"A better question is why the right is inalienable. It's inalienable because by nature you control yourself and no one else does."
I'm just picking this quote as representative of the "natural rights" point of view...
I *personally* don't have a problem with the social institutions - the contractual arrangements, really - that follow from a natural rights view. I generally prefer what we have been calling a "capitalist" definition of property.
But that is just a statement of what *I would choose* in a free market of societal rules systems. Like any other market choice I would make, who am I to insist *via force and violence* that my market choice should be everyone else's?
This is the danger I see from the "natural rights" camp: they seem to be so sure that their derivation is One Real Truth that they are willing to impose that definition on everyone else. Note, for example, the subtle appeal to a last authority: in this case, it is "nature". It's odd that *my* derivation is called a "slippery slope", when it seems to me that anyone purporting to have the one "true" definition of property or "rights" that everyone else should use: what happens when you run into people with a different one "true" definition? How can there be *any* room for compromise when two sides think they have the one universal truth that everyone should have? It's a recipe for constant conflict and violence, at least until one side is completely killed.
"The legal concept of a right is no more than the legal aknowledgment of a fundamental reality. You control yourself. End of story."
And what do you do with those who have a different story? Your might makes right over them?
I just think this kind of philosophical "I have the one right answer. End of story" thinking is really dangerous, as it cannot handle the reality that there are many, many different "one true philosophies" that are in conflict and that will inevitably end up in a war - a real, physical, guns blazing war - over which one truth is correct.
"Political systems help or harm themselves in accordance with how much their laws reflect reality."
If you are correct - and with the caveat that this is one relatively vague sentence, I think you probably are - that will come out *in the market*. That is, the contracts that we sign will - I predict! - mostly *define* contractual "rights" that will largely match capitalist concepts because, I think, those are the ones that work best for most people and thus the ones that they will choose in a free market.
But there is a gulf of difference between advocating that people *choose* such concepts - "political systems" as you say - and imposing your definitions because you are so sure that they are the "end of story".
"To say no one has innate rights except that which exists between contractees is to sanction murder, theft, rape, torture, and worse between those who have not yet contracted."
I think you are very mistaken and creating a distracting strawman. Can I encourage you to think about this a little more before making such an unjustified conclusion?
You'd be free to sign away your rights, but it wouldn't be enforceable in a court of law
Why not? Inalienable rights doesn't mean that you yourself can't give them up. They're just inalienable by anyone else.
The great revolution of American democracy was the aknowledgement of the rights we all have as part of our nature as human beings.
Don't mix democracy into anarcho-capitalism, because democracy as a type of government (and not contract) is a type of statism. Acknowledgement of natural rights was a great revolution, but you make it seem like American democracy upholds said natural rights. The idea of the social contract could have been great if taken to the conclusion of anarcho-capitalism, but it instead remained as an excuse for statism. Not even the founding people of this nation all signed the social contract, so it is invalid. Plus, people are born every day who do not sign the contract. So while Locke's idea was steps away from an amazing conclusion of a voluntary society, it instead resulted in a government established by the few - the few that are now dead.
I do agree in my uninformed opinion that human beings have the inherent value of human life which gives us self-ownership, but people on this board seem to disagree. Though they quickly assert that right to property exists (and don't give anything but empirical evidence).
That's not a refutation. You simply said try again.
I'm not trying to refute. I'm having a constructive discussion, not a philosophical debate, because any philosophical "truth" or argument is a *market decision*: it's one way that people may make their decision about what societal institutions they would consume in a free market of such, but there is no requirement that people make their decisions that way, because the only way their can be a "requirement" is to posit some force-using enforcer of that requirement.
What I am suggesting is that your attempt to link someone who doesn't agree with a natural rights view of things to "sanctioning murder, rape, etc" is clearly a strawman since I clearly don't sanction those things.
If instead you would like to make a market-based prediction that in a world dominated by contractual arrangements, murder, rape, torture, etc will be especially prevalent, I think that would be interesting. I just think that in the process of trying to construct that prediction, you are likely to see why it's unlikely to be true. In the process of doing so, you will internalize the logic of markets in social institutions in a way far, far more useful than my trying to "argue" it. No one ever internalizes something new from an "argument", only from thinking about it themselves.
I *do* suspect you are likely to just point out again that I haven't "refuted" anything or similarly accuse me of dodging the question. Hopefully not, but it's what I'm predicting, not based on anything specific to you - I don't know you - but past history in such circumstances. Well, ok. To me it ends up kind of like being, say, a white person in Coer D'Alene (I just happened to visit there this past weekend and experienced the anachronism of being in a "racially" homogeneous and frankly prejudiced and bigoted place, not surprising since the Aryan nation locates their headquarters in that area): despite my being "white" and, to the bigots and hatemongers, being "in their camp", I'm extremely wary of the violence inherent in their position. I agree with you that *I prefer* a capitalist concept of property rights, but I am exrtremely wary of the violence of the position you take around that, since I advocate that that is a *market* choice and you seem to advocate that it is a "universal truth" that must be imposed on everyone whether or not they agree or not. Hopefully I'm wrong about this last.
Alternatives Considered wrote: But that is just a statement of what *I would choose* in a free market of societal rules systems. Like any other market choice I would make, who am I to insist *via force and violence* that my market choice should be everyone else's?
- What you're missing here is that aknowledgement of natural right is what your notion of "force and violence" rests upon. You're assuming my position by appealing to it. An aknowledgment that people own themselves is what's necessary to consider it wrong to initiate violence or coercion against them.
But you say, why should we "force" this legal principle on everyone else? We don't need to force it on others--reality has done it for us. We need to make law respect reality in the same way that scientific laws respect reality. What use would a law of science be that had no correspondence to reality? None at all! The fact that reality itself has already made you an owner of yourself is not forcing our legal principle on people, only aknowledging what reality has already forced upon them.
Alternatives Considered wrote: This is the danger I see from the "natural rights" camp: they seem to be so sure that their derivation is One Real Truth that they are willing to impose that definition on everyone else. Note, for example, the subtle appeal to a last authority: in this case, it is "nature".
- Would you criticize the laws of science in the same way--claiming they're wrong for imposing the law of gravitation on other scientists who might have a different view. This scientist says it feels like he's being pushed down more than pulled and we're supposed to accept that?
It's odd that *my* derivation is called a "slippery slope", when it seems to me that anyone purporting to have the one "true" definition of property or "rights" that everyone else should use: what happens when you run into people with a different one "true" definition?
- They're free to start their own society, away from me. And you know what, they've already done it. Many societies around the world operate as if the law of self-ownership were not in operation. Generally it's the philosophic foundation of communalism and all its derivations. And, what's funny is, they simply don't work. Because they are not aknowledging a fundamental fact about reality and human nature as given by reality.
We must take reality as a given and build within the limits set by it.
It's like you have one guy saying "that car needs gasoline" and another saying, "Naw, it can run on water." Which one is going to work? Engines cannot run on water because it is not in the nature of water to explode when given air, pressure and heat. It is not imposing upon another to say they are wrong for trying to run their engine with water. Damn right we can appeal to reality, what else do we have? Philosophy is not a game of equally legitimate concepts, it is abstractions pulled from reality.
Self ownership and the ability to own what you produce is the necessary fuel for human freedom.
How can there be *any* room for compromise when two sides think they have the one universal truth that everyone should have? It's a recipe for constant conflict and violence, at least until one side is completely killed.
- There can be no compromise between someone who says 1+1=3 when I say 1+1=2. To compromise in such a case only makes us both wrong instead of one of us right.
In fact, one cannot compromise or make progress at all with others who have a defective epistemology. If we cannot agree that reality is reality then there is no further basis to communicate.
You seem to be assuming that an argument must take place within a closed society. You believe this means that violence is inevitable--I don't think that's a warranted conclusion because we have for all intents and purposes infinite amounts of space in this universe and separation will always be posisble (naturally I assume space colonization at some point).
Competition between societies is more interesting to me than competition in a single marketplace. Looking at history on that basis it's perfectly clear that a property ethic and aknowledgment of natural rights has resulted in more human progress than any alternative.
Alternatives Considered: I'm an AnCap who rejects any notion of "rights" except to the extent that they are defined in agreements ("contracts") between people, so we do not all frame these questions in terms of rights and whether or not they are alienable or unalienable.
I'm an AnCap who rejects any notion of "rights" except to the extent that they are defined in agreements ("contracts") between people, so we do not all frame these questions in terms of rights and whether or not they are alienable or unalienable.
What is the source of your expectation (right?) to have your contracts respected by the parties with which you had signed them? Wouldn't you had to have a previous "contract-respecting" contract signed with each and every one of them? Iterate ad infinitum...
