EvilSocialistFellow:...
In order to get back on track, perhaps you could explain (or reiterate if you already have explained) why you suspect an ancap society would be worse for children overall compared to the current system. Obviously, the current system isn't perfect when it comes to protecting children from abusive parents, but what is it that makes you think ancap would lead to a worse situation for children then there already is?
I think we can safely assume that the same number of parents will have the urge to abuse their children in either system which means the comparison is between which system causes a larger subset of abusive parents to either fight their abusive urges or efficiently removes children from such environments. It sounds like you think more children would end up abused in an ancap society than in the current system, would you mind expanding on what you envision happening in an ancap society (perhaps a few examples scenarios)?
Another thing to consider is whether you feel it is better to abuse an adult versus abusing a child. In the current system there is a lot of abuse lead by the state that is entirely uncalled for and would be eliminated or significantly decreased with the elimination of the state (offensive wars, police brutality, prison brutality, violent suppression of protests, and torture). Should we factor these things into the equation or should we keep it simple for now and speak only about child abuse? Also, how should we go about gauging situations where the state actually makes things worse, like putting runaways back into dysfunctional homes or putting foster children into dysfunctional homes?
Micah71381:In order to get back on track, perhaps you could explain (or reiterate if you already have explained) why you suspect an ancap society would be worse for children overall compared to the current system. Obviously, the current system isn't perfect when it comes to protecting children from abusive parents, but what is it that makes you think ancap would lead to a worse situation for children then there already is?
Firstly, I wouldn't say that I *think* an AnCap society would be this way, more that I *do not know* what an AnCap society would be like. It was the same kind of logic (personal 'philosophy', if you like) that drew me away from atheism (or rather positive atheism) and forced me into the realms of agnosticism (I do not feel that I can positively assert that a God does or does not exist)
However you asked me why I *might* suspect this would be the case (that AnCap would be worse). Well, I suspect this might be the case purely for the suspicion of how in certain (but not all, might I emphasise) case scenarios individuals would solve disputes in the free market without an authoritarian structure that has built its body of objective reasoning based upon hierarchical structures imposed 'from the top down' onto others.
In the following scenario, I would consider an individualist legal system to be preferable to a collectivist one:
(Individualist solution)
Me and a friend go to a club, there is a CCTV camera owned by the club. Me and my friend have a row about something, so we decide to go outside and solve the issue through discussion. My friend says something which annoys me; I snap and launch a physical assault against him. In scenario (a) my friend decides not to seek justice; he said something that was (by his own individual reasoning) unacceptable and hence my response was justified (again by his own reasoning). He does not pursue the case any further. In scenario (b), however, he decides that I went too far and he asks the club for CCTV evidence (they have the incident recorded) and takes the matter to court (private legal system or state owned legal system, it does not matter). I am fined £x for making the agression against his individual rights. The only other solution would be that my friend is unable to act himself (lets say he is mentally vulnerable or that he has not paid for legal insurance and cannot pursue a legal case) another individual (my friend's friend, brother, uncle, aunty, etc.) acts on his behalf (presuming my friend has given his consent for this), taking me to court.
There is another possible case scenario and that is the possibility that I killed my friend and he was therefore unable to launch a prosecution (even if he had so desired). However, I assume that in this case, maybe the club owner (upon reviewing the CCTV footage) or someone who witnessed the attack would be able to launch a prosecution.
(Collectivist Solution)
The state finds out about the case through CCTV footage and makes the decision to prosecute me on my friend's behalf regardless of whether or not my friend had forgiven me and decided not to pursue the case any further. For me, this stance is totally immoral; it is based on utilitarianism, the idea of 'the greatest good for the greatest majority'. The individual's (in this case, my friend that I assaulted in a row) rights are no longer important. He doesn't have a right to justice; 'society' does. Not only is it immoral but it is also a highly inefficient method of dealing with justice; the state cannot handle every single dispute that happens. It is obviously much easier to let the relevant individuals in any given situation handle their own affairs (and take the circumstance to court if need be).
Well, out of both the above situations, I find the individualist solution preferable, purely because there is no 'common good' that will benefit all man kind (my friend might find it more personally beneficial not to have me in prison, assuming we are still on good terms et cetera). But there is a significant difference in the case of adult disputes and problem case scenarios involving children, namely my friend's capability of making a rational choice; children do not have the capacity for rational decision making, as I explained earlier. The other differences are that I am not forcefully detaining my friend (he is free to launch a prosecution) - whereas parents have the ability to forcefully detain their child without anyone else's knowledge - and my friend is not being psychologically intimidated from me - abusive parents have the ability to apply bullying tactics, scaring the child away from trying to change his own circumstances (hence, when someone asks the child if he is happy with his family's parenting he might say 'yes' but really, he thinks 'no'). I would take the same stance that I do in the case of child abuse and defend state intervention in the case of a man that was mentally vulnerable (e.g. if the man had severe down syndrome).
The alternative, I suppose, would be the reliance on third bodies to launch prosecutions on the behalf of those without sufficient means to do so themselves (whether for financial - cannot afford legal case, physical or mental purposes).
Now, there is one point I have not addressed so far and that is "how can we know whether an incapacitated body is coercively being kept from attempting to launch a prosecution on his own behalf"? Under statism, the state has power to inspect (big brother - CCTV, state funded child cruelty agencies and so forth). In the free market, individual rights are respected and it is illegitmate for a third person to try and inspect the household of any family. This obviously has its pluses but it also has its minuses then, because it means that there will be an increased number of cases which are not known about. Remember, I'm not arguing that the state can 'know' about all cases of the physical detainment of an incapacitated body but legally, it has the legitimate authority to inspect such cases (the market does not). Now, Clayton made a good point and that was that members of the extended family would have the power to intervene under anarcho-capitalism. The only objection I would have to this is, how can you ensure that they would have the power to do so (intervene) in the market?
This is one of my main grips with private legal systems and why I am still undecided about anarcho-capitalism. I had these objections in my head all along but I was finding it difficult to express them in this kind of fine detail.
There is one thing that we agree on, however, and that is that child abuse would be present in both anarchist and statist societies. It is just my personal belief that there are a (severely limited) number of cases in which state intervention is preferable to that of free market solutions. I believe that it was Adam Smith's belief that state intervention in the market was justified provided that the net benefits outweigh the net costs (or overall burden) on 'society' - yeah, yeah, I know, individualism blah blah blah. This is my position as well; I think that state intervention is justified in certain circumstances where the negative effects are not worse than they would be had state intervention not happened. How we know when state intervention is preferable is another discussion.
Another thing to consider is whether you feel it is better to abuse an adult versus abusing a child.
No. I think that abuse is unjustified to the extent that it incurrs negative utility (which cannot be measured as such [ranking of values] and can only be subjectively judged by the individual experiencing the pain).
In the current system there is a lot of abuse lead by the state that is entirely uncalled for and would be eliminated or significantly decreased with the elimination of the state (offensive wars, police brutality, prison brutality, violent suppression of protests, and torture). Should we factor these things into the equation or should we keep it simple for now and speak only about child abuse? Also, how should we go about gauging situations where the state actually makes things worse, like putting runaways back into dysfunctional homes or putting foster children into dysfunctional homes?
This is true (the government has many faults) but the question is whether there would be more or less violence without the state. I believe that if there would be more violence, then the existence of the state is justified even if taxation constitutes theft but I know that others would disagree. Also, another point is, does the state need to be improved or abolished to achieve 'the most desirable outcome' (which is subjective, I know but I can't think of another way to phrase this other than returning to my theory of "risk analysis").
It has been brought to my attention that the ire you exhibit here, Herodotus, could have been caused by a perception that by choosing something totally ridiculous and unrelated to the conversation at hand was meant to mock you in some way. I'd like to go ahead and point out that this is not an attempt to ridicule. It is an attempt to "stump bias." Right now, you define specific words very differently than I do, and very differently from the Voluntaryist. It is not appropriate for me to continue to use those words with the definitions *I* employ incommunication with you. Rather than get hung up on the words, I offer new labels for the concepts I want to communicate, labels which you probably don't already have competing definitions for. I could just as easily do the following:
1) A = Use of physical force against the body or property of another 2) B = The threat of A in an attempt to ensure compliance 3) C = The initiation of A or B (see above) 4) D = The act of employing A or B (or any other means) in order to end an act of C
This way, I can communicate the position of the voluntaryist (as I perceive it, again, looking for an actual voluntaryist to correct me if I'm wrong here) without invoking words you already define differently than I/we do.
The position would be as follows:
Neither A nor B are necessarily C or D, however they must be one of those two options. There is no third option. There is no "neutral A" or "neutral B." Voluntaryists are anti-C(A or B), but they are pro-D(A or B or Neither).
