Firstly let me say that I do not agree with the implict argument that because libertarianism appears to be based on force that it is not viable. I am an anarcho-capitalist myself and would like to know if anyone has a response or could link me to one which deals with the Anarchist Writers FAQ?
The FAQ says, "If the "anarcho"-capitalist is to claim with any plausibility that "real" capitalism is non-statist or that it can exist without a state, it must be shown that capitalism evolved naturally, in opposition to state intervention. In reality, the opposite is the case. Capitalism was born from state intervention. In the words of Kropotkin, "the State . . . and capitalism . . . developed side by side, mutually supporting and re-enforcing each other."
The writer continues by saying that any system of property must ultimately be based on the force used in the past. Reading the essay itself is worth it.
So does anyone have any reply to this because I must admit it's annoying me! History of capitalism is not my strong point.
Have you read that great essay Hoppe has about this?
No, I have no read that one. Do you happen to have a link to it?
Here you go Brian, "Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis", by Hoppe:
http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_2/9_2_5.pdf
If the "anarcho"-capitalist is to claim with any plausibility that "real" capitalism is non-statist or that it can exist without a state, it must be shown that capitalism evolved naturally, in opposition to state intervention.
No it doesn't. What does it matter that "capitalism" did not "evolve naturally" and "in opposition to state intervention"? And this is ignoring the libertarian class analysis, pitting the state as the enemy of commerce. Yes, rich businessmen 'capture' the state and use it for their own agenda, but their target for oppression is the same as when aristocrats used the state: free enterprise. The state, no matter whose influence it is under, transfers property rights and obstructs the freedom of contract, and the anarcho-capitalist wants property and contract respected.
Captilalism requires property. Property requires the initiation of force against people who don't share your definition of property.
Property requires the initiation of force against people who don't share your definition of property.
This is a pretty vapid statement. Living requires the "initiation of force" against people who don't want you to go on living.
What opponents mean, I often find, is that property itself requires a violent enforcer, similar to the Hobbesian story of rights. That is, property rights do only exist or can only exist because the state is there to unilaterally define them and enforce them through violence, and so a capitalist order requires the active use of force. Presumably, without the state enforcing capitalistic property rights, capital would be in common ownership and all that good stuff. The truth is that property, as with language, manners and others customs, can exist as a tacit agreement between individuals, self-enforcing due to mutual benefits and reciprocal commitments, with self-help and commercial methods of deterring and responding to property violations. Hume pointed out centuries ago that property is necessarily antecedent to the state; it is a convention, and conventions are unique in that they do not require an enforcer.
It's also worth noting that 1) one need not use force when others violate one's property rights, 2) even if there is a tacit threat against property violators, this threat may never be carried out in practice, and 3) anarcho-capitalists generally believe that the legal system should be focused on restitution to the victim, so if a communist takes my property, I will simply demand the property back (and maybe more in damages). What is the communist going to do when I come to take it back? Use force against me just because I don't share his definition of property?
Here you go Brian, "Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis", by Hoppe: http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_2/9_2_5.pdf
Sweet, thank you! I'll reply again when I finish it!
The Hobbesian war of all against all is only avoided through respecting the rules of natural ownership - and this is most likely why it evolved naturally (and it did evolve naturally), long before the existence of a territorial state. To quote Rothbard, Ethics of Liberty p. 45:
"...if each man is not entitled to full and 100 percent selfownership, then what does this imply? It implies either one of two conditions: (1) the "communist" one of Universal and Equal Other-ownership, or (2) Partial Ownership of One Group by Another-a system of rule by one class over another. These are the only logical alternatives to a state of 100 percent self-ownership for all."
The first one seems quite close to the war of all against all: since all persons have equal rights to body and labor of all other persons, it would be an act of aggression to prevent them from taking their rightful share. By the same token, though, everyone else has a claim over this share too, so it is not just for any one person to make use of it. The result is either stasis and death (since it is unjust to eat an apple), or the breakdown of this 'justice' system. Either way, it fails.
