11
Sep
2014
“If You Hate the Government So Much, Move to Somalia!”
I tackle this common objection in my latest LibertyChat article. An excerpt:
People lose the ability to think rationally when it comes to politics, so let’s change the context for a moment. Suppose I say, “You can get a better night’s sleep if the room is dark.” Would it be a good put-down for a critic to retort, “Oh, if you don’t like light, then go take a nap in a black hole!” ? Of course not.
Can you name one advanced and stable economic powerhouse that has spontaneously emerged out of anarchy?
All these modern ideas of libertarian paradise (e.g. Peter Thiel’s floating islands) are laughable based on the fact that the fact that they all piggyback off the success of government institutions. Do you think Peter has a group of ragtag Somalis in mind when he thinks about potential residents of his libertarian paradise islands or is he more likely to recruit well educated individuals who have come up through our public institutions? I bet I know the answer!
Do you think he’s got people from North Korea in mind?
Haha
Bob, so when you think of central government , you immediately think of Somalia pre-1990, North Korea, and probably the Nazis. In this light its not surprising you believe anarchy is a viable alternative. How about mentioning some governments that better serve their citizens…there are gradients here you know….
I think we can all pretty much agree there, the smaller the government the better.
DanB:
When you think of central government, you immediately think of Sweden. In light of this it is not surprising you believe statism is a viable alternative. How about mentioning some governments that serve their citizens worse…there are gradients you know.
Bob, so when you think of central government , you immediately think of Somalia pre-1990,
When addressing “If You Hate the Government So Much, Move to Somalia!”, yes.
Agreed, Dan. There are some governments that are worse than anarchy, and they can be counted on one’s hands.
That is a subjective value judgment, which you are arrogating to some sort of objective value everyone agrees with.
The only political framework that does not enable individual subjective value judgments to be practised without destroying or hampering the subjective value judgments of others, is private property anarchy. Only then can you presumptuous, arrogant, holier than thou deceivers who pretend to know what’s best for everyone, be exposed as nothing but initiations of force against others and therefore NOT in everyone’s best interests, but only in the interests of those who are the aggressors.
The only reason why your arrogance combined with social ignorance isn’t immediately laughed out of the room as the ramblings of a criminal thug, is because of the illusion of state equalling civilized society.
DanB, did you even read his article? He specifically quotes Powell who compares Somalia to other African nations – 42 countries, to be specific. That is a completely fair comparison.
What isn’t fair is saying “so when you think of central government , you immediately think of Somalia pre-1990, North Korea, and probably the Nazis.” That isn’t true. You didn’t even put a question mark there. You completely made up his position. This is even worse when you consider that the article which you are responding to mentions over 40 other countries.
Earth.
“Can you name one large, advanced, stable society that does not have slavery?” – DanB, circa 1000 AD.
Can you name one large, advanced, stable society that does not have human sacrifice?” – DanB, Mexico circa 1500 AD.
https://tolnai-history7.wikispaces.com/file/view/aztec_sacrifice.jpg/207687008/371×378/aztec_sacrifice.jpg
“Can you name one large, advanced, stable society that does not have any rape or theft?” – DanB, circa any time in history
Oh…I see…somehow we are still not “enlightened” enough to have discovered that a vacuum of central government actually breeds prosperity.
Well…I suppose you guys have the Somali field experiment in progress. Perhaps it s GDP will reach a thousandth of Swedish GDP before you all die.
Good luck.
“If a state arises in Somalia, I will be honest and consistent and argue that because the onset of statism there did not lead to instant prosperity, it means statism leads to poverty. I will then change my mind and say states are associated with relative poverty, and appear as on the nice progressive moral side by suggesting Schweden is Utopia.” – DanB
Major Freedom, I think you understand why this is a straw man.
And I think you would understand if I told you that is the point.
It is a straw man because DanB is not consistent on this score. It is why I said it.
Just pointing out your flawed logic DanB.
“Can you name one advanced and stable economic powerhouse that has spontaneously emerged out of anarchy?”
All of them. Then when they become wealthy, the thieves foist government.
Bingo!
You mean states do not arise via agreement among all parties the way Callahan suggested in his “Statesburgh” scenario?
You’re biased and idealistic!
“All these modern ideas of libertarian paradise (e.g. Peter Thiel’s floating islands) are laughable based on the fact that the fact that they all piggyback off the success of government institutions.”
Do you go the opposite way too? Is Somalia piggybacking off the failure of a government institution? Essentially, this argument leads to any anarchy ever in the future being laughable, all because every place had a government at one point. (His great great great grandparents went to public school, and that knowledge has passed down, therefore anarchism is laughable.)
That isn’t how you judge success or failure of something. If you have two similar places, and one switches to anarchism and the other sticks with government, that would be the best way to empirically measure whether anarchism is good (at least for similar populations). Bob’s article just happens to address that exact concern.
Scott Horton explains how the working Somalian “anarchy” was destroyed by the Klepto-Keynesian USA:
http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/u-s-government-to-blame-for-somalias-misery/
Isn’t it odd that violent statist intervention always disappears in a statist narrative?
Does it mean we can accept that Somalia IS in anarchy?
Northern Somalia, prior to the creation of the nation of Somalia c. 1960, had a functioning stateless system, described in some detail by I.M. Lewis, an LSE anthropologist. When Italy and the U.K. ended their role in Somalia they created a modern democratic state. After a while it turned into a military dictatorship. Barre, the dictator, got into a war with Ethiopia, supported by the USSR. The USSR switched sides, the war went very badly, Barre ended up dead.
Since then the U.N., supported by the U.S. and Ethiopia, the traditional enemy of the Somalis, has been trying to reestablish a central government. The Somalis around Mogadishu, the capital, having observed that if you have a government it is better to be the governor than the governed, have been fighting over who will run it. The northern Somalis set up the Republic of Somaliland on something closer to traditional lines but the U.N. refuses to recognize it, since that would be to admit that Somali is not one country.
For details on the traditional system and relevant references, see:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Course_Pages/Legal_Systems_Very_Different_13/Book_Draft/Systems/SomaliLawChapter.html
Evidence against the problems with a government and a civil war over who will run it, not against the workability of a stateless order.
