I was having a discussion tonight with a friend of mine who was a philosophy major (BA in History and the Classics ultimately, but with a strong foundation in Philosophy), and although I disagree with him it was difficult for me to defend the libertarian case on the spot, because admittedly I don't have a strong foundation in this part of anarchic theory.
He posed this example:
What if, in a small town, there was some type of gang which for some social reason (perhaps rascism) excluded a minority from owning property, setting up a business, et cetera. That minority would have no bounds in protecting itself, except bounds formed by their own means to do so. The fact of the matter is that the gang is more powerful than they are. In a free-market, if that minority is less powerful than those attacking it, how do they protect themselves?
He was assuming geographical limitations, whereas by doing so the gang does not risk business elsewhere (local entrepreneurs, more or less) by creating disincentives to trust them.
How would the minority protect themselves?
I then posed the question to him: How would government do a better job? And he said that perhaps it might just be a law, and government security enforces it.
In this specific case, how would I make the argument for libertarianism? It's as if I have a proper argument on the tip of my tongue, but because I don't have much experience in this area of political theory I think it might be wiser just to see what people here have to say about the topic.
And please, no snappy one-line comments on how, "Statists are stupid."
First: Statists are stupid.
I don't think your friend gave a satisfactory answer to your challenge. He has imagined a town in which the vast majority is violently racist; why would the town's government not reflect this racism? Why should we expect legislators, themselves elected by the racists, to make a law with which the majority do not agree and would probably ignore? White men were legally allowed to enslave black men for quite a while, after all. Your friend can't set these ludicrous conditions and then ignore them when you rightfully turn the question around on him.
And the standard free market answer, I imagine, is that the oppressed minority would leave for a town in which their labor is appreciated. That town will grow wealthier than the racist town, especially if the racists refuse to trade with any businesses that hire or are run by the minority. It is then up to an economist to rise and convince the people that their racism is worsening their quality of life.
Your friend has a point. It's very much possible for a group to exclude others in a anarchic society. They could even form a state.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:What if, in a small town, there was some type of gang which for some social reason (perhaps rascism) excluded a minority from owning property, setting up a business, et cetera.
Since the owners of a small town don't let me own their property, own a business on their property, et cetera, therefore we need state? What if I show up to your house, does the same apply?
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:That minority would have no bounds in protecting itself, except bounds formed by their own means to do so. The fact of the matter is that the gang is more powerful than they are. In a free-market, if that minority is less powerful than those attacking it, how do they protect themselves?
One assumption is that the town is privately owned. Thus, the town is allowing the Minority into the town as guests; however, since the owners providing the hospitality don't allow the guests to buy their land, set up a business on their land, et cetera, therefore, we need the state? If I show up to Disneyland, and the Disney allows me to enter the park, stay the hotel, wander about the park as a guest, what right do I have to buy a part of Disneyland, set up a business in Disneyland, et cetera?
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:He was assuming geographical limitations, whereas by doing so the gang does not risk business elsewhere (local entrepreneurs, more or less) by creating disincentives to trust them. How would the minority protect themselves?
This is a contradictory supposition. Why wouldn't the Minority be able to homestead or otherwise own the land around the town?
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:I then posed the question to him: How would government do a better job? And he said that perhaps it might just be a law, and government security enforces it.
So the Minority's right to the owners' property is superior to the owners' right to their own property?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: What if, in a small town, there was some type of gang which for some social reason (perhaps rascism) excluded a minority from owning property, setting up a business, et cetera. That minority would have no bounds in protecting itself, except bounds formed by their own means to do so. The fact of the matter is that the gang is more powerful than they are. In a free-market, if that minority is less powerful than those attacking it, how do they protect themselves?
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: How would government do a better job? And he said that perhaps it might just be a law, and government security enforces it.
