I can't defend anarcho-capitalism

[Cabal]

I would have to argue that the historical evidence in support of anarcho-capitalist principles are virtually non-existent.

Billions of voluntary, non-violent exchanges take place every day, and have since the dawn of man. So, your argument here doesn't carry much weight.

 

[TheNung]

As a Minarchist who is about as close as you can get to AnCap without being an Ancap the whole competing Courts and Police has never been the biggest issue for me when trying to become an AnCap. Biggest issue for me is how an AnCap society remains one. How do states no simply naturally rise up? Whats to stop people from saying their community is a new State.

Other people simply saying "no," and there being no "legal" double standard for such a "state" to take advantage of. There's no way for a monopoly to exist without government, and government itself is a monopoly.

The beauty of AnCap is that if there someday happens to be another AnCap society (many of which have existed), even if it doesn't work we're in no worse a situation than what we came from.

I find anarchism to be the only system that IS compatible with human nature. Statism, on the other hand, is the bastardization of human nature and the institutionalizing of barbarism. Also, the vast majority of our people don't know how government works, how their phones, internet, and cars work, or how their own bodies work, yet work they do.

For the record, I despise phrases/terms like "human nature," and the implication that humanity is a collective being.

Also, AnCaps accept that violations of the NAP will occur even in a free society, just like how laws are broken in societies with government. The difference is that there is no legal double standard or monopoly of force in a free society, and the aggressors would not have an office or the "public good" to hide behind.

 

[boneyard bill]

Billions of voluntary, non-violent exchanges take place every day, and have since the dawn of man. So, your argument here doesn't carry much weight.

It isn't the non-violent exchanges that you have to account for. It's the violent ones. How do you stop them? The historical record is clear. You stop them with counter-violence. If there is no state you have to resort to vigilantes or impromptu militias or whatever. The other option is to be conquered. There goes your anarchist society. There's a reason why anarchism hasn't succeeded. It's defenseless.

 

[osan]

I find anarchism to be the only system that IS compatible with human nature. Statism, on the other hand, is the bastardization of human nature and the institutionalizing of barbarism. Also, the vast majority of our people don't know how government works, how their phones, internet, and cars work, or how their own bodies work, yet work they do.

I find this very astutely agreeable. Anarchism, or autodiathism as I prefer to call it, is precisely an expression of human nature, mostly at its best. Empire is a grotesque and IMO criminal perversion that imposes restrictions upon people in diametric opposition to their nature. Unfortunately, the vast and overwhelming majority of the people on the planet today are so heavily bred and trained to be the whipmaster's property that they are not only incapable of seeing past the bars of their prisons, but are in fact deeply dependent upon the maintenance of their status as chattel to the degree that they would strike anyone dead who attempted to free them.

As things stand, the human race is hopeless. I may be wrong and hope that I am in my opinion that nothing short of a minimally survivable meteor strike is going set conditions such that people will wise up on a grand scale. For now, the best I believe for which we can hope is to try and save the United States from sharing in the fate of the rest of the world.

Never ever surrender your arms, no matter what.

 

[boneyard bill]

I find this very astutely agreeable. Anarchism, or autodiathism as I prefer to call it, is precisely an expression of human nature, mostly at its best. Empire is a grotesque and IMO criminal perversion that imposes restrictions upon people in diametric opposition to their nature. Unfortunately, the vast and overwhelming majority of the people on the planet today are so heavily bred and trained to be the whipmaster's property that they are not only incapable of seeing past the bars of their prisons, but are in fact deeply dependent upon the maintenance of their status as chattel to the degree that they would strike anyone dead who attempted to free them.

As things stand, the human race is hopeless. I may be wrong and hope that I am in my opinion that nothing short of a minimally survivable meteor strike is going set conditions such that people will wise up on a grand scale. For now, the best I believe for which we can hope is to try and save the United States from sharing in the fate of the rest of the world.

Never ever surrender your arms, no matter what.

How can you construct a society on the best of human nature? You have to take all of human nature into account. As Madison said, "If men were angels, we would have no need of government." But men are not angels, and it is foolish to suggest that a society can be constructed solely on the principles of the most angelic among us.

And why limit it to human nature? Let's consider nature in its totality. As Nietszche said (roughly) "How can violence, cruelty, and rape be wrong when nature IS violent, cruel, and rapacious?" How do you answer that? Nietszche claimed that all this humanitarianism preached by Christianity was really life denying and nihilistic because Christians hated true human nature. Nietszche claimed that the priest had destroyed the warrior, but the warrior expressed human nature more fully than the priest did.

Nietszche looked directly to nature as his guide. But the ancient tradition of natural law required that one should not simply look at nature. One should apply reason to nature to determine what was ethical and what was not. That is exactly what Murray Rothbard claimed to be doing in his book The Concept of Liberty. But Rothbard botched the job in a whole number of ways, some of which I have already discussed here.

