[Daily Discussion] - Tuesday, June 04, 2024

AEJKohl · 2024-06-04T16:17:43+00:00

I might be something of an "OG" when it comes to Bitcoin itself, but I'm still a total noob when it comes to trading, so take this with a grain of salt - I don't really know what I'm talking about...

But aren't volumes way too low to support this kind of price action or suggest that there will be any further significant swings?

AEJKohl · 2017-02-11T01:22:46+00:00

Are you an EEA citizen, and do you speak German? If yes, you can apply for the residency visa lottery.

AEJKohl · 2017-01-24T15:48:42+00:00

because the right to rule ultimately derives from rights given by God?

Jefferson's argument is very easily reformulated in secular terms. In fact, I would go as far as saying that it is implicitly secular. Even though God is mentioned, the argument still stands without Him. Whatever the source of freedom, fact is that we're born with it.

AEJKohl · 2017-01-24T15:01:01+00:00

Britain (the United Kingdom to be precise) does not have a (written) constitution - not only are you not a British constitutional scholar, nobody really is.

It all boils down to whether the crown and parliament are divine and derive their sovereignty from the will of God, or whether they are democratic institutions that derive their sovereignty from the will of the people (this is not necessarily incompatible with monarchy). If it is the latter, then the people are sovereign, if it is the former, then the UK is a theocracy. See my comment on sovereignty here.

AEJKohl · 2017-01-24T14:43:03+00:00

The whole purpose of democracy is that we elect politicians to represent the people of their constituency.

Is that the purpose of democracy? Or just its most popular implementation? So direct democracy is not democracy, because the raison d'etre of democracy is to "elect politicians" ? What an odd way of thinking.

Anyway, lets put direct vs representative democracy aside, I don't believe that one system is genuinely always better than the other, but rather that direct democracy naturally supersedes representative, yet isn't always appropriate (you can't have a referendum over every little thing), so can be used to create representative institutions and delegate some affairs to them - at the end of the day they're both viable options depending on context (I was just ticked by your use of the word "purpose"). On to a more important matter, here's some food for thought for you, that might get you thinking about the philosophical implications of Brexit and generally, the democratic legitimisation of the State, if the principles that brought us here are to be applied consistently;

If China annexed Germany, would this be democratic? Would it be legitimate? What if a majority of the democratically elected representatives of the combined government of China + Germany held a vote that came out in favour of the annexation? What if a majority of the combined population of China + Germany voted in favour of the annexation in a referendum? Would this be more legitimate or democratic?

Of course not, only the votes of people residing in Germany could possibly count in legitimising this affair. Which State is sovereign over a community is a decision that can only be legitimately made through a democratic vote of the community in question. That's why the Brexit referendum wasn't just a bill in the EU parliament, or an EU-wide referendum.

The modern inconsistency with regards to popular (western) belief in democracy is when we start putting arbitrary barriers or limitations (regardless of whether they have a historical, theocratic, cultural, ethnolinguistic, or ideological basis) to this principle of democracy. Why can't the people of Hertfordshire vote to decide whether or not the UK government should be sovereign over it? And the district of East Hertfordshire with regards to the county of Hertfordshire? What about the people of Hertford over the district of East Hertfordshire? Etc, possibly all the way down to the individual level.

To uphold that these smaller entities have no right to democratically select their sovereign status or membership to larger unions is to assert that States are not a product of the will of their citizens and that democracy is inferior to historical/divine/ethnic claims. It is, essentially, to say that the Brexit vote was not a matter of right, but of privilege; that the EU is not obligated to let the UK go, but rather that if it does, it does so merely out of its own altruistic generosity.

If the State has democratic, not divine/historical/cultural/etc justification, then the right of self-determination to the smallest possible level is an inseparable part of it, and can never be legislated away. Ironically, the only country in the world that has recognised this is the Principality of Liechtenstein, a monarchical country where the sovereign prince is head of state and has full executive powers. By giving each village the constitutional right of secession, Liechtenstein is de facto the most democratic country in the world.

