"What happens is, that for every evil, infallible plan you can think of, the free market has already thought of a counter"
This is the kind of wide eyed talk which economics students love because it sounds great when you draw it out on a while board and it has little to do with the real world. I think the key assumption is that somehow the free market is completely free of human intervention, that it operates outside of man made laws and simply allows a kind of evolution to take over. The fact is that a free market requires private property laws in order to operate, laws which are entirely man made and require man made solutions to keep them operating.
I'm living in Anarcho-capitalist heaven and someone came to my house and took my T.V. he then sat outside my house and tried to sell it to passers by. What now? Well now we have courts and police. Perhaps we can avoid government by having them privately owned and operated. Unfortunately the guy who stole my T.V. is the son of the guy that owns and operates my local law enforcement department. What now? Now we need larger and more elaborate means of arbitrating these kind of disputes. What would that look like?
“[The market] will at least make it unprofitable for you to do it”
Another important assumption made by the An-Cap crazies is that every agent in the market acts in their own interest at all times, that is, that every individual in the system attempts to maximise their own profit at all times. This is demonstrably untrue and not just when it comes to people “being nice”, that is reducing profit in order to help someone else margin, it also goes for spite, that is decreasing someone else's profit even if it decreases your own, it also assumes that there is no stupidity, that is no one does anything which they THINK will increase their own profit but actually has the reverse effect.
The whole movement is a dangerous joke, a joke because it's so obviously flawed and dangerous because there's a lot of people who use it to push the corporate agenda which has nothing to do with advancing human civilisation, which is what the best wrong headed an-caps have in mind.
On September 02 2010 13:17 Incognito wrote: When I spy on you and point a gun at you, you're going not going to worry if I have presupposed legitimacy or not, you're just going to do what I say or get shot.
Correct, but I don't call you a state. I call you a thug. But that's not exactly what the state is. If it was simply this, none of us would rationally attempt to defend the state. Nobody would rationally claim that it was necessary for peace, because it would instead be clear that it is violating peace. Does this make sense? You see, the government is not merely a bunch of thugs; they are a bunch of thugs with false presupposed legitimacy. So even if you are unfortunately correct, and it is inevitable that a bunch of thugs are going to take ultimate control, are you going defend them and claim that it's necessary?
But of course, my argument is that this recognition makes up all the difference practically to whether or not those thugs can have any genuine power over the population. Their power comes not from their mere ability to coerce, but from the idea that they have the moral right to initiate force. Take that false meme away and the state vanishes by itself. They would have no power to coerce others if people didn't falsely believe that are doing it legitimately. You see, states don't need to literally wage war on their citizens to extract taxes from them. If they were required to wage war, it simply wouldn't be feasible. In fact, states can simply draft citizens into their army because PEOPLE ACTUALLY THINK IT'S THEIR PATRIOTIC AND NATIONAL DUTY TO COMPLY.
On September 02 2010 13:17 Incognito wrote: After you get a monopoly/start building your own private corporate military, all notions of voluntary trade go out the window. Sure, you may have originally built your commercial empire through voluntary trade, but after a point you can enforce your power.
I recommend you watch this, because he goes into it in more detail than I could hope to cover here.
I also want to touch on the concept that states are merely like landlords setting rules on their own property. Let's say I own a house. For the sake of argument, I inarguably own the house. Now let's say I come home from work one day and I see a hippie smoking weed on my lawn. I don't get to throw the hippie in a cage in my basement for 5 years right? I think we can all recognise that this would not be considered moral. I might have a rule that says nobody can have weed on my property, but that's irrelevant. I still cannot morally lock the guy in a cage for 5 years.
So what gives the state the moral right to do this, even if you argue that they legitimately own all of the land?
Interesting read. Not going to lie though, I have no idea what you guys are talking about and I've had to go and look up some terms I've never heard before.