How are law's made? I'll bet your friend is a democrat, or at least a majoritarian. Which way would this majority vote? Surely if they are willing to forcefully exclude individuals from public life, they are willing to have someone else pay a third party to do it for them?
Surely then, in a closed society/democracy, not only would racism be affected -- but it would be done at the cost of the taxpayer.
Look at history! Where has the greatest racism come from: the state or individuals and firms? Think of the Jim Crow laws etc.
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
Prashanth Perumal: Your friend has a point. It's very much possible for a group to exclude others in a anarchic society. They could even form a state.
This I think really hits the nail on the head. The example in the opening post is really no different from an example of a world which exists in a state of anarchy but where everyone is a totalitarian (or a minarchist), in favour of taxation and even happy to pay up himself, except for one person who is an anarchist. In such a scenario there is nothing the lone anarchist can do to prevent the rest of the world`s population from reforming the state and slapping a 90% (or a 10%) income tax on him. He is for all practical purposes a persecuted minority, his natural rights overriden by force and against his will.
Thedesolateone:Look at history! Where has the greatest racism come from: the state or individuals and firms? Think of the Jim Crow laws etc.
Guys, we need a standard way to think about all such objections, not ad hoc reasoning to deal with each one. I think it's easy when you realize that monopoly is the problem with Statism. Society is in a diseased condition; Statists try to argue that because all the world is covered with monopoly tumors (States), that this is normal and healthy. If we let that slide, we're left treading water in the argument from the start.
When talking to the uninitiated, I would say that anarchy (lack of monopoly) just results in better "democracy": better representation for the majority and for the minority. If most people in the scenario are racist, this will cause problems for minorities whether under anarchy or Statism, but they will be worse under Statism because there is a monopoly.
When there is monopoly, all laws are made for universal application within the territory of jurisdiction. The voice of the majority is rounded up to 100%, and the voices of all minorities are rounded down to 0%. There is no other voting system that works under our present political system, although many have been proposed. The reason no other voting system really works or improves on anything is that we have a monopoly. This is why we can only have accurate representation of people's preferences when there is no one single government presiding over a territory, no monopoly on force.
In this case, the primary harm caused by the monopoly would be allowing the majority to bring full-force universal laws against the minority with no recourse to protection agencies that would otherwise be available to protect them against the tyranny of the majority.
Why anarchy fails
scineram: If people were not racist neither would the state.
If people were not racist neither would the state.
That is not necessarily true when taking into account the severity of racism. Quite often the racism formalised in law or executive action is many times more severe than the level of racism existing in the natural society. Eg the level of anti-semitism was historicaly not a great deal higher in Germany than in some of the neigbouring countries, but the policies pursued by Nazis in relation to Jews were without a match in any of them. Also the state can propagate racism and increase the level of racism in the natural society by social engineering.
AJ:Guys, we need a standard way to think about all such objections, not ad hoc reasoning to deal with each one.
Daniel: Snip
Snip
Unfortunately, I don't think you understood the argument.
In a free-market, if that minority is less powerful than those attacking it, how do they protect themselves?
PDAs. They're not just your neighborhood grocer...
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:He posed this example: What if, in a small town, there was some type of gang which for some social reason (perhaps rascism) excluded a minority from owning property, setting up a business, et cetera.
What if, in a small town, there was some type of gang which for some social reason (perhaps rascism) excluded a minority from owning property, setting up a business, et cetera.
Is this about Rush Limbaugh's NFL bid?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
I think it comes down to this.
In regards to the racist majority forming laws, he referred specifically to the US government's 1950 and 1960 attempts to force racial integration as an example of government doing "good" and laws protecting the weak.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: In regards to the racist majority forming laws, he referred specifically to the US government's 1950 and 1960 attempts to force racial integration as an example of government doing "good" and laws protecting the weak.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:In regards to the racist majority forming laws, he referred specifically to the US government's 1950 and 1960 attempts to force racial integration as an example of government doing "good" and laws protecting the weak.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Yet he didn't apparently grasp that the segregation laws were created by the states and localities--aka governments. So he needs to understand that his objection has 0 merit.
