So after reading this daily article: https://mises.org/daily/5342/Do-You-Hate-the-State
so im reading the first paragraph and im like,hmm sure im those things
anarcho-capitalism vs. limited government, -anarchist
natural rights vs. utilitarianism, -natural rightist
and war vs. peace -of course, peace
abolitionism vs. gradualism, ehhh i guess ill be a gradualist you know, if we just pushed the rothbard button right now.......
Then at the end of the article: And that is why the radical libertarian is not only an abolitionist,............
Ehh ok, i know i hate the state too, but if we delete it all at the same time then wont things be kind of, scary??
So is it so wrong for me to disagree with rothbard on this one, or am i missing something? Or am i not as a hardcore of an anarchist as rothbard is?
Ive always thought that the road to anarcho capitalist is to gradually chip away at the state, put someone like ron paul in office, get the liberty mindset, then start chipping away, untill the government is small enough to where we can abolish it.
Kinda like a drug addict, if you yank away the drugs and lock him in a cage, he will go through massive withdrawal symptoms, but with a gradual rehabilitation program it wont be as bad.
Or am i missing something?
Should i rethink?
Or am i overthinking this?
Thougths?
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
No, you're perfectly right. The state being abolished immediately would cause more coercion and greater harm to living standards than its maintenance would.
He seems to be saying that if you really truly hate the state that the potential consequences of abolishing the state shouldn't be your first concern. Your first concern should simply be abolishing the state, full stop.
"With such an integrated worldview, the radical libertarian could never dream of confronting either a magic button or any real-life problem with some arid cost-benefit calculation. He knows that the State must be diminished as fast and as completely as possible. Period."
kelvin_silva: Then at the end of the article: And that is why the radical libertarian is not only an abolitionist,............ Ehh ok, i know i hate the state too, but if we delete it all at the same time then wont things be kind of, scary?? So is it so wrong for me to disagree with rothbard on this one, or am i missing something? Or am i not as a hardcore of an anarchist as rothbard is? Ive always thought that the road to anarcho capitalist is to gradually chip away at the state, put someone like ron paul in office, get the liberty mindset, then start chipping away, untill the government is small enough to where we can abolish it. Kinda like a drug addict, if you yank away the drugs and lock him in a cage, he will go through massive withdrawal symptoms, but with a gradual rehabilitation program it wont be as bad.
Can't be done. Actually either one can't be done. That's why we haven't done it for the last 70+ years of trying. Ron Paul should be a moral story more than anything; here's a life dedicated to the libertarian cause, virtually complete consistency, dedication to libertarian principle, and actually makes his way into the halls of power--where he's a virtual outcast. Ignored, lampooned, with no real power. Running for president time after time and making little to no headway. Even his most recent run, he never had a chance.
Suppose even that libertarians took over the republican party. The left might actually love that, because we wouldn't be bringing the masses with us. The repubs might be permanently removed from power were that to happen, because the masses would not understand it and would stop voting for libertarian repubs. It's the masses and their beliefs that keep statism in power. Or else RINOs would again gain power as the only repubs being voted for, people like Chris Christie.
We cannot educate our way out of the state.
We cannot and will not use violence to overthrow the state.
We cannot convince the masses to abandon either the largesse they vote to themselves nor egalitarianism nor coercion.
As long as majority rule (democracy) is in place, the idiots will always outvote the enlightened; that's the main problem.
And here suddenly perhaps I see some merit in Plato's ideal of the philosophy king (even if he had the wrong version of them in mind). But even here, a libertarian must reject even the offer of tyrannical powers, for we would not coerce a state into becoming free, would we? Would you? I've concluded such would be antithetical. If I were king for a day, my first act must be to abolish kings.
There is but one thing we can do that would actually create the effect we're looking for: set up an independent nation in unclaimed territory and begin living as libertarians in a libertarian political system. I suggest seasteading.
Yeah, it'd probably have to be minarch initially. But which would you rather live in, minarch, or the 90% tyranny of today's countries?
The only historical example I see of a country deregulating is when they were outcompeted by a freer country.
Two examples: Britain in the late 19th, and Russia in the 80's.
Both tales involve economic competition of a high degree.
When the Americans invented clipper ships and had free trade, they began running away with the trade of the entire world, paying much higher prices because they could afford to, and getting the best of everything and trading it the world round, taking British trade from under their noses. The British certainly did not have free trade and had many regulations to boot. (See Lane's Discovery of Freedom).
The British's first instinct was to foment war. However, they were convinced by political groups at home (classical liberals [that don't exist there anymore]) that the superior American competition was a result of free trade and better ships. The British thereafter deregulated, built clipper ships of their own, and built the resulting British empire.
The Americans meanwhile began creating tariffs and lost their trade advantage.
The second, more recent example, of the USSR dissolving because it could not keep up militarily, because it could not keep up economically, was also deregulation by comparison and being outcompeted.
What we need to do is create a libertarian enclave with no taxes, free trade, and market services for everything and watch as that society takes off like a rocket, to the shock of the world. Because no one would see it coming.
I'm dedicated to seeing it happen in my lifetime. I want to have the first buildings on the water within a decade and declare sovereignty soon thereafter :)
I'm sure if such a place existed, many on this forum, among others, would be virtually compelled by their beliefs (and their pocketbooks?) to move there in actuality.
Maybe with a few hundred more years of education, the US public might actually understand enough economics to accept Austrianism. But has that trend been getting better or worse for us? It's gotten worse. The public and the media understand less econ now than they did in the 1950's.
Want to abolish the state? First abolish it in your own life. Live a life without the state, show others not only that it can be done (they don't even believe it can, in fact they've never even had an inkling of a thought that it might be tried) but that it can be prospered by so doing.
That is the only kind of abolition someone who accepts the NAP is likely to be able to achieve, since fomenting violent revolution is out of the question, and it is achieved by foot-voting--by moving to a free region.
To give my own answer to the questions:
anarcho-capitalism vs. limited government
anarcho-capitalist
natural rights vs. utilitarianism
I'm a deontologist once ethical principles are established. But I don't believe that those principles are established by God on Sinai or in any other mystical-otherwordly way. They have their roots in the real world, in human minds. We begin by taking stock of everyone's wants, and then ask: how can these wants best be satisfied? We attempt to discover which principles of behavior (ethical principles), when universally adopted, would lead to the greatest possible satisfaction of our wants. If everyone has contradictory wants, then no such universalizable ethics can be developed. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of people do have compatible wants: namely, maximum possible material prosperity and freedom from aggression. For the aggressive minority, tough luck, this ethics is not for your benefit. So, once we use reason (both inductive and deductive) to scientifically establish which principles should be adopted in order to produce the desired results for members of society, there is no reason to waver from those principles.
and war vs. peace
How can a libertarian be in favor of war? Seems a basic contradiction. Of course, if we're operating within the context of the nation-state, then ("defensive") war is a necessity. But no libertarian can actually favor war as such.
abolitionism vs. gradualism
As Murray noted in the article, the lines are blurred. No abolitionist in his right mind is going to refuse a move in the right direction. And I seriously doubt, for all their talk about pushing the button, that any abolitionist would actually want to see the State vanish overnight: as the result would obviously be chaos, and almost certainly the emergence of a new, even more brutal State. As this is my view, I suppose I would call myself a gradualist.
I think a more important distinction than gradualist v. abolitionist is idealist v. pragmatist. For example, suppose you have good empirical evidence that an anarcho-capitalist society, if established somewhere in the world today, would quickly be conquered by an aggressive foreign State. If you're an idealist, I suppose you go ahead with establishing the anarcho-capitalist society regardless, because you are unwilling to tolerate - for example - a minarchist interregnum. I would be in the other camp. I'd happily settle for a temporary minarchy (to last until such time as the world is made safe for anarcho-capitalism: to paraphrase a certain scumbag) rather than risk the collapse of the entire libertarian project amidst war.
Ive always thought that the road to anarcho capitalist is to gradually chip away at the state, put someone like ron paul in office, get the liberty mindset, then start chipping away, until the government is small enough to where we can abolish it.
That's my view as well. Firstly, there is in fact no magic button. So what does abolition mean in reality? It must mean either (1) violent revolution, or (2) some inexplicable collapse of the State. I'd argue that violent revolution is essentially impossible given the state of technology, and that a libertarian strategy resting on a predicted collapse of the State amounts to wishful thinking. I didn't mention counter-economics, but that's because I don't see as having any real chance of success. It is in the nature of power structures that they can be changed only in two ways: through violence from without (foreign conquest or domestic revolution) or peacefully from within (through whatever processes the power structure itself recognizes as legitimate). I favor the latter (though if I were generalissimo of a few hundred-thousand well-trained soldiers within marching distance of Washington D.C., I may well change my tune).
Obviously the goal for any anarcho-capitalist should be the total abolition of the state. However, it is not contradictory for us to advocate for the elimination of all government while at the same time accepting transitory demands.
The great problem for a free society once-established, in my opinion, is the threat posed by aggressive foreign States. Not only would a free society be rich pickings, but more importantly its very existence would post a mortal threat to all States. States ultimately rest on the consent of the population, and that consent is based in the idea that "we need them." If a concrete example is provided to the people of the world that, in fact, we don't need "them," that's the end of all States. I imagine a libertarian society would face a coalition of States rather like Revolutionary France did, and for similar reasons.