I'm gonna go play with my math books to feel better
On September 02 2010 18:36 dvide wrote: I also want to touch on the concept that states are merely like landlords setting rules on their own property. Let's say I own a house. For the sake of argument, I inarguably own the house. Now let's say I come home from work one day and I see a hippie smoking weed on my lawn. I don't get to throw the hippie in a cage in my basement for 5 years right? I think we can all recognise that this would not be considered moral. I might have a rule that says nobody can have weed on my property, but that's irrelevant. I still cannot morally lock the guy in a cage for 5 years.
So what gives the state the moral right to do this, even if you argue that they legitimately own all of the land?
The state doesn't own the land. It governs the land. It owns some where it is deemed more useful to be a public resource rather than a private resource. (such as roads, nature reserves, public utility..)
Part of governing is the task to make sure that on the publicly available resources, individuals in a country (region of governance) don't interfere with the utility of that resource beyond the reasonable. Incarcerating someone is a tool for coercing people to follow the rules established by the governing body. How those rules are established, I guess, is your beef. Personally I think there could perhaps be improvement, but I'm not gonna argue about an anarchaic (not a word?) system being better at that. I do like to point out that the state doesn't own all the land.
On September 02 2010 18:36 dvide wrote: I also want to touch on the concept that states are merely like landlords setting rules on their own property. Let's say I own a house. For the sake of argument, I inarguably own the house. Now let's say I come home from work one day and I see a hippie smoking weed on my lawn. I don't get to throw the hippie in a cage in my basement for 5 years right? I think we can all recognise that this would not be considered moral. I might have a rule that says nobody can have weed on my property, but that's irrelevant. I still cannot morally lock the guy in a cage for 5 years.
So what gives the state the moral right to do this, even if you argue that they legitimately own all of the land?
Well, in an ancap society I could pay an armed force for locking the guy away for 5 years (or longer if I am willing to pay more). Who would stop me from doing so? What would be my moral right to do this?
In the civilized world I don't know of any country who locks away a hippie for 5 years just because he smoked weed. But in those same countries there are certainly individuals and even groups of people who think that hippies should be locked away forever. Those groups might even be willing to pay a fortune or take measures in their own hand just to be sure that they will never encounter a hippie on their lawn...
On September 02 2010 19:09 Badjas wrote: Incarcerating someone is a tool for coercing people to follow the rules established by the governing body. How those rules are established, I guess, is your beef. Personally I think there could perhaps be improvement, but I'm not gonna argue about an anarchaic (not a word?) system being better at that. I do like to point out that the state doesn't own all the land.
I agree that they don't actually own all the land. I was addressing those who have argued this.
But ok, we agree that the government has no legitimate claim to the land. But let me ask you the same question again. If not from land ownership, where does the government get the right to lock somebody up for 5 years for smoking weed? Are you arguing that democracy gives the state the moral right to do this, so long there is a majority consensus? Remember that it is a victimless "crime".
Again, how does the act of voting magically defer authority to the state that I don't even have myself? Please explain this to me, because I always end up asking this in ancap debates and yet I've literally never had anybody even address it. If you think it's a loaded question, which might be the case, then say so. But please address it. Because clearly I don't have the right to throw people into cages for smoking weed, right? I think we can agree on this. So my 'consent' (even if I give it) is ultimately meaningless.
On September 02 2010 19:21 MiraMax wrote: Well, in an ancap society I could pay an armed force for locking the guy away for 5 years (or longer if I am willing to pay more). Who would stop me from doing so? What would be my moral right to do this?
You ask what would be your moral right to do this? NOTHING. And that's the point! Unlike with the state, I implore you to find even ONE person who would recognise YOUR moral right (not the state's moral right, BUT YOURS ALONE) to throw a pot smoker on your lawn into a cage in your basement for 5 years. That's true even if he is trespassing and even if you have a rule on your property that weed is banned. I think we can all understand how immoral it would be, which is the very POINT.
Those groups might even be willing to pay a fortune or take measures in their own hand just to be sure that they will never encounter a hippie on their lawn...
