Adam Knott:You are talking about something else entirely.
Oh, OK. Sorry for the confusion.
Adam Knott:I'm talking about something that if it were done, there would be two communities. At that very instant, the beginnings of a panarchist world will have begun. That will be an entirely different world. When that happens, the world will have changed, irreversibly, forever.
Could I maybe have an expansion on this statement? I don't understand how this doesn't describe the world as it stands. There is no (official) global monopoly on power, just many types of societal organization co-existing on our single planet. Would this be considered a panarchic world?
Jackson LaRose: .... it only dissovles the hypothetical state down to minarchy, which avoids the issue I had with the concept of panarchy.
.... it only dissovles the hypothetical state down to minarchy, which avoids the issue I had with the concept of panarchy.
Jackson:
As I interpret Max's article, he his showing a conceivable path, not an end-state. It is a suggestion for how things could begin.
What Max is saying is that we can rank various goods according to their suitability for non-territorial provision, and we can begin to construct a libertarian society with those goods, not the ones that are difficult to exchange nonterritorially.
Why begin with roads, military, etc. ?
Why not begin with things that can be done on a nonterritorial basis in the near future ?
Once that is done, even with a single issue, then a panarchist community exists. Then with respect to that single issue, there are at least two communities. Then things develop from there.
Things can begin with those issues that:
Are nonterritorial, do not require that any laws be changed, do not require that anyone's convictions be changed, do not require any hostile or aggressive actions towards non-members, etc..
Also, if done online, it is inexpensive for libertarians, and due to the nature of the Internet, hard to prevent through traditional coercive means.
"It would be preposterous to assert apodictically that science will never succeed in developing a praxeological aprioristic doctrine of political organization..." (Mises, UF, p.98)
Adam,
Sounds good, I'm all for that.
Jackson LaRose: Could I maybe have an expansion on this statement? I don't understand how this doesn't describe the world as it stands. There is no (official) global monopoly on power, just many types of societal organization co-existing on our single planet. Would this be considered a panarchic world?
Sure:
I'll just re-state an example I've been using.
Let's say a group of libertarians decide to attach an invoice to the e-mails they send one another, and bill one another for "intellectual services" at a rate of a penny an hour (Or maybe, in terms of some commodity. These are details that would have to be considered....).
Thus, they have now established their own "wage and trade" agreement, that satisfies the panarchist requirements of nonterritoriality, voluntarism, etc...
They have also established a "community" or association that satisfies the general libertarian ethical code of non-coercion.
This wage and trade agreement does not replace, alter, or abolish currently existing laws. It "co-exists" with them.
It is a voluntary community that coexists with the already existing State and its instiutions.
If such a thing were done, libertarian society would begin. It would be the real thing, not just arguments and books.
But it doesn't. Territorial monopoly remains as far as it is considered necessary by the people of the territory. This is where cooperation comes into play. If all agree that they need a single authority or owner for all roads in a territory (which, by the way, isn't even true now -- we have town, county, state, and US highways throughout my town), they can cooperate to accomplish this. It is all about who makes these decisions. Why, in any circumstance, should someone be allowed to force their opinion on others? That is absurd.
Jackson LaRose: kritarchist:And exactly at what point is this proposition absurd? To me, it is reducing away the concept of at least some territorial monopoly away to nothing.
kritarchist:And exactly at what point is this proposition absurd?
To me, it is reducing away the concept of at least some territorial monopoly away to nothing.
kritarchist:Territorial monopoly remains as far as it is considered necessary by the people of the territory.
I never thought I'd be doing this, but as Hoppe says, you are exhibiting a territorial monopoly every moment you exist, simply by your physical body exclusively occupying the space you currently dwelling in.
kritarchist:This is where cooperation comes into play.
As I demonstrated, it is my belief that some ideologies are fundamentally opposed. I don't see how a communist and a rugged individualist could cooperate effectively.
I understand cooperation, and I'm also a firm believer in its effectiveness, but I think there is a limit to its abilities for plurality, and a limit to its ability to eliminate territorial monopolies.
kritarchist:Why, in any circumstance, should someone be allowed to force their opinion on others? That is absurd.
What happens when you cross an authoritarian? Would you force your opinion upon them when they tried to become your overlord?
Jackson LaRose: kritarchist:Territorial monopoly remains as far as it is considered necessary by the people of the territory. I never thought I'd be doing this, but as Hoppe says, you are exhibiting a territorial monopoly every moment you exist, simply by your physical body exclusively occupying the space you currently dwelling in.
Hoppe is talking about the rights of ownership, the rights of life, liberty, and property. But it begs the question, who owns the right to control what happens in a territory. Panarchy asserts that ownership within a territory (beyond oneself and one's personal property) is joint, and that whatever governance exists be answerable to each person. Our current system makes elections the limit to which government answers to the governed. Panarchy allows that a finer level of accountablity is attainable.
Jackson LaRose: kritarchist:Why, in any circumstance, should someone be allowed to force their opinion on others? That is absurd. What happens when you cross an authoritarian? Would you force your opinion upon them when they tried to become your overlord?
