I've heard it said that anarchy is heartless. I think this is a mistake. Under anarchy there's nothing to stop individuals from engaging in altruistic behavior. Individuals can be as charitable and generous as they wish. The point is, nobody is forcing anyone else to be charitable.
Under the present collectivist state model, property is forceably redistributed to those whom the state feels deserves it most. There's nothing particularly compassionate here since it's usually the most politically connected who benefit, not the most needy. Additionally, when people have their property forceably transferred to someone else, it tends to absolve them of any personal responsibility for helping others. Why should I help my neighbor if the state is taking care of him?
Under anarchy, two things would happen. First, people would have more money to be generous with, so charitable donations would increase. But secondly, and more importantly, there would be a reawakened sense of helping the less fortunate, which would lead to an increase in compassionate behavior and improved personal morality. It's no coincidence that personal immmorality and selfishness have increased under the welfare state.
Anarchy is not heartless. It is the most compassionate way to live.
I agree with your general point but let me try to clarify something. Acts of benevolence are not necessarily altruistic. I don't think that altruism and benevolence or kindness are the same thing. Altruism is an ideology of pure self-sacrifice. According to altruism, the primary virtue is to serve others completely irrespective of oneself. But in my view, all acts of genuine charity are fundamentally done out of self-interest, because one genuinely values what they are giving to voluntarily. Social cooperation, common courtesy and acts of true kindness are not the result of altruism but of mutual self-interest. People have a natural incentive to associate with eachother precisely out of their self-interest, and in an anarchy I think that this incentive is intesified. Herbert Spencer noted in "Social Statics" that people respect the rights of others in direct proportion to their respect for their own rights. I think this underscores my point quite well.
William Graham Sumner once stated: "If I want to be free from any other man’s dictation, I must understand that I can have no other man under my control." While it might not quite have been his intention, this underscores that not harming others is in everyone's mutual self-interest. There in fact is no conflict between people's rational self-interest and remaining ethical. In a self-interested sense, I don't harm other people because I realize that it establishes a precedent that will return to haunt me. And my empathy for others stems from my regaurd for myself, so there is nothing contradictary between self-interest and charitable acts either. In either case, if the principle of individual sovereignty holds true, then it must be universally applied to all human beings. And if it is universally applied to all human beings, then each individual must effectively be shielded from invasion/aggression by the other. The non-aggression principle represents this quite well.
There really is no such thing as an altruist, since in order to consistantly be an altruist one must cease to exist. For if the purpose of life is to sacrifice it, then the logical result is non-existance or death. Since humans are rational animals that are concious and self-aware, they have egos by their very natures. At least on a fundamental level, all people are egoists in order to fulfill the basic requirements for maintaining their lives. It is impossible for someone to exist and act in a manner that completely disregaurds themselves. Altruism as a philosophy cannot be universally applied to all human beings, let alone one human being, unless we consider it a philosophy of mutual self-destruction. In practise, one individual or group is being asked (or, more accurately, forced) to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of another individual or group. This is not charity or kindess or benevolence, it is a master-slave relationship.
So I'm basically a rational egoist, although I've never been an Objectivist. The basic gist of what I'm saying was espoused by people long before Ayn Rand ever uttered a word about it. And of course miss Rand was guilty of not taking her own philosophy to its logical conclusion: free market anarchism. Anyways, I apologize if this post seems nit-picky or off-topic, but I think that there were some philosophical fundamentals that needed to be addressed before we can get into the nitty gritty of the question of selfishness and benevolence under an anarchy. I couldn't help but get into this when I saw the word altruism used, and it seemed to me that you were falling into the fallicious assumption that altruism is good and/or that it equates to kindness and charity in itself, which is not the case.
Being somewhat of an Objectivist myself, I agree with most of what Brainpolice had to say.
