So if someone decided to buy up all the land around my house, then told me that if i encroached upon their private property i would be shot, what could i do?
Similarly, what if for some reason i no longer had any money to pay the toll, would i be unable to travel across the country to either work or the grocery store? What would my options be? Would you be made to pay to walk down a sidewalk? What if i wanted to visit my relatives in the nearest city but couldn't afford it? Would this not be restricting my freedom?
NP (or alternatively NAP). I just found that yesterday. I had heard of NAP, but never read the NAP. So I google it and there was Block's elaboration. It was the first time I've read Block, but seeing as how he so articulately and precisely answered almost every protest I thought, I guarantee that that was just the beginning. The point about morality really got me.
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
Hm, I disagree with the article. He starts with good princinples and ends with bad conclusions.
It is NOT alright for you to kill someone if he is merely trespassing. When someone is on your property they do not suddenly lose self-ownership. You may use reasonable force to get them off of your property, but you can't kill them.
In the case of the flag pole hanger - making them let go obviously kills them.
In the case of the trap - the obvious intention was to kill.
Hence, this violates libertarian principles anyway.
I had not seen there is a second page.
I just found that yesterday. I had heard of NAP, but never read the NAP
I would like to say that there is no "the" NAP, as anyone can claim "the" NAP. Then again, I'd like to think that people on here have a generally-good understanding of the NAP and our general understanding is "the" NAP (I do not mean democracy, I mean that people on these boards have a good intuition).
I argue against this NAP that you've read about because it was mixed in with the (imo) wrong conclusion of the flag-pole hanger. Now, I actually liked the intro in the article, just not the conclusions. Generally, I'd define the NAP as follows:
You do not have the power to initiate aggression against an individualor or his property.
However, it must be slightly extended to:
If someone has initiated aggression against you, you have the right to use "reasonable" aggression of your own to end the aggression.
What is reasonable? Who knows. The market will decide. But it doesn't include killing a man.
Wheylous:I would like to say that there is no "the" NAP, as anyone can claim "the" NAP.
All I meant by throwing in the article 'the' was that I had read some allusions to NAP, but had never read what it was. Yesterday, I searched for it and read that article. I probably did have an understanding of the concept of NAP, but I hadn't read a definition of NAP (like I said, just an allusion here or there).
Wheylous:You do not have the power to initiate aggression against an individualor or his property.
I absolutely agree, so long as there is no warrant for the violence (eg, I can't just go outside and punch the first person I find).
Wheylous:What is reasonable? Who knows. The market will decide. But it doesn't include killing a man.
This seems to be a contradiction. If the free market is left to decide, it can't be ruled out that the market will choose killing a man.
Wheylous:It is NOT alright for you to kill someone if he is merely trespassing. When someone is on your property they do not suddenly lose self-ownership. You may use reasonable force to get them off of your property, but you can't kill them.
In a vacuum, I strongly disagree.
If I hear a noise in the middle of the night and see a figure in the next room with a firearm in hand, I'm going to incapacitate him and kill him if I have to in order to protect my family and my property. The fact that he has a firearm both threatens violence and suggests that he disregards my rights to self-ownership as well as my family's of their respective rights to self-ownership. I think the subjectivity of how to defend the property in question changes with the situation.
If the free market is left to decide, it can't be ruled out that the market will choose killing a man.
Note that for AnCap to exist, we would need to abolish the current government. How would that happen? By educating people about the NAP. Tuhs, there is the chance that the post-state society already values the NAP.
It's true that it might not. But what is the alternative? A non-free market? How do you make it non-free? Force. Force = aggression. Hence, by not having the free market you are already instituting a violation of the NAP.
If I hear a noise in the middle of the night and see a figure in the next room with a firearm in hand, I'm going to incapacitate him and kill him if I have to in order to protect my family and my property. The fact that he has a firearm both threatens violence and suggests that he disregards my rights to self-ownership as well as my family's of their respective rights to self-ownership.
100% correct.
I think the subjectivity of how to defend the property in question changes with the situation.
Also correct. And hence the court system. If you can prove "reasonable," you're fine.
The thing about the flag-holder is that he is not threatening you.
Wheylous:Note that for AnCap to exist, we would need to abolish the current government.
I don't know what is meant by Anarcho-Capitalism. By current government, do you mean that we would have to end state interference with the market or do you mean to end the state, period?
