They'll have to carry me to prison, because I will not lift one finger to help them in anything they do.
They believe that my life is theirs. They will find out very differently.
Aside from that, I will only say that nothing could be more foolish than to believe that the "Constitution" is in place to "protect" what you think it could.
Foolish? Perhaps. But it's worked better than any previous system of government. As designed, it's not a bad system, but 225 years of the entropy of human nature have broken it pretty badly.
Our disagreement, Billy, is on whether government is going to exist in some shape or other. You believe (so far as I can determine) that we can get along without it. I don't.
And the government that currently exists will care not a jot nor a tittle that you won't lift a finger. They'll chuck you in jail - or not - when they feel like it.
The "recent discussion of violence" comes about from others deciding what they'll do when or if someone in the government decides to, as Rand put it, "cash in on the guilt."
You choose non-resistance. Others, like Carl Drega, decided to make such choices hurt.
"Government," in the end, doesn't notice either way unless such movements get really large.
Those in charge work very hard to ensure such movements don't get very large.
"You believe (so far as I can determine) that we can get along without it. I don't."
I wonder if you understand all the implcations of a statement like that.
Let me tell you something, Kevin: I'm going to take you at your word.
And that means that you and I had better never cross paths, because I will have to, of necessity, beware of you as a criminal threat to my life. I'll watch you very carefully, and avoid you to the greatest degree possible, always on the lookout that you're going to come at me with malign intent.
You would never have to suspect me of something like that, but I'm not the one who just directly implied that you can't get along without government. I can speak for myself authoritatively and deny that: everyone around me could "get along without government" because I have no interest in doing them harm. But you included yourself in that statement, and I will take you at your word.
Now, think about it: if you've mispoken, and your deliberate conduct of life doesn't require that sort of vigilance from me, then your general statements about human nature are wrong, because there are now at least two exceptions that we know of. And even though the rest of the culture is gone to cannibal-hell, we must -- because of those two facts -- admit at least the possibility that human beings can life in peace without being told what to do by a piece of paper scribbled out centuries before any given human being's birth. IOW: people really can conduct their own peaceful affairs without government telling them what to do. And don't give me that "great idea, wrong species" jazz. It is a manifest fact that some people can do this, even if some people can't. I am not a Utopian: I know better than most that there are bad people in the world, and there always will be. I have never disputed that, although, in the past, I've had my share of goddamned morons calling me a Utopian because they don't pay attention when I say differently.
However: the fact that some people cannot behave themeselves is in no way a valid moral claim for this general blanket of force over the whole culture including people who can.
Billy, we're arguing AT each other. I responded to your "And that means that you and I had better never cross paths..." in my last email. I won't do it again here.
I don't know if you're not getting what I'm saying or if you're getting it and simply rejecting it outright. Either way, you AIN'T reaching me.
Can I just ask a question here? Since it looks a little late for the force of arms in that gathering a sufficient force is unlikely, why wouldn't a seemingly easier method of starving the government obtain more converts? Wouldn't that appeal to more people: just stop paying! than the idea of a possible bloody death? How hard would it be to convince the many folks who now pay very little to cease altogether? Then there are the ones with a little more on the ball who, if it looked like the idea was spreading, would not jump at the chance to not pay. Why wouldn't this work?
I'm not ruling out the 2nd amendment fall-back. What I'm suggesting is that our Revolution started in just this manner, didn't it -- they said no tea taxes and backed it up.
Billy, first of all I personally am highly sympathetic to your position. But I have to ask: since you acknowledge there are bad people in the world, what do you plan to do about it?
I'll watch you very carefully, and avoid you to the greatest degree possible, always on the lookout that you're going to come at me with malign intent.
Is this your plan for all interactions? Will you revert to digging for grubs because you are afraid of meeting people face-to-face in order to engage in commerce? Because that is what anarchy really means.
Government's ultimate proper role is that of steward of due process. All the rest grows from that.
I hear the anarcho-capitalists talk about private armies, competing governments, and "insurance contracts" straight out of a Vernor Vinge novel. But without a single guarantor (imperfect though it may be) of due process, the whole setup devolves into who shoots the fastest and the mostest. It becomes the pure chaos of protection rackets fighting over turf. Given time, your anarcho-capitalistic vision will simply crown a new king, and you will find yourself choosing from among submission, death, or "going armadillo."
However, as much as I would normally enjoy discussing the matter, I am taken aback by your act of apparently deliberate obtuseness.
"We can't get along without government" did not mean "you and I" or "you and Kevin" -- in context it clearly means "all of us in this crazy mixed-up world." I certainly lack the shared context to which Kevin alluded; at the same time, I have no horse in this race. At a fresh reading that looks like conscious and willful obfuscation on your part.
You say others have called you "a kook" or whatever. I know nothing about that. But I for one suddenly find damn little reason to believe statements like "you would never have to suspect me." Cries of "trust me, I'm nice" are never convincing under the best of circumstances, and certainly not after this.
"I think that by the time enough people are pissed off enough to be willing to risk everything they have, it will be far too late to do anything (successfully) about it."
So... shouldn't we be doing everything in our power to make sure people get pissed off before then? People are ignorant and apathetic, but if we can help them lift the veil of ignorance, apathy will lift itself.
Maybe I'm being naive, and apathy's more resilient than that, but trying has got to be better than just sitting back waiting for things to get bad so that we have a series of new Waco-esque standoffs.
The question is, how do freedom-lovers get people's attention without looking like a bunch of kooks?
Billy, Kevin's statement that "we" can't get along without government doesn't really imply that he is himself incapable of treating others with some degree of respect. You seem to think that finding two examples of people who, in a world without law, would behave in a fairly civilized manner somehow negates the fact that humans as a whole WOULDN'T.
Think of it like a bell curve. On one end, you have the people who won't be "civilized" ever, not even in a totalitarian government. On the other, you have those who will be civilized regardless of the government type; the kind of people who will never do any harm to anyone who hasn't harmed (or tried to harm) them first. In the middle, you have the vast majority of humanity, those of us whose level of civility changes from moment to moment, depending on the circumstances.
I don't think Kevin's made any less respectable by his acknowledgement that there are a large number of people for whom self-government won't work.
...since you acknowledge there are bad people in the world, what do you plan to do about it?
Only Billy can answer for himself, so here is my response: There are the bad people in the world who do bad things to be and there are those who don't. While I am certainly opposed to the latter and advocate they stop doing bad things, it is the former that primarily concern me. I don't think we ought to be out to destroy all monsters. Correct me if my interpretation of you is wrong.
What do I plan on doing about the former, who are tampering with my life and property? I've got several blog posts up (An Austin Parking Ticket, Hypocrisy or Consistency?, Costly to Govern) that discuss the most recent threats that the government has presented to my life. It's all relatively trivial shit: car registration, parking tickets, etc. These are the things that are the easiest to resist because the really serious consequences take months to manifest, if at all, and the infringements are truly annoying. But I didn't. I paid the fines and paid the income taxes. The vehicle I drive is legally "clean." And I publicly wrote about the incidents attesting to the bad ideas and arguments used by those who enforce and support the current law. But I didn't write the authorities a letter telling them to shove off and leave me alone. I didn't lock myself in my home and wait, armed for when the deputies eventually arrive. I value my life too much do physically confront these bastards.
There may be a point down the road where the threats to my life both cross some line I haven't even mentally drawn yet and numb me to the point where I refuse to keep living as a subject of others. If such an event happens, it'll be a response to government agents molesting me and my affairs. While I'd be grimly grateful for any help offered if such a confrontation occurs, I certainly won't demand other people sacrifice themselves for me.
Which gets to your disagreement with anarcho-capitalism.
Is this your plan for all interactions?
I assume it's his plan to be suspicious of anyone who wants to impose a government on others so they can get along, to assume that people need to be ruled to keep them civilized.
Will you revert to digging for grubs because you are afraid of meeting people face-to-face in order to engage in commerce? Because that is what anarchy really means.
The anarchy that I have adopted simply means to never aggress against others and their property. I question your knowledge of a property rights-respecting stateless society.
Government's ultimate proper role is that of steward of due process. All the rest grows from that.
Who determines what due process is for me? For you? For Billy? What legitimizes that determination?
But without a single guarantor (imperfect though it may be) of due process, the whole setup devolves into...
You've absorbed the "law of the jungle" slander as well as I've seen anyone else.
[i]Will you revert to digging for grubs because you are afraid of meeting people face-to-face in order to engage in commerce? Because that is what anarchy really means.[/i]
This nonsensical sentence can only arise from someone who believes that government is [i]integral[/i] to commerce.
Who determines what due process is for me? For you? For Billy? What legitimizes that determination?
An interesting question!
But do are you really suggesting it would be different for each of you? As I see it, a sole standard is crucial.
How would you resolve contract disputes between parties? Even with arbitrators, what is to stop one party from refusing to accept or abide by the decision? Where will you take it? The civil courts provide a *single* place to go for such things.
