24 Aug 2014

A Different Approach to Law Enforcement

Religious 174 Comments

The more I delved into pacifism, the more I began to question humanity’s entire approach to punitive law enforcement. Yes, obviously it would be better to have “voluntary prisons” (yes there’s a sense in which that’s an oxymoron, but also an important sense in which it’s not) rather than the State version. However, I wonder if the very notion of punishing lawbreakers by physically segregating them from society is the best remedy. Obviously people have the right to tell a criminal to get off their land, I’m just wondering whether that perpetuates the cycles of crime in general and violence in particular. In short, I wonder if the very existence of prisons actually breeds more crime, all things considered.

(I realize people will be quick to say, “You idiot! Your pacifist utopia would be overrun by bank robbers and serial killers!” But then again, right-wing warhawks also told Ron Paul fans with supreme confidence that the U.S. would be overrun by Muslims if we followed his naive foreign policy. So I don’t expect libertarian non-pacifists to be persuaded in one fell swoop, but I hope you recognize why your objections don’t bowl me over, either. Before you jump on me, consider: Without prisons or other violent law enforcement, the State couldn’t exist. So you wouldn’t have taxes, the Drug War, etc., or at least you would have very neutered versions of all those things.)

Anyway, my point in bringing this up is that it sheds light for me on controversial Christian doctrine. Consider this passage from Romans 7: 1-6:

7 Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives? 2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. 3 So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.

4 So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For when we were in the realm of the flesh,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. 6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

I’ll let those who have studied Christian doctrine hash it out in the comments; the interpretation of the above passages are very controversial, even within a given sect.

For the purposes of this post, however, I want to take the argument this way: It is plausible for me to conjecture that the ultimate motivation for sin is a psychological hole or weakness. For example, to understand why someone becomes a mass murderer, I don’t think the answer lies in society’s inadequate punishment for this behavior, the way we might explain a shortage of water bottles as due to improper incentives. Instead I would want to look at this person’s past and see if there are clues there.

More generally, I think we can explain an enormous amount of bad behavior as being ultimately due to fear.

Now then, suppose that the best way to get humans to stop sinning is NOT to threaten them with eternal torment, but instead to assure them that no matter what they do, the most holy and perfect Being in the universe loves them infinitely and is looking forward to spending eternity with them in paradise. When people truly relax and their fears melt away–because they know they lack the power to ruin their own salvation–then their natural inclination is to reflect God’s love on everyone around them. Yes, they could “be a serial killer and still get into heaven,” but why would they want to do that?

174 Responses to “A Different Approach to Law Enforcement”

  1. Darien says:

    Virtually no opinion I hold on anything has earned me as much outright vitriol as has my pacifism. I actually had another professed anarcho-capitalist describe me as a “psychopath” who supports child rape because I didn’t think it would be morally acceptable to lynch government employees.

    • Gamble says:

      Yes Darien as Dave Mustaine screams, “Peace sales but whose buying.”

      Last week at Bible study, 1 of the elder Deacons twisted Blessed are the peacemakers, into a call for war. I challenged him. Ultimately I was ganged up on and the Pastor laid the final blow. ” This isn’t all kumbaya!” Never mind I quoted scripture in which Jesus says Matt 26:53
      Jesus’ Betrayal and Arrest
      …52Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. 53″Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54″How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?”…

      Of course Pastor has military son, as did many of the men at Bible study or they themselves are vets. Glad I do not worship false god of Mars.

      I understand defense but the Bible clearly says
      Psalms 11:5…4The LORD is in His holy temple; the LORD’S throne is in heaven; His eyes behold, His eyelids test the sons of men. 5The LORD tests the righteous and the wicked, And the one who loves violence His soul hates. 6Upon the wicked He will rain snares; Fire and brimstone and burning wind will be the portion of their cup.…

      STOP LOVING VIOLENCE.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Darien yeah people would email me and tell me I was “pure evil” etc. when I wrote my pacifism series at LRC.

      • JimS says:

        What does Bob Murphy do when he witnesses a crime?

      • Z says:

        Bob, if I wasn’t a moral nihilist, I might just become a pacifist because of your articles.

  2. Ivan Jankovic says:

    So, you think that most violent criminals are Christian believers who just release their frustration with the perspective of hell by killing, robbing, raping and so on? And that their destructive and violent behavior could be moderated or eliminated by slightly tweaking the Christian theological message? Are you serious? I mean, progressives with their “social rehabilitation” of rapists and murderers have a more realistic concept of human nature.

    • Philippe says:

      what about those religious mass murderers who believe that God wants to them to kill people?

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Ivan wrote:

      So, you think that most violent criminals are Christian believers who just release their frustration with the perspective of hell by killing, robbing, raping and so on?

      No, I’m actually amazed that you could possibly have thought that’s what I was arguing.

      • Ivan Jankovic says:

        Bob, this passage looked to me as very closely approximating my description”

        “Now then, suppose that the best way to get humans to stop sinning is NOT to threaten them with eternal torment, but instead to assure them that no matter what they do, the most holy and perfect Being in the universe loves them infinitely and is looking forward to spending eternity with them in paradise. When people truly relax and their fears melt away–because they know they lack the power to ruin their own salvation–then their natural inclination is to reflect God’s love on everyone around them. Yes, they could “be a serial killer and still get into heaven,” but why would they want to do that?”

        • Ivan Jankovic says:

          The question is: what makes you believe the hard-core criminals, killers or rapists give a damn about the “Supreme Being in the universe”, whether this Being loves them or hates them, about life after death and all other Christian theological concepts?

          • Ivan Jankovic says:

            And moreover: what to do with sinners among the two billion Buddhists who do not have any concept of celestial Supreme Being, who moreover think that any talk about such a Being represents just a dangerous mental delusion that only distracts from and hinders personal enlightenment?

            • Drigan says:

              He’s saying that people don’t feel that they are loved. If they were to feel loved, they wouldn’t have a need to lash out.

              • Ivan Jankovic says:

                And he (and you) say that kind of seriously, not as a joke, don’t you?

              • Bob Murphy says:

                Ivan do you need a hug?

  3. Philippe says:

    why did you leave out the next part? It clarifies what is meant by the part you quoted:

    “7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”[b] 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

    13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.”

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Philippe I left that part out because I wanted to isolate the statement that the law no longer binds the believer in Christ. But I left the elaboration in the link I provided.

      • Philippe says:

        In the following part:

        Romans 8

        “8 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering.[c] And so he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”

        This suggests Christians are bound by the ‘law of the spirit’.

        It also goes on to say:

        “And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.”

      • Tel says:

        The law may no longer bind them, but the police and prison will bind their physical manifestation. Not a problem if you are immortal, but can be a setback for a guy like me.

  4. Neil says:

    Pacifism is, in my view, extreme. It allows no place for martial activity of any sort, at any time. Pacificm denies man the martial aspect of his existence in the same way that Rome’s doctrine of mandatory celebacy denies the venereal aspect. However, is there not a time, and a place, and a season for everything? When the genuine time to fight arises, denying that such a time exists leads to cowardice and subsequent harm to the weak and innocent among us.

    • Z says:

      No, there is not necessarily a time and a place and a season for everything. I mean, there could be but I don’t see how you think that is obviously so.

      • Grane Peer says:

        Yes it is, unless you think the bible is for the byrds

  5. Philippe says:

    Bob,

    There’s really no such thing as voluntary law. Even if most people voluntarily abide by it.

    Those people who choose not to abide by it, who choose to break the law, are liable to face some sort of penalty or punishment, regardless of whether they consent to it.

    • Philippe says:

      given that law is not voluntary, it’s difficult to conclude that this ideology you present, or the language you use to promote it, is anything other than logically incoherent.

      • Z says:

        Maybe not voluntary law, but I think Bob may be talking about voluntary morality, which is slightly different.

        • Philippe says:

          Bob’s talking about a couple of different things in this post.

          Bob claims that in an ancap society law would be private and voluntary.

          But there is no such thing as voluntary law.

          Ancapism is not ‘voluntary’… claiming that it is makes no sense.

          • K.P. says:

            Is that the meaning of “voluntary law” or is it simply that the system(s) of rules (also known as “law”) is formed and paid for on a voluntary basis? That is, people mail their monthly premiums to Al’s Protection Racket for reasons other than Al threatening them.

            I think Bob is among the few who would take it even further to almost Amish levels of non-enforcement.

            • Philippe says:

              “Is that the meaning of “voluntary law” or is it simply that the system(s) of rules (also known as “law”) is formed and paid for on a voluntary basis?”

              Law is the system of rules that applies even in those cases where individuals don’t agree with it, or choose not to abide by it.

              Breaking the law isn’t an option you can choose without being liable to be subjected to law enforcement and whatever penalties or punishments that might entail. So law isn’t ‘voluntarily formed’ even if most people agree with it and want to abide by it.

              • K.P. says:

                You seemed to have skipped completely past my question and just repeated yourself friend.

