Now I may not be a pacifist, but I certainly know who the aggressors are. And the army are the aggressors. We really need to show some backbone and confront these people. I know they have all the guns and a good PR agency (the entire government), but we must stand up for what is right. Herbert Spencer gave us a great example back in his days. When commenting on the British invasion of Afghanistan (parallels?) he said about the soldiers that "When men hire themselves out to shoot other men to order, asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I don’t care if they are shot themselves." This is the attitude we should have about the soldiers in our armies (well except for the Swiss who have no such problem).
And there is an even more important aspect to army worship than the glorification of murder. That is, also in the Spencerian tradition, the permeating effect that such worship has on the entire society. Society can only be organized in two ways - the industrial (liberal and voluntary relations) or military (controlled and relations based on status). The militant model lends itself to hierarchical structures and thus the use of socialist means. It creates an atmosphere in which the common man accepts his inferiority to the wise overlord who is, after all, above him on the ladder. But I would add it is also a greedy society - everyone is willing to fight for his place on that ladder to the death. Why do we have such conflict today with the Democrats and Republicans in the US, for example? It is clearly because some people know that when the Republicans are elected their lives will be utterly destroyed and, vice versa, some people know the same about the Democrats. Militant society produces destructive forces, legitimizes aggression (both is execution and legislation), and brainwashed people into accepting the system. The army is all about acting decisively, civilized relations are all about restraint. We must reject that Machiavellian notion of militant society and protest any and every abuse of power.
Tragically I cannot make others understand this crucial concept - the evil of the military society (also known as a fascist society). All that remains for me to do is repeat that helpless shout of Cicero - "O tempora, o mores!"
Former defense secretary Robert McNamara:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOCYcgOnWUM
A satire on the American war mentality, came out during the Cold War:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZV_lIwmz5E&feature=related
I really wish someone could tell me why Empire-building is attractive to so many people... Is it really human nature to feel pleasure from supplanting others by force? I think that might be the case.
ReplyDeleteI think so. Most Americans (except for American liberals) wouldn't call it empire-building. That is why I am very doubtful of the idea of non-aggression existing in the long run in a purely anarchist society of any kind, regardless of the economic or social model.
ReplyDeleteThis has been the military psyche for about 100 years:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo
I doubt the punishment would actually occur unless most people were "voluntarily" part of some sort of insurance or protection program. And I doubt that in the place of an anarchist society, there would not be another entity ready to claim power in the void of non-aggression. And I doubt a third party would be able to challenge the validity of a voluntary contractual exchange between a consumer and producer because of a negative externality that affects the outside party and not the voluntary contracted parties (i.e. you can sue a voluntary party because you got cancer from unnecessary exposure to second-hand smoke in a public sphere, but because the voluntary contract is valid, the suing will always be disregarded unless the public sphere is regulated). And I doubt consumers would be perfectly informed or at least mildly informed to the risks they would incur in purchasing a product. And I doubt the chances of getting punished for aggression in a state of anarchy when one does not "voluntarily" subscribe to be protected.
ReplyDeleteThe definition of utopia according to wikipedia:
A utopia (pronounced /juːˈtoʊpiə/) is any society governed by an ideal socio-politico-legal system.
Property rights are not antithetical to human rights, but they are contingent upon human rights. If you don't have human rights, you cannot have property rights. But they are not the same. Reducing human rights violations to violation of property rights is a little disingenuous. If you subscribe to voluntarily slavery, you can easily exploit somebody's human rights and not violate their property rights. If you do not subscribe to voluntary slavery, you know you cannot sell yourself epistemological or otherwise and thus if you choose to become a slave, the voluntary contract will always be void and thus refutes the concept of anarcho-capitalism as being the most moral system.
Also on this issue of exploitation, you can exploit somebody and not violate their property rights. Being dishonest and lying is immoral. Being honest is moral. Lying to another is a form of exploitation of one's trust. You can exploit someone to get that person's approval or consent through lying immorally and not violate their property rights. Property rights are not primary to human rights and human rights are not derived from property rights, but rather property rights are derived from human rights. They are not equals, unless of course anarcho-capitalists such as Rothbard equate it as such in a "basic axiom," which is obviously built on the assumption that if one person violates another's property rights, then that violator has lost or "voluntarily" has given up all his human rights, including the right to live. That assumption is a pretty ridiculous and unsound premise and very few would voluntarily subscribe to it.
"Property rights are not antithetical to human rights" - Hey, prove it! I say human rights are property rights. Name one human right which is not a property right and I will agree with you. Anarcho-capitalism is not a utopia at all. It is a functional system. 2000 years ago people would have said that the system we live under now is crazy - that does not mean it cannot exist because it obviously does. Also, the absolute worst thing that could come out of anarcho-capitalism is a return to statism. So I say we should give it a try. Anything is better than living in a world where your human rights are being violated everyday by a group of armed thugs (in a worst case scenario of anarcho-capitalism you say this might happen). And you said that a situation in which a person gives up all their human rights voluntarily is absurd. Let me remind you we live in such a society right now. We have no rights beyond those the government is willing to let us keep. There are no property rights and no self-ownership rights recognized under today's statist system. It is also very doubtful whether the government recognizes our right to life even. And property rights are KEY! Without them we have no rights at all! Again as I said at the start - I welcome anyone trying to prove that is not the case, but so far I haven't found anyone who can prove so.
ReplyDelete2000 years ago the Roman Republic seemed entirely reasonable, not "crazy."
ReplyDeleteThe abolition of all public property is just as extreme as the Marxian-Stalinist abolition of all private property. And sure both ideas sound functional to the average layman at least in the short run.
