Hi,
Just wanted to run something by you guys to get your thoughts.
All of the criticisms I have read on socialism/communism have focused on state socialism (state capitalism?) where the state is 100% in control of the means of production, or the social democracies. I agree with everything I have read.
Recently I was quite surprised to discover (and I know I am late to the party on this one) while reading some threads on everybody's favourite commie forum, Revleft, that most of the posters there seemed to actually believe in a stateless society, coming about either directly following the revolution or following a brief period in which some sort of care-taker government ensures elimination of private property and guards against any counter revolutions on behalf of the workers. Some of them even refer to themselves as Libertarians.
Call me crazy, but the idea did appeal to me. The system would eliminate the possibility of a privileged elite, and put everyone on an even footing with no state to impede on anybody's freedom, doesn't sound so bad to me.
So I must be missing something right? Somebody please tell me I am crazy. The only thing I can think of is that people don't pay these ideas much attention because they are utopian and unrealistic, but then the same could be said about anarcho capitalism. Or maybe that the care-taker government would always be reluctant to relinquish power?
Any thoughts/common sense welcome. Please don't ridicule me.
To me this is what it sounds like : "Lets set up a government to abolish the government! (or abolish the need for the government)"
Governments all increase in size and policy making over time, I cannot think of a government where they have said, " Oh wait! We have too much power. Less start reducing our authority."
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
Thanks for the reply. Yes I agree that's one of the problems I saw. Which is probably why, as I said, many lefties suggest skipping this intermediate stage altogether and having no state from the beginning.
I must add that of course I am against the idea people's property should be forcefully taken form them in the so-called revolution, and realise that some see this as necessary to achieve communism
As distinct from old-school socialism, the left-wing strains of 'anarchism' or even 'libertarianism' are perhaps a bit different. Perhaps they think the dictatorship of the proletariat should take a decentralised form, somehow, or even that it isn't a necessary stage to bring about the communist utopia. I don't know. They're still just arguing for a suspension of the rule of law until their preferences are satisfied.
If you don't derive ethics and the rule of law from a fundamental axiom such as self-ownership, giving rise to property rights and the non-aggression principle, then how exactly does one derive rational ethics? Is there such a thing as right and wrong, or is it just a matter of who is more powerful? If you accept the former, then you have to accept that majority preference is no sound basis for ethics or jurisprudence. If you accept the latter, then it's just hypocrisy to dress up your aggression as politics, which is implicitly distinct from simple crime by virtue of moral legitimacy.
If you want to live in a community where all property is held jointly, go ahead and do so, but why aggress against people who don't want to subsidise that way of living?
Welcome to Mises.org.
I do too, using force to take ones property should not be advocated. Even market-socialists know that this is such a horrid thing to do. From what I have read from your two posts, you seem like the person that would be interested in reading Lysander Spooner or Benjamin Tucker... While I do not agree with everything they have advocated, they have greatly influenced me.
I will have to think about this post for a while. Thanks for the welcome.
Thanks I will check them out, Spooner and Tucker I mean.
Not quite got my head round how to quote peoples posts on this forum.
[ quote user="user name of person you want to quote" ] text [ /quote ]
No spaces in the brackets
Here is a forum thread about 'how to quote'.
-edit-
Thanks for the quoting tutorial.
OK, so if I want to get my head around the concept that self-ownership gives rise to property rights and the non-aggression principle, what do you suggest I read? I think this is where my current confusion lies.
And of course when we talk about property we are not talking iPhones and laptops.
You should read The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard.
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp
The way I see it, a "right" is a legal concept that's distinct from a privilege. Unlike a privilege, a right is fundamentally inalienable and inherent by definition, while privileges are granted at somebody's pleasure - somebody who holds a right over the dispensation of such a privilege. Rights are "God-given", if you believe in God or enjoy the metaphor, and naturally emergent vis-a-vis the maximisation of utility if you don't. I believe the distinction between utilitarian arguments for liberty and 'natural rights' arguments is unimportant and technical. I think the main reason Rothbard used the framework of a natural rights argument was to emphasise that whatever truly maximises utility would have to be naturally emergent, and not planned by someone on behalf of everyone else.
"Rights" which are written down in a constitution or bill of rights, for example, are really misnomers. They are privileges granted by the state authority that has the power to effect, interpret, change or repeal the constitution, thereby witholding the privilege it had granted to its subjects.
The only right which can truly be regarded as inherent and inalienable - and therefore properly named - is a property right. An 'owner' is the only legal entity that exercises unfettered discretion over the use and disposal of a thing. He can grant privileges to others to use the thing in certain ways - to lease or lend it - but he can set the terms of lease and revoke such a privilege more-or-less at his own discretion, perhaps subject to self-imposed procedural limitations.