Prof. Friedman, what are your thoughts on the theory that an absence of states will necessarily lead to a civil war over who will run a state?
Thank you for your input.
Seeing that Somali civil society was ravaged by the Marxist Leninist regime of Siad Barre from 1969-1990, why don’t we blame the left-wing faculty at every state university for Somalia’s troubles?
http://www.cja.org/article.php?list=type&type=287
Are you a left winger? Like Siad Barre?
Because it wasn’t true left wingerismnessness.
Then let’s Philippe to show ’em how to do it right, once and for all.
But then the problem will be some unexpected bad apples he hired, not the pure ideal of Philippism.
so I guess you think all right wingers are to blame for right-wing dictatorships?
how stupid are you exactly?
Be nice.
I expect you’ll be saying that to Roddis now, just to be consistent.
Roddis didn’t call you stupid.
I was calling him the smartest statist in the galaxy and the only one smart enough to hit that statist sweet spot they all dream about.
Is that so wrong?
Actually I do generally blame neo-conservatives for right-wing dictatorships (which they tend to vigorusly support). And since the Neocons are social democrats spreading democracy to places where it shouldn’t ought to go, I blame them when their multi-cultural democratic creations go off the track.
Ideas have consequences.
Neoconservatism was borne out of disillusioned pro-imperialist Neo-Trotskyists who grew weary of the cliche hippie revolutionary anti-capitalist Marxists.
I said “I guess you think all right wingers are to blame for right-wing dictatorships?”
You’re a right-winger too, Bob.
Aha, so you only said that to insult.
Only problem is that Roddis is not a right winder.
Right wing ideology is against anarcho-capitalist ideology.
Try again Mr. “If you’re not a left winger, you must be a right winger.”
Heck, if you follow Rothbard, Roddis would be far, far left, traditionally.
“Roddis would be far, far left, traditionally.”
why’s that?
OK Philippe and MF, you should move on from the right-wing discussion. If you both write single sentence posts calling each other liars, it’s time to move on.
Read Rothbard.
Anarchism/Libertarianism is to the left of Marxism/communism which is to the left of conservatism
“Anarchism/Libertarianism is to the left of Marxism/communism”
do you mean the original anarchism of Proudhon, etc, rather than the much later concoction of Rothbard?
“do you mean the original anarchism of Proudhon, etc, rather than the much later concoction of Rothbard?”
Both. Both are to the left of Marxism.
“do you mean the original anarchism of Proudhon, etc, rather than the much later concoction of Rothbard?”
Both. Both are to the left of Marxism.
Philippe,
http://mises.org/daily/910
what a remarkably confused text.
The fundamental left-right division is over the issue of equality vs inequality. Right-wingers support the idea of inequality whereas left-wingers support the idea of equality. Obviously there are many gradations between the opposite extremes.
On both the left and the right there are authoritarians and libertarians. Fascism is an example of extreme right-wing authoritarianism, and totalitarian communism is an example of extreme left-wing authoritarianism.
Proudhon’s anarchism is an example of extreme left-wing libertarianism, and Rothbard’s anarcho-capitalism is an example of extreme right-wing libertarianism.
Hahahahahaha
“Remarkably confused.”
You don’t even have the requisite knowledge to make such an ascertainment.
The fundamental difference between left and right is not equality versus inequality. That is merely one, albeit very important, difference.
The “fundamental” difference between left and right is democratic hierarchy versus elitist hierarchy. Both left and right are PRO-hierarchy.
The left wants everyone to be controlled hierarchically by “representatives”, who are claimed as most closely “representing” everyone through either philosopher kings willing to form insurrection armies to make people their true collectivist leftist selves, or through common folk elected politicians willing to impose what the majority wants on everyone else to make people their true collectivist selves.
The right wants everyone to be controlled hierarchically by “the good guys”, who are claimed as being “closest to the ideal” humans through that same insurrection army or elected pathway to control.
The left doesn’t like the right in charge because the right FORCES inequality among the citizens, and the right doesn’t like the left in charge because the left FORCES equality among the citizens. Both however FORCE inequality between state and citizenry. Both are pro-hierarchy. But both are pro-forced hierarchy.
You’re wrong to claim leftism is pro-equality. The left is pro-equality within one group, the private citizenry, but highly pro-inequality between “elected reps” and “voters”. They must necessarily be so, regardless of what they claim. What they want and call for is forced inequality that differs slightly from the inequality the right wants to force.
Anarcho-capitalists are neither pro-equality nor pro-equality. We are pro-individual property rights. If we live among people during one age where there is high inequality in talents and productivity, and/or high inequality in people’s valuations of other people according to their appearance, then anarcho-capitalists say as long as individuals don’t initiate force against others’ persons or property, then let the chips fall where they may. The results will not be inherently immoral or moral.
Similarly, if ancaps lived in an age where people are very similar in terms of productive ability, and/or people valued other people not so much differently according to appearance, then ancaps will say the same thing. As long as individuals do not initiate force against others’ persons or property, then again let the chips fall where they may. The results will not be inherently immoral or moral.
Ancaps are not “pro-inequality”. We are pro equal rights under the law, and let natural talents, abilities, and even prejudices of individuals take them as far as they can go or as far back as they find themselves, and that they are not obligated to feel guilty about being so much richer or so much poorer than others.
Proudhon was excoriated by leftists (like Jenny d’Hericourt and Joseph Déjacque) for not believing in “equality”.
I like the idea of simply dividing right and left over “equality” but that would put libertarians like Rothbard on the radical left.
“I like the idea of simply dividing right and left over “equality” but that would put libertarians like Rothbard on the radical left.”