 

[Cabal]

It isn't the non-violent exchanges that you have to account for. It's the violent ones. How do you stop them? The historical record is clear. You stop them with counter-violence. If there is no state you have to resort to vigilantes or impromptu militias or whatever. The other option is to be conquered. There goes your anarchist society. There's a reason why anarchism hasn't succeeded. It's defenseless.

And the violence you aren't accounting for is monopolized, legally protected State violence for which there is no other comparison, an no degree of counter violence on your part will be able to deter or protect you. You speak of stopping violence while advocating statism--this is necessarily a contradictory position. I don't believe that violence can or will ever be entirely eliminated. It will always exist to one degree or another. But unlike you, I know that creating an institutional monopoly on the legal use of violence is not even in the same time continuum of an acceptable solution, not only because of the patent absurdity of the concept, but because it, demonstrably, has no hope of every coming close to qualifying as a solution.

You speak of anarchist society like it is some kind of collective, or nation to be conquered. What is there to conquer in an anarchy, exactly? And how is it you assume such a society will have no capacity to defend itself?

If you call statism a success, you have a low standard for defining that word 'success', not to mention gross disregard for life and liberty, quite frankly.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

You speak of anarchist society like it is some kind of collective, or nation to be conquered. What is there to conquer in an anarchy, exactly? And how is it you assume such a society will have no capacity to defend itself?

During the American Revolution, British forces conquered Philadelphia (which at the time served as the capital). The result? They didn't conquer the colonies.

 

[Occam's Banana]

How can you construct a society on the best of human nature? You have to take all of human nature into account. As Madison said, "If men were angels, we would have no need of government." But men are not angels, and it is foolish to suggest that a society can be constructed solely on the principles of the most angelic among us.

As a voluntaryist/anarchist, I emphatically and categorically reject (1) that men are angels, and (2) "that a society can be constructed solely on the principles of the most angelic." I have never encountered any self-professed voluntaryist/anarchist who has espoused either (1) or (2) - let alone both. But perhaps there may be such. If so, I will readily join you in criticism of them.

I oppose the existence of the State precisely because men are NOT angels. History has more than amply demonstrated that explicity laid-out "constructions of society" (which, for all practical purposes, seem to reduce to a euphemism for "constructions of the State") have been woefully and tragically inadequate as a means of constraining those among us who are not angels. Indeed, in far too many cases, such efforts have seemed to redound to the benefit of the least angelic in human society (by providing them with "greased skids" for the achievement of their ambitions, among other things).

In his famous statement on this matter ("If men were angels, we would have no need of government"), Madison conveniently ignored the other side of the coin of his hypothesis - "If men were not angels, how dare we institute government?" (Here "government" is taken as straighforwardly synonymous with "the State." As a voluntaryist/anarchist, I oppose neither the need for nor the existence of "government" or "governance" per se - but only the monopolistic investiture of such in the hands of a priveleged elite.)

And why limit it to human nature?

Because we are addressing matters concerning the organization of human society (or more specifically, the question of whether the existence of a monopolistic "organizer" of human society - i.e., the State - is necessary and/or desirable).

Let's consider nature in its totality. As Nietszche said (roughly) "How can violence, cruelty, and rape be wrong when nature IS violent, cruel, and rapacious?" How do you answer that? Nietszche claimed that all this humanitarianism preached by Christianity was really life denying and nihilistic because Christians hated true human nature. Nietszche claimed that the priest had destroyed the warrior, but the warrior expressed human nature more fully than the priest did.

Nietszche looked directly to nature as his guide. But the ancient tradition of natural law required that one should not simply look at nature. One should apply reason to nature to determine what was ethical and what was not. That is exactly what Murray Rothbard claimed to be doing in his book The Concept of Liberty. But Rothbard botched the job in a whole number of ways, some of which I have already discussed here.

Rothbard's inadequacies notwithstanding, the above is an elaboration upon an appeal to nature.
Man has a demonstrated capacity for reason. So far as we yet know, the rest of nature does not.

 

[boneyard bill]

And the violence you aren't accounting for is monopolized, legally protected State violence for which there is no other comparison, an no degree of counter violence on your part will be able to deter or protect you. You speak of stopping violence while advocating statism--this is necessarily a contradictory position. I don't believe that violence can or will ever be entirely eliminated. It will always exist to one degree or another. But unlike you, I know that creating an institutional monopoly on the legal use of violence is not even in the same time continuum of an acceptable solution, not only because of the patent absurdity of the concept, but because it, demonstrably, has no hope of every coming close to qualifying as a solution.

You speak of anarchist society like it is some kind of collective, or nation to be conquered. What is there to conquer in an anarchy, exactly? And how is it you assume such a society will have no capacity to defend itself?

If you call statism a success, you have a low standard for defining that word 'success', not to mention gross disregard for life and liberty, quite frankly.

