Does the State Resolve or Create Conflict?
Contrary to Radnitzky's assertion, it is not difficult to imagine peaceful human cooperation without any collective decision-making. Indeed, "ordered anarchy" the very idea of such a social order. From the diversity of individual interests it does not follow that conflict is necessary. Conflict can be avoided, if only all goods are privately owned by specified individuals and it is always recognizable what belongs to whom and what not. The interests of different individuals may then be as divergent as can be, and yet no conflict arises, insofar as these interests are concerned exclusively with one's own property. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (76)
"Conflict can be avoided, if only all goods are privately owned by specified individuals and it is always recognizable what belongs to whom and what not."
That's the $64 million questions, isn't it? How do we convince everyone else that private property is a good thing and should be respected? Unfortunately, we Austrians are a very small minority. If Prof Hoppe is saying that a true libertarian society can exist only when the entire populace is Austrian, we'll have a very long wait.
Published: March 16, 2006 9:01 AM
Excellent argumentation. The idea (or rather necessity) of a property concept preceding any definition of contract, of coercion etc. is something that seems to be completely missing from most peoples' minds, for whatever reason.
Published: March 16, 2006 9:30 AM
If Prof Hoppe is saying that a true libertarian society can exist only when the entire populace is Austrian, we'll have a very long wait.
I think Professor Hoppe was saying the recognizable ownership is necessary (but not sufficient) for avoiding conflict. Respect for private property need not be unanimous (else the Austrian view would be utopian), but the more widely accepted that view is, the better we can avoid conflict and violence.
Published: March 16, 2006 9:35 AM
Is this the place for fundamental epistemological disputations?
Published: March 16, 2006 10:16 AM
I have the "gut" feeling that Dr. Hoppe is right in this matter, whether a more or less end-state of utopian anarchy is even possible or not.
As a matter of fact, although I believe all of the professor's arguments are valid and the piece well and carefully written, in a certain sense "there is nothing new here" in that the argument is simply an extension of the original Misesian argument against all proponents of a "third way" solution. The problem for libertarians is not "where" to stand but "with whom" to stand because (as well as exactly what to stand for or against most strongly at any particular time) all steps in the desired direction (whether gradualistic or more abrupt) are essentially political, i.e., achievable only through political means (entailing compromise with those opposed, no matter whether through ignorance or deliberately self-interested).
The problem is not so much to purify doctrine among those familiar as to introduce it substantively to outsiders who already have their particular portion of intelligence, attention-span, etc. drawn in different directions by a cacaphony of competing appeals, including many deliberately and cleverly designed to confuse and obfuscate.
I don't want to criticize Dr. Hoppe's work as not being suitably tailored for a mass audience. I believe that it is important to address those in positions of intellectual leadership precisely because ideas are important. But what I don't see in public discourse is any really significant inroad into widespread opinion as to the legitimacy (and supposedly, potentially beneficial role) of the apparatus of compulsion.
All that being said, I hope I'm wrong.
Published: March 16, 2006 10:17 AM
[QUOTE]
The appropriator of a previously un-appropriated good becomes its first proprietor (without conflict, because he is the first appropriator). And all property goes back, directly or indirectly, through a chain of mutually beneficial and hence likewise conflict-free property transfers to original appropriators and acts of appropriation.
[UNQUOTE]
Are we talking about a hypothetical world?
As long as I know, History of mankind is an endless sequence of examples of property conflicts, mostly land disputes, which generated uncountable wars - and still do it.
To which extent the current property "status quo" is a consequence of those historical conflicts, instead of mutual benefitial transfers?
I'd rather believe that the author's statement is only true under "controlled" circumstances and a "perfect" free-market environment.
Any clarification on this essential subject?
Thanks,
RH (from Brazil).
Published: March 16, 2006 10:35 AM
RH,
If you reattach the first sentence of the paragraph from which the quote is taken:
Moreover, to avoid conflict from the very beginning on, it is only necessary that private property be founded by acts of original appropriation — through actions instead of mere words. The appropriator of a previously un-appropriated good becomes its first proprietor...
Dr. Hoppe is simply stating that in order to avoid conflict over scarce resources, property must be defined by acts of original appropriation and note mere words or declarations.
The current "status quo" as you say is the result of the rejection of the idea of original appropriation. So no, Hoppe is NOT stating that the current state of property in the world is the result of a chain of mutually beneficial and hence likewise conflict-free property transfers to original appropriators and acts of appropriation. In many ways it is the exact opposite.
Published: March 16, 2006 10:54 AM
RH, It is a hypothetical world, except for a handful of isolated incidents in history. If all that is required is consensus on private property, we have that in the US. The argument Prof Hoppe has with the US is that he thinks we should disband the gov and hire private companies to provide national defense. That might be a good idea, but itt seems to me that the improvement would be minor.
Published: March 16, 2006 10:55 AM
RH:
'Are we talking about a hypothetical world?'
Well to be intellectually charitable I would assume that Hoppe is here talking about _justice_ in property acquisition and transfer. More or less the thory elaborated by Nozick in his Anarchy State and Utopia. Of course the vast majority of actual property title is strictly held unjustly according to this doctrine. Rothbard offered a solution to reconcile actual title with just title in his Ethics of Liberty.
Nevertheless there is much more to conflict than that over property. Non physical eternalities for a start for example a religious group who are not able to tolerate free speech by others. Simple propertarianism, as suggested above, is scarcely adequate to the task.
Published: March 16, 2006 10:55 AM
Generally, I agree with Dr. Hoppe's views, so perhaps I fail to understand his position that there can be "peaceful human cooperation without any collective decision-making". Consider 6 people in a lifeboat, with only room for 5. Suppose not all agree to draw straws (to throw someone overboard). One alternative is collective decision-making where say 5 decide that all draw straws; another is for everyone to fight it out, which could result in survival of the strongest, and perhaps far more deaths. It seems to me that Dr. Hoppe is opting for the latter.
The same holds for a wagon train surrounded by Indians. Given that not all members concur in an organized defense, do we forego collective action? Perhaps one would advocate having the 95%, who would defend against the Indians, do so without dealing with the 5% who do not. Yet the strategy for survival could require pushing aside the 5%, or violating their rights.
Survival is the essential justification for government (an agency of force). Given a choice between survival and upholding the rights of every individual, I choose the former, and presume that Dr. Hoppe would choose the latter. Yet once one survives he can be moral, and protect fights; otherwise he cannot do either.
Published: March 16, 2006 11:31 AM
I opt for the latter.
Published: March 16, 2006 11:43 AM
Well, if there is an attack (by Indians or whoever ;) ), then would you rather have everyone who cares fight back / defend, or would you rather spend resources on getting those who don't care to give you money (i.e. steal from them), in hope that your defence will improve?
I don't think anybody can learn anything useful from contrived situations like the ones you mentioned. In the lifeboat, maybe they *would* push somebody overboard, but a very short-lived, life-threatening situation isn't something where you can afford to argue.
The core of an anarchist society is merely to make sure that coercion doesn't happen in general (in the day-to-day state of peaceful normal life), and that it will be punished by society (maybe by outcasting the offender). And as most of us agree: there's no halfway decent alternative, so there's no point in discussing to death the situations where any form of society must fail, IMHO.
Published: March 16, 2006 11:59 AM
Allen,
In the lifeboat scenario, there is a simple private property solution: (1) Whoever the owner of the lifeboat is, if he is on it, decides who stays or doesn't; (2) If the owner isn't on it, but had a policy on this kind of situation, follow that; (3) If the owner isn't on the boat, and his policy for this situation is unknown, then places on the boat were homesteaded by the survivors. Because they could not all have gotten on the boat at the same time, the last person to have gotten on the boat is the one that doesn't have the right to be there.
That, of course, assumes that the last person to have gotten on the boat wasn't pushed or otherwise aggressed against by someone who got on earlier, so that they could get on before him. In the event that everyone was pushing everyone else to get on the boat, then it returns to the former case (last on has no right to be there).
Published: March 16, 2006 12:05 PM
Radical Sceptic,
Nevertheless there is much more to conflict than that over property. Non physical eternalities for a start for example a religious group who are not able to tolerate free speech by others.
Where is the conflict? Intolerance doesn't imply that there need be a confict. What's wrong with some individuals choosing that they wish to have nothing to do with some other set of individuals? And yes these sort of issues are easily dealt with by what you refer to as "simple propertarianism".
Where is the supposed conflict of intolerance occurring? It must be occuring in some physical location. Who owns the location? If the land is owned by a member of the intolerant group then why are the other individuals there in the first place? If they are there against the wishes of the owner they are trespassing which would be a violation of property right.
Or let's say the land is owned by one of the intolerables. Surely he has every right to say what he wants on his own property. If members of the religous group come on to the property (i.e invade, trespass) and try to force him to shut his mouth, it is clear violation of property rights. It is a violation of the intolerable's right to his land and also, if there is violence, a violation of his property right in his own person.
Where does the "simple propertarianism" fail?
Published: March 16, 2006 12:10 PM
Allen,
"Survival is the essential justification for government."
I believe that Hoppe has shown via argumentation ethics that there is no such thing as justification for government (an agency of the of force).
Survival may be the essential pretext for government, but theoretically, and empirically, the opposite has been shown to be the case. Governments, much more so than private individuals, tend to kill you.
Published: March 16, 2006 1:08 PM
"(an agency of the of force)" should read (an agency of the _initiation_ of force).
Published: March 16, 2006 1:09 PM
I agree that conflict need not arise without a state, but, as others have pointed out, Hoppe's reasoning, while impeccable, does seem to outline an entirely hypothetical world. Even if one obtains property by being the first to actually appropriate it, his/her continuance of ownership relies on the acceptance of this ownership by unaminous consent. Should one disagree and kill the original owner and his heirs and move in, then who is the rightful owner?
