Dismatling Anarchism

Responding to Post # 11 from Mr Erickson,

Mr Erickson writes:

My moral justification is self defense on a large scale, a stable society where large numbers of people can live creative productive lives and flourish without the constant threat of force hanging over their heads. I don't know if you've noticed, but it is possible to live a peaceful life in this country. Our taxes are a transaction cost, but less dear than the cost of living without a rule of law and a means to enforce it equally.

This is an amazing paragraph which appears to claim that we now live "without the constant threat of force hanging over [our] heads", that taxation is a transaction cost instead of an extortion racket, and that I am advocating the elimination of law and proper law enforcement. It is amazing to pack that much error into one paragraph. I don't know if Mr Erickson has noticed, but it is possible to live a peaceful life in any country, even the worst, depending on who you are.

Mr Erickson writes:

Let me be frank, you are simply posing as a superior moral being with no clear idea whatsoever of what you are saying. You suppose yourself to be more clever and morally perfect because of your strict adherence to "NIOF" when you've neglected the simple fact of reality that actions speak louder that words. You have mistaken passivity for morality when in reality only actions can be moral or not.

This kind of irrelevant psychobabble really has no place in a reasoned debate. People should refute me, if they can. Diagnose me they can't.

I have said nothing in favor of passivity, quite the opposite. It is passive to leave law up to a ruling class of enforcers who prevent others from acting as equals and who force those others to pay them. That is passivity on stilts. Mr Erickson is quite correct that only actions can be moral or not. Where have I said otherwise?

So far, it is Mr Erickson who demonstrates no clear understanding whatsoever of what I am saying. I wish him better understanding in the future.

Post 21

Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 12:04pm

In reply to Jonathan, I wrote, "What do you mean by 'coercive' in this context? If you simply mean the initiation of force, then your point is tautological, since, in that case, every "coercive" monopoly would involve the initiation of force, by definition." He replied,

I am differentiating between a monopoly gained through efficiency, and one achieved via legislation.

So? It doesn't follow that a monopoly gained through legislation is coercive. An Objectivist government has a monopoly on law. No other agency can pass laws that conflict with its own laws, but that doesn't mean that the Objectivist government is coercive, if its laws are based on individual rights.

I wrote, "The real question is, is every monopoly on force coercive? Does every monopoly on force involve the initiation of force? The answer is, no. A monopoly on force can, and should, be restricted to the use of defensive or retaliatory force. If a government forcibly prevents a lynch mob from executing a suspected murderer, is it initiating force against the lynch mob? No, it's simply defending the right of the accused to a fair trial. Its use of force in this case is defensive or retaliatory, not initiatory."

Ok, but I fail to see how that is relevant. If the government forcibly prevents anyone other than the government from stepping in and preventing the lynch mob from executing said suspect, that is an initiation of force, and that is more relevant to our discussion.

You're missing the point. The point is that the government cannot allow just anyone to determine what constitutes justified enforcement and retaliation. Suppose that in stopping the lynch mob, I arrest people on insufficient evidence and punish them without a fair trial. Should I be allowed to do that? Should I be allowed to conduct my own court proceedings and administer whatever punishment I deem appropriate?

I would agree that "force can, and should, be restricted to the use of defensive or retaliatory force." But I don't agree that any one person or institution can or should hold a monopoly on defensive or retaliatory force.

The institution holds a monopoly on law -- on the right to determine what constitutes a proper exercise of freedom and what form of retaliation and punishment is appropriate.

I wrote, "Indeed, for the government to allow each and every individual the right to enforce his own view of justice -- his own view of what constitutes retaliatory force -- is to abdicate its own right to do so. Since the government -- or any agency of retaliatory force -- must decide what constitutes appropriate retaliation and punishment, it cannot permit the use of force at odds with its own standards of enforcement. Any such unauthorized use of force must be judged as tantamount to the initiation of force and prohibited by law." You replied,

I'm afraid you're knocking down straw men here. Where did I say every individual has the right to enforce his own view of justice? I cannot recall advocating that or anything similar. I agree there is one objectively right set of laws, that certain things are just, and others unjust. I just don�t think any one person or institution can claim the exclusive right to administer justice. Justice is just (by definition), no matter who enforces it. If we know that X is wrong, and Y is the appropriate punishment, then it matters not whether A or B administers justice.

Okay, but in that case what you're advocating isn't anarchism, because you're saying that one institution -- one governing body -- has the right to determine what laws are just and what form of retaliation and punishment is warranted. There is nothing wrong with different (and competing) police agencies enforcing the same laws -- the same standard of justice -- if that's what you're defending. But these different enforcement agencies would have to know what procedures the government considers acceptable. No legal system can permit random individuals to enforce the law if these individuals are ignorant of the regulations governing the use of retaliatory force, any more than it can permit someone to fly a plane or drive a car without the necessary knowledge of how properly to perform these tasks.

