Intellectual debate on minarchy versus anarchocapitalism [Archive]

Conza88

02-03-2009, 08:51 AM

A refutation of Roy Childs' old argument:

Yet, if he is living in a society of other men, it is not enough that an individual determine in his own mind that his use of force is retaliatory. Since whether an act of force is initiatory or retaliatory is not self-evident, and since a man who initiates force is by that fact a threat to society, any man who engages in force that has not been proved by objective means to be retaliatory must be considered a threat. This is the deepest reason why the use of retaliatory force must be delegated to the government: an act of retaliation that isn't first proved to be an act of retaliation is indistinguishable from an act of aggression -- and must be treated as such.

Total non sequitur. Private Law courts. I suggest you start educating yourself on them. :)

No kidding. I voted statist because I still believe there should be government to protect the rights to life, liberty, and property of the people.

How's that going for you? :)

"In TEOL Rothbard points out that the minimal government advocates have yet to come up with a cogent theory of taxation."

Care to start?

Since your government would violate property (Taxation = theft) to exist, would it not?

:cool:

Btw, "To those of you who are interested in reading an intellectual debate on this issue, I recommend this forum (http://mises.org/Community/forums/)."

Kludge

02-03-2009, 09:00 AM

Well, if we're going to pretend that private law courts are viable, why not also pretend that a minarchy could exist based on voluntary donations?

Gaius1981

02-03-2009, 09:25 AM

Private Law courts. I suggest you start educating yourself on them.

Private courts of law are, of course, subjective courts of law. As such, they will initiate force again our individual rights. I don't think anarchists have properly thought about what a society where the individuals all answers to different sets of laws would be like. The lawsuits of modern American would seem like nothing in comparison.

Since your government would violate property (Taxation = theft) to exist, would it not?

Rand writes on taxation here:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/taxation.html

Btw, "To those of you who are interested in reading an intellectual debate on this issue, I recommend this forum (http://mises.org/Community/forums/)."

The "let's pretend anarchy won't lead to collective warfare" discussion group, I take it. I think the tv-series "Jericho" portrayed a pretty decent example of what anarchy would be like – constant collective warfare between competing "governments" and their private armies.

Of course, many anarchists might consider the world presented in Jericho an "exciting utopia".

heavenlyboy34

02-03-2009, 10:35 AM

Well, if we're going to pretend that private law courts are viable, why not also pretend that a minarchy could exist based on voluntary donations?

It worked pretty well till the constitution was interpreted to allow income taxation. :D Suggested reading-"Hamilton's Curse". ;):)

heavenlyboy34

02-03-2009, 10:38 AM

Private courts of law are, of course, subjective courts of law. As such, they will initiate force again our individual rights. I don't think anarchists have properly thought about what a society where the individuals all answers to different sets of laws would be like. The lawsuits of modern American would seem like nothing in comparison.

Rand writes on taxation here:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/taxation.html

The "let's pretend anarchy won't lead to collective warfare" discussion group, I take it. I think the tv-series "Jericho" portrayed a pretty decent example of what anarchy would be like – constant collective warfare between competing "governments" and their private armies.

Of course, many anarchists might consider the world presented in Jericho an "exciting utopia".

Reading "The Market For Liberty" will help you understand why your assertion is wrong. Sorry I don't have time to take your argument apart right now. :(

Xenophage

02-03-2009, 04:40 PM

This is a tired, decades-old argument and completely irrelevant to anything we should be focusing on. Its fun, but its also a distraction and has lead to severe rifts in the freedom movement right from the start. The Rothbardians and the Randians will never get along intellectually, but the fact is: They would both get along GREAT living under the others' presumed utopia, and in the interim we can work toward the common goal of reducing government.

Conza88

02-03-2009, 08:06 PM

Well, if we're going to pretend that private law courts are viable, why not also pretend that a minarchy could exist based on voluntary donations?

That it could. :)

When you have state judges, they tend to rule in favor of the state though. ;)

Private courts of law are, of course, subjective courts of law. As such, they will initiate force again our individual rights. I don't think anarchists have properly thought about what a society where the individuals all answers to different sets of laws would be like. The lawsuits of modern American would seem like nothing in comparison.

Rand writes on taxation here:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/taxation.html

No, they are objective courts of law. Government won't initiate force against individual rights?!!? :rolleyes: A state judge, isn't going to rule more in the favor of the State? I don't think think anarchists have thought about their society either. That's natural though, they're socialists. I'm an anarcho-capitalist. And we have. I suggest you head off to mises.org and find some free audiobooks, pdf's about private law. ;) You're clearly ignorant.

First para of Rand's taxes: non sequitur again. Back in the day, two citizens arguing over a contract would go to a high up respected citizen and ask them to judge on their case. What would be fair? They got the verdict and accepted the decision. Now the state comes alone, creates a MONOPOLY on this role, and people wonder why Judges find in favor of the state, over the INDIVIDUAL!?!?!?! :rolleyes:

As for voluntary taxes... lol. I'm not paying squat. Good luck with that. And what happens if more and more people decide not to pay for it? The government will just disappear all together? :D Or do you think they'll take drastic action and do what they've always done - call an emergency or crisis and use FORCE to abstract money from the populace.

Here 2nd para; that is a cop out. She is ignorant about law, and thus decides not to delve into it - because she can't. Private law, has been pretty much fully fleshed out already. It's not too hard to assume a free society.

The "let's pretend anarchy won't lead to collective warfare" discussion group, I take it. I think the tv-series "Jericho" portrayed a pretty decent example of what anarchy would be like – constant collective warfare between competing "governments" and their private armies.

Of course, many anarchists might consider the world presented in Jericho an "exciting utopia".

They probably would. I'm not an anarchist though. I'm an anarcho-capitalist. You know, respect private property and the non aggression axiom. I'm not a socialist, thank you very much. :)

Grimnir Wotansvolk

02-03-2009, 08:21 PM

Minarchy = increasing efficiency and freedom by allowing the market to take over in areas where the government tends to stick its filthy hands

Anarchy = increasing efficiency and freedom by allowing the market to take over in areas where minarchists still see fit to stick their filthy hands :)

As anarchists, we should be supportive of minarchy. But if that is ever, by some miracle, achieved, the fight does not end there.

Grimnir Wotansvolk

02-03-2009, 08:29 PM

The "let's pretend anarchy won't lead to collective warfare" discussion group, I take it. I think the tv-series "Jericho" portrayed a pretty decent example of what anarchy would be like – constant collective warfare between competing "governments" and their private armies.Holy fucking strawman, batman, man.

Jericho involved a NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST. A situation where hundreds of millions were diseased, starving, and homeless; where resources where eradicated and affected by radiation.

If you waved the magic wand of anarchy, all of the resources our government devours would suddenly be open to the citizenry. How this could be anything but a boon is beyond me.

Brassmouth

02-03-2009, 08:31 PM

Here's a video debate between an Objectivist and an anarcho-capitalist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKHP5gtnBAE

It's obvious who wins.

heavenlyboy34

02-03-2009, 09:46 PM

Here's a video debate between an Objectivist and an anarcho-capitalist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKHP5gtnBAE

It's obvious who wins.

Yeah, but that "objectivist" fellow doesn't even claim to have enough knowledge to speak for objectivism. Not a very good debate, IMHO, but some interesting things were brought up.

Paulitician

02-04-2009, 01:00 AM

Objectivism is logically inconsistent (as is minarchism in general). I was a supporter of objectivism at one point, but even then I knew there were problems with it. Also, a lot of objectivists are jackasses and I disagreed with some of their politics. Anyway g2g...

also, Rand was ugly

Bman

02-04-2009, 02:17 AM

non sequitur

You seem to be using this a lot. However, I fail to understand when you argue with people how you do not believe it applies to you.

Most of your replies are of the nature that one needs to do more reading or get a better education on the subject. Yet you lack the ability to give them the education they need. So I have to ask were you get the validity for your comments.

Ahh that's right. Ultimately from the same place as everyone else. From your own perspective.

The sooner you understand that everyone has a perspective the better off we will be. Hell, I could tell you to read every book on my shelves. It does not mean that we will agree. Much how, although I'm not ready for a full statement, I still haven't read anything you've suggested that makes me agree with you.

Start making some real points. Start describing or showing some living models of your ideas. Most of us here are strong supporters of the Constitution because we have a history and understaning of how it works. A living model that we can examine and see what is best or not.

You need to start giving more concrete responses than telling someone to read a book. Heck, if you've read it you should be able to form a complete thought on the subject, and realize that if someone disagrees with you, that maybe, just maybe it's not their education. It's their perspective.

Conza88

02-04-2009, 07:52 AM

You seem to be using this a lot.

Funny that, I've only had to use it in this thread. ;)

However, I fail to understand when you argue with people how you do not believe it applies to you.

Lmao. How'd you come to that conclusion? Logic and reasoning apply to everyone. I have a passion for being self righteous. And I have an open mind. A dangerous combination. I defend my position to it's fullest extent because I believe it to be true. But I am always open to reason. If I realise I am wrong, or my position is. I accept it, and acknowledge it and then establish that as my new position and defend it etc, until again - some argument should be more logical or sound than my own.

This is how I went from socialist to anarcho-capitalist in under a year. I have a passion for truth, and fear of reality won't stop me. Thanks Ron Paul. At the moment, I feel like I've found an ideology that is the truth, and I doubt I will be swayed. But I am ALWAYS open to the possibility.

Not if you would be so kind as to, please point out in my arguments where something: "does not follow." I'd be happy to oblige in showing you your error. ;)

Most of your replies are of the nature that one needs to do more reading or get a better education on the subject. Yet you lack the ability to give them the education they need. So I have to ask were you get the validity for your comments.

Umm, maybe because they do? Considering I myself held the exact same position only months ago. But then I educated myself and realised the error of my position. I don't LACK the ability, I lack the EFFORT. But NOT the SMARTS. Seriously, you can easily dismiss me, just as some dude on the net, what's he know, right? :rolleyes

Thing is, it's a LOT harder for those out there that want to be willfully ignorant, when I start directing their ignorant asses to Rothbard, Mises, Block, G. Edward Griffin, Ron Paul.... or whoever.

I give people the link to their education, I show them the door. THEY are the ones who have to STEP through it.

Part of the most effective Ron Paul grassroots campaign in the beginning was; who is the best salesmen for Liberty? Ron Paul is. All you got to do is get people to check him out. You can't describe him, or convince people he exists - an Honest politician. They have to see it for themselves - "Google Ron Paul". "Who is Ron Paul?" So people can either click that link, listen to that audiobook or lecture, read that pdf that I have taken the time to friggin google, scan through mises.org media, copy paste name, copy paste link etc. depending on how many things are releveant for them, in the bare hope that they do take the plunge, and I just didn't waste all my time.

Ahh that's right. Ultimately from the same place as everyone else. From your own perspective.

The logical structure of the mind is the same in every human. It's not so much perspective but from praxeology and a priori. You can come from different perspectives, but if you're open to reason, non cognitive dissonance and persuasion the arguments should grab you. I can't actually really remember ever debating an anarcho-capitalist or anything like that. My position was, I am still learning - be open to the arguments etc. So I'd view, think it was interesting.. but never speak out on something I am ignorant about. And I'd do my best to evaluate myself, and see if I am actually ignorant or not about it.

