Below is a transcript of a debate I had on
www.theologyweb.com.It covers every conceivable practical questions about anarchy; if it misses some out comment with the question and I'll do my best to answer it. It does this though presupposing a libertarian political theory- for a justification see my previous blog entry
Anarchy is Not Chaos.
Mr Arkadin (That's Me): Now to Joel, firstly a question- what is law? As it is abundantly clear even today there is no such thing as a single monolith of law. You decide to into my theme park and I lay down some laws on what you can and can't do different from the state statutes. You enter my bar, my house, my school, my church or any other piece of my property and you will be subject to different laws. The state itself is subject to different laws than ourselves- I steal a car I get banged away, in theory anyway, the state does it and it is a laudable action of tax for the public good. The rule of one objective law is a complete and utter myth.
Further all law needs enacting by people, the constitution does not just sit there and enforce itself. You just need to look at Britain for an unwritten constitution. So the question is what system supplies the best incentive structure for the lawmakers- is it monopoly with the power of force or the market mechanism?
You'll then probably appeal to the final arbiter- even though he does not exist. Who arbitrates between the UK and USA. What law binds them
vis a
vis each other? What you really want is one world government but even then you have no final arbiter because those who work for the government have no higher authority to arbitrate between each other. And even if you weren't in the government you could press for the worlds laws to be change and be released retrospectively. There is no such thing as an ultimate final arbiter bar one: God and he will judge absolutely on judgement day.
Joel:
Originally posted by Mr Arkadin
Now to Joel, firstly a question- what is law?
In what I wrote above, I was using it to mean "a set of rules that an individual or group enforces by means of violence or the threat of it."
The rule of one objective law is a complete and utter myth.
Hopefully my more recent posts above clarify this point. If not, please clarify your objection.
Further all law needs enacting by people, the constitution does not just sit there and enforce itself. You just need to look at Britain for an unwritten constitution. So the question is what system supplies the best incentive structure for the lawmakers- is it monopoly with the power of force or the market mechanism?
But the situation changes if there is more than one set of lawmakers with the same jurisdiction. So the incentive structure is not the only relevant question, if some incentive structures involve having more that one set of lawmakers with the same jurisdiction.
You'll then probably appeal to the final arbiter- even though he does not exist. Who arbitrates between the UK and USA.
That's not a relevant example. They have jurisdiction over different geographical areas. (War is the result when neighboring countries decide to change that fact.)
Mr Arkadin:
I
That's not a relevant example. They have jurisdiction over different geographical areas. (War is the result when neighboring countries decide to change that fact.)
All I am proposing is that each individual has jurisdiction over their own private land on which all other property must rest. Now since these are different geographical areas be definition you will surely have no problem with this for the situation is the same between the USA and the UK. If private property owners have a dispute they could go to war. The question is which set of incentives will reduce violence?
Your previous point about a functioning legal system is a prerequisite for a functioning market is true. However one needs a functioning market economy to produce sufficient wealth for the state to develop and live at the expense of others. This would lead one to believe that a functioning legal system will evolve concurrently, and naturally, with the market.
I believe you'll find
this article interesting.
Joel:
All I am proposing is that each individual has jurisdiction over their own private land on which all other property must rest. Now since these are different geographical areas be definition you will surely have no problem with this for the situation is the same between the USA and the UK.
So, if person A murders person B on person C's property, then it is up to person C to prosecute? If, after the fact, A travels to person D's property, then C will have to request extradition for the carrying out of C's law upon A? What if A kidnaps B on C's property, takes B to D's property where A kills B, then A travels to E's property?
What if A simply stays on his own property where A owns and uses lots of slaves? The neighbors would have to declare war to stop the injustice? Or do you view it as inappropriate for a "nation" to police another nation like that?
Each individual is free to make treaties and declare war with other nations?
It seems likely that groups of neighboring individuals would agree together to create some kind of federal government over their set of properties.
Your previous point about a functioning legal system is a prerequisite for a functioning market is true. However one needs a functioning market economy to produce sufficient wealth for the state to develop and live at the expense of others. This would lead one to believe that a functioning legal system will evolve concurrently, and naturally, with the market.
I don't know if "naturally" is the right word.
I believe you'll find this article interesting.
Interesting article, with some good points.
Here are some comments:
In both Market Anarchism and limited government, then, the working of the system will involve different parties trying to enact their several conceptions of justice. The best system is not one that eliminates such conflict...
Ah, but the word "enact" means something different in the two cases. Under the limited government, there is a single executive branch. The divided powers aren't all
enforcing their own conception of justice. Only the one branch is. Under Market Anarchism, each firm is enforcing their own conception of justice.
But suppose that, under Market Anarchism, when you get your monthly bill from Acme Security Company, you see that you’re paying $X for “basic service” (protection against force and fraud) and $Y for “premium service” (snooping on your neighbours to make sure that they’re not taking drugs or having abortions or playing violent video games).
Well I see Mr. Long is pro-choice. Others believe that preventing abortion falls under the category of "protection against force and fraud", and will support firms that agree.
And the few fanatics who are willing to put their money where their mouth is would be easier to deal with under anarchy; you can’t arrest people who lobby for government-imposed aggression, but you can arrest people who aggress.
Right. Presumably, Mr. Long's firm will see the pro-choice firms' actions (and their clients) as aggressors and start to use force against them (e.g., arresting them). The pro-choice firms (and their clients) will see that as an act of aggression. Etc.
It’s true that people living under anarchy might disagree about the definition of aggression. But if two security agencies disagree about how exactly to define property rights in some particular case, they can fight it out – thus sending their costs through the roof and their customers to the nearest competitor – or they can resolve their dispute through peaceful arbitration, thus keeping their costs low and their customers happy.
But we aren't talking about a disagreement on some particular case. The problem is when there a different definition of aggression, as a principle. If two sides disagree on whether a particular instance qualifies as, e.g., slavery, then that may be able to be worked out. But if they disagree in principle on whether slavery (or abortion or whatever)
is aggression, then each side will see their position as based on principles of justice, and that any compromise is a surrender of basic principles, and therefore evil wins, even if one of the sides was right. When there is an attempted compromise between justice and injustice, the result is an injustice.
Governments resort to force far more often, since they don’t have to worry so much about losing customers.
But what about when the majority (or consumer demand) is wrong? It may be necessary for something to be done to fight an injustice, even if it is not the popular opinion. In that case, you need an enforcing body that cannot lose customers (e.g., a government).
since aggression is costlier than non-aggression, the dispute-resolution will tend to favour laws with a broadly libertarian content.
It can also work the wrong way. What about when preventing aggression against "others" (protecting individual rights) is costlier than not? Suppose again, we were back before the abolition. Probably most people who are opposed to slavery would opt to pay the lower fee for the "basic service" that does not include the higher cost of fighting slavery. Enforcing equal protection of the law (e.g., protecting others who are unable to protect themselves) is costlier than not, so the dispute-resolution will tend to disfavour it, resulting in non-libertarian content of the law. (Not to mention that the wealthy slave-traders who have a vested interest in it, are certain to put their money in support of their trade.)
First, the common framework need not be imposed by force; it may come about simply because agencies whose policies are incompatible with the majority system will lose customers, going the way of Betamax.
The majority system could be wrong. It's interesting he uses the example of Betamax, which was superior to the dominant VHS.
In the case of goods like that, we can say, so what? But in the case of injustice, it would be immoral to say, "so what?"
Mr Arkadin:
So, if person A murders person B on person C's property, then it is up to person C to prosecute? If, after the fact, A travels to person D's property, then C will have to request extradition for the carrying out of C's law upon A? What if A kidnaps B on C's property, takes B to D's property where A kills B, then A travels to E's property?
Firstly do you still maintain this situation is different than the relationship between the USA and the UK?
1st point. As for your points it depend firstly if trespass is taking place. If A is trespassing on C's property C can prosecute for trespass. The right to prosecute for the murder would devolve to the next of kin who would homestead the right.