I am not arguing for �different standards of justice.� Rather, I am arguing for different (competing) institutions enforcing the same (objectively right) standard of justice.

Then we agree, but recognize that what you're advocating is not anarchism; it's simply the right of different agencies to enforce the government's laws. Some agency -- some institution -- must decide what constitutes justice and what laws are appropriate. Whatever institution that is will have a legislative monopoly and will, thus, be entrusted with the right of jurisdictional governance. Accordingly, that institution -- the government -- will be justified in prohibiting competing legal systems from operating within its own jurisdiction.

Once again, I must emphasize that here is nothing wrong with competing private agencies offering police services. In fact, this arrangement might be preferable to what we have now, provided that the agencies adhered to the government's guidelines for law enforcement. As such, the agencies would be an arm of the government, not a competitor to it. Besides, the quality of police services would undoubtedly improve. As I mentioned in a previous post, Robert W. Poole, Jr. (Cutting Back City Hall) chronicles numerous examples of private police services already in operation in our major cities. In the thread "Anarchism versus Government" (Dissent Forum, January 16, Post #3), I cited the following examples:

Stretched across [San Francisco's] northern section are 62 private police beats, "owned" by private police officers who are paid by their customers--the businesses, apartment owners, and homeowners. The "Patrol Specials," as the officers are called, receive a complete police academy training, carry guns, and have full arrest powers. But they are fully private entrepreneurs who receive not a penny of tax money. Instead, once a Special "purchases" a beat (from its previous "owner")--generally for ten times its monthly revenue--it is up to him to negotiate contracts with as many of the beat's property owners as wish to purchase his services. Depending on what is provided, the fees can range from $10 to $1,000 per month.

Some customers, such as the Japan Trade Center, want and pay for 24-hour-a-day foot patrol. Others want only periodic drive-by checks. Special Roger Levit charges homeowners from $10 to $20 a month to watch a house while the occupants are on vacation--rotating house lights, taking in newspapers and mail, etc. For another $30 his men will make regular on-foot backyard checks. Small retail stores may pay as little as $35 a month, while a large apartment house wanting three to six nightly inspections may pay $450.

The San Francisco system thus provides a vast diversity of police services, tailored to the needs of the individual customers who pay for what they want. As in most big cities, the city's own police force has its hands full trying to apprehend serious criminals. The taxpayers can neither afford to provide the specialized patrol services, nor should they have to. The user-pays principle is far more equitable. And in San Francisco it has stood the test of time. The city's private beats date back to the city's beginnings in the 1850s, and were formalized in its 1899 charter.

- Bill

Post 22

Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 6:12pm

John, equality under the law does not mean everyone has the same damn job, I mean what an absurd argument. Anyone is allowed to join the police or army as a career, are they not? There is not a "class" of police vs. non-police. This is no argument and does not address my argument at all.

Post 23

Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 7:21am

Mr Eichert writes:

John, equality under the law does not mean everyone has the same damn job, I mean what an absurd argument. Anyone is allowed to join the police or army as a career, are they not? There is not a "class" of police vs. non-police. This is no argument and does not address my argument at all.

Equality under the law does not mean that everyone has the same job, it means that everyone has the same right to do that job and that they do not need permission from some authority, which is the case now, and I suspect you know it. There most certainly is a class of police vs non-police. Try strapping on a gun and walking harmlessly down the street. The police in power will deal with you very rapidly and I suspect you know it. I mean, what an absurd argument.

Post 24

Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 8:19am

This was the random post that appeared at my last log out. Apply this to the service of property protection and see where it takes you...

Why Public Utility Monopolies Fail
by G. Stolyarov II
To prevent "burdensome competition" among utilities in a given area, governments have often granted legal local monopolies to specific water, electricity, and natural gas companies � or provided the services themselves.
Competing firms have been legally excluded from the utility market, with disastrous results. Occasional blackouts and deactivations of hot water are common in the experience of many Americans � while a free market in, say, groceries, brings about no conspicuous shortages. Furthermore, prices for the "public" utilities are on the rise � typically accompanied by declines, rather than improvements, in the quality of service.
(more at link:
http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/ArticleDiscussions/1702.shtml)

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 11/23, 8:20am)

Post 25

Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 8:26am

In replying to Mr Fauth, Mr Dwyer writes:

Okay, but in that case what you're advocating isn't anarchism, because you're saying that one institution -- one governing body -- has the right to determine what laws are just and what form of retaliation and punishment is warranted.

(emphasis above is mine) I don't see anything in Mr Fauth's argument that concedes this "one governing body" unless what Mr Dwyer means by "one body" is "one set of rules" (I doubt that is his meaning). If he means "one set of people" then I can't find it in Mr Fauth's position. The right to determine what is just belongs to everyone and voting is the only way to settle on a single standard for all. The right to enforce that standard belongs to everyone who wants to take on that function. There is no need for a single group of people to make decisions or to enforce them. Majority rule is the only method needed.

