Political Theory

Re: So i was talking to an anarcholeftist....

vive la insurrection — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 01:44:09 GMT

but I'd disagree that they are arbitrary

You may be reading too much into this word. By Arbitrary, I meant the fact that you live in society is a given, x is the body of work / custom up until now that is relevant to think about in terms of saud society. It is "arbitrary" in the same way as the latest fashions in music/art/glamour/whatever come and go, come back again and get assimilated and morphed into other things.

My point is that these norms are subject to evolutionary pressures.

The mere fact of something asserting and valuing at a particular moment is the pressure, not the other way around. The past on"evolutionary stories" is just history at best, and a "self fulfilled prophecy narrative" at worst. That is not to say there isn't a certian "logic to success / sociability" - but such a logic has it's intellectual limitations

Re: So i was talking to an anarcholeftist....

David B — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 18:49:56 GMT

"All that matters are the expectations and legal customs, which are elastic and arbitrary"

I agree with the first half. I'd restate it as, social norms and law are what matters. I'd agree that those are elastic, but I'd disagree that they are arbitrary. If what you mean is they arise in a chaotic way, and aren't subject to selective pressures. My point is that these norms are subject to evolutionary pressures.

In other words, you will see a shape and a form to these norms and laws and in some sense from far away they may seem arbitrary, but when you look closely and follow basic human action, you'll see the pressures and signals that generated the norm. You'll also be able to see from different viewpoints how such norms and laws act as information signals that moderate the behaviors of others.

I think it's important to look closely at these things. Also, examine the rhetoric used as an argument in favor of a particular norm. It's dreadfully important for us to poke holes in such things. For example, while I laud and affirm for very specific reasons the concept of natural rights, in the way it's described in the Ethics of Liberty, I would draw a distinction between myself and Rothbard in that I view them as more efficient solution than the ones we observe in practice because it sets up reliable informational feedback signals to the population that promote economic growth, stability and competition. They provide a level of certainty about the social ecosystem into which you act, and that certainty doesn't have miswired positive feedback mechanisms in it, where a destructive behavior, law, or norm reinforces itself. When the state enters as a monopolist of arbitration and use of force, you end up with such a positive feedback mechanism where the blind spot is in arbitrating and enforcing the law on itself or those acting by proxy in the name of the state.

Jury nullification would be a feedback mechanism that could curtail the other three legs of the US federal government. But if that function is marginalized or impeded one would expect the federal government to grow and expand in unsustainable ways. I believe that is what has happened in practice. Another healthy feedback mechanism in the US republican setup would be state supreme courts nullifying federal law within their jurisdiction. My third example would have been secession at the state or local level.

Of course our optimal solution as anarcho-capitalists would be to abolish the idea that a state has a monopoly on dispute resolution and legal use of force within a land boundary.

Another potential solution would be to invert the sovereignty tree. Give the greatest level of sovereign protection to the individual, then to the local government, then to the state government, then to the federal government. Even the largest of those inversions, (state over federal) would mean a state or group of states could not be able to use federal power to force rules on the other states which they felt were against their own interests.

In organized governments, you find the same battle between have-mores and have-lesses played out over and over again, whether it's rich states vs. poor states, high population states vs. low population states. The same in county governments within a state legislature. Inverting the sovereignty tree at any level would provide a safe haven for more efficient economic and political processes and institutions to flourish at the expense of less efficient ones. The only way to protect less efficient institutions, processes, and laws is to use force at the highest level as a means of quelling the competitive pressures.

Anyway, back to the original structure. "Right" is a point of view. It's subjectively generated. Each of the two actors brings a differing point of view to the table. If they are the only two members of society, then they will find a way to resolve it, either through compromise or through an implied or actual use of force if no agreement can be reached. If you add additional members to the social ecosystem, then each actor MUST consider the implications of his behavior on his relationships to the rest of that social ecosystem. In the mores, norms and laws of that society each finds rule-based guidelines that predict how others will react to his response. What's right? What you can get away with. This I believe is hashem's point above.