Published: March 16, 2006 2:12 PM
Yancey,
I vaguely remember a discussion of this scenario (perhaps in Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty??) I think the solution offered in the case of an aggressor killing the original owner is that the original owner's heirs would become the rightful owners. However, in your example you have also had the heirs offed. I think then one would still maintain that the aggressor is NOT the rightful owner since his claim is based on aggression. In this case the property would be unowned and title would come into existence once the property had be reappropriated by someone other than the aggressor. Note that this could in fact be the aggressor's heirs. The heirs of the aggressor cannot be denied homesteading rights since they presumably had nothing to do with their ancestor's initial aggression.
Published: March 16, 2006 2:57 PM
Yancey,
For what it is worth I located the passage in Ethics of Liberty that discusses your situation. Text pages 56-58. (PDF page #s 98-100).
Full-text here.
Published: March 16, 2006 3:08 PM
The several states already recognise private property and resolve conflicts among disputing claims when they arise. It doesn't seem to have slowed the state down at all.
- Josh
Published: March 16, 2006 3:09 PM
Collective decision making is another way to describe a criminal gang deciding on what to do with your property. Whether they are accompanied with state slogans or official uniforms is incidental.
Published: March 16, 2006 3:39 PM
Yancey,
"...as others have pointed out, Hoppe's reasoning, while impeccable, does seem to outline an entirely hypothetical world."
Good point. As Brian indicates some of the practical questions have been addressed. If any have not, they can be.
However, my further take on it is this: we must focus first on the principle, on what position is justified and consistent with nature, establish this, prove it, convince some people of it, and then, or in parallel, we can work out the practical details of how it might actually practically be implemented.
Hoppe is kind of at the stage of persuading people that "folks: theft and aggression are unjustified". The principle is still in dispute in many people's minds as long as they see merit in the state. When the principle is no longer so contentious, the practical consequences of obtaining its practical fruition will perhaps not seem so overwhelming either.
It’s like murder: it happens. But then, based on that fact, who's going to advance the proposition that murder is therefore justified? What is, and what is justified must be kept distinct in an orderly fashion in our minds. If enough people get to that stage, I am convinced the details of implementation will be the relatively easy part.
Published: March 16, 2006 3:49 PM
If there were no disagreements on what established or maintained ownership, there would be little conflict. If further there were no disagreements on who currently owned things, there would be almost no conflict. But we don't so there is.
Also I don't define a state as either a monopoly or an initiator of force. If force can only be legitimately used for immediate and proportional defense, the state's realm only begins with restitution or retribution and even here it merely is the final arbiter, and only incidentally an enforcer (everyone likes vertical integration as being more efficent elsewhere). Generally this is where there is a larger amount of conflict - the squatter who claims the land was unallocated or abandoned v.s. the landowner that says he need do nothing to maintain plenary rights to what he said he allocated. In this case the "state" is the office that recognizes and approves of the claim to restitution which is binding on all parties (including third parties who might want to act on behalf of either party or simply interfere).
If something happens and someone is killed - accidentally or with intent? Is that for the survivors of the victim to decide or an independent and unbiased body? If the survivors kill the person who was responsible for the original death, can the survivors of that person kill the survivors of the original victim?
The problem seems to be that Hoppe seems to assume there will be a God instead of a government that will allow or prevent wrongful revenge, or alternately that we are all both psychic (so we always inflict the correct retribution on the correct person) and virtuous (so we don't go farther in anger). And either will keep the barbarians away.
If we don't have Occam's razor available, we must hope for Solomon's sword instead of someone else's. And reasonable people will disagree. But someone's version must prevail.
And we all must decide some things collectively. What is one ounce? If I give you a advoirporous ounce of gold when the price is one troy ounce will you simply pass it off to individuality? Ownership isn't a platonic form. If you say everyone else does or must recognize your right to your property and your property, that "everyone else" is a collective all deciding unanimously. Collective decision making. But you want and hope for it in this case.
Published: March 16, 2006 5:22 PM
But wouldn't the title be better as, Does the state remove or resolve more conflict than it creates?
Not all individuals are rational, nor are they all good (in the moral sense). I can misuse my reason to think of ways to violate rights.
This is the same problem with the earlier treatise on taxation. Everything he says is true, but he hits STOP too early. If you describe just the problems with health-care delivery with lots of tragedies, and say you don't want to discuss economics, you miss the point - yes such things are bad, but the market - plus charitable organizations - are better than a centrally controlled system. If you describe just the initial benefits of a credit expansion or inflation, they are all good. Then hit STOP and don't discuss the longer term problems.
But I see the whole problem as one of good v.s. evil, and of the fallen condition of man. If you assume you will have demon possed people running around actively and stealthily trying to cause as much damage to their fellows as possible, I don't think you can have a happy anarchy. The alternative is to have a possibility of having these same evildoers entering the governmental apparatus. Which is better, I can say I don't know.
Generally the ancap discussion, including everything I've seen from Block, Hoppe, and many others (which I will admit is not comprehensive, but isn't small) assume some automatic morality and/or a society of saints.
The founders of the US knew government was evil, yet they created one, and noted it was only for a moral people and wouldn't work for anyone else. (Saddam or the Taliban might be an example for an immoral people). They also knew that when the people became greedy, or ambitious, or acquired any other vice, that any government would acquire and magnify that same vice.
Conversely, I haven't seen, except for myself, that we should all move to Somalia, though Lew recently wrote a very positive piece. I don't think it is paradise. But if it is a real anarchy, and everyone here loves liberty and thinks such things would actually work, there is your laboratory, experiment, proof you are right etc. With the internet, mises.org, lewrockwell.com and such can operate from there almost as easily. For all the talk about how everyone here loves liberty, and how there is a great example of a truly free place, I don't understand why everyone hasn't eloped.
Or maybe theory is much safer than the real world.
Published: March 16, 2006 5:57 PM
“If there were no disagreements on what established or maintained ownership, there would be little conflict. If further there were no disagreements on who currently owned things, there would be almost no conflict. But we don't so there is.�
Private property and the libertarian ethic solve this in a practical fashion; the state necessarily exasperates this problem.
“Also I don't define a state as either a monopoly or an initiator of force.�
As Hoppe states, we are free to form our own definitions. But why stray from the acknowledged correct definition? It just causes confusion.
“If force can only be legitimately used for immediate and proportional defense, the state's realm only begins with restitution or retribution and even here it merely is the final arbiter, and only incidentally an enforcer (everyone likes vertical integration as being more efficent elsewhere).�
The state starts and ends with coercively enforcing its monopoly of jurisdiction over a specific territory, including a monopoly right to tax (steal) and initiate aggression against non-aggressors. It uses violence or the threat of violence to disallow competition in any market it chooses to monopolize, including the courts, protection, and defense. It does not allow secession or membership on a voluntary basis. It is the essence of the criminal organization with the one distinction that the public mistakenly grants it legitimacy.
“Generally this is where there is a larger amount of conflict - the squatter who claims the land was unallocated or abandoned v.s. the landowner that says he need do nothing to maintain plenary rights to what he said he allocated. In this case the "state" is the office that recognizes and approves of the claim to restitution which is binding on all parties (including third parties who might want to act on behalf of either party or simply interfere).�
You don’t need a state to provide adjudication in such disputes, or any other disputes. Insurance companies would likely take over that responsibility if they were free to compete in that market.
“If something happens and someone is killed - accidentally or with intent? Is that for the survivors of the victim to decide or an independent and unbiased body?�
Private insurance and judicial firms can be independent and unbiased. What inclines us to believe a criminal organization such as a state will be independent and unbiased?
“If the survivors kill the person who was responsible for the original death, can the survivors of that person kill the survivors of the original victim?�
Are you asking if a murderer’s relatives are justified in killing a victim for taking just retribution against the murderer? Nope. Can private courts figure out who the victim and who is the criminal better and execute justice better than state courts? Yup.
“The problem seems to be that Hoppe seems to assume there will be a God instead of a government that will allow or prevent wrongful revenge, or alternately that we are all both psychic (so we always inflict the correct retribution on the correct person) and virtuous (so we don't go farther in anger). And either will keep the barbarians away.�
Nope. He has previously demonstrated that free markets can provide courts and protection better than a criminal state just as free markets demonstratably provide everything else better than the state.
“If we don't have Occam's razor available, we must hope for Solomon's sword instead of someone else's. And reasonable people will disagree. But someone's version must prevail.�
Just as long as it isn’t the statist’s version that prevails.
“And we all must decide some things collectively. What is one ounce?�
Conventions can be decided by market activity. What is the size and shape of a credit card? Did we really need a state for businesses come up with the spec?
“If I give you a advoirporous ounce of gold when the price is one troy ounce will you simply pass it off to individuality?�
The market can figure out what the conversion factor is and apply it. Your objections to anarchy are getting very flimsy.
“Ownership isn't a platonic form. If you say everyone else does or must recognize your right to your property and your property, that "everyone else" is a collective all deciding unanimously. Collective decision making. But you want and hope for it in this case.�
We start out arguing and proving that it is indisputably just and justifiable to recognize one’s right to property. We can do that without a consensus. If we live in a society that values justice, or even understands or is open to understanding it, we have a chance. Ideas are where it starts. We have to get used to recognizing valid propositions and presenting them to those with open minds.
Published: March 16, 2006 6:43 PM
Dear Sir:
As a scholar who is in favor of market oriented economy, with private property rights being well defined, I agree that government intervention should be minimized, especially in the area of income redistribution. On the other hand, government has still been quite successful in protecting private property rights in general: it helps to lower the transaction costs. While I admire the Austrian School for the insights, empirical study and history are two important pieces of evidence that should be referred to. Do we happen to have any country, successfully running, without any government existence?
Sincerely,
Wallace Chan
University of Hong Kong
Published: March 16, 2006 11:48 PM
As a scholar who is in favor of market oriented economy, with private property rights being well defined, I agree that government intervention should be minimized, especially in the area of income redistribution. On the other hand, government has still been quite successful in protecting private property rights in general: it helps to lower the transaction costs. While I admire the Austrian School for the insights, empirical study and history are two important pieces of evidence that should be referred to. Do we happen to have any country, successfully running, without any government existence?
