Political Theory

Re: Questions for Anarchists

Niccolò — Tue, 13 May 2008 18:10:12 GMT

JCFolsom:

Alrighty, folks. I know it may seem as if I've abandoned this thread. This is because someone pointed out to me something that was quite true, and I'm a bit embarrassed about the matter. I am currently reading "Chaos Theory", and will, from there, look into some of Rothbard's work on Anarchy. If y'all could give me suggestions on what the seminal work on this subject is, please do. See, I have been basing my perceptions on how well the anarchist argument is established on the postings on these boards, and I gather the justifications are too complex to be contained within the spaces provided here. Well, in not doing my research first, I've made myself look something of a fool. In any case, if I still am a minarchist when I am through reading these things, I shall be able to provide a much more effective argument against anarchy.

Not foolish, it's an understandable mistake that comes with the nature of posting on forums. Typically, forum users come from varying backgrounds and are not at all homogenous. Get two people from a separate background to argue over the internets and you're asking for nothing but troubles.

Good luck with your quest for knowledge, may it bring you to a place of satisfaction in your own education!

P.S. The jokes are all in good fun. It's just that we've heard similar objections so many times, they get to be somewhat cliche to those more experienced with e-libertarianism.

Building the roads is usually the one heard most often, but it seems that you've at least put some effort into yours and that's more than enough to deserve respect.

Re: Questions for Anarchists

Len Budney — Tue, 13 May 2008 17:32:06 GMT

JCF,

Hats off to you! That was handsomely spoken. Glad to have you for a neighbor.

--Len

Re: Questions for Anarchists

JCFolsom — Tue, 13 May 2008 17:21:41 GMT

Alrighty, folks. I know it may seem as if I've abandoned this thread. This is because someone pointed out to me something that was quite true, and I'm a bit embarrassed about the matter. I am currently reading "Chaos Theory", and will, from there, look into some of Rothbard's work on Anarchy. If y'all could give me suggestions on what the seminal work on this subject is, please do. See, I have been basing my perceptions on how well the anarchist argument is established on the postings on these boards, and I gather the justifications are too complex to be contained within the spaces provided here. Well, in not doing my research first, I've made myself look something of a fool. In any case, if I still am a minarchist when I am through reading these things, I shall be able to provide a much more effective argument against anarchy.

Re: Questions for Anarchists

Niccolò — Tue, 13 May 2008 12:21:14 GMT

Twirlcan:

Isn't it obvious? Children with hooks in their faces would build the roads.

Well, thank God. I thought those poor, poor tongueless slaves were going to have to do even MORE work.

Re: Questions for Anarchists

Twirlcan — Tue, 13 May 2008 07:46:33 GMT

Niccolò:

But Len, who would build the roads?

Isn't it obvious? Children with hooks in their faces would build the roads.

Re: Questions for Anarchists

Niccolò — Tue, 13 May 2008 07:15:47 GMT

But Len, who would build the roads?

Re: Questions for Anarchists

Bostwick — Tue, 13 May 2008 04:35:08 GMT

JC:

You've created an elaborate strawman. If you have concerns about the application of consistent morals, feel free to ask and participate. But thats not what you've done here; you've disingenuously constructed a scenario to try to lead people to your same uninformed conclusion.

Deconstructing your entire thought experiment would take more work than its deserves, so lets pick one aspect.

JCFolsom:
When I go to the store, I bring my child, led along with hooks through his face.

How would a voluntary society solve this problem? The question practically answers itself. This being a voluntary society, the child could emancipate himself or accept the guardianship of anyone willing to take him in. Any action you take to prevent him from doing so would be a violation of the voluntary nature of society and thus illegal. The child can enlist anyone willing to enforce his freedom self determination.

So a free society, unlike a state, would defend the child without having to violate your person. Perhaps you see no problem with using violence to influence the parental habits of parents, but there is a better way.

In the future try to engage in genuine and mature debate.

Re: Questions for Anarchists

histhasthai — Tue, 13 May 2008 03:49:11 GMT

JCFolsom:
How do you propose anarchy would deal with these situations?

I don't. Anarchy doesn't deal with things, individuals do. It seems like it's really hard for people who argue against anarchy to let go of the idea that there would be some central authority, or at least a universally accepted way of doing things. It doesn't work that way.

