Absolute freedom of speech seems essential in an anarcho-capitalist society. But is this really the case?In an anarcho-capitalist society not just the initiation of violence is forbidden but also the threat thereof. The state necessarily initiates violence and threatens to do so, and clearly this is not compatible with a free society. If you then live in a free anarcho-capitalist society and at the same time advocate and campaign for say the welfare state , for example by teaching it in schools, by writing and having published articles, books and so on, then by exercising this freedom of speech you are essentially threatening the initiation of violence: 'Once I have the chance, once I have enough sympathizers, then I will rob all you guys.' (so I presuppose here that these advocates would not just want to establish a welfare state with like-minded people but would want to force others to live under it as well) So the paradox is that an exercise of your freedom of speech (namely to advocate the welfare state) should be forbidden because it in fact is the threat of the initiation of violence in the long run. If this is the case then only books, articles and so on that advocate anarcho-capitalism are allowed and anything that goes against these principles should be forbidden.This would include the works of nearly all political and social philosophers, (novelists etc. would be an exception because they can say that it is just thecharacters in the book that advocate non-anarcho-capitalism, or it is the interpretation of the reader that sees non-anarcho-capitalist thoughts in the story)Anyway, this seems pretty totalitarian and since totalitarianism is pretty much the last thing you would think about when it comes to a free society, there seems to be a paradox here, an apparent contradiction. But where is the flaw in the argument that gives rise to the paradox? Is advocating and campaigning for a welfare state in fact a case of threatening the initiation of violence? If not, then one of the premises of the argument fails to obtain and the paradox would not arise.There seem to be two extremes here when it comes to seeing spoken or written words as (threaths of) violence: on the one extreme there is the idea thateven indirect threats such as those used for example by political philosophers who advocate a welfare state and campaign for it are seen as wrong from tthe standpoint of he non-aggression principle. If so then their works should be forbidden, which invokes memories of book burning and so on and sounds at least at first sight wrong and paradoxical.And on the other extreme we have the idea that we can only call something (a threat of) the initiation of violence if the person himself is directly physicallythreatening the use of violence against another: but this would seem to absolve people like Hitler and George W. Bush, as well as people who pay others to murder their wives, since they likely never physically threatened anybody. But intuitively at least they do seem to be criminals and thus letting them go free seems like an absurd conclusion as well. But at least the latter optionwould prevent the paradox of anarcho-capitalist totalitarianism from arising. If we take the former, there still seems to be a way out of the paradox. Could it be the case that the paradox arises because we are simply not yet used to seeing state violence (and the threat thereof) as in essence the same thing as the (threat of the initiation of) violence of private criminals like robbers, murderers and so on? In this case, while we would know intellectually thatthere is no relevant distinction, we simply don't experience it that way yet. If this is the case, then it seems natural that while we would immediately agree about forbidding the threat of the initiation of violence by private criminals, we still are not used to seeing the threat of the initiation of state violence in the same way and thus to us forbidding books that advocate the welfare state sounds quite totalitarian but in fact is not. It is the logical conclusion of our principles and we just have to take time to emotionally accept and adjust to it, to the idea that the morality of anarcho-capitalism is an Absolute one: it is the only correct morality and it is of supreme importance. If so, then the paradox disappears because once we are used to the idea it no longer sounds totalitarian.
Is it possible to threat someone without knowing it?
Usually when I discuss with some of mine friends issues like state coersion, they seem not realise what is the problem. I don't know whethet it's a psychological phenomena, or are they plainly dishonest, but if you advocate existence of a state you can still fail to realise, that it means immoral acts of wiolance. If so, are you threatening, or not?
A couple of points:
1) Read Rothbard's "The Ethics of Liberty" to see how all such "rights" as that to free speech, for instance, are derivatives of property rights.
2) When we speak of threat of violence we mean direct threat to one's life and property, not advocating some system in a book. Rothbard in fact specifies in TEOL that a threat must be overt and direct. As such there is no reason to ban any books or speech on one's property.
I believe that a threat to be objectionable must be immediate and credible. If I say "I am going to kill you in a year", then I do not think that you have a right to shoot me now. Perhaps I shall rethink before a year. Likewise if I call "I am going to shoot you", but have no gun in my possession (and you know it), then my threat is not credible. If someone says that they wish to rob my property by instituting a system of government then the threat is neither immediate nor credible. If it happens it is likely to be sometime in the distant future, and evidence that he can do it would normally be lacking.
This is a straw man. No one has ever said that it would be illegal under anarcho-capitalism to advocate the formation of a state. That, while possibly a threat, is definitely not coercion. No one is using threats in order to influence actions.