Offering endless examples of wayward enforcers (criminals) as proof of the need for one governing body of individuals is not valid since that one governing body of individuals may become wayward themselves at any moment, and having power will only encourage that failure. There is no need for a ruling class of individuals. All that is needed is a ruling philosophy. If it is the right philosophy, no rulers are needed. If it is the wrong philosophy, rulers will only make matters worse.

Further, all of the arguments for a ruling class, if applied consistently, logically require a single, individual dictator (however benevolent) over the entire earth. Note the trend. The US congress does not operate by equal vote either. There are "leaders" with great unequal power over other members. The UN has member countries with great power compared to others and that body is endlessly jockeying for ever more global power. Because of the very premise of the need for "one governing body" (of special people), the trend of all ruling classes is steadily toward an ever-smaller elite with ever-greater dictatorial powers. Any form of ruling class is an attempt to overthrow majority rule. Majority rule is far from perfect, but not as far as minority rule. I believe that if a majority can be convinced that every law they make must be applied equally to all, then there will be little to fear from majority rule.

(Bill, I say "Mr Dwyer" because when future generations of young philosophers pour breathlessly over the many leather-bound volumes of our treasured debates, a certain amount of formality will impress upon them the importance of our every word.)

Post 26

Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 11:38am

In Post # 21 Mr Dwyer writes:

No legal system can permit random individuals to enforce the law if these individuals are ignorant of the regulations governing the use of retaliatory force, any more than it can permit someone to fly a plane or drive a car without the necessary knowledge of how properly to perform these tasks.

This is true if we stipulate that the liberty is withdrawn only after there is evidence of reckless or harmful behavior, but no one has the right to demand that others meet some qualifications before exercising their liberty. A legal system certainly can and should treat licensing as a criminal act of prior restraint.

A fear of "random individuals" (strangers?) does not give a right to limit their liberty. In a free society, we must wait until someone has harmed or endangered others before we act against them and then we need a proper jury trial to convict them. Assuming them un-qualified until they prove otherwise is no different in principle than assuming them guilty before a trial. Acting on that assumption is aggression, not defence.

Interestingly, this topic (licensing) was covered in some detail in one of Ayn Rand's newsletters, but I don't remember the title any longer.

Post 27

Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 1:18pm

Mr. Howard writes:

"This is an amazing paragraph which appears to claim that we now live "without the constant threat of force hanging over [our] heads", that taxation is a transaction cost instead of an extortion racket, and that I am advocating the elimination of law and proper law enforcement. It is amazing to pack that much error into one paragraph."

It certainly is not in error. I'm writing about what exists now, to a large degree, in this country. Which is why more people thrive more creatively than any country that has ever existed. It is also a work in progress. Your anarcho-capitalism is a utopian dream. Human actions are preceded by a plan. You have no plan. You refuse to even conjecture about a first step towards your utopian dream.

I have a library of books on anarchism and libertarianism. Besides most of Ayn Rand, F.A. Hayek, and Von Mises, I have Rothbards� �For a New Liberty�, Rose Wilder Lane�s �The Discovery of Freedom� & �Give Me Liberty�, Oppenheimer�s �The State�, Etienne de la Boetie�s �The Politics of Obedience�, Robert LeFevre �The Nature of Man and His Government� & �The Philosophy of Ownership�, Robert Paul Wolff �In Defense of Anarchism�, Herbert Spencer �The Right to Ignore the State�, I subscribed to �The Voluntarist�, I have Carl Watner�s �I Must Speak Out, the best of the Voluntaryist 1982-1999�, I have David Friedman�s books �The Machinery of Freedom�, �Hidden Order�, and lately �Laws Order� [haven�t finished it]. I have perhaps twice this number of libertarian/anarchist books in storage, not immediately at hand. I have tried to reconcile in my own mind the seemingly small space between Ayn Rand�s minimalist government and no government for perhaps 35-40 years. I am forced to finally conclude that Ayn Rand had it right. And the conceptual insight between the two stances is not a small space but a gulf. Ayn Rand is closer to the founding fathers than to anarchism. And optimistic that human reason could accomplish the �constant vigilance� required for a free society.

I have two basic criticisms of a-c.

NIOF as the fundamental principle: this elevates non-action (passivity) to the status of perfect morality. Inaction is your default moral stance. Reason and self-interest are fundamental. Action follows reason.
The concept of �inherent rights� without discussion of who or what defends these rights. We either have an effect without a cause or an unearned benefit. Mr. Dwyer dismisses this concern of mine as unworthy of discussion and suggests that I �know nothing� of rights. I believe what we perceive as �rights� are an effect of the reasoned actions of rational people. Ignoring this and couching them in terms of �inherent� in mans nature invites their abuse, i.e. �positive� vs �negative� rights.

"To summarize, civilization only needs a very short list of permanent rules - easily understood and memorized by a ten-year-old. It does not need a ruling class or ongoing legislation."

