Just to Be Clear, No An-Cap Ever DID Claim Utopia
In the comments of my lighthearted post about Gene Callahan’s Poconos gulag, K.P. wrote: “At least maybe claims of libertarian society being utopian will cease now.”
Unfortunately, I don’t know whether K.P. is just being a wiseguy along with me, or he is really putting his foot down and hoping that Rothbardians, going forward, stop pretending that their society will be a utopia. In any event, just to be clear, no scholarly Rothbardian (or Rothbard himself for that matter) ever did claim as such. Regarding private, gated communities, for example, I don’t deny that there will be rules and that some residents occasionally may chafe against them. But I don’t expect there will be squads of private security agents banging down Gene’s door at 2am and shooting him, because they received a tip that he was growing plants that the HOA had forbidden. Yet that sort of thing happens a lot in the United States at the hands of government police. Or, Gene says the head of the private community acts like a politician because he says his door is always open. OK, if the guy is caught lying about half the stuff he says he’s going to do, and he keeps his post even though the residents catch him embezzling their pool fees, then that’s a closer match. But in such a case, I’m guessing the guy would lose his position.
I’m not even making this up for purposes of irony; my favorite, succinct expression of the standard an-cap point was from this clever writer back in 2002:
The free market is not a panacea. It does not eliminate old age, and it won’t guarantee you a date for Saturday night. Private enterprise is fully capable of awful screw-ups. But both theory and practice indicate that its screw-ups are less pervasive and more easily corrected than those of government enterprises, including regulatory ones.
I meant from critics, as usual, I should have worded that more carefully.
No problem, K.P., and that was my guess. But there are a lot of people who comment here and I wasn’t 100% sure.
Utopian means whatever the critic wants it to mean, so I was definitely wrong.
Should have said “Classically Utopian”, would have fixed everything.
No, utopian means either predicting a utopia or requiring a utopia. Maybe you don’t predict a utopia. I grant you that. You still make arguments that require one. That is utopian.
Exactly, thank you. The immediate followup will be that those requirements aren’t utopian at all. And on and on it’ll go with the meaning shifting. Although defenders will probably do this as well.
(I hope “you” meant libertarians and not me, as I’m no libertarian)
Yes, Libertarians. I have never seen one claim ancap would cure cancer.
“I have never seen one claim ancap would cure cancer.”
Does that have anything to do with my point? Is that where you’re drawing a line at for utopia?
No, I am agreeing my you meant Libertarians.
This is non-responsive. Your last sentence is what K.P. is arguing can mean whatever libertarian critics want it to mean.
K.P., meet Major.Freedom. Major.Freedom, K.P.
Ideally (and this may not be possible) a private society would also provide accountability. If your business caused the screw up, then your business will have to pay for that, and shareholders and executives would also be (at least to some extent) liable. In this case, the screw up still happens, but some penalty is applied, and a big incentive not to screw up again.
Let’s compare and contrast with the hand of government. Ideally, government would also be accountable and citizens would have some way of demanding accountability for government screw ups. Here’s a concrete example.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100284197/rotherhams-children-were-victims-of-anti-racism/
So the voters kept choosing the same party, and the party members stopped caring, and allowed rape gangs to operate organised paedophile rings. The police sat and did nothing, the local government-funded children’s charity said nothing. People who did attempt to speak out were marginalised by the authorities. Zero accountability.
After the fact, they make excuses for themselves, mumble about procedures, they system is to blame, blah, blah.
This is one of the challenges under all systems of government (including An-Cap). Of course we would like to make sure this sort of thing never happens, but at least we would like some consequence to apply to the people who stood around when it was their job to do something. At the very least, in an An-Cap system you don’t have to pay wages for useless jobs that achieve nothing. I mean, if I pay nothing and also get nothing, it may not be great, but I don’t feel as badly ripped off.
Any particular reason why in a “private society” this would be the case? Executives and shareholders can already be held liable, you know.
Well if I’m going to be accused of utopian views, I might as well be advocating desirable outcomes.
Callahan needs his own Daniel Kuehn to explain his past- or a brain scan.
That was a two-fer Yancey Ward!
The way I always think about “the free market” is not an image or picture of what society would look like, what wealth people will have, what technological breakthroughs will take place, none of that stuff.
To me, anarcho-capitalism, the free market, all these refer to methods of solving complex social problems. That’s it really. Anarcho-capitalism to me is just the idea that whatever problems occur, whatever issues need improvement, whatever people think should be done to fix whatever ails them, the best *approach* to solving those problems is when you have a maximum number of separate, distinct, and unilateral problem solving centers.
I am humble enough to know that I myself have nowhere near enough knowledge to solve everyone’s problems, and I also am humble enough to know that I can’t know who should be a member of a centralized, universal problem solving center of “wise” people to solve everyone’s problems.
Problems are best solved when the most number of people can act without having to get anyone else’s permission. For each property owner to do trial and error and attempt projects using their own property to solve whatever problems need solving in their judgment. If the problem is severe enough, then there will be opportunities to specialize and trade.
Keynesians of all stripes, monetarists of all stripes, statists of all stripes, these people are not humble people. They do not trust themselves and they do not trust the average person. They want the most important problems to be solved by only a particular group of people of their own preference, and they want to prevent everyone else from being free to try it themselves. They want everyone to be under control of that centralized force.
Anarcho-capitalists say all individuals at the same time should be free to pursue their problem solving interests unmolested and without being aggressed against. That each and all of us should refrain from calling for or initiating force ourselves against homesteaders and traders of property.
Maximum number of problem solving centers, i.e. individuals and their own property, is how I understand anarcho-capitalism.
If an anarcho-capitalist society has problems, then I would still want all individuals to be free to use their property to solve those problems because the collective wisdom is much more intelligent than me or my preferred set of philosopher kings. If things get really really bad, then that would only reinforce the need for individual property owners to be free to solve those problems. There are horrible statist societies, and there have been horrible minarchist societies. I still think individual economic freedom is the best method of solving problems.