"Contracts" or "natural rights" are not the only possible answers. Actually, they're both wrong. I think that the source of (societal, property) norms is as simple as this:
"The natural selection of cultural rules is another instance of spontaneous order. Hayek contends that cultural evolution proceeds through a group selection process in which rules conducing to productivity spread at the expense of less-efficient practices. A group that observes better-adapted rules can support a larger population, so its practices displace other practices as it grows and as members of competing groups adopt these more effective behaviors."
Anenome, can you explain what you mean by "society"? I think we are a lot closer than you seem to think we are (though looking back over the thread, it wasn't you that said that I sanctioned murder, rape, etc). Depending on what you mean by "They're free to start their own society, away from me."
If your definition of "society" includes some notion of "geographic continuity/locality", than we're not in agreement, but maybe I could convince you that sticking to that conflation is more damaging to your cause than not doing so. If if does not include that - if a "society" is just a collection of people operating under more or less the same societal institutions and definitions, regardless of their physical proximity - than we're basically advocating the same thing, though admittedly through fairly different language (you are taking a philosopher's point of view, where I am taking what I will call a more pragmatic/market point of view. I am not interested in proving what is "right", because in the end, it doesn't matter. My waving a philosophy book in the face of someone who is about to shoot me is not going to change their mind, and ultimately, what I need to live in the kind of society that I want to live in is some sort of "buy in" from the majority of the people that I'm going to interact with. That, to me, is a *market* issue, an issue of "sales", not of being right. I need to sell these people on some sort of institutions/agreements/definitions that they will voluntarily agree to live by, and I'm submitting that the vast majority of people are not going to be swayed by a philosophical argument, no matter how rock-solid. They are going to be sold by *self interest*. That's why I'm pretty much with you when you say "Looking at history on that basis it's perfectly clear that a property ethic and aknowledgment of natural rights has resulted in more human progress than any alternative.", but I see that as a *sales pitch*, not as the end of the story, as in, QED, I've proved it, now fuck off and die if you don't acknowledge the superiority of my philosophy (of course I'm exaggerating for effect, not saying that's what you said).)
Perhaps the semantic conundrum between us lies in this statement of yours: "Competition between societies is more interesting to me than competition in a single marketplace." I don't really understand: in an anarchic-world, societies *do* compete, in the marketplace of societies. That's exactly what I'm saying: I advocate that people should only be included in a "society" if they contractually agree to do so (with the other folks in that "society") and then the societies can compete, *BUT*, I think it is most *likely* that in such a free market of societies, that the one with strong private property definitions will "do better', become larger, etc., basically for the reasons you list (IOW, when you arguing why *you* prefer private property etc,. you are preaching to the choir: I'm already there. I'm just very careful about not forcing others to use the same definitions. It's their choice, and if it ends up that they live in squalor, well, that's the consequences of their bad decision and perhaps they'll switch over after they see things in action. Or perhaps they'll just like to live like that, even if it sucks by our standard, because it matches their morality. Whatever. I'm still not going to force them to adopt a different definition amongst themselves. As for what happens when they interact with a "capitalist" and try to impose their definition of property, well, I've discussed that at quite some length in this thread, but the short version is: I don't think it will happen very much and thus isn't really that big of an issue).
"What is the source of your expectation (right?) to have your contracts respected by the parties with which you had signed them?"
Mutual self-interest, like all voluntary trades (a contract is just a trade, albeit it isn't usually thought of this way. It's basically a trade wherein we agree to *eschew* certain actions. It's kind of a "negative trade", if you will, but that's just a descriptive term, not one meant to conflate issues like positive vs negative "rights"). Both sides sign and stick to contracts because it is in their (perceived, at least) self-interest to do so.
You don't need anything else and, in the end, anything else is violence and thus really isn't going to work. There are only two kinds of interactions between people: unilateral, and not unilateral, the latter being "bilateral" and thus mutually voluntary. If it's not mutually voluntary, then it is just one side imposing their will on the other via violence. We have only violence, or contracts. Since I take as the starting point for "anarchists" and others on this list a general disdain for violence (as reflected to a large extent in the NAP), I think it's pretty natural to start from contracts.
Totally agreed, but also, I find this is totally in support of what I am saying, not against it. Since there is no violence or force mentioned here - he is not saying that one group *imposes* their cultural rules on others, but rather that they *emerge* from a competition of such rules - he is referring to a marketplace in such rules. In such a marketplace of rules, one is not bound by any particular rule unless one chooses to be so as a "member of a competing group".
What is it you see in this quote that you think contradicts what I am saying? Maybe I'm missing something.
Alternatives Considered: "What is the source of your expectation (right?) to have your contracts respected by the parties with which you had signed them?" Mutual self-interest, like all voluntary trades (a contract is just a trade, albeit it isn't usually thought of this way.
Mutual self-interest, like all voluntary trades (a contract is just a trade, albeit it isn't usually thought of this way.
Then "contracts" can not be the source of norms. Mutual self-interest is already what's making it more likely that we don't slit each other's throats without a contract covering it. The societal norm that a contract is better respected (than not) can not be established via contracts.
The "creator" of norms is cultural evolution (i.e. group selection process). Your "contracts" are not an answer simply because they themselves depend on the same norms which you suggest they must create. The norms must come before "contracts", not the other way around.
Sorry, Z, I don't understand what you are talking about in your multiple references to "norms". Can you explain it some other way? What exactly are you objecting to?
AC, nevermind. I think I already said what I wanted to say as well as I could say it. Sorry it didn't flow through to you.
Alternatives Considered,
Do you acknowledge that there are undeniable truths that exist and that we can comprehend them with logic/reason? -"they seem to be so sure that their derivation is One Real Truth that they are willing to impose that definition on everyone else."
First of all, "nature" is a reference to reason-against nature means your acting illogically/in a contradictory manner. Are you denying the universality of the laws of logic? If you are; you are using those very constructs of reason to form your point, so again you are contradicting yourself and making no sense.
Lastly, you clearly don't understand the implications of "natural" rights, as the proponents can only resort to argumentation and non-coercive means to persuade as it is based on the fact of self-ownership.
"I shall smite thee relativism, with my third leg of logic" -gladiusrationis
Z, well, I *think* you're arguing kind of a technical point that doesn't really contradict the basics of what I'm saying, particularly if I were to explain - belatedly! - that my use of the term "contract" here is relatively informal. I really just mean any mutually voluntary "trade", including a trade in which people agree to operate with each other using certain definitions or norms.. I am trying to make the point that any social convention or agreement or institution or definition is purely a function of whether people choose to accept it: it requires *buyin* from people. What I get frustrated with is those that reference something *other* than the buyin of the very people that they need to accept these institutions, whether that reference be a diety ("the Bible prohibits such and such!"), the state (obviously), or philosophy ("natural rights"). No institution has any power over anyone unless they agree to let that institution have power over them; the only other thing that has power over them is literal physical power, that is, violence.
Do you disagree with that? Does a mental abstraction/construction like "natural rights" actually have any power over anyone unless they voluntarily agree to let it have power over them?
As I said, I don't think what I'm saying is very controversial at some level, if I could actually say it correctly.
Alternatives Considered: Do you disagree with that?
Do you disagree with that?
I don't. I may have read into your "contracts" proposition too literally.
I may have read into your "contracts" proposition too literally.
If you did, the fault is in my writing, not your reading. But you have been helpful in showing me that I need to be careful with how I use the term "contract". Thanks!
Wheylous: Why not? Inalienable rights doesn't mean that you yourself can't give them up. They're just inalienable by anyone else.
- No, even you cannot alienate your rights from yourself. This is a basic legal principle even our system recognizes today. If, even in our system, someone paid you not to speak and you spoke--there's no law against speaking and there cannot be, it's an inalienable right. If you agree not to speak you're not alienating yourself from your right to speak, you're choosing not to exercise an inalienable right. And the only recourse for the other party would be loss of whatever benefit you two had contracted for.
Don't mix democracy into anarcho-capitalism, because democracy as a type of government (and not contract) is a type of statism.
- The rejection of all things statist is inappropriate--which clearly is why I'm not an anarchist. The state does have a legitimate function, that being to protect the right of its citizens, to punish those who initiate aggression with aggression and coercion of its own. This power of the state to use physical force is only a problem when the state is initiating force rather than using it in response to coercion.
Sure democracy itself, in the strict sense of the term is a terrible concept which allowed majority rule to trample on every minority and was essentialy tyranny by mass vote. But I said American Democracy, which is democracy paird with both strict government limits and aknowledgment of individual inalienable rights, which is the best form of government that's been pulled off so far in the history of the world. Show me an operating mass anarchist state and then you can talk.
Acknowledgement of natural rights was a great revolution, but you make it seem like American democracy upholds said natural rights.
