Libertarianism
Peter or Colleen Thomas
Rand had against libertarianism (or classical liberalism). I've seen reference
to her calling libertarians "hippies of the right". I find very little that
she would disagree with in a libertarian outlook, however. Can anybody shed
some light on this topic for me please?
Also, what is the difference between the h.p.o. and a.p.o. newsgroups?
Thank you.
Kyle Haight
Peter or Colleen Thomas <fallentr...@cs.com> wrote:
>I am new to this group. I am wondering if anybody can tell me exactly
>what Ayn Rand had against libertarianism (or classical liberalism).
>I've seen reference to her calling libertarians "hippies of the
>right". I find very little that she would disagree with in a
>libertarian outlook, however. Can anybody shed some light on this
>topic for me please?
Oh, boy. About the only more volatile question you could have asked
would be "So what's up with this David Kelley guy?"
Extreme short answer: Rand thought that libertarianism, by taking the
Non-Coercion Principle as axiomatic, divorced politics from its
necessary roots in ethics, epistemology and metaphysics. As a
movement, libertarianism thus treated altruists and mystics as allies
in the fight for freedom as long as they professed to accept the NCP.
Since Rand thought that altruism and mysticism undercut the necessary
grounding of capitalism, she didn't think that altruists and mystics
could be allies in its defense.
A critique of libertarianism from this perspective may be found in
_The Voice of Reason_, specifically in Peter Schwartz' essay
"Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty". (This essay may be
available on the web someplace as well.)
I will now turn the floor over to the inevitable flamewar.
>Also, what is the difference between the h.p.o. and a.p.o. newsgroups?
The h.p.o newsgroup is moderated, and has a somewhat more restrictive
charter that bans crossposting of articles and discussion of certain
topics such as N**-T*ch (see the FAQ). It was formed in response to
an extended period of cross-posted flamewars and spamming on a.p.o.
--
Kyle Haight
kha...@netcom.com
"Feeding on the blood of the working classes for fun and profit."
Brad Aisa
>
> I am new to this group. I am wondering if anybody can tell me exactly wh
> at Ayn
> Rand had against libertarianism (or classical liberalism). I've seen ref
> erence
> to her calling libertarians "hippies of the right". I find very little that
> she would disagree with in a libertarian outlook, however. Can anybody shed
> some light on this topic for me please?
Miss Rand was principally opposed to two sub groups amongst
libertarians:
1) those who had plagiarized her politics but rejected its
foundations (the rest of her philosophy);
2) anarchists, whom she held in contempt.
Any antipathy she would have had towards "classical liberalism" would
have been directed at its contradictions or errors. Note that she
promoted several intellectuals who could be described as "classical
liberals", such as Ludwig Von Mises. Also, she had ongoing professional
and personal relations with many people from the larger conservative
movement.
> Also, what is the difference between the h.p.o. and a.p.o. newsgroups?
h.p.o. is a chartered, automoderated group; a.p.o. is not.
--
Brad Aisa <ba...@NOSPAMbrad-aisa.com>
http://www.brad-aisa.com/ -- PGP public key available at:
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=Brad+Aisa&op=index
"The paper wall will be next to fall." -- Brad Aisa
Matthew Cline
>
> In article <19991208212449...@ng-bd1.news.cs.com>,
> Peter or Colleen Thomas <fallentr...@cs.com> wrote:
> >I am new to this group. I am wondering if anybody can tell me exactly
> >what Ayn Rand had against libertarianism (or classical liberalism).
> Oh, boy. About the only more volatile question you could have asked
> would be "So what's up with this David Kelley guy?"
So, what *is* up with him?
(Just kidding, just kidding).
> Extreme short answer: Rand thought that libertarianism, by taking the
> Non-Coercion Principle as axiomatic, divorced politics from its
> necessary roots in ethics, epistemology and metaphysics.
Right, but the Republicans and Democrats aren't any better at rooting
their politics in ethics, epistemology and metaphysics.
> As a
> movement, libertarianism thus treated altruists and mystics as allies
> in the fight for freedom as long as they professed to accept the NCP.
