[ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae...

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 4:12 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>  The state writes its own laws *with* input from you if it is a
>  democracy. Unfortunately, even if you live in Lichtenstein, the large
>  number of club members means that one vote doesn't count for very
>  much.

### Yeah, it's good that we can agree on this. Your vote doesn't count
for very much.

------------------------------

Moreover, in a democracy and in theory (if often not in
>  practice) even in an autocracy there is an impartial body that
>  enforces the laws, namely the courts. It's the principle of
>  "separation of powers". This usually breaks down when one state
>  attacks another state: the US can do things to foreigners on foreign
>  soil that it would have difficulty doing to its own citizens because
>  there is no world government or world court with any teeth. And I
>  assume a body with such universal jurisdiction and power of
>  enforcement would be a libertarian's worst nightmare.
>
### Absolutely yes!

--------------------------


>
>  > So, in the dispute with the dachshund club you are not the underdog,
>  > and thanks to the independent court you are an equal player. Since you
>  > reviewed you membership contract before signing it, it's surely not
>  > stacked against you and gives you a good bargain, or else you wouldn't
>  > have signed. Don't you think the situation is different in dealing
>  > with the state (for clarity of vision try to compare the doggie club
>  > with the North Korean state, and only as a next step consider the
>  > temporarily tame state you live in).
>
>  The difference is that most people live in a country because they were
>  born there, and they they therefore don't have a chance to read and
>  agree to the contract. However, they can emigrate when they are
>  adults, or their parents could have chosen to emigrate to a more
>  suitable country before they were born.

### Does this exit option legitimize monopolistic political rule? "If
you run away, we won't even try to kill you, ergo, we are the good
fellas".

----------------------------------

>  North Korea is an exception, but in general it is not difficult to
>  leave a country, although it is considerably more difficult to gain
>  permanent residency status in  another country. But that is the case
>  with other "free" markets. I can't easily become a movie star or an
>  astronaut even though in a sense I am perfectly "free" to do so.

### But nobody is stopping you *by force* from trying to become one.
Big, big difference, as in legitimate versus immoral.

---------------------------------

>  I have to respect the fact that these are your values, but other
>  people might have different values. For example, a political party
>  could easily propose tax cuts to be paid for by dismantling the public
>  health system but in most countries even the conservatives don't do
>  this, because they think they'll lose. The moral position is that
>  every citizen has the obligation to contribute to a universally
>  accessible health care system according to their abilities and the
>  right to use this system according to their needs. This is considered
>  "fair", while you would consider it "unfair". An impasse in debate is
>  therefore reached.
>
### But note -  due to my beliefs I will not use force or authorize
its use beyond direct defense of my life and property, while you
appear to be willing to condone the use any means at your disposal to
enforce my compliance with your wishes. As long as you embrace the
initiation of force as well as networked encirclement against me, you
can't say that you "respect" my values, can you? There is a moral
difference between us - your ends ("universally accessible health
system") justify your means ("obligation to contribute". i.e. pay or
die), while my beliefs about means ("Don't kill innocent people")
constrain my choice of ends ("a peaceful world where violence is not
tolerated").

Rafal