              • Philippe says:

                you asked me whether ‘voluntary law’ means a system of rules that is formed on a voluntary basis. I replied that law is not formed on a voluntary basis, even if most people agree with it.

              • K.P. says:

                “you asked me whether ‘voluntary law’ means a system of rules that is formed on a voluntary basis. I replied that law is not formed on a voluntary basis, even if most people agree with it.”

                Yes, precisely. You didn’t engage the question posed.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                You say the law is only that which “applies” even when people don’t agree with it.

                How can a law “apply”?

              • Philippe says:

                “You didn’t engage the question posed”

                Do you think that replying to a question means not engaging with the question?

              • Philippe says:

                mf

                “How can a law “apply”?”

                what do you mean? This is a standard English expression.

              • K.P. says:

                “Do you think that replying to a question means not engaging with the question?”

                Not when the reply consists of mere repetition.

                (This might be a neat philosophical question about whether bots or even parrots are “truly engaging” but I’ll stick to the simple route for now.)

              • Philippe says:

                kp,

                would ancap law be enforced even if certain people didn’t agree with it or chose not to abide by it? Yes. So it’s not voluntary.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                I’d like you to explain it in your own words, in terms of people’s actions.

              • Philippe says:

                why don’t you explain it in your own words, given that you have some sort of point to make.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Actually I prefer if you did, because I don’t exactly know what you mean by “applies” in terms of actions, i.e. who does what.

                You keep claiming the law is that which “applies” even if people don’t agree to it.

              • Philippe says:

                I said a number of times that the law is enforced if people break it. Of course in cases people can get away with it… but breaking the law means you are liable to face law enforcement. This means you will be made to comply with it.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “I said a number of times that the law is enforced if people break it. Of course in cases people can get away with it… but breaking the law means you are liable to face law enforcement. This means you will be made to comply with it.

                Enforced by who? How can you know if the laws being enforced are just?

            • K.P. says:

              Philippe,

              If the meaning of “voluntary law” is the very thing in question is it not a fallacy to fall back on a particular definition?

              • Philippe says:

                by ‘voluntary law’ do you mean a law which is never enforced in any situation?

              • Philippe says:

                or in other words, rules which are never enforced?

                Not really rules in that case, are they.

              • K.P. says:

                Nope. In fact, I’d remove the focus from it’s enforcement almost entirely. (See my first post).

              • Philippe says:

                it’s not a question of focus but of logical coherence.

                If rules are enforced in cases where people don’t agree with them, or consent to them, or choose to abide by them, then they are not voluntary. They are not ‘formed on a voluntary basis’.

                So by ‘voluntary law’ you must be referring to law which is never enforced, which is not really law at all, just an idea.

              • K.P. says:

                The logic rests entirely on the definition of the word. *The very thing in dispute.*

                You’re falling into the same trap, repeatedly.

              • Philippe says:

                No, I’m not falling into any sort of trap.

                It’s odd because you said ‘bingo’ in response to mf’s comment, where he explains that ancap law is not voluntary.

                But at the same time you seem to think that maybe it is voluntary. Perhaps this sort of doublethink is what passes for logic?

              • K.P. says:

                You’ll have to re-read what you’ve written then, as I’ve posited that there is an alternate meaning being used and you’ve just repeatedly sputtered.

                “It’s odd because you said ‘bingo’ in response to mf’s comment, where he explains that ancap law is not voluntary.”

                Only odd if you can’t understand that word can have multiple meanings and be used in different senses.

                Do you understand (or accept) that words can be used in different sense by chance?

              • Philippe says:

                “there is an alternate meaning being used”

                state what you think this alternate meaning is. Clearly please,

              • K.P. says:

                MF seems to be hitting the same point as myself, but I’ll try to make yet another brief explanation.

                The law is “voluntary” because people opt-in because of the benefits of doing so.

                That’s all.

                It need not have any consideration of the Outsider or Rogue who doesn’t acknowledge the authority of the property owners or one’s bodily integrity for this sense to maintain internal consistency. It’s “voluntary” between the members (and possible cooperating agencies)

                Obviously this does not match your own use of “voluntary” and may not fit Bob’s either, it’s just an easy way of understanding it.

              • Philippe says:

                “It need not have any consideration of the Outsider or Rogue who doesn’t acknowledge the authority of the property owners”

                You do realize that in the existing society, under the existing law, ancaps are the outsiders or rogues who don’t acknowledge the legitimacy of the existing legal authority?

              • Philippe says:

                not the only ones, of course.

              • Ken B says:

                It’s a simple point. MF decides to opt out. Then he tries to kill Philippe. Is MF subject to penalty? He hasn’t volunteered to be. If Philippe applies the law, or a law, against MF he does so against MF’s will.

              • Philippe says:

                “the authority of the property owners”

                law determines who legally owns what, and what property rights legally are.

                When you say “the authority of the property owners”, you mean “the authority of law”.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “You do realize that in the existing society, under the existing law, ancaps are the outsiders or rogues who don’t acknowledge the legitimacy of the existing legal authority?”

                You do realize that improvements to any system of law enforcement requires and necessitates a delegitimacy of those laws that are viewed as ones in need of change/elimination, don’t you?

                Unless you blindly accept any and all state law, you seek to delegitimize certain laws enforced in society.

                Ancaps are going about it the same way. We seek to delegitimize laws concerning, among other laws, coercive territorial monopolies of protection that violate homesteader rights.

                Whether at this time there is sufficient popular support for ancap law is distinct from whether ancap law is just. After all, you agree that the majority in a democracy can pass unjust laws.

                If you can go against the majority, why can’t ancaps?

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Ken B:

                The only reason you piped in is to posit the “hypothetical” scenario of me being a murderer.

                If anyone is going to murder anyone else, it will be you and and Philippe, since both of you claim it is ethically just to violate people’s property rights.

              • K.P. says:

                “You do realize that in the existing society, under the existing law, ancaps are the outsiders or rogues who don’t acknowledge the legitimacy of the existing legal authority?”

                Sure, that makes no difference to the point at hand though. It’s not like I believe in any “right” system.

                “law determines who legally owns what, and what property rights legally are.”

                Nah, it *can* but it need not. “First occupation” followed by “long occupation” determine who owns what. Convention between owners trying to safeguard said property becomes law. I think Hume would be helpful here.

                “When you say “the authority of the property owners”, you mean “the authority of law”.”

                No. The law – in this case, especially – only exists because of the property owners. No reason to muddy the waters.

                (Not that these distinctions actually matter, as they are all beside the point)

              • K.P. says:

                “It’s a simple point. MF decides to opt out. Then he tries to kill Philippe. Is MF subject to penalty? He hasn’t volunteered to be. If Philippe applies the law, or a law, against MF he does so against MF’s will.”

                Assuming Philippe is a member then, yes, he would apply the law against MF’s will. MF’s will is, of course, irrelevant in this case. What’s relevant is the relationship between Philippe and his “agency”, nothing more.

                Hope that made it clear.

              • Philippe says:

                “Unless you blindly accept any and all state law, you seek to delegitimize certain laws enforced in society.”

                Yes. Not relevant to my point though.

                “If you can go against the majority, why can’t ancaps?”

                I didn’t say you can’t. KP said the law doesn’t care about the outsiders who don’t agree.

                “both of you claim it is ethically just to violate people’s property rights”

                No, I disagree with you on what property rights are.

                “Nah, it *can* but it need not”

                Yes, it must. For something to be legally owned, it must be recognised in law as such. The clue is in the word ‘legal’.

                “First occupation” followed by “long occupation” determine who owns what”

                According to who? You?

                “Convention between owners trying to safeguard said property becomes law.”

                Are you referring to existing property law or imagined property law in ancapistan? Hume wasn’t an ancap.

                “The law – in this case, especially – only exists because of the property owners.”

                So the existing law, which you claim violates property rights, ‘only exists because of property owners’. Hmm. Or are you maybe talking about imagined law in ancapistan?

              • K.P. says:

                “law determines who legally owns what, and what property rights legally are.”

                That’s a good point, but meaningless. Who owns what comes first, that’s all that matters. Call it pre-law if you’d prefer.

                “Are you referring to existing property law or imagined property law in ancapistan? Hume wasn’t an ancap.”

                Existing.

                “So the existing law, which you claim violates property rights, ‘only exists because of property owners’. Hmm. Or are you maybe talking about imagined law in ancapistan?”

                Never made that claim. Try again.

              • Philippe says:

                you don’t think that existing law violates property rights as you see them?

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “Yes. Not relevant to my point though.”

                Relevant to mine.

                You, like me, seek to delegitimize certain laws that are the result of democratic processes. This is you selfishly placing your ethical values above the majority values that are the cause of existing law. You want to change existing law. So do I. You think certain existing laws are unjust. So do I.

                You ACT in accordance with ancap law. So do I.

                The only real difference between you and I is that I practise what I preach, whereas you do not.

                “If you can go against the majority, why can’t ancaps?”

                “I didn’t say you can’t.”

                But you took the time amd effort to emphasize that. Why? If you accept that I can go against what the majority believes should be law, why make it a point that what I think is not in line with what most people wqnt for laws? Why do you keep repeating the fact that what I want is not what the majority wants?

