The Constitution is your delineation. That's where the line is supposed to be, and where the line IS from a Libertarian point of view.

I rely heavily on the Declaration of Independence in reading the Constitution, especially nowadays with the wide-eyed judges that continually find rights for some that demand involuntary servitude from others. While there's not much wiggle room in the Constitution, there's much less in declaring that government's sole purpose (including the one established by the Constitution) is to secure the self-evident Creator-granted rights of Life and Liberty.

Tickerguy wrote..

Quote:

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives

There's your first principle.

You either believe and intend to live to this, or you do not. It is a binary choice with no shade of gray.

Either you, and only you, have the right of dominion (ownership) over your person and nobody else does, or you do not.

This does not mean you cannot cede that authority for a period of time and on a voluntary basis to some other entity (e.g. your idea of what God is, to military service, etc) but it does mean that nobody else can compel you to do so. [my emphasis]

The dicey part, in the real world, of the assertion that I bolded is the verb "can." Given the first principle "they can't." But what if "they" don't accept the first principle?

Historically speaking, eastern despots, kings claiming divine right, and totalitarians acting in the name of "The People" alike have been "able" to wholly nullify any such principle. I imagine Darius the Persian, King Henry VIII, and Stalin would have one-and-all enjoyed a good belly laugh at the pretension. And how would one argue with them given the power that they, in fact, wielded over their fellow human beings?

Walter Williams in his introduction to a modern edition of Basait's The Law sounds a somber historical note:

Quote:

Mankind's history is one of systematic, arbitrary abuse and control by the elite acting privately, through the church, but mostly through government. It is a tragic history where hundreds of millions of unfortunate souls have been slaughtered, mostly by their own government. A historian writing 200 or 300 years from now might view the liberties that existed for a tiny portion of mankind's population, mostly in the western world, for only a tiny portion of its history, the last century or two, as a historical curiosity that defies explanation. That historian might also observe that the curiosity was only a temporary phenomenon and mankind reverted back to the traditional state of affairs—arbitrary control and abuse.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?opt....

Whichever way one cares to argue individual sovereignty as a natural right, the fact remains that to those who wield raw power on this planet, it is not self-evident. Which means that those of us who accept liberty as our first principle may once again have to decide when push comes to shove, will we once more stake "our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor" on its preservation?

Deadbeef wrote..

While I generally favor the first principles you outline in this post, it leaves a sticky area when it comes to the common good. My mother, a lifelong physician and the most ethically grounded person I ever knew, once asked me (when I was going on about the virtues of libertarianism) who would pay for vaccinations--mandatory for the health of society in our modern era--in my libertarian utopia.

A little late, but just wanted to point out that if people get vaccinations, they are supposedly protected from the virus and the non-vaccinated, and therefore the matter of societal vaccination is irrelevant. Just pay for your own and you should be fine, right?

Ignorantsavage,

I believe that the FAIR Tax acknowledges and addresses your concern through use of the prebate. You could conceivably make money from the government under the FAIR Tax by not performing any taxable event. The prebate gives every citizen the ability to not submit to any further taxation above the poverty level minimum. Once you cross that threshold, you are voluntarily consenting to the tax and admitting that you benefit from the common services as provided by the government.


Forliberty,

Yes, obviously, vaccinations should be voluntary. And I just came across one study of herd immunity that has shown that a 30% vaccination rate can provide nearly the same benefit as a 100% vaccination rate if administered to random 'friends' of a random 30% of the population: http://www.ted.com/talks/nicholas_christ....

Herd immunity is a bit tricky. You benefit but don't pay.

Mrbill wrote..

You benefit but don't pay.

It's not necessary to go through the world shaking down every single person who might incidentally benefit from the actions of another person. If the cost/benefit ratio of a vaccine makes sense for you then buy one. If this makes other people less likely sick because you are less likely to infect them do they really owe you money for that?

No. But you can't rely on others. I'm on a phone so not typing everything.

It just doesn't always work that you can isolate yourself.

Not about charging people but its game theory, so why would I get the vaccine if I think everyone else will?

Mrbill wrote..

Not about charging people but its game theory, so why would I get the vaccine if I think everyone else will?

I don't care whether or not you are vaccinated. I choose whether or not to buy one based on what makes sense for my situation. If you don't feel that the cost of a vaccination is worth the benefits to you then don't get one.

