Potpourri
==> Try to imagine the most absurd possible strategy for the police to protect kids from exploitation. Then read this.
==> Don Boudreaux poses a sobering question to Drug Warriors.
==> I can see how the math works, but for some reason this Tabarrok post seems counterintuitive. Anyway, average stock returns aren’t average.
==> In this post someone asked Gene Callahan if it ever bothered him (Gene) that his current political views could have been used to defend slavery, back in the day. Gene responded quite gently to this suggestion in the comments, as you can imagine, thanking the lad for shining a spotlight on Gene’s views and helping him to become a better man. (That’s sarcasm in case you are slow on the uptake.) Then a little more than a week later Gene gave us a Christmas present by starting a post with: “Most of my writing on actual policy issues is merely critical: let’s not try anything too radical, at least all in one step (e.g., abolish the state or abolish capitalists)…” No no, I can’t at all see how someone in 1855 might have used such arguments to oppose the abolitionists. What a cheap shot!
Re Gene Callagan. By saying “most of my posts” he allows for attempting radical measures in some cases. One of those could be slavery. Saying he is cautious generally does not mean that he is advocating caution in all cases.
Interesting read of Gene’s post and comments… What I find interesting is how Gorilla Bananas at the very end of the comments pushed the problem explicitly (I think Gene does the same in the end) just to another level by saying:
“But when a community decides to make taxation a civic duty of all its citizens, who have an equal say in how those taxes are spent, this is not unjust. There is no injustice in a common obligation to support the society you choose to live in.”
Then this obviously begs the question of how are we allowed to choose the society we want to live in? How do we determine which society really owns which land? Why can’t people choose to form a new society with their own rules on the land they own?
I wonder if slave owners asked slaves how they wanted their labor to be used? Even if only for the purpose of lip service.
“Why can’t people choose to form a new society with their own rules on the land they own?”
That’s not what ancaps want though. They want to live in their current society whilst being exempt from the rules, or they want the whole of society to change and accept the ancap ideology.
However, Gene’s argument is that ‘the civil order’ creates property rights, so ‘owning’ land does not in itself give you a right to override or ignore its rules.
Philippe:
You keep using the word “rules” without being clear of WHICH rules. By doing so, you make it sound like ancaps are against rulea as such.
Not all rules are just.
Ancaps want to secede from all “rules” that are themselves initiations of force against person or property.
No, ancapism cannot be forced on you. If anyone tried to force you to cease paying those you want to lay, and cease obeying those you want to obey, then that would be anti-ancapism. It would be YOUR ideology against ancaps!
Turning your assertions around…you want to live in your current society whilst being exempt from ancap rules, AND not only that, not only do you want to be exempt from the NAP, but you also want ancaps and everyone else to change and accept your social democracy ideology!
Philippe, do you EVER engage in self-reflection? Wow.
Yikes, pay not lay.
Quite the typo…
“Ancaps want to secede from all “rules” that are themselves initiations of force against person or property.”
The argument is that property rights are a creation of the ‘civil order’. They are one of the benefits of society, which come with an obligation to that society.
“As Rousseau notes, outside of civil society, property rights do not exist, and all we could have is mere possession: we have a good in the same way an animal has its kill, until someone stronger comes along and takes it from us.”
Thomas Jefferson and Bejamin Franklin made the same argument, as did Thomas Paine:
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/07/the-founding-fathers-and-moral-courage.html#comment-694636
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/07/the-founding-fathers-and-moral-courage.html#comment-694903
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/07/the-founding-fathers-and-moral-courage.html#comment-694762
“Ancaps want to secede from all “rules” that are themselves initiations of force against person or property.”
The argument is that property rights are a creation of the ‘civil order’. They are one of the benefits of society, which come with an obligation to that society.
“As Rousseau notes, outside of civil society, property rights do not exist, and all we could have is mere possession: we have a good in the same way an animal has its kill, until someone stronger comes along and takes it from us.”
Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin made the same argument, as did Thomas Paine:
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/07/the-founding-fathers-and-moral-courage.html#comment-694762
Yet ancaps disagree with that assessment of property, so this goes nowhere.
so what if ancaps disagree?
“so this goes nowhere.”
Philippe:
If you don’t care about what ancaps believe, why should they care what you believe?
Do you want to come to some reconciliation at some point, or not?
“you don’t care about what ancaps believe”
you don’t care what anyone else believes.
Philippe:
You did not answer the queation.
this one?
“Do you want to come to some reconciliation at some point, or not?”
Do you?
“you did not answer the question”
This one?
“Do you want to come to some reconciliation at some point, or not?”
Do you?
Philippe:
Yes.
I think that the only way ancap ethics can be adopted is through ideas, discussion, and debating, even if with oneself.
“yes”
The problem is that you seem to be completely inflexible and totally fixated on your purist, fundamentalist ideology. I don’t see how a reconcilliation is possible when the other side is completely unwilling to compromise on anything.
“The problem is that you seem to be completely inflexible and totally fixated on your purist, fundamentalist ideology. I don’t see how a reconcilliation is possible when the other side is completely unwilling to compromise on anything.”
Haha, “he will not retreat a single inch.”
(Just thought I’d keep this all tied together)
Philippe:
“The problem is that you seem to be completely inflexible and totally fixated on your purist, fundamentalist ideology. I don’t see how a reconcilliation is possible when the other side is completely unwilling to compromise on anything”
Are you compromising with ancapism? If so, how?
Put yourself in my shoes. If you were me, and I was saying what you’re saying to me, would you consider yourself to be compromising?
I don’t see you compromising at all with anything.
Philippe:
Sorry, messed up that put yourself in my shoes question.
I meant to ask if you think you are compromising with ancapism in any way.
Philippe:
Are statist principles (that you verbally espouse) capable of compromising with anarchist principles?
“Are you compromising with ancapism?”
No, because it is an uncompromising and fundamentalist ideology.
Philippe:
“No, because it is an uncompromising and fundamentalist ideology.”
Philippe, I hope one day you learn that to refuse to compromise with any ideology, including those you deem uncompromising, is the result of your ideology itself being uncompromising.
You would not even sense or feel ancapism to be uncompromising, if your mind wasn’t already uncompromisingly against it and for something else.
I will be perfectly willing of compromising WITHIN anti-Philippe ideology, because pro-Philippe ideology to be uncompromising.
OK, now what? How can we reconcile given that you reject my ethic and I reject yours and there is no compromising?
You seem to want to settle this by a fight, because you won’t compromise with me. Given the assumption we fight, now the question becomes WHERE do we fight? How did we even get to a point where we are physically near each other and we both are willing to use force to defend our ideology?
Keep going with this thought experiment.
AnCap seems to be based on one principle – the NAP. if so, it is fundamentalist and uncompromising. By definition, it cannot compromise on that principle.
“…outside of civil society, property rights do not exist..”
Sure, but civil society can exist outside of the State.
the state is the laws and legal institutions of society. It is not just particular government bodies. Ancaps just want to create a different type of state.
Philippe:
What is a state to you?
In other words, what do you mean by “society”?
Ancap society is created by individual property owners, constrained solely in terms of geography to those existing private properties.
Your “society” includes land that is not yours. Why do you presume to create a society with land you do not own?
“Ancap society is created by individual property owners”
No. Ancap law decides what is owned by whom and on what terms. God does not decide. Nature does not decide. Either this law is decided by some sort of organization like a government, or it is just made up and imposed by individuals on others through the use of force.
“Why do you presume to create a society with land you do not own?”
Law is not determined by the ownership of land. The ownership of land, and the terms of ownership, are determined by law.
Philippe:
“No. Ancap law decides what is owned by whom and on what terms.”
I was speaking of who creates ancap society. It is individuals regarding their own bodies and land, and nobody else’s if they don’t want.
“God does not decide. Nature does not decide. Either this law is decided by some sort of organization like a government, or it is just made up and imposed by individuals on others through the use of force.”
Secession of one’s persons ans property is not an initiation of force against anyone.
“Why do you presume to create a society with land you do not own?”
“Law is not determined by the ownership of land. The ownership of land, and the terms of ownership, are determined by law.”
You did not answer the question.
Why do you presume to create a society with land you do no own?
“I was speaking of who creates ancap society. It is individuals regarding their own bodies and land”
No, Ancap is either a state in which a system of law determines who owns what and on what terms, or it is just anarchy in which individuals assert their claims and beliefs through the use of force. The latter is, as Callahan pointed out, ‘mere possession’.
“Why do you presume to create a society with land you do no own?”
Why do you presume to create a society with land you do not own?
Philippe:
“Ancap is either a state in which a system of law determines who owns what and on what terms, or it is just anarchy in which individuals assert their claims and beliefs through the use of force. The latter is, as Callahan pointed out, ‘mere possession’.”