2nd point. The next of kin would have to negotiate with D to apprehend A; however harbouring a known criminal is hardly going to be without societal sanction. Now having said that D could be then deemed to be an accomplice to the murder and so the forceful apprehension of him on his property justified.
3rd point. Depends whether C allowed the kidnap or A was trespassing. If the former he is an accomplice to a crime; if the latter prosecute for trespass. If D allowed murder on his property, he is an accomplice yet again. Same points apply for E. Again rights holders to prosecute A.
NB. I am assuming here that B did not consent to being murdered or kidnapped on C's property which would be a legitimate contract. Also that the rights holder can sell this right or delegate it to another party for its execution.
What if A simply stays on his own property where A owns and uses lots of slaves? The neighbors would have to declare war to stop the injustice? Or do you view it as inappropriate for a "nation" to police another nation like that?
Assuming they are truly there against their will then people could boycott deals with him and impose sanctions. I believe also that if we are to truely free them, not replace one state with another, then one could legitimately claim that they are invading on the behalf of the slaves and bring A to justice. It must be pointed out here that economic advancement renders slavery less profitable since the productivity of the worker is much lower than a waged one.
Each individual is free to make treaties and declare war with other nations?
Yes.
It seems likely that groups of neighboring individuals would agree together to create some kind of federal government over their set of properties.
Standards of dealing would be established as Merchant Law was although this need not initiatory coercive power of anyone. If you are saying though tthat the state is inevitable then why do we not have a world government presently?
I don't know if "naturally" is the right word.
So the economy is a creation of the state as well as the legal system. Why don't we let them run everything then?
In both Market Anarchism and limited government, then, the working of the system will involve different parties trying to enact their several conceptions of justice. The best system is not one that eliminates such conflict...
Ah, but the word "enact" means something different in the two cases. Under the limited government, there is a single executive branch. The divided powers aren't all enforcing their own conception of justice. Only the one branch is. Under Market Anarchism, each firm is enforcing their own conception of justice.
But they are. What the judges think should go differs from the politicians? Ever heard of the public outcry over judicial decisions? Or the way in which a judge can use fictitious nuances to over turn a precedent. I highly recommend the article "The Myth of the Rule of Law" I don't know if it is online. Further what are you meaning by enforcing? By enacting a statute you are enforcing you conception of justice since you believe it to be right whereas others do not who voted against it. You also negate the existence of competing courts in the medieval period such as the ecclesiastical, the local, secular etc Also what about different branches of the judiciary giving different sentences for the exact same crime by the same person?
But suppose that, under Market Anarchism, when you get your monthly bill from Acme Security Company, you see that you’re paying $X for “basic service” (protection against force and fraud) and $Y for “premium service” (snooping on your neighbours to make sure that they’re not taking drugs or having abortions or playing violent video games).
Well I see Mr. Long is pro-choice. Others believe that preventing abortion falls under the category of "protection against force and fraud", and will support firms that agree.
Some firms will as you say however will their clients really wish to pay for expensive violent activity? They could pay for the right to bring up the child and compensation for the woman to carry it which would be cheaper than fighting. As I have argued before unwanted babies would be much less prevalent than today due to the absence of the welfare state. The problem of what to do with children palgues all political philosophies.
And the few fanatics who are willing to put their money where their mouth is would be easier to deal with under anarchy; you can’t arrest people who lobby for government-imposed aggression, but you can arrest people who aggress.
Right. Presumably, Mr. Long's firm will see the pro-choice firms' actions (and their clients) as aggressors and start to use force against them (e.g., arresting them). The pro-choice firms (and their clients) will see that as an act of aggression. Etc.
See above for a non-violent reconciliation. Even today though people fight for what they believe to be right. ie the state enslaving their subjects. The question is what incentive structure is best given the fallen world- monopoly or market forces.
It’s true that people living under anarchy might disagree about the definition of aggression. But if two security agencies disagree about how exactly to define property rights in some particular case, they can fight it out – thus sending their costs through the roof and their customers to the nearest competitor – or they can resolve their dispute through peaceful arbitration, thus keeping their costs low and their customers happy.
But we aren't talking about a disagreement on some particular case. The problem is when there a different definition of aggression, as a principle. If two sides disagree on whether a particular instance qualifies as, e.g., slavery, then that may be able to be worked out. But if they disagree in principle on whether slavery (or abortion or whatever) is aggression, then each side will see their position as based on principles of justice, and that any compromise is a surrender of basic principles, and therefore evil wins, even if one of the sides was right. When there is an attempted compromise between justice and injustice, the result is an injustice.
But as Long said this is going to be very costly indeed when you can't devolve the costs on others. Further comprise would still leave injustice, for either side, but it would be less unjust than the alternative from both sides view. We live in a fallen world and perfect justice is only going to be meted out by the man upstairs- all we can do is is to create a system where more justice than not takes place.
Governments resort to force far more often, since they don’t have to worry so much about losing customers.
But what about when the majority (or consumer demand) is wrong? It may be necessary for something to be done to fight an injustice, even if it is not the popular opinion. In that case, you need an enforcing body that cannot lose customers (e.g., a government).
Do you though deny his assertion that the state will be more aggressive than a private security firm? You are thinking of the state as a rather saintly body aren't you? Furthermore all government rests on the implicit consent of the governed as Hume said- ultimately the people get the government they deserve in a perverse kind of way.
since aggression is costlier than non-aggression, the dispute-resolution will tend to favour laws with a broadly libertarian content.
It can also work the wrong way. What about when preventing aggression against "others" (protecting individual rights) is costlier than not? Suppose again, we were back before the abolition. Probably most people who are opposed to slavery would opt to pay the lower fee for the "basic service" that does not include the higher cost of fighting slavery. Enforcing equal protection of the law (e.g., protecting others who are unable to protect themselves) is costlier than not, so the dispute-resolution will tend to disfavour it, resulting in non-libertarian content of the law. (Not to mention that the wealthy slave-traders who have a vested interest in it, are certain to put their money in support of their trade.)
I don't deny this. Any thing can happen. But will the general trend be toward libertarian dispute resolution? See note above about productivity and slavery. Further it is highly unlikely in the first place that slavery would have become so institutionalised if it weren't for the state making it cheaper. See
here.
First, the common framework need not be imposed by force; it may come about simply because agencies whose policies are incompatible with the majority system will lose customers, going the way of Betamax.
The majority system could be wrong. It's interesting he uses the example of Betamax, which was superior to the dominant VHS.
In the case of goods like that, we can say, so what? But in the case of injustice, it would be immoral to say, "so what?"
Supposing that Betamax was technically better than VHS (I don't know). It does not follow that should be in use since one has to see what those resources could be used for. The same with justice- if spent all resources on justice no doubt more justice would exist but more people would starve because less was put into justice rather than food production.
We live in a world of scarcity and evil. We cannot have heaven on earth; we must choose. All the problematic examples you cite can and do happen under a statist regime. There is no perfect system. All we can produce is a system which will minimise evil and maximise good. And this question revolves around incentives and boils down to this- does initiatory coercive of some, who can devolve costs on to others, better than one where everyone must pay the full costs of their actions (this is talking exclusively constitutionally)
An anarchistic system will be by no means perfect- rape, murder, theft, robbery, child abuse, perversions, family breakdown, wife beating etc- it will however be better than the current statist one.
Joel:
Originally posted by Mr Arkadin
But they are. What the judges think should go differs from the politicians?
Sure, I have heard of instances where the U.S. executive branch refused to enforce a Supreme Court ruling. The S.C. is powerless if the executive branch does not comply.
Further what are you meaning by enforcing? By enacting a statute you are enforcing you conception of justice since you believe it to be right whereas others do not who voted against it.
I mean using force. It is conceivable that the legislature enacts a law and the executive branch ignores it and does not enforce it. or enforces things that aren't enacted laws. (Of course, the legislature can pull the executive branch's funding...)
Some firms will as you say however will their clients really wish to pay for expensive violent activity?
I would. Though you are probably right, and most people would not pay to fight injustice. But that's just another problem with Market Anarchy.