If rights are inalienable (i.e. non-transferable) you cannot submit yourself or your inalienable rights voluntarily. Thus these inalienable human rights supersede property rights. I will quote Walter Block on this:
"You are a rich man who has long desired to have me as a slave, to order about as you will, even to kill me for disobedience or on the basis of any other whim which may occur to you. My child has now fallen ill with a dread disease. Fortunately, there is a cure. Unfortunately, it will cost one million dollars, and I, a poor man, do not have such funds at my disposal. Fortunately, you are willing to pay me this amount if I sign myself over to you as a slave, which I am very willing to do since my child’s life is vastly more important to me than my own liberty, or even my own life. Unfortunately, this would be illegal, at least if the doctrine of inalienability (non-transferability) is valid."
The rich man would then always be signing a voluntary contract with a voluntary participant in a purely anarcho-capitalist society that is always void even if it does not violate any non-aggression principles.
Again, these inalienable human rights supersede property rights and should be considered as entirely distinct. So when you say "human rights are property rights," they aren't the same.
Also, if you were depressed one night and about to commit suicide and you did not seem to be thinking clearly, then yes, I would use coercion against you to prevent you from immediately killing yourself and at least wait until you sobered up and became rational even if I had to force you to wait and recover the rest of the night. That would be violating non-aggression principles, but almost anybody would view that as a moral action.
Also, yes, I can imagine it being far worse than what we have right now. But like idealistic Marxists in the early 20th century, very few anarcho-capistalists can envision any nightmarish scenario from their vision.
Anarcho-capitalism does not require abolishing of public property, only government property (which is property appropriated by force or decree rather than homesteading). Secondly, Walter Block is very much alone in his support of so-called voluntary slavery. It is by no means true that all issues within libertarianism are resolved. However, if you think all rights are inalianable then you should also not recognize government! After all, doesn't government dish out our rights as it pleases? According to social contract theory people have surrendered some of their rights to society and government (Hobbes, Locke, etc). And also you are yet to prove that these "inalianable rights" do not come from property rights as I say they do. Please name even one single right which humans have which does not come from the initial property of man: self-ownership. Self-ownership follows on from Natural Law and it is (as Spencer observes) only natural that people can either give their rights in trust to the government, but they can also take them back at any time. Well why won't the government let me have my rights back?
ReplyDeletePublic property, under current laws, is synonymous with government property (roads, sewers, etc.)
ReplyDelete"Well why won't the government let me have my rights back?"
Well for the sake of minimal social order, because people are not as sane as you. Almost no American would view it as a wise idea to allow nuclear weapons onto the open and free market and led by self regulated sellers and buyers, especially if that bomb was "accidentally" set off by the consumer.
Also, the entire idea that this system could be established regardless of the ethnic, religious, cultural, and social divides also seems a bit baffling, as localism to an extreme would only have the opposite of the intended effect of peace and would only aggravate tensions between these different groups and increase the chances of a clash of civilizations through even more competitive and ruthless tribal warfare then government warfare and on a larger, more uncontainable scale spanning continents. In a different scenario, if you are fine with the breakup of countries like Poland based on this sort of voluntary localism, then so let it be and let nationalism finally be dead as, with the death of a nation state, it would inevitably be.
"And also you are yet to prove that these inalienable rights do not come from property rights as I say they do"
That's right. Its an I say you say argument. And as 99% of the world does not acknowledge natural law being equal to property laws as true axiomatic realities or self-evident truths, this would be the following scenario between a believer in natural law as being equal to property rights and a non-believer in that equilibrium but a believer in physical law (the laws of science):
"We are all at a table together, deciding which rules to adopt, free from any vague constraints, half-remembered myths, anonymous patriarchal texts and murky concepts of nature. If I propose something you do not like, tell me why it is not practical, or harms somebody, or is counter to some other useful rule; but don't tell me it offends the universe."
Also, if you are denied the right to voluntarily and rationally sell yourself and voluntarily give up your freedom in a binding contractual agreement between two free parties, then you are denied a specific right (being a servant or slave) for a specific reason (because you already assume rights are inalienable) in an anarcho-capitalist system, and thus the two parties are not truly free to act in an anarcho-capitalist system as they would most want to and in fact their free rights to do as they voluntarily wish are denied. And that can only be logically explained in an anarcho-capitalist system as due to the fact your "inalienable" (assumed non-transferable) rights supersede private property contracts. If a man chooses to voluntarily sacrifice his own self-ownership ("the initial property of man") to, for instance, help his family financially by working as a slave, he is denied the very freedom to voluntarily relinquish his self ownership that he is entitled to do as he wishes with in an anarcho-capitalist system.
ReplyDeleteYou cannot assume that voluntary slavery would not occur in the real world or that this would be some small issue in an anarcho-capitalist society. It happens everyday outside of the interference of a third party (the government or law in general) by the two agreeing individuals(the buyer and seller). It happens everywhere from Cambodia to Haiti, from Burkina Faso to Bosnia or Bolivia, and these slaves often do not challenge the contracts they chose to sign to, for instance, pay off debt because they were completely voluntary contracts and there was no forced coercion in the creation of the private property contract and it was an entirely free market transaction. If you believe no one should be allowed to voluntarily give up his/her own self-ownership because they are always "naturally" entitled to it under natural law, then these free market transactions and contracts are void and this amounts to a regulation on the anarcho-capitalist market.
Phew, lots of stuff here! You say that the debate whether rights are "inalianable human rights" or property rights is "I say, you say" type of debate about axiomatic truths. That's just not true. If you say anything you have to be able to prove it logically. So therefore please tell me where inalianable rights come from (they do not just appear because someone has a magic wand). Also, you made a pretty good analysis of the voluntary enslavement issue - why don't you become a libertarian in the tradition of Walter Block?! You must see the paradox here, that if rights are inalianable as you define them we cannot have government because we cannot transfer our rights to it. In addition, you are not correct when you state that localism causes tension. In fact localism causes PEACE. Large states are aggressive, small ones are not. Just like small people are less aggressive than big people (this is a bad analogy, but happens to be a true example). This can not only be proven in theory, but also with empirical evidence (history). Also, you make arguments from authority waaaaaay too much. As you may have noticed I don't care what "most people" think. "Most people" is some kind of abstract entity which happens to (if it exists) be very stupid. Mostly because of crappy public education :)
ReplyDelete"In fact localism causes PEACE."