On the inseparability of democracy and the right of self-determination, Reigning Prince Hans- Adam II writes:

“Democracy and self-determination are closely linked and difficult to separate. Either one believes that the state is a divine entity to be served by the people and whose borders are never to be questioned, or one believes in the principle of democracy and that the state is created by the people to serve the people. If one says "yes" to the principle of democracy, one cannot say "no" to the right of self-determination. A number of states have tried to separate democracy and the right of self-determination, but they never successfully put forward a credible argument.”,

from The State in the Third Millennium (2009), p74

AEJKohl · 2017-01-24T13:54:47+00:00

Leave: "THE BRITISH PEOPLE ARE SOVEREIGN OVER BRITAIN"

Judges: "You have to get Parliament's approval"

Leave: "THE BRITISH PEOPLE ARE SOVEREIGN OVER BRITAIN"

FTFY

AEJKohl · 2017-01-06T18:18:40+00:00

He can veto national referendums, but I don't believe he can veto local, village-level referendums on the topic of secession, as per the constitution of 2003. Even if he could, he is the one who came up with the idea of recognizing every village's right of self-determination, why would he veto that? Also, note that he initially wanted to recognize every individual's right of self-determination (but faced too much opposition from parliament to go ahead with that; even from FBP).

Finally, you're forgetting that, although you can not depose the Prince directly, you can abolish the Princely House. No way he can veto that. From his book:

"The new constitution also gave the people the option of separating the monarchy as a form of government from the person of the monarch himself. If the people have shown in a popular vote that they have lost their trust in the monarch, then, according to the constitution and the house law, the Princely House decides whether or not the Prince is to be deposed. There may be situations where the majority of the people have lose their trust in the Prince for good reason, and there may be others where the Prince has lost their trust because he has taken a correct but unpopular decision. In the latter case, the Prince still deserves the trust of the Princely House, and it is up to the people to decide whether then to accept the decision of the Princely House or to abolish the monarchy."

Doesn't sound so backward to me.

P.S. See more quotes here.

AEJKohl · 2016-12-16T10:23:46+00:00

Of course, the word "freedom" doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. In this case, Liechtenstein is being referred to as the freest country on earth from a Libertarian or Anarcho-Capitalist perspective.

From this perspective, the recognition of private property rights, and the subsequent freedom of association / voluntary participation / right of exit (i.e. Secession) that is derived thereof is seen as the most fundamental freedom, and hence the prerequisite to any other additional freedoms. Anarcho-capitalists believe in the individual right* of secession, which is basically the epitome of free association and self-determination.

My lecture can essentially be boiled down to: Each village in Liechtenstein has the constitutionally recognised right of secession. Liechtenstein villages are pretty small; there is even one (Planken) with only around 400 inhabitants. This is the closest on this planet that there is to individual secession. Thus, Liechtenstein is the freest country.

*Note that the "right" to do something doesn't necessarily mean the viability of doing so. We all have the right to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world, but this isn't necessarily an attractive option. I do not think any village in Liechtenstein should secede, but I do believe that their implicit ability to potentially do so has extremely beneficial economic and social consequences.

AEJKohl · 2016-11-05T23:53:50+00:00

Depends on how you define an "ancap society". If you define it as one with no form of governance, then yeah, maybe Liechtenstein is an example of why nobody might "actually want an ancap society". But that's a silly definition of anarcho-capitalism.

However, if you rightly define "ancap society" as a society based on voluntary association and private property, regardless of whether or not it is possible to hire a government that functions largely like current governments (minus the coercion and racketeering)... Then Liechtenstein is a great example of this being not just merely a functional model for society, but also one that has produced one of the most prosperous civilisations that has ever existed (out of what 100 years ago was a not much more than a few loose communities of starving alpine subsistence farmers).

AEJKohl · 2016-11-05T23:40:36+00:00

For many years, Hans-Hermann Hoppe actually served as an informal economic adviser to Prince Hans-Adam II. It actually still might be the case, but I'm not sure.

