Marko: How can the immigrants arrive if we established the racist natives won`t sell them property? They stay in motels?
How can the immigrants arrive if we established the racist natives won`t sell them property? They stay in motels?
How do the immigrants know this before they migrated there? Or, what if that racism grew because of the immigration? I'm sure that my town in Spain did not dislike Romanian Gypsies as much before Romanian Gypsies actually started to immigrate to our town to look for work.
Daniel: Okay. Question: What derivative right do the other owners have over other owner's property?
Okay. Question: What derivative right do the other owners have over other owner's property?
This is irrelevant. We are not talking about what is within one's right. It's accepted that they do not have the right to collude anybody into doing anything by the use of force.
But if this is the case, what will then prevent the state from violating our rights?
This is true, but we are talking about this specific case. So, again, not very relevant (well, it might be indirectly relevant, but it's not very helpful in terms of persuading my friend).
Snowflake: I think what will happen if you show them this refutation is they will claim that if the state vs state battle is worth fighting if the winning state is more liberal than the alternative.
I think what will happen if you show them this refutation is they will claim that if the state vs state battle is worth fighting if the winning state is more liberal than the alternative.
This actually brings up a valuable point. He seems to admit that competition is better than no competition (in this case, competition between States), and also seems to admit that despite this town being secluded, it is not secluded enough for the State to assume the role of arbitrator. Then, it should follow that if the State can do it, why couldn't a private company do it? I didn't see this hole last night.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: Michael J Green: This brings up the obvious question: why does one need a larger monopoly on force to deal with the town's monopoly on force? That is, your friend has admitted that there are towns outside of Racistville. If the minority don't want to leave, why wouldn't entrepreneurs from outside Racistville come to serve them security? I brought this up, but he kept on adding conditions. Apparently, now, towns are so spread apart that there is no outside security force interested in providing their services. Or, the minority being the minority, the majority can afford to pay off the security forces (I then suggested that perhaps it would be in the security company's interest to accept the smaller payment, because if they could be shown to be protecting property rights they would now command more trust amongst other clientel). He also, more or less, discounted the minorities' ability to defend themselves, which may make racial segregation too expensive for the majority racists to consider (why attack somebody you don't like if there is a large chance of you dying). I think that Liberty Student put it best when he said that perhaps it's just not worth arguing.
Michael J Green: This brings up the obvious question: why does one need a larger monopoly on force to deal with the town's monopoly on force? That is, your friend has admitted that there are towns outside of Racistville. If the minority don't want to leave, why wouldn't entrepreneurs from outside Racistville come to serve them security?
This brings up the obvious question: why does one need a larger monopoly on force to deal with the town's monopoly on force? That is, your friend has admitted that there are towns outside of Racistville. If the minority don't want to leave, why wouldn't entrepreneurs from outside Racistville come to serve them security?
I brought this up, but he kept on adding conditions. Apparently, now, towns are so spread apart that there is no outside security force interested in providing their services. Or, the minority being the minority, the majority can afford to pay off the security forces (I then suggested that perhaps it would be in the security company's interest to accept the smaller payment, because if they could be shown to be protecting property rights they would now command more trust amongst other clientel).
He also, more or less, discounted the minorities' ability to defend themselves, which may make racial segregation too expensive for the majority racists to consider (why attack somebody you don't like if there is a large chance of you dying).
I think that Liberty Student put it best when he said that perhaps it's just not worth arguing.
That's also idiotic. Just because they are the minority it doesn't follow that they are also they are also poorer. The king was always the minority, yet he exercised control over his citizens. Hell, the federal government is made up of less people than the general populace yet it exercises control half over the entire world. Also, is your friend suggesting that the state would have to be composed of more people than compse the small town's owners? After all, minorities cannot defend themselves.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:I brought this up, but he kept on adding conditions.
It sounds like it. He seems to be arguing that people are not rational, by imagining a world in which people are not rational. At some point, you have to stop and say, "I disagree that these conditions would ever exist in the real world."
Really, you might as well counter, "What if a state starts torturing and killing all of its citizens? And no one is strong enough to stop the state employees doing the torturing/killing, and the state employees believe absolutely that what they are doing is the right thing to do. Thus, anarchism is better."
