Optional "Taxes"
Libertarians are opposed to aggression, and thus ought to also oppose the state, which is inherently and necessarily aggressive. That is, consistent libertarianism is anarcho-libertarianism. Libertarians who support (even a minimal) state thus often engage in contortions as a result of their holding inconsistent views--anti-aggression, yet pro-state. As I noted in What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist, if you support the state, you must maintain either: maintain either: (a) aggression is justified; or (b) states (at least minimal states) do not necessarily employ aggression. The libertarian opposes aggression, so usually eschews position (a); so the minarchist libertarian is put in the uncomfortable position of arguing that a peaceful, non-aggressive state is possible--despite the fact that there has never been a minimal state in history.
The libertarians who support taxes are in a particularly difficult position, since taxation is so obviously theft--aggression. Sure, some engage in contortions, adopting mainstream balderdash to argue that taxation is really "voluntary," but most admit it is theft. Ayn Rand supported a minimal state but at least recognized that taxation was illegitimate (in her famous "Playboy" interview):
I believe that taxation should be voluntary, like everything else. But how one would implement this is a very complex question. I can only suggest certain methods, but I would not attempt to insist on them as a definitive answer. A government lottery, for instance, used in many countries in Europe, is one good method of voluntary taxation. There are others. Taxes should be voluntary contributions for the proper governmental services which people do need and therefore would be and should be willing to pay for -- as they pay for insurance.
I was reminded of Rand's idea this morning--on vacation here in Rosemary Beach, I went down to get my morning Starbucks, but unfortunately, it was closed recently due to Great Depression II. So I went down to another little coffee/breakfast shack to get a latte, and saw the pictured sign on the cash register--an optional 1% "town center contribution" fee "to promote and support a wide array of cultural, educational, and entertainment activities." Imagine if all taxes were abolished, and localities had a little 1% voluntary fee to support the local Randian judges and sheriffs. Hmm.
Bookmark/Share
|
Comments (133)
Comments (133)
AJ Witoslawski
Rand proposed that government charge fees for the enforcement of contracts in VoS. There are many ways that government can get enough money to fund its basic functions without initiating direct force. Unfortunately, since the state initiates aggression in order to keep its monopoly over aggression, it is still inconsistent with libertarianism.
Published: March 15, 2009 10:21 AM
Bruce Kaskubar
The idea of optional taxation is rubbish.
Software developers of open source products are very well aware of how many people will take and appreciate and not contribute a dime or iota of assistance.
TARP and ARRA show us how many enterprises and people are willing to live off other people's dimes.
The Buffetts and Gateses in favor of higher taxation are not sending extra billions or even millions to the IRS out of consistency with their own apparent preference.
Sorry Stephan, optional taxation is a loser. The state reasonably offers services such as roads and law enforcement. As long as that is the case, the state can reasonably require participation from all to support such basic services.
Published: March 15, 2009 10:31 AM
Brian Macker
Why propose ridiculous ideas that make this web site look like it's run by kooks even by libertarian standards?
So the state is going to prevent others from providing essential services like roads and the mail, while providing them as inefficiently as ever, but with the funding provided voluntarily. Yeah, that'll work.
You realize that there are other concerns besides initiating aggression and fraud, that involve trespass.
If you neighbor starts storing dynamite on your property boundary, or lets his property become infested with rats he's not truly aggressing, or defrauding you. What he is doing is endangering you.
Failing to provide adequately for your own protection can also endanger your neighbors as predators use your land and resources to expand into other areas. Just like rats running over from another's property.
We tax partially justified on the basis of this fact. This isn't a market failure since no markets are involved. It's a political failure and one solved with politics.
I'm sure the Amish will pay for their own self defense once we go to this voluntary tax system. Not.
Published: March 15, 2009 10:45 AM
Ban Government Now
"The state reasonably offers services such as roads and law enforcement. As long as that is the case, the state can reasonably require participation from all to support such basic services."
I wouldn't describe those poor quality congested government roads as a "service," nor would I describe the government's armed henchmen who go around initiating force against people who have not committed any (legitimate) crime (such as drug users, prostitutes, and "money launderers"). Just because the state provides poor quality monopoly roads and initiates force against people who commit victimless "crimes" does not justify my having to pay for these "services." Quite the contrary.
Published: March 15, 2009 10:52 AM
Mark
So we are supposed to choose *anarchy* because "there has never been a minimal state in history"?
Published: March 15, 2009 12:12 PM
Brent
The kooks are the people who support the evil state (see Brian Macker's post above). And for "mail delivery" of all things! LOL!
Published: March 15, 2009 12:39 PM
Jess
The Quakers, non-Quakers, and native americans lived in peaceful anarchy for nearly 50 years. Rothbard covers its rise and fall in Volume I of _Conceived in Liberty_ chapter 55, and Volume II chapters 12 and 13.
As for voluntary government funding by lottery, I'm not sure who would play a government lottery unless private lotteries were made illegal.
Published: March 15, 2009 1:56 PM
Brian Macker
Learn to read Brent.
Published: March 15, 2009 2:02 PM
Stephen
This is what I don't understand about anarcho-libertarianism.
If "the state" is defined so loosely as "aggression", then murderers and child molesters are in a strained sense "the state", and any attempts to hold such people accountable or restrain them from further violence are necessarily aggressive and therefore become the actions of "the state". Anyone who admits that aggression (censure in any form) is justified in those cases has already turned away from "consistent libertarianism".
The state is a natural construct arising unavoidably from imperfect human beings working in their own interest. Unless a utopia is achieved in which no person wrongs another, the wronged will insist upon the censure of the wrongdoers. The demand for censure, always aggressive, is as natural as any other aspect of society; no one can prevent someone from enlisting another individual, and eventually a group (or "gang" in the pejorative sense), to accomplish these inexorable demands for justice. The only way to prevent someone from seeking censure is aggression, which automatically becomes the "state". Rest assured that in any society, there will be people who will be willing to step into that role. The state is absolutely inevitable.
We came closer than ever a mere two hundred years ago. Sites like this are a testament to the fact that we are learning from our predecessors' mistakes. I see no need to abandon this promising project so soon, particularly in favor of another project that is in many ways younger and less developed than classical liberalism.
I am much more comfortable arguing that a peaceful, non-aggressive state is something worth pursuing than arguing that a stable anarchy is possible, despite the fact that there has never been a stable anarchy in history. Pointing to this or that example of anarchism that has passed off the stage of history isn't any good: it merely points out the fact that, as I have argued, the state is a natural, unavoidable emergent entity within society. Groups of people will naturally form standards of conduct; they will not permit deviations from that standard, allowing at least the aggressive action of the mob in expelling undesirables/violators from their society. Even if they are able to hold out for 50 years or so, there will be aggressors from another society who will eventuate their subjugation or entice them by the few (more often than not, illusory) attractions inherent in a state.
The rule of law is wholly desirable over the otherwise inevitable rule of man. It is the only way to keep a society from disenfranchising its constituents and to insist upon the society's adherence to libertarian ideals; the law should be libertarian, but the law is necessary, and the law is a farce without an executor. How is anarcho-libertarianism anything but a pipe dream?
I'm not condemning any anarcho-libertarians and Lord knows I don't want to caricature any belief; I agree that to some extent it sounds wonderful. But unless I'm seriously missing a key to this, I just don't see how anarchism provides a viable alternative. Honestly and humbly, help me out here, folks: what am I missing?
Published: March 15, 2009 2:31 PM
Richard Garner
Stephen
There's your first error, it isn't. Anarcho-capitalists don't define the state as aggression. They simply say that all states commit aggression.
And here is your second error: There is a difference against aggression and defense. Aggression is initiated force.
And these arrors lead to a further inferred error:
Since not all forms of "censure" are aggression (because some are defensive or retaliative, not offensive), and not all forms of either aggression or censure are states, it doesn't follow from the fact that, in any society, there will be people that state into that role (of providing censure) that "the state is inevitable." Why presume that it would be states that provide such censure?
And so your errors lead to what is, essentially, though unintentionally, a strawman:
But libertarian anarchists don't say that there should be no executor.
Published: March 15, 2009 3:07 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Stephen:
"This is what I don't understand about anarcho-libertarianism.
If "the state" is defined so loosely as "aggression", then murderers and child molesters are in a strained sense "the state", and any attempts to hold such people accountable or restrain them from further violence are necessarily aggressive and therefore become the actions of "the state"."
Anarcho-libertarians don't say this. You are confused. We oppose all aggression, as libertarians, whether it be private aggression (normal crime) or public or institutionalized aggression. The state is just one form of aggression.
"The rule of law is wholly desirable over the otherwise inevitable rule of man."
The rule of law is a myth propounded by the state to get the sheep to go along a bit longer with its depredations. Google John Hasnas The Myth of the Rule of Law.
"It is the only way to keep a society from disenfranchising its constituents"
I have no idea what this liberal artsy fluffy balderdash is supposed to mean.
"How is anarcho-libertarianism anything but a pipe dream?"
What's the relevance of this question? Justice is a pipe dream. Life is imperfect. Deal.
" I just don't see how anarchism provides a viable alternative. Honestly and humbly, help me out here, folks: what am I missing?"
What's the relevance of whether you "see" any "viable" "alternative"? Is aggression justified or not? No, it is not. End of story.
Published: March 15, 2009 3:15 PM
Stephen
Richard, thank you for your concise and civil response. I see the errors in what I was saying. There's still something I can't put my finger on that bugs me a bit, but I'll have to think on it; maybe it's just prejudice. But my immediate question is, can there not in theory be a solely defensive "state"? This is what I referred to in my statement about the law needing to be libertarian. No involuntary taxes needed to support it...I don't know. Sounds as plausible as (and hardly distinguishable from) an anarchical society that permits defensive action. I suppose this is where the question over the state's monopoly over violence becomes the problem. Interesting. As you can probably tell, I'm new to this line of discussion. Thanks for your patience.
Stephan, I suppose since I was the one who commented in the first place that you see me as the "aggressor" and that this justifies your hardly "civil" defensive response. I apologize for butting in (this is your thread, after all).
Published: March 15, 2009 3:33 PM
Russ
Stephen wrote:
"Honestly and humbly, help me out here, folks: what am I missing?"
I don't think you're missing anything, Stephen.
AJ Witoslawski wrote:
"Unfortunately, since the state initiates aggression in order to keep its monopoly over aggression, it is still inconsistent with libertarianism."
What Mr. Witoslawski is missing is that there are basically two type of libertarians; the type who believes perfection is possible in this world, and the type who doesn't.
The perfectionist wants no rights violations ever (and that is certainly a laudable goal), and he believes that this is attainable. So, anything that violates rights must in his mind be opposed tooth and nail. This is, at least, a very intellectually consistent position.
The non-perfectionist, not believing that we can ever have a libertarian paradise where rights violations are completely eliminated, wants to minimize the violation of rights instead. He believes that without any state whatsoever, there will be more rights violations than with a minimal state, and so a state is preferrable. He is more concerned with results than with ideological consistency.
Mr. Witoslawski seems to believe that only the first variety, the perfectionists, are "true" libertarians. We know better. After all, Mises himself was not exactly an anarcho-capitalist, but I don't think any sane person could say he was not a friend of liberty.
Published: March 15, 2009 3:41 PM
Richard Garner
Stephen,
Indeed, you hit the nail on the head: That is indeed the issue. Even if a state was voluntarily funded, it would still have to prevent others from providing legitimate force or cease to be a state. As Proffessor Roderick Long has said "There is simply no way to have a government unless it claims some sort of monopoly for itself. Either the activity it monopolises is an inherently permissible activity or it is not. If it is permissible, then in forbidding competitors in this activity the government is behaving as an aggressor. And if it is impermissible, then the government shouldn’t be engaging in it." Robert Nozick said likewise, "The state grants that under some circumstances it is legitimate to punish persons who violate the rights of others, for it itself does so. How then does it arrogate to itself the right to forbid private exaction of justice by other nonaggressive individuals whose rights have been violated What right does the private exacter of justice violate that is not violated also by the state when it punishes?"
Published: March 15, 2009 3:46 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Stephen:
"Stephan, I suppose since I was the one who commented in the first place that you see me as the "aggressor" and that this justifies your hardly "civil" defensive response. I apologize for butting in (this is your thread, after all)."
Dear Stephen:
My response was not in the slightest incivil. Indeed I am taking time out from a family vacation to reply to you. I was simply direct.
You are not an aggressor unless you engage in it, or advocate it. It's up to you whether you advocate it or not. Do you? If you do not, then you are to that extent a libertarian, and indeed an anarcho-libertarian. If you do, then... well, you advocate criminality. Which is it?
Published: March 15, 2009 3:57 PM
AJ Witoslawski
Anarchism isn't a complicated subject. It's simply a system of societal organization without the state, where private organizations are used to catch criminals and punish them.
BTW, would anyone be kind enough to tell me how to get those big fancy quotation marks?
Published: March 15, 2009 4:13 PM
Richard Garner
AJ Witoslawski,
Start your quote with the word blockquote enclosed in >. End it with /blockquote, agains enclosed in >.
Published: March 15, 2009 4:23 PM
Brian Macker
Jess,
Strange "anarchy" that. William Penn set up a state complete with taxation from the start. Only Christians allowed to run for office. Plus the full backing of the English military. With some taxes going to England, the rest to support local police and militias (and tax collectors). Basically Penn bought the land in 1681 and was acting as a Hoppean ruler. There was no anarchy at that point.
As Rothbard writes:
Another source:
"Moreover, the Quakers had a brutal system of criminal law which mandated the use of force in punishment. Early in the colony's history there were no less than a dozen offenses which were punishable by death, including riotiuous assembly, an act usually suppressed by militia or other military force." - Act of 1718, James T. Mitchell and Henry Flanders, eds. Statutes at Large of Pennsylvania, 1682-1801. 16 vols. Harrisburg: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1896-1908, 3: 199-214.
There's a brief period of a couple years of failure to pay taxes, and "lack of government" from 1692 to 1694. But this amounted to a fight over maintaining a militia not about having taxes and a police force. Quakers are all for killing burglars, they just opposed fighting against conscripted men.
The entire time of this "anarchy" the Delaware Indians were controlled by the as Rothbard states "aggressive overloads" and "long-term allies of the English" the Iroquis. Is it surprising that the Delwares don't attack the Quakers? They were being treated fairly and were already under the English thumb indirectly via Iroquis control.