There is no paradox, because it is not a crime.
Peace
Speech is not a crime. Only aggression is a crime. However, under pure private law, since everything is private property, you can be expelled from any community for any reason whatsoever, whether it is making threats, hate speech, supporting social democracy, whatever. If you threaten a member of the community, they can throw you out. If you do not comply, you will be guilty of trespass. That is aggression.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
'will' implies 'can'
If I called one of you on the phone from here in Pennsylvania and said "I'm going to reach through this phone and strangle you," would any of you feel threatened? No? But the supposed paradox in this thread implies that you should. Now, if I were down the road from you and talking to you over the phone and said "I'm going to walk down to your house and strangle you," would you feel threatened? Certainly you should (though chances are I couldn't strangle you). Stating you will do something is only a threat if you have the ability to do it. Even then, common sense needs to apply. No private courts would waste their time trying people who joke about firing up their offices or committing insurance fraud.
When I become an astronaut I'll land the space shuttle on you. Scared?
JonBostwick: This is a straw man. No one has ever said that it would be illegal under anarcho-capitalism to advocate the formation of a state. That, while possibly a threat, is definitely not coercion. No one is using threats in order to influence actions. There is no paradox, because it is not a crime.
JonBostwick:This is a straw man. No one has ever said that it would be illegal under anarcho-capitalism to advocate the formation of a state. That, while possibly a threat, is definitely not coercion. No one is using threats in order to influence actions.There is no paradox, because it is not a crime.
DSnead:Correct, it is not a crime. However, anyone advocating a state or any other form of aggression against private property rights is involved in a preformative contradiction because one must pressupose property rights in order to engage in argumentation.
Correct, it is not a crime. However, anyone advocating a state or any other form of aggression against private property rights is involved in a preformative contradiction because one must pressupose property rights in order to engage in argumentation.
Be careful about the way you use the term "advocating". Standing on a sidewalk and calling for the extermination of capitalists is not an argument, therefore it does not involve any performative contradiction, anymore than threatening to kill someone would.
An argument is intended to persuade any reader of its truth. That is why arguing for anything except pure liberty is a performative contradiction.
Stranger:An argument is intended to persuade any reader of its truth. That is why arguing for anything except pure liberty is a performative contradiction.
Stranger:Be careful about the way you use the term "advocating". Standing on a sidewalk and calling for the extermination of capitalists is not an argument, therefore it does not involve any performative contradiction, anymore than threatening to kill someone would.
One could do so, but would that pass the universalization "test"?
Stranger:under pure private law, since everything is private property, you can be expelled from any community for any reason whatsoever, whether it is making threats, hate speech, supporting social democracy, whatever.
Under "pure private law" where everything is private property, those without ownership of land have no common right to free speech.
Today that right is fulfilled upon common right of ways to travel contained within sidewalks and roads where we also excercise our common rights to assemble and petition for redress of grievances.
Inquisitor: One could do so, but would that pass the universalization "test"?
WmBGreene:Under "pure private law" where everything is private property, those without ownership of land have no common right to free speech.Today that right is fulfilled upon common right of ways to travel contained within sidewalks and roads where we also excercise our common rights to assemble and petition for redress of grievances.
The right to free speech is preserved as long as property owners allow it, which is exactly the same as it is today. People have the right to free speech on government-owned property because the government allows it. If either property owners or the government stopped allowing it, free speech would be restricted. However, it is far less likely for millions of property owners to enter into a monopolistic cartel, reduce their own profits, and ban free speech than it is for government to do it.
I guess you replied to a statement of someone demanding rights/liberties/claims for himself, while not acknowledging this for others.Why would it have to pass an "universalization test"?!
Are you familiar with Kantian ethics?The universalization test applies when a moral agent proposes a moral rule that applies only to himself and excludes its application to other moral agents, in spite of their not differing in any morally relevant respect (e.g. I propose it is fine for me to murder, but not for anyone else.) The rule thus is arbitrary and cannot its exclusive application cannot be justified.
Grant:People have the right to free speech on government-owned property because the government allows it. If either property owners or the government stopped allowing it, free speech would be restricted.
No. Freedom of speech, like right of ways contained within sidewalks, are common rights that are individual equal rights not collective rights.
WmBGreene:No. Freedom of speech, like right of ways contained within sidewalks, are common rights that are individual equal rights not collective rights.
Whatever rights you think you have are irrelevant when you are on someone else's property, unless you are willing to use force or fraud to violate their rules. Sidewalks are not common property like air, they are state property. Freedom of speech is something the state can take away. Its not a matter of ethics, its a matter of who has physical control of the property. Ethics don't mean much facing down the barrel of a gun.