Now, the problem with seasteading is that a seatseading community will only gradually attain a size that would allow it to defend itself against foreign aggression. And there's no reason to suppose that foreign States are going to sit idly by and watch this happen. I expect they would try to nip it in the bud. Hence the advantage of using the political process to take control of any existing State. As then, foreign States would be presented all of the sudden with a full-grown society, already capable of defending itself from external aggression in virtue of the military apparatus that the new libertarians government inherited from its predecessor. As an American, I obviously hold out hope that the U.S. could be this libertarian nation, as that would - given the geography and size of the country - assure us against conquest from without.
However, another option, which interests me increasingly the more I think about it, is for libertarians to venture into the last unclaimed terrestrial territory on Earth: Africa. Africa is not uninhabited, obviously, but its governments are so weak and its affair so chaotic, that foreigners can and do easily intervene and establish themselves as authorities. Moreover, private companies do this. Why not a libertarian company? Something analogous (sans the monopoly granted by the government back-home) to the "Companies" that set out from Europe to colonize the rest of the world in centuries past? Consider: how much would it really cost to hire enough mercenaries to conquer, say, Sierra Leone? More or less than what it would cost in campaign spending to take control of the U.S. federal government through the electoral means? Africa has so much natural potential, which is being squandered because of the absence of security for property. Libertarians could provide that security. Moreover, the average man on the street in Africa has no loyalty to the "nation" which some European bureaucrat created by arbitrarily drawing lines on a map. There is nothing to overcome but the - usually hated and tyrannical - gaggle of warlords running the "nation," who incidentally, are probably using arms that were already outdated in the 1970's, and who would almost to a man prefer to flee with their loot than fight to defend their "nation."
Well if we try to slowly abolish the state, through means that i described (ron paul, smarter voting etc) we will never get it done, thats a fact. Even if ron paul becomes president, he will get murdered, or the congress will never pass any of his proposals.
So what if we go in the other direction?
Increase the state, increase taxation, let the fed ruin the dollar, let the government oppress the masses (this is the hardest part), then people will find tha tthey hate the state, and eventually it will collapse (like the ussr); yes this will be extremely painful, but i think if we let the government keep growing and more shit to fly, then it will collapse faster.
But then u always have the chance of a more oppressive state of rising.
I do actually like the idea of creating our own libertarian nation though.
What do you think of the idea of "conquering" (that word brings up the wrong connotations, as we would really be freeing people from subjugation) a chaotic-lawless African country with a private company?
I mentioned Sierra Leone, only as an example of an African country in chaos. A better example, one that I might propose at the board meeting of the "Africa Company" if such existed, is the Democratic Republic (haha) of the Congo. It has VAST natural resources, a population of 70+ million, a navigable river with the hydroelectric capacity to supply all of Southern Africa, not much in the way of sectarian conflict (the conflict is mostly between the warlords and everyone else, not ethnic), AND it has no government/military to speak of. The DRC has a navy with no command structure and nothing but patrol boats armed with machine guns, an airforce with no functioning aircraft, a handful of 1970's or older era battle tanks which in all likelihood don't work anymore, 150k nominal army which however has no training, little armament, and rarely gets paid (hence they live off raping, looting, and murdering the peasantry), and a 10k strong "Republican Guard," which is regularly paid but only slightly better trained and armed. If a private company could raise a few billion dollars to fund, say, 20k well-trained light infantry they could defeat the "government" in Kinshasha, and create order: which will draw in foreign investment. The hydroelectric potential of the Congo river is truly astounding. There's currently a project on the books for the "Inga" Dam, which will produce 39GW of power. An excise tax at a mere $.005 per KW-hour would yield about $1.7 billion annually, more than enough to sustain the security operations of the "Congo Company" (the current "government" spends only about $90 million annually on security, much of which no doubt ends up in the pockets of corrupt officials). A minarchist-type government could thrive in the Congo, do absolute wonders for the people (who currently live in a state of perpetual civil war on about $350 annually) and make a tidy profit in the process.
Now, this is armchair generaling/politicking in the extreme, but I'm just trying to paint a picture of what might be possible if a group of libertarian investors set their mind to creating a Libertopia somewhere in Africa.
Why conquer an area--maybe I'm naive and no government would do it, but it seems to me one could buy sovereign land from some impoverished nation and end up making billions in the process.
A Libertarian land developer buys say 10 square milesof wilderness from some impoverised nation, at maybe double the expected price for the country to forfeit its rule over that property. The developer/king then lays out a minarchist constitution/contract complete with contracting for the transition from minarchy to anarchy either in time, or as milestones in development are reached. I'd expect the land value to skyrocket
I know very little about Dubais history, or where it stands now, but I assume it emerged from the desert for one reason:
http://www.dubaicity.com/business/free-zone.htm The major advantage in setting up in a free zone is that you are entitled to: 100 per cent foreign ownership of the enterprise 100 per cent import and export tax exemptions 100 per cent repatriation of capital and profits No corporate taxes for 15 years, renewable for an additional 15 years No personal income taxes Assistance with labour recruitment, and additional support services, such as sponsorship and housing.
Minarchist:We begin by taking stock of everyone's wants, and then ask: how can these wants best be satisfied? We attempt to discover which principles of behavior (ethical principles), when universally adopted, would lead to the greatest possible satisfaction of our wants.
Isn't that a bit utilitarian? I'd rather begin from a property ethic and build from there.
Minarchist:If everyone has contradictory wants, then no such universalizable ethics can be developed.
Everyone does have differing wants, because everyone has differing value scales.
Minarchist:So, once we use reason (both inductive and deductive) to scientifically establish which principles should be adopted in order to produce the desired results for members of society, there is no reason to waver from those principles.
Agreed.
Minarchist:How can a libertarian be in favor of war? Seems a basic contradiction.
A libertarian society can engage in war just fine, as long as it is a defensive war.
Minarchist:Of course, if we're operating within the context of the nation-state, then ("defensive") war is a necessity. But no libertarian can actually favor war as such.
Okay.
Minarchist: And I seriously doubt, for all their talk about pushing the button, that any abolitionist would actually want to see the State vanish overnight: as the result would obviously be chaos, and almost certainly the emergence of a new, even more brutal State.
Certainly. And this is the problem with the end of Atlas Shrugged. The concept that societal breakdown would clear the way for a new order to rise up strikes me as incredibly unlikely. What usually results from societal breakdown is desperation, and desperation rationalizes aggression. The result would be new tyranny.
Minarchist:If you're an idealist, I suppose you go ahead with establishing the anarcho-capitalist society regardless, because you are unwilling to tolerate - for example - a minarchist interregnum. I would be in the other camp. I'd happily settle for a temporary minarchy (to last until such time as the world is made safe for anarcho-capitalism: to paraphrase a certain scumbag) rather than risk the collapse of the entire libertarian project amidst war.
I've tended to view my scheme as minarchist in the past, but it's beginning to blur the lines between minarch and ancap. It has none of the features that ancap peeps say they hate the state for. Yet it is a political order, albeit one created specifically to ensure individualism prevails on society.
Minarchist:So what does abolition mean in reality? It must mean either (1) violent revolution
We would have no grounds for that under the NAP unless and until all avenues of voluntary change are cut off; that is, the point where a totalitarian gov has taken over. As long as it remains possible to vote in change, you'll have no moral case for violent revolution.
Minarchist:(2) some inexplicable collapse of the State.
It wouldn't be inexplicable, just wait and the dollar will crash at some point. Politicians are still telling each other it doesn't matter how much money they borrow because "we owe it to ourselves."
Minarchist:I'd argue that violent revolution is essentially impossible given the state of technology, and that a libertarian strategy resting on a predicted collapse of the State amounts to wishful thinking.
Certainly.
Minarchist:I didn't mention counter-economics, but that's because I don't see as having any real chance of success.
What do you mean by the term 'counter-economics'?
Minarchist:It is in the nature of power structures that they can be changed only in two ways: through violence from without (foreign conquest or domestic revolution) or peacefully from within (through whatever processes the power structure itself recognizes as legitimate). I favor the latter (though if I were generalissimo of a few hundred-thousand well-trained soldiers within marching distance of Washington D.C., I may well change my tune).
Unfortunately the momentum towards statism was cast in stone with the writing of the constitution. No development has arrested this momentum in 230+ years, not even a civil war.
Minarchist: There is but one thing we can do that would actually create the effect we're looking for: set up an independent nation in unclaimed territory and begin living as libertarians in a libertarian political system. I suggest seasteading. The great problem for a free society once-established, in my opinion, is the threat posed by aggressive foreign States. Not only would a free society be rich pickings, but more importantly its very existence would post a mortal threat to all States. States ultimately rest on the consent of the population, and that consent is based in the idea that "we need them." If a concrete example is provided to the people of the world that, in fact, we don't need "them," that's the end of all States. I imagine a libertarian society would face a coalition of States rather like Revolutionary France did, and for similar reasons.
But would they realize it in time? That's going to be the great gamble. And, there are ways to game the system. For instance, I'm an American citizen. And I will be starting a seasteading nation in international waters off the California coast. I won't initially publicize it as a new nation, we'll need a certain critical mass first. It'll be a curiosity to start, a way of "living in california cheaply", paying no property tax, no sales tax, yet still having an ocean view.
Will the US see a small seasteading operation as such a threat that they'd do anything, considering there's naught but American citizens and students with HB-1 visas living there? Doubt it.