I'd argue that there is a phenomena from which the ideas of property and ownership spring. I provide a definition, I use as an a priori definition for that phenomena. It goes like this, in order for a man to act, such that a dispute can arise, he must use matter, at a specific location and over a specific period of time. The intersection of the 4, intentional mind, matter, time, and location in space, constitutes a basis for dispute, as another man may object due to his differing plan to use a part of that intersection (matter or location) in a way that is incompatible with the first actors use.

I believe that is the most minimalist definition of dispute which one can define, which is also true a priori. This does occur, it occurs as a phenomena that acknowledges subjective values without using subjective values as a means of taking a position on the legitimacy of, or correct resolution of the dispute.

If no one stands with you in your argument about why you are right, and the other party in the dispute is wrong, you are at a dead end my friend. That's another a priori truth. You can be sure in your mind, that your logical throught process is absolutely true, and still have others say, "So what?" And you're in a pickle. You can try to force our result onto the other members of your society, and you'll find out just how strongly they feel about it by the way they act. But all of us know I'm sure, that we as groups are highly resistant to changes to our norms, mores, and laws even in the face of good logical and/or scientific evidence of flaws in our reasoning.

This is why the education aspect of our libertarian and anarcho-capitalist views is so important. Until the basic premises of our systems and ideas are largely accepted as axiomatic truths we'll have an uphill battle. Until we can construct, argue and support normative positions founded in those axioms with both sound logic and predictive capability, we'll have an uphill battle.

Even worse, sadly, so much of the social dialog about our norms and laws is based in rhetoric, primarily centered around anecdotal stories that shape the social narrative. So part of our work must be in bringing those tools to the table also. Too often the heart rules the head, and rhetoric and narratives do that very effectively.

Re: So i was talking to an anarcholeftist....

vive la insurrection — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 05:51:47 GMT

This is really basic, but I feel it must be said, because the phrase "take in the beauty" is so utterly pretentious:

"Taking in the beauty" doesn't matter. You can place it with a widget, X, pissing on a tree, throwing big corporate McDonald Wrappers on the "beautiful" property, "not taking in the beauty", holding an extremist right wing rally, attempting to seize the property for himself and build his own home, or whatever. The structure and analytical framework is still the same It's a bogus red herring.

All that matters are the expectations and legal customs, which are elastic and arbitrary

Re: So i was talking to an anarcholeftist....

vive la insurrection — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 05:36:50 GMT

Both philiosophically and scientifically speaking (i.e praxeology):

The imperative to act and consequences of action are still the same, it doesn't matter.

It's sombodies property because they have the power to make it theirs for whatever reason, plain and simple. After that all that matters are the expectations, customs, and institutions in place. To say one is acting "more peaceful" or "social" than the other on some Platonic ground though is, as with all things Platonic, out and out nonsense.

1) If mr. Hippy Dippy was dumb enough to knowingly walk on somebodies property "to take in the beauty" (the bastard!) knowing full well what the customs were in a rather Draconian society, what do you expect? The dude is obviously a fool, or simply not too concerned with his life for whatever reason. He was a consumer who was willing to pay a price for the product of "taking in the beauty", so be it.

2) If he just happenstanced on there unwittingly and got blown away, we may be able to sympathize a bit - but not much can really be said or done, particularly in an abstract setting.

Re: So i was talking to an anarcholeftist....

Kelvin Silva — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 04:40:38 GMT

No doubt we are here to manipulate things that are on this earth. The biggest question we face is HOW to share? When you think about all of human action/economics/etc it all boils down on how best to share, and cooperate (contracts) with each other..

Because if post scarcity can ever be attained then it is pointless to fret about taxation economics etc if it all is infinite.

Re: So i was talking to an anarcholeftist....

thetabularasa — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 17:07:43 GMT

kelvin_silva:

Own a house: build it or buy it,

Own yourself: (actually not sure)

But how can you own something that grows out of the ground? You can try to buy it, but from whom?

