Thank you for the great correspondence! Maybe one day this stuff will be worth publishing!
But... Even if you were correct - which you are not - how "stupid" would the consequences of your theory be if used for adults? Imagine the Nazis actually having the right to do what they did! Now that is what I would call crazy. If you tried to be consistent with your theory you would get much worse results than those I am proposing for this small problem with children. And no matter what you say, violence is violence.
If I wanted to be precise I would call you an "ageist", i.e. you think just because people are in a certain age group they are inferior to other people. This is the same superstition which existed in regard to Blacks and Asians ("racism") or women ("sexism"). Any such beliefs are strictly irrational on all levels. People may have different abilities and faculties, but they all have the same rights. I know some 10 year olds who are more reasonable than many 50 year olds. I am therefore calling for the emancipation of children from their perpetual slavery and suffering under this system of discrimination which you and most other people in the world are supporting. You can call my ideas of non-violence "stupid", but I call all your ideas of sanctioned aggression "evil".
Furthermore I do believe the greatest proclamation of Classical Liberalism was the famous American Declaration of Independence. And if you read it you will realize that it does not sanction "your" government and any government, only a certain type of government. Quoting from the Declaration: "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it". Well I say this government has become destructive to my ends and I have THE RIGHT to abolish it. All I need to do is to reject the current and establish a new government. And anyone who tries to stop me is going against classical liberalism - that person is a tyrant. King George III was an abusive Monarch thus the Jeffersonians had a revolution, though he tried to prevent it. Nobody doubts this revolution was anything but moral. Liberals like Locke and Jefferson originated it, and conservatives like Burke and Acton endorsed it. Libertarianism today is just a contiuation of the classical liberal tradition (Rothbard's ideas naturally evolved from those of his mentor Mises).
I do not want you to take any of this as a personal insult - I know you to be a person with good intentions at heart. But as Milton Friedman(a statist classical liberal!) famous stated: "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programmes by their intentions rather than their results." Thus I do not judge you by the intentions of your ideas (which I fully believe are good), but by their results (the abuses and violence they entail).
"Thus I do not judge you by the intentions of your ideas (which I fully believe are good), but by their results (the abuses and violence they entail)."
ReplyDeleteNeither do I, but I think your system could result in a worse one than we have already. Governance has nothing to do with economics. It has to do with human nature.
And in this case of discriminating against children by the parent, You should also call for no discrimination in any free enterprise. You should also call for the emancipation of the rights to buy your own nuclear bomb. And the rights of Osama Bin Laden to buy his own nuclear bomb as well. And the world would in no way be any less fearful then it already is today.
And no, I do not think wisdom always grows with age, although it can. But if you think suffering and abuses and violence will disappear without a functioning government in an anarchist society, and everyone's private property will be absolutely protected and maximally efficient in man's natural state, then I know the perfect place for humanity to live in. Somalia.
"But... Even if you were correct - which you are not - how "stupid" would the consequences of your theory be if used for adults?"
ReplyDeleteWell, my axiom does not extend to adults. That is the point of the law as to not misinterpret it by people like you.
"You can call my ideas of non-violence "stupid", but I call all your ideas of sanctioned aggression "evil"."
-I assure you that even if you followed your private property principles, your wife would probably not and act in that void of non-parenting.
"(Rothbard's ideas naturally evolved from those of his mentor Mises)."
-No, it died with Rothbard. Unlike any other functional system, Rothbard's is not functional and it never has been. In a world void of applied force or aggression as Rothbard and millions of other people want, we would have no need for a police or military force, privatized or not. And the only way you have ever reconciled this is putting Rothbardianism and Spencerinism into one and assuming through economic and social incentives, desires for humans to be political(which entail any government) would be reduced and die out.
"For 99.8 percent of human history people lived exclusively in autonomous bands and villages. At the beginning of the Paleolithic [i.e. the stone age], the number of these autonomous political units must have been small, but by 1000 B.C. it had increased to some 600,000. Then supra-village aggregation began in earnest, and in barely three millenia the autonomous political units of the world dropped from 600,000 to 157. Generally speaking, the archaeological evidence suggests that the state emerged out of stateless communities only when a fairly large population (at least tens of thousands of people) was more or less settled together in a particular territory, and practiced agriculture, rather than being nomadic hunters and gatherers. Indeed, one of the typical functions of the state is the defense of territory."-Robert L. Carneiro
ReplyDeleteAnd during that 0.2% of human history, the greatest exponential increase in standards of living and quality of life in humanity was achieved with a strong positive correlation with the existence of a state, if not a causation.
"Well, my axiom does not extend to adults. That is the point of the law as to not misinterpret it by people like you."
ReplyDeleteYou have to explain to me why it doesn't extend to adults. There has to be a reason for this, no? Because if there is no reason - then there can be nothing denoting intelligence behind your theory. Also I do believe that if your axiom did not apply to adults then anarcho-capitalism would be possible in the Hoppe/Rothbard/Block sense, i.e. adults have private property rights and can get whatever insurance they want. So please clarify why your axiom does not legitimize Nazism, as I believe it does.
"And in this case of discriminating against children by the parent, You should also call for no discrimination in any free enterprise. You should also call for the emancipation of the rights to buy your own nuclear bomb. And the rights of Osama Bin Laden to buy his own nuclear bomb as well. And the world would in no way be any less fearful then it already is today."
Free enterprise can discriminate because it can create positive laws, not just Natural Law. For example I can have a rule that in my house or restaurant everyone has to wear a funny hat. And the aim of political philosophy is not producing a society without any fear, it is producing a FAIR AND JUST system where all can function with as few human rights abuses as possible.