Oh come on. Utterly preposterous notion. What an utter waste of a "fortune". Do you think rich people are so stupid with their money? Oh, and even if they did pay a "fortune", would they merely kick them off their lawn or would THEY LOCK THEM IN A CAGE!?
On September 02 2010 19:09 Badjas wrote: Incarcerating someone is a tool for coercing people to follow the rules established by the governing body. How those rules are established, I guess, is your beef. Personally I think there could perhaps be improvement, but I'm not gonna argue about an anarchaic (not a word?) system being better at that. I do like to point out that the state doesn't own all the land.
I agree that they don't actually own all the land. I was addressing those who have argued this.
But ok, we agree that the government has no legitimate claim to the land. But let me ask you the same question again. If not from land ownership, where does the government get the right to lock somebody up for 5 years for smoking weed? Are you arguing that democracy gives the state the moral right to do this, so long there is a majority consensus? Remember that it is a victimless "crime".
Again, how does the act of voting magically defer authority to the state that I don't even have myself? Please explain this to me, because I always end up asking this in ancap debates and yet I've literally never had anybody even address it. If you think it's a loaded question, which might be the case, then say so. But please address it. Because clearly I don't have the right to throw people into cages for smoking weed, right? I think we can agree on this. So my 'consent' (even if I give it) is ultimately meaningless.
I agree with you on the weed. It is ridiculous how the USA currently handles that. I've read various stories on how the issue is politicized and that's a big minus on the government side of the balance.
The state, as I see it, is granted authority thanks to it being given by the individuals. Of course I should be able to take its authority away if I would want to, but I would have to be part of a majority for that to happen. Perhaps if 50% or more would vote blank, that would be the situation for government to pack its bags. I do have an issue with how current media and government interoperates in all of this.
Getting weed legalized, you have to fight two problems. Problem one is that the majority is happy with the status quo on most things and doesn't want to be bothered. Problem two is the image of weed in the media and culture. Or rather, how media and politics have cultured the usa to think bad about weed. A different political system would of course give you a different perspective on how to change such problems. I could say that in an ancap system, hypothetically, there could be a huge and insurmountable taboo (including severe penalties) for masturbation or sneezing in public (just to name something ridiculous). You would have a tough time to change the local culture just as you would with your weed example.
On September 02 2010 13:13 Incognito wrote: If human nature exists, it is futile debating the merits of different forms of government. You'd be better off debating what rules should/should not be enforced and how they should be enforced.
Excuse me if I'm misinterpreting what you are trying to say. I think this is taking the anarcho-capitalist economic theory and pointing out it's inefficiencies through utilitarian measures.
Ana-capitalists believe stealing in any form is wrong. Taxation is essentially a form of stealing, therefore ana-cap believe the concept of a government state is based on an ethically "wrong" principle.
The state then tries to justify the need for taxation by saying it's to provide safety for the common citizen. The ana-cap rebuttal is that a free-market security force would be more efficient than a state owned one. However without checks and balances nothing is stopping a corporate owned and operated security force from abusing their power. Could "capital and competitive interest" prevent this from happening? I'd say it would be a gamble and risk, especially when looking back on history and seeing what kind of mistakes "human nature" has made. It doesn't even have to be a worst case scenario. It doesn't have to be to the scale of a tragedy like the holocaust to be a complete failure. Civil war is basically a lose-lose situation and I could see something in the vain of the American civil war stemming from an attempt at anarco-capitalist society.
When I read other people's opinion on ethics in our society, I lose a little faith in mankind. These news stories about people becoming upset because they are building a mosque near ground zero. I don't think I could live in a country where we'd just have to hope that a powerful and violent group wouldn't take control, or in the very least pose a threat to us. Should it even have to come to that?
Checks and balances can be mediocre at times. It can also be inefficient at times as well. I think we'd be better off trying to find ways to make it as efficient as possible and finding "The greatest amount of good" than relying on an economic and moral principle that stealing is always bad in any form; which along with this principle, we run the risk of jeopardizing our safety and comfort by relying on human nature and "market justice".
