A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)

[moorobot]

As for the 1st part, you essentially don't argue with my point that what you say would happen in a stateless society is not what would really happen under one.

As to the 2nd, I have no idea why you made those points. Neither paragraph has anything to do with anything. Please try and understand my point before criticizing it. Let me try again.


[ QUOTE ]
Anarchists aren't satisfied until bargaining comes down to the individual.

[/ QUOTE ] But my primary point is that this is utterly utopian. Human beings are not going to stop joining with one another for common purposes, no matter if you think that is a good idea or not. It simply doesn't matter whether you think this would be a good idea...it is a fact and needs to be built into all sane political theories. Groups are going to come together, they are going to have more power than isolated individuals, and the groups, therefore, are going to have there way. In fact simple economics should tell you that anarchy incentivizes the use violent cooperation amongst people for common goals, as there is no longer a state (the 'monopoly on the legitimate use of force' which puts its competitors-other producers of violence-out of business, so to speak, so they are unable to achieve there goals via violence) Essentially, anarchocapitalists ask, as you admit, "What would a capitalist economy in which there is no collective action and no willingness to coerce one another look like?" This question, while perhaps of some interest philosophically, is utterly irrelevant politically. The better question to ask politically is: "Given that humans will try to coerce each other and will engage in collective action, what should our institutions look like?"

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]
As for the 1st part, you essentially don't argue with my point that what you say would happen in a stateless society is not what would really happen under one.

As to the 2nd, I have no idea why you made those points. Neither paragraph has anything to do with anything. Please try and understand my point before criticizing it. Let me try again.


[ QUOTE ]
Anarchists aren't satisfied until bargaining comes down to the individual.

[/ QUOTE ] But my primary point is that this is utterly utopian. Human beings are not going to stop joining with one another for common purposes, no matter if you think that is a good idea or not. It simply doesn't matter whether you think this would be a good idea...it is a fact and needs to be built into all sane political theories. Groups are going to come together, they are going to have more power than isolated individuals, and the groups, therefore, are going to have there way. In fact simple economics should tell you that anarchy incentivizes the use violent cooperation amongst people for common goals, as there is no longer a state (the 'monopoly on the legitimate use of force' which puts its competitors-other producers of violence-out of business, so to speak, so they are unable to achieve there goals via violence) Essentially, anarchocapitalists ask, as you admit, "What would a capitalist economy in which there is no collective action and no willingness to coerce one another look like?" This question, while perhaps of some interest philosophically, is utterly irrelevant politically. The better question to ask politically is: "Given that humans will try to coerce each other and will engage in collective action, what should our institutions look like?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Great post again. And the fact there exist monopolies on force implies that local monopolies can and do exist. I tend to think of the market system as transforming illegitimate competition (in the form of violence) to legitimate competition. Drug dealing is an ideal example. In the inefficient system we have now, they compete through inefficient and illegitimate means to preserve and increase their market share, such as theft and murder. Allowing legal protections by monopolizing force allows the firms not to focus on those production lines, and conduct their legitimate business through technical innovations like delivery and a higher-quality product.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
But my primary point is that this is utterly utopian. Human beings are not going to stop joining with one another for common purposes, no matter if you think that is a good idea or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing wrong with humans joining each other for common purposes. No reason that must mean violence.

If hundred people are standing by a bridge in a democracy and 51 say jump and 49 say no, then the 49 who refuse are pushed over the edge. In anarchy, 51 will have a common interest, 49 will have a common interest, but since there is no majority rules, 51 will jump and 49 will leave.

[ QUOTE ]
Groups are going to come together, they are going to have more power than isolated individuals, and the groups, therefore, are going to have there way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing wrong with groups being successful. This doesnt instantly imply coercion against anyone. You seem to think people can only have their way at the expense of other but in fact that is more a function of government then freely acting individuals, then you seem to understand. Lastly, if the group becomes coercive and successfully maintains a social structure of coercion then they are a state and we are no longer in anarchy. This is the same as your first point from the last point.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact simple economics should tell you that anarchy incentivizes the use violent cooperation amongst people for common goals, as there is no longer a state (the 'monopoly on the legitimate use of force' which puts its competitors-other producers of violence-out of business, so to speak, so they are unable to achieve there goals via violence)

[/ QUOTE ]

The state only has a monopoly on institutional violence. If different firms were competing the incentive would be for cooperation and most likely respect for private property. Without the state, everyone must bare their own costs and cant externalize the cost onto the citizenry. This means war is very costly and the major incentive will be to cooperate. Different capitalist firms in todays world dont bother solving disputes with other firms violently and the reasoning isnt necessarily because of the government. I'd say the reasoning has more to do with costs, shareholders, and the benefit of each respecting each other.

