What is the most succint way to answer (preferably, refute) the following claim? "Under anarcho-capitalism, people would get the quality of 'government' (legislation, arbitration, protection) service proportional to how much they will pay. Hence, the rich will get better protection of the law from the society than the poor."
They'd be able to pay for the services delivered. So most likely they'd get better service. Nowadays the rich have bodyguards, too. And they pay extra money to live in a security complex or home. So what is actually the difference? The question isn't if the rich will be better off then the poor (They are right now). The question would be whether both the rich and the poor would really be better off in an anarcho capitalist society then for instance in a minarchist state. They don't get this from the society, but from specific members of this society or from elsewhere.
States place individuals under a common condition of subordination. Everyone is subjugated by the state. This creates the overriding identity of the 'citizen' which everyone possesses. There is a measure of unit equality among individuals.
So what? Some citizens are more equal than others. I don't think this is an equaliser at all.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus: States place individuals under a common condition of subordination. Everyone is subjugated by the state. This creates the overriding identity of the 'citizen' which everyone possesses. There is a measure of unit equality among individuals. So what? Some citizens are more equal than others. I don't think this is an equaliser at all.
Considering what came before it's an equalizer to a very great extent. I don't see how that is disputable.
Autolykos: National Acrobat:I have a gut feeling we mean different things by political institutions. What is a political institutions to you? In this case, I mean whatever you mean.
National Acrobat:I have a gut feeling we mean different things by political institutions. What is a political institutions to you?
In this case, I mean whatever you mean.
Complex social interactions require common understandings that provide the identities, interests, and preferences of the relevant actors as well as the role relations and power structure between those actors. Politics can be understood as the negotiation of these common understandings. That is, politics occurs when the assignment of identities and the associated obligations, liberties and rights to individuals and groups is contested.
Institutions are relationships between individuals and/or groups that have been internalized creating a certain amount of stability. Political institutions are those relationships through which people exercise agency over certain articulated common understandings. In any society these will exist. And since they are relational between people(s) they must be perpetually reproduced.
Are they necessary for a society to function properly? Or can there be a society where they are absent and it is still working smooth.
Torsten: Institutions are relationships between individuals and/or groups that have been internalized creating a certain amount of stability. Political institutions are those relationships through which people exercise agency over certain articulated common understandings. In any society these will exist. And since they are relational between people(s) they must be perpetually reproduced. Are they necessary for a society to function properly? Or can there be a society where they are absent and it is still working smooth.
I don't think you could have a society without them. Every historical and hypothetical society (including libertarian ones) I've ever been familiar with has political institutions. Perhaps I missed one though. I genuinely would like to hear an account of a society without political institutions if you have one in mind.
National Acrobat: I don't think you could have a society without them [political institutions). Every historical and hypothetical society (including libertarian ones) I've ever been familiar with has political institutions. Perhaps I missed one though. I genuinely would like to hear an account of a society without political institutions if you have one in mind.
How do you define 'political institution' in this context? I've done a lot of thinking and development on the idea of exactly that, what a society without political institutions would look like, ie: a free society, and I think it's not only possible, it's doable in reality.
You can have voluntary institutions that are inherently unpolitical. The key is however that complete freedom of private ownership must be maintained (especially in regards to access: roads, must be privately owned).
Anenome: How do you define 'political institution' in this context? I've done a lot of thinking and development on the idea of exactly that, what a society without political institutions would look like, ie: a free society, and I think it's not only possible, it's doable in reality. You can have voluntary institutions that are inherently unpolitical. The key is however that complete freedom of private ownership must be maintained (especially in regards to access: roads, must be privately owned).
From above
Complex social interactions require common understandings that provide the identities, interests, and preferences of the relevant actors as well as the role relations and power structure between those actors. Politics can be understood as the negotiation of these common understandings. That is, politics occurs when the assignment of identities and the associated obligations, liberties and rights to individuals and groups is contested. Institutions are relationships between individuals and/or groups that have been internalized creating a certain amount of stability. Political institutions are those relationships through which people exercise agency over certain articulated common understandings. In any society these will exist. And since they are relational between people(s) they must be perpetually reproduced.