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: Daniel: Okay. Question: What derivative right do the other owners have over other owner's property? This is irrelevant. We are not talking about what is within one's right. It's accepted that they do not have the right to collude anybody into doing anything by the use of force.
I know it is "accepted", but my question had to do as to why. And how is this not about rights? Are not we not talking about rights when the some owners in a small town are not being allowed to sell their land to a minority?
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: Daniel: But if this is the case, what will then prevent the state from violating our rights? This is true, but we are talking about this specific case.
Daniel: But if this is the case, what will then prevent the state from violating our rights?
This is true, but we are talking about this specific case.
Let me make this easier for you. Assume that your friend is correct and we need the state. Now, following from this, what will then prevent the state from doing what the "gang" did?
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: So, again, not very relevant (well, it might be indirectly relevant, but it's not very helpful in terms of persuading my friend).
So, again, not very relevant (well, it might be indirectly relevant, but it's not very helpful in terms of persuading my friend).
Actually, it seems that it's not persuading you.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: Snowflake: I think what will happen if you show them this refutation is they will claim that if the state vs state battle is worth fighting if the winning state is more liberal than the alternative. This actually brings up a valuable point. He seems to admit that competition is better than no competition (in this case, competition between States), and also seems to admit that despite this town being secluded, it is not secluded enough for the State to assume the role of arbitrator. Then, it should follow that if the State can do it, why couldn't a private company do it? I didn't see this hole last night.
It is a valuable point but it is also irrelevant.
Michael J Green: I think that Liberty Student put it best when he said that perhaps it's just not worth arguing. ... Really, you might as well counter, "What if a state starts torturing and killing all of its citizens? And no one is strong enough to stop the state employees doing the torturing/killing, and the state employees believe absolutely that what they are doing is the right thing to do. Thus, anarchism is better."
...
It's irrelevant. Or at least that is what Jonathan told me when I brought this up.
Jonathan, the owners that are preventing the other owners from selling land to the minority are a state. Thus, your friend's argument is that we need the state to eliminate the state. So if your friend's problem with anarchy is that a state can arise, how does it follow that therefore we need the state? Or is my question irrelevant? Lol.
Daniel: I know it is "accepted", but my question had to do as to why. And how is this not about rights? Are not we not talking about rights when the some owners in a small town are not being allowed to sell their land to a minority?
We aren't questioning anybody's rights to do anything. What is within someone's right is irrelevant, because the obvious statement that my friend made is that without a State anybody can violate another's rights. So, "what rights do others have to others' property" is irrelevant. We aren't discussing the right they have to other people's property.
Nothing, but for some reason he has decided that the people who run the State are more rational than the people who form the majority in the town.
I don't need to be persuaded. When I dismiss an argument here it's not because I necessarily disagree with it. It's just not a very strong argument that I can use when I speak to him, again.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: I don't need to be persuaded. When I dismiss an argument here it's not because I necessarily disagree with it. It's just not a very strong argument that I can use when I speak to him, again.
Fair enough. I suggest you make it sure you distinguish between you thoughts and the thoughts of your friend.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: How do the immigrants know this before they migrated there? Or, what if that racism grew because of the immigration? I'm sure that my town in Spain did not dislike Romanian Gypsies as much before Romanian Gypsies actually started to immigrate to our town to look for work.
Hey I`m just trying to understand how your example works. It seems to work by magic. The minority is apparently dirt poor, prevented from starting buisiness and pressumably barred from work jet given a willing seller they would be in a position to purchase property. They were not actually permitted to purchase property jet somehow they managed to stay in the area (must be good at tresspassing) and actually many more of them arrived since despite that. The place is increasingly more racist and more hostile to the immigrants jet the immigration wave shows no signs of letting off with massive numbers of immigrants moving in without actually first finding out anything about the area. What is next? The water boils at 50 degrees celsius and people can go for days without breathing? You can not just accept a scenario where humans act totally contrary to any sane, reasonable expectations. Immigrants do not move into places where they will not be permitted to own property. Such places are where all the emigrants come from.