ReplyDeleteIt does not and there is no cause and effect scenario between the two. You fail to acknowledge voluntary ethnic, religious, and social tribalism. I suggest you study the history of Germany and Italy before unification on this matter. Or even the warring period in China or the history of India before it was unified by the British. I suggest also you look at the history of Africa and the history of Latin America before and then after colonization, and then you can lecture me on what sort of peace existed before and after this.
I do not believe "all rights are inalieable" (as you have been assuming I have been saying). But either voluntary slavery exists within an anarcho-capitalist system or it is not allowed in which case it is regulated in an anarcho-capitalist system. If natural law exists, it transcends voluntary slave free market contracts and voids them because man can never cede his own self-ownership of his being. Thus, the anarcho-capitalist free market is not truly "free" for people to freely transact as they wish. Thus, this is not "freedom."
"(Rights) do not just appear because someone has a magic wand"
-No. Obviously they come from God.
"Property rights is "I say, you say" type of debate about axiomatic truths. That's just not true. If you say anything you have to be able to prove it logically."
Matt, your beliefs are yours and this logic is derived from them. This is like having a debate between Richard Dawkins and a theologian. The beliefs do not conflict with one another but they are not on equal plains and are predicated on separate axioms with completely different built in assumptions for each.
There are so many problems with this system in terms of functionality from voluntary slavery to immigration issues to the identity of the supremacy of sociological beliefs of natural law as an overriding rule in the market place, etc.
Rousseau on absolute monarchs:
"The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying 'This is mine,' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody."
Now, if you reject that as Marxian, then there is nothing more that can be said.
Localism does cause peace. The only people who don't believe that are people who support global government. I suggest you study the history of unification of Germany more than you have. Before unification Germany was the leading cultural force in Europe (afterward it was only in decline and eventually lost out to the English). Same is true for Italy. Nobody will say that Italy is now a European leader, but I think you know what the Renaissance was? Localism inspires competition. Monopoly is never good for anything. Also you say that natural law will be a problem in the market place. Actually the market always tends toward natural law (the government distorts this by all kinds of bad policy). Your thoughts about freedom are very Marxist - who else believes that voluntary contracts or market transactions are equivalent slavery? Debates about rights are not axiomatic. Please tell me where you think rights come from? I guarantee you that whatever strange theory you present to me will be either contradictory with itself or with government. And when did I ever say our rights come from God? That may or may not be some people's opinion, but I'm pretty sure rights come from our faculties and the use of them. You cannot develop any other theory of rights which is not contradictory. And the first principle of logic (i.e. systematic thinking) is that there can be no contradictions! By denying truths about rules of human action you would deny the existence of the field of ethics at all. Quoting Rousseau (as much of a democrat/communist as he was) is useless to your purpose because he did not believe in global government - he advocated democracy only for very small states. And if you had a debate between a theologian and Dawkins, Dawkins wins every time. Why? Because he is using reason whereas the theologian is using belief. Belief is not a valid way of arguing anything. Proving the existence of God (as Christians believe in him) is just impossible objectively. Subjectively conversion and belief might be possible and is valid, but objectively we have to alienate ourselves from personal aspects of life. As I wrote to you before, enforcing beliefs is immoral (Crusades, etc.).
ReplyDelete"Your thoughts about freedom are very Marxist"
ReplyDeleteYou think everyone's thoughts about freedom are very Marxist other than an anarchist, so that is always a given. I'd like to remind you monarchs did tax.
"And the first principle of logic (i.e. systematic thinking) is that there can be no contradictions!"
Do you believe in voluntary slavery being allowed in an anarcho-capitalist system if it non-aggressive and non-coercive and can be enforced through a voluntary contract by both participants? Yes or no? Either way, there is a contradiction of voluntary slavery contracts (its existence or non-existence) within anarcho-capitalism. If you allow it to exist, you violate natural law by relinquishing your self-ownership of which you can never relinquish in natural law because you cannot cede your own being metaphysically, ontologically, etc and cannot relinquish something you are always entitled to. If you disallow it to exist, you do not have a right to voluntarily ceding your self-ownership and to do with it as you wish and your right to do what you want with it is limited. This is just one of many contradictions.
This is absurd. It does not matter if Germany or Italy were superpowers before unification. Their Kingdoms were overthrown internally and replaced regardless.
And we have seen what happens when we let different defensive powers compete with one another. They usually turn out to be coercive and usually form coercive governments. And unless theoretically all coercion was wiped out for anarcho-capitalism to exist, I still have no doubt that some other common entity would rise up and take power in that temporary void of non-aggression.
And I'm sorry if you hate globalization (the global governance part of it), the offspring of which has lifted millions out of absolute poverty.
And Dawkins has stated in a tv youtube interview "Evolution is only a theory. It's acceptance is predicated on the common validity of the belief and it the most reliable and sound explanation that has ever existed. But to say that it is just a belief, which it is, may be implying that I reduce it to the same level as creationism, so I often don't because it can be misinterpreted as such." The theologian will use reason to back up his belief as well and that is why there is a school of reason behind the belief of Catholicism for thousands of years. And many theologians beliefs do not contradict evolution.