Rothbard: ‘Egalitarianism as a revolt against nature’
“In no area has the Left been granted justice and morality as extensively and almost universally as in its espousal of massive equality. It is rare indeed in the United States to find anyone, especially any intellectual, challenging the beauty and goodness of the egalitarian ideal…
…We began by considering the common view that the egalitarians, despite a modicum of impracticality, have ethics and moral idealism on their side. We end with the conclusion that egalitarians, however intelligent as individuals, deny the very basis of human intelligence and of human reason: the identification of the ontological structure of reality, of the laws of human nature, and the universe. In so doing, the egalitarians are acting as terribly spoiled children, denying the structure of reality on behalf of the rapid materialization of their own absurd fantasies. Not only spoiled but also highly dangerous; for the power of ideas is such that the egalitarians have a fair chance of destroying the very universe that they wish to deny and transcend, and to bring that universe crashing around all of our ears. Since their methodology and their goals deny the very structure of humanity and of the universe, the egalitarians are profoundly antihuman; and, therefore, their ideology and their activities may be set down as profoundly evil as well.”
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard31.html
That’s very good Philippe, now Read “Left and Right” – entirely.
And then when you’ve finished read Proudhon’s writings on egalitarianism, in particular his ideas of women (“pretty animals”).
*If* Proudhon get’s to be a left-libertarian, then Rothbard would be even further to the left of him.
as usual K.P., you are wrong whilst simultaneously being very smug about it. You’re right about Proudhon’s sexism though.
So you read it?
I think I’m the only person here who even gives you a chance Phillipe, maybe you should settle a bit before you lash out at me.
K.P.
Hey now, I am a frequent commenter to Philippe.
yeah it was a mistake to lash out at you, but your smugness is grating.
Rothbard may have been wrong about libertarianism actually being on the left but that *is* how he saw it. Again, read the work, or let it go completely, just saying I’m “wrong” doesn’t help your case.
MF,
Yes, I should have said “one of”. Further, you appear to be more sincere than I, in that you genuinely want to convince him.
I, on the other hand, still have doubts that he’s real, and merely use his comments as a tool.
“Rothbard may have been wrong about libertarianism actually being on the left but that *is* how he saw it”
okay, so the claim that Rothbard’s anarcho-capitalism is really “left wing” seems to rest upon the idea that it supports the idea of equality under the law. Is this correct?
the above is a bit confusing, here’s a simpler version:
“okay, so the claim that Rothbard’s anarcho-capitalism is really “left wing” seems to rest upon the notion that it supports the idea of equality under the law. Is this correct?”
“okay, so the claim that Rothbard’s anarcho-capitalism is really “left wing” seems to rest upon the notion that it supports the idea of equality under the law. Is this correct?”
No, it doesn’t rest on that notion. That might be a simple defense too, but it’s unnecessary. Like socialism, libertarianism can be traced to much broader fields of power relations and class theory. (Not necessarily correctly traced, mind you)
If I had to pick one I’d take Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s left-right spectrum over Rothbard’s (having spent so much time on the left, it’s probably just a gut reaction on my part.) But when Mr. Libertarian himself says he’s of the left it’s worth noting.
Philippe, you are equivocating the term ‘equality’. Take a look:
https://mises.org/daily/804
Philippe:
“so I guess you think all right wingers are to blame for right-wing dictatorships?”
Intellectually they are culpable, yes.
But the topic is Somalia, not your psychological need to juxtapose right wing ideology against every left wing atrocity mentioned.
you’re right-wing
no, the topic I was responding to was Bob spewing his hatred of anything left-wing.
Isn’t Glenn Greenwald considered “left wing”? Seems to me that many of Scott Horton’s guests are “left wing”.
I’m not right wing. I’m no wing. I’m not on any wing of a govermental congress, practically or figuratively.
No, the topic was Somalia, no your desire to keep mentioning “right wing” due to the left wing atrocities in Somalia.
The term ‘right-wing’ is used to describe neo-conservatives, nationalists, racial supremacists, Christian democrats, religious fundamentalists, and classical liberals.
I’m none of these things.
You’re lying.
you even have your own wikipedia page:
“Right-libertarianism (or right-wing libertarianism) refers to those libertarian political philosophies that advocate both self-ownership and the unequal appropriation of natural resources,[1] leading to strong support of private property rights and free-market capitalism. This position is contrasted with that of left-libertarianism, which maintains that natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively.[2] Right-libertarianism includes anarcho-capitalism and laissez-faire, minarchist liberalism.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-libertarianism
Right wing libertarianism is not right wing on its own. Right wing on its own means something quite different than right wing libertarianism.
Your apology is accepted.
At any rate, left wing libertarianism is a contradiction in terms, because liberty means non-violence, yet non-violence leads to inequality of wealth due to natural inequalities. Left wing libertarianism is just another term for socialism. To the extent left wing libertarianism is voluntary at the individual level, the inequality will just reside between the various independently owned and controlled “collectives”.
I am not right wing.
Sure, you can call me right wing libertarian, but I just call it plain old libertarianism, because it is the only libertarianism with actual non-violence.
“Right libertarians reject collective or state-imposed equality as undermining reward for personal merit, initiative, and enterprise.[75] In their view, it is unjust, limits personal freedom, and leads to social uniformity and mediocrity.[75] Left-libertarians, however, argue that “equality does not mean an equal amount but equal opportunity… Free opportunity and acting out your individuality means development of natural dissimilarities and variations”.[76] In their view, freedom without equality gives more freedom to those at a higher social status, and equality without freedom is a form of oppression.[77][78]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics#Social_stratification
“liberty means non-violence”
“it is the only libertarianism with actual non-violence”
oops.
Ancaps are not non-violent. You’re not opposed to violence.
You’re supposedly opposed to aggression, remember?
You’re doing it again Phillipe.
Once again, practising libertarianism does not require violence. It is not necessary for it to be practised. Individuals can homestead and free trade until the cows come home, and the world would be libertarian and non-violent.
You’re talking about what happens in response to initiations of violence. To be pro non-violence does not mean you must accept violence against your person and property.
For there to be liberty, non-violence is necessary and sufficient.
I will continue to use “non-violence” to refer to libertarianism, and I will not use your phrasing just to make you feel better, so you might as well get used to
Non-violence means non-violence. If you are ok with using violence, then you shouldn’t pretend you are anti-violence or non-violence.
“Nonviolence is the personal practice of being harmless to self and others under every condition. It comes from the belief that hurting people, animals or the environment is unnecessary to achieve an outcome and refers to a general philosophy of abstention from violence based on moral, religious or spiritual principles.[1]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolence
That rules you out.