If social democrats trust the average person to vote in adequate politicians, then there is no reason why they cannot trust the average person to lead projects themselves using their own property.
“Regarding private, gated communities… I don’t expect there will be squads of private security agents banging down Gene’s door at 2am and shooting him, because they received a tip that he was growing plants that the HOA had forbidden.”
I see no reason why security agents couldn’t bang down Gene’s door if he was suspected of growing forbidden plants. They might shoot him or they might not, difficult to know when you are talking about a hypothetical.
“I see no reason why security agents couldn’t bang down Gene’s door if he was suspected of growing forbidden plants.”
Sure you do, you just don’t want to appear as giving any inches towards ancapistan, after your history of uninformed objections to it.
So you’re just doubling down.
The great thing about ancapistan is that you don’t have to defer your knowledge, legally, to any “experts”. You can if you want, but you don’t have to. As such, we are free to figure out ways why they couldn’t bang down Gene’s door.
You can think of ideas, you just lack the self-esteem to act on it because to you, these things should be dealt with by people who have taught you to think you’re stupid.
I can think of an idea. One such idea is that people could sign a contract with those who do think it’s OK to grow plants in one’s basement. If there is a rational case to be made, no reason why people can’t agree to stop such 2am door bashings. Oh look at that, the Netherlands already have such a law, even if it is not optimal.
But you’re right, “WE CAN SEE NO REASON WHY IT IS INEVITABLE.”
Philippe, question:
Why do you not feel that other country governments are “imposing laws on you” in your home country, but you claim that Hoppe in his own house setting his own house rules WOULD be imposing rules on you?
There are over 200 countries in the world. Why don’t you complain and write about how there are 200 systems of laws being “imposed” on you all at once?
Do you really believe North Korea is “imposing laws” on you where you live? According to what you said about individual private law, the fact that you can’t go waltzing onto other people’s lands without their permission constitutes them imposing laws on you. So to be consistent, you should be saying that North Korea is imposing laws on you, because they prevent you from waltzing into PyongYang whenever you want and taking a piss on the street, or sleeping in the bed of someone who doesn’t look like they’re coming back from the worker camp they were sent to.
You are putting so much energy into worrying about what laws Hoppe will impose on you due to his house rules, and he’s just a college professor. And yet you don’t put anywhere near the effort in critiquing other country laws that you have to abide by as well.
What gives? You’re never going to convince ancaps to believe you. You’re just wasting your time and effort. Go right ahead, it’s your wasted life.
“people could sign a contract with those who do think it’s OK to grow plants in one’s basement”
Bob’s comment, which I responded to, was about a community in which the growing of certain plants is forbidden.
“Why do you not feel that other country governments are “imposing laws on you” in your home country”
Ignoring for a moment the complexities of international relations, foreign governments would require me to follow their laws if I ventured into their jurisdictions, and would usually enforce those laws if I didn’t.
Unlike you, however, I don’t pretend that law is voluntary, or that power and authority can be magicked away by somehow instituting laws that I prefer.
Q: Why do feel that governments are imposing laws on you if you can just move to another country/ area?
*if I didn’t follow them.
Philippe:
“Bob’s comment, which I responded to, was about a community in which the growing of certain plants is forbidden.”
Understood, but the point is that there is no reason why people can’t sign contracts where growing plants is illegal but won’t be punishable by 2am armed raids, but rather a fine, or excommunication. If you knew of a community that had the punishment of such armed raids, then it is still the case that such laws are limited to those houses, and not yours. That is a crucial benefit of anarcho-capitalism. Stupidity is constrained to those lands such stupidity is practised. Constrast that with state law, and if the state makes a stupid law, everyone is subject to such stupidity, even those who do not want their lands to be included in the lands where such laws apply.
“Ignoring for a moment the complexities of international relations, foreign governments would require me to follow their laws if I ventured into their jurisdictions, and would usually enforce those laws if I didn’t.”
Funny how the only time you use the phrase “complexities” is between brutes with guns, and not market relations, which are multiples of times more complex because the activity is often outside the purview of state control. It is like you respect states more than citizens.
But anyway, you are again lying about my beliefs when you say:
“Unlike you, however, I don’t pretend that law is voluntary”
Once again, I never claimed that law is voluntary. Once again, my actual position is that all laws are voluntary for those who want to abide by those laws, and involuntary for those who want to break them.
“or that power and authority can be magicked away by somehow instituting laws that I prefer.”
Also a lie. I never said it was “magick”.
” Why do feel that governments are imposing laws on you if you can just move to another country/ area?”
Because the lands upon which these laws apply, are not the property of anyone in the state who enforces those laws.
If the North Korean police or army started to enforce their laws on you in your country, then the fact that they say to you, “obey us, or else leave”, does not mean that they are not imposing laws on you.
If being given the choice to escape is sufficient to concluding that the laws are not being ” imposed”, then that means the only laws that are imposed are laws on imprisoned people.
“there is no reason why people can’t sign contracts where growing plants is illegal but won’t be punishable by 2am armed raids, but rather a fine, or excommunication”
There’s no reason why, in a country, growing certain plants couldn’t be illegal but only punishable by a fine or ‘excommunication’ either.
And as I said, there’s also no reason why 2am armed raids couldn’t happen in a ‘gated community’.
“If you knew of a community that had the punishment of such armed raids, then it is still the case that such laws are limited to those houses, and not yours”
People don’t live just in houses. They live in communities, societies etc.
Philippe:
“There’s no reason why, in a country, growing certain plants couldn’t be illegal but only punishable by a fine or ‘excommunication’ either.”
Sure there is. One reason can be lack of people’s ability to ban 2am raids because the government is imposing that law and they consider disobedience to it a crime.
“And as I said…”
Already responded to.
“If you knew of a community that had the punishment of such armed raids, then it is still the case that such laws are limited to those houses, and not yours”
“People don’t live just in houses. They live in communities, societies etc.”
