I think some of Paul's argument and some of the miniarchist
argument is very similar to some of the arguments Randy Barnett
although makes which many anarchist fail at answering correctly.
First off Barnett does not think of himself as a miniarchist because
he has endorsed a Constitutional Polycentric system he might be
thought of as an ancrist but like Rothbard and Hoppe he does beleve
in a order of law via natural law and natural rights, some Anarchist
believe in no order and I think that is the type Paul and miniarchist
have a real problem with. In fact those Anrchist who beleve in order
really can't be called
anarchist.
Barnett in his book on the constitution finds like I do We
the people as the authority of the constitution bein unsupportive by
evidence, on the other hand if a person acts they will be judged by
their actions, if people just went around enforcing conflicts
without any neutral as possible judge or jury we would have Hobbs law
of the jungle, the strong would prey on the weak, so a natural law
and natural rights are necessary to
order.
Barnett basially says the federal government has the authority to
act just as any other person or group has to enforce and judge
accused acts against natural rights but the federal government is
lited even more than the average person or group by the constitution
which basically is a promise and a contract between the states even
if it is not a contract between the
people.
I would like to say further that the states are also limited by
their constitution, the state and the federal government is
restricted to do things to those who did not give real consent even
more so than private persons or private groups but the state or
federal government can act towards those who did not give real
consent if they are accused or have been found to violate natural
rights. On the other hand the federal or state government can not
force people who did not give real consent to pay taxes or fees
unless the person has been found to violate another persons natural
rights then court costs and prison costs can be forced on that
person.
Barnett makes a few points that I don't think makes sense and one
of these has been argued by his crtics and him in the Journal Of
Libertarian STudies. From what I gather he says we have a duty to
obey the government if it is following the principles of natural law
thus if the government finds you guilty of violating someones natural
rights you have a duty to abide by the governments decesion. I don't
think so if in fact you did not violate someones rights, if in fact
you know you did not do it, that you were framed you do not have a
duty to obey but if the jury and appeals in fairness could only come
to the conclusion that you were guilty then it would be best for you
not to attack individuals who are only doing their honest duty but if
you can escape you have a right to do so, understand that others can
only judge by the evidence presented to them so they have a duty to
judge on that evidence. Yeah in some rare cases just duties between
people can conflict with each other.--- In
[email protected], "Thomas L. Knapp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Quoth Paul Ireland:
>
> > 1. The lines aren't "imaginary". They are real and tangible and
paid
> > for with blood.
>
> Hmmm ... I've traveled over a number of them and have never seen
them.
> Furthermore, if someone paid for them, in blood or any other
currency,
> then it follows that they belong to the people who did the paying
> and/or those people's heirs or assignees, not to the state.
>
> > 2. We the People gave the state control over those lines.
>
> I don't know who this "we" you're talking about consists of. As for
> myself, I was never asked to give the state control over those
lines,
> or over anything else, and quite likely would have declined if I
_had_
> been asked, and have never assigned my power of attorney to anyone
who
> might have complied with such a request on my behalf.
>
> > 3. Markets have always referred to the buying and selling of
goods in
> > a particular area. This is true of any definition.
>
> I guess we're back to Paul Ireland as Humpty Dumpty: "When I use a
> word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor
> less." Unfortunately for your argument, economists and political
> theorists have been using the word "market" to refer to an
> overarching, non-geographically, specific mechanism for many years,
> and it's unlikely that the rest of the world is going to flush
> everyone from Marx to Menger to Mises down the toilet just because
you
> demand that they do so in order to make your arguments work.
>
> > 4. The government was given control of the borders and
protection of
> > the markets when the government was created by "We the people"
and as
> > long as we have a government (as long as there are people), it
will
> > retain control of such.
> >
> > 5. See the U.S. Constitution.
>
> I wasn't alive, or in Philadelphia, in the 1780s when the government
> and the Constitution were created by a convention and ratified by
some
> politicians. Nor have I received from my ancestors any compelling
> instructions which would in any way make me responsible for, or
> responsible to, or bound by, that convention, those politicians, or
> their quackings to each other.
>
> All of the above aside, the fact that something is "constitutional"
is
> irrelevant to whether or not it amounts to an initiation of force.
You
> claimed you had proven/would prove the latter, not just do a piss-
poor
> job of trying to prove the former. Care to take another stab at it?
>
> Tom Knapp
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