“practising libertarianism does not require violence”
So long as everyone agrees, and behaves accordingly, right? But you could say that about any social system… So long as everyone agrees, and behaves accordingly, and doesn’t break the rules, there is no need for violence.
The question is what happens when people disagree or break the rules.
In your case, if someone breaks your rules, you might use violence against them.
“The World Health Organization defines violence as “the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual”
According to this definition, given that you threaten to use violence against people who do not follow your rules, this would imply that you are an initiator of violence. Funny, huh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence
And just to clarify, if someone does not follow your rules, you will initiate force against their body even if they have done nothing to your body.
“According to this definition, given that you threaten to use violence against people who do not follow your rules, this would imply that you are an initiator of violence. ”
It implies no such thing. The definition you provided states that violence is “the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual”. That does not necessarily mean INITIATIONS of violence. It says intentional violence. There is a difference. A potential murder or rape victim can intentionally use violence against their attacker, but still not be an “initiator” of violence.
“And just to clarify, if someone does not follow your rules, you will initiate force against their body even if they have done nothing to your body.”
But they have, by harming what my body depends on for its health and well-being. What you call non-violent trespassing is violence against my body in an indirect manner.
Me taking your food to the point of you starving to death is me harming your body. I am the cause for why your body is dying. Just because I am not putting my hands on you, it doesn’t mean I am not harming your body.
If you were to use force against my body directly, to stop me from taking your food, that is not an example of you “initiating” violence against me. I was the initiator, you were the responder,
Same thing with you messing up my land, and taking my apples, etc. You don’t have to be physically touching my body for you to be harming my body.
Yes, stealing people’s wealth IS doing something to their bodies. I don’t know where you got the cockamamie notion that starving people to death by stealing their food is an example of you doing nothing to people’s bodies, but I advise you to rethink your position. We humans are a contingent animal. Our bodies depend on the material world.
“Me taking your food to the point of you starving to death is me harming your body.”
you could flip that around and say that if you use force to deny a starving person access to food, or to necessary resources for sourcing/producing food, you are killing them.
Anyone who denies a starving person food can easily be the subject of a refusal by everyone to sell such person anything:
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/05/libertarian-battles.html#comment-488156
OR people can come into contractual privity with others so that other people are contractually obligated to give food and water to third parties who are starving and where they are contractually prohibited from using inappropriate force against them.
The problem is easily solved with good contract drafting without the initiation of force and without destroying the plain meaning of well known words and concepts which is apparently Philippe’s goal in life.
Bob Roddis,
your comment completely ignores the point of the discussion.
I’ve been reading along here, and this seems wrong to me. How will you enforce the contracts without “initiation of violence?”
Philippe:
“There are some laws that are impossible for everyone to agree to even if they tried”
“Such as?”
Any law that cannot be practised simultaneously by everyone.
These particular laws cannot be agreed upon because they are impossible to practise.
For example, the law “social democracy is moral and should be enforced” cannot be a law practised by nor enforced on everyone. It necessarily requires two distinct sets of laws, one set of laws for those controlled, and a different, indeed opposite set of laws for those who control. It would be “illegal” from the controller’s laws for the controlled to practise the controller’s laws.
What you yourself are actually claiming to agree to is not “social democracy should be enforced” but rather “Group A should not enforce social democracy on B, as that would be bad, but group B should enforce social democracy on A, as that would be good.” The former is an example of a law that cannot be agreed upon by everyone, because it is impossible to practise. Social democracy is a law that the same exact action as moral for some, but immoral for others. It is not moral for all.
“Me taking your food to the point of you starving to death is me harming your body.”
“You could flip that around…”
First, do you now understand and agree that harming people’s bodies is not limited to physically touching their bodies, but includes touching material objects as well?
“and say that if you use force to deny a starving person access to food, or to necessary resources for sourcing/producing food, you are killing them.”
You’re talking about something different, and not just in the mirror image sense, but you are adding an implicit premise that is not present in the opposite argument. You are saying that a person who is prevented from harming the body of another via affecting material goods, is being harmed by the preventer.
The ancap argument is actually that there is no direct nor indirect harm caused by homesteading land nor is their any direct or indirect harm caused by free trade.
But the actions you are talking about, of one person taking apples from homesteaded or traded for land, that does in fact cause harm to other people indirectly.
Since people, if they exist, will act regardless, then it is not good enough to point out that stopping a person from harming another, is somehow on par with a person harming another.
Not all actions harm other people. Equivalently, not all actions do not harm other people.
A person taking apples from a farm homesteaded by someone else, is harming the farmer indirectly, whereas homesteading new farms and trading existing farms doesn’t harm anyone.
Going back to “impossible for everyone to agree to” laws, the law “it is moral to take apples from others”, cannot be practised by everyone. If it were moral to take apples, then it would be immoral to prevent the taking of apples. That means if you take my apple, and taking apples is moral, and preventing the taking of apples were immoral, then it would be moral for me to take the apple right back from you, and it would be immoral for you to prevent me from taking the apple. And then the same law would apply. Now I have the apple again. It is still moral to take apples, so you can take the apple from me again, and as before, it would be immoral for me to stop you. Thus an infinite praxeological cycle results, and we are both subject to starvation because neither of us has any right to retain the apple and prevent the other from taking the apple.
Thus, the law “taking apples is moral and should be enforced” cannot logically be practised by everyone. If people tried to practise it, they would necessarily end up practising a much different law, which is the law “It is moral and legal for group B to take apples from group A, and it is immoral and illegal for group A to take apples from group B.” Taking apples as such is moral and legal for some, immoral and illegal for others. Taking apples is moral and should be enforced cannot be a law for everyone.
“the law “social democracy is moral and should be enforced”
which law says that?
Philippe:
“My point was that if everyone agrees that something is legitimate and follows the rules, then there is no need to use force or violence to enforce the rules. Which is what MF said.”.
I never said that. I said there are some things that everyone cannot agree to even if they tried. I said there are some possible laws that cannot be agreed upon by everyone.
Philippe:
“which law says that?”