                “KP said the law doesn’t care about the outsiders who don’t agree.”

                Ancap law only extends to the lands owned by individuals who abide by it. It does not extent into other people’s lands. It only sets up a barrier of defense around ancap lands. No ancap is permitted to trespass onto other people’s lands and start imposing any laws on the owners. That is what KP meant. Ancap law does not have anything to say about what non-ancaps do on their own lands. If you want to “support” baby killing psychopaths wearing “US government” badges on YOUR land, then go right ahead. Just don’t impose your desired way of life onto other people’s lands. Ancapism just says let the individual property owner decide for himself who he deals with and who he does not want to deal with. That law universalized allows mutually consensual, voluntary trade, travel, mobility, and productive cooperation.

                “both of you claim it is ethically just to violate people’s property rights”

                “No, I disagree with you on what property rights are.”

                Right, you claim it is ethically just to violate people’s property rights. You just call it something different using magical words like “tax revenue property”, where only certain people can legally tax, whereas for others it is illegal to tax. As mentioned in a prior post of mine to you, you want different laws to apply to different people.

                Your claimed ideal has some people abiding by laws of tax collecting, printing and spending, and regulating and law impositions, whereas other people are legally disallowed from engaging in these actions. One group one law applies, everyone else anotherz indeed opposite, law applies.

                Ancap law is superior because the same laws apply to everyone. There is no different laws for different people.

                Your agreement is not actually necessary for determing what is just or ethical. Your disagreement IN ACTION is just you trespassing, stealing, or initiating violence against people.

                “For something to be legally owned, it must be recognised in law as such. The clue is in the word ‘legal’.”

                False. A homesteader owns what he homesteaded regardless of what you say. Your version of ideal law is not just law, for your version of ideal law would grant ownership of lands to latecomers. I see no rational justification for why a latecomer has more of a right to land than the homesteader.

                “According to who? You?”

                Not who. What. The what is reason.

                “Convention between owners trying to safeguard said property becomes law.”

                Hume does not need to have been an ancap for one of his arguments to be useful for making an ancap argument.

              • K.P. says:

                “you don’t think that existing law violates property rights as you see them?”

                No, I don’t really view rights in general as existing independent of law or convention. (This probably distinguishes me from most progressives/liberals and libertarians here but so much for them…)

                That doesn’t mean the law isn’t onerous or unnecessary as it stands but that’s, of course, a separate matter.

              • Philippe says:

                kp

                “No, I don’t really view rights in general as existing independent of law or convention. ”

                law and convention can be opposed… they are not necessarily the same thing.

              • K.P. says:

                “law and convention can be opposed… they are not necessarily the same thing.”

                Sure, didn’t say otherwise.

              • Philippe says:

                mf

                “Why do you keep repeating the fact that what I want is not what the majority wants?”

                descriptions of ancapism usually try to paint it as the normal, agreed upon ideology among the population (Bob Murphy often does this in his texts)… in reality it isn’t.

                Ancap norms are radically different to mainstream social norms… ancaps are ‘deviants’ from normal morality and political beliefs.

                You guys use a rhetorical tactic whereby you try to make it sound like what you want is just normal things which most people agree with, whilst simultaneously calling for a radical and totally unpopular socio-political change. You can’t have it both ways.

              • Philippe says:

                also you often attack the legitimacy of majority opinion, whilst simultaneously presenting ancap world as legitimate because it accords with majority opinion (again, see Bob Murphy)…

                For some reason the answer is always ancapism, even though the various reasons may be completely contradictory.

              • Philippe says:

                not to mention ‘voluntary but not voluntary’.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “descriptions of ancapism usually try to paint it as the normal, agreed upon ideology among the population (Bob Murphy often does this in his texts)… in reality it isn’t.”

                The PRINCIPLE is perfectly normal. Non-aggression is morally just, aggression is unjust. Ancaps just extend it to the people in the state as well.

                Roddis is who thinks it is normal, nit Murphy. And it is normal. Most people agree with the principle behind ancapism.

                “Ancap norms are radically different to mainstream social norms… ancaps are ‘deviants’ from normal morality and political beliefs.”

                Not really. They are not radically different at all. Most people believe trespassing is morally wrong. Most people believe theft and murder are morally wrong. Ancapism is just a consistent application of a principle considered sane and normal in civilized society.

                The fact of its consistent application is not popular to be surez but Roddis nor myself ever said that anti-statism is the part that is normal.

                “You guys use a rhetorical tactic whereby you try to make it sound like what you want is just normal things which most people agree with, whilst simultaneously calling for a radical and totally unpopular socio-political change. You can’t have it both ways.”

                Sure we can. Applying a normal principle that virtually everyone already agrees with, in more than just the “citizenry” portion of the population, is not radical at all. It is a small change that you only believe is radical because thinking consistently and logically is radical to you. You have always thought that it is normal to refrain from consistent application of a principle you yourself were taught to abide by in your day to day life.

                “also you often attack the legitimacy of majority opinion, whilst simultaneously presenting ancap world as legitimate because it accords with majority opinion (again, see Bob Murphy)…”

                How is that wrong? It is not wrong to say that majority opinion does not make an ethic justified or unjustified, whilst simultaneously saying that the principle behind ancapism is accepted by the majority for the majority of people. To state a fact of statistical belief is not to say that this is the reason ancap is morally justified.

                “For some reason the answer is always ancapism, even though the various reasons may be completely contradictory.”

                Contradictions such as what? You haven’t shown any!

                “Not to mention ‘voluntary but not voluntary’.”

                I’ve already explained more than once that that argument means voluntary for some people, and involuntary for other people. It is not a contradiction. There is nore than one person in the world you know. Do you deny that the same law can be accepted by some even as just if it weren’t law, while others can reject it as unjust even if it were? That is all “voluntary and involuntary” means. It depends on what an individual thinks about a given law.

                It is not a contradiction because it isn’t referring to one and the same person.

              • Philippe says:

                “voluntary for some people, and involuntary for other people. It is not a contradiction”

                It’s an obvious contradiction.

                If I say:

                “you can pay me $100 if you want to, but you can’t not pay me $100, even if you don’t want to”

                it’s not voluntary, is it.

                .

              • Philippe says:

                or simpler:

                “you can pay me $100 if you want to, but you can’t not pay me $100.”

                So can you choose to not pay me $100?

                No.

                Paying me $100 is not voluntary. You must pay me $100 regardless of what you think about it.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Philippe, do you see any distinction between two people agreeing beforehand on who will be the arbiter in their dispute, versus at least one party being “forced” to submit to a judge over whom he had no influence at all?

      • Philippe says:

        that has nothing to do with law being ‘voluntary’.

        If a guy breaks into your home and takes a load of things, do you only arrest and imprison him if he agrees to go to arbitration to resolve your ‘dispute’?

        • Philippe says:

          arbitration is only useful when people already agree with each other enough to cooperate and use arbitration, and then abide by the outcome. Law is what applies even when people don’t agree and don’t cooperate.

          • Philippe says:

            Bob, I just read this article by you:

            http://mises.org/daily/4683

            In it you say:

            “But what if Thad didn’t agree to any of the judges on my list? Suppose he recommended instead that we use his brother-in-law, who was actually a car mechanic but, according to Thad, “is a really stand-up guy”? Obviously every reasonable person in the community would see that Thad almost certainly was a thief, and that I was telling the truth. If I went to a reputable judge and presented my case against Thad in his absence, and if the judge agreed with me, then the community would have little sympathy for Thad if I went with professional repo men to retrieve my laptop from Thad’s house.”

            Could you please explain to me how this is voluntary?

        • Major.Freedom says:

          Philippe:

          There is voluntary arbitration associated with voluntary contracting, and then there is defense of property rights in the absence of voluntary contracts.

          What you are talking about is law that is enforced in the absence of any contract that would allow the home invader to enter the home and steal belongings.

          The law that is enforced against the home invader is the law that applies to everyone in the absence of voluntary contracts: defense of individual property.

          You’re right, the law enforced here is not “voluntary” because obviously the home invader is assumed here to not have agreed to any arbitrator. But that doesn’t mean voluntary law is an impossibility. The seeming gap here that makes it look like ancap law is “involuntary” just like statist law, is that ancap law contains the positive universal law of individual property rights. That is what distinguishes it from statist law. This is not actually involuntary in general. It is voluntary with respect to the property owners, but involuntary with respect to property rights violators.

          State law requires a general consensus that is “external” to the state itself. The consensus must be there, and then the state becomes possible. That consensus is not imposed by state law. State law is ultimately imposed by consensus. This consensus is not fixed. There is no inevitable, law of nature set of beliefs and ideals that makes states or state law inevitable. Specific ideas that are perpetuated are required to maintain and perpetuate states and state law.

          Specific ideas are also required to maintain ancap law. State law in the form of democracy requires the idea that the majority should rule everyone. Ancap law requires the idea that the majority should not rule all, but rather just themselves, i.e. the majority, if that is what the individuals in the majority want to do with their persons and property.