The Axiom of Non-Agression allows the individual to defend himself, does it not?
kritarchist: Jackson LaRose: kritarchist:Why, in any circumstance, should someone be allowed to force their opinion on others? That is absurd. What happens when you cross an authoritarian? Would you force your opinion upon them when they tried to become your overlord? The Axiom of Non-Agression allows the individual to defend himself, does it not?
This seems like a contradiction. You hold the opinion that the NAP is valid, and as such, it allows you to force your opinion onto those that threaten you by defending yourself. Yet formerly, you seem to hold the notion that wrong under any circumstance to force your opinion on someone. You might have to put a few caveats in your first statement to not be self-contradicting.
Jackson LaRose: kritarchist: Jackson LaRose: kritarchist:Why, in any circumstance, should someone be allowed to force their opinion on others? That is absurd. What happens when you cross an authoritarian? Would you force your opinion upon them when they tried to become your overlord? The Axiom of Non-Agression allows the individual to defend himself, does it not? This seems like a contradiction. You hold the opinion that the NAP is valid, and as such, it allows you to force your opinion onto those that threaten you by defending yourself. Yet formerly, you seem to hold the notion that wrong under any circumstance to force your opinion on someone. You might have to put a few caveats in your first statement to not be self-contradicting.
There is no contradiction here. Defending oneself against against an aggressor is not forcing your opinion on them.
kritarchist:There is no contradiction here. Defending oneself against against an aggressor is not forcing your opinion on them.
It is your opinion that you should defend yourself.
Jackson LaRose:Gave the post a read, some good stuff. I don't really see how it addressed the practical problems of an panarchy, though.
That's OK, it's not meant to address panarchism.
Jackson LaRose: "What do you mean you're house? I'm from the anarcho-communist collective next door. This is everyone's property equally." How does a situation like that resolve itself?
"What do you mean you're house? I'm from the anarcho-communist collective next door. This is everyone's property equally."
How does a situation like that resolve itself?
Someone more acquainted with panarchism may have an answer, but I will just say that I don't necessarily see the coexisting governments conception of panarchism so much as a destination but as a possible strategy (among many).
Why anarchy fails
AJ: Jackson LaRose:Gave the post a read, some good stuff. I don't really see how it addressed the practical problems of an panarchy, though. That's OK, it's not meant to address panarchism. Jackson LaRose: "What do you mean you're house? I'm from the anarcho-communist collective next door. This is everyone's property equally." How does a situation like that resolve itself? Someone more acquainted with panarchism may have an answer, but I will just say that I don't see the coexisting governments conception of panarchism so much as a destination but as a possible strategy (among many).
Someone more acquainted with panarchism may have an answer, but I will just say that I don't see the coexisting governments conception of panarchism so much as a destination but as a possible strategy (among many).
AJ, Jackson:
Right now, as we debate and discuss, there are probably an unlimited number of possible voluntary communities that could be formed online. We know they would be real, because none of us believe they would be "allowed." Thus, they would be real coexisting communities. Not hypothetical ones in books and arguments.
If that ever happens, if libertarians were to decide to take the first steps towards such coexisting communities, none of us will have to worry about the abstract structure of some imaginary society arrived at by social theorists separate from the choices of the individuals in such a society.
We will have more important things to focus on. Libertarianism will be upon us, here and now, with it it's challenges, and we won't be worrying about where to place imaginary toll booths on imaginary private roads leading to imaginary libertarian courthouses.
If a coexisting community in any meaningful sense materializes, it won't be a strategy, it will be libertarian society unfolding before our eyes.
It will be libertarian society; just not the one we've been taught to expect.
What's preventing libertarian society from emerging is that people are trying to reach consensus on the legal structure of a society that will probably never exist, rather than striving for consensus on the first steps towards actualizing a libertarian community in nascent form.
Most likely, what is preventing us from doing this is fear of the unknown.
Some Prevalent Unchallenged Assumptions about the Conceiving of Human Liberty
For liberty to exist, libertarians may agree that some person or group will have to attain some kind of exemption from some number of compulsory welfare state obligations, at some time and in some country or region. But beyond this very general vision, no one knows how, when, or in what form this original liberty will emerge. Liberty may possibly begin when some small group of people is able to liberate themselves from a number of welfare state laws at the same time that others are not able to. This would imply a change in the existing legal structure, and would result in the existence of people one could call “libertarians”. They would be living a political existence of greater freedom than those subject to all the laws of the existing welfare state.
If this were to happen, then of how much use would existing libertarian social theory be? If liberty actually emerges in some modest form not yet completely understood, the main theoretical-legal problem to be solved might be how a limited number of people can relate legally to the welfare state which claims jurisdiction of the geographic area. The majority of libertarian private property theorizing is not designed to solve this problem. Rather the libertarian private property ethic conceives of the entire system of libertarian laws separate from the emergence of individual liberty, and thus without reference to what the actual concrete problems are. The libertarian private property ethic is concerned mostly with the legal relations between hypothetical libertarian property owners, such owners not conceived as organically emerging from welfare state legal structures, but rather conceived as already fully emergent from them. However, there is no certainty whatsoever that emerging liberty will create the conditions assumed by private property theorists.
