@renatojj So you are saying you cant be threatened economically? Off course you can be. Damage can be economical or mental too. There is no reason to exclude those. Far from it, you can argue these are in the end physical too.
Force is not required to be physical in this process.
What you need is leverage, ie something that the other needs. If you are the giver of a job that that other person needs and it is difficult for him to find it elsewhere, you are in a position of power without any other need of force. If you own a well in a desert you are the most powerful man without any force. And you can coerce people to do your bidding for them to receive water. No force required, just threat.

On right to have a job. The thousands of philosophers, lawyers, human rights activists, politicians, etc that worked on the UDHR just believe that without the job, people will starve, ie will die, ie will get a right offended. Hence, they need a job. And thats is were coercion comes in. The NEED (not the right) to have a job to survive (or at least live on a "decent" level in your society) Coercion isnt about having or not having a job. Its about the threat of not getting it / losing it and accepting things you would otherwise not. Discussing whether or not someone is suitable for a job is besides the point, as we are all unsuitable for the job we have in some form or other. So unskilled, incompetent, dispensable, these are all point of view based. In a world of geniuses you and me would be unsuitable for anything. But are we really? Off course not, just like every tree, flower, bacteria and animal has a role, so does every person.

On coercion: by a child's psychological manipulation? For sure. (Check with any parent and they will readily agree ) What about a person you're in love with? Yes off course. What about a guy who is more qualified for a job than you are, is he coercing you out of that position? No. He nor you has the job to give. The coercion comes when your boss says to work 12 hours a day and get paid for 8 because someone else might be better and he might give that person the job.

On justifying anything government does: you make assumptions I dont follow. Punish coercion -> using force -> more social injustice.
If it is coercion and we define coercion is something bad, isnt it justified to do something against it? You can do something against it with or without force, but even if it is done with force (meaning someone somewhere gets his freedoms lessened) again, isnt that justified to stop him or her being able to coerce someone as that is bad? Its like saying government cant stop someone from shooting someone because that would lessen the freedom of the shooter. I would define social injustice not as the max rights of that individual but of the max rights of the whole population. So not "using force" would lead to social injustice.

On laziness: You are right. If you are not careful, setting up rules that protect the weak can make them complacent. Its a balancing act. If you set no rules, ie free market, you open them up to abuse. If you set too many rules, they can become less eager to be the best they can be. BTW I dont call that lazy. There is a larger argument to make here, about the goals of capitalism (More and more efficiency, ever growing and ever improving) or about more soft lifestyles that would not be as efficient but might in the end bring more happiness. A topic for another time.

On the UDHR: I guess we want to achieve the same, we just disagree on the way to get there. I structurally dont believe free markets will get us there, as in every real case free markets have proven to be unreliable because people will abuse their powers and create too much inequality. There are so many examples (LIBOR, the entire financial derivatives markets, basically all unregulated markets) that I can ask this:
can you give me 1 example of a market that is run truly free that worked for a longer period of time?

@rbar sorry I didn't see your last post. I think this UDHR is pretty noble but unknowingly evil, because it states that people have all sorts of rights, but what happens to the costs and demands those rights impose? To enforce them would imply a huge amount of force that would deny people of even more basic rights the declaration supposedly claims to protect. Take for example, "Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work". Does that mean the price of labor should be controlled?? By whom? To see that policy enforced, would be an egregious assault on economic freedom.

My ideal is a society where most if not all of these problems that socialists and liberals are also concerned about, like people's material needs being met, living happy productive lives, etc. are handled in an environment where the right incentives and freedoms allows creative solutions and resources to be best allocated voluntarily, rather than by mandates that are noble and well intended, and seem to handle the problem in the short run, but cause a lot more trouble than they are worth because they destroy this very environment in which society thrives.

Your video of Noam Chomsky commenting on Ron Paul's answer in a republican debate, "what if some guy is on a coma and he's going to die" to which he supposedly replied, "it's a tribute to our liberty", is a gross misrepresentation, that was never the answer Ron Paul gave. I'll bet Noam Chomsky wouldn't like to be paraphrased into saying the opposite of what he meant, he just understood what he wanted based on his own preconceptions.