"You think everyone's thoughts about freedom are very Marxist other than an anarchist, so that is always a given." Well, can you prove you're not a Marxist in terms of thoughts about freedom? If not, you should acknowledge you're a Marxist and be proud of it - not spread Marxist views without naming them as such (because Marx has a bad rep). If you happen to agree with Marx on this then just say so. But you must also acknowledge that with this paradigm shift your conclusions on how freedom should be preserved (I assume you're in favor of freedom) would change also.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, why do you think I can never relinquish self-ownership? Saying that would be like saying that I can't relinquish ownership of anything (like my house or my dog). You or I could give our rights away whenever and however we want. The question is whether we gave them away willingly or under coercive conditions (for example if a man came to my house with a gun and told me to get out, I would do so without relinquishing ownership of my house).
"It does not matter if Germany or Italy were superpowers before unification. Their Kingdoms were overthrown internally and replaced regardless." Yes you're right. But this is like saying that morality doesn't matter - after all in the example I just used the man with the gun is the owner of the house regardless of my claims to it, right? And also, where do you get global government from globalization? If anything global government prevents globalization - it works against natural capitalistic evolution.
And finally you have gotten to the crux of why I disagree with Dawkins. He thinks everything is a theory. He is a Humeian. I say evolution is a fact because it is the only possible natural order of things. Saying something against it would be like saying that we are not certain if the sun will come up tomorrow. It is absurd to say that nature and its physical laws (just like nature with its moral LAW) are contingent on beliefs.
Your thinking (and mine also) all really depends on what you think is "good" (a belief), but belief cannot be applied to the real world if it is contradictory with the laws of the real world. For example I can believe I can fly, but I guarantee you I cannot no matter how completely I believe it. Other things work in the same way. For instance, if a politician believes a minimum wage will not increase unemplyment, his belief is wrong. And the real world will prove him wrong. The real world is great for observing how failed beliefs really work. For example aggression always leads to more aggression. Localism leads to lower taxes, better quality of life, more freedom. Localism can even make democracy work (functionally if not morally). Localism is the solution to ALL our problems. And guess what - anarchism is just an extreme form of localism. It is radical individualism!
We will have to continue this another time because I have too much work right now. I'll just say the following:
ReplyDeleteSo you would under non-coercive, non-aggressive conditions accept voluntary slave contracts in an anarcho-capitalist society in the free market? Again yes or no? To be logically consistent you have to give an answer.
"Localism is the solution to ALL our problems."
You have to explain why the colonized peoples of Africa, Latin America, Asia, and the Middle East did not have property rights and the colonizers did. History among almost all of these peoples in different continents prior to colonization, which was mostly based on localization, does not bear this out. Now, if you accept colonization as entirely justified, then that is a separate matter entirely...
Oh, and everybody whose taken an into to economics class knows minimum wage increases unemployment. It is just a matter of their views of equity, which you believe is wrong. A politician would say that if we lowered taxes, trade barriers, and some regulations, then if we increased minimum wage then that would not affect unemployment. And if taxes were reduced from 50% to lets say in an extreme case 10% or 1% and minimum wage was enacted, despite the minimum wage increase, unemployment may even go down because of the trade off. That is the way most bills in congress are designed.
"For example aggression always leads to more aggression."
This is de facto Murphy's law. Murphy's law states: "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong".
This is similar to your belief that classical liberal democratic countries will always descend into tyranny.
Murphy's law has been rejected by Moore's law and Murphy's law is referred to as Murphy's corollary (if you know computing you'd understand this better). "Moore's law is a violation of Murphy's law. Everything gets better and better."
"(just like nature with its moral LAW)"
And finally, evolution does not equate to be morally good just because it is a natural law. First, that is a naturalistic fallacy. Second, the man who has failed to evolve naturally (has a mental disability) is no less morally good than another. Or the gay couple down the street. And that does not mean that about 10% of the world's population will not by LGBT 5 million years from now as it has been for past centuries, only incredibly suppressed by both governments and peoples (families). You keep equating nature as having some moral law behind it. Physical natural laws do not even have any moral semblance behind them (they are by their existence amoral). The existence of capital is neither immoral or moral but the application of it can be.
Also, if you could, ask any absolute monarch of any kind what sort of philosophy he believes taxes to be, especially if that monarch lived before the birth of Marx. If they agreed with taxes as a necessity, then these absolute monarchs always had a little Marxist child running around in their souls somewhere.
ReplyDeleteTo your first question: I agree with Block. He is a libertarian theory genius and you're right, consistency is key.
ReplyDeleteThe people of Africa and Asia who were colonized BY GOVERNMENTS are a complicated issue. Firstly - they did have property rights in all their possessions and the land they used. But in some cases they did not and settlement of voluntary settlers was perfectly justified. The only times there was any problem was when government claimed lands which were not theirs or when some criminals came and robbed the natives. By the way our current situation is exactly the same as that of the colonized peoples.
Toying with the economy is like societal eugenics! And don't you think eugenics (however well motivated - like the eugenics movement in the UK advocated by, for example, Sir Francis Galton) is immoral? If you think eugenics is okay, then your morality is opposite to mine.
Let me just precise my statement about "aggression always leads to aggression". What I should have written was "aggression always leads to aggression or subjugation". For instance if I kill you that might not lead to more aggression later, but it also might (if someone decided to kill me in retaliation). This is why we have prisons - they are a form of aggression which is used to stop aggressors. If there were no aggression, there would be no reason for aggression to exist in the future (which is why it needs to be eliminated as much as possible). To use a concrete example: you said that I claim liberal democracy can only lead towards tyranny. This is correct. There are only two stages liberal democracy can evolve into. Either itself (i.e. doesn't evolve at all) or evolve into tyranny (as every historical example so far has illustrated). So things don't have to get worse, but they definitely (100%) will not get better.