"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.”~ Confucius

The sooner you understand that everyone has a perspective the better off we will be. Hell, I could tell you to read every book on my shelves. It does not mean that we will agree. Much how, although I'm not ready for a full statement, I still haven't read anything you've suggested that makes me agree with you.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But opinion's are SUBJECTIVE. I like your shirt, your skirt, I don't like your pants, but it's just my opinion. When people attempt to use 'opinions' in the objectives. Like imo - the world is flat. Then I'm going to call you out, say your "opinion" is wrong and you should get a new one. Here; I'll suggest one. 'The world is round, not flat.'

Start making some real points. Start describing or showing some living models of your ideas. Most of us here are strong supporters of the Constitution because we have a history and understaning of how it works. A living model that we can examine and see what is best or not.

Geezus. Has the Constitution been able to LIMIT the growth of the state and government? Look, you are beyond help if you can't see the glaringly obvious answer. It has not. Then you really need to ask yourself, why not? :rolleyes:

Why do you need "some living models of your ideas. " Take a LOOK at your own! If you're advocating MINARCHISM, or the US following the Constitution, you're LIVING in a DREAM land. YOU yourself need to find some "living models of your ideas." Why be a hypocrite? I see your model right now. All I need to do is look around and see the results all around me. That's the welfare / warfare state for ya. The empire. :rolleyes:

You need to start giving more concrete responses than telling someone to read a book. Heck, if you've read it you should be able to form a complete thought on the subject, and realize that if someone disagrees with you, that maybe, just maybe it's not their education. It's their perspective.

Elaborating extensively on some topics is a waste of my time, when someone before me has already done it, and far better. Why not spend the time reading their work, and not mine? It's more efficient and effective. Saves both of us time and energy. Ever thought, suggesting a book - will do exactly that? Change someones perspective. ;)

Xenophage

02-04-2009, 11:08 AM

Capitalism is the ultimate goal for an Objectivist. Capitalism is the only political situation in which individuals are ultimately free to pursue their own self-interest, as according to the only ethical standards that make any fucking sense in the world, and capitalism can only exist in a society under which private property rights are strictly protected against all forms of force and fraud.

In an anarchist society, might makes right. Whomever has the biggest mob behind them, enforcing *THEIR* supposed "rights" and laws will dominate the society. The ONLY way an anarchist society could possibly enable capitalism would be if a large majority of the society spontaneously agreed to an unspoken, unwritten code of ethics that respected the property rights of the individual. Any anarcho-capitalist that thinks this could realistically happen here, on this planet and at any time in history or today, is deluding him or herself.

Of course its POSSIBLE, and I would love to live in such a society. Galt's Gulch was essentially an anarcho-capitalist ideal! I haven't such a high regard for humanity that I think it could happen however, and in the absence of an entire society of like-minded, rational, respectful people I find absolutely NO moral quagmire in promoting a monopolistic government that acts solely in the interests of preserving human rights by the use of retaliatory force.

The ultimate goal for me is not the elimination of the State, nor is it even the creation of a capitalist utopia.

The ultimate goal for me is to be able to live my life freely, according to my own values, pursuing my own happiness, neither being coerced nor coercing anyone else. Anarchy cannot provide this, but Minarchy can.

Xenophage

02-04-2009, 11:13 AM

sdczen

02-04-2009, 03:13 PM

The problem with Objectivists is they do not have a problem using governmental force in a voluntary society. They do not have a solution for the people that "Want to be left alone".

Mesogen

02-04-2009, 03:21 PM

I think the best way to discuss these types of topics is to envision hypothetical scenarios and then test them out under each "system."

An example: Let's say we live in a completely laissez-faire society that encompasses the entire North American continent. There is absolutely nothing that is considered a federal, state, or local government. A city in, say, Idaho called, say, Forreston, has about 15,000 people who live there. Almost everyone in the city has agreed to "Keep Forreston White." And they can do that because it is a laissez-faire society. Just about everyone who lives there agrees that they should. They don't put signs up or anything, but almost everyone who lives there understands this.

Almost everyone. So, now a black man gets a job as a professor down at a nearby liberal arts college and buys a house and some property on the outskirts of Forreston, about 20 miles from the college. He and his family move in, quite unaware of the sentiments of most of the local inhabitants.

This doesn't go ever too well with a lot of the locals and they'd really like the black family to move out. People come to the door and ask the man nicely if he will move. "No, I like this house and I don't want to move. It's too much trouble." A few weeks pass and then the requests become more like demands. The demands become more and more firm, but the black family just refuses to move.

Realizing that there would be absolutely no repercussions to committing violence on the black family, some of the locals get together and plan a raid. They do it. They kidnap the whole family, truck them to the mountains, murder them all, and dispose of the bodies. They return and burn the house down.

Most of the people in the town are relieved to see that Forreston was kept white. No one cares who did it or why.

In a totally laissez-faire society, what happens now? Or, would/could justice be served and how?

I understand that this sort of thing went on for decades in many parts of the US. The local government sometimes participated, in some cases the state government participated. But it eventually stopped because of state and federal governments' intervention into local affairs.

In this laissez-fire society who would intervene? Would the college intervene since they lost their professor? Would the bank who lent the man the mortgage on the house? Who would investigate the crime? Would it be worth it to them to do so?

Xenophage

02-04-2009, 03:41 PM

Xenophage

02-04-2009, 03:45 PM

The problem with Objectivists is they do not have a problem using governmental force in a voluntary society. They do not have a solution for the people that "Want to be left alone".

Um, yeah, to your first sentence. No to your 2nd.

I have no problem with government force whatsoever. AS LONG AS ITS RETALIATORY FORCE.

I could equally say: "Problem with anarcho-capitalists is that they have no problem with everyone initiating coercive force and the threat of force against everyone else all the time to keep things civil. Might makes right, in their world."

Obviously that's wrong. They do have a problem with it, but for some shortsightedness they can't see why anarchy inevitably leads to tyranny.

heavenlyboy34

02-04-2009, 03:50 PM

How could the black man get a job in the "whites only" zone (since everyone understands that it is a "whites only" zone)? Whoever hired him would be responsible for paying the damages incurred to all parties involved in rectifying the situation.

Since these kinds of interactions are regulated by contract in a laissez-faire society, we would only have to refer to that to unravel the situation. If that fails, the previously agreed-upon arbitrator would settle the issue (in voluntary societies, all agreements like this include agreements on arbitration of disputes).

I think the best way to discuss these types of topics is to envision hypothetical scenarios and then test them out under each "system."

An example: Let's say we live in a completely laissez-faire society that encompasses the entire North American continent. There is absolutely nothing that is considered a federal, state, or local government. A city in, say, Idaho called, say, Forreston, has about 15,000 people who live there. Almost everyone in the city has agreed to "Keep Forreston White." And they can do that because it is a laissez-faire society. Just about everyone who lives there agrees that they should. They don't put signs up or anything, but almost everyone who lives there understands this.

Almost everyone. So, now a black man gets a job as a professor down at a nearby liberal arts college and buys a house and some property on the outskirts of Forreston, about 20 miles from the college. He and his family move in, quite unaware of the sentiments of most of the local inhabitants.

This doesn't go ever too well with a lot of the locals and they'd really like the black family to move out. People come to the door and ask the man nicely if he will move. "No, I like this house and I don't want to move. It's too much trouble." A few weeks pass and then the requests become more like demands. The demands become more and more firm, but the black family just refuses to move.

Realizing that there would be absolutely no repercussions to committing violence on the black family, some of the locals get together and plan a raid. They do it. They kidnap the whole family, truck them to the mountains, murder them all, and dispose of the bodies. They return and burn the house down.

Most of the people in the town are relieved to see that Forreston was kept white. No one cares who did it or why.

In a totally laissez-faire society, what happens now? Or, would/could justice be served and how?

I understand that this sort of thing went on for decades in many parts of the US. The local government sometimes participated, in some cases the state government participated. But it eventually stopped because of state and federal governments' intervention into local affairs.

In this laissez-fire society who would intervene? Would the college intervene since they lost their professor? Would the bank who lent the man the mortgage on the house? Who would investigate the crime? Would it be worth it to them to do so?

Xenophage

02-04-2009, 03:52 PM

(in voluntary societies, all agreements like this include agreements on arbitration of disputes).

Name one such society.

heavenlyboy34

02-04-2009, 03:54 PM

Name one such society.

There hasn't been one yet. :( I was responding to a previous poster's question on the subject. We're speaking hypotheticals/ideals here.

Truth Warrior

02-04-2009, 03:57 PM

Name one such society. Most of the world for most of the people most of the time, forever in human history, day to day. ;) When was your last non-voluntary human interaction?

"Society are people." -- Frank Chodorov

Xenophage

02-04-2009, 04:02 PM

There hasn't been one yet. :( I was responding to a previous poster's question on the subject. We're speaking hypotheticals/ideals here.

Then you can't say all such societies tend to agree on an arbitrator of disputes. Maybe they do in your head, but your head is only big enough for a couple of midgets, and my head (being the size of the universe) has already developed warp drive.

If the hypothetical voluntary society were formed entirely of rational, respectful individuals - this would all work out beautifully.

That's the problem, though. People, by far and large, are not and have never been rational and respectful. Therefore, as far as actual, workable, realistic societies go - anarchy isn't even worth considering, except as a thought experiment or potential utopia in the far distant future.

Now, how about this: Why is monopolistic government immoral?

Xenophage

02-04-2009, 04:03 PM

Most of the world for most of the people most of the time, forever in human history, day to day. ;) When was your last non-voluntary human interaction?

"Society are people." -- Frank Chodorov

The last time I had sex.

Truth Warrior

02-04-2009, 04:07 PM

The last time I had sex. Did you not volunteer? ;) :D

Xenophage

02-04-2009, 04:08 PM

Did you not volunteer? ;) :D

I will decline to identify the non-voluntary participant.

Truth Warrior

02-04-2009, 04:10 PM

I will decline to identify the non-voluntary participant. Ok! How about the last human interaction before that, voluntary or not?

heavenlyboy34

02-04-2009, 04:12 PM

Then you can't say all such societies tend to agree on an arbitrator of disputes. Maybe they do in your head, but your head is only big enough for a couple of midgets, and my head (being the size of the universe) has already developed warp drive.

If the hypothetical voluntary society were formed entirely of rational, respectful individuals - this would all work out beautifully.

That's the problem, though. People, by far and large, are not and have never been rational and respectful. Therefore, as far as actual, workable, realistic societies go - anarchy isn't even worth considering, except as a thought experiment or potential utopia in the far distant future.

Now, how about this: Why is monopolistic government immoral?

That's why I didn't SAY that all societies tend to agree on arbitration. :rolleyes: You'd better slow down that warp drive, because you're hitting speed bumps too hard. ;)

You're right that people are not rational and respectful. That's why in a voluntary society, we design enforcement mechanisms in our agreements. We also reserve the right to self-defense and defense of those we care about. :)

No, this is not possible immediately-but no long term solution is simple. (the time between the DoI and the Constitution was roughly 10 years, for example) Since "archy" has proved less than doable in practice, some form of "anarchy"/"panarchy" is reasonable to consider. :) Thanks for responding!

heavenlyboy34

02-04-2009, 04:12 PM

Did you not volunteer? ;) :D

I lol'ed! :D

Mesogen

02-04-2009, 04:16 PM

How could the black man get a job in the "whites only" zone (since everyone understands that it is a "whites only" zone)? Whoever hired him would be responsible for paying the damages incurred to all parties involved in rectifying the situation.