The latter is statism.
The former is what ancapism falls under, but it isn’t a state, because no individual in ancapistan can exert itself as the sole provider of protection and security and threaten all others with initiating force if they choose a different provider of protection and security.
“Why do you presume to create a society with land you do no own?”
“Why do you presume to create a society with land you do not own?”
I don’t. I don’t presume to create ancapism using your land. I only intend to create it using my land, and I invite you and everyone else to do the same with their lands.
Why do you presume to create a society with land you do not own?
“I don’t presume to create ancapism using your land. I only intend to create it using my land”
It’s not your land. See what I did there?
Philippe:
Whose land is it then? Why theirs and not mine?
Philippe:
“The argument is that property rights are a creation of the ‘civil order’. They are one of the benefits of society, which come with an obligation to that society.”
The ancap argument is that property rights are creations of any individuals who homestead, not just certain individuals with badges and majority say “we vote for you”.
What you call “civil society” does not equate to statism.
“The ancap argument is that property rights are creations of any individuals who homestead”
the ancap argument is that if you’re the first guy to dig some holes, plant some carrots or chop down some trees or something similar, and put a fence up, you create a sort of legal bubble in which you become the absolute dictator over that space for the rest of your life, giving you the absolute right to violently attack anyone within that space, and a complete exemption from all legal or moral obligations to everyone else. And then you can also determine what happens to that bit of space after you die too.
That’s a weird kind of argument, but is it just? According to Locke, no it isn’t. ‘Homesteading’ is only a just reason to forcefully exclude others from the freely given bounty of nature if everyone has the same opportunity to ‘homestead’ land. Otherwise it is not just.
Philippe:
“the ancap argument is that if you’re the first guy to dig some holes, plant some carrots or chop down some trees or something similar, and put a fence up, you create a sort of legal bubble in which you become the absolute dictator over that space for the rest of your life, giving you the absolute right to violently attack anyone within that space, and a complete exemption from all legal or moral obligations to everyone else. And then you can also determine what happens to that bit of space after you die too.”
How is the state different than that explanation? The state claims the right to violently attack any invading armies, it claims exemption from the laws of other countries, and the founders claimed that the constitution signers and voters claimed the first government remains valid beyond their own lives.
Ancapism is similar, but instead of individuals claiming laws and morality on other homesteaders and their lands, it is just their own homesteaded land. Also, the last sentence doesn’t apply to ancapism. If a homesteader trades his land to another, then the land becomes that buyer’s. But if the homesteader dies without trading it, then it goes back into unowned status.
“That’s a weird kind of argument, but is it just?”
I don’t find it weird. What I do find weird is that you find it weird, considering how you almost perfectly described the state, which you support. You are telling me that what you yourself support is weird.
“According to Locke…”
I know what Locke wrote. I am not pure Lockean.
“‘Homesteading’ is only a just reason to forcefully exclude others from the freely given bounty of nature if everyone has the same opportunity to ‘homestead’ land. Otherwise it is not just.”
Locke also believed in an invisible man in the sky. Should I accept everything he wrote? Or will you grant my humanity and let me pick and choose?
“Should I accept everything he wrote?”
Is there any reason at all why I should accept your beliefs instead of his? He was much smarter and more eloquent than you, after all.
But you can’t debate Locke. He is long dead.
Please clarify here – “But if the homesteader dies without trading it, then it goes back into unowned status.”
There is no inheritance in homesteading? Unless the deceased traded his land while still alive it is not passed on to relatives by a will or similar?
“ancapism cannot be forced on you”
Yes it can. If I do not believe in ancap beliefs, and I do something which is contrary to ancap beliefs, an ancap feels he has the right to use force to make me comply with his beliefs.
“you want to live in your current society whilst being exempt from ancap rules”
Yes, I do not want to be subjected to the ancap belief system.
“you want to be exempt from the NAP”
Taxation is not aggression if tax revenue is the legitimate property of the state, according to the ‘NAP’. So the question is simply what constitutes the legitimate property of whom. Practically everyone thinks that the state has a right to tax – that tax revenue is the legitimate property of the state – as does the law, including the Constitution of the country. A handful of ancap guys disagree.
Philippe:
“Yes it can. If I do not believe in ancap beliefs, and I do something which is contrary to ancap beliefs, an ancap feels he has the right to use force to make me comply with his beliefs.”
You mean ancaps stopping you from imposing your beliefs on their persons and property. That is not them imposing on your person or property. That is you being prevented from imposing yourself on their persons and property.
You can do anything you want with your body and material possessions..on your own land. Ancaps do not impose their beliefs on you on your own land.
“you want to live in your current society whilst being exempt from ancap rules”
“Yes, I do not want to be subjected to the ancap belief system.”
Ancaps do not want to be subjected to your belief system.
OK, now what? This is the important part. GIVEN you do not want to be subjected to their beliefs, and given they do not want to be subjected to your beliefs, how can this disagreement be solved? Suppose your family and my family were the only people who remained alive. How should our families deal with the disagreement? Should we fight to the death, or is there another way, a way based not on might makes right, but on some rational grounds?
“you want to be exempt from the NAP”
” Taxation is not aggression if tax revenue is the legitimate property of the state, according to the ‘NAP’. So the question is simply what constitutes the legitimate property of whom.”
“Practically everyone thinks that the state has a right to tax – that tax revenue is the legitimate property of the state – as does the law, including the Constitution of the country. A handful of ancap guys disagree”
Yes, and in the mid 1700s practically everyone thought that taxes in the US were the property of the British Crown. A few handful of classical liberals disagreed.
Philippe, do you think it is impossible for most people to be wrong about something but only a few people are right about something? How do you think new knowledge, better arguments, science in general, advances? Most people learn at the same time, or do one or a few people learn of something and then time passes until most people begin to accept? Is the new knowledge false until accepted by the majority? Did a person who had your political beliefs in say 1000 AD wrong because practically everyone disagreed with them? Do you realize that you would be considered wrong by your own pronouncement back then if you said what you believed now?
It is called the fallacy of ad populum Philippe. Appealing to what most people believe is not an argument of something being true or false.
“You mean ancaps stopping you from imposing your beliefs on their persons and property”
You believe that, for example, if I walk across a piece of land which you claim is your property, that gives you the right to use force against my body, even though I have done nothing to your body. Walter Block, for example, believes that he has the right to just go ahead and shoot me in this situation.
Why are you obsessed with land?
If I had a jet pack and constantly hovered one inch above the land, I wouldn’t be touching it. Do you own the air above it too? What if I buried underneath it? Do you only claim the surface? Does nature or god speak into your ear and tell you exactly how many inches from the ground your property claim ends?
“If I had a jet pack and constantly hovered one inch above the land, I wouldn’t be touching it. Do you own the air above it too? What if I buried underneath it? Do you only claim the surface? Does nature or god speak into your ear and tell you exactly how many inches from the ground your property claim ends?”
If you’re familiar with Walter Block you’d know the (an) answer to this.
I don’t know Block’s answer so perhaps you could tell me.
Sure thing.
Block completely rejects the principle Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos.
Essentially, as long as your hovering or tunneling doesn’t interfere with the use of the property then it’s permissible. In fact, if you were the first you yourself would be homesteading or creating an easement that the property owner cannot interfere with!
The precise height of your hovering of course cannot be determined by principle, as Block has said, and in the case of a dispute, an arbitrator or court would make that decision.
“Essentially, as long as your hovering or tunneling doesn’t interfere with the use of the property then it’s permissible”
According to Block.
Block will presumably be the person who decides what the law is in the future ancap world.
“Block will presumably be the person who decides what the law is in the future ancap world.”
According to Block it’ll be arbitrators.
Philippe:
“You believe that, for example, if I walk across a piece of land which you claim is your property, that gives you the right to use force against my body, even though I have done nothing to your body.”
No, only thay I have a right to determine what happens to th land, not you.
Whatever communist land property theory you’re a supporter of, would have the same implication. Not all plans can be made at the same time. Those whise plans you say should be made, would have “the” right to have their plans being made, and anyone who nevertheless insists on implementing their plan, would be breaking your laws, and would therefore be subject to forced expulsion.
The question is whether you believe you have a right to just use the land that is homesteaded or traded for by others.
According to you, you can just use lands owned by others and you claim to be a victim should you be prevented.
“Walter Block, for example, believes that he has the right to just go ahead and shoot me in this situation.”
You believe the US army has a right to just go ahead and shoot an invading foreign army onto your land with your house.
If you’re going to criticize, be non-hypocritical.
Philippe:
““You believe that, for example, if I walk across a piece of land which you claim is your property, that gives you the right to use force against my body, even though I have done nothing to your body.”