This is a patronizing, absurd, self-aggrandizing and ultimately pointless statement. There is no �ruling class� in this country and society will never be static.

Your �every man for himself� simply invites conflict. The goal is to discourage conflict within society as unprofitable and to maintain the capacity to defend against external threats. A constitutional democracy founded on the principle of individual freedom has the potential to remain stable and prosperous long enough to evolve towards the minimalist state envisioned by Ayn Rand. Memorize that.

Post 28

Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 6:42pm

I wrote, "Indeed, for the government to allow each and every individual the right to enforce his own view of justice -- his own view of what constitutes retaliatory force -- is to abdicate its own right to do so. Since the government -- or any agency of retaliatory force -- must decide what constitutes appropriate retaliation and punishment, it cannot permit the use of force at odds with its own standards of enforcement. Any such unauthorized use of force must be judged as tantamount to the initiation of force and prohibited by law." Jonathan replied,

I'm afraid you're knocking down straw men here. Where did I say every individual has the right to enforce his own view of justice? I cannot recall advocating that or anything similar. I agree there is one objectively right set of laws, that certain things are just, and others unjust. I just don�t think any one person or institution can claim the exclusive right to administer justice. Justice is just (by definition), no matter who enforces it. If we know that X is wrong, and Y is the appropriate punishment, then it matters not whether A or B administers justice.

I replied, "Okay, but in that case what you're advocating isn't anarchism, because you're saying that one institution -- one governing body -- has the right to determine what laws are just and what form of retaliation and punishment is warranted."

John Howard chimed in,

I don't see anything in Mr Fauth's argument that concedes this "one governing body" unless what Mr Dwyer means by "one body" is "one set of rules" (I doubt that is his meaning).

On the contrary, it is indeed my meaning -- one set of rules -- but those rules must be determined by a particular governing body, whether it be a majority of voters or their elected representatives.

John continued,

The right to determine what is just belongs to everyone and voting is the only way to settle on a single standard for all.

It's not the only way. Nor is there anything inherent in a majority that makes its judgment superior to a minority's.

John continues,

The right to enforce that standard belongs to everyone who wants to take on that function. There is no need for a single group of people to make decisions or to enforce them. Majority rule is the only method needed.

But the majority is itself a single group of people, at least at the time of an election. Granted, the group doesn't always have to be the same one, but at any particular time, some people rather than others must make political decisions.

As for law enforcement, I've already argued that no legal system can permit someone to enforce the law if he or she is ignorant of the regulations governing the use of retaliatory force, any more than it can permit someone to operate a plane if he or she doesn't know how to fly.

Offering endless examples of wayward enforcers (criminals) as proof of the need for one governing body of individuals is not valid since that one governing body of individuals may become wayward themselves at any moment, and having power will only encourage that failure.

But it's the same issue. Just as a legal system and the people entrusted with its enforcement cannot permit the violation of its own laws, so they cannot permit the violation of its own regulations governing the use of retaliatory force. The agents in charge of its laws and regulations must make such acts of force illegal and punish the violators. Granted, the goal of such a legal system is not to rule people but to protect them from being ruled by others; it is to protect their right of self-rule.

There is no need for a ruling class of individuals. All that is needed is a ruling philosophy. If it is the right philosophy, no rulers are needed.

Correction: If it is the right philosophy, no rulers are permitted! :-) But that doesn't mean that the right philosophy doesn't have to be enforced. Even a philosophy of self-rule requires laws that prohibit rule by others. Moreover, someone or some group must decide which laws are an expression of that political philosophy. You acknowledged as much when you said that it is the majority that determines the laws governing a particular society. I don't happen to agree with that. Since I believe in the rights of the minority -- the smallest minority being the individual -- I don't believe that the majority should be allowed to vote away my rights. A constitution upholding individual rights and formed by a minority of educated people is superior to unlimited majority rule.

Further, all of the arguments for a ruling class, if applied consistently, logically require a single, individual dictator (however benevolent) over the entire earth.

I don't think that follows. All that is required is that there be one set of laws governing the residents of a particular jurisdictional domain. Many different domains could be dedicated to a philosophy of self-rule -- a philosophy of individual rights. For example, the various states of the union could be separate and distinct governments with no federal government uniting them. No principle of political philosophy requires a united states or united nations.

- Bill

Post 29

Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 11:13pm

I wrote, "No legal system can permit random individuals to enforce the law if these individuals are ignorant of the regulations governing the use of retaliatory force, any more than it can permit someone to fly a plane or drive a car without the necessary knowledge of how properly to perform these tasks. John Howard replied,

This is true if we stipulate that the liberty is withdrawn only after there is evidence of reckless or harmful behavior, but no one has the right to demand that others meet some qualifications before exercising their liberty. A legal system certainly can and should treat licensing as a criminal act of prior restraint.