Sorry but I don't think any of this counts as anarchy. I certainly counts as a tax revolt by people who were being protected by the political forces they refused to pay while that force tried to reestablish it's revenue stream.
Pennsylvania was chartered in 1681, had various laws, militias and police forces up till the 1700s and by that time had laws like this one:
This anarchy couldn't have lasted 50 years because within 19 there were laws against owning guns, and all along brutal laws enforce via taxes. Except for short periods.
By 1705 trouble with the Amerindians had broken out.
In his book Rothbard denigrates Benjamin Franklin and fails to mention why he was so successful at recuiting a large voluntary militia, paid for via a lottery. Here's from a different source talking of Franklin:
Seems like "anarchy" involved state support of slavery, and indentured servitude that bordered on slavery. The Quakers didn't keep slaves but the fact that slavery was supported by the state shows it was hardly a period of anarchy.
Not sure where you came up with this 50 years business. What years were those?
Published: March 15, 2009 4:31 PM
ProudCapitalst
How much does the crime fighting part of the US justice system (police, courts, prisons) cost? Maybe 2% of GDP?
I think voluntary financing is quite feasible. Companies would sponsor it like they sponsor sport events today, in exchange of getting a good reputation in the eyes of the public. Insurance companies should have a particular interest in it. Court processes could be televised and financed by commercials to tap into the market of people fascinated about crimes in entertainment (crime is a huge theme in news, TV series, books). Prisons could cover some of their costs by selling the labour time (in the cell) of the imprisoned to the market. And so on.
Lottery would be a bit more difficult. Should there be a government monopoly on lotteries? Otherwise, how could it compete against private lotteries which either give better returns to the gamblers or reinvest the profit in marketing? It's like proposing that the government should be financed by washing cars or developing computers.
Published: March 15, 2009 4:37 PM
Inquisitor
There are two types of libertarians: those too cowardly to actually embrace the full conclusions of their doctrine, and those who aren't. Nothing to do with "perfection" or any such nonsense, i.e. mere screens behind which one hides to justify their cognitive dissonance. The "perfectionists" (a lie) want a system not inherently built off rights-violations, whereas the "realists" (i.e. the hypocrites) would prefer the comfort of a Final Decider (TM) to finally, completely and forevermore solve disputes! (please... it is a legal monopoly and little more)
Published: March 15, 2009 4:58 PM
Peter
The non-perfectionist, not believing that we can ever have a libertarian paradise where rights violations are completely eliminated, wants to minimize the violation of rights instead. He believes that without any state whatsoever, there will be more rights violations than with a minimal state, and so a state is preferrable.
What, every non-perfectionist believes that there'd be more rights violations without a state than with one? Then every non-perfectionist is clearly an idiot. But, as a non-perfectionist who doesn't believe that, I think you're just mistaken.
Published: March 15, 2009 5:05 PM
Richard Garner
Inquisitor,
You concede too much ground to the statists: They argue against anarchy by saying that there needs to be a final decider for disputes. But you don't need to deny that in order to defend anarchism, since accepting that every dispute needs a final decider does not imply that there should be any organisation that monopolises the task of providing this service.
Published: March 15, 2009 5:06 PM
Brian Macker
To be clear about what I thought was kooky. The articles suggestion does the following:
1) Maintains a government monopoly on using force. Thus precluding self defense, self delivery of mail, etc.
2) Will surely fail to fund the services in question.
Which ensures a certain amount of freeloading while ensuring it will collapse.
So what I imagine is that it wouldn't work. After rereading the article it's unclear if Kinsella is advocating this or not. But it certainly is kooky.
Kinsella, writes: "As I noted in What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist, if you support the state, you must maintain either: maintain either: (a) aggression is justified; or (b) states (at least minimal states) do not necessarily employ aggression."
Question is, do I support "the state" just because I disagree with the anarchists. Well I certainly don't support the state as constituted. In fact we do have a "sort of" voluntary tax. Just stop working and live off the dole. You can be a freeloader just like the system proposed by the article. It's a little more onerous on the freeloaders however because they have to actually sacrifice a living and all it brings.
So I disagree with characterizing me as "supporting the state."
I also object to the claim that I "advocate criminality" purely on disagreement with Kinsella's false dichotomies.
I in fact do believe that minimal states do not have to necessarily behave criminally. [I rephrased b) because it was poorly worded. All states employ aggression, as do all private anarchist protection agencies.]
Nor do I think that there is any guarantee that a minarchist government will behave in a non-criminal manner. I just think that when it comes to power anarchist protection agencies will be just as prone to corruption as minarchist governments.
In fact the only difference I see between the anarchist protection agencies and minarchist governments is that one has no territory and the other does. Hardly a big difference from a ethical point of view.
If minarchist governments have the freedom to trade territories, citizens the right to sell their land and leave, then I don't see a big difference, ethics wise.
Now presumably one is not going to be able to practically buy protection services from two different protection agencies. First there is cost. Second they the agencies themselves are going to frown on this. It's most likely that each protection agency will have a de facto territory that is separate from other agencies. That territory being the sum of all land of the group members.
The only advantage I see to the anarchist scheme is that you can keep your land and switch agencies. I see nothing more.
So lets call them minarchist territorial states, and the anarchist ones minarchist distributed states.
I do see a big difference in the ability to protect ones members however with distributed states. It's very hard to protect scattered members. There are problems with moving men and materials from one member’s area to another. How do you cross intervening territories. Plus the ability for surprise attack is greatly enhanced against scattered groups in which you have imbedded pre-placement.
Since it would be more costly to defend outliers they would be abandoned. This would be as simple as failing to sign them up for a new contract. It seems like these minarchist distributed territories (anarchist protectorates) would tend to coalesce into centralized groups with convex boundaries.
Also individuals who don’t own land would be pretty much forced to use whatever agency the landowner picked. Other agencies would not have access to protect him. What happens if the landowner decides he’s not going to allow anyone on his land who has a private contract with another or any agency?
Land ownership would become much more attached to maintaining your individual rights. It might be less likely to be sold and become more attached to hereditary. This might degrade into a clan system.
Given that my beliefs pretty much line up with what has historically taken place. That anarchy where it exists evaporates into states. I think they are probably closer to reality that what seem like anarchist pipe dreams.
Although I am realistic enough to realize that mine are a sort of pipe dream too. My dream seems only slightly more realistic then that of the anarchist based on the fact it’s not going to happen by revolution, nor probably evolution.
My dream isn’t going to happen but at least it might be stable if by chance it occurred. The anarchist dream would either collapse into warring factions (likely based on kinship), be overrun by them due to poor defensive positioning, or just plain evolve into an monarchist state.
It is more likely that both our pipe dreams would naturally evolve into your vanilla rights violating states.
Sorry for being a realist.
That’s a simple statement of how I view minarchist states that would be worked along libertarian grounds. I however have broader beliefs than merely “Don’t initiate aggression or fraud”. I believe “Don’t initiate, aggression, fraud, or endangerment of others”. Which means my “states” or anarchist “protection agencies” could use force if endangerment was initiated against them.
It would work like private fire agencies work. Your house catches on fire and you didn’t pay for your protection, means you force us to protect you and charge you a fee. Once on your property we determine that you are negligent in your defenses against know fire hazards. Now since you have empirically proven that you’re incompetence we force you to pay us a fee, a tax, and continue in our inspections to make sure you no longer present a threat. You may at your choosing employ a different agency. That agency however will need to have a credible record of good management, and sufficient funds to pay for fires originating from your property. Of course I’m going to put out fires on your property but I’m not going to let you freeload off of the fact that your endangering behavior forces me to act.
This same reasoning can be done with regards to other threats besides fire. Things like criminal and military threats. This is what a proper tax is. As far as I can tell it is not equivalent to theft. There are very important differences.
Theft is not based on prior negligent behavior. Theft does not come with protection. Theft is not limited to paying for such services. Theft does not collect proportionately. Theft does not allow for payment to others instead of payment to the thief. Theft is initiated force, while this isn’t because of your original trespass.
People intuitively understand this even if many libertarians don’t. They get the gut feeling they are being freeloaded and endangered even though they can’t verbalize it soundly.
That's why libertarianism has a 1% penetration at the polls.
Published: March 15, 2009 6:06 PM
Chrispy
In what sense is the Town Center Contribution described in the article optional? Can you call the listed phone number for reimbursement? Or do you have the option of refusing to pay it in the first place?
Published: March 15, 2009 6:26 PM
Brian Macker
One more thing. Taxes also differ from the typical mafia shakedown. With the mafia shakedown the endangerment is both initiated by the protection agency and is manufactured.
Published: March 15, 2009 6:38 PM
Russ
In the sense that I am using the term, Mises was a non-perfectionist. He didn't believe anarcho-capitalism was feasible, either. So at least I am an idiot in good company.
The reason I don't embrace the full conclusions of NAP doctrine is because I think the full conclusions constitute a reductio ad absurdum refutation of NAP doctrine. If never initiating aggression results in more rights violations than a minimal state (granted, that's a big "if"), then sticking with the doctrine is nothing more than blind dogmatism, just like when lefties stick with their theories despite all the evidence that they don't work.
When somebody like me comes along and questions the doctrine, that's when the thought police like you come out with their ad hominem arguments. "Don't mind him, he's just a coward who's suffering from cognitive dissonance! Nothing to see here! Move along!" It seems the name Inquisitor is quite suited to you.
No, the "perfectionists" want a system not inherently built off rights-violations and believe that such a system would actually work (where "work" is defined as "result in less rights violations overall"). The "non-perfectionists" would also like a system not inherently built off rights-violations, but don't think such a system would work, and so are willing to live with a very limited, albeit imperfect, government.
Yes, it is. I've never claimed otherwise. I'm in the camp that doesn't deny that a government, even a limited one, violates rights, but believes this is justified.
Published: March 15, 2009 7:28 PM
Joe B
Aggression can never be "justified", even if at times it is the only effective action, as in some cases of self-defense. Coercion is a substitute for reason in that both are means by which one person can influence the actions of another. If you could convince someone to pay for a service using reason, you would have no need for coercion; and if you use coercion, you have no need to also use reason other than to make yourself feel more like a real human being. Ethics only serve an effective function within a reasoned argument, so any concept of "ethical" or "justified" aggression is absurd.
Protection can be handled by individuals and insurance companies. This allows each person to decide how much of a premium he is willing to pay based on his perception of risk. If the individual thinks that he can get a better deal by hiring a private security agency, he could do this. Likewise, insurance companies could offer the services of private security to attract customers as well as to protect their own interests.
These security agencies may use coercion to protect their clients, but their revenues would be subject to market forces. An agency who went around shaking people down would get bad press and probably lose customers and investors as a result. As with all monopolies, the problem is that this check doesn't exist in a coercive government, and as a result the prices and power grabs are arbitrary.
There would probably be external benefits to this arrangement for non-subscribers. The presence of a security guard in a public place could give a potential thief second thoughts about attacking anyone in the area, since he would not know which potential victim could be a client. While some could potentially freeload, too many freeloaders would make the presence of a guard less likely, increasing demand for paid security. The presence of such freeloaders does not detract from the real client's receipt of contracted services.
If the thief attacked a freeloader, the guard could neglect to help. However, he could also choose to help, as could any other person nearby, out of courtesy. But only the client could be guaranteed such protection.
Regarding negligence and torts, this could generally be mitigated by private agreements. Anarchy doesn't mean that there are no rules, it means that all laws and consequences are consented to without coercion. If your neighbor stacks dynamite next to your property and has not entered an agreement with you to take reasonable measures to eliminate the risk to your property, he is likewise not protected against anything you might do to his property. This gives both of you an incentive to enter into such an agreement, and consequently to refrain from creating negligent risks.
Insurance companies would have an interest in funding firefighters in the same vein as with security agencies. I'm personally not as concerned about freeloaders as I am about deciding how much I'm willing to pay for protection. If services are provided effectively at a price I'm willing to pay, I don't really care what price others are paying. If my firefighters put out my neighbor's house before mine catches, they have done their job of protecting my property.
Of course it's not perfect, but the introduction of market forces into monopolistic government services provides another check against government power, and probably a stronger one than any electoral process.
This could be achieved simply by allowing individuals to secede from their national or local governments without penalty. Renouncing citizenship is insufficient, since most governments enforce taxes and provide benefits based on residency, not citizenship (unless you're a citizen residing in a different country - then you still have to pay). Immigration laws would also need to be repealed - at least to the extent that they are based on geography. The same applies to the usual libertarian gamut of gripes - legal tender laws, education requirements, industry regulations, etc. could still be enforced upon consenting citizens, but not upon non-citizens within the same geographic area.
"You could just move" is a load of crap when people have homes, jobs, friends and family within a particular area, and other countries may not offer viable alternatives. Any sort of violent revolution is also a load of crap which would bring about the destabilization that gives most people good reason to fear anarchists.
Governments don't have to be abolished, they just need to allow alternatives. Then the market will decide which functions are best served by other businesses.
Published: March 15, 2009 9:05 PM
Brian Macker
Russ,
You Statist, you are practically Hitler. :)
I found the same statements obnoxious and was going to reply to them also.
My response to the last one is that legal monopolies will get tied to the land somehow. Even if by the landowner. Certainly there is no choice by those on the land at the pleasure of the owner. The landowner picks his protection agency, his legal authority, etc. His ownership in effect makes him a monopolist of of the legal system on his land.
That is unless anarchists conceive of some kind of unowned land, or reject land ownership.
Published: March 15, 2009 9:16 PM
Gil
Actually, true anarcho-Libertarianism would privatise the monopoly of force of a territory from the state to individual landowners. It's their land now and they get to make the rules for their land, they have to enforce it and, presumably, competition between fellow landowners will keep the system honest. The talk of 'private law enforcers', 'private courts' and 'private jails' are rubbish. A landowner may choose to hire mercenaries or bounty hunters to catch someone who has committed a crime on his land and escaped. Likewise, he could have personal security staff to handle crime on his land or, if he may choose to defend his land all by himself and his wits. A private landowner cannot be forced into using 'private' defence. By the same token there won't be competition for roving private law entitites - what constitutes what is lawful and who amounts to a 'final arbitrator' on a piece of land is the private landowner. Should two separate private landowners are stuck in an conflict, neither are obliged to seek a private third party abitrator, neither is obliged to turn up to the private court to give evidence and should the private court reach a verdict neither party is obliged to accept it as there is no higher power that can enforce verdict.
