Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › When *Exactly* Government Crosses the Line
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) When *Exactly* Government Crosses the Line (Read 847 times)
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 9730
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
When *Exactly* Government Crosses the Line
Apr 9th, 2019 at 11:23am
Print Post  
I've often wondered what standard exactly is used by men who rebel against corrupt governments. Both the greatest evil (Hitler, rebelling against the Wiemar Republic) and the greatest good (Jefferson, rebelling against the British) have said it: Rebel if your government becomes antagonistic to you.

A working standard might be thus:

If a change in policy makes you both: worse off than you were under the previous policy, and worse off than you would be in a state of nature, you may object to the policy change on those grounds alone.

This theory attempts to differentiate between small sacrifices that even when made, cause one to be still better off than in a state of nature, and government actually exploiting its people.

A welfare queen may not use this principle to protest her welfare being removed or lessened because she has no welfare in a state of nature.

I may not protest mandatory car insurance because there are no proper roads in a state of nature, meaning I am still better off with the roads and the mandatory insurance than I would be without any roads at all.

A state of nature, however, does mean sustainability, if just barely so. Human beings survived in a state of nature for hundreds of thousands of years, if not more (depends on when you pinpoint the time at which Humans became as they now are).

In other words, if you're working and productive, and you're taxed to the point you can't have children, then you can protest by this principle because you would presumably be able to make enough children to self-replace in a state of nature. You might lose most, have hardships, but there is every reason to believe you'd still self-replace.

TL;DR

By comparing to a state of nature in addition to previous policy, you can derive a meaningful baseline for whether your government is actually antagonistic to you, or not.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 42745
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: When *Exactly* Government Crosses the Line
Reply #1 - Apr 9th, 2019 at 12:09pm
Print Post  
How about this for a broad guideline?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 9730
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: When *Exactly* Government Crosses the Line
Reply #2 - Apr 9th, 2019 at 9:46pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Apr 9th, 2019 at 12:09pm:
How about this for a broad guideline?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."


Yes, a lot of flowery language referring to ill-defined things like the pursuit of happiness.

The evil version (Hitler wrote it) is no better.

If the instruments of government power should be used for the purposes of leading a People to ruin, then rebellion is not only the right, but the duty, of every member of such a People.

Very clear they were talking about the same thing. Not so clear where the bloody line is.

If the government tells me I can't have a certain sort of rug in my house, is that "ruin"? Is that destroying my "pursuit of happiness"? I'm a poor sort of person if taking a rug away ruins me or causes me to be incapable of being happy.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 42745
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: When *Exactly* Government Crosses the Line
Reply #3 - Apr 9th, 2019 at 9:52pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Apr 9th, 2019 at 9:46pm:
If the government tells me I can't have a certain sort of rug in my house, is that "ruin"? Is that destroying my "pursuit of happiness"?
Well, it makes it obvious that your government has far too much power...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Tom Palven
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1988
Location: North America
Joined: Sep 27th, 2011
Re: When *Exactly* Government Crosses the Line
Reply #4 - Apr 10th, 2019 at 5:49am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Apr 9th, 2019 at 11:23am:
I've often wondered what standard exactly is used by men who rebel against corrupt governments. Both the greatest evil (Hitler, rebelling against the Wiemar Republic) and the greatest good (Jefferson, rebelling against the British) have said it: Rebel if your government becomes antagonistic to you.


Libertarians think it's laudable for people to use their own time and money to warn others of alleged scams and other pitfalls, but when we get used to the government protecting us from unclean restaurants and all other manner of small-time evil, does it make us more susceptible to the larger evils when the government itself turns bad, such as the German policies of the l930's and 40's or the attempts of some deep state MIC neocons in the US government right now to promote the slaughter of more Middle-Easterners and possibly Venezuelans?
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=bomb%2C+bomb%2C+bomb%2C+iran&view=detail&mi...

In short, government crosses the line when it violates the NAP/Golden Rule.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 42745
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: When *Exactly* Government Crosses the Line
Reply #5 - Apr 10th, 2019 at 7:55am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Apr 9th, 2019 at 9:46pm:
Yes, a lot of flowery language referring to ill-defined things like the pursuit of happiness.