You believe that, for example, if I walk across a piece of land which you claim is in your house, eat your food, sleep on your couch, without your consent, that gives cops the right to use force against my body, even though I have done nothing to your body.
“No, only thay I have a right to determine what happens to th land, not you.”
No, you believe you have a nature or god given right to initiate force against my body even though I have done nothing to your body.
Philippe:
You think the same. If I eat your food and sleep in your house against your will, and I refuse to leave, then your ethic calls for the cops to use force against my body.
If an invading army lands on the east coast, you believe “your country”‘s army has a right to use force against their bodies even if they do not touch your body.
“How should our families deal with the disagreement? Should we fight to the death, or is there another way, a way based not on might makes right, but on some rational grounds?”
In that situation we would have a discussion to see if we could agree with each other. If we could agree, there would be no problem.
What argument would you make?
mf
“what argument would you make?”
Probably that at the very least everyone should have a right to certain basic things, just as Locke said.
Basic things like what?
“Basic things like what?”
that’s open to debate. There’s no reason for it to be limited by some sort of make-believe pie-in-the-sky question-begging theory of entitlement derived from the supposed morality of supposed intial appropriation.
Philippe:
“That’s open to debate. There’s no reason for it to be limited by some sort of make-believe pie-in-the-sky question-begging theory of entitlement derived from the supposed morality of supposed intial appropriation.”
So you don’t want to debate ancaps on basic rights.
You have claimed the debate is open, then you closed the debate.
Philippe:
You want the debate to be “limited” to anti-ancap possibilities.
Why do you want to limit the debate like that? There is no reason to limit the debate in such a way. There is also no reason to limit the debate to make-believe pie-in-the-sky question-begging theory of entitlement derived from the supposed morality of supposed [your ideology].
“in the mid 1700s practically everyone thought that taxes in the US were the property of the British Crown. A few handful of classical liberals disagreed.”
Then they created a government and a constitution giving that government the legal right to lay and collect taxes.
There are no ancap examples you can point to because the world doesn’t work like that and ancap is a dumb ideology.
“do you think it is impossible for most people to be wrong about something but only a few people are right about something?”
No, but I definitely believe that much of what you believe is totally wrong. I actually find it quite extraordinary that anyone could believe everything you believe, and I do sometimes wonder how it is possible – what kind of psychology or experiences would lead someone to believe such things.
Phillippe, I have a hard time believing that anyone believes the stuff you do. You have a serious psychopathic mentally to advocate violence on people who disagree with you.
Oh, and statism is a murderous ideology.
Philippe:
“Then they created a government and a constitution giving that government the legal right to lay and collect taxes.”
But they were only a few relative to what most people thought.
You are missing the point. First you said my argument is something most people reject, but you accept as valid something that most people rejected at the time.
“There are no ancap examples you can point to because the world doesn’t work like that and ancap is a dumb ideology.”
Wait, so you’re sayng that IF ancapism spread, THEN you would judge the morality of it differently?
Richie,
so you are a psychopath?
MF,
I didn’t say that whatever is popular is necessarily right.
What we are discussing here are the laws which govern all of our lives.
You advocate a state of affairs, or a system of law, or a social order, which practically no one wants.
So the onus is on you to make a good argument which changes people’s minds.
Otherwise you are just complaining about the fact that you don’t have dictatorial powers.
Of course the option of armed rebellion is always there. Muslim Jihadists are currently experimenting with that option.
the fundamental question in all of this is what is just. You believe that ancap is just. Almost no one else does. So how do we resolve these differences? Either we try to work peacefully with each other and find a solution or compromise, or we probably end up fighting. You may have noticed that fighting has been a popular choice throughout most of human history.
Philippe:
“I didn’t say that whatever is popular is necessarily right.”
Do you have to say you’re committing a logical fallacy in an argument before you commit logical fallacies?
If we are discussing what is right and wrong, why do you keep appealing to popularity if not to make your argument more right?
“What we are discussing here are the laws which govern all of our lives.”
I am discussing what laws should apply to me onmy land and what laws should not apply to me on my land.
“You advocate a state of affairs, or a system of law, or a social order, which practically no one wants.”
“So the onus is on you to make a good argument which changes people’s minds.”
“Otherwise you are just complaining about the fact that you don’t have dictatorial powers.”
Dictatorial powers over my body and property, yes.
Not dictatorial powers of a state. Not dictatorial powers over your person and property.
If a slave abolitionist could not, during his lifetime, persuade enough people who support slavery that he should be free of slavery, then by your logic, he would end up being just a complainer who wanted dictatorial powers.
“Of course the option of armed rebellion is always there. Muslim Jihadists are currently experimenting with that option.”
Nah, they only want to make themselves a state over everyone.
So did the founders of the US.
I only want to rebel and be lord over my own body and homesteaded/traded property.
“The fundamental question in all of this is what is just. You believe that ancap is just. Almost no one else does. So how do we resolve these differences? Either we try to work peacefully with each other and find a solution or compromise, or we probably end up fighting. You may have noticed that fighting has been a popular choice throughout most of human history.”
What do you think I am doing? Fighting or debating through discussion?
“I am discussing what laws should apply to me onmy land and what laws should not apply to me on my land.”
right, like I said.
Philippe:
You want to impose your laws on me and my land, like I said.
Your ethic is colonialist and imperialist.
Mine is secessionist.
Yours is aggressive, mine is defensive.
your way of thinking is very alien to me. Maybe it’s because I’ve lived most of my life in cities and towns, rather than out in the middle of nowhere, I dunno. My house is my property, but it is also a part of a larger thing. It exists as a defined legal entity within that structure and as a result of it, not as some sort of isolated bastion. I also don’t spend my whole life on my bit of real estate. You don’t either, but you talk as if you think you do.
Philippe:
“Your way of thinking is very alien to me. Maybe it’s because I’ve lived most of my life in cities and towns, rather than out in the middle of nowhere, I dunno.”
I am a city boy myself.
“My house is my property, but it is also a part of a larger thing. It exists as a defined legal entity within that structure and as a result of it, not as some sort of isolated bastion.”
Absence of trespassing does not mean isolation. Voluntary, mutually consensual travel and trade is welcomed in ancapism.
The only isolationism would be between those who do not want to accept travel and trade with each other.
“I also don’t spend my whole life on my bit of real estate. You don’t either, but you talk as if you think you do”
Ancap does not force you to stay on your tiny bit of real estate. Only if individuals who live around you do not want you to step foot on their land would they have a right to stop you from leaving your real estate.
This is not a problem in ancapistan, for the same reason it is not a problem between people living in the same community who share similar values and are very open to inviting neighbors over.
If some people do end up quibbling and fighting over land, then at least they won’t be able to externalize the costs of their conflict onto others using a state. The rest of humanity who are for most part peaceful and welcoming of trade and travel would be able to live their lives and let the thugs and vermin kill each other and remain in poverty where they would remain a minimal threat, while the most productive and peaceful would develop a growing share of wealth and resources.
The entire human race and me personally, suffers because too many people give and give and give and coddle and feel sorry for destroyers of human prosperity, and thus breed it and feed it like cancer.
Humans who initiate force should be defended against and left to rot on their own.
“Do you have to say you’re committing a logical fallacy in an argument before you commit logical fallacies?”
The key is legitimate, not popular. What is popular may not be legitimate, and vice versa.
Philippe:
In other words, yes, what skylien said is indeed what Ancaps want. To be free to live on their own land and not be subject to any rules that are initiations of force, like your ideology, imposed on them, from any other property owner of other lands.
They don’t want to be “citizens” who are forced to pay YOUR preferred protector. They want to pay their choice of protector. Much like a democracy, but the minority will not be forced to pay who the majority wants, if there is a majority to speak of in terms of who people want to protect them.
Let me make this clearer for you. Philippe, would you yourself be willing to point a gun at me, threatening to shoot, or take my property, if I wanted to opt out of paying the state, and opting out of every single “service” the state offers, including healthcare, education, roads, defense, etc? Would you want me harmed if all I wanted was to be left alone?
“what skylien said is indeed what Ancaps want. To be free to live on their own land and not be subject to any rules that are initiations of force”
That is not true. You do not want to just live on your own patch of land, do you. So why do you keep saying that?
“They don’t want to be “citizens”
nonetheless they still want to live and operate and work and trade within this society, enjoying all of its benefits as they do so. They just think that the rules governing that society should be ancap rules, not anyone else’s rules. The fact that no one else wants to live by ridiculous and horrible ancap rules doesn’t seem to bother them, for some strange reason.
“I wanted was to be left alone?”
but you don’t just want to be left alone, so why do you keep saying that?