On September 02 2010 19:09 Badjas wrote: Incarcerating someone is a tool for coercing people to follow the rules established by the governing body. How those rules are established, I guess, is your beef. Personally I think there could perhaps be improvement, but I'm not gonna argue about an anarchaic (not a word?) system being better at that. I do like to point out that the state doesn't own all the land.
I agree that they don't actually own all the land. I was addressing those who have argued this.
But ok, we agree that the government has no legitimate claim to the land. But let me ask you the same question again. If not from land ownership, where does the government get the right to lock somebody up for 5 years for smoking weed? Are you arguing that democracy gives the state the moral right to do this, so long there is a majority consensus? Remember that it is a victimless "crime".
Again, how does the act of voting magically defer authority to the state that I don't even have myself? Please explain this to me, because I always end up asking this in ancap debates and yet I've literally never had anybody even address it. If you think it's a loaded question, which might be the case, then say so. But please address it. Because clearly I don't have the right to throw people into cages for smoking weed, right? I think we can agree on this. So my 'consent' (even if I give it) is ultimately meaningless.
The whole concept of "victimless crimes" is loaded, has no meaning in law and is therefore irrelevant. Storing tons of TNT in my cellar does no harm to anybody, but we might agree that it is a bad idea and that imposing rules on people to not do it, could be a good idea, as long as the dangers associated with it, greatly outweigh the benefits.
Now who should impose this rule or any rule for that manner? In most modern states it is the legislative who decides on which rule should be passed, the executive who controls that rules are abided and the judiciary to punish non-compliance and to resolve conflicts. This is known as seperation of powers and probably you've heard of it.
Morality is not an applicable concept in all of the rules/laws that are passed, some are simply pragmatic and the same applies to an ancap society (or any society for that matter). Legitimacy, however, directly follows from the construction of the state, which is primarily based on consent, our only guidance for deciding what should be considered harmful and what not.
On September 02 2010 19:21 MiraMax wrote: Well, in an ancap society I could pay an armed force for locking the guy away for 5 years (or longer if I am willing to pay more). Who would stop me from doing so? What would be my moral right to do this?
You ask what would be your moral right to do this? NOTHING. And that's the point! Unlike with the state, I implore you to find even ONE person who would recognise YOUR moral right (not the state's moral right, BUT YOURS ALONE) to throw a pot smoker on your lawn into a cage in your basement for 5 years. That's true even if he is trespassing and even if you have a rule on your property that weed is banned. I think we can all understand how immoral it would be, which is the very POINT.
Those groups might even be willing to pay a fortune or take measures in their own hand just to be sure that they will never encounter a hippie on their lawn...
Oh come on. Utterly preposterous notion. What an utter waste of a "fortune". Do you think rich people are so stupid with their money? Oh, and even if they did pay a "fortune", would they merely kick them off their lawn or would THEY LOCK THEM IN A CAGE!?
I don't know what your hang up about weed is, but my whole point is that the same immorality could happen in an ancap society and certainly would happen as long as there are enough people who would consider it sinful, harmful or detrimental to their well-being. I personally think that weed should be legalized and am also sure that it will with the time. Nonetheless, in principal it is meaningful that some substances are classified as "dangerous", the question is only which ones and what should be done about it. Ancap does nothing to solve this issue.
On September 02 2010 19:54 Badjas wrote: The state, as I see it, is granted authority thanks to it being given by the individuals. Of course I should be able to take its authority away if I would want to, but I would have to be part of a majority for that to happen. Perhaps if 50% or more would vote blank, that would be the situation for government to pack its bags. I do have an issue with how current media and government interoperates in all of this.
But, that's either missing my point or ignoring it. The argument is that citizens are granting the government the authority to act on their behalf. But if they don't even have the authority to act on their own behalf, how can they grant authority to the government by voting? Or by any other mechanism? Just what is the mechanism? And again, I use the word authority in the sense of 'legitimacy' or 'moral right', etc. I don't just mean it as 'having the means do do so'.
