I just got done reading a blog posted by BrainPolice several years ago. I'm not a anarcho capitalistic but I found the logic to be very sound. It can be read here: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/brainpolice/archive/2007/12/19/positive-quot-rights-quot.aspx
I personally thought it was a good read on why positive rights are morally wrong since they basically curb your rights in exchange for them,etc..... and that one shouldn't have to respect them. My question is in regards to negative rights and while i've read some material on why or how they can exists I want to know why someone else should respect your negative rights? Your negative rights are violated when someone aggresses upon you and to reconcile this or deter it the pepertrator is punished, but the problem lies with that individual believing he shouldn't have to in the first place. Outside of society that person is free to do whatever he wants to you.
Adherence to a moral standard usually requires a degree of empathy. You are unlikely to use logic to dissuade a non-empathetic serial killer from killing you. Morality is part of human evolution.
Viception: Morality is a socially constructed concept which differs among cultures. Morality predates religion. Morality’s origin was the evolution of moral sentiments which maximized the benefits of living in groups. The ‘I will help you, if you help me’ principle is a good explanation. Most people are born with the ability to empathize. One is likely to empathize more for a family member than for a random stranger. The empathized person is cared for more than the non-empathized person. In-group loyalties and out-group indifference or hostility are common. A sports game can show how excited people can become over group identity. The moral hierarchy is a common basis for morality, responsible for much cruelty. Moral hierarchs may believe all or some of the following: God is superior to humans. Humans are superior to other animals. Adults are superior to children. Men are superior to women. White people are superior to black people. Heterosexuals are superior to homosexuals. Theists are superior to atheists. One country is superior to another country. One culture is superior to another culture. Rich people are superior to poor people. Whoever is allegedly superior has the right to control the allegedly inferior. Obedience to moral hierarchs is expected. Consider the binding of Isaac, one of the foundational Judeo-Christian-Islamic stories. Abraham, ordered by God to kill his son, Isaac, as a burnt offering, built an altar, put firewood on it, bound his son, laid him on the altar, held a knife ready to kill him, and before he tried to kill him, an angel intervened to stop the sacrifice because Abraham demonstrated fear of God.
Thanks that's one perspective. I'm really interested in hearing more from AnCaps on the issue since I imagine it's often a criticism of the idea.
And this is sort of related to the topic but what are you guys opinion of actions such as speech that imply imminent danger?Such as a personal threat to violence.
There are 2 different ways ancaps can argue for respecting negative rights that I know of:
1. Utilitarian approach: "It maximizes human welfare, it is praxeologically most stable."
Most people like not be murdered and not to be stolen from. The cheapest way to achieve this is to trade and interact with as many likeminded people as possible. So taking insurance against theft and murder will be cheaper in areas where insurance companies know the other clients prefer the same package. So people are financially motivated to prevent conflicts. The market creates peace by segmenting rights preferences as much as possible. Insurance companies try to prevent people from lying about preferences to keep brand reputation up.
Please note: If you are a murderer and pedophile, you are doomed to live in area with disgusting people just like you. More civilized neighboorhoods will probably have shelter provided out of voluntary altruism to save the kids you get to rape.
I haven't read the book, but Machinery Of Freedom by David Friedman probably explains this much more eloquently.
2. Natural Rights approach: "This is the logically consistent set of rights any rational person has to accept."
Natural rights theories try to find objective truth about the rights we have as humans. I have not seen any that succeeds, as they can not bridge the is/ought gap; that is, it is impossible to derive a prescription (ought, objective truth) from a description (is, subjective truth). A natural rights theory I like though, is Hans-Herman Hoppe's argumentation ethics. Hoppe argues that self-ownership is implicit in argumentation; it's not rational discourse if you hit each other.
Moreover, if you refuse to accept argumentation by violating other people's self-ownership, you give up your own self-ownership too as it would be contradictory for you to argue for it. You have basically chosen to become an animal, to give up your communicative rationality. (Ancaps won't need zoo's, they can simply visit anarcho-communist villages!)
Such theories can be a good logical framework for libertarian minded private courts and defense agencies, but provide no authority to impose these views on others (as they are not objective, just the logical consequence of accepting reason).