Now, I believe people should have freedom of speech. And I believe the best way to secure this freedom is to eliminate legitimized monopolies on violence.
Inquisitor:Are you familiar with Kantian ethics?
Inquisitor:The universalization test applies when a moral agent proposes a moral rule that applies only to himself and excludes its application to other moral agents, in spite of their not differing in any morally relevant respect (e.g. I propose it is fine for me to murder, but not for anyone else.) The rule thus is arbitrary and cannot its exclusive application cannot be justified.
Personally however that rules and laws in a society ought to be generalizable - This however requires some homogenity to it, since the lawmaker has a specific type of person in mind or comes to his design of social rules via introspection. Also bear in mind that not all people function like Westerners. Their are many cultures that would place a stronger grain on emotion, sensitivity, subjective compassion then on rational and objective rules.
I'm familar with it. But still not everyone needs to have to agree with it. Kant actually did not propose universalization, but generalization.
It's also commonly referred to as the universalization test.
That's how I would explain it as well. However does it really apply to our case? If Johnny claims the freedom to speak his mind in public for himself, he isn't actually denying the same to anybody else. There is no obligation on him to demand it for anyone else either. This is like someone claiming wage payment from someone else. He doesn't have to demand that all the other people get paid first.
True. It would only matter if he denied the right to others whilst claiming it for himself.
Also bear in mind that not all people function like Westerners. Their are many cultures that would place a stronger grain on emotion, sensitivity, subjective compassion then on rational and objective rules.
Sure, but libertarians focus on what would be the rational system to strive for in order to achieve a prosperous and fair society.
I've always felt freedom of speech is a overused "right" that people seem to get wrong. We really don't have natural rights to speech, but natural rights to property. On my own property, I can say or think whatever I want. Even if it is threatening someone else, plotting against someone else, or planning on creating a state. When I'm on someone else's property, if they don't like what I'm saying, they have the right to make me leave their property. But until words become aggressive actions which threaten my property rights, there is nothing I can or should do about what somebody else is saying. By making "rights" around speech without the context of private property, one could easily start making the same arguments about thoughts and not having the right to think bad thoughts about somebody, which is of course absurd.
Define freedom of speech. If you are referring to the fact that speaking is never a crime, then I agree, with one caveat: that exclusion from property is not a punishment, but an exercise of property rights. The sidewalk is actually not a right-of-way, because the government continues to assert its control over the sidewalk. It permits people to walk on the sidewalk explicitly, but maintains legal possession. A right of way would only be created by use of the sidewalk with no permission and no assertion of ownership.
Well put johndolce.
Webster:The sidewalk is actually not a right-of-way, because the government continues to assert its control over the sidewalk. It permits people to walk on the sidewalk explicitly, but maintains legal possession. A right of way would only be created by use of the sidewalk with no permission and no assertion of ownership.
The only role for government as it relates to the the right of way via foot travel on a sidewalk and freedom of speech is to insure that no individual infringes on the right of way use of any other individual.
So you can not stand stationary and three abreast on a sidewalk while protesting so you must keeping moving.
johndolce:I've always felt freedom of speech is a overused "right" that people seem to get wrong. We really don't have natural rights to speech, but natural rights to property. On my own property, I can say or think whatever I want. Even if it is threatening someone else, plotting against someone else, or planning on creating a state. When I'm on someone else's property, if they don't like what I'm saying, they have the right to make me leave their property. But until words become aggressive actions which threaten my property rights, there is nothing I can or should do about what somebody else is saying. By making "rights" around speech without the context of private property, one could easily start making the same arguments about thoughts and not having the right to think bad thoughts about somebody, which is of course absurd.
Your natural right to labor-based property is an exclusive individual right.
Your natural right to speech is an individual equal right to be excercised via common right of ways on sidewalks via foot travel and roads (w/permit), as well as, collectively owned buildings for the specific purpose of petitioning your elected representatives.
You also have a natural right (an individual equal right - a common right) to assemble and gather signatures for petitions of redress of grievances within common right of ways on the sidewalk. The sidewalk itself ios a collectively owned property but the common right of way pre-exists governance and so collectively controlled sidewalks are subordinated to the natural right.
sounds like commie talk to me
WmBGreene:Your natural right to speech is an individual equal right to be excercised via common right of ways on sidewalks via foot travel and roads (w/permit), as well as, collectively owned buildings for the specific purpose of petitioning your elected representatives.
Why?
johndolce:sounds like commie talk to me
Yes, commOnism.
