In a rather surreal move, 57 percent of Swiss voters have demanded a ban on Minarets in a national referendum (hat tip: Liberty Pile). Supporters of the ban are claiming that the onion-shaped spires common on Mosques “bring the Muslim faith out into the public domain and reflect a demand for political power.” The referendum is non-binding and the current government is against the ban, but those who idealize democracy must be itching for the wrecking balls to start swinging. The People, after all, have spoken.
This shouldn’t be surprising, of course. Unpopular minorities routinely get shafted by democratic politics. Since a single vote never matters, people use politics to express their prejudices and promote the status of their own lifestyle at the expense of others. This is why we see such supremely stupid and harmful laws: the prohibition of drugs and prostitution, for example, makes puritans feel good by legitimizing their bigotry. As Joseph Gusfield has said:
As his own claim to social respect and honor are diminished, the sober, abstaining citizen seeks for public acts through which he may reaffirm the dominance and prestige of his way of life. Converting the sinner to virtue is one way; law is another. Even if the law is not enforced or enforceable, the symbolic import of its passage is important to the reformer. It settles the controversies between those who represent clashing cultures. The public support of one conception of morality at the expense of another enhances the prestige and self-esteem of the victors and degrades the culture of the losers.
Muslims have been a particularly unpopular minority in Europe over recent years, and have been the victims of many symbolic laws with no apparent purpose other than to tell them their religion is not acceptable. France has banned headscarves in public schools, and Muslim women in an Italian city have been prohibited from covering their bodies while swimming, for example.
A system which allows people to degrade and humiliate those they don’t like without getting their hands dirty is bound to produce this sort of policy. This is why democracy and liberalism (in the proper sense of the word) are inherently conflicting ideals.
Brad Taylor is a graduate student in Political Science at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. He blogs at 
I have a close family member who raves about the glories of democracy and yet claims to care about minorities. These “Libertarian Socialists” are fond of this all-encompassing democratic stuff, as well.
“These “Libertarian Socialists” are fond of this all-encompassing democratic stuff, as well.”
Wrong. Not all libsocs believe in the ancom-style direct democracy, which (apart from the vulgar ones) is more like a neighborhood coming together to decide what is to be done about local criminal.
The market is a type of indirect democracy, as well– if you have unusual preferences (or needs, even), not many producers will be willing to produce it. Sorry. (Under ancom if you had uncommon *needs*, it’s treated much like a retired member in a family that’s unable to work– mutual aid according to needs.)
Not all libsocs believe in the ancom-style direct democracy, which (apart from the vulgar ones) is more like a neighborhood coming together to decide what is to be done about local criminal.
Or deciding what I can sell my oranges for or telling me I can’t rent out the guest house or whatever.
if you have unusual preferences (or needs, even), not many producers will be willing to produce it. Sorry.
There are eBay stores that specialize in Foghorn Leghorn memorabilia…
“Or deciding what I can sell my oranges for or telling me I can’t rent out the guest house or whatever.”
It’s not that you *can’t* rent– it’s that your contract is viewed just like an IP contract or if I tried using paper money.
(Oh wait. According to your view, using paper money should be perfectly valid, just, and enforceable, all because it’s ‘voluntary’ and personal desires are the only way to measure utility, right? And who cares about the larger impacts anyways? Certainly not you.)
I have the same amount of money as everyone else for a doll, and I want one with blue skin, but everyone else demands flesh-tones. Which one will Mattel produce in their giant factory?
It’s not that you *can’t* rent– it’s that your contract is viewed just like an IP contract or if I tried using paper money.
According to your view, using paper money should be perfectly valid, just, and enforceable, all because it’s ‘voluntary’
Yup.
And who cares about the larger impacts anyways? Certainly not you.
The larger impacts such as freedom for individuals? Of course I believe in that. That is the largest difference between your philosophy and mine.
I have the same amount of money as everyone else for a doll, and I want one with blue skin, but everyone else demands flesh-tones. Which one will Mattel produce in their giant factory?
Crisis averted. Check this out!
BTW, how would your society provide blue dolls?
“Yup.”
Okay, it’s official. Nicky doesn’t have a problem with paper money!
“The larger impacts such as freedom for individuals? Of course I believe in that. That is the largest difference between your philosophy and mine.”
No. My philosophy focuses on the long-term. You can clearly see how short-term oriented your philosophy is when it’s illustrated: http://bit.ly/5acFJZ
“Crisis averted. Check this out!”
