Maybe Libertarians DO Need to Talk About “Privilege” After All?
I’m just kidding with the post title, but here’s what prompted it: Gene Callahan has bought his second (?) vacation/rental home in a private community in the Poconos, and finds that it is more oppressive than the local government he faces in the [edited to add:] rural U.S.:
[T]here were a number of small trees I could take down myself. About 10 minutes after I started my chainsaw, a security vehicle drove by my house and slowed to see what was going on: the tree police.
…
The community, for a place with low traffic volume, is also chock-full of stop signs, and has a low posted speed limit. When I stopped to register at the “government” office, I was told I would be fined for failing to stop at a stop sign or exceeding the speed limit. Oh, and while I was there, the community board president saw a newcomer, approached me, introduced himself, shook my hand, and told me his office was always open to me I had any problems or questions. Kind of like a… politician.Today I had my house power-washed. Within a few minutes of the rather noisy power-washing machine starting up, a security vehicle was again passing my house, again slowing to have a look at what was going on. In two weeks, my house in a private community has already garnered more security attention than the two houses I have owned in rural areas under the control of “statist” governments had in a dozen years.
In short, private government looks a lot like plain-old government, except maybe a bit more intrusive than I am used to.
I am pretty sure only a white, upper middle class, heterosexual male would write the above with a straight face. That doesn’t mean Gene is wrong, I’m just making an observation that most people on planet Earth would not say, “These Nazis actually stopped to look at me while I was operating a chainsaw. Really! They stopped to look at me!”
UPDATE: Also, for what it’s worth, check out the comments at Gene’s post. I make a joke, and then “rob” (not me) makes another one. Gene apparently doesn’t even get our jokes–which is distinct from not thinking they are funny–which shows just how far his thinking has evolved. In contrast, I am pretty sure I understand exactly the points Gene is making in his anti-anarchist posts.
The idea that private government (i.e. the absence of monopolized planning and control) would be always and everywhere tolerant of scraggly-beard individualism is is nuts. You need only look at private religious communities to understand why that would be: private property entails private rules and the reign of contracts/law rather than principals. If your house is 50 feet away from your neighbor’s, expect there to be private noise regulations enforced by contract and maybe even (God help us) private zoning measures. I bridle at HOAs as a matter of personality, but I can understand why a private community would see someone covering his house in swastikas or flying a controversial flag or banner as undesirable and nip that in the bud via contract.
Callahan seems to think that the Rothbard-Hoppe contingent envisions an ancap world where Manhattanites go outside at 5 AM on Saturday to fire their AR-15s in the air and everybody’s perfectly cool with it.
And for that matter, private law might entail the rule of principals as well, if it were written into the community. So it’s not nuts to imagine how a WBC could exist in an ancap world as easily as it could our own relatively tolerant one. From my limited reading, Hoppe has the most realistic vision of what a state-free world would look like, namely loads of private enclaves with varying degrees of restrictiveness on all sorts of behaviors and the opportunity to “secede” from any given community baked into property rights or boiled out of contracts.
The latter seems very likely, as an HOA would be unlikely to grin and bear it if a present owner were to sell his home to a communist propagandist fond of throwing loud swinger parties without having some HOA control over that property built into the new buyer’s contract.
“Hoppe has the most realistic vision of what a state-free world would look like”
lol.
Well, he sure told ME.
Interestingly enough, a similar line of “pluralistic” thinking used to come from left anarchists as well. The focus was, of course, more on participatory democracy, egalitarianism, and the environment but it’s still fundamentally the same.
Hoppe’s world isn’t pluralistic – people can do what they want so long as they follow Hoppe’s rules.
“Hoppe’s world isn’t pluralistic – people can do what they want so long as they follow Hoppe’s rules.”
lol.
“Interestingly enough, a similar line of “pluralistic” thinking used to come from left anarchists as well”
Hoppe:
“In a covenant…among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists… There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and removed from society. Likewise… the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism–will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order”.
Democracy – The God That Failed: 218
“what true libertarians cannot emphasize enough, is that the restoration of private property rights and laissez-faire economics implies a sharp and drastic increase in social ‘discrimination’ and will swiftly eliminate most if not all of the multicultural-egalitarian life style experiments so close to the heart of left libertarians. In other words, libertarians must be radical and uncompromising conservatives.”
Democracy – The God That Failed: 207-08
That qualifier there undercuts the entire point you were trying to make.
how so?
“In a covenant” he’s talking about particular order not universal. And further that implies multiple orders in itself.
Pluralistic.
Read footnote 25:
“To avoid any misunderstanding, it might be useful to point out that the predicted rise in discrimination in a purely libertarian world does not imply that the form and extent of discrimination will be the same or similar everywhere. To the contrary, a libertarian world could and likely would be one with a great variety of locally separated communities engaging distinctly different and far-reach discriminations.”