Not everyone agreed with this in Forreston and the person who sold him the house and moved away wasn't quite aware of it. He lived on the outskirts of town. He had heard some things but didn't take it too seriously.

The place that hired him was 20 miles away and didn't know about it.

Since these kinds of interactions are regulated by contract in a laissez-faire society, we would only have to refer to that to unravel the situation. If that fails, the previously agreed-upon arbitrator would settle the issue (in voluntary societies, all agreements like this include agreements on arbitration of disputes).

Previously agreed upon arbitrator? Who agrees? Everyone? Would there be a vote?

If you mean an arbitrator previously agreed upon by the now-dead black guy and... whom?

If the society is voluntary, then some people would be free to never be "arbitrated" against since they didn't agree to it. "I don't recognize this court. It has no jurisdiction over me." Tough shit, you're going to pay retribution for what you did and this court is going to decide what that is and if you don't pay we'll take it by force.

Guess what. That's called government.

sdczen

02-04-2009, 04:18 PM

Um, yeah, to your first sentence. No to your 2nd.

I have no problem with government force whatsoever. AS LONG AS ITS RETALIATORY FORCE.

I could equally say: "Problem with anarcho-capitalists is that they have no problem with everyone initiating coercive force and the threat of force against everyone else all the time to keep things civil. Might makes right, in their world."

Obviously that's wrong. They do have a problem with it, but for some shortsightedness they can't see why anarchy inevitably leads to tyranny.

This is the problem "retaliatory force" will always be misused. If you have a government police force (notice the word force, in police force?) with humans interpreting subjective laws, along with the one-size-fits-all Hammer of the state; this leads to tyrannical police as we have now.

Besides, if we have a police force to enforce laws, this will only grow because once people stop committing crimes, there will need to be more laws enacted to justify their existence. Hence, where we are at today.

By the way, Anarcho-capitalists would not employ the threat of force, or coercive force. That goes against the first principle of Anarcho-Capitalism.

And, Objectivists do not have a solution for the people like me, who does not hurt anyone and only wants to be left alone. When I cross your arbitrary laws, you will use force because I did not submit when I jaywalked.

Mesogen

02-04-2009, 04:21 PM

You're right that people are not rational and respectful. That's why in a voluntary society, we design enforcement mechanisms in our agreements. We also reserve the right to self-defense and defense of those we care about. :)

Each individual would be responsible for "designing enforcement mechanisms" into agreements. Some people are smarter than others. They will easily fool dumb people into agreeing to all sorts of lame crap.

Also, if it's a voluntary society and you and I agree to something, why can't I just change my mind? What if we draw up a contract and then I later back out of it? What do you do now? Who is going to force me to honor the contract?

Truth Warrior

02-04-2009, 04:29 PM

Each individual would be responsible for "designing enforcement mechanisms" into agreements. Some people are smarter than others. They will easily fool dumb people into agreeing to all sorts of lame crap.

Also, if it's a voluntary society and you and I agree to something, why can't I just change my mind? What if we draw up a contract and then I later back out of it? What do you do now? Who is going to force me to honor the contract? You will. Who is going to contract with you from that point on without your posting a non-performance bond? ;)

heavenlyboy34

02-04-2009, 04:32 PM

Not everyone agreed with this in Forreston and the person who sold him the house and moved away wasn't quite aware of it. He lived on the outskirts of town. He had heard some things but didn't take it too seriously.

The place that hired him was 20 miles away and didn't know about it.

Previously agreed upon arbitrator? Who agrees? Everyone? Would there be a vote?

If you mean an arbitrator previously agreed upon by the now-dead black guy and... whom?

If the society is voluntary, then some people would be free to never be "arbitrated" against since they didn't agree to it. "I don't recognize this court. It has no jurisdiction over me." Tough shit, you're going to pay retribution for what you did and this court is going to decide what that is and if you don't pay we'll take it by force.

Guess what. That's called government.

Now you're throwing in new kinks. Let's address them. How could the employer not know about it? You're describing an institutionally bigoted society, and that kind of thing doesn't just "slip under the radar". :rolleyes:

So, a fatal crime has been inflicted upon this person. Since all individuals in a truly laissez-faire society would carry some sort of insurance (since the nanny state cannot protect them), the victim would be identifiable. Whoever is responsible for cleaning up the crime scene (citizens would pick the best investigator from competing investigators) would take care of the identification process, and the pertinent parties would be contacted to take responsibility for the body.

Having established that, the heir to the victim's "estate" would bear the responsibility of having the crime investigated and solved, using insurance money. (note that in a laissez-faire society, individuals associate freely, and there are no "wanderers" with no friends and family. Thus, there would be no reason for the investigators to have noone immediately concerned with the victim to consult with.)

Clear? I'm multii-tasking, so I may have left out some things. :D

heavenlyboy34

02-04-2009, 04:34 PM

Each individual would be responsible for "designing enforcement mechanisms" into agreements. Some people are smarter than others. They will easily fool dumb people into agreeing to all sorts of lame crap.

Also, if it's a voluntary society and you and I agree to something, why can't I just change my mind? What if we draw up a contract and then I later back out of it? What do you do now? Who is going to force me to honor the contract?

When the contract was signed, the participants agreed on the method of arbitration. This varies from instance to instance. If one is too "dumb" at first, he had better learn what's going on by the time he is an adult, eh? ;)

heavenlyboy34

02-04-2009, 04:36 PM

You will. Who is going to contract with you from that point on without your posting a non-performance bond? ;)

Well put! I wish I'd said that now. :o

Truth Warrior

02-04-2009, 04:40 PM

Well put! I wish I'd said that now. :o You made some good points too.<IMHO> ;) :) And the free market would undoubtedly provide even more viable options than we've thought of.

Mesogen

02-04-2009, 04:40 PM

You will. Who is going to contract with you from that point on without your posting a non-performance bond? ;)

So how would I claim my damages? Maybe some punitive damages?

What if the other guy has a fortress and big dudes with big guns patrolling around?

I don't have much money and can't afford more than a handgun.

Not much I can do about it in that situation.

heavenlyboy34

02-04-2009, 04:42 PM

You made some good points too.<IMHO> ;) :) And the free market would undoubtedly provide even more viable options than we've thought of.

Thanks! :) I've been reading a lot about this kind of stuff in recent months. ;):D

heavenlyboy34

02-04-2009, 04:47 PM

So how would I claim my damages? Maybe some punitive damages?

What if the other guy has a fortress and big dudes with big guns patrolling around?

I don't have much money and can't afford more than a handgun.

Not much I can do about it in that situation.

Provided that your agreed-upon arbitration doesn't work, you sign a contract with a bounty hunter-and stretch the payments out as long as need be (seeing as you don't have a lot of money). When the bounty hunter captures the rogue, you will take him to the agreed-upon court. Since the court exists in the free market and has a record of being fair (otherwise, you would not have agreed on it), the judge will resolve the conflict in a proper way. Now that you've obtained the money from your rogue, you can repay the bounty hunter early.

Problem solved, case closed. :D

Truth Warrior

02-04-2009, 04:51 PM

So how would I claim my damages? Maybe some punitive damages?

What if the other guy has a fortress and big dudes with big guns patrolling around?

I don't have much money and can't afford more than a handgun.

Not much I can do about it in that situation. Do you mean like D.C. has? :D

The bond would be held by an independent 3rd party, disbursement would result from the arbitration process, for instance. Have you ever paid a non-refundable deposit for anything?

This ain't any kind of "rocket science", it only requires SOME thought. ;) There's NO "magic" in government, it's ALL just folks.

Mesogen

02-04-2009, 04:54 PM

Provided that your agreed-upon arbitration doesn't work, you sign a contract with a bounty hunter-and stretch the payments out as long as need be (seeing as you don't have a lot of money). When the bounty hunter captures the rogue, you will take him to the agreed-upon court. Since the court exists in the free market and has a record of being fair (otherwise, you would not have agreed on it), the judge will resolve the conflict in a proper way. Now that you've obtained the money from your rogue, you can repay the bounty hunter early.

Problem solved, case closed. :D

This guy is rich and powerful with lots of big guns and trained professionals who know how to use them. He can take on any bounty hunter I can think of.

And in this town, the rich powerful guy has paid off every "arbitrator" or "judge" that can be found. Sure they'll take the case, and find in his favor.

It doesn't matter anymore, because I've been expertly disappeared by the other guy and it's in no one's interest to look for me or to prosecute the rich guy.

Mesogen

02-04-2009, 04:58 PM

Do you mean like D.C. has? :D

The bond would be held by an independent 3rd party, disbursement would result from the arbitration process, for instance. Have you ever paid a non-refundable deposit for anything?

This ain't any kind of "rocket science", it only requires SOME thought. ;)

What if the bond doesn't come close to covering damages?

If I put a $500 deposit on some crappy apartment, but I do $10000 in damages to it, the apartment owner will sue me in government court and most likely get his money from me.

Xenophage

02-04-2009, 05:02 PM

This is the problem "retaliatory force" will always be misused. If you have a government police force (notice the word force, in police force?) with humans interpreting subjective laws, along with the one-size-fits-all Hammer of the state; this leads to tyrannical police as we have now.

Besides, if we have a police force to enforce laws, this will only grow because once people stop committing crimes, there will need to be more laws enacted to justify their existence. Hence, where we are at today.

By the way, Anarcho-capitalists would not employ the threat of force, or coercive force. That goes against the first principle of Anarcho-Capitalism.

And, Objectivists do not have a solution for the people like me, who does not hurt anyone and only wants to be left alone. When I cross your arbitrary laws, you will use force because I did not submit when I jaywalked.

Objectivists ARE people that don't hurt anyone and just want to be left alone. Nor would there be any arbitrary laws in an Objectivist society. Jaywalking doesn't figure in, because in an Objectivist society all of the roads would be privately owned and this would fall under the realm of private property laws. If you own a road and you don't want people jaywalking on it, so be it. If you own a high speed superhighway with a special 1 foot wide lane that zig zags through the middle of all the other lanes and you only allow old people with canes to walk there, at their own risk - so be it!

Anarcho-capitalists would HAVE to employ the threat of force, and be subject to the possibility of force being used against them at all times. Unless, of course, you're postulating a completely imaginary society where everybody is rational and respectful, like I said. There is no such society, never has been, and likely never will be. There will always be assholes and insane people.

Retaliatory force cannot be misused. By its nature, its a proper exercise of force. What I think you meant, and failed to articulate, is: Exercising retaliatory force will tend to lead to exercising aggressive, or coercive force. This does not follow.

The_Orlonater

02-04-2009, 05:03 PM

My old thread did not get any useful answers. I wanted it to continue.

Conza88

02-04-2009, 05:04 PM

I'd like to ask a further question, because this will likely illuminate a great source of the differences between anarchists and objectivists:

What are anarcho-capitalist ethics? How do you come to conclude your ethics? In other words, what is the ultimate measure of "good" according to an anarchist? What is the ultimate measure of "evil"?