My first post here. I am only a beginner in the theory, philosophy, and history of libertarianism and anarchy, and find the discussions very interesting and elucidating. Am I right to assume that the majority of responders in this thread are proponents of a (free) society without laws, hence without any law enforcement? If so, why even go with complex concepts and hypothetical situations about discrimination against minorities and racism? How can we even talk about rights (property or otherwise) without a legal structure that defines them (laws) and without an enforcement structure that assures them? What prevents the more powerful groups -- the ones more willing to "invest" in weapons and soldiers -- from simply taking property away from the weaker individuals or groups who were merely wrong to allocate most of their resources to productive ends instead? How much of society's resources would eventually end up being allocated to "security" as the weaker ones learn that they too better "invest" in protection instead of production? What is a likely equilibrium end state for the society resulting from such a race?
I emphasize my ignorance on these issues. The above questions are honest, and by no means sarcastic.
Z.
To: z1235 ---- A free society doesn't mean one without laws. Libertarians oppose violations of person, property, and fraud, etc.
In a minarchist society, laws would be handled by the government court system and government police system.
In a anarchist/anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist society, property owners would set the rules (make the laws) on their own property. Free-market (emergent) courts and security services would handle disputes and crimes.
Rothbard tackles these questions in For A New Liberty:
http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp#p215
Production of security: http://mises.org/story/2088
To OP: The scenario already reflects a government. There is a criminal gang threatened to use force on people if they do a certain peaceful act. Through their actions, they are claiming a monopoly on violence within a given geography. The problem isn't "anarchy" - it's the "archy" !
NewLiberty: In a minarchist society, laws would be handled by the government court system and government police system. In a anarchist/anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist society, property owners would set the rules (make the laws) on their own property. Free-market (emergent) courts and security services would handle disputes and crimes.
Thanks for the clarifications and links. So a minarchist would have no problem answering the hypothetical question as the legal system and the government's enforcement of it would simply interfere to stomp the bullying. I'll have to read up on the literature on this but the question seems much tougher for an anarchist to tackle. From what little I know of human nature, the equilibrium would not paint a pretty picture. And how do courts (emergent or otherwise) or security forces (or "services") handle disputes under infinite possible legal structures? Wouldn't it just be most optimal to just "invest" in the biggest guns, in case the other side stubbornly sticks to their own version of fairness?
z1235:My first post here. I am only a beginner in the theory, philosophy, and history of libertarianism and anarchy, and find the discussions very interesting and elucidating.
Welcome!
z1235:I emphasize my ignorance on these issues. The above questions are honest, and by no means sarcastic.
Good questions. I hope you'll indulge the responses, and follow up on them.
z1235:So a minarchist would have no problem answering the hypothetical question as the legal system and the government's enforcement of it would simply interfere to stomp the bullying. I'll have to read up on the literature on this but the question seems much tougher for an anarchist to tackle.
I think we'd all say it was easier for an anarchist to answer. You see, the problem with minarchist enforcement is that it is the enforcement of one (not necessarily true) point of view, and thus essentially tyrannical. The capacity for law is there in a free society, but it will be polycentric, private or voluntary law. And there is no reason to expect human nature to radically change in the movement to freedom. Plus of course, we have the powerfully mediating factor of property.
In a free society, private defence services would protect the minority, or they would protect themselves (after all, an armed minority can potentially seriously hold its own). In a minarchist (unfree, but still a lot better than now'days) government would enforce its views on everyone. If a majoritarian democracy, it's likely the government would enforce the views of the majority anyway.
Constitutions do nothing to stop political will.
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
Daniel: Jonathan M. F. Catalán: Snowflake: I think what will happen if you show them this refutation is they will claim that if the state vs state battle is worth fighting if the winning state is more liberal than the alternative. This actually brings up a valuable point. He seems to admit that competition is better than no competition (in this case, competition between States), and also seems to admit that despite this town being secluded, it is not secluded enough for the State to assume the role of arbitrator. Then, it should follow that if the State can do it, why couldn't a private company do it? I didn't see this hole last night. It is a valuable point but it is also irrelevant.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:,,,for some reason he has decided that the people who run the State are more rational than the people who form the majority in the town.
They probably are, and the rational thing is to do what the majority of voters want.
Why anarchy fails