I fail to see how libertarians could defend themselves without institutions of counter violence. The other option is to be conquered by an outside group has already formed a state and which will very likely rule over you arbitrarily. The formation of your own state to counter the other has the advantage of allowing you to set up a limited government under the rule of law.

I see no advantage in wishing that human nature was somehow better than it actually is. My argument from the beginning is that human's are mutually dependent precisely because one man, no matter how autonomous he may be in other respects, cannot defend himself against an army. Once you've got an army, you've got an institution of violence, but you don't necessarily have a rule of law. The French Revolutionaries were libertarians, but once they got power they abandoned law and ruled arbitrarily.

In the Arctic, Eskimos build igloos of snow to protect themselves from the snow. How do you deal with any problem? You use the materials at hand, and an army is an institution of violence, but it also protects you from outside violence. But who then protects you from ITS violence? That is why political theory is important. But sticking your head in the sand and saying that we can ignore that problem is no answer.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Let's consider nature in its totality. As Nietszche said (roughly) "How can violence, cruelty, and rape be wrong when nature IS violent, cruel, and rapacious?" How do you answer that? Nietszche claimed that all this humanitarianism preached by Christianity was really life denying and nihilistic because Christians hated true human nature. Nietszche claimed that the priest had destroyed the warrior, but the warrior expressed human nature more fully than the priest did.

As has been pointed out here several times, we can't determine what is right from what is. That's the whole point. You need an absolute standard.

 

[boneyard bill]

Occam's Banana writes:

As a voluntaryist/anarchist, I emphatically and categorically reject (1) that men are angels, and (2) "that a society can be constructed solely on the principles of the most angelic." I have never encountered any self-professed voluntaryist/anarchist who has espoused either (1) or (2) - let alone both. But perhaps there may be such. If so, I will readily join you in criticism of them.

I was responding here to a previous poster who certainly implied what you are denying here.

In his famous statement on this matter ("If men were angels, we would have no need of government"), Madison conveniently ignored the other side of the coin of his hypothesis - "If men were not angels, how dare we institute government?" (Here "government" is taken as straighforwardly synonymous with "the State." As a voluntaryist/anarchist, I oppose neither the need for nor the existence of "government" or "governance" per se - but only the monopolistic investiture of such in the hands of a priveleged elite.)

I would argue that human's are mutually dependent and therefore live in societies of other individuals. However, I also contend that that mutual dependency derives from the conditions of our environment. We are not genetically social the way honey bees are. For most of our existence, though not necessarily most of our history, we appear to have lived in stateless societies which governed themselves in one way or another. A tribe of Cheyenne Indians can defend themselves against a tribe of Pawnee without the need for any permanent institutions like an army. Such societies may or may not provide for a wide degree of personal liberty among their members, but they are capable of defending themselves against groups that are similarly organized. In other words they are capable of carrying out the political function at that level.

But what happens when they encounter a well-trained, well-organized, and well-supplied army? They have little chance of success. Stateless societies, though not necessarily libertarian ones, haven't been terribly uncommon. But in the long term they have lost out in the evolutionary struggle. It is simply the fact that you need an army to counter an army, but who then protects you from your own army? I don't see where any community of anarchists throughout history have found any solution to this problem. Armies are not about peaceful competition. Victory, or the potential for victory, through violence is their very raison d'etre. The state exists today because it has won the battle for survival of the fittest. It is a heavy burden for anarchists to show that viable alternatives exist. Certainly, we have no modern examples. The closest you could come would probably be to organizations like Hezbollah, but I hardly think that that is a very good model for libertarians.

Rothbard's inadequacies notwithstanding, the above is an elaboration upon an appeal to nature.
Man has a demonstrated capacity for reason. So far as we yet know, the rest of nature does not.

Exactly. That's why Nietszche is wrong. You must apply reason to nature. But Rothbard failed to produce a logical ethic because he pre-supposed from the very outset that humans are autonomous individuals. We are not. We are born into complete dependency, and most of us remain in states of mutual dependency for our entire lives.

In Rothbard's view, although he doesn't actually state it, (again it is one of his presuppositions) the individual will is sacrosanct and is subject to no restraints whatsoever except the non-aggression principle. Again, this is contrary to human nature. We cannot be mutually dependent and not be obligated to other members of our mutually dependent group. Consequently, even the Cheyenne warrior, living a stateless community, is obligated to fight and even die for his fellow members.

 

[Cabal]

I fail to see how libertarians could defend themselves without institutions of counter violence. The other option is to be conquered by an outside group has already formed a state and which will very likely rule over you arbitrarily. The formation of your own state to counter the other has the advantage of allowing you to set up a limited government under the rule of law.

I see no advantage in wishing that human nature was somehow better than it actually is. My argument from the beginning is that human's are mutually dependent precisely because one man, no matter how autonomous he may be in other respects, cannot defend himself against an army. Once you've got an army, you've got an institution of violence, but you don't necessarily have a rule of law. The French Revolutionaries were libertarians, but once they got power they abandoned law and ruled arbitrarily.