Also your statements about Rothbardian theories show an evident complete lack of knowledge of Rothbard's work. He never said there would be no violence or human rights abuse. He always highlighted that those would still exist forever. We need police and armies to protect us from such abuses and the Osama bin Ladens of this world!
You obviously have very little understanding of human nature and evolution if you believe that the statist system furthers the development of good qualities in humans.
And as for this idea of positive law naturally developing on top of natural law, I suggest you look at Rothbard's chapter 3 of the ethics of liberty and look at how "rare" it would be for the two to coincide.
ReplyDeleteAlso:
"Critics argue that a libertarian society cannot prevent natural resources from being destroyed, or the environment from being polluted, because of its rejection of collective regulation and control. Critics find libertarian attempts to protect the environment through property rights are lacking. They see natural resources (like whales or the atmosphere) as too hard to privatize, and legal responsibility for damage (from pollution or wild animals) as too hard to trace."
"Between 1973 and 1989, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible (the so-called miracle of Chile). Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws... Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America... growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America. And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign of terror and widespread human rights abuses"
"Objectivists have criticized libertarians for suggesting that a just society is based on an axiomatic (intrinsic) belief in liberty or a pragmatic (subjective) belief that uses the practical outcome of capitalism. Objectivists argue that abstract ideas don't exist in a vacuum, and thus the concept of liberty needs to be validated by a process of reason with an underlying philosophy of rational selfishness, reason, and objective reality."
"the liberty of a human being to own another should be trumped by equal human rights (62), the liberty to own large amounts of property [at the expense of others] should... also be trumped by equal human rights. This alone would seem definitively to lay to rest the philosophical case for libertarianism... The very idea of ownership contains the relativistic seeds of arbitrary authority: the arbitrary authority of the individual's 'right to do wrong."-Friedman
These are common criticisms I'd like to see you address in your book or next blogs (There are a dozen different topics here you can use)!!! =)
Definition of arbitration from wikipedia:
ReplyDelete"Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a legal technique for the resolution of disputes outside the courts, where the parties to a dispute refer it to one or more persons (the "arbitrators", "arbiters" or "arbitral tribunal"), by whose decision (the "award") they agree to be bound."
"The adjudication network is stable only if it can use force to put down outlaw agencies that do not accept its higher-order arbitration decisions. Such a network could also use force to put down firms that do not adhere to the collusive agreement."
"Robert Nozick argued in Anarchy, State and Utopia that anarcho-capitalism would inevitably transform into a minarchist state, even without violating any of its own nonaggression principles, through the eventual emergence of a single locally dominant private defense and judicial agency that it is in everyone's interests to align with, because other agencies are unable to effectively compete against the advantages of the agency with majority coverage. Therefore, he felt that, even to the extent that the anarcho-capitalist theory is correct, it results in an unstable system that would not endure in the real world. Paul Birch argues that as in the world today, legal disputes involving several jurisdictions and different legal system will be many times more complex and costly to resolve than disputes involving only one legal system. Thus, the largest private protection business in a territory will have lower costs since it will have more internal disputes and will outcompete those private protection business with more external disputes in the territory. In effect, according to Birch, protection business in territory is a natural monopoly."
"Free enterprise can discriminate because it can create positive laws, not just Natural Law. For example I can have a rule that in my house or restaurant everyone has to wear a funny hat."
"Also your statements about Rothbardian theories show an evident complete lack of knowledge of Rothbard's work."
Also, these are issues an anarcho-capitalist has with ideas of stability:
http://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism3.html
http://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism2.html
http://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism1.html
These are common criticisms I'd like to see you address in your book or next blogs (There are a dozen different topics here you can use)!!! =)
I must say that is quite a lot of criticism - although it is pretty much all wrong. It will take me a long time to address all the issues there.
ReplyDeleteMy main reply to all critics of anarcho-capitalism is always that it is the only possible moral system (the only system which acknowledges the non-aggression axiom as supreme Law of the land). No pragmatic issues can change this fact - it is much more important for me to be good than to be "efficient". But I am also confident that the anarcho-capitalist system functions like a free market. In a free market there are ALWAYS solutions to ALL problems - it is the most brilliant innovative system that has ever existed! All lovers of freedom and anti-coercion have to subscribe to this view.
I cannot help but notice that you, though you have turned into a prominent critic of anarcho-capitalism, cannot propose any better system. Whenever I point out faults in your arguments you change the subject and attack Private Law Society from a different angle. You have not come up with any good solutions to any of these problems yourself. It is easy to criticize without having to come up with any useful arguments yourself. However, your Socratic form of dialogue has really helped me clarify my views (especially the views in children in a libertarian system). I always enjoy our discussions and I'm happy to have met someone who is an independent thinker who challeneges all conventional wisdom (though some of your attacks on anarcho-capitalism are reminiscient of childish "feelings" arguements with no substance behind them).
I don't claim to fully understand the complexities of human action (praxeology) within human nature (as you do) because I view that the objective truth that exists can be determined by a mixture of a priori and empirical (not necessary Humeist) reasoning, but can hardly ever be defined in lexicon given the limited capacities of our brains in the universality of our existences. Though I am convinced of the innate instability of man's actions, something you believe reason would maximally outweigh in time and rarely ever be resurrected again to result in a new cycle. I'm a blissful child at heart. And loving every minute of it. If I was being whipped, or even used "feelings" to determine if I was being whipped, then matters would be different.
ReplyDeleteAnd adults were once children too, and the child's moral sphere of what is right and what is wrong is far more clearly delineated then an adult. Has the adult lost his innocence? No, his capacity to understand due to growth has increased exponentially. And that childish delineation is based in part how one feels ("feelings"). How one can feel persecuted (as in baby sitting) and misunderstand the nature of his persecution and the optimal benefits for survival and emotional, social, and psychological stability that result, are common ethical questions poised for all children.