If some people succeed in obtaining some degree of individual liberty, there is no certain way of knowing what the desires or needs of those people will be. There is no way of knowing what shifts may occur in larger society (legal, intellectual, physical, etc.) upon the realization of this new reality. No one knows what creative agreements could possibly be reached between some conceivable group of people we would call libertarians, and the larger society from which they were attaining some degree of freedom. It is possible that libertarianism could emerge “organically” with different people in different circumstances forming different agreements. Libertarianism may appear differently in different places. It is possible that people we would call libertarians may be able to achieve a degree of liberty that is not total, yet is enough to satisfy them partially or substantially. What we now conceive of as abstract “liberty” may not look anything like we expect when it finally emerges. If this were to be the case, it could also happen that during this societal transformation, contemporary libertarian social theory would be of little use. The entire structure of laws and legal relations conceived under the banner of the private property ethic may have little practical application, because the assumptions upon which these proposed laws are based may never materialize, even when human liberty itself does materialize.
In the books, papers and debates on libertarian social theory, one rarely encounters this realization. If liberty begins to emerge such that the first libertarians still live in a welfare state environment, this will constitute a real and exciting development in the history of liberty. The challenges faced by such a conceivable group of people would likely present real theoretical problems; problems of legal relations, jurisdiction agreements, etc. The primary political problem of such people might be, not the (future) legal relations between themselves, but the (present) legal relations between themselves and the larger society.
This is one example of the way in which actual human liberty could conceivably emerge, rendering marginal the practical value of most contemporary libertarian social theory.
Considerations such as these remind us to keep our focus on individual liberty itself, and less so on the design of a grand libertarian legal structure.
Solving Libertarianism’s Theoretical Problems
A self-defeating notion held by many libertarians is the notion that all or most of the theoretical problems of a future libertarian society should be solved before libertarian society can or should emerge.
Those who believe that whether or not a libertarian society is possible, or should be attempted, depends on the success or failure to theoretically solve the abstract problems of some hypothetical libertarian society, make several mistakes in thinking. First, there is no certainty about the eventual structure of a society which would be formed under conditions of greater liberty. Thus, there is no certainty about what actual problems will need solving in such a society. Second, even if one could arrive at a general notion of a future libertarian society, the fact that some of its difficult theoretical problems eluded satisfactory resolution would be of little importance. The reason is, once liberty begins to emerge and the easier to solve problems and easier to build structures begin to emerge, then the societies—both libertarian and larger society—undergo a shift. From the point of view of this now changed complex of societies, problems which appeared difficult and unsolvable before may appear differently. The imagined problem of the past may be less of a problem now or its solution may become clear.
Trying to solve or conceive of future legal structural problems separately from their emergence in real human circumstances seems to have the effect of focussing all libertarian effort on speculating and hypothesizing, and taking a corresponding amount of effort away from real efforts to establish some kind of emergent human liberty. This separation of thought from action, of scholarship from results, is a defining characteristic of contemporary libertarianism, forestalling indefinitely the time when real human liberty will emerge.
This past weekend BookTV had the authors of "China's Megatrends" talking about their book. I was distracted while listening, but thought I heard him say that in some localities the Chinese government is allowing considerable experimentation in government to occur. Has anyone read this book, or have any insight into this? Such a thing would certainly be a very good opportunity to attempt to bring about non-territorial government.
Adam Knott:Those who believe that whether or not a libertarian society is possible, or should be attempted, depends on the success or failure to theoretically solve the abstract problems of some hypothetical libertarian society, make several mistakes in thinking. First, there is no certainty about the eventual structure of a society which would be formed under conditions of greater liberty. Thus, there is no certainty about what actual problems will need solving in such a society. Second, even if one could arrive at a general notion of a future libertarian society, the fact that some of its difficult theoretical problems eluded satisfactory resolution would be of little importance.
I heartily agree here. That this lesson has yet to be absorbed is in evidence in perhaps half the daily threads on this forum.
Adam Knott:It is possible that people we would call libertarians may be able to achieve a degree of liberty that is not total, yet is enough to satisfy them partially or substantially.
How much better would my life be if I achieved total political liberty? That is, if I knew no state would aggress* against me ever again. Well, my income would increase by about 12% (residence and income taxes where I live), and my expenses would fall about about 2.5% (half of the sales tax). I would also never be unjustly treated by the police (so far this has never happened), and border crossing would be less of a hassle.
In this most ideal case, I would be a bit happier and a bit more secure. But in my hopes for a libertarian society, this isn't really what I'm looking for. It would certainly be nice, but this is the ideal case where I get total freedom right away, unconditionally with no risk or friction with the state. Rather, I think the big benefits of society becoming freer (that accrue to me) would be from falling prices, happier people, faster advancement of technology, and all the other benefits of the unhampered free market and other spontaneous social orders.
With that in mind, is the idea that a large group of people might form a such an association and then maybe start a business with employees all in the association and compete with big advantages because of the lack of taxes and regulations? Maybe providing services and goods only to those in the association (if goods were sold to non-members living under the State, the State would surely want to check the goods for safety, etc.). By doing this, is the idea that maybe the State would leave us alone because we limited our interactions to each other? Say, we agree in advance that any disputes among members will be resolved by a particular arbitration agency, and in exchange we make a deal with the State that none of us have the right to take another to a State court or to call the State police on one another. If we had a dispute with a non-member it would perhaps fall in the State's jurisdiction (at first). This is getting interesting. And I hear you about starting small, but these are ideas off the top of my head. It's clear that it would have to be incremental, because - for instance - the State now has no mechanisms in place for excluding people from police coverage, etc. The one thing is I don't see what the State gets out of the deal.