No, they live in houses. They are guests on other people’s property.
Communities and societies are just terms that refer to more than one separately owned territory of land.
It’s really weird the way you constantly mix up what actually exists with what you would like to be the case. For example:
“Communities and societies are just terms that refer to more than one separately owned territory of land”
is not a factual statement.
“If you knew of a community that had the punishment of such armed raids, then it is still the case that such laws are limited to those houses, and not yours”
So here you are agreeing with my point that “there’s also no reason why 2am armed raids couldn’t happen in a ‘gated community’” even though originally you originally disagreed with it.
“laws are voluntary for those who want to abide by those laws, and involuntary for those who want to break them”
That is a non-logical statement.
I say to you: “you can do X if you want to, but you’re not allowed to not do X”, doing X is not voluntary.
Philippe:
“you really are a very delusional person.”
How so? Remember what I said: Insults from you only tell me I am on the right track, because I know you have incorrect beliefs.
“It’s really weird the way you constantly mix up what actually exists with what you would like to be the case.”
I am not mxing those up. I know states exist. I know that if anyone in this country voluntarily agreed with each other to form a libertarian community, that it would be viewed as illegal in the opinion of the police, FBI, and other statesmen. I know that the state’s response would almost certainly be to send in armed thugs to harrass, kidnap, and if the people continue to disobey, to ultimately kill these people.
I also know that what ought to happen, which is to refrain from initiating violence against them except if they initiate violence themselves, (and no, refusing to pay taxes is not an initiation of violence, since taxation is itself an initiation of violence) is different from what likely would happen.
I am not mixing them up at all.
“For example:”
“Communities and societies are just terms that refer to more than one separately owned territory of land”
is not a factual statement.”
This is not mixing up what is with what ought to be.
Your viee of what a community is, and what a society is, is your opinion, not mine. I don’t share your strange belief that A enslaving or robbing from B forms a “community” of A and B. I don’t share your strange belief that the mere existence of criminal gangs such as mafias or territorial monopoly “protection rackets” somehow obligates me to identify such criminals as “my” society or “my” community as well.
I decide for myself who I consider to be in”my” community, and those people have decided for themselves who is to be in their community.
You can define community and society the way you want, but don’t expect me to just blindly adopt it the way you have adopted it.
“If you knew of a community that had the punishment of such armed raids, then it is still the case that such laws are limited to those houses, and not yours”
“So here you are agreeing…”
You did not engage the argument.
You said there is NO reason why 2am raids cannot occur in a voluntary community.
Do you even know what that means? It means there is no way to stop them or prevent them from occurring. You are ruling out all possible means by which to avoid them. Humans are not robots.
“laws are voluntary for those who want to abide by those laws, and involuntary for those who want to break them”
“That is a non-logical statement.”
No, it is a logical statement.
“I say to you: “you can do X if you want to, but you’re not allowed to not do X”, doing X is not voluntary.”
That is not what I am saying. My argument concerns the same law from the perspectives of at least two people, one of whom wants to abide by it not because they want to avoid punishment, but because they think it is the right thing to do, while the other does not want to abide by it. This law is voluntary for the first person, involuntary for the second person.
Your example concerns only one person. If the person wants to do X, then X to them is indeed voluntary. If they don’t want to do X, then X is involuntary to them.
“Because the lands upon which these laws apply, are not the property of anyone in the state who enforces those laws.”
You don’t even agree with your own argument (which is circular btw).
You think people should be able to make laws determining what other people can and can’t do on their land.
Philippe:
“You don’t even agree with your own argument”
Yes, I do in fact agree with my own aegument’
“(which is circular btw)”
You have never shown how it is circular. I’ve refuted all your previous attempts, and your attempts were all displays of you not understanding the arguments.
“You think people should be able to make laws determining what other people can and can’t do on their land.”
If by “their” you mean the property owners’ land, then yes that is what I think. I think your house rules should be the rules in your home.
If by “their” you mean me making the rules for your land, then that is what ancap ethics characteristically prohibits. I am not allowed, in ancap ethics, to set the “house rules” for lands I do not own.
This is not circular, nor is it is based on circular logic.
This is not me disagreeing with my own arguments.
You are massively confused, that ‘s all, and I am beginning to suspect you are finding solace in keeping things that way.
Remember guys….
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/08/i-call-krugmans-bluff-on-european-austerity.html#comment-855172
Philippe wrote:
I see no reason why security agents couldn’t bang down Gene’s door if he was suspected of growing forbidden plants. They might shoot him or they might not, difficult to know when you are talking about a hypothetical.
Philippe, I suggest you don’t ever go into the bed-and-breakfast business.
Well, when you’re claiming a “true free market” will be able to handle everyone’s issues, yeah, it does sound utopian.
Samson wrote:
Well, when you’re claiming a “true free market” will be able to handle everyone’s issues, yeah, it does sound utopian.
And by the same token, you (and Gene) claim that a “constitutionally limited government” will be able to handle everyone’s issues. So you’re both utopians too, right?
More generally, take a person and ask what he thinks is the ideal way for people to solve social problems. After he answers, you clarify: “You think that’s the answer, right?” He says yes. Then you say, “Since you think that will be able to handle everyone’s issues, you’re a utopian.”
If they claimed it would “handle everbody’s issues” faultlessly it would. If they claim only that it does a tolerably good job and avoids the oppression of the Soviet state, or the lawlessness of Mafia controlled Sicily, not so much. But that is pretty much what they DO claim. That our current system works well enough we should be leery of ditching it for one with no track record of producing decent societies.
