A Critique of Anarcho-Capitalism And Social Contract theory.

[Skooma Addict]

Hey, I wanted to post some critiques of Anarcho Capitalism and Social contract theory, and I think it would be better to combine them into 1 post. The post probably will be long, so only read the topic that interests you.


Anarcho-Capitalism


1. Many AnCaps simply assume that a stateless society will create more wealth than a society with a state. But this may not be as obvious as many people seem to think it is. Now, there are numerous reasons for this. The first relates to Hayek's argument that the state can perform the function of making certain knowledge, that is key for equilibrium, more available to the general population and as such advancing the dovetailing of plans. So if the government can speed the process at which the market would approach equilibrium, then may it be possible that this benefit will outweigh the costs of a government?

2. The second problem is regarding stability and expectations. One might say that the advantage of statelessness is that institutions can adapt more easily. However, as I see it there are certain institutions that are necessary for the functioning of the market (law, property rights etc). And the amounts of investment that goes on is a function of the stability of these. In other words, if people believe that laws are going to be different in 3 months under anarchocapitalism, why invest there?

Imagine that there's a "libertarian society" in which the laws are constantly shifting. Let's say the laws radically shift between a mutualist and a "Rothbardian" (for lack of a better word) conception of property. Given this, it would be pointless to invest in, say, the building of rental homes.

3. The third is quite a simple problem, and it concerns public goods. Now, of course, I know this area is problematic. But it does seem quite reasonable to suggest that free riders may eliminate the feasibility of protection of property rights. To be honest, I think this is particularly pronounced in education. Would scientific knowledge be where it is today without state funding? I doubt it.

All of my criticisms can be modified in some way to critique any other form of anarchism. So in a sense, this criticism can apply to all schools of anarchy.


Social Contract Theory


Well...I am lazy, and I am not going to waste my time typing anymore unless someone here actually believes in social contract theory. So I will ask, does anyone here believe that the Social Contract Theory is valid?

[IcarusAngel]

I think most leftists would favor the social contract theories over slavery and pure free-market capitalism and so on - as evidenced in the thread by hayenmill 'criticizing' some apparent recent advancements by the workers in the social contract game, with the revlefters generally favoring the workers, over theories like slavery, monarchy, and so on. Some ancaps prefer tyranny and fascism to democracy and the social contract - which says more about them than it does about actual theory.

I think most leftists, if you could group these things, would rank political ideologies as follows:

1. The classless, stateless society that we've all come to know and love (anarchism, communism, most forms of socialism, etc.).

2. social contract theory. There are many reasons for this. Perhaps one of the biggest ones is that there is some understanding that you're indebted to society someway. Perhaps another example is that there is an understanding that there exists communities. And, any society that was able to balance the social cohesion necessary to keep society in tact and individual liberty, would probably be pretty free and prosperous (many Western European countries) (as pointed out by Rawls and even some leftists, like Russell).

Many 'advancements' in society came by philosophers that advocated social contract: individual liberty and property, combined with respect for society (Locke), emphasis on individual creations and natural inequality, anti-war, anti-emperialism, anti-slavery (Rousseau; keep in mind Locke favored slavery and invested in the slave trade while Rousseau was for freedom, it's even debated by some scholars what influence Rousseau and french thinkers had on the American revolution).

Another big plus sign for social contract theory is that it is not absolutist. It is always changing, and usually it is progressing. There is no absolutist right to property and it's assumed in democracy that everybody has a vote, some land, etc.

Utilitarianism I think could fit in either 1 or 2.

3. Fascism, laissez-faire capitalism, monarchy, etc. These are all the 'worst' philosophies out there.

Historically, fascism has been more successful than laissez-faire capitalism and monarchies have lasted longer than the two of them combined, but they're all evil.

These are the 'worst' theories and they also happen to be the most 'right-wing,' if you will.

[Skooma Addict]

2. social contract theory. There are many reasons for this. Perhaps one of the biggest ones is that there is some understanding that you're indebted to society someway. Perhaps another example is that there is an understanding that there exists communities.

The "Social Contract" is supposed to explain a supposed obligation of one member to a class. But it is nonsense because of fact that just because a member chooses to cooperate with his peers, that does not prove that an obligation exists. Just because a person lives in a certain area, that is not a proof of their consent of that particular government.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The "Social Contract" is supposed to explain a supposed obligation of one member to a class. But it is nonsense because of fact that just because a member chooses to cooperate with his peers, that does not prove that an obligation exists. Just because a person lives in a certain area, that is not a proof of their consent of that particular government.
Interesting.