- It did initially. Not so much anymore. Too many loopholes in the Constitution have led to massive expansion of statist controls and power far beyond what was intended. No argument there.
The idea of the social contract could have been great if taken to the conclusion of anarcho-capitalism, but it instead remained as an excuse for statism. Not even the founding people of this nation all signed the social contract, so it is invalid.
- I half agree with you here. I think you're right that people should not be automatically considered agreed to the existing social contract they were born into. I'm working on a concept where children would exist within the parent's chosen framework until these children reached self-sufficiency, at which point they'd be allowed to choose what social contract they want to live under. Such a society would encourage experimentation. It would allow for things like communal living and even Sharia, as long as the people inside agreed to it willingly. But their rights would still be unalienable on a basic level.
- The fact of self-ownership is simply self-evident. You control you. The necessity of individually owned property is obvious when you try to eat something. You're consming property obtained for your exclusive use. No one can live without similarly obtaining a food-good for their sole use. Not even animals. Property in a larger sense is an extension of your ownership of yourself. You own a tract of land, you own it exclusively and you control it.
"The rejection of all things statist is inappropriate--which clearly is why I'm not an anarchist."
Aha, now I see why I'm not finding much common ground with you: I (and most people here) am an anarchist, and think that embrace of a state is embracing aggression.
"Property in a larger sense is an extension of your ownership of yourself."
Which is, AnCaps will say, incompatible with the state, since the concept of the state assumes that the state owns everything within its domain even if it offers the illusion of private ownership by doling out control when it suits it.
"You own a tract of land, you own it exclusively and you control it."
If you've read this thread, you'll find people who define property differently. To impose your definition of property on them is another form of aggression.
(how the hell does the quote function work on this forum? I highlight text, hit 'quote' and nothing happens. And there don't seem to be any quote controls in the box down here >:| )
Alternatives Considered wrote: Anenome, can you explain what you mean by "society"?
- I mean something like a community of individuals. Could be a city large or small, nation or family. Generally there'd be some geographic separation between societies.
I've been trying to work on a political system that didn't require geographic separation to allow for different laws to exist, but it's something of a nightmare for enforcement. Either you'd have to split criminal and civil law and put everyone under the same criminal jurisdiction and then let people pair up in civil law societies, or you need geographic separation.
Suppose you had a marketplace for laws, and different police departments enforcing different laws in the same region. What happens when Police A show up at Joe's door and Police B come to defend Joe. It's not really realistic unfortunately. The only solution is minimal criminal law via very limited government.
But, explain to me why you think geographic separation is a problem there?
I am not interested in proving what is "right", because in the end, it doesn't matter. My waving a philosophy book in the face of someone who is about to shoot me is not going to change their mind, and ultimately, what I need to live in the kind of society that I want to live in is some sort of "buy in" from the majority of the people that I'm going to interact with. That, to me, is a *market* issue, an issue of "sales", not of being right.
You might think so, but societies are ultimately led by philosophies, so much so that they refuse to change them even when drawing out to the ultimate conclusion of that philosophy. If you ask me, the real problem in politics today is that the defenders of capitalism have not taken a philosophic, principled approach, and thus fall prey to philosophers on the other side, and cannot effectively refute the statists and collectivists. I don't know of any historical examples of a society "buying in" to another way of life, EXCEPT for Japan during the Meiji period. However, Japan has a centuries long tradition of cultural importation from China and thus was ready in multudinous ways to simply switch importation targets to the West that have no parallels in other cultures.
Beyond that, while you're pushing this market based adoption approach, your philosophic opponents are effectively innoculating the entire world against your approach through the spread of cultural relativism. However, communalism's consequences after 150 years have become pretty blatant, such that even communist China has ceded the effectiveness of markets. India is growing, and Africa's on its way as well.
The bigger danger is that the West itself seems ready to give up on capitalism. And that's because we don't have a good philosophic, idealist philosophy behind it that the young can grasp. They latch onto the supposed fairness of socialism without realizing they've been had philosophically.
Perhaps the semantic conundrum between us lies in this statement of yours: "Competition between societies is more interesting to me than competition in a single marketplace." I don't really understand: in an anarchic-world, societies *do* compete, in the marketplace of societies.
I wrote that because you seemed to be arguing ways to change minds within a society. In my opinion that's not going to be possible in the short term. What would be possible is creating a new society founded upon the principles of limited government, private property, and free trade and building from there. Most people haven't been thinking that way because--where would you go? But, increasingly, I think we can build a floating nation on the water. There's a lot more space in the ocean than all the continents. And we finally have the tools to allow parcels of water to be owned (GPS).
One parting shot: your idea of success forcing other to adopt a way of life that 'works' takes decades. It requires them to fail and them another society to succeed to such a degree that they change. A principled approach, otoh, engages Man's reason, allows them to check their thought process and premises, and adopt willingly a way of life from the root from which everything else will follow. If you combine the two, a working, prosperous society AND a philosophically principled and consistent culture, the result would be magical.
And I think the primary thing we need is the equivalent of a constitutional provision that creates a separation of economy and government, and bans income tax--much in the same way that 200 years ago we separated church and state. Such a society would rapidly advance in ways we've never dreamed and lead the way into the future.
Alternatives Considered: Aha, now I see why I'm not finding much common ground with you: I (and most people here) am an anarchist, and think that embrace of a state is embracing aggression.
But, are you some kind of pacifist? The state's use of force is often appropriate--specifically to prevent your rights from being violated. Without some legal institution imbued with the right of coercion on a legal basis, the only alternative is mob competition at the point of a gun. If you reject all forms of state coercion, even that in response to the initiation of aggression, then surely in your own life, to be consistent, you would have to reject the responsive use of coercion against, say, someone trying to kill you. Because it's the same principle. Thus, the pacifism question.
If you simply make a distinction between the initiation of coercion, and coercion used to prevent the initiation of coercion, seems to me your entire reason for being an anarchist melts away. And, btw, there is no other effective response to physical coercion than the use of physical coercion to stop it. Without a legal body to stamp down the initiation of coercion, you're at the mercy of the strong and armed.
Not true in the slightest. I'd be interested how you derive the idea that the state must act as if it controlled everything. It's a rather european way of looking at the State. Certainly, that attitude does exist in some states, but it's perfectly possible to wall off entire sections of the society from any state intervention at all. We must make a distinction between society-wide jurisdiction and outright ownership. Only in a socialist/communist society could the state be said to own/control everything.
If I and everything I possessed were owned by the state, I would require its permission to do anything. I do not. I am free in most respects.
Again, they may have another definition of property, but that's the definition that reality forces upon us. If you own land the same way you own your arm, then you have exclusive control over it. It's a philosophic extension of the principle of self-ownership. There are other kinds of ownership but they share many traits.
If one is said to own something but cannot control it, it's clear they don't own it, for they don't have the freedom to dispose of it as they like. The statists like to say property is owned by everyone, but in practice who actually ends up controlling it? The state. Thus, the state really owns everything in deeply statist societies.
[I have not been able to get the quote function to work here either. I don't know how the other posters do so.]
Suppose you had a marketplace for laws, and different police departments enforcing different laws in the same region. What happens when Police A show up at Joe's door and Police B come to defend Joe.
Oh boy, you have come to the right place! ;-) There are loads and loads of discussions, texts, podcasts, papers, etc that you will find here or referenced here on these issues. Hell, earlier in this *thread* I delved into this quite a lot. That said, I am a poor spokesman. Let me just say that there is a huge body of work on exactly how this might play out, and that if you take the time to read it, you may find it quite compelling. I did. I came across AnCaps in the same state as you are, as a minarchist libertarian, skeptical that the state could be done away with completely. I have since been... convinced otherwise. ;-)
Alternatives Considered: Mutual self-interest
The crook also steals out of self interest. What's needed is an enforcement mechanism that makes it less likely rather than more that not being productive (by instead being a crook) will pay off in the end.
How do you deal with historical examples of the breakdown of police powers such as happened in Italy in the last century. I remember reading the story of a young anarchist who lived there who constantly refused to believe his parents who said that if the police left there'd be riots in the street. When the police left and riots broke out, he was, understandably, shocked, and soon after gave up on anarchism.
A better word than 'violence' is coercion, IMO. Many violent things are also good things. A surgeon can do a great deal of violence to you in the process of fixing you. The problem is not the violence, the problem is the initiation of coercion.
While you're right that a contractual society is completely awesome, what you seem to be missing is a role for resolving civil disputes. Who is going to resolve contractual disputes? Without a body of civil law and some civil courts in place to deal with contractual questions you've created a society where the ONLY method of resolving contractual suits is the threat or actual coercion on the part of the parties to the contract. In short, you've created mobs where the point of a gun solves everything and the strong man wins, giving the weaker man no recourse.