Is “works well enough” a meaningful or even a true statement? I suspect there are things you would wish to change about our current system but why? doesn’t it work well enough? I have always heard how the US is the greatest nation on earth, OK is that good enough? That doesn’t tell us if we are the best of the worst or not. You have no objective criteria for deciding what a decent society is, either do I. Rothbardia or whatever you guys are calling it does not deny any other system the right to exist provided they are participated in only by the willing. Our current rule does not allow for an ancap society to compete with the others. Maybe it would never catch on because too many people yearn to be forced into doing things they don’t want to do. I’m not sure you have remained consistent in your criticism of the free society but from previous remarks you have made I have noticed a failure on your part to realize that the worst case scenario is that we wind up right back here, where we are today. The progress we have made as a society over the course of history has been due in no small part to reducing size and scope of authority against man, and you say why take this to its logical conclusion. There can be little doubt where your allegiances would have been during the American Revolution.
Ken B:
OK then, I believe ancapism is a “tolerable” ethic that does a “reasonably good job” of avoiding the kinds of violence in statist USSR and statist Italy
The Ancaps have a problem. If you are always saying , oh the TRUE market has never been tried, then you are saying your system has never been tried. It’s what communist apologists say, mutatis mutandis. Lends a little credence to the charge of utopianism wouldn,t you say?
Sorry that is a non-sequitur. It is the promised outcomes that might make people think that is utopian, not that it has not been tried yet. I mean it is ridiculous to claim that anything new (new obviously means that it was n’t there before) is utopian.
What you mean is that people actually tried X-times to implement something new, but fail one time after another to do that succesfully, and then keep saying oh it hasn’t “really” been tried yet, which sounds like being in denial. I mean communists can’t claim that there weren’t at least multiple attempts at creating the socialist dream. The only thing they can say is that it wasn’t done properly.
However, now I ask you, has it ever been seriously attempted to create an ancap system anywhere at anytime? I mean consciously with the aim to create ancapistan?
Well skylien I think you have two options
1 profess that Ancap has never been tried on a large scale
2 exhibit a successful example of Ancap on a large scale
My claim is that you will opt for 1. “Sure it’s never been done but trust us it can’t fail” may be fairly called utopian.
“Sure it’s never been done but trust us it can’t fail”
Even in FANL Rothbard didn’t go that far though, in chapter 14 (I believe) he even postulated that all the checks could fail.
Bob’s point would still hold even under your own view of what’s fairly called utopian.
Ken B, Saying a large scale free market without government manipulation has never been tried is quite different than realizing the shift from socialism to communism is logically impossible.
Yes it is. (You at least are responding to the point I actually made.) but then it is not unreasonable to criticize the admittedly untried scheme as utopian.
Ken B, it is not the same thing, the probability of a free market without government manipulation is greater than zero the probability of socialism shifting into communism is zero. The ultimate value remains to be seen the ultimate value of communism can never be seen. I don’t know your experience with ancaps but I do not and never have expressed it as the panacea for mankind, right or wrong it is the belief that it is the best we can do. If you think I’m utopian for believing we can do better then you don’t understand what you are talking about. I don’t believe in perfection, I don’t believe in heaven on earth.
But that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing if it is reasonable to describe a large scale radical reorganization of society as utopian if its advocates proclaim that it has never been tried.
Lots of movements have proclaimed the same thing in the past. The French revolution, bolshevism, various religious sects. One meaning of utopian is relying on over optimistic and untested assumptions. And until you have a track record it’s a reasonable description.
We are NOT discussing the charge ancaps predict utopia. They need not do so to be called utopian, because the word is used in several senses.
So we don’t predict utopia but people who disagree with our views think they are utopian. Therefore we are utopian. I’m sure that your definition of utopia is well understood within your coterie but doing something that has never been tried is a rare criteria for utopia. Liberty and egalitarianism, and any number of Marxian paradoxes were contradictions and easily identified as unrealistic. The fact that we do not claim it as a panacea means its not over optimistic. The fact that the true free market has not existed does not mean it is untested, we have plenty of examples of varying degree to show how it operates. You are much too bright to go this “it is whatever I say it is” route. By your criteria the first constitutional republic would have rightly been charged as utopian, which would render the charge meaningless. Is that what you’re after?
John gave a good example in one of his comments. You make assumptions that are utopian, so it is fair to call your ideas utopian.
Ken B:
It is not unreasonable to call everyone who isn’t a moral nihilist, everyone who rejects the Hegelian “everything that is real is rational and everything that is rational is real” the label of “Utopian”, because all these people believe the world should be different with certain purposeful actions, than it otherwise would be in the absence of such actions. Everyone in this group believes the world can be better than it is, that we ought not resign ourselves to indifference and moral capitulation, that they all have “visions” of what a better world would look like.
All the “that is unreasonable” and “not likely” rhetoric is really just one Utopian trying to refute another Utopian but without going through the painataking intellectual exercise necessary to show it.
Actually there’s the example often cited of the peaceful people of Pennsylvania who were indeed able to operate a market, productively and profitably, until they were subjugated by superior force.
If your point is that the military tends to win these squabbles, then yeah I agree it does, but it also destroys what it takes, ultimately devaluing everything. Tell me what has failed though.
Tel, well your utter lack of specifics makes it hard to know how to understand, much less check, your claim. Which people were these? You are asserting the autocthons had no “state”? All laws were the result of covenants, no force majeure, private police? What period are you talking about?
Ken B, your utter lack of knowing history should not be held over Tel’s head.
Ken B is just asking for a source or more information so he can check it – what’s with everyone getting upset about this lately? Asking for a source is perfectly legitimate. I’m not even 100% sure I know what Tel is talking about.
Ken B, I’m guessing Tel is talking about Pennsylvania in the late 1600’s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_the_United_States#Pennsylvania
Reece,
Yes, exactly. It speaks volumes that many do not seem to get this simple point.
Thanks again for the link. My observations are
1 Tel is as I anticipated ignoring the Indians. This rather matters doesn’t it? It is also not clear the whites did not anticipate and plan for formal rule from Britain, which rather complicates any claim of anarchy.
2 the only source listed is Rothbard. Won’t cut it I’m afraid. Tendentious, error prone, to mention only two shortcomings. Perhaps Tel can supply better.