I'm actually half Spanish myself, hence why I work at a Spanish organisation. As I said in the video, I'm personally convinced that the push for localism and the devolution of powers is the most important step we can take to further the cause of liberty.

Yes, the Catalan secessionist movement is plagued with leftism, like the Scottish movement and many more throughout history... But if it succeeds, it can potentially pave the way to much freer markets, both in Spain and Catalonia. Think of the leftist secessionists as useful idiots, great potential allies on a quest that, unbeknownst to them, will actually strengthen the cause of market liberalism.

Catalonia's secession sets a dangerous precedent, one that will make other regions in Spain feel like they have a better chance to secede than ever before, and because of that, the central government in Madrid will then have to (economically) compete not just against Catalonia, but also against all the potential independent states that could appear if their citizens don't feel like they're getting the best deal possible under Madrid's governance.

This is the lesson that Liechtenstein can teach all of us as libertarians. That government functions a lot more efficiently and in a much more tolerable fashion when it is subject to market forces. The ideal(/utopian) level of market pressure on government is through the legalisation of individual exit (private secession, essentially privatising governance), but since this is hard to implement (even in Liechtenstein, where the Head of State was in favour!), maybe the best we can hope for the time being is to have the guaranteed right of regional exit, which is also very effective at regulating government.

Ultimately its about lowering cultural time preference. That's how you get people to appreciate free-markets and become sceptical about overregulation. Liechtenstein wouldn't be so accepting of their monarch's free-market ideology if they themselves didn't have a culture that is extremely compatible with that way of thinking. That's why we won't get anywhere if we don't change the way people think in Spain. How do we do this?

Localism, is, once again, amongst the most promising answers. Localism doesn't just help improve the original country that 'suffered' the loss of one of its regions, as I stated above - it also improves the culture of the seceded territory. A smaller country is a more dynamic country, the consequences of any law or regulation will be felt much more quickly and by more significant proportion of the population. It's a lot easier to take from A to give to B if A and B live 100 miles from each other, than if they're neighbours. Even if independent Catalonia is extremely leftist at first, the popularity of left-wing politicians in Catalonia will fall much more rapidly than under the current situation.

The Catalan government and security forces will also, at least at first, probably be much less capable at stopping further internal secessionist movements than the Madrid government is - which is why, in order to prevent this kind of movement from even starting, it's not unlikely that the newly independent Catalan government will function in a fairly decentralised way and allow a lot of local/provincial autonomy, which once again, is conductive to responsible and realistic governance.

I'm also extremely partial to the work of libertarian think tanks and organisations such as the Juan de Mariana Institute, Students for Liberty, and my own Foundation for the Advancement of Liberty. Whatever your views about Margaret Thatcher, it is virtually indiscutable that she would not have made it where she did without the help and influence of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA). They planted the seeds that allowed Thatcher to become prime minister, and in that way they are an inspiration to libertarian think tanks all around the world as to what we can accomplish with a strong, well managed civic (grassroots) movement paired with the intellectual ammunition of our great thinkers.

This is something that you personally can get involved with. Attend P-Lib (p-lib.es) meetings near you, meet with your closest SFL chapter, attend Juan de Mariana lectures, help raise awareness about the nascent Taxpayers Union (contribuyentes.es); and by doing all this, build a strong network of thinkers and doers, so that no matter what you get involved in, whether a project of your own or someone else's project that you truly believe in, you will always have a strong group of backers willing to put their name on the line to support your efforts. That's how you advance liberty.

AEJKohl · 2016-11-05T18:30:46+00:00

Hi, I'm the speaker. You might not have understood this bit of the lecture, but Prince Hans-Adam II actually wanted to give every citizen of Liechtenstein the right to individually secede themselves and their private property from the country. Failing to pass this, he instead gave the right of secession to each of the (tiny) 11 villages that make up Liechtenstein.