Pluralistic.
Hoppe even went further to clarify your very quote in similar fashion:
“For instance, on p. 218, I wrote… In its proper context these statements are hardly more offensive than saying that the Catholic Church should excommunicate those violating its fundamental precepts or that a nudist colony should expel those insisting on wearing bathing suits. However, if you take the statements out of context and omit the condition:in a covenant… then they appear to advocate a rights violation.”
Pluralistic.
As I said, You can do what you want so long as you follow Hoppe’s rules.
“In a covenant” he’s talking about particular order not universal.”
No he’s referring to a universal rule decided by Hoppe:
“In a covenant…among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists”
I reckon you understand Hoppe better than he himself.
“lol.” was the appropriate response.
the problem is that you don’t understand what is clearly stated: people can do what they want so long as they follow Hoppe’s rules.
Saying communists would be expelled is clear enough. “Voluntarily” .
I think you are missing a step Philippe. Hoppe I think is saying that as a matter of logic and fact in a covenant free speech cannot exist. That is descriptive not normative. But he does demand that society be run on the basis of such covenants. That is normative. So your larger point holds.
the problem is that you don’t understand what is clearly stated: people can do what they want so long as they follow Hoppe’s rules.
Unless “Hoppe’s Rules” is merely “private property” then no, you’ve got it absolutely wrong. Hoppe has even gone so far to clarify this for people making the *exact same mistake* and yet you continue to make it.
If all you mean is that he believes in private property, that doesn’t contrast with the “pluralism” put forward by leftist anarchists, so you’d still be equally as wrong.
Ken, Hoppe never *demands* society be run on covenants. That’s just what he expects would happen.
Read the book, please.
Philippe:
“You can do what you want so long as you follow Hoppe’s rules.”
What he means is that you can do what you want with your property, so long as you don’t violently eliminate the capability of others doing what they want with their property.
That IS “everyone” doing what they want, because nobody wants to be initiated with force. That is what being victimized by force means. It means unwanted.
For each and every individual to get what they want, and to avoid what they don’t want, requires individual property rights.
You keep ignoring everyone else. You’re only thinking of yourself. You hear “Everyone can do whatever they want”, and you ignore everyone else and imagine you doing whatever you want that eliminates by force what others can do, such as use their own property as they want because you’re busy violating their property rights.
Hoppe’s ethic is for everyone at the same time, not just you abstracted from everyone else whereby the notion of everyone doing whatever they want somehow means others want to be victimized by your violence.
If everyone got to do what they wanted, then no violence and no property violations would be possible, since nobody wants to be victimized by such violence.
Everyone getting what they want includes everyone not getting what they don’t want, because if they did get what they don’t want, then they wouldn’t be getting whatever they wanted.
Hoppe’s “rules” are just rules to stop you from imposing rules on other people’s persons and property. It is not an imposition on your person or property. It is stopping you from imposing your person and property on others against their will.
You’re so narrow minded.
Philippe:
Pluralism in law requires individual property rights. It is a necessity.
If all property were collectively owned, then law would have to be non-pluralistic.
What you see as a universal law of private property is more a meta-law, a law for all laws. It is a prerequisite for there being pluralistic law.
The only way voluntary communities can arise, where each individual can agree to abide by certain laws and escape/secede if they don’t like those laws, the only way to have plural law, would be if individual private property rights were respected.
Ken,
“as a matter of logic and fact in a covenant free speech cannot exist”
Where’d you get that idea from?
“Unless “Hoppe’s Rules” is merely “private property” then no, you’ve got it absolutely wrong”
Well no, because we have private property now, but not Hoppe’s rules.
“Well no, because we have private property now, but not Hoppe’s rules.”
Makes no difference.
Extend it to “Far-Right Libertarian Private Property Rules” if it’ll help you actually contribute here.
Philippe, from the quote you posted. He said under a covenant no such right exists. Not that it would be a rule of the covenant. It reads like an inference drawn or a conclusion reached.
No matter; I agree on the import.
Philippe:
“Well no, because we have private property now, but not Hoppe’s rules”
No we don’t have private property rules. We have private property violations that the state considers rules.
Hoppe’s rules are private property rules.
KP
“Makes no difference.”
It makes no difference whether we have private property as it is currently defined, or private property as per Hoppe’s rules?
“Extend it to “Far-Right Libertarian Private Property Rules” if it’ll help you actually contribute here”
Those would be a different sort of rules to those that currently exist. You would like Hoppe’s rules to be in force, rather than existing rules.
Philippe:
Private property rights “as currently defined” is just a legalized violation of them.
You don’t understand what private property rights even are. No, they are not state laws.
