This is an essay I often assign in my class when we talk about slavery. I use it because it allows the class to move from slavery to the bigger issue at hand, who should control labor the individual or central authority. It was written by a professional slave apologist by the name of George Fitzhugh who was probably one of, if not the most prolific pro-slave writer of his time. What sets Blessings apart from any other of his arguments is how he sets slavery apart from what he might dub "the tyranny of the free market." While he makes all the classic arguments about slavery being Biblically justified (which I never tire of pointing out to Christian theists who shy away from saying the Bible supports slavery), the meat of this thing is his critique of capitalism.
I post it here because it seems like the anti-free market, anti-libertarian people tend to make the exact same arguments as Fitzhugh. I realize there is a danger of making a guilt by association fallacy, but judge for yourself how astonishingly similar Fitzhugh sounds to modern collectivist arguments, and essentially, the logical end of these arguments seems, for Fitzhugh to be benevolent slavery.
http://occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/divine5e/medialib/timeline/docs/sources/theme_primarysources_Slavery_16.html
To him I'd simply ask this: If slavery is so great, why isn't everyone signing up to be one? Heck, why aren't YOU trying to become one?
I love destroying pages of arguments with one sentence. ^^
Having read the rest of Fitzhugh's arguments, he'd probably reply the way all those who take power in collective societies do.
"Oh, I would love to be just one of the guys, but it's my sad duty to take on the burden of leadership in order to help the rest of you see what's best for you." ::)
What a martyr!
Quote from: AHPMB on December 12, 2009, 05:54:47 PMI post it here because it seems like the anti-free market, anti-libertarian people tend to make the exact same arguments as Fitzhugh.
While, at the same time, accusing the free market of bringing about slavery.
Great post!
In all honesty, as soon as I read the first sentence, about the slaves being the "happiest and the freest" in the world, I stopped reading.
I can only handle so much blinding stupidity in one week...
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on December 12, 2009, 08:00:30 PM
In all honesty, as soon as I read the first sentence, about the slaves being the "happiest and the freest" in the world, I stopped reading.
I can only handle so much blinding stupidity in one week...
You think that's bad? Watch 2012. It's rare that I see a movie that truly horrid. I almost passed out from the pain after the first 10 minutes.
Quote from: Virgil0211 on December 12, 2009, 11:14:38 PM
You think that's bad? Watch 2012. It's rare that I see a movie that truly horrid. I almost passed out from the pain after the first 10 minutes.
And people wonder why I watch movies or TV these days...
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on December 12, 2009, 11:50:52 PM
And people wonder why I watch movies or TV these days...
Well, my dad wanted to see it because the special effects looked good. And he was right. The special effects were downright incredible. They were almost worth the price of the ticket. But, as we both agreed afterwards, it was a truly horrible film.
Anyway, back on topic, I had actually just read about that guy. I was helping my girlfriend study for her American History class. Strangely enough, though, her book didn't really dwell on his arguments much. Just said that he had espoused values that would later be reflected by Karl Marx. I didn't know much more about the details until I read the wikipedia entry.
I wish more history teachers did things like what you did, AHPMB. It seems like most of them are arch-liberals. The ones I've met tend to be, anyway.
Trust me, there have been arguments. When I explain to my kids how protectionist policies like tariffs always not only fail in the long run but cause economic downturns due to trade wars I've gotten some debate. But I just don't know what other conclusion you can draw from looking at American history. Seriously, what else does the Tariff of 1828 teach you? It wasn't called the Tariff of Abominations for nothing.
@Virgil: Hence why I don't take (most) history majors seriously. :P
@AHPMB: So basically, they haven't read up on the broken window fallacy.
Also, back on topic:
Wow...He claims "capitalists would exploit the slaves if they weren't already enslaved, and that they are happy that way?"
Which must be why they were literally dying to get free and work in the "exploitative" market...
No they don't really understand the concept. When I point out that protectionist policies always fail, they seem to fall back on some mythical ideal of protectionism, that if we could just climb the mountain and dream the impossible dream, would work someday. Socialists always do that too. Whenever I talk about Cuba, China or Russia around undergrads, I always get some smart-ass who says, well there's never been a true Communist/socialist country. I always retort, "that's because reality and Communism are mutually exclusive ideas."
Quote from: AHPMB on December 13, 2009, 10:23:21 PM
No they don't really understand the concept. When I point out that protectionist policies always fail, they seem to fall back on some mythical ideal of protectionism, that if we could just climb the mountain and dream the impossible dream, would work someday. Socialists always do that too. Whenever I talk about Cuba, China or Russia around undergrads, I always get some smart-ass who says, well there's never been a true Communist/socialist country. I always retort, "that's because reality and Communism are mutually exclusive ideas."
Oh, ho ho ho!
That retort is fuckwin.
It's nice to see a History Professor who doesn't have his (or her? O.o) head up the ass (overused saying to describe modern day liberals, but come on, it's a classic. :P).
So, are all the things in communism bad? Or is the idea salvagable?
Quote from: Gumba Masta on December 13, 2009, 11:39:36 PM
So, are all the things in communism bad? Or is the idea salvagable?
Pretty much. Its basis involves discarding almost everything we've learned about economics in the past 300 years.
Does that mean that Capitalism is best fitted to the human nature?
Quote from: Gumba Masta on December 14, 2009, 01:27:47 AM
Does that mean that Capitalism is best fitted to the human nature?
What exactly do you mean by that?
What I want to know is, is capitalism so successful because it accomodates to human nature or because human nature grew accustomed to capitalism.
Quote from: AHPMB on December 13, 2009, 10:23:21 PMWhenever I talk about Cuba, China or Russia around undergrads, I always get some smart-ass who says, well there's never been a true Communist/socialist country.