*by my definition of "aggression", or yours, or Rothbard's, etc.
AJ:With that in mind, is the idea that a large group of people might form a such an association and then maybe start a business with employees all in the association and compete with big advantages because of the lack of taxes and regulations? Maybe providing services and goods only to those in the association (if goods were sold to non-members living under the State, the State would surely want to check the goods for safety, etc.). By doing this, is the idea that maybe the State would leave us alone because we limited our interactions to each other? Say, we agree in advance that any disputes among members will be resolved by a particular arbitration agency, and in exchange we make a deal with the State that none of us have the right to take another to a State court or to call the State police on one another. If we had a dispute with a non-member it would perhaps fall in the State's jurisdiction (at first). This is getting interesting. And I hear you about starting small, but these are ideas off the top of my head. It's clear that it would have to be incremental, because - for instance - the State now has no mechanisms in place for excluding people from police coverage, etc. The one thing is I don't see what the State gets out of the deal.
Sounds like a great intentional community.Perhaps take the form of a condo association and a business co-op combined. Although, I don't understand how this wouldn't be just a tiny minarchist republic. Of course, I don't think I would have any problem with that, as the concept of a state that small and laissez-faire doesn't really bother me all that much.
Jackson LaRose:Although, I don't understand how this wouldn't be just a tiny minarchist republic.
It wouldn't be minarchist for two reasons.
AJ: By doing this, is the idea that maybe the State would leave us alone because we limited our interactions to each other? Say, we agree in advance that any disputes among members will be resolved by a particular arbitration agency, and in exchange we make a deal with the State that none of us have the right to take another to a State court or to call the State police on one another. If we had a dispute with a non-member it would perhaps fall in the State's jurisdiction (at first). This is getting interesting. And I hear you about starting small, but these are ideas off the top of my head. It's clear that it would have to be incremental, because - for instance - the State now has no mechanisms in place for excluding people from police coverage, etc. The one thing is I don't see what the State gets out of the deal.
By doing this, is the idea that maybe the State would leave us alone because we limited our interactions to each other? Say, we agree in advance that any disputes among members will be resolved by a particular arbitration agency, and in exchange we make a deal with the State that none of us have the right to take another to a State court or to call the State police on one another. If we had a dispute with a non-member it would perhaps fall in the State's jurisdiction (at first). This is getting interesting. And I hear you about starting small, but these are ideas off the top of my head. It's clear that it would have to be incremental, because - for instance - the State now has no mechanisms in place for excluding people from police coverage, etc. The one thing is I don't see what the State gets out of the deal.
AJ:
Let's assume that no one will change their mind on matters of political conscience in the foreseeable future. This means that all the people who will not agree in principle to the idea of voluntary association will continue to hold these convictions.
Then, either one can continue arguing with them, or find another path.
People are free to continue arguing with convicted statists of all persuasions. I'm trying to address the situation where a person believes that this kind of arguing isn't going to bring about a voluntary community. My example and reasoning assumes that by and large, people will stick to their current political convictions.
Assuming this, what are the possibilities ?
Then, assuming that a libertarian society or community can't be installed in one stroke, apparently, any libertarian society that does come about will have to come about over time. But given this, why would one have to begin with the most difficult or even impossible issues?
If there are 10,000 things that it is illegal to do voluntarily, why not choose one issue, issue #10,000. Why not choose the most trifling, minute, even laughable issue to begin with? And why not choose it in such a way, that thousands of people could participate easily, cheaply, voluntarily, nonterritorially and across borders, while preventing such a voluntary community would be extremely difficult and expensive ?
The idea is that once this is done, this IS a libertarian or panarchist community, since it fulfills the definition of a libertarian or panarchist community (mainly, voluntary, non-coercive, non-monopolistic, nonterritorial).
Now, you list various issues and problems that may arise if something like this were to happen.
My reply: Now we will have something positive to work on. A libertarian community would then be established, and we could focus our thought and energy on its maintenance, growth, and preservation.
This, as opposed to the current focus which is altering or abolishing the state (altering or abolishing political forms that reflect the social and political development of others).
I suggest this is not necessary, and in fact, is contrary to our purpose.
****
If you look at some of your concerns, you can see that you're jumping ahead to problems that aren't really related to taking issue # 10,000, and beginning with it.
You are talking about disputes with nonmembers, exemption from police coverage, etc.... You are habitually leaping ahead to the abstract hypothetical construction of an entire imaginary libertarian society. My example hasn't gotten anywhere near that far.
Why is there a dispute with my neighbor when I invoice you for a penny an hour? Why do I need an exemption from local police protection for that?
Do I need an arbitration agency for that? If so, I'll find one.
You are discussing arbitration agencies, police protection, disputes with neighbors. Then, why not also discuss the military, health care, roads, zoning laws, state capitals, and on and on.... You are way up there at issue # 52, 31, 18, and 7. I'm talking about issue #10,000
If a community is constructed around #10,000, it will be a libertarian community.