One more point is the government proclaims a monopoly on force, but this isnt entirely true. The government creates and maintains mob groups for example.

You also seem to think there is more a peaceful scenario by the government having a monopoly on force rather than that power being dispersed. So far as i can see, the worst you can say about anarchy is that it descends into what we have now.

[ QUOTE ]
"Given that humans will try to coerce each other and will engage in collective action, what should our institutions look like?"

[/ QUOTE ]

They should be private property based. This is the best Schelling Point and the most efficient way of solving conflicts.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to think people can only have their way at the expense of other

[/ QUOTE ] No I don't. I rely on the trivial truth that sometimes 'people can have their way at the expense of another'. It is true, however, that in some cases one can only have there way at the expense of another (e.g. either you are the boss or I am the boss, abortion laws, etc.)

[ QUOTE ]
So far as i can see, the worst you can say about anarchy is that it descends into what we have now.

[/ QUOTE ] Or civil war. Or fascist communism or capitalism. Or theocracy. Depends on who has the most guns and people. The beauty of a democracy which is seen as legitimate is that, when one side loses, they know that the loss is temporary and/or place value in the procedures for solving disputes themselves, and that there are non-violent procedural ways of trying to go ahead and attempt to gain power next time. Think of the 2000 presidential election.

[ QUOTE ]
If different firms were competing the incentive would be for cooperation and most likely respect for private property. Without the state, everyone must bare their own costs and cant externalize the cost onto the citizenry. This means war is very costly and the major incentive will be to cooperate. Different capitalist firms in todays world dont bother solving disputes with other firms violently and the reasoning isnt necessarily because of the government

[/ QUOTE ] This is the classic ACist reply to the civil warfare objection, but it is woefully inadequate, for (among other reasons) it presupposes that people are motivated solely by monetary gains. But the goals of most groups I have in mind here are not about increasing monetary gains...they are those who want to bring about theocracy, or want power and high relative status for extrinsic or intrinsic reasons, or a conception of distributive justice (or any ideology). You are saying "But they will have less of X if they fight"...but what they want is Y or Z, and they could care less if they lose every last ounce of X trying to get Y or Z, which is what most matters to them. So your argument is a non-sequitur.

Another reason this argument is inadequate is that it presupposes that people are 'rational' in some sense; that is, not only do they seek profit, but they seek it in the manner which is truly the best way to maximize it; yet the mere fact that most businesses fail demonstrates that it is not the case. Even if it would *really be unprofitable for a firm to engage in violence, we can expect that many businesses would not realize this and would in fact try to increase profits via force.
[ QUOTE ]

One more point is the government proclaims a monopoly on force, but this isnt entirely true. The government creates and maintains mob groups for example.

[/ QUOTE ] The gov't does so for its own purposes, and if the mob groups do not further the purposes

In other words, we should see your supposed mob groups as part of, an example of, the gov'ts monopoly on force, not as a counterexample to that monopoly.

[ QUOTE ]
You also seem to think there is more a peaceful scenario by the government having a monopoly on force rather than that power being dispersed

[/ QUOTE ] Indeed I do. But In fact, I argued for it, and empirical evidence strongly supports my view.

[ QUOTE ]
If hundred people are standing by a bridge in a democracy and 51 say jump and 49 say no, then the 49 who refuse are pushed over the edge. In anarchy, 51 will have a common interest, 49 will have a common interest, but since there is no majority rules, 51 will jump and 49 will leave.

[/ QUOTE ] No. In most cases in democracy the 51 THREATEN to throw the 49 off, in anarchy, if the issue is important enough, they WILL throw them off; or, if the 49 are more powerful, they will prevent the 51 from jumping off. You can call the latter situation "not anarchy" if you want, but what is relevant, politically speaking, is not what the concept of anarchy is, but what the reality and consequences of an anarchical society would be.

[foal]

good post

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
No I don't. I rely on the trivial truth that sometimes 'people can have their way at the expense of another'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Governments make this more so. We aren't comparing anarchy to utopia. We are comparing anarchy to coercive governments.

[ QUOTE ]
Or civil war. Or fascist communism or capitalism. Or theocracy. Depends on who has the most guns and people.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the status quo of all government around the world. Again, you are saying the worst is we descend into what we have now.

[ QUOTE ]
The beauty of a democracy which is seen as legitimate

[/ QUOTE ]

The majority likely sees this as legitimate but there is nothing inherently legitimate about democracy. I dont view democracy as legitimate.

[ QUOTE ]
when one side loses, they know that the loss is temporary and/or place value in the procedures for solving disputes themselves, and that there are non-violent procedural ways of trying to go ahead and attempt to gain power next time.