And, most importantly, we do have a distinction between values (what people think is good or bad - beliefs) and Natural Law (what defines reality). This is analogous to physical laws of nature. For example I cannot say whether flying an airplane is moral or immoral, but it certainly is possible. Laws don't tell us what is right or wrong, only what can or cannot happen. This is why we cannot establish whether a lion eating a sheep is moral or not. The lion doesn't comprehend morality! But it has to act within the laws of nature - it can't fly or live underwater. My valuation of the human condition is that which Herbert Spencer specified: Each man should be free to exercise his faculties to the maximum extent as long as he does not infringe the equal freedom of any other man. I think this view is based on natural rights theory which comes from analysis of human nature and the human condition.
For me freedom is what makes mankind special. It is the definition of mankind so to speak. Without it we are not men. Thus to preserve humanity (beyond the mere physical existenece of beasts and animals as they exist in a zoo) we must allow freedom to reign. Under current statist conditions I don't think people are really the people they should be. Emma Goldman (a lefty!) wrote very eloquently about that. My question to you is: Are you content to be mere cattle? Some animal in a cage in a zoo?
To your second post: Newsflash - Marx thought taxes were evil! He was a hipocritical anarchist. He believed the state needed to be given more power, but communism would eventually abolish the state once people were "adjusted" to be "new socialist men". Also, kings did not believe in taxes as we know them now. Taxes were payments, not compulsory donations for a common cause. The whole entire social contract theory of Hobbes and Locke is false.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I think voluntary slavery is just nuts and misunderstands how human beings can make irrational but voluntary decisions at times in their lives. In other cases it can easily be abused especially for children.
ReplyDeleteSecond:
"Firstly - they did have property rights in all their possessions and the land they used. But in some cases they did not"
I'd like you to distinguish which peoples have rights and which don't if all humanity falls under natural law with equal liberty and freedom. Is there some sort of "primitiveness" or "savageness" exception?
Third:
"Under current statist conditions I don't think people are really the people they should be."
Well, that is your world view and that is all I can say. The alternatives have not been conclusively proven to be viable in the long run and may only possibly inadvertently regress man further back. After barbarians sacked Rome, the dark ages arose. Then Kingdoms and republican states were created during the middle ages out of the ashes of barbarism and those states protected the competitive forces of their citizens and the Renaissance began a rebirth of classical ideals. And yes, I am perfectly content with giving up my right to own a nuclear bomb or for separate free market defense agencies to arm themselves with nuclear warheads which are covered by private insurers. Because like voluntary slavery, I find individual rights to buy and sell nuclear weapons just for the sake of the existence of an anarcho-capitalist market to be nuts and the implications of which are just impossible to imagine (can you imagine a company doing a cost-benefit ratio when considering a seller). Einstein and Oppenheimer would agree with me on this intellectually and morally and they were not just "mere cattle" or "some animal in a cage in a zoo" when they worked for governments.
1. Well you do call a lot of ideas "nuts". But that is not a proper argument - just name-calling. If you want to prove something, use appropriate methods of discourse. If you can't prove something to be true then I am right. You may want slavery, but not all people do. I for one want to be liberated from exploitation. Your reasons for denying truths and not accepting reality seem to be pragmatic. Just because you don't want something and think it's "nuts", you want to ban it. This is the same attitude taken by people you previously criticized, those who criminalize homosexuality. And you end your comment by making another argument from authority. Just because Einstein said something doesn't make it right; it also needs to be proved by logic and have no contradictions in premises. If logic points to something it is of no use to deny it (that is a big psychological problem). You must stop being prejudiced in favor of states (I know you have been indoctrinated all your life, but I broke out of it and so can you). Otherwise you are just like a little child stamping his foot when he gets angry that lolipops don't magically multiply in his backpack (analogy to Bernanke there!).
ReplyDelete2. The property rights claims of indians and other natives in colognized lands would have to be evaluated on an individual basis. You can't categorically say they all had rights or none of them had rights to whatever lands they claim. Same is true of governments (but this is not applied).
"Walter Block is very much alone in his support of so-called voluntary slavery." -you
ReplyDeleteYes, he is (you are the authority I am citing).
I'm not name calling you just the idea. If you cannot instinctively recognize how unsound that idea is then there is nothing I can do. Personally, I believe you cannot voluntarily sell your free will over in a contract and if you do, the contract is automatically void because your individual free will is inalienable (only yours and non-transferable). If human beings in an anarcho-capitalist society act irrationally at times, then there is no guarantee a society like that can be maintained in long term during the period when individuals form groups, groups form mobs, mobs form rioters, and people begin to act irrationally. You would say these people would keep irrationality to a minimum or close to non-existent in such a society, but that premise is unsound because you have combined two separate fields, sociological Spencerian and politico-economic Rothbardian ideas, into one perfectly moral society for humanity. You may view government as unnecessary, but I view it as inevitable. Everyone who lives on Earth knows that they are not in a perfect and absolute state of freedom, but they do not have much of any idealism about the alternatives.
Name calling an idea still doesn't accomplish anything. And I would argue again that just because something SEEMS unsound to you, it does not make it unsound. In fact, I have always challeneged you to prove my arguments unsound which you have never done to date. Please present to me a equally viable alternative which is nowhere a contradiction and I will accept your views. Another point - Spencerian theory is not mutually exclusive with the Rothbardian. And I have never called for the abolition of all political structures, only compulsory oppressive ones. People would still have to surrender some of their rights to other political organizations which they freely and voluntarily join. It is just like when I buy a burger at McDonald's - I surrender my right to one dollar in order to obrain the right to the food. Every human agreement (contract or not) involves surrendering rights. But a contract is something that can be legally enforced. I cannot currently enforce anything against the government, which makes the social contract a fallacy.
ReplyDelete"Another point - Spencerian theory is not mutually exclusive with the Rothbardian."
ReplyDeleteNo they aren't. You have chosen to combine both.