Herodotus:You guys are now telling me that voluntaryists have their own definitions for words. I agree that we shouldn't get lost in semantics and should worry about the underlying meaning, but it was the lot of you who have accused me of conflating words and confusing meanings.
Herodotus:I think I have disproven that claim, and so I certainly understand if you want to move beyond that, as I have for some time now, but I cannot see how referring to Alice, Betty, Carol, or Denise will solve these issues for us, nor do I believe I have to conform to your sect's definitions of words in order to attain the truth.
I maintain that you have no disproven that you misunderstand what Voluntaryists advocate. I only seek to bring understanding into this discussion. I'm really not at all invested in whether or not you agree.
Herodotus:Pity we poor people who wander into a Newbie forum here without having conformed to your church's prefabricated definitions. I think it ironic that a clique of you on a website think you have the authority to dictate the meaning of words for voluntarism.
This isn't a church. I haven't ever told you that your definitions are "incorrect." I have only ever suggested that they are not the same definitions employed by voluntaryists. In fact, I have gone out of my way to use different words (alice, betty, carol, denise) so as to not demand that you use my/our definitions for the words you already use. This is exactly the opposite of what you've accused me of in this thread. I hope you understand that.
@Autolykos
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think we can stick with the sense of voluntarism that I have been advocating and for two reasons: the etymology leans, I think, very heavily in its favor, and two, because if one says that everybody should be allowed to live according to their free will, then that would also prevent anybody from interfering in the will of another.
After reading some of your posts and Clayton's, as well, it occurred to me, however, that maybe we should speak of "consent", although I am terrified of the prospect of introducing another term susceptible to debate. In fact, I can already imagine you pointing out, in the case of the pedophile example I brought up before, for instance, that the child would be consenting to those acts. And, I would agree that the child had consented. But, the quality of that consent (as I hold, that it was coerced) seems so overwhelming a factor that that consent is meaningless. I myself feel that that is a somewhat odd position to take, so I will agree to bin it for the moment and try to get to the underyling concept, as you suggest.
My position is that, as a matter of real life, every-day practicality, the child's consent is generally of secondary importance. I am sure that there are people here who are conscious of the importance to their ideology of maintaining the inviolable sanctity of consent, but as much as I myself treasure that value, I cannot adhere to it in a puritanical kind of way, that is, in all times and places and in all circumstances. And, with respect to children, it seems that, as a matter of course, it must be violated as a matter of course. As a teacher, unlike a parent, I have a (thankfully) limited degree of responsibilities and authority, but even in the class, it is inevitable that I focus on "fairness" rather than "justice", if I can force those two concepts apart. In any case, since consent, in the matter of raising children, seems to be something that must be relegated to an inferior position--and I agree that along the way to who, where, what, when, why, how, etc lies an impenetrable thicket of error--I cannot help but think that the voluntarist position, that consent trumps all (?), is an impossible position to hold.
I have already been taken aback by the reaction my use of the word "coercion" as elicited, so I will brace myself for the onslaught, but I wonder if there is not something here that might serve as common ground to, if nothing else, agree to disagree on?
Herodotus:@Autolykos Maybe I'm wrong, but I think we can stick with the sense of voluntarism that I have been advocating and for two reasons: the etymology leans, I think, very heavily in its favor, and two, because if one says that everybody should be allowed to live according to their free will, then that would also prevent anybody from interfering in the will of another.
If we use your "sense" (better: definition) of voluntarism, then no one in this thread who's been arguing against you is a voluntarist. But again, "voluntarist" and "voluntarism" are just words - the underlying concepts don't change because the words change. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
On the other hand, and with all due respect, I think you've been arguing against a straw man with regards to voluntarism. I say that because, as I noted above, what you're defining "voluntarism" as is different from what self-described voluntarists define it as. If you're trying to prove to self-described voluntarists the untenability of their position, I think it's useful to put that (alleged) proof in terms that they can understand.
Herodotus:After reading some of your posts and Clayton's, as well, it occurred to me, however, that maybe we should speak of "consent", although I am terrified of the prospect of introducing another term susceptible to debate. In fact, I can already imagine you pointing out, in the case of the pedophile example I brought up before, for instance, that the child would be consenting to those acts. And, I would agree that the child had consented. But, the quality of that consent (as I hold, that it was coerced) seems so overwhelming a factor that that consent is meaningless. I myself feel that that is a somewhat odd position to take, so I will agree to bin it for the moment and try to get to the underyling concept, as you suggest.
Of course I would point that out. :P But tell me, how does one measure "quality of consent"? And again, I must make the distinction between physical and non-physical coercion (using your definition of "coercion"). It's the former - physical coercion - that I find morally wrong.
Herodotus:My position is that, as a matter of real life, every-day practicality, the child's consent is generally of secondary importance. I am sure that there are people here who are conscious of the importance to their ideology of maintaining the inviolable sanctity of consent, but as much as I myself treasure that value, I cannot adhere to it in a puritanical kind of way, that is, in all times and places and in all circumstances. And, with respect to children, it seems that, as a matter of course, it must be violated as a matter of course. As a teacher, unlike a parent, I have a (thankfully) limited degree of responsibilities and authority, but even in the class, it is inevitable that I focus on "fairness" rather than "justice", if I can force those two concepts apart. In any case, since consent, in the matter of raising children, seems to be something that must be relegated to an inferior position--and I agree that along the way to who, where, what, when, why, how, etc lies an impenetrable thicket of error--I cannot help but think that the voluntarist position, that consent trumps all (?), is an impossible position to hold.
With all due respect, I think your position is unsupported. As far as I'm concerned, you need to demonstrate why/how the child's consent is generally of secondary importance.
How do you (personally) distinguish between "fairness" and "justice"? I suspect you distinguish them differently from how I do. Regardless, I fail to see how this directly relates to your main position - unless you're implicitly saying that, because you'll inevitably focus on "fairness" instead of "justice", you'll end up going against the child's consent and thus cannot hold to the voluntarist position. By the way, what makes you believe that you'll inevitably focus on "fairness" instead of "justice"? That is, can you support that claim?
In the end, your argument here is simply "voluntarism is an impossible position to hold w.r.t. children (and thus in absolute terms) because the consent of a child is of secondary importance". I find this argument to be unsatisfying because your reasoning suggests a more fundamental basis - that is, an explanation of what makes a child's consent only secondarily important. Perhaps you're simply assuming that it is; if so, I suggest you state that explicitly, at which point I'll simply reject the assumption and we'll be done. :)
Herodotus:I have already been taken aback by the reaction my use of the word "coercion" as elicited, so I will brace myself for the onslaught, but I wonder if there is not something here that might serve as common ground to, if nothing else, agree to disagree on?
It's not simply a matter of agreeing to disagree. Your position, as I understand it, means it's okay for you to do things to me without my consent. Please understand that, because I disagree with that position, I will feel obligated to defend myself against you if you try to carry it out with me.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Micah71381:After doing a search on mises.org for each of those terms I have concluded, given the information available to me, that as I suspected you are trying to send me on a wild goose chase for some reason. I can only guess the reason for this, perhaps pleasure, perhaps as a distraction while you try to come up with an argument against something I have stated, perhaps to boost your post count. None the less, if you want to supply a better definition go ahead. Until then I will use the definition I provided above and I encourage others in this thread to use the definition above so we can all communicate clearly.
Paranoia is so unbecoming.
This site, and this community, and the videos, texts, books, articles and speeches here ARE THE CRADLE OF VOLUNTARIST THOUGHT. People come here, "get" voluntarism, and never have to ever go to Wikipedia for anything.
EvilSocialistFellow:I will respond in a bit to your post in full but I would like to quickly say this; I do understand *certain* aspects of methodological individualism and have read some of Human Action, etc. I am just having a hard time phrasing my vocabulary to meet your (extremely specific) expectations.
I think you have correctly identified the issue. You're arguing without having the understanding in place. I get it. I have done it. It's a way to learn, but you have to really focus to adapt your positions as your understanding deepens.
EvilSocialistFellow:Ok, so maybe I don't imagine that AnCap would be perfect for everybody
The point I am making with this, is that no ancap who understands ancap (lots of poseurs) would say that this system can remove hunger, or pain, theft, violence or disrespect. It's simply not possible to have human freedom, without the opportunity for people to do things we consider antisocial. There is ALWAYS a risk. There is no guaranteed safe path.
EvilSocialistFellow:I am just saying that there are certain social issues that are incredibly complex and are ones that the entrepeneurs would have more difficulty fixing than the state bureacrats who own a monopoly on coercion (and subsequently have more power to implement their plans and may also legitimately use coercion).
And this is what I have been pushing you and Herotodus towards. That you hold the belief that society is best organized by violence.
I'm not judging it, but lets call it what it is.
EvilSocialistFellow:Since we don't have a vast quantity of data showing what an AnCap society would like, 'we' can't really know. 'We' do know, however what a mixed economy looks like because we have had a mixed economy in the west since the 20th Century.