THE EXACT SAME AS LIBERTARIANISM. EXCEPT WE ARE 100% CONSISTENT.

The NON AGGRESSION AXIOM + PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS.

The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard. (http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics.pdf)

Pwnd.

Xenophage

02-04-2009, 05:06 PM

Truth Warrior

02-04-2009, 05:09 PM

What if the bond doesn't come close to covering damages?

If I put a $500 deposit on some crappy apartment, but I do $10000 in damages to it, the apartment owner will sue me in government court and most likely get his money from me. I'd say it was a stupid contract. Nobody is promising UTOPIA here, just a comparative advantage plausibility. How much of what D.C. REALLY does is "contract enforcement"? :p :rolleyes: .0000000000001%? :D

Xenophage

02-04-2009, 05:09 PM

THE EXACT SAME AS LIBERTARIANISM. EXCEPT WE ARE 100% CONSISTENT.

The NON AGGRESSION AXIOM + PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS.

The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard. (http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics.pdf)

Pwnd.

Non-aggression "AXIOM"? There is no such thing.

An axiom is not something that you randomly conjure up and proclaim in all capital letters on a message board. An axiom is a self-evident, metaphysical rule of logic that cannot be argued against without accepting first that it is true. For example: Existence exists is an axiom. It is an axiom because you cannot argue that existence doesn't exist. If existence didn't exist, your argument wouldn't exist, your words would be meaningless.

Here's another axiom: A is A. Things are what they are. If things are not what they are, nothing makes any sense.

Aristotle identified the axioms.

Pwned right back at you.

Xenophage

02-04-2009, 05:11 PM

What you need to do is ask, "Why non-aggression?" Why is that such a noble ideal? Why is coercive force evil? Can you even answer those questions?

I can. Its pretty simple. And it hasn't got anything to do with Jesus, either.

heavenlyboy34

02-04-2009, 05:14 PM

We can argue about extraneous crap all day long but the essential argument comes down to this: Firstly, is an Objectivist-style government immoral, and secondly, can an anarcho-capitalist society actually exist?

I say no to both.

Anarcho-capitalism CAN exist, but it will take some time and thought for humans to abandon barbarism and coercion and embrace logic and a decent sense of morality-which is necessary for laissez-faire society to exist. Stop focusing so much on large groups, and appeal to individuals to change within their own sphere of influence. Top-down NEVER works properly-and without coercive force.

Mesogen

02-04-2009, 05:15 PM

I'd say it was a stupid contract. Nobody is promising UTOPIA here, just a comparative advantage plausibility. How much of what D.C. REALLY does is "contract enforcement"? :p :rolleyes: .0000000000001%? :D

The market decided that no one would put down a $10,000 deposit to lease a $500/month apartment. The contract might be stupid, but market forces made it that way.

I'm not arguing in support of the current system in DC. I'm saying that a "voluntary" or "laissez-faire" society with no government, except largely unenforceable contracts, is much less desirable than even the current crappy system.

In the current system, the people with the money can game the system in their favor, but in the voluntary system, that problem would be even worse.

sdczen

02-04-2009, 05:17 PM

Objectivists ARE people that don't hurt anyone and just want to be left alone. Nor would there be any arbitrary laws in an Objectivist society. Jaywalking doesn't figure in, because in an Objectivist society all of the roads would be privately owned and this would fall under the realm of private property laws. If you own a road and you don't want people jaywalking on it, so be it. If you own a high speed superhighway with a special 1 foot wide lane that zig zags through the middle of all the other lanes and you only allow old people with canes to walk there, at their own risk - so be it!

Anarcho-capitalists would HAVE to employ the threat of force, and be subject to the possibility of force being used against them at all times. Unless, of course, you're postulating a completely imaginary society where everybody is rational and respectful, like I said. There is no such society, never has been, and likely never will be. There will always be assholes and insane people.

Retaliatory force cannot be misused. By its nature, its a proper exercise of force. What I think you meant, and failed to articulate, is: Exercising retaliatory force will tend to lead to exercising aggressive, or coercive force. This does not follow.

You can't have both government and the right to be left alone, so which is it?

I agree about the private property and what you do with it.

Anarcho-Capitalists would not have to employ threat of force. Stop, and look around. There are micro-societies intermingling everyday without incident. We engage in peaceful operations and contracts. I, and many others have been engaging business where the government is not involved other than taking taxes and forcing licensure. I have not had a single problem that could not be resolved personally, without the use of force or the legal system. Do you really think that the majority of people will go about scamming & threatening people? Really? I don't see it.

Lastly, retaliatory force can and will be misused. It's subjective. What constitutes an acceptable retaliation? And to what degree? Would that be your definition, or mine? The non-aggression principle works if people agree to it. Sure, there will be assholes that cause problems. But, I see that as a minority.

heavenlyboy34

02-04-2009, 05:18 PM

The market decided that no one would put down a $10,000 deposit to lease a $500/month apartment. The contract might be stupid, but market forces made it that way.

I'm not arguing in support of the current system in DC. I'm saying that a "voluntary" or "laissez-faire" society with no government, except largely unenforceable contracts, is much less desirable than even the current crappy system.

In the current system, the people with the money can game the system in their favor, but in the voluntary system, that problem would be even worse.

Who said anything about "unenforceable"? Just you, it seems. :rolleyes::p

The_Orlonater

02-04-2009, 05:20 PM

So, is this the 14094504850184750 thread on this subject? :D

Looks like we can't decide.

Xenophage

02-04-2009, 05:21 PM

Anarcho-capitalism CAN exist, but it will take some time and thought for humans to abandon barbarism and coercion and embrace logic and a decent sense of morality-which is necessary for laissez-faire society to exist. Stop focusing so much on large groups, and appeal to individuals to change within their own sphere of influence. Top-down NEVER works properly-and without coercive force.

To err is human.

Until the point in time which you postulate, which I would greatly like to see (but I find it more likely to see an alien in my lifetime), we need a constitutionally limited government.

heavenlyboy34

02-04-2009, 05:21 PM

So, is this the 14094504850184750 thread on this subject? :D

Looks like we can't decide.

I've decided! :D;)

heavenlyboy34

02-04-2009, 05:22 PM

To err is human.

Until the point in time which you postulate, which I would greatly like to see (but I find it more likely to see an alien in my lifetime), we need a constitutionally limited government.

Are you going to rewrite it to eliminate the crap the got us into this mess? Am I subject to your law if I don't sign your constitution? ;)

Truth Warrior

02-04-2009, 05:24 PM

sdczen

02-04-2009, 05:30 PM

Are you going to rewrite it to eliminate the crap the got us into this mess? Am I subject to your law if I don't sign your constitution? ;)

This is the problem with a limited Constitutional form of government.

1) It's government and it's inherently bad.
2) The constitution is perceived one way or another to fulfill one collectivist group over the other (by force, of course)
3) Government grows and grows and grows and grows and grows, then it collapses.
4) Government will always be at war with the individual, no matter the Constitution.
5) Government will always fight to survive at the expense of the people.
6) Laws are icky
7) Government, you can't eat, but it can eat you.
8) Government is a pension fund for criminal minds

Xenophage

02-04-2009, 05:33 PM

You can't have both government and the right to be left alone, so which is it?
This is a false choice. Government should be there to protect my right to be left alone.

I agree about the private property and what you do with it.

Anarcho-Capitalists would not have to employ threat of force. Stop, and look around. There are micro-societies intermingling everyday without incident. We engage in peaceful operations and contracts. I, and many others have been engaging business where the government is not involved other than taking taxes and forcing licensure. I have not had a single problem that could not be resolved personally, without the use of force or the legal system. Do you really think that the majority of people will go about scamming & threatening people? Really? I don't see it.

You are right, but you're ignoring the occasions where there ARE incidents of force and fraud. They exist. In order to reduce their occurrence to the least possible (which is the goal of civilization) the members of a society must agree on a final arbiter of disputes, and a common rule of conduct that says something to the effect of "don't be an asshole." This is called a constitution and a government.

Lastly, retaliatory force can and will be misused. It's subjective. What constitutes an acceptable retaliation? And to what degree? Would that be your definition, or mine? The non-aggression principle works if people agree to it. Sure, there will be assholes that cause problems. But, I see that as a minority.

Who decides in an anarchy? Retaliatory force is suggested by Rothbard time and again as a proper, moral response to a crime committed against you. Rand would be in agreement. You have the right of retaliatory force. The argument you present here seems to work against you, not for you. There has got to be a final arbiter of law.

The_Orlonater

02-04-2009, 05:34 PM

Are you going to rewrite it to eliminate the crap the got us into this mess? Am I subject to your law if I don't sign your constitution? ;)

This is getting to the point, when you need to get into details. Brusque and abrupt answers don't always go around in philosophy.

Xenophage

02-04-2009, 05:37 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle)

This article doesn't refute what I said. The "non aggression principle" is not an axiom. Its a good moral code.

Xenophage

02-04-2009, 05:46 PM

Are you going to rewrite it to eliminate the crap the got us into this mess? Am I subject to your law if I don't sign your constitution? ;)

The constitution ought to be very simply, and very strictly interpreted. Yes, it could be rewritten. Don't ask me to pull it out of my ass, though.

Since the government in an objectivist society only uses retaliatory force, what would you be subject to? Well, if you killed someone, or stole something, you'd be punished whether or not you ever agreed to the laws against murder and theft. Why? Because they are objective, rational constraints on human action, and in order for civilization to exist at all, and in order for people to live their lives being "left alone," these rules of conduct have to exist.

sdczen

02-04-2009, 05:50 PM

This is a false choice. Government should be there to protect my right to be left alone.

I have to admit, I went cross eyed when I read that. Would that be before or after you were forced at gunpoint to pay your taxes? The nature of Government guarantees that you will NOT be left alone.

You are right, but you're ignoring the occasions where there ARE incidents of force and fraud. They exist. In order to reduce their occurrence to the least possible (which is the goal of civilization) the members of a society must agree on a final arbiter of disputes, and a common rule of conduct that says something to the effect of "don't be an asshole." This is called a constitution and a government.

Tell me why we can't have arbiter without government? Sure, there are a few incidents where people commit aggression or fraud. This is the exception, not the rule. There will never be a perfect society, however, currently we have a Constitutional Government and these crimes still exist. I would argue that these crimes are Worse and in someways supported by government.

Who decides in an anarchy? Retaliatory force is suggested by Rothbard time and again as a proper, moral response to a crime committed against you. Rand would be in agreement. You have the right of retaliatory force. The argument you present here seems to work against you, not for you. There has got to be a final arbiter of law.

The individual decides in anarchy. If the individual decided it was not worth the time, nor the trouble to pursue, that would be his/her choice. With government there is no choice. It's all or nothing. Besides, I don't want government carrying out retaliatory responses on my behalf.

Xenophage

02-04-2009, 05:52 PM

I hope you all feel as I do in this argument, wherever it leads us: a sense of brotherhood and mutual respect.