"I'm a blissful child at heart"
ReplyDeleteI find this statement quite disturbing Rob - seeing as just yesterday you were proving to me how children can be dealt with by their parents. Your main problem is that you are not an individualist - you are a member of a mob group and enjoy fitting in with them all. You think that because you don't feel abused (which you are perfectly entitled to!) other people can't feel abused. You should know that among the serfs of the middle-ages very few thought they were being used. Same is true with the slaves of ancient Greece and Rome. They grew up thinking they were meant to be this way.
So when I am telling you I am being abused why can't you at least accept that and give me my rights back? Do I really have to be held prisoner by your social contract? You cannot deny responsibility my friend. You and all others like you are involved in enslaving me and other libertarians like me. If you base your judgement on individual "feelings" (a very child-like behaviour indeed) why can't you accept that we are suffering in front of your eyes?
Also, why is it that deregulated liberal societies always do better and always produce better citizens? Moral character is built through independence and self-reliance, not playing it safe in a group of losers. All I want is to be allowed to leave the group of losers. I hope you can understand this on the "feelings" side if you can't acknowledge the reasonable side.
By the way, great discription of a child's nature and understanding Natural Law here from Lysander Spooner (took me forever to find this passage!):
ReplyDelete"Children learn the fundamental principles of natural law at a very early age. Thus they very early understand that one child must not, without just cause, strike, or otherwise hurt, another; that one child must not assume any arbitrary control or domination over another; that one child must not, either by force, deceit, or stealth, obtain possession of anything that belongs to another; that if one child commits any of these wrongs against another, it is not only the right of the injured child to resist, and, if need be, punish the wrongdoer, and compel him to make reparation, but that it is also the right, and the moral duty, of all other children, and all other persons, to assist the injured party in defending his rights, and redressing his wrongs. These are fundamental principles of natural law, which govern the most important transactions of man with man. Yet children learn them earlier than they learn that three and three are six, or five and five ten. Their childish plays, even, could not be carried on without a constant regard to them; and it is equally impossible for persons of any age to live together in peace on any other conditions."
"You think that because you don't feel abused (which you are perfectly entitled to!) other people can't feel abused."
ReplyDeleteNo. This is where you go with your inferences and assumptions again. I am paying for Afghanistan, and if you asked Billy, he knows he is doing the same. And the only reason why in America there hasn't been as strong of a backlash like during Vietnam against paying taxes is because the draft has been de facto discontinued, so the possible "forced labor" clause for non-college 18-25 year old citizens has been stripped and now half of Americans don't even pay taxes on their own labor (their income).
"You should know that among the serfs of the middle-ages very few thought they were being used. Same is true with the slaves of ancient Greece and Rome."
Yes, while others revolted because they instinctively felt that it was not the way to live and because they realized that they were feeling enslaved even before they could articulate the reason why.
"So when I am telling you I am being abused why can't you at least accept that and give me my rights back?"
Because I do not have the power too, silly...
"I'm a blissful child at heart"
"I find this statement quite disturbing Rob - seeing as just yesterday you were proving to me how children can be dealt with by their parents
I know you do. It is your job to find a viable functional alternative and prove it could be done to a reasonable certainty to at least one other person besides me who is far more informed on the topic. And I am not even a registered voter, or even better, a democrat...
"Also, why is it that deregulated liberal societies always do better and always produce better citizens? Moral character is built through independence and self-reliance, not playing it safe in a group of losers. All I want is to be allowed to leave the group of losers. I hope you can understand this on the "feelings" side if you can't acknowledge the reasonable side."
You can leave a group of losers at anytime and create even with an existing government or in your parents garage. Men far more intelligent than you or I were able to accomplish far more in far more oppressive and repressive conditions than the current one. The reasons you and I are limited is not necessarily because of government, although that can be a factor in getting a patent, but partly because of sloth, laziness, and hedonism, which you and I share to some degree.
In all probability, in some respects, you are more like Lysander Spooner, and I am more like William Lloyd Garrison. You are more like Thoreau, I am more like Emerson. And in some respects, you are more Platonic, I am more Aristotelian.
And also, while I deplore moral relativism, you cannot deny the varying morality that exists among a diverse group of cultures and sociologically there will always be contrarian viewpoints regardless. So children can be brought up to act brutally (especially in the Middle East, South-east Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa) by their parents and it is not natural for them to recognize this as unnatural once they have adopted the social mores.
Most of your above comments really depress me. You don't seem to have the "balls" to fight for your rights at all.
ReplyDelete"I am paying for Afghanistan, and if you asked Billy, he knows he is doing the same. And the only reason why in America there hasn't been as strong of a backlash like during Vietnam against paying taxes is because the draft has been de facto discontinued, so the possible "forced labor" clause for non-college 18-25 year old citizens has been stripped and now half of Americans don't even pay taxes on their own labor (their income)."
Are you trying to say that the 50% of leeches who don't pay taxes and live off the hard-working 50% are actually good? "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" Section 8 of the Constitution clearly makes the income tax unconstitutional. It is an abuse of human rights (as a tax) and an abuse of your constitutional rights (as a tax which is not uniform). Paying taxes is forced labour as much as the draft way - only it is indorect. Instead of a few men being sent to fight we are all paying more to hire them to go fight.
And you see my whole point is not that I cannot be successful in this current system. It is just that it is very much more difficult to live the life I want to live. An analogy: In anarcho-capitalism we all have to run a marathon. Under statism half of the people run the marathon with lead weights on their backs and the other half watches and jeers. I don't want to be an exploiter, but in a democracy the only choices I have are exploiter and exploited. Those exploiters are the "group of losers" who I want to leave behind (and contrary to your statement I cannot get away from them by hiding in my garage).