          Ancap law requires a higher degree of respect for individual freedom than democracy. Ancap law forbids the majority from imposing laws on the minority that are themselves threats of initiations of force against the minority. Ancap law is that any given individual can only rule themselves, i.e. their own persons and property, which is to say the individual cannot can impose any law on other people’s persons or property that are initiations of force, or, in short, no individual is allowed to initiate force against any other individual’s persons or property.

          You’re right, arbitration is only useful when people already agree with each other. But then why is that so unsettling? States can only arise with broad consensus as well. Ancap law just goes further and says the majority is not enough to force everyone into obeying the majority law. Ancap law requires the individual to agree to any law that is anything other than stopping them from initiating force.

          For example, if the majority want to pass a law that says 10% of each person’s income will be collected to finance particular projects, then they cannot impose that law on any individual who does not want to entern into such a contract, because it is something other than defense against property rights violations. The only law that can be enforced without the individual’s consent, is stopping them from violating other people’s property rights. The reason this one seeming “caveat” is present, is because it is in fact a universalization of preventing the individual from imposing their own laws on others that are initiations of force.

          Law is not just what applies when people don’t agree. Law is also what people agree to abide by and follow in order to acquire the benefits of trade and cooperation.

          No law can be enforced without at least SOME people agreeing to it.

          • Major.Freedom says:

            Philippe:

            I am content with enforcing property rights that are “involuntary” in the minds of property violators, i.e. murderers, rapists, and thieves, among other violent criminals.

            • K.P. says:

              Bingo. This is all over semantics not substance.

            • Philippe says:

              “You’re right, the law enforced here is not “voluntary”

              So you agree that ancap law is not voluntary.

              “ancap law contains the positive universal law of individual property rights. That is what distinguishes it from statist law. This is not actually involuntary in general. It is voluntary with respect to the property owners, but involuntary with respect to property rights violators.”

              So again you agree that ancap law is not voluntary.

              So why does Bob Murphy claim that in an ancap society law would be voluntary?

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “So you agree that ancap law is not voluntary.”

                Not to violent property rights violators, no. But that is the point. It is to stop involuntary impositions that are themselves initiations of force against person or property.

                But for those who do respect property rights, such as yourself, LK, everyone on this blog, ancap law is voluntary.

                Ancap law is both voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary for peaceful people, involuntary for those who seek to themselves impose involuntary laws that are initiations of force.

                “So again you agree that ancap law is not voluntary.”

                It is both. It is not either or. It is voluntary for the individual, involuntary for those who want to involuntarily impose upon others.

                “So why does Bob Murphy claim that in an ancap society law would be voluntary?”

                He was making a point about the voluntary aspect of ancap law. Those laws that are not themselves initiations of force against individual person or property, are all voluntary ancap laws. He was making a point about the voluntary creation of institutions of security and protection. Similar to states, except instead of only a majority support needed to justify actions against the individual, you need that individual’s personal consent.

              • Philippe says:

                “But for those who do respect property rights, such as yourself”

                But I don’t agree with the fringe ancap theory of property rights. Nor do most people.

                “Ancap law is both voluntary and involuntary”

                That’s called a contradiction in terms.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “But I don’t agree with the fringe ancap theory of property rights. Nor do most people.”

                That statement does does not justify any “but.”. I said you respect people’s property rights. Ancap law is voluntary to you.

                I don’t care what you say in this particular context. It is what you do. What you are doing is respecting people’s property rights. Ancap law is voluntary to you.

                “That’s called a contradiction in terms.”

                No it isn’t, because the context in which I made that argument is of a population of people some of whom accept and abide by it, for example yourself, and other people who do not abide by it, such as thieves and rapists and trespassers.

                It is not a contradiction to say that ancap law is both voluntary and involuntary if these terms are referring to the ideas and actions of different people.

                Voluntary for those who choose to respect property rights, involuntary for those who do not.

                Ancap law is volumtary with respect your actions.

              • Philippe says:

                “I said you respect people’s property rights”

                I don’t define property rights in the way that ancaps do. Neither do the overwhelming majority of people.

                “What you are doing is respecting people’s property rights.”

                The property rights which exist in this society are not the same as those described by ancap theory.

                Ancap theorists actually disagree amongst themselves on what they believe to be property rights anyway.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “I don’t define property rights in the way that ancaps do.”

                Again, I am not talking abot what you say. I am talking about what you do.

                What you do is respect property rights.

                “What you are doing is respecting people’s property rights.”

                “The property rights which exist in this society are not the same as those described by ancap theory.”

                The property rights you respect in your actions are those described by ancap theory.

                “Ancap theorists actually disagree amongst themselves on what they believe to be property rights anyway.”

                How so?

              • Philippe says:

                “The property rights you respect in your actions are those described by ancap theory”

                Nope, and this a tiresome and really pointless line of argument by you.

                Property rights in this society are not the same as those described by ancap theory. If I am respecting the property rights which exist in this society I am not respecting property rights as defined by ancap theory.

              • Philippe says:

                “How so?”

                have you never heard of ancaps or ‘libertarians’ disagreeing with each other?

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “Nope, and this a tiresome and really pointless line of argument by you.”

                Nope? So you are admitting to stealing property? You admit to trespassing? You admit to murder or rape or theft?

                Saying you do not act to respect property rights is you saying you personally violate property rights.

                “Property rights in this society are not the same as those described by ancap theory.”

                Property rights according to ancap theory are just the laws that apply to citizens in a minarchist, “night watchman” state, and instead of excluding a small group of people who you call the statesmen, it includes them as well.

                Philippe, either you act in accordance with ancap law and personally refrain from theft, trespassing, or initiating physical violence against other people, or you don’t.

                If you do, then ancap law to you is voluntary. You are choosing to act in accordance with it. The only way ancap law can be involuntary to you is if you steal, trespass, or initiate violence against people.

                So which is it? Want to admit to being a violent criminal on Free Advice?

                “If I am respecting the property rights which exist in this society I am not respecting property rights as defined by ancap theory.”

                In terms of your actions you are.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “have you never heard of ancaps or ‘libertarians’ disagreeing with each other?”

                I was asking you how ancaps disagree with each other on the question of what property rights are, or what property means.

                Disagreeing over such things as the epistemological foundations is one thing. Disagreeing over who owns what is another. I ask because I don’t know of any disagreement among ancaps when it comes to who owns what. As far asI can tell, they all agree with the homesteading principle. That is sufficient to there being universal agreement on the question of property, which you claimed there is disagreement.

              • Philippe says:

                Nope, and this a tiresome and really pointless line of argument by you.

                Property rights in this society are not the same as those described by ancap theory. If I am respecting the property rights which exist in this society I am not respecting property rights as defined by ancap theory.

                Murder and rape are not defined as ‘property rights violations’ in law.

                I do not abide by the theoretical absolute ‘homesteader’ property rights of ancapism, I abide by property rights as defined by law.

                I proactively support institutions which ancaps claim violate property rights as they see them.

                I won’t be responding to any more of your comments in this thread.
                I will not be

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “Murder and rape are not defined as ‘property rights violations’ in law.”

                They are according to ancap law based on self-ownership.

                It doesn’t matter if you don’t use the same terms. You’re quibbling over semantics. Ancap law is accurately describing your actions.

                “I do not abide by the theoretical absolute ‘homesteader’ property rights of ancapism, I abide by property rights as defined by law.”

                So you admit to trespassing then? You admit to stealing? You admit to proactively violating property rights?

                “I proactively support institutions which ancaps claim violate property rights as they see them.”

                What does that mean? Does that mean you threaten people with violence if they don’t pay taxes? That you work for people who kill or imprison innocent people in the name of state law?

                “I won’t be responding to any more of your comments in this thread.”

                K.

  6. Josiah says:

    I recently read Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate, wherein he describes the consequences of a police strike in his youth:

    As a young teenager in proudly peaceable Canada during the romantic 1960s, I was a true believer in Bakunin’s anarchism. I laughed off my parents’ argument that if the government ever laid down its arms all hell would break loose. Our competing predictions were put to the test at 8:00 A.M. on October 17, 1969, when the Montreal police went on strike. By 11:20 A.M. the first bank was robbed. By noon most downtown stores had closed because of looting. Within a few more hours, taxi drivers burned down the garage of a limousine service that had competed with them for airport customers, a rooftop sniper killed a provincial police officer, rioters broke into several hotels and restaurants, and a doctor slew a burglar in his suburban home. By the end of the day, six banks had been robbed, a hundred shops had been looted, twelve fires had been set, forty carloads of storefront glass had been broken, and three million dollars in property damage had been inflicted, before city authorities had to call in the army and, of course, the Mounties to restore order.

    I see two possibilities:

    1) fear is not actually the cause of most criminal behavior, or

    2) the police lessen fear.

    Take your pick.

    • Razer says:

      Poor analogy. Ending the monopoly on force without something in its place that surely would be there under an ancap society is not a test of anarchy at all.