Brainpolice: I agree with your general point but let me try to clarify something. Acts of benevolence are not necessarily altruistic. I don't think that altruism and benevolence or kindness are the same thing. Altruism is an ideology of pure self-sacrifice. According to altruism, the primary virtue is to serve others completely irrespective of oneself. But in my view, all acts of genuine charity are fundamentally done out of self-interest, because one genuinely values what they are giving to voluntarily. Social cooperation, common courtesy and acts of true kindness are not the result of altruism but of mutual self-interest. People have a natural incentive to associate with eachother precisely out of their self-interest, and in an anarchy I think that this incentive is intesified. Herbert Spencer noted in "Social Statics" that people respect the rights of others in direct proportion to their respect for their own rights. I think this underscores my point quite well. William Graham Sumner once stated: "If I want to be free from any other man’s dictation, I must understand that I can have no other man under my control." While it might not quite have been his intention, this underscores that not harming others is in everyone's mutual self-interest. There in fact is no conflict between people's rational self-interest and remaining ethical. In a self-interested sense, I don't harm other people because I realize that it establishes a precedent that will return to haunt me. And my empathy for others stems from my regaurd for myself, so there is nothing contradictary between self-interest and charitable acts either. In either case, if the principle of individual sovereignty holds true, then it must be universally applied to all human beings. And if it is universally applied to all human beings, then each individual must effectively be shielded from invasion/aggression by the other. The non-aggression principle represents this quite well. There really is no such thing as an altruist, since in order to consistantly be an altruist one must cease to exist. For if the purpose of life is to sacrifice it, then the logical result is non-existance or death. Since humans are rational animals that are concious and self-aware, they have egos by their very natures. At least on a fundamental level, all people are egoists in order to fulfill the basic requirements for maintaining their lives. It is impossible for someone to exist and act in a manner that completely disregaurds themselves. Altruism as a philosophy cannot be universally applied to all human beings, let alone one human being, unless we consider it a philosophy of mutual self-destruction. In practise, one individual or group is being asked (or, more accurately, forced) to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of another individual or group. This is not charity or kindess or benevolence, it is a master-slave relationship. So I'm basically a rational egoist, although I've never been an Objectivist. The basic gist of what I'm saying was espoused by people long before Ayn Rand ever uttered a word about it. And of course miss Rand was guilty of not taking her own philosophy to its logical conclusion: free market anarchism. Anyways, I apologize if this post seems nit-picky or off-topic, but I think that there were some philosophical fundamentals that needed to be addressed before we can get into the nitty gritty of the question of selfishness and benevolence under an anarchy. I couldn't help but get into this when I saw the word altruism used, and it seemed to me that you were falling into the fallicious assumption that altruism is good and/or that it equates to kindness and charity in itself, which is not the case.
Wonderful post. I've always thought that benevolence was a fundamental part of one's self-interest, and not just an irrational sentiment.
Thank you Brainpolice for your thoughtful post. First let me say I don't disagree with you at all. My use of the word "altruism" was sloppy. And I don't recommend pure selflessness. As you rightly point out the logical end result of altruism (or pure selflessness) is self-destruction and death. I'd actually go further than that and say that in the strictest sense of the word, there is in fact no such thing as selflessness. Since all purposeful action (as opposed to involuntary or instinctual behavior) involves ends and means, and therefore intent, all action is rational and selfish, at least from the point of view of the actor. Even suicide is rational and selfish to the person committing it. So altruism cannot actually exist except as an idea. When put into practice it necessarily becomes selfish behavior, and is therefore self-contradicting. Selfless acts (in the strictest sense) are selfish.
Which leads me to another question. What is the nature of benevolence? Assuming nothing is expected in return, people "give" to others because they feel that the psychic benefit of giving outweighs the material loss of the gift. And so long as the person receiving the gift requests it (either implicitly or explicitly) or doesn't object to it, the recipient's material gain from the gift outweighs any psychic loss (such as embarrassment etc) from receiving it. There is in fact nothing at all wrong in giving money to the beggar in the street. It's a voluntary mutually beneficial exchange.
But what of a gift that hasn't been requested? Couldn't this be coercive? Who am I, the giver, to decide whether my "gift" is actually benefitting the other person? It could be that, for them, the material gain from the gift doesn't outweigh the psychic loss from receiving it. It could be that they don't even consider it a gift at all. My gift might be someone else's ball and chain. The recipient can always refuse the gift and deny the exchange, but if I force them into acceptance then surely this is coercive.
leonidia: I'd actually go further than that and say that in the strictest sense of the word, there is in fact no such thing as selflessness. Since all purposeful action (as opposed to involuntary or instinctual behavior) involves ends and means, and therefore intent, all action is rational and selfish, at least from the point of view of the actor. Even suicide is rational and selfish to the person committing it. So altruism cannot actually exist except as an idea. When put into practice it necessarily becomes selfish behavior, and is therefore self-contradicting. Selfless acts (in the strictest sense) are selfish.
