0 votes

The Oxymoronic Sovereignty Movement

Propertarian-Sovereignty vs Consumer-Sovereignty

Rothbard vs Mises

When people say sovereignty by itself here on DP they are talkin about Rothbardian-Homesteading and the Common Law Movement.

Law -- is a right, backed by a force-agency

There are no voluntary "laws" -- voluntary means you may freely disregard and propertarian-homesteading laws are "supposedly" enforceable in a free-society by voluntary courts. OXYMORONIC.

Voluntary Courts means you get to chose the court -- If I deny every court you come up with there is NO mechanism in a "voluntary" free-society to make me appear. A mediator only has as much power as we voluntarily give it -- even then they don't have the power to remove assets in a "voluntary" society. You can appeal endlessly.

If we seek an individualist model that benefits the maximum number of people and does not prop-up "perpetual war" (workers vs owners: capitalism - corporatism - founders-minarchism - nobles vs peasants) then we are truly seeking Consumer-Sovereignty.

Everyone (workers, students, owners, seniors, and children) are all consumers.

This is an important debate -- Because in my opinion if we cannot fully conceptualize liberty we will never have it -- we will manifest a short-run Founders-Type Minarchism or an even shorter-lived Rothbardian-Anarchy.

Liberty is a One-Size-Fits-All model

Consumer-Individualism.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Great post

I have been wondering for years,The thing is,When the Constitution was written.99,9% of Society at that time had basic common sense and basic moral standards,They had to fabricate Witch hunts to find something bad in a person.I am at the feeling now,with today's society, true Freedom would never work,our moral standards are to the point of no return.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

I like your thread Octobox!

Its got me thinking. I had no idea there were differences between Rothbard and Mises. Thanks for pointing that out.

BMWJIM's picture

I was pissed when writing but,

each time I started to write I went back to your post. You have given much to think about even though I don't like you. You are a too divisive person. Maybe you made some headway tonight. Quit your divisive BS. Educate us without your usual crap.

Jim

1976-1982 USMC, Having my hands in the soil keeps me from soiling my hands on useless politicians.

LOL -- I spit my juice out

I can't defend against something I find hillarious.

I was pissed when writing but, each time I started to write I went back to your post. You have given much to think about even though I don't like you.

....."I don't like you"

I'm a font and a username friend; I'm popular with all 7 personality types, you'd like me better in person.

Octobox -- I'm Creole and we take "debate" as an art of war; think of me as an eight armed and eight sword swinging samurai.

Hey octobox

always good to read your post. I was just wondering if you could recommend any good books on anarcho-capitalism. I've been interested in learning more about it and you seemed to be the one to ask.

Patrik: I'm beating the swiss-chard out of An-Cap

---it is a failed philosophy.

I'm more of a Misesian (as is Ron Paul).

Rothbardian Anarcho-Capitalism is a pseudo-anarchist model; it's "oxymoronic" smile.

All that being said -- Mises and Rothbard did agree on about 70-80% of their core philosophies.

They disagreed on the most important aspect -- sovereignty.

Mises = Consumer-Sovereignty
Rothbard = Owners-Sovereignty

Read anything by Block and Woods (buy it from mises.org). Even though they are Rothbardians I appreciate their talking points and presentation style.

Remember I'm predominately in agreement with the Rothbardians -- But if we are going to manifest liberty we must come up with a universal model -- one that does not pit owners and workers at each others throat.

I prefer to read articles, free online books, and listen to the 100's of audio files they have at Mises Institute which is controlled by the Rothbardians.

Maybe...

Allodial title...

Is that too much to ask for?

:-)

Author of Buy Gold and Silver Safely
Next book: Illusions of Wealth - due out soon
Also writing book We the Serfs!

Well,it's too much to get

without some BIG connections and money

Nice! Well played Sir ;-)

No -- No Allodial Title either.

There are no "titles" no "rights" in a truly free-society; it is the anti-thesis of self-rule to set up "laws or rights" to govern self-defense.

That breaks the pure competition mechanism in free-market theory. There can't be gov't protection and self-protection and liberty in the same equation; and the latter is what Propertarian-Homesteading (et al) claims is possible.

The Progressives, Socialists, Communists, and Labor Unionins will never EVER submit to "owners-rights" with zero "workers-rights"

It's never worked once in all human history (peasants always rebel the nobles).