Wheylous: How do you make it non-free? Force. Force = aggression.
I don't advocate for unprovoked force. I probably should have worded that first quote better. What I meant was that people choose how to defend their property in a given situation. For instance, I would not shoot that flag holder provided all he did was walk through my apartment and out of my life. I think that because I have allowed him into my home it is a mutual exchange (he keeps his life and I go guilt free). If he does walk through, peacefully, I think he is showing the utmost respect for my property and that is where I disagree with Block.
But if enough cases arise where the trespasser in question is violent, then the market may choose killing as a means of self-defense at one point; that is, unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by the market will decide. If it that happens as a result of ignorance of the NAP, then it will mean that they are not being killed in self-defense. If they are being killed in self-defense, then it is because people are rightfully asserting their right to self-ownership. I don't see that there will be a market determined "end" of choosing killing vs. some other variant of force. I think the ratios will always be in flux.
Wheylous: I think the subjectivity of how to defend the property in question changes with the situation. Also correct. I know that I'm the one who said it, but would that mean that it isn't open to third party interpretation? Meaning, you and I can't say that the defendant in question was "wrong" or "right"?
Also correct.
I know that I'm the one who said it, but would that mean that it isn't open to third party interpretation? Meaning, you and I can't say that the defendant in question was "wrong" or "right"?
I don't know what is meant by Anarcho-Capitalism.
Lack of a state monopoly on initiation on aggression. Essentially, no "state." All functions that it currently provides would be privatized. Including courts, police, and army.
do you mean to end the state, period
This.
But if enough cases arise where the trespasser in question is violent, then the market may choose killing as a means of self-defense at one point;
Generally, yes. As in, it would become "reasonable" to shoot the guy if statistically the guy would go on to harm/kill you.
I don't see that there will be a market determined "end" of choosing killing vs. some other variant of force. I think the ratios will always be in flux.
I agree. Because "reasonable" is different at different times.
I myself am a bit unclear on this and would like to know how a system of appeals c/would work in AnCap (for example, going to another private court).
Wheylous:Lack of a state monopoly on initiation on aggression.... All functions that it currently provides would be privatized. Including courts, police, and army.
Wouldn't this aggression invalidate there being a free market? Or is the principle at work that, because aggression is currently monopolized by the state, it is best to disperse that power amongst the players in the market so that they may economize on its use?
While it seems that I learn something new about freedom and the state everyday, I'm not yet at anarchism. I'm not denying anything yet, though, given that I have not read any anarchist texts. Do you know of a good introductory text?
While it seems that I learn something new about freedom and the state everyday, I'm not yet at anarchism.
These boards tend to do that to you. Would you consider yourself a minarchist? (minimal state limited to justice system, police force, and possibly army) I used to be one, but after lurking about here for about a month I gradually turned AnCap.
I have not read any anarchist texts. Do you know of a good introductory text?
There should be plenty mentioned around here. I will find the thread which lists a bunch.
A truly free market (ie, no aggression) requires fiating the condition of "no crime." You cannot fiat conditions. We cannot say that people will not aggress. We can only try to organize a response to this aggression.
The question boils down to:
Do we want a state which forcefully collects taxes to apply some concept of justice (note that the state may try to minimize corruption in a multitude of ways) or do we want to have a system of private courts which not violate the NAP just by existence (no involuntary taxation) and which, through competition, might find better ways to execute justice.
Notice that the only difference between the two is that the state example has a monopoly (which could very well happen in the private case) on justice with the power to initiate aggression to collect taxes. So it boils down to: do we want to use some initiation of aggression of our own (thus inherently violating some rights) to support a monopoly, or do we want to let competing entities try different methods of ensuring transparency, due process, and justice.
When I put it this plainly (at least for myself), the choice becomes clear.
Some might be hesitant to take the state out of the equation, because we have some preconceived notion that the state is just, uncorrupt, or doesn't work for profit. Yet the state only appears just because it holds the respect of the citizens, because it has authority which has built up through its history of generally unbiased rulings.
So you see, we are the ones which give our current judicial system its gravitas and credibility, because it has proven itself. The same could happen in a free market, only that we don't need to forcefully collect the taxes. This means that either some people will decide to exclude themselves or that society will decide that justice is important enough to include even those people who do not pay.