And how can you say you're like William Garrison? The man was against slavery - not for it! I don't see how comparing yourself to classical liberals can make you look rational(after I have already shown that their theories are flawed internally and those faults are only repaired by modern libertarians - and maybe to some extent objectivists).
I am afraid we must respectfully agree to disagree, although your stance on things seems entirely faulty to me. Where there is no reason - there is no truth or correctness to any extent. And if you are ever bored for 20-30 minutes I highly recommend the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCRebmU6tAo
Francisco Capella explains libertarianism here in the simplest of ways and yet is able to precisely define all necessary terms and use proper logical reasoning to derive all his principles! If I was ever teaching a course on Rothbard or libertarianism in general I would make that my first lecture - the ultimate introduction. He uses excellent examples too. I have no doubt that libertarians are the most intelligent and free-thinking people in the world and they must be allowed to thrive on their own terms in order for evolution to proceed at its best. Chaining such people down and making them work for others is just a crime against the order of the universe!
"And how can you say you're like William Garrison? The man was against slavery - not for it! I don't see how comparing yourself to classical liberals can make you look rational(after I have already shown that their theories are flawed internally and those faults are only repaired by modern libertarians - and maybe to some extent objectivists)."
ReplyDeleteWilliam Garrison was for the emancipation of slaves through a constitutional amendment prohibiting forced labor. Spooner had a different means of which to achieve the end. And classical liberalism as an end is not flawed, its the social contract, which can be the means, that is.
". Paying taxes is forced labour as much as the draft way - only it is indirect. Instead of a few men being sent to fight we are all paying more to hire them to go fight."
ReplyDeleteJail is not the same as forced labor no matter how cruel the former still remains.
Dear God, Rob, have I not yet proven to you over and over that the social contract is self-contradictory and illegitimate as a theory and non-existent in facts? I did not sign any contract therefore it does not exist - it's as simple as that! Classical liberalism as a movemement is based on this very flawed idea of some imaginary contract which they coercively force onto others by claiming that they agreed to sign it just because they are alive.
ReplyDelete"Jail is not the same as forced labor no matter how cruel the former still remains."
I was not comparing taxes to jail, I was saying that BOTH the draft AND taxes are a form of forced labor, which they clearly are. Besides, who are you to say if forced labor is worse than jail or vice versa? I'm pretty sure that is a subjective judgement. I do not deal in subjective judgements - only objective ones matter.
Dear God, Matt, you know that depressing feeling that you had when reading my last blog? That was the feeling of reality sinking in, and I got that feeling by the time I was 13. And if there was such a state of perfect freedom and coexistence, then it would have been at least considered by now, otherwise humanity is not as rational as you may think or as moral or ethical as you think or as functional as you think or as reasonable as you may think or as educated or thoughtful as you may think.
ReplyDelete"And how can you say you're like William Garrison? The man was against slavery - not for it!"
Yes, I am for the abolition of any forced labor. You are for voluntary slavery. I am for no slavery. The latter is better than the former. But we will never end one or the other or probably either, so man will never be truly ensured his freedom since the time of birth until his death because slavery will always have the possibility to exist no matter what form or shape it takes place in. And you ask anyone here or anyone else, and they will acknowledge this.
Good Night =)
I never assumed people to be ethical or reasonable. I clearly see you are neither, the same is the case with most people. However, I will never lose hope that through education some more intelligent and, importantly, INDEPENDENT individuals can be persuaded to join my cause. And if we ever reach any meaningful number we might start thinking about secession and other options to save outselves from tyranny.
ReplyDeleteYou are for abolition of any forced labor - well then at least be a good Randian and make taxes voluntary payments.
You keep accusing me of supporting voluntary slavery as if it was actually slavery. Something which is voluntary CANNOT be called slavery. I don't support slavery - only voluntary contracts of any and ever kind. The only slave contract that exists is one which people are forced into - THE SOCIAL CONTRACT. By supporting it, you are in fact supporting something you claim to oppose.
Also, you keep making assumptions about me. Where do you get the idea I am "for voluntary slavery"? I am only saying contracts in which you can sign over your right to life are legitimate. I am not advocating or supporting them in any way.
I am not in favor of any sort of violence or coercion, for example, even though I fully acknowledge that violence against oppressors is legitimate (a slave can kill his owner). This is because violence against criminals of all kinds is legitimate.
You really ought to rethink your strategy - with each passing moment your theories melt away leaving pretty much nothing, i.e. complete and utter lack of any morality or ethical order.
"You keep accusing me of supporting voluntary slavery as if it was actually slavery. Something which is voluntary CANNOT be called slavery."
ReplyDeleteFrom before:
"Do you believe in voluntary slavery?"
"To your first question: I agree with Block. He is a libertarian theory genius and you're right, consistency is key."
So, tell me the difference between word "slavery" and the word "slavery" and how its universality changes.
"complete and utter lack of any morality or ethical order."
Because man does not recognize what that order is to the fullest extent and humanity never will.
"However, I will never lose hope that through education some more intelligent and, importantly, INDEPENDENT individuals can be persuaded to join my cause."
So obviously no one you have tried to persuade since you have been here is either.
"And if we ever reach any meaningful number we might start thinking about secession and other options to save outselves from tyranny."
The Russian, the French, and the Iranian revolutions all did not involve more than 8% of their respective populations to occur. So good luck leading!!!
Matt I'm not trying to be demeaning. Its just highly, highly, highly unlikely within the next millennium or two.