The government's "terms of use" - its constitution and laws - are publicly posted for all to see. Before you enter a territory ruled by a government, you have the freedom, and the ability, to read that government's laws. If you disagree with them, no one is forcing you to enter the country in question.

And yet you say that you are not bound by a government's laws when you choose to enter its territory in full knowledge of those laws?

Then the same could be said about every other situation where you enter someone's territory or use someone's property without having signed an explicit contract with that person. If I've never signed any contract to recognize your ownership of your house, for example, then what right do you have to keep me out of that house? You say you "own" it? Well, I've never agreed that you own it. Maybe other people agree that you own it, but why should I care about your contracts with third parties?

[Skooma Addict]

The government's "terms of use" - its constitution and laws - are publicly posted for all to see. Before you enter a territory ruled by a government, you have the freedom, and the ability, to read that government's laws. If you disagree with them, no one is forcing you to enter the country in question.

The people who are born in the country do not have this option.


And yet you say that you are not bound by a government's laws when you choose to enter its territory in full knowledge of those laws?

I would obey the laws obviously. But I am not bound by them simply because I have knowledge of their existence.


Then the same could be said about every other situation where you enter someone's territory or use someone's property without having signed an explicit contract with that person. If I've never signed any contract to recognize your ownership of your house, for example, then what right do you have to keep me out of that house? You say you "own" it? Well, I've never agreed that you own it. Maybe other people agree that you own it, but why should I care about your contracts with third parties?

Different societies and different people have different concepts of ownership. Since property rights are social constructs, all I can do is appeal to your subjective values and explain how I acquired my property through mutually beneficial voluntary transactions, and why the property is mine. But I do not claim you owe me something like the State does. I don't think people are born with property rights, just like I do not think people are born with positive obligations to others.

[Havet]

Interesting.

The government's "terms of use" - its constitution and laws - are publicly posted for all to see. Before you enter a territory ruled by a government, you have the freedom, and the ability, to read that government's laws. If you disagree with them, no one is forcing you to enter the country in question.

What about people who were born there?

Why does the State/government has any superior power that ordinary people don't have?

f it's wrong for people to murder, enslave, and steal, it's also wrong if done by government, because government is a group of people.

If it is wrong for a person to do X, then it is wrong for all people to do X.
If it is wrong for all people to do X, it is wrong for groups of people to do X.
Government is a group of people. It is wrong for government to do X.

This means, no war, no law, no taxes. This is not compatible with government.

Anything one group of people can do, any group of people can do. There is nothing inherent in any one group of people that makes them superior to all others by the very title which they give themselves.

The Social contract Olaf was criticizing would be indeed true if the United States Government actually legitimatelly owned the
land it claims to own. Of course, the State is not a voluntary
contract:

http://www.nothirdsolution.com/2009/01/15/the-state-is-not-a-voluntary-arrangement/

http://www.nothirdsolution.com/non-libertarian-faq/#7



Then the same could be said about every other situation where you enter someone's territory or use someone's property without having signed an explicit contract with that person. If I've never signed any contract to recognize your ownership of your house, for example, then what right do you have to keep me out of that house? You say you "own" it? Well, I've never agreed that you own it. Maybe other people agree that you own it, but why should I care about your contracts with third parties?

Indeed, there are no natural rights to ownership. It all comes down to intersubjective agreement. If you were to enter his house because you didnt recognize he owned it, but all the community around him recognized he owned it, then he would still owned it, regardless of your opinion (majority decision), and they would probably help him defend his property.

Same case if he came into a commune and started claiming a certain piece of land was only his. In that case, he wouldn't own it, because other people (regardless of their reason) do not agree. They would instantly try to remove the stolen land and kick the oppressor.

Many communists correctly identify that Private Property cannot derive from "natural rights" or "a priori axioms", but fail to extrapolate those arguments into communal property as well (believing communal property can derive from natural rights or some other argument).

They (some communists) claim there can't be any private property, and then forget that if the object doesn't like physically attach to yourself, then lots of objects cannot simply attach to a physical self in a collective, so collective ownership couldn't exist as well.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The people who are born in the country do not have this option.
Sure they do. They can emigrate if they disagree with the laws.

More generally, the fact is that people must be born somewhere. If it's wrong to place obligations on a person simply because of where she was born, then it is wrong to place obligations on me to respect your property rights, for example, simply because I was born in a society that respects your property rights.