Well, if someone doesn't know how to drive a car or fly a plane and tries to operate one without the necessary knowledge and training, then he or she will be engaged in reckless behavior, in the same way that a driver who is heavily intoxicated poses a danger to other drivers. If someone doesn't know the laws and regulations governing retaliatory force, then for similar reasons he or she cannot be allowed to assume the role of a police officer.

Furthermore, suppose a random individual resorts to force against another person, because he suspects the person of having committed a crime. How should the victim respond? Should he treat the enforcer as a legitimate police officer or as a common criminal? If the victim has no reason to believe that the enforcer is engaged in a responsible act of law enforcement, he has a right to defend himself. What happens when he attempts to do so? Should he be charged with resisting arrest? He didn't know that the enforcer was an authorized police officer who is acting with full knowledge of the law and of the regulations governing arrest and detention. The enforcer wasn't wearing a uniform and didn't have a badge. This is why it's important for a police officer to be certified and recognized as legitimate by the public. People need to know that they are dealing with someone who has the knowledge and authority to enforce the law according to the proper rules and procedures.

Years ago, I was briefly detained and searched by the police because I resembled a knife wielding fanatic. Since I recognized that the men who were forcibly detaining me as police officers, I complied with their request. If they had simply been a group of plain clothed individuals with no uniforms or badges, I might very well have run away or refused to cooperate.

Besides, there has to be some way to distinguish random acts of violence from responsible acts of law enforcement. Legitimate law enforcement agencies need to know if someone who is resorting to force is a police officer who knows what he is doing or a vigilante thug who is acting on a hunch and has no knowledge of proper law enforcement procedures. The police cannot allow vigilante justice, if only because it violates the rights of the accused to a fair trial.

It is for these reasons that I believe that police officers need to be certified by law, provided with proper training and equipped with uniforms and badges. That doesn't mean that there can't be private police who belong to different agencies and are hired by the public to provide personal protection, but it does mean that they must be given the sanction of legal authority.

- Bill

Post 30

Friday, November 24, 2006 - 12:15pm

The practical implications of A-Cism are so utterly incoherent and unworkable that it's nonsense on its face. Most A-Cers (the main argument coming from David Friedman) believe that private self-defense agencies should be the rights-enforcing institutions among us, with the competition among them benefitting society. They believe that these differing codes of justice will compete and produce the best results, akin to a competitive market in food, music and everything else. However, I see two glaring application flaws:

1) Like it or not, it would entirely be possible for corrupt, wealthy individuals to start their own armies and enforce their "interpretation" of justice; backed by their wealth, the middle class and the poor would be helpless against the vast resources of this wealthy cabal. And I don't think that sounds paranoid; many people value power over money, and the abolishment of even a basic level of governmental enforcement of rights would leave those with less resources at the mercy of those with more. Additionally, there are fanatics who want to kills us, and have rich sheik backers to do it...what's to stop them from flooding this country with money and founding radical armies, hellbent on killing Americans?

2) Even so, what about someone who is just, well, dead broke and homeless? If he can't afford a defense agency, and I shoot him, what's anybody going to do? Does it really mean anything to say that people have the right to life if there is no way for them to protect or enforce said right to life? Ridiculous! You're basically saying "Hey, you have the right to life, so if we pitch you in the ocean with no life preserver, that's on you!"

The never-ending warfare and the practical problems with the implementation of a-cism are the problems that A-Cers gloss over with big theories and detached idealism. Never will an A-Cer actually answer the questions posed above.

Post 31

Friday, November 24, 2006 - 8:21pm

Steven Druckenmiller wrote: "Most A-Cers (the main argument coming from David Friedman) believe that private self-defense agencies should be the rights-enforcing institutions among us... it would entirely be possible for corrupt, wealthy individuals to start their own armies and ... abolishment of even a basic level of governmental enforcement of rights would leave those with less resources at the mercy of ... there are fanatics who want to kills us, and ... "

1. It has nothing to do with "rights." I have posted again and again from mainstream criminal justice and Department of Justice reports on private security that explain clearly that private companies operate outside the framework of "rights." This is why they work so well. When you come into my building, you do not have the right to be secure in your belongings against unwarranted search and seizure. That right is part of your relationship with your government. Private agencies have other concerns, entirely. We are not your government. Just as Kepler cast horoscopes, so, too, is David Friedman sleepwalking. He has not awaked from his govern-mentality.

1.a. Like Newtonian mechanics, praxeology has many applications and is validated by many mathematical and empirical facts. Just as Newtonian mechanics explains the motion of the falling apple, the planets around the sun, the pistons in an internal combustion engine, and the working of electrical generators, so, too, does praxeology explain human action. Some models are "historic" (medieval Iceland or the invention of "wampum") and others are "rights based" and others are purely agoric.

2. What makes you think that a coterie of rich people do not have an army of their own? Do you have no idea what it happening in Iraq or why?