I have at times called myself an anarcho-capitalist. I read L. Neil Smith and Robert Heinlein, for Christ's sake. I revel in this sort of argument, because I don't have to *facepalm* over someone's stupidity. I have great respect and admiration for all of the anarcho-capitalist philosophy, and I do not intend to discount it out-of-hand.

And despite the many things about which I'm rather stubborn, I honestly have a very open mind here and recognize I could very well be wrong.

The_Orlonater

02-04-2009, 05:59 PM

I have to admit, I went cross eyed when I read that. Would that be before or after you were forced at gunpoint to pay your taxes? The nature of Government guarantees that you will NOT be left alone.

Just adding a thought, but everyone I've ever met in my life doesn't mind a small tax.

Tell me why we can't have arbiter without government? Sure, there are a few incidents where people commit aggression or fraud. This is the exception, not the rule. There will never be a perfect society, however, currently we have a Constitutional Government and these crimes still exist. I would argue that these crimes are Worse and in someways supported by government.

Problems exist, but problems must be dealt with. Let's say some sicko murders his wife for whatever reason and then later gets caught by a hired group of individuals by the government through DNA testing or whatever. What's wrong with him going to prison? Most people really wouldn't care to help to wife's family catch the murderer.

The individual decides in anarchy. If the individual decided it was not worth the time, nor the trouble to pursue, that would be his/her choice. With government there is no choice. It's all or nothing. Besides, I don't want government carrying out retaliatory responses on my behalf.

You can also have retaliatory responses.

Xenophage

02-04-2009, 05:59 PM

I have to admit, I went cross eyed when I read that. Would that be before or after you were forced at gunpoint to pay your taxes? The nature of Government guarantees that you will NOT be left alone.

I do not believe in taxation. Government doesn't necessitate taxation. User fees and donations would be sufficient to run a government as small as the one I would like.

Tell me why we can't have arbiter without government? Sure, there are a few incidents where people commit aggression or fraud. This is the exception, not the rule. There will never be a perfect society, however, currently we have a Constitutional Government and these crimes still exist. I would argue that these crimes are Worse and in someways supported by government.
We can't have an arbiter without government because we need ONE arbiter. If all people in a geographic area decided upon the same arbiter, it would be the de facto government.

The individual decides in anarchy. If the individual decided it was not worth the time, nor the trouble to pursue, that would be his/her choice. With government there is no choice. It's all or nothing. Besides, I don't want government carrying out retaliatory responses on my behalf.
So the weak are preyed upon by the strong, and the strong need not fear retaliation? Or would the market take care of that, too? What about the weak and the poor?

sdczen

02-04-2009, 06:01 PM

Conza88

02-04-2009, 06:05 PM

Non-aggression "AXIOM"? There is no such thing.

An axiom is not something that you randomly conjure up and proclaim in all capital letters on a message board. An axiom is a self-evident, metaphysical rule of logic that cannot be argued against without accepting first that it is true. For example: Existence exists is an axiom. It is an axiom because you cannot argue that existence doesn't exist. If existence didn't exist, your argument wouldn't exist, your words would be meaningless.

Here's another axiom: A is A. Things are what they are. If things are not what they are, nothing makes any sense.

Aristotle identified the axioms.

Pwned right back at you.

The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism by Walter Block (http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html) aka the Non Aggression Principle (NAP)

Did Aristotle identify Human Action as an axiom?

No he didn't.

Pwnd. :rolleyes:

Btw, I've read Aristotle's Ethics. Subjective theory of value wasn't in there. ;) And for 2000 years, his word was not to be questioned. He didn't defend the market etc. But that's all right, it's not what he's known for.

Xenophage

02-04-2009, 06:05 PM

The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism by Walter Block (http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html) aka the Non Aggression Principle (NAP)

Did Aristotle identify Human Action as an axiom?

No he didn't.

Pwnd. :rolleyes:

Btw, I've read Aristotle's Ethics. Subjective theory of value wasn't in there. ;) And for 2000 years, his word was not to be questioned. He didn't defend the market etc. But that's all right, it's not what he's known for.

None of those are axioms!

Except for "pwned."

Conza88

02-04-2009, 06:10 PM

None of those are axioms!

Except for "pwned."

Human Action is axiomatic.

You just got served. :D

It's time you did what Ayn Rand did.

Read Human Action. Here it is. (http://mises.org/humanaction/pdf/humanaction.pdf) She basically, took a sentence from it. Then wrote a novel about it. It's a source in her Capitalism an Unknown Ideal. Then she criticized Libertarians. Started a cult. And said we stole her 'work'. But hey, "we believe in property rights - let's go destroy the property of businessmen in another country. That's still allowed in our philosophy. Government has a right to defend us. Let's go bomb the fck out of the middle east. Iran is next, awwwwessssomee!!!111" :rolleyes:

Enjoy. ;)

Xenophage

02-04-2009, 06:16 PM

Human Action is axiomatic.

You just got served. :D

It's time you did what Ayn Rand did.

Read Human Action. Steal a sentence from it. Then write a novel about it. Here it is. (http://mises.org/humanaction/pdf/humanaction.pdf) Enjoy. ;)

Human Action is not axiomatic. Its a book. It may contain references to axioms. It may even present some ideas as new axioms. But it is not itself an axiom.

ax⋅i⋅om
/ˈæksiəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ak-see-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2. a universally accepted principle or rule.
3. Logic, Mathematics. a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.
Origin:
1475–85; < L axiōma < Gk: something worthy, equiv. to axiō-, var. s. of axioûn to reckon worthy + -ma resultative n. suffix

So, aside from the mathematical definition - how are ANY of Mises's conclusions self-evident to the point that they need no proof?

Mises provided an entire NOVEL of proof for his conclusions. He was a genius! But "Free Markets work" is not a damn axiom. Its a damn good idea, and damn right, but its not automatic knowledge.

By the way, what sentence are you referring to, since you've piqued my interest?

heavenlyboy34

02-04-2009, 06:19 PM

Xenophage

02-04-2009, 06:25 PM

I feel the same way. I thank you for starting the thread and for keeping such a respectful tone. I look forward to more of your debate threads like this. :)

Oh, I wasn't the OP. I came into this about half way.

heavenlyboy34

02-04-2009, 06:26 PM

Problems exist, but problems must be dealt with. Let's say some sicko murders his wife for whatever reason and then later gets caught by a hired group of individuals by the government through DNA testing or whatever. What's wrong with him going to prison? Most people really wouldn't care to help to wife's family catch the murderer.

I'd like to tackle this, if I may. The problem with sending the perpetrator to prison is that this sentence does nothing to compensate the victim's family. The family may get some kind of satisfaction from this, but the destroyed quantity (the victim) hasn't been replaced. If we are talking about a government prison, this compounds the problem. It provides human revenue to the prison racket and justifies the State's existence (among a multitude of humanitarian problems like rape, violence, and disease that go with prisons naturally).

As far as I can see, the only solution to this is to put some kind of value on the victim and demand that the perp pay it back. Going beyond this only benefits the State. If I need to elaborate, just let me know.

Xenophage

02-04-2009, 06:27 PM

Human Action is axiomatic.

You just got served. :D

It's time you did what Ayn Rand did.

Read Human Action. Here it is. (http://mises.org/humanaction/pdf/humanaction.pdf) She basically, took a sentence from it. Then wrote a novel about it. It's a source in her Capitalism an Unknown Ideal. Then she criticized Libertarians. Started a cult. And said we stole her 'work'. But hey, "we believe in property rights - let's go destroy the property of businessmen in another country. That's still allowed in our philosophy. Government has a right to defend us. Let's go bomb the fck out of the middle east. Iran is next, awwwwessssomee!!!111" :rolleyes:

Enjoy. ;)

You're confusing Objectivists with objectivists now, and I don't even want to get into it.

Thanks for the link to Human Action by the way, I didn't know it was online. I've only ever read excerpts, but not the entire text.

Truth Warrior

02-04-2009, 06:37 PM

This article doesn't refute what I said. The "non aggression principle" is not an axiom. Its a good moral code.

"The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, anticoercion principle, or zero aggression principle) is a deontological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological) ethical stance associated with the rights-theorist school of the libertarian movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights-theorist_school_of_the_libertarian_movement) (consequentialist libertarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialist_libertarianism) do not base their libertarianism on it[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle#cite_note-0)), is an axiom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom) of some forms of anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism), and also held by many political conservatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism), traditionalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalists) and natural law theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law_theory)."

:rolleyes:

Xenophage

02-04-2009, 06:40 PM

"The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, anticoercion principle, or zero aggression principle) is a deontological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological) ethical stance associated with the rights-theorist school of the libertarian movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights-theorist_school_of_the_libertarian_movement) (consequentialist libertarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialist_libertarianism) do not base their libertarianism on it[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle#cite_note-0)), is an axiom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom) of some forms of anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism), and also held by many political conservatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism), traditionalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalists) and natural law theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law_theory)."

:rolleyes:

Still not an axiom. That's a misnomer.

Xenophage

02-04-2009, 06:41 PM

I'm on four hours of sleep and I have to leave work now and go back to my non-working dsl at my apartment. So, unfortunately for the world, I won't get the last word. sigh

Truth Warrior

02-04-2009, 06:45 PM

Still not an axiom. That's a misnomer.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/axiom (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/axiom)

:rolleyes:

Conza88

02-04-2009, 07:23 PM

Human Action is not axiomatic. Its a book. It may contain references to axioms. It may even present some ideas as new axioms. But it is not itself an axiom.

WRONG. :D

It is an axiom itself. It's also the title of the book and there are other axioms contained within. Wtf though, you haven't even read it. Your ignorance is profound.

ax⋅i⋅om
/ˈæksiəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ak-see-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2. a universally accepted principle or rule.
3. Logic, Mathematics. a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.
Origin:
1475–85; < L axiōma < Gk: something worthy, equiv. to axiō-, var. s. of axioûn to reckon worthy + -ma resultative n. suffix

Exactly. Human Action is axiomatic. :cool:

So, aside from the mathematical definition - how are ANY of Mises's conclusions self-evident to the point that they need no proof?

Because you're a tight ass and won't click the PDF and read the first Part of the book called. "Human Action" I'm going to have to try find a nice excerpt, without pasting the whole chapter. Or maybe I should. Then you'd read it all and find out you're wrong. Which would be great.

Part One:

I. Acting Man.
1. Purposeful Action and the Animal Reaction
2. The pre-requisites for Human Action
On Happiness
On Instincts and Impulses
3. Human Action as an Ultimate Given
4. Rationality and Irrationality
5. Causality as a Requirement of Action
6. The Alter Ego

All are relevant, but we'll go with this.

"Action is a real thing. What counts is a man's total behavior, and not his talk about planned but not realized acts. On the other hand action must be clearly distinguished from the application of labor. Action means the employment of means for the attainment of ends. As a rule one of the means employed is the acting man's labor. But this is not always the case. Under special conditions a word is all that is needed.

He who gives orders or interdictions may act without any expenditure of labor. To talk or not to talk, to smile or to remain serious, may be action. To consume and to enjoy are no less action than to abstain from accessible consumption and enjoyment. Praxeology consequently does not distinguish between "active" or energetic and "passive" or indolent man.