We know what a mixed economy looks like, of a particular type at a particular moment in time. We also know this mixed economy is headed for crisis level bankruptcy and social upheaval. But that said, Austrians generally use deduction, not empiricism. I'm asking you to employ logic, and identify the contradictions from any models you consider, and see them for what they are at their root. And then you will have to again decide, is this what I thought it was?
EvilSocialistFellow:I'm trying to use my language in a specific way here, its just hard to meet your expectations, I'm so sorry.
Don't be sorry. I don't have expectations. Most people never learn to employ reason or logic. You're taking that first step. Leap! You can fly.
EvilSocialistFellow:Edit - Micah was spot on when he was talking about my own personal risk assessment, by the way; why should I risk a free market economy and lower living standards (by my own subjective analysis) because you guys all want to overthrow the state?
That's a question for you to answer. I don't want to overthrow the state. I want to live in peace with my fellow men, and I refuse to accept an institution which claims it has the right to commit violence against me if I exercise peaceful free will.
EvilSocialistFellow:I might be pointing a gun to your head and forcing you to pay taxes but at least there is empirical evidence which shows what a mixed economy looks like; plunging me into AnCap is like throwing me in at the deep end in a hazy confusion of blurriness.
Think about this argument. You could use it to prevent freeing the slaves or giving women the vote. It's a bunker mentality. Immobilized. Anti-human because it resists evolution. Yes, we're radicals. Radicals for peace and prosperity. That's what you're scared of. Now you have to ask yourself why.
@Clayton
I just spent a good hour crafting an excellent reply to your post, since you addressed what I believe to be the difficulty at the heart of the voluntarist position (although from a slightly different angle, I think), and my post has vanished into the ether of the worldwide web. I am too heart-broken to try to conjure it back into existence, but I just wanted to convey my respect for the consistency and honesty of your position (if it is not condescending to say so).
You are right. I am arguing that nobody can be a voluntarist, except in the abstract. That's why I could no longer call myself a voluntarist. I could not see how it was possible to practice what I preached.
As for agreeing to disagree, all I meant by that was that we could get beyond the debate about definitions to some extent and come to the point where, if we could not convince one another, we would at least knew where everybody stood.
As for the distinction between "fairness" and "justice", I cannot claim a hard and fast difference. I made it up on the fly, as a way of trying to differentiate between an order in which justice is approximated and in which it is an absolute value. I wonder, as an aside, how many participants in this thread are parents or teachers and also how many people have, or come from, big nuclear families. As a teacher, with multiple competing interests and desires, it is impossible to be "just". If somebody is bothering someone else, he/she is not to take the matter into their own hands, but to report it to me, and I will attempt to deal with it in a relatively fair but cursory manner with consideration of the opinions or, more importantly, the feelings of the parties involved and the class as a whole. I judge that the children are generally unable to come to a fair or just conclusion on their own. Moreover, I judge that spending too much time on the matter will cause disorder in the class and distract everyone from the task at hand. It would also set a precedent and communicate an order of priorities where every petty issue (he kicked my desk, no i didn't, yes you did, i was moving my chair because your jacket always touches my desk, yesterday..., and then a third and fourth party jump in, too) can be brought up for litigation, and after failing to satisfy each person's sense of justice, he/she then proceeds to display their righteous indignation by making a scene or, God forbid, "defending themselves".
For someone like me (an ex-voluntarist), I live in a world where all ideological absolutes appear dubious at best. It is an awful life, being conscious of the fact that it is impossible to be just or fair. A person in front of me is about to jump off a bridge and commit suicide, and I can "save his life" or "let him die". I will, all things being equal, "save him" although it is possible that he is doing the "right" thing. No religion or ideology, either statist or anarchist, atheist or theistic, is going to feed me the Right Answer, and how would I know it if I got it? And yet, here I am in the world, with the person about to jump.
The thing that had attracted me to voluntarism originally and still does to some extent was the concern that that kind of anarchist had about trying to remove the things within him/herself that perpetuated the unceasing cycle of violation of consent. Perhaps you are right and I misunderstood voluntarism, but my sense is that this has been hijacked by "ancaps", people who are more interested in eradicating the state (without being able to define it) in deference to economic forces, rather than creating the conditions under which people will not be forced into anything by anybody, whether the state or one's neighbor. I found that when I tried to practice voluntarism, I could not escape the problem of coercion, especially in relation to children. If I were a parent, I would be in an even bigger bind. There is no way I could be a parent and not coerce them (by physical force) into doing things they did not want to do.
Under the right conditions, I may attempt to do things to you without your consent. But, I can't say I wasn't warned!
@Clayton I just spent a good hour crafting an excellent reply to your post, since you addressed what I believe to be the difficulty at the heart of the voluntarist position (although from a slightly different angle, I think), and my post has vanished into the ether of the worldwide web. I am too heart-broken to try to conjure it back into existence, but I just wanted to convey my respect for the consistency and honesty of your position (if it is not condescending to say so).
God I hate it when that happens. A piece of advice... occasionally press the following key sequence while composing replies "Ctl+A, Ctl+C"... that selects all text and copies it to the clipboard. If your browser crashes or the website chokes when you submit your post, you may have some or all of it still in the clipboard where you can paste it into Notepad or another instance of the website. It's saved my bacon a couple times.
Clayton -
Do you believe that in a free market the amount of implanted memories will increase or decrease? As I have stated before, I am not claiming that an ancap society is perfect or will right all wrongs, only that it would be better than the current system. Something to consider is that the insurance agencies will require sufficient proof to provide reparations and they are unlikely to consider child testimony as proof. However, if an advocacy group were to utilize modern surveillance techniques, once they child was of age to object the footage could be used to provide proof. In the current system things like child testimony (and in general, witness testimony) is overvalued. In a free market it is more likely to be valued more appropriately.
I don't think anyone could afford the legal risk of trying to conjure up children's memories. In our current system, there is de facto immunity because anything done on the State's behalf will have protection from the DA's office which is funded from the effectively unlimited public treasury. In a free society, these "child psychologists" would be liable for their actions and I speculate that after the first two or three lawsuits there would be no "child psychology" industry.
Herodotus:@Autolykos You are right. I am arguing that nobody can be a voluntarist, except in the abstract. That's why I could no longer call myself a voluntarist. I could not see how it was possible to practice what I preached.
Again, it depends on the definition of "voluntarist" being used. By your definition, I would agree - no one can be a voluntarist. But by my definition, people certainly can be voluntarists. Do you see the difference? There is no particular meaning that the word "voluntarist" must have. Furthermore, the meaning you've attributed to "voluntarist", once again, is not the meaning which other self-described "voluntarists" have attributed to it.
Herodotus:As for agreeing to disagree, all I meant by that was that we could get beyond the debate about definitions to some extent and come to the point where, if we could not convince one another, we would at least knew where everybody stood.
Well that's fair enough IMO.
Herodotus:As for the distinction between "fairness" and "justice", I cannot claim a hard and fast difference. I made it up on the fly, as a way of trying to differentiate between an order in which justice is approximated and in which it is an absolute value.
Are you saying that you can't say just what your definitions are for "fairness" and "justice"?
Herodotus:I wonder, as an aside, how many participants in this thread are parents or teachers and also how many people have, or come from, big nuclear families. As a teacher, with multiple competing interests and desires, it is impossible to be "just". If somebody is bothering someone else, he/she is not to take the matter into their own hands, but to report it to me, and I will attempt to deal with it in a relatively fair but cursory manner with consideration of the opinions or, more importantly, the feelings of the parties involved and the class as a whole.
How is impossible to be "just" as a teacher with multiple competing interests and desires? Of course, there's no objectively correct standard of "justice" to apply, so one must look within (as it were).
Are you referring to the rules and regulations where you teach? I see no reason why someone must not or literally cannot take the matter into his own hands, but must report it to you, or why you must attempt to deal with it in "a relatively fair but cursory manner [etc.]". Can you please support and/or clarify this?
Herodotus:I judge that the children are generally unable to come to a fair or just conclusion on their own.
What has made you arrive at that judgement?
Herodotus:Moreover, I judge that spending too much time on the matter will cause disorder in the class and distract everyone from the task at hand. It would also set a precedent and communicate an order of priorities where every petty issue (he kicked my desk, no i didn't, yes you did, i was moving my chair because your jacket always touches my desk, yesterday..., and then a third and fourth party jump in, too) can be brought up for litigation, and after failing to satisfy each person's sense of justice, he/she then proceeds to display their righteous indignation by making a scene or, God forbid, "defending themselves".
Perhaps that should give you pause about the whole nature of modern "child education". Objectively speaking, of course, there's no such thing as "too much" or "too little" time spent on one thing or another. Furthermore, eliminating disorder and/or distraction in the classroom isn't objectively more or less important than providing "justice" (according to one's own standard thereof).