If it is the state authority which grants us privileges in their constitutions and legislation, then it means that the secular state is presuming the ultimate natural right of ownership over us, and merely leasing us the more-or-less free use of ourselves in exchange for abiding by its terms.
How could it possibly be that an alien and fundamentally fictional entity like the state has a superior claim to initial acquisition of ownership over a person than the person themself? Is it the state that learns how to walk and talk and work on behalf of a person? Essentially, self-ownership is taken as axiomatic, because it is absurd for a person to lease himself from an absentee, fictional alien entity from the moment he comes into the universe.
The non-aggression principle is thereby deduced as the appropriate ethical starting-point, if all persons are equal insofar, and no further, than they have equally valid claims of absolute sovereign ownership over themselves.
The acquisition of property beyond one's self is, therefore, ethically appropriate insofar as it does not violate the non-aggression principle. Initial acquisition of ownership is only possible where something was genuinely unowned or abandoned, and transfer of ownership is only possible if it is voluntary.
Wow, that was well put. I am 100% with you up to and including the non-aggression principal.
When you say that the acquisition of private property is appropriate as it does not violate the non-aggression principal, you are saying that anything is appropriate which does not violate the non-aggression principal right? I see the logic of course but man it scares me.
Would a company which pollutes the air making it unhealthy to breath be violating the non-aggression principal? Do you think there can be situations where the unrestrained accumulation of property by individuals can have an effect on the quality of life of other individuals? Would that be in keeping with the non-aggression principal?
Please know I am not here to argue or debate, I am sure my average (at best) intelligence would not get me far against the learned members of the Mises forum, I am trying to broaden my understanding.
Also, I myself own a house (well I have a mortgage on a house I hope to one day own) so I am in no place to argue against ownership of private property, I just think about things too much.
I will get a copy of the Rothbard book.
China Diapers:Would a company which pollutes the air making it unhealthy to breath be violating the non-aggression principal? Do you think there can be situations where the unrestrained accumulation of property by individuals can have an effect on the quality of life of other individuals? Would that be in keeping with the non-aggression principal?
Assuming you can show damages to property you have ownership of, yes the company would be aggressing against you. This is the difference between "He emits CO2 and is destroying the earth! Throw him in jail!" and "The pig farm you just built makes my existing home unlivable."
For the second part, it is important to understand the difference between quality of life and actual rights. My quality of life would improve greatly if I could go anywhere, do anything, have anything, demand any service, etc. But I have no legitimate claim to these things; they are not my property to use as I wish. Others have no duty to ensure my quality of life, only to not violate my property. So, yes it is possible to accumulate property in a way that reduces the quality of life of others; but so what?
Well, I guess the so what is that you may get into a situation where you have a minority who have managed to accumulate a lot of property, and a majority who have very little property and very little hope of accumulating property. This majority will then start marching around claiming they are wage slaves and threatening forcefully take the property of the minority, and eventually will actually go through with it, with gruesome consequences.
I am sure that you will say that just because it’s the majority, doesn’t make it right, and especially as you have property rights which are inherent and inalienable, but I don’t think I would feel comfortable in such a situation myself. Must be my inner hippy speaking.
Can you explain what you mean by "I don't think I would feel comfortable in such a situation myself"?
Well, I think I would have feeling of guilt seeing people who are struggling to survive everyday while I enjoy my inherent property rights. I grew up in South Africa as part of the priveledged white minority and remember feeling that way when I lived there.
But maybe I am talking out my ass and a Libertarian society would see an end to poverty, but I have my doubts.
What do you think? Thanks for the replies.
I think situations like the South African apartheid can only exist under a state. That's because a state allows a minority to effectively hold higher claim of property ostensibly owned by those outside of the minority.
In both apartheid and the "Jim Crow" laws of the American South, white people were restricted by the state in what they could do with and for black people. A stateless society would have no such laws, and if it did have such traditions, they wouldn't be enforceable. The idea is that rights trump privileges, every time.
Furthermore, it's the non-rich majority that's affected the most by state interventions in the economy. Higher taxation, inflation, and regulation inevitably raise the cost of living, either directly through higher monetary prices for goods, or indirectly through shortages and capital consumption.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
To respond to your OP, China Diapers, keep in mind that all ownership is private ownership - in the sense that all ownership necessarily entails the right to exclude others from possession and use of what's owned. Even the Soviets had private ownership, although ownership of most things was restricted to the Soviet state. For ownership to no longer exist, no one could be excluded from possessing and using anything. This would lead to either total chaos - a true Hobbesian "war of all against all" - or the de facto re-establishment of some system of ownership.