You say I have absorbed the "'law of the jungle' slander," yet this is where it has gone with every anarcho-capitalist I've discussed it with. (Maybe you have a clearer vision than they did. I'm willing to be convinced.)
One fellow suggested that private investigators would replace the courts, and individuals would mete out their own justice via contract killings, etc. People would, of course, exercise this with some caution so that others would not in turn have them killed.
This leaves each person deciding what constitutes due process -- for everyone else. Everyone who commits a real or imagined slight against him, anyway.
Well, individuals are fallible. They can become blinded by rage, they can make mistakes. Sometimes they just aren't very smart.
The civil and criminal courts are designed specifically to deal with this. By providing a single standard of evidence, procedure, etc., the influence of misguided individuals is minimized.
I'm curious what mechanism will serve a similar role in your vision.
How would you resolve contract disputes between parties? Even with arbitrators, what is to stop one party from refusing to accept or abide by the decision? Where will you take it?
To the bullet level -- and you would only object to that, of course, in direct proportion to your desire to rip me off and get away with it.
As always, government is by, of, and for, THIEVES.
There is a class of people in this world who define "thinking clearly" (sometimes they call it "critical thinking") as "agreeing with them". Libertarians aren't unique in this odd habit, nor do all of them think that way.
...people really can conduct their own peaceful affairs without government telling them what to do.
Ah, he's not a libertarian; he's an anarchist. Anarchy's been tried, of course. It starts to congeal into feudalism as soon as the bandits start having kids. Let's make no mistake here: A vote for anarchy is a vote to give the crack dealer on the corner a chance to run for Feudal Overlord. His campaign will involve a) robbing you, and b) killing the other candidates. Will he be more generous than the IRS? I doubt it, but I've been wrong before. Will Mr. Beck kill him first, thereby winning the "election"? Maybe so. Personally, I think we went through all that crap when the Roman Empire fell, and the best-case outcome 1,500 years later is roughly what we've got now.
Did we evolve with a government? Nope. Well then how did everybody, everywhere, end up with one? I distrust any theory which says that all of human history since the neolithic (at least) is an isolated, aberrant special case and proceeds to ignore it.
...the fact that some people cannot behave themeselves is in no way a valid moral claim for this general blanket of force over the whole culture including people who can.
Mr. Beck wants me to take it on faith that he can be trusted to "behave himself" without being subject to the law. His qualification for this honor is that he doesn't much like civilization.
I don't quite know what to say about that, really. Sometimes you meet people who demand that you take their good will on faith. Not all of them are thieves; a few of them are fools instead.
"I'm here to advocate an understanding of the Constitution of the United States that says "What's yours is yours, what's his is his, and the Constitution is there to protect that....""
------
Better hope your intended audience doesn't actually go read the damned thing carefully, because the Constitution in fact announces "What's your's is our's and we will use you as we see fit..."
How much of what's your's is your's under the Constitution? What is the most the collective is entitled to take from you under that document? There is no limit and there can in principle be no limit once the choice has been made to rule.
If what's your's is your's then legislators have no legitmate say in the matter and the Constitution is naked usurpation.
Thus you advocate naked usurpation in the hope that it will be limited when in principle it cannot be.
Welcome back John! Lopez will be following shortly, I am to assume?
Billy Beck argues that there's no "philosophy behind" people being willing to resort to violence in resistance to government overreach, and he's right. He, like you, proposes that there is one and only one "correct" philosophy that will lead to the "Atlas Shrugged" solution to all of our problems (that's my characterization, not his) where we all just stop paying taxes and "starve the beast." Yet, when asked why this solution has never been tried anywhere successfully, the answer is pretty much the same one we get when we ask why Communism is such a blatant failure: "Nobody's ever really tried it."
Gee, I wonder why that is?
You object that I support a government that can take without limit, yet I have always acknowledged that all governments CAN do that. Ours is the first I'm aware of that made any effort at all at actually restraining that power and not only that, enumerated it in its founding principles.
We failed that document, John, it didn't fail us. The problem isn't that the document wasn't good enough, it's that people like to steal. And they'll do that whether there's a government or not. Professor Froward illustrates the problem with your solution quite well. Anarchy won't work either for precisely the same reason.
And you guys never have (to my knowledge) addressed the question of how an anarchic society - excuse me, the individuals in an anarchic society - respond to (for instance) a rabid theocracy bent on domination.
You don't have a solution, John. You have a complaint and a pipe-dream.
Can nations get along without common government? Does the world as a whole require a single stadard of due process? Where is it?
Nations clearly exist in a state of anarchy relative to one another. Is the world "pure chaos"? No, I see functioning markets between many nations which share no single standard of due process. Who is the King of the World? I see none, there is no power that can impose it's will on the rest of the world.
If agencies naturally act as you suggest in the absence of common government then why doesn't the U.S. simply impose it's will on Canada or Mexico at every turn?
Your model of how agencies act in the absence of government is simply wrong and refuted by examples right in front of us.
You seem to overlook the fact that each and every one of those national governments tax their own people and regulate both their internal and international trade in order to support themselves.
The solution doesn't scale down to the individual level, John.
I'm not advocating tax revolt. I pay taxes and expect to do so for some time.
I don't advocate collective solutions at all. I don't hope to persuade great numbers of people by any argument. I do tell individuals they're doing wrong if I think they or some other observer might understand.
You advocate systematic crimes claiming we can do no better. As an individual I do better by not collaborating in such crimes. So could you.
So for failure: Speak for yourself. I didn't fail you or your Constitution. It is a naked usurpation of rights to which I am not a party.
I've pointed out that in a major obsevable anarchy right in front of us agencies do not behave as the critics of anarchy say they will.
So you guys need to explain why these agencies don't act as your theory predicts, but others would. Saying "That's different" explains nothing, the predictions of ancap critics are quite general.
Isn't it perfectly clear that markets do in fact exist in the absence of common authority?
"As an individual I do better by not collaborating in such crimes." Yet, "I pay taxes and expect to do so for some time."? Isn't that "paying the Danegeld" from the anarchists's perspective?
Africa is a marvelous example of what anarchy promises. Thank you, no. I'll pass.
"And you guys never have (to my knowledge) addressed the question of how an anarchic society - excuse me, the individuals in an anarchic society - respond to (for instance) a rabid theocracy bent on domination."
Vote it away?
(And there you go, dodging the question again. Thanks for illustrating my point - Kevin)
John, I really enjoy these intellectual arguments. Unfortunately, I'm running behind on my commitments for today, so I have to cut this short. But before I go, I have to make a couple of comments:
"Isn't it perfectly clear that markets do in fact exist in the absence of common authority?"
Isn't it pretty clear that those markets are controlled by governments which - by your definition - nakedly usurp the rights of their own people?
Your vision of individual freedom is that of the Kalahari Bushmen. That is not a life to which I aspire. Civilization is a byproduct of government, not the other way around.
"Paying ransom" on a daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly basis is "paying the Danegeld," John. "Paying ransom" implies that you pay it once to get back that which was stolen from you.
At least Billy Beck is philosophically consistent on that.
"How would you resolve contract disputes between parties? Even with arbitrators, what is to stop one party from refusing to accept or abide by the decision? Where will you take it? The civil courts provide a *single* place to go for such things."
Ebay would function just fine as a market without any courts. Businesses like Party Poker and PokerStars serve many satisfied customers doing many millions of dollars of business even though there is really no court you can take them to if they cheat you.
What keeps them from cheating all their customers? Only the fact that there's more money to be made doing honst business.
And what about contract disputes between you and your government? Between you and your courts? How can you contract with a single source that will be the judge of the contract itself?
Roderick Long has done a good job of addressing with all of the objections that you folks have raised to anarchy at http://tinyurl.com/dd6me.
Briefly: A state doesn't and cannot solve the problems you worry that anarchy cannot solve.
"Mr. Beck wants me to take it on faith that he can be trusted to "behave himself" without being subject to the law. His qualification for this honor is that he doesn't much like civilization."
Umm, wrong. Productive activity, even "art" and other aspects of human culture, has existed before and beside the coercive state. Your comment is like the delusion of the security guard who thinks he runs the movie studio. At best, the arguments that you make argue for a minimal custodial role for the state, not for it as an engine of human progress, history reveals it to be more of a detriment than a benefit to free inquiry and scientific advancement.
As for Beck's view of minimal government:
"I've often said that if I'd grown into an America more or less laid out the way some rational conservatives seem to have in mind, I might have lived with it quietly.
That, in itself, is an "idyll", though. That sort of stasis on statist premises is impossible. The predation of the state cannot be compromised away."
http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php?id=P1690
"I don't quite know what to say about that, really. Sometimes you meet people who demand that you take their good will on faith. Not all of them are thieves; a few of them are fools instead."
And you rely on the -state- to tell you the difference between the two and protect you from same? If so, your a bigger fool than Beck could ever be, since the state itself disclaims any culpable responsibility for protecting you. Don't YOU make such judgements, and act accordingly?