      • Josiah says:

        Poor analogy. Ending the monopoly on force without something in its place

        What does Bob propose putting in its place?

        • Major.Freedom says:

          You said you read Chaos Theory, Josiah.

          Murphy answers that question on the very first page

          Are you a liar?

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Josiah,

      Do you think it was a random sampling of the population who robbed those banks? You don’t think there were certain personality traits and patterns we could see in the background of those people who broke the law as soon as the threat of immediate punishment was removed?

      You’re doing a “partial equilibrium” analysis, if you want to be wonkish about it. I think if you revisited Canada after 5 years of government police doing nothing–including no State actions taken against private people who set up private enforcement agencies–it would be a lot more peaceful.

      That was the vision I presented in Chaos Theory. I am going further and saying actually it would be even better if people didn’t hire mercenaries to shoot those who aggressed against them.

      Anyway we’re not just relitigating all of my pacifism articles. You can read them from the link to see what my views are.

      • Josiah says:

        Do you think it was a random sampling of the population who robbed those banks?

        No. Do you think if we ran a battery of psychological tests on the bank robbers they would turn out to be particularly fearful?

        You don’t think there were certain personality traits and patterns we could see in the background of those people who broke the law as soon as the threat of immediate punishment was removed?

        There probably are. What makes you think I would deny that?

        Anyway we’re not just relitigating all of my pacifism articles. You can read them from the link to see what my views are.

        I’ve read your pacifism articles. I’ve also read Chaos Theory. The problem here is not that I’m not familiar with your views; it’s that they are highly implausible.

        • Major.Freedom says:

          How are they “implausible”?

        • Philippe says:

          “they are highly implausible”

          also they are logically incoherent. Things are said to be voluntary whilst simultaneously being non-voluntary.

          • Major.Freedom says:

            It is simultaneously voluntary and involuntary, but not for the same people.

            Ancap law is voluntary for those who do not impose involuntary laws against others, and involuntary for those who do.

            It is logically coherent. You are incorrectly assuming ancap law can only be universally acceptee and thus voluntary or universally rejected and thus involuntary. But that is silly. It is impossible to enforce any laws without some people feeling them as voluntary, while others feel them as involuntary.

            All enforced laws have this duality.

            • Philippe says:

              “or universally rejected and thus involuntary”

              it doesn’t have to be universally rejected to be involuntary.

              Even if most people agree with the law, they still don’t have the legal option to break it. If they do break it, they are liable to face law enforcement and punishment.

              • Philippe says:

                “some people feeling them as voluntary”

                but those people, who may be the majority, don’t have the choice to not abide by the law, without facing the possibility of enforcement and punishment.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                Of course the majority has the choice. In a democracy, the majority can elect politicians who will legalize these things.

                The law is not given by God. The law is chosen by people. All law is voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary for those who accept it, involuntary for those who don’t.

                The question is not whether laws are voluntary OR involuntary. All laws are both. The question is who among society should laws by involuntary. In my view, those who violate property rights should feel laws as involuntary.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “it doesn’t have to be universally rejected to be involuntary.”

                It doesn’t have to be universally adopted for it to be voluntary.

                “Even if most people agree with the law, they still don’t have the legal option to break it. If they do break it, they are liable to face law enforcement and punishment.”

                In a democracy, what the majority want IS law.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                If you believe there should be laws imposed even if the majority does not approve of those laws, then you are saying you believe in laws that are anti-democratic and if necessary be imposed by a minority on the majority.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Perhaps “anti”-democratic is too strong a choice of words. I meant potentially anti-democratic.

              • Philippe says:

                people don’t have the legal option to break the law. However the law can be changed, and might be if enough people want it to be, in a democratic political system.

                “The question is not whether laws are voluntary OR involuntary. All laws are both. The question is who among society should laws by involuntary. In my view, those who violate property rights should feel laws as involuntary.”

                The next question is what are property rights.

                The law determines what are legal property rights. You may believe in a different version of property rights, but the law determines what property rights legally exist within the society, and which are enforced by law.

                Law can’t be both voluntary and involuntary at the same time.

                You don’t have the legal option to ignore the law. Whether you agree with it or not, it is enforced.

                “you are saying you believe in laws that are anti-democratic”

                I think laws should be just. However people disagree about what is just, so democratic political systems have evolved as a result.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “people don’t have the legal option to break the law.”

                Sure they do. The majority can break any past laws because what the majority want IS law.

                If the majority pass a law that says thou shalt not do X or else Y, but then the majority “breaks” X, then what, they punish themselves with Y using their own security and protection mechanisms? OK, almost the same thing is the case for ancap law, only in ancap law, ancaps can’t pass laws that include other people’s property in a controlling, threatening manner. Ancaps can only pass laws that apply to other ancaps, other than protecting property which applies to everyone, so as to safeguard the individual.

                “However the law can be changed, and might be if enough people want it to be, in a democratic political system.”

                What do you mean “might” be? If any laws exist that the majority reject, or if any laws do not exist that the majority support, then society is not democratic to those extents.

                “The question is not whether laws are voluntary OR involuntary. All laws are both. The question is who among society should laws by involuntary. In my view, those who violate property rights should feel laws as involuntary.”

                “The next question is what are property rights.”

                Homesteader rights. Most people would say that he who builds a farm, should be the owner, and not some latecomer who happen to have the biggest guns. Most people just need to learn that that is all the state is. Latecomers with the biggest guns.

                “The law determines what are legal property rights. You may believe in a different version of property rights, but the law determines what property rights legally exist within the society, and which are enforced by law.”

                You’re just talking about a version of law, that is, state law.

                But the law in ancapism is different from that version of law.

                Ancap law is consistent with your actions Philippe.

                “Law can’t be both voluntary and involuntary at the same time.”

                Sure it can. It can be voluntary for those who accept it, and involuntary for those who don’t. I’ve said this already and yet you keep interpreting my argument to mean voluntary and involuntary for one and same person.

                “You don’t have the legal option to ignore the law.”

                Not according to those calling themselves statesmen.

                “Whether you agree with it or not, it is enforced.”

                But I don’t disagree with all laws enforced by the state. The state’s laws are partially voluntary and partially, but mostly, involuntary for me.

                Whether the statesmen agree with ancap laws or not, ancap laws are more just than the existing laws.

                “you are saying you believe in laws that are anti-democratic”

                “I think laws should be just.”

                What makes a law just if majority support is insufficient?

                “However people disagree about what is just, so democratic political systems have evolved as a result.”

                There is no such thing as knowledge of any political evolution in the sense of society going through a certain order of successive “stages.”

                Democracy has arisen and collapsed into dictatorship at certain times in the distant past.

                The rise of democracy during the 18th and 19th centuries was due to the corruption of liberalism by the spread of socialist ideology. Or, if you will, a “compromise” or half way road between individualism and communism.

                Disagreement does not necessarily breed democracy. Democracy requires certain disagreements and certain agreements, between different people.

              • Philippe says:

                “The majority can break any past laws”

                That’s funny. You changed ‘the law’ to ‘past laws’, I wonder why you did that.

                “so as to safeguard the individual”

                Ancapism does not safeguard the individual. there isn’t any guarantee of access to basic resources or protections in ancap world.

                “What do you mean “might” be?”

                I was referring to actually existing democratic political systems.

                “Most people just need to learn that that is all the state is. Latecomers with the biggest guns.”

                Right. Or alternatively they could learn that ancapism is a dumb and incoherent political ideology.

                “It can be voluntary for those who accept it, and involuntary for those who don’t.”

                This demonstrates your inability to think logically. ‘My rules are voluntary for those that accept them, and involuntary for those that don’t”

                “ancap laws are more just than the existing laws”

                I don’t think so.

                I won’t be responding to any more of your comments in this thread.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “That’s funny. You changed ‘the law’ to ‘past laws’, I wonder why you did that.”

                It is not as significant as you seem to believe. All laws are past laws, meaning created in the past. I only included “past” so as to emphasize that changing laws is a changing of past laws by necessity. It was only to clarify, not to “trick” you.

                “so as to safeguard the individual”

                “Ancapism does not safeguard the individual.”

                Sure it does.

                “there isn’t any guarantee of access to basic resources or protections in ancap world.”

                Safeguarding does not mean lots of food. It means absence of violence so that one can seek out food either in production or trade unmolested.

                “What do you mean “might” be?”

                “I was referring to actually existing democratic political systems.”

                OK, then what is it about actually existing democracy that distinguishes it from democracy?

                “Most people just need to learn that that is all the state is. Latecomers with the biggest guns.”

                “Right. Or alternatively they could learn that ancapism is a dumb and incoherent political ideology.”

                You haven’t shown how that is the case.

                The state is just a group of private property owners who were late comers to other privately owned lands and had the most guns and declared might makes right over those already homesteaded lands.

                “It can be voluntary for those who accept it, and involuntary for those who don’t.”

                “This demonstrates your inability to think logically. ‘My rules are voluntary for those that accept them, and involuntary for those that don’t”

                How does that “demonstrate my inability to think logically”?