“would you yourself be willing to point a gun at me, threatening to shoot”
If I was a cop and you were threatening me with a gun, then I would be willing to point a gun at you. Not otherwise.
Congrats Philippe, you are a PRACTISING anarcho-capitalist.
Your mind is controlling your body to behave as an anarcho-capitalist.
Now your mind just has to control your abstract convictions we have all been at some point brainwashed to lesser or greater extents, to think intellectually like an anarcho-capitalist.
“you are a PRACTISING anarcho-capitalist”
No I’m not, because I support taxation.
My opinion of you is that you seem brainwashed. Funny that.
Phillippe calling somebody else brainwashed. That’s sweet! Look in the mirror, pal.
Philippe:
I said you are a practising anarcho-capitalist.
You SAY you support taxation, but yourself will not take my money at the threat of gun violence.
“My opinion of you is that you seem brainwashed.”
That is called “reaction formation Philippe.
I’ve yet to see a substantive comment from you, Richie.
“You SAY you support taxation, but yourself will not take my money at the threat of gun violence.”
There’s no reason for me personally to point a gun at you if you don’t want to pay tax and you start threatening law enforcement officers with a gun. Unless I happen to be a law enforcement officer, of course.
Philippe:
“There’s no reason for me personally to point a gun at you if you don’t want to pay tax and you start threatening law enforcement officers with a gun. Unless I happen to be a law enforcement officer, of course.”
What if I don’t want to pay taxes, nor use any government services, and only threaten to use my gun only if a gun is first threatened to be used against me? Would it be justified for me to be shot dead by the police? Please note that it is no answer to say “But you don’t want to not use government services.” It is not a response because it contradicts the facts of the question.
IF myself and say a million other people, and we’re all in the middle of the woods in the western US, did not want to pay taxes and did not want to use any government services, and none of us would initiate gun violence against anyone unless they first pointed their guns at us, would it be justified for the government to send in the army to shoot us all dead if we raised our guns only if the army does first?
We say (honestly) “Please do not point any guns at us, we only want to secede from you, and we will not threaten you with our guns unless you first threaten to use yours first”.
Should we all be shot dead if we disobeyed the army and raised our guns only because the army did first?
Or should the army stand down and allow myself and the million others to live on that land as ancaps?
Secession is not impossible, but you seem to be determined to turn it into a conflict situation, instead of just debating the issue like adults.
Philippe:
“Secession is not impossible, but you seem to be determined to turn it into a conflict situation, instead of just debating the issue like adults.”
Philippe, I’ve been debating this issue with you, a total and complete stranger, on this blog, for the better part of an entire evening, staight.
Not even PhD classes in university go this long.
How can you reasonably tell me that I am more concerned with armed conflict than with debate?
I think you should apologize.
Philippe:
“That is not true. You do not want to just live on your own patch of land, do you. So why do you keep saying that?”
Because it is true. Ancap ethics contains the principle that it would be unjust if I were to attempt to live on your land without, or against, your consent.
“but you don’t just want to be left alone, so why do you keep saying that?”
Because it’s true.
Why do keep telling me that you know what I want which contradicts what I tell you I want?
no it’s not true. You want to continue to live and work and trade in this society, moving around here and there, getting stuff from here and there, not just sit tight on your patch on your own. And you want the rest of that society to adopt your belief system.
Philippe:
Me trading with other private property owners who want to trade with me is not forcing you into the ancap society.
It is not me imposing myself on you or your land.
Try again.
MF,
I didn’t say that you are forcing me into the ancap society by your desire to live in society whilst ignoring its law.
I said you want everyone else in society to adopt your ideology. And it angers you that they really, really don’t want to.
Philippe:
“I said you want everyone else in society to adopt your ideology.”
You only want some people to adopt or maintain your ideology, while everyone else violates them and acts contrary to your ideology?
“And it angers you that they really, really don’t want to.”
Does it anger you that bad that I really, really don’t want to adopt your ideology?
Why be angry? The worst that can happen to you if I am able to live according to ancapism, is that you will not be able to get a government handout or welfare of a miniscule portion of my income. You likely won’t even feel the difference.
But if a lot of people adopted it, then any transfers to you might decline to such a degree that you will feel it. And maybe that is your biggest problem with ancapism.
“Does it anger you that bad that I really, really don’t want to adopt your ideology?”
No. I find your intellectual dishonesty very annoying at times, but apart from that I think your belief system is laughable.
“The worst that can happen to you if I am able to live according to ancapism, is that you will not be able to get a government handout or welfare of a miniscule portion of my income.”
I’ve never been eligible for welfare, that I’m aware of. However I have certain values and I think yours are depraved.
Philippe:
“No. I find your intellectual dishonesty very annoying at times, but apart from that I think your belief system is laughable.”
Where was I intellectually diahonest?
I am not concerned with what is “laughable” to you. It is not important to this discussion.
“The worst that can happen to you if I am able to live according to ancapism, is that you will not be able to get a government handout or welfare of a miniscule portion of my income.”
“However I have certain values and I think yours are depraved.”
Depraved of what?
“However, Gene’s argument is that ‘the civil order’ creates property rights, so ‘owning’ land does not in itself give you a right to override or ignore its rules.” Where does “the civil order” come from? As one libertarian theorist put it: “To avoid the Hobbesian “war of all against all,” humans form civil associations. A civil association is a group of people united in recognizing the authority of a body of law over all the individuals who comprise the group. And “recognizing the authority of a body of law” implies the free use of one’s own intelligence in choosing to recognize it. In other words, one must be persuaded, not coerced, into that recognition…
The sharpest contrast to our current world in what I suggest is that people should be able to leave a civil association without leaving a geographical location. Unless they have explicitly agreed to remain part of some civil association in the purchase or rental agreement for their residence–as, for instance, people often do when purchasing a condo or a home in a planned community–they should have the right to withdraw both themselves and their land from the authority of their current civil association. Having done so, a person might attempt to join another existing civil association, might try to persuade others to form a new civil association, or might remain outside of any civil association whatsoever.
To deny people the right to secession employs aggression rather than persuasion in attempting to constitute a civil association. It violates the essential nature of civil association, which requires a voluntary recognition of the authority of a body of law.
It is true that most people today have at least some possibility of leaving the state in which they live. But to do so they must leave their friends, their families, their jobs, their house, and perhaps even their language behind.”
“But when a community decides to make taxation a civic duty of all its citizens, who have an equal say in how those taxes are spent, this is not unjust. There is no injustice in a common obligation to support the society you choose to live in.”
Besides the question begging, couldn’t the anarchist use this too? Just say, “well, sure, but we should (and shall) persuade the community to decide that taxation is no longer a civic duty.”
Doesn’t one need to have an anarcho-capitalist “non-state” or community or geographical area where the rule is everything is voluntary for this theory about taxation to work? I mean, it doesn’t seem right to me to say, well, there is no initiation of aggression or other moral issue with just saying right now in America, “taxation is voluntary. People that don’t like taxes don’t have to pay.”
The result of such a rule would almost certainly be an awful lot of free riding on government services, because there are a lot of people who don’t like to pay taxes for all sorts of reasons, though they often like and use what they get for their taxes. Also, if government stopped functioning and anarcho-capitalists weren’t exactly right about the result, so that roving gangs, 16 hour work days, child labor, unenforceable contracts, and near economic collapse became the new normal, then many who liked living in a secure world with certain rights against business or other large, rich institutions might complain about the aggression visited on them, or the immorality of the AC system. This to me seems like the trickier issue for the secession theory as I’m understanding it, but maybe I don’t understand it. Certainly, by making everything voluntary, one by definition imposes something closer to AC on all of us, and if AC turned out to be highly destructive of the social order as, let’s face it, most economic and political philosophers believe, the victims of that destructiveness might have cause to complain. Unless one takes the position that AC is a sort of categorical imperative — that it’s the only moral system of government, therefore no matter how bad the result from a utilitarian point of view, we have to do AC because it is absolutely right.
ancap isn’t voluntary. It consists of people pointing weapons at each other and saying “this is mine, I decide what happens here, so fock off or die”.
Philippe:
By that logic, potential rape victims who point a gun or knife at their attackers, and say “this body is mine, I decide what happens to it, so f*ck off and die”, are eliciting an involuntary activity as well. They are just as violent as their attackers.
Only if they did not fight back, would they be acting voluntarily.
That is your logic there. That is what you just wrote.
no, because natural resources are not the same as your body.
I pointed this out to you before. You equate your private property with your body, and so you think that touching your property is like touching your body and raping you. You denied it at the time, now you are proving the point.
Philippe:
“no, because natural resources are not the same as your body.”