In the Arctic, Eskimos build igloos of snow to protect themselves from the snow. How do you deal with any problem? You use the materials at hand, and an army is an institution of violence, but it also protects you from outside violence. But who then protects you from ITS violence? That is why political theory is important. But sticking your head in the sand and saying that we can ignore that problem is no answer.

Unfortunately, your personal lack of the requisite imagination to see possibilities, or exposure to arguments that have existed for years concerning this issue isn't all that pertinent to the discussion. Moreover, you seem to be arguing a straw man. Is it within the realm of possibility that some randomly defined State that has somehow come to power would attempt to 'conquer' a stateless society for some ambiguous reason or purpose? Um, I guess so? Could this ambiguously defined hypothetical State succeed in 'conquering'? Sure, it's possible. As far as I know, no one has claimed that's outside the realm of possibility. So what? The alternate possibility is that they fail. I'll be the first to admit that the State does war better than it does anything else, but OTOH that isn't exactly saying much.

Rule of law? Lol. Yeah, because the State is really concerned with consistent and just application, and conformity to this notion of "rule of law", reference virtually every State to have existed throughout the history of man. And for the love of all things holy, stop with the human nature nonsense unless you'd like to bother to define this term with at least some semblance of validity, because as far as I'm concerned, human nature is defined quite narrowly. So often do statists enjoy pointing to "human nature" as a proof that anti-statism is an impossibility, when there is nothing apparent in any valid theory of human nature I'm aware of that supports this assertion.

And I hate to break this to you but the French Revolution was largely a liberal movement, not a 'libertarian' one, assuming you're talking about libertarianism as we understand it in there here and now. Libertarianism as we understand it here and now, as a cohesive, individualist, and principled ideology, isn't that old, nor is it commonly understood in this way outside of the states. And anarchism in this libertarian tradition is even younger. Earlier 'libertarianism' and 'anarchism' were very much socialist ideologies, and this is still how these terms are regarded in most other countries. Yes, certain themes and ideas that would later be adopted into modern libertarianism would surface during this revolutionary period a la Enlightenment philosophers, as well as from the classical liberalism that would follow, but there was no cohesive libertarian ideology as it exists today. So, when you presume to point to history as an indication of failure for these ideas, you're either not understanding history, or you're not understanding the ideology, because this libertarianism, and this anarchism, or voluntaryism, is still very much in its infancy as far as ideologies, or movements go. In fact, I'd say Rothbard, whether one likes him or not, is probably the first to successfully bring together the principles and ideas to construct and begin to popularize the ideology of modern libertarianism, and the brands of anarchism that would then follow.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Dear Bill (et. al.),

I am back for more! In thinking about our discussion, I believe there are two very core, fundamental points on which we are experiencing a failure of communication. One is a point I am making, and the other is one you are making, Bill.

Your point is about "mutual dependency." I do not understand this point at all. There don't seem to be any logical conclusions to be drawn from this revelation. And, more importantly, I do not understand the revelation, period. Humans have "mutual dependency." Umm, OK, what does that mean? You seem to feel this statement is not just a mention of an obvious truth which everyone can observe, but rather a radical insight you have discovered which many other philosophers have missed. Now there very well may be some profound insight underlying your devoted plugging of mutual dependency, but it is not coming out in what you're writing. In short: "I don't get it."

The important point which I am making and which it seems to me that you are not getting, is this: the private property society may use coercion. It is not a coercion-less society. You have repeatedly, very repeatedly, made statements demonstrating you do not understand this. The understanding does not seem to be improving, despite my attempts. You have written, for example:

But that system runs up against the division of labor. A well-paid, well-trained, well-equipped, professional army with sophisticated logistics can out-fight and out-last an army of citizen soldiers. That is the reason for my historical references.... It was to illustrate the problems encountered by a stateless mutually dependent group.

I have agreed that a stateless society is possible. I have not agreed that stateless libertarianism is possible. There are alternatives to the state, but the political function must still be carried out in some way or another. I deny that such a function can be performed by voluntary, private institutions devoid of coercive power.

I would agree that primitive societies can get by with a minimum of coercive power and maximum of social pressure (although they haven't always functioned that way). But primitive societies can't really exist today except in the remotest areas.... In the modern world, the political function must be institutionalized.... you are dealing with coercive institutions.

The problem with the ad hoc, "stateless" society was that it either had to form a state or be conquered by an enemy.

Certainly, it is far less "utopian" than anarcho-capitalism that somehow believes that principles of voluntarism can deal with all of life's problem. Politics is not economics. Principles that can deal with economic decision making cannot apply to politics because there are plenty of people out there who are quite willing to violated voluntarist principles and some are quite willing to use violence to do so. It isn't simply an issue of limiting state violence. It's an issue of limiting all violence. Eliminating violence isn't going to happen so we can only deal with the best ways to limit it.