>
> Since Rand thought that altruism and mysticism undercut the necessary
> grounding of capitalism, she didn't think that altruists and mystics
> could be allies in its defense.
Alright, so altruists and mystic couldn't support capitalism
philosophically, but they could do it politically, in the sense of
voting, donating resources, etc. Oh, but wait. Rand thought that
the best way to support capitalism was to spread the Objectivist
philosophy. If you look at it that way, then I guess altruists or
mystics couldn't support capitalism. But then, no one but an
O'ist is really capable of supporting capitalism.
The most plausible reason I've come up with for the "orthodox" O'ist
dislike/hatered of Libertarians is that they hinder the spread of
Objectivism, by putting out competing theories and rhetoric on an
Non-Coercion Principal government, and also by "converting" people
atracted to NCP, who might otherwise have become Objectivists.
--
Matthew Cline | Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose that you
naz...@armory.com | were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
| -- Mark Twain
David Friedman
1. Some libertarians reached (from Rand's standpoint) the right
conclusions for the wrong reasons, which she regarded as at best
dangerous and at worst deliberately dishonest--for example, she
described George Stigler and Milton Friedman as "reds" on the basis of a
pamphlet they had written attacking rent control for what Rand thought
were the wrong reasons (see Rand's letters, which doesn't mention the
names of the authors--the pamphlet was called "Roofs and Ceilings.")
Pretty clearly she thought they must really be on the other side,
pretending to support free enterprise in order to undermine it.
2. Some libertarians reached a conclusion Rand disagreed with--that
government's useful functions should be entirely replaced by private
institutions (i.e. anarcho-capitalism).
3. Some libertarians to various degrees identified with or wanted to
ally with hippy and new left elements--which Rand strongly opposed.
4. A, perhaps the, leading libertarian figure was Murray Rothbard, with
whom Rand had a falling out. The only accounts I know of the reasons are
pretty obviously written from Rothbard's side, so I am not sure if it is
possible to get a reasonably balanced picture of why.
5. If Objectivists were merely a kind of libertarian--as, of course,
they are--then Rand was one among a number of leading libertarian
thinkers. If Objectivism was an entirely different thing, then Rand, as
its founder and chief theoretician, ruled supreme. She doesn't seem to
have been notable for tolerating disagreement. Whether this observation
is a reasonable explanation of her attitude or a base libel, you may
decide for yourself.
--
David Friedman
http://www.best.com/~ddfr
Chris Cathcart
Peter or Colleen Thomas <fallentr...@cs.com> wrote:
> I am new to this group. I am wondering if anybody can tell me
exactly what Ayn
reference
> to her calling libertarians "hippies of the right". I find very
little that
> she would disagree with in a libertarian outlook, however. Can
anybody shed
> some light on this topic for me please?
I think Brad Aisa's post on this is essentially correct. When Rand was
talking about "hippies of the right," she was actually referring to
anarcho-capitalists (she considered this label to be oxymoronic, BTW),
not to libertarians as a whole. This is a manner of terminology; as
you correctly point out, libertarianism is a name for classical
liberalism or capitalism or political individualism, but with the
connotations the term came to have with the rise of the movement as it
came to be known in the early-'70s (with the anarchist and political-
activism-as-primary connotations), Rand wanted to have nothing to do
with it so disavowed usage of the term.
Another poster is correct that this has been subject of extensive
discussion and flamewar here, in good part due to the article he cites
that purports to speak for Rand on the subject (and which I don't care
to comment on).
--
Chris Cathcart
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Brad Aisa
>
> Another poster is correct that this has been subject of extensive
> article] that purports to speak for Rand on the subject (and which
> I don't care to comment on).
Regardless what one thinks of that article, Peter Schwartz would
definitely *never* presume to "speak for Rand" on that or any subject.
Brad Aisa
>
> 5. If Objectivists were merely a kind of libertarian--as, of course,
> they are--then Rand was one among a number of leading libertarian
> thinkers. If Objectivism was an entirely different thing, then Rand, as
> its founder and chief theoretician, ruled supreme. She doesn't seem to
> have been notable for tolerating disagreement.