Yet he didn't apparently grasp that the segregation laws were created by the states and localities--aka governments. So he needs to understand that his objection has 0 merit.
To be fair, in this case this is irrelevant. I am not suggesting that when considering the example of the United States this is not relevant, just that it is irrelevant to his make believe scenario. In this case, we are in an anarchic society and the fact of the matter is that the majority of a town for some reason colludes to deny a certain minority race to compete against them, or own property, through the use of force (they have monopolized force in that town). Had there been a larger government they would have been able to force integration, since they have a monopoly on force, not the armed force created by the majority racists.
I think, ultimately, the point is that the free market might not necessarily solve this in the sense that the minority race perhaps won't be able to live in that town. But, there is nothing forcing those minorities to leave and migrate to a town where they are accepted and they can form part of the labor force. Naturally, the town they migrate too would not be more productive than the town they left, so it equates to a long-run economic loss for the original town. This said, it's impossible to argue that all these things would be solved on the spot, and there would be obvious cases of the strong hurting the weak. I tried to make the argument that in the big picture, though, when this is the case there is nothing stopping the weak from leaving.
He said, "What if the weak don't want to leave?"
This all stemmed from an argument on human rationality. He does not believe humans are always rational (that is, they do not always operate on the basis of judging benefits and costs).
This may be circular and not exactly on target but I feel it has some value.
Just because someone creates a hypothetical, doesn't mean we have to be obligated to answer it. Molyneux talks about this. How you can get lost in an endless battle of facts and counterpoints. We're not expected to solve market problems theoretically. To do so, undermines the premise of human action not being best directed by central planning. For lack of better terminology, this happens when we go on defense, when we should be on offense. The statist has the burden of proof for how the state resolves such and such scenario.
When the opposite in debate claims the government can do something positive to fix the problem, then it is incumbent on us to point out the gun in the room. That the government can only act by undermining liberty. If your opposite believes that undermining liberty (using force) is acceptable, they cannot be reasoned with. You're wasting your time.
Now in this particular discussion, the opposite is proposing that a free market can lead to a state (group violence) so we need a state (group violence) to counteract the state (group violence).
Stripped to the essentials, his argument is self-refuting, one need only point it out.
Put the onus on them, to prove that violence and force can lead to liberty. Well conducted socratic inquiry will shock any sensitive individual into an epiphany.
If you're confronted by someone who wants you to prove human liberty, walk away.
If you're interested.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:To be fair, in this case this is irrelevant.
Remember: never ever fight on the enemy's terms. Turn the argument back upon him.
Utter nonsense. They always do. They will discount the value of monetary gain, however, as in this case. The parties involved cannot prohibit homesteading of unowned resources and consenting exchanges without thereby becoming criminals in the process. What if they have bigger "gangs"? 1) PDAs 2) Mutual defence 3) don't move there! Governments can both force more integration than is optimal and do the opposite too. There is no need for them. They themselves entrench permanent class division (ruled/rulers).
scineram: Thedesolateone:Look at history! Where has the greatest racism come from: the state or individuals and firms? Think of the Jim Crow laws etc.If people were not racist neither would the state.
So you're saying that the citizens of Nazi Germany were anti-Jooz and put Hitler into office because of this?
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: Daniel: Snip Unfortunately, I don't think you understood the argument.
Explain it to me then, because I don't understand why their would be a small-town government in an anarchic society.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: Prashanth Perumal: Your friend has a point. It's very much possible for a group to exclude others in a anarchic society. They could even form a state. I think it comes down to this. In regards to the racist majority forming laws, he referred specifically to the US government's 1950 and 1960 attempts to force racial integration as an example of government doing "good" and laws protecting the weak.
This is idiotic. The state was overturning its own laws and going even further by forcing people to integrate. How is this a case in point of there being something wrong with anarchy?