Hmm, is the NWO going to be

based on a consumer economy with their carbon currency? There was a thread today that said the elite and scientists didn't like politicians and their answer would be a world based on science that is why they want everyone to have a chip with all their information in it.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

They want to "rule" the gov't -- it's a replacement

of gov't with a more secret a private gov't (force-leaders).

You don't need politicians to run gov't -- the departments and agencies can be run by secret-societies.

Definitely not a consumer-society.

Very interesting and

thanks for posting. I have a lot to learn.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

SOVEREIGNTY...

what do I mean. Label away. Oh, sorry you already have. It's easy to define a pigeon hole if you've already constructed it, but my question is, "when did law become a "right""? Like words, they (laws) are fluid and defined by society. I see no right in that. Compunction and compulsion maybe, but there is no "right" to law, or for law (and maybe that is your argument). However, the history of humanity is precedent to the social nature of mankind and a fundamental interest in interaction. Instinct isn't a right either, but it is a progenitor of human society. So does no law equate to no rights, of course not. Does law equate to rights, of course not either. So, if the existence or absence of "law" is non-effectual on rights, why fear, or revere "law"?

Assert Your Authority

.

elroccoco: Good Questions

My mind works by connecting far reaching dots (I'm an entrepreneur) to keep this short I must speak disjointedly -- if I lose you just ask.

By definition "rights" are backed by laws -- since we've never had a free-market every "right" we have or can conceive were made manifest in capitalism, corporatism, or the Founder's-Minarchism.

All granted "rights" based on some level of collectivism (or group might).

Yes I know the Full-Tang of positive vs negative rights -- my point is we speak of these things while living in a law-based society; they are pointless topics when you are "free"

Rothbardian-Propertarianism suggests there are "rights" to protect you in a voluntary society -- I'm saying they are not; it's one coffin nail in their theory; "owners-rights" argument is the basis of their philosophy.

There is no such thing as a "right" in a free-society, because there is no force-agency to back them and it is pointless to mention them or even define them.

Rights are used as a way to regain property, to justify an action, or to seek protection -- You justify to authorities, your property is restored by authority, and only an authority can grant protection.

In a free-society there is zero protectionism -- You must protect yourself. There is no force-agency in a free-society (by definition) because it is a voluntary society.

There must be Zero Abdication of Self-Rule to have a Free-Society.

Also, in a free-market there are zero protections (by definition) which allows for pure competition.

If there is "gov't" and it provides property-protection then you have barriers to entry (gov't competing with private initiative) in the self-defense market.

You might say -- Well it's still voluntary and we'd have "private defense"

Right now you have no defense, only the illusion that cops, military, or rescue would get their in time to "prevent" your harm, theft, or injury. But they 99.9999% of the time come after the fact.

The "reality" of this is very apparent in a free-society when there are no such agencies -- nor are their laws (rights) regarding firearms.

We would handle 99.999% of our self-defense (naturally).

Gov't Defense and Mafia (gang) Defense ("insurance") are both based on pre-payment of use/service. Which means they need to keep convincing you of your need of them.

It is a protection schema an insurance scam -- We'd be aware of this in a free-society.

There would however be Home Tech Protection -- We'd buy their products.

I'll get back to you later...

sir. When I won't get fired for being here on "company time".

So I guess this is a bump in essence.

Assert Your Authority

Octo-I'll try to 'get it'

I know you are passionate and persistant about this. I'm very scattered, I apologize, I promise to try and see what you are saying.

"I think we are living in a world of lies: lies that don't even know they are lies, because they are the children and grandchildren of lies." ~ Chris Floyd

Good Stuff

I always enjoy your posts. The goal is total freedom, the only way there is through education. I don't think we will ever see it but the closer to anarchy the better. I think we need to start at secession, one state at a time. Keepin' it local makes better sense as we will be able to watch these thieves closer.

You are mathematically correct -- but Secession is a pipe-dream

Only if the State Seceded into a Consumer-Minarchism with strong Counter-Economic principals and an entirely new State Constitution -- with a declared and enumerated goal of reaching consumer-indvidiualism.

C-M is 7% total tax (my model) or 12% total tax (RP's model -- "roughly broken down with all RP's cuts he proposes).

C-I is 0% taxation -- We must "mature" to get into this model.

C-E is the vehicle that brings us to C-M; then after maturity into C-I.

I don't see a one-state at a time movement getting started.

However if individuals think of themselves as consumer-sovereign -- then we will have the Counter-Economic break down of the country, state, county, and city. At which point in time we can declare our limited gov't demands.

All of this is predicated on a sound transitionary education and understanding of liberty.