We are not talking about only laws that happen to be enforced at any one time. We are talking about your claim that everyone’s agreement is sufficient for ANY law to not require violence.
For crying out loud Philippe, stop moving the goal posts and finish a train if thought to its conclusions before hightailing it to some random tangent.
“We are talking about your claim that everyone’s agreement is sufficient for ANY law to not require violence”
Ok, my point was that you do not need to use force or violence to enforce a rule if everyone agrees with it and follows it.
In the case of ancapland, if everyone agrees with the rules and follows them, you do not need to use force or violence to enforce the rules.
If people don’t agree and don’t follow the rules, then you will use force or violence to make them comply.
Mf
“You are saying that a person who is prevented from harming the body of another via affecting material goods, is being harmed by the preventer”
No, you are assuming that the material goods in question are in some way part of the body of person B (“the preventer”), rather than just material goods which person B uses force to control.
Philippe:
“No, you are assuming that the material goods in question are in some way part of the body of person B.”
No, I am not assuming that at all. I am quite aware that my body is physically separated from material goods.
To argue that the health and well-being of A depends on B, is not argument that “assumes” B is physically part of A.
You are saying that a person who is prevented from harming the body of another via affecting material goods, is being harmed by the preventer
“To argue that the health and well-being of A depends on B, is not argument that “assumes” B is physically part of A.”
Ok, so say person B is starving and needs the food which is in an area under your control.
That food is not physically part of the body of person B, but person B’s health and wellbeing depends upon access to that food.
If you, person A, use force to deny person B access to that food, you are killing him.
Philippe:
“Ok, my point was that you do not need to use force or violence to enforce a rule if everyone agrees with it and follows it.”
That is not possible for all laws, as I explained.
“In the case of ancapland, if everyone agrees with the rules and follows them, you do not need to use force or violence to enforce the rules.”
That is only because ancap laws can be practised by everyone.
“If people don’t agree and don’t follow the rules, then you will use force or violence to make them comply.”
But that is only preventing the harming of people where otherwise people would not be harming others. Stopping people from harming others, is not the same as harming people who are not harming others.
“Ok, so say person B is starving and needs the food which is in an area under your control.”
“That food is not physically part of the body of person B, but person B’s health and wellbeing depends upon access to that food.”
“If you, person A, use force to deny person B access to that food, you are killing him”
Person A’s health and well being depends on that food. Stopping B from taking A’s food, is stopping B from harming A.
Suppose A is hungry. Suppose B taking A’s food will kill A. Suppose A preventing B from taking A’s food will kill B.
Who should kill the other?
“Who should kill the other?”
That is a very interesting question. Before I try to answer it, could you please clarify whether you think A is killing B (by denying access to the food), or not.
Philippe:
Suppose you are hungry. Suppose A is hungry. Suppose A wants to eat your arm, and then your leg, and then your other leg, and then your other arm. Suppose you would remain alive all throughout if A ate parts of your body.
Would you using force to prevent A from eating parts of you, be morally equal to him using force to eat parts of you?
Philippe:
“the alternative, in the imaginary situation you describe, is the perpetual harming of whoever is hungriest.”
Not if the hungriest feed themselves. It is not NECESSARY that there be perpetual hunger in ancapism.
See the difference? Your ethic calls for actual perpetual harming of people. Mine is only at best a possibility.
Philippe:
“That is a very interesting question. Before I try to answer it, could you please clarify whether you think A is killing B (by denying access to the food), or not.”
I can clarify that if I know what you mean by cause for killing, so that when I answer, my answer is in fact a response to your question, rather than another question. Thus, I ask you this: Is B in any way responsible for his own predicament? Was A responsible for B’s hunger prior to B being in a position of choosing whether to take A’s food?
Philippe:
Suppose A erects a protective wall around his house with food in it, in order to protect against invading armies. Suppose B is not in any army, but is hungry. Suppose B is too weak to be able to break through the wall.
Did A kill B by erecting the protective wall?
Philippe:
“but that is not the point of our discussion. We are not arguing about whether one socio-economic system would better satisfy the physical needs of its various constituents, versus some other system. We are discussing the ethical logic of the ancap ideology.”
I know, that is exactly what I was doing and talking about there. I did not mean “better satisfy physical needs.”
I was talking about the logical deduction from homesteading and free trade and protection of the resulting property rights. There is no logical necessity for there to be perpetual relative hunger here.
Is the implication of these arguments that it is logically impossible to voluntarily agree to pay taxes in the same way it is logically impossible to agree to let someone steal from you?
“Did A kill B by erecting the protective wall?”
suppose you are starving, and there is a pile of food next to me, and each time you try to reach for it, I put a barrier in your way.
I do this as part of a conscious effort to stop you from accessing the food.
Am I killing you?
No, I would say a thousand decisions prior to starvation is what eventually kills this person.
With that being said, most people would give this person some food. Hopefully somebody someday teaches him how to fish.
Philippe:
““Is B in any way responsible for his own predicament? Was A responsible for B’s hunger”
“Why is this relevant?”
These are relevant for me to know what you mean by cause for killing, so that I can answer your question.
Once your question is answered, then you will have enough to answer my question about who should kill who given two hungry people and one apple owned by A.
“Did A kill B by erecting the protective wall?”
“Suppose you are starving, and there is a pile of food next to me, and each time you try to reach for it, I put a barrier in your way.”
“I do this as part of a conscious effort to stop you from accessing the food.”
“Am I killing you?”
Suppose you are starving. Suppose you keep erecting the barrier so as to prevent me from killing you by me eating your food.
Are you killing me?
“Suppose you are starving. Suppose you keep erecting the barrier so as to prevent me from killing you by me eating your food. Are you killing me?”
what do you think? Am i killing you, in that situation, or not?
I am asking you Philippe.
Remember, this line of reasoning is more closely associated with your preferred/ideal ethics than mine. You kept bringing up the scenario of one person “denying” another, starving person from food. It is the question you keep bringing up as a challeng to absolute property rights theory.
I think it’s more your bed than mine, so I think you should be front and center explaining this rather than me.
