An Honest libertarian Discussion Thread

I see the biggest difficulty with the volutaryist/anarcho-capitalist system being

1. Agreement on a singular law code

2. The provision of defense of external states.

The first is the prerequisite for a voluntaryist society, and what we see in the world today. Until a generally libertarian code of law is agreed upon by the populace there will never be a voluntaryist system. If the consensus dissipates within a voluntaryist system then the society may quickly cease to be a voluntaryist one, although once formed it would require a very high level of consent to destroy the system, since forcing a large portion of the population to pay taxes would be very costly with a high level of internal resistance.

The second problem, then, is a much bigger problem. This is because realistically defense is a public good. Everyone in the anarchist society would (for the sake of argument) prefer the provision of defense to none being provided, but no one is better off if they pay for defense because their contribution to defense is so incredibly small. Therefor the survival of the anarchist society comes down to:

1. The feeling of community and duty of those within the society. The greater these feelings are the greater the likelihood individuals within society will be to contribute to public defense.

2. The feelings and powers of surrounding governments. The more aggressive, land hungry, and powerful they are the greater the probability of invasion. For instance if the United States became entirely anarcho-capitalist and the only nations that might want to invade it are Mexico and other southern American nations, then it would probably be safe because these nations don't have very large militaries so even small defense forces and guerrilla forces could probably repel the invaders. Meanwhile an anarchist Finland would probably not have much to worry about from its peaceful Scandinavian neighbors. With Russia and China in existence in our day the story becomes an entirely different one, however.

3. The policies of threatening nations

The more aggressive and oppressive invading nations are perceived to be the more resistance will be put up. There's also the wicked possibility of companies refusing to pay for defense services (when they're large enough to gain much more effectively than individuals for receiving their services) in order to receive payoffs and benefits from the invading companies. I also think it would be, in most cases, extremely difficult to actually establish a state over an anarchist system because of the capability of sabotage and resistance that could be put up. For instance the amount of money poured into the Iraq war by the U.S government on a yearly basis was greater than the GDP of the nation, and that was a very small country without massive resistance to the occupation itself.

4. Other options

I've heard proposed solutions such as "war insurance" where militaries are hired by insurance companies who give financial backing to customers in the even that they lose property in a war. This is a possible solution, but I could also see how it might not happen. I've heard a variety of other proposed systems that might or might not happen, and that's all up in the air. They are eventualities, not certainties.

I do not find the possibility of the destruction of the anarchist from within to be at all probable because of the cost that would be involved in this without a base for taxation in the first place (see above). I also think you'd have a hard time finding enough soldiers in the developed world who were ready to fight and kill those who were just defending their own property in favor of a government. In the anarchist society the system of government would probably be seen as regressive and barbaric, just as monarchism is seen within modern democracies. How would one convince a large number of soldiers in America today to fight for monarchic dogma? How would one convince a large number of soldiers in a society based around mutual respect and property to fight for the opposite?

 

I quoted this part because most of your other comments are easily understandable, and not off base in origin.

You see … That is why I have always thought that anarchy was more suited for Space that Earth (at least until it gets crowded out there).
Space is like a 3D Internet, and could be occupied and managed without a government or tax base.
I am not too sure people would be entirely excited about the idea that Corporations would play a huge part in an anarchical system in Space.

The other problem I have with anarchism is the prolific use of the word “if” (figuratively), and when people talk about it in a positive manner the “if's” outweigh the “will's”.
I mean aspects of Voluntarism and Mutualism exist on their own without the need to be predicated by any set of standards, as that is how they are derived or defined.
Both do rely heavily on two aspect that we may not agree are abundant in society/humanity … those being a sense of “good will” and the acceptance of education to the basic principles.
I would love to see someone educating the residents of the Lower 9th Ward in New Orleans, or 5th Ward in Houston, as to the benefits or concepts of anarchy.

Walk off into either one of those places and say something like …

“If evil actually exists, it is the product of a façade generated as a shroud of morality established by a government to hide their Theft and Abuse of Liberties.”

Where some people may embrace the concept … Quite a few would be quick to correct the ill fated delusion, and blow your head off for sport.

Anarchy, as a positive solution, relies too heavily on a common understanding that is based in concepts that are not abundant in any society.
It can only exist and prosper, if allowed to do so … and simply removing the need to be dictated or allowed through principle or dogma is not adequate in employing function.
Back to the Space thing … I think it would work better there only because you have a clean slate to work with to some degree.

 

I do agree that a larger and new society would be a much better catalyst for the libertarian society to come about in. Where I think I disagree with you is that bringing about the libertarian code of law would be that difficult. If the vocal minority, that small portion of the population that really cares about what happens in society at large and is willing/capable of understanding some degree of political theory, were to favor libertarianism and establish it either directly, or preferably through a slow dissolving of the state, then I don't think there would be much a problem.

The NAP is already the default law code that most of us live by. Everyone understands the don't steal, don't kill, don't murder thing, even if they don't obey it. I don't see how this would be any different than it is now. What is needed is proper support that causes any shift in the political structure, not education of the whole population (although the more educated a larger portion of the population is the better).

Furthermore it's a lot easier to abolish a state than to try to impose it again. Can you imagine trying to revert from the anarchist society (assuming security and relative prosperity) to the statist one? Trying to get people to pay taxes and to follow a whole bunch of extra laws would be like trying to herd cats.

 

One of the basic tenets of Anarchism is the devolution of power to the lowest level possible because it is only at a level where every individual can participate and agree that their rights and liberties are protected.

Anarchism seeks to eliminate exclusivity of all kinds by allowing individuals to be voluntary members of any number of consensual arrangements they wish to enter into regardless of state, national, or any other imaginary boundaries. Anarchism realizes that any sort of large scale geographically based government, certainly anything as large as a state or nation is a practical impossibility because universal consensus becomes increasingly impossible as the size of the group grows and the ability of those who disagree to leave and join another group more amenable to their conceptions is practically limited by the exclusive geographic nature of these political forms.

This does not preclude, and in many ways encourages the establishment of a very broad social agreement on principles of individual behaviour since it is in every voluntary group's interest to gain the willing acceptance support and engagement of neighbouring groups whose membership may include members of the group in question. This is how society already operates with its myriad of overlapping interest and relationship groups continually forming, dissolving and reforming over time. Anarchism recognizes this and is trying to establish a framework of governance that will reflect society and its dynamic nature as it exists.

Anarchism is about eliminating constraints on the social dynamic and makes no judgement on whatever a truly free society decides to do. Anarchism does not care about particular results because the disestablishment of all existing constraints on individual social interaction is their only goal. What the people decide to do with that is pure conjecture guesswork and speculation. It is a sub-genre of science fiction.

All other frameworks seek to harness existing constraints in order to reformat society and bind its dynamic to their peculiar interest. Libertarianism falls into this category.

 

This is true, yet many libertarians are, essentially, anarchists. The natural result of the non-aggression principle leads to this.

 

Many libertarians, while adopting almost every principle of Anarchism lock stock and barrel, supposedly including the basic principle of non-aggression, still seek to impose a particular vision of the future on everyone else. Something which logically cannot be accomplished without aggression. So, many Libertarians choose to define non-aggression in their own peculiar terms rather than accept that their vision is not especially viable if the principles of Anarchism that they hold so dear are actually adopted in the future.

For example, many libertarians in this camp believe in some inviolable right to individual property ownership. In their reasoning any constraints at all on private property are actions of aggression but any activity a property owner may undertake are not regardless of the impact these activities may have on those who live on the property, are employed on the property, live adjacent to the property or may otherwise be affected by the activity. That, to me seems like a very peculiar and particularly dangerous definition of the principle of non-aggression, one that completely overturns at one stroke every principle of Anarchism that Libertarians espouse as their own.

Consider our present circumstance, less than 10% of the population owns more than 85% of the private property in the US and less than 5% of the population owns 90% of the private property worldwide. Who gains the most from a movement with private property rights as a cornerstone?

Libertarianism is nothing more than oligarchy in masquerade. It is a demon that has no intention of delivering these rights and liberties and freedoms to anyone but themselves once the institutions that constrain them are removed by mobilizing the public to overturn them with the universal appeal of Anarchism's principles of self government through the maximization of individual rights and freedoms and liberties. By changing the definition of one term, non-aggression, Libertarianism has usurped Anarchism into oligarchy.

 

If the impact harms the property of others, then there is a problem. I've not heard a single libertarian claim that anyone may do whatever they want on their property if it constitutes (initiated) force or fraud against others. In fact, there are a number of activities a property owner could take that are initiated acts of aggression, even against trespassers. Who claims otherwise? From natural law, one can objectively define when aggression is initiated, even on one's own property. The question is, can you, using whatever principles you follow, objectively define when someone has committed a crime?

You and I do, as we are self-owners. If that is denied, then the state claims ownership. I would pin the problem of such huge wealth disparities on central banks, which are designed to protect the wealthy and powerful from failure and to funnel the wealth of people like you and I into their pockets. One can hardly blame a monetary central planning system on private property rights. You have no right to the money in your possession as what you are forced to use as money is a debt instrument belonging to the US government or some other government.

Right. Taking away the power of bankers to control the money supply is an oligarchic crusade. According to you, we are better off being owned by the state, as it will protect us from the plutocracy. How is that working out for you so far? I know, let's give the government more power, then they'll stop sending our children to wars, bailing out the banking sector, and further taxing the middle class into poverty!

The non-aggression principle stems from self-ownership. From self-ownership, we can objectively determine how property is justly created or acquired, and what interactions between humans, in a political context, are moral or immoral.

I am quite open to a rational, logical set of principles by which government can use violence against peaceful people. Do you have such a principle? You are certainly quick to complain about libertarians, but I have yet to ever see anyone of your ilk tell us what you actually believe, other than some hodge-podge of subjective collectivist contortions that lamely justify whatever it is you want to force people to do.

 

Natural Law has no relationship at all to human nature. There is no such thing as an objective viewpoint on human behaviour. Crime and it commission are strictly subjective

I would pin the problem on the concept of self ownership which allows for the complete disregard of others in the pursuit of wholly selfish desires. Private property, massive accumulations of private wealth, central banking are merely the expected symptoms of this sort of delusional anti-social psychopathy.

No, we would be better off if there was no state at all and no centers of power that would allow plutocrats and oligarchs or any other megalomaniacs to gain power.

The primary form of humanity is the group, not the individual. The non-aggression principle stems from the necessities of group survival. A singular individual has no need for non-aggression but an individual within a group does. Since humans do not usually exist outside a group the concept of self ownership is absurd, as is the idea that some objective determination on the morality of human interactions can be derived from it.

I do not believe that there is any set of reasonable moral principles that would allow for the use of violence against peaceful people, though there are any number of unreasonable logical arguments that can, have been, and still are deployed to justify such behaviour. The most egregious of these is arguments that claim the mantle of objectivity as it is some irrefutable proof that justifies their depravity.

Here's the difference between you and me. I believe that humans are, by nature cooperative and it is their nature of mutual cooperation for collective benefit that creates the foundation upon which human society rests. This is the critical platform that creates the space for individuals to pursue their particular endeavours.

You think otherwise.

 

If you are not the owner of your own body, who would you say IS the owner? And how did this other person come to be the owner of your body?

Also, how does owning one's own body allow for the complete disregard of others? Don't they also own their own bodies? That means that one can't go around harming other people's bodies (their property). Self-ownership sets the stage for peaceful, cooperative social interaction.

 

Then your basic philosophy must be that might is right. Whoever can impose their will upon others makes what is right.

Anyway, natural law has a great relationship with human nature in that it recognizes our inherent self-ownership and derives a moral framework from that. It is much like the scientific method has a relationship to science. The scientific method is not required to arrive at a truth, but it is considered the only objective way to create a rational model of the natural world. Similarly, natural law is the only framework for ethics from which one can objectively derive right and wrong through the foundation of self-ownership. Any other ethical framework lacks objectivity and rests upon a dominating will of a person or a bureaucracy.

You're adding a bias to this. Your argument is like that of a creationist's when he denies evolution because it's unfair that humans descended from monkeys (as they tend to put it.) Whether you like self-ownership or not, the very fact that you can deny contradicts your argument that we don't have it. If someone could own you, they could make you believe and say something else. So, how do you deny that you own yourself? Who owns you or could own you? How would they come by this ownership?

As for central banking, that is a denial of self-ownership. It can only exist by virtue of a state which declares all banks to be nationalized to some extent and denies individuals their right to choose their own form of money, financial instruments, and savings plans. Central banking is an expected symptom of the state, and one which is justified by a lack of regard for the self-ownership and consequent private property rights of individuals. Since you have this same disregard, why should I believe that you have any concern for aggression against others so long as it serves your agenda?

So, how are you going to deny people their self-ownership without a state to defend your right to force someone else to give you what you cannot or will not provide for yourself? I suppose that you might try a commune. Those can be effective in a small community where everyone knows everyone else. What happens when your commune doesn't have something, and no other person or commune is willing to provide it? Will you subordinate other communes, or live without, your rights to whatever it is that you want denied to you by the selfishness of other groups?

Whether or not someone needs something does not make that something not a fact.

From where does this "need" for group survival come from? It's a want, for some people, but, as you say, morals are subjective. There is nothing objectively wrong with one group destroying another group in order to take it's resources. There's nothing objectively wrong with some individuals within a group destroying other individuals for whatever reason that they might have. If morals are subjective, as you claim, then it's right if those individuals, or that group, has the power to enforce their or its will on others. So "need" is entirely subjective. There is no necessity of group survival, just a desire for it. According to your subjective principles, anyway.

What's absurd is your contention that the NAP stems from a necessity for group survival. The Nazi's had a principle for group survival: kill all of the other groups and purify ours. If they had managed to pull it off, would you say that they were wrong to do so? On what basis would you determine that? The NAP was useless to their methods.

When have I ever said that humans are not, by nature, cooperative and that human society rests upon that mutual cooperation? Natural rights works hand in hand with a cooperative society, as it denies the power of the state and provides a framework for interaction in which each person must respect the rights of others, and in which each person has responsibility for doing so.

Your entire denial of the power of the state rests on your distaste for it, rather than any driving principle by which you can defend your believes against the depredations of others.

Well, if we are going to play that game, you fundamentally believe that might is right. You'd *like* a society that is founded on mutual cooperation and plays nice with other groups, but you can't find any objective reason why one group should not dominate another.

You have lots of nice feelings, but no way to defend your beliefs on any rational basis. You might as well hold up a Bible and declare that to be the law. It would be as rational as what you are arguing for here.

 

I think he subscribes to the Bill and Ted Philosphy: "Be excellent to each other." It's a nice sentiment.

 

A relevant discussion from another thread.

Social contract theory goes back pretty far. For example, even the Founding Fathers supported the concept of taxation. What they protested wasn't taxation itself but taxation without representation.

While you are correct that it is a principle that can be abused, that does not render it useless or invalid.

I define its justifiable existence a bit wider. I believe some resources are public goods, since they are essential to liberty as well. Education and healthcare are the main ones.

I simply define the individual narrower and the government broader.

 

I like things to be objective, subject to logic and reason and scientific. What is the objective point at which actions under a social contract can be determined as "abuse" and before which it is not? If you can't determine this, then I ask, what is it, exactly, that you are defending other than your own moral agenda?

 

Voluntarism is a moral agenda of its own.

You cannot divorce morals from philosophies of governance.

 

I don't disagree. However, it can't be forced on anyone. Not only that, but it comes from an ethical framework that can objectively define when actions are criminal and when they are not, and it's the only one that can do so while providing for equality under the law.

Again, I don't disagree. So, I wonder, will you answer the question? You claim that a principle, in this case the social contract, can be abused. Yet what you consider to be abuse may be far from what another considers abuse. For instance, you might say that laws preventing the consumption of alcohol are a violation of the social contract, whereas another might say that a lack of alcohol prohibition is abuse of the social contract. From what I can tell, the only way the issue can be decided is by which party becomes more powerful and can impose it's will on another. Or, to put it simply, might makes right.

 

Democratic governments inevitably have varying degrees of "mob rule." Our system is better about limiting this than most, but setting up an entirely voluntarist system isn't very practical.

If you're asking what defines my ethics, it's largely a matter of cost-benefit analysis.

An alcohol ban is something I'm against because the negative effects (organized crime) greatly outweigh the positive ones (less drunk driving, less alcoholism).

Having an income tax, on the other hand, is something I support, since the benefit is having a stable revenue source for government funding while the negative effects (a minor decrease in freedom) are rather small.

Because this is a somewhat opinionated measure of priorities, there is no completely objective way of weighing these things, but it's a rational balance that every society must engage in.

Voluntarism fits into the same category as any other utopian ideal.

 

Well, I'm more interested in what is right or wrong versus what is or is not, arguably, "practical." To me, apply the term "practical" is a weak excuse for avoiding any commitment to a principle. Were we in China, you might be arguing that while free speech is a nice ideal, it's impractical given the size of China and the need for unity among the people. You really can't say that they are wrong, as things seem to be working for that country even if some number of peaceful people suffer for it.

You know what would be beneficial in a cost/benefits case? To kill off seniors who are unable to support themselves and who no longer have productive value. How can you deny that the government would save billions, and there would be no negative other than a few people having to mourn early for their parents/grandparents/friends? The benefits greatly outweigh the cost.

Voluntaryism is hardly "utopian". If you believe that it is, I ask you to defend that assertion by describing what qualities a voluntaryist society would have in common with is typically described as a utopian ideal. While people would be free to exercise their rights peacefully and without undue restraint, and while they would also be held responsible for the harm they cause to others, I've never seen anyone argue that such a society would be perfect. Far from it, really. It would look different from society under a government like we have today, but it would still have it's problems.

If anything, the utilitarian ideal you strive for is more utopian, in that you hope to achieve some perfect balance of cost/benefit, thus justifying violence and theft against some (cost) in order to benefit others.

 

To an extent, yes, but then again, China is remarkably corrupt.

The problem is that some societies aren't really ready for freedom. The Arab Spring seems to show this. Egypt was better off under Mubarak than under the democratic government they're under now. The average person is probably freer, but minorities suffer there more.

The same will probably happen in Syria when Assad falls.

Thankfully, we're more evolved as a culture, so freedom works out better for us.

As I hinted earlier, there are qualitative costs in addition to quantitative ones. How we value those is subjective, but it is something every society must decide on.

A voluntarist puts a very high value on freedom of choice. I typically agree with voluntarists on a lot of issues, but where I disagree with them is concerning things like taxes. I don't put the same qualitative value on being free from taxation, because I value having extensive public amenities more. Most First World citizens tend to lean more in that direction.

Utilitarianism is actually more the norm for the world. So far, I haven't seen any society that is actually voluntarist.

To me, that seems to render the latter as an ideal, not so much the former.

 

Because I own myself and no one can control me it is only logical that no one can control what I possess or tell me what I can and cannot do with my possessions, my property. This logic is then reversed to represent the self as private property, no different from any other possession, which leads to the position that private possessions, the ownership of stuff, is exactly the same as the ownership of the self so any attempt at restricting the use of private property is also an attack on self ownership, enslavement.

This blithe erasing of any distinction between the self and what the self possesses sets the stage for the individual to exercise a complete disregard for others. In some ways it is almost a demand for it.

 

It's a nice sentiment Ken but ultimately voluntarism doesn't work. As soon as you try to simply allow people to try to govern themselves without outside force, it devolves into chaos, similar to places in Africa, especially Somalia: the people with the most guns and money and backing of others stomp on and oppress everyone else, then fight each other for control. Crimes would be committed with no guarantee of justice at all. I believe everyone else calls it "anarchy". Voluntarism working would require us to....not be human.

As nice as some principles may be, there are some aspects of humanity you just cannot allow to be unrestrained.

 

Self-ownership is simply the idea that you are the one who has the right to control your own body. Since each person has the right to control his own body, this naturally means that you don't have the right to control or invade the body of other people, thus the prohibition against the initiation of violence.

I disagree with you here. I would consider enslavement to be a restriction on the use of one's physical body. The taking or destruction of one's property would more properly be regarded as theft or trespass.

You'd have to walk us through the logic of how a prohibition against the initiation of aggression against other people translates into a disregard for others. To me, it seems that it would lead to exactly the oppose, namely a respect for the liberty and autonomy of others.

 

Serfdom then. You have a right to evict trespassers and thieves, you have no rights not the fruits of your rewards to the lords or slave master, or government. In any event, just semantics, I agree with all the rest.

 

Yeah, serfdom would be another example of a restriction on the use of one's physical body. And I would categorize serfdom and taxation as examples of the initiation of aggression against person and/or property.

 

Oh yeah, tied to the land. Forgot about that.

 

How do you define violence?
Do you limit your definition only to the direct and immediate harm caused to others?

There are many ways to restrict the individual in the use of their body, especially in a socio-economic construct where the possession of private property is a deciding factor in the degree to which individuals may actually exercise their self possession to their own particular desires.

The logic is in how aggression is defined and past aggression addressed. It is all well and good to claim that a principle of non-aggression is paramount but it becomes all to convenient as a position to protect property owners by just sweeping under the rug the massive violence of the past and the gross injustice and inequality that it has created. If you are really a proponent of non-violence you would give your unequivocal support to the redress of past actions of aggression and violence, including the return of lands and other privately owned property to the heirs of those who were dispossessed by previous acts of aggression and violence.