I'm becoming more radical with time

[Pericles]

The problem is never with those who respect the rights and property of others. The problem is with those who don't.

 

[Jingles]

I've been seeing some stuff brought up regarding Public Goods and the like so I figured I'd post this article.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/bylund/bylund28.1.html The Fallacy of Public Goods: Libertarians and National Defense

and some Hans-Hermann Hoppe http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_2.pdf and Walter Block http://direct.mises.org/journals/jls/7_1/7_1_1.pdf

 

[affa]

Not really. Capitalism (of the laissez-faire variety) requires cooperation in certain areas. Producers of raw materials cooperate with wholesalers, wholesalers with retailers, retailers with employees and customers. Then there's the division of labor. You're not going to get around the need for cooperation in a laissez-faire world.

I don't disagree with this. I'm not saying that capitalism negates cooperation, rather only that it leans towards competition and away from cooperation. For example, in a 'best of both worlds' situation, you'd have multiple groups competing, but also sharing knowledge and research. The multiple groups would allow for divergent paths and competitive initiative, but shared knowledge and research would help prevent duplication of effort. And yes, this can happen to some extent in capitalism, but in general it leans competitive.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't disagree with this. I'm not saying that capitalism negates cooperation, rather only that it leans towards competition and away from cooperation. For example, in a 'best of both worlds' situation, you'd have multiple groups competing, but also sharing knowledge and research. The multiple groups would allow for divergent paths and competitive initiative, but shared knowledge and research would help prevent duplication of effort. And yes, this can happen to some extent in capitalism, but in general it leans competitive.

Competition is not bad, though. As in sports, the drive to compete causes entrepreneurs to achieve ever-greater things. Shared knowledge in anything is inevitable. Once something is produced and introduced to a market, competitors are free to try and improve on it. Even the original "inventor" has to continually update his work to satisfy the ever-shifting demands of consumers and trends.

 

[Xerographica]

I'm not sure what you mean by this, is there any context you can provide regarding this statement; can you elaborate?

Anarcho-capitalism vs Civilization

 

[kuckfeynes]

Sorry to make a comment like that and just bounce, been rather busy.

Xero (and others)... I skimmed your Devil's Advocate post and the thing that jumped out to me immediately is something that I see over and over on here, and I don't know why because it seems like an imaginary sticking point to me. Basically it's the idea that everyone must know and follow the NAP in order for it to be valid. It's not a pathway to utopia. It is just a guiding principle, perhaps a theoretical idea of what people would demand for their hard earned cash in a market-based justice system. Not everyone even agrees on all the details of the NAP so obviously different markets would demand different details. Some might not even much care for it, and that's their prerogative. I'll be sure not to move there.

But seeing as how the free market always normalizes to the most efficient allocation of capital, I don't think large scale oppression would be very sustainable, certainly nothing compared to the scale we see in the prison/industrial complex today. It makes positions of power as volatile as consumer confidence. Toyota sells cars with faulty brakes, confidence goes down, sales go down, Toyota loses power. If they lose too much power they fold and become a non entity. So, why should this not hold true for courts as well?

Plus, if your solution is not the abolishment of the state and thus its laws, why do you not hold to the same standard the laws you necessarily must create? What if everyone does not acknowledge and follow them? Look around you, people nullify laws every day, and the vast majority get away with it. Some aren't even aware they are nullifying a law. That is the power of the market. That doesn't seem to affect the existence of the laws or the ability of someone to enforce them. Yet somehow this standard gets applied to NAP as if it were some kind of dictatorial absolute...

Anyway I love the philosophical discussions here, forgive me if I'm less than prompt in responding...

 

[affa]

Competition is not bad, though. As in sports, the drive to compete causes entrepreneurs to achieve ever-greater things. Shared knowledge in anything is inevitable. Once something is produced and introduced to a market, competitors are free to try and improve on it. Even the original "inventor" has to continually update his work to satisfy the ever-shifting demands of consumers and trends.

I'm not saying competition is bad, at all, and I'm not sure where you got that from. Heck, my 'best of both worlds' example clearly indicates I think competition is important. But so is cooperation, and that is what we sometimes forget nowadays, in a society that clearly values competition more than cooperation. I think the goal (as indicated by my use of 'best of both worlds) is to find a way to have both working together, since both competition and cooperation provide significant advantages.