Different societies and different people have different concepts of ownership. Since property rights are social constructs, all I can do is appeal to your subjective values and explain how I acquired my property through mutually beneficial voluntary transactions, and why the property is mine. But I do not claim you owe me something like the State does. I don't think people are born with property rights, just like I do not think people are born with positive obligations to others.
Ok, that's good. So what happens if my concept of ownership is different from the prevalent concept of ownership in the society where I was born? Do I have to abide by the prevalent concept of ownership anyway, even if I object to it?

If yes, then how is that different from what the state does?
If no, then please explain how it would be possible to have a property-based society where I am free to disrespect your property rights if I disagree with them.


Why does the State/government has any superior power that ordinary people don't have?
Because whenever person A and person B have a conflict, there are only two ways to resolve it:

1. Some mediator, C, with more power than either A or B, steps in to resolve the dispute and then compels both A and B to abide by his decision.
2. Might makes right. A and B fight it out (either physically, or with threats) and the strongest of them gets to impose his will on the other.

If A and B have contracts with private defense agencies or are members of communes or whatever, that doesn't offer any third option. It just means that their respective groups, instead of the individuals themselves, will fight or threaten each other in option #2 - and the strongest group will win. And by the way, "negotiations", in this case, are just a euphemism for threats.


If it's wrong for people to murder, enslave, and steal, it's also wrong if done by government, because government is a group of people.

If it is wrong for a person to do X, then it is wrong for all people to do X.
No. That's a non-sequitur. We've discussed this issue before. You are assuming that when something is wrong, it is wrong in any and all circumstances, regardless of consequences or context. I completely disagree.

It is wrong for me to shoot you for fun, but it is not wrong for me to shoot you in order to save the lives of 100 people. The act of me shooting you is not wrong in and of itself. It depends on why I'm shooting you, what consequences it will have, and what each of us did prior to the act.


The Social contract Olaf was criticizing would be indeed true if the United States Government actually legitimatelly owned the
land it claims to own. Of course, the State is not a voluntary
contract.
Well, then currently existing property rights are not voluntary contracts either. I never signed any document saying that the government gets to own any land, but I also never signed any document saying that you get to own any land.


Indeed, there are no natural rights to ownership. It all comes down to intersubjective agreement. If you were to enter his house because you didnt recognize he owned it, but all the community around him recognized he owned it, then he would still owned it, regardless of your opinion (majority decision), and they would probably help him defend his property.
So, if I was born in this community, then how is the situation you describe different from what happens under a government? You are saying that although I may disagree with the laws and rules of the society I was born in, that society can impose them on me - by force if necessary.

And don't bring up the fact that a communist society would do the same, because I'm not the one who sees anything wrong with society imposing rules on unwilling individuals. You are. My argument is that any kind of society, in order to function, must impose some rules on unwilling individuals. I'm trying to show you that the kind of individual freedom you advocate is utterly impossible.

[Skooma Addict]

Sure they do. They can emigrate if they disagree with the laws.

Sure they could emigrate...if they can afford to do so that is. They may want to stay because of their friends and family. The fact that they stay does not prove that they consent to the laws of that particular government.


More generally, the fact is that people must be born somewhere. If it's wrong to place obligations on a person simply because of where she was born, then it is wrong to place obligations on me to respect your property rights, for example, simply because I was born in a society that respects your property rights.

Each society will have its own laws that will depend on the values and the culture of the individuals who comprise that society. Is it wrong for society to force others to respect the innocents right to life? I would say no. But questions like these must left to each individual to decide for him or herself. But nobody is born with obligations.


Ok, that's good. So what happens if my concept of ownership is different from the prevalent concept of ownership in the society where I was born? Do I have to abide by the prevalent concept of ownership anyway, even if I object to it?

You don't have to, but I would recommend you do in order to avoid punishment.


If yes, then how is that different from what the state does?
If no, then please explain how it would be possible to have a property-based society where I am free to disrespect your property rights if I disagree with them.


A state possesses a monopoly of force over a given territorial area, and it has the ability to tax. I view such an institution as immoral. This is because I view theft, murder, and kidnapping as immoral. If you do not view these things as immoral, or if you do not think the state does any of these things, then maybe you would think differently. I do not think that forcing certain obligations on others is necessarily bad. It all comes down to your personal subjective values.

But again, the social contract claims I am born with obligations to others. The fact is that I am not. These obligations can be forced upon me, but I am not born with them.