I personally would act against you in all these cirumstances - forcibly, except in the case of the newspaper (I have every right to investigate you, I just don't have a right or power to force you to cooperate). I believe it would be morally justifiable. That, of course, won't protect me, but I hold that belief strongly enough that I would be willing to be held responsible by my peers for whatever actions I take. But I believe they'd applaud and even assist me in kicking your ass up and down the block - you and your bodyguards.

That's the final arbiter in anachy - what are the consequences of any action you take. They are first and foremost social, but can be forcible if enough of your neighbors believe that is morally right - and are willing to be held to the consequences of doing so, and so on, and so on.

I don't think you'd stand a chance.

OK, now go ahead and make up some cockamame way that you somehow, acting as irrationally as you do, manage to have superior economic and social resources without the help of any state. So long as I get to make up magical powers of my own to fight you with.

Re: Questions for Anarchists

Twirlcan — Tue, 13 May 2008 02:57:37 GMT

Geoffrey Allan Plauche:

No kidding. And it seems like very time the critics of anarchism have forgotten all of the arguments the anarchists had made in the previous threads.

I find it tedious, yet amusing that statists demand perfection of anarchy but do not demand the same flawless "what if...." standards of the state that they feel is so needed in everyday life....and yet Jeff Dahmer still managed to eat people without a single anarchist around.

I guess the theory is that when the state is around, Jeff Dahmer type would hide his activities and with anarchy, Jeff Dahmer types would flaunt it and use it to become powerful.

Re: Questions for Anarchists

Geoffrey Allan Plauché — Mon, 12 May 2008 22:24:27 GMT

"In Defense of Rules"

by Anthony Gregory

Libertarians, especially of the anarchist variety, are often accused of wanting a world of disorder. It is the inevitable tendency of humans to organize themselves socially, and to form rules for civilized conduct, we are often told.

Perhaps some people who promote the idea of statelessness indeed shun rules in general, although I have been fortunate not to encounter many. In truth, we libertarians have no objection to rules. To the contrary, we see rules and indeed law as composing the cornerstone of a just, civil world.

Without rules of the road, there would indeed be chaos on the highways. Without the ability to set mutually agreed upon rules, there is no ability to create contracts, and thus no modern economy of any kind. Without an adherence to a higher and consistent law of individual rights, there can be no social framework even in which to set the terms for contract and other civil rules. From every board game to every board room, civilization absolutely requires rules to function.

If we libertarians had no concern for rules, we would have no problem with the state overstepping its own constitutional and common law constraints. We would not champion that certain minimum standards of procedure, such as habeas corpus and divided power, be respected safeguards so long as there is a state. But indeed, we libertarians, even anarchists, are among the loudest in condemning the state for violating its own laws, and showing what this tendency reveals about the nature of statism.

In fact, it is the negation of law that leads to the chaos we expect from state administration. As Lew Rockwell has recently said, in reference to the Bush administration's secret interrogation policies, "in a moral sense, these are not laws at all. Neither are the arrogant orders that pour out of legislatures and agencies. Genuine law, natural law, is unchanging, and we do not have to be told what it is by some politician: you shall not kill, steal, bear false witness, etc. What the state emits is anti-law."

This hits the crux of the matter quite well. The state is the only organization that claims to be above its own rules. It enforces laws against murder, theft, counterfeiting, kidnapping, extortion and involuntary servitude, while conducting the same on a mass scale. And to enforce its millions of pages of other dictates, it necessarily tramples on the natural law and rights of its subjects, domestic and foreign.

It is libertarianism, grounded in self-ownership, private property rights and contractual freedom, that best fosters a world of consistent, fair and coherent rules. And what of language? Well, remember that much of language and other social norms we take for granted emerged spontaneously, from voluntary cultural and commercial interaction and human necessity, rather from the top down. Surely there must be standards, and there will be without the state.

As for law itself, to learn how anarchy, as we define it, actually promotes the law better than the state, and how most laws we find universally appealing emerged not from the state but from voluntarism and community, see Edward Stringham's great compilation of case studies and critical essays, Anarchy and the Law. The problem with the state is precisely that it interferes with this process. Consider the contrast between private and so-called public property.