I'd actually go further than that and say that in the strictest sense of the word, there is in fact no such thing as selflessness. Since all purposeful action (as opposed to involuntary or instinctual behavior) involves ends and means, and therefore intent, all action is rational and selfish, at least from the point of view of the actor. Even suicide is rational and selfish to the person committing it. So altruism cannot actually exist except as an idea. When put into practice it necessarily becomes selfish behavior, and is therefore self-contradicting. Selfless acts (in the strictest sense) are selfish.
It's funny that you mention this, because I came to the same realization today. However, I wonder if altruism and selflessness can't survive as concepts demonstrable in action if only we redefined them to where they should have been all along.
Here's my first attempt: We'll imagine a Giver and a Beggar. A voluntary exchange will take place with the Beggar profiting in the form of $20 and the Giver profiting in the form of psychic improvement. Now, it is correct, in a way, to say that the Giver was acting in his own self-interest, as he clearly felt (consciously or not) that his circumstances would be improved by giving the $20 to the beggar relative to keeping the money in his own pocket. If not, he would not have done so--that much is axiomatic.
But I think there might be a distinction to be made in the origins of interpersonal profits, and whether the actor finds the origin of his profit from within himself or as a direct result of the other trader's action. To return to our example of the Giver and the Beggar, we find that the Beggar's profit ($20) comes as a direct result of the Giver's action (the catalyst of B's profit is G). On the other hand, the Giver finds his profit (psychic gain) coming as a direct result of his own action (the catalyst of G's profit is G). The Beggar did not of his own volition "give" or "trade" psychic gain to the Giver. The profit origin model of altruism might look like this:
1.) X profits on account of Y's action
and...
2.) Y profits on account of Y's action
This makes it easy to distinguish apparently (perhaps superficially) altruistic trade from what we consider normal, (hard-)selfish trade. In a normal trade, X will profit from Y (X received Y's $2.99) and Y will profit from X (Y received X's hamburger). This is a different model of profit origin from the altruism model.
Now, if we accept this, it does not mean that the "altruism model" pertains to actual altruistic actions. Obviously, what's self-interested is self-interested, regardless of the origin of profit. But this distinction does, I think, allow us to observe apparently altruistic actions and retain the use of the word. Mother Teresa sure didn't appear to be selfish. Maybe, in a particular manner of speaking, she doesn't have to be.
"Melody is a form of remembrance. It must have a quality of inevitability in our ears." - Gian Carlo Menotti
Dynamix:But I think there might be a distinction to be made in the origins of interpersonal profits, and whether the actor finds the origin of his profit from within himself or as a direct result of the other trader's action. To return to our example of the Giver and the Beggar, we find that the Beggar's profit ($20) comes as a direct result of the Giver's action (the catalyst of B's profit is G). On the other hand, the Giver finds his profit (psychic gain) coming as a direct result of his own action (the catalyst of G's profit is G). The Beggar did not of his own volition "give" or "trade" psychic gain to the Giver.
I think you make a very interesting point. However, can we really say that it's G's action alone that causes his gain? When we think of giving, we naturally tend to focus on the giver's action because the material goods are flowing from him. But if for a minute we abandon any distinction between material and pyschic goods, and just think of them simply as "goods", isn't it true to say that the goods G receives (in this case pyschic ones) are really coming from B? Would G recieve any pyschic satisfaction at all if B took the gift and threw it away in disgust? Surely B has to accept the gift, and be at least minimally appreciative. It's this appreciation (or at least the thought of it) that is G's pyschic gain. It's the "thank-you", or the smile on B's face that are the goods that B transfers to G. And even if one argues that someone like Mother Theresa doesn't expect any demonstrable appreciation from B, she must believe B appreciates her actions at some level, or there would be no point in doing what she does.
