Juan: OMG. A PDA doesn't have a monopoly on force. I won't suggest that you read the pertinent literature because it's quite obvious that you don't get it.
It would if everyone theoretically subscribed. Point made, thanks. Sheesh.
Also, I don't see why the use of the word monopoly has to mean 100% market share,
I was in part agreeing with you, that people retain the right to provide their own defense even if (and as I said, I think it is unlikely), a natural monopoly for security came about.
I don't see what your problem is with the undeniable existence of natural elites.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Hey guys, since I am not as well informed and deeply curious to learn, I must ask something very pertinent.
David Friedman is marked for being strictly value-free in his anarcho-capitalist theory, and not including any natural rights theory in it, or giving any deontological theory on which to base his strictly consequentialist ideas.
But he is an economist. Economics is a value-free science. He is simply talking about the possible efficiency and the net benefit of complete privatisation, by just comparing people's desired ends and their scarce means like any honest economist.
Let's go back to the past 200-400 years, and see that while it was John Locke who proposed a natural rights theory, solely on the grounds of the self-evident nature of natural rights, it was Adam Smith who showed how resources are allocated in a free society with property rights. Both their works were completely different and for different purposes. Locke wanted good governance. Smith wanted to compare the ends and means of people's commonly accepted utilitarian values through a strictly scientific approach. It was only Herbert Spencer who reconciled natural rights with the economics of free society, and gave two sides of a coin to explain the justification for a completely free society.
Economics can't give values, but only compare between them. Smith only showed the consequences of values, but his work could not dictate what values should be chosen, because values come from within. Only Herbert Spencer could justify the free society through the existing categorical imperative of natural rights. Now, with that settled, we still can't keep mingling over both these ideas, because you'd only end up stumbling first over categorical imperative and then over utilitarianism and then over categorical imperative and then over utilitarianism. It only creates more confusion and less coherence.
Friedman does the right thing by sticking to traditional utilitarian economics.
Juan:B. X% of the world's population shares all your ethical positions besides opposing monopolies on force OOPS. Opposing a 'monopoly on force' is an 'ethical postion' ? That's problematic for amoralists then... By the way, libertarians don't oppose 'monopolies on force'. Libertarians oppose the not-morally-justified use of force. Monopolistic government is just ONE example of the illegitimate use of force.
B. X% of the world's population shares all your ethical positions besides opposing monopolies on force
I just wrote that because Sage called it one of his ethical positions. I don't see how it's an ethical position either, but I didn't want to argue with him on that.
Why anarchy fails
Sage: Again, the question is incoherent. Can you just get to your point?
Again, the question is incoherent. Can you just get to your point?
My point is that you seem to be equivocating between consequentialist notions and ethical notions. Or if not, how is opposition to a (de facto) monopoly on force an ethical position? I think you'll say it obviously has bad consequences, that is, it will likely result in unethical occurrences. But by the same reasoning, every consequentialist position would be an ethical position, and we are back to "ethics = consequentialism," which I think you've indicated you don't agree with.
AJ:how is opposition to a (de facto) monopoly on force an ethical position?
How can you call it opposition? It's your personal preference. You offer no "political" ethical (the proper role of violence, the sphere of rights, or the definitions of criminality and aggression) opposition what so ever.
"Moreover, the avoidance of explicit ethical judgments leads political scientists to one overriding implicit value judgment-that in favor of the political status quo as it happens to prevail in any given society."
AJ: I think you'll say it obviously has bad consequences
For who? Not everyone, that's for sure. And what if the parasites openly acknowledge the consequences of imposing a monopoly on force? Still value free eh?
Tell it to Sage. Mine is just a personal preference and recommendation to others (based on the consequences). If that doesn't qualify as "opposition," so be it.
You missed the questions..
AJ:Mine is just a personal preference and recommendation to others (based on the consequences).
And if they benefit from those consequences, i.e stealing / theft... so be it?
AJ:If that doesn't qualify as "opposition," so be it.
And so it is.
Conza88: AJ:Mine is just a personal preference and recommendation to others (based on the consequences). And if they benefit from those consequences, i.e stealing / theft... so be it?
Yes, my arguments surely will not succeed in guilt-tripping agents of the State into giving up the racket.
AJ:Yes, my arguments surely will not succeed in guilt-tripping agents of the State into giving up the racket.
What racket?
Define racket.
Better yet, we can take it down to the individual level ...
"And if the individual criminal benefits from those consequences, i.e stealing / theft... so be it?"
... same deal. Why should an individual behave ethically? As far as I'm aware, you and utilitarianism have no answer.
Juan:Anyways, the important point which you seem to constantly miss, is that "no monopoly on force" is not the same thing as a free, libertarian society. As a matter of fact, right now, no state has a monopoly on force.
very insightful
nirgrahamUK: AJ: For what value of X would you choose B over A? A. No monopolies on force ever again B. X% of the world's population shares all your ethical positions besides opposing monopolies on force there is no such X ?