“It makes no difference whether we have private property as it is currently defined, or private property as per Hoppe’s rules?”
Pick either, rules are rules.
“Those would be a different sort of rules to those that currently exist.
You would like Hoppe’s rules to be in force, rather than existing rules.”
The particular rules don’t matter to the question I asked, just the existence of them.
And no, depsite your claim, I’m neither “for” the status quo or Hoppean (standard libertarian) rules.
Enforcing private property rights is protecting homesteaders and free traders from late comers who want to take without permission.
KP
“the question I asked”
Which one?
Such covenants are currently unconstitutional. So, yes, he is in fact demanding that we have covenants like his.
“Such covenants are currently unconstitutional. So, yes, he is in fact demanding that we have covenants like his.”
Given that the covenants are optional even within his musings on a hypothetical world with different rules I can only conclude that you have a very strange understanding of what constitutes a demand.
It may not worth be attempting to discuss further as we’d probably be both read nothing but gibberish.
What are Hoppe’s rules? A particular conservative covenant or general (specific conception of) private property rules?
Hoppe’s rules are general laws for organizing society and resources. They don’t make sense, but that’s what they are.
So the latter?
they’re rules, which are decided by Hoppe.
‘Private property’ is defined by and is a function of those rules.
Is that a “yes”?
Philippe:
“Hoppe’s rules are general laws for organizing society and resources. They don’t make sense, but that’s what they are.”
No, they are not rules to be forced on everyone. They are simply a respect for those individuals who do not want to abide by your laws on their own lands.
And they do make sense.
Philippe:
What doesn’t make sense is you describing what Hoppe’s ethics are, and then right after you say they don’t make sense.
It either makes sense to you, or you can’t explain it. Not both.
MF. You for instance claim to understand Keynesian theory and that it makes no sense.
I can explain the phlogiston theory of heat, and also why it makes no sense.
Since he’s been pinned… the block quotes about covenants were a red herring, apparently the problem is “general rules” to which other pluralistic left anarchists (like Kohr) also believe in.
So yes, “lol” was the appropriate response. Hoppe’s views are, incredibly “pluralistic”. Tolerating a range of lifestyles far greater than any known society or nation (as far as I can tell anyways). Which actually might be a reason why it can’t work in the end.
Ken B:
I never said Keynesian theory “makes no sense.”
Wrong, yes.
Containing contradictions (multiplier doctrine contradicts marginal efficiency of capital doctrine), yes.
Based on false epistemological pronouncements, yes.
Being vague and flip flopping on the concepts of saving, yes.
Sanctioning violence, yes.
Destroying otherwise higher growths in standards of living, yes.
…is absolute nonsense.
In the world where saying makes it so, this would be convincing. In this world, however, you need remedial lessons in rhetoric.
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/08/maybe-libertarians-do-need-to-talk-about-privilege-after-all.html#comment-857478
Private government is not “the absence of monopolized planning and control”. It is merely privately owned government.
Government and state are not synonymous, as you would discover if you gave any consideration to, say, the distinction between a synagogue and Spain.
The failure to understand the straightforward distinction between the monopolistic state and pluralistic culture lies at the heart of every statist fallacy, as Bastiat pointed out more than 150 years ago.
I probably know more about government, it’s various forms, it’s functions, and it’s structure than you do. I’ve been learning and studying these facts for ten years. I can flat out tell you that your distinction between “government” and “state” is idiosyncratic gibberish. Government is not a monopoly.
“most people on planet Earth would not say, “These Nazis actually stopped to look at me while I was operating a chainsaw”
Most people would not equate the Nazis with ‘plain old government’. That’s a particularly Bob kind of thing to do.
I think Callahan said his new community was a lot like Singapore, not a lot like Nazi Germany.
Fair enough Philippe, I concede that I distorted Gene’s point at the end in order to make a joke. I could alter the post to retain my objection, however, only sacrificing possible humor.
Bob, you did not even equate what you’re being accused of equating.
At least maybe claims of libertarian society being utopian will cease now.
I’m pretty sure that presently a private neighborhood of fornicating naked meth addicts (with coin operated meth dispensers) would not be allowed by the local zoning board.
Oh dear. Libertarians are (simultaneously) private zoning Nazis AND libertines!
Different ones. I thought that was what you wanted.
Off topic but fits the tags.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140814/09082228212/boston-police-used-facial-recognition-software-to-grab-photos-every-person-attending-local-music-festivals.shtml
Just asking, but what sort of research did Gene do when he came to this neighbourhood?
I mean if the population are people who like their peace and quiet and Gene is next door running a small industrial installation… yeah that’s going to attract attention. They feel that their property includes the peace and quiet atmosphere, and if everyone in that area all have made agreements that this stipulation comes with the land, then looks like Gene bought into the same agreement.