OK yes, I know South Africa was a specific situation, I am just using my experience there to illustrate am not the kind of person (I don't think anybody really is) who can sleep at night surrounded by poverty.
But yes, I do think along the lines you do regarding the state creating poverty and the wealth of the elite being maintained through preferencial treatment from the government, but I am not yet 100% convinced.
I will keep reading those books.
Autolykos: To respond to your OP, China Diapers, keep in mind that all ownership is private ownership - in the sense that all ownership necessarily entails the right to exclude others from possession and use of what's owned. Even the Soviets had private ownership, although ownership of most things was restricted to the Soviet state. For ownership to no longer exist, no one could be excluded from possessing and using anything. This would lead to either total chaos - a true Hobbesian "war of all against all" - or the de facto re-establishment of some system of ownership.
That makes a lot of sense, thank you.
China Diapers:Well, I think I would have feeling of guilt seeing people who are struggling to survive everyday while I enjoy my inherent property rights. I grew up in South Africa as part of the priveledged white minority and remember feeling that way when I lived there. But maybe I am talking out my ass and a Libertarian society would see an end to poverty, but I have my doubts. What do you think? Thanks for the replies. In a Libertarian society there would be nothing stopping you from giving some of your property to those struggling to survive, if you found value in that, or trying to convince others to do the same. Poverty would need to be defined better before I could say whether or not I think a Libertarian society would end it. Look at the "poverty" in the US versus "poverty" in a random 3rd world country. These are not even close to the same thing. I do think that whatever qualifies as "poor" will continually be richer and richer at a greater rate in a Libertarian society than it would otherwise. | Post Points: 20
In a Libertarian society there would be nothing stopping you from giving some of your property to those struggling to survive, if you found value in that, or trying to convince others to do the same.
Poverty would need to be defined better before I could say whether or not I think a Libertarian society would end it. Look at the "poverty" in the US versus "poverty" in a random 3rd world country. These are not even close to the same thing. I do think that whatever qualifies as "poor" will continually be richer and richer at a greater rate in a Libertarian society than it would otherwise.
Thanks for the response, you guys have given me a lot to think about.
www.mercyforanimals.org: During a four-week investigation in April and May, MFA's investigator documented farm workers: Violently punching young calves in the face, body slamming them to the ground, and pulling and throwing them by their ears Routinely using pitchforks to stab cows in the face, legs and stomach Kicking "downed" cows (those too injured to stand) in the face and neck – abuse carried out and encouraged by the farm's owner Maliciously beating restrained cows in the face with crowbars – some attacks involving over 40 blows to the head Twisting cows' tails until the bones snapped Punching cows' udders Bragging about stabbing, dragging, shooting, breaking bones, and beating cows and calves to death
Violently punching young calves in the face, body slamming them to the ground, and pulling and throwing them by their ears
Routinely using pitchforks to stab cows in the face, legs and stomach Kicking "downed" cows (those too injured to stand) in the face and neck – abuse carried out and encouraged by the farm's owner
Maliciously beating restrained cows in the face with crowbars – some attacks involving over 40 blows to the head
Twisting cows' tails until the bones snapped Punching cows' udders
Bragging about stabbing, dragging, shooting, breaking bones, and beating cows and calves to death
OK so you have pretty much convinced me on the poverty issue. This is something else that I have concerns about regarding Libertarianism.
I am not a vegan, vegetarian, Peta member or anything like that, but when I read stuff this like this I think of course the state should intervene and arrest these people. In a Libertarian society, there will be nothing to stop people abusing animals if it means cutting costs, or even if they just enjoy it.
I don't think the average person will boycott a company because it abuses animals if it means their weekly shopping budget is lower, and in most cases they will not even be aware of the suffering that is caused. I think we have established that because a view is held by the majority doesn’t make it right.
Reading articles on mises.org on the subject everybody seems to agree with Rothbard’s view which was something along the lines of “I will agree to give animals rights when they ask for them.” Of course I don't expect animals to be given the same rights as humans, but at least to be spared a life of unbearable suffering.
Ghandi (not sure you guys are Ghandi fans) said something along the lines of you can jusdge a society by how well it treats its animals, I agree with him.
Do Libertarians consider such things, or do we not care?
I don't accept the argument that whites are collectively responsible for Apartheid because the old government based its policies on a basis of white supremacism.