And voluntary slavery is not the same as buying a McDonald's hamburger. In voluntary slavery, you submit your entire being in permanence unless the contract stipulates differently. Your free will is owned by the purchaser. Your right to free will is in no way equivocal to your ability to keep that dollar, because at least with the latter you have a choice (choices are derived from free will) with what to do with that dollar (take it out of a country, give it to the government, go to Burger King, go somewhere else, etc.) Voluntary slavery means you submit yourself (your self ownership and your free will) to the other for as long as the contract stipulates, and if you act on your free will on your own without the purchaser's allowance, you violate the terms of the contract and the purchaser of the service has the authority of the property contract on his side, which means he can punish you accordingly for violating the terms you voluntarily agreed to, even killing you if necessary because you had violated your own agreement that your property (your self) was his, not yours.
It is completely logically valid within the context of anarcho-capitalist society and there is not a single contradiction of allowing voluntary slavery. Voluntary slavery does not seem unsound. It is unsound. It is also the premise of the Merchant of Venice, where the local town judge and then later in the play the state cannot break a voluntary slave contract(taking a pound of flesh for a broken bond agreement):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSUuczZcUaU
As for naming an alternative system, what you assume as my enslavement is my freedom. I voluntarily submit to the entirety of the social contract as do almost all American citizens. The means of which we may go about it are different (higher or lower taxes vs. higher or lower welfare spending, etc.), but the agreement is there. If you choose to reject this, then you are not forced to become an American citizen (I am not saying that you should do this, of course.) If I felt persecuted, lets say for high taxes, then I would renounce my residence or citizenship and leave. But I, like everyone at college, do not feel like they are being persecuted even when they are breaking the law (drugs and alcohol). Do you feel like you are being persecuted when you are drinking in a private room? No, of course not, otherwise you would be fearful of drinking here. Now, is this authorization for secessionist anarchy. No, of course not, because I doubt the trade off of secession would ensure the protection of my property against other individuals anymore than already unless I subscribed to a form of defense, which I have chosen to already.
"Your free will is owned by the purchaser." No, free will cannot be owned. The purchaser only buys your right of self-ownership. The issue with will is the same as belief. I can will myself to fly, but I guarantee you that I cannot! My free will is with me all the time (I may want your computer, but you have the right to it, not me). Therefore voluntary slavery does not cause you to sell something which you cannot sell. That would be like me argeeing to sell you a square circle (such an action is impossible). Slaves have free will they just don't have the right to exercise it. In principle all contracts need to be enforced, and so we need an authority which can do so. In a perfect world people would not have the power to break contracts in the first place. Breaking contracts is immoral in every regard. Let me remind you that on a regular basis athletes such as boxers sign contract which state that they don't have self-ownership (they have to fight a certain number of fights or something such) in exchange for money. If they break the contract they deserve to go to jail or pay a fine. You have not yet proven voluntary slavery unsound. You have just said you don't like it or don't find it agreeable in your opinion.
ReplyDeleteAnd here we come to the main point: If you feel like giving up your rights in the name of the social contract, does that give you the right to make other do so also? Do you have the right to indirectly use force (goons you are paying for would be after me, by the way, if I did drink alcohol) against me just because you "feel" it's necessary?
And to answer your question: Yes, I do feel persecuted! I don't like being a slave (something you obviously enjoy because you don't even think it's slavery). As for you leaving behind your property and citizenship to escape if you want to - I find it shameful that you would be required to lose something that is yours and that you (or your family) have been working for all their lives just to escape the clutches of abusers. You should be a man and defend what is yours and not run away like a dog with his tail between his legs.
And by the way, I actually love Merchant of Venice! It's a very tragic story and the only person I have sympathy for is Shyloc because all he does is try to get his lawful contract executed. I remember having quite a few interesting discussions of this sort when we read it in english class.
ReplyDelete"You should be a man and defend what is yours and not run away like a dog with his tail between his legs"
ReplyDelete-Feeding into my masculine side. huh?
I am not a slave because I am an American citizen who voluntarily accepts the social contract. And this is the agreement of almost every American taxpayer and citizen. Even if I was arrested for underage drunk driving and thrown in jail for a month, that does not mean I would still choose to voluntarily reject the social contract because of my own stupidity.
If you feel persecuted, you must remember that you agreed to government's conditions when coming here with a student visa for ensuring your safe arrival once you arrived. You can go the way of Thoreau (which I would not recommend.) But you are not being persecuted by the government. You are being persecuted because you voluntarily chose to go to a Catholic school that forbids drinking even if you are 22, whereas even public schools do not enforce that. So, yes, you and I and everyone else here are voluntarily paying for what would seem are "goons" to persecute you.
""Your free will is owned by the purchaser." No, free will cannot be owned."
According to the voluntary slave contract, it can be (if the two parties have it stated that the servant cannot act on his own free will and that he has sold the right to using his free will and any violation would mean death). There is not a thing you can do to change the terms of this voluntary contract as an outside party unless you say "well, free will is a right that cannot be sold or 'owned' by another, thus it is inalienable or it cannot exist without self-ownership, which you have already sold."
I also played Shyloc on stage, and he is a complex but vengeful and hateful man who is too stubborn to accept 6000 ducats (instead of the 3000 owed to him or a pound of flesh). Shakespeare makes it very clear that though he is legally right and should be pitied, he is driven by hatred to fulfill the fullest extent of the contract. Everyone has empathy for him, but not sympathy for his quest for what he says is justice but is obviously disguised as satisfactory cruelty. Shylock even says that the reason of his malice is something "I will not answer, for the pound of flesh is mine. Tis mine. TIS MINE!" (Note: In all of Shakespeare's plays, cruelty by people, like Iago in Othello or Lady Macbeth in Macbeth, is left unexplained and as a mystery of human nature.)