Why can't I be both a member of a voluntarily chosen community at the same time I'm a member of a coercively imposed community?
I'm not a member of the coercively imposed community by choice, but essentially because for practical reasons, I am unable to avoid it. So I still can and will utilize the services that are provided by that community (police protection, arbitration, etc...) Those imposed services are still in place, and I'm still a citizen of that community. I can and will continue to utilize the services that for the time being I am unable to opt out of.
I'm a member of two coexisting societies: one I have chosen, and one that I am unable at this time to avoid.
That is panarchism.
The reason we don't have panarchism now, is not because we haven't yet abolished or altered the state. The reason we don't have panarchism is because we haven't constructed any community coexisting with it.
Libertarian society doesn't exist because we haven't taken any steps (outside of scholarship) to establish it.
I'm suggesting it is possible to establish it peacefully, voluntarily, nonterritorially.
I'm suggesting we could focus our energies in this direction, and spend less time trying to change the current system, or trying to convince nonlibertarians to become libertarians.
AJ:It would be opt-in, not a compulsory association
I got that part, but it still has to occupy some space, no?
AJ:It would not be territory-based. This a new possibility brought by the Internet, and why I think panarchy is useful to think about. The viability of non-territorial legal association just got a huge boost.
Ah, so it only occupies cyberspace... interesting, although I'm having a hard time conceptualizing that. Wouldn't it still have to occupy server space? The server still has to occupy some space itself.
Are you advocating a sort of "Freedom Club", like an Elks, or a church-like organization?
Adam Knott:This, as opposed to the current focus which is altering or abolishing the state (altering or abolishing political forms that reflect the social and political development of others). I suggest this is not necessary, and in fact, is contrary to our purpose.
I think it is concurrent. Remain constant or increase ones own individual libertarian effort does alter and abolish the state in ones own life. The altering is the state isn't encroaching anymore in the trade-off (meaning state is encroaching but I'm finding ways to at the same time abolish some methods in which the state has or is encroaching). The abolishing is the individual is increasing their own libertarian effort. Every exchange in the free market meets this economic goal via the Unanimity Rule. Every moment an individual doesn't initiate physical aggression against another meets the ethical-political goal. Every time I increase my capital, ie. stockpile of wood for winter warmth, gardening, etc.... I've freed up capital (not buying oil for warmth or food at grocery store) to invest in the future which increases economic prosperity as opposed to declining into poverty. One may argue as to what delineates prosperity and poverty, but all I'm pointing out is without profit then it is loss and capital accumulation is profit.
overall I felt your post was being more positive than negative and enjoyed that. thanks.
Adam Knott:If a community is constructed around #10,000, it will be a libertarian community.
I get you on that, but above I am basically asking what would motivate people to do something like this? I am trying to find reasons people would want to take the risk out of self-interest, but at the level of issue #10,000 I'm only finding reasons based on ideology. I mentioned a business because that's the only way I can think of for something like this to attract people to it out of self-interest. If it's only for ideology, I assume it would just be a few hardcore panarchists willing to take the risk of doing civil disobedience (albeit minor).
Jackson LaRose: Adam, Are you advocating a sort of "Freedom Club", like an Elks, or a church-like organization?
I'm advocating a coexisting community, not something that is submitted for approval to the existing community, in which case it is simply an approved club of the existing community.
AJ:I mentioned a business because that's the only way I can think of for something like this to attract people to it out of self-interest.
Unless one believes it is in their self interest to have the state leave them alone. And even if the kernel of the movement is a purely ideological one, it can still serve as an example of how liberty benefits individuals, which could attract the more egoistic pragmatists.
I really like the idea of starting small, tackling the most seemingly unimportant encumbrance to freedom, maybe even just economic factors (like wilderness proposed), to keep the law off the movement's back. I would also see entering local politics as a very important (and attainable) facet of this tactic. Rather than civil disobedience, how about civil dissolution via the political process?
Thank you Wilderness
Adam Knott:I'm advocating a coexisting community, not something that is submitted for approval to the existing community, in which case it is simply an approved club of the existing community.
I'm confused by the distinction. Wouldn't you still have to play by the state's rules (paying taxes, licensing, etc.) to avoid getting pinched? I don't see how you could operate aside the current system, without being constrained by it.
AJ: Adam Knott:If a community is constructed around #10,000, it will be a libertarian community. I get you on that, but above I am basically asking what would motivate people to do something like this? I am trying to find reasons people would want to take the risk out of self-interest, but at the level of issue #10,000 I'm only finding reasons based on ideology. I mentioned a business because that's the only way I can think of for something like this to attract people to it out of self-interest. If it's only for ideology, I assume it would just be a few hardcore panarchists willing to take the risk of doing civil disobedience (albeit minor).
I'm making a few assumptions. If the assumptions don't hold, then the example I'm using loses its applicability.