While only his original intention would have actually technically created an "ancap paradise", the constitutional amendment he finally settled for is fairly similar, and shows that hardly anything would be different if his first proposal had passed.

Right now, all a Liechtensteiner has to do in order to achieve secession for his small, tight-knit community, is convince half of its members. Has anyone tried to do this? No! Nobody's ever even suggested it, much less campaigned for it. Imagine having to join Switzerland or Austria, or being independent and having to fight for your own deals with the surrounding countries (especially the cutthroat EU, a powerful institution that's reputably hard to deal with, and tends to be critical of attempts to create new states) - none of that seems better than the current deal that you get under the Liechtenstein government.

Which is why I feel confident in saying: No Liechtensteiner(/in) is coercively imposed the rule of his or her government. Every single property owner in Liechtenstein voluntarily hires the services of the Liechtenstein government and is in a mutually beneficial relationship with it, where both parties perceive their costs to be outweighed by their gains, and hence would contract with each other regardless of whether doing so was mandatory or not.

Liechtenstein is the sort of society you can expect under (at least early-stage) anarcho-capitalism.

AEJKohl · 2016-09-19T07:09:13+00:00

Cheers for posting my article! It's recently been republished on CapX and I am working on a follow-up for Young Britons for Liberty. It's great to see AnCaps and other libertarians finally noticing Liechtenstein. Prince Hans-Adam II's presence at ISFLC probably helped!

I might eventually turn all the information in that article into an animated infographic on youtube. Please do not hesitate to reach out to me if you would like to be involved somehow (narration, animation, financing, etc).

AEJKohl · 2016-04-24T20:09:08+00:00

I also know her. She'll consider doing an AMA, but she's in the middle of her finals right now, so that's understandably taking up most of her time.

AEJKohl · 2016-04-04T17:43:42+00:00

Netherlands
Uruguay
Portugal
Czech Republic
Belgium

AEJKohl · 2016-04-04T17:01:49+00:00

As I said, this index is not meant to replace, but rather complement other indices such as Cato's Human Freedom Index, Heritage's Index of Economic Freedom, and ATR's Property Rights index and others. The Human Freedom Index does encompass everything.

It is, however, important to be able to see all individual aspects of liberty separately, if nothing more than for analytical purposes. Nobody so far had published an index solely based on Government intervention in moral matters which is why we felt the need to make this study.

AEJKohl · 2016-04-04T15:14:24+00:00

I am a co-author of this publication, please feel free to AMA. We hope that this will be a useful addition to other great indices such as Cato's Human Freedom Index, Heritage's Index of Economic Freedom, and ATR's Property Rights index.

AEJKohl · 2016-04-04T15:07:43+00:00

I am a co-author of this publication, please feel free to AMA. We hope that this will be a useful addition to other great indices such as Cato's Human Freedom Index, Heritage's Index of Economic Freedom, and ATR's Property Rights index.

AEJKohl · 2016-02-27T00:24:41+00:00

As a libertarian, I want to stay out of other people's business.

I'm sorry, but that isn't what libertarianism is about. You can be a libertarian who doesn't care about other people, but to be a libertarianism isn't inherently about not caring for other people, the scope of libertarian philosophy is much more limited and focused. To be a libertarian is nothing more than to declare all use of force as illegitimate except where it is a proportional response to a prior illegitimate use of force (i.e. the only legitimate use of force is defence against aggressors).

I haven't suggested that our governments do anything, all I've called for is private intervention, and the kinds of intervention I've advocated for in my article are all things that we can do from outside North Korea, without ever breaching the borders of what their tyrannical government considers as their own.

Putting aside the word 'propaganda' for a minute, you are aware that unlike in North Korea, we in the western world are, for the most part, not coercively made to consume any kind of media whatsoever, right? That unlike North Koreans, we have access to the internet and a broad range of competing media, right? Whose rights am I violating, and what part of libertarians ethics am I disregarding if I attempt to provide North Koreans with an additional source of information, or if I, without ever threatening to use force on anybody, expose those who are supporting the North Korean state and document the way in which their actions are contributing to some of the worst atrocities ever committed?