Whether this historical epoch will be favorable is another factor. The USA grew up while Europe was embroiled in war with Napolean and the like. Napolean originally planned to conquer North American after he was done with Europe. That's why he sold us the Louisiana territory, the most important acquisition of all, because he needed money for his wars and he believed that he would get the land back anyway through war.
Ideally, the US's debt woes would distract them while such a nation grew. Ideally, enacting health care would not only drive people to a tax free society where you could still buy quality health-care, it'd drive the US to the brink of bankruptcy--which I'm convinced is a left-wing plan to subvert American militarism anyway.
Minarchist:Now, the problem with seasteading is that a seatseading community will only gradually attain a size that would allow it to defend itself against foreign aggression. And there's no reason to suppose that foreign States are going to sit idly by and watch this happen. I expect they would try to nip it in the bud.
Sure, but how? There's an decades old seastead called Sealand off the coast of Britain. They've been left alone.
I imagine the most the US could do would be to force us out from 14 miles to out of the exclusive economic zone, some 140 miles out. As long as we reach critical mass before that point, no big deal. It's not hard to creating a floating airport by that point. Give me 100,000 citizens by that point and I'll give you a libertarian paradise :P
Minarchist:Hence the advantage of using the political process to take control of any existing State. As then, foreign States would be presented all of the sudden with a full-grown society, already capable of defending itself from external aggression in virtue of the military apparatus that the new libertarians government inherited from its predecessor. As an American, I obviously hold out hope that the U.S. could be this libertarian nation, as that would - given the geography and size of the country - assure us against conquest from without.
If you're serious about it, then libertarians in the US should seek to collectively move to some major city and take over politically, much as homosexuals did with San Francisco. Problem is, libertarians apparently just don't have the numbers. No one's born a libertarian. I don't think we're even as high a % of the population as homosexuals. And most libetarians even don't care enough as there'd still be a huge price to pay, starting over in a small town while still under the thumb of state government.
Minarchist:However, another option, which interests me increasingly the more I think about it, is for libertarians to venture into the last unclaimed terrestrial territory on Earth: Africa. Africa is not uninhabited, obviously, but its governments are so weak and its affair so chaotic, that foreigners can and do easily intervene and establish themselves as authorities. Moreover, private companies do this. Why not a libertarian company?
Africa, most for geographical reasons, will probably never be an economic powerhouse. Read this incredibly interesting article from Stratfor for an explanation of that statement: "The Geopolitics of the United States, Part 1: The Inevitable Empire"
After reading that you'll also understand why a seastead nation is the only viable means of creating a new nation that also has potential to be a world power. It all comes down to ports, shipping access, and land-availability. You go to Africa you'll be doing more war than commerce.
Minarchist:Consider: how much would it really cost to hire enough mercenaries to conquer, say, Sierra Leone?
Don't they have like blood-diamond-funded militias there? >_>
Minarchist:More or less than what it would cost in campaign spending to take control of the U.S. federal government through the electoral means? Africa has so much natural potential, which is being squandered because of the absence of security for property. Libertarians could provide that security. Moreover, the average man on the street in Africa has no loyalty to the "nation" which some European bureaucrat created by arbitrarily drawing lines on a map. There is nothing to overcome but the - usually hated and tyrannical - gaggle of warlords running the "nation," who incidentally, are probably using arms that were already outdated in the 1970's, and who would almost to a man prefer to flee with their loot than fight to defend their "nation."
I'd like to setup a seasteading nation and then invite other nations to join, then you could walk in and show people how to live free. Anyone with a coast could setup floating communities of their own, begin ocean-living too. Libertarian evangelism :P
kelvin_silva:...but i think if we let the government keep growing and more shit to fly, then it will collapse faster. But then u always have the chance of a more oppressive state of rising. I do actually like the idea of creating our own libertarian nation though.
This is the kind of thinking the left wants you to do. Just give them everything they want, exactly! :P That will signal their total victory and the complete surrender of our ideals. Plus, then you have to live through all that, and so do your children. Look at Russia, they're still embroiled in statism.
No, foot-voting is the best answer. Stop participating in systems you can't bear to live under. Move to a libertarian nation.
I'm working on a formal proposal, in conceptual stages now, and once we get the balls rolling we can see if it builds momentum of its own accord. I've been lately working on what seasteading domiciles will look like, cost, construction techniques (lookup up 'monolithic dome' on youtube for example), etc. You tie these domes together with floating walkways and platforms between them and build a real community. They're cheap to build, practically indestructible, and last forever.
I'll probably have to start (another) construction company to get these off the ground. No one's ever tried to create a floating dome house to my knowledge.
The hard part is that, until the community is well established there's only a certain class of people that can move there. This means knowledge workers and others whom can telecommute, those in fishing and sun-farming industries, seaweed farming, etc., and possibly algae-based biofuel. It may be possible, and much cheaper, to produce biofuel actually on the ocean itself. All things I'm investigating. All in good time.
Minarchist:What do you think of the idea of "conquering" (that word brings up the wrong connotations, as we would really be freeing people from subjugation) a chaotic-lawless African country with a private company?
If you could get a people group to invite you in for help, maybe. I just don't see the end-game playing out well.
Minarchist:It has VAST natural resources
So do the Russian steppes, but the access to shipping is poor at best in both places. Plus, Africa is so poor that it's very difficult to accumulate capital. Theft is rampant. Anything you can't watch literally will be stolen.
Combine poor shipping, hostile bandits all over the place, political instability everywhere, cultural poverty, and an anti-capital accumulation environment, and you'll soon find yourself just as poor as the surrounding nations. I think you should investigate and play with this idea a loooot more to see if what I'm saying isn't valid counterpoint. There's nothing worse in life than climbing your favorite mountain only to discover and realize that you've climbed the wrong mountain.
Minarchist:a population of 70+ million, a navigable river with the hydroelectric capacity to supply all of Southern Africa
The Nile? Navigable? For somewhat short distances. But there's a lot of waterfalls and the like. It's not like the USA's waterways which are basically flat from New Orleans to up near Michigan. See that Strafor article I linked before for a discussion of the importance of waterways on economic development.
Minarchist: A minarchist-type government could thrive in the Congo, do absolute wonders for the people (who currently live in a state of perpetual civil war on about $350 annually) and make a tidy profit in the process. Now, this is armchair generaling/politicking in the extreme, but I'm just trying to paint a picture of what might be possible if a group of libertarian investors set their mind to creating a Libertopia somewhere in Africa.
Africa tho. Africa :<
Anemone,
You might be interested in this article. While I understand the desire to have floating cities, just consider the pricetag, $500 million. Sure, it's probably tricked out, but no matter how you slice it, a floating city of any size is going to cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars at the very least. I don't think the costs outweigh the benefits regarding floating cities just yet.
Separately, regarding abolition vs gradualism, suppose we framed the question around slavery. If offered the choice between immediate abolition of slavery versus gradual abolition, what should a libertarian choose? Well, a libertarian should choose immediate abolition. But what about all the chaos from freeing all the slaves? Um, what about the enslavement of all the slaves?
The point of immediate abolition of the state is that it is an immoral and evil institution. If given the choice, any libertarian should choose immediate abolition. Our one out of this problem is that it is a very rare choice to immediately abolish something, especially something as huge as the state. While we ought to support immediate abolition in theory, gradualism really is the only way to it in practice.
gotlucky: Anemone, You might be interested in this article. While I understand the desire to have floating cities, just consider the pricetag, $500 million. Sure, it's probably tricked out, but no matter how you slice it, a floating city of any size is going to cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars at the very least. I don't think the costs outweigh the benefits regarding floating cities just yet.
Well, an article about the world's biggest yacht doesn't tell you much about my concept. For $500 million I could build and furnish houses in a floating city for probably 10,000 people :P A floating house for $50k, that's 10k people. Doable. I've run the numbers already. And we're not talking dinky houses either. This is the Pacific ocean. 2,000 square feet minimum.
A floating home doesn't need to go anywhere, it's designed to stay in place. You want to move, hire someone to tow your house, and that would be pretty cheap too. In most respects it's just like living on land :P
But then there's the benefits: no state income tax (US citizens still pay income tax even living abroad, regrettably, on any earnings I believe it was over $84k.), no sales tax, no tax on production goods of any kind, no building permits, no rent or land to purchase, no business red tape, no social security of FICA tax, no controls on prices, no government healthcare. I expect we'll see a seasteading rush from young families much as the American west did. The worse the US gets the more foot voting we'd pick up. People already love living in California weather, we'd have that, now imagine living in California weather -and- doing so inexpensively, with an ocean view. Unheard of.
I first began developing this concept as an idea for a novel, but the more research I did the more viable it seemed. That trend continues to be true.
gotlucky:Separately, regarding abolition vs gradualism, suppose we framed the question around slavery. If offered the choice between immediate abolition of slavery versus gradual abolition, what should a libertarian choose? Well, a libertarian should choose immediate abolition. But what about all the chaos from freeing all the slaves? Um, what about the enslavement of all the slaves?
True, abolition would be better, despite the massive disruption. But, in the case of the state, we don't have the option of abolition like that, unfortunately.
gotlucky:The point of immediate abolition of the state is that it is an immoral and evil institution. If given the choice, any libertarian should choose immediate abolition. Our one out of this problem is that it is a very rare choice to immediately abolish something, especially something as huge as the state. While we ought to support immediate abolition in theory, gradualism really is the only way to it in practice.
What if there were already a floating libertarian society off the California coast, how would that change your calculation on this issue? Wouldn't it rather become a tradeoff between hoping to influence the US versus the risks of living in a new and young and small libertarian society.