So what can we say about all this this? B acts by accepting the gift. By accepting the gift, B demonstrates his appreciation to G. The appreciation may or may not be demonstrable, but is self-evident or B wouldn't have accepted the gift in the first place. It is this appreciation that is the "good" that B transfers to G. Of course the feeling, which is how G enjoys his profit, comes from within G's own brain, but without B's action this feeling could never arise.
Dynamix:But this distinction does, I think, allow us to observe apparently altruistic actions and retain the use of the word. Mother Teresa sure didn't appear to be selfish. Maybe, in a particular manner of speaking, she doesn't have to be.
See if you can find a paper called The Diabolical Works of Mother Teresa. The only thing I can find on the web now is an article with a few quotes http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0105/S00025.htm
leonidia:I think you make a very interesting point. However, can we really say that it's G's action alone that causes his gain? When we think of giving, we naturally tend to focus on the giver's action because the material goods are flowing from him. But if for a minute we abandon any distinction between material and pyschic goods, and just think of them simply as "goods", isn't it true to say that the goods G receives (in this case pyschic ones) are really coming from B? Would G recieve any pyschic satisfaction at all if B took the gift and threw it away in disgust? Surely B has to accept the gift, and be at least minimally appreciative. It's this appreciation (or at least the thought of it) that is G's pyschic gain. It's the "thank-you", or the smile on B's face that are the goods that B transfers to G. And even if one argues that someone like Mother Theresa doesn't expect any demonstrable appreciation from B, she must believe B appreciates her actions at some level, or there would be no point in doing what she does. So what can we say about all this this? B acts by accepting the gift. By accepting the gift, B demonstrates his appreciation to G. The appreciation may or may not be demonstrable, but is self-evident or B wouldn't have accepted the gift in the first place. It is this appreciation that is the "good" that B transfers to G. Of course the feeling, which is how G enjoys his profit, comes from within G's own brain, but without B's action this feeling could never arise.
I'm not sure that B's favorable reaction eliminates the possibility of G finding the (or a...more on this later) profit origin within himself. We might imagine, for example, that B takes a look at the $20 that G gave him (let's say G dropped it in B's open guitar case) and shuns it in disgust. G walks away smiling in contentment, profiting from the "exchange" despite B's hostility. Why? Because G believes in giving. To him, it is a nonnegotiable requirement of his deontological ethic. We might observe the same thing if G were to lay the $20 next to B while B was sleeping. No positive response, but profit nonetheless. It's easy to see (especially in the latter example) that G must find his profit origin within himself. Unless, of course, G was in the former example wanting a negative response, in which case B, as a result of fulfilling G's hoped-for expectations, became G's profit origin.
This leads me to something else. If G gives to B so that he can feel the satisfaction of a favorable response, then, yes, G's profit finds its origin in B, exchanging the "model" of altruism for the "model" of ordinary trade. This seems to fit our experience, too--giving to the poor for the purpose of stroking one's ego doesn't seem to be selfless at all; rather, it seems a facade. I think it's interesting that there seems to be a praxeological distinction to be made for this kind of "selfish giving."
Also, to go back to what I was alluding to in the beginning, I think we might observe multiple profit origins. B's favorable response to G's $20 might be considered an additional--and perhaps unanticipated--profit, rather than G's only profit (though, again, G doesn't require this kind of thankfulness in order to profit, as he may not particularly care what B thinks of his generosity).
And finally, it's possible that B's favorable response might nevertheless precede G's ex post estimation of praxeological loss if, say, G suddenly remembers that his gift to B was supposed to be his own dinner money. In this case as well we observe G's ex post estimate of return (P or L) as being isolated from any action on B's part.
I hope this works out. I have a vested interest in seeing altruism survive, and that required too much thinking, anyway, haha.
Paul:See if you can find a paper called The Diabolical Works of Mother Teresa. The only thing I can find on the web now is an article with a few quotes http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0105/S00025.htm
Wow, that's pretty heinous stuff. I'd be apt to read something from "the other side," before making a final, balanced judgment, but those quotes are pretty telling. What a shame. Well, not too big a shame for me: she was never anyone I looked up to, personally, though I can imagine this disappointing many others.
Parsidius:Wonderful post. I've always thought that benevolence was a fundamental part of one's self-interest, and not just an irrational sentiment.