I am sorry I cannot give you more details about this private court system, as I have not read any texts on it or had much time to ponder it. I still ask myself, for example "how do two people agree on a single private court?" "How does the appeals process work?" etc...
As I have said before, this whole system is rooted in belief in the NAP. If the people don't believe in it, it won't work. Currently, the system "works" because people are scared of state aggression.
Yeah, I'd call myself minarchist and it's not really due to these boards but mostly to my studies in economics.
Wheylous:As I have said before, this whole system is rooted in belief in the NAP. If the people don't believe in it, it won't work.
I came to that conclusion yesterday while thinking about it. That would be a large hurdle which leads me to question it's viability
Wheylous:Some might be hesitant to take the state out of the equation, because we have some preconceived notion that the state is just, uncorrupt, or doesn't work for profit.
Another concern of mine would be the transition from the state to stateless without being invaded by another country or someone else taking control during the transition.
I myself was a minarchist about a month ago, as you, due to my own thoughts. I have now turned to AnCap through discussions on these boards, and, again, my own thoughts.
That would be a large hurdle which leads me to question it's viability
Au contraire, I do not find it that difficult. The beauty of AnCap is that to have the system, you need to convince everyone of the system. To convince everyone of AnCap, you must convince them of NAP. Thus, when the system does come into being (if you can call it a "system"; Clayton doesn't like this term), people will already have the principles needed to keep it going.
it's viability
Well, consider you arguing for statism to someone who has lived in AnCap their whole life:
Dude, we give all this power to one entity which makes all decisions. And it's not like everyone even agrees. If someone doesn't agree, we still impose it on them. The entity has power to take property from us even if we don't like it and it can put us away in prison. If we don't support its redistribution schemes, the best we can do is vote against them, and if we lose, we get our money taken. There are powerful interests which skew the decisions of the representatives, who don't 100% represent us. The representatives have to vote on thousands of issues but we only choose one for our district, so we compromise a lot. Even if this system were created with a great system of checks and balances, it is largely inflexible and doesn't allow other systems to exist. The best thing is, all of this is done for our own good, because our voluntary actions are not the best choice for us. It's legit.
Statism doesn't sound a lot more viable to me...
Consider my previous FDA example:
I have realized that part of the problem is that our frame of mind is still statist in a sense: If we don't have the FDA, we will die of food poisoning. No. This is false. We would definitely have private entities regulating companies which voluntarily let them. Why? Because we want to. We know it's nice to have food inspection.
I have realized that part of the problem is that our frame of mind is still statist in a sense:
If we don't have the FDA, we will die of food poisoning. No. This is false. We would definitely have private entities regulating companies which voluntarily let them. Why? Because we want to. We know it's nice to have food inspection.
The same applies to an army. We know that armies are nice and that other people will try to invade us. Hence, in our own best interest, we will fund a private army (which may even be staffed by the same people it is staffed by today).
someone else taking control during the transition.
Again, to have AnCap we need to convince the people. A free people do not place chains on themselves easily (unless you look at 19th century America, but don't look!). What does "taking over" mean anyway, and how would it be different from the current statism? It seems like the problem would simply remain the same, and if we truly wanted the transition to AnCap, we would still continue it.
Wheylous:To convince everyone of AnCap, you must convince them of NAP.
I saw a video today of Stefan Molyneux where he pointed out that, in their private lives, the majority of people already agree with the NAP. It's just that they don't apply it to the activities of the government (public life). So with their inconsistency and, as you said previously, the historical precedent of the state preceding the free market, it gives the state some credibility (although, it seems that most people are becoming more and more disillusioned with the government with each passing day, no matter who's in office). Molyneux has also estimated (citing the American Revolution as an example) that it takes about 150-200 years for libertarianism to fully be developed and take root to the mainstream. Molyneux estimated further that, since the Libertarian Party started in 1971, we're about 40 years into this.
Wheylous:Statism doesn't sound a lot more viable to me...
Well in those terms, yeah.
Wheylous:Consider my previous FDA example:
I've read that before and totally agree.
Wheylous:What does "taking over" mean anyway, and how would it be different from the current statism?
My concern is that, during the transition, some other country/ group could invade. I don't know how long it would take for a 235 year old government to dissolve entirely. And I think, in what could be a very weak position at first, that that invading country/group could do a lot of harm to us.