I don't think it was right for the TRC to acquit the politicians and generals who were really responsible for Apartheid and shift the blame collectively onto everyone who the new government claims the old government was acting in the best interests of. The old government always claimed that it was acting in the best interests of everyone, just like the current one does. Obviously they're both wrong. Children can't vote now, but the current government - like all democracies - thinks that it is acting in their best interests most of all.
I did not vote or lobby for the Apartheid state, and neither did anyone in my family. If it abused other people worse than it abused my family - which it did - I don't see how we can be held responsible. It wasn't on account of collaboration.
Should I also feel guilty because the new government is doing terrible things to this country's prosperity for reasons it says are benefitting all of us? The immoveable property it claims to be 'redistributing' to the needy through land reform and housing projects is, in fact, a process of socialisation. People often think they're taking the property from private hands and putting it into other private hands, which would be wrong in any case, but it's actually much worse than that...
Applicants have to be approved by the government as genuinely needy and deserving of these houses and farms, you see, so you can't have a situation where they become owners and sell the thing to the highest bidder the following afternoon, which would make some economic sense. Oh no, it's just permanently leased to its tenants for free. They can't sell it, or sublet, or indeed profit in any way from it, except that they can live in it themselves. If they leave, it goes back to the government to allocate to someone else on the "genuinely needy" list.
What is going to happen to these farms and residential communities, which are owned by an absentee landlord that can't even fix potholes on the roads, and leased by extremely poor people at no charge? Tenants, who don't have an owner's incentive to maintain and protect the property?
They will disintegrate into social and economic chaos. Anyone with the gumption to lift themselves out of poverty will leave for a better life, and people who don't will stay. It will be a race to the bottom. It will be even worse than the Apartheid locations, because at least if everyone in a race group is forced together, you'll still have a cross-section of society within that group available to cooperate with each other. With these communities, the least productive people have the most incentive to stay, and the most productive will have the most incentive to leave, so as a result the place itself descends into chaos.
Both the old and the new governments claim that they're ordering us around like their property in our own best interests, and both their grand schemes inevitably result in tragic failure. I don't see a significant moral distinction between the Nats and the ANC regimes. Practically speaking, I think the current government allows us a bit more freedom for now, though the police force is as brutal as ever, but their economic schemes to lift the masses out of poverty are doomed to failure, and when that happens, I just know that the productive class is going to get blamed for it again.
Charity should not result in even greater suffering than there was before.
Ghandi (not sure you guys are Ghandi fans) said something along the lines of you can jusdge a society by how well it treats its animals, I agree with him. Do Libertarians consider such things, or do we not care?
I don't think healthy, happy humans are much inclined to act out sadistically against animals. Maybe that was Ghandi's point.
The more economically powerful an individual is, the more influence they wield over the direction of the market. They can boycott a store if they have looser budget constraints. That's why maximisation of human utility is the first step.
Hi James.
I don't accept the argument that whites are collectively guilty of apartheid either, my poorly worded example was meant to illustrate that I don't feel comfortable with poverty whatever the cause (but then who does), not that I feel responsible as a white South African for what happened, I don't.
You are preaching to the converted regarding the ANC, but interesting hearing your take on things. I have been away 10 years and a lot the time feel very detached from what's going on, but have every intention of moving back eventually.
Thanks for the animal's comment. I don't think I agree with the humans acting sadistically point but it's a matter of opinion I guess, I have seen some pretty sadistic behaviour from apparently well balanced individuals. I hear you on the maximisation of human utility though.
China Diapers: Do Libertarians consider such things, or do we not care?
Try minimizing your usage of "we". Or at least track your (hopefully decreasing) usage frequency of that word in your communications as a barometer for how close you are to thinking like a free individual.
Reply More z1235:Try minimizing your usage of "we". Or at least track your (hopefully decreasing) usage frequency of that word in your communications as a barometer for how close you are to thinking like a free individual.
Ha ha, OK thanks for bringing that to my attention.
Where was this MFA study conducted? I'd rather not have to dig through that site on my own, if you know what I mean. :)
What I would be concerned about is whether treating livestock in such ways negatively affects the quality of the food produced from them.
The notion of "abusing" animals implies that they have rights against the behaviors being categorized as "abuse". For example, if causing "needless suffering" to animals qualifies as "abuse", then that implies animals have a right to not suffer needlessly. One problem that arises here concerns the definition of "needless suffering". After all, couldn't killing livestock for their meat be considered causing them needless suffering? Why do they need to suffer death just so we can enjoy their meat? Going along this route, of course, one can only conclude that nothing ever "needs" to happen in this sense, so everything is needless.