This requires a different mindset than we have today.

I agree with you that "Shared knowledge in anything is inevitable." But that's long term thinking. And I'm talking about rather than having it be 'inevitable', we make it 'integral'. Rather than wish we could keep that trade secret, or that patent (ugh), forever, we embrace our competitors and make the information available immediately. Quid pro quo, obviously.

I don't think this will hurt progress; in fact, I think it will be like a renaissance. There are still 'competitive' reasons to excel (recognition, first to market, etc) but in embracing you'd also hyper-accelerate competition. And I think that's my point, really... that I don't think competition and cooperation are antithetical. I think they're two sides of the same coin, and work best in unity. And that valuing one over the other, as we so often currently do, hurts both.

 

[Wesker1982]

But where we differ, I think, is on the inevitability of, and perhaps even definition of, that violence.

I don't think you can say violence is inevitable in capitalism. "Capitalism" is a concept, only people can be violent. To say capitalism will inevitably lead to violence means that if a group of 1,000 peaceful capitalists voluntarily moved to an island, it would always lead to violence. I don't see how anyone could come to this conclusion.

The same goes for socialism. To say violence is inevitable in socialism ignores the individuality of the people that consist of whichever group is socialist. The Hutterites are a good example.

State-capitalism and State-socialism are different stories of course since violence is inherent in the State.

When I say the initiation of violence, I am talking about physical aggression (or the threat of).

Why must a solitary man on an island own anything at all?

Maybe we are talking about ownership in different ways. I am defining ownership simply as exclusive control.

Property is inherent in the nature of man. Man must have exclusive control over resources or else he will die. A man cannot stand in the same exact place as another man, he must have exclusive control, ownership, of land. A man cannot eat the same piece of food at the same time as another, he must exclusively own food, food being property (the exclusive ownership).

To say that my issue is not inherent to the idea of private ownership simply because this wouldn't affect a solitary man on an island doesn't follow.

I think it does. If a man privately owning something is not bad per se, then this implies something else is required to happen, it implies that private ownership is not the only criterion for whatever it is you are objecting to.

If private ownership of the means of production was always bad, then a Robinson Crusoe would be acting immorally by owning capital. If it becomes bad only when you initiate aggression against somebody, then the objection should be to the actual aggressive action.

We can't begin to discuss the ramifications of private property until there are more actors, just like we can't discuss the ramifications of socialism or fascism in a single person world.

The difference is that socialism and fascism by definition require other people. Private ownership only requires one individual.

You are leading the conversation by making the assumption that they are "mutually agreeing", pre-supposing that one man has the ability to catch fish, and the other the ability to build a ladder and collect coconuts.

Right. That is why I am wondering at what point do you object? What is it that is required to happen before you object to the interactions?

But what if I control the only food/water source, and you only control the side of the island that is dry and arid... can we reasonably say any agreement we come upon is 'mutual'?

Absolutely. The trade would not happen unless both parties were better off.

When does the violence begin?

With the initiation or threat of aggression.

When does the worker realize he is only the worker because the other claims dominance of a natural resource?

Probably right away. This is a conditional objection to capitalism though. The condition being total dominance over a given resource. This isn't anti-capitalism necessarily, but rather anti-monopoly. You are not opposed to a private individual owning means of production, but opposed to an individual owning all of the means of production?

I assume your argument would be that capitalism will inevitably lead to monopoly. It will lead to a small group dominating all of the resources and thus oppressing the non-owners of capital? This is basically the same objection minarchists have. It is also basically a lifeboat objection (Problems of a moral theory in such an extreme situation do not invalidate a theory for normal situations): "a few capitalists will own all of the worlds resources". This simply won't happen. The profit from their capital comes from the mass market of consumers. It would be impossible to gain this sort of monopoly control unless the majority of society accepts it. And if society in large advocated tyranny, then no system could prevent it. Without a legitimized apparatus of coercion, there is nothing stopping the workers from accumulating their own capital.

The reason why the State gets away with tyranny is because of a widespread belief in the legitimacy of the institution. No such legitimacy would exist in the minds of a free society if oppressive private monopolies started forming.

Is that liberty?

When libertarians talk about liberty, they are talking about the absence of the initiation of violence.

We already have resource inequality.