Simple said, true anarchism amount privatised monopolies over a parcel of land (i.e. private states). The problem Libertarians have with current states is they believe current states didn't have any right to claim initial ownership, therefore anything by the 'public' owners is invalid.
However, a big problem for Libertarians amounts to how private landowners (l'il states) will cooperate with each other (except for the handful who'd delight in 'always being right' and risk being isolated). They will obviously choose some sort of 'common law' for business arbitration and inter-l'il state crime so they can provide easy trading channels with fellow landowners. Unfortunately, people believe if they're going to follow a law code that's doesn't favour any one over another then it's probably going to be a religious law code (i.e. it comes from God). If grumpy Conservatives would complain that Muslim are becoming a significant voting bloc in the West and are going to vote in Sharia law then how would they like it if the collapse of the Western nation-states sees the rise of many Muslim private landowners who use Sharia as a guide to running their land and how to deal with criminals that afflict them and fellow Muslim landowners? What would Libertarians think if Christian landowners used the Law of Moses as their common law? What if Christians and Muslims could agree to become trading entities in a way that both supported slavery? What would Libertarians landowners do if the reply they kept getting about slavery was "it's permiited in our religious code, we only enslave heretics and unbelievers, we want to do it and we don't care what you think anyway"? Oopsies?
Published: March 15, 2009 9:38 PM
Reason
Brian Macker,
You forgot to address the role ideology plays in shaping society. Mises said what Third World people need is a capitalist mindset- not more aid. How susceptible is a free market society, one without a monoplist aggressor calling the shots, to devolving into autarkic factions when the general populace believes in free market libertarianism? Certainly the chances of regression are a lot less than in a society with a mixed and confused belief system that allows for taxation etc.
Published: March 15, 2009 10:20 PM
Randian Moss
This argument fails to heed all of the following points:
1. A government reduced to its proper functions of the police, the courts, and the military would cost only a fraction of what government costs today.
2. A society in which the government kept out of the economy would become a very wealthy society.
3. Individuals who are no longer coercively taxed would have the 40% or so of their incomes that today is taxed away to spend as they please, and under this order would generally be far more generous with their money than they are today, certainly willing in most cases to fork over a fraction of it for such vital services as the police and military.
4. A society that achieved such an order would of necessity (for otherwise this achievement would not be possible) be a society in which freedom and its requirement--a strictly limited constitutional government--would be respected and revered (except by the "anarcho-libertarians" who regard universal, objective rules for punishing acts of physical force as oppressive), and this people would proudly support this order financially.
Those who advocate the "minarchist" position appear inconsistent only to those who have accepted the non-initiation of force principle as an out-of-context absolute (i.e., arbitrarily). The reason for the non-initiation of force principle--that it is a requirement of man's life--establishes the context in which it applies. The question thus becomes what is the (only) practical way of enabling man to live a life free of physical force. And the answer to that is by establishing a government limited by objectively defined laws (rather than allowing numerous "defense agencies" to operate according to whatever guidlines they please, that is, whatever guidlines make them the most money, that is, the whims of consumers).
Randian Moss
Published: March 15, 2009 10:45 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Randian Moss:
"1. A government reduced to its proper functions of the police, the courts, and the military would cost only a fraction of what government costs today."
This is true, but does not justify the monopoly of force even such a state would need to maintain its existence.
"2. A society in which the government kept out of the economy would become a very wealthy society."
True, but this does not justify the aggression even such a state would engage in; nor is it reasonable to think any state would or could ever "keep out of the economy."
"3. Individuals who are no longer coercively taxed"
Is there any other kind of taxation?
" would have the 40% or so of their incomes that today is taxed away to spend as they please, and under this order would generally be far more generous with their money than they are today, certainly willing in most cases to fork over a fraction of it for such vital services as the police and military."
Unless we have a war and need to increase spending and taxing to 80% to survive--I've heard Objectivists argue this.
"4. A society that achieved such an order would of necessity (for otherwise this achievement would not be possible) be a society in which freedom and its requirement--a strictly limited constitutional government"
It's a mystery why Objectivists think this is possible.
"--would be respected and revered (except by the "anarcho-libertarians" who regard universal, objective rules for punishing acts of physical force as oppressive)"
This is a lie. We do not regard it as oppressive at all. We are simply not stupid and naive enough to think the state can provide this.
", and this people would proudly support this order financially."
"proudly"--wow. Maybe "patriotically" would be a more appropriate adjective. Goose-stepping yahoos.
"Those who advocate the "minarchist" position appear inconsistent only to those who have accepted the non-initiation of force principle as an out-of-context absolute (i.e., arbitrarily)."
Oh, for God's sake. Drop the Randroid mantras. So in your Randtopia it's not enough to be peaceful and rights-respecting "just because"--you better have damned good reasons! Likewise with giving to charity--it's ... permissible ... maybe ... IF you have *very good reasons*.
Published: March 15, 2009 11:43 PM
JJ
This post and subsequent responses are a very good read, it's nice to read from people who are curious about anarchy and those who are defending it.
To revert back to the original post by Stephan, though, I'm wondering about this coffee house's tax.
To whom is this tax "optional"?
It seems Stephan didn't have many options in the optional tax other than paying it or not being a patron at the coffee house. Is this hypocrisy (coerced option) on the part of the coffee house? Did the coffee house "opt in" to this voluntary tax to show it's support for it's county or was it coerced into doing so? Why wouldn't the coffee shop just raise it's prices by 1% and donate the proceeds to the county?
Just curious about what you all might think about this but I don't want to detract from the much more interesting intellectual discourse that is underway already.
Thanks.
Published: March 15, 2009 11:52 PM
Liberationist
I am a minarchist who is consistent and has a viable view of the state.
I believe that local governments should become the preperty-owners who own the roads and any other 'public' property, and that individuals could then choose to be citizens by paying a fee, or performing community service. Citizens would have the right to vote on laws affecting public property, whilst nonpayers would be guests who would need to obey the rules, but would have chosen to have no say in them.
If I regard the council as another company, I can still have it offer services (perhaps insurance schemes open only to citizens) whilst keeping it away from my wallet.
Another thing I think we could do is to have time-share government, where all volunteering citizens would join a militia group, and patrol the streets of their county for a few weeks, and then have a few weeks where their group was allowed to make the laws- to be the government. Give all citizens an equal share of government! Get rid of professional politicians! Share all power to all- true democracy- none of this representative rigamarole!
There's lots of consistency and life in minarchies yet!
Published: March 15, 2009 11:59 PM
Randian Moss
Kinsella:
"'4. A society that achieved such an order would of necessity (for otherwise this achievement would not be possible) be a society in which freedom and its requirement--a strictly limited constitutional government'
It's a mystery why Objectivists think this is possible."
Uh...
Is that really the argument you guys have against this? What makes it possible is having a clear and detailed constitution. The U.S. constitution was the first try in human history, a pre-Rand, pre-Mises, pre-the learning afforded us by U.S. history over the last 230 years try, and historically speaking, a pretty darn successful one at that.
Are the examples of all the nations in history up to this point what you use to prove the futility of constitutional republics, as if the failure of medieval France or modern Venezuela to maintain free societies demonstrates what happens over time to a stellar libertarian constitution under any "monopolistic state?"
There is one relevant example--The United States, and with the knowledge liberty advocates have gained since then (such as from the sources enumerated above), I'm sure we could do a much better job this time around. But obviously, the fundamental key is cultural. No free society could hold up in today's intellectual climate. If you're ready to argue that if we merely abolished the governments of the world today, free and peaceful "anarcho-capitalist" societies would emerge, without any change in the culture's preponderant ideas, I think you should reconsider who's "stupid and naive." If, on the other hand, you grant that a radical shift in intellectual climate is a prereq for the existence of your ideal society, I hope you'll stop using the examples set by the nations of mankind's history--with its sorry philosophical record--to prove the impossibility of effective constitutional governments.
"Oh, for God's sake. Drop the Randroid mantras. So in your Randtopia it's not enough to be peaceful and rights-respecting "just because"--you better have damned good reasons! Likewise with giving to charity--it's ... permissible ... maybe ... IF you have *very good reasons*."
I don't think it's too difficult nor unwise to strive to have reasons for your actions.
Published: March 16, 2009 12:59 AM
Gil
The three arguments stopping anarcho-Libertarianism dead in its tracks are:
1. Is there a right to break the monopoly ownership of force a private landowner would have?
2. Why would a private landowner regard a private court system as a 'higher force' to which he must submit if he loses?
3. 'Force' isn't just another good to be bought and sold or to be rejected. A criminal ought to have no right to regard the law, police, courts, the judge and the prisons as arbitrary institutions witth the view of "well you may think my actions constituted a crime but you are all espousing your mere opinions and have no right to deprived me of my freedom through force."
Published: March 16, 2009 1:22 AM
FTG
1. Is there a right to break the monopoly ownership of force a private landowner would have?
This is a question, not an argument. Nevertheless: An owner has monopoly ownership of his property, even for the force needed to protect it (fences, alarms, even machine gun nests)
2. Why would a private landowner regard a private court system as a 'higher force' to which he must submit if he loses?
This is a question, not an argument. Again, nevertheless, here's the answer: He would submit if he agrees it is better than suffering in his good standing with the rest of the traders he deals with. If he loses and does not submit to the contracted resolution, then other traders could refuse to trade with him or ask from him a higher risk premium. Reputation is important in order to obtain better trades.
3. 'Force' isn't just another good to be bought and sold or to be rejected.
You're just asserting. This is not an argument.
A criminal ought to have no right to regard the law, police, courts, the judge and the prisons as arbitrary institutions with the view of "well you may think my actions constituted a crime but you are all espousing your mere opinions and have no right to deprived me of my freedom through force."
See response to two. If a criminal does not accept the resolution of the arbiter, he or she risks being an outcast, which means a) people will refuse to trade with the criminal, and b) in the case he or she tries to use force again, he or she becomes liable to be shot dead.
It already happens right now, if you do not believe this answer: ex-cons are already shunned from better paying jobs or even unskilled work, because people cannot trust them.
These certainly did NOT stop me dead at MY tracks.
Published: March 16, 2009 2:26 AM
Mashuri
I think Gil has the most pragmatic view. A true anarcho-capitalist existence would likely become just as corrupted by human nature as one with a state. Our "ideal" of common law would distort into whatever the most land owners decide suits their needs and beliefs instead. What do we do then? I've read Rothbard's "Manifesto" and love it. He paints a beautiful picture and makes me want to live in his world. Unfortunately, his world is unsustainable because it's full of humans and all the same flaws that bring about death, destruction, slavery, tyranny, etc. Maybe a good solution would be to create one Constitution but mandate that private court and police systems can compete with each other to enforce that Constitution. This way, there is a consistent code that defines the society while they are allowed to choose by patronage, on a daily basis, who they believe is best interpreting it.
Published: March 16, 2009 2:28 AM
Mashuri
So, FTG, if the majority of land owners all decide it's ok to have slaves and continue to actively thrive and trade with each other, would this fit into the anarcho-capitalist view?
Published: March 16, 2009 2:31 AM
Gil
I believe they are FTG:
1. The private monopoly landownership is the same right to monopoly that the state uses. The state is the primary owner and gets to make the rules in its terrritory. The only reason Libertarian disregard state ownership is because they don't regard the state as legitimate.
2. By the same token why should any nation-state listen to the U.N.? Why would you listen to someone who claimed you did wrong in their eyes or you did something that offends their religion (e.g. drinking alcohol)? Why would you submit to their punishment? Wouldn't you prefer to dig in your heels? Shouldn't they have the right to apprehend you only if they have some claim above you? E.g. you drank alcohol on a Muslim's private premises.
3. Force isn't just another good because treating it as 'just another good' is moral relativism. If people have no claim to force only their opinions then they can't enforce anything. If a private court has no claim to force then they can't do much at all. Besides will there be any proof that anyone would care what a private court thinks? Do people necessarily care what the U.N. or the Vatican decrees? On the other hand, if the U.S.A. decree they will forcefully intervene in some country then they really should care as to what the U.S. politicians are saying.
Published: March 16, 2009 3:03 AM
Inquisitor
"In the sense that I am using the term, Mises was a non-perfectionist. He didn't believe anarcho-capitalism was feasible, either. So at least I am an idiot in good company."
No, he was inconsistent and failed to follow his economics to their full conclusion.
Inquisitor wrote:
"The reason I don't embrace the full conclusions of NAP doctrine is because I think the full conclusions constitute a reductio ad absurdum refutation of NAP doctrine."
It isn't a reductio if the conclusion is not absurd...
"If never initiating aggression results in more rights violations than a minimal state (granted, that's a big "if"), then sticking with the doctrine is nothing more than blind dogmatism, just like when lefties stick with their theories despite all the evidence that they don't work."
We stick to a "doctrine" that states no more than individuals should be free in how they relate to others, including how they obtain defence, and are free to order their affairs in any non-coercive way they wish, rather than living under the imprimatur of some silly monopoly that thinks it is god.
"When somebody like me comes along and questions the doctrine, that's when the thought police like you come out with their ad hominem arguments. "Don't mind him, he's just a coward who's suffering from cognitive dissonance! Nothing to see here! Move along!" It seems the name Inquisitor is quite suited to you."
The name is suited to me, but it isn't so much you questioning my "doctrine" (what would that be? That one has no right whatsoever to initiate force against another? If that be it I gladly plead to being guilty of being doctrinaire...)
"No, the "perfectionists" want a system not inherently built off rights-violations and believe that such a system would actually work (where "work" is defined as "result in less rights violations overall"). The "non-perfectionists" would also like a system not inherently built off rights-violations, but don't think such a system would work, and so are willing to live with a very limited, albeit imperfect, government."
Nice trick. What is actually the contrast is between a system in which rights violations might occasion and a system in which for it to even function (e.g. by excluding competing providers of its services) it must violate rights. So it isn't a question of some vs a lot of rights-violations, ie prevention, but of a system which systematises them, so to speak, vs one that does not... Perhaps a little slavery is OK because no slavery is utopian. THAT is a reductio...
"Yes, it is. I've never claimed otherwise. I'm in the camp that doesn't deny that a government, even a limited one, violates rights, but believes this is justified."
Prove it.