So you have to control the violent ones, and I don't see how you can do that without institutions that specifically intended to restrain violence.

It isn't the non-violent exchanges that you have to account for. It's the violent ones. How do you stop them? The historical record is clear. You stop them with counter-violence. If there is no state you have to resort to vigilantes or impromptu militias or whatever. The other option is to be conquered. There goes your anarchist society. There's a reason why anarchism hasn't succeeded. It's defenseless.

How can you construct a society on the best of human nature? You have to take all of human nature into account.

I fail to see how libertarians could defend themselves without institutions of counter violence. The other option is to be conquered by an outside group has already formed a state and which will very likely rule over you arbitrarily.

But what happens when they encounter a well-trained, well-organized, and well-supplied army? They have little chance of success. Stateless societies, though not necessarily libertarian ones, haven't been terribly uncommon. But in the long term they have lost out in the evolutionary struggle.

When...the political function becomes professionalized, you have the emergence of the state.

[H]ow does the anarchist society deal with the problem without resorting to coercion?

Meanwhile, I'm still trying to see what is anarchist about your proposals. How would your local, decentralized agencies function without the use of coercive power? And how would these agencies defend themselves from each other much less from foreign powers?

I already answered once in the following way: They wouldn't! There's nothing wrong with coercion! This misunderstanding is our own fault -- some overzealous and none-to-precise advocate of anarcho-capitalism no doubt has railed to you at some point about how the state doing XYZ is evil because it uses coercion. But defensive coercion is fine. Obviously!

But somehow this didn't sink in. So let me repeat myself over and over for redundancy, and perhaps some variant of expression will finally succeed in making the point.

Coercion is fine! Coercion is hunky-dory! I do not oppose coercion!

You "fail to see"? Exactly: you "fail to see"! You fail to see that libertarians will defend themselves with institutions of counter-violence.

How can an anarchist society deal with problems without resorting to coercion? Simple: it doesn't! It resorts to coercion, Bill.

Professionalization = monopoly? Private defense agencies can be professional, Bill. In all likelihood, they will be universally professional, just like e.g. printer manufacturers are universally professional, and far more professional than the current monopoly defense agency system. How is it that you come to the conclusion that monopolies are the only groups which can embody professionalism? That without monopolization there can be no professionalization? This is just plain ludicrous and runs counter to all common sense. Take a step outdoors and observe reality. Observation of reality completely contradicts this tenet.

"Private institutions devoid of coercive power"? You are arguing against a straw man -- a false illusion of what we advocates of the private property society actually want. How about: "Private institutions which possess coercive power"? Try talking about that. Because that's what we're talking about. That's what we propose.

"Vigilantes," "impromptu," "ad hoc"? Do we resort to "vigilante" grocers? Are we forced to rely on "ad hoc" insurance companies? Do we get together and build "impromptu" oil platforms?

You're "still trying to see what is anarchist about [my] proposals"? Well maybe they aren't, according to your definition of anarchism. Anarchism is a highly variegated (and thus problematic) label, which has been applied mostly to people whom I diametrically oppose. So, perhaps it's possible you've entirely misunderstood what I stand for, if you're lumping me in with those people. Don't you think?

 

[boneyard bill]

Unfortunately, your personal lack of the requisite imagination to see possibilities, or exposure to arguments that have existed for years concerning this issue isn't all that pertinent to the discussion. Moreover, you seem to be arguing a straw man. Is it within the realm of possibility that some randomly defined State that has somehow come to power would attempt to 'conquer' a stateless society for some ambiguous reason or purpose? Um, I guess so? Could this ambiguously defined hypothetical State succeed in 'conquering'? Sure, it's possible. As far as I know, no one has claimed that's outside the realm of possibility. So what? The alternate possibility is that they fail. I'll be the first to admit that the State does war better than it does anything else, but OTOH that isn't exactly saying much.

Rule of law? Lol. Yeah, because the State is really concerned with consistent and just application, and conformity to this notion of "rule of law", reference virtually every State to have existed throughout the history of man. And for the love of all things holy, stop with the human nature nonsense unless you'd like to bother to define this term with at least some semblance of validity, because as far as I'm concerned, human nature is defined quite narrowly. So often do statists enjoy pointing to "human nature" as a proof that anti-statism is an impossibility, when there is nothing apparent in any valid theory of human nature I'm aware of that supports this assertion.