There are two problems we are dealing with here, both related to each other.
The first is the "in loco parentis" problem. Once you alienate your basic freedoms to a state structure, that said structure will ultimately not respect any bright lines you try to draw around its power. After all, YOU just admitted that YOU are incapable of self-governance.
The other is the "quo ipse custodiet" problem. If the state has a monopoly of this horrid thing called "power" that we're all so scared of, then what keeps it in check? If the answer is "nothing," then give me Somalia over Cambodia and Stalinist Russia any day. If you argue "consent of the governed," you are back to the "in loco parentis" problem.
What justifies you in acting against a system of alienated freedom that you yourself willed into being for the express purpose of thwarting your individual right of judgement?
Chris Hamilton: I object to [individualist threats of retribution, re "bullets", as a means of contract-enforcement] in direct proportion to my desire to not see the mafia in charge.
Pardon my French, but just what the bloody fuck do you think a government IS?
And you guys never have (to my knowledge) addressed the question of how an anarchic society - excuse me, the individuals in an anarchic society - respond to (for instance) a rabid theocracy bent on domination.
You don't have a solution, John. You have a complaint and a pipe-dream.
This is a splendid example of "necessity (il)logic" -- essentially, Kevin cannot fathom how to accomplish a particular goal without enslaving John Kennedy's productivity in the guise of a tax-paid military.
Kennedy, of course, then becomes justifiably concerned about rabid statists bent on domination of him.
Statists always have an excuse, and, quite frankly, my "pipe-dream" involves every of them spending the rest of their lives in a Spice Guild pain-amplifier. Honestly: Fuck you all straight to hell.
"Mr. Beck wants me to take it on faith that he can be trusted to "behave himself" without being subject to the law.
Seeing as the present law is far, far more likely to treat him leniently in, say, the matter of him ripping your lungs out -- than any free-market retributive solution involving, say, the hiring of Mr. & Mrs. Smith -- I have to wonder from wence you've derived your present "faith".
After all, the object of your derision did pen a splendid piece entitled "I, Criminal".
Revisiting: I object to [individualist threats of retribution, re "bullets", as a means of contract-enforcement] in direct proportion to my desire to not see the mafia in charge.
...see "The Biggest Gang in Town": http://jayjardine.blogspot.com/2005/02/biggest-gang-in-town-ctd.html
"(And there you go, dodging the question again. Thanks for illustrating my point - Kevin)"
My point was that your magic piece of paper will not protect you from theocracy. You apply a double standard in demanding that anarchy provide you with safeguards that your state doesn't.
And anyway, the fact that you can't think of a way to live without stealing (and that I have not provided you with one) wouldn't entitle you to steal.
"Mr. Beck wants me to take it on faith that he can be trusted to "behave himself" without being subject to the law."
Well, Billy's a shy & timid woodland creature who has never posted on Usenet, the Internet or on a weblog, but I'd venture to say that he believes in the iron and ancient "laws" (what sociologists call mores and folkways) that govern behavior between men of honor, laws which precede and determine whatever rational laws exist in any coercive state. Why don't you ask him?
Individuals hunting down and punishing those who have wronged them sounds cool -- it's got that nice Clint Eastwood kind of flavor to it.
Unfortunately people make mistakes. Especially when they are looking for someone to blame. Your method has no safeguards against "convicting" the wrong person -- except for the presumed resultant forfieture of ones own life. That sounds sufficient, assuming all parties involved are honest, moral, and capable of sufficient objective detachment; in short, perfect.
Unfortunately that assumption is pure fantasy.
Human beings simply are not consistently capable of such perfection. People make mistakes, people get emotionally involved, people lose objectivity. Our justice system has safeguards against this:
- Juries; twelve people in deliberations are about an order of magnitude less likely to make any given sloppy mistake, and any one person's prejudices will have a severely limited effect on a verdict.
- Right of appeal further minimizes the effect of mistakes or prejudice.
- Prohibitions on double jeopardy, strict rules on evidence gathering and presentation, the right to counsel, unanimous verdicts, and the presumption of innocence all help to ensure that innocent people are not wrongly punished.
As it is we see more than enough wrongful convictions even with these safeguards in place. I find it hard to believe that the situation would improve were they to be discarded.
So, tell me again which system pretends that people are angels?
Our justice system has safeguards against this:Tell me again about Waco.
-- Could an individual surround his neighbor's house with tanks and threaten to shoot down news-choppers "tresspassing in 'controlled airspace'" as they attempted to make a record of the proceedings?
Uh, yes. Mafia? Private armies? Any of that sound familiar?
Stop with the straw men. Nobody in this discussion is presenting the US Government as ideal. The question is whether government has any legitimate role, and you are just making my point for me.
You simply cannot in justice interfere with me when I've comitted no offense against you. I want no part of your state and you cannot justly impose it on me.
So what do you propose to balance now against justice itself?
Uh, yes. Mafia? Private armies? Any of that sound familiar?
Not very. (Furthermore, what "mafia" would need a large army of "enforcers" to "protect" its "market" if a government weren't providing it with a market-niche free of efficient and ethical competition? E.g., Viagra is probably the most lucrative drug in the world, but the streets aren't full of gangs hosing each other with lead in order to secure block-by-block distribution "rights")
Stop with the straw men. Nobody in this discussion is presenting the US Government as ideal.
Rubbish -- since that's the only "solution" you've left yourself, albeit you sorely would like all those fucking idiots out there called "voters" to behave differently from the way they have in every goddamn election in bloody history (i.e., in favor or more looting and oppressing their fellows, until the whole thing collapses, e.g., Germany 1933, Chile 1970, etc.).
From the masthead of this blog: "Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." -- Ayn Rand
Now then: From wence can a collective (named, in this case, "government") claim rights which, one may impugn, individuals would not have a right to?
E.g., where does a government collective morally obtain a right to detain suspects, hold them for trial, and render punishment upon conviction, if no individual can innately possess the right to judge himself?
The question is whether government has any legitimate role...
Then the answer is easy: It doesn't. All governments are illegitimate. They are so by birth and by existence.
A legitimate government would:
1. Allow unlimited secession for any individual(s) who wished to leave and form their own union.
2. Not use taxation.
3. Let anyone provide defense and security services to the full extent of the demand for them.
4. Not prevent foreigners from crossing the national border.
5. Not impose a final, ultimate court system with which all must comply.
6. Not use demo- (aristo-, techno-, klepto-, merito-, etc.) cratic means to determine who gets how much of other people's property.
7. ...in other words, would therefore not be a government.
Baker and the other statists keep dodging the point that if you make the Hobbesian argument for the existence of the state, you have to accept the Hobbesian argument AGAINST armed revolution. The latter flows logically from the former.
Therefore, Billy Beck is ENTIRELY correct to accuse them of philosophical incoherence for advocating the same.
Mixed in among all of these insults are some good questions. This could be a really interesting conversation if some level of civility could be maintained.
The ad hominems are just tiresome. It's a clever way to win arguments though; make your opponents so bored that they give up. Great job.
If you guys have convinced me of anything, it's that I wouldn't trust a single one of you to investigate and mete out punishment for, say, your sister's murder.
"If you guys have convinced me of anything, it's that I wouldn't trust a single one of you to investigate and mete out punishment for, say, your sister's murder."
How does that entitle you to a dime from me? How does it entitle you to impose anything on me?
"Mixed in among all of these insults are some good questions."
Then answer them. Alleged ad hominems don't license you and Baker to commit the stolen concept fallacy WRT the Hobbesian argument for the state.
"If you guys have convinced me of anything, it's that I wouldn't trust a single one of you to investigate and mete out punishment for, say, your sister's murder."
So what? That is LITERALLY none of your business even (one might say ESPECIALLY) under the current state model of crime prosecution. If anything, the need to seek consensus on a criminal's guilt in an an cap setting would put more restraints on Kennedy, not less.
"What justifies you in acting against a system of alienated freedom that you yourself willed into being for the express purpose of thwarting your individual right of judgement?"
Yeah, Billy, by the illogic of their argument, the state should BAN any outlet of civilization outside of itself, since it is the wellspring of all art, science and culture, and has the right to abrogate our freedoms in the pursuit of same.
It is ironic that the REAL malevolent "anarchists" are Baker, Hamilton et cie, since they argue that they have the right to private judgment when it comes to violent revolution against the social contract, for no better reason than being personally offended against some of the aspects of the government that they EXPLICITLY CONSENT TO. IOW, you just want an excuse to fire off your guns, regardess of the philosophical justification.
...you just want an excuse to fire off your guns, regardess of the philosophical justification.
Oh, right, I want to commit suicide as "an excuse to fire off" my guns. (See: Carl Drega.) I think not.
