First off, hello! I'm new around here, and hope I will enjoy having discussions with you. I'll admit, I'm a minarchist as opposed to an anarchist, but I'm also a mature, thoughtful person so I hope we can avoid flamewars. ;)
As my introductory post, I thought I'd post a challenge to anarcho-capitalism that I have been thinking on recently. It seems many of the thought experiments make a few simplifying assumptions, and one that is of particular interest here is that many don't seem to consider the guardianship of those incapable of doing it themselves - children, for example.
Now, the idea of a Private Defense Agency gives credence to the idea that it is perfectly acceptable under the non-aggression principle to initiate force against someone else who has initiated force. IE, if Person A is trying to harm Person B, Person C is justified in using force to stop Person A. Person B may have paid Person C to do so, but the money is an incentive, not a transfer of the right of defense. If there is no contract between B and C, but C simply happens to want to help B, C is not in the wrong.
Now, let's throw in a powder keg - the abortion issue. A pro-life person sees an abortion as the murder of a baby, a pro-choice person does not. Now, the drama unfolds. For ease of typing, I'll abbreviate to PL and PC.
Let us look at this first from a PL position. A PL man (Person A) sees a woman (Person B) trying to murder her baby (Person C). Moral outrage ensues, and he takes measures to prevent her from doing so. In his view, A is not violating the non-aggression principle - Person B initiated force and he is simply acting on behalf of C because C cannot defend itself.
Now, from the PC position. B is pregnant with a fetus, and she doesn't want to be. So, it being her body, she goes to a family planning clinic to get the little parasite out. Suddenly, A comes along and tries to prevent her from doing so. Since A initiated force, she feels perfectly justified in defending herself.
Now, under a state, they could both appeal their position, trying to influence decision makers to write legislation in their favor. But under anarchy, there is no such release. Instead, there is only A trying to save C from the infanticidal B, and B trying to defend herself from the unreasonably tyrannous A. Unless one of them capitulates to the other's point of view, this can only end in violence. If they both call on friends, gang warfare could even result.
So, how can you resolve this without either violence, or legislation? It does no good to presuppose one side is right - whether true or not, each side perceives themselves as right, and are acting without violation of the non-aggression principle. Further, neither side has reason to agree to arbitration; A is fighting for C's life and B is fighting for her freedom - why should either risk loss?
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. -- River Tam
I aim to misbehave. -- Malcolm Reynolds
Simply put, the PL guy is in the wrong, and violence would be justified in stopping him. For further reading on the subject, please consult this chapter in the ethics of liberty. Also, any state which sided with the PL guy would also be wrong, and consequently, there would be even more injustice and initiation of force against more people. It's better that injustice be individualized instead of institutionalized.
Aster_Lacnala:So, how can you resolve this without either violence, or legislation?
Legislation is just a subset of violence.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Welcome.
Yours is one more example of the difficulty in implementing NAP as a viable concept. I tried making a similar argument in this thread:
"When a vicious feedback cycle like this develops, the damage done by repeated waves of "justified" aggression in response to equally "justified" aggression outshadows whatever minor factors contributed to the initiation of the whirlwind. With every new wave, the damage, thus the stakes, get higher making stronger aggression in response even more justified than the wave before. This makes NAP's implementation in reality extremely difficult (if not impossible), even in groups of sentient agents perfectly aware of the benefits of peace vs war. This "sensitivity to initial conditions" (from Complexity Theory) is what makes absolute freedom (liberty) under NAP utopian."
Z.
There is no such thing as justified aggression in response to justified aggression. That in and of itself is a contradiction. And the NAP can be seen in game theory in the prisoners dilemma, which mathematically shows the NAP as the best solution. This very reason is why we have it baked into our genetics in our sense of justice.
An interesting link, Sam, but to me Rothbard seems to be begging the question. He asserts that the fetus has no right to the mother's body, therefore the mother is justified in the abortion. But a PL position would say it isn't that clear, that while a born human would not have the right to parasitically feed off another, the inability of the fetus to exist in any other way muddies the situation. Rothbard claims that a preborn baby has no right of self ownership; a PL Libertarian would disagree.
In short, Rothbard assumes the PC position in Libertarian philosophy, and then shows the natural outcome is, amazingly, PC. If we don't assume that is the case, however, then we can't simply say that PL man is wrong, violence possibly shouldn't be used against him, and and law (whether through government or arbitration companies) that supported him would not be wrong. A PL person would say that everyone has the right to not have their life be taken from them, and this supercedes a person's right to use their own body. I have the freedom to swing an axe - I don't have the freedom to swing it into someone else's head.