Have you heard of ‘hyperbolic examples’? My example was an overtly simple scenario toned down for you– a hypothetical world without any producers that _already had an interest_ in blue dolls. It was a ‘blank slate’ scene, where no other factors than the consumers determine the producer’s decision.
Even Mises said that the market is a type of democracy, I believe.
“BTW, how would your society provide blue dolls?”
Through the market. I have no idea where you get that idea that I’m somehow anti-market.
I was simply pointing out that the market is a type of indirect democracy, so some criticisms of anarchist communism apply (albeit differently) to a market as well.
Okay, it’s official. Nicky doesn’t have a problem with paper money!
Anyone reading this can contact me privately for shipping instructions so that I can take any surpluses off of their hands.
In all seriousness, I love the fact that paper money is so easy to carry around and that I don’t have to worry about cutpurses if I have a bag of doubloons hanging from my belt. And yeah, I do think that “using paper money should be perfectly valid, just, and enforceable, all because it’s ‘voluntary.’”
No. My philosophy focuses on the long-term. You can clearly see how short-term oriented your philosophy is when it’s illustrated
I’ve already read your ideas on how a landowner equals a state yet a vast, supreme collective does not equal a state.
I think they’re pretty absurd.
no other factors than the consumers determine the producer’s decision.
What other factors do you think there should be?
Through the market. I have no idea where you get that idea that I’m somehow anti-market.
I was simply pointing out that the market is a type of indirect democracy, so some criticisms of anarchist communism apply (albeit differently) to a market as well.
You are anti a free market. The free market is “democratic” in the sense that it gives everyone a meaningful “vote” (consumer preference) and empowers individuals but it is undemocratic in the sense that it is not the mob rule, feck-the-minority nonsense that is implied by democratic rule.
Ostracizing, humiliating, and degrading the totalitarian institution of Islam is not only fine in the context of a nation state; it’s fine anywhere, even in liberal anarchy.
Banning geometrical shapes, however, is a rather silly way to go about doing it.
So, that should go double for the totalitarian institution of Catholicism, right? Not to mention all those Puritanical Protestants of various stripes. Best to ban all religion, eh, Cal? That way you can show up those totalitarians … by being totalitarian.
Side note: If I wanted a toy with blue skin, I’d paint a flesh toned toy blue. How frickin’ hard is this?
A few centuries back, when the Catholicism or Protestantism actually were totalitarian institutions, sure. As any historian will inform you, however, Xtianity underwent the Reformation and subsequent Enlightenment.
I mean, I’m normatively opposed to organized religion in principle, but as Richard Dawkins has noted “modern Christianity is comparatively benign and should be respected as such.” To deny this is to deny the difference between George Washington and Kim Jong-il.
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
- Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies
Thank you. The expansion of Shariah is very real and we would be fools to ignore it.
What is wrong with paper money? It functions as an exchange medium just as easily as bags of dirt or peacock feathers. Why does paper money work as an exchange medium? Because it is widely accepted and tradeable for nearly all goods.
As for the rent cartoon, why does that show “how short-term oriented your philosophy” is? All I see illustrated is a lessor violating contract and attempting to use force to defraud a property’s owner.
Agreed. The renters clearly entered into the agreement intent on taking the land from the landowners and so their actions were fraudulent, in my opinion.
No, the landowner’s actions were fraudulent because he was exploiting the renters by extracting surplus value from them via rent, which is logically fraudulent because value comes from labor. QED
Welcome to the perfect circle of obsolete dogma. You can’t argue against it because it’s not an argument – it’s deontology in the language of economics.
No… The issue is that in the short-term the contract is ‘mutually voluntary’, but in the end it becomes a very authoritarian and aggressive situation.
You’re funny.
Do you understand what a contract is? Do you understand what private property is? Do you understand what human freedom is? Do you understand what aggression is?
“anti-propertarian libertarian socialist” is completely nonsensical.
So I’ll answer all of the above questions for you: No.
No, it’s mutually voluntary the whole time. If one stops paying rent, they also lose access to that property they were renting. If one removes access to rental property, one stops paying rent. I boggles my mind how you can think renters refusing to pay rent should have access to rental property.
Do you want a list? Try “What has government done to our money” 1980, Murray Rothbard. http://mises.org/money.asp
Antony Sutton, “The War on Gold” 1976.