Herodotus:For someone like me (an ex-voluntarist), I live in a world where all ideological absolutes appear dubious at best. It is an awful life, being conscious of the fact that it is impossible to be just or fair. A person in front of me is about to jump off a bridge and commit suicide, and I can "save his life" or "let him die". I will, all things being equal, "save him" although it is possible that he is doing the "right" thing. No religion or ideology, either statist or anarchist, atheist or theistic, is going to feed me the Right Answer, and how would I know it if I got it? And yet, here I am in the world, with the person about to jump.
The thing is, there is no Right Answer. "Right" and "wrong" are subjective. But that in no way means that one should or must give up any/all "ideological absolutes".
Herodotus:The thing that had attracted me to voluntarism originally and still does to some extent was the concern that that kind of anarchist had about trying to remove the things within him/herself that perpetuated the unceasing cycle of violation of consent. Perhaps you are right and I misunderstood voluntarism, but my sense is that this has been hijacked by "ancaps", people who are more interested in eradicating the state (without being able to define it) in deference to economic forces, rather than creating the conditions under which people will not be forced into anything by anybody, whether the state or one's neighbor. I found that when I tried to practice voluntarism, I could not escape the problem of coercion, especially in relation to children. If I were a parent, I would be in an even bigger bind. There is no way I could be a parent and not coerce them (by physical force) into doing things they did not want to do.
I definitely think that you've misunderstood what self-described voluntarists mean by "voluntarism". None of them, to my knowledge, would equate it with "pacifism", which is what you seem to (still) be doing.
What's unfortunate about being a parent today is that, if you don't physically coerce your children, you'll likely be punished by the state. Since there are laws mandating compulsory education and prohibiting child labor, along with the contemporary concept of "child abuse", all of which are backed up with significant means of violence, it seems next to impossible for a parent to kick his child(ren) out of his house without suffering highly adverse consequences. The only way around this may be to arrange for the intransigent child to live with someone else, but I'm not sure how viable that is in practice. So basically today's socio-political environment practically mandates physically coercive parenting. It's a mad, mad world indeed IMHO.
Herodotus:Under the right conditions, I may attempt to do things to you without your consent. But, I can't say I wasn't warned!
You can say that again! :P
Clayton:I just spent a good hour crafting an excellent reply to your post, since you addressed what I believe to be the difficulty at the heart of the voluntarist position (although from a slightly different angle, I think), and my post has vanished into the ether of the worldwide web. I am too heart-broken to try to conjure it back into existence, but I just wanted to convey my respect for the consistency and honesty of your position (if it is not condescending to say so). God I hate it when that happens. A piece of advice... occasionally press the following key sequence while composing replies "Ctl+A, Ctl+C"... that selects all text and copies it to the clipboard. If your browser crashes or the website chokes when you submit your post, you may have some or all of it still in the clipboard where you can paste it into Notepad or another instance of the website. It's saved my bacon a couple times.
Ironically this happened to me as well just a minute ago :(
Thing is you have to remember to highlight and copy: I do do this sometimes but often forget :(
Actually, I did not object so much to your use of the names Alice, etc., until I saw what you had written beneath it. You had asked me if I agreed with your definitions of the four words in a prior post, and when I explained that I could only agree to one, you seemed to find this offensive. So, I took your use of the names to be some sort of put-down. I suppose I was mistaken.
In any case, if I were to go by your definition of voluntarism, I still do not see how it is practicable. As a teacher, I have used physical force to remove a student from a classroom, and I believe that on those rare occasions, it was necessary to assert my authority, without which I could not do my job. In those instances, it was a child who appeared to be deliberately and/or continuously disrupting the class who refused to respond to more routine incentives and punishments and then refused to leave when ordered to. Most teachers who have students removed usually leave it to administrative staff, but I insist on doing my own dirty work, both because I do not want to make it easy on myself, and because it is more effective in the long-term. Moreover, I almost never "rat" on a kid to either the administration or his parents, because of the prevalence of corporal punishment in this society. The only time I do so is when I believe it is simply impossible and counterproductive to have the student attend anymore.
More importantly, I do not see how a parent or even, in some instances, an innocent bystander can exclude the use of physical force (A). Clayton, I believe, brought up the example of the kid who decides to wander into the street. (Just to be clear, I would remove this child anytime he wandered into the street without my permission, even if there were no traffic). Or, as I mentioned in another post, using force to prevent someone from committing suicide. I can even contemplate a preemptive attack of someone without them having threatened anyone or having hard evidence of an attack, if I thought the probability of attack and serious damage were high enough to warrant it.
So, by using "physical force" rather than my definition of coercion, I think you have lowered the bar below where I believe it stands (just for the record), but even then I don't believe that it solves the problem of voluntarism that I contend exists.
Last post was @Ladyphoenix!
Herodotus:Actually, I did not object so much to your use of the names Alice, etc., until I saw what you had written beneath it. You had asked me if I agreed with your definitions of the four words in a prior post, and when I explained that I could only agree to one, you seemed to find this offensive. So, I took your use of the names to be some sort of put-down. I suppose I was mistaken.
Herodotus:In any case, if I were to go by your definition of voluntarism, I still do not see how it is practicable.
Herodotus:As a teacher, I have used physical force to remove a student from a classroom, and I believe that on those rare occasions, it was necessary to assert my authority, without which I could not do my job.
You putting an end to such an infringement of property rights on behalf of the school and the other students in the class would then be considered an act of A as a function of D, and therefore would not be considered contrary to the NAP.
Herodotus:More importantly, I do not see how a parent or even, in some instances, an innocent bystander can exclude the use of physical force (A).
Herodotus:Clayton, I believe, brought up the example of the kid who decides to wander into the street. (Just to be clear, I would remove this child anytime he wandered into the street without my permission, even if there were no traffic).
I think I can say with some degree of certainty that men who exist do so because they wish to exist. A man who does not wish to exist would end his life, therefore the vast majority of people I will encounter "want to live." With this in mind, I am pretty sure saving someone from certain extinction would be something he would consent to if he were able to consent (i.e. if he were more aware of the situation or if he were able to communicate the desire to be saved). There may be a very rare exception... but I would consider it so rare as to not prevent me from engaging in the saving of lives if I were able.
The second side to this is that I would accept, completely, that should the person I save truly want to die, that I am in the wrong, ethically, for preventing him from achieving that end, and as such, I would gladly submit to restitution as my act would indeed be C, rather than D...
Specifically in the situation "wandering out into traffic," I would consider it just as much defensive of the property of the drivers on the roads and their safety to remove a child/adult from their path(s). I think I could make a pretty compelling case there. :)
I know there is some contention about this point in particular, and I will let those who disagree address them individually.
Herodotus:Or, as I mentioned in another post, using force to prevent someone from committing suicide.
Herodotus:I can even contemplate a preemptive attack of someone without them having threatened anyone or having hard evidence of an attack, if I thought the probability of attack and serious damage were high enough to warrant it.
Herodotus:So, by using "physical force" rather than my definition of coercion, I think you have lowered the bar below where I believe it stands (just for the record), but even then I don't believe that it solves the problem of voluntarism that I contend exists.
More important are the legal ramifications of the difference between minor and adult. If your child is wandering around aimlessly in the middle of a busy street, you have every right and duty under the law to physically remove him or her. Not only is it not unjustifiable coercion to forcibly remove your child, to fail to do so is negligence and the other parent or someone in the family should have every legal right to take action against you for failing to do your natural duty as a parent should some harm come to the child as a result.
But if I'm wandering around aimlessly in the middle of a busy street and you forcibly remove me "for my own good" you are treading on thin ice. Perhaps I was depressed about a recent break-up or whatever and didn't care at the moment whether I lived or died but I wasn't inviting some by-stander to tackle me, either. So, you're liable for assault even if you had good intentions, and if some harm results - a fractured arm or something like that, you're likely going to be paying at least doctor bills of the injured party...
Thankfully, our legal system isn't too far off the mark in these particular scenarios and I think the case law on these types of situations is probably a great place to study why liability for the very same action against a minor versus an adult should be handled so differently.
Warning: weird and pointless "What about the children" rant! But, I suspect there might be something in my experience that may be in the way here, so I'm going to just put it out there. Sorry in advance!
I'm not sure if I mentioned it or not before, but perhaps it is necessary to mention that I am an ESL teacher (primarily in private language schools). I have to teach children often as young as five or six, some of whom have had no demonstrable exposure to English. It is hard for me to describe what I regard as the necessities of teaching such a class, particularly in the culture I am operating in.