                Yes, ancap law is voluntary for those who accept it, and involuntary if they don’t. This is the case with ALL laws, no matter what they are or who enforces them.

                Are you saying that you don’t willingly accept any of the statesmen’s laws, but are only abiding by them to avoid their punishment?

                “ancap laws are more just than the existing laws”

                “I don’t think so.”

                In terms of your actions, yes you do think so.

                “I won’t be responding to any more of your comments in this thread.”

                K.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “there isn’t any guarantee of […] protections in ancap world.”

                Ancap is not an absence of protection. It is the presence of market based protection.

                No individual is guaranteed safe from violence in ANY legal system. There is always a risk of being victimized by initiations violence.

                States significantly increase this risk, because it legalizes initiations of violence.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      “Man, that bishop really ought to get an alarm system if he wants to cut down on robbery.” — Josiah Neeley, 30 minutes into “Les Mis”

      • Josiah says:

        “Man, that bishop really ought to get an alarm system if he wants to cut down on robbery.” — Josiah Neeley, 30 minutes into “Les Mis”

        So in response to an actual historical example of what happens when the authorities stop policing, you’re citing an example FROM A WORK OF FICTION?!?!

        • Bob Murphy says:

          No, I’m pointing out that you’re completely missing the point I was trying to make. Usually when we disagree about something, Josiah, it’s not because you have access to some empirical evidence that I’m lacking. It’s that I’m interpreting the evidence one way, and you another. The difference between us is that I don’t assume you must be a blubbering idiot since you have a different interpretation.

          • Josiah says:

            Bob,

            I don’t think you are an idiot. You are a really smart guy who, for various reasons, has devoted his intelligence to defending a set of untenable positions.

    • Reece says:

      That’s an interesting story, but I think it should be noted that this shows more of a failure of government involvement in policing than free market policing.

      If anyone had set up a free market policing service, they would have 1) Only been able to compete until the end of the police strike (so they would have to pay all of the start up costs for a very short time of action) and 2) Been punished after the police strike if they did things like jail robbers; a lot of current police practices cannot be done by private individuals. So, clearly, this cannot be a strike against market anarchism at all.

      Government police seems to be what failed here. One problem, clearly, with having government police is that if they go on strike, you can’t go to a competitor to get protection still. Also, note that the reason why they went on strike was because working conditions were becoming too dangerous; this, again, seems to be showing that government police failed at their jobs to keep tensions down (this, or something similar, may have happened regardless of the strike). Imagine if it was the opposite way around; suppose private police were failing miserably to keep down crime, and all ended up going on strike at the same time because it was getting too dangerous and they wanted higher pay. After they go on strike, there is a notable increase in violence. Even ignoring that no government police could come in (because the private police would attack them after the strike was over), I think it’s pretty clear that this would be an example of the private police setting the stage for society to be so criminal rather than it being an example of government not working. They should be able to leave for a day without society falling apart.

      Also, your story has one large error I caught; the taxi drivers weren’t protesting against a competitor for the airport customers, they were protesting against a competitor with a monopoly over the taxi service for the airport customers. This is obviously a huge difference; another example of government setting the stage for tensions (would you be more angry at someone who you actually could compete against or someone who you were blocked off from competing against?).

  7. Grescodid says:

    Bob, you might enjoy this article. http://www.strike-the-root.com/3/halbrooks/halbrooks5.html

    I found this when I was researching libertarian punishment. I have a major problem with libertarian punishment theory that can be described roughly as follows.

    a) The right to life and property is inalienable.
    b) When you commit a crime you forfeit your rights, and we can imprison you or take your property.

    Either a) or b) is untrue by the definition of inalienable.

    Even if you are not a pacifist and self defense is ok, retribution after the fact isn’t clearly self defense. It may even be a form of pre-punishment for crime that is assumed to happen in the future, assuming you believe that someone has to be locked away for the safety of everyone…

  8. Innocent says:

    Bob,

    So think through this. Social Contracts. These exist in order to create and maintain order in a society. Without means of enforcement no contract can exist. It does not matter what the contract is. It can be an ultimatum from a despot. It can be a set of unspoken rules and taboos, it can be an elected democracy.

    The point is that they ONLY can be executed through the use of force. It is not that this is a ‘desired’ state of affairs rather it is the method that simply is.

    Now here is a different question. Does God Force the devil to stay out of Heaven? Will not the Devil be ‘imprisoned’? Are these not acts of ‘force’? Does God work differently than this?

    Also I think that the meaning of the passages that you brought to bear was attempting to explain the new Law that Christ brought to people, that the law of Moses had served its purpose and Christ brought a new and more glorious set of rules. The Mosaic law was a law of ‘don’ts’ whereas the fullness of the law was to do the ‘do’s’.

    It is both profound and marvelous the difference between the two sets of laws. Again just my interpretation of it.

    However, violence settles many things and force is something required of law. Even that of God.

    • Major.Freedom says:

      No.

    • Tel says:

      These exist in order to create and maintain order in a society.

      That’s odd, most contracts exist because people make an agreement with each other… the agreement would have to be voluntary or else slaves captured in wartime could be considered “contractors”.

      • Innocent says:

        Yes, contractor to contractee are created to make agreements of which there is an enforcement for the break.

        Unfortunately we are ‘born’ into social contracts.

  9. Scott H. says:

    Bob, you went from “no prisons” to “no state” to “we’ll just use Christ!” so fast that I couldn’t keep up.

  10. K.P. says:

    Bob, would you apply this to using culture as a tool as well?

    I know it’s perfectly Kosher for libertarians and pacifists to use a network of social ostracism and shunning as a form of punishment but do you think that should still to be condemned from a Christian perspective?

    • Z says:

      Well, I know Christians don’t believe in Kosher, so probably. But Bob would know more.

  11. Chip says:

    I think the religious aspect is allegorical, and after-the-fact, to the family here.

    An ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure, if parents would give their children the connection, the patience and respect and gentleness, the example of win/win and peaceful yet firm dealings in the world, the vast majority of things we commonly think deserve punishment or salvation wouldn’t occur in the first place.

  12. Bob Murphy says:

    Philippe et al.: I understand the route MF is taking in his arguments with you, but FWIW that’s not exactly the way I would have gone, because I can see why you think he is assuming his conclusion. (I’m not saying I disagree with his overall views, but I can see why his words are bouncing off of you.)

    A “voluntary prison” is one where the prisoner chooses to enter. Why would he do that? Because all of the property owners in the area say, “According to that wise judge over there, you are a serial killer. Get off my land.”

    This is “voluntary” in the same way that the color of automobiles is determined voluntarily in a market place, rather than a group imposing their desired color schemes on the rest of population through coercion.

    Yes, a socialist who utterly rejects the notion of private property will say my notion of “voluntary car colors” is bogus, and really it’s people with money ramming it down everyone else’s throat. But most people, even non-libertarians, understand there is an important meaning of “voluntary” when it comes to car colors.

    So that’s the same sense in which the prisons in the society I’m picturing would be voluntary.

    (I’m here just talking about a standard an-cap world where the inhabitants still have punitive views towards criminals. I’m not talking about a society composed primarily of pacifists.)

    • Philippe says:

      “A “voluntary prison” is one where the prisoner chooses to enter. Why would he do that? Because all of the property owners in the area say, “According to that wise judge over there, you are a serial killer. Get off my land.”

      So he chooses to enter because he has no other choice?

      If he does instead have the choice to roam around… isn’t that a bit crazy and dangerous?

      • Philippe says:

        “This is “voluntary” in the same way that the color of automobiles is determined voluntarily in a market place, rather than a group imposing their desired color schemes on the rest of population through coercion.”

        but in your example the criminal is coerced to go into prison, given that his other non-options are worse than prison. In fact he’s already in prison.

        • Tel says:

          Yeah, I agree there is perhaps some requirement to draw a careful line and decide the meaning of “voluntary”.

          Many people voluntarily pay tax because the other option is getting arrested and locked up. They voluntarily choose the least worst option available. When faced with all bad options people can still make choices and negotiate, maybe even trade to slightly improve their bad situation (like cigarettes in a POW camp). Acting man, yadda yadda.

          It really comes down to this: “can you own property and remain nonviolent at all times”? We have a fairly easy definition of violence, so if someone walks onto your land, starts eating your crops, can you get the guy to go away without any violence at all? Kind of difficult.

          • K.P. says:

            I think it comes down to property, Bob and other libertarians are making it clear that Property is the default. Under this system the law is voluntary, but only under this system.

            People who reject the foundation will naturally object to it being “voluntary” as well. Just as one can criticize libertarians for not caring about “liberty”. It really has nothing to do with the workability of the system itself, just shallow attacks on the surface.

      • Major.Freedom says:

        Bob is saying that the person chose violence, and then incurred the consequences.

        Bob is saying that one can choose what to do, but one cannot choose the consequences of what one does.

        • Scott D says:

          Supply, demand, scarcity and risk are all factors here, and I could even see how private prisons could spring up naturally in the market. It’s thought experiment time.