Assumption 1: a person wants to establish a libertarian community in his/her lifetime
Assumption 2: arguing, debating, and writing books that are aimed at changing the ideology of statists isn't working, and may never work. It may never work because as long as the political realities are statist, and the "empirical" situation is statist (no alternative communities for comparison, or to give meaning to our "theoretical" arguments), then the statist's convictions about what is real and what is possible are understandably reinforced by the fact that, as much as libertarians "theorize" about their envisioned society, the fact on the ground is it is nonexistent. Statists have their scholarship (their theoretical rationale) and statist society. Libertarians only have a theoretical rationale. That is why libertarian arguments don't change minds. My argument assumes that this situation is recognized. That the reason libertarian arguments are ineffective is because there is no corresponding community to give meaning to libertarian words. Thus, for things to move forward from where they are, some kind of libertarian community needs to be established. Continuing arguments are not going to do it because of the underlying structural issue just described.
If a person doesn't want to see a libertarian community in his/her lifetime, my example has little persuasive power.
If a person believes that arguing and writing more articles and books is going to take libertarianism from scholarship to reality, then there is not much use for my idea, since my idea is based on the assumption that, not only is it possible that arguments may never convince nonlibertarians to become libertarians, it is probably also the case that through argumentation, libertarians may never even be able to agree amongst themselves on a common vision of libertarian society. I think our discussions here on the forum and discussions throughout the Internet demonstrate that.
My contention is that someone, somewhere, sometime, is going to have to demonstrate a libertarian community, as opposed to simply arguing and writing about one. That is the beginning of the solution. That is my argument.
You mention risk. I agree with you. If there is no desire to establish a libertarian community, or, if one can be established by argument and debate, why would anyone want to take the risks associated with the kind of idea I proposed ?
I don't understand part of your closing question.
If it were possible to establish a voluntary community in an entirely peaceful manner, easily, cheaply, voluntarily, and nonterritorially. And if by contrast, a bunch of libertarians could conceivably try to take over city hall, is it your position that only a few hardcore panarchists would be willing to establish the beginnings of libertarian society peacefully, while broad libertarian participation and approval can be expected for a plan to take over city hall by force ?
Or are you saying that if libertarians invoiced one another for a penny an hour, thus establishing their own wage and trade agreement coexisting with the wage and trade agreements of the state of which they are compulsory members, that this is more risky than the attempt to take over city hall by force?
Or is your point that anything done concretely to establish a libertarian society in nascent form, aside from arguing and writing, is risky, and in your opinion, there are only a few libertarians who can be expected to participate in any real and concrete plan to establish a libertarian community that goes beyond debating and writing books and articles ?
Do you intend to say that libertarians don't consider the establishment of some kind of libertarian community as in their self-interest? They will be unwilling in your opinion to take any risks to establish a libertarian community because they don't view it as in their self-interest?
Can you succinctly state your point or concern?
Jackson LaRose: Adam Knott:I'm advocating a coexisting community, not something that is submitted for approval to the existing community, in which case it is simply an approved club of the existing community. I'm confused by the distinction. Wouldn't you still have to play by the state's rules (paying taxes, licensing, etc.) to avoid getting pinched? I don't see how you could operate aside the current system, without being constrained by it.
Could you please illustrate using my example? For the sake of discussion, assume that ten thousand libertarians begin invoicing one another by e-mail attachment for a penny an hour for intellectual services.
Apply your analysis to that example.
Adam Knott: For the sake of discussion, assume that ten thousand libertarians begin invoicing one another by e-mail attachment for a penny an hour for intellectual services. Apply your analysis to that example.
For the sake of discussion, assume that ten thousand libertarians begin invoicing one another by e-mail attachment for a penny an hour for intellectual services.
I'm pretty sure I have to pay tax on my internet bill. (not sarcastic, I just don't have it in front of me right now.)
Adam Knott:My contention is that someone, somewhere, sometime, is going to have to demonstrate a libertarian community, as opposed to simply arguing and writing about one. That is the beginning of the solution. That is my argument.
This is good, and I agree. (Although I don't really think the lack of empirical evidence for anarchy is a big deal myself, given the history of common law and the anarchy in everyday life. If people don't accept that as empirical evidence I don't see that a real live libertarian community would fulfill their standards for evidence either, given that it'd also be in the shadow of the state. Not to mention that providing empirical evidence would stop being an important issue once the community was complete enough to constitute anywhere near a level of empirical evidence to rival the evidence already out there.)
Adam Knott: Do you intend to say that libertarians don't consider the establishment of some kind of libertarian community as in their self-interest? They will be unwilling in your opinion to take any risks to establish a libertarian community because they don't view it as in their self-interest? Can you succinctly state your point or concern?
Short version: Even committed libertarians won't view taking the first few steps as in their self-interest unless they think those steps will advance libertarianism, but those steps will only advance libertarianism if enough people view those first few steps (and every step along the way) as in their self-interest. Chicken and egg.
Longer version: The flipside of starting from the most minuscule issues is of course that the immediate material benefit gained for each person in taking those particular steps is negligible, or actually negative since there is some risk involved. Hence it would not be in anyone's self-interest to form such associations unless they believed that doing so would either effectively advance libertarianism or eventually promote their self-interest in some other way.
So my question is, how do you get people to believe that forming such associations would advance libertarianism? I know you want to avoid making a concrete prediction about how things will unfold, and that seems prudent, but it likewise seems hard to convince people to do something risky without talking about how what they're doing is supposed to help. How to get around that apparent dilemma?