I agree, but I don't think that benevolence is always in one's self-interest. If one's benevolence is repaid with indifference or malevolence, then continued benevolence devolves into altruism. Why cast pearls before swine, if you can't even expect a pork chop in return?
I just thought that it ough to be thrown down that virtue is dead where choice is absent. Being coerced into an act of kindness is not kindess on my behalf but the creation of slavery and most often times theft by a third agressor party. Forceful application of charitable and 'selfless' acts removes any virtue from the act or deed and places in its stead corruption and violence. Only when all men are free can virtue and compassion truly exist. To point a gun and force another to act virtuously is in itself not virtuous.
The state is a disease and Liberty is the both the victim and the only means to a lasting cure.
Right. There is no such thing as ethics or virtue in the abscence of choice. Someone cannot be forced to do good, they have to choose to do good. One cannot be held responsible for doing good (thus, one cannot be said to have virtue) if one is incapable of genuinely choosing to do so. I tend to think of Clockwork Orange when this comes up for some reason (since they took away Alex's ability to choose to do ill, they also took away his ability to genuinely do good; thus, his humanity and capacity for virtue was robbed of him).
ThorsMitersaw:Being coerced into an act of kindness is not kindess on my behalf but the creation of slavery and most often times theft by a third agressor party. Forceful application of charitable and 'selfless' acts removes any virtue from the act or deed and places in its stead corruption and violence.
When somebody asks me to donate, or if a bum asks me for change, I have five words for them: "I gave at the office". I already pay taxes, which the government claims to use to help "those in need". Why should I waste more money on the "needy" when the government wastes enough of my money for me?
Anarchism per se might not be heartless, but I certainly am. And I will remain heartless as long as I remain a serf.
Matthew Graybosch: ThorsMitersaw:Being coerced into an act of kindness is not kindess on my behalf but the creation of slavery and most often times theft by a third agressor party. Forceful application of charitable and 'selfless' acts removes any virtue from the act or deed and places in its stead corruption and violence. When somebody asks me to donate, or if a bum asks me for change, I have five words for them: "I gave at the office". I already pay taxes, which the government claims to use to help "those in need". Why should I waste more money on the "needy" when the government wastes enough of my money for me? Anarchism per se might not be heartless, but I certainly am. And I will remain heartless as long as I remain a serf.
well I certainely sympathize and indeed take the same stance myself. I feel no need to give to anyone like that based upon two things: dont encourage failure, teach a man to fish... and that I cannot afford charity. I do not have enough money to spare to help myself at times let alone a complete stranger who most likely is going to spend it on booze. Without taxes I would likely feel much less stringent with my money...
libertarian:Since there must be some non-altruistic persons, anarcho-capitalism would lead to a military dictatorship.
This is ridiculous. You are basically saying that since cirme exists, we must put criminals in charge. To hell with problems of regression? You assume as all people poisoned by hobesian arsenic of statism do, that A only the state may or can provide defense which shoudl be easy for anyone see past, that B the state can prevent monopolies of force from forming which is also obvious that they HELP to form monopolies and are a monopoly themselves, C that mans natural state is chaos and violence, that no two men can ever agree without resorting to violence without the oversight of a third.
that criminal behavior exists is no reason to submit to it. Liberty requires vigiliance
How on earth does it follow that if there are some non-altruistic persons, that anarcho-capitalism must lead to a miltiary dictatorship?
Inquisitor:How on earth does it follow that if there are some non-altruistic persons, that anarcho-capitalism must lead to a miltiary dictatorship?
*rolls eyes*
Using the false assumption that altruism is good, let's turn your own logic back around at you. If there are non-altruistic people, the government will therefore be constituted at least partially by them. Hence, to propose a government as the solution is self-defeating. Every negative aspect of human nature that you point to (even though I don't think that not being an altruist is a negative aspect of human nature) will apply equally to those within the state. They are human beings too, are they not? Except under a state, those same blue meanies have even more power, over everyone within a given territory to boot.
Using the correct assumption that monopoly is bad, let's turn your own logic back around at you. You are concerned that monopolies will rise, and then you suggest a monopoly on the use of force as the solution. If one does not want monopolies to form, what sense does it make to support currently existing monopolies out of fear that in the abscence of that monopoly, a new one will form? Do you not see the contradiction? You are describing a scenario in which a government forms as an arguement in defense of currently existing governments!