Will cannot be bought or sold because it is not a right. You do not have the right to a free will. Just like you do not have the right to be a painter, or the right to be able to grow a big beard. Free will is thoughts. You cannot limit someone's thoughts, it's impossible. What is in question here is the right to EXERCISE free will. And every man is a dictator of his own private property - he can exercise free will in relation to his property. He can also sell it if he chooses. Otherwise it would not be private property (the ability to do whatever you want with it is implicit in the definition of you private property). Also Rob, just on a practical note, I am allowed to drink in Villanova once I turn 21. And your writing about personal habits (whether they be good or bad) doesn't get you anyplace because evaluating them is a subjective thing. What is important is recognizing that all the world's Shyloc's have the right to be cruel and mean if they want. They can be greedy, rude, and repulsive. But they have the right to be that way wherever their private property is concerned. You cannot say that it is unreasonable for Shyloc to not accept 6000 ducats, because value is subjective. Clearly due to his "cruel" nature Shyloc valued the pound of flesh above the gold. You can claim that is good or bad, but any such statement would be subjective and thus unenforcable.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, your theory about me accepting and recognizing the statist system is flawed. I only accepted the government conditions because I did not have a choice. I was told by a third party totally unrelated to me or my partner (VU) that "either you accept our conditions or we will violate your private contract and brake it". This is intimidation, mafia-style. I chose to give in, just like many people choose not to smoke marijuana just because they are afraid someone will come hurt them. Intimidation is not a legitimate was to do business. Contracts obtained by extortion are null and void. The only reason to respect them would be out of fear.
And you still haven't answered my main question, so I will repeat it: Do you think you have the right to indirectly use force against others to enforce the social contract just because you "feel" it's necessary? If yes, please explain where you magically got such a right. Did God talk to you and give you power other men do not possess?
You are not allowed to drink if you violate the terms of your probation even if your probation is extended to when you are 21.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, Shylock said the same thing in his defense and that is why people empathized, not sympathized, with him.
"I only accepted the government conditions because I did not have a choice. I was told by a third party totally unrelated to me or my partner (VU) that "either you accept our conditions or we will violate your private contract and brake it". This is intimidation, mafia-style. I chose to give in, just like many people choose not to smoke marijuana just because they are afraid someone will come hurt them."
If you want to smoke marijuana, you can do it if you attempt to exercise your free will and try. You will not be deterred because like any product (smoking or otherwise) it has its assumed risks when purchased. Just like you will buy vodka if you really wanted it regardless of the risk of government or private intervention. Now the means to getting it may be illegal, and at times maybe coercive due to its illegality, but you will be able to get it as a customer. Do I find the illegality wrong. Yes, but people are not living in fear of getting it unless you worry about your parents knowing what you are doing.
You did have an option. You exercised your free will to come here and choose coming to this "mafia state" over that "mafia state" and chose not to be stateless and live as many immigrants do, without government authorization ("illegally"). You could have lived as a traveling vagabond (as a lot of immigrants or non-citizens often do) but you chose not to. Private universities agree to regulate their internal security on the agreement that governments regulate their surrounding environments (the roads, bridges, etc.)
The government, is meant to enforce roads, bridges, highways etc. and to protect them. You cannot travel on a government run road without authorization, just like you cannot travel on a private road without authorization. American citizens have that authorization because they have chosen to abide by that social contract and have chosen to be penalized for violating it. You would ultimately have to pay for traveling here by a third party outside of Villanova, public or private, in an anarcho-capitalist system. You would have to pay for traveling on dozens of separate roads or different trains, and then some of the costs that you would pay the private businesses would go to their defense costs and insurance. In our system, the government is the insurance of those costs.
"Do I feel it is necessary to indirectly use force to enforce a social contract?" Parents of all of humanity do it to their children all the time until they reach an "appropriate" age and children are at times forced to follow the social contract their parents dictate (give up rights for social order). So if I was a parent I would. Humanity does that to mentally insane people as well for social stability by enforcing this social contract, by using initial force against them to prevent possible future severe force even if their debts are paid. I would use force against you if you were depressed, acting like a child, behaving irrational and pointing a gun at your head every couple of seconds and force you against your will to wait until you sobered up to make your decision (preferably if I'm out of the room). And I am reluctant to say that that aggressive force is wrong in all of these circumstances just because I claim aggressive force is evil and because the alternative to this is, in my view, a worse one. So I am reluctant to say that the principles of non-aggression are always right no matter the circumstance. Thus, I cannot accept it in terms of functionality as a self-evident axiom. Unless you tell me its okay not to tell me not to discipline my children or its alright to let you kill yourself on one bad drunken night because I would instigate aggressive force. But again, I am not sure.
Once again Rob - bringing personal cases into the polemic argument is not going to help you. All these drinking examples are supposed to be attacks on what - my personal behaviour? Trust me I can insult you right back, but I thought we were above such petty things. So please don't write about it again.
ReplyDeleteThe rules of Villanova I accept completely because I can accept or reject them. The rules of any government I accept only because I am forced to do it. Why can't you understand the simple difference between voluntarism and coercion? For example, murder and taking drugs are both illegal - but I think you must agree with me there is something different between these two actions on a moral level? One is an aggression, the other is not. One is depriving someone else of rights and the other is not. What you call "risk which comes with purchase" is artificial in case of drugs. So why does this risk exist? Because of a coercive positive law which was posited onto everyone by a violent militant majority. This majority is willing to break human rights and use force in order to try to ban drugs from being used. This is enforcing their beliefs on others for no apparent reason and is thus a breach of human rights in the same way as a Middle-Ages scenario when everyone was forced to be part of a particular church, for example. This is primitive aggression at its strongest. Any argument you make for establishing of this statist order can also be made about the mafia (especially the Italian mafia). If you agree that the mafia is moral - good luck to you, you are already lost and guilty of supporting tyranny and oppression of innocents. You also cannot portray government as a insurance company because it is involuntary and arbitrarily decides what it will do with you and your money. That is not how insurance works my friend. Trust me, I have insurance and if I want to switch companies they will not have the right to prevent me, nor will I be forced to leave the insured property (If you insure yourself with Geico, do they henceforth have a monopoly on insuring your car? Of course not, that would be absurd!)