...a system of alienated freedom that you yourself willed into being
Really? I thought I'd been born into it, just as mainland Chinese are born into a system of Communism, and Swedes are born into a system of socialism, and medieval peasants were born into systems of despotic monarchy. In case you hadn't noticed, "system(s) of alienated freedom" predate anyone now living.
And an-cap societies have existed... where? For how long?
And as of yet, NOT ONE OF YOU has come up with a plan to eliminate said "system(s) of alienated freedom" in favor of anarcho-capitalism. Nor have any of you successfully addressed the question of how an an-cap society could successfully resist attack by a coercive militaristic society.
People have at least tried Marx's philosophy. And failed.
You bitch and moan about the lack of freedom, you hope that sometime in the future everyone will embrace the an-cap philosophy, but you do your damndest in the mean time to insult anyone who deviates in the slightest from its Revealed Truth.
In short, you want everyone to embrace your particular Myth, and cannot understand why so many people prefer their own.
What justifies me in acting against a system of alienated freedom? When I determine that system intends to place ME under absolute despotism, then I am justified in acting against that system. And I would fully expect to be crushed in my retaliation.
We haven't reached that point yet. We may never, though I doubt that. But that decision remains mine.
And an-cap societies have existed... where? For how long?
Your ideal limited government has existed...where? For how long?
What justifies me in acting against a system of alienated freedom? When I determine that system intends to place ME under absolute despotism, then I am justified in acting against that system.
So you're judge, jury and executioner, then? Awfully ancap of you.
1788? The Constitution is naked usurpation. It is clumsily disguised as a contract between "we the people", but a few moments of clear thinking show that it can't be anything of the sort. It's a transparent lie.
"Really? I thought I'd been born into it, just as mainland Chinese are born into a system of Communism, and Swedes are born into a system of socialism, and medieval peasants were born into systems of despotic monarchy. In case you hadn't noticed, "system(s) of alienated freedom" predate anyone now living."
Yes, but you are the one arguing that they are NECESSSARY, sporto. That's the strong Hobbesian argument for the existence of the Leviathan state and the corollary of this argument is that individuals under this system have NO RIGHT OF REBELLION, for obvious reasons. (i.e. such a "right" is a specious excuse by an individual to exercise a personal veto over the Commonwealth that, if consistently applied, would put us back into the horrid "state of nature.")
If you were making Locke's argument about "inconviences" being the source of government, you'd have license to rebel if the inconvience from the government outweighed that of the state of nature. You are NOT making that argument.
"So you're judge, jury and executioner, then? Awfully ancap of you."
'Isn't it, though?'
So, you claim for yourself the right of individual judgment that you assert would result in the invidious state of "anarchy" that you charge Kennedy with promoting. An interesting hypocrisy, to be sure.
Are your bags packed for the anarchist paradise of Somalia?
If not, why not?
So, you claim for yourself the right of individual judgment that you assert would result in the invidious state of "anarchy" that you charge Kennedy with promoting. An interesting hypocrisy, to be sure.
It is that threat, I hope, that provides at least some restraint on government overreach. No hypocrisy involved. Jefferson had the right of it:
"The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. "
Was Jefferson a hypocrite? Oh, wait. Of course he was, from your perspective.
I'm not moving to Somalia because I like it better here. It doesn't follow that government produced what I like about it.
But doesn't it follow that anarchy in Somalia will produce what you like there? I thought it was freedom you were looking for, not comfort.
You champion the Constitution while admitting it's a transparent lie. Is that lie also inevitable?
It's a myth: a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially: one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society, which is not the same as a lie: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive, though both are untrue in a purely factual sense.
All systems of government are based on factual untruths. THAT'S inevitable. Some are based on deliberate lies, others on myths. The level of buy-in by the population to a large extent determines how well that system of government functions. Communist systems fail because the lies are too obvious and the buy-in is low. (Vast black markets, rampant corruption, etc.) The American Republic has worked remarkably well because the buy-in has been remarkably high. The belief in the myths of our system is responsible for the standard of living you now enjoy (and that so much of the world envies.) But the myths are failing now. They're being rejected by the intelligentsia as "lies." (See any college campus or major news outlet.)
We've been over this and over this and over this, John. You want a system based on Objective Truth, but you think that people who would rather embrace pretty and comforting (and functional) myths will go for that.
Human beings accept Objective Truth, if they ever do, only when forced to do so. Generally this occurs shortly after their system of government collapses around their ears (or they're stranded on a deserted island) and they must fend completely for themselves.
As soon as they can, people reorganize back into a comforting system of government.
Deliberately embracing Objective Truth is for the "zero percenters." You've said so yourself.
And an-cap societies have existed... where? For how long?
And, back before the Declaration, "limited-government" Republics have existed...where? For how long?
Why is this question considered a valid argument against anything? It's a fallacy: "If it hasn't happened in the past, why should it happen in the future?"
And as of yet, NOT ONE OF YOU has come up with a plan to eliminate said "system(s) of alienated freedom" in favor of anarcho-capitalism.
That's because I cannot personally eliminate the various governments in the United States, let alone the local ones in Texas that affect me the most, nor can a movement work because we are the most marginalized of all ideologies, and therefore simply do not have the "peaceful" political power to wield to get an-cap results.
Then there's the tiny problem of convincing hundreds of millions of people to give up a few concepts they've come to take for granted their entire lives, hardly ever questioning them, clinging on with fingers in their ears. Inertia in this area, as anyone who seriously considers liberty to be important knows, is immense.
My opinion is things have long moved past the point where American society will reverse course. The remaining cultural institutions are better than most places, I speak the language, and my friends live here. That's why I stay and that's why I'm not interested in Somalia. By the way, there is more to a market anarchy than the absence of government because government is an manifestation of the deeper problem: aggression against person and property.
But you can infer a few things about how a societal defense might be organized in a free society, just as you can infer how free people provide shoes, hamburgers, and art to each other. I bet the answers you'd get from us are largely the same you'll find in the JLS articles above. You aren't going to find a guarantee of anything, because none can be provided.
Why is this question considered a valid argument against anything? It's a fallacy: "If it hasn't happened in the past, why should it happen in the future?"
Because An-cap societies have existed in the past. They've been simple tribal societies, overrun by militaristic coercive ones.
Our (previously) Limited Government Republic has held on - against other coercive societies - for a couple hundred years. Our decay has been internal.
You admit yourself that your "most marginalized of ideologies" isn't going to replace the existing system. You admit yourself that the system you live under in Texas, while far from perfect, is better than pretty much elsewhere. Yet An-cap enthusiasts almost without exception proclaim that the only "moral" behavior is to withdraw from the political system - don't vote, just withdraw. And agitate against the obvious hypocrisy, the "lie of the Constitution," of course.
Thus aiding in the eventual internal decay of that system.
Well, you're getting what you wanted, I suppose. I hope it makes you happy.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2005/06/in-re-pack-not-herd.html (75 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
I won't do anything.
They'll have to carry me to prison, because I will not lift one finger to help them in anything they do.
They believe that my life is theirs. They will find out very differently.
Aside from that, I will only say that nothing could be more foolish than to believe that the "Constitution" is in place to "protect" what you think it could.
Foolish? Perhaps. But it's worked better than any previous system of government. As designed, it's not a bad system, but 225 years of the entropy of human nature have broken it pretty badly.
Our disagreement, Billy, is on whether government is going to exist in some shape or other. You believe (so far as I can determine) that we can get along without it. I don't.
And the government that currently exists will care not a jot nor a tittle that you won't lift a finger. They'll chuck you in jail - or not - when they feel like it.
The "recent discussion of violence" comes about from others deciding what they'll do when or if someone in the government decides to, as Rand put it, "cash in on the guilt."
You choose non-resistance. Others, like Carl Drega, decided to make such choices hurt.
"Government," in the end, doesn't notice either way unless such movements get really large.
Those in charge work very hard to ensure such movements don't get very large.
"You believe (so far as I can determine) that we can get along without it. I don't."
I wonder if you understand all the implcations of a statement like that.
Let me tell you something, Kevin: I'm going to take you at your word.
And that means that you and I had better never cross paths, because I will have to, of necessity, beware of you as a criminal threat to my life. I'll watch you very carefully, and avoid you to the greatest degree possible, always on the lookout that you're going to come at me with malign intent.
You would never have to suspect me of something like that, but I'm not the one who just directly implied that you can't get along without government. I can speak for myself authoritatively and deny that: everyone around me could "get along without government" because I have no interest in doing them harm. But you included yourself in that statement, and I will take you at your word.
Now, think about it: if you've mispoken, and your deliberate conduct of life doesn't require that sort of vigilance from me, then your general statements about human nature are wrong, because there are now at least two exceptions that we know of. And even though the rest of the culture is gone to cannibal-hell, we must -- because of those two facts -- admit at least the possibility that human beings can life in peace without being told what to do by a piece of paper scribbled out centuries before any given human being's birth. IOW: people really can conduct their own peaceful affairs without government telling them what to do. And don't give me that "great idea, wrong species" jazz. It is a manifest fact that some people can do this, even if some people can't. I am not a Utopian: I know better than most that there are bad people in the world, and there always will be. I have never disputed that, although, in the past, I've had my share of goddamned morons calling me a Utopian because they don't pay attention when I say differently.