The vigorous man industriously striving for the improvement of his condition acts neither more nor less than the lethargic man who sluggishly takes things as they come. For to do nothing and to bc idle are also action, they too determine the course of events. Wherever the conditions for human interference are present, man acts no matter whether he interferes or refrains from interfering.

He who endures what he could change acts no less than he who interferes in order to attain another result. A man who abstains from influencing the operation of physiological and instinctive factors which he could influence also acts. Action is
not only doing but no less omitting to do what possibly could be done."

Mises provided an entire NOVEL of proof for his conclusions. He was a genius! But "Free Markets work" is not a damn axiom. Its a damn good idea, and damn right, but its not automatic knowledge.

Says the dude whose never read it. Speak about something you are knowledgeable on. You're taking a stab in the dark in the hopes you're right.

By the way, what sentence are you referring to, since you've piqued my interest?

"What a man does is always aimed at an improvement of his own state of satisfaction. In this sense-and in no other-we are free to use the term selfishness and to emphasize that action is necessarily always selfish. Even an action directly aiming at the improvement of other people's conditions is selfish. The actor considers it as more satisfactory for himself to make other people eat than to eat himself. His uneasiness is caused by the awareness of the fact that other people are in want." - pg 243

That above, more so than this. But I'll throw it in anyway for those interested.

"Neither love nor charity nor any other sympathetic sentiments but rightly understood selfishness is what originally impelled man to adjust himself to the requirements of society, to respect the rights and freedoms of his fellow men and to substitute peaceful collaboration for enmity and conflict." ~ pg 168

Conza88

02-04-2009, 07:30 PM

You're confusing Objectivists with objectivists now, and I don't even want to get into it.

Thanks for the link to Human Action by the way, I didn't know it was online. I've only ever read excerpts, but not the entire text.

You're confusing anarchists with anarcho-capitalists.

No worries. :)

Audiobook coming soon, or you can get it off some torrents.

Mesogen

02-05-2009, 02:20 PM

Who said anything about "unenforceable"? Just you, it seems. :rolleyes::p

So under the nonagression principle, when is force justified? Who carries out the force? Who decides when it is justified and who carries it out?

Is it always the 2 parties directly involved in the agreement? What if I change my mind? I don't agree anymore? Who's job is it to say "tough titties, you've got to pay," and then get the money (or whatever) through the use of force?

I don't think I've gotten any kind of response to my little hypothetical story.

I was hoping someone could give me a story of their own about how "justice" was served in the case of the murdered family. Is the crime ever investigated by anyone? Are the perpetrators ever dealt any sort of "justice"?

It's like to old scenario where someone keeps trespassing on your land. They never stop and continue to walk across "your" land. What do you do? Shoot them? Put up booby traps that cut their legs off? After you've enforced your "rights" who's to stop the trespasser's family from enacting revenge?

Mesogen

02-05-2009, 02:21 PM

You're confusing anarchists with anarcho-capitalists.

No worries. :)

What's the difference then? Under anarchy there is no government and people are free to do whatever they want (pretty much). It's funny to me that there are different "schools" of anarchism, that are typically classified by which economic system they would follow, because once you've got anarchy, economic systems will naturally arise based on culture and market forces. No one person can decide that the economic system to be used in any location will be capitalism or communism or mutualism or whatever.

Most economies will turn out to be capitalistic because that's the most natural system to arise from individualistic cultures, such as those in the West.

Truth Warrior

02-05-2009, 02:25 PM

What's the difference then? Under anarchy there is no government and people are free to do whatever they want (pretty much). It's funny to me that there are different "schools" of anarchism, that are typically classified by which economic system they would follow, because once you've got anarchy, economic systems will naturally arise based on culture and market forces. No one person can decide that the economic system to be used in any location will be capitalism or communism or mutualism or whatever.

Most economies will turn out to be capitalistic because that's the most natural system to arise from individualistic cultures, such as those in the West. Historically, MOST of the anarchists, oxymoronically, have been socialists, goofy as that seems. Hence the necessary name changes for differentiation.

BTW, "anarchy" = "without a ruler". ;)

Mesogen

02-05-2009, 02:31 PM

Historically, MOST of the anarchists, oxymoronically, have been socialists, goofy as that seems. Hence the necessary name changes for differentiation.

BTW, "anarchy" = "without a ruler". ;)

Yeah. I get that.

But once there is no ruler, there is no one to tell people what economic system they have to follow.

So there should be absolutely no difference between one type of anarchy and another type. It's all the same.

Truth Warrior

02-05-2009, 02:34 PM

Yeah. I get that.

But once there is no ruler, there is no one to tell people what economic system they have to follow.

So there should be absolutely no difference between one type of anarchy and another type. It's all the same.

The capitalists tried to unload and avoid some bogus and crap baggage for clarification purposes.

heavenlyboy34

02-05-2009, 04:21 PM

So under the nonagression principle, when is force justified? Who carries out the force? Who decides when it is justified and who carries it out?

Justifiable force comes into play when one individual/group violates the individual rights of another individual/group. For example, say party A assaults party B. Party B is then justified in taking necessary measures to stop the assault. This may involve simple screaming or using a weapon. Now that the crime is stopped, we deal with the issue of 'did party B commit a crime in stopping party A's assault?' No. Since party A infringed on party B's property (himself) retaliatory force is justifiable (even if it is deadly).

Say party A escapes the scene. Party B now has cause to hire a bounty hunter to capture party A. With party A in the bounty hunter's captivity, party B can now sue party A in the court of his choosing. (remember-in this laissez-faire society, courts operate on the free market, and the victim would have an extensive choice of courts who are competent in this field.) The judge will use his extraordinary faculties and resources to find the best possible sentence.

Is it always the 2 parties directly involved in the agreement? What if I change my mind? I don't agree anymore? Who's job is it to say "tough titties, you've got to pay," and then get the money (or whatever) through the use of force?

Yes, it is always the 2 parties involved in the voluntary transaction. If you change your mind, you have committed breach of contract, which must be settled in the pre-determined manner(it is stated in the agreement, you see).

I don't think I've gotten any kind of response to my little hypothetical story.I hope I've helped you here. Please ask questions if not.

I was hoping someone could give me a story of their own about how "justice" was served in the case of the murdered family. Is the crime ever investigated by anyone? Are the perpetrators ever dealt any sort of "justice"?

I think I've already pretty well covered this, but I'll reiterate regardless. Whoever has enough money and interest in the case can pay for a proper investigation. Justice would be dealt in the afore-described manner.

It's like to old scenario where someone keeps trespassing on your land. They never stop and continue to walk across "your" land. What do you do? Shoot them? Put up booby traps that cut their legs off? After you've enforced your "rights" who's to stop the trespasser's family from enacting revenge?

If you care about your land, you would be best to put up a fence or warning sign. Since you've chosen to own property, you also bear the responsibility of protecting said property. If you put booby traps in the middle of your yard where they can't hurt innocent people, that's fine. The reason that the trespasser's family would not seek revenge is that they know that I am armed well enough to fend them off, and I have hired security forces on top of that. None of this is "secret" in a laissez-faire society, so only truly insane people would try to do insane things. The overwhelming incentive is to respect others and their rights, you see.

Questions? Comments? I await them eagerly. :D

Xenophage

02-05-2009, 05:25 PM

WRONG. :D

It is an axiom itself. It's also the title of the book and there are other axioms contained within. Wtf though, you haven't even read it. Your ignorance is profound.

Exactly. Human Action is axiomatic. :cool:

Because you're a tight ass and won't click the PDF and read the first Part of the book called. "Human Action" I'm going to have to try find a nice excerpt, without pasting the whole chapter. Or maybe I should. Then you'd read it all and find out you're wrong. Which would be great.

All are relevant, but we'll go with this.

"Action is a real thing. What counts is a man's total behavior, and not his talk about planned but not realized acts. On the other hand action must be clearly distinguished from the application of labor. Action means the employment of means for the attainment of ends. As a rule one of the means employed is the acting man's labor. But this is not always the case. Under special conditions a word is all that is needed.

He who gives orders or interdictions may act without any expenditure of labor. To talk or not to talk, to smile or to remain serious, may be action. To consume and to enjoy are no less action than to abstain from accessible consumption and enjoyment. Praxeology consequently does not distinguish between "active" or energetic and "passive" or indolent man.

The vigorous man industriously striving for the improvement of his condition acts neither more nor less than the lethargic man who sluggishly takes things as they come. For to do nothing and to bc idle are also action, they too determine the course of events. Wherever the conditions for human interference are present, man acts no matter whether he interferes or refrains from interfering.

He who endures what he could change acts no less than he who interferes in order to attain another result. A man who abstains from influencing the operation of physiological and instinctive factors which he could influence also acts. Action is
not only doing but no less omitting to do what possibly could be done."

Says the dude whose never read it. Speak about something you are knowledgeable on. You're taking a stab in the dark in the hopes you're right.

That above, more so than this. But I'll throw it in anyway for those interested.

AHEM.

The idea "Human's act" or "human action exists" can be considered an axiom. "Human Action" however is not even a statement - its the title of a book - its not an axiom. You were referring to the entire text as an axiom, e.g. "Mises' ideas are irrefutable, self-evident, and need no proof." That would defeat the purpose of writing a novel about them, wouldn't it? Its fine to say with a great deal of certainty that "Humans are beings that act," but it is not an idea unique to Mises nor is it the subject of his entire book. His book expounds upon the idea that humans act, and uses this premise to support his theories of free market economics.

There is also a problem with saying "Non-aggression is morally good" or that it is the measure of what is or is not morally good. If you can't offer any evidence or explanation for something that you believe then it behooves you to rethink your position. There are very few things that are actually self-evident, and the more abstracted your philosophy becomes the less likely you are to discover self-evident axioms.

The idea that non-aggression is a standard of moral value is extremely abstracted. It deals with the realm of ethics, which necessarily is founded on your epistemology, and your metaphysics, and gets back to the root of your real axioms. "Non-aggression" and "free markets" are, or at least ought to be, logical conclusions - not dogmas.

If you insist that every idea in "Human Action" is an axiom, your entire philosophy reeks of dogma and anti-intellectualism.

Conza88

02-05-2009, 08:01 PM

AHEM.

The idea "Human's act" or "human action exists" can be considered an axiom. "Human Action" however is not even a statement - its the title of a book - its not an axiom. You were referring to the entire text as an axiom, e.g. "Mises' ideas are irrefutable, self-evident, and need no proof." That would defeat the purpose of writing a novel about them, wouldn't it? Its fine to say with a great deal of certainty that "Humans are beings that act," but it is not an idea unique to Mises nor is it the subject of his entire book. His book expounds upon the idea that humans act, and uses this premise to support his theories of free market economics.

There is also a problem with saying "Non-aggression is morally good" or that it is the measure of what is or is not morally good. If you can't offer any evidence or explanation for something that you believe then it behooves you to rethink your position. There are very few things that are actually self-evident, and the more abstracted your philosophy becomes the less likely you are to discover self-evident axioms.

The idea that non-aggression is a standard of moral value is extremely abstracted. It deals with the realm of ethics, which necessarily is founded on your epistemology, and your metaphysics, and gets back to the root of your real axioms. "Non-aggression" and "free markets" are, or at least ought to be, logical conclusions - not dogmas.