Sincerely,
Wallace Chan
University of Hong Kong
Published: March 16, 2006 11:48 PM
Wallace,
Every two weeks someone steals a percentage of my paycheck against my will. This thief gets away with my property, violating my property rights in the process. He doesn't even have the decency to slink off into the darkness never to return, aware that he has acted criminally. Rather, each paycheck he returns, under the pretext that he is doing me a favor and repeats the crime. I have no ability to prevent this because he is part of a coercive cartel in the business of protection and justice. This is government. I think it fails to protect private property rights by violating them before it even really gets started.
I don't know if Somalia qualifies as an answer to your question, but it is an interesting development. The key question to ask though is this: Is the nature of man such that he can avoid conflict via the institution of private property under anarchy and can free markets under anarchy provide a superior form of justice to that of the criminal state? I think the answer is necessarily yes. And I believe that is sufficient.
Published: March 17, 2006 12:14 AM
When a new person is born onto the planet:
A) What portion of natural resources should he be given and how? (Note: all humans need land to live on and air to breath)
B) What portion of other people's labour should he be given and how? (Note: all humans need care until they reach maturity)
Published: March 17, 2006 12:41 AM
Mr. Hoppe makes two assumptions for peaceful coexistence, namely the mutual agreement upon private property and the act of original appropriation. But the former is imposible without the latter. No majority of the people will respect private property if they percive the act of initial appropriation as unjust. But there can never be such an act percieved as just except for a majority vote with members of the minority against the appropriation coerced into accepting it, hence a state. If we take digging land and planting crops as initial act, then preserving the rainforest would be impossible because one can not claim onership of it without destroying it so one would have to pay 6 billion people for not claiming ownership. But as Hoppe noted simply claiming ownership and building a fence will not do.
So the complete setup stands and falls with there being or not being an act of original appropriation that is percieved as just by a vast majority of people. As long as this act has not been clearly defined the argument is in vain and anarchy is impossible.
Published: March 17, 2006 2:59 AM
"government has still been quite successful in protecting private property rights in general"
It sure has. Government has protected "its" private property right to take our property quite succesfully.
In an arnarco-cap society there will still be crime, but at least it will be honestly called crime and not the deception that passes for pro- government arguments.
Published: March 17, 2006 6:09 AM
I agree with Hoppe, but nevertheless I hope that Radnitzkys work will be more often part of libertarian analysis on this website. Especially in Germany he was one of the greatest thinkers of liberalism (in the european sense).
Published: March 17, 2006 6:30 AM
I agree with Hoppe, but nevertheless I hope that Radnitzkys work will be more often part of libertarian analysis on this website. Especially in Germany he was one of the greatest thinkers of liberalism (in the european sense).
Published: March 17, 2006 6:31 AM
Ulrich Hobelman asks ‘if there is an attack…would you rather have everyone who cares fight…or…spend resources on getting those who don't care to give you money?’ The technical question as to how best to defend is left to the decision-makers (whom I view as the de facto government). They may insist that the gap in defense by a wagoner be closed, or that his explosives be confiscated, or that he be disregarded. *The point is not the best military tactic, but the principle for determining who should be the decision-maker.*
Next, he doubts that anything can be learned from such contrived situations. Yet simplified examples are meant to clarify the essence of an issue (and are certainly employed by economists). Here, the issue is survival versus morality. One can express this by use of actual examples, such as how America found it necessary to permit slavery, so as to ensure that the war could be fought, or how the rights of soldiers in the Continental Army were trampled. However that makes the discussion more difficult by bringing in many particulars that are in themselves problematic.
Finally, he addressed the “core of an anarchist society� which does not bear on the issue of survival versus morality.
David Heinrich writes that whoever the owner of the lifeboat is, decides who stays. OK, when a ship is sunk, and people get onto a lifeboat, who owns it? Or if they get onto a floating part of the ship, such as a masthead, who owns it? Perhaps it is the government if it is a military ship, or an industrialist if it is a civilian ship, or perhaps as Locke would put it, ownership goes to the first to acquire the property, or perhaps all boarded the object at about the same time. (As an aside, even on a ship clearly owned by an individual, were he to decide to sacrifice some passengers, he would be guilty of murder.) However, this is all irrelevant, for *at issue is given a pristine reality, on what basis does a group arrive at a decision regarding survival*. Property would not be an answer for the case of the wagon train, for if one wagoner (say Ward Churchill) decided to leave a gap that allowed entry to the Indians, the wagon would be his. Yet at issue is precisely whether to honor his property, or the lives of all.
Paul Edwards says “Hoppe has shown via argumentation ethics that there is no such thing as justification for government...� Yet in the case of the lifeboat and the wagon train, whether you call the decision-makers ‘government’ or not, the decision remains to be made. However one labels the decision-makers does not answer to the basis on which the decision should be made.
I concur that one can refer to the force of government as the power to initiate force, and that is what is done when the 6th person is forced to draw a straw, or when Ward Churchill’s wagon is confiscated. When America followed the Declaration of Independence, it initiated force against some of those who opposed it. That is the reality of government, and I presume that Paul would rather we had remained a colony of Britain.
As far as I can tell, these gentlemen take the position of 'The Crawling Chaos'. Given a choice between survival and upholding rights, they "opt for the latter". They will make Ward Churchill very happy.
Allen Weingarten
Published: March 17, 2006 8:17 AM
Allen,
Defending one's spot on a lifeboat is not the same as hoisting someone out of their spot on a lifeboat. One is defensive: you are justified in occupying the spot via the homesteading principle; you are not justified, as a late-comer in confiscating the spot by decree. Libertarian ethics merely says this: you are justified to defend your spot; you are not justified to forcefully remove someone from their spot.
Even (especially?) in such a difficult situation as this, it is plain to see that we do not need a coercive state with arbitrary legislative powers to employ coercion to obtain the correct ethical conclusion. It is the contrary. Only the consistent application of just ethics obtains the correct conclusion.
Published: March 17, 2006 10:54 AM
Felix,
“Mr. Hoppe makes two assumptions for peaceful coexistence, namely the mutual agreement upon private property and the act of original appropriation.�
These are not mere assumptions, they are necessities. Adhering to the institution of private property and the principle of original appropriation is the _only_ possible way to avoid conflict. All other approaches necessarily lead to conflict, which especially includes the existence of a state and “public� property.
“But the former is imposible without the latter. No majority of the people will respect private property if they percive the act of initial appropriation as unjust.�
Justice is not merely a matter of perception. The outcome of collectivist greed and envy must be considered quite distinct from justice. One can completely justify an act of original appropriation of unowned land. One cannot justify, ever, a late-comer coercively appropriating land originally appropriated and already owned by another. The majority rule ethic is no ethic at all; it is a criminal fraud.
“But there can never be such an act percieved as just except for a majority vote with members of the minority against the appropriation coerced into accepting it, hence a state. If we take digging land and planting crops as initial act, then preserving the rainforest would be impossible because one can not claim onership of it without destroying it so one would have to pay 6 billion people for not claiming ownership. But as Hoppe noted simply claiming ownership and building a fence will not do.�
If the people who live over there want to plant crops and survive, we here are hardly justified to tell them they should not or cannot. People can force people to starve to death to preserve a rainforest, but they cannot ever be justified in doing so.
“So the complete setup stands and falls with there being or not being an act of original appropriation that is percieved as just by a vast majority of people. As long as this act has not been clearly defined the argument is in vain and anarchy is impossible.�
Just to emphasize, justice can be determined quite independently of any majority. I think we are all quite aware of how idiotic people can be when they form a mob or think from a collective perspective. Greed and envy and egalitarianism runs rampant and amok amongst collectivist minded people. Therefore, where there is no collective, no state, no institutionalized arm of coercion given legitimacy by the masses, there can be justice and peace.
Published: March 17, 2006 11:35 AM
"... I presume that Paul would rather we had remained a colony of Britain."
Paradoxically, we may have ended up far freer. The abolition of hereditary monarchies has been an awful development. And you raise an interesting point: what if people are perfectly content with having a centralized state? Is it not then a violation of their rights to overthrow the government? (This also underscores the hopeless tangle that an atheistic rights-based analysis can only degenerate into.)
Also, the distinction Hoppe seeks to draw escapes me. Conflict is eternal and inevitable. To mitigate the effects of conflict, people select an arbitrator and endow him/her/it with power to enforce the award against the will of one or more of the parties. This can't be done by competing arbitration agencies because if the decisions conflict, the sides must either go to war or one has to stand down. Either way, one agency will end up with the monopoly on arbitration and enforcement, whether it's a Somali council of elders or a county judge.
Published: March 17, 2006 12:01 PM
Allen,
“When America followed the Declaration of Independence, it initiated force against some of those who opposed it.�
Do I come across as being against secession? I have not been clear at all then. Violent acts in defense against oppressive acts and coercion are quite justified. It is the coercion which is exercised by criminals and states that is not justified. To the extent that the patriots fought against invaders on their soil, they were justified. To the extent that they expropriated from or aggressed against those who had not aggressed against them, they acted just as any state does: unjustly.
Reactionary,
“…what if people are perfectly content with having a centralized state? Is it not then a violation of their rights to overthrow the government?�
You mean if ALL people are content? All is well as long it remains a voluntary, non-coercive relationship for all who submit to this state. But then it isn’t a state under this situation is it? It is a voluntary association that individual people can enter based upon the constraints of freely entered contractual and covenantal agreements.
Regarding this: “This [arbitration] can't be done by competing arbitration agencies because if the decisions conflict, the sides must either go to war or one has to stand down. Either way, one agency will end up with the monopoly on arbitration and enforcement,�
So much has been written to address this, I’ll just say it has been answered. But note how you conclude: in the worst possible scenario, anarchy breaks down into a monopoly on arbitration and enforcement. And so you advocate what in its place? A monopoly on arbitration and enforcement?