You can try to build it: i.e planting, but this is a private park, what about forests that grow naturally from the ground.

I've thought considerably about this. At first, nature existed. Mankind came along, and eventually territories were claimed, which included the properties in the territories. This goes for most animals in Africa, for instance. So I think it is a lot more about territory than property in my opinion. But it is true that we can only create with things created by God. For instance, the plant grows from a seed, and that is work which goes unpaid. So in essence, it is free labor. From this, we take fruit, seeds and so forth, eat them, plant them, use them, and it was all initiated by a force that is free.

So as for the lake scenario, I suppose he wouldn't own the lake so much as the territory.

Re: So i was talking to an anarcholeftist....

Autolykos — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 15:06:13 GMT

kelvin_silva:
I think the response to this would be, If protection of property is coercion against others, then wouldnt it also be coercive if the tourist fucked the propertyman and just told him to fuck off and let the tourist do anything he wants in the land>?

If anything property coercion is HAS to be just, it is defense against intruders, aggression only when you have been aggressed is justified. It is only rational, and proper ettiquete that you ask the maintainer of the land if you can enter a land X. Just like you ask your friend to use X property instead of just taking it.

I personally define "coercion" as simply "the use or threat of physical force against someone". I might want to add "without his consent" to that definition, but I think you get the idea. "Aggression", then, I define as "unjustified or illegitimate coercion". So to me it's not the use or threat of physical force against someone that's morally wrong per se.

Re: So i was talking to an anarcholeftist....

Kelvin Silva — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 09:10:57 GMT

WEll, yeah no shit but i just want to talk a bit you know?

Re: So i was talking to an anarcholeftist....

Laotzu del Zinn — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 08:48:34 GMT

You ever have that moment where you realize you're the "anarcholeftist" that made the parable? Ya, I just did

Excellent responses comrades. I don't want to derail it, so that is all I will say. Keep it up

Re: So i was talking to an anarcholeftist....

Kelvin Silva — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 08:11:27 GMT

I think the response to this would be, If protection of property is coercion against others, then wouldnt it also be coercive if the tourist fucked the propertyman and just told him to fuck off and let the tourist do anything he wants in the land>?

If anything property coercion is HAS to be just, it is defense against intruders, aggression only when you have been aggressed is justified. It is only rational, and proper ettiquete that you ask the maintainer of the land if you can enter a land X. Just like you ask your friend to use X property instead of just taking it.

Re: So i was talking to an anarcholeftist....

Marko — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 19:16:06 GMT

Not enough info. There could be easements, maybe in the forest by the pond there is a path that had been in use by the health and nature people since before the forest was owned so propertyman can't do squat against people taking a walk in his forest esspecially along this path.

Or perhaps the propertyman doesn't own the forest outright, but only owns a certain use of the forest, eg maybe he only has the exclusive right to hunt game in this forest, but hasn't other exclusive rights to it.

Re: So i was talking to an anarcholeftist....

Autolykos — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 16:42:56 GMT

kelvin_silva:
And so he told me a parable:

Forestman was wandering through the forest one day when he came upon a pond. He sat down to take in its beauty.
Shortly after Propertyman came out with his title and a gun threatening to shoot F if he didn't leave the premises or pay for the right to stay. He said the land is his according to the lawful authority in town.

The question is; how is that relationship voluntary? And how is Forestman the aggressor (he has to be in ancap theory)?

Any thoughts?

This example hits rather close to home for me, as my grandparents own about 10 acres of land, some of which is covered by woodland, and within which there's a pond.

With that said, I think threatening to shoot Forestman per se in that scenario would constitute aggression against him. By simply sitting down to appreciate the pond, I see no way in which Forestman was threatening Propertyman's person, let alone his life. That doesn't mean Forestman is entitled to be on Propertyman's property, and technically he's trespassing. But the notion that trespassing means one has thereby alienated his right to life strikes me as ridiculous. It clearly goes against the principle of proportionality, which I believe in.