3. Those fanatics want to kill "us" (you, perhaps, but not me) because "we" (i.e., that coterie of rich people with their own army) invaded the homelands of those people and gave them reason to become "fanatics."

3.a. Those rich people (the Bush Administration) contracted their private army (the National Guard) to the King of Arabia... which was about the middle of a chess game in which Iran and Iraq were bishops.

Post 32

Friday, November 24, 2006 - 8:36pm

M. Marotta, please address the individual practical application of A-Cism as it pertains to that homeless fellow.

I think it's also funny that "inalienable rights" means nothing to you...does that mean you have the right to kill me on your private property as well? How far does that go? Do you have to post notices, or can you just summarily execute me if I am a Jehovah's Witness going door to door?

As for the rest of your post, those are non-answers; saying that the current government is corrupt doesn't address the need for government in principle; answer the damn questions and quite bringing up unrelated concretes.

I am glad that my father, brother and I are just dumb pawns in the Arab game...thanks for the personal insults, you ass.

Post 33

Saturday, November 25, 2006 - 4:21am

Steven Druckenmiller asked: 2) Even so, what about someone who is just, well, dead broke and homeless? If he can't afford a defense agency ...

This is covered Linda and Morris Tannehill's classic The Market For Liberty (Lansing: Tannehelp, 1970; San Francisco: Fox & Wilkes, 1984, 1993). I will add to their points the fact that your wanton killing of a powerless person is going to set off flags.

If you do it secretly, for the thrill, or whatever, eventually, the bodies are going to be noticed, as is your modus, and people in your community are going to know that there is a homicidal maniac in their midsts.

Whatever you happen to own (refrigerator, car, corneas, kidneys) will cover the cost of tracking you down and stopping you. A private agent or agency can advertise that kind of community service. (The Tannehills consider the "unowned potential property" of the victim's estate which gains a market value in the damage you caused by killing the homeless person.)

As I have said, this has nothing to do with the actual "constitution" of a "society." I recently posted glorious words from the constitutions of several places you would not want to live. What counts is the persons who live close together. In common parlance it is the "people" who make up a "society."

You might get away with murder in many places, here and now, or in the future, but it would be impossible in the kind of world that is logically demanded and historically validated when arbitrarily "enough" people have self-respect. It is what Ayn Rand called "psycho-epistemology."

It is why Americans do not put up with serial killers and mass murderers, but places like Brazil and Rwanda do. Serial killers in America have targeted prostitutes, for instance. You would think that no one would care. In most places, no one would. We do. It has nothing to do with their "rights" (although you can couch the problem in those terms) but with what we expect of ourselves. A rational person does not want to live in the kind of society where that happens. So, something gets done about it.

As for government, it so happens that law enforcement and criminal justice professionals know that 85% of murders are commited by friends, family, and other acquaintances and 85% of the other killings go unsolved. Police detectives solve about 15% of the cases assigned to them on their own. Most cases are solved when witnesses or others provide information to the police and the perpetrator confesses and pleads out -- again, it is the people in the society who do not want to live with crime, not the "government" protecting the "rights" of the "people." Government policing works about as well as Soviet agriculture and for the same reasons.

Post 34

Saturday, November 25, 2006 - 3:00pm

Responding to Post 29 by Mr Dwyer:

If someone doesn't know the laws and regulations governing retaliatory force, then for similar reasons he or she cannot be allowed to assume the role of a police officer.

They most certainly can be allowed to assume that role until after it is proven in a courtroom that they have broken the law. Prior restraint is a moral crime.

Attacking the harmless because you are afraid is not defense. It is aggression based on a guess.

Mr Dwyer is leaving time, the difference between after a crime and before a crime, out of his discussion. He is claiming that someone who commits a crime (of improper enforcement) is someone who should have been harmed (controlled) before they committed their crime. He is implying that crime can be foreseen and that it can be foreseen by such absurdities as the lack of certification by some clowns in the government who are "authorized" to judge for all. He is telling us that you can spot justice being enacted by checking the wardrobe of the actor, or the emblem of permission in his pocket.

Legitimate law enforcement agencies need to know if someone who is resorting to force is a police officer who knows what he is doing or a vigilante thug who is acting on a hunch and has no knowledge of proper law enforcement procedures.

If so, then legitimate vigilante enforcers need to know if someone who is resorting to force is a vigilante enforcer who knows what he is doing or a police thug who is acting on a hunch and is ignoring proper law enforcement procedures.

The only way to know if proper procedures were used is to look at what procedures were used, after they were used, not at the wardrobe and certification (permission slips) of the person using them.

When I say that everyone has an equal right to enforce the law, it is not an argument to reply that they don't have that right because they might break the law in the process. That is true of everyone so it is an irrelevant point. Denying that everyone has the right to enforce the law and then proving it with examples of people breaking the law is word-gaming. Enforcing the law does not mean breaking the law.