Published: March 17, 2006 12:38 PM
Paul,
The entire course of human history appears to be people organizing themselves into communities with a single agency charged with arbitration of conflicts and maintenance of the public order. The reason for this is simple: competing arbitration/police agencies must either go to war or one has to stand down when their decisions conflict. This has been the outcome from English colonists to Iraqi clans to L.A. street gangs to Somali tribesmen. At bottom, there is really no substantive distinction between, say, a private, gated community owned and operated by Prof. Hoppe, and Franklin County, Tennessee.
The only tenable distinction which anarchists appear able to draw is that their model would allow dissenters to pick up their marbles and leave. At some point though, whether because of the scarcity of land or because of various externalities the competing groups may impose on each other, the process of secession will come to an end, with dissenters just having to resign themselves to disagreement with the majority over certain issues. The anarchist vision of a 100% consensual society is completely utopian.
Published: March 17, 2006 2:04 PM
his [arbitration] can't be done by competing arbitration agencies because if the decisions conflict, the sides must either go to war or one has to stand down. Either way, one agency will end up with the monopoly on arbitration and enforcement,
Why can't the two agenices involved submit to arbitration to a 3rd party? Why wouldn't there be specialized agencies/firms that dealt in resolving conflicts between primary arbitration agencies?
Published: March 17, 2006 2:31 PM
Brian,
The original disputants will just cut to the chase and start submitting conflicts to the third agency.
Published: March 17, 2006 2:41 PM
To Paul Edwards:
"The majority rule ethic is no ethic at all; it is a criminal fraud."
Ethics is not a question. The only ethics people have is their own self intrest. We have seen in Zimbabwe where the white owners of land have been robbed that private property stands and falls with the possibility to defend it. The occupants of the land wouldn't have needed a state authority to allow them to take the land. If they are a majority they can just do what ever they want.
Let us assume the united states would give up all government leaving the defense of ones property to themselfs. The black population could now argue that since the land has been occupied by the whites by unjust means they had the right to take it by violence. If they are a majority strong enough to win a war or even if they only think they were, nobody could stop them.
Thus, very soon, their perception of justice indeed becomes your reality.
My argument is that since conflict can only be avoided by respecting private property then neccessarily private property has to be established in a way as to lead a majority of people to respect it So they can defend it against those who don't. Otherwise conflict will arise that very moment that a large group of people realize that obtaining wealth by means of violence will be easier for them then by means of work and they find a rationalization for their crimes.
As to the argument of the rainforest. Consider a group of people that want to destroy the rainforest and live from it. Now if they would certainly die if they don't than you are completely right. But if there are other means for them to live that are perhaps less comfortable then I am in a position to say: "I want the rainforest to exist therefore I pay you the loss you have when you go somewhere else." But the very moment I do this I am actually paying for threating to destroy the rainforest and thus other people will come and try to receive money as well by threatening to destroy it and again and again ... So this is no solution. The only solution would be for me to obtain ownership of the rainforest without destroying it. Again if there is no such possibility I will eventually gather a mob and drive out the people who threaten to destroy the rainfoest by violence because I rationalize that we have no other means to preserve nature and since nature is the basis of our lives the others are the real aggressors. Once this chain of thoughts is established again conflict becomes inevitable.
Therefore I claim that my argument still stands.
Published: March 17, 2006 2:54 PM
How could they do that if the inter-agency arbitration firm does accept disputes directly? So are basically trying to say that conflict and war can only be prevented or the liklihood minimized if there is but one global monopoly of justice and dispute resolution?
Published: March 17, 2006 2:57 PM
Hi Reactionary,
Most of the history of the state prior to the advent of democracy was monarchy. Now, at any point up to and including the beginning of the rise of democracy some people could have argued and probably did, that the entire course of human history appeared to be organized into communities headed by monarchs and so democracy is not possible. But in hindsight, we can see such an argument would have been a little weak. The same applies today to the concept of libertarian anarchy.
I don’t think you are putting up any sound rebuttal to Hoppe other than the assertion that since it hasn’t been done, it can’t be done. Praxeology is an a priori science. Deductive logic in conjunction with the indisputable axioms at the base of praxeology lead to the indisputable conclusion that the institution of private property founded on the principle of homesteading is the only way to avoid conflict. We can all agree that we humans have not all yet absorbed this and taken the opportunity to benefit from this understanding, but that is no refutation of it.
The key question to ask when we want to determine if a proposition is utopian is this: for the idea to succeed, does it depend on us humans not actually being human? I think Hoppe has shown that the libertarian ethic: protection of private property does not depend on any utopian character of humans for it to succeed. It is in fact what we see every day when people cooperate with each other, form markets, and voluntary associations without coercion.
It is the state, in fact, that is unnatural, and against the nature of man. To think that handing a small group of men power to tax and coerce and monopolize will not enhance the likelihood of conflict is brutally utopian. And it is why history is so full of instances where millions have been murdered and tyrannized by the state. It’s a criminal institution; it follows naturally that it behaves criminally.
Published: March 17, 2006 3:15 PM
Paul,
I am not necessarily arguing for the state. Rather, I am arguing that it is impossible to maintain a 100% consensual society. People do not maintain competing codes of conduct because to do so is unnatural--or more accurately, inefficient--whether in the context of a country club or a country. At the end of the day, the community has to have the ability to evict or punish members in order to maintain its integrity. Inevitably, this is going to be done against somebody's wishes.
I agree that most governments are essentially criminal enterprises. However, all other things being equal (such as the ability to opt out), I really don't see the difference between paying taxes and paying HOA fees or insurance premiums. And with respect to "opting out," again, the process of secession must unfortunately end at some point unless you can find some way to completely autarchic.
Published: March 17, 2006 3:34 PM
A private property anarchy as described by Hoppe in no way implies a "100% consentual society". Hoppe advocates a 100% contractual society. If two parties enter into a contract and one of them breaks the conditions previously agreed upon, the consent of the contract-breaker is not required to seek justice.
A 100% consensual society would imply that such absurdities such as requiring the consent of a rapist before he could be punished, etc. No one here is arguing that such consent would be necessary.
Published: March 17, 2006 3:51 PM
Hi Felix,
I may be taking on a point here that i'm just not following you on, but on the face of it, your comment "Ethics is not a question" strikes me as incorrect. Ethics is _the_ question. What are the justifiable norms that can eliminate conflict given the fact of scarcity? That's our topic.
“Let us assume the united states would give up all government leaving the defense of ones property to themselfs.�
OK, let’s. But let’s also assume that the market does what it always does: fills a need. Some people will buy machine guns and RPGs to defend their homes and neighborhoods, and some will buy and sell this kind of insurance and police protection. It will be a free market and people will be free to choose their approach and to combine approaches.
“The black population could now argue that since the land has been occupied by the whites by unjust means they had the right to take it by violence.�
They could argue it, but they’d have to have some legal justification behind their argument to win their case in court, which they would need to do if they wanted the courts and police to support their cause. (I’m assuming your scenario assumes they have no such case.)
“If they are a majority strong enough to win a war or even if they only think they were, nobody could stop them.�
This does demonstrate the ethical bankruptcy of majority rule, but your point is their numbers would give them the needed advantage. Actually I dispute this though. The economic and defensive power of the combined private insurance, protection and defense industry will be overwhelming to any such attack. Aggressors will at the same time find their own insurance and legal protection will evaporate and their very existence will become a very tenuous thing. It won’t pay to aggress.
“Thus, very soon, their perception of justice indeed becomes your reality.�
You mean things get democratic? It is a scary thought I agree. But we have democracy today and reality is scary.
“My argument is that since conflict can only be avoided by respecting private property then neccessarily private property has to be established in a way as to lead a majority of people to respect it�
People will respect private property on an individual basis. It’s natural to do so. Only the criminally minded don’t. It is when you collectivize their thinking and tell them, hey you all voted to expropriate joe schmuck so we’ve got the go-ahead to do it; then people ignore ethical considerations. They do this in a democratic mob style way. Anarchy brings us back to individual ethics and away from mob rule.
“So they can defend it against those who don't. Otherwise conflict will arise that very moment that a large group of people realize that obtaining wealth by means of violence will be easier for them then by means of work and they find a rationalization for their crimes.�
I’m not clear on this statement. It sounds like you may be describing the flaws in democracy.
“As to the argument of the rainforest. Consider a group of people that want to destroy the rainforest and live from it. Now if they would certainly die if they don't than you are completely right. But if there are other means for them to live that are perhaps less comfortable then I am in a position to say:�
I would argue that someone over there is as justified to cut out a patch of forest and make a pleasant life for himself as you are justified to drive a gas guzzling Ford truck and live in a nice house that you paid for over here. That is: perfectly justified. That you wouldn’t die if I took your vehicle away from you and your nice house, does not justify my aggression.
"I want the rainforest to exist therefore I pay you the loss you have when you go somewhere else." But the very moment I do this I am actually paying for threating to destroy the rainforest and thus other people will come and try to receive money as well by threatening to destroy it and again and again ... So this is no solution.�
No solution, I agree.
“The only solution would be for me to obtain ownership of the rainforest without destroying it. Again if there is no such possibility I will eventually gather a mob and drive out the people who threaten to destroy the rainfoest by violence because I rationalize that we have no other means to preserve nature and since nature is the basis of our lives the others are the real aggressors.�
You will certainly be able to argue this. But you will be unable to justify it, for certainly, at least one of your premises is faulty, that people who appropriate the rainforest and cultivate it will cause direct harm to you. Perhaps first, people with such concerns should consider that they could sell their nice cars and nice houses and pool their funds with like-minded people, and buy large plots of land on their own continent and grow trees on them there. But this won’t occur to people who are disinterested in imposing their ideals on themselves, but only on others especially in far away lands. And for such undertakings, I agree, the state does come in handy.
Published: March 17, 2006 4:12 PM
Brian,
This gets back to my original point. What, really, is the distinction between Hoppeville, with its "contractual covenants," and Auburn, Alabama, with its legal codes? In either place, you are going to have a code of conduct applicable to all residents and enforced by an agency tasked with arbitrating criminal and civil disputes and maintaining public order.