In our area the councils are an arm of the state and you wouldn’t believe the permits required to cut down a tree.
Lying permits; I never believe them.
Apparently Callahan is too egocentric to realize that the benefits of private law is that whatever morons become leaders of whatever private community, they cannot do what they do there over the whole country.
The benefit of private law is not solely that it will benefit Callahan, which in the long run it will if ALL communities were so private and those “politicians” there had to compete for home owners like Callahan, but more importantly, those security people who are driving by Callahan’s house are not driving by MY house. I now know that I might not purchase a house in the Poconos. If we had a fully private law society, those Poconos “politicians” would be faced with the fact that they lost themselves a potential customer.
That is the benefit of private law.
Callahan is so narrow minded and so short term thinking, that if he doesn’t get immediate gratification from such private communities (he does, he’s just lying about it to make a politicize it for ideological reasons, or else he would not remain a home owner there!), that we’re supposed to conclude it’s better to live among SWAT teams throwing flash grenades in toddlers’ cribs.
I guess you have a strong logical belief in the economic theory that all supply is finite, but I’m not so confident that the supply of morons is limited by that.
More importantly, that’s one flash grenade they won’t be throwing through my bedroom window… but, I still worry a little; will they run out of grenades before or after they get to my street?
MF, couldn’t the same thing be applied to states as well?
Couldn’t states just be said to be really large private communities with their own laws?
I’m playing devil’s advocate here because I honestly wouldn’t know how to answer that one myself.
Well Matt S, I think we first have to make clear the difference between my cake baking shop, and the US government.
I consider Max Weber’s definition of a state to be the best. A state is a territorial monopoly of coercion.
If you consider a state as a “large private community”, then to me you would be referring to something akin to a neighborhood of shopkeepers with a local mafia family that demands “protection money” from everyone…or else. No matter if they don’t want it. They will pay or face violence from the “button” men. What the mafia demands is “the community’s own laws”.
If you consider that neighborhood with the mafia as a “private community”, then sure, you can view states that way and I won’t disagree.
Of course, that probably isn’t what you had in mind.
Private property rights. You always have to keep that in mind when you think about anarcho-capitalism.
“Callahan is so narrow minded and so short term thinking, that if he doesn’t get immediate gratification”
I mentioned nothing at all about my “gratification.”
” from such private communities (he does, he’s just lying about it to make a politicize it for ideological reasons, or else he would not remain a home owner there!),”
I bought the house because the price was low, and I can fix it up for a good profit. And the community is popular: many people *want* and indeed *pay extra* for more intrusive government.
“I mentioned nothing at all about my “gratification.””
I know. You need not mention something for readers to know what is between the lines.
Did you include a long term analysis of these issues in a context of private law?
No, you bought a house cheap, didn’t read the rules, didn’t research the rules, found the drive by checks annoying, and…that is it.
That is textbook short term minded, immediate gratification activity.
An important point you left out is that private communities in a statist society can often charge more because the demand is higher due to government generating artificial supply shortages. It is similar to why healthcare and some private roads are “expensive.” The extra demand “spills over” into private communities. You percieve it being expensive because the “government” there cannot tax non-residents. You are incurring a more realistic cost.
What you are doing is extrapolating what you are experiencing in that private community into a vision of what full private law would look like. But that is as flawed an approach as extrapolating from the “private” cocaine industry in our statist world where it is artificially made scarce, and believing that it describes what would happen if cocaine were out out of the purview of states altogether.
The main benefit of anarcho-capitalism is that however bad you have it there in the poconos, at least the government there is only legally allowes to treat you and the other residents that way. In the private community where I live, I don’t have that kind of a local “government”. I read the contract start to finish, I did my research, and while it isn’t perfect, while there are problems, the way I understand ancapistan is not by promising me utopia, but by allowing the best method to solve problems should they arise.
” You need not mention something for readers to…” just make s*&t up.
“found the drive by checks annoying”
Again, you are just making s*&t up: I never said they were annoying. In fact, I like all the intrusive security: it makes the resale value of the house higher. It’s almost as if I were engaged in… hmm, long-term thinking!
“In short, private government looks a lot like plain-old government, except maybe a bit more intrusive than I am used to. Yes, I chose to live here, but so does anyone moving to an old-fashioned town. And if we ever “achieve” ancapistan, this more intrusive form of government might become the norm.”
“And note: I do not object to this community having these rules. But I also don’t think that I am somehow “more free” living under private government than I was under public government.”
I’m not making anything up.
MF you might “enjoy” my attempts to achieve total consciousness in the comments here…
Gene’s little sandbox critique can be easily refuted by realizing that Ancapsville and Statesburg are BOTH anarcho-capitalist communities. Statesburg is not even a state. Callahan wrote:
“Statesburg was founded in 1695 by a group of English settlers who bought the land from local Indians.”