Knight, you may call it silly, but that is essentially the question between minarchy and anarchy. Can the market spontaneously order everything, or are there some things it cannot? If there are some things a market cannot order, can those things be ordered by a heirarchy?
Stranger, I disagree. Legislation is the threat of violence, not violence itself. Consequently, IF there can be shown to be a case where violence would ensue if the threat did not exist, then it may be better for the threat to exist than to have actual violence.
I will say, the link did give me this to think about, which nobody has mentioned yet (or at least, not since I began typing this) - person A could offer B money to bear the child, then take care of it himself when it is born. The value would be whatever B places on the hardships of pregnancy that she is trying to avoid now. One could suppose PL groups would voluntarily set up funds to do just this. (I didn't read that directly from Rothbard, but his mention of a baby market gave me the idea.)
person A could offer B money to bear the child, then take care of it himself when it is born.
Yes, this kind of rounds things out, as best we can, for the adamant irrationalist "pro-life" aggressor. Their in the same boat as the radical anti-human environmentalists, that they need to put their money where their mouth is.
Our position is not one of supporting murder of embryos but of the primacy of individual negative rights over positive fictions. Please read
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
One could suppose PL groups would voluntarily set up funds to do just this.
It occured moments after posting that this would then create a problem of women going out and getting pregnant just for the money.
Aster_Lacnala: One could suppose PL groups would voluntarily set up funds to do just this. It occured moments after posting that this would then create a problem of women going out and getting pregnant just for the money.
If Friends of Babies has too many babies, they might consider cutting their offering price.
Knight_of_BAAWA: He is violating the non-aggression principle, regardless of how he attempts to justify it.
However, the NAP, as promulgated by Rothbard is unsound. See Edward Feser's eviceration of it, and Rothbard as a philosophy:
Rothbard as a Philosopher
Rothbard Revisited
Is Self-Ownership Axiomatic?
Furthermore, there is absolutely no basis in the claim that the law as enforced by PDAs would be based upon the NAP in anarcho-capitalism. For all we know, the PDAs might become tyrants-for-hire.
Stranger: Aster_Lacnala:So, how can you resolve this without either violence, or legislation? Legislation is just a subset of violence.
Sam Armstrong:And the NAP can be seen in game theory in the prisoners dilemma, which mathematically shows the NAP as the best solution.
The prisoners' dilemma is a rather specific scenario defined in such a fashion that the participants have full knowledge of what would occur; however, such a metric is absolutely unreasonable in a world in which individuals act in a state of ignorance, only having imperfect knowledge as to what their action's consequences will be. It is absurd to assert that the prisoners' dilemma can be used as a basis of justice.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
True, but while this would decrease the "greed pregnancy" problem it would also undermine their efforts. After all, they aren't trying to accumulate babies, they are just trying to make sure the little rugrats aren't killed. If they lower the price, then mothers who genuinely had accidents/gotten raped/whatever would be more likely to go ahead with the abortion.
Violence will also be used in an anarcho-capitalist society to solve such problems. Is the violence used in an anarcho-capitalist society to enforce the decisions of the PDAs more moral than when it is used by governments to enforce their decisions? In both scenarios the violence will be utilized to coerce, so the appeal to a "completely voluntary society" is fallacious here because no society is voluntary, those protecting society will always have to use force against those who do not desire to live according to the laws of the land.
Stranger meant the justified use of violence. You like to point fingers and play word games yet at the same time have no such ground to stand on as you demand from your enemies.
Aster_Lacnala:After all, they aren't trying to accumulate babies,
Why not? Methinks they may be profitable.
The victim of rape or young, single mother who can't afford to raise a child is also not trying to accumulate babies. Your problem is twofold:
- forcing economic suffering (including establishing the right to punish women who have abortions) on women, vs poor Friends of Babies having to pay women who just have babies to get money.
- preaching a coherent set of laws while mothers give up the right to their body.
E. R. Olovetto: Violence will also be used in an anarcho-capitalist society to solve such problems. Is the violence used in an anarcho-capitalist society to enforce the decisions of the PDAs more moral than when it is used by governments to enforce their decisions? In both scenarios the violence will be utilized to coerce, so the appeal to a "completely voluntary society" is fallacious here because no society is voluntary, those protecting society will always have to use force against those who do not desire to live according to the laws of the land. Stranger meant the justified use of violence
Stranger meant the justified use of violence
And yet so often a line of attack such as that is utilized against legislation (i.e. claiming that it is nothing but violence, and therefore wrong). So while I did misinterpret Stranger, my point is, nevertheless, sound.
E. R. Olovetto:You like to point fingers and play word games yet at the same time have no such ground to stand on as you demand from your enemies.