No society is going to be able to exist on a mass scale without an institution in place to provide recourse other than violence when contractual disputes take place.
Alternatives Considered wrote: Do you disagree with that? Does a mental abstraction/construction like "natural rights" actually have any power over anyone unless they voluntarily agree to let it have power over them?
That depends. Have you agreed to let gravity affect you? Have you agreed with your arm that only you may control it? If not, then these are rights given to you as part of your nature as a human beings--by nature, as in it is the nature of a person to control their arm solely and exclusively, not as in "nature" as some quasi-mystical being or floaty concept gave you natural rights. In other words, substitute 'nature' for 'reality' and you could simply call them 'rights given to you by reality' and you'd be just as accurate.
That fact of reality turned into a legal concept is what we call a 'right.' And the principle behind the concept of freedom is this: does the political order give you the same rights that reality gives you? If so, you are free. If not, then not. It is the nature of a person to speak and think freely. If that right is abridged, then they do not have free speech. It is the nature of a person to require private property to live (air, food, water). If they do not have the right to own property at all, they are slaves. Again, they are slaves because they are being legally denied what reality gives them by their very nature as human beings which are born controlling only themselves, and thereby owning themselves.
So yes, natural right have power over you whether you agree to them or not. It is why they are natural rights. They are philosophic givens about the nature of man, equivalent to and just as evident as 1+1=2. We would not take anyone seriously who claims that a person does not own themselves and have exclusive control over themselves. They are not speaking about objective reality in such a case.
I came across AnCaps in the same state as you are, as a minarchist libertarian, skeptical that the state could be done away with completely. I have since been... convinced otherwise.
I sincerely doubt anyone will be able to convince me there's no need for an anti-ciminal institution of justice and civil courts for contract resolution. Those are the primary needs of any society. That and national defense.
But, are you some kind of pacifist?
To a large extent, yes, though that is not required for being an AnCap. To me, violence is the societal killer, but even for mises.org, I probably lean much more pacifist than most.
Without some legal institution imbued with the right of coercion on a legal basis, the only alternative is mob competition at the point of a gun.
I understand the temptation to conclude that, but that's a false dichotomy. There *are* other options.
you would have to reject the responsive use of coercion against, say, someone trying to kill you.
I submit that in practice, this doesn't matter if no one ever actually tries to kill me.
By which I mean: I think its possible for their to be a world in which this is an exceedingly rare occasion, due to powerful incentives that make killing a much less rewarding choice than non violent choices.
I do want to make it clear that this is not an across-the-board AnCap response: many AnCaps are much more comfortable with violence than I am, as long as it is "justified force" of various sorts.
And, btw, there is no other effective response to physical coercion than the use of physical coercion to stop it.
Agreed.
But far more effective - and even adopted in our present state! - is creating disincentives for using physical coercion in the first place, so that it just isn't very common. It is hardly a novel observation on my part that our government and police force in no way try to use physical coercion to stop physical coercion *directly*; they rely solely on establishing disincentives. it is exceedingly rare for a cop to actually physically stop a robbery or a murder or a rape; that isn't even their job description for the most part. They exist to *arrest* people after the fact and jail them, in the hopes that this creates a disincentive on future perps.
Once you see that it's about incentives, then you realize there's no reason to automatically conclude that kidnapping someone (jail) is necessarily the best disincentive. I think there are plenty of nonviolent disincentives that may be far more efficacious.
I sincerely doubt anyone will be able to convince me there's no need for an anti-ciminal institution of justice and civil courts for contract resolution. Those are the primary needs of any society.
Food is the primary need of any society, but you and I will agree that free markets are better providers of food than the state, right?
The AnCap hypothesis is that free markets will be better providers of justice, courts, contract resolution, etc., than a coercive monopoly in these things (the state).
To repeat: there is large body of work on how the *free market* could provide these things that you assume must be provided by the state. It's really fascinating and, in the end, compelled me.
Please read some of the much better writers on this subject than I am. I think you will find them... pretty freaking interesting.
While you're right that a contractual society is completely awesome,
Cool!
what you seem to be missing is a role for resolving civil disputes. Who is going to resolve contractual disputes? Without a body of civil law and some civil courts in place to deal with contractual questions
I'm repeating my earlier post, but AnCaps see private actors filling these roles in a competitive free market. Thus, there will be a niche for arbiters whose business model is based on "fairly" resolving disputes (and, in essence, produce bodies of "law" in the form of precedents etc), "protection agencies" that will defend people from violence, etc.
Easiest thing to get started is to google David Friedman's "Machinery of Freedom", though I don't know if the more knowledgeable folks here would suggest it as the best paper on these topics nor the best introductory one. I thought it was pretty good.
Alternatives Considered: I'm not trying to refute. I'm having a constructive discussion, not a philosophical debate, because any philosophical "truth" or argument is a *market decision*
If instead you would like to make a market-based prediction that in a world dominated by contractual arrangements, murder, rape, torture, etc will be especially prevalent, I think that would be interesting. I just think that in the process of trying to construct that prediction, you are likely to see why it's unlikely to be true.
I am exrtremely wary of the violence of the position you take around that, since I advocate that that is a *market* choice and you seem to advocate that it is a "universal truth" that must be imposed on everyone whether or not they agree or not. Hopefully I'm wrong about this last.
Alternatives Considered wrote: By which I mean: I think its possible for their to be a world in which this is an exceedingly rare occasion, due to powerful incentives that make killing a much less rewarding choice than non violent choices. But far more effective - and even adopted in our present state! - is creating disincentives for using physical coercion in the first place, so that it just isn't very common. It is hardly a novel observation on my part that our government and police force in no way try to use physical coercion to stop physical coercion *directly*; they rely solely on establishing disincentives. it is exceedingly rare for a cop to actually physically stop a robbery or a murder or a rape; that isn't even their job description for the most part. They exist to *arrest* people after the fact and jail them, in the hopes that this creates a disincentive on future perps. Once you see that it's about incentives, then you realize there's no reason to automatically conclude that kidnapping someone (jail) is necessarily the best disincentive. I think there are plenty of nonviolent disincentives that may be far more efficacious.
And what are these powerful incentives you suggest would be so effective? Currently the incetives are in the form of punishment, of abrogation of personal freedoms and rights in exchange for abrogating the rights of others. This requires government as an enforcer, as an entity legally capable of using coercion within society to stop those using coercion unlawfully in the first place.
As for passificism--it's an inconsistent philosophy, by which I mean you couldn't advocate it for an entire society as it would be eventually wiped out were it consistently applied. If evil men win because the good stood by and did nothing, being a pacifist makes you morally culpable in the struggle against evil (anti-humanists) and evil philosophies.
Even if I agreed that arbitration could potentially be provided by the free market, and I do agree to that mostly, as long as there was legal support behind them that such agreements be binding, there cannot be a market for justice and criminal enforcement. I expect to find a whole mess of bad arguments on that front, as you suggest I will find many here.
The only real market for administration of justice is between societies were free movement allowed.
"As for passificism--it's an inconsistent philosophy, by which I mean you couldn't advocate it for an entire society as it would be eventually wiped out were it consistently applied. If evil men win because the good stood by and did nothing, being a pacifist makes you morally culpable in the struggle against evil (anti-humanists) and evil philosophies."
I've not read too many ancaps who are "pacifist" in the way you are speaking. Most ancaps of whom I'm aware do believe in the Non-Agression Principle, but would seemingly not hesitate in using defensive action to protect their lives and property. In no way does it follow, however, that the State is therefore necessary. This has been detailed by Rothbard and, even more so, by Hoppe.
The strange thing about your argument, here, is that your "evil (anit-humanists)" would be a threat to a whole society only as a State. Whatever the level of "evil" their philosophies may be, the spread and detriment to a decentralized society would be minimal and far less destructive that at present.
"Currently the incetives are in the form of punishment, of abrogation of personal freedoms and rights in exchange for abrogating the rights of others. This requires government as an enforcer, as an entity legally capable of using coercion within society to stop those using coercion unlawfully in the first place."
At present the State does indeed incarcerate what it perceives as "offenders," but only while punishing the "offended." The State's "justice" requires the guilty and the innocent alike, under the threat of violence, to pay for its "protection." Worse, while seemingly awarding a victim either monetary damages and/or State-incarceration for the guilty, the State requires the victim to support the guilty, while giving the illlusion that it (the State) has "awarded" the victim! Again, Rothbard, Hoppe, and others go into this in great detail.
The State, by its very nature, is aggressive toward total individual ownership, particularly that of self-ownership. It is up to the statist to ask a very fundamental question: In whose hands lies the exclusive power and control over one's life?