Can you explain to me how slavery can be voluntary? Isn't "voluntary slavery" an oxymoron? Yes it is. The only reason Prof.Block used that term is that it is short. What he actually means by it is "drawing up a voluntarily contract whereby one party, in exchange for something, in full knowledge of the consequences of its actions, signs over its right to life, liberty, and property". I think we can both agree voluntary slavery sounds a lot neater because it is just a short phrase. What Block calls voluntary slavery is not slavery at all - just that agreement I wrote above.
ReplyDelete"Because man does not recognize what that order is to the fullest extent and humanity never will."
It is our duty as human beings to try and discover these laws and not just give up and choose the easy way out - being immoral. I don't know if you went to the great cosmology/physics lecture (ACS event) by that theoretician from Caltech. I am guessing you would have said his job is as pointless as mine... After all shouldn't we all just do what we feel like doing? Or what happens to be pragmatic for the moment? As I told you before - your kind of morality legitimizes Nazism! I will not accept a world in which the Crusaders, Hitler, Stalin, FDR, or you are all moral people to the same extent I am moral.
Also - I am not planning to lead any revolution. I expect the world will within the next 10-15 years experience either a complete economic collapse of the old Western powers or some kind of extra global government tyranny. Maybe that will push enough people to side with me? Secession does not necessarily mean revolution. For example in today's world I'm not sure the US President would authorize an attack on a county in, say, Montana, if the said county seceeded from the Union with 100% support of the population. How would the President justify such an evil ect? I'd like to think we have moved a bit past those primitive Lincolns and King Georges.
Also, this entire blog post is more than a bit silly. If in an anarcho-capitalist world, a parent had a child inside for 9 months and abortion was only morally and logically acceptable in the case of both rape and the danger to a woman's life (this far I agree with), but the woman did not encounter either or both, the child would still have self-ownership, the fundamental private property of which all of his/her rights are derived from. Am I so far correct? Ok, so the child has self ownership and the woman probably has life insurance, so the child by the time of birth is fully emancipated from any constraints of either parent and the parent can only take his/her rights away, then the child is independent, yet he does not have insurance, and nobody can force the child to have insurance even though the child still possesses self-ownership. So the parent can only commit aggression against the child's self ownership and that aggression makes the parent lose all rights. So the parent doesn't act on aggression or force. Instead, the mother does what people who don't want a child (want means aggression against the child's self-ownership and raising the child confined to the parent's authority) would do, she goes, gives birth, and leaves the child fully emancipated to die, and no one can prosecute because the child did not have insurance, and the mother had not commit any aggression against the child. Mothers do this all over the world (mostly 3rd world) when they don't want children, they have the live birth, the child is free to do as he or she pleases, and the mother freely walks away because the child is on his/her own. If the child did not visibly communicate any sense of voluntary attachment to the parent, then the parent is more apt to easily disregard the child if the parent never wanted him/her, as is often the case. And this occurs all over the world. Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics and Politics also refers to this practice, only the father would more often decide on whether the child was worth keeping.
ReplyDeleteSo where do you see the problem? The parents can buy insurance for the child - I guarantee you it will not run away or scream (when it was just born) that its rights are being abused. Saying something like that is like saying that animals are being abused when we keep them inside our house and not let them out to roam the streets. And with time the child would grow up and see that the parents bought it insurance and fed it because they love it. I certainly don't think my parents abused me when they cared for me when I was a baby. A problem only occurs when the child thinks it is being abused, in which case it fully detemines its own rights (just like you or I would be able to). I still don't know where you see any problem with my argument.
ReplyDeleteAs for sadistic parents who leave their children to die - sure, they can try doing that (by the way, how would you argue against their right of doing that?). But I guarantee you that if this happened some good people would come and adopt the child.
We will never live in a perfect world Rob. Abuses will always occur. And I am sure fewer abuses would occur in a Private Law society than in today's statist world (simply because people would have more incentives to act better). You can, of course, disagree and maintain your illogical position, but that doesn't prove me wrong in any way.
"As for sadistic parents who leave their children to die - sure, they can try doing that (by the way, how would you argue against their right of doing that?)"
ReplyDeleteThe same way I would argue for the privatization of a nuclear bomb.
Classical liberalism advocates for minimal governance. Minimal governance entails taxes. Taxes are a form of redistribution of wealth. The collection of taxes in classical liberalism requires a social contract. Ludwig Von Mises advocated classical liberalism as the most moral form for humans to exist. Therefore, Mises was a Marxist.
You are fully entitled to simplify the world to your choosing based on your premises and it does not make it any less true.
"But I guarantee you that if this happened some good people would come and adopt the child."
There are over 163 million unadopted orphans in the world, half or whom only have the option to live in government run shelters because there are not enough funds for the private shelters.
This is not even ethical egoism that you advocate. This is something entirely separate from reality and there is no doubt why American libertarianism has rejected it.
And even Spencer adopted a utilitarian standard of ultimate value. And your rants against global governance and de facto New World conspiracies are no better. You keep thinking you are living in Weimar Germany in the pre-1920s.
"We will never live in a perfect world Rob."
Of course anything can go wrong, but that does not mean anything must go wrong.
First of all you are incorrect. In classical liberalism taxes are not redistribution of wealth - they are fees used to pay only for state protection. In classical liberalism people don't pay any government determined tax, they pay the taxes they themselves choose to pay via social contract. If the taxes get higher than people want to pay then they can just leave and establish new government with lower taxes. That is classical liberalism.
ReplyDelete"Mises was a Marxist"
Wait... what?! Where did you get this stupid idea from?! Marx and Mises have NOTHING in common!
"There are over 163 million unadopted orphans in the world, half or whom only have the option to live in government run shelters because there are not enough funds for the private shelters."