And I hate to break this to you but the French Revolution was largely a liberal movement, not a 'libertarian' one, assuming you're talking about libertarianism as we understand it in there here and now. Libertarianism as we understand it here and now, as a cohesive, individualist, and principled ideology, isn't that old, nor is it commonly understood in this way outside of the states. And anarchism in this libertarian tradition is even younger. Earlier 'libertarianism' and 'anarchism' were very much socialist ideologies, and this is still how these terms are regarded in most other countries. Yes, certain themes and ideas that would later be adopted into modern libertarianism would surface during this revolutionary period a la Enlightenment philosophers, as well as from the classical liberalism that would follow, but there was no cohesive libertarian ideology as it exists today. So, when you presume to point to history as an indication of failure for these ideas, you're either not understanding history, or you're not understanding the ideology, because this libertarianism, and this anarchism, or voluntaryism, is still very much in its infancy as far as ideologies, or movements go. In fact, I'd say Rothbard, whether one likes him or not, is probably the first to successfully bring together the principles and ideas to construct and begin to popularize the ideology of modern libertarianism, and the brands of anarchism that would then follow.

It was Rothbard who labeled the French Revolutionaries as libertarians, not me. Rothbard defined libertarianism in its anarcho-capitalist form so I take him to be definitive of what it is. It is not a failure of my imagination that prevents me from failing to see how violence cannot be prevented except through counter-violence. Nor is it contrary to history to suggest that states might attack and take over weaker states, much less unarmed libertarian ones.

How do you prevent outside violence? We won't even get into how you stop an ordinary street thug. What institutions or agencies do anarchists propose that have this capability? And, once created, how do you prevent them from ruling over you? How do you prevent them from becoming a "state?"

Apparently, you haven't given much thought to the reality of human nature because you have made no attempt here to deal with it at all except to scoff at the suggestion that it is at all relevant. But if you were caught in a case with a lion, I assure you the "lion nature" were certainly become relevant to you in a hurry. But we are caught up in institutional arrangements that affect us and those institutions reflect human nature so it is rather important that we get a grip on that subject.

Of course, I'm not the first to raise the issue of human nature. It goes back thousands of years is hardly a principle unique to "statists" unless you use the term to define anyone who isn't an anarcho-capitalist.

I will be putting forward a more comprehensive statement on this subject in a separate thread so that I can make myself more clear and not have to keep repeating my points.

 

[Cabal]

It was Rothbard who labeled the French Revolutionaries as libertarians, not me. Rothbard defined libertarianism in its anarcho-capitalist form so I take him to be definitive of what it is.

Did you just skip over the parts where I discussed how the definition of libertarian is not and has not been a universal one?

 

[boneyard bill]

Dear Bill (et. al.),

I am back for more! In thinking about our discussion, I believe there are two very core, fundamental points on which we are experiencing a failure of communication. One is a point I am making, and the other is one you are making, Bill.

Your point is about "mutual dependency." I do not understand this point at all. There don't seem to be any logical conclusions to be drawn from this revelation. And, more importantly, I do not understand the revelation, period. Humans have "mutual dependency." Umm, OK, what does that mean? You seem to feel this statement is not just a mention of an obvious truth which everyone can observe, but rather a radical insight you have discovered which many other philosophers have missed. Now there very well may be some profound insight underlying your devoted plugging of mutual dependency, but it is not coming out in what you're writing. In short: "I don't get it."

The important point which I am making and which it seems to me that you are not getting, is this: the private property society may use coercion. It is not a coercion-less society. You have repeatedly, very repeatedly, made statements demonstrating you do not understand this. The understanding does not seem to be improving, despite my attempts. You have written, for example:















I already answered once in the following way: They wouldn't! There's nothing wrong with coercion! This misunderstanding is our own fault -- some overzealous and none-to-precise advocate of anarcho-capitalism no doubt has railed to you at some point about how the state doing XYZ is evil because it uses coercion. But defensive coercion is fine. Obviously!

But somehow this didn't sink in. So let me repeat myself over and over for redundancy, and perhaps some variant of expression will finally succeed in making the point.

Coercion is fine! Coercion is hunky-dory! I do not oppose coercion!

You "fail to see"? Exactly: you "fail to see"! You fail to see that libertarians will defend themselves with institutions of counter-violence.

How can an anarchist society deal with problems without resorting to coercion? Simple: it doesn't! It resorts to coercion, Bill.

Professionalization = monopoly? Private defense agencies can be professional, Bill. In all likelihood, they will be universally professional, just like e.g. printer manufacturers are universally professional, and far more professional than the current monopoly defense agency system. How is it that you come to the conclusion that monopolies are the only groups which can embody professionalism? That without monopolization there can be no professionalization? This is just plain ludicrous and runs counter to all common sense. Take a step outdoors and observe reality. Observation of reality completely contradicts this tenet.

"Private institutions devoid of coercive power"? You are arguing against a straw man -- a false illusion of what we advocates of the private property society actually want. How about: "Private institutions which possess coercive power"? Try talking about that. Because that's what we're talking about. That's what we propose.

"Vigilantes," "impromptu," "ad hoc"? Do we resort to "vigilante" grocers? Are we forced to rely on "ad hoc" insurance companies? Do we get together and build "impromptu" oil platforms?