I’m pretty sure Indian relations were pretty peaceful during this time period. Rothbard claims they are in Conceived in Liberty, and although the original source for this assertion isn’t available online, other people seem to think the same thing: http://128.197.153.21/mfield/Dissertation/Penn/Chapter.pdf (“Indians were treated fairly and with respect.” It goes on to talk about agreements, including during this “anarchist” period.) However, it seems like things were peaceful before this too, and for a while after. The peace was probably due to a lack of a military and a relatively peaceful people rather than a lack of a government. Just a quick Google search seems to confirm that they couldn’t collect taxes for a good period of time; not sure if some government services managed to run anyway.
I would agree that they probably didn’t expect that to last forever.
Ken B:
Not really, because there are in fact communists who did get what they wanted in the USSR.
Not all communists agree.
The ones who say the USSR was not “true” communism are usually the Bakhuninists and Proudhonists.
Ken B, do you support every law in existence right now, including the way they are enforced, and do you support no new laws? Is there any society in history that had the exact laws and enforcement you support, and no more than that? If not (which is what I suspect), then there is also no society in history that tried your ideal system.
The point is that while the anarcho-capitalist society most ancaps would like to see has never been tried, various aspects have been tried. Since these have worked without society falling apart (in fact, there’s a lot of evidence that these parts of society work better under an ancap approach), I think it’s difficult to reasonably claim that anarcho-capitalism would be a disaster.
Ah but not only do I not have an ideal system, I recommend only incremental changes. So I never ask for a great leap of faith, just small ones.
I want to change particular laws but not for instance the one that guarantees the right to a fair trial. So I’d legalize most drugs, but not anti biotics. This would be a return to some earlier laws in fact, so we can sensibly discuss consequences. And if someone like Callahan only wants to legalize some, and some is all I can get, I’ll work with him to make the small improvement. And if as I suspect it succeeds I’ll try to use that to argue for more. Very different from what Roddis and crew want, or rather stridently demand.
Is Roddis not willing to be pragmatic? You all – even Gene, from what I can gather – seem to be in the same boat, just with different stopping points.
You are the first to notice that, although I have stated it repeatedly! I am for cutting the scope of govt in many areas, and trying markets. And if it goes well, as I anticipate, doing more of the same. I just reserve the right to get off the bus at any time. Roddis is committed to the end of the line, LK refuses to get on the bus.
But just read how most of the claque here misunderstand.
As the bus gets closer to the final destination and it’s utter Hell and he still refuses to get off of the bus then I’ll see you two differently. Right now it’s just a difference in rhetoric and emphasis.
Ken B:
” I just reserve the right to get off the bus at any time.”
The problem with that seemingly innocuous insistence, is that when you choose to get off that bus, you invariably FORCE others off that bus with you, because getting off voluntary production and exchange of private property, means getting on violations of them.
You claim to “reserve the right” to violate the rights of others.
You reserving a right to cease engaging with others peacefully, is you reserving a right to deny others reserving the right to determine what happens with their own persons and property.
You, Roddis, and LK, and me for that matter, we’re all still on the bus, none of us have left it. The only difference between us, is that you and LK believe that a certain special group of philosopher kings sitting near the front should have the right to force everyone else to get off the bus against their will. You call these people statesmen. You believe the same rights and laws that apply to the people at the back of the bus, should not also apply to those at the front. Roddis and myself on the other hand believe that the people at the front have no right to force others off against their will.
I reserve the right to stay on the bus, but you and LK keep claiming a right to force me off when you get too scared, and thus violating MY right to choose how long I stay on the bus. I want to stay on, but you leaving it means you forcing others off with you.
That is the fundamental problem of statism in the metaphor of a busride. You believe you are acting alone when you say you want off. But that bus is the only trip to voluntary exchange-ville.
But since most things ancaps advocate have been tried before, I don’t see it too big of a leap of faith. What I mean by “ideal system” is just what set of laws/enforcement you would put in place right now if you had the ability. Even if you don’t have an ideal system in this sense, a lot of people do, so I don’t see ancaps as too far out (think of the average conservative or liberal – Obamacare, No Child Left Behind, etc. were all rather large changes that hadn’t been tried before).
I am willing to work on small improvements. I think the state is likely to go away gradually anyway.
I was opposed to those too btw.
But scrapping the bill of rights, ending elections, allowing private enforcers, these have indeed all been tried.
Yeah, I expected you might be, so I just used average conservatives/liberals as an example. You’re consistent on this matter of small changes, which is fine, but I think it’s important to note that most people don’t mind large changes when it’s something they like.
There is a big difference between the government being overthrown and taken over and the government just being abolished. If anything, that’s a problem with government; sometimes, it’s taken over by a crazy dictator.
Ken B:
“Ah but not only do I not have an ideal system, I recommend only incremental changes.”
Ah but not only do you have an ideal system, you necessarily use it as a standard to know whether any given “incremental change” is for the better or for the worse.
With regards to your claim to be able to “work with” Callahan, the only way you could do so without conflict is for you to respect each other’s property rights. If you two disagree, then the only way such disagreement can consist of avoidance of conflict, of agree to disagree, would also be for you to respect each other’s property rights.
You are not calling for anything different from”Roddis and crew”. In fact, you are UTILIZING what Roddis thinks is just and ethical.
Samson, let me proclaim for you; A true free market will NOT be able to “perfectly” handle everyone’s issues. The people who seek to use force against the unwilling will be screwed.
Will you use force against thieves? Will they be willing? Will you be screwed then?
Bravo Ken, You don’t understand the concept of aggression against an aggressor? Have you been lead to believe we are a bunch of defenseless pacifists in a lawless society? Because you are not against the use of force against the unwilling we are somehow hypocrites and you stand perched on some lofty moral high ground? With all due respect what planet do you live on?
You said force. Are you not responsible for what you say?
You made a false claim. Why not admit it and substitute a better one, one not so easily refuted?
What is th false claim?
Do you read your own posts? You said people who use FORCE against the unwilling would be screwed, but would use FORCE yourself.
Grane meant INITIATING force against the unwilling.