Post 35

Saturday, November 25, 2006 - 5:07pm

Responding to Post # 27 by Mr Erickson:

I'm writing about what exists now, to a large degree, in this country. Which is why more people thrive more creatively than any country that has ever existed. It is also a work in progress.

I'll say! Progress implies direction. It isn't good. There is the obvious point that a dungeon is not good though it may be better than all the other dungeons. There is probably a latin name for that fallacy.

Your anarcho-capitalism is a utopian dream. Human actions are preceded by a plan. You have no plan.

Actually, human plans must themselves be preceded by a goal, and that is the theme of this fine debate thread. Only after you have decided where to go, can you create a rational plan to get there. It is silly to judge a goal by whether or not it has a plan already in place. The road to hell has been well planned for centuries.

You refuse to even conjecture about a first step towards your utopian dream.

A first step to building a utopian (which means ideal) dream (which means very desirable) system of law is to find an intelligent debate forum and present a moral code in the form of a set of fundamental laws (a constitution), and then to debate courteously and carefully with others about the usefulness, application, and wording of these suggested first laws. Are there any ideas about where such a forum might be found?

I have two basic criticisms of a-c.
NIOF as the fundamental principle: this elevates non-action (passivity) to the status of perfect morality. Inaction is your default moral stance. Reason and self-interest are fundamental. Action follows reason.

Liberty is a negative and objective concept. To be free is to be free from something. It is not the presence of an object or an action. It is the absence of an action (interference, harm) by an object (another human).

NIOF is a legal principle, not the entirety of morality. For purposes of making law, the larger subject of personal morality, which includes actions that do not involve others, is irrelevant. For purposes of making law, only negative moral rules are of use ( thou shalt not ). Positive rules (thou shalt), such as altruism, require aggression.

NIOF is the negation of aggressive action, not the negation of all action. For purposes of law, it is indeed "perfect morality" For purposes of law, it does not need to be complete morality.

The concept of "inherent rights" without discussion of who or what defends these rights.

See my Post #2, constitutional rule #4.

We either have an effect without a cause or an unearned benefit. Mr. Dwyer dismisses this concern of mine as unworthy of discussion and suggests that I "know nothing" of rights. I believe what we perceive as "rights" are an effect of the reasoned actions of rational people. Ignoring this and couching them in terms of "inherent" in mans nature invites their abuse, i.e. "positive" vs "negative" rights.

That doesn't sound like Mr Dwyer to me, who seems always ready to discuss any important subject.

A "right" is a rhetorical device that expresses a moral judgement in the form of an observation (of a possession or attribute). It makes a value judgment sound like an objective statement. To say "he has a right to jump" just means that you think no one should interfere with him if he wants to jump. Your moral judgement is not about his choice to jump, but about his neighbor's choice to (or not to) interfere with his jumping. His "rights" are your value judgements rhetorically masquerading as his objective attributes.

There is no "ruling class" in this country...

The ruling class (ruling group of individuals) of this and every nation is made up mainly of two groups, the police and the military. What they do is what "ruling" means. That they do not include everyone makes them a separate "class" of individuals.

The goal is to discourage conflict within society as unprofitable and to maintain the capacity to defend against external threats. A constitutional democracy founded on the principle of individual freedom has the potential to remain stable and prosperous long enough to evolve towards the minimalist state envisioned by Ayn Rand. Memorize that.

Memorize this: everything I have promoted in this thread so far is a constitutional (See Post #2) democracy (see rule # 5) which is free of any ruling class holding a monopoly on force (the state) and is thus an improvement on Ms Rand's work in the area of individual freedom. Ms Rand was consistently a monopolist and thus consistently in violation of my constitution's rules #3 & 4 about equality. Striving for liberty and justice by instituting a minimalist state is like striving for a rose by planting an acorn. The thing gets too big, because of its nature.

Post 36

Sunday, November 26, 2006 - 10:49am

The biggest problem I have with Praxeology is that even though it seems correct, it has a few errors at its core. The biggest error is it makes the assumption that 'economic choices' are purely subjective. Granted, the sales of pet rocks do not have a true functional value, but the fact that people want them isn't merely subjective in that the individuals selling the pet rocks have to still make a choice that is based on the functional portion of sales [the allocation of pet rocks, the acquisition of a sales point, the distribution of advertisement of the location and the product, and so forth].

Also, Praxeology isn't very good at predicting market forces, it often leaves you with very little information on what to expect. Usually, I'm stuck with Neo-Classical formulas to make the 'best guess.' Now, this doesn't damn the whole Anarcho-Capitalist viewpoint, but it does sure weaken it's applicability to real world economic situations. Hell, lets just look at Somalia for example. The whole political system there collapsed to only be replaced by clannish warlords and biased tribal councils. And then where neither warlord nor tribal council has control, there is often a sub-optimal state to the market there. The biggest example of this is roads. There hasn't been a single company trying to tackle the problem of roads in Somalia, despite the great success in other portions of the economy [telecommunications and the like].