However: the fact that some people cannot behave themeselves is in no way a valid moral claim for this general blanket of force over the whole culture including people who can.
Now, which are you?
Billy, we're arguing AT each other. I responded to your "And that means that you and I had better never cross paths..." in my last email. I won't do it again here.
I don't know if you're not getting what I'm saying or if you're getting it and simply rejecting it outright. Either way, you AIN'T reaching me.
You don't want me to reach you, Kevin.
That's almost the last thing in the world that you want.
Can I just ask a question here? Since it looks a little late for the force of arms in that gathering a sufficient force is unlikely, why wouldn't a seemingly easier method of starving the government obtain more converts? Wouldn't that appeal to more people: just stop paying! than the idea of a possible bloody death? How hard would it be to convince the many folks who now pay very little to cease altogether? Then there are the ones with a little more on the ball who, if it looked like the idea was spreading, would not jump at the chance to not pay. Why wouldn't this work?
I'm not ruling out the 2nd amendment fall-back. What I'm suggesting is that our Revolution started in just this manner, didn't it -- they said no tea taxes and backed it up.
Billy, first of all I personally am highly sympathetic to your position. But I have to ask: since you acknowledge there are bad people in the world, what do you plan to do about it?
I'll watch you very carefully, and avoid you to the greatest degree possible, always on the lookout that you're going to come at me with malign intent.
Is this your plan for all interactions? Will you revert to digging for grubs because you are afraid of meeting people face-to-face in order to engage in commerce? Because that is what anarchy really means.
Government's ultimate proper role is that of steward of due process. All the rest grows from that.
I hear the anarcho-capitalists talk about private armies, competing governments, and "insurance contracts" straight out of a Vernor Vinge novel. But without a single guarantor (imperfect though it may be) of due process, the whole setup devolves into who shoots the fastest and the mostest. It becomes the pure chaos of protection rackets fighting over turf. Given time, your anarcho-capitalistic vision will simply crown a new king, and you will find yourself choosing from among submission, death, or "going armadillo."
However, as much as I would normally enjoy discussing the matter, I am taken aback by your act of apparently deliberate obtuseness.
"We can't get along without government" did not mean "you and I" or "you and Kevin" -- in context it clearly means "all of us in this crazy mixed-up world." I certainly lack the shared context to which Kevin alluded; at the same time, I have no horse in this race. At a fresh reading that looks like conscious and willful obfuscation on your part.
You say others have called you "a kook" or whatever. I know nothing about that. But I for one suddenly find damn little reason to believe statements like "you would never have to suspect me." Cries of "trust me, I'm nice" are never convincing under the best of circumstances, and certainly not after this.
If I am wrong, please set me straight.
"I think that by the time enough people are pissed off enough to be willing to risk everything they have, it will be far too late to do anything (successfully) about it."
So... shouldn't we be doing everything in our power to make sure people get pissed off before then? People are ignorant and apathetic, but if we can help them lift the veil of ignorance, apathy will lift itself.
Maybe I'm being naive, and apathy's more resilient than that, but trying has got to be better than just sitting back waiting for things to get bad so that we have a series of new Waco-esque standoffs.
The question is, how do freedom-lovers get people's attention without looking like a bunch of kooks?
Billy, Kevin's statement that "we" can't get along without government doesn't really imply that he is himself incapable of treating others with some degree of respect. You seem to think that finding two examples of people who, in a world without law, would behave in a fairly civilized manner somehow negates the fact that humans as a whole WOULDN'T.
Think of it like a bell curve. On one end, you have the people who won't be "civilized" ever, not even in a totalitarian government. On the other, you have those who will be civilized regardless of the government type; the kind of people who will never do any harm to anyone who hasn't harmed (or tried to harm) them first. In the middle, you have the vast majority of humanity, those of us whose level of civility changes from moment to moment, depending on the circumstances.
I don't think Kevin's made any less respectable by his acknowledgement that there are a large number of people for whom self-government won't work.
...since you acknowledge there are bad people in the world, what do you plan to do about it?
Only Billy can answer for himself, so here is my response: There are the bad people in the world who do bad things to be and there are those who don't. While I am certainly opposed to the latter and advocate they stop doing bad things, it is the former that primarily concern me. I don't think we ought to be out to destroy all monsters. Correct me if my interpretation of you is wrong.
What do I plan on doing about the former, who are tampering with my life and property? I've got several blog posts up (An Austin Parking Ticket, Hypocrisy or Consistency?, Costly to Govern) that discuss the most recent threats that the government has presented to my life. It's all relatively trivial shit: car registration, parking tickets, etc. These are the things that are the easiest to resist because the really serious consequences take months to manifest, if at all, and the infringements are truly annoying. But I didn't. I paid the fines and paid the income taxes. The vehicle I drive is legally "clean." And I publicly wrote about the incidents attesting to the bad ideas and arguments used by those who enforce and support the current law. But I didn't write the authorities a letter telling them to shove off and leave me alone. I didn't lock myself in my home and wait, armed for when the deputies eventually arrive. I value my life too much do physically confront these bastards.
There may be a point down the road where the threats to my life both cross some line I haven't even mentally drawn yet and numb me to the point where I refuse to keep living as a subject of others. If such an event happens, it'll be a response to government agents molesting me and my affairs. While I'd be grimly grateful for any help offered if such a confrontation occurs, I certainly won't demand other people sacrifice themselves for me.
Which gets to your disagreement with anarcho-capitalism.
Is this your plan for all interactions?
I assume it's his plan to be suspicious of anyone who wants to impose a government on others so they can get along, to assume that people need to be ruled to keep them civilized.
Will you revert to digging for grubs because you are afraid of meeting people face-to-face in order to engage in commerce? Because that is what anarchy really means.
The anarchy that I have adopted simply means to never aggress against others and their property. I question your knowledge of a property rights-respecting stateless society.
Government's ultimate proper role is that of steward of due process. All the rest grows from that.
Who determines what due process is for me? For you? For Billy? What legitimizes that determination?
But without a single guarantor (imperfect though it may be) of due process, the whole setup devolves into...
You've absorbed the "law of the jungle" slander as well as I've seen anyone else.
[i]Will you revert to digging for grubs because you are afraid of meeting people face-to-face in order to engage in commerce? Because that is what anarchy really means.[/i]
This nonsensical sentence can only arise from someone who believes that government is [i]integral[/i] to commerce.
You've absorbed the "law of the jungle" slander as well as I've seen anyone else.
Speaking of which, see here: http://www.geocities.com/thornton_46/jlaws.html?2005
Who determines what due process is for me? For you? For Billy? What legitimizes that determination?
An interesting question!
But do are you really suggesting it would be different for each of you? As I see it, a sole standard is crucial.
How would you resolve contract disputes between parties? Even with arbitrators, what is to stop one party from refusing to accept or abide by the decision? Where will you take it? The civil courts provide a *single* place to go for such things.
You say I have absorbed the "'law of the jungle' slander," yet this is where it has gone with every anarcho-capitalist I've discussed it with. (Maybe you have a clearer vision than they did. I'm willing to be convinced.)
One fellow suggested that private investigators would replace the courts, and individuals would mete out their own justice via contract killings, etc. People would, of course, exercise this with some caution so that others would not in turn have them killed.
This leaves each person deciding what constitutes due process -- for everyone else. Everyone who commits a real or imagined slight against him, anyway.
Well, individuals are fallible. They can become blinded by rage, they can make mistakes. Sometimes they just aren't very smart.
The civil and criminal courts are designed specifically to deal with this. By providing a single standard of evidence, procedure, etc., the influence of misguided individuals is minimized.
I'm curious what mechanism will serve a similar role in your vision.
Perhaps this discussion should go somewhere else. Suggestions?
"The government has to write a rule it can't break."
or
"We need a government of angels and not men."
Good luck with either.
- Josh
Men is what we've got.
Anyone?
How would you resolve contract disputes between parties? Even with arbitrators, what is to stop one party from refusing to accept or abide by the decision? Where will you take it?
To the bullet level -- and you would only object to that, of course, in direct proportion to your desire to rip me off and get away with it.
As always, government is by, of, and for, THIEVES.
Then it is best kept as small as possible and watched closely, because it isn't going to go away.
But we always drop our guard, eventually.
To the bullet level -- and you would only object to that, of course, in direct proportion to your desire to rip me off and get away with it.
I object to it in direct proportion to my desire to not see the mafia in charge.
Incidentally, if you guys could stop flinging insults long enough to have a real conversation, you might find more receptive audiences.
I asked becase I wanted you to convince me it was a feasible idea; I'm still waiting.