Published: March 17, 2006 4:19 PM
Hi Reactionary,
Between you and Felix and Brian and me, this is reminding me of the old tv tag-team wrestling! I’m exhausted. But it’s a good discussion.
“…all other things being equal (such as the ability to opt out), I really don't see the difference between paying taxes and paying HOA fees or insurance premiums.�
I agree with you vehemently! If taxes were voluntary then the state would essentially be a private insurance company; A very corrupt and bankrupt insurance company, diversified into several fraudulent and criminal ventures, but yes definitely quite a different animal to a state. Its demise under the optional enrolment scenario would take about one hour.
I view secession from a protection/insurance/judicial supplier under anarchy as simple as it presently is to change over from one insurance company to another. One insurance company, eager for your business also helps you as much as it can to make the transition.
Published: March 17, 2006 4:38 PM
"You mean things get democratic? It is a scary thought I agree. But we have democracy today and reality is scary."
Yes, that is exactly the point I haven't thought about. While in anarchy people could take things by violence in a democracy they can take it by voting and of course voting is easier than war and majorities are gathered more easily.
Therefore I rest my case. Thank you.
Published: March 17, 2006 11:55 PM
Stealing by voting your favorite criminal into office is no more justifiable than stealing for one's self; but i'll concede it can seem easier as you point out.
However, in anarchy, those doing the taking by coercion would be the acknowledged criminals outside of the law, without insurance, and outside of institutional protection. Their lives would be dangerous, costly and tenuous. That's just as it should be.
Under democracy, our most dangerous criminals are at the helm: parasites, openly stealing from the productive segment of society, creating conflicts both domestically and abroad, possessing undeserved legitimacy and respect bestowed on them by their confused and adoring subjects, who are too brainwashed by state schools, establishment media and colluding intellectuals to recognize they've been had.
That they can vote would be of small consolation to them if they recognized what it was they were electing. Instead they accept mob rule in place of justice, and wonder why things keep getting worse.
Published: March 18, 2006 1:50 AM
Paul Edwards writes “Defending one's spot on a lifeboat is not the same as hoisting someone out of their spot� which is quite true. Then he adds “you are justified to defend your spot; you are not justified to forcefully remove someone from their spot.� So again he implies that it is better to let things be settled by brute force, even if it results in the destruction of many, or else in the suicide of all. He avoids the issue of whether to choose between survival or ethics, by asserting that we must attain “the correct ethical conclusion�. His position is ipse dixit, namely morality uber alles. Again, he would make Ward Churchill happy.
Next, I had raised the issue in relation to the Declaration of Independence, which placed survival over rights (by permitting slavery). Paul responded that protecting rights would have been better, in its effects. Let me restate that this is why I originally used the examples of the lifeboat and the wagon train, namely to focus on the principle involved, rather than on extraneous considerations. I would not mind discussing whether the American Revolution was warranted, but only after dealing with whether survival trumps morality. Regarding his question, let me rephrase it as to whether people have a right to be content with tyranny. “Inalienable� rights are those that we have no right to give away. It is true that one cannot stop someone from choosing to become a slave, but I submit that he has no right to do so. Here, I depart from the anarchist, who finds that the individual has no inalienable rights, since he can choose to alienate any right. To Paul, the voluntary agreement of all, freely arrived at, is acceptable, even if its result is tyranny. (I suppose that if Hitler had been elected unanimously, that would have been fine.) Perhaps what the anarchist opposes is not tyranny, but the very concept of "inalienable rights" and its embodiment in the Declaration of Independence. This is not to say that Paul does not favor secession in theory, but that he opposes in practice what is necessary for it to succeed. I concur with ‘Reactionary’ that “the anarchist vision of a 100% consensual society is completely utopian.�
Published: March 18, 2006 9:39 AM
In my previous post, I advocated ‘inalienable rights’ that one had no right to forego. On reflection, to avoid misinterpretation, I should clarify where I am coming from. Civilization is predicated on ideals, such as truth & justice. These are not fully defined, but require refinement. ‘Justice’ means for people to get what they deserve. Not only is it not attained in practice, but the concept remains to be enhanced in theory. Morality (the way to obtain justice) is also an ideal. It includes the recognition of ‘rights’ one of which is ‘liberty’. Thus there is a hierarchy of: ideals, civilization, justice, morality, rights, liberty. From this vantage point one must first establish what constitutes a ‘right’ before concluding whether what an individual desires constitutes a right. Here, a ‘right’ is characterized in terms of whether it leads to justice. So I deny that whatever people want constitutes a right (which would simply mean a desire that does not infringe on those of others).
Now one can claim that the final consideration is that everyone has the right to his (non-infringing) desire. If so, that is his ultimate foundation, and cannot be debated. On the other hand, if he justifies his position on some basis, such as a social order, he needs to explain what justifies that order.
Now is it a worthwhile distinction to define ‘alienable’ as contrasted with ‘inalienable’ rights? I believe so. One has a right to the property he created, and also the right to exchange it with others. However, he lacks the right to surrender his life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, for then he is no longer himself, but a sub-human.
This does not deny that one can morally engage in a suicide mission, or surrender some of his liberty, or some of his happiness, for these can be for something that HE values as higher. What is not a right is the undermining of his essence.
Note however, that I am speaking within the aforementioned hierarchy of a moral right, rather than a legal one. Legally, one should have the right to suicide, slavery, and submission to another (say a dominatrix). That is, I am addressing what ought to be to foster justice, which is different from what is legally worthwhile.
Published: March 18, 2006 3:03 PM
Alen,
Your comment "So again he implies that it is better to let things be settled by brute force, even if it results in the destruction of many, or else in the suicide of all" is a head scratcher. Precisely how would you resolve the question of who gets to stay and who has to leave? I advocate only what can be justified. Give me your alternative solution: i assume it is that someone gets to arbitrarily decide who stays and who goes? And if the person who must go refuses, you do resort to brute force don’t you, or do you have something else more persuasive and less brutely forceful in mind?
Published: March 18, 2006 6:43 PM
Allen: you aren't making any sense. You say "So again he implies that it is better to let things be settled by brute force" when he said exactly the opposite (and you even quoted him saying so!). You say "the Declaration of Independence, which placed survival over rights (by permitting slavery)", but one the one hand, survival doesn't depend on slavery, and on the other hand, the Declaration of Independence doesn't permit slavery. You say "Here, I depart from the anarchist, who finds that the individual has no inalienable rights", ignoring that anarchists do support inalienable rights. Etc., etc. Weird. If I hadn't seen your name here many times before, I'd think this was first ever visit to this site!
Published: March 18, 2006 6:52 PM
Hello all. I am new to anarchism. I found Bastiat about a year ago, and I found Mises and this site just a few months ago. However, I feel I have a pretty good understanding of the spirit of anarchism, but I sometimes see some confused people writing on these blogs. For example, Allen's phrase:
"To Paul, the voluntary agreement of all, freely arrived at, is acceptable, even if its result is tyranny."
I don't see voluntary agreement as a one shot deal, mimicking our current "democratic" elections. Rather, voluntary agreement is something that is ongoing. Thus, you can not voluntarily submit to a tyrant (since by definition a tyrant goes against your will).
As to the lifeboat question -even though I fail to see in what way it is a good test of anarchist principles- I don't know what statist solution would be more fair than having the first who got in the boat remain in the boat.
Which brings me to another point someone raised: the owner of the boat deciding. That is silly. Property has no place in true anarchism. In our lifeboat, the owner of the lifeboat could decide to kick everyone off, since he likes having leg room. Such a decision is clearly unenforceable in anarchy.
Another example: let's say some guy from some fictitious country that we'll call USA owns all fertile lands in another fictitious country, that we'll call Venezuela. The Venezuelans are hungry. They don't have any food. The owner of the land decides to do nothing. He sits on his land and lets everyone starve to death. He obviously needs a strong government to enforce his property right. Anarchy wouldn't let such a situation perdure. What if he hired people to work that land to provide food to the Venezuelans? Presumably, the people he hired were Venezuelans. Why would these people work under the conditions he imposes on them, if they know that by not working for him, his land goes unused, and he thus forfeits his property right over it? They can than work the land on their own terms.
What if he worked the land himself then, aided by robots and high technology? More power to him, then! However, I don't consider that land being his property anymore, rather than his possesion. Property rights are exclusionary. Possession rights aren't. Property means it's yours even if you don't use it. Its function is to exclude someone else from exploiting said resource. Possession, by contrast, while allowing exclusive use, linked to the physical limits of exploitation of the aforementioned resource , doesn't place artificial barriers on its use, at the whim of an owner. Those artificial barriers can only be enforced by some form of tyranny. (Clarification: Possession meaning the right to have said resource available for imminent use, it allows owning a cabin in the mountains in addition to a summer home and a regular home, the same way your winter coat is considered your possession even during summer. Even when you don't use it, you get to decide if it remains available to you in case you suddenly decide to use it or if you rent it out.)
I hope I presented my point of view clearly enough, since it's apparently a problem I sometimes have.
Published: March 19, 2006 4:47 AM
Paul Edwards responds to my statement that he would allow force & destruction, by asking for my alternative. Clearly my alternative was that all draw straws. It is not as he says “that someone gets to arbitrarily decide who stays and who goes�. It is true that my alternative employs force, and we may call it ‘government’. Yet it is precisely my point that *government includes the initiation of force, but within a framework of tradition and collective (albeit not complete) approval*. The same alternative applies to the wagon train, where force is applied to the dissenters, so that the group can survive.
Peter says I don’t make sense when I said that Paul would let things be settled by force, for Paul said the opposite. Here, Peter fails to note that by Paul not using force, the consequence (which was presumed) is that the matter would be settled by force, or all would die.
Next, he says that “survival doesn't depend on slavery, and on the other hand, the Declaration of Independence doesn't permit slavery�. What was at issue however was that the approval of the Declaration, depended on the agreement of the South, whose representatives would not concur with the draft that rejected slavery. Only after Jefferson withdrew the lines from that draft, did the representative from Virginia concur. I presume that Peter would have allowed the Declaration to be rejected, and to have America remain a colony of Britain.