If you insist that every idea in "Human Action" is an axiom, your entire philosophy reeks of dogma and anti-intellectualism.

Oh FFS! You are arguing over the ESOTERIC, that's it. It may have been unclear, but I was never referring to the title of the book as being an axiom "because it's the title of the book and everything contained within is as such" :rolleyes:!, as I stated:

Humans exist. Everything they do is an action. = HUMAN ACTION IS AXIOMATIC.

Again for the retarded, deaf and dumb - not referring to the title here of the book and everything contained within. Geezus christ. :rolleyes:

This all comes back to the point of where this started. You outlined Aristotle wrote down all the axioms, I pointed out you / ( He Aristotle) entirely missed Human Action (humans exist, and action is self evident)... :rolleyes:

And relatively had no idea about markets etc. The problem with Plato etc, they saw society as an entity in itself, they always looked at the whole and devised plans etc. they never looked at it from an INDIVIDUALS outlining perspective.

You own your body, self ownership = self evident. What you create (mix with your labour) you own. If someone is too take that from you, they are violating your property, they are aggressing against you. You have a right to defend yourself and your property.

It really ain't too hard to fathom. :rolleyes:

What's the difference then? Under anarchy there is no government and people are free to do whatever they want (pretty much). It's funny to me that there are different "schools" of anarchism, that are typically classified by which economic system they would follow, because once you've got anarchy, economic systems will naturally arise based on culture and market forces. No one person can decide that the economic system to be used in any location will be capitalism or communism or mutualism or whatever.

Most economies will turn out to be capitalistic because that's the most natural system to arise from individualistic cultures, such as those in the West.

The traditional "anarchists" are socialists. They believe the state protects private property. ROFLCOPTER! Anyway, they idiotically believe if there was to be no state, people wouldn't have property, protect it etc. It'd become a social paradise, everyone would work for eachother etc. :rolleyes: !

So they go about it how they can. They don't believe in the non aggression principle and they don't believe in private property.

SO they USE VIOLENCE AND DESTROY PROPERTY, CHAOS, TYPICAL "ANARCHISTS / Socialists".

The thing is, when they realise people won't give up their property. They are basically going to FORCE people to give it up. "Anarchists" are retarded socialists.

Anarcho-Capitalists on the other hand, stem from Libertarianism. The foundation being the non aggression principle and homesteading private property rights. Anarcho-Capitalism simply remains CONSISTENT with this philosophy.

The state breaks the non aggression principle and it violates property rights...

Essentially; the "anarchists" aren't really anarchists. Anarchy = means, 'no ruler'. And they would have to impose one of some sort to get rid of peoples property, which is their ultimate goal essentially.

Anarcho-Capitalists are only the 'real' "anarchists" but the label has been tarnished beyond comprehension and it would be idiotic to attempt to compete against the other schools.

Murray Rothbard coined the term "Anarcho-Capitalist", and ALL the better. It really ain't a term you can corrupt imo. Which is great considering Libertarianism is being attacked from all sides in the esoteric battle.

The_Orlonater

02-05-2009, 09:07 PM

I'd like to tackle this, if I may. The problem with sending the perpetrator to prison is that this sentence does nothing to compensate the victim's family. The family may get some kind of satisfaction from this, but the destroyed quantity (the victim) hasn't been replaced. If we are talking about a government prison, this compounds the problem. It provides human revenue to the prison racket and justifies the State's existence (among a multitude of humanitarian problems like rape, violence, and disease that go with prisons naturally).

As far as I can see, the only solution to this is to put some kind of value on the victim and demand that the perp pay it back. Going beyond this only benefits the State. If I need to elaborate, just let me know.

Couldn't it be argued that sending him to prison will keep him out of society? Maybe in prison they can do a little rehab clinic course?

I'm sure under minarchy, my minarchy, there wouldn't be MANY people in prison.

Bman

02-05-2009, 09:52 PM

As far as I can see, the only solution to this is to put some kind of value on the victim and demand that the perp pay it back. Going beyond this only benefits the State. If I need to elaborate, just let me know.

You do. As the victim I decide the only solution I want is the death penalty. Money won't bring a person back or have prevented what has been done. However, death can prevent the guilty party from ever doing what you have done again.

And if you don't think a death penalty is an acceptable form of punishment. I'd have to ask how you plan on stopping me from carrying out my own form of punishment.

For instance if a person was to rape my wife. I'd take that money they gave me and shove it down their neck after I took their head off with the spade I was using to bury them.

heavenlyboy34

02-05-2009, 11:55 PM

You do. As the victim I decide the only solution I want is the death penalty. Money won't bring a person back or have prevented what has been done. However, death can prevent the guilty party from ever doing what you have done again.

This rationale has never worked. It is entirely illogical. The point of punishment in justice systems SHOULD be to adeqately punish the perpetrator for damage caused to the victim and his family. "Punitive" punishment is criminal in itself-the only difference is that the State carries out the crime rather than the individual. The may seem "satisfying" for some victims and their families, but in the real world, nothing of value has been achieved.

For example, hundreds of people have been killed by the state for capital crimes. Yet, these crimes continue to happen. Clearly, the threat of punishment itself does not stop people who want to commit crime.

And if you don't think a death penalty is an acceptable form of punishment. I'd have to ask how you plan on stopping me from carrying out my own form of punishment.

This should already have been clear from my previous rant on the importance of relying on oneself for one's protection. I'll do it again, if I must.

In a laissez-faire society (which I have been attempting to describe), individuals no longer pay tribute to the state for protection. The money they were paying into the State protection racket can be better invested in hiring one's own security detail. Perhaps an individual could recruit several others and jointly invest in a private police force! :) Only the free market can decide what is viable.

Questions? Please ask. :D

Xenophage

02-06-2009, 12:33 AM

Oh FFS! You are arguing over the ESOTERIC, that's it. It may have been unclear, but I was never referring to the title of the book as being an axiom "because it's the title of the book and everything contained within is as such" :rolleyes:!, as I stated:

Humans exist. Everything they do is an action. = HUMAN ACTION IS AXIOMATIC.

Again for the retarded, deaf and dumb - not referring to the title here of the book and everything contained within. Geezus christ. :rolleyes:

This all comes back to the point of where this started. You outlined Aristotle wrote down all the axioms, I pointed out you / ( He Aristotle) entirely missed Human Action (humans exist, and action is self evident)... :rolleyes:

And relatively had no idea about markets etc. The problem with Plato etc, they saw society as an entity in itself, they always looked at the whole and devised plans etc. they never looked at it from an INDIVIDUALS outlining perspective.

You own your body, self ownership = self evident. What you create (mix with your labour) you own. If someone is too take that from you, they are violating your property, they are aggressing against you. You have a right to defend yourself and your property.

It really ain't too hard to fathom. :rolleyes:

Actually the original statement you took offense to was that there is no such thing as a non-aggression axiom, which is true. Applying Cartesian doubt you should be able to get all the way back to real axioms, and none of them (that I can fathom) are ethical in nature. But this was partly a reason Ayn Rand didn't get along with libertarians: The purely libertarian philosophers offered no rhyme or reason as to why the "non-aggression principle" was such a great idea, and they all tended to assert it as some sort of irrefutable, self-evident basic truth, or axiom. Rand spent a great deal of effort focusing on the logical proofs of the non-aggression principle, but libertarianism is not a complete philosophy and seems to ignore all of this. She felt that weakened the arguments for Capitalism entirely - because if someone is to argue: "Why non-aggression? Isn't it natural that might makes right, and the strong should dominate the weak? Isn't that logical?" you ought to be able to have a leg to stand on when you rebut them.

Her outright hostility was a result of personal issues with Rothbard and other libertarians, however, and completely misdirected if not entirely unjustified. She was also distraught by an influx of mystics/religious people to the cause of liberty, which she also felt undermined the cause. Her goal was not just politics, however.

As for the rest...

When you mentioned "Human Action" as an axiom, and I said it wasn't an axiom, I understood full well what you meant by it - I was being silly by implying you meant the book, but you continued to debate me on it. :cool:

Also, Aristotle did not identify all of the axioms, you're right. You got me there. In fact, Descartes identified at least one of the most important axioms, almost 1800 years after Aristotle died (rough estimation?): Existence as an axiom, e.g. I think, therefore I am.

Xenophage

02-06-2009, 12:38 AM

I might also add I don't see self-ownership as an axiom. Ownership itself is an abstract, esoteric concept. Why should anyone own anything?

Xenophage

02-06-2009, 12:45 AM

I'd also like to add, I don't really CARE how you come to the conclusion that people own their own lives and ought to be free, so long as you believe that to be true. I have my own philosophy, and you can have yours. Also, as I pointed out in my very first post here, this whole discussion is side-tracking and irrelevant to our cause.

But I'm the sort of irritating douchbag that likes to argue about shit like this. Sorry!

Xenophage

02-06-2009, 12:47 AM

Also, Truth Warrior and Conza, if I had to choose between the death of either one of you and the death of angelina jolie, and if choosing to kill you meant I got to have sex with angelina jolie, I'd actually really have to think about that.

That's a big compliment. <3 you both.

captainelectron

02-06-2009, 04:10 AM

I might also add I don't see self-ownership as an axiom. Ownership itself is an abstract, esoteric concept. Why should anyone own anything?

I waded through your arguments here and really could not refute any of them. The whole human action equals an axiom thing was silly beyond foolish, so kudos to you for keeping your cool in the face of such insanity. FWIW, I have read HA multiple times, and I am happy to report that von Mises was more precise in a second language than most are in their first.

Finally, I have found fault with one of your assertions however. As an independent living being, you truly have a property in yourself. If it were an alienable property, then it could be assigned to another, but your property in your life is not alienable, because there is no you without your life. It is axiomatic.

:D

Truth Warrior

02-06-2009, 04:19 AM

I might also add I don't see self-ownership as an axiom. Ownership itself is an abstract, esoteric concept. Why should anyone own anything? Then why even bother to breathe, feed and take care of yourself? :p :rolleyes:

IF a lion kills a zebra for food, he owns the zebra.

I didn't design the system, that's just how and why it works.

Truth Warrior

02-06-2009, 04:21 AM

Conza88

02-06-2009, 08:13 AM

Actually the original statement you took offense to was that there is no such thing as a non-aggression axiom, which is true. Applying Cartesian doubt you should be able to get all the way back to real axioms, and none of them (that I can fathom) are ethical in nature. But this was partly a reason Ayn Rand didn't get along with libertarians: The purely libertarian philosophers offered no rhyme or reason as to why the "non-aggression principle" was such a great idea, and they all tended to assert it as some sort of irrefutable, self-evident basic truth, or axiom. Rand spent a great deal of effort focusing on the logical proofs of the non-aggression principle, but libertarianism is not a complete philosophy and seems to ignore all of this. She felt that weakened the arguments for Capitalism entirely - because if someone is to argue: "Why non-aggression? Isn't it natural that might makes right, and the strong should dominate the weak? Isn't that logical?" you ought to be able to have a leg to stand on when you rebut them.

No, you asked what anarcho-capitalist ethics were. I stated the Non-Aggression Axiom + Lockean private property rights. You took issue with it being called an axiom. Fine, it's a principle - whatever, you're the one crying over esoteric semantics. ;) The point still stands, in answer to your origional question.