I cannot stand in front of a class and lecture in English. Using their native tongue, except in select instances and with the conceit that a taboo within the confines of the classroom has been violated for which I permit a student to literally slap me on the wrist (and I am aware that this may be sending a subconscious message of violence, although it is not my intent, and which, from the reaction I perceive, works as a good ice-breaker, since many children, especially rural children, regard foreigners as physically intimidating), is also an unworkable option. My overriding interest is in creating a 'positive momentum' in the class at virtually all costs, and it is not something that can be put off. You have about a month to set the tone, after which it becomes increasingly difficult to alter conditions. I pull out all the stops. I fill the class with my English and my antics, and work as fast as I can to get them to do the same, without leaping out of their chairs and distracting themselves or each other.
I have to override their natural instincts to not only communicate, but to think, in their native language. I must cajole the shy, joke around with the gloomy, intimidate the bullies, encourage (but also threaten) the unconfident, check the arrogant, calm the over-exubirant, all from the word "go" until I can form a cohesive unit out of the class. If I do not form a unit, a group of individuals who believe and feel that they have a demonstrable stake in the unit and that the unit has a demonstrable stake in them as individuals, the class will disintegrate. I see it happen all the time. A kid or eight gets left behind, allegedly because they are lazy or stupid and nowadays in need of medication (which really infuriates me), and become disruptive because they are bored, lost, and uninspired.
I am simultaneously getting them to "act up" and speak up and to get them to regulate themselves for the good of the group. In language education, I need to get them talking, writing, etc, not simply listening and passively regurgitating. In the culture I work within, kids are primarily controlled through shame and rote (and also corporal punishment although not as much as before), and I have to encourage them to break out of their habituated responses (submission or rebellion) by all sorts of means. What often happens is that when the kids realize that I'm not there to "master" them, they believe I must be all excited because it is play time. And, so, I often have to lurch between joking, etc, and stamping my authority, marking my territory, call it what you will--and I make a show of my temper as much as I do the other antics--until the unit becomes cohesive and that kind of thing becomes unnecessary.
Every day, I try to communicate by everything I say and do, that we are in that room for no other purpose other than for everybody to succeed together, and nobody, neither any individual student, the administration, the parents, nor I, is permitted to interfere with that purpose. (I have been fired for refusing to abide by an altered school curriculum, because I believed it would break the implicit social contract I had established with the students, namely that I would never ask of them anything I thought they were incapable of, in this case, using material designed for American students; but, I felt that that the implicit contract between the students and me trumped the physical contract between my employer and me). In that process, I have ordered kids to do things they do not want to do, that they are terrified of doing, that they refuse to do, sometimes to the point where I believe that the connection between myself and even an outstanding student is at risk of being ruptured, simply because I perceive that there is some character flaw in danger of limiting their development. I have threatened to order an academically excellent student for refusing to follow a command of mine, when I believed that I had come across what I regarded as a character flaw that would inhibit their future language development. On the other hand, I can't tell you how many times some of the most allegedly incorrigible students turn out to be the most impressive both scholastically and personally after a few months.
The technique, in principle, is almost the same used by armies to train soldiers. There is a simultaneous dissolution of both their original confidence and their lack of confidence (their identity, which in my case, is bound up with the student's language, as well) and the creation of a new kind of confidence bound up with the unit to some degree. And, it involves forcing people to do things they are unwilling to do and are absolutely convinced they are incapable of. I am not an expert on "brainwashing", but I think many of those elements are there. At the same time, I firmly believe (although not without some doubts) that what I am doing is, on balance, good for the students.
From my perspective as a teacher, the critical question is the will of the students and the need for me to actively mold it. Part of the thing that makes me so resistant to some of the arguments made here, I think, is that the description of the relationship between the teacher and student often seems so remote from the reality; clinical, sterile. Almost every day, I feel as if I'm on a razor's edge: Am I pushing this student too hard? Have I misjudged his/her strengths and weaknesses? Am I being manipulative because this is the best way or only way or because I am too lazy to come up with a better way? Did I do that because I am in a foul mood today? I cannot view it in terms of contract theory or ideology or something like that, only the interests of the student and the class as a whole, which I feel in my gut and cannot be put into a clear formula, except to say that somehow the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, a whole that is not formed voluntarily in the sense of conscious consent.
Sorry if I've taken this into left field.
@Ladyphoenix
No worries. Internet forums are raucous places, a fact I am still not used to.
Regarding preemptive attack. I have to say that this is a hard one for me to conjure up, because the plausability of it is rooted in my experience living and travelling in Asia. In a state, for example, where gov't power is exercised almost completely arbitrarily. Without due process of any kind and a persistent state of fear, rumor, and suspicion. If I knew the reputation of my neighbor Q, that he had an allegedly insatiable and sadistic appetite for young women, that I felt that that reputation was deserved on the basis of circumstantial evidence, and one day, I saw a look on his face when he saw my daughter that gave me the sense that she was in immediate danger. I am generally well regarded in the community, and I try to pull some strings in the gov't to have Q watched. Although he is allegedly the son of a general, I believe (because you have to trust somebody, as a matter of faith and sanity) that I have dealt with somebody who I can rely on not to get me into any trouble. Two days later, I get an anonymous letter describing some pretty sick things that will be done to my family, especially the women. I decide that I need to find out for myself what's going on one night, so I go to spy on Q. I look in his window. He is drunk, brandishing tribal swords, shirtless, putting on women's make-up, and listening to Lady Gaga cranked up. I feel as if I can hear a woman screaming but really can't be sure. It is past curfew, and I decide I cannot risk reporting him or confronting him. The next day, he is at the watermelon stand, says hello to me, offers to buy me a slice; I grab the cleaver from the watermelon man and cut the SOB Q down.
As for education, I have trouble regarding children as property. Did I understand you correctly? If so, when do they cease becoming property? And, is that authority limited at all?
This thread has inspired me to write this post: How To Rescue a Child (without the State).
I hope it will clarify some misunderstandings demonstrated in this thread.
Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper
Law without Government
EvilSocialistFellow:There is another possible case scenario and that is the possibility that I killed my friend and he was therefore unable to launch a prosecution (even if he had so desired). However, I assume that in this case, maybe the club owner (upon reviewing the CCTV footage) or someone who witnessed the attack would be able to launch a prosecution.
Assuming your friend had murder insurance (likely very cheap since murders are statistically rare) then the insurance company would have to pay out a lot of money to his heirs. This insurance company would want to get back as much of that money as it could so they are going to do everything they can to locate the murderer which would include buying the CCTV tape from the club and then locating you and extracting the insurance payout from you.
I think I am going to have to step away from this conversation because it is becoming too difficult to argue a point that I don't fully support. In reality, it is my opinion that if more children are harmed in the ancap society than in the socialist society I am okay with that. I believe that Darwinism will show in the end which is a better form of child rearing, abuse or no abuse. Over the span of n generations one of the two populations will thrive and the other will not. If it is, as I personally suspect, superior (more efficient, more effective, etc.) to raise children in a non-abusive way then eventually abusive parents will fade out of existence, or diverge from the species (do you get upset when a gorilla hits it's offspring?) due to a weaker gene pool.
My problem with socialism is that it interferes with natural selection in that the majority force their views on the minority so the minority can not attempt new ways of behaving, thinking, etc. Imagine if there was a system back in the bacterial phase of the earth whereby the DNA of all the bacteria in the world had to conform to the norm. Anytime anyone diverged from that normalized DNA they were suppressed by the system and not allowed to efficiently survive or reproduce. If that were the case we would all either be the same bacteria as we were billions of years ago or dead because our environment changed and we were unable to change with it.
So what it comes down to is that my view is that if people want to abuse their children they can but as soon as a child (or adult) expresses interest in leaving such a scenario my society will be there waiting for them with open arms. The same goes for someone in my society who wants to switch to the abusive society. I won't stop them from doing so.
Herodotus:Warning: weird and pointless "What about the children" rant! But, I suspect there might be something in my experience that may be in the way here, so I'm going to just put it out there. Sorry in advance!
I think what you are misunderstanding here is that the school is private property. The only thing you can't do is prevent the child from leaving if they decide to do so. Anything you do on your property is acceptable except detaining someone (murdering them would count as permanent detention in my book). If you want to use corporal punishment in your classroom, chances are your student body will be very small since there aren't a lot of supporters of that these days. You can even say that if you don't go to detention (time out, sit in the corner, etc.) you can't come back, so you can utilize all of the same techniques you currently use. Unless you actively prevent the student from leaving the private property, you aren't doing anything that goes against ancap. Your house, your rules, they agree to that when they enter.