There was rather widespread sentiment at the time (and since) that the Declaration should have said "Life, Liberty and Property".
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 42745
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: When *Exactly* Government Crosses the Line
Reply #6 - Apr 10th, 2019 at 8:10am
Print Post  
Tom Palven wrote on Apr 10th, 2019 at 5:49am:
Libertarians think it's laudable for people to use their own time and money to warn others of alleged scams and other pitfalls, but when we get used to the government protecting us from unclean restaurants and all other manner of small-time evil, does it make us more susceptible to the larger evils when the government itself turns bad, such as the German policies of the l930's and 40's or the attempts of some deep state MIC neocons in the US government right now to promote the slaughter of more Middle-Easterners and possibly Venezuelans?
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=bomb%2C+bomb%2C+bomb%2C+iran&view=detail&mi...

In short, government crosses the line when it violates the NAP/Golden Rule.
That's too broad. It prohibits governments from doing some of the things that governments are created to do, and of course the Sack claims that all taxation is aggression, which by his standard makes any government at all an aggressor.

It's important to realize that our federal system is intended to have governments at different levels accomplish different tasks.

Leaving almost all police powers with local and state governments means local governments can be empowered to legislate for the public health and safety. No such power is granted to the federal government beyond the power to stop insurrections and foreign invasions, which are in fact in the interests of public safety.

Getting used to having your city or town or state set speed limits doesn't actually (in my mind anyway) get people used to having their lives totally controlled by government.

Of course governments can "go bad" at any level, which is a reason for constant vigilance and also why our federal system was created.

Most of the great safeguards of liberty were destroyed by the 17th Amendment and the removal of the limits placed on our federal government (i.e. no powers other than those enumerated) by the New Deal Supreme Court.

It certainly doesn't help that the limits on the taxing power have been ignored for more than 100 years, not coincidentally since the great flowering of the Progressive Era.

SCOTUS, rather than acting as a bulwark against encroachments on our liberty has given us "doctrines" like "qualified immunity" for government personnel:

https://reason.com/blog/2019/04/08/police-sicced-a-dog-on-a-man-after-he-su?utm_...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5746
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: When *Exactly* Government Crosses the Line
Reply #7 - Apr 10th, 2019 at 9:59am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Apr 10th, 2019 at 8:10am:
That's too broad. It prohibits governments from doing some of the things that governments are created to do, and of course the Sack claims that all taxation is aggression, which by his standard makes any government at all an aggressor.



No, just any government funded by taxes.

But, you admitted that taxes are aggression, correct?  You just say it’s OK because the majority voted on a constitution or charter or whatever that gives government the power to use aggression to fund itself. 
  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 7988
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: When *Exactly* Government Crosses the Line
Reply #8 - Apr 10th, 2019 at 10:05am
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Apr 10th, 2019 at 9:59am:
No, just any government funded by taxes.

But, you admitted that taxes are aggression, correct?  You just say it’s OK because the majority voted on a constitution or charter or whatever that gives government the power to use aggression to fund itself. 


Right, being overrun by criminals because there is no police department, having no property rights because there is no way to assert or protect them, being overrun by invaders.  No aggression there!  Those are all preferable to government collecting taxes.

Of course when we implement your troll plan and eliminate taxes and we are invaded and overrrun, we will be paying taxes again the next day.

But hey, you're still working out the kinks in your plan.

Which you will do once you actually have a plan.

In the meantime, no taxes, no taxes, no taxes.  That's your troll plan
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 9730
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: When *Exactly* Government Crosses the Line
Reply #9 - Apr 10th, 2019 at 10:27am
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Apr 10th, 2019 at 10:05am:
Of course when we implement your troll plan and eliminate taxes and we are invaded and overrrun, we will be paying taxes again the next day.


People tend to get the masters they deserve. Africa is dead-set on kicking out whitey, because whitey is oppressive and racist. This is just leading the Chinese to come in, and the Chinese do not care about your cries of oppression.

Every government in history has violated the NAP. What I'm asking is if there's a more reasonable standard (not a perfectly moral one) to assess the thing Hitler and Jefferson were talking about, get a reasonable amount of agreement, and actually have a chance at getting the rebellion they both agree is necessary and right.

It pisses me off that both of them were talking about very specific things - the Treaty of Versailles and the Tea Tax, respectively - but neither of them said anything like, "This is exactly why this thing meets this criterion." Perhaps this was a conscious choice, since it would be fairly easy for governments to take note of those words and make sure they never crossed that line.

I don't see how they can do so with my standard, however.

Compare to previous policy. Compare to a state of nature. If you are worse off now than you would be in a state of nature, and worse off than you would be under the previous policy, then you may object to the new policy on those grounds alone.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › When *Exactly* Government Crosses the Line
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy