On Voluntary Slavery

Comments

Paul's picture

I commented there. The question is moot. What Rothbard or Block think about it is irrelevant.

Suverans2's picture

G'day Paul,

Good comment, Paul?

If I understood your comment on the article correctly, (1) you'd break your word, and if John didn't like it, you'd threaten him with force. Or, (2) you'd keep your word, if you arbitrarily decided to break it, but only if John could muster more raw physical power than you could. Sheeeesh!

"And that's it! There is no need to talk about "rights", or worry about what is "legitimate" enforcement..." ~ Paul Bonneau

I see, "might makes right". You won't need to remind me not to enter into a contract with you, if I interpreted what you wrote, over there, correctly. On the topic of natural rights, you sound like all the governments I have ever known.

mhstahl's picture

Suverans2,

Let me ask a hypothetical. Let's say someone breaks a contract with you today-what are you going to do about it?

Actually, let me ask two. What if an unarmed loon kicks in your door and begins to ransack your living room? What if its the DEA instead and they have 40 thugs with them all armed to the teeth?

Best,

Mike

Suverans2's picture

Mike,

To the first question, I'd do my best to convince this individual that it would be to his advantage to keep his reputation untarnished, and then, if he wouldn't keep up his end of the contract, the same thing I just wrote to Paul, I wouldn't have to be reminded not to trust that individual, ever again. "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me." Oh, and I'd most certainly spread the word to all my contacts that this individual has shown himself to be not trustworthy.

By the way, Mike, this is precisely what those who love to call themselves "the law" or "the government", have done. Their part of the contract was to protect my natural rights, and because they didn't, and because I see no sign that they ever will, I dissolved the political bands which connected me to them and assumed among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle me, and I am spreading the word to all my contacts that these people are not to be trusted.

What your next two questions have to do with violating one's agreement, I have no idea, but to the first, I'd invite the unarmed loon, or goon, to leave, at the point of a shotgun, and if he moved toward me instead of away from me...well...let's just say that could be a grave mistake.

To the second, because I am evidently grossly overpowered, in your hypothetical drama, I would let them know, unequivocally that I am not one of their "citizens", and therefor not subject to their dominion, and that I DO NOT CONSENT to their ransacking my living room, and I'd most certainly spread the word to all my contacts, that the individual goons who make up this agency, and their principals, are not to be trusted.

mhstahl's picture

Suverans,

The two things have to do with each other because they involve the use of force. Since the contract violation can be resolved without government-or even force- as you describe, what use is government other than to bring overwhelming force to a situation in order to secure your "natural rights"?

In the two living room situations, the overwhelming force of government is made clear-the only defense to appeal to thier internal rules. Telling the DEA you don't consent might actually have an effect on them, BUT only because the government arbitrailly sets rules for its agents...those rules, including your rights are meaningless outside of that context.

Notice you simply gave the option of leaving or death, but when outgunned by the government you relied on thier internal restraint-without government-there is no reason for the 40 goons to concern themselves with your consent-unless you can eventually retaliate-if there can be said to be a "natural law" in my view, that is all it can be-a balance of force.

Seems that way to me, at least.

Best,

Mike

mhstahl's picture

Duplicate

Suverans2's picture

This seems as good a place as any to offer this gem.

mhstahl's picture

Suverans,

I read though this, quickly, and this statement stuck out to me:

"Please understand that fact is fact, regardless of the source. Truth is truth, regardless of the source."

Do you think that is an accurate statement?   I would suggest that it is possible to tell the absolute truth as one knows it, and to also be completely and totally factually incorrect-which means truth is a matter of perspective.

Doesn't discredit the source, but it did seem interesting.

Best,

Mike

(BTW...Is there a way to adjust fonts?...! @#%#)

Glock27's picture

Cheers mhsthal.

You make an interesting observation. I jump to conclusions quiet a bit, probably like most people do, but I once heard that the truth is ever present and there is nothing you can do or say that will change it. Does the truth always reveal itself, I doubt it and then of course there is the question of what is the truth, truth about what? If something cannot be defined, or observed or proven logically or scientificly does this preclude whatever it is from being the truth. I am no logician like a number of people here seem to be, nor am I scientist, like a number of people here seem to be. I am simply a sod buster trying to make my way though. I think truth will be ever elusive. I believe we can state facts, but facts are not always the truth. There is a Jewish proverb or saying or parable I believe that illustrates this.

" A man goes into his tent. Suddenly there is whalling and screaming and weeping.
The man comes out of his tent with blood all over his hands and raised into the air for
all to see. The elders gather around, the man proclaims his wife has just been murdered.
The elders enter his tent to find the mans wife stabbed multiple times; they come out
shaking their heads and have the man arrested for murder."

All the facts obviously appear to be their but did he kill his wife? Facts don't always point to the truth and science has cleared many a man of wrongful convictions with DNA.

Hope this wasn't too much.

Stay saft, stay well and watch your six.
Glock

Glock27's picture

Cheers Paul,
I also concur. It just dosen't make any sense at all. The real point I believe is do you or do you not own yourself. Its like debating as to whether 1+1=2 or does it =3 or =1.

DP_Thinker's picture

Good comment Paul. I think that what the author is trying to do is frame an absolute answer to the question fo voluntary slavery. I think you did a good job of explaining your point of view. I would say it's a bit unfair to point out two articles written by yourself as reference though..

Suverans2's picture

He only pointed out articles written by himself, DP Thinker, because what anyone else "think[s] about it is irrelevant". Sheesh!!

DP_Thinker's picture

Paul,

I understand your argument, in an anarchist society in which there is no incentive to keep a contract. What you forget is that there would be incentives, regulation, and restitution just not from the government.

Take for instance a contract you have with someone. I wouldn't enter a contract with you unless you signed one that allowed a mutually agreed upon solution in the case of non-performance by either party. We would agree on who would enforce it, say an insurance company for a small fee. They would back up payment and have a side by side incentive with me to make sure you pay.

Your premise is fulfilling your end of a contract. Mine is that there wouldn't be a contract unless certain things were written into it.

Problem solved