Objectivism is *primarily* (note emphasis) two things:
1) an objective/inductive epistemology (Objectivism's unique
philosophic methodology)
2) rational egoism (the Objectivist ethics)
Objectivism doesn't claim to have invented classical liberalism nor the
concept of laissez-faire capitalism (which it advocates). It *does*
claim to have provided the first fully rational, moral defense of
capitalism (namely: rational egoism).
If one looks for common elements and common differences between all
self-declared libertarianas, one observes the following:
A. There is not one, but at least *two* completely distinct political
systems being advocated:
1) laissez-faire capitalism
2) variations of anarchy
B. There are no common moral foundations for these political beliefs.
Ayn Rand has argued persuasively that capitalism foundered precisely
because it was never given a rational, moral foundation and defense. The
fact that the contemporary libertarian movement is not substantially
different in this regard from any of the classical liberal schools that
have preceeded it in the last three centuries, may help to explain its
peculiar lack of popular recognition and support.
Owl
news:19991208212449...@ng-bd1.news.cs.com...
> I am new to this group. I am wondering if anybody can tell me exactly
what Ayn
> Rand had against libertarianism (or classical liberalism). I've seen
reference
> to her calling libertarians "hippies of the right". I find very little
that
> she would disagree with in a libertarian outlook, however. Can anybody
shed
> some light on this topic for me please?
I have one comment to add to what others have said about this: The
libertarian party also contains some subjectivists, who don't believe in
objective moral principles (typically, they think this implies that the
government has no right to 'legislate morality'). That probably has
something to do with why Rand didn't seem to like 'libertarians' in
general.
Rand herself was a libertarian, even though she didn't like to call
herself that. I once heard a (alleged) quotation from Rand where she
said, "the name of my political philosophy is 'libertarianism'", but I
don't know where it was from. Does anyone know this?
> Also, what is the difference between the h.p.o. and a.p.o. newsgroups?
hpo is moderated. See the hpo faq next time Tim Skirvin posts it.
Chris Wolf
>Rand herself was a libertarian, even though she didn't like to call
>herself that. I once heard a (alleged) quotation from Rand where she
>said, "the name of my political philosophy is 'libertarianism'", but I
>don't know where it was from. Does anyone know this?
I'm pretty sure it's a bogus quote.
Chris Wolf
cwo...@nwlink.com
Check out the World's Fastest Keyboard!
http://www.jeffcomp.com
What's REALLY wrong with Objectivism
http://www.jeffcomp.com/faq/
The Dishonesty Of Stephen Speicher
http://www.jeffcomp.com/faq/speicher.html
David Friedman
<cath...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> This is a manner of terminology; as
> you correctly point out, libertarianism is a name for classical
> liberalism or capitalism or political individualism, but with the
> connotations the term came to have with the rise of the movement as it
> came to be known in the early-'70s (with the anarchist and political-
> activism-as-primary connotations), Rand wanted to have nothing to do
> with it so disavowed usage of the term.
Just as a matter of history, I don't think it is true that "libertarian"
in the '70s in the U.S. had "anarchist" as its primary connotation. My
impression is that although there was then (and is now) a substantial
anarchist minority within the libertarian movement, the majority has
always supported limited government.
My guess would be that insofar as Rand identified "libertarian" as
"anarchist" that reflected more her contact with Rothbard than the
movement as it actually existed.
David Friedman
<ba...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> David Friedman wrote:
> >
> > 5. If Objectivists were merely a kind of libertarian--as, of course,
> > they are--then Rand was one among a number of leading libertarian
> > thinkers. If Objectivism was an entirely different thing, then Rand, as
> > its founder and chief theoretician, ruled supreme. She doesn't seem to
> > have been notable for tolerating disagreement.
>
> Objectivism is *primarily* (note emphasis) two things:
>
> 1) an objective/inductive epistemology (Objectivism's unique
> philosophic methodology)
> 2) rational egoism (the Objectivist ethics)
>
> Objectivism doesn't claim to have invented classical liberalism nor the
> concept of laissez-faire capitalism (which it advocates). It *does*
> claim to have provided the first fully rational, moral defense of
> capitalism (namely: rational egoism).