[/ QUOTE ]

The use of democracy is a violent procedure for one. Secondly, democracy is inherently stupid because one side keeps entirely winning over the other. The fact that more than one side gets the chance to be dictator for a while is not a good thing just because they rotate.

Nearly half the country didnt want to go to war and they were forced to fund and keep that war going. Half the country didnt want to be spied on. Are we better of letting those who want to sacrifice their liberty for security do so and those that dont not or is it preferable that we go through stages of having no government security then a new interval of extreme government security and back and forth into the future?

[ QUOTE ]
Think of the 2000 presidential election.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your still only talking about the two major groups that monopolize the system. minorities have never had a say and will likely not into the future.

[ QUOTE ]
This is the classic ACist reply to the civil warfare objection, but it is woefully inadequate, for (among other reasons) it presupposes that people are motivated solely by monetary gains. But the goals of most groups I have in mind here are not about increasing monetary gains...they are those who want to bring about theocracy, or want power and high relative status for extrinsic or intrinsic reasons, or a conception of distributive justice (or any ideology).

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh you mean like George Bush or Stalin. If they want to try fight a war for whatever purpose there is no doubt that the wars are less likely to happen when people have to bare the full cost. Do you think Iraq was more or less likely to happen under the assumption that the neocons had to fund the war on their own?

[ QUOTE ]
You are saying "But they will have less of X if they fight"...but what they want is Y or Z, and they could care less if they lose every last ounce of X trying to get Y or Z, which is what most matters to them. So your argument is a non-sequitur.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your missing the point. Governments make this much more likely. People can sacrifice things but the point is in a free market they must make sacrifices. When people thought should we goto war in iraq, no said oh this will cost me 30,000 plus etc. The decision was made costs aside. When costs are taken into account much less wars will be fought.

[ QUOTE ]

Another reason this argument is inadequate is that it presupposes that people are 'rational' in some sense; that is, not only do they seek profit, but they seek it in the manner which is truly the best way to maximize it; yet the mere fact that most businesses fail demonstrates that it is not the case. Even if it would *really be unprofitable for a firm to engage in violence, we can expect that many businesses would not realize this and would in fact try to increase profits via force.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not comparing the result to government but rather to utopia. If people are irrational this is true for a governed world as well and we are way worse off with all that power in the hands of irrational people.

[ QUOTE ]
The gov't does so for its own purposes, and if the mob groups do not further the purposes

In other words, we should see your supposed mob groups as part of, an example of, the gov'ts monopoly on force, not as a counterexample to that monopoly.


[/ QUOTE ]

I must be reading this wrong because i cant understand. Can you rephrase please?

[ QUOTE ]
No. In most cases in democracy the 51 THREATEN to throw the 49 off

[/ QUOTE ]

When the country stood over the bridge and said are we going to jump into this war in iraq, what happened to those that said i dont want lend my support?

[ QUOTE ]
in anarchy, if the issue is important enough, they WILL throw them off

[/ QUOTE ]

If the issue is important enough. The 49 can also defend themselves. In democracy the issue need not be important. Minorities are thrown off the bridge every day.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Or civil war. Or fascist communism or capitalism. Or theocracy. Depends on who has the most guns and people.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the status quo of all government around the world. Again, you are saying the worst is we descend into what we have now.

[/ QUOTE ]
Civil war, theocracy, and/or fascist communism is what we have now? I believe by 'we' he is referring to democratic western governments and if so then that's far from true.

[ QUOTE ]

The majority likely sees this as legitimate but there is nothing inherently legitimate about democracy. I dont view democracy as legitimate.

[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately there's nothing that's inherently legitimate. Some things can be pragmatically legitimate though.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that more than one side gets the chance to be dictator for a while is not a good thing just because they rotate.

[/ QUOTE ]
Calling it a dictatorship is just silly hyperbole. There is a thing called division of power including the balance of government branches and of local, state and federal authority. There is also such a thing as government accountability. We impeached Nixon and members of the federal legistature have been arrested. Law enforcement officers have been punished for abusing their power.

I agree that there are plenty of problems that occur in democracies due to human stupidity, laziness and callousness, but such human flaws will cause plenty of problems with or without government. In democracy at least those too busy to do anything themselves can affect change with their votes.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

Civil war, theocracy, and/or fascist communism is what we have now? I believe by 'we' he is referring to democratic western governments and if so then that's far from true.

[/ QUOTE ]

For one thats cherry picking. For two, western government recent attempts to bring their prosperity and ideology to other nations has done nothing but result in theocracy and or civil war. Their political medicine only works on people who are already healthy apparently. If you take a sick society, one with ethnic divide or something of the sort, and apply your strategies you'll see democracy is no political weapon towards legitimacy or peace.