AJ: For what value of X would you choose B over A? A. No monopolies on force ever again B. X% of the world's population shares all your ethical positions besides opposing monopolies on force
For what value of X would you choose B over A?
A. No monopolies on force ever again
there is no such X ?
I just want to go back to this, because I think it's touching on an important point. As libertarian anarchists, we have two goals:
I think what AJ is getting at is that to persuade people to become libertarian anarchists, we should focus more on goal 1, because once we have acheived anarchy, people will quickly become libertarians, when the superiority of a libertarian legal code becomes apparent (i.e. libertarian legal codes will win out in competition).
Consider this diagram:
The numbers here are purely illustrative; I don't want to get into a debate over them.
The point is that most people hold position D, and we want as many people as possible to hold position A, like us. But getting someone to jump straight from D to A is a tall order. I went from D to C (thanks to Ron Paul), and then from C to A (thanks to mises.org). I suspect many of us took this route.
Those in position B are our adversaries if we are trying to convert people to libertarianism, but they are our allies if we are trying to acheive anarchy. To acheive anarchy, we don't need people to accept the whole of libertarianism - they must merely accept free entry to set up competing legal systems. One can imagine a threshold, say 10%, that must be reached in order to acheive anarchy. So if we manage to get 20% of the 90% in position D to position B, we will have anarchy. Once we have acheived anarchy, many people will become libertarians because it will be cheaper to buy libertarian legal codes, and they will be more effective. This may be the best strategy for getting people the whole way from position D to position A and thus acheiving our ultimate goal. Anarchy first, then the market will give us libertarianism.
The opposite strategy, the "Ron Paul strategy" of getting people from D to C and then getting them to this website (the job of LRC and C4L), is working well. It doesn't usually take people too long after they find mises.org to see the contradictions in position C and move to position A. But a lot people remain in position C: the constitutionalists/minarchists. What use are these people? Suppose we managed to get 20% of the 90% in position D to position C. Will we acheive our goal? I don't think so; governments grow, they do not shrink. We would still have a long way to go to get to our ultimate goal of libertarian anarchy.
Furthermore, it may actually be easier to get people in position D to go to position B rather than to position C, i.e. easier to convince people of anarchy than to convince them of libertarianism. The argument for anarchy is the relatively simple question of monopoly vs. competition. The argument for libertarianism is relatively more complicated and nuanced, and people may object to the whole philosophy because they feel particularly strongly about one issue, such as the libertarian stance on abortion, capital punishment, welfare, etc. It may be easier to convince these people of anarchy than to convince them of libertarianism.
Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper
Law without Government
How can one be statist and libertarian at the same time?
I think what AJ is getting at is that to persuade people to become libertarian anarchists, we should focus more on goal 1
liberty student: How can one be statist and libertarian at the same time?
People can be inconsistent and self-contradictory.
Juan:I think what AJ is getting at is that to persuade people to become libertarian anarchists, we should focus more on goal 1 Goal 1 is nonsense, and is what we have now. You are 'free' to propose any sort of deranged 'legal code' and other deranged people with more guns than you are 'free' to deem your 'legal' code 'illegal' and jail you, execute you or whatever.
Today, the chances of a small community seceeding are low; the deranged people with more guns will come. But if more people were anarchists, maybe this wouldn't be the case. Anarchists, whether libertarian or not, will say to the government 'let them go', and the government may be forced into doing so.
trulib: As libertarian anarchists, we have two goals: Anarchy - i.e. free entry into the field of producing legal codes (by legal codes I mean the principles under which property rights are to be assigned). Libertarianism - i.e. property rights being assigned according to the principles of homesteading, abandonment and voluntary exchange.
As libertarian anarchists, we have two goals:
The way I see it, (1) is a constitutive means to (2). That is, anarchy is a means to bringing about a libertarian society, but it's also a part of a libertarian society, because a society must be anarchic to count as libertarian.
Hence I'm confused that you write "Anarchist & Libertarian" in your diagram. I don't see anarchism and libertarianism as separate things; rather, I see the former as a constitutive part of the latter.
trulib:I think what AJ is getting at is that to persuade people to become libertarian anarchists, we should focus more on goal 1, because once we have acheived anarchy, people will quickly become libertarians, when the superiority of a libertarian legal code becomes apparent (i.e. libertarian legal codes will win out in competition).
Have you seen Patri Friedman's meta-institution or ecosystem approach?
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
trulib:People can be inconsistent and self-contradictory.
I hear that brother.
Sage:Have you seen Patri Friedman's meta-institution or ecosystem approach?
I hadn't. Thanks for sharing. That's a perfect example of what I mean by working to acheive anarchy as opposed to libertarianism.
Sage: The way I see it, (1) is a constitutive means to (2). That is, anarchy is a means to bringing about a libertarian society, but it's also a part of a libertarian society, because a society must be anarchic to count as libertarian.
Good way of putting it.
Sage: Hence I'm confused that you write "Anarchist & Libertarian" in your diagram. I don't see anarchism and libertarianism as separate things; rather, I see the former as a constitutive part of the latter.