And then they DEMAND that you show a 100% libertarian society and if you can't then they win by default.
Quote from: Gumba Masta on December 14, 2009, 02:27:06 AM
What I want to know is, is capitalism so successful because it accomodates to human nature or because human nature grew accustomed to capitalism.
The former. People spontaneously form capitalist economies. No one ever has to make it happen. In fact, most of the problems in this country come from people trying to stop it.
"And then they DEMAND that you show a 100% libertarian society and if you can't then they win by default."
Right, and they ignore the fact that nobody is even proposing that notion. I have never met a Libertarian or even just plain old capitalist positivist in my life. You would never find a libertarian who would have the gall to do what Marx did and predict that all of human history is just a lead-up to some kind of bizarre utopia where all of humanity suddenly stops being self interested. We understand that in any situation where there are people and resources, someone is going to attempt to take power and limit the availability of resources to others in order to enrich themselves. Thus a purely libertarian/anarchic society is impossible, and government's job is to protect people's rights, including the right to keep and acquire property. Thomas Paine figured this crap out in 1776!
When I teach Communism in class, at least when I introduce the topic, I always use the example of Smurf Village. It's getting harder to do because a lot of kids these days never watched the Smurfs, but most of them know what I'm talking about. First off, you've got Pappa Smurf, who looks just like Karl Marx and wears red. They live in a perfect collectivist society where all resources are publicly owned. You have each Smurf that, save for their job descriptions would be completely indistinguishable from any other smurf. How do the Smurfs manage to make Communism work? By having characters that are completely and utterly defined by the work they do. In other words, by not being human.
They're Qunari! Now it all makes sense, it's an invation! Man the bridges! You'll take Lloyd and I take Beaugh!
... Phew, these painkillers are strong. O_o
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 14, 2009, 06:30:04 AM
The former. People spontaneously form capitalist economies. No one ever has to make it happen. In fact, most of the problems in this country come from people trying to stop it.
Right!
As I explained on one of your videos, Agorism style Anarcho Capitalism IS the default. :3
I wonder what the reaction to his paper on Slavery at the time was?
Was it anything like the response most people will give when you talk stuff like wage slavery?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m486BhgA2s0 Reminds me of this. So funny
I always wonderd, is Phil a comedian, I mean doing it for the moneiz in real life.
Quote from: AHPMB on December 14, 2009, 11:28:59 AMRight, and they ignore the fact that nobody is even proposing that notion. I have never met a Libertarian or even just plain old capitalist positivist in my life. You would never find a libertarian who would have the gall to do what Marx did and predict that all of human history is just a lead-up to some kind of bizarre utopia where all of humanity suddenly stops being self interested. We understand that in any situation where there are people and resources, someone is going to attempt to take power and limit the availability of resources to others in order to enrich themselves. Thus a purely libertarian/anarchic society is impossible, and government's job is to protect people's rights, including the right to keep and acquire property. Thomas Paine figured this crap out in 1776!
[yt]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7dgLSfxi1uM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7dgLSfxi1uM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/yt]
Why I'm an Anarchist by Caleb Johnson (scroll down for the essay) (http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2008/03/21/the-anarchy-boogey-man/)
As I understand it, outright anarchism just ends up being a tyranny in itself. With no way to enforce property rights, they aren't worth the paper they're printed on. If you're wronged in some way, who do you turn to in order to make it right?
The result ends up being a society where you are in fact LESS free because you have to protect your own property all the time, restricting your time and ability to travel. Worse yet, what if the majority wants to take your business or even you? "Might makes right" is tyranny just as much as a monarchy or oligarchy would be.
That's why I stick with the rule of law. I prefer a system where it doesn't matter if you can convince everyone that slavery is cool, it still won't fly.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on January 10, 2010, 07:06:48 PMAs I understand it, outright anarchism just ends up being a tyranny in itself.
I think you're confusing Anarchy with Anomie.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on January 10, 2010, 07:06:48 PMWith no way to enforce property rights, they aren't worth the paper they're printed on. If you're wronged in some way, who do you turn to in order to make it right?
The only difference is that there wouldn't be a monopoly on it.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on January 10, 2010, 07:06:48 PMThe result ends up being a society where you are in fact LESS free because you have to protect your own property all the time, restricting your time and ability to travel. Worse yet, what if the majority wants to take your business or even you? "Might makes right" is tyranny just as much as a monarchy or oligarchy would be.
Again, being there would be a demand for it, why wouldn't there be emergent institutions to do just like, just like in the "Wild" West, or for the Native Americans (see the video on my youtube page).
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on January 10, 2010, 07:06:48 PMThat's why I stick with the rule of law. I prefer a system where it doesn't matter if you can convince everyone that slavery is cool, it still won't fly.
Once again, there can be that too, only the rules would be emergent from the bottom up, instead of enforced from the top down.
Also, you to the replies I got in the comics thread:
You referring to Somalia?
If so, you've been misinformed. As Shane as pointed, Somalia is NOT an Anarchy. They do have a repressive government (just try setting up a land phone line and see!).
Also, I'd advice looking into Anarchic Ireland and Anarchic Iceland.
Both lasted and were quite successful.
Granted, I wouldn't mind knowing why some last and others don't.
From what I can tell the ones that tend to be more liberty based and have more market incentive tend to be better off.
For example, the Anarchy in the Spanish Civil war for example: http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1132 was built on the ideas of socialism/communism: It failed horribly. Mass repression, puritanical bs, and control over the people.
Anarchic Ireland lasted for about 700 years (or 1000 depending on what metric/source you read), and despite the over reliance of religion in that place, was quite scientific and scholarly (according to ConfederalSocialist).