On justly held private property, the owner sets the rules. There are limits prescribed by natural law – surely an owner may not legitimately trick people onto his land and then change the rules to the detriment of liberty. He cannot invite people onto his land, instantly declare them trespassers, and use deadly force to expel them, for example.

But private property encourages a society that respects rules as a necessary component of civilization. If extended further, private property rights would undo the chaotic tragedy of the commons that plagues so much of the public sphere.

On public property, the government sets the rules, but no set of rules can be completely just. Some standards are surely more egregious than others. So long as taxpayers are forced to finance the maintenance of public property, however, there will be competing claims as to what the public rules should be. Should the streets allow cyclists or motorists to dominate? Are parades and marches a just, temporary homesteading of the roads, or are they a socialized invasion of the people who have made most productive use to the land? Surely, the government shouldn't conduct random searches of people for guns and drugs, but should every public park everywhere be mandated to allow assault weapons and crack cocaine use in plain sight?

The state's attempt to set the rules for public space is perhaps among the greatest causes of social conflict. Questions on prayer in schools, the teaching of Darwinism or Intelligent Design, school dress codes, smoking and drinking outdoors, immigration, environmental use and pollution, entrance requirements for the military and higher education, road rules and a million other matters are not completely answerable under a socialist property order. What's more, the attempt to set such rules politically encourages social tensions, animosity and great erosions of civil and economic liberties.

I always err in opposition to state enforcement of rules. While I find it an acceptable rule that excessively obnoxious behavior not be permitted on every square inch of public space – while I do not think all public schools should be made to allow nudity, for example – I also see the problem of the state police enforcing even the most commonsense rules. While I believe we as a people must respect a set of rules, customs and norms based on equal human rights and dignity, I do not trust the state as arbiter.

Look no further than the state's involvement in the rather uncontroversial field of promoting safe roads. In reality, the incentives inherent in statist organization lead to perverse results even here. Some cities are currently rethinking stoplight cameras, because they work too well in discouraging people from running red lights, thus yielding fewer traffic violations, fewer traffic tickets, and, in turn, less revenue for government coffers. In every area, the state as an organization benefits insofar as people violate the laws, thus proving its supposed necessity, so it has every institutional incentive to create ever more rules and make it more likely people will break them.

Even when the state enforces the unquestionably just proscriptions against murder and theft, it does so with undue brutality and violations of the rights of third parties – those forced to testify and serve on juries, those forced to answer during investigations, those forced to pick up the tab, and those imprisoned non-criminals forced to live with the true predators housed in their midst. There is a lawlessness even in the state's enforcement of natural law. And so for public space, having the state more as opposed to less involved in setting policy is a dangerous idea.

I am totally in favor of people strongly encouraging the respect for the de facto policies most suited to the institution at hand. People should be quiet and respectful in libraries. They should not be loud and vulgar when passing small children on the street. They should drive on the road, walk on the sidewalk, and be polite and courteous in public parks.

Yet there can be no completely right answer for many of these questions. If on a public sidewalk, someone wants to set up a lemonade stand, while someone else wants to skate right through, there is no way the state can determine exactly who is in the right. Surely, there must be commonsense rules beyond and above mere property rights that the public mostly adheres to, just to allow civil society to live. Ironically, the more the government invades and expropriates private property, the more civilized, forgiving and respectful of one another we have to be just to prevent social disorder. And this becomes all the more difficult, as the state only encourages decivilization with its relentless attacks on property and liberty, its murderous wars and hypocritical social engineering, its shameless wholesale depredations on life and freedom through taxation, regulation, inflation and police state brutality. Even as the state requires more civility for society to survive, it encourages, subsidizes and indeed compels the opposite. The fact that society is as successful as it is, even given all this, is only a further testament to the importance of rules and the capacity of people to respect them, not just without state mandates, but in the face of state resistance.

It is a world of rules, social authority and law that we champion. We just oppose the arbitrary brand touted by politicians and legislators. What we defend is an order emerging naturally from civilized conduct, private property and individual liberty. We are truly the genuine defenders of the rule of natural law and a sustainable social order. Of course, we also are the ones favoring true tolerance rooted in private and community rights. Religious communities would be free to raise their children in peace, those on the cultural fringe would be free to engage in decadence on their own private property, cultural conservatives could keep drugs out of their domain and cultural liberals could keep guns out of their communities, and many of the more trivial battles in the culture war would be made moot, once the greater culture embraced the fundamental guidelines of private property. To the extent there is a legitimate culture war, it is the battle for this sense of social order, one that stands in conflict with the state. This rule – the rule of respecting each other's boundaries – would lead to social harmony and a rebirth of civilization, which is why we must hold it high against the state.

Libertarians favor rules, and indeed in a significant sense we want those rules more rigorously respected. For the political establishment, this would mean its days would be numbered. For a free, prosperous and orderly society, it would only be the beginning.

Re: Questions for Anarchists

Len Budney — Mon, 12 May 2008 21:58:31 GMT

JCFolsom:
Len Budney:
That's still an improvement on today, when the fraudulent provider has no need to close up shop, and continues operating indefinitely. When the victims come to complain, they're ignored. If they're persistent, they will be tased, arrested or even shot.

That is a flaw with the current provider, but not necessarily one inherent to such providers.

Actually, it IS inherent. That's one of the critical assumptions underlying libertarianism of any stripe, and one which is thoroughly proven by Austrians.

The first principle of libertarianism is: all humans act in self-interest. (Whether this implies that saints can't exist, or merely assumes that they're rare enough to be ignored, is more of a religious discussion.) In particular, we can always assume that humans will refrain from making choices to their own detriment. A CEO will not resign against his own interests because it's in the shareholders' interests. A President will not step down against his interests because it's in the citizens' interest. A sheriff will not arrest himself. And so on. (The rare cases that seem to violate this principle can be lumped with the "saint" question above.) From this we conclude that the chief of police will protect himself against exposure of his own errors, incompetence or wrong-doing, and will protect his department from such things in order to protect himself, both from the public and from officers angry at his "betrayal." And so on.

In short, libertarians don't believe in saints, so we don't believe that anyone can have coercive power without using it for his own advantage. Even minarchists admit that power creates enormous pressure for its own misuse--they just believe that they can pit two people's self-interest against each other in such a way that power is "balanced" and "checked." (American history proves their error: whoever you pit against each other realize that both win big if they collude.)

Austrians prove it using praxeology. By definition, humans act in order to change a less satisfactory state into a more satisfactory one. Based on this axiom, the theorem that humans act in self-interest is proven with reasonable rigor. Add in Austrian monopoly theory, and we conclude that anyone with a monopoly on power will use it in his own self-interest. Which is the same as I just described above, but it's even more thoroughly reasoned.

Once again, the conclusion is that a monopoly provider of "justice" or "security" will not deal out "justice" to himself, nor provide security from himself.

'm not sure what you mean here, but if you mean what I think you do, I'm sorry, but you're full of it.

I mean that even my own personal experience, which is far removed from the political realm and tucked away in an insignificant corner of PA, I've dealt with a fair number of politicians, and so far each and every one has been guilty of one or more jailable crimes. That's an unscientific survey, but it's pretty d*mn compelling anyway.

So I don't know what you mean by "full of it," but if you mean that you'd have an easy time finding a politician who hadn't done something worthy of prison time, I would take your bet in a heartbeat, and I'd demand witnesses so you couldn't weasel out of paying up later.

Admittedly, the crimes I've witnessed have varied tremendously. Fixing citations for friends and relatives is a common favorite. Harrassing people they don't like using the police is fairly common. In a free society, some would be off the hook for their drug and prostitution habits, as would the magistrate in my town who fixed cases for her heroin dealer. Dereliction of duty by police is so rare, and so frowned upon, that there's a web site devoted entirely to venting outrage against the ones who do their duty.

There is no way to know whether what you say is true, but even if it is, the flaws of current and past governments do not form a conclusive argument against government in general.

It doesn't provide a conclusive argument of anything, you're right. But it's mighty darn convincing if you study the founders of the republic, especially Jefferson, and realize what a masterful attempt they made at creating a minarchy. It should give anyone pause before he starts claming he can do better.

--Len

Re: Questions for Anarchists

Geoffrey Allan Plauché — Mon, 12 May 2008 21:58:12 GMT

liberty student:
Instead of regard people as being critical of anarchy, why not regard it as inquisitive and questioning?

Some of the skeptics may be inquisitive, and I applaud those that are, but I get the impression from others that they aren't interested in learning at all. They aren't interested in discovering the truth. They're just interested in punching holes in anarchism when they haven't even bothered educating themselves on anarchist theories and arguments. These forum discussions really are no substitute for reading the major texts that put forth the theoretical and historical arguments for anarchism. Rehashing old arguments from time to time is fine and even expected, but we don't need a new thread on anarchism being started up every few days or every week. It would also help if anyone tempted to start up a new thread on a subject would look in the archives to see if it has been discussed before and read what was said rather than trying to re-invent the wheel every time. That said, I think we need a minarchist and anarchist reading list to refer people to so that we don't have to keep hunting down and posting links from scratch each time we need to refer someone to a particular essay, blogpost or book.

Re: Questions for Anarchists

Geoffrey Allan Plauché — Mon, 12 May 2008 21:44:57 GMT

JCFolsom:
You don't need a private army, just a fearsome enough presence that people, who actually tend to be apathetic and cowardly, won't have their sentiments overwhelm their fear and apathy. There are cases of groups of people just standing by while robberies, rapes or murders occur. What makes you think people will be so much braver or more conscientious in the anarchist society.

Hhmmm...maybe the fact that they know the state isn't around to do it for them? That the state can't serve as an excuse for not doing anything? Because people who live under an interventionist state become sheeple?

And what about all the examples we could conjure up of the state's inaction?

JCFolsom:
Indeed, what is to stop entire communities that accept such atrocities as a matter of course from arising? Entire communities of NAMBLA types, for instance. You can watch any one of those "to catch a predator" shows and see scores of men of every age, race and socioeconomic background flocking to have sex with underage girls.

What about Nazi Germany, which the US helped to create? What about the USSR? What about Mao's Great Leap Forward (or Backward, rather) program in China that results in the deaths of tens of millions? What about the Roman Republic and Empire? I could go on.

And you don't think decades of government intervention into the economy and into our lives hasn't perhaps made such perverted people more common than they would be under libertarian anarchy? The US government isn't responsible at all for changing mores, poor education (incuding moral), and social disintegration in our society?

What do you mean when you write "as a matter of course"? You think such perverted communities will be prevalent? Or just inevitable? I think it's quite a stretch to assert that they'll be prevalent. As for inevitable, well if this is what you meant then it looks like you're searching for impossible guarantees again, guarantees that the state can't provide either.

Re: Questions for Anarchists

liberty student — Mon, 12 May 2008 21:35:58 GMT

Geoffrey Allan Plauche:

No kidding. And it seems like very time the critics of anarchism have forgotten all of the arguments the anarchists had made in the previous threads.

One problem with the forum atmosphere is that topics will get rehashed over time. Hence why many forums have close/move/merge/copy thread permissions for moderators.

Instead of regarding people as being critical of anarchy, why not regard it as inquisitive and questioning? There are many, many scenarios I have considered but never asked about, mostly due to time constraints. It's simple to propose remaking human society and then letting out how everything will work, not where the pitfalls are. The age/sex thread is a good example. There really is no consensus.

Re: Questions for Anarchists

Geoffrey Allan Plauché — Mon, 12 May 2008 21:32:48 GMT

JCFolsom:

Len Budney:
That's still an improvement on today, when the fraudulent provider has no need to close up shop, and continues operating indefinitely. When the victims come to complain, they're ignored. If they're persistent, they will be tased, arrested or even shot.

That is a flaw with the current provider, but not necessarily one inherent to such providers.

Actually, that's not true. It's inherent in the nature of the state. Oh sure, once in a blue moon it's possible to set up a limited state whose abuses are relatively mild and few at first, but they always grow into Leviathan.

JCFolsom:
There is no way to know whether what you say is true, but even if it is, the flaws of current and past governments do not form a conclusive argument against government in general. I'm sure you can point out the places where our current government prohibits things it ought not, or allows thing within it that it ought not, but in reality, there is only ONE, count them, ONE government that has ever been truly formed on even the pretense of guaranteeing liberty, and the fact that it has deep flaws does not mean that a new government, seeing where it failed, might not be able to compensate for many of these flaws.

That's based purely on historical examples. Even on purely historical grounds though, the track record of the state is horrendous. But there are strong theoretical arguments, which I get the impression you're not familiar with, that show why the state itself is the problem not just particular flawed versions of it. To quote Edmund Burke "The thing! The thing itself is the abuse!"