Furthermore, your above arguement is quite nonsensical. First, you claim that we already live under anarcho-capitalism. You then proceed to compare the current existing system to your assumptions of what would happen under anarcho-capitalism, clearly trying to distinguish between the two. Which is it? Do we currently live under anarcho-capitalism, or do we currently live under some kind of statism? Or are you argueing that anarcho-capitalism will inevitably lead to statism? Again, if that's the case, it hardly is an arguement FOR statism and AGAINST anarcho-capitalism; for even if we accept this flawed premise, at least anarcho-capitalism is the stage before statism takes hold.
As for private defense agencies being coercive and waging war against eachother, where do you pull this premise out from? Nowhere? What rational enterprenuer would engage in such a costly and risky endeavor? Isn't half the entire point of them being private that they are payed for voluntarily and the costs are internalized? How does coercion automatically follow from this? Even asuming that one defense agency tries to take over the others, do you not think that the others will have an incentive to band together to take the "rogue PDA" out? And since when is our "national defense" controlled by everyone, as if we have some kind of direct/participatory military democracy? The current military consists of collusion between government and particular private groups. It is not controlled by "the people" at all, and "the people" are forced to pay for it. That is true coercion.
We are already living in a anarcho-capitalist society.
Not really.
Imagine that all 200 countries are corporations. Anarcho-capitalism would lead to wars between these corporations.
Non sequitur. Countries are not corporations, nor will they ever be. They are monopolies on force. Their funds are acquired coercively. War is not profitable without taxation to externalize its costs.
Our national defense is democratically controlled.
In name.
Therefore there is no abuse of power.
By what standard?
Private defense is coercive. Coercion leads to monopolies. Therefore, private defense will lead to monopolies. Then, the private defense monopoly can use coercion to dictate its peoples. It is equivalent to a military dictatorship.
Again, non sequitur. This stems from seeing firms as countries. They are not. Your above critique applies to states; not to firms.
libertarian:We are already living in a anarcho-capitalist society.
libertarian:Imagine that all 200 countries are corporations. Anarcho-capitalism would lead to wars between these corporations.
libertarian:Our national defense is democratically controlled. Therefore there is no abuse of power.
libertarian:Private defense is coercive.
Whoa, whoa, no way we live in an anarcho-capitalist society. Obviously, we have a government so there's nothing anarchist about us in any way, shape, or form.
Our national defense is democratically controlled. Therefore there is no abuse of power.
Ha Ha Ha!
Peace
Everything to an extent is done with self-interest. Even religion. Why are profoundly religous individuals and groups doing charitable and good deeds and whatnot? It's because they've been promised to be rewarded with heaven in the afterlife. There is something being exchanged for something.
- Sir John David
Brainpolice:*rolls eyes* Even asuming that one defense agency tries to take over the others, do you not think that the others will have an incentive to band together to take the "rogue PDA" out? And since when is our "national defense" controlled by everyone, as if we have some kind of direct/participatory military democracy? The current military consists of collusion between government and particular private groups. It is not controlled by "the people" at all, and "the people" are forced to pay for it. That is true coercion.
Even asuming that one defense agency tries to take over the others, do you not think that the others will have an incentive to band together to take the "rogue PDA" out? And since when is our "national defense" controlled by everyone, as if we have some kind of direct/participatory military democracy? The current military consists of collusion between government and particular private groups. It is not controlled by "the people" at all, and "the people" are forced to pay for it. That is true coercion.
libertarian: Brainpolice:*rolls eyes* Even asuming that one defense agency tries to take over the others, do you not think that the others will have an incentive to band together to take the "rogue PDA" out? And since when is our "national defense" controlled by everyone, as if we have some kind of direct/participatory military democracy? The current military consists of collusion between government and particular private groups. It is not controlled by "the people" at all, and "the people" are forced to pay for it. That is true coercion. What if an entrepreneur owns a nuclear weapon? What if the wealthy owns all the weapons? What if upset people began a revolution like a communist revolution? What if some other country incrementally conquers our anarcho-capitalist society?
Why would any of this happen?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power