National Acrobat: Complex social interactions require common understandings that provide the identities, interests, and preferences of the relevant actors as well as the role relations and power structure between those actors. Common understandings can be initiated by voluntary agreement. You don't need a political institution. National Acrobat:Politics can be understood as the negotiation of these common understandings. Overly broad definition of politics, I think, because in a context of pure individualism you can have the exact same policy as in a socialist-ethic-based system if everyone agrees on the same policy. That is to say that in political decision making, one person decides for everyone and everyone is forced to accept the result. But in a system of pervasive individualism, you could obtain the same result through unanimous decision in theory, although you need not. You could also have six solutions if six camps settled on different solutions. National Acrobat:That is, politics occurs when the assignment of identities and the associated obligations, liberties and rights to individuals and groups is contested. What does that mean in real terms? This reads like freshmen-speak trying to bullshit their way through a paper. The assignment of identities? What sort of identities. Obligations can never be assigned, it is tyranny to assign obligations. Obligations can only be accepted by the individual ethically. Liberties, rights, and etc., can all be established by agreement sans political institutions, and correllated with property. National Acrobat:Institutions are relationships between individuals and/or groups that have been internalized creating a certain amount of stability. So a contract is an institution now? Seems an overly broad definition. An institution is an organization tasked with a specific purpose. All organizations have the effect of limiting the choices of their members towards some positive end. An institution need not be political, a business is an organization all the same. National Acrobat:Political institutions are those relationships through which people exercise agency over certain articulated common understandings. Again, this is a bit obtuse, but it sounds like you're saying that if a group decides that people shouldn't commit murder then they'll hire someone to make sure no one commits murder? Thus having agency over a common understanding? You don't need a political institution to do that. Here's what a political institution does: They exercise power over other people. That's what makes them political. The question is whether you can achieve the same or very similar outcome of what people use government institutions for using voluntary / non-political institutions where coercion is never used. I think you certainly can and have been doing a lot of thinking of how exactly this could take place in a way I've not seen others talk about. National Acrobat:In any society these will exist. And since they are relational between people(s) they must be perpetually reproduced. I disagree entirely. You don't NEED aggressive-coercion to exist in society, we could not hold to the NAP if that were not possible. Political institutions are not merely relational organizations between people, they are also explicitly aggressive. There's no reason why you cannot have voluntary institutions that accomplish the same thing, it just requires different premises, one of which being complete private ownership of all things in society, including roads, as I'd said. This will help: why don't you name something you think only a political institution can do in society and I will elaborate how a free society could achieve the same purpose, should it need to. Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling. | Post Points: 20
Complex social interactions require common understandings that provide the identities, interests, and preferences of the relevant actors as well as the role relations and power structure between those actors.
Common understandings can be initiated by voluntary agreement. You don't need a political institution.
National Acrobat:Politics can be understood as the negotiation of these common understandings.
Overly broad definition of politics, I think, because in a context of pure individualism you can have the exact same policy as in a socialist-ethic-based system if everyone agrees on the same policy.
That is to say that in political decision making, one person decides for everyone and everyone is forced to accept the result. But in a system of pervasive individualism, you could obtain the same result through unanimous decision in theory, although you need not. You could also have six solutions if six camps settled on different solutions.
National Acrobat:That is, politics occurs when the assignment of identities and the associated obligations, liberties and rights to individuals and groups is contested.
What does that mean in real terms? This reads like freshmen-speak trying to bullshit their way through a paper. The assignment of identities? What sort of identities. Obligations can never be assigned, it is tyranny to assign obligations. Obligations can only be accepted by the individual ethically. Liberties, rights, and etc., can all be established by agreement sans political institutions, and correllated with property.
National Acrobat:Institutions are relationships between individuals and/or groups that have been internalized creating a certain amount of stability.
So a contract is an institution now? Seems an overly broad definition. An institution is an organization tasked with a specific purpose. All organizations have the effect of limiting the choices of their members towards some positive end. An institution need not be political, a business is an organization all the same.