The main problem of the place in addition to the whole being overly religiously depend was also a lack of trade routes (from LadyAttis).
Anarchic Iceland lasted for about 300 years, ending in Civil war (far longer than the US lasted before one of those. :P).
Granted, I can't remember as much about it, other than the laws and leaders (consensual ones) and was dependent not on where you lived: you could actually shop for stuff like that (lose from memory of ConfederalSocialist's video on the subject...I'll see if I can't find it at some point. He's on youtube as user/fringeelements or something like that).
Another interesting case of Anarchy (at least according to Fringeelements/ConfederalSocialist) was actually the "Wild" West.
The video I have featured on my youtube channel explains it a bit near the ending (outstanding video).
Also, as for Virgil's response, that would be, if anything an argument to stop funding the UN. :P
PS: Sorry if this reply isn't quite as scholarly/good as my others, or as Shane's.
I'm a n00b to the whole Anarcho Capitalist/Agorism deal, so I'm not quite as...informed as the others. ^^;
I suppose I'll end off by saying: Even if you don't agree with the idea, would you at LEAST mind us who don't have unlimited succession from your State to form our own society?
PPS: http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap13.html (The Other Piece of the Puzzle)
http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap16.html (Policing agression)
http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap20.html (National Defense)
You could argue that because I don't have a positive solution that it's in your favor, but would just be an appeal to ignorance.
I don't know how to make shoes or grow food or how exactly that's done in a free market either.
Is that justification for handing both functions over to the state?
QuoteAgain, being there would be a demand for it, why wouldn't there be emergent institutions to do just like, just like in the "Wild" West, or for the Native Americans (see the video on my youtube page).
Because if you do that...it's not really anarchy anymore. :p
QuoteEven if you don't agree with the idea, would you at LEAST mind us who don't have unlimited succession from your State to form our own society?
I wouldn't try to stop you. Just saying don't be surprised if years down the road, you find yourself with something one could define as a government emerging. There IS a need for it. We want a set of standards like property rights, rights to a fair trial and all that because we don't just want mob rule making the rules up as they go along. A situation from the old west once illustrated this...
Without the rule of law: A wanted gunman is caught by a mob. They vote 30 to 1 to hang him and so he hangs.
With the rule of law: A wanted gun man is caught by a mob. They vote 30 to 1 to hang him. But then the sherrif comes along and says "you can't just hang him, he has a right to a fair trial." He's taken back to town and is judged by a jury of his peers.
As much as I despise the idea of politicians deciding my rights, I don't want my rights subject to the whims of society either.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on January 10, 2010, 07:38:18 PMBecause if you do that...it's not really anarchy anymore. :p
That's Anomie, not Anarchy.
According to LadyAttis (who seems to know a fuck of a lot more about this crap than I do. *hint hint*), and Fringeelements (who also seems to know more about this stuff than me): anarchists are against the idea of a monopoly on those services, not against the services entirely.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on January 10, 2010, 07:38:18 PMI wouldn't try to stop you. Just saying don't be surprised if years down the road, you find yourself with something one could define as a government emerging. There IS a need for it. We want a set of standards like property rights, rights to a fair trial and all that because we don't just want mob rule making the rules up as they go along. A situation from the old west once illustrated this...
Without the rule of law: A wanted gunman is caught by a mob. They vote 30 to 1 to hang him and so he hangs.
With the rule of law: A wanted gun man is caught by a mob. They vote 30 to 1 to hang him. But then the sherrif comes along and says "you can't just hang him, he has a right to a fair trial." He's taken back to town and is judged by a jury of his peers.
As much as I despise the idea of politicians deciding my rights, I don't want my rights subject to the whims of society either.
As I said, anarchists (at least the ones I associate with) aren't against "government" --the services themselves, but rather, a "state" --an institution with a legitimate monopoly on said services.
[yt]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hvMeB4R-CcQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hvMeB4R-CcQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/yt]
I'd also advice reading that essay I linked to.
He explains the idea more elegantly than I could:
"Now, before I end this essay, I need to make one thing very clear, because I think there is a very common misunderstanding of anarchists, and it is a misunderstanding rooted deeply in our very language. In this essay, I have consistently used the word state. I have tried to avoid the word 'government'. In the minds of many people, these words are synonymous. And it is for this reason that it is difficult to conceive of a life without the state.
It is a truism that interaction between men requires a sort of government. This is evident in all of man’s social dealings. A family exists in some sort of governmental arrangement, inasmuch as there are roles and understood norms of conduct within each family. Often, government in this sense is merely informal. In larger groups of people, it is likely to be more explicit. But what distinguishes these forms of government from the state is that the state is not voluntary. The state is really a very specific type of government. It is an authoritarian model of government that enforces its rule over anyone that it considers to be within its jurisdiction, regardless of whether or not they have consented to its rule. In this respect, a state is exactly like the mafia. In fact, the state differs from the mafia in exactly one respect. The sole difference between the state and the mafia is that a majority of the people in any given area acknowledge the legitimacy of the state. If the majority of people acknowledged the mafia, it would be called “the government”. That is the sole difference between the two organizations. And the reader would do well to reflect on that. Because it is a universally acknowledged principle that the minority are entitled to the same considerations as the majority. But how can this be if the majority reserve the right to impose, at the most fundamental level, a form of governance upon the minority that is opposed to his conscience?