I'm thinking from a strategic point of view. The Ron Paul people see libertarianism and anarchism as seperate things. The diagram is simplified to make a point. That article is an attempt to pull people "up" on the diagram. I think this could be a more fruitful approach than trying to pull people "left" on the diagram.
I went from B to A.
“Laws: We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of the government.” - Proudhon
Htut: I went from B to A.
And here I thought you went from A to H.
Juan:That seems to be problematic. You believe X but for some reason you say that you believe Y. Is there a name for that, uh, contextual misrepresentation of your own position ?
In the context I was writing about Sage's position, not mine.
True, it's probably better to say "monopoly on power" so that we include the power inherent in having the public on your side. For details, see my response to Merlin in "Have we defined the state correctly?"
Conza88: AJ:Yes, my arguments surely will not succeed in guilt-tripping agents of the State into giving up the racket. Define racket.
In this case, you can replace "racket" with "actions I do not like."
Conza88:Why should an individual behave ethically? As far as I'm aware, you and utilitarianism have no answer.
For their own benefit, in the broadest sense.
trulib:Furthermore, it may actually be easier to get people in position D to go to position B rather than to position C, i.e. easier to convince people of anarchy than to convince them of libertarianism. The argument for anarchy is the relatively simple question of monopoly vs. competition.
Thanks trulib. You've elaborated what I am getting out very nicely.
trulib:Anarchists, whether libertarian or not, will say to the government 'let them go', and the government may be forced into doing so.
Also, maybe here we want to instead call these people who say "let them go" panarchists or voluntarists, or just people tolerant of other legal systems within their territory. That way it's easier to see how someone could be non-libertarian (they want a welfare state for their society) but tolerant (they will allow you to opt out).
Of course, such things are already implied in the Rothbardian ideas of freedom of contract, but the emphasis has thus far been different in that there is still a tendency to use weasel words like rogue court.
Bottom line is that if society is truly ready for AnCap, eliminating monopoly of force/power is sufficient. If it is not sufficient, that means society isn't ready yet - there are too many individuals who will still support monopolies, or who have ingrained paternalistic senses.
Simple, they want the US government running the world but not their neigborhoods. Trust me it makes perfect sense.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
AJ: Conza88: AJ:Yes, my arguments surely will not succeed in guilt-tripping agents of the State into giving up the racket. Define racket. In this case, you can replace "racket" with "actions I do not like."
What actions of the state do you like?
None? Then what's the point / worth of that definition?
"In this case", what about every other case?
AJ: Conza88:Why should an individual behave ethically? As far as I'm aware, you and utilitarianism have no answer. For their own benefit, in the broadest sense.
Yes Conza, you and I conceive morality differently. I don't see any more point to that line of discussion.
What is the difference between you and Conza in perspective here? He doesn't like the state. You don't like the state. Case closed. Quit nit-pickin' leading to unnecessary turmoil.
Agreed.
Prateek Sanjay:Hey guys, since I am not as well informed and deeply curious to learn, I must ask something very pertinent.
Great post Prateek, but I didn't see a question in it.
Prateek Sanjay:David Friedman is marked for being strictly value-free in his anarcho-capitalist theory, and not including any natural rights theory in it, or giving any deontological theory on which to base his strictly consequentialist ideas.
I'm not sure what you mean by marked, but there are a few of us who have no issue with the Friedman approach.
Prateek Sanjay:Economics can't give values, but only compare between them.
This is very true, and we find that sometimes people who are big on natural rights and aren't theists, aren't very strong on economics, and so don't have exposure to value free analysis.
Prateek Sanjay:Friedman does the right thing by sticking to traditional utilitarian economics.
I'd rather say, he doesn't do a wrong thing. I like Friedman's approach because I tire of the moralizing, and it is more consistent with my morality which trends towards panarchy/polycentricity to stay value free (accommodating of others' values) than to become dogmatic and narrow the way Rand did. Ultimately, she became a caricature of her own ideas. I think all of the moralizing philosophers risk this.
wilderness: What is the difference between you and Conza in perspective here? He doesn't like the state. You don't like the state. Case closed. Quit nit-pickin' leading to unnecessary turmoil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_cliche
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
I. Ryan:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_cliche
stop by. drop links whenever you want to.
thanks and visit again
True, it's probably better to say "monopoly on power"
and power is simply energy, kinetic or potential. I have the power to move a tree stump and actually enacted such the other day.
The argument for anarchy is the relatively simple question of monopoly vs. competition.
Juan:Panarchy on the other hand is sheer nonsense. It would be nice if some people here didn't use the word 'anarchy' in a completely ambiguous fashion...
I agree. I've posted before that I think a better term would be pan-theory, but such a theory in this context is always based on the axiom of property rights. The ethical and economical argument on how best to deal with scarcity, ie. property. There is no argument or law on these issues that don't boil down different interpretations of property rights. So how best to deal with scarcity lead to such numerous theories on property from communism to libertarian views, etc....
Juan:Panarchy on the other hand is sheer nonsense.
How so?