National Acrobat:Political institutions are those relationships through which people exercise agency over certain articulated common understandings.
Again, this is a bit obtuse, but it sounds like you're saying that if a group decides that people shouldn't commit murder then they'll hire someone to make sure no one commits murder? Thus having agency over a common understanding? You don't need a political institution to do that.
Here's what a political institution does: They exercise power over other people.
That's what makes them political. The question is whether you can achieve the same or very similar outcome of what people use government institutions for using voluntary / non-political institutions where coercion is never used.
I think you certainly can and have been doing a lot of thinking of how exactly this could take place in a way I've not seen others talk about.
National Acrobat:In any society these will exist. And since they are relational between people(s) they must be perpetually reproduced.
I disagree entirely. You don't NEED aggressive-coercion to exist in society, we could not hold to the NAP if that were not possible. Political institutions are not merely relational organizations between people, they are also explicitly aggressive. There's no reason why you cannot have voluntary institutions that accomplish the same thing, it just requires different premises, one of which being complete private ownership of all things in society, including roads, as I'd said.
This will help: why don't you name something you think only a political institution can do in society and I will elaborate how a free society could achieve the same purpose, should it need to.
There is usually a whole set of institutions, which also interact. The Irish pre-British-occupation are sometimes hold up as an example of a libertarian society, but still did they have (political) institutions.
National Acrobat:Complex social interactions require common understandings that provide the identities, interests, and preferences of the relevant actors as well as the role relations and power structure between those actors. Politics can be understood as the negotiation of these common understandings. That is, politics occurs when the assignment of identities and the associated obligations, liberties and rights to individuals and groups is contested. Institutions are relationships between individuals and/or groups that have been internalized creating a certain amount of stability. Political institutions are those relationships through which people exercise agency over certain articulated common understandings. In any society these will exist. And since they are relational between people(s) they must be perpetually reproduced.
Substantiate this. I don't necessarily agree with any or all of it.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Anenome: Common understandings can be initiated by voluntary agreement. You don't need a political institution. First thing, you’ve disregarded the conception of politics I’ve put forward, substituting your own and reading into my post what you want. I’m assuming you’re using the Oppenheimer (or similar to) conception of political (violent) vs. economic (voluntary) relations. Therefore, politics to you means by definition aggressive violence. The problem with that is that aggression is not value neutral. What constitutes aggression is dependent upon theoretical consideration that can vary. So the aggression vs. voluntary distinction to me is in itself completely useless as it’s a product of more fundamental considerations. For libertarians considerations about property. Overly broad definition of politics, I think, because in a context of pure individualism you can have the exact same policy as in a socialist-ethic-based system if everyone agrees on the same policy. That is to say that in political decision making, one person decides for everyone and everyone is forced to accept the result. But in a system of pervasive individualism, you could obtain the same result through unanimous decision in theory, although you need not. You could also have six solutions if six camps settled on different solutions. Who determines the terms of the ‘system of pervasive individualism’? Basically, my read of libertarian theory (and more generally, about every liberal theory) is that these terms are moved out of the realm of politics, out of the realm of human decision making and are reified into natural, or axiomatic, or God-given terms that are inherent to the world. Ironically enough this ends up being a political decision that is forced upon people that is beyond negotiation. The terms of your individualist ground rules are common understandings that are contingent upon the parties to that understanding and therefore not absolute or objective. You’re taking your own politics for granted and then claiming you’re free of politics. What does that mean in real terms? This reads like freshmen-speak trying to bullshit their way through a paper. The assignment of identities? What sort of identities. Obligations can never be assigned, it is tyranny to assign obligations. Obligations can only be accepted by the individual ethically. Liberties, rights, and etc., can all be established by agreement sans political institutions, and correllated with property. Possessing a given identity allows a person to act in a manner that is perceived as legitimate by others, it also restricts how they can act. A nobleman in medieval France, for example, could do certain things that were seen as legitimate. However, after the conditions of his identity (that of a nobleman) changed, he lost certain liberties and