Published: March 16, 2009 3:08 AM
Inquisitor
"3. Force isn't just another good because treating it as 'just another good' is moral relativism. "
Or consistent economics... Private landownership is not a case of monopoly. The landowner has rights over what they appropriated and nothing more. The state appropriates nothing yet has the right to adjudicate any and every dispute including those with it. Get real.
Published: March 16, 2009 3:10 AM
Adrian Eddleman
I consider myself an Anarcho-Capitalist in the idealistic sense of the word preferring anarchy to oppression and tyranny, but I concede that some form of limited government is necessary for a certain balance to be met. While I agree that a strictly “voluntary” system is doomed to failure, I would be a proponent of “utilitarian” methods of taxation where possible that would tax systems only if used voluntarily. The poor arguments put forth here regarding roads and the like have not considered that a “gas tax” directed only for use in road maintenance and construction would be a voluntary method in that one is not “required” to buy the gas. One can choose to buy the gas/use the roads, or one can simply walk and avoid the tax.
I think we need to seek out every method available for the fair requirement of payment for services rendered in a capitalistic supply verses demand fashion, but these means private enterprise first, then sales and use taxes only on items difficult for private enterprise to unify (e.g. roads), and finally, income tax should be limited to national defense, and even then I believe that should be limited to corporate income tax not individual income tax as prescribed by the constitution. Nearly all of our income tax today is wasted anyway. If you haven’t read it check out the Grace Commission Report. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grace_Commission
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/Adrian_Eddleman
Published: March 16, 2009 4:16 AM
Peter
I in fact do believe that minimal states do not have to necessarily behave criminally.
In what way is your non-criminal minimal state a state, if it doesn't monopolize whatever "services" it provides (criminal justice, presumably)? Alternatively, in what way is it not behaving criminally if it does?
Published: March 16, 2009 5:43 AM
Peter
I in fact do believe that minimal states do not have to necessarily behave criminally.
In what way is your non-criminal minimal state a state, if it doesn't monopolize whatever "services" it provides (criminal justice, presumably)? Alternatively, in what way is it not behaving criminally if it does?
Published: March 16, 2009 5:48 AM
geoih
Again, the Mises Blog is off in the weeds harassing it's own. This minarchist/anarchist debate is like worrying about the charcoal grill in the back yard while the house is on fire.
Published: March 16, 2009 6:09 AM
Richard Garner
Randian Moss,
You write,
This is a strawman. You, presuming you know your Rand, know that she defined a government as "...an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area… The difference between private action and governmental action – a difference thoroughly ignored and evaded today – lies in the fact that a government holds a monopoly on the legal use of force." This logically entails that if an institution does not exclusively hold the power to enforce those rules, does not have a monopoly on the legal use of force, then there is no government, as she defined it. In other words, whether or not there are "universal, objective rules for punishing acts of physical force" is irrelevant to whether or not we should have anarchy: Logically, given her definition of government, you can have "universal, objective rules for punishing acts of physical force" without having a government.
Published: March 16, 2009 6:16 AM
P.M.Lawrence
Jess wrote that "The Quakers, non-Quakers, and native americans lived in peaceful anarchy for nearly 50 years".
Actually, the Quakers ripped off the Indians in buying the site of Philadelphia (they were allowed the land they could walk around while smoking a single pipe, but instead they arranged a relay race with the pipe). Then they ripped off their own founder, William Penn, by overriding the property rights he had retained when he set them up. Later, they used Philadelphia to launder the proceeds of piracy. They just did all that peacefully, without overt aggression.
Brian Macker, Penn did not have "the full backing of the English military", that was how the Quakers were able to squeeze him out. And most of what you describe as taxation were actually reserved rents and rights to revenues like those of lime kilns that he had effectively reserved through the non-monopoly method of reserving all the sources as his own property. The Quakers started new ones, which means, they stole his property.
On the main article, it would similarly be possible for a state to structure itself so it worked without overt aggression. Just commute all corporation taxes to share issues and land taxes to quit rents, and income tax to a non interest bearing save as you earn scheme (they wouldn't be stealing, technically, as they would give it all back - when you were old, and without interest), then work printing money to build the revenue earning portfolio on a sinking fund basis (so that there would be no inflation over time, just asset transfers). Taxes on mining are already classified as royalties on resources the state claims it owns. Once the state did all that it would be getting all it did before, only there would be no continuing taking of other people's property - it would have done that taking earlier, in setting the scheme up, and it wouldn't count the way it was crowding people out with things like owning stakes in corporations. In all this it wouldn't be claiming a monopoly as in Roderick Long's "There is simply no way to have a government unless it claims some sort of monopoly for itself" that Richard Garner quoted, it would be exercising a monopoly through its "property", crowding out everybody else while notionally allowing them to do just the same (with resources they wouldn't have). The Dutch Culture System in the East Indies was set up and run rather like that (with a bit of state enforcement too).
What's the difference? Penn was there first, and brought the Quakers in. The state setting that up would be taking from people who were there first. Also, Penn was a natural person, not an artefact or fiction.
Published: March 16, 2009 7:04 AM
ed smith
Self-defense is a service that is provided to individuals just like plumbing service or lawn service. You pay a fee and your service provider will provide a level of service comensurate with your service agreement. If want an armed bodyguard to follow you around, then you will have to pay $100 a day. If you just want a guard to drive and walk around your neighborhood, then pay $10-20 a month.
Problem with your service? Change service providers or use multiple service providers simultaneously to ensure better coverage.
There are two types of threats. Threats from within and threats from without. Paying for policing and judicial services solves the internal issues. The external threats can be more challenging to handle. Voluntary militias are useful in that the volunteers are unlikely to turn on their neighbors.
Published: March 16, 2009 7:18 AM
Brian Macker
Reason,
You forgot to address the role ideology plays in shaping society.
You are right. I didn't address that. Randian Moss did though.
I'm not sure how strong peoples ideology can be with regards to free markets. It's hard to understand. How do you maintain it once you have it without public schools? Religion seems to be the only answer. However there is NO religion with a philosophic foundation that supports free markets. Unless maybe you call Objectivism a religion.
Published: March 16, 2009 7:57 AM
Joe B
Gil: "1. The private monopoly landownership is the same right to monopoly that the state uses. The state is the primary owner and gets to make the rules in its terrritory. The only reason Libertarian disregard state ownership is because they don't regard the state as legitimate."
The state doesn't own my property, because I paid for it. They don't own 30% of my salary because I worked to earn it without making any agreement to share it with them. Any claim they make to this property that I have rightfully acquired is done through aggression.
The fact that the state has drawn arbitrary lines in the dirt somewhere to the north, south, east, and west of my property doesn't grant it any ownership of what I have purchased through free trade.
I'm happy to pay usage fees for roads and other "public" resources whether they are controlled by the state or by private companies. I might even pay subscription fees for police services if I thought that they would offer me any real protection.
People have too much faith in the competence of governments, as well as in the ability of an electoral system to check government power. Why is it that markets can do everything else more efficiently but when it comes to protection they are incapable?
To me, it sounds like the same argument that lefties make when defending nationalization of health care, banking, or any other industry. Everyone thinks that whatever values they hold dearest are worth enforcing with aggression, and everyone has their definition of ethics to "justify" this aggression. As I described above, "justified aggression" is an absurd concept. If you're pointing a gun at someone, you will gain nothing by lecturing them about why you don't feel so bad about doing it.
It doesn't matter which details you stick in a constitution to limit a government's ability to grow, eventually it will find the latch on the cage door. The US Constitution is a curious relic to the majority of people in the US government not because it isn't clear or well defined, but because precedent after precedent violating it have rendered it powerless.
Voters likewise don't care about it or any ethics that stand behind it regardless of how "objective" they may be. They'll gladly vote for the next Hitler if he promises everyone a free plasma TV (or hope and healthcare).
Again, the solution is to limit this expansion using competition. If you don't like the current US Gov't, secede and start your own legal system based on the original constitution or any other rules you choose. If you can attract citizens (customers) by offering better services at competitive prices, you might even turn a profit. Why not have two governments in the US - one for the republicans and one for the democrats? Both would be forced to cut costs in order to maintain their customers and compete with the libertarians.
The threat of real competition can keep a monopoly in check. If a viable alternative exists, then the monopoly suddenly needs to consider pricing mechanisms. Elections can't do this because voters aren't individually forced to bear the costs.
However, as long as people think that it's OK for a monopoly to use violence against anyone who tries to compete, the monopoly will continue to grow.
Published: March 16, 2009 8:16 AM
fundamentalist
Stephan: “Libertarians are opposed to aggression, and thus ought to also oppose the state…”
Not necessarily. This notion of libertarianism assumes that the Rothbard/Hoppe ethic is unassailable. It’s not. The best libertarians of the past were those who held to traditional natural law theory and they supported the idea of a state and its use of aggression while imposing limits on both.
Stephan: “… if you support the state, you must maintain either: maintain either: (a) aggression is justified; or (b) states (at least minimal states) do not necessarily employ aggression.”
Yes, under natural law some forms of aggression are justified.
The problem with the Rothbard/Hoppe ethic is that it makes things absolutes without justification. It makes property an absolute without explaining why. Self-ownership is a good principle, but it’s not an absolute. Property is important, but it’s not absolute. It becomes absolute under the Rothbard/Hoppe system, but under traditional natural law it wasn’t an absolute. Off-hand, I can’t think of anything that was an absolute. Even the right to life, which was a major assumption of natural law, had limitations.
The arguments about anarchy can be divided into the logical arguments and the practical ones. Practically, even Rothbard and Hoppe admitted that an anarchy can’t exist unless most of the people hold to anarchist logic. But mini-archists can take the same approach: if most of society held to libertarian principles, then a mini-archist state is possible, too. In fact, if you look at the Dutch Republic in its first century, the US until the civil war, and England for much of the 19th century, those nations came very close to miniarchy, probably as close as is possible given human nature.
On the logical side, traditional natural law was developed over millenia by many of the greatest minds in history. As a result, it is much more logical than the Rothbard/Hoppe ethic. The West abandoned natural law not because it was illogical, but because they wanted socialism and natural law prevented it. Natural law found a legit but limited role for the state. True libertarianism, which should be synonymous with true conservativism as delineated by Hayek in “Fatal Conceit”, would revive traditional natural law, not attempt to create a new law. I realize that Rothbard claimed to be following in the tradition of natural law, but the logic he develops that rejects the state is a clearly outside the millenia-long tradition of natural law and violates some of its most basic principles.
Published: March 16, 2009 8:40 AM
Florian Kren
What would anacho-libertarians do about Dschingis Khan?
As far as understand the plan is, that by not playing political games around the world, the rest of the world has no reason to attack the anarcho-libertarian territory and therefore no organisation able to raise large military forces(=government, if not in the beginning then afterwards) would be necessary.
But the mongols under Dschingis Khan and his successors did conwuer as far as their horses could carry them. I guess people living in the region of St.Petersburg at that time did not do absolutely anything, which in any sense could have been called an interference with the mongol homeland or china or the region around caspian sea, but nonetheless the mongols did conquer there.
So while isolationism might avoid a lot of conflicts it does not guarantee peace.
And that the whole world turns to anarcho-libertanism would be nice but is as stupid as the argument of pacifist, that if no one would have arms, there would be no war.
And even the united states was not safe, in 1904, so before the US gave up isolationism, a german military advisor wrote a report for his superiors about how a invasion of New York could be conducted.
The minimal state advocates have at least a theoretical solution, the minimal state grows for war purposes strongly and cuts back after war has ended, practically of course this is not without risks.
And do not argue with the nonsense idea, that Gaza of Afghanistan shows, that small lightly armed forces can fend of a powerful aggressor. The mistake is, that in this case its an aggressor who minds to some extent murdering civilians. The mongols somewhere near today Iran told a city, that they have to surrender on day 1 to survive, the city decided to surrender on day 3, all inhabitants numbering in the ten thousands were slaughtered - if the US and Israel would conduct war like the mongols, there wouldn't be any resistance.
What do anarcho-libertarians advocate about the problem of unprovoked invasions?
Published: March 16, 2009 9:06 AM
Florian Kren
Forgot to add, the next cities the mogols approached in the region of course did not offer any resitance, not a single arrow.
And this is not the only example of unprovoked invasion.
Islam was founded in 622, but in 732 an muslim army invaded france, thats not a defensive war and france did at most mess around in spain at that time, which was invaded just 10 years earlier, so isolationism would not have saved them from war either.
Published: March 16, 2009 9:15 AM
vincent
I can't figure out if most anarchists are opposing minarchism on the ground of natural rights or because it just can't stay "minimal". Help?
Published: March 16, 2009 9:20 AM
vincent
And don't you think you have a right to "intervine" on someone else property if this person is doing nuclear experimentation? or if he pretends to have created a new virus that will annihilate humanity?.
Fundamentalist is right, there is no such thing as "absolute " property right.
Published: March 16, 2009 9:38 AM
I Hate Governments
I support NO STATE whatsoever.
I think it is stupid to support a "minimal" state in order to "protect" private property and "enforce" contracts.
That's like hiring a gangster to "guard" the bank.
Sooner or later the gangster will ask more money for his "protection" and will hire more gangster to guard the bank and ask more money.
The bank is best guarded by armed customers, armed clerks and a well armed bank manager.
It's bank customers who put the Daltons out of business thanks to their colts.
Government has no legitimate business whatsoever.
Government is the cancer of humanity, the sword of Damocles threatening us all.
Published: March 16, 2009 9:46 AM
Richard Garner
Vincent,
Both.
Yes, probably.
There is no reason to reject absolute property rights here. Your absolute property rights do not include the right to endanger my property, so preventing you from using your property in a way that does does not violate your property rights.
Moreover, how does this relate to the anarchism question?
Published: March 16, 2009 9:48 AM
I Hate Governments
Vincent,
"And don't you think you have a right to "intervine" on someone else property if this person is doing nuclear experimentation? "
Because you suppose that government nuclear experimentation was done in a responsible and environmentally friendly manner ?
The fact that government nuclear experimentation was done on "public" property gave them the excuse to poison hundreads of thousands of citizens without having to compensate nor inform them.
The USA, RUSSIA, CHINA, FRANCE, ENGLAND all poisoned innocent people with their nuclear experimentation.
I would rather see private experimenters than government "experimenters".
The government release so much radiation in the atmosphere and detonated 2500 nuclear weapons out of which 500 was in the atmosphere.