[Havet]

Because whenever person A and person B have a conflict, there are only two ways to resolve it:

1. Some mediator, C, with more power than either A or B, steps in to resolve the dispute and then compels both A and B to abide by his decision.
2. Might makes right. A and B fight it out (either physically, or with threats) and the strongest of them gets to impose his will on the other.

If A and B have contracts with private defense agencies or are members of communes or whatever, that doesn't offer any third option. It just means that their respective groups, instead of the individuals themselves, will fight or threaten each other in option #2 - and the strongest group will win. And by the way, "negotiations", in this case, are just a euphemism for threats.

And such mediator C doesn't necessarily has to have more power than either A or B.

Let me give you an example from a novel:




(...)the survivors live by the Code of the West: Pay your debts, collect what is owed to you, maintain your reputation and that of your family. As a result there is little theft, and disputes are settled privately or using informal Judges who are loonies with good reputations. Failure to pay debts results in public shaming by having the debtor's name posted in a public place. Reputation is highly important in this society—with a bad reputation, a person may find others unwilling to buy from or sell to him. However, the book makes clear that repayment of debts only goes so far on Luna- people are expected to pay back debts using all available funds, with the sole exception of their "air money", since oxygen is a public utility on Luna. As rigid as Loonie society is about individual personal responsibility, there is still a strong awareness of the implacable and inhospitable environment by which they are surrounded.

Sometimes there are set duels, but custom requires that anyone who kills another must take responsibility for the effects of the killing, paying debts and looking after the deceased's family. This is similar to the concept of blood money (http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Blood_money_%28term%29)Blood money (term)

Blood money is money paid as a fine to the next of kin of somebody who was killed intentionally....
. Exceptions are allowed in the case of self-defense. Retaliatory killings do occur, but typically a consensus establishes which party was in the right, and there are no long-standing feuds.

"Oh but that's a novel, in real life it wouldn't work."

Evidence seems to indicate that in early america this was aproximately how disputes were also settled, given the nonexistence of State police, courts and judges, or their far away location.


"In the absence of a formal structure for the definition and enforcement of individual rights, many of the groups of associates who came seeking their fortunes organized and made their rules for operation before they left their homes. Much the same as company charters today, these voluntary contracts entered into by the miners specified financing for the operation as well as the nature of the relationship between individuals. These rules applied only to the miners in the company and did not recognize any outside arbitrator of disputes; they did not "recognize any higher court than the law of the majority of the company."

on company's relation to their employees:

"In addition to the rules listed above, company constitutions often specified arrangements for payments to be used for caring for the sick and unfortunate, rules for personal conduct including the use of alcoholic spirits, and fines which could be imposed for misconduct, to
mention a few.'In the truest nature of the social contract, the governing rules of the company were negotiated, and as in all market transactions unanimity prevailed. Those who wished to purchase other "bundles of goods" or other sets of rules had that alternative."
on how land disputes were settled:

"A mass meeting of miners was held June 8, 1859, and a committee appointed to draft a code of laws. This committee laid out boundaries for the district, and their civil code, after some discussion and amendment, was unanimously adopted in mass meeting, July 16. 1859. The
example was rapidly followed in other districts, and the whole Territory was soon divided between a score of local sovereignties.'"

resolving of disputes:

"While the mining camps did not have private courts where individuals could take their disputes and pay for arbitration, they did develop a system of justice through the miners' courts. These courts seldom had permanent officers, although there were instances ofjustices of the peace. The folk-moot system was common in California. By this method a group of citizens was summoned to try a case. From their midst they would elect a presiding
officer or judge and select six or twelve persons to serve as the jury. Most often their rulings were not disputed, but there was recourse when disputes arose. For example, in one case involving two partners, after a ruling by the miners' court, the losing partner called a mass meeting of the camp to plead his case and the decision was reversed.44 And if alarger group of miners was dissatisfied with the general rulings regarding camp boundaries or individual
claim disputes, notices were posted in several places calling meeting of those wishing a division of the territory. "If a majority favored such action, the district was set apart and named. The old district was not consulted on the subject, but received a verbal notice of the new organization. Local conditions, making different regulations regarding claims desirable, were the chief causes of such separations."4~ "The work of mining, and its environment and
conditions, were so different in different places, that the laws and customs of the miners had to vary even in adjoining districts."4"

competition for justice:

"In Colorado there is some evidence of competition among the courts for business, and hence, an added guarantee that justice prevailed.