Look up the stats and you will see that the only reason private charity has decreased over the past century is because of more government spending. The more government spends the less charity exists. If government got out of the way there would be EASILY enough resources to take care of any number of helpless people.
"And even Spencer adopted a utilitarian standard of ultimate value. And your rants against global governance and de facto New World conspiracies are no better. You keep thinking you are living in Weimar Germany in the pre-1920s."
I don't know where you got any of this either. Herbert Spencer was a utilitarian not because he believed that the goal of humanity was "the greatest good for the greatest number" like Bentham, Mill, Lenin, or you. He believed that "the greatest good for the greatest number" arises out of following Natural Law and respecting rights. So you got him entirely backwards. And the little Weimar Republic anecdote - what is that supposed to mean? How is that connected to anything? New World Order has existed ever since the Wilson Doctrine and his "making the world safe for democracy" which has led to the current pax americana.
"If the taxes get higher than people want to pay then they can just leave and establish new government with lower taxes."
ReplyDeleteNo they can't leave. They can attempt to overthrow their governance or leave the country but that is it. That's why Mises detested anarchy of the collective and dismissed anarchy of the individual as "for angels and saints."
"He believed that "the greatest good for the greatest number" arises out of following Natural Law and respecting rights."
Which is what we have domestically in America. And your refusal to accept this based on your flawed premise of how the American government actually functions internally to ensure the people's competitive edge to this day (such as your blissfully naive assertion that government courts want more power) And your only justification that you see the existence of oppression has been the taxes you have been paying (such as the sales tax at your local CVS) or some small regulation (such as the limits of freely using heroin) that have nothing to do with your limiting your competitive and creative abilities or ways to exploit them to their productive efficiency.
"The more government spends the less charity exists."
That is flatly false in economic terms. Crowding out as it is called has nothing to do with charity but with investment and consumption. And that would not at all explain why all the non-profit organizations in the world are based in these "Old Western" countries. You just are blinded by your hatred against governments in general.
And as for the most charitable citizens, this has it by average voluntary citizen contribution and state contribution in a separate category:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_charitable_countries
And the Weimar quote refers to how only a few months ago Austrians like you thought hyperinflation was coming to America's
doorsteps.
http://www.videonewslive.com/view/288549/peter_schiff_on_20092010_usa_hyperinflation
"No they can't leave. They can attempt to overthrow their governance or leave the country but that is it."
ReplyDeleteAgain you are incorrect. Classical Liberalism means any part of the country can seperate itself from the whole at any moment. For example, the American Rebellion did not, as you write, "overthrow the government". It simply entailed a secession of the American colony from Great Britain. The government in London was not overthrown. Neither was the King himself. You don't need to tell me about Mises - I read all his works myself and I fully know you to be wrong. "No people and no part of a people shall be held against its will in a political association that it does not want." That is Ludwig von Mises. It clearly means the government has no right to keep the people (all of them or JUST PART OF THEM) within its boundaries against their will. The same was thought by many other prominent classical liberals such as Spencer, Jefferson, or Molinari. Even today the US is advocating the right of the nation of Kosovo to break away peacufully from Serbia by plebiscite. So even the current US government is more liberal than you (very sad fact).
I find it insulting that you compare Herbert Spencer to today's American government. This is deeply offensive. Spencer was nothing like the current regime. Also, if you want to know that the courts in the US indeed function in collusion with the other branches take a basic American Government course in Villanova like I did last semester. The corrent US government is in no way based on Natural Rights theory - which is what Spencer and other liberals were all about. Of all current Supreme Court Justices pretty much only Clarence Thomas adheres to Natural Law (and not always).
As for charity, I am not blinded by government hatred, I just look at the numbers. Last 100 years - government way up, charity way down. Reasons:
1. People have less money so they can't give it to charity.
2. Now the government "is the charity" so people have no more incentive to give money. This is undeniable and proved by numerous studies. So it is YOUR own love of government which is blinding YOU. I don't hate good government, just bad government.
By the way, during the Great Depression the USA did face problems due to Roosevelt's inflation policy. Fed inflation policy caused the Great Depression also. And Weimar suffered hyperinflation because of its government control of the money supply! Point me to a country which ever had this kind of problem when the supply of money was not monopolized by government! It's not my problem if you don't understand basic economics 101, i.e. supply and demand works for money in the same way as for any other resource. In caveman terms - inflation bad, deflation good.
"No people and no part of a people shall be held against its will in a political association that it does not want." That is Ludwig von Mises."
ReplyDelete"A nation, therefore, has no right to say to a province: You belong to me, I want to take you. A province consists of its inhabitants. If anybody has a right to be heard in this case it is these inhabitants. Boundary disputes should be settled by plebiscite." -Von Mises
You are not a province, nor an individual part of a province that wants secession. You are your own secessionist.
"In caveman terms - inflation bad, deflation good."
That is why they are caveman terms. And name me a good government and I will tell you why I think it is bad, vice-versa. And the highest standard of living that you and I both entertain is not because of some "bad governance."
Also, you just make vague generalities on localism, confuse colony with country secession, and
"a basic American Government course in Villanova like I did last semester"
I suggest you take the intermediate class on American governance. I'll give you a few years like I'd give myself in that situation. I few years ago you were on the opposite extreme, and perhaps moderation or as Eduard mentioned, the return to the mean, will take effect. It takes place in welfare states through austerity, it takes place here as well, and everywhere else in the world.