“If Scotland secedes from Great Britain, then there will be English warlords battling Scottish warlords. There will be a “power vacuum” for the Scotland plus England combined territory. No government over both regions together. England had better send in tanks and army regiments into Scotland streets and school yards to prevent the Scots from breaking the pact their ancestors signed…the ungrateful whiners” – DK, LK, Philippe, Ken B aka PNG.
That is funny, but I don’t think that’s really implied by the arguments of anyone I’ve seen writing here. Scotland is hardly about to go Libertarian, and one couldn’t win a referendum there to make it do so.
“Is B in any way responsible for his own predicament? Was A responsible for B’s hunger”
Why is this relevant?
“It is not NECESSARY that there be perpetual hunger in ancapism”
but that is not the point of our discussion. We are not arguing about whether one socio-economic system would better satisfy the physical needs of its various constituents, versus some other system. We are discussing the ethical logic of the ancap ideology
Philippe:
“rather than just material goods which person B uses force to control.”
You are advocating for person A to “use force to control” the apple.
I am just calling for stopping that, because it harms B.
B’s acquisition of the apple did not harm A. You are calling for A to acquire the apple and harm B.
Philippe:
There are peaceful acquisitions of apples that do not harm anyone, and there are violent acquisitions of apples that do harm people.
You want to think only of a rivalry of two people over an apple, without bothering to ask how the apple came to be owned at all..
Philippe:
I hope you can see that if all you do is consider “an apple”, and think about people competing for it, and you regard one person using force to control it as equally violent and as equally moral or immoral as another person using force to control it, then you will prevent yourself from having a satisfactory answer for who should have the apple.
Hunger cannot work, because it cannot deal with two people who are hungry, and each want the apple. Nor can it even define extents of hunger between two people who appear to be, or believe they themselves are, similarly hungry. It also cannot work as a law for everyone, because it suggests that the hungriest people have first dibs on all food, which will then make them second least hungry, thus creating a new class of hungriest, who can then take food from the second hungriest and everyone else. The implication is perpetual harming of whoever is not hungriest. Different laws for different people.
mf,
“The implication is perpetual harming of whoever is not hungriest.”
the alternative, in the imaginary situation you describe, is the perpetual harming of whoever is hungriest.
I should have said, the opposite alternative.
Philippe, you have still not understood reciprocity (rights that are equally valid for all sides).
“Non-violence means non-violence. If you are ok with using violence, then you shouldn’t pretend you are anti-violence or non-violence.”
But I’m not OK with using violence.
Initiators of violence are not the standard bearers for meaning of terms.
“That rules you out.”
No it rules me in.
“So long as everyone agrees, and behaves accordingly, right? But you could say that about any social system… So long as everyone agrees, and behaves accordingly, and doesn’t break the rules, there is no need for violence.”
A common misconception. Actually that cannot be said for any social system. Those social systems BASED on initiations of violence as a rule, as the law itself, cannot possibly be agreed to and non-violent.
For example, everyone cannot agree to the social system of “anyone can murder anyone they want” and have a non-violent society. It is literally impossible for this “social system” to be practised non-violently.
The real question is NOT “what will happen to rule breakers”. That is a question that presupposes many things that you never bother to analyze closely or address. That question depends on what laws are assumed. My point is concerning the nature of those laws, and every other posited laws.
Self-reflective logic can be used to rule out certain laws as necessarily violent.
Some laws cannot be agreed to by everyone. These laws are laws that are themselves predicated on disagreement existing, i.e. all laws that call for, and are structured around, some people doing things to other people that those other people necessarily disagree with. This is not to imply any prediction of what people want, but a logical analysis of what it means for one person to initiate violence against another. There can be no agreement leading to peace.
“No it rules me in.”
“Nonviolence is the personal practice of being harmless to self and others under every condition. It comes from the belief that hurting people, animals or the environment is unnecessary to achieve an outcome and refers to a general philosophy of abstention from violence based on moral, religious or spiritual principles.[1]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolence
That’s clearly not you, as you think it is ok to use violence in certain circumstances.
“For example, everyone cannot agree to the social system of “anyone can murder anyone they want” and have a non-violent society”
I was referring to your comment that: “practising libertarianism does not require violence.”
My point was that, yes, if people agree and follow the rules then there is no need to use violence to make them comply.
the rest of your comment is waffly and vague.
Philippe, if you hate “Free Advice” so much, why don’t you move to Paul Krugman’s blog.
Philippe:
You are wrong to claim that agreement is sufficient to eliminating violence. Some laws cannot be anything but violent.
Philippe:
“So long as everyone agrees, and behaves accordingly, right? But you could say that about any social system…”
To expound on what I already said about this claim, for states specifically…
It is impossible for everyone to agree, even if they tried, on a law that says a small group of people have the legal authority to steal from or imprison or murder those not in the small group.
Even if I tried, I cannot agree to you stealing from me. Stealing from me IS me disagreeing with you about you taking my wealth.
Non-contradictory laws are required at the very least to apply to EVERYONE, without the laws being structured as inherently violent.
Philippe:
“So long as everyone agrees, and behaves accordingly, right? But you could say that about any social system..”
To expound on what I already said about this claim, for states specifically…
It is impossible for everyone to agree, even if they tried, on a law that says a small group of people have the legal authority to steal from or imprison or murder those not in the small group.
Even if I tried, I cannot agree to you stealing from me. Stealing from me IS me disagreeing with you about you taking my wealth.
Non-contradictory laws are required at the very least to apply to EVERYONE, without the laws being structured as inherently violent.
“Even if I tried, I cannot agree to you stealing from me.”
Most people agree that taxation is not theft, but is rather a legitimate payment of money owed… and most people follow the rules. So it’s clear that the collection of taxes does not require the use of force or violence if everyone agrees and follows the rules.
A small minority like you believe that taxation is theft, and so you would not pay if you thought that it would not be enforced.
This is the same as in your ancap world. If everyone agrees and follows the rules then there is no need to use violence to enforce them in ancap land. However, if people disagree and do not follow the rules then force or violence could be used against them.
I cannot logically agree to you stealing from me.
Agreement is not, as you claim, sufficient to eliminating violence when enforcing any and all laws.
There are some laws that are impossible for everyone to agree to even if they tried. Those are the laws ancaps reject as a first filter.