Ferdinand Lips, “Gold Wars” 2003
Turk and Rubino, “Coming Collapse of the Dollar” 2004.
Paper money can be a workable medium of exchange, but it is typically a terrible store of value and a very poor unit of account. Since the amount of paper in circulation is determined by governments and banking gangsters, you can end up with Zimbabwe, Weimar Republic, Yugoslavia, Republic of China, Argentina, South Vietnam, or Hungary levels of hyperinflation. (This list is incomplete and in no particular order. Check wikipedia for a list of worst hyperinflations ever. Andrew Dickson White, “Fiat Money Inflation in France” for more about the badness of gov’t paper money.)
E.C. Riegel’s system of individually issued money hasn’t been tried. I’m not confident his auditors to establish limits would work well. But it is an interesting take on “what is money.” See his book “A New Approach to Freedom.”
Here is a short answer to why paper money sucks: Every contract has a value that is determined by the meaning of the term used to describe the exchange. For example, contracts written in dollars mean whatever the value of a dollar is. And if the government decides tomorrow that the dollar is worthless, how did that go for you and your contract?
You’ll get no argument from me that the dollar is a lousy place to store value. I don’t generally save dollars and if I do, I’m betting against inflation and collapse of the currency. Just as anyone who accepts a contract with dollars in return, you’re betting that those dollars won’t lose value faster than you can complete the contract and use those dollars to purchase goods/services.
Here is a short answer to why paper money sucks: Every contract has a value that is determined by the meaning of the term used to describe the exchange. For example, contracts written in dollars mean whatever the value of a dollar is. And if the government decides tomorrow that the dollar is worthless, how did that go for you and your contract?
In my perfect world there would be no governments and people would be able to choose whatever form of money they wanted to use.
I’m fine if one of those is paper money.
Re: money portion of a perfect world…
To a certain extent that is being done now. Some cities have scrip that carries a value locally, we’ve all used bartering, look up “Lakota Bank” they are looking to establish silver as a medium. In fact, a case could be made that coupons are money. All these people choose different forms of exchange/money values. At a coin shop or a pawn shop, I can exchange a rare coin for more worthless paper money…lol
For the ONLY purpose of money, in what ever form, is to help us obtain what we need or want from another.
If the dollar does collapse, and the contract for dollars is in place, it doesn’t void the relationship that was made or the purpose of the exchange. It just merely has to be revisited and renegotiated, maybe for food coupons… For the purpose of money has not changed.
“Anyone reading this can contact me privately for shipping instructions so that I can take any surpluses off of their hands.
In all seriousness, I love the fact that paper money is so easy to carry around and that I don’t have to worry about cutpurses if I have a bag of doubloons hanging from my belt. And yeah, I do think that “using paper money should be perfectly valid, just, and enforceable, all because it’s ‘voluntary.’”
Given your positions on other things, I recommend you study Austrian Economics 101.
And hey, racism is ‘voluntary’ too, so I figure you’re cool with racists.
“I’ve already read your ideas on how a landowner equals a state yet a vast, supreme collective does not equal a state.”
Strawman. You’re thinking of the vulgar anarchist communists. Sorry, try again.
“What other factors do you think there should be?”
Irrelevant, stop fucking taking it offtopic because you have nothing to say except for ignorant comments.
Why is it irrelevant? Because I brought up “no other factors” as in scenario to show you that in a ’starting point’, the market producers are more likely to produce what the majority wants.
“You are anti a free market. The free market is “democratic” in the sense that it gives everyone a meaningful “vote” (consumer preference) and empowers individuals but it is undemocratic in the sense that it is not the mob rule, feck-the-minority nonsense that is implied by democratic rule.”
Wrong again. I am not an an-com, especially not the vulgar kind. I’ve repeatedly stated this over and over, yet you’re completely intent on strawmanning and making a fool of yourself in doing so.
I find tolerating racists to be very difficult. Their views are ugly, irrational, and often expressed with violence. However, up to the point where they go violent, they have the same freedom to express their views. I can’t see how denying the freedom to say ugly things is any benefit to the freedom to say beautiful things.
If, as I suspect, much of racism is built on ignorance, I would suggest Thomas Jefferson’s idea. Inform their ignorance. It beats the crap out of building a police state to police political correctness. For if the ultimate repository of all power is not in the individual, however foolhardy and ill-informed he may presently be, what possibility is there? Every system you conceive of has to rely on individuals to implement. There are no angels in the shape of kings to rule us. (And if there were, I’d start a revolt right away.)