To acquire land from previous land owners through trade, i.e. purchase, is an ancap activity. Those owners are thus far abiding by ancap ethics.
Callahan and his lapdog Ken B are just engaging in an ideological exercise of avoidance. They are, as it were, stealing ancap ethics and calling it statist ethics distinct from ancap ethics.
Ultimately he is trying to refute Ancapism by showing how much he supports the ancap ethics of Statesburg.
If Callahan ever studied US history, he’d know that land purchases were the exception, not the rule.
You said he found it annoying. Where? I pointed this out early and now Gene has confirmed, he is not complaining. He is noticing. He is noticing because it is relevant to the dubious claims ancaps routinely make.
As for annoying, you made that sh$t up.
Ken B, you can be trolling even though you yourself don’t say you’re trolling.
You’re married aren’t you? You can tell when your wife is annoyed without her saying “Ken B, I am annoyed.”
I didn’t make anything up. The way Gene describes these “intrusions” is what an annoyed person says.
Annoyed means slightly irritated. He isn’t only “noticing.”. And what “dubious claims of ancapism” can Gene possibly observe in a statist country? [Edited by RPM.]
Even the word “intrusion” implies annoyance.
Your and Gene’s ideology are making it impossible for you to think clearly.
Bob, I don’t know how serious this thread was, but I apologize for derailing it.
Where does Gene say he finds it more “oppressive”? He finds it more intrusive. Oppressive is your misrepresentation of what he said. Like the nazi/Singapore misrepresentation. He says he does not object to the rules.
So why did Callahan switch sides, does anyone know?
Thinking.
Weird, thinking is what made him an ancap, too.
You mean “right thinking”, surely.
He think good thought now, no think bad thoughts.
No, I mean he thought and changed his mind. He has said so.
The implication of the question, it seems to me from the side rhetoric, was some failing on Gene’s part.
But it’s not. It deserves respect that a man will rethink positions he so publicly committed himself to. You and others here might not recognize that, but you should.
Changing one’s mind for the worse does not deserve respect.
Why should I respect a man whose views now consist of advocating for my kidnapping, throwing into a cage to be likely sexually assaulted, for doing nothing except disagree with him on who I want to pay and solicit for protection and arbitration?
That is in fact a failing on his part.
He does not deserve my respect. I don’t expect you to understand this because you share his crazy views.
It is rather disturbing. However, some ancaps support very similar things for people that steal. (Some even think people should be allowed to kill thieves.) Many statists lack a strong theory of proportionality when it comes to the government. I’m guessing Callahan would be horrified if I caged someone for years after they tried to steal from me. The victim of my caging would surely gain the right to a large portion of my property. But when the government does this, Callahan continues to support them. Even if the government did have the right to all the property under it, they would have lost this right after the horrors they committed to property transgressors under any reasonable moral theory.
MF says anyone not an ancap wants to put him in a box for the same reason. That’s nearly 300 million just in the USA. And yet no-one has. That suggests MF is just wrong.
I for one do not want to put MF in a box; I oppose cruelty to boxes.
Ken B:
“MF says anyone not an ancap wants to put him in a box for the same reason. That’s nearly 300 million just in the USA. And yet no-one has. That suggests MF is just wrong.”
It suggests no such thing.
If I continue to not get caught, if I continue to appear as obedient to the state’s coercive demands, or ifI continue to actually obey and do what the state tells me to do with my own property, then there would be a much lower chance of me being kidnapped and thrown into a cage.
The fact that I personally have not yet been caught, or caught and thrown into a cage, does not mean that statism does not advocate for it.
If a Jew were pretending to be Aryan in 1941 Germany, or was hiding in someone’s attic, would they be wrong if they said Nazism supports them being thrown into gas chambers, simply because they personally have not had that happen to them?
No, that was not “equating social democracy with fascism”. That was showing you the flaws in your logic by applying it to a situation where even you are dimly aware of grasping how the logic is indeed flawed. You are falsely claiming that someone who isn’t personally caught, cannot make an argument about statist law and the consequences of breaking it.
[Insult removed. — RPM]
Ken B:
Ancaps are just the name I give to people who don’t support, who reject as immoral, the law of throwing people into cages just because they disagree with you about who they ought to pay for protection, namely those you call the state.
A statist is like someone who supports a person being thrown into a cage if they refuse to pay Microsoft for software, and who is falsely accused of agreeing to a contract with them simply because they refuse to leave the land you call a country.
Changing one’s mind based on thinking is certainly laudable, in principle. If the thinking is sound.