The second one is that employed be the state. I think we've had enough discussions about its economic failures, but it's clear why states have always needed propaganda and particular claims of legitimacy (including divinity etc.), since people do not naturally accept that any particular person has greater claims of property rights than others.
It seems pretty clear to me that property rights evolved naturally - before the state - and indeed why they evolved naturally: they are simply the most economically viable and fair system. For more on this see the pages following the one I referenced.
Property requires the initiation of force against people who don't share your definition of property. You could go on all day about natural rights but this fact will never change. So yes I would say libertarianism is based on force, but I am still a libertarian.
You could go on all day about natural rights but this fact will never change. So yes I would say libertarianism is based on force, but I am still a libertarian.
Since you are a libertarian you will see that force to uphold property is defensive force, not an initiation of force.
One thing is defensive force, the other thing is using that force to steal from people (tax). It's a word play, nothing more.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Everything that happens must be based on the past.
Do property rights require force? Sure. Do they require violence? Sure it does. How the hell on earth could you defend your property with simply arguing with a thug (in some cases maybe...j)? But are all property rights equally universalizable, rational, justifiable and cosistent? Now there is a big NO.
Production must proceed predation. You can't tax what hasn't been produced. Its that simple. The free market is anterior to the state.
At least he wasn't a Keynesian!
capitalism is non-statist or that it can exist without a state, it must be shown that capitalism evolved naturally, in opposition to state intervention. In reality, the opposite is the case. Capitalism was born from state intervention. In the words of Kropotkin, "the State . . . and capitalism . . . developed side by side, mutually supporting and re-enforcing each other."
What exactly in voluntary exchange, and the ultimate consequence of that(Capitalism), requires a state? Just because the state formed while the market matured ,does not mean that either of the two are entirely dependent on another. While it can successfully be argued that the state is entirely dependent on a market of some sort the ultimate point is that just because the two grew at the same time, does not objectively reveal a specific dependency of any kind. The assertion requires further investigation.
No, if I build a house, and then a fence around that house, and then someone jumps over my fence and I throw him out, I initiated force against him, not the other way around.
Living up to your name with that post. If someone spray paints your wall must you avoid cleaning it lest you vandalise another art.? More to the point, do you extend your analysis of fence crossing to more general cases. Are you unable to evict trespassers who alight on your bed? If so, please post your address, local homeless men could do with the tip.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Evilsceptic:No, if I build a house, and then a fence around that house, and then someone jumps over my fence and I throw him out, I initiated force against him, not the other way around.
That depends entirely upon your perspective. If I am the rightful owner of the property upon which the house and fence are built, then any unauthorized trespass upon my property by anyone is, itself, the "initiation of force." My subsequent employment of force to remove a trespasser from my property is "defensive" necessarily.
The only way the above could be considered "true" is if you didn't or couldn't recognize a "rightful" owner of property (real or otherwise). Do you employ such an understanding of "property" that "real property" cannot be "rightfully owned?"
It seems odd to make the random assertion that if capitalism developed side by side with statism or even that statism played some role in it, by way of promoting even a minimally stable environment in the beginning, that the whole concept is invalid. Societal paradigms are a form of technology and just because our ancestors limped along with the social and economic equivalent of using uncured mammoth fur for warmth (statism) until they could develop the social and economic equivalent of fire (capitalism) that doesn't invalidate the use of fire. Another example would be attempting to refute the utility of modern chemistry because it evolved from alchemy. How can chemistry be right if it had its roots in something so off base and barely functional? The answer is that alchemy was the product of a way less enlightened and educated mindset, but over time it was refined. Principles and theories were tested and discarded as they proved to be useless (meaning not in accordance with reality) until a science that was in accordance with reality developed. What is fundamentally natural and correct is not invalidated because the people who began the process of discovering that fact happened to have a lot of things wrong in addition to what they got right.