It is sad that all of mankind’s 'national governments' are states. What an anarchist objects to is being forced to adhere to an organization to which he has not given his consent, from which he may not withdraw if it violates his conscience, and which provides its 'services' in a coercive rather than a voluntary way. At the heart of the anarchist argument is a desire to uphold peace and morality, freedom and brotherhood. An anarchist acknowledges a simple truth: that any relationship that is not consensual can only result in further violence; but that a relationship among a group of people that recognizes the value of each individual, that acknowledges his ultimate ability to choose whether to continue that relationship, is based on the greatest bonds of fraternity. This, and not bomb-throwing, is the legacy of anarchism." --Caleb Johnson in his essay, Why I’m an Anarchist
For example, Medieval Anarchic Ireland, a part of the governance (not the state as I gave rough definitions to) was actually an elected king.
The difference between that and a normal king?
Unlimited (or damn to close to unlimited) Succession, according to Fringeelements.
A good essay but remember Shane's speech on the consent of the government? How the constitution in fact restricts the government and not the people and it is legitimate because all people in government swear an oath to it? It is they who are restricted and they agree to those terms as part of the job.
The anarchist seems to be under the impression that all governments are masters. This isn't so, a proper government is in fact a servant to its people. That was the whole idea behind the US even.
I think the model described there sounds nice until you realize it's trying to please everybody in a population filled with many differing views. There are people who think stealing and murder is okay. Is it unfair to impose the common view that begs to differ upon him?
I think all the values demonstrated in that article CAN be done with a limited government. You don't have to consent to a limited government because there's nothing to consent to other than "don't harm others" which is pretty fair IMO.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on January 10, 2010, 09:16:08 PM
A good essay but remember Shane's speech on the consent of the government? How the constitution in fact restricts the government and not the people and it is legitimate because all people in government swear an oath to it? It is they who are restricted and they agree to those terms as part of the job.
That still doesn't change the fact that, as Shane also said, if you don't pay your taxes, or obey the laws and regulations set up by the state, that you get arrested/fined/put in jail and if you resist that, you get shot; regardless of whether or not you've actually inflicted harm on anyone or not.
As I said to Shane (and never did get a response)
With all due respect, if the constitution is violated, what's it going to do; grow wings and teeth and attack whoever violated it?
where's the incentive to NOT violate it?
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on January 10, 2010, 09:16:08 PMThe anarchist seems to be under the impression that all governments are masters. This isn't so, a proper government is in fact a servant to its people. That was the whole idea behind the US even.
Because we're descriptive. How can a monopoly of the legitimate initiation of force and fraud over a given area (The State) and its various levels (local, "state", federal) be anything else?
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on January 10, 2010, 09:16:08 PMI think the model described there sounds nice until you realize it's trying to please everybody in a population filled with many differing views. There are people who think stealing and murder is okay. Is it unfair to impose the common view that begs to differ upon him?
Yes. Because, said person is initiating force/fraud against another.
If you agree that people have the right to defend themselves, irregardless of the system (via that video "The Philosophy of Liberty"), why should it be any different for a stateless society?
It is this very same right of self defense from which the private institutions of police/courts/etc would gain their legitimacy (in addition to their emergence of course).
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on January 10, 2010, 09:16:08 PMI think all the values demonstrated in that article CAN be done with a limited government. You don't have to consent to a limited government because there's nothing to consent to other than "don't harm others" which is pretty fair IMO.
OK, what if I don't want to pay taxes, or use state services?
Would I have a choice to opt out, to succeed?
Before I forget, I suppose I should point out something else very important.
As before, I still recognize that, in terms of the world we live in, freedom is a spectrum, not a dichotomy as it is (or seems to be) in terms of the mind (the theory/explanation part).
Obviously, if the USA State, instead of taking 75% of our wealth, was only taking the 1%-2% needed to fund the courts, police and army, even without the right of succession, I'd be orgasmic.
Hell, even if the government started shrinking or (at least) stopped growing, I'd be very pleased.
QuoteWith all due respect, if the constitution is violated, what's it going to do; grow wings and teeth and attack whoever violated it?
where's the incentive to NOT violate it?
You get fired from your job as a representative of it.
At least that was the idea. Sadly, the people let their guard down and paid for it. That's what they mean when they say the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
With information so much more freely available and religion not having near the power it used to wield, I think if limited government came back, it would be much harder to undermine it again.
QuoteHow can a monopoly of the legitimate initiation of force and fraud over a given area (The State) and its various levels (local, "state", federal) be anything else?
By not allowing it to initiate force in the first place. It's is intended to be purely defensive. It may only act to counter the force of others.
Also, if anyone can create whatever laws and enforcers they want, doesn't this create a problem of juristiction? If it's my lawmaker against yours, who wins?
QuoteIt is this very same right of self defense from which the private institutions of police/courts/etc would gain their legitimacy (in addition to their emergence of course).
Here's the real problem: If the rules only apply to those who agree to them, then why even have them?
"Sorry officer, I don't agree to your law that vandalism is a no no, see ya!"
You say it's not fair to impose rules on people who don't agree to them but that's the catch 22 there. There's always going to be people who don't agree to them or else they'd be self defeating anyway.
QuoteOK, what if I don't want to pay taxes, or use state services?
Would I have a choice to opt out, to succeed?
Ideally there would be none. The LPC mentions this on their web site
"Methods have to be found to fund the legitimate functions of government, i.e. police, courts and judges. To replace all taxes is the ideal, but to many libertarians it is not clear that this is possible. There are other methods of funding government that should be tried. Convicted criminals can be made to pay police and trial costs as well as victims. User fees can be applied in many cases. Witholding government services may be possible. The military can be full of volunteers."
Personally, while I don't have a full plan on my desk at this very moment, I think a taxless government would be doable. Heck, look at Hong Kong. Flat 15% tax and yet their government posts a profit every year.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on January 10, 2010, 10:15:07 PM
You get fired from your job as a representative of it.