The very first task is to think clearly
There is a class of people in this world who define "thinking clearly" (sometimes they call it "critical thinking") as "agreeing with them". Libertarians aren't unique in this odd habit, nor do all of them think that way.
...people really can conduct their own peaceful affairs without government telling them what to do.
Ah, he's not a libertarian; he's an anarchist. Anarchy's been tried, of course. It starts to congeal into feudalism as soon as the bandits start having kids. Let's make no mistake here: A vote for anarchy is a vote to give the crack dealer on the corner a chance to run for Feudal Overlord. His campaign will involve a) robbing you, and b) killing the other candidates. Will he be more generous than the IRS? I doubt it, but I've been wrong before. Will Mr. Beck kill him first, thereby winning the "election"? Maybe so. Personally, I think we went through all that crap when the Roman Empire fell, and the best-case outcome 1,500 years later is roughly what we've got now.
Did we evolve with a government? Nope. Well then how did everybody, everywhere, end up with one? I distrust any theory which says that all of human history since the neolithic (at least) is an isolated, aberrant special case and proceeds to ignore it.
...the fact that some people cannot behave themeselves is in no way a valid moral claim for this general blanket of force over the whole culture including people who can.
Mr. Beck wants me to take it on faith that he can be trusted to "behave himself" without being subject to the law. His qualification for this honor is that he doesn't much like civilization.
I don't quite know what to say about that, really. Sometimes you meet people who demand that you take their good will on faith. Not all of them are thieves; a few of them are fools instead.
Damn, you state that very well!
"I'm here to advocate an understanding of the Constitution of the United States that says "What's yours is yours, what's his is his, and the Constitution is there to protect that....""
------
Better hope your intended audience doesn't actually go read the damned thing carefully, because the Constitution in fact announces "What's your's is our's and we will use you as we see fit..."
How much of what's your's is your's under the Constitution? What is the most the collective is entitled to take from you under that document? There is no limit and there can in principle be no limit once the choice has been made to rule.
If what's your's is your's then legislators have no legitmate say in the matter and the Constitution is naked usurpation.
Thus you advocate naked usurpation in the hope that it will be limited when in principle it cannot be.
Robin -
The Constitution professes to be a contract between individuals who *are* competent to self-govern. Are you suggesting it's really something else?
And if someone like Billy is competent to "govern" himself, how could you or anyone possibly have any right to interfere?
If like Kevin you advocate that government do what no man has a right to do, how will you protect rights by violating them?
Welcome back John! Lopez will be following shortly, I am to assume?
Billy Beck argues that there's no "philosophy behind" people being willing to resort to violence in resistance to government overreach, and he's right. He, like you, proposes that there is one and only one "correct" philosophy that will lead to the "Atlas Shrugged" solution to all of our problems (that's my characterization, not his) where we all just stop paying taxes and "starve the beast." Yet, when asked why this solution has never been tried anywhere successfully, the answer is pretty much the same one we get when we ask why Communism is such a blatant failure: "Nobody's ever really tried it."
Gee, I wonder why that is?
You object that I support a government that can take without limit, yet I have always acknowledged that all governments CAN do that. Ours is the first I'm aware of that made any effort at all at actually restraining that power and not only that, enumerated it in its founding principles.
We failed that document, John, it didn't fail us. The problem isn't that the document wasn't good enough, it's that people like to steal. And they'll do that whether there's a government or not. Professor Froward illustrates the problem with your solution quite well. Anarchy won't work either for precisely the same reason.
And you guys never have (to my knowledge) addressed the question of how an anarchic society - excuse me, the individuals in an anarchic society - respond to (for instance) a rabid theocracy bent on domination.
You don't have a solution, John. You have a complaint and a pipe-dream.
Chris,
Can nations get along without common government? Does the world as a whole require a single stadard of due process? Where is it?
Nations clearly exist in a state of anarchy relative to one another. Is the world "pure chaos"? No, I see functioning markets between many nations which share no single standard of due process. Who is the King of the World? I see none, there is no power that can impose it's will on the rest of the world.
If agencies naturally act as you suggest in the absence of common government then why doesn't the U.S. simply impose it's will on Canada or Mexico at every turn?
Your model of how agencies act in the absence of government is simply wrong and refuted by examples right in front of us.
You seem to overlook the fact that each and every one of those national governments tax their own people and regulate both their internal and international trade in order to support themselves.
The solution doesn't scale down to the individual level, John.
Kevin,
I'm not advocating tax revolt. I pay taxes and expect to do so for some time.
I don't advocate collective solutions at all. I don't hope to persuade great numbers of people by any argument. I do tell individuals they're doing wrong if I think they or some other observer might understand.
You advocate systematic crimes claiming we can do no better. As an individual I do better by not collaborating in such crimes. So could you.
So for failure: Speak for yourself. I didn't fail you or your Constitution. It is a naked usurpation of rights to which I am not a party.
Kevin,
I've pointed out that in a major obsevable anarchy right in front of us agencies do not behave as the critics of anarchy say they will.
So you guys need to explain why these agencies don't act as your theory predicts, but others would. Saying "That's different" explains nothing, the predictions of ancap critics are quite general.
Isn't it perfectly clear that markets do in fact exist in the absence of common authority?
"As an individual I do better by not collaborating in such crimes." Yet, "I pay taxes and expect to do so for some time."? Isn't that "paying the Danegeld" from the anarchists's perspective?
Africa is a marvelous example of what anarchy promises. Thank you, no. I'll pass.
"And you guys never have (to my knowledge) addressed the question of how an anarchic society - excuse me, the individuals in an anarchic society - respond to (for instance) a rabid theocracy bent on domination."
Vote it away?
(And there you go, dodging the question again. Thanks for illustrating my point - Kevin)
Edited By Siteowner
John, I really enjoy these intellectual arguments. Unfortunately, I'm running behind on my commitments for today, so I have to cut this short. But before I go, I have to make a couple of comments:
"Isn't it perfectly clear that markets do in fact exist in the absence of common authority?"
Isn't it pretty clear that those markets are controlled by governments which - by your definition - nakedly usurp the rights of their own people?
Your vision of individual freedom is that of the Kalahari Bushmen. That is not a life to which I aspire. Civilization is a byproduct of government, not the other way around.
"Isn't that "paying the Danegeld" from the anarchists's perspective?"
I pay ransom. I don't extort it as you advocate.
"Paying ransom" on a daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly basis is "paying the Danegeld," John. "Paying ransom" implies that you pay it once to get back that which was stolen from you.
At least Billy Beck is philosophically consistent on that.
How is my "paying the Danegeld" an offense against you or anyone? In what way do you find my position philosophically inconsistent?
And why do you champion a pact to "extort the Danegeld"?
Chris,
"How would you resolve contract disputes between parties? Even with arbitrators, what is to stop one party from refusing to accept or abide by the decision? Where will you take it? The civil courts provide a *single* place to go for such things."
Ebay would function just fine as a market without any courts. Businesses like Party Poker and PokerStars serve many satisfied customers doing many millions of dollars of business even though there is really no court you can take them to if they cheat you.
What keeps them from cheating all their customers? Only the fact that there's more money to be made doing honst business.
And what about contract disputes between you and your government? Between you and your courts? How can you contract with a single source that will be the judge of the contract itself?
Roderick Long has done a good job of addressing with all of the objections that you folks have raised to anarchy at http://tinyurl.com/dd6me.
Briefly: A state doesn't and cannot solve the problems you worry that anarchy cannot solve.
Professor Froward,
"Mr. Beck wants me to take it on faith that he can be trusted to "behave himself" without being subject to the law. His qualification for this honor is that he doesn't much like civilization."
Umm, wrong. Productive activity, even "art" and other aspects of human culture, has existed before and beside the coercive state. Your comment is like the delusion of the security guard who thinks he runs the movie studio. At best, the arguments that you make argue for a minimal custodial role for the state, not for it as an engine of human progress, history reveals it to be more of a detriment than a benefit to free inquiry and scientific advancement.
As for Beck's view of minimal government:
"I've often said that if I'd grown into an America more or less laid out the way some rational conservatives seem to have in mind, I might have lived with it quietly.
That, in itself, is an "idyll", though. That sort of stasis on statist premises is impossible. The predation of the state cannot be compromised away."
http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php?id=P1690
"I don't quite know what to say about that, really. Sometimes you meet people who demand that you take their good will on faith. Not all of them are thieves; a few of them are fools instead."
And you rely on the -state- to tell you the difference between the two and protect you from same? If so, your a bigger fool than Beck could ever be, since the state itself disclaims any culpable responsibility for protecting you. Don't YOU make such judgements, and act accordingly?
There are two problems we are dealing with here, both related to each other.
The first is the "in loco parentis" problem. Once you alienate your basic freedoms to a state structure, that said structure will ultimately not respect any bright lines you try to draw around its power. After all, YOU just admitted that YOU are incapable of self-governance.