was relinquished of certain obligations. Again, you’re taking the status of the individual in your system for granted, when it is the product of politics. Property is a political institution. So a contract is an institution now? Seems an overly broad definition. An institution is an organization tasked with a specific purpose. All organizations have the effect of limiting the choices of their members towards some positive end. An institution need not be political, a business is an organization all the same. A contract is a type of institution, so is the organization. What is an organization other than a ‘relationship between individuals and/or groups that have been internalized creating a certain amount of stability’? The family is an institution. Property is an institution. Not all institutions are organizations. Again, this is a bit obtuse, but it sounds like you're saying that if a group decides that people shouldn't commit murder then they'll hire someone to make sure no one commits murder? Thus having agency over a common understanding? You don't need a political institution to do that. Here's what a political institution does: They exercise power over other people. That's what makes them political. The question is whether you can achieve the same or very similar outcome of what people use government institutions for using voluntary / non-political institutions where coercion is never used. I think you certainly can and have been doing a lot of thinking of how exactly this could take place in a way I've not seen others talk about. Political institutions allow people to formalize, manage, negotiate certain understandings. Libertarianism has these, as well as every other theory of social order. I disagree entirely. You don't NEED aggressive-coercion to exist in society, we could not hold to the NAP if that were not possible. Political institutions are not merely relational organizations between people, they are also explicitly aggressive. There's no reason why you cannot have voluntary institutions that accomplish the same thing, it just requires different premises, one of which being complete private ownership of all things in society, including roads, as I'd said. This will help: why don't you name something you think only a political institution can do in society and I will elaborate how a free society could achieve the same purpose, should it need to. One more time, you’re using your conception of politics as aggression to read my post. You’re not going to understand what I’m saying if you do that. What constitutes aggression is contingent upon deeper theories. Aggression is not a category that is inherent in the world. It is an interpretation of behavior. Aggression depends on your value judgments, so defining politics according to aggression will presume some value judgment, which itself is subject to politics. It makes no sense to do this.
First thing, you’ve disregarded the conception of politics I’ve put forward, substituting your own and reading into my post what you want. I’m assuming you’re using the Oppenheimer (or similar to) conception of political (violent) vs. economic (voluntary) relations. Therefore, politics to you means by definition aggressive violence. The problem with that is that aggression is not value neutral. What constitutes aggression is dependent upon theoretical consideration that can vary.
So the aggression vs. voluntary distinction to me is in itself completely useless as it’s a product of more fundamental considerations. For libertarians considerations about property.
Overly broad definition of politics, I think, because in a context of pure individualism you can have the exact same policy as in a socialist-ethic-based system if everyone agrees on the same policy. That is to say that in political decision making, one person decides for everyone and everyone is forced to accept the result. But in a system of pervasive individualism, you could obtain the same result through unanimous decision in theory, although you need not. You could also have six solutions if six camps settled on different solutions.
Who determines the terms of the ‘system of pervasive individualism’?
Basically, my read of libertarian theory (and more generally, about every liberal theory) is that these terms are moved out of the realm of politics, out of the realm of human decision making and are reified into natural, or axiomatic, or God-given terms that are inherent to the world. Ironically enough this ends up being a political decision that is forced upon people that is beyond negotiation. The terms of your individualist ground rules are common understandings that are contingent upon the parties to that understanding and therefore not absolute or objective.
You’re taking your own politics for granted and then claiming you’re free of politics.
Possessing a given identity allows a person to act in a manner that is perceived as legitimate by others, it also restricts how they can act. A nobleman in medieval France, for example, could do certain things that were seen as legitimate. However, after the conditions of his identity (that of a nobleman) changed, he lost certain liberties and was relinquished of certain obligations.
Again, you’re taking the status of the individual in your system for granted, when it is the product of politics. Property is a political institution.
A contract is a type of institution, so is the organization. What is an organization other than a ‘relationship between individuals and/or groups that have been internalized creating a certain amount of stability’?
The family is an institution. Property is an institution. Not all institutions are organizations.