What does the thread's title have to do with the question posed in the OP?
liberty student: ... Now in this particular discussion, the opposite is proposing that a free market can lead to a state (group violence) so we need a state (group violence) to counteract the state (group violence)...
...
Now in this particular discussion, the opposite is proposing that a free market can lead to a state (group violence) so we need a state (group violence) to counteract the state (group violence)...
That doesn't make any sense. How can privately owned "small town" be a state by its owners refusing to sell their land, or not allowing a minority to set up a business of their land?
Daniel: This is idiotic. The state was overturning its own laws and going even further by forcing people to integrate. How is this a case in point of there being something wrong with anarchy?
Because the scenario was created in such a way that this racism was just matter of fact. Let's say a town gets a wave of immigration, and there is a stigma against these immigrants. We were not talking about the U.S., he was using that as an example of RL government integrating minorities into society. He did not consider prior State legislation to be necessary for racism to exist.
Daniel: That doesn't make any sense. How can privately owned "small town" be a state by its owners refusing to sell their land, or not allowing a minority to set up a business of their land?
This is where you missed my friend's point. The majority is disallowing those who would sell their land to a minority by threatening the use of force.
In this case, we are in an anarchic society and the fact of the matter is that the majority of a town for some reason colludes to deny a certain minority race to compete against them, or own property, through the use of force (they have monopolized force in that town). Had there been a larger government they would have been able to force integration, since they have a monopoly on force, not the armed force created by the majority racists.
This brings up the obvious question: why does one need a larger monopoly on force to deal with the town's monopoly on force? That is, your friend has admitted that there are towns outside of Racistville. If the minority don't want to leave, why wouldn't entrepreneurs from outside Racistville come to serve them security? The minority has been said to highly value staying in the town (for whatever reason), and so they must be willing to offer a high price for security, attracting profit-seeking individuals. I see no reason why a competitive system of security fails in this scenario.
Daniel: So you're saying that the citizens of Nazi Germany were anti-Jooz and put Hitler into office because of this?
So you're saying that the citizens of the US (and the UK) were anti-Islam and put GWB into office because of this?
(Surely that can't be true, that'd be absurd).
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: Because the scenario was created in such a way that this racism was just matter of fact. Let's say a town gets a wave of immigration, and there is a stigma against these immigrants.
Because the scenario was created in such a way that this racism was just matter of fact. Let's say a town gets a wave of immigration, and there is a stigma against these immigrants.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: Daniel: That doesn't make any sense. How can privately owned "small town" be a state by its owners refusing to sell their land, or not allowing a minority to set up a business of their land? This is where you missed my friend's point. The majority is disallowing those who would sell their land to a minority by threatening the use of force.
Okay. Question: What derivative right do the other owners have over other owner's property? Is there a contract whereupon the owners come together to establish a government, and whereupon the owners agree to be bound by the will of the other owners in matters concerning the sell or use their lands? If not, then what I suppose what you friends argument is that, since we are in threat of having our rights violated by anyone, therefore, we need the state. But if this is the case, what will then prevent the state from violating our rights?
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: Daniel: This is idiotic. The state was overturning its own laws and going even further by forcing people to integrate. How is this a case in point of there being something wrong with anarchy? Because the scenario was created in such a way that this racism was just matter of fact.
Because the scenario was created in such a way that this racism was just matter of fact.
I don't understand how your answer follows from my question.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:Let's say a town gets a wave of immigration, and there is a stigma against these immigrants. We were not talking about the U.S., he was using that as an example of RL government integrating minorities into society. He did not consider prior State legislation to be necessary for racism to exist.
He did not consider prior State legislation to be necessary for racism to exist.
So are these hypothetical cases set in anarchy or not?