If you answer the State has such power, then you are a collectivist and nothing else needs be said. If you answer the State has, or should have, only some or 'minimal' power of control over one's life, then you have to admit to a great deal of arbitrariness and conflict in defining such a lack of boundaries. This arbitrariness is predicated upon the use of coercion as it leaves in the hands of others the power to decide what such boundaries are. Given that government is made up of individuals who have incentives in terms of expanding their power and authority over others, this will always lead to widespread conflict and ever more centralization.
Allen: Most ancaps of whom I'm aware do believe in the Non-Agression Principle, but would seemingly not hesitate in using defensive action to protect their lives and property. In no way does it follow, however, that the State is therefore necessary. This has been detailed by Rothbard and, even more so, by Hoppe.
Most ancaps of whom I'm aware do believe in the Non-Agression Principle, but would seemingly not hesitate in using defensive action to protect their lives and property. In no way does it follow, however, that the State is therefore necessary. This has been detailed by Rothbard and, even more so, by Hoppe.
Use of the non-aggression principle is the default state of the majority of humanity. It's a bit silly, I think, to use the label pacifist when it's going to be inconsistently applied just becuase you're being attacked. Such amounts to wearing a label for the status of it and little more. By defining a pacifist as one who can also live by the non-aggression principle you could label me a pacifist, because that's my mode of operation as well. But I would not use the label because for most people it means the rejection of all violence, even that in self-defense. And that extreme is ridiculous and always will be. Such people cannot make a distinction between the initiation of coercion, which is ethically wrong, and the use of coercion to stop aggression, which is ethically correct. This same inability to distinguish is behind the pacifists rejection of all war. All war cannot be wrong, because it includes defensive war.
None of that addresses the fact that only a legal entity imbued with the power of coercion to defend individual rights can effectively do so, and that without such a state organ conflict can be resolved only at the point of a gun.
I think this statement amounts to a denial that state power and control can be limited by law. I would disagree.
That's the thing, I've not yet been convinced that my concept of justice is arbitrary. I need to read Hoppe's property-based ethic. Far as I can tell, looking at ethical issues in terms of property rights clarifies them totally.
Besides which, apart from criminal law, I would form a government with a separation of economy and state. In such a society, the government would be restricted to only providing criminal protections. There wouldn't be much for it to do, and it would be barred from doing anything else by law.
Anenome, I too am a minarchist (at least for now) and generally agree with your stances. I have seen a few threads around here that claim to be able to "convert" minarchists to AnCaps, yet have not yet delved into the suggested readings. I suggest you do so. I came to a minarchist position by myself, yet to switch to AnCap I might need some help. Now, as to what everyone has written in a fury of typing:
Arguable. Sorry to say this despite the thread I started on Property Rights, but I find no logically-derived reason for Property Rights. I accept them and would like them included in my coherent philosophy, but who says that just because you decide to live off of a piece of land it's yours? You are merely taking what is on the land, which is acceptable within your right to self-ownership. How does using something make it yours? I am uncomfortable about a society without property rights as a fundamental thing, but I am also slightly uncomfortable about a minarchist society as well (due to matters of convenience).
It is easy to deduce minimal and direct property rights: If someone picks up an object, it is temporarily "his", because trying to take it away would violate his NAP by causing the object to move his body.
To deduce rights to land is more difficult, even if arguing homesteading (which I have not read up on, so correct my following explanation if it appears to use homesteading in the wrong way). Say that you have found a new, unowned mine. You start mining it. Let's say it has only one shaft. Is it only yours? Can others control other parts of it? Furthermore, do only the very spots you are actively mining (and have already mined) belong to you? And what about the spots you have already mined? They are no longer "of use" to you (and no one really knows what "of use" is, because one may have different uses in mind; you could want a completely empty forest that you never enter to simply serve as a buffer against a creature which lives beyond the forest). Now, what if the mine has multiple shafts/corridors? Do you own all or just one? What if you plan to use the others but haven't started yet? Furthermore, what if the utility you derive is making the mines a tourist attraction? What if you simply want the mines to yourself to be able to stare at their beauty?
Mutual self-interest
Trade only maximizes self-interest utility in a contractual scheme where contracts are enforced. When I know the deal must be upheld, I will trade my $3 for your cheese. However, if I know that if I stake your cheese no one will really hold me to giving you my money, the "mutual" is taken out of the deal.
Does a mental abstraction/construction like "natural rights" actually have any power over anyone unless they voluntarily agree to let it have power over them?
Does a mental abstraction/construction like "law" actually have any power over anyone unless they voluntarily agree to let it have power over them?
What you say is obvious. That is why minarchists believe in a minimal state.
No, even you cannot alienate your rights from yourself
Why not? They're yours! If you cannot give away your rights, then you don't have self-ownership. Are you suggesting suicide should be illegal (in an ideal world)?
Furthermore, you can give away your right to certain property, so why not give away other rights? Expected answer: you are simply not exercising your right over your property any more. My answer: Then the same can be said about your body during sleep and someone kidnapping it.
The rejection of all things statist is inappropriate--which clearly is why I'm not an anarchist.
I'm sorry, I was so influenced by the AnCaps here that I forgot my position.
I said American Democracy, which is democracy paird with both strict government limits and aknowledgment of individual inalienable rights
The Constitution, even if followed with the good intent to actually follow it and not expand powers, is imperfect.
Democracy is lauded as great because it was better (for the common man) than life was before. Democracy seeks an average ground where all lose a little to gain a convenient middle ground. In a minarchist government, there might be a better way to control the state than democracy as it is right now.
It would allow for things like communal living and even Sharia
I applaud the attempt to find such a system, but you won't find it. Not that it doesn't exist, you just won't find it. Because to have voluntary communism, you have to give up your right to property. Not simply "not exercise it." Because communism, imho, is not a practical system, it can either exist in 1) a perfect world where people are nice 2) a statist system (which sort of destroys the point communism's "no state" ideal) or 3) a voluntary system where people "known" that they want communism, so they give up their rights to property.
And you don't agree with signing away rights. So you specifically won't find such a system. I might (and do), but you don't :P
No one can live without similarly obtaining a food-good for their sole use
See my "direct property" theory. Also, "food" is not an entitlement, even according to minarchists. No one has a natural entitlement to food.
Property in a larger sense is an extension of your ownership of yourself. You own a tract of land, you own it exclusively and you control it.
I do not see the jump in logic here (well, I see it, I just don't grasp it). Can you walk me through step by step?
the concept of the state assumes that the state owns everything within its domain even if it offers the illusion of private ownership by doling out control when it suits it.
I suppose that in a minarchist government the state doesn't own everything but does have the final say in matters of rights. For example, the government can't tell you that you can't (in the general case) not swim in the unowned ocean, but it can tell you that you can't swim in it if you have signed a contract that you can't.
the real problem in politics today is that the defenders of capitalism have not taken a philosophic, principled approach, and thus fall prey to philosophers on the other side, and cannot effectively refute the statists and collectivists.
I agree that the ultimate reasoning should be philosophic and not practical (as the state in some cases miiight beat the free market), but pragmatic Austrian economics to combat statism also help. The real problem is more likely that there are not many real defenders of real capitalism. There are proponents of state capitalism, but not libertarian, free capitalism.
we don't have a good philosophic, idealist philosophy behind it that the young can grasp
Likely, and this is exacerbated by government education indoctrinating the young on the necessity of regulations, welfare, etc.
If you simply make a distinction between the initiation of coercion, and coercion used to prevent the initiation of coercion, seems to me your entire reason for being an anarchist melts away.
I think the AnCap argument is private courts which give power to aggress. AnCaps are not against aggression to retaliate against aggression.
I'd be interested how you derive the idea that the state must act as if it controlled everything ... If I and everything I possessed were owned by the state, I would require its permission to do anything. I do not. I am free in most respects.
The idea is that control and jurisdiction = ownership. If the state has ultimate say over the rights of man (or at least interpretation), then in some way it has ownership. This is a gray area which I am not sure I agree with, but I shall now employ a favorite of AnCaps, the Nirvana fallacy. Just because the state could hypothetically err, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented over the current state of affairs (pun not intended), and it does not mean it's worse than AnCap. Ideally, the state would be created in such a way as to be easily controlled by 1) the people 2) a constitution 3) something else as well, as neither the people nor the constitution can be trusted.
you've created a society where the ONLY method of resolving contractual suits is the threat or actual coercion on the part of the parties to the contract. In short, you've created mobs where the point of a gun solves everything and the strong man wins, giving the weaker man no recourse.
That is not only a straw man but also one that looks like a duck. "the threat or actual coercion on the part of the parties" is against AnCap principles. What is a better argument is that AnCaps fiat voluntary following up of contracts. What mutual self-interest doesn't take into account is that the whole truth is not simply "mutual self-interest" but "conditional mutual self-interest." It is best for me to do X if you do Y. Otherwise I have no interest in X.
They are philosophic givens about the nature of man
Which are subjective. Yet even then, I agree that there are certain rights which are "right." One might say there is no objective "right." While this is true, nothing is objective, and thus I am only arguing my "right" to convince you that it does exist, so that we may create a free society.
there cannot be a market for justice and criminal enforcement.
I disagree. There could be. I'm just not sure that there would be one which has an amazing justice system which can't be easily gamed.
None of that addresses the fact that only a legal entity imbued with the power of coercion to defend individual rights can effectively do so
The private one could also be effective. And there is no guarantee that the state would be effective. Both leave the question in the air, hoping that something nice would arise. The difference is that in a minarchist system, if we (as in actually we, who are discussing this) can decide how the government is controlled, we can minimize corruption (to a point). Then again, I still have not read enough theory to effectively argue against it, so right now I am fighting straw men.
I agree with you.
There wouldn't be much for it to do, and it would be barred from doing anything else by law.
Who would decide property disputes?
Furthermore, since I have not met many minarchists, I will take this opportunity to bounce questions off of you:
1) Who pays for the government? Everyone? But not everyone directly benefits. Plus, this creates a power to initiate aggression towards private property.
2) Who is the government? What if no one wants to be a judge? Do we force people?
You guys post so fast that while I typed this behemoth up you had more posts. :P
Anenome-
I'm uncertain as to why you felt the need to write all that about pacifism. Again, I'm aware of few total pacifists within ancap, while I'm aware of many who hold to NAP. War is the function of States, so deciding between the "just war"/"unjust war" dichotomy is, to my mind, a false dichotomy borne out of the acceptance of the State, which I do not accept. Will violence happen in an ancap society? Most probably. I'm not searching for perfection, Nirvana or Heaven on Earth, but a way to diffuse violations of property claims (beginning at the level of self-ownership), and which allows for the most freedom and self-responsibility with as little arbritrariness between my neighbors as possible.
"None of that addresses the fact that only a legal entity imbued with the power of coercion to defend individual rights can effectively do so, and that without such a state organ conflict can be resolved only at the point of a gun."
You are equating law with the State. Again, law based in private property doesn't necessitate a State. As has been pointed out, Rothbard and Hoppe, to name two examples, have discussed this at length. There is no reason for any monopolistic entity to dictate the outcome of disputes as it does presently "only at the point of a gun." There's also no sound reason competing arbitration entities and private security agencies cannot arise in the market. Each of the latter would have incentive to do the best job, since that job is constantly under scrutiny by both consumers and competition.
"I think this statement amounts to a denial that state power and control can be limited by law. I would disagree."
You display far too much faith in government. A government that creates law, dispenses its own "justice" is always prone to ever more growth and centralization. It is a monopoly of force and territory, and hence always antagonistic regarding private ownership within its borders. Also, why is the mantle of the State somehow a barrier to human action, which is largely self-interested, prone to get something for as little effort as possible and predicated upon authority over others? It's not.
You seem to forget the fact that States themselves act "anarchistically" since there is no overarching world State to oversee them. The difference between private-property anarchism and this State anarchism, is that the State itself qua State doesn't totally recognize property either within its own borders or outside those borders in dealing with other States. The State is, by its nature, an aggressive, violent institution.
For more on this line of thought I cannot but highly recommend Butler Shaffer's _Boundaries of Order_.
"Besides which, apart from criminal law, I would form a government with a separation of economy and state. In such a society, the government would be restricted to only providing criminal protections. There wouldn't be much for it to do, and it would be barred from doing anything else by law."
How would such a State exist if it were free completely from the economy? It cannot.I guess there could be voluntary donations to the State in order for it to exist, but then, why bother with the State in the first place, when non-monopolistic, competing entities can do the very same things in addition to having a pricing mechanism to measure their actual costs, unlike the State? Also, If there's nothing for it to do, then I see no reason for it to exist.
The State is made up of individuals. It has no existence outside of individuals. Individuals, on the other hand, do exist. Since the State is made possible only through individuals, then it stands to reason that, like all individuals, these demand a 1) place in the world to exist and 2) resources to consume to continue their existence. So, the arbitrariness I pointed out above is grounded in the fact that some individuals prosper at the expense of others. States rely upon the creation and production of individuals which leads to 1) either State controlled production, or 2) "regulated" economies which rely upon arbitrariness and muddled boundaries (ex: taxation), thereby never separate from the economy and always violent to individuals both inside and outside its borders.
Again, as you seemed to duck my question last time: Upon what non-arbitrary basis can we say that some individuals should prosper at the expense of others?
Allen:Again, as you seemed to duck my question last time: Upon what non-arbitrary basis can we say that some individuals should prosper at the expense of others?
If by that you mean the state is benefitting without producing through taxation of somesuch, I disagree. The state essentially provides criminal justice at monopoly prices. That's its main function anyway.
Suppose we did have civil courts composed purely of free market arbitration courts. I really don't have a problem with that.
Allen: War is the function of States, so deciding between the "just war"/"unjust war" dichotomy is, to my mind, a false dichotomy borne out of the acceptance of the State, which I do not accept.
War is the function of States, so deciding between the "just war"/"unjust war" dichotomy is, to my mind, a false dichotomy borne out of the acceptance of the State, which I do not accept.
War is not merely a function of a state, it is a state-of-being itself, it can be forced upon you. It is a clash of civilizations, societies. Can a stateless society conduct war on another or have war conducted against it? Sure. All you need is another society to invade its borders and try to kill everyone. Simply deciding that war will disappear if the state disappears seems awfully naive.
War exists because it will always be easier to take a good rather than produce it.
You are equating law with the State. Again, law based in private property doesn't necessitate a State.
What do you mean by "law based in private property"? If you mean that people have a natural right to property, who defends that right against usurpers? The owner himself? If so, we're back to individual defense of rights at the point of a gun. Yes, I equate law with the state, there can be no other legal entity.
Our argument is amounting to a question of "what is the right amount of government." And, clearly we're in a historical period where too much government exists all around the world, but that doesn't mean automatically that no government at all is proper.
As has been pointed out, Rothbard and Hoppe, to name two examples, have discussed this at length. There is no reason for any monopolistic entity to dictate the outcome of disputes as it does presently "only at the point of a gun."
Maybe not in civil disputes, but certainly in criminal law. There's no alternative to a state organ to enforce justice and rights, apart from every person carrying a gun to defend their own rights. Which apparently is what you and the anarchists are suggesting.
But it ignores how a society can stop the abrogation of rights of others whom aren't themselves. What dooes an anarchist society do when an individual has already gained power over a group of others who are now powerless to stop his aggression against them? I'm thinking of something like slaves who've already been overpowered, cannot defend themselves? In an anarchist society, others would tend to leave this situation alone rather than face the strong guy by themselves. You need an administration of justice, of professional law enforcers with the power of coercion to end the initiation of coercion within society. I cannot see how that can be changed.
There's also no sound reason competing arbitration entities and private security agencies cannot arise in the market. Each of the latter would have incentive to do the best job, since that job is constantly under scrutiny by both consumers and competition.
I'm all for that, but I still don't think you're going to find a working society that doesn't have a general police force involved in administration of public justice, for the reasons I listed in the previous paragraph.
How does a child being raped by its adoptive parents hire a police service? You really do need a public entity whose job is to rescue those who have no other option in the face of aggression.
You display far too much faith in government. A government that creates law, dispenses its own "justice" is always prone to ever more growth and centralization.
While true, it only means there's a cycle to government, that government must be continually renewed. Let's say you could only limit a government for 200 years at a time reliably. It would still be worth it to live there and renew each 200 years.
But more importantly, a principled defense of limited government can eventually create a society where expansion of power is actively disdained.
It is a monopoly of force and territory, and hence always antagonistic regarding private ownership within its borders.
Once again, show me a successful large scale anarchist society and then I'll take you seriously. Until then, the only thing I've seen work historically is limited government.
The State is, by its nature, an aggressive, violent institution.
Again, this sort of statement rests on an equivocation that all violence is wrong. I suppose the doctrines of pacifsm as a philosophical preliminary to accepting a statement like this. The state may be a violent, coercive institution, but if that coercion is directed solely at those initiatin coercion in order to suppress their abrogation of rights of others, then you'd have the best possible society one could imagine. The anarchist argument relies on the theory that this is impossible to achieve with a state--yet we very nearly had it in America's founding state, and we could have it again. Meanwhile the anarchist alternatives are naught but theory and wishful thinking at this point, with much historical evidence against them.
How would such a State exist if it were free completely from the economy? It cannot. I guess there could be voluntary donations to the State in order for it to exist, but then, why bother with the State in the first place, when non-monopolistic, competing entities can do the very same things in addition to having a pricing mechanism to measure their actual costs, unlike the State? Also, If there's nothing for it to do, then I see no reason for it to exist.
Rand once had an interesting idea, where she suggested that merchant contracts could receive civil-court protection for a set fee, and that would be one way to finance a tax-less government. Beyond that, I'd like to see something like voluntary financing of public works on something like a subscription basis. For instance, right now the state uses aggression for take money and pay for welfare and the like. I'd like to see this turned into a voluntary donation thing along the lines of something like a californian ballot measure--with those interested in the cause being able to subscribe to that civil law. In such a way, those interested in doing that can group together and finance it without being a burden on the rest.
Plenty of government entities have existed without economy controls. I have to deny this article of faith. Early American societies had something like local chambers of commerces and even state legislatures or their equivalent without economic controls.
And what services the state does offer it can charge for on a usage basis. This would keep the state small, humble, and responsive to service needs.
I maintain that the state is necessary, even if only in small part, and that administration of justice is its primary function--the protection of individual rights on an organized basis. The anarchist idea of private security and the like would surely be adjunct to such state functionality, even in our society they exist, but you can't have nothing but private security, nor can you have competing market-based administration of justice or competing criminal laws in one territory--it would just devolve into either gang warfare or geographic separation by law.
"The state essentially provides criminal justice at monopoly prices. That's its main function anyway."
So, you don't believe in your previous idea that your government is to be separated from the economy?
"War is not merely a function of a state, it is a state-of-being itself, it can be forced upon you...All you need is another society to invade its borders and try to kill everyone. Simply deciding that war will disappear if the state disappears seems awfully naive."
First, nowhere did I say that violence would disappear if the State were to go. Violence will most likely be around as long as humans continue to be as they are...
But, I have to take issue. Do you equate, then, an individual murder with war? I do not, necessarily. War is obviously the murder of many people, but it is also the destruction of property, usually that of third-party property as well as the property of those living within the borders of warring States. This is what make your point here a bit pernicious. Do I think murder is bad? Yes. But I also think war is even worse. They are not strictly equivolent.
As to a society's "borders" I think you are equivocating socieity with a State. They are not the same. People can be, and are, social without the State. Again, it is the goal of ancap to end such institutional "borders" in favor of a social system of private property.
Again, this sort of statement rests on an equivocation that all violence is wrong.
There is no "equivocation" since I'm not using a term in more than one sense.
I've made it clear that 1) I don't believe violence will end with the end of the State and, 2) that defence against such violations is up to the individual who's facing the violation. Defence of one's life and property is wholly in line with the NAP, from where I stand.
But you seem to not understand what I mean by the State qua the State is an aggressive, violent institution. For one, it needs borders. This means there are those "outside" and "inside" those borders. Yet, these borders change, usually with war. I understand private property is also exclusionary, but it is highly unlikely that one will attempt to gain more property at the expense of his neighbors, whereas the State is a faceless mass against another faceless mass.
Secondly, you seem to forget that the State is violent against those residing within its borders. It confiscates wealth, dictates what is personhood (which is at the heart of my question), decides the extent of which one may own and *control* their property. Providing "law" is not a sufficient answer to my question since there is a monopoly on the creation, practice and enforcement of law which extorts its fee at the point of a gun. Aside from this, there is no logical way to tell how much "law enforcement" is required, how many laws are too many, how much freedom should people have, and so on. It's precisely these reason, amongst others, the US is where it is today. Again, it is arbitrary since the State is made of individuals who believe their institution confers upon them a 'right' to plunder, decide who pays more and less, who benefits, etc.
"Early American societies had something like local chambers of commerces and even state legislatures or their equivalent without economic controls."
If I'm understanding you about these "chambers of commerce" correctly, they were put in place to *limit* competition by those who had political clout. So, this is not evidence in your favor.
"And what services the state does offer it can charge for on a usage basis."
What incentive would they have to charge like this? Why, then, would this necessitate a monopoly, when private enterprise does the same thing?
"...it would just devolve into either gang warfare or geographic separation by law."
Why would this necessarily devolve into gang warfare? I see no reason for this assertion. For one, competition for private security would be like any insurance policy. Companies would arise furthest who had the best reputation, the best prices, etc. Also, they would be operating within a social system of private-property, the vast majority, I am willing to bet , would be, themselves, armed and protective of life and property.
Allen: "The state essentially provides criminal justice at monopoly prices. That's its main function anyway." So, you don't believe in your previous idea that your government is to be separated from the economy?
No I do, I simply think that trying to remove that monopoly or introduce competition into the administration of criminal justice is a terrible idea. The state naturally has a monopoly on coercion within society, and this is a good thing provided it's directed solely at stopping those intruding on the rights of others.
Allen:"War is not merely a function of a state, it is a state-of-being itself, it can be forced upon you...All you need is another society to invade its borders and try to kill everyone. Simply deciding that war will disappear if the state disappears seems awfully naive." First, nowhere did I say that violence would disappear if the State were to go. Violence will most likely be around as long as humans continue to be as they are... But, I have to take issue. Do you equate, then, an individual murder with war? I do not, necessarily. War is obviously the murder of many people, but it is also the destruction of property, usually that of third-party property as well as the property of those living within the borders of warring States. This is what make your point here a bit pernicious. Do I think murder is bad? Yes. But I also think war is even worse. They are not strictly equivolent.
Nah, murder and war are clearly different, if related, phenomena. But it would also be ridiculous to look at an invasion by a foreign power clearly engaging in organized war and try to argue that each soldier is merely murdering individuals. Nah, it's war.
Allen: As to a society's "borders" I think you are equivocating socieity with a State. They are not the same. People can be, and are, social without the State. Again, it is the goal of ancap to end such institutional "borders" in favor of a social system of private property.
And who is securing your right to private property? Without a governing legal authority enforcing your right to private property you're at the mercy of the strong man. Sure, you have a natural right, and most will respect that, the problem is with the ones who won't.
Societies and states tend to correspond in any case, with a state composed of a larger collection of societies. I don't see how the separation of the two is particularly relevant tho. I use the term state mainly to delineate a region which has a judicial monopoly.
Allen: But you seem to not understand what I mean by the State qua the State is an aggressive, violent institution.
But you seem to not understand what I mean by the State qua the State is an aggressive, violent institution.
I understand that, naturally the state's only power is coercion--that's its utility, controlled coercion within a society, controlled by laws, limited by rights. The difference is you seem to think it's imposisble to use coercion to do what is right and necessary, and I say there is such an ability, such a use for the stated, limited as I think it should be. So you're saying that the state must go because there's no good uses of coercion.
Yet, at the same time you say you believe in the non-aggression principle which does suggests there are indeed moral uses of coercion--specifically in self defence, yet you can't make the conceptual leap between defending yourself against aggressors and the state defending you against an aggressor. The state defending you against an aggressor, both in criminal law (against aggressors inside society) and in war (against aggressors outside society) is a legitimate and necessary function of government and society.
That, I think, is the central problem with anarchism, that failure of understanding, that innate distrust of any organization, even that which is necessary. But I repeat, show me a working, large scal anarchist society and I'll be willing to take another look at how anarchist principle plays out into fact.
Allen: For one, it needs borders.
For one, it needs borders.
The first border is the one known as your own skin. It is the separation of you and your domain of exclusive control from the world. All entities, indeed all property, require borders of some sort. It's also impossible to sell anything without a package of some sort. We even package air to turn it into property.
Allen: This means there are those "outside" and "inside" those borders. Yet, these borders change, usually with war. I understand private property is also exclusionary, but it is highly unlikely that one will attempt to gain more property at the expense of his neighbors, whereas the State is a faceless mass against another faceless mass.
This means there are those "outside" and "inside" those borders. Yet, these borders change, usually with war. I understand private property is also exclusionary, but it is highly unlikely that one will attempt to gain more property at the expense of his neighbors, whereas the State is a faceless mass against another faceless mass.
That's fine, but war is not essential to what a state is. It is not as if a state need be at war to be considered at state. Nor do all states feel the need to expand territory by war. Plenty of modern states have done just fine.
Allen: Secondly, you seem to forget that the State is violent against those residing within its borders. It confiscates wealth, dictates what is personhood (which is at the heart of my question), decides the extent of which one may own and *control* their property. Providing "law" is not a sufficient answer to my question since there is a monopoly on the creation, practice and enforcement of law which extorts its fee at the point of a gun. Aside from this, there is no logical way to tell how much "law enforcement" is required, how many laws are too many, how much freedom should people have, and so on. It's precisely these reason, amongst others, the US is where it is today. Again, it is arbitrary since the State is made of individuals who believe their institution confers upon them a 'right' to plunder, decide who pays more and less, who benefits, etc.
Question is, is this an indivisible fact about all states? America is as it is largely because the intent of the constitution has been ignored and the loopholes written into it exploited. A better written Constitution might achieve the sort of free society we envision.
Allen: "And what services the state does offer it can charge for on a usage basis." What incentive would they have to charge like this? Why, then, would this necessitate a monopoly, when private enterprise does the same thing?
As I said, in criminal law there must be a monopoly lest society devolve into gangs. In all else, compete all you like.
Allen: "...it would just devolve into either gang warfare or geographic separation by law." Why would this necessarily devolve into gang warfare? I see no reason for this assertion.
Why would this necessarily devolve into gang warfare? I see no reason for this assertion.
Again. What happens when Joe hires security force B to protect him against security force A who's tyring to bring him in for a crime B knows knows nothing about. What to A looks like stopping coercion looks to B like an aggression. The result is gang warfare.
Allen: For one, competition for private security would be like any insurance policy. Companies would arise furthest who had the best reputation, the best prices, etc. Also, they would be operating within a social system of private-property, the vast majority, I am willing to bet , would be, themselves, armed and protective of life and property.
For one, competition for private security would be like any insurance policy. Companies would arise furthest who had the best reputation, the best prices, etc. Also, they would be operating within a social system of private-property, the vast majority, I am willing to bet , would be, themselves, armed and protective of life and property.
Are you saying that the law would be a generally agreed upon principle, only the agency that enforces the law would be private and competitive? If that's what you're saying then I can agree with you wholeheartedly that I would like to see that. I see only now that we've been a bit at cross purposes. I don't think two bodies of law can compete in the same geographic region. But if you want to clarify to just enforcement then I'll be happy to sustain the notion.
Anenenome-
"The state naturally has a monopoly on coercion within society, and this is a good thing provided it's directed solely at stopping those intruding on the rights of others."
Execpt, once again, the State qua State is intruding on the rights of others, in stealing their property, by forcing their monopoly of "protection," and dictating who is and is not worthy its "rights."
"Question is, is this an indivisible fact about all states? America is as it is largely because the intent of the constitution has been ignored and the loopholes written into it exploited. A better written Constitution might achieve the sort of free society we envision."
No written constitution is going to disway people from being self-interested. The State is made up of individuals, remember, and does not an existence unto itself. As such, self-interested people will use the incentive to confiscate the property of others. Again, you've not answered my question: What standard is there that allows for one set of individuals to rule over another set and prosper through the confiscation of the second groups property? There is no such standard, unless you begin the arbitrary distinctions between who is a person and who is not a person. This is exactly what the State does.
"The first border is the one known as your own skin."
Again, though, the border of a country is arbitrary and unstable. The skin of an individual is a fact of life. These cannot be equated. The human form stays relatively recognizable, whereas, the State does not. It's borders change and with it, its population. It's arbitrary. The human body is not.
"That's fine, but war is not essential to what a state is. It is not as if a state need be at war to be considered at state. Nor do all states feel the need to expand territory by war. Plenty of modern states have done just fine."
Are you joking? Nearly every State I can think of has had its borders changed or maintained throug war.
"Again. What happens when Joe hires security force B to protect him against security force A who's tyring to bring him in for a crime B knows knows nothing about. What to A looks like stopping coercion looks to B like an aggression. The result is gang warfare."
You forget, however, that security agencies are private business operating with the same notion of the NAP. I think to prevent such a senario those who contract with security agencies would protect themselves from such through the contract itself. Why on earth would anybody enter a contract with an agency who is known to be either negligent of the property of others, does not engage in arbitration with property owners itself or subcontract an arbitration agency to do so, etc. In addition, it would seem far more of an incentive for B to work with A in bringing the aggressor before the law. It would demonstrate good faith amongst potential clientele which would allow for continued competition.
As to "gang warfare," I don't see much difference between that and the cops in the US who routinely act like thugs. See http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/ or even Cop Block for examples. I grew up around cops and they most *definitely * believe they are a breed apart from us Mundanes...
In a private propert society the main body of law would be, well, property, rather than abstract "rights." This begins, as Butler Shaffer put it eloquently in his _Boundaries of Order_, with complete self-ownership, that is, in the very fact no one can inhabit where you are (literally) and cannot take what belongs to you in order to sustain you. Growing from that, your labor which transforms 'land' into wealth, your creations, your savings, etc., are yours. No one has a legitimate reason for taking them from you.
Allen: Execpt, once again, the State qua State is intruding on the rights of others, in stealing their property, by forcing their monopoly of "protection," and dictating who is and is not worthy its "rights."
But again, I don't agree that that's intrinsic to the state. Would you agree that if a state were founded that did not do those things that you would be in harmony with it philosophically.
Allen: No written constitution is going to disway people from being self-interested. The State is made up of individuals, remember, and does not an existence unto itself. As such, self-interested people will use the incentive to confiscate the property of others.
No written constitution is going to disway people from being self-interested. The State is made up of individuals, remember, and does not an existence unto itself. As such, self-interested people will use the incentive to confiscate the property of others.
This should come down to writing whim out of the law. But, back to the question of property confiscation in your next para:
Allen: Again, you've not answered my question: What standard is there that allows for one set of individuals to rule over another set and prosper through the confiscation of the second groups property?
I don't agree that a state can only exist through property confiscation.
Allen: There is no such standard, unless you begin the arbitrary distinctions between who is a person and who is not a person. This is exactly what the State does.
There is no such standard, unless you begin the arbitrary distinctions between who is a person and who is not a person. This is exactly what the State does.
The legitimacy of the state comes from the consent of the government, democracy. This is balanced by aknowledgement of rights which cannot be abrogated. It's pretty close to a perfect system. It's not hard to imagine a constitution without loopholes under which the current moves towards statism would be nigh impossible if not long forestalled. Maybe not in American society as it exists now, but possibly by creating a new society where the bar of changing fundamental law is much easier.
Allen: In a private propert society the main body of law would be, well, property, rather than abstract "rights."
In a private propert society the main body of law would be, well, property, rather than abstract "rights."
I've been trying to get you to see that they're actually one and the same. Rights are the name given to the legal concept of abstractions built from the facts of reality, ie: property rights.
Allen:This begins, as Butler Shaffer put it eloquently in his _Boundaries of Order_, with complete self-ownership, that is, in the very fact no one can inhabit where you are (literally) and cannot take what belongs to you in order to sustain you. Growing from that, your labor which transforms 'land' into wealth, your creations, your savings, etc., are yours. No one has a legitimate reason for taking them from you.
I agree completely. Really a state is little more than organization. I think the State only has the right to coerce against those attempting to initiate coercion against others.
You keep bring up all these scenarios of state coercion which fall outside that rubric. We're not really as far apart as it seems you think we are.
You however seem to be convinced that no state can be kept to defensive coercion, whereas I am looking at way and means to build one that does exactly that. I think the latter approach is ultimately more productive for those looking to build a new society.
"But again, I don't agree that that's intrinsic to the state. Would you agree that if a state were founded that did not do those things that you would be in harmony with it philosophically."
No, because there would be no reason for the State to exist excepting emotional attachment. There has been no State that's not confiscated the wealth and property of others. It is intrinsically a divisive institution built on wealth distribution.
"I don't agree that a state can only exist through property confiscation."
And this comes down, once again, to my central question about ownership. If the State has territorial monopoly it is making an ownership claim over that territory. Even if individuals are said to "own" property within that State territory, they cannot truly own it. Ownership requires not only boundaries but control. If the State controls the territory within its boundaries, has a monopoly on force, there is no real ownership, that is control, on the part of individuals within its boundaries. So,in reality, those that produce wealth (that is property) cannot be said to be the owners of that property if they do not control that property. If the State has the absolute decision making power of the territory, then there can be no other owners.
Roads, parks, schools, etc., are ostensibly "produced" by the State for "the people," but it comes down to ultimate decision-making capacity and since there is no body we can identify as "the people," the authority to decide rests in someone. This is why the State is parasitical, because someone must claim the capacity of decision maker over "goods." Elected managers are not owners of the goods, so have no incentive to make long-term decisions for those goods, given that they have nothing to loose since "the people" foot the bill. Such "goods" can therefore be manipulated in favor of some "voters" over others in the interests of political careerism. Hence, the State always confiscates the wealth/property of others.
All in all, though, I think I'm done with this conversation, given that we are going around in circles. I don't believe in any entity called "the State" that lies outside of individuals, nor do I believe in the inherent sanctity of that institution that allows some individuals to prosper at the expense of others. I think it is a muddled, irrational idea that has a sliding scale of values dependent upon whose in charge and who benefits from the wealth distribution pyramid scheme that it is.
Take care.