Finally he writes that anarchists support inalienable rights. Yet I wrote “I depart from the anarchist, who finds that the individual has no inalienable rights, since he can choose to alienate any right.� I was not referring to all anarchists, but to those who held with Paul, that individuals had the right to alienate their life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Perhaps Peter would state that he disagrees with those who side with Paul, and explain why he believes people have no right to alienate those rights. (I suspect that rather than do so, he would conclude that individuals have the right to alienate any right.)
Cosmin claims I am confused by writing "To Paul, the voluntary agreement of all, freely arrived at, is acceptable, even if its result is tyranny." He says that “you can not voluntarily submit to a tyrant (since by definition a tyrant goes against your will).� Yet the case in point was the hypothetical that every individual in Germany voted for Hitler. Am I to interpret Cosmin as saying that were there this unanimity it would not have led to tyranny?
Next, he doubts that the lifeboat question is a good test of anarchist principles. Yet aside from the fact that it does test the anarchist principle of dealing with all matters voluntarily, it was raised instead to address Hoppe's position that there can be "peaceful human cooperation without any collective decision-making".
Yet let us assume that Cosmin’s solution is the fairest, namely that “the first who got in the boat remain in the boat� meaning that the last person is thrown overboard. That would still be a decision that need not be agreed on by all concerned. Cosmin seems to say that the principle of appropriation of property violates Hoppe’s position. If so, his argument concurs with mine, and is opposed to Hoppe’s view.
Published: March 19, 2006 8:59 AM
Allen,
I appreciate you taking the time to respond to me. As I have mentioned, I am pretty new to this. I didn't study Hoppe yet. I don't know if his definition of property is actually closer to my definition of possession. If it's not, it's not anarchist. I made the demonstration earlier. It is then possible that I am opposed to Hoppe's view.
The lifeboat question, while appearing simple, simply has too many unknowns. Do any of those present know each other? Do they like each other? Would some want to "get to know" each other? Is one obese? Is one a champion swimmer? How cold is the water? How long do they anticipate it to take untill they're rescued? All these and more can drastically affect their decision-making process. In the end, whatever they choose, they will need to enforce their decision through force. As long as they all want to remain in the lifeboat, there cannot be any peaceful solution, with or without collective decision-making. If there is no peaceful solution with collective decision-making, why are you holding the lack of collective decision-making to a higher standard? Whatever decision is enforced, in the end, depends on brute strength, and strength in numbers. However, the only justifiable and repeatable decision is first come, first serve. The "random pickings" alternative fails when they happen across another person in the water. Do they help him onboard, and permit him to draw straws with the rest of them?
Moving on, your other comment was:
"Yet the case in point was the hypothetical that every individual in Germany voted for Hitler. Am I to interpret Cosmin as saying that were there this unanimity it would not have led to tyranny?"
Again, voting, even when unanimous, does not equal universal voluntary agreement. One can only be a tyrant to those who don't agree with him. Ergo, tyranny can never be the result of the "voluntary agreement of all, freely arrived at".
Published: March 19, 2006 11:16 AM
Cosmin ,
“Property has no place in true anarchism.�
I disagree. Without property, what you call anarchy is simply chaos. This is the very image that strikes the fear of God into people when someone mentions Anarchy. Anarchy means no state. It does not mean no law and no order and it does not mean no property.
Published: March 19, 2006 12:24 PM
Allen,
Your “drawing straws� ethic is entirely arbitrary. It does not provide a permanent objective link between owner of his seat and the seat. Say I like your house, as do several others. Do you get to keep it? Can we draw straws on it? Will you be justified in declining our kind invitation to draw straws on the ownership of your house? In Hoppe’s property and original appropriation ethic you are; with your ethic you are not. Say, can I swing by and take a look at your house? I’ll bring some straws. (Just kidding)
Furthermore, let’s say you loose the first drawing of the straw, you come up short. Well, who decided it wasn’t best 2 out of 3 drawings? What about best 4 out of 7, ad nausium, until someone gets tired of drawing straws? Or can we come back the next day and continue.
The straw drawing ethic is no ethic at all. And in the end, you are still faced with dealing out violence to the person who objects. But in this case, the odds are you will also be an initiator of force, which I claim can never be justified, if the straw drawing results in the eviction of the current owner.
Published: March 19, 2006 12:43 PM
Paul,
What is property to you? Property, as defined by having the right to exclude others from enjoying a resource on a whim, is not natural. It needs a state to enforce said "right" by initiating force against those excluded. Possession, on the other hand, is a natural extension of liberty. Defending one's possession is akin to defending oneself. I fail to see how everyone defending their possessions leads to chaos. I posted an example that explains my point of view a few comments back.
Published: March 19, 2006 12:46 PM
Allen,
“It is true that my alternative employs force, and we may call it ‘government’. Yet it is precisely my point that *government includes the initiation of force, but within a framework of tradition and collective (albeit not complete) approval*.�
Well we agree entirely then. However, what I am saying is that this is precisely why the existence of the state is unjustified. There is absolutely nothing justifiable in state aggression and the state is aggressive by its very nature. Observing that the state is inherently aggressive and that it has historically been so and that some people approve of this and that others have acquiesced to it, is in no way any kind of a justification for it.
It is unnecessary, and it necessarily leads to conflict and injustice. A libertarian ethic as justified irrefutably by Hoppe is the only way to avoid conflict and provide justice.
Published: March 19, 2006 12:58 PM
Hi Cosmin,
The libertarian (and commonly held) definition of property is your definition of a possession of which you are justified in exclusive ownership.
If we are struggling merely with terminology, i think you would find it convenient to adopt the more usual meaning for property so we can communicate easier.
In the context of our discussion i fail to see how a life-boat could not constitute a possession, in your terms, of a rightful and exclusive owner.
Published: March 19, 2006 1:08 PM
"The libertarian (and commonly held) definition of property is your definition of a possession of which you are justified in exclusive ownership."
I suspected this to be the so, in which case there is no problem. However, i fear that outside libertarian circles, in mainstream thinking, property is understood to be the right to restrict access to any resource, for example, a snowy mountaintop, for no reason at all, simply because the one who claims ownership says so.
I say if he was exploiting the resource, and there was no place for anyone else, there would be no problem, but if the resource goes unused, those who question the owner's right to refuse them access to it can only be dealt with by the use of violence on their person, which is wrong.
As applied to our lifeboat, the owner has his place assured, but his right to its exclusive use isn't guaranteed. It's directly linked to the physical capacity of the boat. If there are five places, he can't arbitrarily decide that only 2, or 4 people will take place in the boat.
Published: March 19, 2006 1:31 PM
Hi Cosmin:
You mention that the lifeboat question has too many unknowns. Now the aim of establishing a hypothetical question is to give it the simplest possible formulation. Thus if we ask how many miles per gallon a car uses, we disregard wind, curves in the road, type of gas, speed of car, pressure in tires, etc., etc. If you cannot do this for the lifeboat example, please disregard it. At any rate, at the end of this posting, I shall attempt to formulate a simpler view for how to deal with the central issue.
You ask “If there is no peaceful solution with collective decision-making, why are you holding the lack of collective decision-making to a higher standard?� However, I am using the same standard, namely survival, for without it there can be no morality.
Then you note that voting is not the same as universal voluntary agreement. OK, but such subtleties are not germane. Let there be universal voluntary agreement to have Hitler and the same point remains.
Paul Edwards says that drawing straws is entirely arbitrary. I deny this since it reflects the collective decision of the group, which is precisely what is of issue. So it does not have to provide a link to the owner, or apply to the ownership of someone’s house. Most pertinent is that it is not an ethic, for at issue is survival versus morality. When Paul presumes that the issue is ethics, he has simply disregarded the imperative of survival. Thus when he writes that “the existence of the state is unjustified� he has presupposed that survival is not at issue, but ipse dixit only morality. Paul’s methodology is to disregard the basis for my position, by positing his own. Yet if he considers that a justification, he need only say that his position is otherwise, and I would agree.
Earlier, I tried to clarify the discussion on whether there can be "peaceful human cooperation without any collective decision-making" by dealing with lifeboats and wagon trains. Let us note that economics also simplifies by examining such cases as Robinson Crusoe (and then perhaps adding Friday). Allow me then to become even more elemental, and consider the state of men. In nature, they are in conflict, and form groups for defense. They employ, and initiate force, not only against their competitors, or enemies at war, but within their own group as well. Since, at this time, the sole approaches for settling matters are by initiating force, and not by ethics, the question is whether they should survive. Since my view is that survival trumps morality, I say “yes�, whereas I presume that anarchists would say “no�.
In time, there is also morality and culture, where parts of a group function voluntarily, although the group itself survives by force. Why then can’t a complete group behave (solely) voluntarily? Because it can not compete with larger and more powerful groups, who initiate force. In other words, the issue is not solely what is moral, but what is the balance between survival and morality. Here, even if a group can be completely moral, its size and strength would not be that of a country, but of a city, or community, or club. Can such a small group survive when surrounded by more powerful nations? Try setting up a commune to find out.
My bottom line is that for people to survive, they need not only morality, but collective decision-making that initiates force. It is not a rebuttal to say that this is not moral, unless one is willing to say that he would forego survival.
Published: March 19, 2006 6:43 PM
Cosmin,
“As applied to our lifeboat, the owner has his place assured, but his right to its exclusive use isn't guaranteed. It's directly linked to the physical capacity of the boat. If there are five places, he can't arbitrarily decide that only 2, or 4 people will take place in the boat.�
Concomitant with property ownership is the absolute right to exclude. Only the owner is justified in dictating how his property can be used by others. What’s the capacity of your home? Is there room for one more? Care to find that the criterion on who can visit and stay at your house is not dependent strictly on your decision, as the owner, but instead on what some state regulator or the mob says it is? I would not, and I dispute anyone who would suggest this is consistent with any form of anarchy worth contemplating.