I would not trust the government with my pocket change, let alone nuclear experimentation.
But to stay on your subject. If radiation is threatening me while I'm on MY property, I have the right to sue the pants off the private nuclear experimenter.
But if the private nuclear experimenter has a very large property and that none of his experiments affects me, then I have nothing to say against him.
The fact is, if I was rich I would probably be doing some nuclear "experimentation" myself on my own property to keep the government at bay, LOL !
It's too bad I'm dirt poor and that nuclear experimentation costs tens of billions.
Published: March 16, 2009 9:53 AM
Richard Garner
Fundamentalist,
Personally, I don't think it necessary that most people need to be libertarian anarchists for libertarian anarchism to "work," though it would certainly help. This is simply because, even if most people are not libertarian anarchists, firstly they face a free-rider problem in bringing about some unlibetarian, or statist alternative (every homophobe benefits if some spend on prohibiting homosexuality, so few will have an incentive to do such spending) whilst defense against such things does less so, and secondly, because whilst all opponents of anarchy may want government, they won't all want the same government, and so will resist each other's attempts to impose their government.
Published: March 16, 2009 9:58 AM
I Hate Governments
JoeB,
"The state doesn't own my property, because I paid for it."
The state owns your property because the state has the firepower to take it away from you and kill you if you resist.
Might is right.
If you don't want the state to own your property, you will first need to have enough power to destroy the state.
The state only respect one thing: POWER !
Published: March 16, 2009 10:05 AM
I Hate Governments
Florian Kren,
"So while isolationism might avoid a lot of conflicts it does not guarantee peace."
He who wants peace must be prepared for total war !
Published: March 16, 2009 10:08 AM
Ryan Sheets
Regarding the second comment (left by Bruce Kaskubar), why is road construction and maintenance a government responsibility?
Would the auto industry not build roads? What is the point of a car if there are no roads? Surely an industry would invest in something so critical to their product’s success. In fact, roads would likely be built more efficiently and with more respect to convenience of location. Why buy a car if there is not a sufficiently maintained road to your destination?
If roads were a product of the auto industry, perhaps the auto industry would be more willing and able to provide warranties on their vehicles. With control over the primary place of use of their product they would be able to better determine and control costs of vehicle maintenance.
Similarly, would the oil industry turn a def ear to the needs of their consumers? Oil’s use is not limited to vehicles driven on roads, but it is a large portion. Whereas the auto industry may focus a little more on the first sale as their product will likely be used for many years, oil’s market is centered on continued use. Perhaps the auto industry would negotiate with the oil industry to provide and maintain roads. We know that taxation on oil has provided most of the necessary costs for maintaining roads, so unless the private sector is incapable of providing construction and maintenance for a comparable cost this would not change anything.
Perhaps the government needs to be involved in cases of eminent domain. There’s always that one pesky homeowner who refuses to give up their lawn so that a road can be expanded. Someone has to evict them, right? Is this a right our government should possess? Not really, no. Regardless, the private sector would be better suited to resolve these disputes than the government.
The argument that government should be held responsible for maintenance and provision of roads is very similar to the idea of government intervention in the broadband market. Internet service providers have supplied sufficient cabling, routing and switching for much of the country with little government assistance. Would they not have been able to do this without government intervention? Thanks for giving us the internet, Al Gore; we truly could not have done it without you!
How about the digital TV transition? Is this a necessary role of our government? Certainly the media and electronics industries would like us to think so. They want to sell an improved product, and I’m sure we would all enjoy better reception, but would this not get done without the government? Do we really need to paint a tax-funded stock car and crash it a couple times to get the word out?
Even traffic cops could be funded by the private sector, and probably more efficiently to boot (though they could probably already be funded by speeding tickets alone). Nobody would want to drive a car on an unregulated road and the industry would be forced to enforce safe travel rules. Much like malls generally provide their own security, a road would provide law enforcement.
While the government probably needs to be involved in the road market at present, I do not subscribe to the idea that roads wouldn't have been built or wouldn't have been maintained properly without the government's hand. On the contrary, we’d probably see a fundamental improvement in the quality, location and efficiency of roads. Since we’re all paying for roads regardless of whether or not it’s a government venture, what is the benefit of keeping it a government responsibility? Corporate welfare.
Published: March 16, 2009 10:08 AM
Scott D
Adrian Eddleman:
One test to determine if this is truly voluntary is to ask whether or not alternatives are possible. If government coercively excludes competition in roads, then we have a case of a monopoly enforced by state aggression. This would not be a voluntary arrangement by any reasonable measure.
The other part I take issue with is the fact that gas station owners must be forced to collect the taxes for the state (because if it were voluntary, offering tax-free gas would be a competitive edge). If you are going to collect fees for road use, do so in a manner that does not distort markets and enslave the labor of others.
Published: March 16, 2009 10:31 AM
vincent
I Hate Governments,
"Because you suppose that government nuclear experimentation was done in a responsible and environmentally friendly manner ?"
It's not because I disagree with a private behaviour that I want it to be done on a large scale by the government.
I understand the fear of some that the minimal state might grow and so not stay minimal.
But I still don't understand that why some prefer the ideal of anarchy over minarchism if, for the sake of the argument, we assume that the minimal state is stable.
I don't understand why is it so important to some that the police force are guided by the profit motive.
Why is it so unbearable for some to pay for police and court enforcing property rights, knowing that just a very little tarrif might be enough.
I admit I have no certitude. In fact, I often held the opinion of the author I am reading at that time(I am currently reading Pr Reisman Capitalism=> my best read ever!)
Published: March 16, 2009 3:20 PM
Florian Kren
What do anarchos no propose to fend off unprovoked foreign aggression?
Published: March 16, 2009 3:46 PM
Reason
Florian states:
"What do anarchos no propose to fend off unprovoked foreign aggression?"
Part of the problem is the way you are asking the question. Assuming an anarchic society means that what is considered 'foreign' is an uncertain and non-static variable, relatively. Foreign to who? And in what way?
If the form of anarchy in play is free-market, it is also safe to assume that its productivity level is much higher relative to non-free market communities. That goes for the production of defense as well. How do you know that entities within the market area don't already anticipate possible foreign aggression and have already gone on the offensive? That is, commenced an offensive that uses positive manipulation to get the 'foreign' 'aggressors' to join into the market- peacefully.
Published: March 16, 2009 4:27 PM
Peter
But I still don't understand that why some prefer the ideal of anarchy over minarchism if, for the sake of the argument, we assume that the minimal state is stable.
Even if a stable minimal state were possible, it would still be immoral.
Published: March 16, 2009 11:34 PM
Stephan Kinsella
JJ:
JJ, the menu further specifies that the customer can request that the 1% fee be removed.
Bruce:
Bruce, I agree that optional taxation is probably a loser (if I follow what you mean). But to say the state can reasonable require support requires justification--it's prima facie theft, after all.
fundamentalist:
Yet another reason to jettison natural law. We are libertarians, not "natural lawyers". Human liberty above tradition.
The case for liberty can be stated without any liberal artsy appeal to "absolutes". It's simply an articulation of our view that as between two contestants for a particular resource, the one with the best claim to the resource has the right to use it. Who can disagree with this?
Published: March 17, 2009 12:26 AM
liberationist
To 'I hate Governments', and Peter-
My argument, above, is for a volunteer citizenship, with fees (not taxes), and we can do away with politicians and bureaucrats by all, part-time, having a share in the running of the government. How would that be immoral? Someone will take over the roads if we leave them alone, so why not re-organise the community structure we have, so that the road-owner is owned by the people who would use the roads?(us) If we all had to do some work for the government to run, we would have an interest in ensuring that it did not grow too big, or take up too much of our time- just like any club or society you might be in right now. Minimal states need not be immoral, nor baby monsters just waiting to grow big.
Published: March 17, 2009 1:12 AM
liberationist
To 'I hate Governments', and Peter-
My argument, above, is for a volunteer citizenship, with fees (not taxes), and we can do away with politicians and bureaucrats by all, part-time, having a share in the running of the government. How would that be immoral? Someone will take over the roads if we leave them alone, so why not re-organise the community structure we have, so that the road-owner is owned by the people who would use the roads?(us) If we all had to do some work for the government to run, we would have an interest in ensuring that it did not grow too big, or take up too much of our time- just like any club or society you might be in right now. Minimal states need not be immoral, nor baby monsters just waiting to grow big.
Published: March 17, 2009 1:15 AM
liberationist
To 'I hate Governments', and Peter-
My argument, above, is for a volunteer citizenship, with fees (not taxes), and we can do away with politicians and bureaucrats by all, part-time, having a share in the running of the government. How would that be immoral? Someone will take over the roads if we leave them alone, so why not re-organise the community structure we have, so that the road-owner is owned by the people who would use the roads?(us) If we all had to do some work for the government to run, we would have an interest in ensuring that it did not grow too big, or take up too much of our time- just like any club or society you might be in right now. Minimal states need not be immoral, nor baby monsters just waiting to grow big.
Published: March 17, 2009 1:18 AM
Florian Kren
"How do you know that entities within the market area don't already anticipate possible foreign aggression and have already gone on the offensive? That is, commenced an offensive that uses positive manipulation to get the 'foreign' 'aggressors' to join into the market- peacefully."
Because i read "Mein Kampf". I know Hitler didnt realy intend to fight GB and GB could have avoided the war. But all(!) eastern europe states would have been attacked by Nazi Germany sooner or later whatever they would have done. And think about Holland and Belgium, since Hitler did not want to send his soldiers into the french fortifications at the border he invaded the neutral contries belgium and holland. And even Switzerland, practically since centuries the nation that defines what "neutral" actually means, felt so much threatened, that they mobilized their army.
If someone like Hitler rules a country, then using any positive market forces to avert the aggression is impossible, only lots of arms and a large army can then discourage the neighbour.
And if you say Hitler was a one time case, then thats only correct in context of holocaust, for all other respects he just behaved like many rulers up to 1945 did. Think of Stalin and Mao they funded communist guerillas all aroung the world and the only reason they did not fight many wars and invaded other countries was, that they did not like to fight a nuclear war.
Look into history books, they are full of rulers who invaded their neighbors and as far as i remeber there is no example of a nearly state free region, that was able to fend of a determined aggressor.
If anarcho-capitalistic societies would be strong from a military point of view, histroy books would be full of them, because the winner write the histroy books.
"Assuming an anarchic society means that what is considered 'foreign' is an uncertain and non-static variable, relatively. Foreign to who? And in what way?"
Foreign are those areas, where still governments exist. I do not expect one anarcho-capitalistic region to fight a war against another anarcho-capitalistic region.
Published: March 17, 2009 3:32 AM
Brian Macker
What irks me the most about anarchists is they find it morally reprehensible that we don't all just flap our wings and fly away. Yet when presented with the cliff they so object to are unwilling to jump off themselves.
You can't hold people morally guilty of producing results that have been shown to be impossible. Sure we might discover a way to fly using manned power but don't expect the rest of us to be your guinea pigs.
After watching experiment after experiment in flight fail by some means or another, we are somehow morally lacking when anarchists come up with some new plan. Sure if I had good reasons to believe that something would work then I might be held morally culpable for not acting, but there are no such reasons.
There are so many levels at which the moral outrage of anarchists is invalidated.
So save your outrage for your fellow anarchists who haven't got the guts to act on their own beliefs, or just have it to easy under "The State".
Published: March 17, 2009 8:02 AM
Reason
Florian,
Dictatorship in Germany was a product of exogenous democratic-imperial machinations post WWI, combined with decades of the internal spread of statist, protectionist, militarist, and socialist ideology. Mises said in Omnipotent Government that if it wasn't Hitler there would have been some other dictator in charge.
Hitler, anyway, did not invade any anarcho-capitalist society; you have no historical example. There has not been such a society. Yet, the apriori economic method points to its superiority.
Plus, if the USA, in spite of its fascist war socialism, had let Germany and Bolshevik Russia just duke it out there was a chance that both monsters would have perished in the clash. But Roosevelt et al. wanted war for their own, personal, domestic agendas.
Your neo-conservatism blinds you. You sound like David Horrorwitz.
History is indeed mostly written by the victors, which lends itself to biased understanding. That is just it though- data does not speak for itself. History is about making judgements on the facts and deciding what is a historical fact vs. ancillary data.
The apriori deductive methodology, the understanding of economics that Mises lays out, is instrumental in aiding the historian.
I have read Mein Kampf as well. It is heads or tails as to whose agenda is more sordid, Hitler's or the neo-conservatives.
Published: March 17, 2009 8:06 AM
fundamentalist
Stephan: “Yet another reason to jettison natural law. We are libertarians, not "natural lawyers". Human liberty above tradition.”
Natural law was not tradition. It was logic refined over a millenium. And the Protestant natural lawyers were the first libertarians in the sense that they were the first to free individuals from the iron grip of the state. It’s seems odd that you would abandon the philosophy that gave birth to modern liberty simply because it doesn’t make liberty an absolute.
Stephan: “The case for liberty can be stated without any liberal artsy appeal to "absolutes". It's simply an articulation of our view that as between two contestants for a particular resource, the one with the best claim to the resource has the right to use it. Who can disagree with this?”
But “who has the best claim to the resource” is what the debate is all about, isn’t it? Natural law gives some claim to resources to the state when the state is exercising legitimate duties.
On a practical basis, I would be willing to try anarchism. I think the arguments for it show that it has a good chance of working. I just disagree that it is ethically or logically superior to natural law, the father of modern liberty.
Published: March 17, 2009 8:08 AM
Stephan Kinsella
fundamentalist:
This way of talking covers up the ugly truth that any non-anarchist is in favor of naked violence against innocent people. Instead of saying you are not convinced that anarchy is superior "ethically" or "logically" to "natural law," why not say you are not convinced yet that violence initiated by the state against innocent people is always wrong? That's a cleaner way of presenting one's statist views.
Brian Macker:
I'm not sure who Macker is replying to, but this way of putting the issue presumes a sort of utilitarian, unprincipled approach is what we all agree with. Whether anarchists "act on their beliefs," whatever this maundering babble means, is utterly irrelevant to the very simple question of whether aggression is justified or not. Either you favor aggression, and are thus to that extent criminal-like, socialistic; or you do not--and on principle, in which case you are an anarchist. Which is it? To answer this does not require distracting, non-rigorous side-discussions of issues like who is outraged, who "acts on their beliefs," etc.--it simply requires examining the legitimacy of initiated violence, and one's own position in this regard.