Anyway, I wouldn't say that relationship is necessarily voluntary, as it could involve some deprivation of one or more rights (namely (at the very least) those of Propertyman to use and enjoy his property as he sees fit, should he not acquiesce to Forestman sitting down to appreciate the pond). Should Propertyman allow Forestman to remain there, then I'd say the relationship is voluntary, as no trespassing has occurred. IMO, the authority to judge whether an action constitutes trespassing rests with Propertyman.

Re: So i was talking to an anarcholeftist....

hashem — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 16:10:55 GMT

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned homesteading. With virgin land, whoever mixes their labor with it becomes the property owner.
If people agree on those rules, then they may choose to enforce them. Necessarily, if someone doesn't agree to those rules he is by no law of nature required to follow them. As a matter of fact, the owner of a resource is the person who controls it.

Re: So i was talking to an anarcholeftist....

SirTenenbaum — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 15:53:54 GMT

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned homesteading. With virgin land, whoever mixes their labor with it becomes the property owner. If the forestman had mixed his labor with the land, the land would be his, and the propertyman would be agressing against the forestman. The concept of property and homesteading would help the forestman in this situation.

Defining homesteading can be tricky (how much labor is enough is really the main question). Rothbard wrote a lot about it. Just google Rothbard and homesteading and see what you find.

Re: So i was talking to an anarcholeftist....

hashem — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 14:03:31 GMT

In all fairness, excepting that I don't assume a right of self-ownership my position on property rights is that of Stephen Kinsella. As such it has solid grounding in the libertarian establishment—Kinsella is Hoppe's most famous student, whom in turn is Rothbard's. The idea that property rights are rules we propose and agree to support is really one of the two main views on property rights, the other being Rothbardian Natural Rights.

he owns it according to any libertarian ethic I have know of.

This is where some confusion may be cleared up. Property isn't owned by agreement, by "right"; property is owned as a matter of fact. If you control something, you own it by definition, whether or not people agree you have the right. As for self-ownership and the NAP, they are rules, not objective facts. Clearly you only own yourself when you have control of yourself, i.e. when someone else isn't controlling you, and the NAP doesn't even purport to be anything other than a rule.

It seems hashem rejects the idea of rights altogether and I find it hard to disagree with him.

To be clear, I reject the notion of "natural", inherent rights. I fully acknowledge that property rights are rules which people value, propose, and support. Again, as I pointed out above, the objective facts of a matter (i.e. whether someone actually controls a resource, aka owns it) are distinct from the subjective decisions people make regarding the rights they will support (i.e. whether someone should control a resource, aka whether he has title to it).

such ideas (rights) carries a great deal of weight.

I certainly acknowledge this (and you may notice that you acknowledge they are subjective ideas, not objective facts about the nature of reality). Indeed, I said that based on history, economics, etc, "we conclude that the best way for the most amount of people to live the happiest is by proposing and agreeing to propertarian rules."

If we didn't believe other human beings had a right to control their own bodies by virtue of their free will would there be any hesitation on our part to enslave and or rape or murder them as we saw fit when some opportune moment arrived?

In the first place, you again acknowledge that rights are about subjective beliefs. In direct answer to your question, a resounding YES. There are personal psychological consequences, there are physical risks, there are social consequences, and so forth. But really, if someone's personal cost-benefit calculation leads him to rape, who are you to say he's wrong?

I am really not sure what hashem means when he talks of current technology.

Pardon my failure to articulate well, but this is a major theme in my personal theory and worldview, so I will restate in red:

Humans have conflict because we exist in an environment of scarce resources > The way we reduce the impact of scarcity is through technology > Thus the percieved effect of conflicts among humans is primarily a matter of limited technology.

I hardly consider the example of a man wondering into a forest claimed by another man can be considered extreme.

And yet you failed to notice my point, which is vastly important: the function of property rules is to help people. Someone using property rules to hurt another is a menace to the entire concept and value of property rules. It is pointless to support property rules in a situation where they don't benefit everyone involved.