The civil courts promptly assumed criminal jurisdiction, and the year 1860 opened with four governments in full blast. The miners' courts, people's courts, and "provisional government" (a new name for "Jefferson") divided jurisdiction in the mountains; while Kansas and the
provisional government ran concurrent in Denver and the valley. Such as felt friendly to either jurisdiction patronized it with their business. Appeals were taken from one to the other, papers certified up or down and over, and recognized, criminals delivered and judgments accepted
from one court by another, with a happy informality which it is pleasant to read of. And here we are confronted by an awkward fact: there was undoubtedly much less crime in the two years this arrangement lasted than in the two which followed the territorial organization and regular government"


No. That's a non-sequitur. We've discussed this issue before. You are assuming that when something is wrong, it is wrong in any and all circumstances, regardless of consequences or context. I completely disagree.

And what are the circumstances, consequences or context that allow the State (a group of people) to do such actions?


It is wrong for me to shoot you for fun, but it is not wrong for me to shoot you in order to save the lives of 100 people. The act of me shooting you is not wrong in and of itself. It depends on why I'm shooting you, what consequences it will have, and what each of us did prior to the act.

You would only be legitimate in shooting me if I were attempting to murder, enslave or steal from those 100 people (basically, denying their "right" to exist).

Your shooting would be self-defense in the name of those people (who, if possible, would have asked for your help openly, but lets imagine a hostage scenario).

Statist activity is not in self-defense, its active invasion, plunder and conquer, whether of their own people, or of foreign nations.


Well, then currently existing property rights are not voluntary contracts either. I never signed any document saying that the government gets to own any land, but I also never signed any document saying that you get to own any land.

Of course they're not voluntary contracts. They're enforced by a Statist entity. One would effectively need a revolution and consequent spontaneous order in order to allow people to commonly and intersubjectively agree on specific sets of rules (possession communities, cooperative communities, communes, etc) in order to achieve a society based on voluntary action.


So, if I was born in this community, then how is the situation you describe different from what happens under a government? You are saying that although I may disagree with the laws and rules of the society I was born in, that society can impose them on me - by force if necessary.

Ah, a very good point indeed. The difference is that that community wouldn't go around imposing their rules. It may (naturally) expand, but it would necessarily have to draw "borders" (which need not be physical) with different ideological communities.

Also, and without force, it is pretty believeable that such communities wouldn't increase in size as States are nowadays, therefore one born inside the community would always have a choice and open land (and sea (http://ecowanderer.wordpress.com/2009/06/28/seasteading-for-climate-change/)) to form a new community. Since any significant change will only happen in the future, spatial frontiers are bound to have widened (sea, space), allowing for more options at lower costs.


And don't bring up the fact that a communist society would do the same, because I'm not the one who sees anything wrong with society imposing rules on unwilling individuals. You are. My argument is that any kind of society, in order to function, must impose some rules on unwilling individuals. I'm trying to show you that the kind of individual freedom you advocate is utterly impossible.

Well, your thirst for sacrifice is noted. I ask only for no restrictions on those who wish to leave your commune, otherwise you better openly abandon the stance of a freer society real communists advocate, and embrace a more dictatorial stance that seems to suit you.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

f it's wrong for people to murder, enslave, and steal, it's also wrong if done by government, because government is a group of people.

If it is wrong for a person to do X, then it is wrong for all people to do X.
If it is wrong for all people to do X, it is wrong for groups of people to do X.
Government is a group of people. It is wrong for government to do X.

This means, no war, no law, no taxes. This is not compatible with government.

All you do is copy and paste the same shit. What if someone doesn't recognize "right and wrong" in the first place? I mean, aren't you the ones who are supposed to be upholding self-interest? Why should someone care about right or wrong if taxing the rich is going to benefit them, for example? Why should someone care about right or wrong if having laws against stealing are going to benefit them, for example?


The difference is that that community wouldn't go around imposing their rules.

You just said that the community can prevent someone from claiming a piece of property. I see no difference at all. What you're advocating seems like the "tyranny of the majority" that people accuse socialists of supporting, with the only difference being that you have far more decentralized "tyrannies."



Same case if he came into a commune and started claiming a certain piece of land was only his. In that case, he wouldn't own it, because other people (regardless of their reason) do not agree.

What happened to mutualism and possession as opposed to ownership?

[Havet]

All you do is copy and paste the same shit. What if someone doesn't recognize "right and wrong" in the first place? I mean, aren't you the ones who are supposed to be upholding self-interest? Why should someone care about right or wrong if taxing the rich is going to benefit them, for example? Why should someone care about right or wrong if having laws against stealing are going to benefit them, for example?