          Say you own an apartment building and have a “total non-discrimination policy” where you will rent to literally anyone who is able to pay the rent consistently. You are the only provider of such a place in a large metropolitan area, and you suddenly find that violent criminals are flocking to your location. In response, non-violent tenants start to move out, their places quickly taken with even more violent criminals.

          You notice that the rate of murders being committed in and around your building are on the rise, and you are faced with lawsuits from property owners around you for bringing criminal elements into their midst. You do two things in response: raise the rent, due to the increased risk and liability you are facing, and alter your contract with your tenants, demanding restrictions on their movements, with forfeiture of their rental contract if they enter the surrounding properties without explicit permission.

          The higher rent allows you to build walls and hire security to watch the tenants, so that they do not kill each other and do not enter outside property unauthorized.This quiets down the threat of lawsuit, but now you have another problem. Some of your tenants complain that no one lets them cross their property at all, so they have no way to work or buy food.

          This is a nightmare. Either you’ll have to completely change your policies and kick all of the criminals out, or you’re going to have to completely rethink how you run things. You’ve come this far, though, so you make a proposal to your tenants. You will feed them, but in exchange, you will contract out their labor so that they can earn money and allow you to continue to operate their apartment building. For those who refuse to accept those terms, you will gladly end their contract and shuttle them off to the alternate location of their choosing. So now you are the proud owner of a private prison in Ancapistan.

          • Major.Freedom says:

            Scott D:

            One of the best things to know about markets is that it is a process.

            It is easy to have a habit of wanting to get to the end of things, of imagining what the goal looks like, in everything we think and do.

            But to really understand markets, you have to think in a peculiar way. The right question to integrate the market process is not so much the content of means used, but the form of how means are chosen.

            In your hypothetical scenario, if people were at risk of becoming “trapped” in being surrounded by other private property owners who do not consent to the “trapped” person stepping on their lands, then a market based solution would be two pronged. One, how to deal with the given situation you describe, and two, the often neglected part, is how to best prevent such scenarios from developing in the first place.

            I can only speak for myself as to what “should” be done here, so here are my ideas. Maybe others have better ideas. To solve the existing problem, I would find out if the “trapped” tenant really is trapped. Aren’t apartment units separated by “common” hallways and pathways owned by the apartment owner that any tenant can traverse? I don’t even see how your scenario could even arise. But in the interests of charity and thought experiment etiquette, I will try to imagine such an apartment with that possibility of “entrapment”, but leave to the side the question of what that would actually look like.

            OK, so for a trapped tenant, how about airlifting? Of course, one could always say ” assume that is not possible.” That is the thing about these hypotheticals where one of the interlocutors wants to “prove” markets fail. So the response to any given solution is “assume it is not an option.”. And so on until the other guy runs out of ideas, and then the critic says “Aha! See? The market is not a guarantee for a solution.”. That answer can always be given because no matter how many ideas the markey guy proposes, they will all be shot down and assumed as not available for the purposes of the hypothetical.

            I am not sure what your intentions are with this, that is, if you really want to find a solution or are you just going to encourage me to go through the motions and give as many possible solutions as I can until I run out of them, and then the trump card comes out. I don’t know.

            What I can say is that I don’t think that method works, because I could do the same thing and assume away all possible state driven solutions and assume a scenario where a person is surrounded and trapped by states. Then, when you provide a possible solution, I say assume that is not an option. And on and on. Then when you run out of ideas I say aha, states cannot guarantee freedom. I just don’t see how that can get us anywhere other than right back at our philosophies of statism and anarchy.

            What I am more interested in is the second set of solutions for how to prevent this scenario from arising. One is to keep designing apartments the way they are currently designed. Private units with “common” pathways separating them that allows for tenants to “escape” the apartment because they can use that portion of the apartment specifically tailored to such entry and exits.

  13. Philippe says:

    Bob, I think these examples you give are crazy (get off my land serial killer!), and completely unworkable, but the more fundamental point is that the law is not voluntary in your ancap world.

    If you choose to buy a red car in a car market you are doing that within the context of law, which specifies among many other things property rights and who legally owns what.

    It doesn’t make sense to argue that this law can be created by a ‘voluntary market’ as that’s a completely circular argument.

    • Major.Freedom says:

      How is “get off my land you serial killer” crazy and unworkable?

      How is market defense “circular”, whereas state ” defense” is not?

      You say you can choose to buy a red car, but that choice is in a context of who “legally” owns what. THAT is a circular argument because by “legal” you mean what the state just so happens to think is morally just for oyhers, the citizens. You are saying that the validity of a choice depends on state law. That is assuming state law is the legitimizer. Ancaps disagree because it is not a consistent applocation of normal principle of private property rights between the citizens. I know you always have in your mind the property of the state that is tax revenues. But that is a different law than what you think is valid among the citizenry. That is the law you believe is just for a certain group of people and nobody else. Ancaps are just talking about those regular normal laws you think are just for the citizens only, and they point out your inconsistencies, they point out that you believe two sets of mutually incompatible laws are justified, they point out that what you believe is non-criminal, morally just behavior of statesmen, is at the same time criminal, morally unjust behavior for the citizens. Your position is a total contradiction. You try to cover up that contradiction by continually referring to vague notions of majority beliefs, or legitimacy, or legality. You refuse to address the fundamental inconsistency in your claimed views.

      • John P says:

        Hi Major Freedom,

        I just wanted to say I both enjoy and learn from reading your posts here and elsewhere such as at Scott Sumners’s blog.Thanks for doing what you do.

  14. Anonymous says:

    The original scripture Bob cited is referring to Jewish Law and all they thought was required to get to Heaven/God.

    God eventually comes along and provides His Son as a sacrifice. Now Jew and Gentile can get to God, with nothing more than faith. NO religion, ritual or sacrifice required. IT is not something we can do, God did it for us.

    Is Christ a permission slip to sin? No. Galatians 5:22 says there will be fruits of the spirit. James 2 says all faith will be accompanied with works. Many passages ay true believers will NOT love the world.

    So yes Jesus saves us, but true follower will repent and then worship.

    Regarding civil law, crime and punishment? There will always be a need for some legal system however there would be far less violence if humans governed themselves internally with help of God/Jesus/Holy Spirit. You simply make better decisions when you love God and love yourself.

    I think you could become a NEAR pacifist yet still use violence sparingly. Instead these days, violence is the normal go to and woven into our daily fabric. Football is on TV 4 times per week, it just goes from there.

    We don’t need extremes like 100% violence 24/7/356 and we don’t need 100% non violence ( pacifism) 24/7/365.

    Black or white thinking is usually a trap.

    • Gamble says:

      Oops forgot to log in, posted as anon.

      In summary, if 7 Billion people had more God, less Satan in their hearts and minds, we would not need any law. There would be peace and no violence.

      1 John 4:8
      8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

  15. Bob Murphy says:

    Philippe I’m not trying to be a jerk, but I’m wondering if you even get the difference between people voluntarily choosing to work on a field, versus being a literal slave. A Marxist would look at the two situations and say, “They’re both slaves–one is legally recognized, the other is a wage slave. The only reason that worker ‘voluntarily’ sells his labor for money is that capitalists own all the land and grocery stores.”

    But I come along and say, “No, that’s actually voluntary. We have to have property rights, and given that system, people then make voluntary decisions. Sometimes they choose things that are distasteful, but we shouldn’t just use the word ‘coercion’ to describe the fact that there is scarcity.”

    Are you OK with that so far? Or do you think there’s no important difference between a literal slave and someone who works because he “is forced” to earn a living to get food?

    Ironically, I think it’s *your* views that are crazy and impractical. You’re saying if someone is a known serial killer, that people shouldn’t have the right to tell him, “Leave my land”? Why is that? Because you don’t believe people should own parcels of land, or because you don’t think they should be able to tell a convicted serial killer to get off their individual plot of land?

    • Ken B says:

      The heck? Philippe I think is making a simple point. The serial killer you want to evict you will evict against his will. He does not volunteer to be evicted, his eviction is not voluntary. You are overriding his choice.
      You want to distinguish this case because you think you are (just) exercising a property right. Well, whether you are or are not just doing that, you are still doing it against his will. He has not volunteered.

      • K.P. says:

        Does anyone actually dispute that though?

        • Ken B says:

          Yes. Bob for one. Just read his comment above.

          • K.P. says:

            His comment(s) appears to concede exactly that point as he’s qualifying what is meant by “voluntary”.

            • Ken B says:

              No, the problem is deeper. Here’s one hypothetical. I could be a fan of ancestral property rights who believes his ancestor owned all Boston, and you could be one who believes his ancestor did. So we both claim Boston. I think you are clearly violating my rights, I don’t believe you or your judges. My rights were revealed to me by a voice from a moving rockinghorse perhaps. . But one of us is going to be coerced against his will. Yet here we both endorse the same abstract theory of property. How much more common to have different ones.
              The point is that to have law you sometimes need to coerce the loser. That is not voluntary.