Stranger: WmBGreene:Your natural right to speech is an individual equal right to be excercised via common right of ways on sidewalks via foot travel and roads (w/permit), as well as, collectively owned buildings for the specific purpose of petitioning your elected representatives.Why? You also have a natural right (an individual equal right - a common right) to assemble and gather signatures for petitions of redress of grievances within common right of ways on the sidewalk. The sidewalk itself ios a collectively owned property but the common right of way pre-exists governance and so collectively controlled sidewalks are subordinated to the natural right. Why?
When there is more than one man on earth, the right to the use of land that any one of them would have, were he alone, is not abrogated: it is only limited. The right of each to the use of land is still a direct, original right, which he holds of himself, and not by the gift or consent of the others; but it has become limited by the similar rights of the others, and is therefore an equal right.
His right to use the earth still continues; but it has become, by reason of this limitation, not an absolute right to use any part of the earth, but (1) an absolute right to use any part of the earth as to which his use does not conflict with the equal rights of others (i.e., which no one else wants to use at the same time), and (2) a coequal right to the use of any part of the earth which he and others may want to use at the same time.
How can a right be "equal"? It can be equally possessed by all humans, but "equal"?
Inquisitor:How can a right be "equal"? It can be equally possessed by all humans, but "equal"?
You have a right to foot travel on a sidewalk and I have the same right. We both have an equal right to use so long as in our exercise of that right we do not infringe on anyone else's right to the same.
WmBGreene: Inquisitor: How can a right be "equal"? It can be equally possessed by all humans, but "equal"? You have a right to foot travel on a sidewalk and I have the same right. We both have an equal right to use so long as in our exercise of that right we do not infringe on anyone else's right to the same.
Inquisitor: How can a right be "equal"? It can be equally possessed by all humans, but "equal"?
Just by being on the sidewalk, I am infringing on someone else's right to the same because I am physically taking up space; that's space they can't use, even if they wanted to.
Somewhere, someone said that three people couldn't stand shoulder to shoulder to block a public thoroughfare and would have to keep moving. But note, this would only apply to the two outer blockers, the individual in the middle would not have to move if the outer blockers moved and therefore wouldn't be preventing others from utilizing the rights inherent in a public thoroughfare. Thus, there seems to me to be an inherent right to loiter on a public sidewalk indefinitely.
I think it would be better if theory distinguished more fully these specific classes of rights. I think the theoreticians would be better to further deliniate the difference in property rights between owning an ounce of palladium, owning a "copyright" to an "intellectual property" (which I maintain does not actually exist --- it is actually a time-bound freehold lease of commonly owned property(i.e.language), enforced by government fiat) and owning a right to use a public thoroughfare. Just calling them "property" rights is convenient, and I'm sure correct based on theory going back to Locke, but by now, one would have thought that concepts like intellectual copyright to things like writings, novels, invention would have been much more clearly defined as to how they differ in contrast to property rights to an ounce of palladium one purchased legally on the free market.
Also, someone said that if their neighbor or someone said, "I'm going to kill you a year from now", you don't have the right to kill them because the threat is not immediate. But how does time come into it and how can you determine how much time is reasonable under law, before I can kill you in response to a "direct threat". Seems to me, under Libertarian doctrine, I'd have a perfect right to kill you as soon as I hear you speak that threat in order to defend my right to life, especially if you're dumb enough to give me a year to prepare for the attack. So how to determine the time?
Had a case here in the valley recently where a former SF Bay Area policeman, retired on a disability pension, was stopped while driving, found to have no license on him, which he claimed he did not have to carry under the Constitution, was fined, refused to pay the fine, went to jail and went on hungerstrike for I dont know about 60 days. They finally let him go.
But I think the retired policeman is wrong. This whole controversy could be resolved thus: you have a Consitututional Right to walk, ride a bike, and probably a horse on a public thoroughfare without any kind of license, and if the gvt. owns or maintains the roads, then it must provide a parallel access for the walking/biking public (say, at the side of the freeway). However, the moving of a multi-thousand pound hunk of steel at 80mph while interacting in life and death situations with thousands of other hunks justifies the state testing the competence of the driver, his eyes, his medical history on blackouts, passing out, etc, and issuing a certification license so that the polis in the course of maintaining public safety can easily certify that this person is competent. This is not unlike requiring firecodes be complied with in tenement apt. buildings to prevent massive loss of life.
WmBGreene: You have a right to foot travel on a sidewalk and I have the same right. We both have an equal right to use so long as in our exercise of that right we do not infringe on anyone else's right to the same.
Likewise, one has a right to attempt to appropriate resources. I can't see why this right cannot be absolute. They are not to be guaranteed an amount of resources; they merely may strive to appropriate them, if any exist and are unowned.