Since scarce resources are scarce and human desire is unlimited, it is impossible for everyone to have the same amount of resources. But Capitalism is the most efficient at allocating the most possible amount resources to the most possible amount of people.

It is only liberty if you pre-suppose property rights, and even then it is only liberty for the property holder at the expense of all others.

The others still have liberty as long as they are free from the initiation of violence. It is not really at the expense of others unless they are actually aggressed against to achieve the property. But again, this is not a problem with property but with violence.

are you saying that an an-cap would be perfectly fine with me walking around till i found a piece of unused land and started using it?

Yes.

What if it's in what they consider their 'backyard'?

You mean if they just arbitrarily point to a piece of land and claim ownership over it without actually having put it to use? Or do you mean if someone has a fenced in yard behind their house with a rose garden?

According to the homestead principle, the first case would be illegitimate, the second case would be legitimate. (The homestead principle being basically: every person who, with the help of his body and his originally appropriated goods, produces new products thereby becomes the proper owner of these products, provided only that in the process of production he does not physically damage the goods owned by another person.- Hans Hoppe)

The case of people trying to arbitrarily fencing off large pieces of land and claiming ownership without homesteading (like the State does), this is another lifeboat scenario which doesn't reflect reality. Again, someone doing this would require the majority support of society, which would never happen. Note that I am not saying that majority rule justifies something, I am just pointing out that any society will be organized according to the values and beliefs of the majority. The State could not exist without majority support, neither could any other framework.

What if it has a stream, and I divert it, preventing you from getting water?

I would it is similar to the "what if I poison your water and you live down stream from me". You would own the part of the stream that is on your property. Polluting would be aggression against your property right to that part of the river, I would say cutting off the water would be the same as stealing your property.

These would ultimately decided by the courts, but in libertarian principle, both would be a violation of rights. Also, people would generally enter rental contracts, homeowner associations, etc. to prevent possible conflict.

I think most people will voluntarily enter in to homeowner type associations/contracts to decrease the likelihood of conflict because people in general like to avoid conflict. There would be many incentives to make prior agreements (to prove to people you are trustworthy) and non-violent disincentives if you refuse to make such agreements. People will be more hesitant to interact with someone who refuses to decrease the chance of any possible future conflict, etc.

What if someone claims to own it, but isn't using it? What if I find a house in dis-use on land? Can I squat there, since the owner obviously no longer uses it? Does it become mine, through use?

Abandoned property can be justly homesteaded. When abandoned, it goes into a state of non-ownership. It has no owner, so it can be homesteaded.

How big of a piece of land can I claim to own?

Whatever you have homesteaded and have not abandoned.

What if the only way to get to open land was to walk through your land, and you didn't give me permission?

This is an unlikely scenario. I can't imagine a likely scenario where you could not just go around. If I tried to claim such a huge piece of land that it made it impossible to go around, I don't think this claim could be consistent with the homestead principle because a piece of land this size would be massive beyond possible use. A lot of the claim would be abandoned property. It is not possible to have enough resources to homestead landmasses big enough to cause these sorts of problems.

I just don't agree with your followup, that capitalism would therefore eliminate all of the problems listed.

Any society will have problems, but a free market will have the least.

 

[Sentient Void]

Affa, I don't disagree with much of what you are saying. I don't even 'necessarily disagree' with you (and Proudhon) that 'Property is freedom... but property is theft' in regards to the problems you are noting that complete and total property creates (which I am an absolute advocate of). This exclusion of access to property certainly does not lead to a 'perfect utopia' where everyone is able to be instantly prosperous - and none of us claim that laissez faire is 'perfect'. But it's the best possible system available to us in an environment of scarce resources, capital, labor and time. I don't deny that these are things we should rightfully note as potential 'problems' with it. However, nothing more. We should not advocate for any type of 'policy' towards attempting to 'make the situation better'. Such a system is the best of all possible worlds - economically and morally. Anything else would lead to unintended consequences that will always make the situation worse, and require a response of *explicit theft* as opposed to some vague, nebulous notion that an-synds have of some kind of *implicit theft*. AnSynds all too often seem to complain a lot about these things (haves and have nots, exclusion, racism, sexism, etc - which are realistic issues that would happen, as they would in any system), but rarely if ever offer up any solutions that would be a better system to have than free market capitalism.