"What do you think of the idea of "conquering" (that word brings up the wrong connotations, as we would really be freeing people from subjugation) a chaotic-lawless African country with a private company?"
It looks bad.
Socialist nations will look at us and say, look at the greedy capitalists trying to oppress the african people!
Fuck the socialists, lets take an african nation then.
Ok guys, so how we gonna do this?
Or we can secede a state of the US from the union? Though thats unrealistic and we will get killed for treason.
All in all, i like anemone's idea. Instead of abolishing something, lets separate and build something up.
I'm not very well connected in the libertarian circles or anything but I'm surprised more people aren't making an effort to do exactly what Anenome is talking about.
I agree with him. Vote with your feet.
not connected in the libertarian circles...
dude youve got 2.9k posts in this forum ....
bloomj31: I'm not very well connected in the libertarian circles or anything but I'm surprised more people aren't making an effort to do exactly what Anenome is talking about. I agree with him. Vote with your feet.
Large-scale seasteading has really only become viable in the last few decades, if not far more recently.
For instance, it couldn't have been done before we had ubiquitous GPS, because seasteading requires new ways to determine property boundaries in the ocean. Obviously it's hard to build a fence around a 3D plot of water, but with GPS and computer-mapping we can do it.
Similarly, there are a host of tech I've collected which is quite modern: a wave redirecting wall capable of hiding everything inside the wall from wave action, dome housing, egg-beater propulsion systems, modern efficient desalinators, solar cells of all sort, and much more.
The two main problems are water and fuel.
Water can be solved by harvesting sunlight, something like floating solar-cells. Considering that a sea-borne society is incredibly rich in space, shouldn't be an issue. You could cover square miles with floating solar cells and never bother anyone. That would be impossible on land, you'd be taxed out of profitability. So, your only cost would be that of buying, deploying, and maintaining your kit.
Fuel may be solved by algae-based biodiesel.
Actually things get interesting here, because algae are natural to the ocean. It may be possible to drastically reduce the cost of producing algae-derived biodiesel by adapting the process natively to production on the ocean. Algae biodiesel costs something like $17 - $30 a gallon right now--but that's with current tech, current facilities, and production based on land with its requisite costs.
Turn biodiesel production into an aquaculture project and you might be able to drastically reduce costs. You don't need access to large quantities of water anymore--you're on the ocean. You don't need to pay for large amounts of land to gather sunlight or special harvesting gear with reflectors and the like, glass tubes--you're on the ocean. Provide simple protected shallow growing floating-pools with minor filtration, pump in fresh seawater as needed, done.
They just had a breakthrough on algae oil production reported in recent weeks. They figured out how to coax algae into overproducing oil without stopping their growth cycle (which till then had been a major problem limiting production severely). A simple addition of overfeeding the algae carbon causes rapid oil production, they become fat with oil and yet still continue dividing.
If I can convince a biodisel maker to setup a pilot plant on the sea, we could begin growing organically from there. A project like that could grow its own support community for workers spending large amounts of time on the ocean.
Then you factor in automation? Pools that automatically pilot themselves in when ready for harvest, floating over to a harvestor, robots taking over labor intense processes. Done deal.
Has the side benefit of taking dollars away from mideastern oil and all their resulting agitations to the rest of the world. There's easily, easily enough ocean in the pacific to supply the world's biodiesel needs. Could turn mideastern oil into a niche product, assuming such production methods can drastically reduce the price of biodiesel, which I think may be a good bet.
I suggest we should buy a private island, and then go from there?
Rothbard's scenario is a theoretical test for if you really believe in your stuff. If you really think the state is evil and breaks people's rights you should have no qualms about deleting it as much as possible (including all of it) at any given opportunity. Yes, there is the knowledge problem and the fact we can not know for sure how the immediate establishing of order in anarchy would look like, but everything we know tells us it would look better if it has the opportunity to raise itself up in total freedom, rather than in partial freedom where there is still some state intervention. Also everything we know tells us it would be miles better than even just a tiny piece of state. Confusing non-aggression is always better than predictable aggression, no matter how small. Now for the tactical stuff:
Power corrupts ergo it is impossible to abolish power by or after gaining power. How freedom is accomplished is not by rising to the top of the statist order, but by seceeding from it. You work toward a crisis of the state and when such a crisis arises you take advantage of it by breaking free.
The better comparison would be with a person who is host to a blood-sucking parasite. But anyways, at least it is possible to cure addiction by gradual steps, but it is not possible to abolish the state gradually from the top. A Ron Paul-like figure abolishing the USA from the Oval Office for us is a fantasy that is never going to come true. It is always going to come around in a messy and grimm situation, but neutralizing the power of the state is without doubt the cure for the messiness and the grimmnes, ergo it is best if it is done as soon as possible (ie immediately) so that stability may reemerge sooner, not later. You do not want to prolong a dangerous situation by needless stalling. Also note that a strategy of secession does not aim to eradicate the state. It only aims for the overthrow of the state for yourself and fellow travellers. Thus those who can not concieve of a stateless society may continue to keep the state for themselves. This should go toward easing many of your withdrawal concerns, but only incidentally as the real reason this makes sense is not because we would fear for the health of pro-state people when saved from the state overnight, but for purely tactical reasons, because this would serve to minimize the opposition to the anti-state secession. If the people who can not concieve of life without a state feel our attempt to free ourselves threatens their goal of keeping the statu quo for themselves, we shall never be successful and will be crushed by them.
kelvin_silva: I suggest we should buy a private island, and then go from there?
Possible, but expensive and small and also limited pickings (there's none for sale off the California coast, for instance, which is my target beginning point). Perhaps as an anchoring point. For the cost of an island we could build a large amount of floating structures, and retain complete autonomy while having the ability to move as needed.
Rather than an Island, I suggest we pick a simple seamount, basically an underwater mountain that doesn't quite breach the surface. It's the closest thing you can get to having an island without actually having one :P Basically, it provides easy anchor-points for a large-scale floating city. There's a number of them off the west coast, such as the Taney seamount, or the Rodriguez seamount which is quite close to me near Los Angeles.
The next step is convince some major industry(-ies) to open a floating plant of some sort, so that we can begin creating some kind of economy. As I said, biodiesel would be perhaps ideal, but also fishing and various other sea-related industries.
With industry there, we'd get a couple who'd want to live there full time, meaning demand for food services, transporation back to the mainland periodically, more housing, entertainment. It's just like an old western town with services cropping up while business boomed, turning into, hopefully, a major city.
Without jobs there won't be mass population movement that we need for achieving critical mass. If biodiesel became economical when done on the sea, that would be the end. Guaranteed done, because the US would have an interest in making us as productive as possible, investment capital and workers would flow there faster than you could believe, and it would take us 20 years simply to scale to the point where we could meet demand for the world's oil needs. But I'm getting ahead of myself :P
Marko:everything we know tells us it would look better if it has the opportunity to raise itself up in total freedom, rather than in partial freedom where there is still some state intervention. Also everything we know tells us it would be miles better than even just a tiny piece of state. Confusing non-aggression is always better than predictable aggression, no matter how small.
The seasteading society i've been building out theoretically has been called minarch, for it contains legal structures like a constitution, etc., yet contains no systematic aggression. If the existence of aggression is the problem, then are you prepared to accept a "state" structure that contains no aggression but is predicated on individualism and voluntaryism? Is such a system, were it to exist, still considered minarch? With that term, 'minarch', primarily being used as a smear for those whom would compromise--just a little--with the aggression of statism for whatever purpose.
Personally, I don't think I'm building a state, but something other than known government, something for which we don't have a word. Perhaps autonoment. No one's being governed in the society I propose; you are to govern yourself and no one else.
Perhaps I'm building something then that the ancaps will embrace ultimately, even if it's not what they had been imagining exactly. Well, the ancaps whom believe that all organization is evil inherently will never agree, but I think we all know they're rather foolish.
It is not organization per se that we're against, nor cooperation that we're against, it is forced organization and forced cooperation that we oppose. All I'm doing then is building a particular system of voluntary cooperation, one designed to take the place of a state, if not to be a state, in order that, among other things, no one may try to build a state by claiming a certain region lacks one.
Marko:Power corrupts ergo it is impossible to abolish power by or after gaining power. How freedom is accomplished is not by rising to the top of the statist order, but by seceeding from it.
I agree.
Marko:You work toward a crisis of the state and when such a crisis arises you take advantage of it by breaking free.
What sort of crises, and how does one break free?
Marko: it is not possible to abolish the state gradually from the top. A Ron Paul-like figure abolishing the USA from the Oval Office for us is a fantasy that is never going to come true.
Agreed. It's sad to say, but Paul wasted his life if change was his goal. He accomplished much in popularization and education perhaps, but that must surely be to him a bittersweet accomplishment when he looks himself in the mirror each night.
Marko: Also note that a strategy of secession does not aim to eradicate the state. It only aims for the overthrow of the state for yourself and fellow travellers. Thus those who can not concieve of a stateless society may continue to keep the state for themselves.
I agree that that's important. Many would be thrown into a great heap of confusion and fear if they thought themselves ungoverned, so conditioned to accept its necessity are they. They wouldn't know how to cope with their supposed new vulnerabilities. These are only one example of the withdrawal symptoms you rightly mentioned.