Watch the actual footage here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMHY21VA8WE
(And please don't confuse a few members of the audience yelling "Yes!" with the position of the Tea Party (not that I care what they think) or Ron Paul's)

Before you talk about capitalism and democracy balancing each other out, you must first question what really happens when people are given economic freedom. A contrived scenario is playing out in your mind.

It's like if someone told you that if people had freedom of expression, people would just start spewing lies on top of lies and society would bury every shred of truth and dignity until it became unrecognizable. All I'm saying is that freedom of expression is beautiful, it's far from perfect, a lot of people will say terrible things, but it's a much better environment than censorship, and that it's not naive to expect freedom of expression to improve society with time, making truth more and more available and affordable to everyone, not only making our society more civilized but effectively raising our standards of living.

Only I'm not arguing about freedom of expression, but economic freedom.

@renatojj

Whether or not everyone is entitled to a job or money is a question I never thought about. The universal declaration for human rights (UDHR) states it as follows:
"The UDHR included both economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights because it was based on the principle that the different rights could only successfully exist in combination" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights (parts classification and indivisibility)

Its really interesting to read the declarations 22 to 28 of the UDHR. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Article_22)

For instance:
Article 23
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

I havent thought this through, but all of the above seem to me to not be inline with free market policies as free market policies dictate against the above rules favoring the natural motion of the market to guide the market along. Natural motion meaning that if there are moments of superfluous workers (large unemployment like today), they dont have a job and dont get paid, which forces them to either start working for themselves or die out which in both cases balance the market again.

A question inline with this: I just dont understand what your ideal is. Is there some country that comes close to your ideal or can you describe what you want to achieve?

Just having less government IMHO isnt a goal, its a means. Is your goal to maximize individual freedom (Ayn Rand style)? Though she has some ideas I fully agree to (rationalism as the only mean to knowledge vs faith for instance) her objectivism has never had much success with academia and for good reason.

Someone much more eloquent then me explained it this way (though he was talking about libertarian-ism, a close relative):
http://videosift.com/video/Noam-Chomsky-on-Ron-Paul-Hes-a-nice-guy-but

One reason democracy and capitalism have done so well for so long is because they keep each other in balance. Democracy is the rights of the majority over the minority. Capitalism (of which free market policy is a part) is the right of the individual, ie the minority over the majority. Both in and off themselves are disastrous. The balance is just where its at. Free market policies push in the direction of capitalism and away from balance. IMHO not what we want.

Article 1.
* All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
* Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.
* Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.
* No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.
* No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.
* Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.
* All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.
* Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.
* No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
* Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.
* (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
* (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.
* No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.
* (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
* (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.
* (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
* (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.
* (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
* (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.
* (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
* (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
* (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.
* (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
* (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.
* Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
* Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.
* (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
* (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.
* (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
* (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
* (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.
* Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.
* (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
* (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
* (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
* (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.
* Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.
* (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
* (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.
* (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
* (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
* (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.
* (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
* (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.
* Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.
* (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
* (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
* (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.
* Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

- http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

>> ^blankfist:

What rights in a Libertarian society aren't protected? I'm a minarchist, not an anarchist, so I see government having a specific role, and that is to protect human rights and serve as unbiased arbiter for disputes.

From the UN Declaration of Human Rights, I'll pick this right at semi-random:

Article 23.

* (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
* (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
* (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
* (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Will your minarchy defend those rights?

As to your other comments, who controls the military in this minarchy, and how do you prevent them from establishing a global hegemony? How do you make the system unbiased?

For that matter, how do you maintain habeas corpus eternally, without fail?

@dystopianfuturetoday, I want him to answer your question too.

@blankfist, maybe rephrasing the question would help. DFT and I think that coercion by economic extortion is only slightly different from coercion done with threats of violence. We also think there's a huge difference between the implicit threat of "violence" leveled on those who would break the laws that are passed through a lawfully elected government in which they have representation, and the kind of system you describe, where the only legitimate use of force is to enforce the whims of unelected private citizens when it comes to their property.