On September 02 2010 19:54 Badjas wrote: Getting weed legalized, you have to fight two problems. Problem one is that the majority is happy with the status quo on most things and doesn't want to be bothered. Problem two is the image of weed in the media and culture. Or rather, how media and politics have cultured the usa to think bad about weed. A different political system would of course give you a different perspective on how to change such problems. I could say that in an ancap system, hypothetically, there could be a huge and insurmountable taboo (including severe penalties) for masturbation or sneezing in public (just to name something ridiculous). You would have a tough time to change the local culture just as you would with your weed example.
Who would voluntarily pay to enforce action against masturbators and lock them up in cages? That is, without having the machinery of the state to offload the cost to everybody, of course. And who would claim to have the moral right to do it, other than the state? Again, I just think you're bringing up far off, out there hypothetical scare scenarios that have no genuine basis in reality, and which aren't even solved by having a state as you yourself freely seem to admit.
On September 02 2010 19:09 Badjas wrote: Incarcerating someone is a tool for coercing people to follow the rules established by the governing body. How those rules are established, I guess, is your beef. Personally I think there could perhaps be improvement, but I'm not gonna argue about an anarchaic (not a word?) system being better at that. I do like to point out that the state doesn't own all the land.
I agree that they don't actually own all the land. I was addressing those who have argued this.
But ok, we agree that the government has no legitimate claim to the land. But let me ask you the same question again. If not from land ownership, where does the government get the right to lock somebody up for 5 years for smoking weed? Are you arguing that democracy gives the state the moral right to do this, so long there is a majority consensus? Remember that it is a victimless "crime".
Again, how does the act of voting magically defer authority to the state that I don't even have myself? Please explain this to me, because I always end up asking this in ancap debates and yet I've literally never had anybody even address it. If you think it's a loaded question, which might be the case, then say so. But please address it. Because clearly I don't have the right to throw people into cages for smoking weed, right? I think we can agree on this. So my 'consent' (even if I give it) is ultimately meaningless.
The whole concept of "victimless crimes" is loaded, has no meaning in law and is therefore irrelevant. Storing tons of TNT in my cellar does no harm to anybody, but we might agree that it is a bad idea and that imposing rules on people to not do it, could be a good idea, as long as the dangers associated with it, greatly outweigh the benefits.
Now who should impose this rule or any rule for that manner? In most modern states it is the legislative who decides on which rule should be passed, the executive who controls that rules are abided and the judiciary to punish non-compliance and to resolve conflicts. This is known as seperation of powers and probably you've heard of it.
Morality is not an applicable concept in all of the rules/laws that are passed, some are simply pragmatic and the same applies to an ancap society (or any society for that matter). Legitimacy, however, directly follows from the construction of the state, which is primarily based on consent, our only guidance for deciding what should be considered harmful and what not.
You are correct, a crime being victimless does not automatically make an action morally and ethically right or wrong. It is a portion of what we look at, however, in determining whether an action is ethically bad.
Does smoking weed harm others? If not, than does it have the potential to harm others? I would argue no to both cases.
Pragmatism, although more than likely just a common denominator between laws and not usually a prerequisite, does come into play from time to time. Gambling laws are one example which comes to mind.
Does smoking weed harm others? If not, than does it have the potential to harm others? I would argue no to both cases.
I would argue the same, but that is not the point. It is an obvious fallacy to point at any law which doesn't "float your boat" and blame "the state". Especially the drug laws are enacted because there are sufficient people who consider drugs dangerous - in actuality for the drug user and in potential for those around him. Whether I agree or not it is a fact about the people around me and if it were different drug laws would be abolished.
On September 02 2010 20:18 dvide wrote:
Who would voluntarily pay to enforce action against masturbators and lock them up in cages? That is, without having the machinery of the state to offload the cost to everybody, of course. And who would claim to have the moral right to do it, other than the state? Again, I just think you're bringing up far off, out there hypothetical scare scenarios that have no genuine basis in reality, and which aren't even solved by having a state as you yourself freely seem to admit.