WHY non aggression? Because you VIOLATE PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. Ftw :cool:

Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'? by Murray N. Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html)

Go on. Tell me which ideology is being illogical. I also re-refer to Roy Childs piece and the responses there of, at the start of this thread. :)

"The libertarian who is happily engaged expounding his political philosophy in the full glory of his convictions is almost sure to be brought short by one unfailing gambit of the statist. As the libertarian is denouncing public education or the Post Office, or refers to taxation as legalized robbery, the statist invariably challenges. "Well, then are you an anarchist?" The libertarian is reduced to sputtering "No, no, of course I'm not an anarchist." "Well, then, what governmental measures do you favor? What type of taxes do you wish to impose?" The statist has irretrievably gained the offensive, and, having no answer to the first question, the libertarian finds himself surrendering his case.

Thus, the libertarian will usually reply: "Well, I believe in a limited government, the government being limited to the defense of the person or property or the individual against invasion by force or fraud." I have tried to show in my article, "The Real Aggressor" in the April 1954 Faith and Freedom that this leaves the conservative helpless before the argument "necessary for defense," when it is used for gigantic measures of statism and bloodshed. There are other consequences equally or more grave. The statist can pursue the matter further: "If you grant that it is legitimate for people to band together and allow the State to coerce individuals to pay taxes for a certain service – "defense" – why is it not equally moral and legitimate for people to join in a similar way and allow the State the right to provide other services – such as post offices, "welfare," steel, power, etc.? If a State supported by a majority can morally do one, why not morally do the others?" I confess that I see no answer to this question. If it is proper and legitimate to coerce an unwilling Henry Thoreau into paying taxes for his own "protection" to a coercive state monopoly, I see no reason why it should not be equally proper to force him to pay the State for any other services, whether they be groceries, charity, newspapers, or steel. We are left to conclude that the pure libertarian must advocate a society where an individual may voluntarily support none or any police or judicial agency that he deems to be efficient and worthy of his custom."

Her outright hostility was a result of personal issues with Rothbard and other libertarians, however, and completely misdirected if not entirely unjustified. She was also distraught by an influx of mystics/religious people to the cause of liberty, which she also felt undermined the cause. Her goal was not just politics, however.

The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult by Murray N. Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html)

Religion or Spirituality isn't against Liberty. Watching the end of Zeitgeist Addendum (marxist technocracy bullshit propaganda) it becomes very clear, that the marxists want to destroy religion, and usurp it with the state.

Religion and Libertarianism by Walter Block (http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block103.html)

As for the rest...

When you mentioned "Human Action" as an axiom, and I said it wasn't an axiom, I understood full well what you meant by it - I was being silly by implying you meant the book, but you continued to debate me on it. :cool:

It didn't appear that you were trying to be silly to me. Maybe because, there was no real difference to your other positions? Oh well. Ha.. ha.. hilarious? :confused:

Also, Aristotle did not identify all of the axioms, you're right. You got me there. In fact, Descartes identified at least one of the most important axioms, almost 1800 years after Aristotle died (rough estimation?): Existence as an axiom, e.g. I think, therefore I am.

What about a coma? You stop thinking. Do you stop existing? :p </ass>

I might also add I don't see self-ownership as an axiom. Ownership itself is an abstract, esoteric concept. Why should anyone own anything?

Who controls your fingers? Who is typing the response? Who is reasoning, the action?

I'd also like to add, I don't really CARE how you come to the conclusion that people own their own lives and ought to be free, so long as you believe that to be true. I have my own philosophy, and you can have yours. Also, as I pointed out in my very first post here, this whole discussion is side-tracking and irrelevant to our cause.

But I'm the sort of irritating douchbag that likes to argue about shit like this. Sorry!

Hahah, rightio. :eek:

Also, Truth Warrior and Conza, if I had to choose between the death of either one of you and the death of angelina jolie, and if choosing to kill you meant I got to have sex with angelina jolie, I'd actually really have to think about that.

That's a big compliment. <3 you both.

The only correct response in a situation like that , if you are being forced to make a decision by someone, is to take the bullet yourself, i.e attack the person, try disarm them.

It's called Negative Homesteading. Walter Block has a good talk about it. For instance, if you are to be struck by lightning, and you can either take the hit, or pass it onto someone else. The only moral thing to do is take the hit yourself. You can't pass it on, so to speak. That would be aggression. :) Violates their property.

Conza88

02-06-2009, 08:17 AM

I waded through your arguments here and really could not refute any of them. The whole human action equals an axiom thing was silly beyond foolish, so kudos to you for keeping your cool in the face of such insanity. FWIW, I have read HA multiple times, and I am happy to report that von Mises was more precise in a second language than most are in their first.

Hahah, he admitted he was joking. HE was the one being SILLY, and he also admitted it. Sorry, you were saying? :D

As per the language statement, I'm on a forum. He was writing a treatise on economics. lol. But you're right, amazing man and epic vocabulary.

Btw, I suggest you read it for the 3rd time. :p [/QUOTE]

Pennsylvania

02-06-2009, 08:31 AM

I have not fully decided where I stand ideologically. I know that my heart lies with the anarcho-capitalists and I recognize that I cannot abide the immoral idea of forcible redistribution of wealth, which I see in all taxation. I cannot reconcile the idea of taxation with any moral form of government. However, the mechanics of those private interactions which would be necessary to keep peace and justice in a stateless society, I cannot describe in full detail.

I have recently been listening to Rothbard on audiobooks in my car, I haven't got to the part where he talks about private law and courts, but I can imagine no refutation of his arguments on other issues which are not self-contradictory in nature. I believe it was Noam Chomsky who recognized Rothbard as a "consistent libertarian".

Of course, anarcho-capitalists question the founding of any state, believing that that state will invariably grow in size, and naturally the counter-question is, in a society in which no state exists, is it equally as inevitable that a state will eventually be founded anyway?

Mesogen

02-06-2009, 04:54 PM

Of course, anarcho-capitalists question the founding of any state, believing that that state will invariably grow in size, and naturally the counter-question is, in a society in which no state exists, is it equally as inevitable that a state will eventually be founded anyway?

I believe you've hit the nail on the head. I usually try to walk an anarchist to this point, but this crowd recognizes that and I couldn't even get three steps away.

You just ask them what would happen to resolve this dispute or that dispute, this violation or that violation, and you end up with actions that always seem to border on state-like actions by one party or another.

It reminds me of the Supreme Court case Marsh v. Alabama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama), where a company owned a whole town (this used to be much more common (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_company_towns#United_States)) and it was determined that people still had free speech in this town even though it was "private property." The court determined that in cases like this the private entity was acting as if it were the state (all the sheriffs were paid by the company, etc.) and so the court had jurisdiction and the conviction of Marsh was overturned.

In cases like these, the state (state and federal courts) protected the rights of individuals against the will and power of a corporation that "owned" the town. They determined that even though a company held title to the sidewalks and streets, they didn't hold total dominion over every person that happened to be there.

Under a completely anarchist society, large corporations could own whole cities and require that anyone living in the city must work for their company. Lots of people would move out, but lots would stay. The living conditions and amount of freedom in that city (or hell a whole huge chunk of land) would be just high enough to keep a certain number of people living and working in the company town. They'd be kept in line by the men with guns. Of course, the workers wouldn't be able to bring guns through the checkpoints. It would be feudalism. And there would be a state, or a ruler at least.

heavenlyboy34

02-06-2009, 05:16 PM

I believe you've hit the nail on the head. I usually try to walk an anarchist to this point, but this crowd recognizes that and I couldn't even get three steps away.

You just ask them what would happen to resolve this dispute or that dispute, this violation or that violation, and you end up with actions that always seem to border on state-like actions by one party or another.

It reminds me of the Supreme Court case Marsh v. Alabama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama), where a company owned a whole town (this used to be much more common (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_company_towns#United_States)) and it was determined that people still had free speech in this town even though it was "private property." The court determined that in cases like this the private entity was acting as if it were the state (all the sheriffs were paid by the company, etc.) and so the court had jurisdiction and the conviction of Marsh was overturned.

In cases like these, the state (state and federal courts) protected the rights of individuals against the will and power of a corporation that "owned" the town. They determined that even though a company held title to the sidewalks and streets, they didn't hold total dominion over every person that happened to be there.

Under a completely anarchist society, large corporations could own whole cities and require that anyone living in the city must work for their company. Lots of people would move out, but lots would stay. The living conditions and amount of freedom in that city (or hell a whole huge chunk of land) would be just high enough to keep a certain number of people living and working in the company town. They'd be kept in line by the men with guns. Of course, the workers wouldn't be able to bring guns through the checkpoints. It would be feudalism. And there would be a state, or a ruler at least.

You're forgetting about the check and balance of private courts, contracts, and the right of individuals to arm themselves to protect against aggression. Since private ownership of some land is needed for workers and residents, the company couldn't control the WHOLE town. Besides, why is it bad that a corporation could own a town? They could provide benefits that attract new workers, like housing and so on.

Besides, what's keeping the residents in the town from moving to a new town? Perhaps they could band together and buy real estate in the town-which they would then control.

The western half of the US was once quite anarchistic in nature. The land was homesteaded by individuals, and businesses/governments grew up to serve them.

You're looking at this all wrong, you see. In an anarchistic society, the old state apparatus that allowed companies and governments to crush individuals would not exist to begin with.

I'll elaborate more later if I get a chance. TTYL.

~HB34~

Mesogen

02-10-2009, 12:45 PM

You're forgetting about the check and balance of private courts, contracts, and the right of individuals to arm themselves to protect against aggression. Since private ownership of some land is needed for workers and residents, the company couldn't control the WHOLE town.

Why is private ownership by workers needed? The company owns the land and the houses and rents them to the workers. Remember sharecropping? Same principle.

Hell, the company could require that anyone working for them rents one of their residences as a condition for working there.

Besides, why is it bad that a corporation could own a town? They could provide benefits that attract new workers, like housing and so on.
They could if they wanted to. Or, if they wanted to, they could restrict the behavior of anyone on their property to their liking. People could be free to leave (supposedly) but some people are more desperate than others and they will go along to get along. Sharecroppers were technically free to leave, but they knew their options were pretty much limited to working in the system or starving.

Besides, what's keeping the residents in the town from moving to a new town? Perhaps they could band together and buy real estate in the town-which they would then control. This is possible. But anyone who went into the truck system soon realizes that it is very difficult to get out without outside assistance. They would have to simply leave with nothing to their name and maybe in debt to the company.

The western half of the US was once quite anarchistic in nature. The land was homesteaded by individuals, and businesses/governments grew up to serve them.
And sometimes a company would come in, usually a mining company, buy up a load of land, and hire miners. Then they would set up company stores in the "truck system". You got paid in credit to the store, not cash. Usually people would end up working their asses off, only to be in debt to the store for their troubles. Hey, it was their choice, right? Maybe they were simply desperate and needed something, anything to survive. So they were taken advantage of. No problem right?

Besides, that land wasn't lawfully the government's to sell or give away. It was usually taken from natives.

You're looking at this all wrong, you see. In an anarchistic society, the old state apparatus that allowed companies and governments to crush individuals would not exist to begin with.
What state apparatus was involved in company towns and the truck system?