In the end, though - I really don't think 'theft' is the right word. Theft implies right by others to control or own property that they become forcibly excluded from. What right do complete strangers to the property have over those who have toiled over the item/land in question? Is it really believed that they have a higher right than the original appropriator of the property, the one who spent his blood, sweat and tears creating it from nothing, or resulting in his complete voluntary exchange for it? Where is the 'right' in that?

As for the utilitarian/consequentialist arguments made about finite resources, land, etc - as any market approaches increasingly low supply relative to demand of an item or real estate / land - profits grow significantly. This significantly increased profit in a free market naturally leads the market to attract innovators and entrepreneurs who desire that profit - to find ways to meet these demands sufficiently - which push civilization forward and ultimately reduce the price of the hot item or land for the masses, while making it more widely available. These 'fences' will *always* result in the creation of more land to be fenced by individuals.

All rights are ultimately property rights extending from the property right of self-ownership (justified through Hoppe's 'argumentation ethics'). Property is freedom. Anything else, is tyranny.

Personally, I believe the next stage of evolution for capitalism, which is far off in the future - is a 'post scarcity' society. But this will still not negate capitalism, private property rights, etc - nor will it even result in an abolishment of money or trade - since there are things that will always be scarce and require these things (luxuries, art, time, certain labor skillsets, etc). What you will see, however - is unbelievably higher standards of living for everybody. Capitalism (again, as ancaps define it) is the only path to this (mostly for economic reasons noted by Mises and Hayek on the Fatal Conceit, the coordination, calculation, and information problems, tragedy of the commons, etc).

 

[kuckfeynes]

Why must there be any special emphasis on "cooperation?" Humans voluntarily cooperate with each other by default. Often they do it in order to be more competitive. Involuntary cooperation I think is more commonly referred to as violence.

 

[affa]

Why must there be any special emphasis on "cooperation?" Humans voluntarily cooperate with each other by default. Often they do it in order to be more competitive. Involuntary cooperation I think is more commonly referred to as violence.

"Why must there be any special emphasis on "cooperation?""

There doesn't have to be anything. The point is that I think competition in conjunction with cooperation provides a better system for progress.

"Humans voluntarily cooperate with each other by default. Often they do it in order to be more competitive."

This isn't what i'm talking about. We're talking theory, right? It is my assertion that a system in which competitors not only compete, but share their information (both successes and failures) can move forward more quickly than a system of pure competition where there are trade secrets, duplicative effort, etc.

"Involuntary cooperation I think is more commonly referred to as violence."

Who is talking about involuntary cooperation? If you split definitions right, competition is also commonly referred to as violence. I don't see how misconstruing either word really helps the conversation. but based on your post, i'm not totally sure you're understanding where i'm coming from.

 

[kuckfeynes]

competition in conjunction with cooperation provides a better system for progress.

Agree, but this is redundant. Cooperation is inherent to competition.

It is my assertion that a system in which competitors not only compete, but share their information (both successes and failures) can move forward more quickly than a system of pure competition where there are trade secrets, duplicative effort, etc.

This I have a problem with. Because what is my incentive to innovate if my technology is just going to be given away? Duplicative effort is a non-issue because the incentive of profit is an infinitesimally greater human motivator than the common good. It is quickly eliminated as companies consolidate to stay competitive.

More importantly though, to force someone to hand over their innovation to the public is an act of violence and aggression, and thus amoral. Plus it would require a bureaucracy to police the innovation, requiring the economically negative funding of regulatory agencies, necessitating the picking of winners and losers, fostering an environment ripe for corruption, continually seeking ways to expand influence, and inevitably becoming the primary source of the very inefficiency you seek to get rid of.

competition is also commonly referred to as violence.

I acknowledge that competition CAN be violent, but I'd love to hear how competition IS violence, in the same way that "involuntary cooperation" (which is really an oxymoron) would be.

 

[gerryb]

"Why must there be any special emphasis on "cooperation?""

There doesn't have to be anything. The point is that I think competition in conjunction with cooperation provides a better system for progress.

Ok, great. What about it, then?

This is capitalism. If cooperation make you more competitive, those who cooperate will come to dominate. Once someone cooperates better, they will come to dominate.

In what way are you going to make competitors cooperate in your system? An-cap/voluntarist is the only just system.