EDIT: I didn't read properly, so the following is obsolete. Sorry! <s>(You get more and more absurd!? Which civilized country "locks masturbators up in cages" and do you really think it is, because there is a "state" and not because of the people living in it. Would those people magically change their views in an ancap society? Or is your whole point that it might be more difficult to reasonably enforce any law in an ancap society (including those which you don't like)?)</s>
On September 02 2010 20:05 MiraMax wrote: The whole concept of "victimless crimes" is loaded, has no meaning in law and is therefore irrelevant. Storing tons of TNT in my cellar does no harm to anybody, but we might agree that it is a bad idea and that imposing rules on people to not do it, could be a good idea, as long as the dangers associated with it, greatly outweigh the benefits.
How is it loaded? Is it not a valid way to differentiate between crimes that have caused damage to others and supposed "crimes" that have not? I would argue that victimless crimes are not crimes at all, and that would certainly be the case under natural law. I think that's an incredibly important distinction. So it has no meaning in statist law courts? So what?
Your TNT example could potentially do harm, assuming your cellar is an irresponsible place to store tonnes of TNT. It would only take one guy with a dramatic suicide wish to break in and destroy the whole neighbourhood, along with himself. So in principle I agree with you; we have to be responsible with our actions and that responsibility needs to be demonstrable to others so as not to cause fear.
And because your actions would cause panic in the neighbourhood, it could be considered a valid non-victimless crime. After all, all would rationally understand that you were responsible for creating the fear in others (assuming your cellar is not a safe and secure place to store tonnes of TNT). But even then, I wouldn't throw you in a cage for it, assuming that you even did it in the first place. There are other ways to solve problems. I cannot see how it would ever come down to locking you up in a cage.
On September 02 2010 20:05 MiraMax wrote: Now who should impose this rule or any rule for that manner? In most modern states it is the legislative who decides on which rule should be passed, the executive who controls that rules are abided and the judiciary to punish non-compliance and to resolve conflicts. This is known as seperation of powers and probably you've heard of it.
So?
On September 02 2010 20:05 MiraMax wrote: Morality is not an applicable concept in all of the rules/laws that are passed, some are simply pragmatic and the same applies to an ancap society (or any society for that matter). Legitimacy, however, directly follows from the construction of the state, which is primarily based on consent, our only guidance for deciding what should be considered harmful and what not.
Why do moral arguments not apply to laws? I think what you're saying here is that because pragmatic arguments are used for justifying laws, moral arguments do not apply. But those things are not mutually exclusive. I can still argue that it's wrong to coerce others even if it's a necessary component to achieve some utilitarian end goal.
And again, your consent or the consent of the majority is meaningless. Unless you contend that if the majority consented to the Mafia then it would be somehow morally acceptable for them to extort from others. Is this your contention?
On September 02 2010 20:34 MiraMax wrote: You get more and more absurd!? Which civilized country "locks masturbators up in cages" and do you really think it is, because there is a "state" and not because of the people living in it.
I was responding to this absurdity brought up by somebody else.
On September 02 2010 13:44 Dapper_Cad wrote:This is demonstrably untrue and not just when it comes to people “being nice”, that is reducing profit in order to help someone else margin, it also goes for spite, that is decreasing someone else's profit even if it decreases your own
This is because you insist on thinking of "profit" as "money". When someone speaks of "the market" maximizing "profit", at least in the Austrian anarcho-capitalist framework, really it means that people making free choices will always attempt maximize their own happiness - and that their happiness is the only profit to consider.
To a Buddhist monk "profit" is more free time to sit on a mountain and meditate - he does this because it makes him happy.
To a generous person, profit is the act of giving - it gives them pleasure, makes them happy, to see their own actions helping another. This is why they do it, and being free to do it makes them happy.
When left to their own actions, humans will always seek to do what makes them happy. If nothing made you happy or there was nothing you wanted then you wouldn't do anything. You would just expire and cease to be a living human being.