Again, this is a bit obtuse, but it sounds like you're saying that if a group decides that people shouldn't commit murder then they'll hire someone to make sure no one commits murder? Thus having agency over a common understanding? You don't need a political institution to do that. Here's what a political institution does: They exercise power over other people. That's what makes them political. The question is whether you can achieve the same or very similar outcome of what people use government institutions for using voluntary / non-political institutions where coercion is never used. I think you certainly can and have been doing a lot of thinking of how exactly this could take place in a way I've not seen others talk about.
Political institutions allow people to formalize, manage, negotiate certain understandings. Libertarianism has these, as well as every other theory of social order.
I disagree entirely. You don't NEED aggressive-coercion to exist in society, we could not hold to the NAP if that were not possible. Political institutions are not merely relational organizations between people, they are also explicitly aggressive. There's no reason why you cannot have voluntary institutions that accomplish the same thing, it just requires different premises, one of which being complete private ownership of all things in society, including roads, as I'd said. This will help: why don't you name something you think only a political institution can do in society and I will elaborate how a free society could achieve the same purpose, should it need to.
One more time, you’re using your conception of politics as aggression to read my post. You’re not going to understand what I’m saying if you do that. What constitutes aggression is contingent upon deeper theories. Aggression is not a category that is inherent in the world. It is an interpretation of behavior. Aggression depends on your value judgments, so defining politics according to aggression will presume some value judgment, which itself is subject to politics. It makes no sense to do this.
Autolykos: Substantiate this. I don't necessarily agree with any or all of it.
I don't care if you agree with it or not
National Acrobat: Anenome:Common understandings can be initiated by voluntary agreement. You don't need a political institution. First thing, you’ve disregarded the conception of politics I’ve put forward, substituting your own and reading into my post what you want. I’m assuming you’re using the Oppenheimer (or similar to) conception of political (violent) vs. economic (voluntary) relations. Therefore, politics to you means by definition aggressive violence. Of course, it's the only meaningful definition. Politics occurs when one group is trying to decide what to force on another group. If you remove the force relationship politics dissapears. In a free society absent force-relationships or organizations, there would also be no politics. National Acrobat:The problem with that is that aggression is not value neutral. No, it's rights that are not value neutral. Determining the violation of rights/property, ie: aggression, is easy under any good definition of property and rights. All aggression involves an invasion. So the real problem in determining an aggression lies in delineating property boundaries, and we delineate those boundaries through the various concepts of rights. National Acrobat: What constitutes aggression is dependent upon theoretical consideration that can vary. I'm not arguing there's only one valid set of rights. But within any one context my statement is accurate. And any free society would build from a particular context (while also allowing other rights-context's to exist alongside, and may the best society win the most adherents). National Acrobat:So the aggression vs. voluntary distinction to me is in itself completely useless as it’s a product of more fundamental considerations. For libertarians considerations about property. Completely disagree. National Acrobat: Overly broad definition of politics, I think, because in a context of pure individualism you can have the exact same policy as in a socialist-ethic-based system if everyone agrees on the same policy. That is to say that in political decision making, one person decides for everyone and everyone is forced to accept the result. But in a system of pervasive individualism, you could obtain the same result through unanimous decision in theory, although you need not. You could also have six solutions if six camps settled on different solutions. Who determines the terms of the ‘system of pervasive individualism’? To even ask this question means a failure of understanding how a free society could come about. It comes about via ad hoc agreement, through individual choice. The society begins with one person and an intention. They create an agreement with another of terms of long-term association. Others can join in under the system as they desire. This initial document serving as the basis of relationship would be something like Rothbard's idea of a basic legal code. So who determines the terms? Each individual who's interested in joining a free society. In practice there would probably be a few of these documents competing for adherents. National Acrobat:Basically, my read of libertarian theory (and more generally, about every liberal theory) is that these terms are moved out of the realm of politics, out of the realm of human decision making and are reified into natural, or axiomatic, or God-given terms that are inherent to the world. No. That's the basis for the theory behind them, necessary for initial development, but the common person interested in living in a free society could care less and won't have to be educated on them. They'll simply choose the one they like or create their own. Thus, the basic libertarian legal code comes about as a function of organic private law, able to be changed at will, sans elections, sans politics, for no one is forcing anyone, etc. National Acrobat:Ironically enough this ends up being a political decision that is forced upon people that is beyond negotiation. Wrong. Entirely wrong. What