“There are some laws that are impossible for everyone to agree to even if they tried”
such as?
I should add that generally people do not consider any sort of taxation to be legitimate, and think that taxation could constitute theft in certain circumstances (if it is not legitimate). But again this is no different to people’s views on private property – private property could be considered illegitimate under certain circumstances, and constitute theft if it is not legitimate.
Philippe:
It is funny that I keep saying I cannot logically agree to you stealing from me, and every time you respond with comments on taxation.
because the main issue is obviously taxation, taxation is theft etc. Yes I could approach the issue in a more general abstract way but focusing on the main controversy gets to the point in less time.
Philippe:
Actually you are making things more abstract by going from what you and I think about moral and immoral behavior between just you and I, to whether it is moral or immoral for some abstract group rights related actions to take place.
If you can understand why it is immoral for me to take your apple without your consent, then you should be able to at least understand the ancap ideas and where they are coming from when it comes to behavior between me and everyone else. If you say it is immoral for me to take the money away from people who work at the IRS against their consent, then surely you can at least understand why ancaps say it is immoral for people at the IRS to take other people’s money against their consent. Not saying you have to agree with it, but at least try to understand the reasons for why people would think it.
We will never get to the bottom of this if we start and stay at the “macro” level. Focus on localized examples of interpersonal behavior.
Total lie. If that were true, taxes would not be compulsory under threat of imprisonment for nonpayment. You fail, Philippe.But then again, you were flummoxed by the concept of self ownership. No wonder you struggle with the different between an initiation of violence and the use of violence to repel the initiation of such violence.
You are just not smart enough to be on this board.
“Total lie. If that were true, taxes would not be compulsory under threat of imprisonment for nonpayment.”
What comment are you responding to?
My point was that if everyone agrees that something is legitimate and follows the rules, then there is no need to use force or violence to enforce the rules. Which is what MF said.
Initiators of violence are not the standard, Philippe.
The standard is reason.
“Right wing libertarianism is not right wing on its own”
the thing that unites right-wing libertarians and right-wing authoritarians is that they are both… right wing.
Apart from that, they’re different.
Philippe:
“The thing that unites right-wing libertarians and right-wing authoritarians is that they are both… right wing.
Apart from that, they’re different.”
The thing that unites opposite concepts is that they are both…concepts.
Apart from that, they’re different.
Wow.
It’s true that the coach always made me play right wing because I was right handed.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bob_roddis/871330662/in/photolist-2jZNfs-2jZT9m-2jVrNV
I never understood that. I had a good shot and could better exploit it from the left.
The coach would say before the game, “Bob, you’re right wing”. Then after learning of my propensity for violence, he’d say, “Bob, you’re right defense”.
Did your economics teacher say “Bob, your right!”
No. I was a commie when I took “macro” in 1971.
Bob, you are way overthinking this. The proper response to “If You Hate the Government So Much, Move to Somalia!” is not to write some lengthy liberty chat article, it’s “F–k you!!”
Why?
Right on, Z.
Bob,
The problem you run into here is that your opponents are baiting you into defending anarchy instead of just defending each small potential increase in freedom. You end up losing way more support than really necessary arguing from that position. You don’t see leftists defending dictatorship. They simply defend each small decrease in liberty necessary for societal well being. This way leftists are only defending each small baby step away from the status quo. As an economist you should know that the action is always at the margins.
Scott H. are you saying, “Bob, even though you don’t think a State is necessary, you shouldn’t defend statelessness because it will scare people”? Or are you saying, “Bob it sounds like you’re an anarchist, which I know you’re not, so why are you writing this type of article?”
I have never liked the terms “anarchy” or “statelessness” or “no government” because I think they do scare people. “All” we are proposing is the elimination of the initiation of force, not “governing” institutions. We are actually advocating more protection for person and property (including the poor and powerless), not less.
Yes. It is also important to emphasize that anarcho-capitalism is not merely an absence of statist activity and private property violations. It is the PRESENCE of private activity and private property protection.
Too often we’re told anarcho-capitalism is a “vacuum” of one sort or another, most of the time a “power vacuum”…as if people are by natural law inclined to killing their family and friends if they believed they could do so without punishment. Oh, there is an opportunity for me kill people? I cannot help but get sucked into this killer vacuum.
Leftists are deep down haters of humanity. They like to think they’re just healthy skeptics, but they aren’t at all skeptical, because they’re absolutely sure about the so-called “power vacuum”.
They don’t even care about the empirical fact that there has never been a world government. It is like the very mocking they use against doomsaying Austrians: “Just you wait! This theory of power vacuum will someday be proved correct at the world level!”
Philippe:
“The thing that unites right-wing libertarians and right-wing authoritarians is that they are both… right wing.
Apart from that, they’re different.”
The thing that unites opposite concepts is that they are both…concepts.
Apart from that, they’re different.
Wow.
Come on MF, non violence is not the same as what you are talking about. It is one thing to say that your preferred system is the only one that could exist without violence, it is another to say that the system is non-violent. Non violence is responding to violence without violence. Your system responds to violence with violence. Phillipe may or may not be wrong about you being an initiator of violence, but he is not wrong about you promoting the use of violence. Unless you re-define violence. If you do that your other example runs into trouble.
“For example, everyone cannot agree to the social system of “anyone can murder anyone they want” and have a non-violent society. It is literally impossible for this “social system” to be practised non-violently.” No it isn’t, you just define consensual murder as not violence – simple! Anyone who agrees to join this society has consented to their own murder, and therefore we say murder is not violent.
The NAP has been a clear for 40+ years about the fact that it concerns the INITIATION of force. No libertarian is trying to confuse that with defensive force. Such confusion is constantly promoted by professional obfuscators like Philippe and the entire anti-libertarian anti-Austrian horde. It amounts to fraud.
It is already generally illegal for civilians to INITIATE force and it is already generally OK for civilians to employ an appropriate level of violence to defend themselves against the INITIATION of force. It is already wrong to beat up a woman but not wrong for a women to use appropriate violence to defend herself against a violent attack.