Fair enough, and I agree that I shouldn't have said "merely a kind of
libertarian," since obviously, even Objectivists are libertarians, that
is not all they are. But that doesn't answer the question. Given the
Objectivists are (among other things) a kind of libertarian, why Rand's
hostility to libertarianism?
> If one looks for common elements and common differences between all
> self-declared libertarianas, one observes the following:
>
> A. There is not one, but at least *two* completely distinct political
> systems being advocated:
> 1) laissez-faire capitalism
> 2) variations of anarchy
Laissez-faire capitalism is not a political system but an economic
system, and both minarchist and anarcho-capitalists libertarians are in
favor of it. They merely disagree about the proper political framework
in which it can best function.
There are at least two distinct political systems being
advocated--minimal government, which was the political program of the
old classical liberals, and anarcho-capitalism, which takes that program
one step farther.
Part of the problem Objectivists have with anarchy is that, on its face,
it is more consistent with substantial parts of Objectivism than minimal
government, since it avoids the problem of how a monopoly government can
get delegated to it rights which some people do not choose to delegate.
Hence Objectivists have difficulty arguing against anarchism on moral
grounds. Yet both Rand herself and most Objectivists accept the
conventional arguments for why anarchism cannot work--which presents
them with a problem, especially since Objectivists believe that the
moral must be the practical. For the consequences, see any of a
multitude of threads here over the past few years.
> B. There are no common moral foundations for these political beliefs.
A correct but somewhat misleading statement--after all, it is still
correct when you include Objectivists in with other libertarians. The
term "libertarian" describes a set of political conclusions, which
different people have reached for different reasons.
The less misleading statement, and the more relevant one, is that some
of the people holding these beliefs have reached them from foundations
other than Objectivism.
> Ayn Rand has argued persuasively that capitalism foundered precisely
> because it was never given a rational, moral foundation and defense. The
> fact that the contemporary libertarian movement is not substantially
> different in this regard from any of the classical liberal schools that
> have preceeded it in the last three centuries, may help to explain its
> peculiar lack of popular recognition and support.
Except, of course, that while it has has not received very much popular
recognition and support, it has received a lot more of both than
Objectivism, which (in your view) does have a rational, moral foundation
and support.
Brad Wilson
news:ddfr-7C4752.2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> Fair enough, and I agree that I shouldn't have said "merely a kind of
> libertarian," since obviously, even Objectivists are libertarians, that
> is not all they are. But that doesn't answer the question. Given the
> Objectivists are (among other things) a kind of libertarian, why Rand's
> hostility to libertarianism?
I don't think Objectivists are "a kind of libertarian", because they have
directly conflicting ideas.
Objectivism has a moral defense of capitalism; libertarianism essentially
refutes the need (or possibility) of a philosophical base. Libertarians are
home to many people whom I would consider espouse ideas that are quite
contradictory to Objectivist thinking. These issues have all really been
beaten to death here, so no need to rehash them.
Unless the libertarian party stands on a firm philosophical footing -- and
removes all those who wish to "hitch" onto the party in search of a
contradictory system, like "anarcho-capitalism" -- I don't think it's an
appropriate place to call home.
When people ask me what political party I belong to, often enough I say
"none of the above". If it's someone intelligent enough to take on the
conversation, I'll say "Jeffersonian Liberal with the moral defense for it".
> Laissez-faire capitalism is not a political system but an economic
> system, and both minarchist and anarcho-capitalists libertarians are in
> favor of it. They merely disagree about the proper political framework
> in which it can best function.
This is no minor issue.
> There are at least two distinct political systems being
> advocated--minimal government, which was the political program of the
> old classical liberals, and anarcho-capitalism, which takes that program
> one step farther.
One could say -- and I do -- that that "one step farther" is stepping into
the abyss. There's a HUGE gulf between "moral, minimal government" and
"anarchy", IMO.
