It is important to understand contracts as we discuss voluntary systems of government. Contracts will play a role in our daily life. There are many other types of contracts possible, but the following will serve to help the reader understand.
Types of contracts
Commodatum-this is a real contract made in good faith, by which one person-the lender-entrusts to another-the borrower or commodatary-a specific item to be used for free for a certain period of time, at the end of which the item must be restored to its owner; that is, the very thing loaned must be returned. It is called “real” because the article must be given over.
Mutuum-a contract by which the lender entrusts the borrower or mutuary with a certain quanity of fungible goods, and the borrower is obliged, at the end of a specified term, to return and equal quantity of goods of the same type and quality. Without the explicit or implicit establishment of a fixed therm, the mutuum contract/loan cannot exist.
Deposit-a contract made in good faith by which one person-the depositor-entrusts to another-the depository-a movable good for that person to guard, protect, and return at any moment the depositor should ask for it. This contract is always carried out in the interest of the depositor. The fundamental purpose of the deposit contract is the custody of safe-keeping of the good and it implies, for the duration of the contract, that the complete availability of the good remain in favor of the depositor, who may request its return at any moment. The obligation of the depositor, apart from delivering the good, is to compensate the depositary for the costs of the deposit (if such compensation has been agreed upon; if not, the deposit is free of charge). The obligation of the depositary is to guard and protect the good with the extreme diligence typical of a good parent, and to return it immediately to the depositor as soon as he asks for it.
The deposit of fungible goods (“irregular“ deposit contract)
There are many times in life in which we wish to deposit not specific things (such as painting, jewlry, etc), but fungible goods (dollars, oil, gas, etc). The deposit of fungible goods is a real deposit like any other, in that the main element is the complete availability of the deposited goods in favor of the depositor, as well as the obligation on the part of the depositary to conscientiously guard and protect the goods. The only difference between the deposit of fungible goods and the regular deposit is that when the former takes place, the goods deposited become indiscernably mixed with others of the same type and quality. Due to this indistinguishable mixture of different deposited units of the same type and quality, the depositor effectively transfers ownershsip to the depository. The fungible nature of these goods makes them impossible to treat individually, and thus the deposit of fungible goods is called an “irregular deposit”.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Friday, July 23, 2010
The State is not The Government (and vice versa)
I find that one of the commonest misunderstandings in modern political discourse is the conflation of the State and the government. Mass media and popular speakers like Stefan Molyneux have only added to the confusion.
Randolf Borne explains in his 1918 essay "The State":
"The State is the country acting as a political unit, it is the group acting as a repository of force, determiner of law, arbiter of justice. International politics is a power politics because it is a relation of States and that is what States infallibly and calamitously are, huge aggregations of human and industrial force that may be hurled against each other in war. When a country acts as a whole in relation to another country, or in imposing laws on its own inhabitants, or in coercing or punishing individuals or minorities, it is acting as a State. The history of America as a country is quite different from that of America as a State. In one case it is the drama of the pioneering conquest of the land, of the growth of wealth and the ways in which it was used, of the enterprise of education, and the carrying out of spiritual ideals, of the struggle of economic classes. But as a State, its history is that of playing a part in the world, making war, obstructing international trade, preventing itself from being split to pieces, punishing those citizens whom society agrees are offensive, and collecting money to pay for all."
Rothbard makes this even more clear in his Lengthy essay, "The Anatomy Of The State". I would encourage my readers to read both the Bourne and Rothbard essays in full. Neither of these men were purely Voluntaryist, but they give us a clear understanding of the State, which is useful to anyone interested in understanding the nature of the beast.
Randolf Borne explains in his 1918 essay "The State":
"The State is the country acting as a political unit, it is the group acting as a repository of force, determiner of law, arbiter of justice. International politics is a power politics because it is a relation of States and that is what States infallibly and calamitously are, huge aggregations of human and industrial force that may be hurled against each other in war. When a country acts as a whole in relation to another country, or in imposing laws on its own inhabitants, or in coercing or punishing individuals or minorities, it is acting as a State. The history of America as a country is quite different from that of America as a State. In one case it is the drama of the pioneering conquest of the land, of the growth of wealth and the ways in which it was used, of the enterprise of education, and the carrying out of spiritual ideals, of the struggle of economic classes. But as a State, its history is that of playing a part in the world, making war, obstructing international trade, preventing itself from being split to pieces, punishing those citizens whom society agrees are offensive, and collecting money to pay for all."
Rothbard makes this even more clear in his Lengthy essay, "The Anatomy Of The State". I would encourage my readers to read both the Bourne and Rothbard essays in full. Neither of these men were purely Voluntaryist, but they give us a clear understanding of the State, which is useful to anyone interested in understanding the nature of the beast.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
A Voluntaryist on Voting
Voting: A Sacred Rite Of The State Religion
“Democracy too, is a religion. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses.” -H.L. Mencken
I am often asked by laypersons and hyperactive activists why I do not vote. How dare I not particpate in this ritual? Do I not know that voting is my civic duty? That brave men fought and died that I might have the “privelige” to partake in this collectivist ceremony? Why, even the great saints of American history (Adams, Madison, and whoever elese my persecutor can think of) were all for voting!
To the contrary. I am well aware of the arguments forwarded by worshipers of the State Religion. I simply don't believe in such fairy tales.
Samuel Adams, for example, wrote: Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual--or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.
Here, even in the earliest stages of American-style democratic republicanism, we see that the system itself and its participants therein are absurdly deified. The western democracies, as you see, have simply traded the monotheistic religion of monarchy for the polytheistic religion of democracy.