In our eyes, the problem with monarchy was that you had an unelected sovereign who makes law by capricious dictate, who can use violence to back it up. The problem with the libertarian ideal of a state that only enforces property rights is that it's effectively the same as monarchy -- you make property owners an unelected sovereign who makes law by capricious dictate, and can use violence to back it up.

Now sure, you will say "but in a free market, no one has to do anything they don't choose to", but that's exactly the same logic as my "all taxes and laws are voluntary, because you can always choose to leave the country and rescind your citizenship" argument. There's no guarantee you'll be given your non-property-related rights that we in modern society generally believe to be universal.

Essentially, the question is "how would your system prevent the erosion of equal rights, when the right to property reigns supreme?"

READ AND LEARN THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS, THEY WON'T TEACH THESE TO YOU IN SCHOOL ANYMORE!!!!

Bill of Rights

US Constitution

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Federalist Papers

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Very cool.

Here's a link to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

I just want to add though, that I don't believe in any "natural" rights. The only rights we have are those we demand and defend. The current level of ignorance and apathy in the US is allowing those rights to be taken away from us. We will not retain our rights much longer if we don't demand them and defend what we have.

What is a "natural right"? If one is referring to Declarationism, then I don't see why medical care is considered such a stretch from the rights to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness".

Furthermore, if one is referring to unalienable human rights, which is the other popular understanding of "natural rights", then medical care is deeply integrated in the UN Universal Declaration Of Human Rights (Article 25), which is the foremost document we've ever produced on that front, too.

Indeed, I never gave this any thought - but does Ron Paul actually support UDHR?

frasera

I agree with you that Islam is a homophobic religion - in a number of places the Qur'an condemns male homosexuality (Qur'an 7:80-82, 26:165–175, 27:55–58, 29:28–29). Another verse (Qur'an 4:15–16) is often used to condemn lesbians. In many modern Islamic states homosexuals are persecuted and if often beaten, jailed or executed. I totally condemn the persecution of homosexuals as does any decent person.

The issue of apostacy is far more complicated. Islam teaches that 'there is no compulsion in religion' لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّين (Qur'an 2:256). Furthermore the Qur'an states that 'Had thy Lord willed, everyone on earth would have believed. Do you then force people to become believers?' وَلَوْ شَاء رَبُّكَ لآمَنَ مَن فِي الأَرْضِ كُلُّهُمْ جَمِيعاً أَفَأَنتَ تُكْرِه النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَكُونُواْ مُؤْمِنِينَ(Qur'an 10:99). These verses have been used as the basis of freedom of religion and freedom of worship laws in many Islamic states. The Medina Document - which is the constitution established by Muhammad for the first Islamic state in Medina - guarantees freedom of belief and worship to Christians, Jews and Polytheists. In modern times an example would be Article II of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. Nowhere in the Qur'an is death proscribed as the punishment for apostasy. The only basis for such a view is a hadith (saying of the Prophet Muhammad transmitted by his companions and family) which states 'kill whoever changes his religion'. There are many thousands of hadith and Islamic scholars have spent centuries arguing over their authenticity. The hadith in question is an ahad hadith - meaning that unlike many other hadith which are mutawatir (transmitted by many people) it was only transmitted by one person. Many Islamic scholars have therefore cast doubt on the authenticity of this hadith. They are supported in their conclusion by the fact that neither Muhammad or any of his successors ever sentenced someone to death for apostasy. Over the centuries many prominent Islamic scholars have held the view that apostasy should not be punished by man - the punishment, if any, is up to God and will come in the afterlife.