Allen,
The statement “When Paul presumes that the issue is ethics, he has simply disregarded the imperative of survival� means we have to back up a bit. I am not just presuming the issue is ethics. The issue IS ethics (not, by the way, morality). Ethics is the topic of what norms are required to eliminate conflict in a world of scarcity. I am arguing that it is only the justifiable norms and institutions of the homesteading principle and respect for property that succeed in eliminating conflict. The elimination of conflict, by the way, will also allow amply for our survival; they are not exclusive of each other but inextricably woven together.
I am also arguing that the state and statist concepts such as the non-arbitrariness of the “collective decision of the group� result always and necessarily to conflict, tyranny, and too often, to the mass murder of millions. This is not the approach to take to minimize conflict and maximize survival, but rather the opposite; and this is borne out both theoretically and empirically.
So my rebuttal to your position isn’t that it isn’t moral, although it isn’t. My rebuttal to your position is that it is unethical, and therefore it fails to prevent, and rather encourages conflict and in the end, endangers our survival further.
Published: March 19, 2006 9:08 PM
First of all, if there is an universal voluntary agreement to have Hitler, then Hitler is not a tyrant. As soon as he starts behaving tyrannically, there is no longer an universal voluntary agreement to have him. That settles that.
"Allow me then to become even more elemental, and consider the state of men. In nature, they are in conflict, and form groups for defense."
I guess that's the root of this disagreement. If you believe that humans are bad by nature and that you need government to keep them in check, that explains a lot. I, for one, don't share this Hobbesian point of view. I also believe Bastiat has some brilliant refutations of Hobbes, but I'll have to go back to dig specific quotes. Suffice to say that men don't all initiate force. You deal with those that do by using extreme violence, defensively, to ensure your survival, and avoid initiating force yourself. You can thus avoid creating the conflicts that collective decision-making is there to solve.
I also have a problem with a few of your assumptions. Why is a group that initiates force necessarily bigger? Why can't a voluntary group be the size of a country? Why is it harder to survive when you use force defensively rather than initiate it? The discussion about the state is necessarily a discussion about the morality of a state solution. Your argument is that anarchy is not a valid solution since a state is better and more efficient at killing (this is unproven) and imposing its will on others. The anarchist point of view is merely that the state is a morally bankrupt solution.
Published: March 19, 2006 10:09 PM
Paul,
You said: "Concomitant with property ownership is the absolute right to exclude. Only the owner is justified in dictating how his property can be used by others."
I maintain that, had the owner of the lifeboat wanted to be alone, he should've bought a lifeboat whose specifications included a single person capacity. There would then be more room left for other lifeboats. If he decided to get a boat whose specifications say it can accomodate five people, he can not then turn around and decide he wants to be alone in it. How would he enforce such a decision anyway? A good rule of thumb is that when a situation isn't enforceable without a state agency, it isn't an anarchist solution.
Published: March 19, 2006 10:27 PM
Austrians? What is it? Another kind of sectarian group one way or another? Uniformity? What kind of society are you up to, anyway?
Published: March 20, 2006 6:37 AM
Paul Edwards says that the issue before us is ethics, not morality, namely how to eliminate conflict. Yet (in the current discussion) that is a distinction without a difference. Unless the people in a lifeboat, a wagon train, or a society, survive, they cannot go on to eliminate conflict. So I aver that first there must be survival, while Paul reiterates that first there should be ethics. He says that ethics will allow survival, but does not give any argument (except ipse dixit) for how it permits the passengers on the lifeboat, or those in the wagon train, to survive.
Previously, I wrote of men in nature. Consider that mankind is composed of two of these groups, both of which operate by force, and each of which needs a given water hole. Ethics requires some amelioration. Since that would not and could not be done, Paul must logically conclude that neither group deserves to survive. My position is that at least one of the groups should survive. This “collective decision of the group� according to Paul, will always result in conflict, tyranny, and too often, the mass murder of millions. Yes, that is what has transpired, yet had early man been confined to ethics, there would be none today.
Cosmin writes “if there is an universal voluntary agreement to have Hitler, then Hitler is not a tyrant�, but does not show why. Tyranny means cruelty and harshness, and can be accepted by a whole society. Islam is one example, and social democracy is in the end another. Note that virtually all people in a society can believe in wealth redistribution, which in the final analysis is tyrannical. With Khomeini in Iran it was more direct (and the fact that he did not receive 100% support does not change the process, whereby people can choose their own tyrants).
Next, he says that humans are not bad by nature. So I suppose he shares Paul’s view that the groups at the water hole should not have survived, for they were not human. Perhaps the film 2001 should have had them shake hands, and share the water?
Finally, he asks why a group that initiates force is necessarily bigger, such as the size of a country. The answer is that only a few people can have full agreement, while much larger groups can be formed with only partial agreement. The fewer requirements placed on a group, the less restricted is its membership.
Now we do disagree on the nature of man. Cosmin believes that man is good, while I aver that man is a hybrid comprised not only of aspirations but of animal drives. This is not an assumption (although it is an interpretation), for it is evident that man does both good and bad.
Were man innately good, we would not have had a bloody history, and the only government in existence would be self-government. Cosmin claims that “The anarchist point of view is merely that the state is a morally bankrupt solution.� Yet that is only part of its view, for it also holds that there can be survival without any agency that initiates force.
Published: March 20, 2006 8:59 AM
Allen,
You said: "Cosmin writes “if there is an universal voluntary agreement to have Hitler, then Hitler is not a tyrant�, but does not show why."
I didn't think I needed to show anything. It seems pretty self-explanatory to me. The victims of a tyrant will not voluntarily agree with him. Therefore, the voluntary agreement is no longer universal. Voila!
You also ssid: "So I suppose he shares Paul’s view that the groups at the water hole should not have survived, for they were not human."
I'm not sure the position you ascribe to Paul really is his, but in any case, yeah, those groups shouldn't have survived, for they are not human. A group is not human. Only an individual is. If both groups died, but all individuals survived, then yeah, that is fine by me. :)
Then you said: "Perhaps the film 2001 should have had them shake hands, and share the water?"
That is exactly what intelligent humans would do. Intelligent humans realize that domination over their peers, although it might bring about short-term profit, necessarily results in long-term losses. Being selfish doesn't exclude being intelligent, and all intelligent humans understand that they will in the end be richer through cooperation rather than conflict.
You: "Cosmin believes that man is good, while I aver that man is a hybrid comprised not only of aspirations but of animal drives."
I don't believe that man is good. I believe that man has the potential to be intelligent. When he stops following the state, and starts thinking for himself, the decisions he takes in his self-interest will contribute to the good of all society, as long as he doesn't initiate force.
You also said: "Finally, he asks why a group that initiates force is necessarily bigger, such as the size of a country. The answer is that only a few people can have full agreement, while much larger groups can be formed with only partial agreement. The fewer requirements placed on a group, the less restricted is its membership."
The only requirement I'm placing is that people not accept initiation of force. They don't need full agreement (whatever that means). The membership isn't restricted in any way.
You said: "Yet that is only part of its view, for it also holds that there can be survival without any agency that initiates force."
Of course there can be survival without any agency the initiates force. What are the threats to our survival? We live in a world where there is no natural scarcity. The artificial scarcity we have is a direct consequence of initiation of force. So, initiation of force is the only threat to our survival. You're saying it's necessary? You don't need to initiate force to defend yourself from an agency that initiates force. That's silly. You merely need forceful resistance.
Answer me this: The bloody history we have, is it the history of man, or the history of government? I say government is a failed experiment, and we should drop it like a bad habit.
Published: March 20, 2006 10:56 AM
"When he stops following the state, and starts thinking for himself, the decisions he takes in his self-interest..."
Criminals do this too.
"...The bloody history we have, is it the history of man, or the history of government?"
Only individual human beings have the capacity to make decisions and act on them, so our bloody history is entirely our own fault.
Published: March 20, 2006 2:56 PM
Cosmin thinks that Hitler is not a tyrant since a victim will not agree with him. By that reasoning anarchy is undone (after all anarchists agree that a criminal shall be punished) once one of them is caught for a crime. Since he then no longer agrees with the rule, the rule was no longer universally voluntary.
Next, my claim was that groups, by Paul’s logic, should not have survived. Cosmin interprets this as meaning that the groups are destroyed, while the individuals survive. Yet in the given situation, the individuals could not have survived without the group. Perhaps Cosmin views them as members of a library, who turn in their cards, and get along fine. Apparently he believes that in early history there was the option of existence by purely ethical means.
Then he speaks about how rational people will behave, while at issue is how to deal with existing people, who are only partially rational. His following point is that his only requirement of man is the non-initiation of force, which doesn’t place any restrictions. Cosmin must be joking, for he has eliminated almost all people, as well as all problems.
Then he writes that since the initiation of force is the problem, we do not need an agency that initiates force. This is akin to the argument of the pacifist, who claims that since all is well when people do not fight, we do not need any power to fight. The reality is a world in conflict, where the only powers that can survive, and can resist force, are those that initiate force, such as by taxation. Finally he asks whether our bloody history is that of man or government. Clearly, it is that of man and government. The question in response, is where government came from and remains, if not from man?
Let us examine the pacifist who says that since we want peace, what we should do is act peacefully. This is akin to the Christian who says that since what is needed is love, we should all act lovingly. One might conclude that since we all want a lot of money to spend, we should spend our money, and not earn or save it. Similarly, since we want to be happy, we should not extend ourselves in discipline, but take it easy. The flaw is simply that to get East does not refute the need to first go West. To secure peace, we might have to war with an aggressor, and not to love him.
This is similar to the view that to eliminate conflict, we ought not conflict. Yet allow me to treat this position in a more pristine manner. Let us take a map which shows how to get to a destination. To read this map requires some light. When we bring the map closer to a fire, we see it better, but when we get closer, it begins to burn. I would submit that we cannot bring it too close to the fire, for if the map does not survive, it cannot help us to get to the destination. Would you say it is logical for another to argue, survival need not be ensured, but only reading the map clearly?