Given your positions on other things, I recommend you study Austrian Economics 101.
Don’t leave me in suspense. What does Austrian Economics 101 have to say about paper money? In the US, for example, we had paper money long before we went to central banking or went off the gold standard.
And hey, racism is ‘voluntary’ too, so I figure you’re cool with racists.
Racists in what sense? I’m ‘cool with’ some people who tell racial jokes, for example. My drinking buddy is white but acts black and talks bad about other whites and I’m cool with him. He’s actually a real hoot once you get to know him.
Strawman. You’re thinking of the vulgar anarchist communists. Sorry, try again.
Ok, so tell me what you think on the matter.
Irrelevant, stop fucking taking it offtopic because you have nothing to say except for ignorant comments.
lol Actually your the one who started talking about consumer preference effecting capitalists. I just asked for some clarification.
Why is it irrelevant? Because I brought up “no other factors” as in scenario to show you that in a ’starting point’, the market producers are more likely to produce what the majority wants.
While you’re tracking down that Austrian Economics 101 stuff tell me what you learn about supply and demand.
Wrong again. I am not an an-com, especially not the vulgar kind. I’ve repeatedly stated this over and over, yet you’re completely intent on strawmanning and making a fool of yourself in doing so.
You’re against my renting out my property to someone else in a voluntary contract so, yes. You are anti-free-market.
And hey, racism is ‘voluntary’ too, so I figure you’re cool with racists.
You’re free to discriminate against racists just as much as racists are free to discriminate against whatever group they like. I see no advantage in discriminating against anybody, even racists.
Why does it always follow that if one opposes something, then they must also be in favor of using violence to prohibit it? Why is it authoritarian to espouse social goals in addition to voluntarism?
Also, why do some people throw a hissy fit when someone mentions they have a differing theory of property rights? I understand debating something you disagree with, but that requires actually understanding someone else’s argument as well as providing evidence for your own. If you want people to not be anti-propertarians then stop shitting logical fallacies all over the Internet like some dumbass group of Creationists.
Why does it always follow that if one opposes something, then they must also be in favor of using violence to prohibit it?
It doesn’t matter if someone is “in favor of using violence to prohibit it.” My determination is that this is what a libertarian socialist society will come to and I think it is naive (at best) to not see that.
And I don’t “want people to not be anti-propertarian.” I don’t care one way or the other as long as they don’t start aggressing against their neighbors.
If you think the position is naive then provide evidence, don’t just make claims without fully understanding the opposing position.
The trouble is that what is seen as aggression to someone with a certain property theory may not be seen as aggression to someone with a different property theory and vice versa. Simply saying “as long as you don’t aggress against me” does little to solve disputes when you can’t even agree on what aggression is.
Aggression = proactive physical coercion. Matters of degree and emergent norms regarding non-physical coercion cannot be determined wholesale a priori – even in a universal state law system. “Private property” is not an a priori prescription for them. Consult an encyclopedia of philosophy, economics textbook, or any of the major figures of “private property,” from Tucker to Friedman. You are attacking the logic of a position based on a universal absolutism in prescription that is inaccurate – and is thus a straw man.
Your position is thus not so much naive as logically meaningless.
Here are some reference materials that may aid you in remedying your error:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/property/
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PropertyRights.html
You mean to say that words can actually have objective meanings?
:>
Thanks for the links.. I’ve just started studying them. They look well written….
Cal, thank you for the links.. I started copying key sentences and by the end of http://www.iep.utm.edu/property/ I was copying the entire section.
Are you a member on FR33? I just joined the other day.
I too feel that in a diverse world one can not separate private property rights from ‘moral’ laws without relinquishing one’s right to happiness and subsequently your freedoms. I would enjoy your critical analysis or some discussions.
Please join… If not, please tell me what discussion group you belong to so that I can join it, if possible… Thanks
Hey Cathy, I am on fr33agents: http://fr33agents.ning.com/profile/Cal271
“one can not separate private property rights from ‘moral’ laws without relinquishing one’s right to happiness and subsequently your freedoms. ”
I agree that the most basic notion of private property – that is, human rights to property according to intersubjective consensus – is necessary for freedom.
I’m back
augh.. work, work, work… thank God I have a job.. but it keeps me away… Now 2 find Cal!
Well then, let’s begin by hearing your definition of private property, libertarian socialism, and aggression and then we can go from there.