AJ:You seem to be saying that anarchy is unstable, that it (seemingly paradoxically) needs a guiding hand. Who do you imagine is the agent(s) that will "maintain" anarchy, and by what kinds of actions?
Of course anarchy could be unstable. I'm not so naive to think that social order will emerge in anarchy under any institutional conditions whatsoever. And as Boétie's Law shows, any society requires the support (or at least not active opposition) of its constitutive members to survive. As Long writes, social "structures exist only insofar as they are continually maintained in existence by human agents acting in certain systematic ways." So to answer your question, the people living in the anarchist society will maintain it, through (primarily) not establishing governments themselves and fighting the imposition of governments by others.
AJ:Yet imposition of a system by definition rules out the NAP
Not if the imposition is itself nonaggressive. You seem to be defining "imposition" to be necessarily aggressive. I'm using it to mean "establish by force." So by this definition, an imposition could be aggressive or nonaggressive (i.e. defensive). What I'm talking about is nonaggressive imposition.
AJ:Again, who will be doing what in order to impose a system based on the NAP? The only way for single person or group to impose a system on everyone is via a state.
What I have in mind is the market anarchist society as explained by Rothbard and Friedman: competing protection agencies protect people against aggressors, and competing courts resolve disputes. Market competition and moral convictions will lead these agencies to follow the NAP. Since there is free entry into these industries, the system is not a state.
AJ:Rothbardian AnCap with 100% freedom of contract (if consistently conceived) apparently would allow for "opt-in" statism
But if we define the state to be necessarily aggressive, then "voluntary statism" is a contradiction in terms.
AJ:Rothbard explicitly admitted that, for instance communist enclaves would be fine as long as they were voluntary, but at other times his writing seems equivocal on the issue.
Of course Rothbard supported any voluntary society, given that his entire philosophy was built on the nonaggression principle.
AJ:For such reasons I think many have come away from the AnCap conception with the negative impression that it is trying to lay out a certain concrete "objective" vision of how society ought to be, which may be why there has been a surge in panarchist sentiment: it makes the reference to tolerance for all types of voluntary association explicit and unequivocal.
But libertarian anarchism is promoting a "certain concrete "objective" vision of how society ought to be": the objective vision that all human relationships in society ought to be voluntary. If panarchism just means "explicit and unequivocal tolerance for all types of voluntary association", then there's no difference between panarchism and libertarian anarchism.
AJ:not to mention that everyone defines aggression differently.
So do you think the definition of "aggression" is just a subjective belief? If so, then doesn't your panarchist position fall apart? How can you advocate "explicit and unequivocal tolerance for all types of voluntary association" if you don't have a fixed conception of voluntary association? For example, someone might define statism as voluntary association, and you would have to count this as panarchist.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
AJ: .....committed libertarians won't view taking the first few steps as in their self-interest unless they think those steps will advance libertarianism... ....The flipside of starting from the most minuscule issues is of course that the immediate material benefit gained for each person in taking those particular steps is negligible, or actually negative since there is some risk involved. Hence it would not be in anyone's self-interest to form such associations unless they believed that doing so would either effectively advance libertarianism..... ....but it likewise seems hard to convince people to do something risky.....
.....committed libertarians won't view taking the first few steps as in their self-interest unless they think those steps will advance libertarianism...
....The flipside of starting from the most minuscule issues is of course that the immediate material benefit gained for each person in taking those particular steps is negligible, or actually negative since there is some risk involved. Hence it would not be in anyone's self-interest to form such associations unless they believed that doing so would either effectively advance libertarianism.....
....but it likewise seems hard to convince people to do something risky.....
Hi AJ:
EDIT
Never mind. I'll say it a different way.
The point I was driving at was that it's only risky due to the fact that people believe libertarianism is being advanced.
We only call it something risky because we realize the situation: that libertarianism would be advanced, and that some people might try to stop it.
In your post you state that people will perhaps want to avoid risk, especially if they don't believe libertarianism is being advanced.
But if libertarianism isn't being advanced, why would they believe there was risk ?
Liberty isn't emerging now, and we have no risk. Why would we change to a situation of "risk" while liberty is exactly where it is now with no advance?
The proposition that some assumed action would be risky is the acknowledgment that liberty was emerging, and that might not sit well with some, hence the "risk".....
Adam Knott:The proposition that some assumed action would be risky is the acknowledgment that liberty was emerging, and that might not sit well with some, hence the "risk".....
I don't see how you mean this. The State wouldn't take action against someone because they were "advancing libertarianism" but because they were, say, violating the minimum-wage law.
Sage:As Long writes, social "structures exist only insofar as they are continually maintained in existence by human agents acting in certain systematic ways." So to answer your question, the people living in the anarchist society will maintain it, through (primarily) not establishing governments themselves and fighting the imposition of governments by others.
I think we agree, although I wonder about the exact sense of "systematic" Long means. It seems a slightly odd word choice seemingly trying to straddle the objective NAP approach and the spontaneous order. (Could be just my imagination.)
Sage: AJ:Again, who will be doing what in order to impose a system based on the NAP? The only way for single person or group to impose a system on everyone is via a state. What I have in mind is the market anarchist society as explained by Rothbard and Friedman: competing protection agencies protect people against aggressors, and competing courts resolve disputes. Market competition and moral convictions will lead these agencies to follow the NAP. Since there is free entry into these industries, the system is not a state.