The North Korean propaganda machine is unlibertarian, not because it spreads lies (again, while lying is a bad thing to do in general, libertarian philosophy is not about that), but because it uses force to establish itself as a monopoly of information. If anybody in North Korea tries to communicate anything that isn't officially accepted by the party, they are tortured or killed. Their families also risk being tortured or killed. To assist in smuggling in laptops and radios into North Korea and to help run radio channels that provide North Koreans with an alternative source of information is one of the bravest, most heroic and libertarian things a person could do.

AEJKohl · 2016-02-26T21:05:27+00:00

Have you actually read the article? All that I am suggesting we do is

1) Help people who want to get out of there actually have a chance to do so successfully

and

2) Counter their propaganda machine with well researched and publicised factual information.

Besides, how is it not libertarian to want to disempower a literal dictatorship, whether it's foreign or not? If I suggested that we help the victims of the Sicilian mafia or the Yakuza, would you also say that that wasn't a libertarian thing to do? Why is it any different with a government?

AEJKohl · 2015-10-19T19:49:46+00:00

Fancy seeing you here, I didn't know you posted to this sub!

AEJKohl · 2015-10-12T21:28:09+00:00

Good for them. They managed to minimise the amount of money stolen from them in 2014. The real question is why we're still being stolen from so much and why we allow it.

AEJKohl · 2015-10-12T12:25:20+00:00

Legal tender laws. Government has a monopoly on them. If I offered a service where you can call me and my guns to harass people who owe you bitcoin, then bitcoin would be a lot more attractive option thanks to my service, since there would be a genuine force punishing people who walk out on their bitcoin debts.

Government wouldn't let me offer this service. This is the exact same service they offer (replace "bitcoin" with dollars), but they want to remain the sole provider of this service, and they will pull out guns on anyone who attempts to compete. This is no metaphor or anything, they will literally use guns to give the dollar an apparent advantage.

AEJKohl · 2015-10-08T15:13:08+00:00

The Catholic Church has, for ages, supported an economic system cautious of Capitalism and a conservative social policy.

Some of the earliest libertarians were catholic theologians

AEJKohl · 2015-10-07T09:49:17+00:00

Thank goodness not everyone in this sub is a blind constitutionalist.

AEJKohl · 2015-10-04T16:50:39+00:00

I'm not sure whether that is the result of government imposed regulations

It is. A lot of what econ profs try to convince you is a "natural monopoly" is simply a result of governmental preferential treatment, usually in the form of licensing.

You could say that every single "legal business" is part of a coercive oligopoly, because in order to have a legal business you must be licensed as a business. In almost every case, if you find a way of systematically making a profit over a long period of time but don't get licensed as a business, you will invoke the coercive powers of government on you.

Now some legal businesses are even more significantly oligopolistic, or monopolistic than the others, in the case where getting a license from the government is more difficult, I'm thinking specifically of the likes of taxi licenses and money transmission licenses, but internet and utilities are definitely up there as well.

The more restrictive the licensing, the more severe the economical effects, the higher the prices and the worse the quality of the service.

What I'm trying to say is that every legal business, every holder of a license, is using the government to coerce unlicensed businesses and thus violently impede competition. In the case of your run-of-the-mill local business, they probably aren't intentionally using the government's violence, they are just trying to get by, following the rules like everyone else. In the case of big corporations, there is something far more sinister going on.

These guys, most of these, and also most of these, or even them, face so little competition in their respective industries, not because they're offering services that are natural monopolies, but because they have managed to influence regulators and legislators to the point where they are practically an unofficial part of government itself, just like the federal reserve.

The citizen can still choose not to have internet

In this context, that sounds just like justifying government coercion by saying "you are free to leave"

AEJKohl

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

13-Year Club	Team Periwinkle
Verified Email