Please don0t mistake me for an Objectivist or right-libertarian/conservative/paleolibertarian/"anarcho"-capitalist


You just said that the community can prevent someone from claiming a piece of property. I see no difference at all. What you're advocating seems like the "tyranny of the majority" that people accuse socialists of supporting, with the only difference being that you have far more decentralized "tyrannies."

And they can legitimately prevent someone from entering their property ONLY because it is generally agreed (by the communities around them and all of the other people living nearby) that they OWN such property.

In fact, If i were naive and ignorant enough, I could take your argument as a counter-argument for communes and collective property, but I won't, because I recognize legitimacy if:
a) there's equality of opportunity
b) there is choice
c) there is general intersubjective agreement.


What happened to mutualism and possession as opposed to ownership?

You seem to be a bit narrow-minded. Can't you possibly conceive of two different communities, one with communal property, and other with possession, proudhonian banks, cooperatives and the like?

[Demogorgon]

You don't have to, but I would recommend you do in order to avoid punishment.

You have effectively just told us that your proposed system will be backed by force. How then, is it different from any other?

[Skooma Addict]

You have effectively just told us that your proposed system will be backed by force. How then, is it different from any other?


I only think backing some things by force is immoral. There are some things that I think must be backed by force. There is nothing wrong with force per se. It depends on the scenario.

Basically, people will be able to form their own communities and societies in the absence of a central government. These communities will have different laws depending on the culture and the values of the individuals in the community. This is how society would organize in the absence of a State. So it will still be a little unfair for those people born in a community with different values than their own. But I am not going to advocate a purely Utopian society. However a society without a monopoly on law and force would have many advantages.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Please don0t mistake me for an Objectivist or right-libertarian/conservative/paleolibertarian/"anarcho"-capitalist

I didn't. Most of these are people who accept that there are moral rights and wrongs. I don't, and so that quote you constantly copy and paste means nothing.


And they can legitimately prevent someone from entering their property ONLY because it is generally agreed (by the communities around them and all of the other people living nearby) that they OWN such property.

In fact, If i were naive and ignorant enough, I could take your argument as a counter-argument for communes and collective property, but I won't, because I recognize legitimacy if:
a) there's equality of opportunity
b) there is choice
c) there is general intersubjective agreement.Go ahead and make the counter-argument, I'm not an anarchist. If all the people in a community or area agree to something about property rights, it is automatically "right"? So the community decides my house is no longer mine and they can "legitimately" force me out? Okay, cool, Kwisatz point about force holds because they are in fact capable of imposing their rules.


You seem to be a bit narrow-minded. Can't you possibly conceive of two different communities, one with communal property, and other with possession, proudhonian banks, cooperatives and the like?No, it just seemed possession was your general prescription for how you wanted property rights to be and one of your safeguards against the re-emergence of capitalism.

[Havet]

I didn't. Most of these are people who accept that there are moral rights and wrongs. I don't, and so that quote you constantly copy and paste means nothing.

It means something: logic.

I was just showing how the logical extreme of the proposition that we need a government cannot be supported, because Statism is irrational.

The concept I am constantly quoting (because you don't seem to understand it) is called Archoexceptionalism.

It's the belief that government is magical. It's the belief that while it's wrong for people to murder, enslave, and steal, it's alright and even beneficial if done by government.

Concepts of right or wrong, for purposes of this discussion, are useless. You obviously think murdering is wrong ("Of whom?" you may ask. Well, picture a working class person), slavery is wrong (imagine the working class again), and that stealing is wrong (from the working class), by a person or group of people. Why then, if you held such actions as "wrong", illegitimate, despicable, counter-revolutionary, whatever (insert adjective here), would you support the same efforts, except done by a greater number of people (the government/State) which give such exceptional title to themselves.

To give you a concrete example:

When a man shoots a cop, even in self-defense, that's considered crime.
When a cop shoots a man, defensively or not, that's considered justice.

"No you cannot rob Peter, that's wrong. But Peter isn't paying his taxes, now Paul won't be getting a Social Security check."

"No you cannot force Peter to let you look around his house. But the police can get a search warrant and that's okay."

"No you cannot kill Peter, that's murder. But if he resists the IRS agents we're sending to his house we'll kill him."

"No you cannot print money, that would be bad. The Federal Reserve has to print all the money."

"Nobody but the government can build roads."

"Nobody but the government can school the children."

"Nobody but the government can stop the terrorists."

"Nobody but the government can offer police protection."