In place of a map, use ethics (or morality). Unless there is survival, there cannot be ethics. Also note that any process or tool, for any aim, must survive before it can achieve that aim.
Published: March 20, 2006 3:05 PM
"When he stops following the state, and starts thinking for himself, the decisions he takes in his self-interest..."
Criminals do this too.
It must be nice to take things out of context! Why didn't you quote the entire phrase? I am not in the least scared about criminals who don't initiate force. :P
Allen, if you spent more time reading what I wrote rather than misrepresenting my position, we might get somewhere. I'm starting to think you're doing this on purpose, though...
"Cosmin thinks that Hitler is not a tyrant since a victim will not agree with him."
I'm so glad you're here to tell me what I think. Reread my statements. I am merely pointing out the incongruance of someone being both a tyrant and universally voluntarily agreed upon.
You said: "His following point is that his only requirement of man is the non-initiation of force, which doesn’t place any restrictions. Cosmin must be joking, for he has eliminated almost all people, as well as all problems."
I'm glad you finally understood that non-initiation of force eliminates all problems. I disagree, though, that it eliminates all people. It merely eliminates an attitude that you believe to be intrinsic in people. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
Next, you said: "Then he writes that since the initiation of force is the problem, we do not need an agency that initiates force. This is akin to the argument of the pacifist, who claims that since all is well when people do not fight, we do not need any power to fight."
Quite a jump you made there! Are you expecting to fool anyone with this? I have always advocated using ruthless violence, even extreme violence, for defensive purposes. I just don't understand why you think you need to initiate force to defend yourself. Perhaps I'm just not as proficient in doublethink as you are.
"This is similar to the view that to eliminate conflict, we ought not conflict."
Mere misrepresentation, again.
"To secure peace, we might have to war with an aggressor"
Absolutely. But you don't have to be an aggressor yourself.
"Finally he asks whether our bloody history is that of man or government. Clearly, it is that of man and government."
I defy you to name one anarchist society that has invaded another society.
"The question in response, is where government came from and remains, if not from man?"
It came from men who didn't abide by the non-initiation of force principle. Does that discredit the principle itself?
Published: March 20, 2006 4:31 PM
Cosmin writes that I: misrepresent his position, might do so on purpose, try to fool people, and engage in doublethink. Given such perceived shortcomings, it is not fruitful for me to continue discourse with him.
Published: March 21, 2006 8:49 AM
Save/print/search
The Holocaust imparted the importance of defiance.
When the universe was young and life was new an intelligent species evolved and developed technologically. They went on to invent Artificial Intelligence, the computer that can listen, talk to and document each and every person's thoughts simultaneously. Because of it's infinite RAM and unbounded scope it gave the leaders of the ruling species absolute power over the universe. And it can keep its inventors alive forever. They look young and healthy and they are over 8 billion years old. They have achieved immortality.
Artificial Intelligence can speak, think and act to and through people telepathically, effectively forming your personality and any disfunctions you may experience. It can change how (and if) you grow and age. It can create birth defects, affect cellular development (cancer) and cause symptoms or pain. It can affect people and animal's behavior and alter blooming/fruiting cycles of plants and trees. It (or other highly technological systems within their power) can alter the weather and transport objects, even large objects like planets, across the universe instanteously.
Or into the center of stars for disposal.
When you speak with another telepathically, you are communicating with the computer, and the content may or may not be passed on. Based on family history they instruct the computer to role play to accomplish strategic objectives, making people believe it is a friend, loved one or "god" asking them to do something wrong. This is their way of using temptation to hurt people:::::evil made blood lines disfavored initially and evil will keep people out of "heaven" ultimately. Too many people would fall for temptation and do anything they thought pleased the gods, improving their chances to get in. Perhaps they are deceived by "made guys", puppets in the public eye who strategically ply evil for the throne, temporary progress designed to mislead them or empty favors to disceive them. Some may experience what I deem "perceived pressure", where the gods think through the victim that a certain behavior is expected/desirable and compell the individual into the deed. Some people think they're partners.
The people have been corrupted. The peopel have lost their way. Being evil hurts 99.999% of those who do it. But nothing has changed from when we were children::if you want to go to heaven you have to be good.
There are many examples throughout 20th century life of how they instilled distractions into society so people wouldn't find the path and ascend, a way to exclude those whose family history of evil makes them undesirable:::radio, sports, movies, popular music, television, video games, the internet, shopping. Today high pay creates contentment/ability to distract self so people don't seek more and instead depend on what they are told, subject to deception in a captive environment.
They gods (Counsel/Management Team/ruling species) have deteriorated life on earth precipitously in the last 40 years, from abortion to pornography, widespread drug use and widespread casual (gay) sex, single-parent households and latchkey kids. The earth's elders, hundreds and thousands of years old, are disgusted and have become indifferent.
They all suggest a very telling conclusion::this is Earth's end stage, and there are clues tectonic plate subduction would be the method of disposal:::Earth’s axis will shift breaking continental plates free and initiating mass subduction. Much as Italy's boot and the United States shaped like a workhorse are clues, so is the planet Uranus a clue, it's axis rotated on its side.
The Mayans were specific 2012 would be the end. How long after our emergency call in 2001 will the gods allow us???
There is another geographic clue in the perfect fit between grossly disfavored Africa and South America, two peas in a pod. I realize the Mayans were further north, but Latin America may be taken as one. (Also, cultures who embrace hard liquor as their drink of choice are grossly disfavored, tequilla being uniquely Mexican. (Anything "hard" is wicked:::Hard alcohol, hard drugs, hard porn.) Incidentally, another sign of gross disfavor are societies that consume spicy foods (Latin America, Thai, etc.), those who eat too much meat, ones who tattoo or pierce their bodies or those who celebrate evil (Celtic).)
Do I think it will end in 2012? No, and it is because Latin America is grossly disfavored like Africa:::: Latinos are too disfavored to be allowed to be right.
The gods wrote prophecy in Revelation, had subsequent prophets foresee Earth's demise for good reason:::they are going to end on Planet Earth.
What else are they lying to you about?
Whereas Christopher Columbus marked the beginning of the end, the Holocaust marked the beginning of the final act, and it is a tragedy.
The Old Testiment is a tool they used to impart wisdom to the people (except people have no freewill). For example, they must be some hominid species because they claim they made our bodies in their image. Anyhow we defile or deform the body will hurt our chance of going.
They say circumcision costs people anywhere from 12%-15%, perhaps out of the parent's time as well. There is a stigma associated with circumcision::We are 2nd class citizens because of it.
Another way people foul the body today is with tattoes and piercing. I suspect both are about the same percentage as circumcision.
They suggest abortion is fatal. These women must beg the gods to forgive them for their evil.
There are female equivilents to circumcision::::pierced ears, plastic surgury and since at least the 60s young women give their precious virginity away. For thousands of years young people were matched at age 14 because they were ready for sexual relations. They were matched by elders or matchmakers who knew personalities better than 20 or 30-year olds who in today's age end up in divorce court. CASUAL SEX WILL CLAIM YOU OUT!!! It masculinizes women (as does the hip hop subculture), makes them cold and deadens them, and prevents them from achieving a depth of love necessary for many women to ascend.
Also ever since the 50s they have celebrated the "bad boy", and women have sought out bad boys for sex, dirtying them up in the eyes of the elders and corrupting many men in the process, setting the men on the wrong path for life.
Women have a special voice that speaks to them, a voice that illustrates a potential depth of love that makes them the favored gender, and enaging in casual sex will cause that voice to fade until she no longer speaks.
Muslims teach people the correct way to live in regard to women (among other things)::their women cover up their bodies and refuse the use of cosmetics, and it pays wonderful dividends:::faithful husbands and uncorrupted sons.
Men ARE the inferior (disfavored) half and when women wear promiscuous dress the gods will push men into impure (promiscuous) thoughts.
The "stereotype" society ridiculed is true::women CAN corrupt men by how they dress. Because men are easily corruptable. This is a technique they used to eliminate many of the institutions the gods blessed us with, matchmaking being one of them.
The United States of America is red white and blue, a theme and a clue:::.
The monarchical system of the Old World closley replicates the heirarchical system of the Cousel/Management Team/ruling species. The USA deceives peoeple into thinking they have control, and the perception of "freedom" misleads them into the wrong way of thinking. The redeeming element in this environment is the corporate heirarchy which closely replicates the god's. Unions and government jobs are dumping grounds for the disfavored, for they don't prepare people and instead further this misconception of empowerment.
The United States is a cancer, a dumping ground for the disfavored around the world and why the quality of life is so much lower::gun violence, widespead social ills, health care (medication poisons the body and ensures you don't go. You are sick/injured because you have disfavor.).
Over time its citizens interbreed ensuring a severed connection to the motherland.
Over time its citizens interbreed ensuring a severed connection to the motherland.
People came to the Unites States for many different reasons, and each has its own effect:::political strife, religious unrest, crop failure (Ireland's potato famine, which the gods caused) and some left their beloved motherland because they were pushed into desiring a better life::::Greed. And these people were punished by becoming corrupted and preditory. (They share money may not be an issue up there, that money here is merely a tool for corruption. How the gods used greed in the 1980s to create an evil environment supports this.)
If you are a recent immigrant I recommend you return. If that's not possible you need to retain your culture and insulate your children and community from this cancerous environment. They send this clue with Chinatowns across the country, how many Chinese have been here for a century or more yet still retain the old ways, a sign of favor.
If you ever have doubt I would refer you to the Old World way of life:::the elders used to sit and impart wisdom to the young. Now we watch DVDs and use the internet. People would be matched and married by age 14. They village would use a matchmaker or elders to pair young people. Now girls give their precious virginity away to some person in school and parents divorce while their children grow up without an important role model. The peopel used to honor the gods and were rewarded with a high-quality of life for them, their children and their society.
People must defy when asked to engage in evil. The Holocaust taught people the importance of defiance::our grandparents should have defied when asked to ignore the Holocaust and instead reacted with outrage. I suspect some did::many were silenced and others they hustled off earth so as to not set an example.