The ultimate point is that happiness and goals are different for all people and imposing burdens on them which seek to meet your goals at the expense of allowing them to meet theirs ultimately is the greedier act and the more destructive of total happiness - total profit.
On September 02 2010 20:03 kidcrash wrote: Ana-capitalists believe stealing in any form is wrong. Taxation is essentially a form of stealing, therefore ana-cap believe the concept of a government state is based on an ethically "wrong" principle.
Many libertarians have some sympathy with this argument. I personally don't see why we should morally condemn stealing but find taxation a virtue - for me, it could at best be called a "necessary evil". However, the moral argument is not the only argument against taxation. If you're interested, I could expound on what's called the "deadweight loss" of taxation.
(In a nutshell, the act of taxation itself already causes a loss to society. So if the government raises $1M in taxes, the loss to society is considerably more than $1M. This means that, for the taxation to be a net gain, the government should be considerably more efficient than the market in spending that money. That is a tough standard to beat, and most government programs we have today probably do not.)
The state then tries to justify the need for taxation by saying it's to provide safety for the common citizen.
As you well know, our government today does a lot more than simply protect the citizens, and all of its activities are funded by direct or indirect taxes.
The ana-cap rebuttal is that a free-market security force would be more efficient than a state owned one. However without checks and balances nothing is stopping a corporate owned and operated security force from abusing their power.
"Nothing" is too big of word to use here. There are a lot of factors that contribute make the outcome you described unlikely. If you are willing to say nothing stops a protection agency from abusing their power, you should also be willing to say that nothing stops the government from abusing its power - there are probably less forces keeping the government in check than there would be forces keeping private protection agencies in check.
Could "capital and competitive interest" prevent this from happening? I'd say it would be a gamble and risk, especially when looking back on history and seeing what kind of mistakes "human nature" has made. It doesn't even have to be a worst case scenario. It doesn't have to be to the scale of a tragedy like the holocaust to be a complete failure.
I think the holocaust is a very good example of the risk a government poses - I'm not sure how you intend it as an example against anarcho-capitalist institutions. There is good reason to expect violence in an anarcho-capitalist society - if it breaks out - to be on a very much smaller scale than violence we have seen by governments.
Civil war is basically a lose-lose situation and I could see something in the vain of the American civil war stemming from an attempt at anarco-capitalist society.
This is a very real risk. But if we expect anarcho-capitalist institutions to be reasonably stable, this would still be an improvement over government. There are good reasons to expect civil wars under anarcho-capitalism to be uncommon, short-lived and small in scale. If you want, we can discuss them.
A similar real risk under government is a costly, large-scale war. If you disagree this is a real risk, consider that the US is currently involved in the aftermath of two wars that have cost millions of people their lives and the American taxpayers trillions of dollars. Consider that the history of governments interacting has produced a multitude of large-scale, expensive wars in the last couple of centuries and that this seems to be a trend rather than a rare occurrence.
When I read other people's opinion on ethics in our society, I lose a little faith in mankind. These news stories about people becoming upset because they are building a mosque near ground zero. I don't think I could live in a country where we'd just have to hope that a powerful and violent group wouldn't take control, or in the very least pose a threat to us. Should it even have to come to that?
I mostly agree with you. I just want to add that the risk of dying to a terrorist attack is insignificant compared to the risk of dying in a traffic accident. Terrorism has mostly been an excuse for government to expand its power beyond its previous bounds. Islam may well be, as some say, a dangerous ideology and a threat to our society, but the cure has been worse than the disease.
The many Muslim people that I know all are great people that follow only the peaceful edicts in Islam (much like Christians and the Bible). I would not object to a mosque being built - objecting to that sends a message that the people that will go to the mosque are of the same kind as the people that committed the horrible acts of terrorism. That is a message I wholeheartedly disapprove of.