What good is democracy if it cant bring light to troubled societies? Isn't that democracies goal?

America is still a theocracy and fascist in many senses too. Personally i dont differentiate religious ideology from most political ideology but even without that i think point still stands.

[ QUOTE ]
Calling it a dictatorship is just silly hyperbole

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to remember the context of our debate. He was saying democracy is good because each gets a turn to get their way.

Further it is a dictatorship when the majority is strong enough. There is nothing to prevent a strong majority from going as far as amending the constitution to allow for sending Jews to concentration camps. This can all be done within the bounds of western democracy.

[ QUOTE ]
There is a thing called division of power including the balance of government branches and of local, state and federal authority.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the division of power should start and end at the individual. The power divide in western democracy that subdivides the power to more localities is an effective way of taking a step closer towards the individual and therefore anarchy. Only so far as this is so will i concede this is effective.

My point is though why do we allow local government to begin with? Because people feel to many are unfairly grouped into federal issues. So they make it more local. At what point do you stop using this point and breaking society into more and more local parts? IMO the only answer is the individual should be the government.

[ QUOTE ]
There is also such a thing as government accountability. We impeached Nixon and members of the federal legistature have been arrested. Law enforcement officers have been punished for abusing their power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Accountability in government exists in a lower form than any other institution. Officials are much more accountable to the people when the people can secede their support whenever they choose. Why do the police have to treat you respectfully when they get paid regardless?

Im not saying government is all bad, im not saying anarchy is all good. Im saying one structures things for more state power while the other structures things for more consumer/individual power and this accounts for likely differences in things like accountability and representation.

[ QUOTE ]

I agree that there are plenty of problems that occur in democracies due to human stupidity, laziness and callousness, but such human flaws will cause plenty of problems with or without government. In democracy at least those too busy to do anything themselves can affect change with their votes.


[/ QUOTE ]

The flaws exist with or without goverment, but government often subdizes those flaws which dont allow for the right incentives for people to overcome those flaws.

Im not sure i understand the point in your last sentence.

[ConstantineX]

Zygote, if someone's is going to have a productive discussion with you we have to set reasonable bounds on scope of words. Classifying America as a "theocracy" and "fascist" is not reasonable whatsoever, though of course I can agree elements of those things appear sometimes in our political system.

Alot of your misunderstanding of Moorobot stems from your misunderstanding of the word "legitimacy" and the murky way the word is defined, even in citizens' minds. The very fact that people get to choose their "Mafia" is instrumental in their feelings about the state and their rights according to it. It's pretty clear from history that legitimacy is very hard to confer from an outside populace or foreign power - which is partly why we are having so much trouble in Iraq.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Civil war, theocracy, and/or fascist communism is what we have now? I believe by 'we' he is referring to democratic western governments and if so then that's far from true.

[/ QUOTE ]

For one thats cherry picking.

[/ QUOTE ]
Providing a counter-example to an unfair generalization about what "we" have is cherry picking?

[ QUOTE ]
For two, western government recent attempts to bring their prosperity and ideology to other nations has done nothing but result in theocracy and or civil war. Their political medicine only works on people who are already healthy apparently.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course invading countries and trying to force them to have the sort of government we want doesn't work well. That's a completely different issue. It's not as if not being an anarcho-capitalist makes one an imperialist.

[ QUOTE ]
If you take a sick society, one with ethnic divide or something of the sort, and apply your strategies you'll see democracy is no political weapon towards legitimacy or peace.

[/ QUOTE ]
Only relevant if you compare it to other strategies. Because it's doubtful that any strategy will work particularly well in such a situation.

[ QUOTE ]
What good is democracy if it cant bring light to troubled societies? Isn't that democracies goal?

[/ QUOTE ]
Uh if you're saying a political system is only good if it works for every society then nothing is satisfactory, including anarcho-capitalism.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Calling it a dictatorship is just silly hyperbole

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to remember the context of our debate. He was saying democracy is good because each gets a turn to get their way. Further it is a dictatorship when the majority is strong enough.

[/ QUOTE ]
A dictatorship is a country in which a dictator has absolute power. There is no one person in the US or even branch of govnernment that has absolute power. So again, calling it a dictatorship is silly and incorrect. Your point can be made without using that word.

[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing to prevent a strong majority from going as far as amending the constitution to allow for sending Jews to concentration camps. This can all be done within the bounds of western democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]
If the majority will is strong enough in any society they will get their way. There's nothing we can do about that. Jews are probably safer in a constitutional republic/democracy than in a society without government, however. In anarchism, they don't have to go to the trouble of amending the constitution. So I don't see how this is a flaw of democracy.