@ Autolykos:
While I generally agree with what Clayton said, I'd like to present some other ways of looking at it. First off, just because you think that the state would and should intervene doesn't mean it willintervene (in the time period you desire). Remember the Fritzl case? That man abused his daughter for decadesbefore anyone intervened. And this happened despitethe existence of a state where it happened (Austria). The reason I bring this up is because, based on your posts in this thread, you seem to be arguing from a presumption of certainty on the part of the state. However, the existence of the state in no way brings about certainty. Crimes are obviously still commited. What the state does is (try to) provide an illusion of certainty- the better to maintain its legitimacy. Second, in an anarcho-capitalist society, there would be no laws for compulsory public schooling, and no laws against child labor, so it would be far easier for a child being abused by his parents to simply run away from home. Of course, that in no way guarantees that any/all such children necessarily willdo that. Then again, a quote from the Wikipedia article on the Fritzl case is rather revealing: Wikipedia: After completing compulsory education at age 15, Elisabeth [Fritzl] started a training course to become a waitress. In January 1983, she ran away from home and, together with a friend from work, went into hiding in Vienna. She was found by police within three weeks and returned to her parents.[Emphasis added. Also note that, in the previous paragraph, it states that Josef Fritzl reportedly began abusing his daughter in 1977.] Third, it seems highly (if not extremely) unlikely for bothparents to want to conduct (the exact same kind of) systematic child abuse. As repugnant as it may sound, the logistics of raising one child, let alone more than one, simply to be an object of abuse seems daunting at best and next to impossible at worst. With more and more time passing, the likelihood of someonebecoming suspicious is only going to increase, perhaps at an accelerating rate. Fourth, in the likely (IMO) event that someone doesintervene, it may well be an aggressive manner - breaking into the house to rescue the child, for example. This raises the question of what happens when the suspicions turn out to be wrong. In a free-market society, I think the intervener/aggressor would most likely be held liable for the damages he caused, should the parents choose to press charges.
First off, just because you think that the state would and should intervene doesn't mean it willintervene (in the time period you desire). Remember the Fritzl case? That man abused his daughter for decadesbefore anyone intervened. And this happened despitethe existence of a state where it happened (Austria). The reason I bring this up is because, based on your posts in this thread, you seem to be arguing from a presumption of certainty on the part of the state. However, the existence of the state in no way brings about certainty. Crimes are obviously still commited. What the state does is (try to) provide an illusion of certainty- the better to maintain its legitimacy.
Second, in an anarcho-capitalist society, there would be no laws for compulsory public schooling, and no laws against child labor, so it would be far easier for a child being abused by his parents to simply run away from home. Of course, that in no way guarantees that any/all such children necessarily willdo that. Then again, a quote from the Wikipedia article on the Fritzl case is rather revealing:
After completing compulsory education at age 15, Elisabeth [Fritzl] started a training course to become a waitress. In January 1983, she ran away from home and, together with a friend from work, went into hiding in Vienna. She was found by police within three weeks and returned to her parents.[Emphasis added. Also note that, in the previous paragraph, it states that Josef Fritzl reportedly began abusing his daughter in 1977.]
Third, it seems highly (if not extremely) unlikely for bothparents to want to conduct (the exact same kind of) systematic child abuse. As repugnant as it may sound, the logistics of raising one child, let alone more than one, simply to be an object of abuse seems daunting at best and next to impossible at worst. With more and more time passing, the likelihood of someonebecoming suspicious is only going to increase, perhaps at an accelerating rate.
Fourth, in the likely (IMO) event that someone doesintervene, it may well be an aggressive manner - breaking into the house to rescue the child, for example. This raises the question of what happens when the suspicions turn out to be wrong. In a free-market society, I think the intervener/aggressor would most likely be held liable for the damages he caused, should the parents choose to press charges.
Let's say you were getting flogged each day for your sins in a free-market society. If there was an anti-religious-extremism or anti-child-abuse organization that was committed to its cause deeply enough, it could offer to buy custody of you from your parents. Or it could perhaps even suefor that custody. Of course, there's no guarantee that it will get it.
What do you mean by "the economy will suffer"?
If, say, less people were to receive education (than they do now), resulting in fewer doctors, electricians, plumbers, etc. which is likely to lead to a reduction in total economic output.
There's also the risk factor that living standards would decrease withoutattempting to implement anarchy in Britain. How do you know which risk factor is bigger?
Keep in mind that at least part of the reason that there's been no "large scale free market protection agency scheme..." is because the British government has actively prevented them from arising. However, one could consider various instances of "common law" to be rather close to such a scheme in pre-modern times.
Indeed, and I am not blaming the failure to implement a free market justice scheme on the idea itself (as you point out, government has prevented it). However, as I stated its hard to consider something that hasn’t existed :P. Having said that, you mention earlier instances of common law which I’d be interested to hear about.
"Economic and social progress" under whoseidea of "progress"? :P
MINE! :P In all seriousness, I mean objective calculations of a society’s economic output, standards of living, gini coefficients and levels of crime, etc.
By "objective standard" do you really mean "universal standard"? That is, are you talking about a standard that applies to everyone? I ask because I don't think you can arrive at any standard empirically here.
When I said objective standard, I was mainly referring to the law. As you would have seen in that post of mine that I cited, I tend to trend towards individualist (libertarian) legal theory. However, I also see the need for certain aspects of collectivism in certain scenarios, just because, well some scenarios are more complicated than that (you see that I cited instances of mentally incapacitated adults, et cetera). Indeed, there are probably a whole heap of complications that I had not considered.
@ Liberty Student:
I will try :P
And this is what I have been pushing you and Herotodus towards. That you hold the belief that society is best organized by violence. I'm not judging it, but lets call it what it is.
Ok, fair enough. I would just like to point out though, that I only think certain aspects of society are best organised by coercive utilisation of state apparatus. I talked about some of the complications, here: http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/23085/403792.aspx#403792 though I don’t know what you will make of my post :P. Also, as we have established, legitimate utilisation of force and coercion is implemented to maintain order, protect property rights and enforce contracts in the free market; it is the initiation of aggression that does not happen (in theory). Obviously, as you can see from my posts, I openly endorse a limited degree of initiation of aggression (since it is impossible for the state to operate without initiating aggression to force people to pay taxes and so forth). Excuse me if I have erred here at some point in my understanding of the aggression axiom but my understanding of it is that (a) initiation of aggression constitutes of force or coercion utilised to achieve an undesirable outcome from a body and/or to harm that body’s physical property or individual rights and that (b) retalliation constitutes of force or coercion utilised in self-defense of one’s own body or to right wrongs (e.g. seek monetary compensation for physical damage to property).
I will not attempt to refute the logic you have applied here :) Also, this is the kind of answer I'm looking for in terms of my 'risk analysis' theory.
Sorry I should have clarified; by ‘overthrow’, I merely meant to peacefully undermine. It was in part because the communist-anarchists wished to use violence that I left them behind. However, I still question undermining the state if it leads to economic/social regression (as defined above - see exchange with Autolykos).
Interestingly enough, and I was planning on bringing this up at some point - but you ruined it :( - I would employ the same logic if we were living in a slave society (that it is not worth the risk to destroy slavery – who will make the food?, etc.) unless there was empirical evidence prooving a slaveless society that had greater standards of living, economic output and so forth. I can fully appreciate why some people might have been scared back then to abolish it. The only difference between then (slave society) and now (slaveless society) though would be that we have decent overall living standards; they did not. For this reason, we actually have something to risk losing which the slaves didn’t. Giving women the right to vote does not necessarily constitute radical change of an economy. As far as being radicals for peace and prosperity, well this depends on whether ‘peace and prosperity’ would be the outcome (how are we defining peace and prosperity? ‘Tis a vague concept, no? – sorry I have to get my own back here :P).
EvilSocialistFellow:Interestingly enough, and I was planning on bringing this up at some point - but you ruined it :( - I would employ the same logic if we were living in a slave society (that it is not worth the risk to destroy slavery – who will make the food?, etc.) unless there was empirical evidence prooving a slaveless society that had greater standards of living, economic output and so forth. I can fully appreciate why some people might have been scared back then to abolish it.
I must say, I am very impressed with you here EvilSocialistFellow. The vast majority of people wouldn't accept that their current point of view could be logically extended to something that is considered reprehensible by their peers. The same way that most people will argue a point but when shown that it has the same logic behind it as say, Nazism, they claim that there is some difference (even though logically there is not). Kudos for sticking to your guns on the subject and not trying to avoid the logic of the comparison!
EvilSocialistFellow:The only difference between then (slave society) and now (slaveless society) though would be that we have decent overall living standards; they did not. For this reason, we actually have something to risk losing which the slaves didn’t.
Relative to now, the standards of living for slavers were low. Relative to their own history though, their standards of living were high. From the point of view of the slavers they considered themselves to be living well (compared to their peers and to history). In hindsight, we can see that they could have done better.
Anarchists believe that we could be living better, but we have no way to empirically prove that without first trying out our theories (which is all we really want to do). I really wish global governments would leave Somalia alone. I think left to their own anarchist devices (without outside state influence) they could thrive and be a beacon of hope for the anarchist cause.