The fact that appropriate defensive violence may be used is not an argument in favor of the INITIATION of violence and it is not an argument against the truism that political programs are always based upon the INITIATION of force against people who have committed no actual crime. By definition, political programs involve the initiation of violence employed against people who have committed no actual crime such as murder, assault, theft or pollution (criminal or tort).
Philippe’s continuing argument is the equivalent of a wife beater who has been shot by his victim in self defense whining that his violence was OK because the victim used violence too. How pathetic.
Since statists cannot engage the actual AnCap and Austrian proposals and analysis, they engage in relentless obfuscation and distortion of simple, basic definitions that are already widely understood and employed in everyday life by everybody.
no, as usual the problem is that you are only capable of thinking in terms of simpleton slogans, and you have no real understanding of what you are talking about.
Note…Philippe has been engaged in this same pointless, disruptive and hostile tactic for months and months now.
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/06/potpourri-213.html#comment-657558
So why do you continue to engage the troll?
No kidding
At no point have I said: “If the government commits violence (and a majority likes it), it’s not violence”
It really seems like you’re just not capable of understanding even very simple arguments which are different to the mindless and meaningless slogans you have been incessantly repeating for years.
Philippe, you do realize that your arguments supporting statism are “mindless slogans that you have been repeating for years”, right?
You’re right though about not saying “Government violence supported by the majority is not violence.” But you have also not been clear about what you believe. You make it necessary for people to form guesses.
Far more often than not, you criticize other people’s ideas more than you state positively your own ideas. You can’t know someone is wrong unless you have an idea of what is right that makes that person wrong.
Roddis is saying that you believe certain uses of force by the state are not initiations of force, whereas he believes they are.
The only “support”, if one can even call it as much, that you have provided for your belief, are constant and repeated references to what “most people believe.”
Do you really find it so vicious and straw manning for Roddis to conclude that you believe initiations of violence are OK as long as…most people accept it? You keep referring to most people! And you keep saying that ancapism is “fringe”, which is to say it is not valid because…most people reject it!
Philippe, if you really don’t believe what Roddis has concluded yo believe, then for crying out loud, clearly state your case, make a bis post describing your deductions and reasonings, and stop being such a princess who is “misunderstood”. That role play is getting boring as heck.
Harold:
Ok let’s get this straight already.
If you were to homestead a farm, would that be violent? No.
If you were to consent to trading that farm, would that be violent? No.
That is what ancap claims ESTABLISHES property rights. If everyone did this and only this, which is not impossible, then that would be ancapistan.
What you are talking about, what Philippe was talking about, is what ancap ethics says about dealing with those who initiate violence. You are saying that because ancap ethics condones homesteaders and free traders in using violence to stop initiations of violence, that this does not entitle us to say ancapism is “non-violent.”. But here is the thing about that. How ancapism REACTS to initiations of violence, is not what ancapism IS. What ancapism IS is homesteading and free trade by individuals. Those who initiate violence are not the standard bearers for what ancapism is.
You said
” No it isn’t, you just define consensual murder as not violence – simple! Anyone who agrees to join this society has consented to their own murder, and therefore we say murder is not violent.”
Consensual murder is an oxymoron. Redefining, or defining, a nonconsensual act as “consensual murder” does not actually change what people are thinking and doing when they are being murdered.
You are not providing an example of a world according to the law I proposed. You are providing an example of a world with a much different law, which actually is this “Anyone can consent to being killed.”. That is not an example of a non-violent world where anyone can murder anyone else. You are talking about assisted suicide, not murder. Playing with words and pretending that by doing so you have changed what goes on in people’s minds with respect to certain actions like murder, is not a valid response to the argument.
“If everyone did this and only this, which is not impossible, then that would be ancapistan” It strikes me as pretty impossible for most people to homestead a farm.
It also strikes me that you can win the non violence argument at the expense of losing the utopia one, or vice-versa.
Libertarians do’t make utopian arguments. That’s what statists believe. Try to keep up.
just checking if Bob is still censoring my comments.
I had forgotten that we have already gone over this entire topic with Philippe in utter detail back in May when discussing the thin/thick issue.
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/05/libertarian-battles.html#comment-487066
Philippe:
“My point was that if everyone agrees that something is legitimate and follows the rules, then there is no need to use force or violence to enforce the rules. Which is what MF said.”
I never said that. I said there are some things that everyone cannot agree to even if they tried. I said there are some possible laws that cannot be agreed upon by everyone.
Philippe:
There are peaceful acquisitions of apples that do not harm anyone, and there are violent acquisitions of apples that do harm people.
You want to think only of a rivalry of two people over an apple, without bothering to ask how the apple came to be owned at all.
Philippe:
“Ok, my point was that you do not need to use force or violence to enforce a rule if everyone agrees with it and follows it.”
That is not possible for all laws, as I explained.
“In the case of ancapland, if everyone agrees with the rules and follows them, you do not need to use force or violence to enforce the rules.”
That is only because ancap laws can be practised by everyone.
“If people don’t agree and don’t follow the rules, then you will use force or violence to make them comply.”
But that is only preventing the harming of people where otherwise people would not be harming others. Stopping people from harming others, is not the same as harming people who are not harming others.
“Ok, so say person B is starving and needs the food which is in an area under your control.”
“That food is not physically part of the body of person B, but person B’s health and wellbeing depends upon access to that food.”
“If you, person A, use force to deny person B access to that food, you are killing him”
Person A’s health and well being depends on that food. Stopping B from taking A’s food, is stopping B from harming A.
Suppose A is hungry. Suppose B taking A’s food will kill A. Suppose A preventing B from taking A’s food will kill B.
Who should kill the other?
I am really happy Bob made this thread. Somalia is a common statist straw man. I am not sure if this thread fully debunks the Somalia con game but it is a start.
I suppose on the flip side, I could say, if you love government so much, Go to Russia? But now I am sending them to a more free area(lower tax rates, less intervention) and I am also forcing an otherwise free person to relocate. I don’t want to reduce myself to their level. For some reason the entire Somali thing makes me think of another line I here often and unfortunately I here it mostly from the R side. “Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you. ”
― Pericles
What if I applied this to a man and woman. You would have somebody in jail for stalking. Stop and think.