would be the point in creating a system based on voluntaryism that isn't also established via voluntary means. National Acrobat:The terms of your individualist ground rules are common understandings that are contingent upon the parties to that understanding and therefore not absolute or objective. This is completely true. And it doesn't need to be absolute or objective, that's the wonderful thing. It only needs to be negotiable, and the market for law will produce the rest via individual contact and agreement over time. Which means in a society predicated on individualism, the society should get more individualist over time, creeping individualism, rather than our current experience of creeping socialism within societies predicated on the socialist-ethic, such as the USA and all modern democracies. National Acrobat:You’re taking your own politics for granted and then claiming you’re free of politics. Completely false. And I hope you can see why now that I've elaborated. I don't take even my own politics for granted or assume that it's the correct one. I assume only that if people were allowed to freely form ad hoc agreements that my own politics would naturally result, and that a society lacking force to establish the premises of a society is also thereby free of politics. I believe that to be accurate. National Acrobat: What does that mean in real terms? This reads like freshmen-speak trying to bullshit their way through a paper. The assignment of identities? What sort of identities. Obligations can never be assigned, it is tyranny to assign obligations. Obligations can only be accepted by the individual ethically. Liberties, rights, and etc., can all be established by agreement sans political institutions, and correllated with property. Possessing a given identity allows a person to act in a manner that is perceived as legitimate by others, it also restricts how they can act. A nobleman in medieval France, for example, could do certain things that were seen as legitimate. However, after the conditions of his identity (that of a nobleman) changed, he lost certain liberties and was relinquished of certain obligations. Again, you’re taking the status of the individual in your system for granted, when it is the product of politics. Property is a political institution. Nah, both the status of the individual and property can be established by agreement, by consent. It's true that they have to be established, but not true that they must be established by political means. It's true that any attempt to force individualist doctrines on the US would be using political means and would violate voluntarism. Which is only one reason why I don't favor libertarian involvement in US politics, but support secession via seasteading: "seacession" to coin a term. National Acrobat: Again, this is a bit obtuse, but it sounds like you're saying that if a group decides that people shouldn't commit murder then they'll hire someone to make sure no one commits murder? Thus having agency over a common understanding? You don't need a political institution to do that. Here's what a political institution does: They exercise power over other people. That's what makes them political. The question is whether you can achieve the same or very similar outcome of what people use government institutions for using voluntary / non-political institutions where coercion is never used. Political institutions allow people to formalize, manage, negotiate certain understandings. Libertarianism has these, as well as every other theory of social order. Again, you don't need a political institution for that, you just need agreement. Politics exists to force the dissenter to accept something. In a voluntaryist concept, you simply exclude the dissenter, you don't force them, creating islands of consent around particular policies, which would look a lot like venn-diagram-policies, with various ones overlapping here and there and everywhere. Want a society that keeps guns out but also is vegetarian? Those two policies overlap here and there. Want one that's vegetarian but allows guns? That overlaps next door to the one that keeps them out. People segmenting and organizing themselves along value lines. Without needing to force policies on others! National Acrobat: I disagree entirely. You don't NEED aggressive-coercion to exist in society, we could not hold to the NAP if that were not possible. Political institutions are not merely relational organizations between people, they are also explicitly aggressive. There's no reason why you cannot have voluntary institutions that accomplish the same thing, it just requires different premises, one of which being complete private ownership of all things in society, including roads, as I'd said. This will help: why don't you name something you think only a political institution can do in society and I will elaborate how a free society could achieve the same purpose, should it need to. One more time, you’re using your conception of politics as aggression to read my post. Well, I think it's the right one. Do me the favor of elaborating yours again briefly if you would, or link me to your original comment on it. National Acrobat:You’re not going to understand what I’m saying if you do that. What constitutes aggression is contingent upon deeper theories. Aggression is not a category that is inherent in the world. It is an interpretation of behavior. Aggression depends on your value judgments, so defining politics according to aggression will presume some value judgment, which itself is subject to politics. It makes no sense to do this. Nah, again, rights and property lines is where the value judgment comes in. Once you have that, aggression is easily established objectively. For instance, if you have a context of well established property boundaries, then it's an objective matter whether or not someone has illegitimately crossed that boundary without permission, and thus easily established. Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling. | Post Points: 5
Anenome:Common understandings can be initiated by voluntary agreement. You don't need a political institution.