What is different that justifies the separation of ethics from you can be lord over your arm, but not homesteaded land?
I know your body is not your land.
But there is a similarity. They are both scarce, and rivalrous.
“I pointed this out to you before. You equate your private property with your body, and so you think that touching your property is like touching your body and raping you.”
I have already pointed to your pointing out that I am not equating them, but merely using your logic.
Merely telling me that I can say mine mine mine for my body, but not homesteaded land, solely because my body is not my land, needs justification. You have not given any.
You have only kept repeating the same claim that we can defend our bodies from others, but not our land.
“You denied it at the time, now you are proving the point.”
I still deny it, because I am not equating them, but showing you your own logic but applied to a different context, that you reject but won’t explain why the added premise of “but not land!” Is justified.
“You have only kept repeating the same claim that we can defend our bodies from others, but not our land.”
No, I keep questioning your belief that the land you claim as your property is your land in the same way that your body is your body. They are in fact not the same thing at all. Ownership of land is a legal, social construct.
Philippe:
“I keep questioning your belief that the land you claim as your property is your land in the same way that your body is your body.”
I never said, nor implied, nor presumed that the ownership is “the same way”.
You have never explained why it is just to enforce exclusive rights to scarce bodies, but not scarce land and goods that bodies depend on.
You are questioning why you cannot just steal people’s food? That because you are not touching their bodiea that thia means it is OK?
Humans are contingent entities. Our bodies do not and cannot exist apart from the material “external” world.
“They are in fact not the same thing at all.”
They are both scarce. They are both rivalrous.
They are not completely different.
“Ownership of land is a legal, social construct.”
No, it isn’t. It is praxeological.
Ownership does not arise by virtue of non-homesteaders granting consent amd recognition. Even if non-homesteaders robbed the lands of a homesteader, that doesn’t mean the homesteader doesn’t have a property right. He always had it. It was just violated.
Ownership arises from individual action in the material world.
Defenses of it that come after are not creations of the ownership. They are merely defenses of what has already been created.
John, you’ll have to take that up with the originator of the idea that, essentially, taxes are just *if and when* the “community” decides. If that’s the case then they’d also be unjust *if and when* the “community” decides. Whether that’s voluntary (it isn’t, by the way) doesn’t matter.
Your consequences following it make a lot of assumptions that need not be made. For one, saying “no taxation” doesn’t mean no government, or even no State, it might be difficult to imagine – and impractical to boot – but you could fund the State via other means. (I believe Ayn Rand proposed using the lottery).
But perhaps, as you mention, nothing else works, and the world descends into a worse state of affairs than before, does that necessarily mean it was unjust after all? Maybe, but not by this community standards approach.
“you could fund the State via other means”
the state is just the legal organization of a society. In ancap world the state is the legal structure of property claims which is enforced by those who have weapons, control over resources, and an idea of justice on their side.
Where are you getting this from Philippe? As even my university sociology text book used the Weber definition. Under ancap there isn’t any State, for better or for worse.
K.P
did your textbook discuss ancap in particular? Because many anarchists would argue that ancap, as described, is not really anarchy, but rather a sort of state based on the rule of self-declared ‘property owners’.
Nope, not at all! Which just makes my point, anarcho-capitalists generally use the standard definition of the State, not some obscure one. Are you one of those anarchists?
Further still, I’ve never read or heard an anarchist criticize anarcho-capitalism without acknowledging that it’s still stateless by the strict (Weberian) definition.
They’ve said “well, it’ll be worse than if we had a state” and “well, to be a true anarchist you need to be *both* without a state and without property” (To which even Rothbard agreed at one point.) They might be right, but it’s irrelevant.
(And the further that ancap is from lefty anarchy all the better)
“anarcho-capitalists generally use the standard definition of the State”
no, they don’t. They generally use the word to mean the government, whereas the state is really the whole system of law, including but not limited to the government.
Weber defined the state as an entity with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, correct? Well that describes an ancap legal system pretty well, although it might be less centralized (perhaps – it’s all theoretical) than the current system. After all, in ancap ‘illegitimate’ use of force is not allowed, right? And who decides what is a ‘legitimate’ use of force?
Where does that definition of state come from?
“no, they don’t. They generally use the word to mean the government, whereas the state is really the whole system of law, including but not limited to the government.”
And that is perfectly acceptable, as it’s the government that controls the state apparatus. Again, this is standard textbook stuff. (Blackwell Dictionary of Political Science)
“Weber defined the state as an entity with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, correct? Well that describes an ancap legal system pretty well, although it might be less centralized (perhaps – it’s all theoretical) than the current system.”
So, a decentralized monopoly? Do you hear yourself right now?
“After all, in ancap ‘illegitimate’ use of force is not allowed, right? And who decides what is a ‘legitimate’ use of force?”
In *literally every system* “illegitimate” use of force isn’t allowed. Competing courts (or arbitrators as you will) decide in ancap. Of course, competition is the opposite of a monopoly, so…
Philippe:
How do you define “society”? Be specific.
The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community, or maybe the community of people living in a particular country or region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations, something like that..
So your society includes me against my will?
no, you can go
Oh, well, then if you don’t want to accept my ancap ethics, then you can go.
See? That is the solution!
You on your land live by statist ethics, and I on my land live by ancap ethics.
No right for me to wander on your land, and no right for you to wander on my land.
Is this not a reconciliation?
Does the definition of state or society matter all that much? The difficulty I’m having is this: in the “state” as we know it, there’s a minority of people who don’t like the state and want to live in an Ancap state or town or society or whatever you want to call it. Now if just those people want to secede and live in an Ancap state, I’m not sure they shouldn’t be allowed to do that. The problem comes if those people end up de facto imposing anarchy on those who don’t want it, or creating a much worse world for people who didn’t agree to anarchy. That doesn’t seem like an unlikely result if everyone just stops paying taxes in America. But if people just secede and set up a new country and people can come and go as they please with limited transaction costs, then maybe that’s really okay.
Philippe:
“In ancap world the state is the legal structure of property claims which is enforced by those who have weapons, control over resources, and an idea of justice on their side.”
I cannot help but notice that every time you try to describe ancapism for the obvious goal to smear it and paint it in a bad light, you always end up describing the very state activity you support. Just look at what you wrote above. That is your ideology!
Here’s a crazy idea: Maybe Gene doesn’t think that abolishing slavery is the equivalent of abolishing the state or abolishing capitalists.
Of course not. I don’t think they are equivalent either. But if I make the argument that “It’s okay to punch people because hurting people is fun” do you see how if someone says “That argument could be used to help justify slavery” they wouldn’t be saying they are equivalent?
but “hurting people is fun” isn’t a justification for punching people, so how would saying “hurting people is fun” help to justify slavery?
Reece did not mean it is intellectually justified according to your morality, he meant it is justified in the person’s opinion. Given a person thinks that, and writes it down, the question is whether the reader is correct to respond that such logic can then be used in another context, such as slavery.
The question of whether “hurting people is fun” is itself justified, is besides the point. Worthy of discussion at a different time, but besides the point.
Thanks MF – yeah, this is what I was trying to say.
there’s no appeal to any idea of justice in the statemtn “it’s ok because it’s fun”, so no real justification. only assertion.
That there appeals to “whole of the law”, my friend. Definitely a *real* justification.
“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.” is not a justification either. You need more than that.
Read the entire book then.
at least you agree.
Nah, I don’t agree that anymore was needed to constitute *real justification* in the slightest.
However, I’m just very friendly. You said more was needed, and luckily there is – read the book – so I don’t need to argue.
you think justification is the same thing as assertion?
In this case, yes. There’s no difference one can ascertain.
So is pay taxes or else.
no
yes.
Philippe:
It is pure assertion. They did not homestead the land. The first government stole it from the existing owners, mostly natives.
Pure assertion backed by naked aggression.
“They did not homestead the land”
Why does planting carrots give you the right to kill people?
Because stealing food causes people to die of starvation.
Individuals in ancapism have a right to defend their bodies by way of defending that which their bodies have produced.
“Because stealing food causes people to die of starvation.”
I thought you weren’t a consequentialist?
Philippe:
I do not ground my ethics on consequalism. It is grounded on individual action. It is just that food is one prerequisite for humans to act at all. Without food, there is no action to speak of. So logically speaking, if we are going to have an ethic for acting man, then we are already presupposing all of what man is, an entity that needs food.
But food like all goods is scarce, so if we want to avoid conflict over food, there has to be exclusive rights to each food good.
You could say that about anything. There is no proof for objective morality. My moral theory might be that me being happy is good, and me being sad is bad.
Regardless, that wasn’t my point. Just replace “because it’s fun” with a bad moral argument in your view.