Micah71381:Anarchists believe that we could be living better, but we have no way to empirically prove that without first trying out our theories (which is all we really want to do).
This is not entirely correct. Anarchists KNOW they can be living better. They are able to do that by removing the cancer that is the state and replacing it with any degree of competition.
People who come to libertarianism and then ancap without understanding economics usually struggle with simple deductive reasoning. I've watched this play out here for 3 years now. It's always the same. Nearly every left-libertarian I have met did not understand free market economics, which is why they were able to adopt positions that were self-contradicting at a fundamental level.
Again, a stateless society will lead to higher living standards, more justice, more creative expression and more prosperity. The state does NOTHING for those things, and instead serves as an impediment, or roadblock to the flourishing of those social factors.
Without testing anarchy it is still only a theory and something that can only be believed to be true (unproven). Because human action is unpredictable we can not say for certain what exactly would happen in anarchy. I believe very strongly that the world would be a much better place with a much higher standard of living but I can not say for certainty like I can with the laws of physics.
I do believe that there is a lot of evidence we can use to make certain deductions about how an anarchist society would play out and I believe those deductions have a pretty small probability of error. None the less, an unforseen consequence of anarchy may arise that shows anarchy as being more problematic than the state. This seems very unlikely given what we do know, but it's still probable enough that I don't feel comfortable stating with absolute certainty that anarchy will work. If it weren't for the human component this would be far easier but, as I said above, humans are largely unpredictable.
This could stem from the fact that I generally feel uncomfortable saying anything with 100% certainty, even the laws of physics tend to progress with time and become disproven.
Micah71381:Assuming your friend had murder insurance (likely very cheap since murders are statistically rare) then the insurance company would have to pay out a lot of money to his heirs. This insurance company would want to get back as much of that money as it could so they are going to do everything they can to locate the murderer which would include buying the CCTV tape from the club and then locating you and extracting the insurance payout from you.
Again, this depends on how many people are willing to pay 'murder insurance', 'rape insurance' (as you suggested in another post), fire insurance, all the 5 hundred million possible types of insurance in an AnCap society :P
...social darwinism...
I must say, I am not a massive fan of social darwinism. It works great as a theory of evolution (natural selection, competition between species and so forth) but it does not have a massive implication to the diversity and huge complexities of modern day society (when I say 'society' in this particular context, I am talking about the specific network of relationships between individuals which is perfectly legitimate, I believe, so long as I am not referring to 'society' as a decision making body). Even as a theory of evolution, there is a conflicting theory that parents pass down certain traits that they have achieved during their life time to their children (though I can't remember what it is called). I believe both have implications to the theory of evolution. I would not take the latter to the extreme of 'if I go to the gym and get muscular my children will be born muscular' rather that they will adopt these traits I have achieved in small doses. When I studied this in biology (a long time ago) there is some empirical evidence, I believe supporting this.
But all of that wishy-washy biology stuff is irrelevant. If you study human action you will know that human action is an axiom, an ultimate given; its causes/triggers are irrelevant. This is the problem with materialism - it is too static; it believes that the mind is the ultimate product of matter (influenced, if you will, by extraneous circumstances) but it does not take a further step and make deductive reasoning based upon the axiom of human action (which derives from thinking - the product of mind). Hence, the theory of social darwinism could be true but it is irrelevant to economics.
Even as a theory of evolution, there is a conflicting theory that parents pass down certain traits that they have achieved during their life time to their children (though I can't remember what it is called).
Probably Lamarckism, which in 20th century was popularized by Soviet (pseudo-)scientist Lysenko.
I remember a funny refutation of this theory: how does it explain birth of virgins (again and again, despite their mothers obviously acquiring non-virgin "trait" before giving birth)?
Andris Birkmanis:Probably Lamarckism, which in 20th century was popularized by Soviet (pseudo-)scientist Lysenko.
Yes, that is the one.
No, I myself am highly suspicious of the belief. However you will note that I also said I only believe it would happen in very small doses. There is (some) evidence studying the evolution of a certain species of fish forming harder shells in response to concentrations of specific chemicals to suggest small changes can occur in the genetic structure (genes are obviously passed down in birth) throughout a life time as a result of adaptation to the surrounding environment. But I am not a biologist and I do not wish (or rather possess insufficient knowledge) to pursue this argument further. I still maintain that Darwinism is the superior theory of evolution but certain aspects of Lamarckism could obtain (in very small doses).
EvilSocialistFellow:Again, this depends on how many people are willing to pay 'murder insurance', 'rape insurance' (as you suggested in another post), fire insurance, all the 5 hundred million possible types of insurance in an AnCap society :P
The theory is that the vast majority of people would purchase a generic umbrella insurance that pretty much covers everything the average person would want for a single monthly fee. This would include everything from murder and rape insurance to car and homeowner insurance. If you put all current insurances together (car, homeowner, life, health, etc.) and then take away the massive government intervention fee you'll come out with about what such an umbrella insurance would cost (a bit more than that since it will likely cover some things currently covered by the government). Of course, if you decided you didn't want rape insurance I imagine there would be options for people like you and perhaps some "build your own insurance" options on the market as well not to mention the ability to buy insurance from multiple places at once (geico for car insurance and keiser for health insurance).
Insurance effectively replaces taxes but in a far more equitable, market driven, and non aggressive way. Any reasonable person would put their first dollars to the bare minimum of food/water/shelter to survive, then insurance second, then increased quality of life third (though this is not forced on you).
EvilSocialistFellow:I must say, I am not a massive fan of social darwinism. It works great as a theory of evolution (natural selection, competition between species and so forth) but it does not have a massive implication to the diversity and huge complexities of modern day society (when I say 'society' in this particular context, I am talking about the specific network of relationships between individuals which is perfectly legitimate, I believe, so long as I am not referring to 'society' as a decision making body).
I would contend that the human body is on par with society when it comes to complexity. There are on the order off 10s of trillions of cells in the human body, all of different types. These sells make up 206 bones, ~600 muscles, and 22 internal organs. These combine to comprise of 11 different body systems. This is assuming we *start* at the cellular level even though evolution could be argued to have started pre-cellular, at the molecular level and cells are made up of a ton of different molecules, which of course are made up of anywhere from a couple atoms to on the order of billions.
In my opinion, if Darwinism can turn atoms into humans I have believe it can also work on society. :)
For the curious, the scientific community these days is pretty set on how evolution works. We have a strong understanding of how human growth and reproduction works on the cellular level, including the difference between gamete cells and all the rest (gametes being egg/sperm), how they are produced, how DNA transfers from parent to child, how mutations occur on gametes, etc.
EvilSocialistFellow:But all of that wishy-washy biology stuff is irrelevant. If you study human action you will know that human action is an axiom, an ultimate given; its causes/triggers are irrelevant. This is the problem with materialism - it is too static; it believes that the mind is the ultimate product of matter (influenced, if you will, by extraneous circumstances) but it does not take a further step and make deductive reasoning based upon the axiom of human action (which derives from thinking - the product of mind). Hence, the theory of social darwinism could be true but it is irrelevant to economics.
You lost me with this last part. Do you think you might be able to rephrase it somehow?
EvilSocialistFellow:There is (some) evidence studying the evolution of a certain species of fish forming harder shells in response to concentrations of specific chemicals to suggest small changes can occur in the genetic structure (genes are obviously passed down in birth) throughout a life time as a result of adaptation to the surrounding environment.
I am not familiar with the exact evidence you are referring to but my guess you are talking about gene expression. The inner workings of gene expression is largely unknown and there is a lot of research going on at Universities around the world trying to fully understand it (kind of the holy grail of biology at the moment) but the short of it is that even though your DNA encodes everything about you, your envirnoment (especially when initially developing from an egg) determines how your genes are expressed. Gene expression is the reason that the same set of DNA can produce different body parts rather than just a blob of 10 trillion matching cells. Certain fetal environmental queues can also impact gene expression which can be viewed (to a very limited extent) as the mother passing down traits to her child outside of her genetic code (though it's not nearly as simplistic as this).
Micah71381:The theory is that the vast majority of people would purchase a generic umbrella insurance that pretty much covers everything the average person would want for a single monthly fee. This would include everything from murder and rape insurance to car and homeowner insurance. If you put all current insurances together (car, homeowner, life, health, etc.) and then take away the massive government intervention fee you'll come out with about what such an umbrella insurance would cost (a bit more than that since it will likely cover some things currently covered by the government). Of course, if you decided you didn't want rape insurance I imagine there would be options for people like you and perhaps some "build your own insurance" options on the market as well not to mention the ability to buy insurance from multiple places at once (geico for car insurance and keiser for health insurance). Insurance effectively replaces taxes but in a far more equitable, market driven, and non aggressive way. Any reasonable person would put their first dollars to the bare minimum of food/water/shelter to survive, then insurance second, then increased quality of life third (though this is not forced on you).