I am not a province, but I do not have to be an entire province in order to secede. It would be enough for me to find a few other people. Mises never claimed there need to be a lot of people in order for secession to take place. It could be any number who want to organize their own government. In fact he claimed even one small village could secede if it wanted to. The only reason Mises thought individuals can't be granted this right (he did think it was a right) was that he thought it was not functional. Rothbard and Hoppe have shown it is no less functional than a private post office. I am completely confident that if he read their work he would fully agree.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to American Government I don't think you will find anyone other than pure propagandists who will tell you that the seperation of powers is working as it was initially intended. In the beginning of the Union each State (American States are COUNTRIES, not provinces in a European sense) had the power to veto any Federal Law it did not want to enforce within its boundaries (it could independently judge Constitutionality of any law. This was done with, for example, Fugitive Slave Acts passed by the Federal Government which were not enforced in some northern states). Nowadays this would be unthinkable! It just shows how far we have descended back towards barbarism of Napoleonic times (or maybe even worse).
"And the highest standard of living that you and I both entertain is not because of some 'bad governance.'"
I wish I had the highest possible standard of living, but sadly government is stealing so much of my family's money that I will have to borrow to pay for college. I also wish the government was not increasing health care costs, transportation costs, and the costs of pretty much everything else. Why can't we have a nice peaceful government which does not take so much money and does not regulate so horribly? We all know that the more liberal the country the faster it develops and the richer its people become. This is a simple fact (theoretical AND historical).
Either way, you are not correct about Classical Liberalism in general and even less correct about Mises in particular.
There are so many inaccuracies, misunderstandings, and gross oversimplifications here that we could spend all night on this alone. Marx's ideals were also ones of a stateless (ad classless) society. You can prove theoretically and functionality that it could exist in the short run, but still fall apart in the long run. And the long run, as Keynes did not mention, is what counts. Here is how you dissect anarcho-capitalism by an anarcho-capitalist, who proves like you that it can exist:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism3.html
http://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism2.html
http://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism1.html
I have a lot of other work to do for tomorrow so I am closing the blog for today.
Ah, there is nothing Marxism has in common with anarcho-capitalism. As Marx himself has said - his system truly defies human nature. It would take a "new socialist man" for it to work. This is in no way true of anarcho-capitalism. This system is fully functional and accomodates human nature rather than denying it. In fact it advances individualism, which plays a huge part in human development (this is undenyable). The system of states which currently exists is proving so unstable that I predict it does not work in the long run at all. Shortly we will see how government-run economies collapse (as we saw in the 1930's) and there will be only two ways out of that scenario - a replay of the creation of nationalistic, racist, primitive nation-states (most likely waging war on one another) or A MOVE TOWARDS INDIVIDUALISM AND LOCALISM. I am afraid that if option one is chosen again my life will not be very happy or very long...
ReplyDeleteAnd you should finally admit your errors on understanding the concepts of Classical Liberalism and Misesian philosophy!
Maybe someday when I go to Heaven and meet the Honorable Mister Spencer there I will be able to tell him that despite his huge pessimism (which I share) we managed to save one soul :)
"I am a believer in the theory of natural rights. But this does not obligate me to endorse blindly every argument that is offered in its support. The cause of liberty is poorly served when its proponents march into battle with unsound arguments."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=311
The arguments in the above article you sent me do not work at all (some of them are plain silly). I could explain it to you at length, but for some reason even when presented with overwhelming evidence you never admit you are wrong anyway, so such action on my part would be pointless.
ReplyDeleteIf you really want to deny self-ownership to individuals and legitimize the likes of Nazism it is okay with me. However, you should call your philosophy what it really is, don't just shift around the point.
This is because if you were debating someone and simply said "I know nothing and believe in nothing, and all you know and believe is also false" they would not take you seriously. We must all admit some basic truths (premises) in order to hold a debate. One of those premises, I would say, has to be Hoppeian self-ownership. If you are not a self-owner, how are you able to use your body without permission of your real owner right now?
I will never accept any doctrine which puts Specer or Spooner on par with Lenin and Hitler like you are suggesting we should do. There is a Natural Law morality out there for us to discover. We do not yet have all the answers, but we already have a framework and tools to operate with (our reason and language).
"I could explain it to you at length, but for some reason even when presented with overwhelming evidence you never admit you are wrong anyway, so such action on my part would be pointless."
ReplyDeleteWow, whose being ironic now.
"I know nothing and believe in nothing, and all you know and believe is also false. If you really want to deny self-ownership to individuals and legitimize the likes of Nazism it is okay with me."
Your inferences are actually quite funny and I'm always tempted as anyone else would, dismiss them. But I'm too open minded for that. Bill O Riley described Jon Stewart the same way.
You have to stop comparing everyone who disagrees with your premise as being sound as people who "legitimizes the likes of Nazism," otherwise no one will ever be persuaded by your argumentation. You think you are living in a country where there is enforced propaganda, and if you think its fascistic, your understanding of even historical revisionism is flawed.
"We do not yet have all the answers, but we already have a framework and tools to operate with (our reason and language)."
And as Einstein correctly stated, we will never have the answers. You do not involve any mathematics based on probability or stability of the axiom, and you have not adopted any sort of individually separate methodology that is sound. At least the three articles above by an anarcho-capitalist had some coherent methodology behind it, and still showed its fatalistic endings.
"Wow, whose being ironic now."
ReplyDeleteYou have, to date, never proven me wrong on anything. You always just voice a criticism (usually a good and legitimate one) and when I defend my position instead of admitting your criticism was flawed you just switch to a different topic.
"You have to stop comparing everyone who disagrees with your premise as being sound as people who "legitimizes the likes of Nazism," otherwise no one will ever be persuaded by your argumentation."
Rob, I am in no way implying that you are a Nazi or anything of the sort. I know you to be a good person. All I want is to hear you state a reason why what the Nazis did was wrong which stands up to your own criticisms of my positions. I think, sadly, that you will find this task impossible.