In the system I'm building, based on charter cities, people would be free to build, in voluntary fashion, enclaves which replicate quite closely the current US model of cities, where you pay as a society for certain services like police, fire, trash, etc. Such would be a familiar and welcome experience to those who grew up in such surroundings and are not yet enlightened enough in freedom philosophy to be able to emotionally deal with a freer experience.
Marko:This should go toward easing many of your withdrawal concerns, but only incidentally as the real reason this makes sense is not because we would fear for the health of pro-state people when saved from the state overnight, but for purely tactical reasons, because this would serve to minimize the opposition to the anti-state secession. If the people who can not concieve of life without a state feel our attempt to free ourselves threatens their goal of keeping the statu quo for themselves, we shall never be successful and will be crushed by them.
Agreed. And that is why I feel the charter city strategy is the way to go. It gives the opposition complete freedom to institute their belief structure while keeping them from forcing it on myself. That's the key that's missing in democracy, we are unable to keep the masses from forcing themselves on us, meaning continual aggression.
We need only start a libertarian-influenced charter city of our own and keep them out to experience whatever degree of freedom our understanding of liberty makes us comfortable with.
This has another benefit of allowing the consequences of ideology to fall squarely and solely on the heads of those whom hold it.
In such a society, for instance, it would be possible to setup a statist charter city, one where welfare and taxes and all the familiar things we know exist, but it would be impossible to force others to submit to it, they would have to submit willingly.
They would be unable to institute wealth redistribution, because the wealthy would be able to escape all taxation schemes by simply leaving the charter city and repudiating its charter and thereby all stipulations and conditions of entry into that charter city.
Competition of governance results, without the problem of pitting groups or charter cities against each other.
@Anenome
The property ethic is indeed the foundation for all libertarian ethics, but what is the foundation of the property ethic? Why do we believe in the property ethic? Perhaps some folks believe in the property ethic because it accords with their intuitive sense of justice. But I believe in the property ethic because I know that its universal adoption would yield the best consequences: "best consequences" defined in terms of subjective valuations. Hence, as I say, ethics should begin with determining what it is that we value (with these valuations being prior to reason), and then using reason and our empirical knowledge of the world to determine which principles of human behavior (ethical principles) should be adopted in order to yield those results that we desire.
Note that I said "if everyone had contradictory wants..." Having contradictory wants and having different wants are not the same. Everyone certainly has different wants, but most people don't have contradictory wants: i.e. most people's wants can all be satisfied without preventing the satisfaction of the wants of others. For example, if everyone wants freedom from aggression and prosperity, everyone can be satisfied. This does not apply with people whose wants include aggression against others: as obviously the satisfaction of their wants would prevent the satisfaction of the wants of others (namely, those who don't want to be aggressed against).
My argument against the path of violent revolution is a practical one: i.e. I don't think it would work. I don't see anything ethically wrong with a violent revolution, provided the violence is directed at aggressors: e.g. members of the State.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-economics
On the contrary, the civil war increased the momentum. I appreciate that political reform in the direction we libertarians would like is going to be very difficult. Call me an optimist, but I'm not yet willing to say that it's impossible, or that it's not worth the effort of an attempt.
But would they realize it in time? That's going to be the great gamble. And, there are ways to game the system. For instance, I'm an American citizen. And I will be starting a seasteading nation in international waters off the California coast. I won't initially publicize it as a new nation, we'll need a certain critical mass first. It'll be a curiosity to start, a way of "living in california cheaply", paying no property tax, no sales tax, yet still having an ocean view. Will the US see a small seasteading operation as such a threat that they'd do anything, considering there's naught but American citizens and students with HB-1 visas living there? Doubt it. Whether this historical epoch will be favorable is another factor. The USA grew up while Europe was embroiled in war with Napolean and the like. Napolean originally planned to conquer North American after he was done with Europe. That's why he sold us the Louisiana territory, the most important acquisition of all, because he needed money for his wars and he believed that he would get the land back anyway through war. Ideally, the US's debt woes would distract them while such a nation grew. Ideally, enacting health care would not only drive people to a tax free society where you could still buy quality health-care, it'd drive the US to the brink of bankruptcy--which I'm convinced is a left-wing plan to subvert American militarism anyway.
I'm not opposed to seasteading, I just can't envision it succeeding. Perhaps that's only a lack of imagination on my part. But regardless, if I'm looking at things through the eyes of a investor, I think I'd be much more inclined to risk my money in Africa than on a seasteading project.
If you're serious about it, then libertarians in the US should seek to collectively move to some major city
It's my hope that during the period between the upcoming general election and the start of the Presidential campaign for 2016, libertarians will devote themselves to local and State politics with the same enthusiasm they had for Ron Paul: whether organized migrations are part of it or not.
Geography is important, but social organization is by far the most important factor in determining how prosperous and powerful a society can become. Africa's problem is not geography, it is the lack of security for property. And that is precisely what a "Congo Company" would aim to provide.
Don't they have like blood-diamond-funded militias there?
Yes they do, but they are rabble. The same over most of Africa. These vicious "rebel groups" and so forth that we're always hearing about are fearsome - if you're an unarmed, malnourished African peasant. Whereas, they will melt away if confronted by disciplined soldiers. This has been proven over and over again.
So do the Russian steppes, but the access to shipping is poor at best in both places. The Nile? Navigable? For somewhat short distances
So do the Russian steppes, but the access to shipping is poor at best in both places.
The Nile? Navigable? For somewhat short distances
Not the Nile, the Congo, which is the deepest river in the world, and the second largest (next to the Amazon) by volume. As you can see in the map below, there is enormous potential for inland trade. The only section of the river that isn't navigable is the stretch between Kinshasha and Matadi: hence the road/railway running along the bank. That's only about 300km (186miles): no great obstacle for ocean-going trade. Not to mention the possibility that, with sufficient capital investment, it may be possible to build a system of ship-locks, like on the St. Lawrence. Everything would depend on establishing law and order, and thereby drawing in foreign investment.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Congo_Transport_Map.PNG
Plus, Africa is so poor that it's very difficult to accumulate capital. Theft is rampant. Anything you can't watch literally will be stolen.
Exactly. The missing ingredient, what prevents Africa from accumulating capital and growing richer, is the absence of security for property. That would be the function of the "Congo Company." It would provide security for property, and fund itself from minarchist-type taxation. The better it provides security, the more the economy grows, the more tax revenue it collects, and so forth in a virtuous cycle.
EDIT: I forgot to address this point..
If you could get a people group to invite you in for help, maybe
Conquest is not the challenge. No one will miss the government is Kinshasha other than its own cronies. No one will object to its being eliminated. No one needs to invite us in: though we probably would have to come up with some politically-correct justification to placate the international community.
The real challenge is occupation after the government is removed. We would have to be careful not to incite a guerilla resistance. What might motivate such guerillas? Not loyalty to the old government, nor nationalism - there is none. The only conceivable resistance would be from the tribal groups. Traditionally, Europeans governed Africa by keeping the tribes divided, and elevating one of them to power over the rest. I think this was probably a mistake, as it makes sense to pit the tribes against one another only if you're trying to prevent them from uniting against you. But the idea that "the Congolese" or "the Rwandans" might unite against a colonial government is based on fallacious thinking: "the Congolese" and "the Rwandans" only exist on paper. There's no chance of "them" united against you, because there is no "them." In cases where the Europeans left Africa under duress, the forces fighting to oust them were not "national" forces. They were fundamentally based around the tribal cores which the Europeans had themselves strengthened through their foolish divide and conquer strategy.
Rather, the Company should try to make the tribes as politically irrelevant as possible. Don't align with some against the rest. Act as a genuinely disinterested arbitrator in tribal disputes, and otherwise manage the affairs of the country as if the tribes didn't exist. Neither criticize nor honor traditional tribal customs. Don't try to impose anything on them other than basic security for property (we're no going to worry about relatively arcane doctrinal issues: just basic "life, liberty, and property." Be "fair" in an intuitive sense. And, on the other hand, don't try to create a national identity. Try only to create a sense of respect among the people for the "good deal" they're all getting: peace and prosperity. No jingoistic bullcrap.
We want to be in that sweet-spot where there's neither strong anti-colonial sentiment nor strong tribal tensions. The immediate concern would be the latter. Later, as the society matures, the former will become an issue, and the best way to combat that is to allow the natives full participation in government. I don't mean voting, I mean allow them to hold all the same positions within the government (soldier, police, judge, etc) that the foreigners hold - and to own shares in the Company.
EDIT2: I might add, the simple fact that a "Congo Company" would actually have good intentions for the people of the Congo would make it a lot easier for them to rule than it was for the colonialists, who by and large did not have good intentions, and had to spend much time and energy obscuring that fact, and without success.
@Anemone
Re floating cities: I looked into prices of floating homes, and it does seem that you could house a large number of people for $500 million. The problem with all of this is that it is forcing the issue. It is not spontaneous order. There has to be some sort of profit in the area, at least when the floating cities are founded, in order for it to last. Otherwise the results will be like the Chinese ghost cities.
So, perhaps a floating city may be viable in terms of infrastructure, but there must be a strong reason for people to go there other than desiring liberty. These cities could start even as fishing communities near offshare oil drilling sites. Though many are rather far out, there are plenty of sites closer to shore, though these are currently illegal to drill.
So I guess these cities are not so far fetched. But as I said, the main problem is that there needs to be profit for the cities to be founded.
Anenome: True, abolition would be better, despite the massive disruption. But, in the case of the state, we don't have the option of abolition like that, unfortunately.
Considering how much the state has atrophied important aspects of the market, this may not be an entirely bad thing that immediate abolition isn't politically possible. But we should always support immediate abolition if given the option.
Anenome: What if there were already a floating libertarian society off the California coast, how would that change your calculation on this issue? Wouldn't it rather become a tradeoff between hoping to influence the US versus the risks of living in a new and young and small libertarian society.
My profession requires a large and wealthy population. So, things would have to be so incredibly bad here for me to move to a new, young, and small libertarian society.
Minarchist: The property ethic is indeed the foundation for all libertarian ethics, but what is the foundation of the property ethic? Why do we believe in the property ethic? Perhaps some folks believe in the property ethic because it accords with their intuitive sense of justice. But I believe in the property ethic because I know that its universal adoption would yield the best consequences: "best consequences" defined in terms of subjective valuations. Hence, as I say, ethics should begin with determining what it is that we value (with these valuations being prior to reason), and then using reason and our empirical knowledge of the world to determine which principles of human behavior (ethical principles) should be adopted in order to yield those results that we desire.
Any one person may support the idea of property for consequentialist reasons, but the origin of property is not consequentialist. There are two origins:
1) Mutual respect for property. This is sufficient for the vast majority of a population, as the vast majority of people prefer social cooperation in their own life.
2) Law, or dispute resolution. This is necessary for the part of the population that engages in aggressive interactions with others. It is also necessary for when 2 parties have a dispute regarding some piece of property, but neither party considers himself to have acted criminally.
To say that you support your claim to own your bed for consequentialist reasons seems quite off to me. It's your bed because you have claimed it as your own, and other people recognize this claim as legitimate. Why do you claim it as your own? Why not give it to your neighbor? Or to a homeless (and bedless) man?
Property originates from the 2 reasons I mentioned above. If you consider those two options to be compatible with your concept of consequentialism, then you can probably disregard most of this post. But considering how upset people get when stuff is stolen from them, I suspect that most people support property for more intuitive reasons than well though out consequentialist reasons. That and most people don't think about this stuff, so it probably never crosses their mind.
Abolitionism vs. Gradualism...
I guess this assumes the person cares about changing the entire nation or world. Either way, the choice will be made for us soon enough. Abolitionism will win when one of these psychos in control of the nukes touches off an exchange.
gotlucky: Any one person may support the idea of property for consequentialist reasons, but the origin of property is not consequentialist. There are two origins: 1) Mutual respect for property. This is sufficient for the vast majority of a population, as the vast majority of people prefer social cooperation in their own life. 2) Law, or dispute resolution. This is necessary for the part of the population that engages in aggressive interactions with others. It is also necessary for when 2 parties have a dispute regarding some piece of property, but neither party considers himself to have acted criminally. To say that you support your claim to own your bed for consequentialist reasons seems quite off to me. It's your bed because you have claimed it as your own, and other people recognize this claim as legitimate. Why do you claim it as your own? Why not give it to your neighbor? Or to a homeless (and bedless) man? Property originates from the 2 reasons I mentioned above. If you consider those two options to be compatible with your concept of consequentialism, then you can probably disregard most of this post. But considering how upset people get when stuff is stolen from them, I suspect that most people support property for more intuitive reasons than well though out consequentialist reasons. That and most people don't think about this stuff, so it probably never crosses their mind.
@Gotlucky
One of my favorite things about Austrian Economics as laid out by Rothbard and Mises in their various books is the logical construction from a priori principles. Expanding on the idea of acting man into the full range of economic phenomena via logic.
We ought to be able to construct the same kind of logical understanding of Property from the same Acting Man in the same Environment (scarce resources and time) + other people. I'm still to this day a little disconcerted by Austrian Economists/Philosophers not attacking this problem with the same type of rigor that they were able to attack the more fundamental Economic issues.
So, what is this "Mutual Respect for Property"? I agree that it exists, but I think it's hard thing to quantify. More specifically shouldn't it make sense as an emergent phenomena from the nature of acting man in his environment? Since resources are scarce, as man works to convert resources into capital he would reasonably view it as an investment of time and energy that he expects to see a return from over time. That's what motivates his time investment. In a wooded area, sticks aren't really scarce, but long straight sticks with a sharp point are scarce. The work that one puts into making a spear doesn't make sense if you won't see some direct result from the investment of time and energy. Now if we're sharing the results of the hunt in our tribe, it's reasonable for one guy (perhaps older and slower and unable to participate in a hunt), to specialize in making these "spears".
Anyway, a mutual respect for property would arise naturally out of the sheer fact that societies which respect, reward, and perhaps venerate productive effort would thrive and advance in comparison to other social groups. This doesn't establish it as the "right" way. In fact, my issue with the way Natural Property Rights constructions work, is that they attempt to bridge the unbridgable IOP problem. The normative "right/wrong" dichotomy is a subjective phenomena.
To follow on, once you see this Mutual Respect of Property as you described it, I believe the second of your two scenarios for dispute resolution is the primary reason for it. We would all recognize theft and aggression as violations of this basic concept, but the real issue is for the edge conditions. Property rights become THE only way to resolve the issue. When two people have acted in ways that they each believe follows the Mutual Respect issue is to have an arbitration of the result, or to continue escalating the actions which spoils the productive efforts of each. The arbitrative solution will establish some form of a property right. The nature of that right will have a big impact on the society through it's broader implications.
From this one can make sense of normalization, formalization, iteration of norms, laws,and the formation of the ideas of legal and illegal. To me it's an obviously emergent phenomena. The key to understanding and analyzing the whole sphere of politics is in logical analysis of acting man, his environment, and how the right of way is derived and enacted. The ways in which this happens is part of the social ecosystem in which all of mans behaviors, art, economic, etc. happen, and the bottom line is there's a darwinian survival of the fittest at the societal level, and at the "knowledge" level. Fitter memes will result in fitter social organizations.
So to bring this all to the gradualism vs. abolitionism. Abolition would leave a void, dispute resolution and aggression would still be problems. Some solution will slide into that vacuum. The solution will emerge out of the ideals and the memes that are present, and would most likely carry over some features of the previous system, since that's "what we know."
I think it boils down to advancing the social sciences. Even abolition would not be abolition. It would end up being a version of gradualism, unless it arises as a consequence of a fundamental change in the way we view economics and politics. The key to getting a real substantive change, is to change hearts and minds, and that's the advancement of social science, particularly political theory. Economics is still a bit in the dark ages, Austrian Economics shows the way, but we still have junk economic theory that is being used to justify interference via political systems which are in and of themselves archaic remnants of tribal/patriarchal systems. I think we're waiting on the equivalent of a copernican revolution in the social sciences and in political theory. Maybe it happened with Austrian Economics in the late 1800s through the late 1900s and now we're just seeing the leading edge of the acceptance necessary to push it over the edge. Libertarian theory may also be the same thing. Time will tell. I'm not sure if we've reached that tipping point yet intellectually, and if we haven't we're going to get more of the same even if we do have systemic collapses.
David B: We ought to be able to construct the same kind of logical understanding of Property from the same Acting Man in the same Environment (scarce resources and time) + other people. I'm still to this day a little disconcerted by Austrian Economists/Philosophers not attacking this problem with the same type of rigor that they were able to attack the more fundamental Economic issues. So, what is this "Mutual Respect for Property"? I agree that it exists, but I think it's hard thing to quantify. More specifically shouldn't it make sense as an emergent phenomena from the nature of acting man in his environment? Since resources are scarce, as man works to convert resources into capital he would reasonably view it as an investment of time and energy that he expects to see a return from over time. That's what motivates his time investment. In a wooded area, sticks aren't really scarce, but long straight sticks with a sharp point are scarce. The work that one puts into making a spear doesn't make sense if you won't see some direct result from the investment of time and energy. Now if we're sharing the results of the hunt in our tribe, it's reasonable for one guy (perhaps older and slower and unable to participate in a hunt), to specialize in making these "spears".
The origin of property is a tricky area. You can't apply the a priori method, and you can't really rely on Crusoe meeting Friday to explain it either. It is important to realize that animals in general make claims to objects (usually just territorially claims). Even ants go to war against other ants. Bees will attack for the hive. I don't know if ants or bees mark their territory, or if other animals just learn to stay away from bees (or ants to stay away from other colonies). But we do know that wolves mark their territory. Other wolves invade at their own risk. Chimpanzees do the same thing (though I don't think they mark with urine, but they do go attack chimps of other groups).
Wolves and chimps have means of resolving disputes in their own group. Both have a hierarchy. In the case of wolves, we know that there is the alpha wolf, there are many beta wolves, and there are omega wolves (I believe there may be other ranks, but this isn't an article on wolves). We know that wolves will settle their disputes, which are typically related to who is the alpha wolf, by either violent conflict or posturing.
Humans do not have to do this in order to resolve disputes. We can argue. While there are some other animals that have hierachies and "rules" (maybe they really are rules), none of these rules are even close to being as comphrensive as human norms and laws. But though we can create a vastly more complex system of resolving disputes, don't let that fool you into thinking that the origin of property is any different for humans than the origin of territory for other animals.
David B: Anyway, a mutual respect for property would arise naturally out of the sheer fact that societies which respect, reward, and perhaps venerate productive effort would thrive and advance in comparison to other social groups. This doesn't establish it as the "right" way. In fact, my issue with the way Natural Property Rights constructions work, is that they attempt to bridge the unbridgable IOP problem. The normative "right/wrong" dichotomy is a subjective phenomena. To follow on, once you see this Mutual Respect of Property as you described it, I believe the second of your two scenarios for dispute resolution is the primary reason for it. We would all recognize theft and aggression as violations of this basic concept, but the real issue is for the edge conditions. Property rights become THE only way to resolve the issue. When two people have acted in ways that they each believe follows the Mutual Respect issue is to have an arbitration of the result, or to continue escalating the actions which spoils the productive efforts of each. The arbitrative solution will establish some form of a property right. The nature of that right will have a big impact on the society through it's broader implications.
I agree with much of this, but I just want to emphasize that the reason Mutual Respect (it does look good when capitalized, doesn't it?) can only work is because the tendencies of humans is towards social cooperation. Even wolves prefer to posture most of the time instead of actually fighting, as many injuries are life threatening when in the wild. But for the most part, most people don't have disputes with others that need to be raised to the realm of law. Norms in general are typically sufficient. But, people in general just prefer social cooperation. This isn't something that can be discovered a priori. After all, even if humans tended towards violence a lot, we could still see how dispute resolution would counteract that tendency. But if the tendency towards violence was so strong that people could only resolve disputes through fights to the death, then we would have gone extinct a long time ago.
So, I don't think that the a priori method is appropriate for the origin of property. It can be applied to law, as Clayton did so wonderfully in his posts on the subject. At best, the closest you can get to the origin of property through the a priori method is through law. But why do we have disputes? I don't see how that is a priori. Maybe it is, but I don't see it.
David B: So to bring this all to the gradualism vs. abolitionism. Abolition would leave a void, dispute resolution and aggression would still be problems. Some solution will slide into that vacuum. The solution will emerge out of the ideals and the memes that are present, and would most likely carry over some features of the previous system, since that's "what we know."
Yes, the state has atrophied many important sectors of the market. But I don't think immediate abolition would turn to chaos. It would probably be worse than it is now until the market for law stabilizes. But America already has a pretty decent property ethic. It's incredibly flawed in many ways, but the fundamental understanding is better here than in many other parts of the world. So, maybe you'll see some teenagers trying to vandalize shops, but the shop owners would quickly arm themselves, and then they would start paying others for protection.
A common argument against the bailouts of the auto industry is, "Let them fail. Let more productive people buy up the capital so that it can be put to good use instead of letting the same people fail again." Well, what do you think is going to happen to all the police stations, police cars, guns, police officers, and the rest of the capital. I mean, really, are we supposed to believe that all this capital is just going to disappear? Sure, maybe not all the cops will help and try to stop crime until they get their paycheck. But someone is going to want to put that capital to good use and get paid for it.
@ Minarchist
This sounds like a cool idea and appeals to me infinitely more than seasteading, which I imagine might be a dreadfully close-ended life despite the freedom. But it also seems like it would basically be a war: going over there, setting up camp and then waiting for some African taxman to come. Anyways if you have anything more to say on the subject I hope you'll keep posting on it.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
gotlucky: But why do we have disputes? I don't see how that is a priori.
But why do we have disputes? I don't see how that is a priori.
It's simple, and it is a priori, IMO.
It's scarcity. Scarcity creates conflict because you have intentional systems in play competing for the use of resources. As you point out throughtout the animal kingdom, there are a variety of emergent solutions to this scarcity issue that different organisms have evolved, to either a) help them beat out competitors, or b) help them cooperate with other organisms to their mutual benefit and, most likely, some other individuals or populations detriment.
In acting, man acts into the future to attain a state of reality that he prefers to the current one. Two people can have actions which are metaphysically incompatible: two cars in the same intersection at the same time, or the same car at two different locations at the same time. However, while both intended actions are incompatible, reality has no issue. Every dispute can be reduced to some version of this. Give me one that can't, I'll show how it is.
Therein lies the essence of dispute, it's part of competition. And the solution we adopt, over and over and over, is to come up with what we call social norms, about which of two people has the right of way. There will be either a location or physical matter that is being contested, and it will contain a time component, and the conflict will be the result of 2 or more human actors objecting to each others intended uses (or past use which violates established norms and rules). That's the essence of conflict. There are a variety of ways in which we can peacefully find ways to slightly alter each plan to enable us to both achieve our desired ends. When push comes to shove and the resources are sufficiently scarce, someone gets the right of way. This intersection of human mind, matter, time, and space is IMO the essential intersection that leads to a priori categories which I believe bring out the ideas of owner, property, and dispute. Now, in any society ownership has boundary conditions, in particular what constitutes a valid claim of ownership, time constraints for the duration of the claim, and transfer conditions which constitute a transfer of a valid claim which remains a valid claim.
All of this arises out of the essential components of human action.
And this phenomena of conflict or dispute is present as soon as you have two people. Because satisfying mans discomfort requires action, and in particular action that requires the use of matter, at some location, for some period of time! At minimum you start with the human body which lives for a specific duration of time, and must occupy some space in this world. We live peacably in that we resolve these incompatible intended realities in mutually beneficial ways the majority of the time. Societies which did not, would not survive. Individuals in societies that evolve norms which are destructive to the individuals and to production will end up marginalized, extinct, or swallowed by the ones that are more effective at this battle of the human mind to overcome the limitations imposed by reality that we perceive as scarcity.
In fact, I would argue that this same fundamental phenomena arises very early in biological evolution, cooperative mutually beneficial behaviors breed success for certain biological entities and thus the group is able to "win" the fight over scarce resources vs. other entities or populations.
I would argue that your examples point to the success of life generically at producing ever more complex and ever more effective organisms, which are able to thrive in the face of scarce resources. There was a time when organisms had nascent feedback mechanisms, these would eventually become more complex nervous systems, brains appear and become decision making engines with very rudimentary intelligence, and the process continues to grow as the plasticity and adaptability of the organisms grows.
We jumped the gap to become self-aware in a way no other organism on earth has done. One would expect to find emergent systems from our evolution which gave us huge advantages in the battle for survival. I doubt a non-social animal could develop the level of intelligence we have, simply because the communication and sharing of knowledge which forms the basis for all of our progress would not have given a selection advantage to animals which don't have a heavily social existence. But inherent in communication and cooperation is this need to coordinate our plans. Plans which may or may not be compatible. Even in this most basic concept of coordinating a hunt, you find the need to search through the proposed behaviors of the individuals to find a way to coordinate the actions of the members of a group to achieve a result that the group has chosen to go after, like hunting a wild animal, or constructing a shelter. Members will propose behaviors for themselves and for others, even here you find the need to modify each others actions so that the emergent group action achieves the "group goal". Yes cooperation is built in, and differences in the way each members sees the world and values the different goals they could pursue will lead to conflict at this most basic of levels. Survival will favor those who can coordinate and cooperate through communication. We're just better than any other species on earth.
By jumping the gap, we've bootstrapped beyond he level of "accidental" design, and become slightly (only slightly) better at accumulating knowledge and improvements in our technology. Why do we have norms? We're social, we find that all social groups (animal and human) have basic rulesets that are adhered to, and mechanisms for removing those that violate the rules.
But our rules while emergent, can also be reflected on and analyzed and modified. Ants and bees cannot simply change the ruleset and see what happens. They don't know the rules, they simply follow the rules.
So, my counter question would be, are you sure conflict and dispute resolution aren't an a priori basis for property as a concept? I think it's blatantly obvious that they are a priori. They must occur as concepts, because intelligent acting man, will form the categories no matter what. If he doesn't have some version of the category, he hasn't encountered a scarcity issue to resolve.
@gotlucky
....the origin of property is not consequentialist.
I want to firstly distinguish between the property ethic and what I'll name the "gimme factor." The "gimme factor" is the purely selfish desire to have the things one wants, and therefore to prevent others from having those things. Everyone, including aggressors, exhibit the "gimme factor." The property ethic is something else entirely. If there were one man on Earth, he would exhibit the gimme factor, but not the property ethic: or any ethic for that matter. Ethics are by nature universalizable, they are rules for society. Why do people who are all essentially selfish (who exhibit the gimme factor) believe in the property ethic? Why does a man who wants, say, a car, recognize that he should not take the car because it belongs to someone else? It's not because of altruism, or because of a dogmatic veneration of the property ethic, it is because he realizes that - ultimately - it is in his own best interest to respect the property of others (so then they will respect his). In other words, people believe in the property ethic for consequentialist reasons. The property ethic is not good in itself, it is good because of the good consequences its adoption yields.
If you say that respect for property is simply intuitive for most people, that they don't reason out the consequences and therefore choose to respect property in any given instance, that is true, but only because such reasoning has become habit. By way of analogy, why do people look both ways before crossing the street? Obviously, to avoid being hit by cars. But, when people actually look both ways before crossing the street, do they reason things out (i.e. "well I better do this or I will probably be hit by a car...") each time? No, they do it out of habit, unthinkingly. But the reason this habit exists is because of consequentialist reasoning. It didn't just pop into man's mind ready-made as an article of faith. The same is true of the property ethic (and, I would argue, all ethics).
Mutual respect for property. This is sufficient for the vast majority of a population, as the vast majority of people prefer social cooperation in their own life.
Isn't mutual respect for property synonymous with the property ethic? So what does it mean to say that mutual respect for property is the origin of the property ethic?
Law, or dispute resolution. This is necessary for the part of the population that engages in aggressive interactions with others. It is also necessary for when 2 parties have a dispute regarding some piece of property, but neither party considers himself to have acted criminally.
Certainly the existence of disputes between individuals living in a society is a conditio sine qua non for the property ethic. But this goes to my point, that the property ethic has consequentialist origins. Namely, people believe in the property ethic in order to avoid conflict (or, more precisely, in order to avoid losing conflicts, i.e. to protect their own selfish interests) - not because of an innate intuition that property is just. Though as I said above, the consequentialist reasoning behind the property ethic has become superfluous in most cases, as adherence to the property ethic has become mindless habit.
(Tangentially, note that this "mindless habit" is not a bad thing. In fact, the ability of human beings to use their reasoning to reach conclusions and then forget the reasoning and just act in accordance with the conclusions is of great value. Can you imagine if people had to walk around reasoning out everything they did? Nothing would ever get done. Of course it has its drawbacks too. The initial reasoning can be incorrect, in which case you have incorrect conclusions which are held as dogma (people having forgotten the reasoning behind it), and of which it is difficult to dissuade people. Or the original reasoning and conclusion can be correct, but can become corrupted over time without people noticing [because they don't remember the reasoning behind the conclusion], with the same result of having difficultly convincing people to abandon what has become dogma.)
Primarily a crisis of morale. When many people in the employ of the state start to have doubts they have the right to imprison and ultimately kill you simply for not cooperating with it. It is then when we can make a move at ignoring it.
David B,
I agree with much of what you said, but I'm still not convinced in one regard:
Suppose we have an alien observing Earth. First he looks at grass. Do grass have disputes? Certainly grass and trees compete with each other for nutrients. But do they have disputes? Next he looks at worms. Again, worms compete for food, but do worms have disputes with each other? Do birds have disputes with worms?
But the alien notices something funny, the bigger the brain on an animal, the more likely it is to get into disputes. He sees that rabbits generally don't fight other rabbits. But he sees wolves posturing and fighting. And then he sees humans, and well, we know full well what humans are capable of regarding disputes.
So, not all life forms must have disputes, even if they compete with one another. Basically, we know why law emerges, and we can know this a priori. In other words, if there are disputes, we can see how a system of law emerges. But what happens if there are not disputes? It's not like there must necessarily be a dispute just because something is scarce.
I'm not entirely sure of where I am going with this. Obviously, we know that people have disputes. It just doesn't seem like something we can necessarily predict. "You, sir, are going to have a dispute regarding road rage." "You, sir, are going to have a dispute regarding the terms of your divorce". Obviously, many, if not all men and women who get divorced have disputes as to who gets what. But is this really a priori knowledge that they must necessarily have a dispute? After all, isn't it possible that every so often we might have a man and woman who are able to just take their respective property and walk away?
I mean, I know this is incredibly rare (if it even happens at all). But I'm not disputing whether or not it occurs, just whether we can know that it will necessarily occur a priori.
If a man and woman get divorced without having a dispute as to who gets what, is it still a priori knowledge? It really just seems that we must observe that a dispute has occurred, and then we can reason out the conclusions.
Maybe I'm wrong.
gotlucky: David B, I agree with much of what you said, but I'm still not convinced in one regard: Suppose we have an alien observing Earth. First he looks at grass. Do grass have disputes? Certainly grass and trees compete with each other for nutrients. But do they have disputes? Next he looks at worms. Again, worms compete for food, but do worms have disputes with each other? Do birds have disputes with worms? But the alien notices something funny, the bigger the brain on an animal, the more likely it is to get into disputes. He sees that rabbits generally don't fight other rabbits. But he sees wolves posturing and fighting. And then he sees humans, and well, we know full well what humans are capable of regarding disputes.
In other threads I've been clarifying these points slightly. Competing for resources results in a might makes right or better action = better result, but in the natural world without brains, there's not really intention so much as serendipity, and not a "gosh how lucky type" of a 50/50 coin flip, but (for example) if a slight variation of a specific protein that's constructed by a slightly different strand of DNA on a chromosome in a grass leaf, means that the way it's roots grow gives it a higher probability of reaching deeper into the soil for water, AND the blade is in an arid location means that specific grass instance will survive. There is a "contention" between different members of the population, but it's not like ours.
I agree that as we get more advanced this "contention" between members takes on a more and more purposeful nature. I agree with all of this so far.
gotlucky: So, not all life forms must have disputes, even if they compete with one another. Basically, we know why law emerges, and we can know this a priori. In other words, if there are disputes, we can see how a system of law emerges. But what happens if there are not disputes? It's not like there must necessarily be a dispute just because something is scarce.
Actually that's exactly what scarcity means at the human level. Scarcity of means to be used for ends. Meaning that if we have access to 5 gallons of water, and you need 4 for your productive endeavor, and I need 3 gallons, then we've got scarcity. You can't introduce ownership, because we have no reason for it to pre-exist. I may not engage in some behavior that is intended to "get my way", but there is a dispute. Avoidance is a mechanism for resolving a dispute. If I go off looking for my 3 gallons elsewhere, that might become part of the dispute or conflict resolution norms within our common social group, or in my social group, which may be separate from yours.
The point at which we're physically or verbally contending over a single resource(either mano y mano, OR through an intermediary) we've at that point selected a solution path after discarding a variety of other options, like avoidance or modification of the plan internally. Each of us has gone through a series of "thresholds" where we discarded various alternative mechanisms to resolve the epistemological conflict that one or both of us recognized.
gotlucky: I'm not entirely sure of where I am going with this. Obviously, we know that people have disputes. It just doesn't seem like something we can necessarily predict. "You, sir, are going to have a dispute regarding road rage." "You, sir, are going to have a dispute regarding the terms of your divorce". Obviously, many, if not all men and women who get divorced have disputes as to who gets what. But is this really a priori knowledge that they must necessarily have a dispute? After all, isn't it possible that every so often we might have a man and woman who are able to just take their respective property and walk away? I mean, I know this is incredibly rare (if it even happens at all). But I'm not disputing whether or not it occurs, just whether we can know that it will necessarily occur a priori.
No the a priori fact is that individual human minds in a social group will have plans for the use of matter in reality that are incompatible with each other. When such an incompatability occurs, what actually happens? Well, humans recognize these incompatibilities and have adopted various mechanisms for resolving them, our norms encapsulate general rules of thumb as to what one or both of us should do. Think of changing lanes on a crowded highway
gotlucky: If a man and woman get divorced without having a dispute as to who gets what, is it still a priori knowledge? It really just seems that we must observe that a dispute has occurred, and then we can reason out the conclusions. Maybe I'm wrong.
You misunderstand, and I think it's because I'm using a term to represent a more abstract concept, than how that term (dispute or conflict) is traditionally used or defined. It's not that those two people will enter into some type of formal dispute or conflict over the dissolution of the marriages shared assets, it's that no matter what on a very regular basis, you will engage in actions or plan actions which will not be compatible with someone elses plans, and will have to adjust your plan and your actions in order to make your plan compatible with their plan. Keeping it as broad as possible, when I say conflict resolution I mean ANY means used by either or both of the parties to resolve this incompatibility. Even if it's to simply keep my mouth shut because of cowardice and to completely modify or discard my plan.
I hope that helps clear things up. I appreciate the criticism.
It seems that we are using "dispute" differently. I do not consider conflict avoidance to be equivalent to dispute resolution. Conflict avoidance can occur without disputes. For example, if you see me build a house and claim it as my own, you would be avoiding conflict if you never contested that claim. So while there would be conflict avoidance, there would not have been a dispute. The dispute occurs when two or more people make a claim to the same object.
So, my question is: I know there is scarcity. I know that people do sometimes make claims to the same object. Is this really a priori knowledge that people sometimes make claims to the same object, or is this something that must be observed?
I suppose another way to put it: The knowledge that humans are omnivores is something that must be observed. Furthermore, there are some people who choose to not eat meat. This too must be observed. What is it about disputes that makes it that we know it without observation? Certainly I can imagine that people have disputes, just as I can imagine that pigs can fly. But these seem to be things that must be observed in order to know them.
To me, it seems that even with scarcity, we cannot know for certain that there will be a dispute. After all, parents will sometimes sacrifice themselves in order to save their children. But there could also be parents that don't sacrifice their lives for the children. But this seems to just be a case where we can imagine different possibilities. I don't quite see how this makes it a priori knowledge.
gotlucky: It seems that we are using "dispute" differently. I do not consider conflict avoidance to be equivalent to dispute resolution. Conflict avoidance can occur without disputes. For example, if you see me build a house and claim it as my own, you would be avoiding conflict if you never contested that claim. So while there would be conflict avoidance, there would not have been a dispute. The dispute occurs when two or more people make a claim to the same object. So, my question is: I know there is scarcity. I know that people do sometimes make claims to the same object. Is this really a priori knowledge that people sometimes make claims to the same object, or is this something that must be observed? I suppose another way to put it: The knowledge that humans are omnivores is something that must be observed. Furthermore, there are some people who choose to not eat meat. This too must be observed. What is it about disputes that makes it that we know it without observation? Certainly I can imagine that people have disputes, just as I can imagine that pigs can fly. But these seem to be things that must be observed in order to know them. To me, it seems that even with scarcity, we cannot know for certain that there will be a dispute. After all, parents will sometimes sacrifice themselves in order to save their children. But there could also be parents that don't sacrifice their lives for the children. But this seems to just be a case where we can imagine different possibilities. I don't quite see how this makes it a priori knowledge.
Great question, if I may I'll break this out as it's own discussion thread.