You can see the clear archoexceptionalism present in these statements.

Since Statism requires archoexceptionalism.

And Archoexceptionalism is irrational.

Then Statism is irrational.


If all the people in a community or area agree to something about property rights, it is automatically "right"? So the community decides my house is no longer mine and they can "legitimately" force me out? Okay, cool, Kwisatz point about force holds because they are in fact capable of imposing their rules.

It's not automatically right. Right or wrong means here, like you pointed out above. Their decision SHOULD be respected because it is the will of the people, the majority decision, no matter how irrational or illogical.

To deny their choice of decision would mean to acknowledge some certain inalienable rights, "natural rights", and then you go down the path of conservatives/right-libertarians/ancaps.

The question one needs to ask, is if under a system of the will of the people (and let's not forget, you would be free to set your community with like-minded people) one would have greater choices of losing their house than in a Capitalist system.


No, it just seemed possession was your general prescription for how you wanted property rights to be and one of your safeguards against the re-emergence of capitalism.

Its more of a personal preference rather than a dogmatic prescription. I openly tolerate other systems, like communes, as long as three things are respected:

a) there's equality of opportunity (to create new communities)
b) there is choice (to leave)
c) there is general intersubjective agreement.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

It means something: logic.

I was just showing how the logical extreme of the proposition that we need a government cannot be supported, because Statism is irrational.

The concept I am constantly quoting (because you don't seem to understand it) is called Archoexceptionalism.

I understand it, I just don't see how it matters or how it's logical to anyone that doesn't accept your starting point that there are actually such a thing as moral rights and wrongs or that to be against something you must categorize it as right or wrong in the first place.


It's the belief that government is magical. It's the belief that while it's wrong for people to murder, enslave, and steal, it's alright and even beneficial if done by government.
And I don't think there is some unchanging objective moral law that it's wrong for people to murder.


Concepts of right or wrong, for purposes of this discussion, are useless. You obviously think murdering is wrong ("Of whom?" you may ask. Well, picture a working class person), slavery is wrong (imagine the working class again), and that stealing is wrong (from the working class), by a person or group of people. Why then, if you held such actions as "wrong", illegitimate, despicable, counter-revolutionary, whatever (insert adjective here), would you support the same efforts, except done by a greater number of people (the government/State) which give such exceptional title to themselves.No, I don't.


To give you a concrete example:

When a man shoots a cop, even in self-defense, that's considered crime.
When a cop shoots a man, defensively or not, that's considered justice."No you cannot rob Peter, that's wrong. But Peter isn't paying his taxes, now Paul won't be getting a Social Security check."

"No you cannot force Peter to let you look around his house. But the police can get a search warrant and that's okay."

"No you cannot kill Peter, that's murder. But if he resists the IRS agents we're sending to his house we'll kill him."

"No you cannot print money, that would be bad. The Federal Reserve has to print all the money."

"Nobody but the government can build roads."

"Nobody but the government can school the children."

"Nobody but the government can stop the terrorists."

"Nobody but the government can offer police protection."

You can see the clear archoexceptionalism present in these statements.

Since Statism requires archoexceptionalism.

And Archoexceptionalism is irrational.

Then Statism is irrational.
Yes, I've seen your copypasta before. It'd be respectful if you'd at least once attribute what you're posting to it's author, because almost every single thing you post is simply lifted from some libertarian blog, and we wouldn't want anyone to get the idea that you're capable of thinking for yourself.

It's not automatically right. Right or wrong means here, like you pointed out above. Their decision SHOULD be respected because it is the will of the people, the majority decision, no matter how irrational or illogical.


To deny their choice of decision would mean to acknowledge some certain inalienable rights, "natural rights", and then you go down the path of conservatives/right-libertarians/ancaps.I don't recognize natural rights, or rights and wrongs. I'm also not the one arguing that the government shouldn't be able to steal, and that communities in my anarchic utopia wouldn't use force, while at the same time defending the idea of it being okay for the community to take my property.


The question one needs to ask, is if under a system of the will of the people (and let's not forget, you would be free to set your community with like-minded people) one would have greater choices of losing their house than in a Capitalist system.
Your anarchic system and capitalism are not the only choices. Perhaps a socialist society with a constitution protecting certain individual rights, guaranteeing employment, etc. would be better than both?