Also in your second point - am I correct to assume you suggest that people are children and the government (made up of the same people...) is a wise parent? That would be very insulting to most Americans - who you say accept your argument. And even if all but one American accepted this theory would they have a right to abuse the lonely dissenter?
And let me remind you that you are the one who said you believe in inalianable human rights (you even tried to use them against me!). So how does it follow from inalianable human rights that they can be arbitrarily determined and broken by the government at any time? If every decision is arbitrary it means there is no cut-off point and we don't have any rights. One of these days the people can vote to abolish private property (100% tax) or to announce a One-Child-Policy. Would these things be legitimate? Looking at your arguments so far, I would say they are perfectly legitimate. What if Eduard and I walked into your room and voted to kill you? We have the majority and we control the territory and have the means to murder. Why aren't we allowed to do that? Because might doesn't make right Rob - the Natural Law makes rights.
First of all, I meant a drunken suicidal guy. Not you. You are always happy =) I'll say heroin ridden night instead or cocaine ridden night. Please stop confusing these comments within polemics as some sort of veiled attacks.
ReplyDeleteYou voluntarily came to a college, and since the government owns the land on which the college is taxed, then you voluntarily chose to come to the "mafia's state" front grocery store. If there is a government, then there is no guaranteed protection of private property (possibility of 100% tax occurring) and thus you knew that the college was not a free entity but one under government taxes and coercion. You knew that the mafia was in charge of coercing the college into taxation. So yes, if the government is "the mafia" then you knew when you chose to come here to submit to "mafia" rules. Again, I completely disagree with the premise of saying mafia in terms of governance but I am using your example.
Also, you do not invite two wolves and one sheep to a dinner and vote what is going to be eaten. That is why I place trust in the preservation of such rights in the constitution in a stable social contract as do other Americans not because they are forced to trust.
And thirdly, this is what you have said:
"Children and children's rights under a libertarian system have been the most troubling theoretical problem for me over the last couple years. No libertarian theorist has addressed this issue in an acceptable way."
And until this issue is resolved, then I cannot agree with you on such a largely unresolved yet vital issue for civilization and humanity in general.
The definition of a social contract is:
"The people give up sovereignty to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law."
So yes, parent children relationships can only be enforced either through a social contract (an authority) or just pure coercion. And the age at which this ends is hard to define, for the child may be ready at age 1 or 5 or 7 depending on the parent's judgment or discretion or child's (again, it is hard to determine when the child is ready).
And yes, I would concur that the majority would elect the minority as slaves and thus these "children" would enslave their "parents" and I don't care if the average American finds that offensive but without a constitution or the disestablishment of one that could occur. Now to distinguish between a good and bad constitution is entirely different (again, you would may say any constitution is inherently evil). My thinking collides more with Aristotelian tradition than probably yours which seems more Platonic.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Aristotle-constitutions-2.png
The whole point of this discussion, for me, is to persuade you that reason overrides beliefs. I don't believe government is a mafia, I can prove it. You simply believe that it is not. I can prove a written constitution is illegitimate (unless it is only a paper which on which Natural Law is spelled out in which case it is redundant). You believe that it is legitimate. I can prove social contract theory is faulty, yet you still believe it to be true. This can mean a few things:
ReplyDelete1) You are a a evil person with an aim to enslave people and exploit them.
2) You are ignorant (uneduacted or indoctrinated) which is something I've been trying to rectify - please don't take this personally, everyone is indoctrinated in one way or another, so was I at one point.
3) You are unreasoanble and use belief and feelings to distinguish what you "feel" is wrong from what you "feel" is right. This means that if some statement, even entirely logical, feels wrong to you, you will not accept it.
I lean towards labeling you as a classic case 3. But surely you must understand that basing such a serious thing as government on beliefs will cause violence and oppression. The Crusades are always a good example to use in such a case.
I agree with you that currently the parent/child relationship is socialist. I am actually very interested in any input you might have on this topic which, as you noted, is problematic. As I wrote before a good ethical law needs two aspects to be fulfilled - logical consistency and functionality. It seems to me that viewing children as property is logically inconsistent, but the other extreme, treating them like adults, may not be functional. How do we solve this? Technically are all parents abusing their children's rights when they spank them? Is there some implicit contract involved here... I don't know the answer! I would love to be able to talk to professor Block or professor Hoppe about this fundamental (as you say) issue. Can we assume that the child is living in a voluntary socialist regime? That might be what Walter Block would say (I expect). But can that be asserted with certainty? And what if a child runs away from home at age 4? It definitely doesn't want to be there anymore - so how can we force it back? On the other hand I don't think we can apply Lockean homesteading to children to make them property. Because then, as Spencer eloquently presents, we would have to make a arbitrary cut-off of when they become adults...
Do you have any brilliant ideas about this subject?
Under your case scenario, you say I would "lean towards" case 3. If I was unreasonable I would have stopped reading your blogs a long time ago. And trust me, I would have opposed the crusades or Islamic conquests early on and taken a far more pacifist view (though strictly speaking I'm not a pacifist, but that's another issue entirely).
ReplyDeleteLike the functionality of the social contract, the parent/child dichotomy does not seem to have any naturally functional alternative than the "socialist" one that seems to have existed for eternity (unless you can prove otherwise, the course of parents relationship to children has been as such). Taxation seems to have existed for eternity- actually since 8000 B.C. I know you reject that, but personally in both instances I don't think there is a long run viable alternative in terms of functionality that would not contradict the ethics and logicality of absolute natural law where all rights of all peoples are preserved and protected regardless. Good night. =)