And yet all you could do to my entire post is point out that I might have misinterpreted Stranger. In light of that fact, I think my ground is quite sturdy - feel free to prove otherwise, though.
double-post
Aster_Lacnala: Can the market spontaneously order everything, or are there some things it cannot?
There is nothing the state can do that the market cannot, except use violence.
Aster_Lacnala:If there are some things a market cannot order, can those things be ordered by a heirarchy?
The division of a labour is a market hierarchy. There is no reason a market cannot create a voluntary hierarchy, as we see at firms with multiple levels of management or wide divisions of activity, all coordinating without violence.
laminustacitus: Violence will also be used in an anarcho-capitalist society to solve such problems. Is the violence used in an anarcho-capitalist society to enforce the decisions of the PDAs more moral than when it is used by governments to enforce their decisions? In both scenarios the violence will be utilized to coerce, so the appeal to a "completely voluntary society" is fallacious here because no society is voluntary, those protecting society will always have to use force against those who do not desire to live according to the laws of the land.
Violence will be commonplace in order to even out the outcomes and disincentivize aggression and rights violation, bringing about an equilibrium of peaceful relations. The violence of legislation, on the other hand, brings about a disequilibrium towards more violence, as does aggression against women.
Who makes legislation? What can these folks achieve without initiating violence? No, no, I know the answer already. It is nothing.
Feser is an embarrassment. That you are a um... here.. um I am shutting up now.
laminustacitus:However, the NAP, as promulgated by Rothbard is unsound. See Edward Feser's
Aster_Lacnala:An interesting link, Sam, but to me Rothbard seems to be begging the question. He asserts that the fetus has no right to the mother's body, therefore the mother is justified in the abortion. But a PL position would say it isn't that clear
Aster_Lacnala:Knight, you may call it silly, but that is essentially the question between minarchy and anarchy. Can the market spontaneously order everything, or are there some things it cannot?
laminustacitus: Sam Armstrong:And the NAP can be seen in game theory in the prisoners dilemma, which mathematically shows the NAP as the best solution. The prisoners' dilemma is a rather specific scenario defined in such a fashion that the participants have full knowledge of what would occur; however, such a metric is absolutely unreasonable in a world in which individuals act in a state of ignorance, only having imperfect knowledge as to what their action's consequences will be. It is absurd to assert that the prisoners' dilemma can be used as a basis of justice.
The prisoners dilemma is the explanation as to why we even have a sense of justice. The principle that the the prisoners dilemma is based on is that if you have a system which entails reputation (our's does), and there's a likely chance of repeat interactions with the same individual (our's does), then the best solution is to not defect if unprovoked (read: don't initiate force), defect if provoked by previous defectors(read: retaliate) and forgive every once in a while so that you don't enter a death spiral with someone else who uses the same strategy as you happens accidentally defect. This works even while the benefits of defecting while your opponent is cooperating because the benefits of cooperation over the long run will make you better off, and the cost of the increased likelihood of people defecting against you offsets any gains you made by defecting against others. This lines up perfectly with the NAP. The NAP is most beneficial strategy to my life, and it's been baked into my genetics for good reason, and if you also want you're life to benefit, you should use it as well. That is the basis of justice.
Aster_Lacnala: An interesting link, Sam, but to me Rothbard seems to be begging the question. He asserts that the fetus has no right to the mother's body, therefore the mother is justified in the abortion. But a PL position would say it isn't that clear, that while a born human would not have the right to parasitically feed off another, the inability of the fetus to exist in any other way muddies the situation. Rothbard claims that a preborn baby has no right of self ownership; a PL Libertarian would disagree.
Rothbard claims no such thing as the preborn baby not owning itself. He merely says that it indeed does not own the mother. An abortion would consist solely of the mother disconnecting the baby from itself and dispelling it. she wouldn't have the right to stab it in the process.
It can't order the planets, you are correct. Neither can a government, which I also brought up. My point is that the proof of a minarchy is to find a situation that a government CAN resolve that a free market CANNOT. The situation I brought up was an attempt to do so, but I feel it has been refuted. While this isn't the only situation I have thought might fit the bill, it is the only one I feel like posting tonight.
I'd hate to think my first post was responsible for a flamewar, esp. given the top story on the mises.org main page the day I posted it. Can we tone down the personal attacks?
Aster_Lacnala:The situation I brought up was an attempt to do so, but I feel it has been refuted.
Welcome to the forums! I was a devout minarchist just about a year ago too, please don't be embarrassed.