Regarding speech that implies imminent danger, here we need to realize that property is a "means of action", it is thus praxeological, not merely physical.
For example, if I for no reason put my hand 1 cm before your face without touching you, have I violated your rights? Physically no, praxeologically most probably yes (as your head is your property and you need space to use it as a "means of action").
Now, how different praxeological rights compare will depend on the situation and on the community (see my explanation above on self-segmenting communities with different views on rights). For example, in a cramped elevator it's normal to stand very close to you. In a nudist community it can be considered hate speech to advertise clothes.
In conclusion, rather than coming up with definitive answers for each situation (which nobody can), it's better to understand the dynamics of it all, which I hope I have explained well.
Edit; Did this convince you to become an ancap? If not, please tell me what's still bothering you.
“speech that imply imminent danger?Such as a personal threat to violence.”
Thank you for your specification. Without it, challenging someone else’s beliefs could be considered dangerous.
Many libertarians oppose the initiation of violence. I used to like that definition until I read a slightly better one: nonconsensual initiatory aggression. Why?
Viception: Consensual aggression can be boxing, two fighters consenting to aggression for sport. Nonconsensual retaliatory aggression can be you physically attacking someone who was about to or did attack you.
A threat of violence may be acceptable in consensual combat. A threat of violence is acceptable for self-defense against a likely aggressor (for example, a bully pushing you proceeding to likely punching you).
I read what you are referring to in the past and brought it up to some friends who are libertarians. They agreed that it is true that one would have too accept that rights exists under those conditions, but without someone to enforce those rights the stronger individual can just assert that you dont have them simply becauase you have no way of enforcing your rights. So it then becomes an issue of social darwanism.
1. Can you give me a short run down of praxeology?I'm reading some stuff but still haven't came across it even though i'm swamped.
2. Wouldn't a threat to violence come with the inevitable result of you being agressed upon which could have the consequence of your life being taken? Under this premise wouldn't be wise to take action(ie a restraning order) to stop this outcome instead of waiting for it to happen before acting?
Outside of societal defense that a centralized state would have the benefit of, my main issue lies mainly in law and order in an anarchists society since there are no standard set of laws that something like a constitutional republic would have to abide by. Along with courts and police I also have other issues with education and environment(such as air pollution).
Thanks that was helpful
“my main issue lies mainly in law and order in an anarchists society since there are no standard set of laws that something like a constitutional republic would have to abide by.”
Laws can be broken in anarcho-capitalist society and in a constitutional republic.
Viception: “While I do not know exactly what a free market anarcho-capitalist legal system would be, I believe it would primarily criminalization of nonconsensual initiatory aggression and contract law. Everyone I know does not like murder, rape, and robbery. People are willing to pay for security to prevent that. Everyone I know wants to know their voluntary binding agreements, contracts, are enforced. Not everyone I know wants to imprison people for putting dangerous drugs in their bodies. In a free market anarcho-capitalist legal system, one can disapprove of dangerous drug use without paying money to a private defense agency to stop it. Banning behaviors is easy when other people have to pay for it. Aspiring tyrants usually do not like to spend their own resources to force other people to obey their rules. Thus in a free market anarcho-capitalist legal system, most laws will be leaning toward liberty, not tyranny. Private defense agencies would be like other businesses, serving consumers. They would compete, offering different prices and different services. Maybe, if you subscribe to a private defense agency, you only want to call it for emergencies. Maybe, you want a bodyguard. Maybe, you want some other security. One objection is how can a poor person afford private protection? This objection applies to anything in an economy that is not free. Protection can be argued as being necessary, but so are clothing, food, and shelter. There is no popular demand for food, clothing, and shelter to be supplied by a government monopoly. Security can be provided for the poor by charity, by the private defense agency giving a discount, by poor people pooling their money together to buy security, or they can forgo security. If one lives in an area where the crime is low to absent, security is a lower priority that if one lives in a moderate to high crime area. Another objection is that private defense agencies fighting with each other will cause warfare in one’s neighborhood. This ignores the government alternative: governments fighting with each other will cause warfare in one’s neighborhood. More people have been killed by governments than by