Wow.
So MF you admit I was right, Grane Peer said what I claimed. Thank you.
Ken B:
I didn’t admit you were right. I corrected your false interpretation of what Peer said. You said he made a false claim, but your assessment hinges on an incorrect understanding of what he said.
Why do you think Peer said to you “Bravo, you don’t understand aggressing against the aggressor”?
It is because there is a difference between using force to defend against intitiations of it, and initiating it.
Words have meaning. You guys consistently say things like this, use wrong and misleading terms to try to make claims that are false. Peer was trying to imply that his scheme eschews force, unlike his opponents’. But his does use force. Simply ammend it it to a correct statement, and we’re done. Neither you nor he is willing to, and we know why. You want the false and misleading implications of the wording chosen.
Ken B:
Don’t hold your intellectual laziness over our heads.
When I debate Marxists, when they say certain terms I make sure that I read and learn what they mean, not what I think they should mean when they use words that mean something else when I use them.
When Peer used the term force there, I knew he meant initiations of force because I took the time to read and learn what such a term means when Peer uses them.
You on the other hand want me to believe that your laziness and the faults that result, or somehow us misusing the terms in a “misleading” manner.
Peer’s “scheme” eschews initiations of force, the very kind that your “scheme”, or I think I should say what you merely preach but not practise yourself, not only tolerates it, not only condones it, but positively call for it against anyone who does not agree pay your preferred protector, or refuse to move and pay whatever local monopolist exists elsewhere.
He does not have to amend anything. And neither do you. You can continue using words in the misleading way you use them now. Don’t expect me to use your misleading words of force and violence. You use them in such a way so as to condone them.
Ken B:
And be advised that you saying we’re using terms “misleadingly” first, does not in any way exonerate you from using terms misleadingly. You use terms misleadingly all the time. So does Philippe.
I am not going to alter the meanings of the terms I use just because you demand I do so. You are sadly mistaken if you believe that you are ever going to convince me that you have not used words misleadingly whereas I have.
Your whole modus operandi is to use words misleadingly, because your position is intellectually untenable. You resort to might makes right where and when your verbal and written prattling cannot continue.
Here’s what I’ve concluded (everyone hold on now): we have no actual idea whether Ancapistan would be on average a nicer place or a less nice place than the United States. No one’s ever tried an Ancap society. Is there reason to think there would be many many problems with such a structure? Yes, I think history suggests that the free market, without regulation from somewhere, eventually develops or permits results that could curl one’s hair in the 21st century. I think some of the attempts at revising history by Ancaps so that the evidence for these potential problems (robber barons,child labor, 20 hour work days, discrimination of all kinds, violence, etc.) disappears are not persuasive (at least to me).
Now I think when Bob and Bob Roddis talk about the workability of private law, and the possibility of enforcing contracts without an enforcement mechanism other than “excommunication” that is Utopian because if one knows about the current system, one knows that enforcing contracts and judgments NOW, with the instrumentalities of the state, is pretty hard, so how in the world one will do it in Ancapistan I have no idea. It seems to depend on people working together in a way that I think is fairly described as Utopian.
BUT if statism is just immoral — that is, if the coercive power of the state is simply morally and ethically unjustifiable — then Ancapitsan must be a better place, no matter what it’s like to live in for most people, because Libertarianism is morally required, as the most just political system. This is the point that I think MF has made several times. To me that is the point that I can’t figure out. Clearly the Libertarian critique of government has intellectual force. I mean, the government does a lot of bad things, no question. Power corrupts. I don’t know how that can rationally be denied. Of course the government does a lot of good things (I think) too, but even those supposedly good things — unemployment insurance, Medicare, social security, providing fire and police security — are or may be bad under the Libertarian critique.
So for me (again, everyone hold on) the most difficult question is, is Libertarianism morally required, because if it is, then no one has to worry about whether Ancapistan will be a Utopia. I think it is unlikely many people will be convinced by the line of argument that Libertarianism will “work” much better than statism. But I could see an argument it’s more absolutely just.
John, I ask you, if the world we live in now falls into a third world war and governments lie in ruin, do we put the same institutions in place that have sought total control and led us to disaster or do we attempt to create a society that more fully realizes human freedom and restraint from oppression? I think it has been all to easy to put the blinders on to the complete disaster the last hundred or so years have been to mankind. The only counter has been the will the common man to seek for his own needs where ever he can. I can’t make the best argument but the moral good has never been distributed by those who seek to rule.
Is this right though? A lot of bad things have happened in the last hundred years, absolutely. But the western governments have established the most secure and prosperous states in history, with a long period without world wars or continental destruction. Governments have wiped out numerous killer diseases, ensured that their elderly populations don’t die on the streets, guaranteed health care for rich and poor alike. The American government has made great strides since the 50s against racial inequality and societal discrimination of all kinds. I mean, I don’t think it advances the ball to pretend that all governments do is rape and kill. It’s just not true, and what’s more, a lot of people are pretty sure it’s not true. Personally, I think the argument for Libertarianism has to be more nuanced than that to prevail.
You might find Pinker’s book relevant (Better Angels). Peer is quite wrong to think the last century so catastrophic. It is one of the most peaceful, it has seen enormous growth in wealth and health worldwide, and greater betterment of more lives than any preceding.
How much is due to the growth of the state can be debated, but clearly the growth of certain kinds of state have not had the disastrous consequences Peer claims.
You are right about such arguments not prevailing, but most Libertarians do not actually wish to prevail. They wish to feel as an ignored voice in the wilderness.
Your personal subjective opinion cannot be grounds to calling Peer’s subjective opinion “wrong”.
This is an interesting point. If we are to be entirely non-consequentialist, then we could argue that abolishing governments is morally required regardless of the outcome. Such a fundamentalist approach is not to most people’s tastes, I think.
This separation of the outcome from the means is quite important. Are we arguing for a better outcome, or a moral imperative?