Published: March 17, 2009 9:55 AM
Florian Kren
"I have read Mein Kampf as well. It is heads or tails as to whose agenda is more sordid, Hitler's or the neo-conservatives."
That sentence defies you're name. Apparently you missed the part, where he describes, that the sole purpose for interior politics is to smith the sword and the sole purpose of foreign politics is to find allies.
That worldview leaves no other option than a world war.
The neocons are not innocent, but they at least could name other priorities for internal and foreign policy, except to prepare and fight a world war.
In case you missed it, but Roosevelt was as bad as all the neocons.
So Neocons are as bad as Hitler was and Roosevelt was as bad as the neocons are, meaning, that Roosevelt is as bad as Hitler. And thereby of course as bad as Stalin.
Strange is that millions fled from being conquered by Stalin towards the as evil Roosevelt and Churchill. There are 2 possibilities, either those people were unlike you not wise enough to realize that they ran from one butcher to another.
Or you are wrong and although Roosevelt commited a lot of crimes, he was the less cruel and evil ruler.
And if Roosevelt is less evil than Hitler, the Neocons are too.
"Dictatorship in Germany was a product of exogenous democratic-imperial machinations post WWI, combined with decades of the internal spread of statist, protectionist, militarist, and socialist ideology. Mises said in Omnipotent Government that if it wasn't Hitler there would have been some other dictator in charge."
Yes, but other dictators were far less bloody than Hitler, the difference between Hitler and another might well have been the holocaust.
And even if it is correct, that Hitler was a product of the political situation, my point is, that at best some regions of the world turn to anarcho-capitalism, while others continue to have some sort of intrusive state.
So if ever some anarcho-capitalistic region would come into being, it would be surronded by states, which might one day take advantage of any military weakness.
And unlike the free market, which has to some extent existed a different times and therefore history indicates, that free markets are superior, no anarcho-capitalistic society ever existed and where something close to it - free city states - existed, they always had a hard time fending off foreign aggression and by doing so turned into larger states. Indicating that small states are inferior from a military point of view. Why should anarcho-capitalism not be inferior as well and how could that be avoided?
Published: March 17, 2009 11:04 AM
fundamentalist
Stephan: "This way of talking covers up the ugly truth that any non-anarchist is in favor of naked violence against innocent people. Instead of saying you are not convinced that anarchy is superior "ethically" or "logically" to "natural law," why not say you are not convinced yet that ? That's a cleaner way of presenting one's statist views."
I don't say that because I don't believe it. I firmly believe that violence initiated by the state against innocent people is always wrong. The difference in in the definition of innocent people. Under natural law taxation for legitimate reasons is justified. Therefore, if the citizen refuses to pay and the state must use violence in order to collect the taxes, then the citizen isn't innocent.
Under your definition of libertarian, Locke, Mises and Hayek wouldn't be included. Nor would most libertarians before Rothbard. So if you're going to kick out Mises, I'm in pretty good company and I'll leave the libertarian label to the followers of the Rothbard/Hoppe ethic. If you, and only you, have the authority to declare who is a libertarian, then I must accept your decision.
Published: March 17, 2009 11:19 AM
Daniel C
Fundamentalist, your posts assume that natural law leads necessarily to a State. That doesn't seem to me to be the case. Why not say that you're willing to try anarchy BOTH because it works AND because it's the logical conclusion of natural law?
Published: March 17, 2009 11:41 AM
fundamentalist
Daniel: "Why not say that you're willing to try anarchy BOTH because it works AND because it's the logical conclusion of natural law?"
Because anarchy is not the logical conclusion of natural law. Natural law leaves room for anarchy, but doesn't exclude the state.
Published: March 17, 2009 11:51 AM
Richard Garner
Fundamentalist,
Accepting that the state has legitimate functions does not imply that just any means of funding it are justified, surely. Given this fact, there need to be criteria for determining which means are justified. And in order for your claim that taxation fits them, the criteria have to be such that they include taxation, but exclude other things.
In the end, though, you still run into the same problem that underscores the anarchist objection to the state: The state prohibits people from doing things it itself admits are legitimate activities. If you are saying that the fact that the provision of X is justified makes forcing people to pay for your provision of X, why does it matter that you are a state or not? If the fact that it is legitimate for the state to provide police means that robbing people to pay for the police is justified, then why shouldn't I also be allowed to rob people in order to fund my provision of a police service?
Published: March 17, 2009 1:44 PM
fundamentalist
Richard:"Accepting that the state has legitimate functions does not imply that just any means of funding it are justified, surely."
That's a good point. I'm not familiar with the natural law debate on what means of funding the state are justified.
Richard: "The state prohibits people from doing things it itself admits are legitimate activities."
And prohibits things that it does. That's because the state is not a person, but an institution with greater authority than individuals. It's like a court in anarchy. The judge can do things that citizens can't.
Published: March 17, 2009 4:17 PM
Stephan Kinsella
fundamentalist:
"I firmly believe that violence initiated by the state against innocent people is always wrong."
Then you're an anarchist, since the state always does this.
"The difference in in the definition of innocent people. Under natural law taxation for legitimate reasons is justified. Therefore, if the citizen refuses to pay and the state must use violence in order to collect the taxes, then the citizen isn't innocent."
I don't give a damn what natural law says about this. I really don't. If it says a tax protestor is not "innocent," then--to hell with natural law. It's nothing but a rubber stamp for the state.
"Under your definition of libertarian, Locke, Mises and Hayek wouldn't be included."
So?
"Nor would most libertarians before Rothbard. So if you're going to kick out Mises, I'm in pretty good company and I'll leave the libertarian label to the followers of the Rothbard/Hoppe ethic."
How does this petulance justify aggression against innocent people?
"If you, and only you, have the authority to declare who is a libertarian, then I must accept your decision."
I am proudly against all aggression, whether it's private or public aggression. As such, my views are clearly ethically superior to those of minarchists, who accept *some* public aggression; and some left-anarchists, who accept some private aggression (e.g. by unions and the workers); etc. My views are superior because they are principled and civilized. I am proud of this, actually. If you can't get the ethical cojones to condemn aggression on principle--if you want to make ridiculous arguments like calling tax resisters "non-innocent" because the state and "natural law" deems it so--don't blame me.
"Natural law leaves room for anarchy, but doesn't exclude the state."
The is inherently criminal and aggressive. If natural law leaves room for this, then natural law be damned. But of course, it doesn't.
Published: March 17, 2009 6:24 PM
Liberationist
My model of a minarchy- volunteer citizen militia, who have a direct stake in government, and train locally, in turns- would guarantee that most of the population of my society would have the weapons and the training to defend themselves, as well as the incentive. Training together would make our guerillas very effective.
Whilst this would not always guarantee victory (Switzerland was beaten by Napoleon, I recall), it wouldn't be a walkover!
Published: March 17, 2009 7:04 PM
Brian Macker
Stephan,
You got it wrong. The main point is that no one can perform on anarchist expectations. People can't be held morally culpable for what can't be done. If you think it can be done then prove it by doing it. We'll follow your example after you've shown it's possible.
Go ahead. Set up a society in which you are not forced to support any entities that commit aggression. I assume you are paying your taxes, or freeloading off the current system in some way, just like all of the rest of us. Either way you support "aggression".
I think utilitarianist, consequentialist, and deontological ethics are all false. So don't bother trying to push me into any of those categories as I think they are based on false dichotomies.
Published: March 17, 2009 11:58 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Macker:
Is all this sophistic jibber jabber supposed to show that aggression is justified? FAIL.
None of this eristic "reasoning" shows that aggression is justified.
Your mock outrage at being "pushed into" "categories" is just a distracting, irrelevant evasion. And guess what--it does not justify aggresion. FAIL #3.
Published: March 18, 2009 12:13 AM
Gil
Wow! Gee! Stephan Kinsella has it all figured out apparently. Also apparent is the way he and others view hierarchies as that which only happens in the public sphere. So I guess there's no such thing as 'natural hierarchies'. This of course would presume in anarcho-world everyone has the same status, wealth, rank and their own land in a way that no one gets to boss any one else around. This would be probably Stephan rolls his eyes and says "yes there will be 'natural hierarchies' however the difference is that people in anarchism will have the magical option of 'love it or leave it'". But of course how does anyone not have the current option of 'loving or leaving it'? Or, for that matter, if anarchists see the government as a criminal gang then why don't they treat them as such? Mexican druglords show that the state isn't 'all powerful' and can be corrupted and fought against and make people think "gee I don't think the government can win the War On Drugs".
Perhaps fundamentalist makes an important blooer against 'anarchism' and 'minimalism' - "It's like a court in anarchy. The judge can do things that citizens can't." A judge is a statist rank - anarchism would have private arbitrators who can deliver verdicts but it can't be seen where an arbitrator can force the guilty to do anything they want to do. It's the same as the way a third neighbour can arbitrate between two fellow neighbours yet, by the same token, can't use force against either neighbour to do anything. The necessary force to compel someone to do something against their will without it being 'iniating' can only come from a private landowner forcing someone off his/her land. The landowner has the special power that the state also has - jurisdiction. The landowner's right to force begins with his property and ends there too. It shoud seem obvious that only property owners can provide justice against criminal behaviour especially for the propertyless. Even if property owners hire the services of private defence agencies the final actions belong to the relevent property owner hence geographical monopoly force, A.KA.: a private state. In other words, the cycle begins anew.
Anarcho-Capitalist Paul Birch's article Anarcho-Capitalism Dissolves Into City States supports a similar view.
Published: March 18, 2009 1:25 AM
fundamentalist
Stephan: “I don't give a damn what natural law says about this. I really don't. If it says a tax protestor is not "innocent," then--to hell with natural law.”
Pardon me. I thought this was a discussion about logic and reason, not personal preferences.
Stephan: “I am proudly against all aggression, whether it's private or public aggression.”
I doubt it. You would aggress against someone who aggressed against you, for example, if someone stole your property or kidnapped a relative. You would commit aggression against them because they have done something that makes them no longer innocent.
Stephan: “As such, my views are clearly ethically superior to those of minarchists, who accept *some* public aggression; and some left-anarchists, who accept some private aggression (e.g. by unions and the workers); etc. My views are superior because they are principled and civilized.”
Not superior, just different. Superiority requires a rank ordering of values. A lot of people would rank your system as inferior. Clearly you prefer your system. I never said you didn’t. Because you value personal freedom and property above anything else, you think it is superior. If a person values something else, such as order, they will not think as highly of your system. Again, I thought you wanted to argue that it is superior in reason and logic. I was merely trying to show that it isn’t.
Gil: “…anarchism would have private arbitrators who can deliver verdicts but it can't be seen where an arbitrator can force the guilty to do anything they want to do…”
Good point. I had forgotten that point about anarchism. That’s why the majority have to embrace anarchism or it won’t work. The loser in a legal dispute must have the self-discipline to abide by the judge’s decision, else the whole thing falls apart. If enough people decide to ignore arbritrators, or not even submit to arbitration, chaos will result. In fact, it’s conceivable that criminal organizations will set up judges to rule in their favor, as they do in many nations today. Or say the squatters on someone’s land are better armed than the land owner and his private defense agency. They could take his land and no one could do anything about it.
Anarchy should not evolve into a city-state if everyone maintains self-discipline and the belief in anarchism, but if at some point a critical mass fails to do so, the choices are rule by thugs or a state. But then the same could be said of min-archism.
Published: March 18, 2009 8:28 AM
Gil
Hmmm. I don't remember trying to 'italics-ise' that much in the last post. :(
Published: March 18, 2009 8:37 AM
Gil
"Anarchy should not evolve into a city-state if everyone maintains self-discipline and the belief in anarchism, but if at some point a critical mass fails to do so, the choices are rule by thugs or a state. But then the same could be said of min-archism."
Well said fundamentalist.
Published: March 18, 2009 8:42 AM
Stephan Kinsella
fundamentalist
Apparently it's a discussion for amateurs and newbs, if I have to explain to you that it's not aggression when you respond to aggression (see below).
Aggression is the initiation of force. Self-defense or other responses to aggression are not initiations of force.
Yes, my system is not preferred by criminals or their fellow-traveling statists (including minarchist-statists). The fact that a criminal or a socialist-statist does not think my libertarian principles are superior is irrelevant; such people are merely technical problems.
Published: March 18, 2009 9:24 AM
fundamentalist
Stephan: "Aggression is the initiation of force."
So someone who doesn't pay his bill is not guilty of agression, so an anarchist has no right to respond?
Stephan: "...my system is not preferred by criminals..."
Or natural law would say criminals prefer your system. But what is the point of all of the name calling? How does it further the discusssion?
Published: March 18, 2009 10:55 AM
Richard Garner
Gil and fundamentalist,
Gil wrote,
Fundamentalist wrote,
Judges or arbitors do not need to enforce their verdict: If I have hired my protection agency to punish you for what I think is a transgression, and you have hired yours to protect you because you either don't think you have transgressed, or that what you did isn't a transgression, and then our agencies have turned to a pre-agreed upon arbitor to resolve their dispute, then the protection agencies enforce the verdict. If the judge or arbitor rules in my favour, my agency punishes you. It enforce's the judge's ruling.
Alternatively, of course, rather than allow my agency to punish you, your agency might punish you itself.
Published: March 18, 2009 11:26 AM
Richard Garner
Fundamentalist,
The last claim is false: Under anarchy there is free entry to the dispute resolution industry, so judges, under anarchy, are only doing things anybody else can do, since anybody who has the resources to do so can hang out their shingles and go into businesses as a free-market judge.
Now, as to the rest, you say that what it is legitimate for the state to do is can also not be legitimate for other people (within the state's territory) to do, because it possesses "greater authority" than a person. First off, though, the state is people, so it can only have the rights that people have.
Secondly, where did the state get this "greater authority" from? Who authorised it?
In the end, I don't think you have answered Nozick's question (and he didn't either): "What right does the private exacter of justice violate that is not also violated by the state when it punishes. When a group of persons constitute themselves as the state and begin to punish, and forbid others from doing likewise, is there some right these others would violate that they themselves do not? By what right, then, can the state and its officials claim a unique right (a privilege) with regard to force and enforce this monopoly."
All the anarchist does is say, "I want everybody, individually or in groups, to be able to do what the state does." The onus falls on you to explain why an activity can be OK for one group of people to do, but not OK for others.