It wouldn’t help. But if “hurting people is fun” was a valid argument for punching people, then it would help justify slavery (because slavery hurts people). I’m not sure if I understand your question.
There are multiple ways to convince someone that they are wrong. If I claimed that “hurting people is fun” was a valid argument, you could try to convince me otherwise using multiple methods, including showing how my argument could be used to help justify slavery. Assuming I’m against slavery, this may cause me to reevaluate my beliefs.
Excellent point Josiah. Slavery was abolished with 600,000 Americans killed. Seceding from Britain resulted in only 25,000 killings.
Totally not the same thing.
Major Freedom,
I’ve decided that from now I am only going to read your comments if they are in ALL CAPS. If you write in all capital letters, I will read your comment and possibly even respond to it. Otherwise I’m just going to ignore it.
Do with this information what you will.
Josiah,
Hamburger.
Josiah wrote:
Here’s a crazy idea: Maybe Gene doesn’t think that abolishing slavery is the equivalent of abolishing the state or abolishing capitalists.
Josiah, do you use this rhetorical move more generally? Whenever someone says, “Well wait a second, if Jim uses that argument for situation A, would he also use it for situation B?” do you just say, “No, because Jim thinks A and B are different.” ?
Josiah, do you use this rhetorical move more generally? Whenever someone says, “Well wait a second, if Jim uses that argument for situation A, would he also use it for situation B?” do you just say, “No, because Jim thinks A and B are different.” ?
If Jim does in fact think A and B are different, then that seems like a perfectly reasonable response to the question.
No one doubts that taxation and slavery are different, or that Gene thinks they are different.
The point is that all you have to do is take Gene’s argument in defense of taxation, substitute slavery for taxation and self-ownership for property rights, and you have an an argument in defense of slavery. We’re allowed to make the first substitution because it’s the “free variable” that we’re morally evaluating, and we’re allowed to make the second because it has been granted that both property rights and other types of individual rights are a product of civil society.
Doesn’t that sound like a weak argument?
The point is that all you have to do is take Gene’s argument in defense of taxation, substitute slavery for taxation and self-ownership for property rights, and you have an an argument in defense of slavery.
I don’t think that’s right (for reasons amply explained in the original thread). But it’s really beside the point. Bob’s claim here is about something Gene wrote in a completely different post.
Matt G,
Gene is arguing that taxation can be just, not that anything can be just.
Philippe:
Gene’s logic that taxation is just, can be used to show slavery is just. That is the point.
Wait which reasons? I see hand waving and dodging, but no reasons.
Oops, sorry:
WAIT WHICH REASONS? I SEE HAND WAVING AND DODGING, BUT NO REASONS.
Josiah wrote:
If Jim does in fact think A and B are different, then that seems like a perfectly reasonable response to the question.
I feel sorry for you, not because you are dogmatically digging in to an indefensible position, but because you apparently don’t find humor in Jon Stewart grabbing Sean Hannity clips about executive power from today versus Bush years.
Bob,
No, I would find that pretty funny. Why wouldn’t I?
I mean, Bob, are you really saying it would be hypocritical for Gene to say that we shouldn’t abolish capitalists but it was a good idea to abolish slavery?
Bob isn’t saying anything except what he said, because anything else would be different. He can only ever say a series of disconnected utterances that have no connection whatsoever, and cannot be treated as such either.
I am a different person than the Major.Freedom who made the comment to you, the one a different Josiah responded by saying to write in all caps.
Everything is different all the time, so you can’t refute anything, haha! Any thing you try to challenge would be a different thing than what exists in the present.
Here’s a crazy idea: Maybe Josiah doesn’t think using it in this situation is the same as using it in other situations!
Who said he did? Nobody said they were equivalent. Bob said this argument against A (anarchy) could also apply to B (slavery). If I said, “One reason I am for the government is because there are people involved,” then you could point out that the same reasoning could be used to *help* support slavery. Nobody is saying that this is a slam dunk for the anarchists. If, however, you listed off ten reasons to be against anarchy and they all applied to abolition, one could point out that the argument likely isn’t very strong on its own.
I said that in jest, Reece, although I wasn’t sure how to make it obvious (not your fault).
Ah, okay. Sorry!
If Jim does in fact think A and B are different, then that seems like a perfectly reasonable response to the question.
Wow Josiah I had this amazing defense for you lined up and you had to go and screw it all up!
Wow Josiah I had this amazing defense for you lined up and you had to go and screw it all up!
Sorry.
Try to imagine the most absurd possible strategy for the police to protect kids from exploitation.
I’m going to guess: armed government escorts who search the kids at will, gps trackers, monitored internet use, and unannounced house checks.
Let’s see how close I was …
Bah ha ha!
I was way off.
That’s just wrong.
Wow. The VA case is bizzare.
Odd that they would encourage “LGBT” clubs or acceptance in school and then go after this. Would they do this if it was two guys? I am not defending the kids or this practice but the logic is strange. Not only would the police be guilty of what they accuse the boy of, they would be showing it to a court room full of people. THey are already guilty of taking pictures of him in a non-aroused state. Is it pornography only if a particular form of media is used, i.e., pictures, video, etc? Are they not gulty of child porn if they expose themselves to one another in private with no pictures or engage in sexual relations without recording? Where are all the “get government out of our bedrooms” type who ask them in by calling for laws legalizing homosexual marriages and such? Where are the parents? And what of the mentality of the “law enforcement” people who pursue such avenues in a case? Talk about a just following orders crowd. Very bizarre
I found another link that says the police have dropped their plans, but that doesn’t change the fact that they wanted to and they tried. One thing to bandy such ideas about, another to attempt.
Someone asked me, “Wasn’t this the plot of ‘Porky’s'”?
I read the original story about this on the Washington Post about a week ago. The “where are the parents” question is answered the same way it usually is in these cases.
The parents of the girl are the ones who reported this to the police in the first place. I’m sure they’re quite upset that this evil boy is sexually corrupting their innocent daughter (even though she sent him naked pictures first). Or maybe they just never liked the guy and this was the perfect opportunity to get revenge.
The boy was living with an aunt I believe, who was outraged about this and wanted to fight it the whole way. She was the one who challenged this nonsense, then took it to the media which is the only reason the police department backed down at all. I also heard that she sent the boy out of state to stay with some other relatives for a few weeks until the matter was resolved, fearing the cops would show up and take him and go through with this quickly before anyone could stop it.
I could see why she would fight it; first making child pornography of yourself is a bit of a stretch, second having to register for the rest of your life as a sexual offender is worth fighting.
Not to mention the whole “we’re going to kidnap the kid and inject him with something to cause sexual arousal and photograph it” part…
After reading Callahan’s article and his comments, it is the same old same old derivative social contract gobbledygook. His argument rests on two main premises, whether he knows it or not, whether he accepts them or not:
1. The collectors of taxes, and not those forced to pay taxes, are the owners of the land called the US; and
2. States are required for protection againsts inititiations of force to person and property.
1 is rejected by ancaps because ancaps think that property rights claims are legitimate only if the claimaint homesteaded the land or voluntarily traded for it. Ancaps also think that because the very first statesmen did not homestead nor voluntarily buy the entire US territory, their claims of being owed payment due to land usage or habitation from actual homesteaders and traders, is unjustified and should they or their contractual decendents (subsequent generations of statesmen in charge of tax collection) threaten homesteaders and traders of land with force if they don’t pay, then THEY, not the tax avoiders, are morally culpable, and are destroying civilized society, not creating or maintaining it.
2 is also rejected by ancaps, because they think not only can private contracts handle defense, but they regard states and protection and mutually exclusive. A contradiction in terms. They think that state activity is itself initiations of violence.
I alao notice that Callahan’s hypothetical mansion scenario did not contain any of the most important concepts or arguments that ancap ethics itself ia based on. If he is going to show ancapism to be immoral or unethical or unjust, then has at least has to get the theory correct. I don’t think he even understands ancapism. If he did, he would have addressed homesteading and free trade, instead of writing a scenario where he just happens to own a mansion with no discussion of HOW he came to be in possession of it, nor why he thinks he is the owner of it. He just claims to be owner. Oh my gosh, just like states! This is exactly the crux of the real disagreement ancaps have with statists.
I am pretty sure that if I set up a scenario exactly like Callahan’s, but with the difference that I slaughtered or robbed the person who built them mansion, or bought the mansion, then Callahan would say that my demand that the victim’s heirs allow me to use the mansion 10 days or 10 weekends per year, that he would say my demands are not justified, since my ownership claim of the mansion is itself not justified.
It should also be mentioned that the hypothetical scenario Callahan wrote about, is itself an analogy of private property and private property protection.
He is trying to say that because it would be justified in his mind for a private property owner to enforce a “pay me 10 weekends of exclusive use if you use my mansion the rest of the year”, so too is the state justified in enforcing a “pay me X% of your paycheck if you live on any portion of what I call US territory.”
It is therefore “puzzling” why he reacted negatively to Matt using Callahan’s analogy, to make an analogy to slavery. Callahan would not delve deeply into Matt’s analogy because it is an analogy and not focusing solely on Callahan’s analogy.
“The collectors of taxes, and not those forced to pay taxes, are the owners of the land called the US”
No, that is not a necessary assumption. The argument is that property rights are created by the ‘civil order’, or social law, so property rights would not exist prior to that civil order or social law.
Then why can’t anyone tax anyone else in the name of this “social law”?
Why only those with badges?
The right to collect payment for land use is exercising an ownership right to the land.
“why can’t anyone tax anyone else in the name of this “social law”?”
I don’t think you understand. In the absence of law, there are only individuals asserting and imposing possession through force. There is no court of appeal. The strong man wins.
I don’t think you understand. In the presence of what is now considered “law”, there are individuals that comprise the state asserting and imposing possession through force. There is a supposed court of appeal, but mostly the strong and rich man wins.
No Ancap is proposing an “absence of law”. In fact, the proposal is the direct opposite: Stronger rules aka “laws” to protect persons and their things. And a much improved system of enforcement of a much simpler and easily understood system. Your relentless lying and distortions are pathetic. But it’s all you have, so I guess you (and we) are stuck with it.
Philippe on July 12, 2014 at 6:24 PM says:
Does austrianism tend to attract mentally ill people, or does it actually make people mentally ill?
http://tinyurl.com/lztjz3u
who creates and enforces this ancap law of yours?
That comment ou linked to was specifically about you, Bob.
Duh.
It is not who, but what decides. The what is reason, not status quo, not those who are strongest or in greatest number.
“It is not who, but what decides.”
No. You are a who, not a what.
God or nature does not decide. You decide.
Philippe:
No. Reason is a what, not a who.
God or nature or mere opinion does not decide. Reason is the arbiter.
ho creates and enforces this ancap law of yours?
The people you live in the society.
“No. Reason is a what, not a who.”
Your beliefs are not Reason, they are reasoned from certain assumptions.
Philippe:
“Your beliefs are not Reason, they are reasoned from certain assumptions.”
Like what?
The other day, I repeated asked our resident statist guests a series of questions which were never answered:
Where from and how does the bureaucracy get its superior knowledge to that of persons involved in voluntary exchange?
Where from and how do the voters get their superior knowledge to that of very same persons involved in voluntary exchange?
Where’s the justification for the violence which violates the NAP? (Philippe says: “spending money or “printing money” is not “violence”).
The other day, I REPEATEDLY asked
“Where from and how does the bureaucracy get its superior knowledge to that of persons involved in voluntary exchange?”
“the bureaucracy” doesn’t have “superior knowledge” about what individual people individually want to consume or invest in.
For example, “the bureaucracy” doesn’t know that I want to buy a new computer.
That doesn’t matter.
What matters is that I have enough income to buy a new computer, and thereby satisfy my personal consumer preferences. What matters is that I can find a job that will enable me to purchase the goods I want. What matters is that there will exist conditions allowing the successful development, production and sale of new products desired by consumers like me, such as new computers.
“Where from and how do the voters get their superior knowledge to that of very same persons involved in voluntary exchange?”
Same as above.
“Where’s the justification for the violence which violates the NAP?”
None of the above “violates the NAP”.
“spending money or “printing money” is not “violence”
You have never explained why it is.
It could be that you think taxation is a violation of the NAP. But taxation would only be a violation of the NAP if tax revenue was not the property of the state. But I think that it is, as do most people. I reject your whole ancap ideology. I think it is completely false.
Philippe:
“What matters is that I have enough income to buy a new computer, and thereby satisfy my personal consumer preferences. What matters is that I can find a job that will enable me to purchase the goods I want. What matters is that there will exist conditions allowing the successful development, production and sale of new products desired by consumers like me, such as new computers.”
States hamper and destroy all of those things you listed.
“Where’s the justification for the violence which violates the NAP?”
“None of the above “violates the NAP”.”
States do in order to even exist.
“spending money or “printing money” is not “violence”
You have never explained why it is.”
It has been explained many times.
Violence backed monopolies like central banking, and violence backed governmental treasuries.
“It could be that you think taxation is a violation of the NAP.”
It IS a violation of the NAP.
“But taxation would only be a violation of the NAP if tax revenue was not the property of the state. But I think that it is, as do most people.”
You have not explained how or why tax money is the property of the state.
“I reject your whole ancap ideology. I think it is completely false.”
To reject it is to support initiations of force against person and property.
I reject your whole anti-ancap ideology. I think it is completely false. Doing so does NOT imply I support initiating force against your person or property.
Say I have shop and want to invest in a new range of products. There are consumers who might want to buy those products. “The bureaucracy” can’t know that I want to invest in those particular products, or that consumers might want to buy them. But that’s not important. In a functioning, growing economy I will be able to finance the investment and people will have the income to purchase the products.
“You have not explained how or why tax money is the property of the state”
It’s the property of the state for the same reason that my house is my property.
Philippe:
“Say I have shop and want to invest in a new range of products. There are consumers who might want to buy those products. “The bureaucracy” can’t know that I want to invest in those particular products, or that consumers might want to buy them. But that’s not important. In a functioning, growing economy I will be able to finance the investment and people will have the income to purchase the products.”
Substitute “protections of property” for “products.”
What is important is that states do not know how to defend better than individuals in a market.
Defense in, for example, healthcare services requires knowledge of healthcare.
Defense in financial services requires knowledge of financial services.
Those who best know of these are the individual producers and consumers.
Philippe:
“It’s the property of the state for the same reason that my house is my property”
What reason is that?
“homesteading”
Philippe:
The state did not homestead the land upon which dollars are printed.
The state did not homestead the commercial bank credit that makes up the majority of “dollars” I earn.
The state did not acquire resources needed to print money through voluntary trade.
And, I would be threatened with violence if I did not pay taxes in dollars even if I only accepted gold and silver in my exchanges.
So “homesteading” may be applicable to your home, but it is not applicable to taxation.
“The state did not homestead the land upon which dollars are printed.”
Yes we did.
Philippe:
“The state did not homestead the land upon which dollars are printed.”
“Yes, we did.”
Haha, OOPS!
Shhhh, you were not supposed to give away so easily that you are COINTELPRO.
Social media psychological warfare.
Hey Murphy, your blog is being astroturfed by “official doctrine” tax leeching paid stooges.
Hilarious.
Philippe:
“In the absence of law, there are only individuals asserting and imposing possession through force. There is no court of appeal. The strong man wins.”
But it isn’t an absence of law. It is ancap law.
Ancap law isn’t the strong man wins. It is the homesteader wins if/when there are disputes, rather than the hungriest person, or the poorest person, or the state with its might makes right.
There is court of appeal in ancap law. You can appeal to any individual or group of individuals who offer appeal services.
the only appeal in ancap is to a gun.
No, the appeal is reason.
The only appeal to your statism is guns.
Is this actually right though? For example, the agents of the state will come to the defense of your property if it is trespassed on or attacked by third parties, or even by the state itself outside the law. For example, there are numerous cases denying the state the right to take real property under the Takings Clause. I’m not sure it’s quite right to say the state takes the position that it owns all the land in the US or that the right to collect income or even property tax means the state takes that position. Ownership seems to derive from the law. The law of Ancapistan is that homesteading confers ownership; the law of the US currently is that other actions confer ownership. But ownership has little meaning if the owner can’t defend it. I think there are some real problems with defending one’s property rights in Ancapistan, as in, if you can’t do it yourself, you’re out of luck. In the current system, hate it though we all might, the government will defend individual’s property rights — with force if necessary. BUT you gotta pay taxes. The moral superiority of one system over another is not leaping out at me, unless as I’ve said before, you believe in natural law and think that ONLY homesteading confers ownership, because that is the law of the universe or reason or something like hat.
I think we can accept that property rights (and all rights, including self-ownership) are a product of society without rejecting anarcho-capitalism. If rights are something we as a society decide upon, then libertarian arguments are a part of that decision-making process.
It does seem obvious that the fact that some institution is part of the existing social order doesn’t suffice as an moral defense of said institution. I appreciate some of Gene’s criticism, but several of his posts seem to boil down to “states exist, therefore shut up.”
If there actually is a “social contract”, the same folks can just enter in a real contract. Or perform acts in voluntary unison to bring about the end result for which there is widespread agreement. The only reason for the B.S. line of a “social contract” is because there is nowhere near unaniminity regarding what everyone must do, the end result, or the process for reaching it. That is why the various factions are at each other’s throats in the present US political process. That’s why you end up with wars and mass slaughter.