Paul, have you read any of Kinsella's work on IP? And Rothbard/Hoppe on property more generally?
Inquisitor:Likewise, one has a right to attempt to appropriate resources. I can't see why this right cannot be absolute. They are not to be guaranteed an amount of resources; they merely may strive to appropriate them, if any exist and are unowned.
Here is the rub. They are not "unowned" - they are owned in common as an individual equal access opportunity right.
The extent of the infringement is measured by the extent that economic rent attaches to the appropriation.
Paul Grad:Just by being on the sidewalk, I am infringing on someone else's right to the same because I am physically taking up space; that's space they can't use, even if they wanted to.
That is why you have to keep on moving.
Paul Grad:Somewhere, someone said that three people couldn't stand shoulder to shoulder to block a public thoroughfare and would have to keep moving. But note, this would only apply to the two outer blockers, the individual in the middle would not have to move if the outer blockers moved and therefore wouldn't be preventing others from utilizing the rights inherent in a public thoroughfare. Thus, there seems to me to be an inherent right to loiter on a public sidewalk indefinitely.
That was me. Sorry, what I meant to say is three people can't be walking (not standing) abreast because individuals couldn't pass going in the opposite direction. If you are just standing but excercising your other rights of freedom of speech, assembly, petitioning then you have to keep moving. Anyone can just stand in the common right of way so long as they are not infringing on any other individual's equal right to use the public right of way.
Don't know much about public vagrancy laws and how it applies.
Paul Grad:owning a "copyright" to an "intellectual property" (which I maintain does not actually exist --- it is actually a time-bound freehold lease of commonly owned property(i.e.language), enforced by government fiat)
Exactly my position too. Language (words and letters) are part of the social commons and not to b enclosed which forces costs upon those excluded.
Paul Grad:as to how they differ in contrast to property rights to an ounce of palladium one purchased legally on the free market.
I think you only own the palldium to the extent that your exclusive use does not economically disadvantage anyone else. The test being "did you leave enough and as good in common for others?"
Paul Grad:you have a Consitututional Right to walk, ride a bike, and probably a horse on a public thoroughfare without any kind of license, and if the gvt. owns or maintains the roads, then it must provide a parallel access for the walking/biking public (say, at the side of the freeway). However, the moving of a multi-thousand pound hunk of steel at 80mph while interacting in life and death situations with thousands of other hunks justifies the state testing the competence of the driver, his eyes, his medical history on blackouts, passing out, etc, and issuing a certification license so that the polis in the course of maintaining public safety can easily certify that this person is competent. This is not unlike requiring firecodes be complied with in tenement apt. buildings to prevent massive loss of life.
The farther you get away from foot travel (skateboard, bike, horse, etc) the more that the government has an interest in exerting it's control over collectively owned property (roads and sidewalks) rather than it's more narrow constitutional role of insuring that no infringement is taking place after the fact within common right of ways that are contained within the collectively owned property.
Are you making up rights as you go on? Why should such a right even exist? How can it be anything but unowned in the absence of a claim to it? No one gifted the resources to anyone. They are, until someone mixes their labour with them, entirely unowned. You keep on echoing Locke's proviso, but said proviso had religious roots. Ever since Tibor Machan and Anthony de Jasay have demolished it.
I assume WmBGreene is "BillG (not Gates)" from this thread, etc.? Saying all the same things for the 1000th time...just google "equal access opportunity right" site:mises.org.
WmBGreene: Inquisitor:Likewise, one has a right to attempt to appropriate resources. I can't see why this right cannot be absolute. They are not to be guaranteed an amount of resources; they merely may strive to appropriate them, if any exist and are unowned. Here is the rub. They are not "unowned" - they are owned in common as an individual equal access opportunity right. The extent of the infringement is measured by the extent that economic rent attaches to the appropriation.
WilliamB ---Here's the rub --- Rights are owned, but not "in common as an individual equal access opportunity right" ---a most unfortunate phrase. In point of fact, they are owned as Creator-endowed individual Rights, under the U.S. Decl/Constitution. The Rights of Man have nothing to do with 'individual equal access opportunity", but with possession much like the possession of the ounce of palladium. The extent of the infringement has nothing to do with measurements of economic rents; it is an absolute violation of a Civil Right, though courts usually settle infringements using money measurements as a compensatory tool, instead of the gallows (at least now).
Paul Grad:Rights are owned, but not "in common as an individual equal access opportunity right"
There are two types of individual rights.
1. individual exclusive rights
2. individual equal rights
Confusing the two gets us in trouble. Speech, assembly, petitioning, travel are all individual equal rights.