I know many Republicans have a fit when I refer to the American State as a “democracy”-their holy scriptures (the Federalist, etc) proclaim that the holy land is a Republic. This may be so in theory, but in practice (especially since the passage of the 17th ammendment) this distinction is practically irrelevant. Both systems are equally absurd, just in different ways.
In “Democracy: The God That Failed”, Hoppe correctly points out that democracy and related systems are very new in human history. They are also massive failures. If modern State-worshipers were interested in successful models, they would be wise to look to monarchy or Voluntaryism.
“Democracy too, is a religion. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses.” -H.L. Mencken
I am often asked by laypersons and hyperactive activists why I do not vote. How dare I not particpate in this ritual? Do I not know that voting is my civic duty? That brave men fought and died that I might have the “privelige” to partake in this collectivist ceremony? Why, even the great saints of American history (Adams, Madison, and whoever elese my persecutor can think of) were all for voting!
To the contrary. I am well aware of the arguments forwarded by worshipers of the State Religion. I simply don't believe in such fairy tales.
Samuel Adams, for example, wrote: Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual--or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.
Here, even in the earliest stages of American-style democratic republicanism, we see that the system itself and its participants therein are absurdly deified. The western democracies, as you see, have simply traded the monotheistic religion of monarchy for the polytheistic religion of democracy.
I know many Republicans have a fit when I refer to the American State as a “democracy”-their holy scriptures (the Federalist, etc) proclaim that the holy land is a Republic. This may be so in theory, but in practice (especially since the passage of the 17th ammendment) this distinction is practically irrelevant. Both systems are equally absurd, just in different ways.
In “Democracy: The God That Failed”, Hoppe correctly points out that democracy and related systems are very new in human history. They are also massive failures. If modern State-worshipers were interested in successful models, they would be wise to look to monarchy or Voluntaryism.
Monday, July 19, 2010
The Hot Air of the neocon media
Today, Rush Limbaugh made the theme of his rant an article by Angelo Codevilla called America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution
The pathetic irony here is that Mr Limbaugh has long been a cheerleader for what Codevilla calls the "Republican Ruling Class", from his buddy-buddy relationship with neocon Newt Gingrich to his almost incessant worship of the Bush regime.
If Limbaugh is serious about opposing the Obama regime in the political sense, he should pay attention to the likes of Ron Paul.
The pathetic irony here is that Mr Limbaugh has long been a cheerleader for what Codevilla calls the "Republican Ruling Class", from his buddy-buddy relationship with neocon Newt Gingrich to his almost incessant worship of the Bush regime.
If Limbaugh is serious about opposing the Obama regime in the political sense, he should pay attention to the likes of Ron Paul.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
In regards to Dr. Shaffer's recent blog post here-
He seems to be in direct contradiction with what he wrote in his excellent book “Boundaries Of Order”.
His full post reads thusly:
With all the efforts being made by states and cities to address the so-called “illegal immigration” problem — including making it a crime to rent to or employ such people — I wonder why the most obvious solution has not been offered. An Arizona statute gives the police power to stop and question those who, on the basis of skin color, might be such an “illegal.” But this raises too much uncertainty. Why not require every “illegal immigrant” to wear a symbol on their clothing — perhaps a yellow star would do the trick — and then the police would not have to resort to questionable “equal protection” practices. Later on, if the “problem” continues, those wearing the required yellow stars could be rounded up, put onto trains, and transported to “relocation centers” in Utah and Nevada — all in the interest of “national security,” of course.
BTW, for those who get upset that people who are emigrating to California do not speak the language of resident Californians, bear in mind that the early English-speaking immigrants entered a state in which Spanish was the prevailing language and culture!
He is correct insofar as the implications of a growing police state, considering the language of SB 1070 and how governments have a strong tendency to abuse such laws for their own aggrandizement.
Criticism of regime laws (and the absurd “National Security” scam) are all perfectly fine and good, but in this case, he had the opportunity to offer a better solution, but did not. His own concept of "Property Boundaries" could be easily applied, especially by someone as skilled as Dr Shaffer.
I hope Dr Shaffer's future work on this subject (even “work” as simple as blog posts) is more thoughtful-as the overwhelming majority of his work is.
He seems to be in direct contradiction with what he wrote in his excellent book “Boundaries Of Order”.
His full post reads thusly:
With all the efforts being made by states and cities to address the so-called “illegal immigration” problem — including making it a crime to rent to or employ such people — I wonder why the most obvious solution has not been offered. An Arizona statute gives the police power to stop and question those who, on the basis of skin color, might be such an “illegal.” But this raises too much uncertainty. Why not require every “illegal immigrant” to wear a symbol on their clothing — perhaps a yellow star would do the trick — and then the police would not have to resort to questionable “equal protection” practices. Later on, if the “problem” continues, those wearing the required yellow stars could be rounded up, put onto trains, and transported to “relocation centers” in Utah and Nevada — all in the interest of “national security,” of course.
BTW, for those who get upset that people who are emigrating to California do not speak the language of resident Californians, bear in mind that the early English-speaking immigrants entered a state in which Spanish was the prevailing language and culture!
He is correct insofar as the implications of a growing police state, considering the language of SB 1070 and how governments have a strong tendency to abuse such laws for their own aggrandizement.
Criticism of regime laws (and the absurd “National Security” scam) are all perfectly fine and good, but in this case, he had the opportunity to offer a better solution, but did not. His own concept of "Property Boundaries" could be easily applied, especially by someone as skilled as Dr Shaffer.
I hope Dr Shaffer's future work on this subject (even “work” as simple as blog posts) is more thoughtful-as the overwhelming majority of his work is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)