Checkthisout, you still fail to explain WHERE the government obtains its authority to impose itself in between two individuals where a third individual would have no such authority. Waving your magic words "you are voluntarily consenting" does not make it so, any more than an obese person setting foot on my lawn voluntarily consents to be dressed in a burka at gunpoint merely on my say-so.

Under the Fair Tax, government sets an arbitrary threshold above which consent is IMPLIED. This is obviously not true as evidenced by the willingness of some to conduct business under the table to avoid taxes even now. Implied consent is not consistent with the principle of self-ownership. If you're justifying the imposition of force by the government due to a vote, you are again missing the core concepts detailed in the Declaration of Independence; otherwise, please explain how an arbitrarily-established 30% national sales tax that presses individual service providers into becoming federal tax collectors serves the sole purpose of preserving Life and Liberty.

I don't think we should discuss the "merits" of the prebate, as that's another horrible part of the Fair Tax. Every adult citizen in America will get a monthly stipend from their Uncle Sugar, which will put the current tax "refund" antics to shame. Even ration cards would seem to be a cleaner approach. Offering me a bribe by claiming that money could conceivably be made under the Fair Tax does not improve my opinion of it at all.

However, most commerce taxes are inconsistent with the principle of self-ownership (practical considerations explained by Genesis conceded), so trying the hard sell on me for the Fair Tax is pointless.

About the only government service which couldn't be easily paid for with a usage fee model would be those under the realm of security, such as the local Sheriff and the current military. Every other "service" should be abolished from the federal level, and the remnants should be able to survive as they did prior to staking a direct claim of ownership on individuals in the mid-1900s.

-edit
Roads are a common item that some folks can't conceive of being made a private service. Walter Block wrote a book on that very subject, and makes a very convincing argument in favor of private infrastructure. I own the book, but you can download it free of charge as a PDF, if the subject is of interest.

http://mises.org/store/Privatization-of-....
http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdf

Ignorantsavage,

Are you really going to keep barking up that tree? On a purely ideological level you are correct that government cannot have authority that the people do not have, but I don't believe it's workable in the real world. At least not in this country right now.

Yes, I agree that the poverty line limit is an arbitrary line and will be used as a political football. However, like all things in politics, there is discourse and compromise. In order to come to agreement there have to be concessions. You can't possibly believe that the Declaration of Independence or Constitution were written without them.

In order to support the FAIR Tax, the first concession you're going to have to give is that the ideal of self-ownership (with regard to new product purchases) will need to take a back seat to the need of society to raise taxes in order to fund government. Voluntary, avoidable taxation is the best method in my opinion.

Instead of trashing the FAIR tax, you should try focusing your efforts on designing a more just alternative taxation method that preserves the tenets of self-ownership while still funding the government to the level that SOCIETY wants, not just to your level of want. Good luck with that! We have 50 states for a reason - you get to pick the one that best suits you.

You will always be free to hold true to your principles and live life as did Diogenes, but just understand that you will still (as he did) benefit from the protections that government provides.

Go ahead, you have the last word. I'm done

Checkthisout, yes, I'm going to keep hammering on that same point unless I can be shown to be in error. Self-ownership is my "first principle". The fedgov of the united States still claims authority via the Constitution and thus also under the Declaration, and therefore the government acknowledges that principle even though it hasn't been followed since at least the Whiskey Rebellion. If you can show my error using fact, logic, or original source material from the Founders, I will address my error. However, mere opinion and hand-waving won't go far at all to convince me, most certainly not when it's based on the status quo.

As Genesis wrote in this same ticker:

Genesis wrote..

The difficulty with first principles is that they're inviolate. One either believes in them or one does not. Once you adopt one you are then forced to square all your other political principles against this first one, and if you cannot fit what you wish to adopt into that first principle then you must modify or abandon whatever it was that you intended to do.

The Fair Tax cannot square with self-ownership, and in fact I do not see how any tax on property can. (Taxes on commerce may be another matter, though so far it seems to be complicated only because of government-owned services which probably shouldn't be government-owned in the first place.) As such, a solution would be to abolish all unConstitutional fedgov services, allowing the market and private charities to take over.

As a republic, the Constitution dictates the level of government, NOT society! As just one single example, please justify the existence of the federal Department of Education using the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution.

As a bridge measure, the Fair Tax is fantastic; the current tax system is horrid almost beyond description. On its own merits, though, it is repulsive to any free person.