Ultimately, there has to be a 'solution' to the whole argument here. And I don't think it will come from just saying Anarcho-Capitalism is 'irrational' or whatever, rather it will come from showing a logical absurdity and/or empirical case that such a proposition is impractical or impossible.

-- Bridget

Post 37

Sunday, November 26, 2006 - 5:29pm

Respnding to Post 36 by Ms Armozel

The biggest problem I have with Praxeology is that even though it seems correct, it has a few errors at its core. The biggest error is it makes the assumption that 'economic choices' are purely subjective.

The use of the term 'subjective' in the context of Praxeology means 'personal' and has nothing to do with ignoring objective facts that need to be weighed in calculating personal preferences. It means that each economic actor does his own choosing based on his own thinking and preferences, not the thinking of big-picture busy-body authorities.

Comrades, who are sure they know how many people's roads need to be built by the people in distant lands, like to pretend that a failure of those people's personal preferences to produce that many roads is proof of a failure of liberty and free markets. Such comrades are merely saying that all economic decisions are to be judged by their own subjective choices and not the subjective choices made by those whose lives and wealth are involved in the road-building decisions. There is no objectively correct number of roads. The correct number of roads is the number voluntarily created.

There is no such thing as a failure of the free market except the failure to please the subjective whims of busy-body "I-see-the-big-picture-better-than-the-masses" comrades.

Anarcho-Capitalism is the fullest expression of utter contempt for the utterly irrelevant biased authoritarian busy-bodies who don't build roads, don't know how to build roads, but know (by referencing their own subjective preferences) how many roads should be built by others.

Post 38

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 11:23am

Responding to Post 34 by Mr Howard: :-)

I wrote, "If someone doesn't know the laws and regulations governing retaliatory force, then for similar reasons he or she cannot be allowed to assume the role of a police officer." John replied,

They most certainly can be allowed to assume that role until after it is proven in a courtroom that they have broken the law. Prior restraint is a moral crime.

I agree that someone should not be arrested until after he or she has broken the law. What I am saying is that it should be against the law for someone to assume the role of a police officer, if he or she doesn't know the laws and regulations governing retaliatory force. If the person is going to use physical force against others, then he or she needs to do so in a manner that the legal system considers just and appropriate. But a person clearly cannot do this, if he or she doesn't know what kind of force that is.

For example, there is nothing wrong with shooting a gun, if one is not putting the lives of others at risk, but if I put on a blindfold and fire random shots onto a city street, I am endangering the lives of other people, even if I don't happen to hit someone, because I don't have knowledgeable control over where the bullets are going. Such actions should, therefore, be against the law, even if no one is actually harmed by them.

Similarly, a person who assumes the role of a police officer without adequate knowledge of the laws and regulations governing retaliatory force doesn't have knowledgeable control over the legal use of force, and is therefore putting other people at risk of being unjustly coerced. His or her use of force should, therefore, be against the law, even if no one is actually harmed by it.

Mr Dwyer is leaving time, the difference between after a crime and before a crime, out of his discussion.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that impersonating an officer should itself be a crime.

I wrote, "Legitimate law enforcement agencies need to know if someone who is resorting to force is a police officer who knows what he is doing or a vigilante thug who is acting on a hunch and has no knowledge of proper law enforcement procedures." John replied,

If so, then legitimate vigilante enforcers need to know if someone who is resorting to force is a vigilante enforcer who knows what he is doing or a police thug who is acting on a hunch and is ignoring proper law enforcement procedures.

The point I am making is that whoever is acting on behalf of the legal system needs to know if their laws and regulations are capable of being followed by those claiming to represent it. A vigilante is, by definition, someone who is acting outside the existing legal system and is, therefore, using force in a manner that does not conform to its rules and regulations. Such a person cannot legally be permitted to use retaliatory force.

The only way to know if proper procedures were used is to look at what procedures were used, after they were used, not at the wardrobe and certification (permission slips) of the person using them.

Yes, but you know that if an enforcer isn't aware of the proper procedures, he or she will not be using them. You don't have to wait until after someone initiates force before stepping in. For example, if there is sufficient evidence that a person is planning a violent crime and that he fully intends to carry it out, you can take preemptive action. A few years ago, a student at a local college was planning to set off a bomb on campus. He had the plans, the explosives and all the materials to do it. The police didn't have to wait until he actually detonated the device before stepping in. They properly arrested him before he could put his plans into action.

As for licensing, I agree that licensing should not be required for services that do not put others involuntarily at risk. For example, a person should be allowed to practice medicine without a license, so long as he does not misrepresent himself. But where the service puts others involuntarily at risk, such as driving a car or piloting a plane, confirmation of the person's ability to perform the activity should be legally required. In the same way, if the service involves the use of physical force against unwilling subjects of which the improper application can violate their rights, then the person should be certified as competent to carry out the enforcement according to the laws and regulations governing its use.

- Bill

Post 39

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 2:19pm