But in modern day society how come no such 'umbrella scheme' exists? I mean we already have to pay separately for life insurance, car insurance, etc. - things not covered by the nanny state. It does sound like a good idea but I question why it does not already exist :(
I think one of the reasons is that individuals need different types of insurance that they must figure out themselves; I don't need car insurance because I don't drive. But an 'umbrella insurance scheme' could not figure out for every single one of its clients what different forms of insurance they need themselves. When you take away all the things government provide it could become more complicated for the person themselves to figure out... (I realise the inefficiency of the government trying to figure out what everyone needs for them, by the way, I just mean that the individual can take his case to the government to claim support upon figuring out s/he needs something [e.g. if they have had a crime comitted against them and they need to go through a legal procedure which the government can then fund by means of tax money).
Having said that, I would not oppose slowly implementing a more market driven, less government driven approach to this kind of thing.
I would recommend reading some of Ludwig von Mises' human action since it is difficult to explain without going into a massively long drawn out discussion: http://mises.org/resources.aspx?Id=3250&html=1
Micah71381:I am not familiar with the exact evidence you are referring to but my guess you are talking about gene expression. The inner workings of gene expression is largely unknown and there is a lot of research going on at Universities around the world trying to fully understand it (kind of the holy grail of biology at the moment) but the short of it is that even though your DNA encodes everything about you, your envirnoment (especially when initially developing from an egg) determines how your genes are expressed. Gene expression is the reason that the same set of DNA can produce different body parts rather than just a blob of 10 trillion matching cells. Certain fetal environmental queues can also impact gene expression which can be viewed to a, very limited extent, as the mother passing down traits to her child outside of her genetic code (though it's not nearly as simplistic as this).
I'm no biologist and had not exactly meant for the discussion to get side tracked into this but my point was that the Darwinist theory is that those species (or specific members of species) that are not very well adapted to their environment die out whilst the stronger species or members survive and pass on their genes. In this way, all species (including humans) are constantly evolving. This has little relevance to economics though, as I explained above, and it also has little relevance to the complexities modern society, especially given that we are now in a stronger position to support 'weaker' people, for instance people with downs syndrome or severe autism can receive a lot of social support from family and loved ones, people with physical handicaps can receive medical support, technology to enhance their life (e.g. wheel chairs), etc. Its not a brutal game of survival of the fittest anymore like in nature. I believe Darwin himself said this. Lamarckism is the theory that rather than survival of the fittest, we have individual members of a species adapting to their environment and developing mechanisms to help them adapt to their environment; presumably this makes very slight alterations to their DNA which they can then pass on to their children. I don't know whether this is true or not but I read a few times that there was a (minimal) amount of evidence that suggests it could be true.
EvilSocialistFellow: EvilSocialistFellow:But all of that wishy-washy biology stuff is irrelevant. If you study human action you will know that human action is an axiom, an ultimate given; its causes/triggers are irrelevant. This is the problem with materialism - it is too static; it believes that the mind is the ultimate product of matter (influenced, if you will, by extraneous circumstances) but it does not take a further step and make deductive reasoning based upon the axiom of human action (which derives from thinking - the product of mind). Hence, the theory of social darwinism could be true but it is irrelevant to economics. You lost me with this last part. Do you think you might be able to rephrase it somehow? I would recommend reading some of Ludwig von Mises' human action since it is difficult to explain without going into a massively long drawn out discussion: http://mises.org/resources.aspx?Id=3250&html=1
It wasn't the human action part I got confused on but rather the what you are trying to say regarding human action why my views on Darwinism don't relate to economics.
Perhaps the misunderstanding is that I wasn't talking about economics specifically but rather just that in general, my interests are in the advancement of the species (technological, evolutionary, etc.), not in the individuals that make up the species. A humanitarian won't take a life to save 1000 but a Darwinist would (e.g.: human testing for cancer research).
In fact, this may be the core difference between us. You seem to care a lot about saving the individual children whereas I don't so much about the individual children but more so about the children as a whole. I would rather see 99 children with a 1% increase in overall wellbeing and one child suffer terribly than see 99 children without the +1% in and the one child not suffering.
EvilSocialistFellow:<Darwinism> has little relevance to economics though, as I explained above, and it also has little relevance to the complexities modern society, especially given that we are now in a stronger position to support 'weaker' people, for instance people with downs syndrome or severe autism can receive a lot of social support from family and loved ones, people with physical handicaps can receive medical support, technology to enhance their life (e.g. wheel chairs), etc. Its not a brutal game of survival of the fittest anymore like in nature.
Again, this may be where we differ. I feel that attempting to stop evolution hurts the species as a whole, even if it saves a few of the individuals. If you completely stop evolution we will stagnate. If we stagnate long enough something else will come along that wins out in a competition of resources or our environment will change without us and we will die off without even any competition.
That being said, Darwinism doesn't necessarily mean everything fighting for survival. Just as often as you see competition for resources in the wild you also see symbiotic relationships. There was a theory I read a while back about how homosexuality evolved seeing as how it is contrary to reproduction (a basic tenant of Darwinism). The theory (very vague summary here) stated that having a homosexual family member is beneficial to the family family and increases the families chance of success/survival/reproduction. Because of this it is an evolutionary advantage to have a recessive homosexual gene that expresses itself about every so often (but not all the time).
While I can't say what evolutionary advantages autism brings to the table (or perhaps none) I also don't presume that it is evolutionarily disadvantageous either. Because of this I have no problem with people supporting autistic individuals and I don't have a problem with them joining society and functioning in it in whatever ways they can. However, that doesn't mean that I think everyone should be forced into supporting autistic people anymore than they should be forced to support a wealthy, intelligent, 'normal' individual.
TL;DR:
I'm not going to get into all the biology stuff you get into below because I find it all a bit 'wishy-washy', so to speak.
What I will talk about is my points about human action that you did not understand;
(a) human action is an ultimate given or an axiom much like the creation of the universe: we do not *know* what created the universe - some say God, some say science, some say magic but no-one really *knows*. Having said that, it does not matter what created the universe because of what lead on from there (science, matter, organic life, solar systems, etc.) - we can deduce all sorts of things from simply assuming the creation of the universe somehow happened (but that we do not know how).
(b) human action is a result of thinking, we know that much. It is an axiom, much like the creation of the universe; the creation of the universe definitely happened, we know that much. We just don't know how it happened. In a similar way human action is just there; its an irrefutable ultimate given (an axiom).
(c) panphysicalists try to explain the creation of human action in terms of scientific mind to body relations; i.e. thought is a result of complex chemical processes. Perhaps. Maybe God has provided us with the power of thought. But that doesn't matter; the initiation of mind is irrelevant to the concept of human action. What does matter is what can be deduced from the principle of assuming that human action is there.
(d) in a kind of similar way to the panphysicalists you are trying to explain the root cause (the environmental influences, if you will) on human behaviour in a social darwinist fashion. I'm saying that this might be true but it is irrelevant to the concept of praxeology (the science of human action) which is the root of Austrian Economic thought. What follows on (what can be deduced) from human action is the concepts of scarce factors of production, scarce means to achieve ends, the actors ranking of values, diminishing law of marginal utility theory, etc., etc. - this is the deductive logic of the Austrian school of economics. Thus, the concept of human action explains why we even have an economy.
Micah71381:Without testing anarchy it is still only a theory and something that can only be believed to be true (unproven).
*sigh*
Is anyone here familiar with the Austrian methodology?
What do you mean, methodological individualism and subjectivism? Ah, probably "apriorism", so not relying on experience? :)
You completely mis-understand the
The two work together. Empirical studies absent a prioristic reasoning are nothing more then un-educated guesses. At best all you find are random correlating events. It's generall meaningless.
Andris Birkmanis:Ah, probably "apriorism", so not relying on experience? :)
Any good scientist will tell you that prior to entering any type of hypothetical test, in an effort to really understand your results, you enter the test with a certain number of assumptions based on reason. This will minimize y our lab time and increase your understanding of the data. For example, we know that no two parallel lines will ever cross paths. We know that for each coin toss, weight distribution being even, there remains always a 50% chance to land heads or tails.
Going into these tests absent reason means running a coin toss to test the likelyhood of landing heads or tails. In other words it means guesswork in the dark which result in conclusions that often lead the individuals flabergasted and or confused.
Those of you here who are trying to pit aposteriori reasoning against aprioristic are falling into a false-dichatomy fallacy. You are not acting as a scientist, and are largely confused about the scientific method.
I very much hope that you were not trying to state that Austrian's reject the use aposteriori reasoning. I certainly hope that you don't actually believe that.
For what it's worth, those who are interested as far as A priori vs a posteriori is concerned see Esuric's excellent post here. This is some what of a digression from the discussion so I'll leave it with that.