Marko: Jonathan M. F. Catalán: Because the scenario was created in such a way that this racism was just matter of fact. Let's say a town gets a wave of immigration, and there is a stigma against these immigrants. How can the immigrants arrive if we established the racist natives won`t sell them property? They stay in motels?
Apparently.
liberty student: When the opposite in debate claims the government can do something positive to fix the problem, then it is incumbent on us to point out the gun in the room. That the government can only act by undermining liberty. If your opposite believes that undermining liberty (using force) is acceptable, they cannot be reasoned with. You're wasting your time. Now in this particular discussion, the opposite is proposing that a free market can lead to a state (group violence) so we need a state (group violence) to counteract the state (group violence).
liberty student:Put the onus on them, to prove that violence and force can lead to liberty.
Good post LS. I think what will happen if you show them this refutation is they will claim that if the state vs state battle is worth fighting if the winning state is more liberal than the alternative. Of course this is a very abusive way to argue, because statists typically get to have whatever state they want in these hypotheticals. We can challenge this on two points: First, that the state will probably not behave the way they want it to due to the Hoppean analysis and etc etc. While I do think it is valid to point this out I have experienced it to be ineffective, because they always insist that the state can be controlled even though they can give no reason or historic precedent.
Secondly, that if they get to invoke a perfect-state plan, why can we not invoke a perfect-voluntarist plan? After all, statists don't typically advocate all possible states, and anarchists do not choose to draw on all possible anarchies. I think if they begin the argument by creating a scenario where they think anarchy won't work, their government has to suffer the same deficiencies (racist community --> racist gov). This also applies in reverse. The way they frame it is like some erudite supreme justice arrives on a boat and says "NO MORE RACISM". Obviously this is ridiculous, and anarchists should point out that deus ex machina could also come in the form of a voluntary solution.At the end of the day, they are choosing violence over voluntarism. I think this is the point to hit home and I believe is what you're saying LS. Sadly, I think that too many arguments do dissolve into a debate about one-shot hypotheticals. We can only strip down to the core issues if both participants are willing and able to appreciate the fundamentals.
GilesStratton: Daniel: So you're saying that the citizens of Nazi Germany were anti-Jooz and put Hitler into office because of this? So you're saying that the citizens of the US (and the UK) were anti-Islam and put GWB into office because of this? (Surely that can't be true, that'd be absurd).
Let's consider a timeline.
2000 - Bush II elected into office, partly for being against nation building
2001 - Terr'ists attack WTC
2001 to now - MSM campaign against Muslims and Middle Easterners. Government propaganda campaign against terr'ists (Read: Muslims and Middle Easterners).
2001 - Bush II attacks Afghan'stan
2003 - Bush II invades Iraq
2004 - Bush II re-elected as president to fight terr'ism (Read: Muslims and Middle Easterners)
Michael J Green: This brings up the obvious question: why does one need a larger monopoly on force to deal with the town's monopoly on force? That is, your friend has admitted that there are towns outside of Racistville. If the minority don't want to leave, why wouldn't entrepreneurs from outside Racistville come to serve them security?
This brings up the obvious question: why does one need a larger monopoly on force to deal with the town's monopoly on force? That is, your friend has admitted that there are towns outside of Racistville. If the minority don't want to leave, why wouldn't entrepreneurs from outside Racistville come to serve them security?
I brought this up, but he kept on adding conditions. Apparently, now, towns are so spread apart that there is no outside security force interested in providing their services. Or, the minority being the minority, the majority can afford to pay off the security forces (I then suggested that perhaps it would be in the security company's interest to accept the smaller payment, because if they could be shown to be protecting property rights they would now command more trust amongst other clientel).
He also, more or less, discounted the minorities' ability to defend themselves, which may make racial segregation too expensive for the majority racists to consider (why attack somebody you don't like if there is a large chance of you dying).
I think that Liberty Student put it best when he said that perhaps it's just not worth arguing.
Daniel: So are these hypothetical cases set in anarchy or not?
Err, yes.