"And as Einstein correctly stated, we will never have the answers."
If you want to wave the white flag before the battle even starts, you are welcome to. Einstein was a very flawed individual who became a "scientific celebrity" and pretty much everything you quote from him you treat as a fact without questioning it. Is he your God? Why should we never know the answers? Do you have any legitimate reason for saying that? We have millions of years to answer all kinds of questions. All the time our understanding of the world improves. It is the same with the world of philosophy. Certain techniques of new proofs are as important to the science of the mind as computers are to the science of the physical world.
Grated I do think Bill O'Reiley is closer to a Nazi than Jon Stewart, but you must never be afraid of calling a Nazi a Nazi or a Fascist a Fascist. All of your argument so far have consisted of saying mine are wrong. You don't any proofs or substantive evidence.
So as I asked before, how would you argue against the legitimacy of a Nazi regime?
"I defend my position instead of admitting your criticism was flawed you just switch to a different topic."
ReplyDeleteMatt, I keep telling you your premises are not flawed in their logical extremes, but like in the nature of the extremes they are unsound. And when you can't gauge the level of unsoundness in your arguments, I point out another level of reasoning based on your arguments that is unsound and you're simply left with "We do not yet have all the answers."
"Why should we never know the answers? Do you have any legitimate reason for saying that?"
Because we are limited in our understanding as our brains cannot comprehend infinity of the moral or physical universe and our brains still cannot comprehend what it means divide a number by zero.
"of calling a Nazi a Nazi or a Fascist a Fascist"
Your argumentation has led to the conclusion that Bush and Obama are both. If you cannot recognize the soundness, there is nothing I can do.
"So as I asked before, how would you argue against the legitimacy of a Nazi regime?"
On a realistic level:
I would have never barred elections from occurring through illegally dismantling the Weimar Constitution after launching a coup (Reichstag fire) just because I got the minority of votes (30.1% of the vote).
On a practical level:
There is a difference between a good constitution and bad constitution, just like "there is a difference between a good monarch, and a bad monarch." A good constitution entails the limits of what a government cannot do, like a good monarch recognizes the limits of what a "natural elite" can do. Any monarch or constitution that fails to do so implants and sows the seeds of self-destruction, and a new one arises.
On a moral/ethical level:
The Golden Rule. Ethical egoism. Minarchism as opposed to monarchism.
“Suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones's house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith's complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there.”
Now apply this to any scenario outside of the industrialized world (the Muslim world, etc).
"Matt, I keep telling you your premises are not flawed in their logical extremes, but like in the nature of the extremes they are unsound."
ReplyDeleteI will correct you here (I think you will agree) - to be sound as argument must be sound in ALL cases. Reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate logical device. If something is not sound in even one case then it is unsound in all cases - the law is no longer a Law. For example if the Law of Gravity worked everywhere but some scientist found a planet where it did not work, that would mean the ENTIRE Law of Gravity is unsound, not just on that planet but everywhere. It would obviously mean a new Law must be made.
Your criticism of the Nazi regime is wrong an many levels.
1) According to your "realistic" (whatever you mean by that) criticism all government parties in Europe right now (none of which as far as I know have a majority, only plurality) are not allowed to govern. The Nazis followed normal parliamentary procedure and ruled according to the Weimar Republic Law. They never staged any "coup".
"There is a difference between a good constitution and bad constitution, just like "there is a difference between a good monarch, and a bad monarch.""
This is not true. A bad Monarch may be bad, but he is still legitimate. And even a good constitution is illegitimate!
"A good constitution entails the limits of what a government cannot do."
Nobody in today's world kids themselves in this way. As the great John Calhoun wrote that a constitution "sufficient, of itself, without the aid of any organism except such as is necessary to separate its several departments, and render them independent of each other to counteract the tendency of the numerical majority to oppression and abuse of power". It is just a piece of paper Rob. The US Constitution was supposed to limit government and look what happened... Over 90% of Federal laws are unconstitutional! The mob majority will grab power, always and in all cases, because they are greedy.
And last of all, if you want to know the practical way of applying anarcho-capitalism (as you illustrated with your example of Mr.Smith and Mr.Jones) you will have to be prepared for some serious lectures. Libertarian theorists have written much on this subject and nowhere can you claim it is impractical (the Muslims could have Sharia Law, for example).
And if you really think something is impractical, would you rather do something unethical? Which is worse? I would say the second. You can no more commit force people to live in a system you call "practical" than you can commit crimes "for the common good" or steal from me to give to a beggar on the street. All those actions are analogous and equally immoral.
For example, consider the proposition Cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos (literally: 'for whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to Heaven and down to Hell'). This is also known as ad coelum. A legal reductio ad absurdum argument against the proposition might be:
ReplyDeleteSuppose we take this proposition to a logical extreme. This would grant a land owner rights to everything in a cone from the center of the earth to an infinite distance out into space, and whatever was inside that cone, including stars and planets. It is absurd that someone who purchases land on earth should own other planets, therefore this proposition is wrong.
"Suppose we take this proposition to a logical extreme. This would grant a land owner rights to everything in a cone from the center of the earth to an infinite distance out into space, and whatever was inside that cone, including stars and planets. It is absurd that someone who purchases land on earth should own other planets, therefore this proposition is wrong."
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0403a.asp
I fully agree with what you just wrote! This is why no libertarians accept the ad coelum doctrine as viable. And why? Because it is contradictory to John Locke's homesteading principle. Libertarians really equate all property in terms defined best (in my opinion) by Nozick - property can only be acquired by homesteading or legitimate title transfers.
ReplyDelete