Do you know if he described what led him to it? How he found out that people really do not act, or that value can be measured or that aggression is fine in certain cases?
He has written extensively on what he sees as the errors of ancap. The brief answer is that reading Eric Vogelein convinced him there were problems he had ignored.
Again the issue is not wheter aggression is justified, but what constitutes aggression.
Link please? I’d like to learn what his idea of aggression is (and since the term is dependant on property rights, that too). I wasn’t successful with google.
His site has threads, which should help. Here is one
http://gene-callahan.blogspot.ca/search/label/anarcho-capitalism
I can tell you what his idea of aggression is not: what mf says it is.
That is what advocates of violence do to justify their advocacy and make it palatable: define certain acts of aggression as non-aggression by utilizing flawed and deceitful rhetoric such as “social contract”, and “duty to nation.”
Hey MF can you dial it back a bit? I don’t think you are going to change anybody’s mind by such inflammatory language, like a pro-life person casually referring to “baby murderers” even though I understand the moral judgment involved.
Ken B: thanks but thats just a link to his blog where I see random ad hoc short posts. Do you have a link to a systematic attempt to describe his worldview? Something like the opposite of “What libertarianism is” by Kinsella? Short, logical, substantial, to the core of the matter.
I just dont understand where specifically he thinks Rothbard is wrong.
Murphy,
Sorry, but you could explain where I was being “inflammatory”? In my mind I was just staying in line with the debate here. I was cool headed all throughout these posts. I don’t understand?
MF right, I know you were just trying to state things as you saw them, and not “being a jerk” just for sport (unlike some others, on both sides of the argument). But stuff like “That is what advocates of violence do to justify their advocacy and make it palatable: define certain acts of aggression as non-aggression by utilizing flawed and deceitful rhetoric such as “social contract”, and “duty to nation.” and saying how people want you to be sexually assaulted in a cage etc.
Jan, no. I just read his blog sometimes and his pretty good Austrian book, written before his conversion. He would tell you I expect if you ask him. Leave a question on his blog or find a contact email.
Jan, where Rothbard is wrong is in his books, between pages 1 and the final page, generally.
No, Carl, Ptolemy arrived at his model of the solar system by thinking; Copernicus thought through that model, and then thought some more, to get his model. Kepler thought even more, and got his model. Then Newton…
SOME thinking led me to a partial and one-sided understanding of political problems. MORE thinking led me to a better and more complete understanding. Ten years from now, I hope I will see more current views as inadequate.
What do you mean by “one sided”?
The problem with HOA’s is they are backed by police, courts and State. So modern HOA’s are not private law.
No to mention all the fiat money and favoritism that goes into funding these establishments. Not the build out per say but moreso the salaries of the occupants.
I learned from Gene’s post that he really needs to learn how to read the small print. In that sense he has taught us a valuable lesson. Other than that, I don’t know what his anecdote is supposed to reveal.
That’s probably it. If you were to reverse it and present that as proof (or an indicator at least) of functioning private government, he’d shoot it down and say that it’s all just in the shadow of the state.
I’ll just take the actual lesson and be happy with it.
Bob, I totally got the jokes you and rob *thought* you were making. What I didn’t get is why in the world you thought they worked!
Oh, and the reason your joke misfired so badly is that you misunderstood my post.
I understood your post, Gene.
Then why did you have to retract when Philippe nailed you for misrepresenting it?
He only retracted the joke, not his interpretation.
He didn’t get “nailed.”. He was being charitable.
Not at all surprised you can’t see that.
No. Otherwise you wouldn’t have thought that joke was a retort.
It is as though I explained the idea of a limit in calculus, and someone posts the “come back”: “Oh, so you think the amount of numbers is limited!”
It is obvious that they didn’t get the original explanation. And so it was obvious from your joke that you did not get the original post.
“In two weeks, my house in a private community has already garnered more security attention than the two houses I have owned in rural areas under the control of “statist” governments had in a dozen years.”
This is a great quote; definitely saving it for next time I have a discussion on privatized police. It’s like the old Gene Callahan is back!
I think Gene’s point is that even in privater communities there is still coercion and arbitrary rules. In other words, abolishing (or minimisinng) the state might leave us with the same problems.
That can’t be his point because he said he willingly bought a house there, and he didn’t even read the rules.
I’ll agree that this is something that can happen all over the place in ancapism, but if you notice, this problem is best solved by ancap method itself.
Imagine Gene’s problems being solved by everyone else who does not own a house in the poconos being taxed and regulated by the poconos “government”. Imagine that government saying to the people in neighboring states “as a citizen of poconosia, you owe me 30% of your revenues, amd if you don’t obey, then move to somalia. If you don’t move, then I will kidnap you, and throw you in a cage. And if you continue to resist, we’ll shoot you.”