private defense agencies. Businesses do not like a war zone in their area. They want disputes to be settled peacefully if possibly, and quietly if violence is necessary. The private defense agencies will likely contact each other to devise a way to settle disputes between them if they arise. What if person 1 (P1) and person 2 (P2) call in their private defense agencies, each claiming the other started a fight between them? The private defense agencies are not likely to start shooting at each other because wars are expensive. Politicians do not have to pay for wars. They borrow, tax, or print money. Private defense agencies do not have those options. An exception can be made for a private defense agency that acts criminally: robs, murders, and rapes. I will address that exception later. Economist Ludwig von Mises said, ‘Can anyone doubt that the warring people of Europe would have tired of the conflict much sooner, if their governments had clearly, candidly, and promptly, presented them with the bill for military expenses?’ Regarding the P1-P2 dispute, they will probably use a private arbitrator or court. P1 and P2 go to court. P1 and P2, court service subscribers, paid monthly premiums to the court. The judge says P1 started the fight. If P1 accepts the verdict, then the trial is done. What if P1 rejects it because the judge was paid by the millionaire P2 to render an unjust verdict? If the court was a government monopoly, P1 and others are going to lose unfairly because the judge favors millionaires. If a private court is corrupt, there can be others. A corrupt court is not likely to be used by clients due to its bad reputation. A bad legal decision would likely receive bad media coverage, hurting the court’s reputation influencing customers to use other courts. If a private defense agency acts criminally as I previously mentioned it will probably lose clients and other private defense agencies could fight it. Individuals could fight it. The potential for nonconsensual initiatory aggression exists with and without government.”
“I also have other issues with education and environment(such as air pollution).”
What is your educational concern?
Viception: “Who owns the air? Everyone? No one? Imagine P1’s home emits air pollution that damages P2’s garden. P1 owes restitution to P2 for property damage. If P1’s home emits air pollution that causes P2 to become sick, P1 owes P2 restitution because P2 did not give informed consent to breathe polluted air. P2 does not have a right to clean air. P2’s injury due to inhalation of air pollution without informed consent entitles P2 to restitution. If one becomes sick due to naturally polluted air, one is not entitled to restitution. In a free market anarcho-capitalist society, different communities would likely manage air pollution in different ways. Some may limit the amount of air pollution permitted. Some may allow anyone sickened by polluted air to sue the polluter.”
So how do you ensure someone has the right to a fair trial?
And my issue with education lies in the fact that certain groups of people would be exlcuded from it because of the economic situation they were born in.
I think education is cheaper now than it ever has been in the past... its a non-issue and will become even more of a non-issue.
“So how do you ensure someone has the right to a fair trial?”
There is no guarantee. An unfair trial can occur in any system. In a free system, there is an incentive to provide better legal service since it is voluntarily funded, not tax funded. Bad service providers lose market share, possibly go out of business.
“And my issue with education lies in the fact that certain groups of people would be exlcuded from it because of the economic situation they were born in.”
There is no right to education. To believe otherwise is to believe someone has a duty to provide it. That is slavery.
its important to keep in mind that you don't currently live in a utopia, and that AnCaps do not claim that anarcho-capitalism will be a utopia.
Currently, how could anyone that is suing the government or being charged by the government get a fair trial?
There is no absolute guarantee that is true, but steps can be taken to ensure there is some degree such as with the concept of innocent until proven guilty instead of vice versa and the notion that for those who can't afford a defense attorney to defend themselves they are given the services of one. Using your example of someone suing a company, the individual who cannot afford a lawyer and has to defend himself will automatically be at a disadvantage against the company who has trained lawyers. I hardly find this fair in a liberal society. Statis or Anarchists.
I understand this from the anarchists perspective.
I never stated that I thought it was a utopia. And to answer your question they are guaranteed defense from a trained professional and they are not guilty until proven so. Though if you believe they aren't being given a fair trial I implore you to find something that addresses(data,etc..) the number of times a person has been wrongfully accused by the government.
wrong thread :(
I don't think you understood the point I was making about a fair trial. Its not that well sometimes it could be fair, and that well hopefully there wont be this absolutely corrupt judge who is a golfing buddy of the person suing you or something. I am saying that in matters involving the state its IMPOSSIBLE to have a fair trial