limited so it’s quite possible. I was asking for explanation of your groundless claims – you provided me with gibberish that might appeal to you, I don’t find much value in it.
What can I say – you are out there shooting stuff that makes no sense whatsoever – I’ve just extracted the meaning of it – don’t blame me for it’s ugliness. What about the kids born in your utopia? is a perfeclty legitimate question and you obviously have no answer, because you would have given it. Can I be born into this contract? Than it’s not a contract and so on.. If it’s not mumbling and nonsense of yours than go ahead and straighten it up. Make any sense of it, because now it makes none which I showed. “Enraged animal” is an ad hominem which I did not commit. I am criticizing your faulty reasoning and what emerges from it – peculiar system that has captivated your poor, strained mind. You’re far away from being civil – to be civil you might consider actually answering the question you are being asked, not the question you would like to answer. And that’s how you act most of the time twisting and turning so that we’d have to start from the very beginning to get to anything at all.

equal justice=/=justice
Anything but justice is? Injustice.
What do you have to say on that? More nonsensical, self contradicting and plain false hodgepodge?