Published: March 18, 2009 11:41 AM
fundamentalist
Richard: “our agencies have turned to a pre-agreed upon arbitor to resolve their dispute…”
How does that differ from what I wrote, that the two parties must have agreed beforehand to arbitration and that they must be willing to submit to it? If they don’t, then you have a war on your hands.
Richard: “"What right does the private exacter of justice violate that is not also violated by the state when it punishes.”
In natural law, that would be the right of people to form governments, which by definition gives a monopoly on executing justice to the state. You and Stephan are arguing strickly from the Rothbard/Hoppe ethic, as if we both assume it is correct. I don’t. I assume the natural law ethic is the correct one. Different rights exist under the two system.
This goes to the heart of any system of ethics. What right does anyone have to punish anyone else? None. Trumped up ethical systems, like the Rothbard/Hoppe ethic, are just man-made devices that have no authority over anyone who disagrees with them. They are like housing covenants in that if someone disagrees with the ethic, the only right the other members have is to ask the renegade to leave.
Richard: “By what right, then, can the state and its officials claim a unique right (a privilege) with regard to force and enforce this monopoly?”
Under natural law, the right to form a government to provide order so that society may function properly.
Published: March 18, 2009 12:09 PM
Richard Garner
Fundamentalist,
You don't anymore have a war than if I hadn't agreed to in advance to accept the verdict of one of the state's courts. In the end, force is resorted to in both cases.
But, if people have a right to form a government, then wouldn't the exercising of this right by group of people A violate the same right of group of people B, if they try to form a government in the same geographic area? Once you have accepted that people have a right to form a government, every formation of a government must be a violation of somebody else's right to form a government, if government is, as you say, by definition, monopolistic.
Published: March 18, 2009 1:24 PM
Mashuri
And who would protect the non-property owners (the commoner) from the rule-making property owners (the elite) in an anarchist state? Especially if it becomes a large cartel of land owners (sound familiar?) How would this be any better for the commoner than a government ruled system? Nobody has satisfactorily answered this in a way that is consistent with practical, realistic human nature. The way I see it, the commoner gets screwed no matter what.
Published: March 18, 2009 7:04 PM
Brian Macker
"Apparently it's a discussion for amateurs and newbs, if I have to explain to you that it's not aggression when you respond to aggression (see below)."
That's your idiosyncratic usage. Most libertarians and anarchists say they are against initiation of force or fraud. You on the other hand use the word aggression and claim you are against all aggression, and redefine retaliatory aggression as non-aggression.
Any libertarian fully familiar with the literature, like me, would be confused by your usage.
You are also sneaking into this discussion the assumption that you are correct in your particular understanding of what is and is not legitimate morally.
We don't accept your infallibility on the subject.
I've already stated above that I consider more than merely the initiation of force or fraud to be trespass (or as you prefer aggression). I also consider the initiation of endangerment to be a form of trespass or aggression.
If someone didn't like their neighbor and decided to be spiteful by storing some dynamite next to their property line then I think that is aggressive. Or if one were to leave dog feces on their property to the point where rats start living off it and endanger the health of their neighbors.
So I already have a point of contention with the correctness of anarchist and libertarian philosophy and I have barely even started. It's clear to me that this is behavior that falls outside the scope of the axioms set up by these groups.
I have many other issues with both libertarian and anarchist ethics. Doesn't mean I fall into any other camp you are familiar with, which was why I objected to you trying to claim I was a utilitarian. That is absolutely ridiculous.
Just because I don't agree with your flawed ethical views doesn't mean I fall into some other flawed camp. You were the one that claimed I was basing my beliefs on utilitarianism.
I am in fact neither a libertarian nor a minarchist because my philosophical grounding is different. My conclusions may be similar. I may believe that it's dangerous to be on the volcano, but not because the volcano gods are angry.
I don't believe that morality works the way you think it does. I believe moralities to be an evolved strategies and as with all strategies there is subtle issues involved in the real world. Just like in chess there are general rules like "control the center of the board" there are likewise general rules in morality. But like strategies in chess they do not always apply.
Yours is just one of many potential moral systems and I don't think it is as superior as you seem to think. I think it is prone to invasion by force and by freeloaders and is bound to collapse if it were ever set up. What good is a society built on a moral system that would collapse? We need moral systems that are compatible with the way men are, and not imagined.
Published: March 18, 2009 9:45 PM
Stephan Kinsella
fundamentalist:
Feel free to read up on libertarian contract and justice theory if you are serious and not just loooking for an eristic "gotcha" type question.
Stephan: "...my system is not preferred by criminals..."
Or natural law would say criminals prefer your system. But what is the point of all of the name calling? How does it further the discusssion?
What discussion is that? And what is the relevance of your question?
Published: March 18, 2009 11:52 PM
liberationist
Mashuri- what do you think of my time-share minimalist state? Any major holes?
As for Anarcho-capitalist judges, the theory I came across said that people would have insurance companies to adjudicate these occasions, and both would pick a third company to judge if they disagreed. If both posted bond in a bank of the judge's choice, then the outcome is out of the hands of the parties directly concerned. The companies would adjust your premiums to reflect your risk rating for the future.
Whilst there would be conflict, I don't see any paradox.
Published: March 19, 2009 12:24 AM
Mashuri
Libertarianist- I think you have a novel idea and, to be honest, I tend to gravitate toward the minarchist state myself. I'd be wary of your proposed system creating a "citizen" and "non-citizen" class so growth of the state would have to be seriously put in check. I think our founders were on to the right idea, however, with a Constitution defining society but didn't put enough checks against the state. Given the natural propensity for laws to multiply, perhaps an amendment that required any laws, mandates, taxes, etc, to be repealed by a less-than-majority popular vote (perhaps 20%+ vote to repeal) held at any time the populace saw fit?
Published: March 19, 2009 1:13 AM
liberationist
Why not an automatic sunset clause? All laws only last for four years, unless renewed or replaced by a new law? Pollies come up with new laws because they have time on their hands. Keep them fully occupied, and you'll have healthy reps, and a healthy constitution!
Published: March 19, 2009 1:45 AM
Chad Rushing
fundamentalist: "Under your definition of libertarian, Locke, Mises and Hayek wouldn't be included. Nor would most libertarians before Rothbard. So if you're going to kick out Mises, I'm in pretty good company and I'll leave the libertarian label to the followers of the Rothbard/Hoppe ethic."
I heartily agree with fundamentalist. If being an advocate of outright anarchy is a requirement for being a "true libertarian," then you can count me out. This viewpoint that anyone who is not an absolute anarchist is a rabid fascist/socialist who personally endorses every evil ever committed by governing bodies is a false dichotomy (i.e., a logical fallacy) if I have ever seen one. Minarchists just do not believe in throwing out the baby with the bathwater like the anarchists do, the "baby" being the proper roles of governments (ex., punishing violent criminals).
A highly moral (although not perfect) society could easily have an honest and respectable (although not perfect) government, one which would never have reason to or the desire to harass those who respected the lives, liberties, and properties of their neighbors. The problem is that we do not have a highly moral society (anymore, at least), and every institution in our society, not just the governing ones, clearly reflect that sad state of affairs. Restore the character of the underlying society, and the government will then be restored to its proper roles.
Published: March 19, 2009 1:56 AM
Chad Rushing
Richard Garner: "All the anarchist does is say, 'I want everybody, individually or in groups, to be able to do what the state does.' The onus falls on you to explain why an activity can be OK for one group of people to do, but not OK for others."
This challenge assumes that every individual in society is equally authorized to perform all actions in a society which is clearly not the case. For example, fathers have a different level of rightful authority in households than their children do. Married people are rightfully authorized to do things with each other that others are not. Professors have a different level of rightful authority in college classrooms than students do, even if a student is actually biologically older than the professor in question. Employees at a place of business are rightfully authorized to do things and go places a customer is not. Every single person living in society has their possible actions delimited by varying levels and spheres of authority around them, a naturally occurring phenomenon in every human society.
Furthermore, at some earlier point, the society in which you currently live decided (implicitly or explicitly) to delegate the particular authority they had over protecting their own lives, liberty, and properties to some governing body which they instituted. In other words, the governing institutions which claim authority over you today were delegated that authority at some earlier point by founders, settlers, or representatives hundreds of years ago and would claim that delegation as still being in effect until explicitly revoked; that is where the difference between what we are authorized to do and what the government is authorized to do comes into play. The fact that there are so few recalls or impeachments of government officials in our modern society leads one to believe that most people are relatively content with that arrangement (or are not discontent enough to actually do something about it).
Now, you may respond that you never delegated your personal authority to any governing bodies, that you were born into a system to which you never explicitly consented. Well, the fact of the matter is that as long as you choose to physically reside in the territorial bounds claimed by that existing governing authority, you are implicitly consenting to that authority and are expected to live your life accordingly or face penalties of some kind.
The anarchist's only options at this point other than to willfully submit to the existing governing authorities are to work to change them (ex., political activism), to revolt against them (ex., secession or civil disobedience), or to leave their spheres of influence altogether by physically relocating elsewhere (ex., the Pilgrims). The strongest argument anarchists could ever make in favor of their position would be to set up a colony somewhere and to demonstrate how well anarchy would work in practice (or that it even could work in practice), something like the Free State Project but along anarchist lines. As long as anarcho-capitalism exists purely in the realm of the theoretical, I doubt it will ever advance much as a movement.
Published: March 19, 2009 3:42 AM
Florian Kren
@liberationist
Words don't stop anyone.
The only safeguard, that would be a clearly visible red line, whose crossing would legally allow every individual cititzen to use any kind of force against the governemnt he himself thinks to be adequate to force the government.
Something like:
"The state is only allowed to issue paper money redeemable in gold. In case state is unwilling to redeem the amount of gold for the paper money in the amount declared upon the issuing of the paper money any owner of paper money is allowed to use any kind of force against property or employees of the state he himself thinks to be justified to force the state to either redeem the correct amount of gold or to take from the states property the just amount compensating him for his losses. In case the state is unable to redeem the president is guilty of treason and any citizen is allowed to treat him as if the president is on the brink of overthrowing the republic turning it into a totalitarian kingship."
I do not know whether such a rule would be sensible, but only such rules will provide a real safeguard(especially in connection with the second amendment).
Published: March 19, 2009 5:21 AM
newson
i liked it better when you were I Hate Taxes.
Published: March 19, 2009 6:30 AM
fundamentalist
Richard: "But, if people have a right to form a government, then wouldn't the exercising of this right by group of people A violate the same right of group of people B, if they try to form a government in the same geographic area?"
That would be a problem. Natural law isn't without problems when it comes to implementation, just as anarchy isn't. I'm not familiar with all of the discussion on government; it's extensive and mostly about limits. Clearly natural law didn't solve all of society's problems. Just as there is a problem with anarchy if people don't follow the rules, the same problem exists with natural law. If people can't peacefully agree on what government to form and where, then problems will exist.
But we need to distinguish between the logic of the system and its implementation. Both natural law and anarchy have problems with implementation, not because they're illogical, but because human nature is what it is. My argument is that anarchy, which is based on the Rothbard/Hoppe ethic, is not the only logical system of ethics and that natural law is more reasonable and better fits human nature. That's because anarchy starts with the right to property; natural law starts with the right to life. Anarchy makes property an absolute. Natural law doesn't make anything an absolute, but places the right to life at the pinnacle. It makes property a very close second with very few reasons allowed for its violation. The right to government issues from the rights to life and property and the right to protect both and create order.
Published: March 19, 2009 8:02 AM
fundamentalist
I don't understand the anarchists' need to attack anyone and everyone who isn't as ideologically pure as they think themselves to be. Minarchists are a tiny, insignficant minority in this country and anarchists are even less significant. So why are minarchists attacking friends? Shouldn't the objective be to win converts on the major issues, not to chase away friends over minor ones?
Published: March 19, 2009 8:09 AM
Stephan Kinsella
fundamentalist: "fundamentalist
I don't understand the anarchists' need to attack anyone and everyone who isn't as ideologically pure as they think themselves to be. Minarchists are a tiny, insignficant minority in this country and anarchists are even less significant. So why are minarchists attacking friends? Shouldn't the objective be to win converts on the major issues, not to chase away friends over minor ones?"
"the objective" of what? Of seeking, discussing, and stating the truth? Of accurately identifying flaws in others' conclusions and reasons? We are libertarians because we oppose aggression; of course we tend to identify and oppose it, or proposals for it, when we see it.
As for alliances, we are happy to ally with the minarchist-statists for now. If we ever reached minarchy, probably by this point most minarchists would have seen the light. If not, then at that point they would be the enemy and would be dealt with.
Published: March 19, 2009 9:11 AM
Richard Garner
Chad Rushing,
No it doesn't. Firstly, it assume that there are at least somethings that everybody is entitled to do, but it doesn't assume that everything one person is entitled to do, somebody else is. Secondly, the term "authorised" presuposes some original set of rights that people hold without the exercise of which an action is not authorised. But I don't think we need permission from our targets in order to use retaliatory or defensive force, do you? All this challenge does is say, since it is admitted that doing X is a legitimate activity, the onus falls on statists to say why some people should be prohibited from Xing, whilst others shouldn't.
First of all, historically, this is baloney. No such thing was ever done.
Secondly, it just begs the question "so what?" The fact that somebody else decided to "delegate the particular authority they had over protecting their own lives, liberty, and properties to some governing body which they instituted" in no one implies that I have thereby also so delegated my rights, or that I ought to. Moreover, if the government is authorised to do these things only if I delegate to it my own right to do them, then surely if I "delegate the particular authority" I have "over protecting" my "own life, liberty, and properties to some" other institution, within the same geographic area as the "government" everybody else delegated their rights to, my institution would be just as authorised as theirs to protect my life, liberty and property. So why would theirs have a right to shut my institution down?
It is very quaint to see this type of argument made, since philsopher nowadays are pretty unanimous that it was been utterly debunked. The first proof that it has been debunked is that even you don't believe it: If I were to move into your neighbourhood and declare myself the government of that neighbourhood, protecting the life liberty and property of everybody in it, and demanding everybody in it pays me for doing so, you wouldn't think that you should either have to pay me or leave your home and life and move out. Nor would anybody be mad enough to presume that the fact that you stayed there indicated consent to recieve my protection for the fee's I charge.
The argument from tacit consent is question begging. It attempts to argue that the existence of the state is legitimate by appealing to the legitimacy of the state's rule over everybody within a given geographic area to do so.