:\
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on January 10, 2010, 10:15:07 PMAt least that was the idea. Sadly, the people let their guard down and paid for it. That's what they mean when they say the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
It happens.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on January 10, 2010, 10:15:07 PMWith information so much more freely available and religion not having near the power it used to wield, I think if limited government came back, it would be much harder to undermine it again.
No arguments there.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on January 10, 2010, 10:15:07 PMBy not allowing it to initiate force in the first place. It's is intended to be purely defensive. It may only act to counter the force of others.
As you said later down, a volunteer government or something like that.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on January 10, 2010, 10:15:07 PMAlso, if anyone can create whatever laws and enforcers they want, doesn't this create a problem of jurisdiction? If it's my lawmaker against yours, who wins?
Emergence is by definition indeterminant. However, if what we get in the computer industry is any indicator, because there is an incentive for them to be able to cooperate with one another, you'd seem them doing just that.
Just like how you get tons of standards from the IEEE with computers.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on January 10, 2010, 10:15:07 PMHere's the real problem: If the rules only apply to those who agree to them, then why even have them?
When did I say that? I've stressed sucession; that's how you account for that. Don't like what this set offers, then go to another (or registor, or whatever with another).
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on January 10, 2010, 10:15:07 PM"Sorry officer, I don't agree to your law that vandalism is a no no, see ya!"
By that logic, the use of money debunks Say's Law.
The "officer" would be justified for the same reason the owner of the property would be justified in enforcing his own property rights, as I've already explained.
The "officer" would also just be a middle man acting on your behalf.
Again, if you agree that we have a right to defend our life, liberty and property from acts of aggression, and if you agree that police/courts/defense are simply an extension of that right, then why do you think it would suddenly be different in an Agorism or Anarcho Capitalism?
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on January 10, 2010, 10:15:07 PMYou say it's not fair to impose rules on people who don't agree to them but that's the catch 22 there. There's always going to be people who don't agree to them or else they'd be self defeating anyway.
No.
I said (or at least meant), that it is illegitimate to force people to pay for services, or force them to use services they don't want at the barrel of a gun. Not that common law precedents (rape, murder, etc) only apply to those who like to rape and murder.
And if there is a demand for that kind of force to combat those kinds of people, it too, will emerge.
There would arguily be people who don't want to be subjected to any of this.
That's fine. Understand then that there would be far less people who don't consent. I'm not against the idea of people forming states even within an anarchy, so long as they keep those of us who don't want any part of it out.
If, for example, they initiate force/fraud on me, it's a different story.
I never said it would be perfect.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on January 10, 2010, 10:15:07 PMIdeally there would be none. The LPC mentions this on their web site
"Methods have to be found to fund the legitimate functions of government, i.e. police, courts and judges. To replace all taxes is the ideal, but to many libertarians it is not clear that this is possible. There are other methods of funding government that should be tried. Convicted criminals can be made to pay police and trial costs as well as victims. User fees can be applied in many cases. Witholding government services may be possible. The military can be full of volunteers."
Personally, while I don't have a full plan on my desk at this very moment, I think a taxless government would be doable. Heck, look at Hong Kong. Flat 15% tax and yet their government posts a profit every year.
Fair enough. So basically, a volunteer government.
On a side note, this is probably the first time I've had a serious exchange of ideas on Anarchy.
It's been interesting.
I'm surprised people (myself included) could be this civil on the matter.
Another important point as what converted me to Anarcho Capitalism.
A short youtube comment conversation with ladyattis.
One of the biggest being was this conservation on this video's comments: http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=o28lMXSqgaI
Transcripted--
Me: "I have a question about Anarcho Capitalism as a system.
(No, I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just trying to get a cogent and concrete response to this query.)
How could mob rule in an Anarcho Capitalism be prevented?"
ladyattis: "In this case, mob rule is best moderated by the factors of production. Folks don't like spending their own money or time on things. And if they can't trick others to do it for them, then they'll be hesitant to try on their own as the risk may be greater than the reward."
Me: "Alright.
I suppose this is a part of what this Anarcho Communist I once argued with who told me that in Anarchy there aren't laws, so much as agreed upon rules, where if you don't consent to said rules, you don't HAVE to follow them (unless it involes you violating a person's liberty, life, etc) the way we do in a statist society.
If the towns/cities making up an Anarchy were to allow mob rule/democracy to prevail, it sounds like they'd fall economically, so non mob rule is an advantage."
ladyattis: "Exactly, those communities that focus upon an individualist viewpoint would survive best in terms of economics as they would have to respect individual liberty to ensure equal opportunity (in terms of one's own capacities) for all. Today, people get slighted for ethnicity, age group, sex, place of birth, and many other factors in terms of opportunities, and mostly under the law."
QuoteDon't like what this set offers, then go to another (or registor, or whatever with another).
Isn't this basically the "Love it or leave it" argument and wasn't it stated that you could defend any system with it, even a tyranny?
Here's the real tester: If such a society were invaded, would it be able to fend it off and more important, while remaining anarcho-capitalist when the smoke cleared?
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on January 10, 2010, 11:30:46 PM
Here's the real tester: If such a society were invaded, would it be able to fend it off and more important, while remaining anarcho-capitalist when the smoke cleared?
I can't say for sure.
However, if what ShaneDK, Fringeelements, Mary Ruwart and Harry Browne have stated is any indicator, it isn't as something I should lose sleep over.
You should, during times of crisis is where any system is especially vulnerable and the opportunist weasels out there know this.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on January 11, 2010, 12:05:01 AM
You should, during times of crisis is where any system is especially vulnerable and the opportunist weasels out there know this.
As Abe Lincoln could a test to.
And every other statist president could say.
Shane Killian and Harry Browne insist on a voluntary non standing army and a well armed populance (the best national defense).