You're "still trying to see what is anarchist about [my] proposals"? Well maybe they aren't, according to your definition of anarchism. Anarchism is a highly variegated (and thus problematic) label, which has been applied mostly to people whom I diametrically oppose. So, perhaps it's possible you've entirely misunderstood what I stand for, if you're lumping me in with those people. Don't you think?

Certainly you can have private armies. Certainly you can have competing private armies. The knights of the middle ages were originally private armies, and they were competing private armies. When private armies compete it is called war. Armies are coercive institutions, but why do you presume that a private army would care about YOUR liberties when they can coerce from you whatever they want? What is it that requires that the private armies in your society should only engage in defensive coercion? What's to stop them from going on the offensive? In particular, what's to stop them from going on the offensive against YOU. To prevent that you have to have institutional restraints on their behavior. You cannot give a coercive entity all the freedom of a free market.

I have emphasized mutual dependency in contrast to autonomous individuality. My point has been that most of our political theory from the enlightenment onward has either expressly claimed individual autonomy to be the true state of human nature or have presupposed it to be so. This applies to both theories of the left and theories of the right. Autonomous individuality gives rise to the concept of "natural rights." As autonomous individuals were are assumed also to have rights which derive from nature. Primarily OUR nature.

But mutual dependency implies obligations, and libertarians hate that idea. But mutual dependency is a fact of life. We cannot survive. In fact, we cannot even BE human without mutual dependency. I am preparing a summary of my logical argument which I will be posting here shortly but as a separate thread. It consists of eleven logical propositions with brief commentaries. Unfortunately, it is still too long to post here. I need to trim it down some more. I fear that anarcho-libertarians, like their anarcho-socialist cousins simply take too rosy a view of the natural world and of human nature as well. That view springs, in my opinion, from our desire to be autonomous individuals. And, indeed, individual autonomy is achievable by those individuals willing to put in the effort. But it isn't achievable within society. Few people want to be hermits. And it certainly isn't a condition we are born into.

The principle of autonomous individuality forces Rothbard to claim that parents have every right to starve their children to death. And yet Robert Murphy cites the very book in which Rothbard makes that claim, The Ethics of Liberty, as a foundational basis for the legal code of an anarchist community. Yet, as I have already claimed, that book contains a host of contradictions and confusions. So your private property society must first work out a coherent legal code, and I warn you, Robert Murphy not withstanding, that you won't find it in the work of Murray Rothbard.

Meanwhile, let me rephrase my previous question. How does the anarchist community prevent itself from becoming the victims of the very same private coercive institutions that it proposes to employ?

 

[boneyard bill]

Did you just skip over the parts where I discussed how the definition of libertarian is not and has not been a universal one?

If there is no basic agreement on what libertarianism is, how is it possible to discuss it at all? Yes, Rothbard called himself a libertarian and wrote extensively on what libertarianism meant to him. But he borrowed the term from European anarchists who applied it to a socialist society. Are we then somehow supposed to critique BOTH forms of libertarianism at the same time?

Rothbard applied the term to HIS philosophy. Others have used it in a slightly different sense. Still others, such as Ayn Rand, have put forward similar ideas but rejected the label of libertarian.

If you're going to discuss libertarianism, and you're not using Rothbard's definition, you will have to provide your own definition or present your philosophy and give it a different name. I can't argue against a concept that has a thousand meanings anymore than I can argue against a concept that has no meaning.

 

[Cabal]

It's like you didn't read my post at all.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

To start out, Bill -- and this is very important -- let's be clear and pin down one thing: do you now understand and realize that I (and in all likelihood Cabal, FreedomFanatic, Occam's Banana, and many others in this thread, though they can speak for themselves) advocate not a society with no coercion, but rather a society with bounteous coercion? Coercion here, coercion there, coercion everywhere you look! This is what we want; we simply want to rearrange the patterns of coercion a bit. We don't want to eliminate it -- that would be absurd, impossible, vulnerable, and everything else you said.

1) Do you now accept this? 2) Do you understand it? And so 3) do you retract all of the statements I quoted you as making, as only applying to some hypothetical person or philosophy which did seek to set up a coercion-free society? Do you now understand those criticisms do not apply to me and my philosophy?

That's point number 1. If we are now finally on the same page on that, then we can move on. If not, it makes no sense to do so. Instead, let's just keep hammering away on that point, because until you truly accept and understand that coercion and violence and armies and everything else are A-OK and Helmuth-approved, you are unlikely to understand anything about my political thoughts at all.

So, feel free to ignore the rest of this post if your answers to the above three questions (Accept? Understand? Retract?) are not all yes. We need to focus on that. But, I feel there are now too many incorrect claims hanging out there unaddressed. So I'll address the ones you made in this post.

Certainly you can have private armies. Certainly you can have competing private armies. The knights of the middle ages were originally private armies, and they were competing private armies.