Published: March 19, 2009 11:44 AM
Richard Garner
Fundamentalist,
Well, it seems to be a problem that is easily sovable by, rather than saying that people having a right to form a government, you say that people have a right to form or patronise institutions to protect their person and property, to enforce their rights and punish violations, and to resolve disputes as to when or whether this has occurred. But anarchists are happy to admit this. Saying "I have a right to form a government" is different: It is saying "I have a right to do X, and stop everybody else from doing X." Hence your next problem:
Right, but this is an issue about logic, not implementation. If my claim that "I have a right to do X, and to stop everybody else doing X" is true, it has to be the case that nobody else either has "a right to do X" or a "right to do X and stop others doing X." My possession of such a right would be incompossible with other people's possession of the same right, and incompossible with other people's possession of a right to do X. But, since a "right to form a government," assuming governments to be monopolistic (which you have accepted), is a particular example of a "right to do X and stop everybody else doing X," it logically follows that it is impossible for everybody to have a right to form a government. But that would contradict your claim that people in general have such a right.
Well, I am sure that Rothbard and Hoppe would say that their theory of justice is a natural law theory, appealing to natural rights. Regardless, it is not necessary to be a Rothbardian or a Hoppean in order to be an anarchist. On Hoppe, unlike Stephan, I would agree with Rod Long's assessment of his argument for rights, and also those in the Liberty magazine that Stephan linked to; though I am slightly more sympathetic to Rothbard's own argument.
Richard
Published: March 19, 2009 12:02 PM
fundamentalist
Richard: " If my claim that "I have a right to do X, and to stop everybody else doing X" is true, it has to be the case that nobody else either has "a right to do X" or a "right to do X and stop others doing X."
The right to form a government in natural law is not an individual right. The individual right would be the right of association. If individuals can agree to associate, then they have the right to form a government, but no individual has the right to form a government on his own.
Richard: "Well, I am sure that Rothbard and Hoppe would say that their theory of justice is a natural law theory, appealing to natural rights."
You're working with two definitions of natural law. One definition refers to the law that had been discovered through reason from Thomas Aquinas through Adam Smith. The other refers to the process of discovering natural law by reason. Rothbard claimed to be following the process, but he seriously deviated from the law itself, which only means that he held different assumptions than all of the natural law theorists before him.
Published: March 19, 2009 1:51 PM
Richard Garner
Fundamentalist,
Fine, but, regardless, it would still mean that group of people A and group of people B still possess incompossible rights.
Published: March 19, 2009 2:25 PM
liberationist
Stephan,
minarchists would beat anarchists, if it ever came to a fight because organised fighters (like armies) beat disorganised ones.
But it shouldn't come to that.
There is a missing argument in anarcho-capitalist theory. Does anyone own the roads? If not, could anyone stop armed squatters from taking over roads as their own property? And setting themselves up as the equivalent of a government?
There is another argument which favours minarchies. We have evolved to live in small groups, and to interact with our neighbours- not to live isolated lives as rugged individuals. States are usually too large. Local communities, like villages, would be the right type for our genes. Minarchies fit this genetic need. So why not design societies with this in mind? Would we have alienated people if local communities had more power over their own affairs, and citizens did things (like practice fire drills, or militia training) together? Everyone should have absolute autonomy over their own possessions, and, if they choose, equal autonomy in public affairs to all other citizens. This Co-Autonomy is a workable minarchy, because we already have counties and shires, and just need to strengthen their powers whilst reducing the center's powers. Not easy, but doable.
Published: March 19, 2009 7:40 PM
Stephan Kinsella
"liberationist"--In all your jabber, I didn't see a defense of aggression as justified. Could you kindly point me to it?
Published: March 19, 2009 11:22 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Chad Rushing:
I don't see how petulance changes the fact that it's not possible to justify aggression, and that the state inherently, necessarily engages in aggression.
Published: March 20, 2009 12:26 AM
liberationist
Stephan,
I would say that initiating aggression is not justified, but responding to it is justified. As regards my talk of battles, that was in response to you classifying minarchists as enemies. If you did try to fight us, we would aggressively defend ourselves.
Published: March 20, 2009 12:29 AM
Stephan Kinsella
liberationist
"I would say that initiating aggression is not justified"
Well, aggression means initiating force. So you mean "aggression."
", but responding to it is justified."
Yes, this is not aggression.
In fact this elementary reasoning shows why you are wrong to support any state action as legitimate: states necessarily initiate force against innocent people, which means that their use of force against the state would be legitimate, or rightful.
" As regards my talk of battles, that was in response to you classifying minarchists as enemies."
They support the state, while pretending to be allies. What do you call this?
" If you did try to fight us, we would aggressively defend ourselves."
Yes, sure, this is exactly what your kind believes in--getting your way with force. We know. we've seen this before. Are you proud of yourself? You've won. You've gotten your force-dominated, statist world. Congratulations. You can kill us. But you can't make us wrong.
Published: March 20, 2009 12:57 AM
liberationist
Who says my version of a state would initiate force? The only options I've left it are to collect fees from people who choose to use its' services, and to enforce its' own laws on its' own land, the same as any other owner of property. How would this be different in an anarchic society? (And I was serious when I said that anarchy would have a problem with road ownership- if you start off with no-one owning pre-existing roads, how do you keep them 'free'? Who decides these issues?)
And my dictionary distinguishes between 'aggression' and aggressive- I could retaliate aggressively. As for being in the right, I said that minarchists would DEFEND themselves. This means that someone else started it. That means that I would be in the right when I defend myself.
Published: March 20, 2009 1:24 AM
Gil
"All the anarchist does is say, 'I want everybody, individually or in groups, to be able to do what the state does.' The onus falls on you to explain why an activity can be OK for one group of people to do, but not OK for others." - R. Garner
C. Rushing pretty much said it well - at what point would people be of 'equal rank and standing' that everyone will have equal access to everything? In anarchotopia a property owner can forcibly exclude a visitor who doesn't own property so by the same logic: a property owner is exercising a power that the non-propertied person doesn't have. One reply could be "well the non-propertied person could get himself some property and then he too will get that power". But then ex-slaves could become slave owners therefore the slave owners weren't exercising any power that slaves couldn't attain for themselves.
It's rather funny that you, R. Garner, declare that you don't believe you don't have to abide by the state because you don't agree with so why can't a squatter 'homestead' someone else's private land and decide since he didn't sign any contract with the previous landowner he doesn't recognise any prior ownership and his 'homesteading' is valid in his eyes and he's going to dig in his heels and be a pain to remove?
And, of course, S. Kinsella, you're setting up yourself in an infallible bubble and declare the state to exist whenever anyone uses 'initiated force' so you're not particular interested in debate but you prefer to defend your bubble from all manners of ideological onslaught.
Published: March 20, 2009 2:00 AM
liberationist
Gil-
Everyone is a property-owner, according to libertarians, because we all own ourselves, which means we own our bodies, and a free mind to set our own goals. We can also acquire other types of property, such as lands and possessions. We should all have the individual right to do what we want with any of our properties.
There is no paradox, or non-right. Some people will have more things to use than others, but property doesn't only mean 'land'.
Published: March 20, 2009 2:08 AM
Richard Garner
Gil,
True. However, both the property owner and the squatter can simultaneously have a right "the right to exclude uninvited people from their property." It is because the property owner has that right, a right the squatter also has, that the property owner has authority in this situation that the squatter doesn't.
You are misunderstanding the nature of the need for consent if the state is to be legitimate, in, for instance, the philosophy of Locke: The problem is that the state does things that nobody is entitled to do, whether they have agreed to such restrictions or not, and the only way to legitimately do those things is if it is granted permission, or authorised, which is what the process of consent is does. So the fact that I have property rights, in myself and my homesteaded land, and their product, whether anybody else likes that fact or not, or has consented to my having such rights or not, is what means that the state requires my consent if it is to be able to legitimately do certain things to me or mine, or on my behalf.
For this reason, the lack of consent to the state is not analogous to the lack of consent for property rights: the fact I have property rights whether you like it or not is what generates the requirement that you get my consent, my permission, to do various things to or with me.
Published: March 20, 2009 7:48 AM
Gil
What restrictions, pray tell, does the 'state' exercise that a private landowner doesn't? Apparently you and many Libertarians believe private landowners will be individuals with a small plot of land. It wouldn't occur to you there may in fact be large private landowners who will lease out their land to those without land and thereby will mimic the 'state' (except they're private of course). Once again the notion the 'state' is 'illegitimate' comes to fact that the fact that some don't see it having 'homesteaded' the land properly. But private landowner may well find themselves forcibly ousting squatters who argue the same thing in kind.
Published: March 21, 2009 12:26 AM
Richard Garner
Gil,
It plainly hasn't. The state was not here first and the people after. Moreover, no state even pretends that its right to rule over the people rests on any prior appropriation of all land that it made. (Even here in the UK, where the queen supposedly owns all land, in reality this is merely formal just as asking her permission to form a parliament is, and secondly, the royalty never legitimately acquired the land). States claim to rule over a given area, and if you live in that area, that means they rule you. But only socialist states claim to own all the land (and even then, they pretend the people really do, and the state really just manages it for them).
Richard
Published: March 21, 2009 4:40 AM
Gil
Were your family living the U.S. prior to 1776? Or your family migrate to the U.S. when the government was already established? If the second then you'd be akin to a squatter in the private scene.
Published: March 21, 2009 9:25 PM
P.M.Lawrence
Gil, you are wrong, because the USA itself has no standing in the matter; it stole the land in the first place (see my earlier comparison between the state and people like William Penn who really did have standing from being there first or having made purchases).
The revolting colonists had the ethical right to do what the Boers or the Mormons did later,separate themselves off from those they wished to separate from by leaving themselves. They would have had the ethical right to separate themselves off in place if they had had no realistic alternative, i.e. if they had been fenced in, as they would have had the right to any reasonable requirements for effective separation. But this was not the case; since they could have left but chose not to, and even expelled those who weren't revolting without even the compensation agreed in the peace treaty, the USA was founded on theft of land and doesn't have that sort of sound prior claim. The Jackson Purchase is about the only area of the USA that might be legitimate that way (everything else was either similarly stolen or was purchased under duress and/or from people like Napoleon who similarly lacked standing). Even that's only true if the sellers had it properly, something I don't know one way or the other.
Published: March 21, 2009 11:44 PM
Gil
Hence, P.M.Lawrence, a squatter could endlessly dicker over a private landowner's rights too. It may as well be argued that the War of American Independence was pointless as a section of a 'state' seceded to become a 'state' in kind - nothing much was achieved. It might as well have been a 'buy local' campaign. Or even a 'caught' intruder trying to engage in 'self-defence' in a Mafia member's home.
Published: March 22, 2009 12:20 AM
P.M.Lawrence
No, Gil, you're missing the point. You were using the USA as an example, but that example doesn't qualify under the criteria you were applying of being there first as a rightful owner. That's even without looking into whether it is the sort of entity that ever could qualify.
Your or your opponents' ability to keep quibbling doesn't have anything to do with this, only whether the example you gave is a sound one. Even if people can argue about it, that is what is called "arguable" - which means you can't put any weight on it.
Published: March 22, 2009 2:56 AM
Richard Garner
Gil,
Well, I am British, so the first option is ruled out. As to the second, well, what is it that you are trying to prove? In order to say that the government is entitled to a monopoly of force, to create rules, and tax, as a private owner is on their land, you are supposed to be proving that the relationship between the government or state and the people is like that of a landlord to tennants. Now, could you tell me what action in 1776 made the government the owner of all the land in the then United States, nevertheless land that has been annexed to it? Nothing, so far as I can tell. The government did not buy the land (some land it has bought, but using tax revenues which need to be justified in the first place), it didn't homestead it, because there were others there, using it first.
Maybe you will say that the people of the USA came together and formed a club, transfering land ownership to that club, but since most of the people of the USA were not involved in forming the government, that is implausible, and since even those that were involved did nothing to indicate they were transfering their land to the US Government, or the states, again such a claim would fail.
Plainly the state cannot claim the rights that a homesteader has, and so those cannot be used to justify its power.
Published: March 22, 2009 4:53 AM
Gil
Then why not take Australia as an example? The Aborigines wouldn't qualify as 'homesteading' any part of Australia. Hence talks of 'native title' and 'land rights' wouldn't stem from Libertarian arguments. An Aussie couldn't use "the Guvmint 'stole' the land therefore I can see them as invalid and I can secede" because the current Federal Government evolved from the people who arrived since First Fleet in 1788.
Published: March 22, 2009 5:01 AM
Richard Garner
Gil,
Well, I don't see why we shouldn't treat Aborigines as homesteaders just because [i]they[/i] didn't see themselves that way. However, suppose there is a land race to undiscovered land to appropriate it, but one of the competitors robs a bunch of people so he can buy a better ship, or horse, or whatever gives him an edge. Naturally, he wins the land race, but arguably only because he has the advantage gained by his act of robbery. Does that mean he should have been able to claim that land as his own? I think not - he cheated.
Further, what process is necessary in order to appropriate whole continents? Columbus apparently claimed South America for the monarch of Spain. Is that correct? Just getting to a continent first makes you the owner of the whole of it?
Published: March 22, 2009 6:45 AM
P.M.Lawrence
Gil and Richard Garner, I gave an analysis that also fits the Australian aboriginal case in an earlier thread (here), answering Newson's "how can nomadic herder/grazers [in what later became Zimbabwe] establish valid title to land via homesteading in the first place?":
"There are two answers. That more or less describes the Matabele; the Mashona were more agriculturist (unless I've got the two muddled up). Even so, the former lifestyle does establish property rights of a different sort to outright land holding. That group would be entitled to exercise their former lifestyle, unless - as they probably would - they agreed to accept a quitrent for not doing so. That would leave the land owners with title, but encumbered and not free and clear. (There is a parallel here for most of Australian aboriginal land title claims.)"
The famous Mabo case relied on tribal customs in one area, which did use land fairly specifically. Unfortunately, that is being used as a precedent to establish land rights for all sorts of other groups that used land in the other ways covered by the analysis above. Ironically, that is also a sort of cultural imperialism, forcing non-customary practices on the others, and it could well turn out to be a poisoned chalice for them just as the Allotment Movement was for natives in the USA.
Published: March 22, 2009 7:43 AM