First thing, you’ve disregarded the conception of politics I’ve put forward, substituting your own and reading into my post what you want. I’m assuming you’re using the Oppenheimer (or similar to) conception of political (violent) vs. economic (voluntary) relations. Therefore, politics to you means by definition aggressive violence.
Of course, it's the only meaningful definition. Politics occurs when one group is trying to decide what to force on another group. If you remove the force relationship politics dissapears. In a free society absent force-relationships or organizations, there would also be no politics.
National Acrobat:The problem with that is that aggression is not value neutral.
No, it's rights that are not value neutral. Determining the violation of rights/property, ie: aggression, is easy under any good definition of property and rights. All aggression involves an invasion. So the real problem in determining an aggression lies in delineating property boundaries, and we delineate those boundaries through the various concepts of rights.
National Acrobat: What constitutes aggression is dependent upon theoretical consideration that can vary.
I'm not arguing there's only one valid set of rights. But within any one context my statement is accurate. And any free society would build from a particular context (while also allowing other rights-context's to exist alongside, and may the best society win the most adherents).
National Acrobat:So the aggression vs. voluntary distinction to me is in itself completely useless as it’s a product of more fundamental considerations. For libertarians considerations about property.
Completely disagree.
National Acrobat: Overly broad definition of politics, I think, because in a context of pure individualism you can have the exact same policy as in a socialist-ethic-based system if everyone agrees on the same policy. That is to say that in political decision making, one person decides for everyone and everyone is forced to accept the result. But in a system of pervasive individualism, you could obtain the same result through unanimous decision in theory, although you need not. You could also have six solutions if six camps settled on different solutions. Who determines the terms of the ‘system of pervasive individualism’?
To even ask this question means a failure of understanding how a free society could come about. It comes about via ad hoc agreement, through individual choice. The society begins with one person and an intention. They create an agreement with another of terms of long-term association. Others can join in under the system as they desire. This initial document serving as the basis of relationship would be something like Rothbard's idea of a basic legal code.
So who determines the terms? Each individual who's interested in joining a free society. In practice there would probably be a few of these documents competing for adherents.
National Acrobat:Basically, my read of libertarian theory (and more generally, about every liberal theory) is that these terms are moved out of the realm of politics, out of the realm of human decision making and are reified into natural, or axiomatic, or God-given terms that are inherent to the world.
No. That's the basis for the theory behind them, necessary for initial development, but the common person interested in living in a free society could care less and won't have to be educated on them. They'll simply choose the one they like or create their own.
Thus, the basic libertarian legal code comes about as a function of organic private law, able to be changed at will, sans elections, sans politics, for no one is forcing anyone, etc.
National Acrobat:Ironically enough this ends up being a political decision that is forced upon people that is beyond negotiation.
Wrong. Entirely wrong. What would be the point in creating a system based on voluntaryism that isn't also established via voluntary means.
National Acrobat:The terms of your individualist ground rules are common understandings that are contingent upon the parties to that understanding and therefore not absolute or objective.
This is completely true. And it doesn't need to be absolute or objective, that's the wonderful thing. It only needs to be negotiable, and the market for law will produce the rest via individual contact and agreement over time.
Which means in a society predicated on individualism, the society should get more individualist over time, creeping individualism, rather than our current experience of creeping socialism within societies predicated on the socialist-ethic, such as the USA and all modern democracies.
National Acrobat:You’re taking your own politics for granted and then claiming you’re free of politics.