While I understand the motivation for linking one idea which you do not like to another historical practice which you also do not like, the society and institutions I seek to bring about are not identical with, nor even very similar to, "the knights of the middle ages." I am not seeking to resurrect or slavishly duplicate whatever system(s) may have existed in the Middle Ages. We likely have very different historical interpretations on the Middle Ages, since you seem to be a typical Enlightenment glorifier, the prevalent layman position. I am not. But regardless, proving the Middle Ages to be Dark and Horrible will do nothing to affect my views, nor likely anyone else's. If that is your goal, you may wish to change tactics.

When private armies compete it is called war.

It is not, of course, the form of competition I seek to make constant and vigorous. I seek to extend the domain of commercial competition.

Armies are coercive institutions, but why do you presume that a private army would care about YOUR liberties when they can coerce from you whatever they want?

I presume nothing. Armies are made up of people. People are people. The question is: which is more likely to do undesirable things: an army (made up of people) which has a forcibly-maintained monopoly on a given geographical area, or an army (made up of people) which is just one army among many independent, commercial armies that the people of the area maintain for their protection -- one that could go bankrupt at any time if its customers desert it? I answer: the non-monopoly army. What do you answer, Bill?

What is it that requires that the private armies in your society should only engage in defensive coercion?

Nothing. Nothing requires that, any more than anything requires that the monopoly army of Sudan (or the US) never aggress against the good citizens which support it through their taxes. There are no magical forces that can require people to do things or forbear from doing things when they want to act otherwise. Some people seek power. That is their motivation. Some people care not about respecting the boundaries of others. That is their morality. I do not propose to magically change that. Do you?

What's to stop them from going on the offensive?

Again: nothing. There may be disincentives. There may be every system and device conceivable set up to make it difficult. But nothing can override the action of individuals. In that sense, despite your claims, every man is, in fact, autonomous. Fully and completely. Nothing can change that.

For better or worse.

To prevent that you have to have institutional restraints on their behavior.

You are a fool if you think you can prevent men from doing things they want to do. That is one pipe dream that will never happen. I thought you realized that, Bill. I really did.

But a society can put disincentives and counter-mechanisms in place. What I propose is the sensible counter-mechanism of not giving any man a monopoly on protective services. Some men may use such a monopoly with restraint. Others may not. Better to not risk it. Better to decentralize and distribute the power, so that when some man decides to seek power in an illegitimate way, there exist other men with equal or greater power who may reign him in. If instead he has an entrenched monopoly and overwhelmingly superior firepower to everyone -- as you propose -- well.... good luck.

I have emphasized mutual dependency in contrast to autonomous individuality. My point has been that most of our political theory from the enlightenment onward has either expressly claimed individual autonomy to be the true state of human nature or have presupposed it to be so. This applies to both theories of the left and theories of the right. Autonomous individuality gives rise to the concept of "natural rights." As autonomous individuals were are assumed also to have rights which derive from nature. Primarily OUR nature.

But mutual dependency implies obligations, and libertarians hate that idea. But mutual dependency is a fact of life. We cannot survive. In fact, we cannot even BE human without mutual dependency.

Here you attempt again to explain to me about mutual dependency. I'm sorry, but I guess I'm dense. I'm no closer to understanding than before. What have I said that you're trying to refute with this? What does any of this mean? Either this a Great Thought you've come up with in which case I am determined to get to the core of it and at least understand it, whether or not I agree, or it is just hopelessly non-rigorous, lazy thinking.

I am preparing a summary of my logical argument which I will be posting here shortly but as a separate thread. It consists of eleven logical propositions with brief commentaries.

OK, that will be good.

I fear that anarcho-libertarians... simply take too rosy a view of the natural world and of human nature as well.

This seems to be a very deep-seated view you have, as you've repeated it several times. Please name for me a element of human nature which I view too rosily, or even any element whatsoever that I see as more rosy than you do (whether too much so or otherwise).

The principle of autonomous individuality forces Rothbard to claim that parents have every right to starve their children to death.

Finally, I think if you read The Ethics of Liberty you will find that I have not exaggerated what Rothbard says about child-rearing obligations.

I am very aware of precisely what Rothbard wrote on this matter, in Ethics and elsewhere. What I said was that you are intentionally skipping all nuance in Rothbard's position in order to better mis-characterize the position in a sensationalistic way. And that is clearly true. Sensationalizing your opponent's positions is a legitimate rhetorical tactic. I am merely pointing it out.

Meanwhile, let me rephrase my previous question. How does the anarchist community prevent itself from becoming the victims of the very same private coercive institutions that it proposes to employ?

This is not a rephrasal. This is a totally and completely different question. Please inform me as to whether you understand that. Until you understand that, there is little point in answering the question.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Here's a little clip from Stephan Kinsella also making the point: Coercion is fine and dandy. So if you're an audio learner, this should be useful. Starting at 1:30: