Political Theory

Re: Anti-libertarian land distribution argument

liberty student — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 17:04:43 GMT

These are just asides

Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:
Ergo, I am trying to sell anarchy as the only known feasible world system.

Feasible is subjective.

Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:
But note there I'm not invoking some philosophical concept of "property" that pre-exists their agreement;

I like that. It seems less honky, and more pertinent to people's real lives.

Philosophy is personal. What is pertinent for me, is different than what is pertinent for you. Any conception of our real lives which ignores scarcity doesn't seem very real to me.

Re: Anti-libertarian land distribution argument

Laotzu del Zinn — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 13:34:46 GMT

When you say "you are working on it as well", what do you mean? I'm interesting in hearing more

Well, I was meditating on world society and I figured something out. For the world to be democratic is entirely unfeasible. It would require possibly billions of "reps" and millions of "senators." It's hard enough making a democracy responsive to its people with a couple hundred of these things, let alone millions.

I'll never support a monarchy, many free people today wouldn't either. Dictatorship is out the question. So what does that leave us?

Ergo, I am trying to sell anarchy as the only known feasible world system.

But note there I'm not invoking some philosophical concept of "property" that pre-exists their agreement;

I like that. It seems less honky, and more pertinent to people's real lives.

If one of the people says "and oh btw, my ancestors from 1000 years ago were the first to step foot in North America and they claimed it as their property so you have to agree to not agress against that either", that's probably *not* something that the other party is going to see as in their self-interest.

This is where I differ. It would seem there needs to be something more. If two people just arbitrarily decide they don't respect my property, I am screwed, with no legal recourse to protect myself.

IOW, get them to act like libertarians, rather than just think/theorize about it? I would think that would be a much better way of spreading the idea; teach through example.

Re: Anti-libertarian land distribution argument

Live_Free_Or_Die — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 06:33:11 GMT

And as a very minor thing: who is "we"? I certainly didn't do any of those things you are talking about. I'm not guilty of anything. It's just a pet peeve: when someone places me in a "we" of their choosing unilaterally. No one is ever a part of a "we" that they don't explicitly agree to be part of, like when someone says I owe them something because I am part of their "society" by virtue of society being "we". Offer me the terms of your "society" we and then I'll make a decision about whether I want to be a part of it.

That one is easy...

Here are the terms:

Do as the ruling class tells you or figure out a way to defend yourself.

Re: Anti-libertarian land distribution argument

Alternatives Considered — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 04:42:25 GMT

I like where you go towards the end there. The idea of selling liberty as self-interest rather than "morally righteous" is much more efficient imo. Idk about your concept of property, it seems like its only property if someone has a big enough gun to keep everyone else off. But the self-interest idea is much more pertinent, and very close to what I'm working on as well.

Awesome. One of the reasons I'm migrating to forums like mises and away from more "open" forums which are mostly about libertarians fighting off everyone else who is there to troll and mock is that I'm tired of *never* finding anyone who has anything positive to contribute to the lines of thinking I'm pursuing, so it's nice to find a place where we can focus on similarities rather than always on differences.W

When you say "you are working on it as well", what do you mean? I'm interesting in hearing more.

As for my derivation of property: I'm not very good at explaining it yet, that's clear to me. And it's not as fully formulated as what you are responding to positively above. But I'm 99% sure that it's basically the same construction, perhaps just in logic and form, perhaps as part of the exact same construction. After all, if I'm selling the idea of pairwise mutual non-aggression pacts, what exactly is that the people are agreeing to not agress *against*? Each others' persons, sure, but the same logic that says it is easily and obviously (to them, and thus sellable) that they would agree to not agress against each other's bodies says that they would also agree to not agress against each others' "property". But note there I'm not invoking some philosophical concept of "property" that pre-exists their agreement; I mean it in a very common-sense way, like "ok, clearly, you built that house and you planted those fields near that house; I have my house and my fields, and I'll agree not to agree against yours if you don't agress against mine because that's clearly in our mutual self interest." If one of the people says "and oh btw, my ancestors from 1000 years ago were the first to step foot in North America and they claimed it as their property so you have to agree to not agress against that either", that's probably *not* something that the other party is going to see as in their self-interest.

I kind of look at it like this: concepts like "property" and "NAP" are great philosophical constructs. We can argue about the nuances of thier philosophical construction, and we can debate the implications and consequences in the real world that would occur were we to adopt subly different definitions of these (or other) terms and concepts. Those are important and interesting conversations. But no matter what "we" decide, taking those definitions to the general public and saying "see here, we've devised the perfect definitions, now understand why they are perfect and you will voluntarily jump on board and off to libertopia we go" isn't going to work. What we need to do is to devise ways that most people will behave *more or less in accordance with those definitions*, and the best way to do that is to sell them much more easy to understand and easy to see as being in their self-interest *that effectively recreates those definitions*.

IOW, don't start with the perfect definition of "property" and then hope to get people to honor something "property like" by explaining to them your theory of property; instead, incentivize them to behavior from which more or less the same *functional* definition of "property" *emerges*. In both cases, the same analysis of the consequences and effects applies, since you have essentially the same functional thing happening in both cases, so all of the arguments that we have developed explaining why property and NAP are good things still apply. It's just that that's not necessarily the best way to get them to behave that way.

I'd argue that these pairwise bilateral contracts do exactly that, but they are much more sellable.

[And of course I don't *really* think that there are literally going to be pairwise contracts between *everyone*. It's kind of a shorthand. Most pairs of people will never interact and so they don't need contracts or any other construct to guide their interaction, by definition. And practically speaking, most remaining contracts would be "cliques" to use the graph-theory term: contracts that bind a group of people. That's basically what a PDA would define in AnCap: all of the "members" or "clients" of the PDA would be bound by the same contracts to all other members, thus taking care of that n(n-1)/2 pairwise relationships; the n1*n2/2 pairwise relationships between the n1 members of one PDA and the n2 members of a second PDA would be bound by a different "contract" (the decisions of whatever arbiter they have agreed to use to settle any conflicts between their members); etc.]

Re: Anti-libertarian land distribution argument

Laotzu del Zinn — Sat, 02 Oct 2010 16:23:23 GMT

Off topic; we should probably open another.

But, I'll bite;

No, that's a silly statement. That's like feeding the scarecrow a brined and smoked kipper.

I hold open the possiblity that a now-truth could be an absolute-truth, but the evidence suggests otherwise. I see skepticism and empiricism as healthy components to development.

Re: Anti-libertarian land distribution argument

MrSchnapps — Sat, 02 Oct 2010 05:56:04 GMT

Epicurus,

I'm going to ressurect this section just because I think we can make some progress here.

I have a question regarding your theory of believing nothing:

Do you believe nothing can be believed? Do you really believe that?

Re: Anti-libertarian land distribution argument

Jackson LaRose — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 14:53:57 GMT

DD5:
According to this argument, you must be able to trace back the first original owner of some property tens of thousands of years ago, or perhaps hundreds of thousands of years if you are really consistent, just so you can begin to sort everything out.

Sorry to interject, but isn't this also one of the premises upon which Anarcho-Capitalism considers the state unjustified?

Re: Anti-libertarian land distribution argument

Laotzu del Zinn — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 14:42:39 GMT

Think what you want LS. That's fine. I'm honest to myself and that's all that matters.

Re: Anti-libertarian land distribution argument

liberty student — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 08:25:10 GMT

DD5:
How long are you going to use this silly argument against current private property owners? According to this argument, you must be able to trace back the first original owner of some property tens of thousands of years ago, or perhaps hundreds of thousands of years if you are really consistent, just so you can begin to sort everything out.

Leftists aren't interested in today or the future, they are interested in anarchronism.

DD5:
I also don't buy the alleged motives behind these arguments, as if these Marxist type "libertarians" actually give a crap about just property owners all of a sudden. They want to abolish private property and establish their system of Kibbutzim, by hook or by crook!

The motives are socialist motives. To plan society, to destroy economic progress and to tell other people what to do.

Re: Anti-libertarian land distribution argument

liberty student — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 08:15:42 GMT

MrSchnapps:
Your theories of knowledge make me cringe.

An epistemology that is completely ad hoc.

Re: Anti-libertarian land distribution argument

Laotzu del Zinn — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 04:58:49 GMT

I'm not a Marxist. And I don't propose we do anything about it, per se. It just seems a problem that seriously puts a hamper in the legitimacy of property as it stands today.

Re: Anti-libertarian land distribution argument

DD5 — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 04:46:41 GMT

Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:
So you agree that most of the land across the world is not legitimately property of the people in possession of it?

How far do you want to go back. Roman Empire, Ancient Egyptians, Mesopotamia maybe?

How long are you going to use this silly argument against current private property owners? According to this argument, you must be able to trace back the first original owner of some property tens of thousands of years ago, or perhaps hundreds of thousands of years if you are really consistent, just so you can begin to sort everything out.

I also don't buy the alleged motives behind these arguments, as if these Marxist type "libertarians" actually give a crap about just property owners all of a sudden. They want to abolish private property and establish their system of Kibbutzim, by hook or by crook!

Re: Anti-libertarian land distribution argument

Laotzu del Zinn — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 04:16:36 GMT

What do you mean "can"? Do you mean "can I physically take your property"? Well, if your gun is big enough, then sure, though at that point is isn't "property" because you haven't honored our property contract

That's my point. So you agree that most of the land across the world is not legitimately property of the people in possession of it?

Re: Anti-libertarian land distribution argument

Laotzu del Zinn — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 03:50:29 GMT

Still waiting for that evidence for China, by the way.

http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=sattelite+photos+of+china&wrapid=tlif12859012458722&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1259&bih=821

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=17259,17311,23756,24692,24878,24879,25756,25854,26209,26218,26339,26425,26710,26781,26789,26885,26894&sugexp=ldymls&tok=rAnMM0u4GgYVBzHQ-kuxFQ&xhr=t&q=China&cp=4&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=f&aqi=g4g-o1&aql=&oq=Chin&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=3f137aea2efaa6b6

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=17259,17311,23756,24692,24878,24879,25756,25854,26209,26218,26339,26425,26710,26781,26789,26885,26894&sugexp=ldymls&tok=rAnMM0u4GgYVBzHQ-kuxFQ&xhr=t&q=history+of+china&cp=13&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=f&aqi=g4g-o1&aql=&oq=history+of+ch&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=3f137aea2efaa6b6

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=17259,17311,23756,24692,24878,24879,25756,25854,26209,26218,26339,26425,26710,26781,26789,26885,26894&sugexp=ldymls&tok=rAnMM0u4GgYVBzHQ-kuxFQ&xhr=t&q=chinese+economics&cp=17&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=f&aqi=g4g-o1&aql=&oq=chinese+economics&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=3f137aea2efaa6b6

Like I said, if you want to believe China exists, that's on you. I believe nothing. But I have seen strong evidence that China exists.

Your theories of knowledge make me cringe.

Is it because I don't believe in your magic wizard hypothesis?

Re: Anti-libertarian land distribution argument

Alternatives Considered — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 02:02:24 GMT

So, just to make it clear, if I have more guns, I can take your property?

I know you think you're scoring a point, but you're just talking past me. What do you mean "can"? Do you mean "can I physically take your property"? Well, if your gun is big enough, then sure, though at that point is isn't "property" because you haven't honored our property contract. If you mean "can" as in some sort of "will God think that's a sin" type of thing, then I reject the utility of the question: again, if you've got a gun big enough to take my "property", then what does it matter if it's "just" or "right"? I'm not going to stop you by pointing it out to you.

In short, I feel your description of hte NAP and property gives me the possiblility to never negotiate with anyone.

The NAP and property have nothing to do with your "possibility to never negotiate with anyone": that exists no matter what. If you don't want to negotiate, you simply won't, and no number of philsophers or libertarians is going to make you. Negotiation is a *bilateral* process, so by definition, you only participate if you *choose* to participate.

It is in my self-interest to shoot first, and I ask if I can have it later.

Non-sequitur alert: how do you come to that conclusion? T answer that question one way or another is a complex economic calculation that takes into account all of the consequences of each possible decision.

You can speak for "most people?"

You are clearly missing my derivation. I'm not "speaking for them", I'm positing a hypothesis: that the vast majority of pairwise relationships between people have qualities such that each of them would benefit from a mutual non-aggression pact that is more or less equal to the NAP. Note the things I am not doing:

1) I am not using that as a justification for "forcing" the NAP on them. No, I am not claiming that I can better know others' subjective values than they do; I am making a predictive statement, an empirical estimate.

2) I am not saying that all people will magically just sign mutual nonaggression pacts, or that if they do, that they intend to honor it. I assume there will always be defectors. It just doesn't follow that the majority of non-defectors should abandon their mutually beneficial contracts just because some of their contracts get violated. That is what the "state" is: people who are perfectly civil, who would deal with each other without coercion or force if they were dealing with them directly, instead deal with them via coercion and force because they deal with them through the state. I would never walk over to my neighbor and beat him to take money from him to pay for my daughter's school; but I do the equivalent via the state.

3) I am not justifying the state; I am arguing that rather than try to "prove" that "freedom" is the best morality, or that libertarianism is the best political system, so that the only way people will participate is if they buy your morality or become political philosophers, we can get the equivalent of the NAP by showing people that they easily benefit from explicitly signing non-aggression pacts with people that they weren't going to aggress against anyway (in most cases), or at least that it would cost them more to aggress against than not to. It won't be universal, but there's a lot better chance of selling *that* simple calculation than there is of everyone becoming a scholar on libertarianism.

But we have to be realistic: we have to sell it in terms of *self-interest*, not in terms of morality or philosophy. A system that only works if every part understands the whole system design and who and how it works is doomed to failure before it starts. The system has to work even when the vast majority of its parts/participants *don't* understand the whole system and why or how it works, because it is just unrealistic to expect 7 billion people to all "get it". We're fighting a losing battle as libertarians: we strive to have everyone "get it", and then blammo, the world will change. They aren't going to "get it". If you're going to sell it - and clearly, we need to sell something, because the whole idea is to have a voluntary society which means everyone else has to volunteer to parrticipate - we need to sell something really easy and basic. The NAP as a principle or concept is a lovely thing and it sucks *me* in, but 20 years of doing this has shown me clearly that it doesn't suck that many people in. It's competing against too many other memes for too little mind-real-estate. it's competing again "feminism" and "socialism" and "equality" and "wage gaps" and "class warfare" and "religions", all of which are trying to occupy the small mind real-estate of "most important issue". We just can't sell libertarianism or the NAP as "the most important issue", because it will never occupy the top stop in a very large fraction of minds.

But there is lots and lots of mind real-estate for "this is in my self-interest", and it's not a zero sum piece of mind real estate, a new meme that "this is in my self interest" does not kick out old ones. I wouldn't even tell people about the NAP or libertarianism (or our philosophical definitions and derivations of property). They don't need to understand it to essentially be *honoring* it. They just have to say "hey, I really don't want to attack Joe anyway, and it is worth far more to me to know that Joe isn't going to attack me, so I'll sign a non-aggression pact with him." Induct, and blammo, you've got a huge number of mutual non-aggression pacts that together have more or less the effect of the NAP, in the sense that even if we explicitly had a NAP that many people signed, the result would be that between most pairs of people, there would be no aggression, and then there would be exceptions. The good people here and in other libertarian/AnCap places have spent a lot of time thinking about how a world that is filled mostly with non-aggressing pairs of relationships but that has a few pairs could still work pretty well. In effect, you get the same thing, but you get it in a much more sellable and thus feasible way. In one derivation, there is the NAP, a single contract, and everyone signs it because they understand that the NAP will lead to a better society, but even though everyone signs it, some people still aggress against some other people sometimes and we have to have to deal with it; in the other, people sign pairwise contracts (in reality, they don't need to sign them with very many other people, because most people they will never interact with) because they can easily see those contracrts as being in their self-interest, but some people still agress against some other people and we have to deal with it. It's the same effect; but it's a much lower barrier to get there.