Its more of a personal preference rather than a dogmatic prescription. I openly tolerate other systems, like communes, as long as three things are respected:
a) there's equality of opportunity (to create new communities)

How does that mean you have equality of opportunity any more than the ability to open a business under capitalism means you have it, especially when the community can simply take everything I own?


b) there is choice (to leave)Okay, cool, "love it or leave it." What about Kwisatz argument dealing with this didn't apply?

[Havet]

starting point that there are actually such a thing as moral rights and wrongs or that to be against something you must categorize it as right or wrong in the first place.

It's NOT my starting point. There are no objective moral rights and wrongs. It's of subjective preference, and dependent on what one wishes to accomplish.

I was simply taking the common arguments FOR Statism, which include concepts of right and wrong, and take them to logical extremes to disprove them.

I have other arguments against Statism besides those, though.


And I don't think there is some unchanging objective moral law that it's wrong for people to murder.

Nor do I. That doesn't change the fact that some people pretend there is so as to justify a State, and it was to those people (which I mistaken you for one) that the argument was made to address.


No, I don't.

So what are your subjective ideal preferences over when murder/theft/slavery is legitimate/ideal/adds to overall utility?

Assuming you will come up with a certain criteria for your preferences, why would you think only a certain group of people were allowed to practice murder/theft/slavery, and how do you prevent them from using such given power to exploit their own people?


Yes, I've seen your copypasta before. It'd be respectful if you'd at least once attribute what you're posting to it's author, because almost every single thing you post is simply lifted from some libertarian blog, and we wouldn't want anyone to get the idea that you're capable of thinking for yourself.

The author has consented to anyone freely using his work. I have given credibility to his work many past times, by citing the source. In any case, here it is (http://boredzhwazi.blogspot.com/2007/01/archoexceptionalism.html).

Oh, and pardon me for copying something I think is written in a better way I could ever achieve spontaneously.:rolleyes:


I don't recognize natural rights, or rights and wrongs. I'm also not the one arguing that the government shouldn't be able to steal, and that communities in my anarchic utopia wouldn't use force, while at the same time defending the idea of it being okay for the community to take my property.

You're missing a point. In one case, the governing force is composed of the will of the people (anarchic communes/communities), and in the other, it is under the pretense of being under the will of the people (parliamentary democracy + State), when we see everyday that it serves its own interests first by stealing the money from the rest of society.


Your anarchic system and capitalism are not the only choices. Perhaps a socialist society with a constitution protecting certain individual rights, guaranteeing employment, etc. would be better than both?

Irrelevant strawman. Of course there are more alternatives (fascism, primitivism, etc), but we were comparing anarchy and status quo (aka Capitalism), weren't we?


How does that mean you have equality of opportunity any more than the ability to open a business under capitalism means you have it, especially when the community can simply take everything I own?

No, there is no equality of opportunity.

To quote my other thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/individualist-and-communist-t115125/index.html?t=115125):


Laborers are free to compete among themselves, and so are capitalists to a certain extent. But between laborers and capitalists there is no competition whatever, because through governmental privilege granted to capital, whence the volume of the currency and the rate of interest is regulated, the owners of it are enabled to keep the laborers dependent on them for employment, so making the condition of wage-subjection perpetual. So long as one man, or class of men, are able to prevent others from working for themselves because they cannot obtain the means of production or capitalize their own products, so long those others are not free to compete freely with those to whom privilege gives the means. For instance, can you see any competition between the farmer and his hired man? Don't you think he would prefer to work for himself? Why does the farmer employ him? Is it not to make some profit from his labor? And does the hired man give him that profit out of pure good nature? Would he not rather have the full product of his labor at his own disposal?"

"Can't you see that since the hired man does not willingly resign a large share of his product to his employer (and it is out of human nature to say he does), there must be something which forces him to do it? Can't you see that the necessity of an employer is forced upon him by his lack of ability to command the means of production? He cannot employ himself, therefore he must sell his labor at a disadvantage to him who controls the land and capital. Hence he is not free to compete with his employer any more than a prisoner is free to compete with his jailer for fresh air."

"It follows that if they had access to land and opportunity to capitalize the product of their labor they would either employ themselves, or, if employed by others, their wages, or remuneration, would rise to the full product of their toil, since no one would work for another for less than he could obtain by working for himself."

Another thing, there would be general intersubjective consensus that people could keep the products of their labor, or build businesses, in a specific community. Anything that would violate that consensus would turn all of the people of the community against the violator.


Okay, cool, "love it or leave it." What about Kwisatz argument dealing with this didn't apply?

I believe I have adressed (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1562666&postcount=9) all of Kwisatz's arguments. It's his time to reply back.