Same problems? Sure, there might likely be “coercion” of some sort. But nowhere near the scope and extent. As bad as Gene’s “government” in the poconos is, ancapism prevents these problems from turning into “negative externalities.”
His point is that it is impossible to expect everyone to know every single minor rule before they move somewhere and that they would agree to all of them. No matter where you move, you will be subject to rules you don’t agree with. If you break these rules, you will be fined. If you don’t pay these fines you will be kidnapped and thrown in a cage as you eloquently put it.
The only difference I see between Gene’s example and the current US state is that of size. I don’t see why libertarians should replace the state with a multitude of petty tyrants and call it freedom.
Out of curiosity, what happens to the next generation? What if Gene has children? What right does the community have to impose their rules on these people who never signed any agreement?
“His point is that it is impossible to expect everyone to know every single minor rule before they move somewhere and that they would agree to all of them”
Is that something libertarians actually strive for, that everyone actually read their contracts? Or is it just the existence of an actual contract, that, say, the persnickety can actually read?
“The only difference I see between Gene’s example and the current US state is that of size. I don’t see why libertarians should replace the state with a multitude of petty tyrants and call it freedom.”
Don’t call it freedom then, just call it more options. Smaller states are easier to reign in and function better as well.
“Out of curiosity, what happens to the next generation? What if Gene has children? What right does the community have to impose their rules on these people who never signed any agreement?”
Seemingly, less of one, at best. I assume the children aren’t obliged to keep paying (rent, HOA fees, whatever) if they don’t want to.
Robert wrote:
Out of curiosity, what happens to the next generation? What if Gene has children? What right does the community have to impose their rules on these people who never signed any agreement?
Robert, if a lady goes into labor in the middle of a grocery store, do you think the newborn should be able to grab a bunch of baby formula off the shelves for free?
Sometimes I feel as if libertarians are being blamed for the existence of scarcity.
Completely missing the point. The point is not are children subject to rules, but did they agree to be. The pretense that everyone agrees to the rules is exploded by children. Rothbardians always bob and weave when the subject comes up. As Murphy did here.
Ha, you must mean *some Rothbardians sometime* as Rothbard went full-on into territory that, as Gene himself noted, would scare most people, as have other Rothbardians.
Yes, Bob has to keep missing the point of these examples in order to remain an ancap!
Sorry Bob, haven’t a clue what you are talking about. My point (as Ken B recognised) was that the next generation will face a choice, either live under laws they never agreed to (which would be no different from the coercion libertarians so often denounce) or be forced to leave their home (which is no different from telling libertarians that if they don’t like the laws in America they can emigrate)
So in other words, we’re back where we began and this private community is loittle different from a state.
There’s a rather simple and straightforward response.
“either live under laws they never agreed to (which would be no different from the coercion libertarians so often denounce) or be forced to leave their home (which is no different from telling libertarians that if they don’t like the laws in America they can emigrate)”
From a rights-perspective it doesn’t matter, the property would be legitimately owned and the contracts would be explicit. The libertarian would still have that leg to stand on. (You’ve hypothetically kicked out their consequentialist leg, assuming they have one)
“So in other words, we’re back where we began and this private community is loittle different from a state.”
Indeed. They have an escape mechanism though; if people truly don’t like the contract and leave and newcomers don’t come in the unowned homes are up for homesteading again.
I’m not sure whether states have anything comparable to this or not.
Robert:
A state throwing a person out of their own homesteaded home is not the same thing as a homesteader throwing a person out of their own home.
Ancap ethics does not promise “no throwing out of homes or off lands.”
At least you recognize this difference, since you included “little” in front of “difference.”
But it is a big difference, as different as me throwing you out of your own home, and you throwing an unwelcome guest out of your own home.
it is impossible to expect everyone to know every single minor rule before they move somewhere and that they would agree to all of them.
That’s why you hire lawyers. That’s why you might want to sign up with a chain of private neighborhoods which have the same rules and access to the same courts and attorneys wherever you go.
Neighborhoods that even think about evicting newborns might find their water supply and ingress and egress cut off.
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/05/libertarian-battles.html#comment-488156
Roddis, STOP THINKING.
In order to make the statist argument seem one iota plausible, we have to assume everyone are stupid morons who can’t solve their problems except through deferring all important thinking to a property rights violating territorial monopolist of “protection”…uh, against coercion.
You start talking about division of labor, where contract specialists arise who “vet” the contract offers of private communities, and if you start talking about social media communications of these contracts, then the “help me mommy and daddy government!” argument falls apart.
Robert:
No, his point is that he chose to not read the contract. Not that it is impossible. It is not impossible. I did it.