The other is the "quo ipse custodiet" problem. If the state has a monopoly of this horrid thing called "power" that we're all so scared of, then what keeps it in check? If the answer is "nothing," then give me Somalia over Cambodia and Stalinist Russia any day. If you argue "consent of the governed," you are back to the "in loco parentis" problem.
What justifies you in acting against a system of alienated freedom that you yourself willed into being for the express purpose of thwarting your individual right of judgement?
Chris Hamilton: I object to [individualist threats of retribution, re "bullets", as a means of contract-enforcement] in direct proportion to my desire to not see the mafia in charge.
Pardon my French, but just what the bloody fuck do you think a government IS?
All governments are regional alpha-mafias.
And you guys never have (to my knowledge) addressed the question of how an anarchic society - excuse me, the individuals in an anarchic society - respond to (for instance) a rabid theocracy bent on domination.
You don't have a solution, John. You have a complaint and a pipe-dream.
This is a splendid example of "necessity (il)logic" -- essentially, Kevin cannot fathom how to accomplish a particular goal without enslaving John Kennedy's productivity in the guise of a tax-paid military.
Kennedy, of course, then becomes justifiably concerned about rabid statists bent on domination of him.
Statists always have an excuse, and, quite frankly, my "pipe-dream" involves every of them spending the rest of their lives in a Spice Guild pain-amplifier. Honestly: Fuck you all straight to hell.
"Mr. Beck wants me to take it on faith that he can be trusted to "behave himself" without being subject to the law.
Seeing as the present law is far, far more likely to treat him leniently in, say, the matter of him ripping your lungs out -- than any free-market retributive solution involving, say, the hiring of Mr. & Mrs. Smith -- I have to wonder from wence you've derived your present "faith".
After all, the object of your derision did pen a splendid piece entitled "I, Criminal".
Revisiting: I object to [individualist threats of retribution, re "bullets", as a means of contract-enforcement] in direct proportion to my desire to not see the mafia in charge.
...see "The Biggest Gang in Town": http://jayjardine.blogspot.com/2005/02/biggest-gang-in-town-ctd.html
"We failed that document, John, it didn't fail us."
Voodoo.
That's all that statement is Dude. Pure unmitigated voodoo.
Edward T Bear
Mike Schneider - Email me.
I need to talk about something with you.
"(And there you go, dodging the question again. Thanks for illustrating my point - Kevin)"
My point was that your magic piece of paper will not protect you from theocracy. You apply a double standard in demanding that anarchy provide you with safeguards that your state doesn't.
And anyway, the fact that you can't think of a way to live without stealing (and that I have not provided you with one) wouldn't entitle you to steal.
Once again, Froward:
"Mr. Beck wants me to take it on faith that he can be trusted to "behave himself" without being subject to the law."
Well, Billy's a shy & timid woodland creature who has never posted on Usenet, the Internet or on a weblog, but I'd venture to say that he believes in the iron and ancient "laws" (what sociologists call mores and folkways) that govern behavior between men of honor, laws which precede and determine whatever rational laws exist in any coercive state. Why don't you ask him?
On vendetta justice:
Individuals hunting down and punishing those who have wronged them sounds cool -- it's got that nice Clint Eastwood kind of flavor to it.
Unfortunately people make mistakes. Especially when they are looking for someone to blame. Your method has no safeguards against "convicting" the wrong person -- except for the presumed resultant forfieture of ones own life. That sounds sufficient, assuming all parties involved are honest, moral, and capable of sufficient objective detachment; in short, perfect.
Unfortunately that assumption is pure fantasy.
Human beings simply are not consistently capable of such perfection. People make mistakes, people get emotionally involved, people lose objectivity. Our justice system has safeguards against this:
- Juries; twelve people in deliberations are about an order of magnitude less likely to make any given sloppy mistake, and any one person's prejudices will have a severely limited effect on a verdict.
- Right of appeal further minimizes the effect of mistakes or prejudice.
- Prohibitions on double jeopardy, strict rules on evidence gathering and presentation, the right to counsel, unanimous verdicts, and the presumption of innocence all help to ensure that innocent people are not wrongly punished.
As it is we see more than enough wrongful convictions even with these safeguards in place. I find it hard to believe that the situation would improve were they to be discarded.
So, tell me again which system pretends that people are angels?
Our justice system has safeguards against this:Tell me again about Waco.
-- Could an individual surround his neighbor's house with tanks and threaten to shoot down news-choppers "tresspassing in 'controlled airspace'" as they attempted to make a record of the proceedings?
You statists are the ones living in fantasy-land.
Could an individual surround his neighbor's house
Uh, yes. Mafia? Private armies? Any of that sound familiar?
Stop with the straw men. Nobody in this discussion is presenting the US Government as ideal. The question is whether government has any legitimate role, and you are just making my point for me.
Chris
How about simple justice?
You simply cannot in justice interfere with me when I've comitted no offense against you. I want no part of your state and you cannot justly impose it on me.
So what do you propose to balance now against justice itself?
Could an individual surround his neighbor's house
Uh, yes. Mafia? Private armies? Any of that sound familiar?
Not very. (Furthermore, what "mafia" would need a large army of "enforcers" to "protect" its "market" if a government weren't providing it with a market-niche free of efficient and ethical competition? E.g., Viagra is probably the most lucrative drug in the world, but the streets aren't full of gangs hosing each other with lead in order to secure block-by-block distribution "rights")
Stop with the straw men. Nobody in this discussion is presenting the US Government as ideal.
Rubbish -- since that's the only "solution" you've left yourself, albeit you sorely would like all those fucking idiots out there called "voters" to behave differently from the way they have in every goddamn election in bloody history (i.e., in favor or more looting and oppressing their fellows, until the whole thing collapses, e.g., Germany 1933, Chile 1970, etc.).
Yo, Chris....
From the masthead of this blog: "Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." -- Ayn Rand
Now then: From wence can a collective (named, in this case, "government") claim rights which, one may impugn, individuals would not have a right to?
E.g., where does a government collective morally obtain a right to detain suspects, hold them for trial, and render punishment upon conviction, if no individual can innately possess the right to judge himself?
The question is whether government has any legitimate role...
Then the answer is easy: It doesn't. All governments are illegitimate. They are so by birth and by existence.
A legitimate government would:
1. Allow unlimited secession for any individual(s) who wished to leave and form their own union.
2. Not use taxation.
3. Let anyone provide defense and security services to the full extent of the demand for them.
4. Not prevent foreigners from crossing the national border.
5. Not impose a final, ultimate court system with which all must comply.
6. Not use demo- (aristo-, techno-, klepto-, merito-, etc.) cratic means to determine who gets how much of other people's property.
7. ...in other words, would therefore not be a government.
Baker and the other statists keep dodging the point that if you make the Hobbesian argument for the existence of the state, you have to accept the Hobbesian argument AGAINST armed revolution. The latter flows logically from the former.
Therefore, Billy Beck is ENTIRELY correct to accuse them of philosophical incoherence for advocating the same.
Mixed in among all of these insults are some good questions. This could be a really interesting conversation if some level of civility could be maintained.
The ad hominems are just tiresome. It's a clever way to win arguments though; make your opponents so bored that they give up. Great job.
If you guys have convinced me of anything, it's that I wouldn't trust a single one of you to investigate and mete out punishment for, say, your sister's murder.
Statist Pig!
Chris,
"If you guys have convinced me of anything, it's that I wouldn't trust a single one of you to investigate and mete out punishment for, say, your sister's murder."
How does that entitle you to a dime from me? How does it entitle you to impose anything on me?
Chris Hamilton,
"Mixed in among all of these insults are some good questions."
Then answer them. Alleged ad hominems don't license you and Baker to commit the stolen concept fallacy WRT the Hobbesian argument for the state.
"If you guys have convinced me of anything, it's that I wouldn't trust a single one of you to investigate and mete out punishment for, say, your sister's murder."
So what? That is LITERALLY none of your business even (one might say ESPECIALLY) under the current state model of crime prosecution. If anything, the need to seek consensus on a criminal's guilt in an an cap setting would put more restraints on Kennedy, not less.
An exemplary reading:
"His qualification for this honor is that he doesn't much like civilization." ("Professor Edward")
Necessarily implicit here is the assertion that government is the wellspring of "civilization".
This is like the medieval that rotting meat causes flies.
It makes me bone-tired just to look at you people.
Necessarily implicit here is the assertion that government is the wellspring of 'civilization'.
Amazing how the two coincide though, isn't it? Care to explore that further?
It makes me bone-tired just to look at you people.
Then stop looking, Billy. Nobody's forcing you.
OK, here it is again:
"What justifies you in acting against a system of alienated freedom that you yourself willed into being for the express purpose of thwarting your individual right of judgement?"
Yeah, Billy, by the illogic of their argument, the state should BAN any outlet of civilization outside of itself, since it is the wellspring of all art, science and culture, and has the right to abrogate our freedoms in the pursuit of same.
