Comments on: The Social Non-Contract: Governments Have No Right

By: Stephen

Stephen — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:32:07 +0000

I presented a reasoned, thought out response to your author and if you choose to characterize that differing point of view as “whining,’ I think you’re the poorer for it. Your “investment outlook” seems to me to be based on some good information about supply, demand, and past history. Your political philosophy makes predictions about how government actions have, can, and may affect that supply and demand dynamic and those insights are useful as well. As for your proscriptive ideology about how government ought to function or not function, it is worth thinking about and debating. But since what I have to invest is government issued currency and not trade goods for barter, telling me “no government has the right to exist” is a thought provoking idea but hardly one I can use in deciding whether or not to purchase one of the newsletters your site recommends.

By: Gary Gibson

Gary Gibson — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 23:41:31 +0000

I can’t stand when people come here to whine about our politics. Our political philosophy informs our investment outlook and we are pretty clear about warning folks about what that philosophy is and that it’s going to pop up quite often. There’s a reason we call this “Whiskey & Gunpowder” instead of “Gold & Commodities.”

By: Stephen

Stephen — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:16:26 +0000

I, for one, Gary, pay attention to this site because I do invest in metals and energies and think the perspectives and forecasts here are solid and worth considering. I don’t have to agree that government has to be abolished in order to profit from those ideas. That doesn’t I mean I reject out of hand the political theories presented here. I read them, think about them, and draw my own conclusions. If you only intend this site for people who agree with you about everything, you can take my name off your mailing list. But if you value an exchange of ideas, you ought to appreciate that you’ve drawn a diverse audience.

By: Gary Gibson

Gary Gibson — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:58:07 +0000

I love Mises.

You complainers really need to make sure you’re reading the right newsletter. Hey, Larry Kramer is still giving free advice! You ought to check with him.

There are plenty of places you can go lap up your statist, mainstream pap. This isn’t one of them.

By: The Social Non-Contract: Governments Have No Right | No Brainer Profits

The Social Non-Contract: Governments Have No Right | No Brainer Profits — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 02:03:16 +0000

[...] Original post: The Social Non-Contract: Governments Have No Right [...]

By: 4caster

4caster — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:33:58 +0000

I agree utterly with Stephen’s comments. M. Tremblay’s article could have been plucked straight from mises.org (The Ludwig von Mises Institute), a bunch of ultra-right-wing pseudo-anarchists, who believe that the state should do nothing but preserve law and order, if that.
I am a liberal, that is to say I strive for the freedom of the individual to do anything that does not infringe the legitimate freedom of any other individual. Most people would agree in principle, but many balk at its implementation, for example the freedom of any individual to cross international boundaries to perform honest activities such as earning a living.
No government is legitimate without the consent of its subjects. That is why in democracies we elect our governments. But the consent of a majority alone does not legitimise a government. In a mature democracy the majority also accepts that minorities have rights too. Those rights include the freedom to reject fiat currency in favour of gold, for example. However they do not include opting out of the state apparatus, nor opting out of taxes which pay for the rule of law and hence the preservation of their freedom.
Finally, there is no square inch on earth that is not subject to laws imposed by one state or several – not even the oceans nor Antarctica. Crimes known to have been committed anywhere can be tried somewhere.
Statism is here to stay, so we must live with it and even be thankful for it. It is better than the theoretical alternative, anarchy.

By: Shannondale

Shannondale — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:41:48 +0000

If this had been written by a precocious sophomore in a lower-level political science course, it would almost certainly deserve an A (maybe even an A+ for mentioning Anselme Bellegarrigue). I had the impression, however, that W&G was concerned with realities and prospects in the real world. If so, this sort of thing wastes our time. Raise your standards!

By: Stephen

Stephen — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:08:27 +0000

Couldn’t agree more with the article’s conclusions but finding the author’s path there strewn with misconceptions. A right doesn’t give an individual permission to use violence. A right is a contractual limit on the government’s use of violence. Since, as the article points out, government has most of the weaponry, the trick is, as James Madison says in the quote the author displays but never addresses, to constitutionally institutionalize the constraints government must place upon itself. And that is why author’s conclusion is so important. Moral principles do have to be the basis upon which government is constructed and maintained. To that end we have made a cultural decision that representative democracy is the best form of government. Government is us. If the author feels that government is not him, then the democratic model has failed. To believe that no government could ever be him is to believe that democracy is impossible. Impossibility is a tough condition to prove, but there is no question democracy is problematic. That was Madison’s point and we certainly ought to continuously be discussing it. Madison is telling us why anarchy is not a goal we can achieve and hoping he is coming up with the best alternative. The author’s goal, stated in his final sentence, is also admirable, but nothing in his argument opens the door for ways to achieve it.

By: Ken

Ken — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:21:43 +0000

On the whole, Monsieur Tremblay does a fine job outlining the limits on the legitimacy of government (which may well be no legitimacy at all). It might be beneficial, though, to draw more explicitly the distinction between freedom as Monsieur Tremblay defines it and the ethical nihilism he invokes. No more than an additional sentence or two would be needed, but his treatment of it here — “the flip side of statism” — might be mistaken for mere handwaving by some.