I also like Browne's idea of missile defense system to ward off possible nuclear attacks.
Shane has also noted that if you don't get enough participation, then it isn't a war worth fighting.
Especially considering the fact that the vast majority of the wars fought by the USA have been caused via our meddling and whatnot.
Hence States tend to overproduce it as a "good" or "service".
Also, your point about sneakier people isn't really that strong an argument.
As ConfederalSocialist/Fringeelements has pointed out: You can't maintain a state by force alone, and there would be no state apparatus to take control of; as it would be viewed as illegitimate. Even if they bomb and destroy a single town (Anarchism being decentralized for the win) they'll have all the surrounding towns (presumably most of whom would be heavily armed, if the Wild West was any indicator) to deal with; not just the military.
You can argue that that's not so, that a military takeover is still possible, but then how would that be any different for a minarchy with no standing army (as Shane is also against) and a state apparatus (meaning that the State is viewed as legitimate) to take control over.
I'd advice looking at ConfederalSocialist/Fringeelements/CSMirror's videos on this.
He explains it in better detail than I have.
I've mostly been going roughly off memory with them anyways.
Also, I'm not saying it would last forever, but, as I said, the problem of non monopoly national defense is, at best, greatly over used and exaggerated.
Shane: "No, but you need to realize that it's ridiculous of people to DEMAND that you show a system where it has worked BEFORE implementation."
as another youtube conversation went:
Jcolinsol: "Takeover of what?
In order for ruler-ship to occur, their must be a perception of legitimacy. This is exactly how Anarchic societies throughout history have come to an end, the people agreed to the legitimacy of a ruler, and especially, the legitimacy of tithe.
Today's states are just violent collectives, it is their perception of legitimacy in the populace that gives them their rule. They ARE the tyrants.
Anarchism is not a political ideology, it is an accurate model of social structure."
Jcolinsol: "I believe that Ireland became statist under British invasion. Iceland became statist when they agreed that Christianity should be the national religion and started paying tithe.
Anyone know how Anarchic Spain ended?
"power vacuum" is a funny term, I'm not sure how "power" and "vacuum" are defined defined.
Societal structure doesn't go away in Anarchy, it can simply evolves according to need. If we're talking coercive power, yeah there's less of it without the state, But we WANT that right?"
Shane: "But we also want protection FROM coercion. We don't want Britain or anyone else invading our little anarchy and putting us under her iron boot."
Jcolinsol: "Right, so if there is a demand for a service, such as protection or defense, then businesses or organizations will form to supply the demand. Nothing about the demand for protection services suggests that the service needs to be or should be provided by a violent monopoly institution."
QuoteAnd every other statist president could say.
That would mainly be the weasels I was referring to.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on January 11, 2010, 12:46:14 AM
That would mainly be the weasels I was referring to.
OK.
Then maybe I might have read to much into your post.
If I did, then my apologies/bad.
Yah, times of crisis, they're the ones coming asking that you hand over the reigns and they'll make peace...with a heavy price in the fine print.
I'm unsure if this idea could actually work though I'd be thrilled to find it it can but seriously, you guys need to change the name. Anarchy and capitalism in the same term? Forget it. I can hear the brains closing up tight from here.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on January 11, 2010, 12:58:23 AM
Yah, times of crisis, they're the ones coming asking that you hand over the reigns and they'll make peace...with a heavy price in the fine print.
I'm unsure if this idea could actually work though I'd be thrilled to find it it can
It's all about the legitimacy.
Also, considering that a free society tends to grow the fastest economically (and therefore scientifically and technologically), and that war destroys real wealth, I'd say those are two more points on our side.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on January 11, 2010, 12:58:23 AMbut seriously, you guys need to change the name. Anarchy and capitalism in the same term? Forget it. I can hear the brains closing up tight from here.
LOL!
Yeah, the term "Anarcho-Capitalism" IS a major turn off to many, including many free market anarchists such as Dale Everett (Author of Anarchyinyourhead), who calls himself a free market anarchist or agorist in order to avoid the stigma that comes from the word "capitalism".
Many also call themselves Agorists or Anti-Statists (I'm one of them by the way: Check out my youtube profile to see).
I suppose I'll end this off by saying that I highly suggest you read this book:
http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/ Healing Our World: The Other Piece of the Puzzle by Dr. Mary J. Ruwart (The free online edition)
if you haven't already.
She explains the idea of how deal with crime in a society firmly based on the N.A.P. (Non aggression principle) in a way that minimizes the amount of non consent and aggression (with a great deal of sources to back her claims up).
For those unfamiliar with her, yes, she is part of the anarcho-capitalist wing of the LP (source: Wikipedia); but don't let that stop you.
It is my favorite book of all time and has been even before I become an anarcho capitalist myself. What's more, I know the later edition is on Shane's top ten list as well (source: http://www.shanekillian.com/blog/index.php?/archives/132-Book-Smart.html ).
Is it kinda like how Japan is said to have a low crime rate simply because their society is so disapproving of it? Had a friend tell me how if you were caught stealing a bike in Japan, it would be considered so shameful, you might as well pack up and leave town.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on January 12, 2010, 02:10:17 PMIs it kinda like how Japan is said to have a low crime rate simply because their society is so disapproving of it?
Not really. She's got something a bit more intricate in mind.
I recommend just reading the book, or at least the chapters that focus on that point that I linked to earlier in the discussion.
It's awesome. Even if you don't agree with her on her points, it will most certainly get you thinking. :)
Also, at the risk of dragging this out farther than what is deemed necessary:
Many anarchists (Or at least me and the ones I associate with :P ) wouldn't object to the idea of using force in defense of an initiation of force, or to get the initiator to pay restitution to the harmed party (much like some minarchists. :P).
The main point of disapproval (at least for the market anarchists I associate with; e.g. Ladyattis) is directed to the monopoly on the institutions that are typically considered responsible for the administration of justice (aka: The State): courts, police, defense, legislators and prisons.
The idea is that if monopolies are bad for most other very important institutions and services like education and health care, as well as for the goods/services deemed less necessary like, say, widgets, then why should these most important institutions regarding justice get that special monopoly privilege?
It's special pleading.
So, would they approve of a system where the government as it is stays except taxes are eliminated (if they want more money, they have to convince the people they deserve it) and there's no rule in place saying that a competing government can't try to muscle in on them if they're not doing a good job?
What gets me is if there's no pre-existing rule of law, where do these governments get their legitimacy from? Also, who's doing the hiring/firing of them?
Again it would be emergent, so I can't say. :\ It would likely vary from community to community (from what I've heard).
Also if you mean violent overthrow when you say, "muscle in" then no. I mean unless you consider what happens when a person builds a better, cheaper and more effective mousetrap the way Rockefeller did to be "muscling in" then yes.
[yt]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PkAE6_R7Nls&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PkAE6_R7Nls&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/yt] (video posted assuming that by "pre-existing rule of law" you mean "protection/securing of rights")
The short answer, is, as I've already said, is by their emergence; just like when a private institution for, say, delivering goods emerges establishes its legitimacy; and by the fact that people are willing to voluntarily into the business for a good or service they value more than their money, absent the initiation of force, fraud and/or duress. Just like you said, or at least hinted at, in the first post of your Top 10 favorite collectivist arguments (https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=377.0) thread.
Finally, last time I checked (I could be wrong, as history isn't my best subject), but wasn't it the creation of law (the U.S. Constitution) the method by which our own state was established?
So why does law have to be pre-existing?
As for the "hiring and firing" I can't say for sure, but probably the people seeking/using/paying for the services of law, dispute resolution, and so on.
Instead of being a public good with a tragedy of the commons effect, you'd probably get better, more efficient "rationing" via the prices emergent in the market for those goods/services.
Finally, here's a cartoon and essay to consider.
No, it's not part of any formal argument, so much as food for thought. I've posted both the comic and the entire essay here for convenience.
(http://anarchyinyourhead.com/comics/2008-11-28-anarchy_fairy.png)
Anarchy Isn't The Answerby Dale Everett
November 28th, 2008
"In The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, a massive super computer is asked for a simple answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything. It spends 7 and a half million years to determine that the answer is 42. Of course, the realization is quickly made that a simple answer to an extremely complex question, or more accurately many difficult questions, is ridiculous on its face. The real answers to all the big problems are not easy, however badly we may desire them to be.
A lot of irrational beliefs have been fostered and perpetuated by barbaric civilizations in their desperate quest for answers. Virgins have been thrown into volcanoes to appease angry volcano gods. Rain dances have been performed to water dried up crops. People pray to various gods to heal a sick loved one. I happen to be an atheist. If I tell a person his prayers won't work because his god doesn't exist, it's not so I can give him a new god to pray to instead. The point is encouraging him to abandon the simplistic answer to a very difficult problem so he can face the cold hard reality. There are many realistic cures for cancer being pursued with varying degrees of success, but they can be painful, time-consuming, expensive, and don't always work. If he pursues these and his loved one gets better, his god will get the credit. If not, he will make excuses. Perhaps his faith wasn't strong enough! Through an atheist's eyes, his prayers had little to do with his loved one getting better except perhaps from a placebo effect.
We look to governments in much the same way we look to gods, to offer us easy answers. Similarly, when things work, we give governments credit. When they don't, we make excuses. We still have crime, war, car accidents, poverty, sickness, and death, despite the fix-all of authoritarian monopolistic governments, and sometimes because of. Instead, governments are forgiven for these massive failures and we continue to insist they have some crucial role to play.
I don't present anarchy as an alternative fix-all solution just as atheism is not a cure for cancer. If I tell you that your prayers are doing nothing to heal a sick loved one, that doesn't mean I have a cure for their cancer. It just means I'm encouraging you to seek any one of many possible treatments that have some basis in reality. Otherwise your efforts are futile at best, and possibly even harmful if they're delaying you from pursuing real solutions.
The answers to the difficult problems aren't simplistic. We can't simply pass the buck to gods and governments and expect them to get resolved. It's a hard pill that we each must swallow if we're to evolve our societies. Our irrational beliefs provide comforting delusions not easily given up. This is true of notions of gods, mysticism, and paternalistic governments.
When someone asks me something like how anarchy will prevent crime, the question sounds absurd. The question has it's origins in an incorrect presumption that our governments are preventing crime. Instead, police spend most of their time creating and enforcing false crimes like making plant possession illegal, and writing tickets to predominantly innocent people to pay their own salaries. Meanwhile, the false sense of security they provide to true believers prevents them from taking measures that would actually make them safer like fortifying their homes, getting sufficient insurance, and arming themselves for self protection. Anarchy won't prevent crime, but preventing the crimes perpetrated by governments would certainly be a good start in the right direction.
As an anarchist, I will confidently tell you that violent authoritarian models of government are not answers at all. They don't solve life's many complex problems. It doesn't mean I have a simple solution to offer in their place. The answer many will not want to hear is that there is no superior government to offer, just as there are no new gods with healing powers to replace those whose existence I have denied. The unpleasant but truthful response is to shatter the comforting delusions so we can start the hard but inevitable march toward finding real solutions to the problems life throws at us.