There are two types of arguments against the AnCap system and they often seem to get confused. 1) The system would be great if it would work, but it would probably not be durable on a large scale. 2) It would not be the system we should have even if it would survive and be stable.
Grane Peer poses a hypothetical: IF the world falls to ruin, should we ” attempt to create a society that more fully realizes human freedom and restraint from oppression?” Is this talking about outcomes or means? What if a Christian society ended up more fully realising human freedom and restraint from oppression?
Grane Peer says “I think it has been all to easy to put the blinders on to the complete disaster the last hundred or so years have been to mankind.” I am not sure that the last hundred years has been a disaster for mankind. Ken B cites Pinker, but it seems pretty certain that there are more people alive in a state of relative safety and
affluence now than 100 years ago. The world has not yet fallen to ruins, so the hypothetical remains just that.
“if the coercive power of the state is simply morally and ethically unjustifiable — then Ancapitsan must be a better place”
Ancapistan is a sort of state, in which coercive power is used to maintain a particular social organization.
It is not a state, because it prohibits initiations of force which is necessary to form involuntary, territorial monopolies of “protection”, which is what states are.
Just like me hiring a private security guard is not the creation of a state, so too would every individual hiring their own security as in ancapism not constitute the creation of a state.
I’ve been hanging out here mostly silently for a long time. I’ve seen you John engaging honestly with ancaps and I applaud you sir. But one thing is bugging me. You obviously spend a lot of time in the comment section of this blog. Time that might be used to crack many a book on anarchocapitalism. What gives? It’s an honest question. I’m just curious. Don’t take it like I want you out of here. It’s not my blog. Not my decision to make and actually I like that you’re here.
Well, I’m reading as fast as I can, actually. It’s really not a flip answer. And I have read some material on the issue I mentioned above. But it’s a fair criticism I think that I need to read more, and I hope to get more mastery of this stuff. But what I’ve read so far (mostly Rothbard) hasn’t resolved for me the question of whether Libertarianism is a moral imperative. I have to agree that could just be the result of me not having read and thought enough about it.
Some of us reject the idea that it could be a moral imperative regardless of the effects. So I think you do have to deal with the effects.
This is all less a problem for those of us “minarchists” who want to reduce the role and power of the state in many areas, but care about consequences. Markets work well in general, but not perhaps in everything all the time. Some here for example, Major.Freedom explicitly, argue that it is a good thing when the rich can tilt justice and trials to their advantage. Is that really morally imperative?
Link to where MF has EXPLICITLY argued that, please.
As Kramer would say. I have linked it more than once and you are a regular. He argues the rich are rich because they provide more value to others, so it is OK. It’s on a thread where Murphy has a hypothetical about making murders pay $1000 if that jogs your conveniently porous memory.
Ken B, you’re distorting what I said.
I said that in a private law society, where security and protection against initiations of force are not themselves initiations of force in the form of some land owners declaring themselves the sole and final arbiter of conflict resolution over the lands owned by others, where security and protection are offered on the market…
THEN those security and protection institutions that do the best job at protection will tend to attract the most customers, and the most revenues and profits.
Thus, “the best protection” would be associated with “the highest profits”.
If it so happened that a previously well performing protection institution turned to the “dark side”, then anarcho-capitalist methods can reduce that firm’s revenues, for the same reason tin pot dictatorship states attract the least amount of capital.
This is not the same thing as saying “the richest make the rules”. You are a liar Ken B.
Richie, I did not say that explicitly. [Edited by RPM.]
I’m the RandomLurker above. I’m settling for a name.
“Some of us reject the idea that it could be a moral imperative regardless of the effects.”
I would argue that we can have a cake and eat it too. Ancap ethics offers leads to best results in the long run.
At least that’s a coherent position. Wrong, but coherent and worth debating.
It is not wrong. It is right.
You’re wrong.
If it counts for anything it was Hoppe who broke my resolve about validity of ancap ethics.
Andrew, have you read the Murphy/Callahan response to Hoppe’s argumentation ethics? If not, I would definitely recommend it. I don’t find Hoppe’s position on ethics to be particularly strong.
Yes, I’ve read it, and I’ve read countless rebuttals. When I said that Hoppe convinced me of the validity of ancap ethics I was being imprecise.
It wasn’t the argumentation ethics that got me. It was his thorough elaboration of the idea that private property rights are the best way to minimize conflicts. Utilitarians could jump on board.
John, while were at your exhaustive reading list, if you’d like some alternatives to the natural rights approach of Rothbard take a look into JC Lester, Jan Narveson, Anthony de Jasay, Chris Sciabarra, and Michael Huemer.
I’m not certain they can directly answer your question about libertarianism being a moral imperative (I’m not exactly sure what you mean by it, for starters) but they’ll at least give you something different to consider.
Michael Huemer’s is quite thorough “The problem of political authority”.
John, those are some honest questions you are asking and I appreciate your sincerity. I think Stephan Kinsella in this post takes one of your suggested options. I agree with him insofar as he goes, but I also (as you know) *do* think that freedom “works better” than coercion, in the sense most people would use for the word “works.”
Michael Barnett and Callahan going at it in the comments is pretty funny, too.
Where are they arguing?
At the very bottom of that link in the comments. It’s exactly what I would expect to see from those two going at each other.
Thanks, Bob. I will look at that now..
Of course we know that Ancap will be nicer. There would be little or no violence, no war, no rape, pillage and slavery. Everything else will remain the same, only cleaner and more affluent. Violence is the primary problem that plagues mankind:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bob_roddis/8525140770/
Not non-existent bad macroeconomic outcomes from micro-decisions like increasing saving to pay down debt.
What are you talking about? Savings can be supplied at the macro level by printing more money.
I suppose the government can supply (steal) the savings of person X to person Y by printing more money and giving it to person Y all to solve a problem that does not exist and to create the problems that do exist.
These are the types of moral outrages that the NAP will prohibit.
Keynesians and statists never seem to grasp that under statism, there is no rule regarding who person X or person Y might be. All that is necessary for a violent forced transfer is that the excuse for the transfer sounds “reasonable” to satisfy a “policy goal”, the ultimate Wild Card.