The way you compare private communities and states as only differing in size, shows you don’t understand what a state even is. To you rules and enforcement seem to be enough. But a state is a peculiar entity. It has nothing to do with size of land. Monaco is a state and so is Russia. It is not size of land that makes a state a state, it is whether or not group A violates the property rights of others in a particular way that is specific to states. Namely, a state is formed if one group of land property owners initiate threats of violence over oother land property owners if those other land property owners don’t pay and respect the dispute resolution “services” of the aggressive group in question. Group A demands from other property owners the naked aggression threat of “pay me and obey my rules, or else.”
If one group of property owners does this to other property owners over a given territory of separately owned lands, and they continually do this, if they continually extract wealth and continually impose rules on others, then that group is a state. A state is a gang writ large.
Contrast this with Gene’s police state oppression in the poconos, and it does not consist of one group of property owners threatening other property owners with violence if they don’t pay and obey. It is one group of property owners who have set ground rules for their own lands, not other people’s lands. It is just like you setting house rules for your own home, that guests must adhere to. That doesn’t make you a state because you’re not threatening other land owners with violence if they don’t pay you for “protection.”
Regarding the children being born into a community of laws, if you reject the notion that the unborn ought not be subject to the rules their forefathers signed, then poof goes the constitution and any possibility of a state continuing past the lives of those who formed it.
If on the other hand you say children should be subject to the rules of the contracts their parents signed, then every concievable systems of laws would have this.
Either way, the argument for a state is not supported by these considerations.
To answer your point more directly, it would of course depend on the rules of the given property owner. If I rented out my basement to a couple who are expecting, and the baby is born in my house, then we can always sign a contract that says any children must abide by the same rules as long as they live there, which is land the children of course did not homestead or trade for, so they cannot set their own rules.
Could this lead to problems? Of course. But again, whatever the problems at a given private community, they can’t externalize those problems and threaten other property owners with violence if they don’t finance the problem solving there, the way states do. Problems are more localized to the lands owned by the morons who behave moronically. Those who have better rules, better laws, better opportunities, can prosper without harassment.
Sorry, if you *accept* the notion…
You seem to define the state as oppression, which explains the conclusions you draw but is not correct. If a housing estate was to group together under common rules, then they would be a state (presuming of course they are not already in one). There is no need for oppression or some under housing estate to be subject to these rules.
With all your talk of aggression, you probably realise that Gene’s private community is also based on aggression. If you failed to pay the fees or get the permits he speaks of, then the result would be the same as if you did not pay your taxes. Abolsihing the state won’t abolish aggression.
Robert:
I define aggression as initiations of force or threats of force against an individual’s person or property.
I include any and all people in the group of “oppressors” who violate people’s property rights. It just so happens that states are included in this category.
I don’t merely define states as oppressive. That is something I conclude based on principles abstracted from all social systems.
Yes, it is correct to say that states are oppressive, if we define oppression as violations of property rights.
What you described as a “housing estate grouped together under common rules”, is not necessarily a state, because in that scenario they are not demanding to be paid by other property owners NOT in that estate.
A state is formed when some property owners decide to threaten other property owners with violence if they don’t turn over their money property and don’t use their land and other property in ways the aggressors approve. It is a naked act of violence that forms states.
What you describe is just a private ancap community.
Gene’s community is not ” based on aggression.” It is not enough to conclude it is “based” on aggression by how it would react to contract violations, or invaders for that matter.
The fact that I am willing to use force in response to thieves and home invaders, is not sufficient to conclude that my home ownership is “based on violence.” I did not come to own my house through violence, and my continual ownership does not require violence. I am still the rightful owner even if I am forcefully ejected by an aggressor. I would not be a possessor though. Ownership and possession are distinct.
Abolishing the state will not abolish aggression? We don’t want to secede from the state to abolish all aggression. We want to abolish the state to reduce aggression and eliminate state aggression.
Defending one’s property with force is not “aggression.”. It is defending against and stopping aggression.
Robert and MF, you’re using different conceptions of the state, one Aristotilian (seemingly), one Weberian (probably).
Fixed everything.
I define the state Weberian..ly.
Robert, have you noticed that according to some here the government, of its millions upon millions of actions, has never, not once, done anything good?
I can only speak for myself:
It is because I don’t think of the state as a person who acts.
I think only individuals can do good.
Ancapism is a method of acting. It is a process.
Individuals cannot do good when they aggress against other people.
Statesmen who do good, do so not by using statist means.
You have likely never used the state process a day in your lofe. You utilize ancapism as a process. Your actions are ancap actions.
States don’t do millions of actions. Many thousands of individuals have done many actions, and for statesmen, some of those actions were statist. Nothing good has come out of those actions, because those actions harmed other people.
You are engaging in what Mises called a pitfall of clear thinking: Hypostatization.