              • K.P. says:

                Ken, you’re doing nothing more than repeating what has already been addressed multiple times now.

                “The point is that to have law you sometimes need to coerce the loser. That is not voluntary.”

                Nobody is disputing this!

                Just as you are not “purely” or “truly free” unless you can gambol, kill, and rape. Libertarians, and ancaps are using “voluntary” in a qualified and specific manner.

                As Myself, Bob, Bob 2, and MF have pointed out, even to you directly in my own case.

              • Ken B says:

                LPyou aredoing nothing but repeating evasions Philippe and I have refuted repeatedly here.
                See what fun this is?
                You admit thatyou are using voluntary in a sense that does not match its normal meaning. This is like significant in statistics. If I took a stats report and said the author thought some damage done just wasn’t signficant, when he meant statistically, that would be sneaky. Using loaded terms like that is misleading.

              • K.P. says:

                “LPyou aredoing nothing but repeating evasions Philippe and I have refuted repeatedly here.
                See what fun this is?”

                Yes, it is good fun, we’ll have to go into the peculiarities of “evade” next as I’ve addressed this pretty head on in my opinion.

                “This is like significant in statistics. If I took a stats report and said the author thought some damage done just wasn’t signficant, when he meant statistically, that would be sneaky. Using loaded terms like that is misleading.”

                Indeed. If one tried to represent it in one sense then *switch to another* then yes, that would be misleading. That’s not the case here (as far as I can tell) though.

                Call me a postmodernist, but I find jargon to be fine and quite useful.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Krn B:

                Hahahaha, “repeatedly refuted.”

                Is that what you’re calling kicking sand in a sandbox and evading the contradictions in your worldview that have been “repeatedly” pointed out to you?

                Too funny.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Ken B:

                Why do you put on the same plane force against those who are wrong and force againat those who are wrong?

                In your hypothetical, one of the two rivals is wrong. The force they get is justified force because they are wrong.

                The person who is wrong is the coercer. Their use of force is aggression.

                You are putting far too much weight on the mere fact of disagreement between the two.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                …force against those who are right…”

      • Bob Roddis says:

        I think it would be a simple matter to announce to anyone entering a private area subject to private law that by entering, they agree to be bound by the rules and laws of the area. Thus, they have voluntarily agreed to be subjected to local private law. I also suspect that whenever people traveled, their own defense/insurance company would tell them in what areas they would be covered and/or be safe under their existing arrangements. These are nothing but simple contract drafting issues that are easily resolved once the AnCap society begins operation.

        Like always, Philippie is just splitting hairs in order to obscure and obfuscate simple definitions of simple, well understood concepts.

        As I’ve said before, if an particular area or group is acting like jerks (while not violating the NAP) there is an endless list of non-violent sanctions that might be applied against them.

        http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/05/libertarian-battles.html#comment-488156

        • Ken B says:

          No, that does not answer the case Bob R, because it ASSUMES he assents to your right to make that stipulation. And he might not.

          • Bob Roddis says:

            What about BIG SIGNS everywhere, and also painted on the street twice every block warning that entry means you are subject to our rules. This would be in addition to your own defense/insurance company’s policies explaining this in writing on your “travel materials”. Further, if someone wanders accidentally into an area run by a bunch of nuts who won’t let him leave, the folks in the surrounding areas might consider that kidnapping and might launch a violent rescue mission. This is not complicated and un-manageable. It’s the statists and social democrats who need to worry about their little experiments turning into ISIS where the majority can seize and property and person of the minority.

            On a related topic, we’re nuts for insisting upon clear language to differentiate a 100% reserve note from “fiduciary media”.

            If we want a rule by implication, we’re the ones who are nuts. If we oppose a rule by implication, we’re the ones who are nuts.

            • Bob Roddis says:

              Typo: This should have read: where the majority can seize ANY property and person of the minority.

            • K.P. says:

              Let’s keep pushing this issue Bob.

              “You stuck your hand out, so I shook it. I don’t know about a pact.”

              So what if I go so far as to even sign something? It doesn’t mean I’ve “voluntaily” agreed to anything, I just wrote my name on a piece of paper.

              There are norms being presumed – there are always norms being presumed – libertarians and ancaps just go to very great lengths to make it explicit.

            • Ken B says:

              Warning signs are not the issue. If I reject your right to dictate the rules big signs won’t convince me.

              “this is not complicated and unmanageable” Maybe so, but that does not make it *voluntary*.

          • Bob Roddis says:

            If someone will just not agree to be bound by the rules and norms of private property and the rules and norms against assault, murder, theft, rape pillage and genocide, why waste 5 years debating his preferences? He’s just an outlaw and should be treated as such.

            • Ken B says:

              Nice to see you agree: Bob is wrong, purely voluntary law is impossible.

              • K.P. says:

                Honestly, I don’t think he ever said it was.

                I think most people here are quite aware too.

              • Bob Roddis says:

                Apparently your little nuisance point is that total unanimity by the entire human race regarding AnCap is impossible. That’s probably right. So what?

              • Ken B says:

                We are talking about being frank here Bob, that is what matters. Because I favor the use of compulsion in some cases MF is always riffing on how I, and DK and others, are etc etc etc. Wellso are you willing to use compulsion. Basically you willenforce your bizarre notion of property no matter what if you get what you want, and that is worth knowing.

              • Bob Roddis says:

                I fail to see how these terms were not made clear 40 years ago via the distinction between the intiation of force and defensive violence and force.

                Further, the fact that a voluntary community faces threats from outsiders does not change the community from being a voluntary community.

                Explain why you are not simply being disruptive.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Ken B, there is a difference between compulsion in the form of stopping trespassers, thieves and murderers, and compulsion in the form of trespassing, theft, and murder.

                You are misleading yourself and failing to mislead me into believing the lie that using force to stop initiations of it is the same thing as using force in an initiating manner.

                I can’t stop laughing at how you and Philippe keep making the absolutely absurd claim that ancap property rights are “bizarre.”

                Ancap property rights are what the majority of citizens practise, and, vis a vis each other abstracted from the state, believe is normal and just. Most citizens believe trespassing is wrong, that theft is wrong, that initiating violence against people’s persons is wrong, essentially everything ancap ethics says is wrong universally and not just within the citizenry.

                You are deluding yourselves into believing that ancap laws are so radically different than existing laws. It is but a small and modest improvement. The problem is that you and Philippe just think the state is so important and a huge component of civilized society that you cannot help but believe that private law is a complete overturning of existing society. Sure, a big change, but nowhere near as huge as you believe.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Sometimes small improvements can have big changes.

              • Bob Roddis says:

                Since the statists like formulistic models so much and I was so successful with the “LK believes only in empirical data and we know that the free market failed while having never actually existed” model, I now propound the Philippie Common Law of Property Debate Model:

                Me: (A) AnCap notions of private property and protections for persons are virtually the same as the usual common law notions of those concepts and are understood and practiced by most everyone in the USA as between non-state actors. The difference is that (B) we reject the exceptions, most of which derive from a belief that emergencies exist that must be “cured” by state violations of those protections.

                Philippie: (A) Your property beliefs are weird, they are not believed nor understood by anyone and they are nothing more than fringe beliefs because (B) the common law provides for taxation.

              • Philippe says:

                They are not exceptions, Bob, they are part of the common law notion of property, which includes both private property, and public or state property.Tax revenue being public or state property.

  16. Bob Roddis says:

    One of the problems we libertarians and Austrians have in explaining things is that it’s as if we are explaining the wonders of iTunes to people who only have 78s, no tape recorders and no computers. They just won’t understand it until they see it in action.

    • Dan says:

      I don’t have that problem unless I try to explain it to people who have no interest in having an honest discussion. And I thank Free Advice for teaching me when I’m fighting a battle that can’t be won. I mean, there are 7 billion people on this planet, and I’ll be damned if I’m going to waste my time trying convince the hopeless.

      • Philippe says:

        I guess redefining words to mean the opposite of what they normally mean counts as ‘honest’ in libertarian circles.

  17. Bob Roddis says:

    Maybe someone has mentioned this but one of the great things about AnCap is that different groups of people could try different solutions like those that Bob Murphy is suggesting here. People will then be attracted to procedures and policies that work.

    • Major.Freedom says:

      “Noooooooooo, I am being coerced if I am physically prevented or punished for trespassing, raping, murdering, or stealing! True freedom would allow me to annihilate other people’s freedoms!” – Ken B.

      • Major.Freedom says:

        “Nononono, I got it, reality itself is oppressive and slavery!”

  18. Hank says:

    There have been books written on the subject of private law. ken b nor Philippe can accurately represent the complexities of this issue without understanding the argument. I am quite confident, though not absolutely sure, that they have never read Machinery of Freedom by Friedman or The Enterprise of Law by Benson. in addition there have been numerous empirical case studies about private law including, if I’m not mistaken, the KKK during the reconstruction era and the New York mafia (though both also engaged in extra legal actions). The point is that there is no point in arguing with those who make no effort to understand the subject matter.

Leave a Reply to Major.Freedom

Cancel Reply