Just to make sure I've got you right, your ideal conception is for PDAs and such to form now and for people to start following their decisions? The who and the what are: the entrepreneurs, and the starting up of PDAs and other firms that are part of Rothbard's/Friedman's AnCap machinery?
And I agree that this would not be imposing anything on anyone. However, it sounds sort of like a panarchist vision, so maybe I'm not getting you.
Sage:But if we define the state to be necessarily aggressive, then "voluntary statism" is a contradiction in terms.
Well yes, in a sense, but I mean something akin to a Blockian voluntary slave contract if you know what I mean. Voluntary slave is also an oxymoron, but we understand that it means someone voluntarily gave up their right to voluntary interaction with someone starting at some point in time. Anyway, yes, voluntary statism is only statism in the sense that Block's voluntary slave is a slave.
Sage:But libertarian anarchism is promoting a "certain concrete "objective" vision of how society ought to be": the objective vision that all human relationships in society ought to be voluntary.
It's not necessarily objective, and that also stretches the definition of "concrete" in comparison with the AnCap machinery and all the specific determinations of what is right and wrong in all sorts of areas.
Sage:If panarchism just means "explicit and unequivocal tolerance for all types of voluntary association", then there's no difference between panarchism and libertarian anarchism.
Yeah, like I say, I see it primarily as a difference in emphasis, perspective, and/or strategy, probably born out of the dissatisfaction with more concrete visions. My own position basically sees panarchy as a possible strategy/perspective/heuristic.
*A difference in emphasis and perspective compared with AnCap, strategy compared with all other libertarian philosophies.
Sage:So do you think the definition of "aggression" is just a subjective belief?
A word is just a means of tagging and communicating a concept or imagined state of affairs from one's mind to the mind of another. My point is that the concept people associate with the word aggression in a political context differs wildly. In many cases we could even say that all the little particulars of what constitutes "aggression" in the mind of a given person just is their entire political philosophy.
Sage:If so, then doesn't your panarchist position fall apart? How can you advocate "explicit and unequivocal tolerance for all types of voluntary association" if you don't have a fixed conception of voluntary association? For example, someone might define statism as voluntary association, and you would have to count this as panarchist.
Yes, I believe the panarchist position (as an absolute doctrine) breaks down to the extent that what I said above about the word aggression also applies to tolerance. I have no commitment to panarchism as a doctrine or complete philosophy, so will leave the defense of that position to any others who may hold it. I see panarchism/voluntaryism primarily as a strategy and a perspective, and possibly as a heuristic that might be more intuitive or consistently interpreted by most people than the NAP.
[On the relatively minor issue of which term - "voluntary" or "NAP" - is the more intuitive or consistently interpreted heuristic in the minds of most people, I might be persuaded either way but lean toward "voluntary" being more intuitively connected to the types of situations libertarians talk about and advocate for.]
Sage:So do you think the definition of "aggression" is just a subjective belief? If so, then doesn't your panarchist position fall apart? How can you advocate "explicit and unequivocal tolerance for all types of voluntary association" if you don't have a fixed conception of voluntary association? Forexample, someone might define statism as voluntary association, and you would have to count this as panarchist.
That means you have to argue for your substantive position. Calling something aggression is not enough.
AJ: Adam Knott:The proposition that some assumed action would be risky is the acknowledgment that liberty was emerging, and that might not sit well with some, hence the "risk"..... I don't see how you mean this. The State wouldn't take action against someone because they were "advancing libertarianism" but because they were, say, violating the minimum-wage law.
I don't see it that way.
If we take a series of voluntary associations that libertarians might form, not limited to my example, and if we take a series of actions that the state might conceivably take, each action referring to a specific law, then we would have something like this:
Libertarians establish voluntary association A.......The state takes action based on law W.
Libertarians establish voluntary association B.......The state takes action based on law X.
Libertarians establish voluntary association C......The state takes action based on law Y.
Libertarians establish voluntary association D......The state takes action based on law Z.
You are saying that the state would take action because law W was being violated. You are referring to the concrete "justification" given for each instance of state action.
I'm not referring to that.
I'm referring to the general principle that each time a voluntary society is formed the state takes action.
What is the reason for that general principle?
Adam Knott: I'm not referring to that. I'm referring to the general principle that each time a voluntary society is formed the state takes action.
There wouldn't be one necessarily, but the voluntary organization would have to operate within the framework of the existing state ie, abide by the laws. If the new organization begins to operate outside of that framework, aside the state, than it will automatically come into conflict with the state, since the state is a non-voluntary organization that has asserted a monopoly of law and ultimate authority upon its citizens.
Jackson LaRose: .... the.... organization would have to operate within the framework of the existing state....
.... the.... organization would have to operate within the framework of the existing state....
Haven't you just stated the general principle involved ?
Adam Knott:Haven't you just stated the general principle involved ?
Uh, maybe, I'm still a bit confused about what you are proposing.
Not operating outside the framework of the state (like any business or club, or church, or non-profit)
Yet distinct from all of those pre-existing entities by operating independent of the state?