Another way of looking at it is in terms of goals. If your goal is to raise animals for slaughter, keeping them under stress will probably make them harder to raise and otherwise impact the quality of the meat they produce. Certainly the treatment of animals allegedly documented by MFA at at least one farm puts those animals under severe stress. Such treatment of animals is also wasteful from the economics standpoint. After all, the time and effort expended in such treatment could've been used for other things that actually help the farm.
What's funny is that you don't typically see people buying brand-new cars just so they can slowly and methodically destroy them. A person is more likely to engage in such "abusive" behavior with something that will show fear and submission - which tells him that he's more powerful than it. Of course, the only things that do that are sufficiently complex organisms. IMO, it's a shame that so many people have such a need to feel more powerful than something else. There are other factors at work here, though, such as groupthink/deindividuation and the separation of ownership and control.
In any case, don't underestimate the "power" of social pressure. People who aren't sociopaths will react strongly to mere negative criticism of their actions. I'd wager that, even in a libertarian society, most people would also think that someone who sadistically tortures animals, while not committing any crime (assuming their his animals), is not a person they want to be around. They'd probably think that, if he's willing to torture animals, he's much more likely to graduate to torturing people than someone who isn't willing to do that.
Thanks for the thought provoking reply, what you say makes sense.
However, if I had to see somebody stabbing, drop-kicking, sodomising or in any other way cause an animal (over which they have inherent property rights or not)extreme distress I have no doubt I would violate the non-agression principle against the person in question, and would feel quite good about it afterwards.
I fully understand that some people may not share my views, but I would have to wonder what else I would not have in common with such people. That's my problem of course.
Oh yes, my generalisation on the views of Libertarians regarding animal rights were based on articles I read in the Mises daily archive, so you didn't miss anything = )
No one's going to perfectly follow the Non-Aggression Principle. While I think it's a good goal to have, it's like an asymptote in math - you can always get closer to it, but you can never actually get there. So what's the point, then? I think the point is about justice - that is, about paying for harms committed. The Non-Aggression Principle provides a basis for what constitutes harm.
My point is, if you hurt a person who's doing something that 1) isn't a crime, but 2) is nevertheless something you don't like, be prepared to "pay the price" should the person choose to press charges against you.
Interesting. Thanks to everybody who has replied this has been very educational, seriously.
Don't be alarmed if I come across as an militant animal rights marxist, I am actually quite a sensible person.
Thanks again.
Autolykos: What I would be concerned about is whether treating livestock in such ways negatively affects the quality of the food produced from them.
Indeed it does. I think you will like this if you haven't seen it China Diapers:
http://youtu.be/-T9UaP1AsMI
Also, I got back from Hawaii recently and was surprised to find a store that did something I have imagined would come about in a libertarian society. They rated the meat they sold on 5 levels where each higher level corresponded to better animal treatment by the farmers as concluded by the stores inspectors. Stores would do this now if they could opt-out of paying for the government inspectors so they could use that money toward doing it themselves and if more people realized what a bad job the government does at inspecting.
What they advocate theoretically is a transitory state. They initially use all of the old methods of pillaging and execution and then expect the utopia commune to just happen by itself after that. By the same token Marx was an anarchist.
Known animal abusers would have a terrible reputation, in a society of non-sociopaths they would be ostracized.
Ask any anarcho-comunist: and what would you do if private property would re-emerge under staleness? No one will say “fine, we’ll leave it be than”. To them, communism far precedes anarchy by importance. Want to know some real anarcho-comunists? Check out Israeli Kibbutzim’s. Those guys live their lives as they see fit and let other live theirs.
I actually spent three months on a Kibbutz as a volunteer after high school, I thought it was awesome, seemed to work really well.
From what I gather the Kibbutzim's are struggling now, one of the older Kibbutzniks was telling me all the youngsters these days pack their bags for Tel Aviva or Jerusalem the first chance they get, they are not interested in that lifestyle.
Regarding the ownership of property, I have been reading Ethics of Liberty I am not 100% convinced that Humans have an inherent right to own property, but I would agree that nobody has the right to tell you that you can't own property.
Anthony de Jasay is an excellent read on the subject of "rights". You should check him out. I think he's written a few Mises Dailys.
China Diapers: Regarding the ownership of property, I have been reading Ethics of Liberty I am not 100% convinced that Humans have an inherent right to own property, but I would agree that nobody has the right to tell you that you can't own property.
Be aware that there a major, if sometimes dormant, debate going on between libertarians regarding the justification of property rights. Natural rights are just one opinion.
Ah OK, interesting, thanks.