Checks and balances can be mediocre at times. It can also be inefficient at times as well. I think we'd be better off trying to find ways to make it as efficient as possible and finding "The greatest amount of good" than relying on an economic and moral principle that stealing is always bad in any form; which along with this principle, we run the risk of jeopardizing our safety and comfort by relying on human nature and "market justice".
The way to make it as efficient as possible and to find the greatest amount of good (tongue in cheek) is to break up the government in multiple competing entities and taking away its privilege of taxation.
On September 02 2010 20:05 MiraMax wrote: The whole concept of "victimless crimes" is loaded, has no meaning in law and is therefore irrelevant. Storing tons of TNT in my cellar does no harm to anybody, but we might agree that it is a bad idea and that imposing rules on people to not do it, could be a good idea, as long as the dangers associated with it, greatly outweigh the benefits.
How is it loaded? Is it not a valid way to differentiate between crimes that have caused damage to others and supposed "crimes" that have not? I would argue that victimless crimes are not crimes at all, and that would certainly be the case under natural law. I think that's an incredibly important distinction. So it has no meaning in statist law courts? So what?
Your TNT example could potentially do harm, assuming your cellar is an irresponsible place to store tonnes of TNT. It would only take one guy with a dramatic suicide wish to break in and destroy the whole neighbourhood, along with himself. So in principle I agree with you; we have to be responsible with our actions and that responsibility needs to be demonstrable to others so as not to cause fear.
And because your actions would cause panic in the neighbourhood, it could be considered a valid non-victimless crime. After all, all would rationally understand that you were responsible for creating the fear in others (assuming your cellar is not a safe and secure place to store tonnes of TNT). But even then, I wouldn't throw you in a cage for it, assuming that you even did it in the first place. There are other ways to solve problems. I cannot see how it would ever come down to locking you up in a cage.
It is loaded, because the definition of "victimless" already denies its counter argument. You rightfully say that me storing TNT can potentially cause harm and might cause "panic". However, what if nobody knows about it? Then there is no direct harm left and no "victim", only "potential harm" and "potential victims". Well, drug laws proponents claim the same thing! It is a statistical fact that drug users (in general) commit significantly more crimes and these crimes are often directly motivated by the need for more drugs. They claim that cannabis acts as an entry drug and thus brings a lot of "potential harm" with lots of "potential victims". I think in the case of cannabis they are wrong, but the line of argument is not principally flawed (and that's my only point).
On September 02 2010 20:05 MiraMax wrote: Now who should impose this rule or any rule for that manner? In most modern states it is the legislative who decides on which rule should be passed, the executive who controls that rules are abided and the judiciary to punish non-compliance and to resolve conflicts. This is known as seperation of powers and probably you've heard of it.
On September 02 2010 20:05 MiraMax wrote: Morality is not an applicable concept in all of the rules/laws that are passed, some are simply pragmatic and the same applies to an ancap society (or any society for that matter). Legitimacy, however, directly follows from the construction of the state, which is primarily based on consent, our only guidance for deciding what should be considered harmful and what not.
Why do moral arguments not apply to laws? I think what you're saying here is that because pragmatic arguments are used for justifying laws, moral arguments do not apply. But those things are not mutually exclusive. I can still argue that it's wrong to coerce others even if it's a necessary component to achieve some utilitarian end goal.
And again, your consent or the consent of the majority is meaningless. Unless you contend that if the majority consented to the Mafia then it would be somehow morally acceptable for them to extort from others. Is this your contention?
No, things don't get MORALLY justified because the majority thinks so. But morals are not an applicable concept here. In any social system (including socio-economic ones) rules (codes of conduct) develop and the opinion of the majority (or better: the influence of minorities/individuals on the majority) is the driving factor in this development. This is intrinsic to social systems in theory and over more an empirical fact. Ancap does not and cannot change that. In all systems these rules derive their legitimacy from the excercising of power. In modern societies people tend to prefer that the legitimacy arises by consent of the many and that the rules are formalized, so that they can be applied to each and everybody equally. This consent needs to be organised. The organisation of consent is the task of the political system (also a subsystem of society).
EPT