See Syria and Iraq. In fact, eliminate the NAP, and you end up with Syria and Iraq.
The NAP doesn’t solve the problem of conflict or violence in itself.
If you claim that you have a legitimate right to exercise control over something, and I claim the same, the NAP on its own allows both of us to attack the other, if the other doesn’t comply with our demands. The NAP in itself achieves nothing.
We already have and use private property. Everyone has it and uses it. To suggest there is a problem with the enforcement of laws and rules against trespass, theft, assault, murder etc… is bogus. You haven’t presented any. Further, you are simultaneously claiming that there would be:
a) too much enforcement of the rules of private property; b) too little enforcement;
c) no enforcement at all; and
d) no rules to enforce at all..
You just make stuff up as you go along to support your “theory” of no no no no no no no no no. And NO!
Of course,all “progressives” do this. Listen to Tom Woods’ interview with Jason Jewell about the new book “Christian Faith and Social Justice: Five Views” which contains Mr. Jewell’s libertarian explanation and 4 “progressives” with responses similar to what we get on the internet. I bought it last night. There is no comprehension of and no familiarity with the NAP whatsoever by the four “progressive” Christians. That is universal and without exception.
http://tinyurl.com/l8aapn9
just to clarify, I think your “anarcho-capitalist” ideology is really laughable. It’s a joke. I don’t think it is any sort of workable or reasonable system of any sort. It is just the absurd fantasy of angry guys who never grew up.
Nonetheless it is a theory which we are debating.
“We already have and use private property. Everyone has it and uses it”
Yes. We do. Well done. In this society.
But we don’t live in ancapistan. And no one wants to live in ancapistan but you.
It’s funny isn’t it, the way that you try to argue that ancap is just normal and everyday, whilst simultaneously calling for the total overthrow of the whole existing legal and social order. I suppose total contradictions don’t worry you too much.
Philippe:
“just to clarify, I think your “anarcho-capitalist” ideology is really laughable. It’s a joke. I don’t think it is any sort of workable or reasonable system of any sort.”
“It is just the absurd fantasy of angry guys who never grew up.”
How is me not wanting a mommy and daddy government, willing to defend myself using only the resources I myself am able to produce and seek through charity, make me the immature one, whereas you wanting a mommy and daddy state to protect you even if you lack the resources to pay for it, make you the mature one?
I think what you are doing is reaction formation.
“Nonetheless it is a theory which we are debating.”
Why debate what you assert is unreasonable and laughable?
“It’s funny isn’t it, the way that you try to argue that ancap is just normal and everyday, whilst simultaneously calling for the total overthrow of the whole existing legal and social order. I suppose total contradictions don’t worry you too much.”
It isn’t a total overthrow. It is just a reduction (of what started out small anyway) by individual insurrection.
Philippe:
“But we don’t live in ancapistan. And no one wants to live in ancapistan but you.”
Philippe, when you make wildly inaccurate comments like that,
Philippe:
“But we don’t live in ancapistan. And no one wants to live in ancapistan but you.”
Philippe, when you make wildly inaccurate and sloppy comments like that, how do you expect your ideology to be taken seriously?
I want to live in ancapistan. Murphy does too. Virtually the entire Austrian school does as well.
“reaction formation”
it’s funny you should mention that because I’ve genuinely been thinking that might explain your psychology to some extent.
I know you are but what am I?
Really? Hahaha
But doesn’t your point demonstrate why voluntary enforcement will be so difficult to effectuate. Since there is no unanimity about what everyone must do — about pretty much anything — that chances of getting your neighbors to join with you to ostracize contract bleachers, or do literally anything, are very slim. Absent voluntary concerted action, how will anyone enforce anything in Ancapistan?
I agree. But with the unanimity, all of the alleged problems disappear. Further, that’s the importance of “thin” libertarianism. The only thing we all need to agree on is the NAP. Lifestyle choices will depend upon one’s choice of community.
“It’s funny isn’t it, the way that you try to argue that ancap is just normal and everyday, whilst simultaneously calling for the total overthrow of the whole existing legal and social order.”
Right. Only a nut would call for the “total overthrow of the whole existing legal and social order”.
Some time before 9/11, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, once the powerful Saudi ambassador in Washington and head of Saudi intelligence until a few months ago, had a revealing and ominous conversation with the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove. Prince Bandar told him: “The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will be literally ‘God help the Shia’. More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them.”
The fatal moment predicted by Prince Bandar may now have come for many Shia, with Saudi Arabia playing an important role in bringing it about by supporting the anti-Shia jihad in Iraq and Syria. Since the capture of Mosul by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) on 10 June, Shia women and children have been killed in villages south of Kirkuk, and Shia air force cadets machine-gunned and buried in mass graves near Tikrit.
In Mosul, Shia shrines and mosques have been blown up, and in the nearby Shia Turkoman city of Tal Afar 4,000 houses have been taken over by Isis fighters as “spoils of war”. Simply to be identified as Shia or a related sect, such as the Alawites, in Sunni rebel-held parts of Iraq and Syria today, has become as dangerous as being a Jew was in Nazi-controlled parts of Europe in 1940.
http://www.unz.com/pcockburn/how-saudi-arabia-helped-isis-take-over-the-north-of-iraq/
BTW, it is the “progressives” and other blood enemies of private property who are intent upon overthrowing “the whole existing legal and social order”.
Let’s review. Philippe said:
“the bureaucracy” doesn’t have “superior knowledge” about what individual people individually want to consume or invest in.
For example, “the bureaucracy” doesn’t know that I want to buy a new computer.
That doesn’t matter.
What matters is that I have enough income to buy a new computer, and thereby satisfy my personal consumer preferences. What matters is that I can find a job that will enable me to purchase the goods I want. What matters is that there will exist conditions allowing the successful development, production and sale of new products desired by consumers like me, such as new computers.
“Where from and how do the voters get their superior knowledge to that of very same persons involved in voluntary exchange?”
Same as above.
“Where’s the justification for the violence which violates the NAP?”
None of the above “violates the NAP”.
He has not answered the first question. He does not explain why non-violent people cannot produce and afford a new computer. He does not explain why tax money extracted by violence is necessary to accomplish whatever (regardless of its alleged morality) as opposed to a voluntary collection of money for the same purpose. After again failing to explain why the violence is even necessary, he then denies that there is any violence at all. Around and around we go.
Then he calls us names. Amazing.
The three questions seem like variants of the same question: why is a government that can enforce its laws “with violence” better than a system of voluntary enforcement and private law/defense? First, I’m not sure that anyone knows the answer for sure because no sizeable area has been set up along ancap lines, so if it turned out to be a workable system then the answer to the three questions, or my one question is, “very little is better about a state.”
But I don’t think it’s right to say Bob Roddis’s three questions are hard to answer, although that hardly means everyone will think the answers are correct. I don’t think anyone’s claiming “the bureaucracy has superior knowledge,” instead, people are claiming that over time the free market has some destructive or negative effects: very long work days, something like indentured servitude, child labor, dissemination of dangerous products, dangerous environmental degradation, a tendency toward combination. People also note that people themselves can be dangerous to other people. Since the market drives more or less only towards profit, it has little incentive to fix these things until very late in the day, if ever. And assuming businesses are big enough, there has been in the past little individuals could do about it, at least quickly, particularly since as you and others have pointed out, voluntary collective action is very hard to achieve. Likewise, individuals have notoriously had a tough time dealing with roving bands of barbarians. Hence the bureaucracy, which can address some of these issues through regulation. Is it “smarter” than the market or individuals? I’m not sure what that means, but I do think, despite Tom Woods sanguine view of the last 200 years, that there’s quite a bit of evidence that the free market without some regulation might be throwing off societal consequences that would curl your hair. Now obviously some don’t agree, but I think that’s kind of the theory.
On the issue of where voters get superior knowledge, I’m not sure anyone’s saying they have superior knowledge. I think voting acts on government a little like regulation acts on business, or law acts on people. Business tends to make profit the justification for any conduct, while government tends to abuse it’s authority and descend into tyranny. Voting brings some accountability and control to government, which as everyone here has already noticed, tends to get out of control.
On the justification for “violence,” one theory is you can’t have contracts or private property without enforcement, and for reasons I think have been discussed a lot on this site, there’s at least some reason to think that voluntary enforcement won’t really work for most people over time. As I’ve noted, it’s hard to enforce these rules WITH a government. It would likely be a whole lot harder without one.
Can someone who supports the state explain why I should support a group of pedophiles who want to take pictures of children’s genitals?