Completely false. And I hope you can see why now that I've elaborated. I don't take even my own politics for granted or assume that it's the correct one. I assume only that if people were allowed to freely form ad hoc agreements that my own politics would naturally result, and that a society lacking force to establish the premises of a society is also thereby free of politics. I believe that to be accurate.
National Acrobat: What does that mean in real terms? This reads like freshmen-speak trying to bullshit their way through a paper. The assignment of identities? What sort of identities. Obligations can never be assigned, it is tyranny to assign obligations. Obligations can only be accepted by the individual ethically. Liberties, rights, and etc., can all be established by agreement sans political institutions, and correllated with property. Possessing a given identity allows a person to act in a manner that is perceived as legitimate by others, it also restricts how they can act. A nobleman in medieval France, for example, could do certain things that were seen as legitimate. However, after the conditions of his identity (that of a nobleman) changed, he lost certain liberties and was relinquished of certain obligations. Again, you’re taking the status of the individual in your system for granted, when it is the product of politics. Property is a political institution.
Nah, both the status of the individual and property can be established by agreement, by consent. It's true that they have to be established, but not true that they must be established by political means.
It's true that any attempt to force individualist doctrines on the US would be using political means and would violate voluntarism. Which is only one reason why I don't favor libertarian involvement in US politics, but support secession via seasteading: "seacession" to coin a term.
National Acrobat: Again, this is a bit obtuse, but it sounds like you're saying that if a group decides that people shouldn't commit murder then they'll hire someone to make sure no one commits murder? Thus having agency over a common understanding? You don't need a political institution to do that. Here's what a political institution does: They exercise power over other people. That's what makes them political. The question is whether you can achieve the same or very similar outcome of what people use government institutions for using voluntary / non-political institutions where coercion is never used. Political institutions allow people to formalize, manage, negotiate certain understandings. Libertarianism has these, as well as every other theory of social order.
Again, this is a bit obtuse, but it sounds like you're saying that if a group decides that people shouldn't commit murder then they'll hire someone to make sure no one commits murder? Thus having agency over a common understanding? You don't need a political institution to do that. Here's what a political institution does: They exercise power over other people. That's what makes them political. The question is whether you can achieve the same or very similar outcome of what people use government institutions for using voluntary / non-political institutions where coercion is never used.
Again, you don't need a political institution for that, you just need agreement. Politics exists to force the dissenter to accept something. In a voluntaryist concept, you simply exclude the dissenter, you don't force them, creating islands of consent around particular policies, which would look a lot like venn-diagram-policies, with various ones overlapping here and there and everywhere.
Want a society that keeps guns out but also is vegetarian? Those two policies overlap here and there. Want one that's vegetarian but allows guns? That overlaps next door to the one that keeps them out. People segmenting and organizing themselves along value lines. Without needing to force policies on others!
National Acrobat: I disagree entirely. You don't NEED aggressive-coercion to exist in society, we could not hold to the NAP if that were not possible. Political institutions are not merely relational organizations between people, they are also explicitly aggressive. There's no reason why you cannot have voluntary institutions that accomplish the same thing, it just requires different premises, one of which being complete private ownership of all things in society, including roads, as I'd said. This will help: why don't you name something you think only a political institution can do in society and I will elaborate how a free society could achieve the same purpose, should it need to. One more time, you’re using your conception of politics as aggression to read my post.
One more time, you’re using your conception of politics as aggression to read my post.
Well, I think it's the right one. Do me the favor of elaborating yours again briefly if you would, or link me to your original comment on it.
National Acrobat:You’re not going to understand what I’m saying if you do that. What constitutes aggression is contingent upon deeper theories. Aggression is not a category that is inherent in the world. It is an interpretation of behavior. Aggression depends on your value judgments, so defining politics according to aggression will presume some value judgment, which itself is subject to politics. It makes no sense to do this.
Nah, again, rights and property lines is where the value judgment comes in. Once you have that, aggression is easily established objectively.
For instance, if you have a context of well established property boundaries, then it's an objective matter whether or not someone has illegitimately crossed that boundary without permission, and thus easily established.