Just like religions, governments comfort us with fantasies. They claim we need them to protect us from crime, but they're the greatest perpetrators of crime. Governments take more money from us on a regular basis than thieves would ever manage to steal in their absence. Police are locking up innocent people for victimless crimes, sometimes killing them in the line of duty or torturing them with tasers while their government status protects them from the repercussions of their actions. The supposedly free country of the U.S. locks up a larger percentage of the population than any country in history. The exorbitantly expensive war in Iraq is killing our loved ones as well as countless Iraqis, all the while fueling anger that makes us more likely targets for terrorism. Right now the massive bailout is taking money from our economy and giving it to favored elite in the name of helping us.
They're swiping more wealth from the poor and middle class in one fell swoop than all the welfare they've ever offered throughout history [This part I've italicized I disagree with, but I don't think it destroys the main point of his essay. I just wanted to point that out.], and handing it over to their wealthy supporters. They'll amputate our legs and then offer us a free wheelchair to show how badly we need them. Authoritarian governments haven't reduced crime. They've simply claimed a monopoly on it.
Why doesn't the rain come when we do the dance? We all have a sense that governments are horribly off in some way or another but can't quite put our fingers on it so we keep doing all the same rituals to try and fix it. Democrat and Republican candidates get more alike each election, but voters keep thinking that if they just get their guys in there, the "good guys", and get the "bad guys" out, it will make things better. The truth is they're all bad guys and the inherently corrupt system makes them that way. The vote they recently had was a ritual designed to reinforce and validate an irrational belief that authoritarian monopolies can be in any way accountable to the people.
Governments continue to fail us because we've put our faith in something that makes no sense. We've consolidated power but we haven't consolidated morality. We handed our teeth and our testicles over to governments, attempting to delegate solving all the really difficult problems. People have faith that it will act on their behalf, but there's no logic backing that faith. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. In our desperation for simple answers, we have perpetuated an irrational belief that the only way society can function peacefully is if one organization has all of the power. Many call it a monopoly on violence as if that's a good and necessary thing! They insist that governments be monopolistic over a region and that means they have to exercise violence or the threat thereof to maintain those monopolies, usually against innocent people. In essence, they claim government can only work if it's a criminal organization. The exact opposite is in fact the case. The checks and balances that the founding fathers tried to institute are nothing more than internal checks and balances of a criminal organization on itself. There is no way to watch the watchers. Effective checks and balances can exist only to the extent that we manage to distribute power back out to sovereign individuals.
To those with a continued religious faith in the state, I say the authoritarian but also benevolent government you want is a paradox. It does not exist and cannot be created no matter how badly you desire it. Just as atheism is only a solution to futile mysticism, anarchy is only a solution to one problem, but one which is quite pervasive– the irrational belief that an organization which is inherently criminal can also be benevolent. Anarchy is not an answer in itself. It's simply a rejection of the false answer.
There are many paths and many solutions to the difficult problems. There are many ways for us to work together without enslaving all of humanity under tyrannical mob bosses. There are many ways to fight crime without becoming criminals ourselves. There are many ways to help the poor without becoming thieves. In fact, there would be a lot less poor if governments stopped pillaging the economy. If someone doesn't amputate your legs, you won't need them to provide a wheelchair. Problems are solved by many people with expertise in different areas all focusing on what they're good at. The ultimate checks and balances are the result of a truly free market of individuals working together. I'm skilled in many areas, but there are far more areas where I lack expertise. I have no idea how to make shoes and yet I am wearing nice shoes which government didn't provide.
So anarchy isn't the answer. However, it is the beginning of finding real answers. Anarchy is merely a rejection of falsities. The anarchist has chosen to abandon childish fantasies and face reality, and in so doing is better equipped for pooling his skills in a mutually voluntary fashion with other awakened individuals toward finding real solutions. Realizing that the magic bullet solution we've been pursuing is irrational and hopeless is only the first step, but it's an absolutely crucial step if we're to make progress toward real freedom, peace, and prosperity."
Also, another good video from ladyattis I finally found:
[yt]2f9566Z0jDM[/yt]
PS: Another good (recent) one from Ladyattis:
[yt]ZO9HvIzgGfU[/yt]
My bad. It seems I forgot about this bit:
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on January 10, 2010, 11:30:46 PMIsn't this basically the "Love it or leave it" argument and wasn't it stated that you could defend any system with it, even a tyranny?
No, because, as I (poorly) stated, with "register", you would likely be able buy court/police/defense from another person or organization if the other didn't suit your needs or choose your leaders (if you wanted any to begin with) individually. Anarchic Iceland used a method similiar to this according to ConfederalSocialist's video on it. So I'm a bit surprised they didn't last longer than they did.
Finally, how is what I said any different from the Minimal Statist point of view of state powers, which use the exact same, or damn near close of a justification?
The only difference, is that there would likely be far more choices than a measly 50.
Although, to be fair, and since I meantioned him, when watching ConfederalSocialist's videos, he seemed to use that love-it-or-leave-it idea a lot (which is part of where I got it, along with his video on Anarchic Ireland), and it bothered the fuck out of me for the same reasons it did you, or anyone else.
Anyways, that's all I have to say about Anarcho-Capitalism and Agorism at the moment.
@Lord T. Hawkeye: In one of your first posts here you said that your friends think you should have spiked hair and look like a punk or whatever.
I wonder what they'd think of me. :P
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on January 10, 2010, 11:30:46 PMHere's the real tester: If such a society were invaded, would it be able to fend it off and more important, while remaining anarcho-capitalist when the smoke cleared?
http://mises.org/daily/4021 ("Foreign Aggression" by Morris and Linda Tannehill)
Also: [yt]VIs5r3ujBmw[/yt]
If I haven't said so already, check out Ladyattis's videos on Anarchy/Anti-Statism.
He's awesome.