Islam is not incompatible with the UDHR nor is it a sexist religion. I have worked extensively with human rights and women's rights activists throughout the Islamic world. It may suprise you to know that many of the most vocal supporters of human and women's rights in the Islamic world are also devout Muslims. Take Tunisia as an example. The Tunisian legal system is based on Shari'ah law. Yet it is a system of Shari'ah law which provides equal rights for women - in inheritance, marriage, no polygamy, etc. These rights were guaranteed not by abandoning Shari'ah law but by embracing the flexibility inherent in it. Many Islamic countries have also signed the CEDAW convention (Convention for the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women). Initially they had reservations against some key articles (9,16) of that convention on religious grounds - but these reservations are starting to be lifted as a result of lobbying and pressure from Muslims.

I beseech you and others not to propogate simplistic, ill-informed views about Islam and the Islamic world. Seek to understand and communicate rather than to slander and condemn.

In reply to your comment:
“sorry that is apologist nonsense. a religion based on god should have no flaws, and well, islam is about defective as it gets. you don't get to pick the few good bits to justify the rest which is horrifying.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ (believe it or else...)
islam is incompatible with the universal declaration of human rights.
http://www.iheu.org/node/1541
it is a bigoted homophobic sexist intolerant religion that asks for tolerance from others. just look up apostasy if you want to see the "freedom" that is islam.
”

frasera

I agree with you that Islam is a homophobic religion - in a number of places the Qur'an condemns male homosexuality (Qur'an 7:80-82, 26:165–175, 27:55–58, 29:28–29). Another verse (Qur'an 4:15–16) is often used to condemn lesbians. In many modern Islamic states homosexuals are persecuted and if caught often beaten, jailed or executed. I totally condemn the persecution of homosexuals as does any decent person.

The issue of apostacy is far more complicated. Islam teaches that 'there is no compulsion in religion' لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّين (Qur'an 2:256). Furthermore the Qur'an states that 'Had thy Lord willed, everyone on earth would have believed. Do you then force people to become believers?' وَلَوْ شَاء رَبُّكَ لآمَنَ مَن فِي الأَرْضِ كُلُّهُمْ جَمِيعاً أَفَأَنتَ تُكْرِه النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَكُونُواْ مُؤْمِنِينَ(Qur'an 10:99). These verses have been used as the basis of freedom of religion and freedom of worship laws in many Islamic states. The Medina Document - which is the constitution established by Muhammad for the first Islamic state in Medina - guarantees freedom of belief and worship to Christians, Jews and Polytheists. In modern times an example would be Article II of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. Nowhere in the Qur'an is death proscribed as the punishment for apostasy. The only basis for such a view is a hadith (saying of the Prophet Muhammad transmitted by his companions and family) which states 'kill whoever changes his religion'. There are many thousands of hadith and Islamic scholars have spent centuries arguing over their authenticity. The hadith in question is an ahad hadith - meaning that unlike many other hadith which are mutawatir (transmitted by many people) it was only transmitted by one person. Many Islamic scholars have therefore cast doubt on the authenticity of this hadith. They are supported in their conclusion by the fact that neither Muhammad or any of his successors ever sentenced someone to death for apostasy. Over the centuries many prominent Islamic scholars have held the view that apostasy should not be punished by man - the punishment, if any, is up to God and will come in the afterlife.

Islam is not incompatible with the UDHR nor is it a sexist religion. I have worked extensively with human rights and women's rights activists throughout the Islamic world. It may suprise you to know that many of the most vocal supporters of human and women's rights in the Islamic world are also devout Muslims. Take Tunisia as an example. The Tunisian legal system is based on Shari'ah law. Yet it is a system of Shari'ah law which provides equal rights for women - in inheritance, marriage, no polygamy, etc. These rights were guaranteed not by abandoning Shari'ah law but by embracing the flexibility inherent in it. Many Islamic countries have also signed the CEDAW convention (Convention for the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women). Initially they had reservations against some key articles (9,16) of that convention on religious grounds - but these reservations are starting to be lifted as a result of lobbying and pressure from Muslims.

I beseech you and others not to propogate simplistic, ill-informed views about Islam and the Islamic world. Seek to understand and communicate rather than to slander and condemn.