Wheylous, I must admit I have not read the entire exchange between you and ThatOldGuy. But I have read your two first posts and I see some incorrect conclusions and confusion here. I describe the axiom which maximizes BOTH fairness and efficiency on this earth as: you can do whatever you want with your private property and towards protecting your private property, provided that you do not violate the private property of another individual. Below I try to explain why I think this axiom allows for the most fairness and efficiency possible.
Wheylous: It is NOT alright for you to kill someone if he is merely trespassing. When someone is on your property they do not suddenly lose self-ownership. You may use reasonable force to get them off of your property, but you can't kill them. … Hence, this violates libertarian principles anyway.
… Hence, this violates libertarian principles anyway.
You make your statement as if “trespassing” means the same exact thing in every instance of “trespassing.” That is a fallacy which has lead you to incorrect conclusions. This is precisely why Walter Block offers the example: “Suppose the owner of the apartment on the 15th floor has recently been victimized by a rape, perpetrated upon her by a member of the same ethnic or racial group as the person now hand walking his way down her flag pole, soon to uninvitedly enter her apartment.”
Let’s take Block’s example a little further… Let’s consider two examples. One, a 70 year old woman hanging on the flagpole outside the apartment of an NFL linebacker. Two, consider a 30 year old male of a certain race/ethnicity hanging on the flag pole outside the apartment of a 70 year old woman who was victimized by theft and physical abuse in her apartment a week earlier by a male of the same race/ethnicity and age range. Do you really expect both owners of the apartments in both situations to come to the same conclusion about how to protect themselves and their property? Let’s leave that rhetorical question for now. Let’s assume both owners of the apartments decide to take a firearm and shoot the person hanging on the flagpole, and the person is killed immediately.
And now let’s suppose that there is no state and that insurance/law agencies are allowed to do what they are really capable of doing… Let’s assume both the NFL linebacker and the 70 year old woman have private insurance/law companies defending them (defending them = underwriting them/vouching for them under voluntarily agreed upon circumstances in exchange for recurring insurance premiums).
The POINT IS THIS: the insurance company who underwrites the NFL linebacker and has an agreement with the NFL linebacker stating that, after an incident such as his flagpole incident, he must pay a certain percentage of the damages claimed (claimed by, say, the 70 year old woman’s family) and/or have his premiums raised because of this flagpole experience is probably going to remain in business because this displays a logical decision making process and can be displayed as a good track record for attracting future clients and other businesses to work with this insurance company. The insurance company who underwrites the 70 year old woman and has an agreement with the woman stating that, after an incident such as her flagpole incident, she must pay a certain percentage of the damages claimed and/or have her premiums raised because of this experience is probably going to go out of business very shortly because this displays a poor decision making process and would be very difficult to explain as a track record of protecting its customers, and thus will lead to difficulty attracting new customers.
Why is this relevant to the axiom??? Because what has really happened is that the individual has given the insurance company a kind of “joint-ownership” of his/her property, i.e. the fulfillment of the agreement that he/she entered with the insurance company which allows the insurance company to claim his/her assets under certain circumstances. This is ALL CONSISTENT with the idea that an individual has the right to do whatever he or she wants with his or her private property, so long as he/she does not violate another person’s private property.
And as you can hopefully see here, state-run monopolistic law agencies and insurance companies would fall victim to the same problems (decreased quality, innovation, efficiency, range of consumer selection) that arise from state-run monopolies in any industry, providing any good/service.
Do you really expect both owners of the apartments in both situations to come to the same conclusion about how to protect themselves and their property?
Yes, you did not read my previous posts:
I think the subjectivity of how to defend the property in question changes with the situation. Also correct. And hence the court system. If you can prove "reasonable," you're fine.
I do mention the word reasonable, which is different under different circumstances. The example you gave is an appropriate circumstance under which the term "reasonable" would come into play. Is there a history of flag-hangers murdering the people? And so on.
Of course, the owner of the house could say you can get on the balcony but I will be holding a gun to your head. Or knife, or whatever.
As to your point, after your rhetorical question, I missed it. Perhaps my brain is currently muddled, perhaps you just didn't explain well. Could you state it in more concise terms?
JH2011:Wheylous, I must admit I have not read the entire exchange between you and ThatOldGuy.
Why don't you do that then. Wheylous and I have covered most of what concerns you bring up including the subjectivity of how to handle different violations of NAP and property rights.