It is ironic that the REAL malevolent "anarchists" are Baker, Hamilton et cie, since they argue that they have the right to private judgment when it comes to violent revolution against the social contract, for no better reason than being personally offended against some of the aspects of the government that they EXPLICITLY CONSENT TO. IOW, you just want an excuse to fire off your guns, regardess of the philosophical justification.
...you just want an excuse to fire off your guns, regardess of the philosophical justification.
Oh, right, I want to commit suicide as "an excuse to fire off" my guns. (See: Carl Drega.) I think not.
...a system of alienated freedom that you yourself willed into being
Really? I thought I'd been born into it, just as mainland Chinese are born into a system of Communism, and Swedes are born into a system of socialism, and medieval peasants were born into systems of despotic monarchy. In case you hadn't noticed, "system(s) of alienated freedom" predate anyone now living.
And an-cap societies have existed... where? For how long?
And as of yet, NOT ONE OF YOU has come up with a plan to eliminate said "system(s) of alienated freedom" in favor of anarcho-capitalism. Nor have any of you successfully addressed the question of how an an-cap society could successfully resist attack by a coercive militaristic society.
People have at least tried Marx's philosophy. And failed.
You bitch and moan about the lack of freedom, you hope that sometime in the future everyone will embrace the an-cap philosophy, but you do your damndest in the mean time to insult anyone who deviates in the slightest from its Revealed Truth.
In short, you want everyone to embrace your particular Myth, and cannot understand why so many people prefer their own.
What justifies me in acting against a system of alienated freedom? When I determine that system intends to place ME under absolute despotism, then I am justified in acting against that system. And I would fully expect to be crushed in my retaliation.
We haven't reached that point yet. We may never, though I doubt that. But that decision remains mine.
And an-cap societies have existed... where? For how long?
Your ideal limited government has existed...where? For how long?
What justifies me in acting against a system of alienated freedom? When I determine that system intends to place ME under absolute despotism, then I am justified in acting against that system.
So you're judge, jury and executioner, then? Awfully ancap of you.
Your ideal limited government has existed...where? For how long?
Well, the concept was put to paper around 1788, but the execution was a bit lacking. It was at least tried.
And an an-cap "society?"
So you're judge, jury and executioner, then? Awfully ancap of you.
Isn't it, though? ;-)
1788? The Constitution is naked usurpation. It is clumsily disguised as a contract between "we the people", but a few moments of clear thinking show that it can't be anything of the sort. It's a transparent lie.
Uh huh. But it beats the fuck out of the Divine Right of Kings.
And you haven't packed up and moved to Somalia... why?
"Really? I thought I'd been born into it, just as mainland Chinese are born into a system of Communism, and Swedes are born into a system of socialism, and medieval peasants were born into systems of despotic monarchy. In case you hadn't noticed, "system(s) of alienated freedom" predate anyone now living."
Yes, but you are the one arguing that they are NECESSSARY, sporto. That's the strong Hobbesian argument for the existence of the Leviathan state and the corollary of this argument is that individuals under this system have NO RIGHT OF REBELLION, for obvious reasons. (i.e. such a "right" is a specious excuse by an individual to exercise a personal veto over the Commonwealth that, if consistently applied, would put us back into the horrid "state of nature.")
If you were making Locke's argument about "inconviences" being the source of government, you'd have license to rebel if the inconvience from the government outweighed that of the state of nature. You are NOT making that argument.
"So you're judge, jury and executioner, then? Awfully ancap of you."
'Isn't it, though?'
So, you claim for yourself the right of individual judgment that you assert would result in the invidious state of "anarchy" that you charge Kennedy with promoting. An interesting hypocrisy, to be sure.
Same question to you, Ernest:
Are your bags packed for the anarchist paradise of Somalia?
If not, why not?
So, you claim for yourself the right of individual judgment that you assert would result in the invidious state of "anarchy" that you charge Kennedy with promoting. An interesting hypocrisy, to be sure.
It is that threat, I hope, that provides at least some restraint on government overreach. No hypocrisy involved. Jefferson had the right of it:
"The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. "
Was Jefferson a hypocrite? Oh, wait. Of course he was, from your perspective.
"Are your bags packed for the anarchist paradise of Somalia?
If not, why not?"
Because I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, bhoyo.
"Was Jefferson a hypocrite? Oh, wait. Of course he was, from your perspective."
Nope, you've not paid attention to my previous post. He was a Lockean, -your- argument is classically Hobbesian.
What, "the blood of patriots and tyrants" from spontaneous rebellion isn't good enough for you?
Methinks you're a newcomer to this blog.
I'm not arguing necessity. I'm arguing inevitability.
Unless and until the "new man" comes along that such philosophies as Marxism and anarcho-capitalism require.
I'm not moving to Somalia because I like it better here. It doesn't follow that government produced what I like about it.
You champion the Constitution while admitting it's a transparent lie. Is that lie also inevitable?
I'm not moving to Somalia because I like it better here. It doesn't follow that government produced what I like about it.
But doesn't it follow that anarchy in Somalia will produce what you like there? I thought it was freedom you were looking for, not comfort.
You champion the Constitution while admitting it's a transparent lie. Is that lie also inevitable?
It's a myth: a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially: one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society, which is not the same as a lie: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive, though both are untrue in a purely factual sense.
All systems of government are based on factual untruths. THAT'S inevitable. Some are based on deliberate lies, others on myths. The level of buy-in by the population to a large extent determines how well that system of government functions. Communist systems fail because the lies are too obvious and the buy-in is low. (Vast black markets, rampant corruption, etc.) The American Republic has worked remarkably well because the buy-in has been remarkably high. The belief in the myths of our system is responsible for the standard of living you now enjoy (and that so much of the world envies.) But the myths are failing now. They're being rejected by the intelligentsia as "lies." (See any college campus or major news outlet.)
We've been over this and over this and over this, John. You want a system based on Objective Truth, but you think that people who would rather embrace pretty and comforting (and functional) myths will go for that.
Human beings accept Objective Truth, if they ever do, only when forced to do so. Generally this occurs shortly after their system of government collapses around their ears (or they're stranded on a deserted island) and they must fend completely for themselves.
As soon as they can, people reorganize back into a comforting system of government.
Deliberately embracing Objective Truth is for the "zero percenters." You've said so yourself.
Edited By Siteowner
And an-cap societies have existed... where? For how long?
And, back before the Declaration, "limited-government" Republics have existed...where? For how long?
Why is this question considered a valid argument against anything? It's a fallacy: "If it hasn't happened in the past, why should it happen in the future?"
And as of yet, NOT ONE OF YOU has come up with a plan to eliminate said "system(s) of alienated freedom" in favor of anarcho-capitalism.
That's because I cannot personally eliminate the various governments in the United States, let alone the local ones in Texas that affect me the most, nor can a movement work because we are the most marginalized of all ideologies, and therefore simply do not have the "peaceful" political power to wield to get an-cap results.
Then there's the tiny problem of convincing hundreds of millions of people to give up a few concepts they've come to take for granted their entire lives, hardly ever questioning them, clinging on with fingers in their ears. Inertia in this area, as anyone who seriously considers liberty to be important knows, is immense.
My opinion is things have long moved past the point where American society will reverse course. The remaining cultural institutions are better than most places, I speak the language, and my friends live here. That's why I stay and that's why I'm not interested in Somalia. By the way, there is more to a market anarchy than the absence of government because government is an manifestation of the deeper problem: aggression against person and property.
Nor have any of you successfully addressed the question of how an an-cap society could successfully resist attack by a coercive militaristic society.
Two PDFs that might help you if your concerns are genuine: Fallacies of Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security and Anarchism and the Public Goods Issue: Law, Courts, and the Police. The short answer: no one can detail how individuals in a free society will work to defend themselves from external aggression because it's a market response. Imagine asking a free market type in Russia what the market for, say, cars will look like once the state ends it's monopoly on production.
But you can infer a few things about how a societal defense might be organized in a free society, just as you can infer how free people provide shoes, hamburgers, and art to each other. I bet the answers you'd get from us are largely the same you'll find in the JLS articles above. You aren't going to find a guarantee of anything, because none can be provided.
Why is this question considered a valid argument against anything? It's a fallacy: "If it hasn't happened in the past, why should it happen in the future?"
Because An-cap societies have existed in the past. They've been simple tribal societies, overrun by militaristic coercive ones.
Our (previously) Limited Government Republic has held on - against other coercive societies - for a couple hundred years. Our decay has been internal.
You admit yourself that your "most marginalized of ideologies" isn't going to replace the existing system. You admit yourself that the system you live under in Texas, while far from perfect, is better than pretty much elsewhere. Yet An-cap enthusiasts almost without exception proclaim that the only "moral" behavior is to withdraw from the political system - don't vote, just withdraw. And agitate against the obvious hypocrisy, the "lie of the Constitution," of course.
Thus aiding in the eventual internal decay of that system.
Well, you're getting what you wanted, I suppose. I hope it makes you happy.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>