Aster_Lacnala: Let us look at this first from a PL position. A PL man (Person A) sees a woman (Person B) trying to murder her baby (Person C). Moral outrage ensues, and he takes measures to prevent her from doing so. In his view, A is not violating the non-aggression principle - Person B initiated force and he is simply acting on behalf of C because C cannot defend itself.
What does "he takes measures to prevent her from doing so" mean? Killing the abortionist? Would he have to kill the entire abortionist staff, plus any police officers that show up during this rampage? After he kills the abortionist, then what? He can't let the mother go, because won't she seek another abortion? Would he kidnap her and hold her in a dungeon until the baby arrives? Does he provide medical services himself? What kind of doctor would come to the dungeon to deliver the baby? Then, does PL raise the baby? I am pro-life, but if we expand on what it means to "take measures" to prevent an abortion, it gets rather sticky, doesn't it? I believe we can counsel the person (if the woman is open to it), and then grieve for the dead baby if the abortion occurs anyway, but "taking measures" as noted above cannot be justified, even outside the anarcho-cap framework, can it?
What does "he takes measures to prevent her from doing so" mean? Killing the abortionist? Would he have to kill the entire abortionist staff, plus any police officers that show up during this rampage? After he kills the abortionist, then what? He can't let the mother go, because won't she seek another abortion? Would he kidnap her and hold her in a dungeon until the baby arrives? Does he provide medical services himself? What kind of doctor would come to the dungeon to deliver the baby? Then, does PL raise the baby?
I am pro-life, but if we expand on what it means to "take measures" to prevent an abortion, it gets rather sticky, doesn't it? I believe we can counsel the person (if the woman is open to it), and then grieve for the dead baby if the abortion occurs anyway, but "taking measures" as noted above cannot be justified, even outside the anarcho-cap framework, can it?
"The market is a process." - Ludwig von Mises, as related by Israel Kirzner. "Capital formation is a beautiful thing" - Chloe732.
Aster_Lacnala:It can't order the planets, you are correct. Neither can a government, which I also brought up. My point is that the proof of a minarchy is to find a situation that a government CAN resolve that a free market CANNOT.
The government solution is to simply annihilate all those who oppose it. That is not much of a solution.
Hi and welcome
Aster_Lacnala:If there is no contract between B and C, but C simply happens to want to help B, C is not in the wrong.
I wouldn't go with that argument. C has no claim whatsoever to initiate force against A unless B agrees in some way, thus making C his agent. B has every right to not agress against A and C would violate B's right to do so by agressing against A in the name of C or whomever.
Aster_Lacnala:Let us look at this first from a PL position. A PL man (Person A) sees a woman (Person B) trying to murder her baby (Person C). Moral outrage ensues, and he takes measures to prevent her from doing so. In his view, A is not violating the non-aggression principle - Person B initiated force and he is simply acting on behalf of C because C cannot defend itself.
First of all, murder is physical force that kills another human being that has not initiated aggression against the murderer. There are several other ways a second person can suffer harm from another human being, that is not murder. Think of someone drowning and a person, standing on a bridge, does not throw a life belt down to him. Morally that might be evil, but it is by no way murder. You as a rich person, compared with a peasant in, say, Somalia, are not responible of his starvation, even if you have the means (money) to safe him.
In short, not acting is never aggression, it might be morally wrong though, but this question has to be dealt with at another level, not the rights/violation of rights level.
A fetus can not survive out of itself. It needs resources of a third person. This person might be willing to share, or might not be willing to share. If the person declines to share, the fetus will die, which. I believe is morally wrong, but that is my private believe.
The idea that someone, once initated an aggression, becomes free prey for any other human being is absurd and leads straight to violent collectivism. If I am aggressed against, I, and no one else, decide what the appropriate reaction is. Shooting a kid in the back for stealing a bubble gum is not, because the property a kid has in its own life is worth more than the loss of a chewing gum.
Fortunately all those made up examples lack one important aspekt. Men are not devils kept out of constant murdering only through a strong benevolent and superior power, but social beings that do not usually strive to extinct themselves. There is always a force inside men that pulls them into the ways of social bonds rather than mass murdering.
To me, as a christian, Aquinas made the point very well, we are creatures of god and therefor good at the core, though with the capability to be evil. The bible states that when god made the living things, one category a day, he looked at his work each evening saying it was good what he'd done. On the sixth day, when he created men, he looked at his work and said it is "very good". No need for any Hobbesian Leviathan to be our superior preventing us from killing off mankind.
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
Aster_Lacnala:An interesting link, Sam, but to me Rothbard seems to be begging the question. He asserts that the fetus has no right to the mother's body, therefore the mother is justified in the abortion. But a PL position would say it isn't that clear, that while a born human would not have the right to parasitically feed off another, the inability of the fetus to exist in any other way muddies the situation. Rothbard claims that a preborn baby has no right of self ownership; a PL Libertarian would disagree.