Don’t forget that consuming resources increases resources.
To me, this is Utopian thinking, and while we can all hope this would happen, I don’t see any empirical evidence to support these outcomes, and substantial evidence that they won’t occur. There simply isn’t a violence free, no rape society and never has been. Moreover, with no tested enforcement mechanisms, it seems unlikely to me that Ancapistan will do a whole lot better in these regards.
That doesn’t close the question at all. But I just can’t see any support for the idea of a huge improvement in the distribution of social ills common to mankind.
If most people agree to abide by and do abide by the non-aggression principle, those people will not be committing aggression. The hard part is getting people to agree to abide by the NAP. Once (if) they do, I fail to see that problems that result. If you want to argue that people just love love love their violence and will never understand the NAP much less agree to abide by it. you might be right.
Typo: Should have read: “Once (if) they do, I fail to see that problems will result.”
This I agree with – if you can get people to abide by NAP, absolutely. But to me this comes under the category of, “if men were angels ….” I mean, if government workers abided by principles of equity and justice all the time, statism wouldn’t be so bad either. My worry is people manifestly don’t abide by principles of moral excellence. That’s how ended up with governments. It may be that in some indeterminate amount of time, the state really will wither away, and we’ll have the Federation (that one was for Bob Murphy), but until then ….
Since men aren’t angels, why do you want to maintain the existence of state power, which is mostly uncontrollable? The worst get to the top and sociopaths abound. The main point of the NAP is to stop them and that behavior in thier tracks.
300 years ago, no one imagined that there could be a consensus on anti-slavery or full rights for women. Our ideas are unfamiliar to most people at this time. Even though most people live their lives pursuant to the NAP outside of politics, they seem to have great difficulty understanding its implications AT THIS TIME.
Of course, we have no movies, TV shows or songs for the masses tos spread these ideas. At this time.
I think Alongside Night just was just released or will be soon.
“I think Alongside Night just was just released or will be soon.”
Haha
That movie just looks terrible.
I’m sure that “Alongside Night” will fairly treat the topic of how minority lesbians can prosper in safety under AnCap.
Are you saying you liked the Rainbow Cadenza better or what here Bob?
“The hard part is getting people to agree to abide by the NAP. Once (if) they do, I fail to see that problems that result. If you want to argue that people just love love love their violence”
Ancaps are not opposed to violence. Why do you pretend otherwise?
Ancaps define aggression as actions which are contrary to ancap beliefs regarding things such as property ownership and property rights.
No one else subscribes to such bizarre and logically incoherent beliefs. Hence the ancap appeal to the NAP is a completely ridiculous way of saying: people should agree with my illogical beliefs about this and that. Oh and if they don’t, they should be made to.
Remember guys….
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/08/i-call-krugmans-bluff-on-european-austerity.html#comment-855172
The NAP is not pacifism.
The non-aggression principle is about prohibitions of initiations of violence, not potential rape,murder or theft victims using force to stop their attackers.
Hey everybody, if your comments devolve into primarily insults that are not meant in good fun, then I am deleting them. I know “in good fun” when I see it.
“Poor, wretched, and stupid peoples, nations determined on your own misfortune and blind to your own good! You let yourselves be deprived before your own eyes of the best part of your revenues; your fields are plundered, your homes robbed, your family heirlooms taken away. You live in such a way that you cannot claim a single thing as your own; and it would seem that you consider yourselves lucky to be loaned your property, your families, and your very lives. All this havoc, this misfortune, this ruin, descends upon you not from alien foes, but from the one enemy whom you yourselves render as powerful as he is, for whom you go bravely to war, for whose greatness you do not refuse to offer your own bodies unto death. He who thus domineers over you has only two eyes, only two hands, only one body, no more than is possessed by the least man among the infinite numbers dwelling in your cities; he has indeed nothing more than the power that you confer upon him to destroy you. Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you, if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many arms to beat you with, if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own? How does he have any power over you except through you? How would he dare assail you if he had no cooperation from you? What could he do to you if you yourselves did not connive with the thief who plunders you, if you were not accomplices of the murderer who kills you, if you were not traitors to yourselves? You sow your crops in order that he may ravage them, you install and furnish your homes to give him goods to pillage; you rear your daughters that he may gratify his lust; you bring up your children in order that he may confer upon them the greatest privilege he knows — to be led into his battles, to be delivered to butchery, to be made the servants of his greed and the instruments of his vengeance; you yield your bodies unto hard labor in order that he may indulge in his delights and wallow in his filthy pleasures; you weaken yourselves in order to make him the stronger and the mightier to hold you in check. From all these indignities, such as the very beasts of the field would not endure, you can deliver yourselves if you try, not by taking action, but merely by willing to be free. Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.
Do not imagine that there is any bird more easily caught by decoy, nor any fish sooner fixed on the hook by wormy bait, than are all these poor fools neatly tricked into servitude by the slightest feather passed, so to speak, before their mouths. Truly it is a marvelous thing that they let themselves be caught so quickly at the slightest tickling of their fancy. Plays, farces, spectacles, gladiators, strange beasts, medals, pictures, and other such opiates, these were for ancient peoples the bait toward slavery, the price of their liberty, the instruments of tyranny. By these practices and enticements the ancient dictators so successfully lulled their subjects under the yoke, that the stupefied peoples, fascinated by the pastimes and vain pleasures flashed before their eyes, learned subservience as naïvely, but not so creditably, as little children learn to read by looking at bright picture books.”
“He who thus domineers over you has only two eyes, only two hands, only one body, no more than is possessed by the least man among the infinite numbers dwelling in your cities; he has indeed nothing more than the power that you confer upon him”
This is how I understand the “made” in the aphorism “Leaders are made, not born.”
Although 500 years old, this helps explain the inexplicable. For example, people have been blaming the serious mistakes of the government officials for WWI, but the civilians could have just said no.