I don't deny this. Any thing can happen. But will the general trend be toward libertarian dispute resolution?
No, I think the general trend likely would be to not fight injustice, because it is more costly than not. I'm concerned about protecting those who can't protect themselves.
...and boils down to this- does initiatory coercive of some, who can devolve costs on to others, better than one where everyone must pay the full costs of their actions (this is talking exclusively constitutionally)
Voluntary funding of protection of individual rights is a separate question from that of whether to have a monopoly. We could have a voluntarily funded monopoly.
Mr Arkadin:
No, I think the general trend likely would be to not fight injustice, because it is more costly than not. I'm concerned about protecting those who can't protect themselves.
Oh so the state can eliminate all injustice? I'm concerned about people who can't eat; therefore the state should control food production. You have completed ignored my comments above about how we are never going to have perfect justice on earth and the relative cost of pursuing a marginal unit of justice.
Voluntary funding of protection of individual rights is a separate question from that of whether to have a monopoly. We could have a voluntarily funded monopoly.
As I have said before I am using monopoly in the Rothbardian sense. There is no non arbitrary way of distinguished between the competitive price and the market price. The only non-arbitrary way is between the interventionist and the free market price because the price formation process is qualitatively different in both situations. Please read, before we get bogged down,
this. There is a lot here but finding the relevant part won't be difficult.
Finally before I respond to you again please tell me why market anarchism is any different than the relationship between the USA and UK and also the points you ignored in my previous post.
Joel:
Oh so the state can eliminate all injustice? I'm concerned about people who can't eat; therefore the state should control food production. You have completed ignored my comments above about how we are never going to have perfect justice on earth and the relative cost of pursuing a marginal unit of justice.
That may be a good point in favor of a market executive. But it still seems clear to me that there's got to be a state legislature. If there is a workable way to have a state legislature in combination with a market executive...
There is no non arbitrary way of distinguished between the competitive price and the market price.
But if it is voluntarily funded, then it is the market price.
Finally before I respond to you again please tell me why market anarchism is any different than the relationship between the USA and UK and also the points you ignored in my previous post.
I posted responses to those points to which I felt I had something interesting to say. If I missed points you feel are particularly relevant, then please reemphasize them.
As for how Market Anarchy is different than than USA/UK...
I think that each individual land owner being the government of their own sovereign nation (with non-land-owners being citizens of no country) is impractical. For one thing, it would make everyone have to be a statesman, limiting the potential for division of labor. For another thing, one can live and move and have their being in one of USA/UK, with jurisdiction issues arising only as people travel between them. In Market Anarchy, jurisdiction issues would be way too common, since an average person will travel through many "nations" in their daily activities. So you'd have to be familiar with all the law in all these different nations, as well as the problems that will arise as the laws come in conflict. At that fine of a scope, these issues will become greater of a problem. I'm guessing that there tends to be an optimal point with regards to scope, somewhere greater than that, but less than one-world government.
And as I said before, it seems likely that they would start grouping together into federations for common defense. (And those "states" into larger federations, in some kind of hierarchy).
Mr Arkadin:
But if it is voluntarily funded, then it is the market price.
Well yes.
As for how Market Anarchy is different than than USA/UK...
I think that each individual land owner being the government of their own sovereign nation (with non-land-owners being citizens of no country) is impractical. For one thing, it would make everyone have to be a statesman, limiting the potential for division of labor. For another thing, one can live and move and have their being in one of USA/UK, with jurisdiction issues arising only as people travel between them. In Market Anarchy, jurisdiction issues would be way too common, since an average person will travel through many "nations" in their daily activities. So you'd have to be familiar with all the law in all these different nations, as well as the problems that will arise as the laws come in conflict. At that fine of a scope, these issues will become greater of a problem. I'm guessing that there tends to be an optimal point with regards to scope, somewhere greater than that, but less than one-world government.
And as I said before, it seems likely that they would start grouping together into federations for common defense. (And those "states" into larger federations, in some kind of hierarchy).
Being sovereign owner of one's own land does not mean one needs to be a statesmen; merely a businessmen able to strike deals. If these deals are beneficial they will take place and the division of labour will take place as normal; and even better than normal. You rightly point out that many different legal codes will cause problems so what we'd expect is a standardisation of legal codes in the same way in which money arises. This can be seen historically with merchant law which solved this very problem. But within this standardisation of law one will still have variety within it with those who contracted to the same law ie. canon or sharia- but when dealing with outsiders they'll revert to the standard law.
People grouping together for defence is a natural process and can be undertaken by insurance companies since they can lower the risks by pooling lots of resources but need not be territoriality bound, which is great since it would be very difficult to wipe them out by competing firms because you won't be able to defeat them by just taking over their offices in New York. Again though it must be emphasised that this grouping and hierarchy need not be states. As Hoppe rightly points out in another of his work is that a natural elite would arise who would be leaders of society but would not be coercive.
Joel:
Being sovereign owner of one's own land does not mean one needs to be a statesmen; merely a businessmen able to strike deals.
But you'd have the monopoly on the use of force in your land, no?
Mr Arkadin:
But you'd have the monopoly on the use of force in your land, no?
Please will tell me what you are meaning by monopoly?
Joel:
Please will tell me what you are meaning by monopoly?
Exclusive control or right.
Mr Arkadin:
Exclusive control or right.
So am I a monopolist since I have exclusive right and control over my body? If so at least you're being consistent but using the word that way just isn't useful since under it everyone is a monopolist. It seems you can't accept the difference between a legal privilege (a true monopoly) and a case where a person or firm controls most, or all, the business in an industry because the population deem him best. So me having sole right over my land does not make me a state.
Joel:
So am I a monopolist since I have exclusive right and control over my body? If so at least you're being consistent but using the word that way just isn't useful since under it everyone is a monopolist.
The term, of course, is relative to what one has a monopoly
on.
The word is still useful--you just have to specify the context. When I used it above, I specifically said "monopoly on the use of force".
Yes, assuming your rights are protected, you have a monopoly on your body. For example, no one else can sell the services of your labor. However, if you were a slave, then you would not have a monopoly on your body. Note, therefore, that force must be used to enforce your monopoly over your body. However, this is a proper use of force because the monopoly is yours by right.
It seems you can't accept the difference between a legal privilege (a true monopoly) and a case where a person or firm controls most, or all, the business in an industry because the population deem him best.
I would call both a monopoly. I do, however, recognize that the former is maintained by force, and the latter is not. But from the above example, we can see that a "monopoly maintained by the use of force" is not inherently a bad thing.
So me having sole right over my land does not make me a state.
True. Only if your sole control over the use of force in your land is
enforced does it make you a state. Of course, if you don't enforce your exclusive control of the use of force in your land, then you don't have a monopoly on it, and you are not a state, but that also means that you are subject to (and at the mercy of) others who use force.
Mr Arkadin:
I would call both a monopoly. I do, however, recognize that the former is maintained by force, and the latter is not. But from the above example, we can see that a "monopoly maintained by the use of force" is not inherently a bad thing.
Which is silly because the latter is based on, in principle, inviolate property rights. And leads you to this strange conclusion:
True. Only if your sole control over the use of force in your land is enforced does it make you a state. Of course, if you don't enforce your exclusive control of the use of force in your land, then you don't have a monopoly on it, and you are not a state, but that also means that you are subject to (and at the mercy of) others who use force.
In principle my land is owned originally via homesteading and came to me via legitimate title transfer. So the forceful defence of this land is implied in ownership. There is no monopoly since there is no legal impediment stopping the sale of the land; if such a transaction would be mutually beneficial it would take place. If there is no monopoly there is no state. There is only monopoly if initiatory force is used over others land or property.
Your continuing attempts to make it look like I am justifying individual states and you are advocating larger ones so the issue is not statism versus anarchy but a continuum between different sized states will not wash.
Joel:
I'm confused by most of your post. You'll have to help me out. Let's take it bit by bit:
Which is silly because the latter is based on, in principle, inviolate property rights.
I'm not sure why the "because" in your statement is justified. I'm not sure what the last part of your statement has to do with what I said, or how it makes what I said "silly".
In principle my land is owned originally via homesteading and came to me via legitimate title transfer.
Agreed.
There is no monopoly since there is no legal impediment stopping the sale of the land;
I don't understand. Of course you have a monopoly on your land, because only
you can sell (all or parts of) the land. No one else can sell it or rent it or whatever, without your consent. And, indeed, this monopoly will continue to exist only if your property rights are protected--that is, only if your monopoly on that land is maintained by the use of force. But it is right to forcefully maintain this monopoly, because it is your right.
if such a transaction would be mutually beneficial it would take place.
Agreed. (Assuming rights are protected.)
And if someone purchased your land from you, then they would now be the rightful monopolists of it. (Just as is the case regarding the sale of any monopoly.)
If there is no monopoly there is no state.
Agreed.
There is only monopoly if initiatory force is used over others land or property.
I don't see why. If we supposed that no one ever used force--no one ever infringed on anyone else's rights, then I would still have a monopoly on my own property, because I would have exclusive control of my own property. No initiatory force having been used.
But some people do violate the rights of others. Therefore it may become necessary to protect my property rights (maintain my rightful monopoly) by force, against an aggressor. But that is not initiatory force. The monopoly is being maintained by force, but not initiatory force.
Your continuing attempts to make it look like I am justifying individual states and you are advocating larger ones so the issue is not statism versus anarchy but a continuum between different sized states will not wash.
I'm sorry, but you are the one who first made the comparison. I said I had no problem with U.S. and U.K. being separate countries, and you suggested that, then, I should have no problem with Market Anarchy, since it's the same case with individual land owners. You challenged me to say how they are different.
It seems you have changed your position on that matter. So, you tell me. What is the difference? How is your maintaining exclusive control of the use of force in your own land not the same thing? Or is that not what you mean by anarchy?
Btw how do propose to keep a theoretical "minimal" government minimal?
How do you propose to keep Market Anarchist protection firms minimal? That is, how do you keep them from infringing on rights? Because they will lose customers and thus funding? What does the firm care--it can start stealing the funding it needs. Thus, ultimately, the only way to keep them from infringing on rights is the use of force by others to protect rights. This will only happen with a well-educated, wise, and well-armed citizenry. But if that is the case, they'll keep a government minimal.
What I'm trying to say is that any problem of inability to keep a minimal government minimal will also be present at least as greatly in the case of Market Anarchy.
Mr Arkadin:
I don't understand. Of course you have a monopoly on your land, because only you can sell (all or parts of) the land. No one else can sell it or rent it or whatever, without your consent. And, indeed, this monopoly will continue to exist only if your property rights are protected--that is, only if your monopoly on that land is maintained by the use of force. But it is right to forcefully maintain this monopoly, because it is your right.
This isn't monopoly it is called ownership- the unilateral right to use your property in any way you so wish if it doesn't affect the physical integrity of other people's property. You may call this monopoly but it, as said time and again, removes its proper meaning.
Agreed. (Assuming rights are protected.)
And if someone purchased your land from you, then they would now be the rightful monopolists of it. (Just as is the case regarding the sale of any monopoly.)
No they would be the owners.
I don't see why. If we supposed that no one ever used force--no one ever infringed on anyone else's rights, then I would still have a monopoly on my own property, because I would have exclusive control of my own property. No initiatory force having been used.
Again your making ownership= monopoly.
But some people do violate the rights of others. Therefore it may become necessary to protect my property rights (maintain my rightful monopoly) by force, against an aggressor. But that is not initiatory force. The monopoly is being maintained by force, but not initiatory force.
The property is being protected by force.
I'm sorry, but you are the one who first made the comparison. I said I had no problem with U.S. and U.K. being separate countries, and you suggested that, then, I should have no problem with Market Anarchy, since it's the same case with individual land owners. You challenged me to say how they are different.
My point was the absence of a final arbiter between them existed between states as well as individual land owners not that individual land owners were states.
It seems you have changed your position on that matter. So, you tell me. What is the difference? How is your maintaining exclusive control of the use of force in your own land not the same thing? Or is that not what you mean by anarchy?
This will hopefully clear this up- Market Anarchism exists where there is the absence of a territorial monopolist of arbitration. Monopoly defined as legally privilege which implies that body can do things qualitatively different than other property owners. Therefore since all property owners can protect their property then there is no monopoly. This only exists when there is an institutional structure, which must be deemed legitimate or people would treat them as common criminals, which extends their jurisdiction over other peoples property. This would rule out competing law providers in the area of their illegitimate jurisdiction.
How do you propose to keep Market Anarchist protection firms minimal? That is, how do you keep them from infringing on rights? Because they will lose customers and thus funding? What does the firm care--it can start stealing the funding it needs. Thus, ultimately, the only way to keep them from infringing on rights is the use of force by others to protect rights. This will only happen with a well-educated, wise, and well-armed citizenry. But if that is the case, they'll keep a government minimal.
What I'm trying to say is that any problem of inability to keep a minimal government minimal will also be present at least as greatly in the case of Market Anarchy.
You keep them minimal by having real competition rather than monopoly (my definition as above) which is necessitated by an anti statist mindset of the population. As for a more precise answer how it would work it is most probable that security firms would be paid for via insurance companies. And since violence is expensive this type of activity would be more expensive than under a state since you can't devolve the costs onto people not your customers. Further with insurance providing the services they will give discounts to those who take certain precautions such as alarms, security lights etc so it is perfectly conceivable they would give discounts to gun owners which will help to foster a well armed militia. This developed in more detail by Hoppe, again,
here Start reading from page 345 of the PDF not the book pages.
Joel:
Again your making ownership= monopoly.
Actually, no I'm not. I said I won't use the word "monopoly" any more, so, if I substitute, you are suggesting that I am making ownership = exclusive control. I'm not. Aggressors can take away your exclusive control, but not your ownership. (For example, if someone steals something of yours, then you still own it, but the thief happens to have possession of your property.)
The property is being protected by force.
Not necessarily. The property itself may be in no danger. In general, you are protecting (by force) your (exclusive)
ability to use the property as you wish.
My point was the absence of a final arbiter between them existed between states as well as individual land owners not that individual land owners were states.
Okay, point taken.
Therefore since all property owners can protect their property then there is no monopoly. This only exists when there is an institutional structure, which must be deemed legitimate or people would treat them as common criminals, which extends their jurisdiction over other peoples property. This would rule out competing law providers in the area of their illegitimate jurisdiction.
Exactly. My prior complaint was having multiple legislators in one geographical area, both having jurisdiction over the same things.
So, let me see if I understand you correctly. Suppose there is a wealthy land-owner Alice. She owns a large piece of land on which many other people live. These people work for Alice, are paid a wage (minus the price for rent). Under Market Anarchy, do you see Alice having sole jurisdiction of the use of force in her land or do you wish to see competing legislators over this same land?
You keep them minimal by having real competition rather than monopoly (my definition as above)
I think you missed my point, which is that market competition is
insufficient to keep them minimal. You can't (and must not try to) deal with the aggressor company (which steals its funding) by market competition. Rather, the other companies or individuals have to use force against them. But that's the same way you keep a government minimal--an armed citizenry who threaten the use of force against a non-minimal government.
As Noah Webster said, "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
My main point here is that it is only force, not market competition, that can stop injustice.
One difference is that in the case of government, the people only have to worry about keeping one arbitration-provider in check, instead of many.
Mr Arkadin:
Actually, no I'm not. I said I won't use the word "monopoly" any more, so, if I substitute, you are suggesting that I am making ownership = exclusive control. I'm not.
Thank you for clearing that up.
Aggressors can take away your exclusive control, but not your ownership. (For example, if someone steals something of yours, then you still own it, but the thief happens to have possession of your property.)
Agreed.
Not necessarily. The property itself may be in no danger. In general, you are protecting (by force) your (exclusive) ability to use the property as you wish.
We maybe getting into semantics but IMO the right of self defence is built into the concept of ownership- defence isn't extrinsic to ownership but intrinsic.
Okay, point taken.
I'm getting somewhere. Yay!!
Exactly. My prior complaint was having multiple legislators in one geographical area, both having jurisdiction over the same things.
So, let me see if I understand you correctly. Suppose there is a wealthy land-owner Alice. She owns a large piece of land on which many other people live. These people work for Alice, are paid a wage (minus the price for rent). Under Market Anarchy, do you see Alice having sole jurisdiction of the use of force in her land or do you wish to see competing legislators over this same land?
Alice does have sole rights of jurisdiction in this area since she owns it. However suppose within this land there is a significant population of Jews and Muslims she could therefore give a choice of judicial functions Talmud or Sharia to keep the population happy. If there was a dispute between a Jew and a Muslim she could allow the the Talmudic courts to come to a compromise deal with the Sharia court. She could allow as many different providers she wished to allow.
The deals between different different land owners will be analogous to that of the USA and UK and common laws will arise naturally.
I think you missed my point, which is that market competition is insufficient to keep them minimal. You can't (and must not try to) deal with the aggressor company (which steals its funding) by market competition. Rather, the other companies or individuals have to use force against them. But that's the same way you keep a government minimal--an armed citizenry who threaten the use of force against a non-minimal government.
Self defence is a market function since it attempts to uphold property rights. The difference though between the state and private firms is ideological- people perceive the state to be legitimate monopolist otherwise it would just be an outlaw firm. And being a monopolist the cost of justice will rise or the quality will decrease. Further the ability to tax allows the costs of an action to be passed onto other people. With an outlaw defence provider the costs of funding the provider will rise, since aggression is expensive, and will lose customers who will not pay for their behaviour. This is completely absence with a state and there is no market competition. This financial restraint along with other properly trained mercenaries will keep outlaw firms in check better than one with a solely general militia and no financial restraint.
As Noah Webster said, "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
The fact is America continually enacts unjust laws and has perpetually especially since the illegitimate constitution. Further due the ideological acceptance of even a minimal amount of aggression the question is no longer aggression vs non-aggression but how much aggression. You have therefore entered the slippery slope which leads the government to perpetually grow to inflict ever more aggression.
One difference is that in the case of government, the people only have to worry about keeping one arbitration-provider in check, instead of many.
You miss the fact that these other arbitration agencies keep each other in check and have the financial restraint the state does not have.
Joel:
We maybe getting into semantics but IMO the right of self defence is built into the concept of ownership- defence isn't extrinsic to ownership but intrinsic.
I agree. Also, just to clarify, your right to use your property as you wish is intrinsic to ownership. But your ability to use your property as you wish is not. Your ability must be protected from aggressors. But since you have the right to use it as you wish, then you have an intrinsic right to protect your ability. (In turn, your ability to protect it is not intrinsic, etc.)
Alice does have sole rights of jurisdiction in this area since she owns it. However suppose within this land there is a significant population of Jews and Muslims she could therefore give a choice of judicial functions Talmud or Sharia to keep the population happy. If there was a dispute between a Jew and a Muslim she could allow the the Talmudic courts to come to a compromise deal with the Sharia court. She could allow as many different providers she wished to allow.
But she could also restrict the choice to 1 if she wants, right?
You miss the fact that these other arbitration agencies keep each other in check and have the financial restraint the state does not have.
As for the financial restraint, I don't disagree with making the government voluntarily funded, as I said before, so that argument won't work here.
As for keeping each other in check: Again, I must emphasize that it is not market competitors that will keep outlaws in check. Rather, it is individuals and groups using force. You don't need rival market competitors you need militia groups, or perhaps just The Militia (the armed body of citizens). If these other groups will keep
all outlaw firms in check, then why would they not also keep a single organization (such as a government) in check?
Mr Arkadin:
I agree. Also, just to clarify, your right to use your property as you wish is intrinsic to ownership. But your ability to use your property as you wish is not. Your ability must be protected from aggressors. But since you have the right to use it as you wish, then you have an intrinsic right to protect your ability. (In turn, your ability to protect it is not intrinsic, etc.)
Sounds fine.
But she could also restrict the choice to 1 if she wants, right?
Of course.
As for the financial restraint, I don't disagree with making the government voluntarily funded, as I said before, so that argument won't work here.
How do you propose to fund the government voluntarily? Suppose I am within a statist jurisdiction and will not fund them because they're immoral. What happens if I need to go to arbitration- I can't go else where, because it is legally barred, so I must pay a unilateral fee or otherwise justice is denied. That is pretty much theft.
As for keeping each other in check: Again, I must emphasize that it is not market competitors that will keep outlaws in check. Rather, it is individuals and groups using force. You don't need rival market competitors you need militia groups, or perhaps just The Militia (the armed body of citizens). If these other groups will keep all outlaw firms in check, then why would they not also keep a single organization (such as a government) in check?
[/edited to add]
Well considering you accept there will be a financial restraint in your ultra-minarchist state (which I don't believe but anyway) then it must be there in market anarchy. Further even if you think it won't be empirically large you can't deny its existence. Militia's are good don't get me wrong; they will actually be promoted in market anarchy as the Hoppe article I cited a few posts ago shows.
There is one huge difference between the state and an outlaw firm- its ideological. With the outlaw firm the distinction made by the population is aggression vs non-aggression as well as free competition and monopoly. With the state it is varying degrees of aggression and acceptance of monopoly. And since it is decided that the state is legitimate doling out aggression there is no non arbitrary stopping point for its aggression and its monopoly.
Contrary to what you wrote above inviolate property rights and free competition in goods is the optimal position in this fallen world.
Joel:
There is one huge difference between the state and an outlaw firm- its ideological. With the outlaw firm the distinction made by the population is aggression vs non-aggression as well as free competition and monopoly. With the state it is varying degrees of aggression and acceptance of monopoly. And since it is decided that the state is legitimate doling out aggression there is no non arbitrary stopping point for its aggression and its monopoly.
So you are saying that the difference (between an aggressive state and an outlaw firm) is one of perception, not an intrinsic difference?
Originally posted by joel
But she could also restrict the choice to 1 if she wants, right?
Of course.
But how is that different than a state/government?
How do you propose to fund the government voluntarily? Suppose I am within a statist jurisdiction and will not fund them because they're immoral. What happens if I need to go to arbitration- I can't go else where, because it is legally barred, so I must pay a unilateral fee or otherwise justice is denied. That is pretty much theft.
Yes, one possibility, as you suggest, is that aggression against you (not committed by the government) will not be prosecuted by the government, if you do not voluntarily pay. You could hire a private protection company, but it would be subject to the law of the land. (That is, no other individuals or groups can execute punishments however they want, unlike under anarchy.)
Alternatively, whether you pay the (flat) fee could merely determine whether you get to vote, run for office, etc.
Other possibilities:
- There could be a trust fund, and the government operates from the proceedings of the fund. The fund could be created from the proceeds of the current government selling off all its property.
- Most of the cost can be paid by those who incur the cost. For example, convicted criminals should be forced to pay the cost of catching/prosecuting/punishing them.
- Donations
Mr Arkadin:
So you are saying that the difference (between an aggressive state and an outlaw firm) is one of perception, not an intrinsic difference?
The ideological perception leads to an intrinsic difference in behaviour. For example if people thought it was wrong for me to kill people the costs of engaging in it would be higher, due to boycotts or violence, than if they thought it was legitimate in which case they'd do nothing.
But how is that different than a state/government?
Her land is legitimately owned; the state owns nothing since it merely steals. This difference leads a great difference in incentives.
Yes, one possibility, as you suggest, is that aggression against you (not committed by the government) will not be prosecuted by the government, if you do not voluntarily pay. You could hire a private protection company, but it would be subject to the law of the land. (That is, no other individuals or groups can execute punishments however they want, unlike under anarchy.)
What I didn't make clear is that restricting the type of law you can have is aggressive since it stops one using his property in all non-aggressive ways. Further due to the fact that the arbiters will be statist ones the security firm will still have to pay a unilateral fee on the behalf of the client which again amounts to a tax.
Alternatively, whether you pay the (flat) fee could merely determine whether you get to vote, run for office, etc.
I severely doubt that would work since if you are using state services you'd be expected to pay them.
- There could be a trust fund, and the government operates from the proceedings of the fund. The fund could be created from the proceeds of the current government selling off all its property.
The government doesn't own any property whatsoever.
- Most of the cost can be paid by those who incur the cost. For example, convicted criminals should be forced to pay the cost of catching/prosecuting/punishing them.
Agreed but they surely can't be charged the cost of the standing judiciary.
- Donations
To a coercive organisation? Mmmmmm.
Joel:
What I didn't make clear is that restricting the type of law you can have is aggressive since it stops one using his property in all non-aggressive ways.
Not if the one Law you are restricted to is the non-aggression principle. Then, for you to seek another "type of law" would necessarily be aggression.
Further due to the fact that the arbiters will be statist ones the security firm will still have to pay a unilateral fee on the behalf of the client which again amounts to a tax.
Only if the client is convicted of an crime, in which case it is not a tax, but restitution.
I severely doubt that would work since if you are using state services you'd be expected to pay them.
In real life, lots of people use state services without being expected to pay for them.
The government doesn't own any property whatsoever.
I does. I understand that you think that is wrong, though.
Agreed but they surely can't be charged the cost of the standing judiciary.
That remaining cost is not going to be that big--only a tiny fraction of the current cost of government. Surely it can be funded by voluntary means.
To a coercive organisation? Mmmmmm.
[/quote]
I think you're begging the question with this objection.
Mr Arkadin:
Not if the one Law you are restricted to is the non-aggression principle. Then, for you to seek another "type of law" would necessarily be aggression.
It doesn't stick to it though because it extends its jurisdiction over lands it does not own- that is rights violating. If it does not do this it is not a state; if this is what you are arguing for, a voluntary collective of people presiding over those who wish to be presided over you are an anarchist.
Augustine 2004:
It doesn't stick to it though because it extends its jurisdiction over lands it does not own- that is rights violating. If it does not do this it is not a state; if this is what you are arguing for, a voluntary collective of people presiding over those who wish to be presided over you are an anarchist.
You asserted that the State does not own property. However that then opens the question of who is the owner. For example, a park near my house was formed from land that was donated to the city government.
You appear to be saying that unless a collective is continually trying to expand its rights-violating domination over its subjects and other peoples, it’s not a state.
Mr Arkadin:
You asserted that the State does not own property. However that then opens the question of who is the owner. For example, a park near my house was formed from land that was donated to the city government.
That's a difficult question. Taking the general case, and an omniscient perspective, it should be given back to those who homesteaded the property or recieved it by legitmate title transfer. Now in most cases this is going to be nigh impossible due to a lot of resources coming from different resources to build things. Now in the case of eminent domain it is quite easy to return to its original owners. In the other cases one could see the land as unowned and thus ripe for homesteading. I reject this on the grounds that if a master criminal stole various bits of people's property and as such couldn't figure out who owned what of the criminal's property allowing any person to take it from him would be immoral. Further much of the government land could be seen to be homesteaded all the time, for example road improvements. The workers could claim they have homesteaded it whereas those before could say the same etc etc. I propose therefore to attempt to workout the net tax returns of individuals and then give them shares in a local privatised properties, for example the local roads, to that value which would then be freely tradable. This could be executed by private law firms and agencies if later disputes arose. This is not a perfect solution, it is arbitrary, however I believe it to be better than the alternative. And also those virgin lands, which the state claims ownership, should be ripe for homesteading unless various people can claim that they performed that function previously in a certain capacity such as building a hunting lodge.
As to the land donated to the government it should go to the owner but he does not exist. I suggest though it be subject to the same share scheme since improvements will have taken place on it and the donator really wished to give it to the public and in this way we are fufilling that.
You appear to be saying that unless a collective is continually trying to expand its rights-violating domination over its subjects and other peoples, it’s not a state.
Not precisely. I have always defined a state as a territorial monopolist over arbitrartion. The passage you cite above was to show the difference between a legitimate owner of the land using his right of ownership and the state who extends his control over property which is not his.
Joel:
It doesn't stick to it though because it extends its jurisdiction over lands it does not own- that is rights violating.
It seems to me that what you are saying is that it is a violation of individual rights to protect someone's individual rights in a land you do not own. I don't believe that. (E.g., suppose Alice invites Bob onto her land (or Bob is living on Alice's land, or whatever). Then Alice aggresses against Bob by locking him in a cage and won't let him leave. It would be just (not rights-violating) for someone else (not the land owner) to free Bob and punish Alice.)
if this is what you are arguing for, a voluntary collective of people presiding over those who wish to be presided over you are an anarchist.
Given that definition of "anarchy", then so were the founding fathers of the U.S.: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
Mr Arkadin:
It seems to me that what you are saying is that it is a violation of individual rights to protect someone's individual rights in a land you do not own. I don't believe that. (E.g., suppose Alice invites Bob onto her land (or Bob is living on Alice's land, or whatever). Then Alice aggresses against Bob by locking him in a cage and won't let him leave. It would be just (not rights-violating) for someone else (not the land owner) to free Bob and punish Alice.)
If a rights violation
has taken place then it would be legitimate to intervene. However to do this
peremptorily constitutes a rights violation and this is what you are advocating.
Given that definition of "anarchy", then so were the founding fathers of the U.S.: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
Not precisely since not all consenting adults signed it and is therefore illegitimate.
Joel:
If a rights violation has taken place then it would be legitimate to intervene. However to do this peremptorily constitutes a rights violation and this is what you are advocating.
I absolutely am not. The government's job is retributive force--to punish or intervene when a rights violation has taken place or is taking place.
Mr Arkadin:
I absolutely am not. The government's job is retributive force--to punish or intervene when a rights violation has taken place or is taking place.
But you are by not allowing competing legal systems- people cannot sign to the form of law they wish even if it directly harms anyone else.
Joel:
But you are by not allowing competing legal systems- people cannot sign to the form of law they wish even if it directly harms anyone else.
But, as I already pointed out, any other law would be aggression. There is no other law that does not harm others.
Mr Arkadin:
But, as I already pointed out, any other law would be aggression. There is no other law that does not harm others.
Well since the state is aggression then you must be advocating market anarchism. Suppose two companies provided the same legal code but one was much more efficient in its workings than the other. Are you then proposing still to have a monopoly?
Joel:
Well since the state is aggression then you must be advocating market anarchism.
You are begging the question by assuming that those are the only two possible choices.
Suppose two companies provided the same legal code but one was much more efficient in its workings than the other. Are you then proposing still to have a monopoly?
I suppose that in that hypothetical situaiton, I'd be fine with it.
Mr Arkadin:
You are begging the question by assuming that those are the only two possible choices.
I'm not. I gave an example of a competing legal systems which you were with (below).
I suppose that in that hypothetical situaiton, I'd be fine with it.
In that case then you cannot make an a priori case for statism because it would violate rights in this instance while performing the only function you deem necessary. This proves that the state is aggression.
Joel:
In that case then you cannot make an a priori case for statism because it would violate rights in this instance while performing the only function you deem necessary. This proves that the state is aggression.
Okay, fine, forming a government is aggressive
until the conditions of the hypothetical situation are not actually true. Or put another way, it would be aggressive only if the hypothetical situation were actual.
(Also note that given Augustine's definition of "state", such that state is defined as aggressive, then I do not want a "state", but I still think government is a good idea.)
Mr Arkadin:
Okay, fine, forming a government is aggressive until the conditions of the hypothetical situation are not actually true. Or put another way, it would be aggressive only if the hypothetical situation were actual.
(Also note that given Augustine's definition of "state", such that state is defined as aggressive, then I do not want a "state", but I still think government is a good idea.)
Now the question you have to ask now is how long will such a case last for? Then whether or not creating a government will impose more costs than benefits at its inception? And finally whether or not it will stay that way?
Joel:
Another thought:
Under Market Anarchy, it seems as though this is the scenario you guys are imagining:
1) Alice infringes against Bob's rights.
2) If
a) They are both customers of the same "protection agency", then that agency will settle the matter
or if
b) They are customers of different "protection agencies", then the two agencies will settle the matter together, hopefully according to some pre-arranged agreement between the two agencies, perhaps by using a pre-agreed-upon arbitrator.
However, after some more thought, I think this contains an inherent problem.
The problem is that any initiation of force is a threat to everyone, not just Bob. That means that not just the one or two agencies will have a judgement (that they will seek to impose by force (though no company will view their force as initiation of force, but as just)), but that every individual (and their agents) will have an interest in the matter. Thus arbitration will be needed not just between two parties but among an unlimited number of parties--theoretically, among everyone. (With the disagreement itself being over how force should be used in this matter.)
Mr Arkadin:
Another thought:
Under Market Anarchy, it seems as though this is the scenario you guys are imagining:
1) Alice infringes against Bob's rights.
2) If
a) They are both customers of the same "protection agency", then that agency will settle the matter
or if
b) They are customers of different "protection agencies", then the two agencies will settle the matter together, hopefully according to some pre-arranged agreement between the two agencies, perhaps by using a pre-agreed-upon arbitrator.
Your learning. Great.
However, after some more thought, I think this contains an inherent problem.
The problem is that any initiation of force is a threat to everyone, not just Bob. That means that not just the one or two agencies will have a judgement (that they will seek to impose by force (though no company will view their force as initiation of force, but as just)), but that every individual (and their agents) will have an interest in the matter. Thus arbitration will be needed not just between two parties but among an unlimited number of parties--theoretically, among everyone. (With the disagreement itself being over how force should be used in this matter.)
Well if you think that's such a huge problem we'll need a world arbiter to take account of the effect on all peoples. This kind of reasoning is what led to the decline of a restitutive justice system: the crime wasn't just against the individual but also the crown. When monarchs went out of fashion the crown was replaced with "society".
Augustine 2004:
Your learning. Great.
Well if you think that's such a huge problem we'll need a world arbiter to take account of the effect on all peoples.
Why not just an ordinary arbiter with a reputation for rendering fair and impartial decisions?
Mr Arkadin:
Why not just an ordinary arbiter with a reputation for rendering fair and impartial decisions?
I agree but his reasoning implied that such an arbiter wouldn't do and not take account of the interests of the world.
Joel:
I concede the point that unjust aggression/chicanery against even one individual affects everyone on earth. I’m baffled however why you think it destroys the case for market anarchy or makes government necessary.
Because force can be used in only one way in the given matter in reality. That is, we can't act the way we do regarding a matter and act other than the way we do regarding the matter. If people disagree on the matter, then someone won't get their way because reality cannot be both the way it is and other than the way it is. Thus, in the case of disagreement, it is possible that people (who weren't direct parties in the original crime) will get "forced", in the sense that they are prevented by force from taking the particular retributive action (or non-action) that they wish. But this is necessary--a fact of reality.
Free markets are good in areas other than the use of force because it is just individuals doing as they wish with their own property, etc. It would be wrong to have one "national" decision on how Bob's property should be used--because it's Bob's property.
But the response to initiation of force is different, as you agree above. In this case, we need one national decision on how force should be used in this matter--because it's everyone's matter. We need one decision regarding everyone's interests. That's government.
As for Arkadin's implication that this means one-world government, I think it only needs to be within a particular geographical area where the people have joined together for defense against outside aggression.
Mr Arkadin:
Because force can be used in only one way in the given matter in reality. That is, we can't act the way we do regarding a matter and act other than the way we do regarding the matter. If people disagree on the matter, then someone won't get their way because reality cannot be both the way it is and other than the way it is. Thus, in the case of disagreement, it is possible that people (who weren't direct parties in the original crime) will get "forced", in the sense that they are prevented by force from taking the particular retributive action (or non-action) that they wish. But this is necessary--a fact of reality.
So what? They have no claim on any crime which isn't against themselves. There are lots of other decisions which effect me, such as whether to build a road or set up a brothel in my area, so should these things be decided by government since my desired outcome is incompatible with someone elses? Further you are using force in a very loose sense- force is an initiatory act, or threat of such an act, against the physical integrity of a person's property.
Free markets are good in areas other than the use of force because it is just individuals doing as they wish with their own property, etc. It would be wrong to have one "national" decision on how Bob's property should be used--because it's Bob's property.
Except of course having his own law which does not force, definition above, anyone else.
But the response to initiation of force is different, as you agree above. In this case, we need one national decision on how force should be used in this matter--because it's everyone's matter. We need one decision regarding everyone's interests. That's government.
This is frankly laughable. In every other instance you would say that the government didn't take into account people's real interest. But in the most important area you think they will. Mmmmmmm...
As for Arkadin's implication that this means one-world government, I think it only needs to be within a particular geographical area where the people have joined together for defense against outside aggression.
Well in that case why can't the geographical area be each person's private land. And again a voluntary association is not government..
Joel:
So what? They have no claim on any crime which isn't against themselves.
Okay, there you are disagreeing with the premise of my argument. Augustine agreed with me on that point. They do have a claim on an initiation of force, even if they weren't a direct party.
Consider an example: Suppose I run a business and Alice is my supplier. If she voluntarily stops supplying me because Bob offers her a better price, then Bob has outcompeted me in the free market, and I have to live with it, and decide where to go from here. I do not have a valid claim in any kind of compensation from Alice, Bob, or anyone.
On the other hand, if the case is that Bob
robs Alice, and for that reason she can't supply me, then Bob has directly aggressed against Alice, but indirectly aggressed against me. Further, there are all my customers who would have benefitted from my usual low prices, and thus all those people have now been indirectly robbed, etc. In effect, Bob has robbed from the wealth of the nation, not just Alice. Everyone in the nation has a valid claim on an initation of force.
There are lots of other decisions which effect me, such as whether to build a road or set up a brothel in my area, so should these things be decided by government since my desired outcome is incompatible with someone elses?
No, as I said, the difference is property rights.
In the free-market non-aggressive case above the (private) resources have been diverted voluntarily toward a more efficient and productive end. In the aggressive case, coercion has been used to divert resources, and thus coercion has been used against the wider economy.
Further you are using force in a very loose sense- force is an initiatory act, or threat of such an act, against the physical integrity of a person's property.
No, force is not "initiatory." Force can be just (e.g. defensive force). The
initiation of force (aggression) is "initiatory".
This is frankly laughable. In every other instance you would say that the government didn't take into account people's real interest.
When did I say that? Or am I misunderstanding your complaint here?
Well in that case why can't the geographical area be each person's private land.
Fine, but I'd still call that a government.
Mr Arkadin:
| Consider an example: Suppose I run a business and Alice is my supplier. If she voluntarily stops supplying me because Bob offers her a better price, then Bob has outcompeted me in the free market, and I have to live with it, and decide where to go from here. I do not have a valid claim in any kind of compensation from Alice, Bob, or anyone.
On the other hand, if the case is that Bob robs Alice, and for that reason she can't supply me, then Bob has directly aggressed against Alice, but indirectly aggressed against me. Further, there are all my customers who would have benefitted from my usual low prices, and thus all those people have now been indirectly robbed, etc. In effect, Bob has robbed from the wealth of the nation, not just Alice. Everyone in the nation has a valid claim on an initation of force. Even though it is clear that this will have caused Alice's customers trouble it cannot be said to be aggression since this act has not violated the property rights of any of them; merely changed where they'd spend their money. In the free-market non-aggressive case above the (private) resources have been diverted voluntarily toward a more efficient and productive end. In the aggressive case, coercion has been used to divert resources, and thus coercion has been used against the wider economy. Again you are using coercion in a very louse sense- what is the wider economy? No, force is not "initiatory." Force can be just (e.g. defensive force). The initiation of force (aggression) is "initiatory". I've never said anything to the contrary. When did I say that? Or am I misunderstanding your complaint here? You give the impression that you are a hardcore mini-statist and as such rail against the state provision of everything except for legal services. I find this an amusing position. Fine, but I'd still call that a government. Here we go again. What are you defining as a government? NB. I have defined it in detail previously so just check back on my earlier posts for the definition.
|
|
|  |
Joel:
Even though it is clear that this will have caused Alice's customers trouble it cannot be said to be aggression since this act has not violated the property rights of any of them; merely changed where they'd spend their money.
In general, initiation of force prevents people from otherwise acting rationally (e.g., with their property). Infringement against Alice causes everyone who would have dealt rationally with Alice to have to deal with irrationality instead.
Again you are using coercion in a very louse sense- what is the wider economy?
Let's say, of the nation. Bob has stolen (via initiatory force) from the wealth of the nation.
I've never said anything to the contrary.
Okay. It sure sounded like you did. Maybe I misunderstood. Specifically, you said, "you are using force in a very loose sense- force is an
initiatory act, or threat of such an act, against the physical integrity of a person's property."
Mr Arkadin:
In general, initiation of force prevents people from otherwise acting rationally (e.g., with their property). Infringement against Alice causes everyone who would have dealt rationally with Alice to have to deal with irrationality instead.
People being atheists means they use their resources irrationally. Aggression, the initiation of forces, attacks only the physical integrity of property. This is the only non-arbitrary position.
Let's say, of the nation. Bob has stolen (via initiatory force) from the wealth of the nation.
The nation owns nothing so you can't steal from it. Further you can't steal that which does no yet exist.
Okay. It sure sounded like you did. Maybe I misunderstood. Specifically, you said, "you are using force in a very loose sense- force is an initiatory act, or threat of such an act, against the physical integrity of a person's property."
I was being slightly imprecise- I was meaning illegitimate force otherwise known as aggression.
I mean that if there is one body that decides how force will be used in response to matters of initiation of force within a geographical area (even if that's just one person's property) then that's government. (E.g., if Alice is the sole law over her land (and tenants and workers on her land) then Alice is the government.)
Do you consider government to be synonymous with the state? Also under that definition I wouldn't be an anarchist but a statist?
Joel: The nation owns nothing so you can't steal from it. Further you can't steal that which does no yet exist.
?? For crying out loud. What word does not mean "Evil Coercive State" to you? I was not even referring to the government with the word "nation". The nation may have a government, or perhaps it might have anarchy. I meant "wealth of the nation" like Adam Smith defined it--having to do with what is readily available to consumers. It is the private resources available (to their owners) for all discretionary purposes - profound or frivolous - consumption or investment.
Do you consider government to be synonymous with the state? Also under that definition I wouldn't be an anarchist but a statist?
Well, since we are defining "state" to be aggressive in this thread, then, no, government is not synonymous with "state". Also, by defining "state" to be aggressive, then anarchy and statism are not the only two options.
From what I understand, Ayn Rand rejected both statism and anarchy. Although the two, at first, seem to be opposite ends of a spectrum, they both end up being very similar."Statism is a class of political systems where power (be it economical or social) is concentrated in the hands of the state. Anarchy is a class of political systems where there is no formal political power, leaving might to determine the leaders of the society.
"While they seem very different...both represent the triumph of force over reason.
Statists believe that the government is entitled to use force against individuals in order to implement a common good. Anarchists believe that individuals are entitled to use force against other individuals in order to enforce their own ideals.
"Objectivism rejects both views and upholds that freedom, not force, must be the norm in human relations."
http://www.suite101.com/lesson.cfm/17330/588/5
Mr Arkadin:
?? For crying out loud. What word does not mean "Evil Coercive State" to you? I was not even referring to the government with the word "nation". The nation may have a government, or perhaps it might have anarchy. I meant "wealth of the nation" like Adam Smith defined it--having to do with what is readily available to consumers. It is the private resources available (to their owners) for all discretionary purposes - profound or frivolous - consumption or investment.
Chill. My point wasn't that the nation=state but that the nation, as an identifiable people group, do not own anything- only individuals do. So you can only steal off individuals not the nation.
Well, since we are defining "state" to be aggressive in this thread, then, no, government is not synonymous with "state". Also, by defining "state" to be aggressive, then anarchy and statism are not the only two options.
From what I understand, Ayn Rand rejected both statism and anarchy. Although the two, at first, seem to be opposite ends of a spectrum, they both end up being very similar."Statism is a class of political systems where power (be it economical or social) is concentrated in the hands of the state. Anarchy is a class of political systems where there is no formal political power, leaving might to determine the leaders of the society.
"While they seem very different...both represent the triumph of force over reason.
Statists believe that the government is entitled to use force against individuals in order to implement a common good. Anarchists believe that individuals are entitled to use force against other individuals in order to enforce their own ideals.
"Objectivism rejects both views and upholds that freedom, not force, must be the norm in human relations."
http://www.suite101.com/lesson.cfm/17330/588/5
Rand was wrong, the government she proposed wasn't the form I propose (your definition- i still prefer to call it anarchy) but a state (I'm assuming from my limited knowledge of her that what you support is similar to her). Also her definitions of statism and, especially, anarchism are imprecise and pejorative.
Joel:
My point wasn't that the nation=state but that the nation, as an identifiable people group, do not own anything- only individuals do. So you can only steal off individuals not the nation.
Agreed. Bob did not steal merely from Alice, but indirectly from lots of individuals. It is in all these individuals' interests that Alice not be infringed against.
Another thought along these lines:
Earlier Augustine was trying to extend the term property to cover all individual rights--that even rights due to contractual obligations are a person's property. Thus everyone to whom Alice had a contractual obligation essentially had property via Alice. Thus an infringement against Alice is a direct infringement on the rights of those to whom she had a contractual obligation. And therefore anyone any of those people had a contractual obligation to was also infringed, etc.
Rand was wrong... Also her definitions of statism and, especially, anarchism are imprecise and pejorative.
As I recall, "statism" is defined as the government doing more than protecting individual rights. And anarchy as the government doing less than protecting individual rights (which would include government doing nothing--i.e. not existing at all).
Mr Arkadin:
Agreed. Bob did not steal merely from Alice, but indirectly from lots of individuals. It is in all these individuals' interests that Alice not be infringed against.
Another thought along these lines:
Earlier Augustine was trying to extend the term property to cover all individual rights--that even rights due to contractual obligations are a person's property. Thus everyone to whom Alice had a contractual obligation essentially had property via Alice. Thus an infringement against Alice is a direct infringement on the rights of those to whom she had a contractual obligation. And therefore anyone any of those people had a contractual obligation to was also infringed, etc.
If Alice fails to fulfil her contractual obligations her clients have a claim against her irrespective of whether it was due to a crime or a natural disaster because the title of ownership has not been transferred. It is then incumbent upon her to prosecute Bob for the theft and also loss of earnings directly associated with his theft. As I have said before it does effect other people but this does not amount to a legal claim. It is, as you have pointed out, better if the theft does not take place so it may be in the interests of Alice's clients to pay a higher fee to guarantee security or for Alice to have an opt out clause in this case.
As I recall, "statism" is defined as the government doing more than protecting individual rights. And anarchy as the government doing less than protecting individual rights (which would include government doing nothing--i.e. not existing at all).
I was using my definitions not Rand's since her's are defective.
Joel:
I was using my definitions not Rand's since her's are defective.
In what way?
Mr Arkadin:
In what way?
Under Anarchism, according to Rand, nobodies individual rights are protected; this is not a priori true and can only be an empirical statement.
I have discussed at length my definition of statism (or government) and my anarchism is plain- nobody my infringe, via the initiation, or threat of initiation, of aggression upon the physical integrity of the property or infringe its unilateral use.
No comments:
Post a Comment