I'd suggest you listen to Walter Blocks lecture on Abortion (Evictionism) which takes further steps to elaborate on his position, and ultimately reaches the proper Libertarian one. Also this.
Having attended a variety of births, I guess the price must be pretty high, given the pain inflicted. And here the free market would kick in. The more women get pregnant only for money (supply) the less the price eventually will be. So we wouldn't see a breeding surplus I guess.
Oh and regarding the PL argument that a fetus has a right to live parasitic. The libertarian position to rights is, that there are no positive rights - means rights to life etc.- there are only negative rights like the right not to be aggressed against.
There are some things that are fundamental problems of the human condition. For example, if I am on an island and a buff guy controls all the water, I am completely screwed government or no. Instead of asking "how will anarchy handle X" we should be asking "how would anarchy handle X compared to how the state would handle it". Notice I say would and not could. Obviously it is physically possible for both paradigms to achieve anything; after all we have free will. An anarchy could dissolve into total chaos or become a technological utopia. Similarly with a state. The real issue is how likely these outcomes are given certain organizational structures.The case for anarchy has already been given, but let me point out that the state is never the solution to anything. You can't trust an entity which is judge in its own case, especially if that entity has a monopoly on legislation (the foundation of society) and enforcement. Would you ever agree to a contract in which the other person had the right to interpret the contract however they wanted? No one in real life ever agrees to this sort of thing...
Note that the state doesn't really solve any of the problems people typically point out in anarchy, such as that PDAs will do battle... there are good reasons why they probably won't, but we can turn around and say that states might do battle too. The deciding factor is which one is more likely to fight. The organization which has to pay for all its costs and can lose customers, or the folks who can externalize their costs and have a captive consumer base?
First of all, it is up to the two parties how to resolve the difference. If they went to arbitration, and I was the arbitrator, I would say that person A has no standing, since the baby has no rights, in my opinion, and that the mother is the owner of the baby, and as such has the right to terminate its life.
BTW, I think the idea that there will be PDAs is ridiculous.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw: Aster_Lacnala:So, how can you resolve this without either violence, or legislation? First of all, it is up to the two parties how to resolve the difference. If they went to arbitration, and I was the arbitrator, I would say that person A has no standing, since the baby has no rights, in my opinion and that the mother is the owner of the baby, and as such has the right to terminate its life. BTW, I think the idea that there will be PDAs is ridiculous.
First of all, it is up to the two parties how to resolve the difference. If they went to arbitration, and I was the arbitrator, I would say that person A has no standing, since the baby has no rights, in my opinion and that the mother is the owner of the baby, and as such has the right to terminate its life.
I've been over your ridiculous position that children have no rights before. Lay this out clearly for me please. Why do you (or the mother who wants to rape/kill her child) have rights in the first place?
E. R. Olovetto:Why do you (or the mother who wants to rape/kill her child) have rights in the first place?
I have rights because I have the ability to think critically and to communicate with other humans. Same with the mother.
Regardless of what you think philosophically, wouldn't you pick a PDA that gave some rights to babies even if they were just the result of human instinct an emotion? Or would you say *beep* I am a robot. I will follow my interpretation of libertarianism to a T. *beep*.
Snowflake: Regardless of what you think philosophically, wouldn't you pick a PDA that gave some rights to babies even if they were just the result of human instinct an emotion? Or would you say *beep* I am a robot. I will follow my interpretation of libertarianism to a T. *beep*.
Why would I fund an organization that might take away my rights as a parent?
Spideynw: E. R. Olovetto:Why do you (or the mother who wants to rape/kill her child) have rights in the first place? I have rights because I have the ability to think critically and to communicate with other humans. Same with the mother.
So, you have no rights when asleep?
Spideynw: Snowflake: Regardless of what you think philosophically, wouldn't you pick a PDA that gave some rights to babies even if they were just the result of human instinct an emotion? Or would you say *beep* I am a robot. I will follow my interpretation of libertarianism to a T. *beep*. Why would I fund an organization that might take away my rights as a parent?
It is a trade off. You are hiring private police, not a personal mafia. It is a shared protection or distribution of risk.
E. R. Olovetto: Spideynw: E. R. Olovetto:Why do you (or the mother who wants to rape/kill her child) have rights in the first place? I have rights because I have the ability to think critically and to communicate with other humans. Same with the mother. So, you have no rights when asleep?
As an arbitrator, I would say one does not lose his/her rights just because s/he is asleep.
Spideynw:Why would I fund an organization that might take away my rights as a parent?