> Hence Objectivists have difficulty arguing against anarchism on moral
> grounds.
Anarchy does not forward or preserve the rights of individuals. It rule of
the strong over the weak (just like democracy, but a little more naked in
its advocacy).
Eric
>David Friedman <dd...@best.com> wrote in message
>> There are at least two distinct political systems being
>> advocated--minimal government, which was the political program of the
>> old classical liberals, and anarcho-capitalism, which takes that program
>> one step farther.
>
>> Hence Objectivists have difficulty arguing against anarchism on moral
>> grounds.
>
>Anarchy does not forward or preserve the rights of individuals. It rule of
>the strong over the weak (just like democracy, but a little more naked in
>its advocacy).
This is a shallow understanding. More than one writer has made the case
that Rand's politics lead to anarcho-capitalism.
See-
http://home.att.net/~eknauer/in_defense_of_rational_anarchism.htm
or
http://www.math.ku.dk/~buhl/Library/Childs.Open_Letter_to_Rand.html
-Eric
Chris Cathcart
Brad Aisa <ba...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Chris Cathcart wrote:
> >
> > Another poster is correct that this has been subject of extensive
> > discussion and flamewar here, in good part due to [Peter Schwartz's
> > article] that purports to speak for Rand on the subject (and which
> > I don't care to comment on).
>
> Regardless what one thinks of that article, Peter Schwartz would
> definitely *never* presume to "speak for Rand" on that or any subject.
The whole article wreaks of presuming to give an "official position
paper" on the matter. Never mind that it has become a virtual litmus
test for which agreement is required before you enter his (read: ARI's,
SRB's) good graces. (People like David Kelley rightfully and
understandably concluded that agreement with the piece -- or jumping
through the hoops to prove that it is a piece of trash to justify lack
of agreement -- is hardly worth staying in Petey's good graces. Either
alternative would be demeaning as it would mean staying in Petey's good
graces, though one would be to sanction intellectual dishonesty and
buffoonery.)
Take a look at the piece itself, and where it's placed -- in a book
titled _The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought_ by Ayn
Rand. And then take a look at the introduction of the book by Lenny
Payoff, where it is clearly stated that Rand opposed the "Libertarian"
movement and that Petey's piece "explains why." If this isn't coming
as close as one can to presuming to speak for Rand without coming out
an saying so explicitly, then please tell me what would constitute such.
Chris Cathcart
David Friedman <dd...@best.com> wrote:
> Just as a matter of history, I don't think it is true
that "libertarian"
> in the '70s in the U.S. had "anarchist" as its primary connotation.
My
> impression is that although there was then (and is now) a substantial
> anarchist minority within the libertarian movement, the majority has
> always supported limited government.
>
> My guess would be that insofar as Rand identified "libertarian" as
> "anarchist" that reflected more her contact with Rothbard than the
> movement as it actually existed.
Or that it had quite a bit to do with Rothbard's prominence within the
political movement. Since the term "libertarianism" had in the eyes of
many become associated with the writings of Rothbard, she didn't want
anything to do with the term. It isn't to say that she didn't consider
it a legitimate term, but by a certain point she felt it had become
bastardized and that the use of scare quotes (or preceded by the
qualifier "so-called") was the only proper way to denote it if one used
it. That is consistent with the way she used the term in writing when
she used it in an article or two of hers, or in her letter reprinted in
the _Letters_.
I think she was of the view that anarchism is very *anti*-libertarian
as she herself understood the meaning of that term, and didn't want to
lend any aid or sanction to allowing the term to be associated with
what she thought was its opposite. Rothbard's writings probably had
quite a bit to do with this, though the Party did as well, with its
emphasis on political activism rather than philosophical education.
David Friedman
<bradw@#despam#pobox.com> wrote:
> I don't think Objectivists are "a kind of libertarian", because they have
> directly conflicting ideas.
>
> Objectivism has a moral defense of capitalism; libertarianism essentially
> refutes the need (or possibility) of a philosophical base.
To see why this is nonsense, all you need do is replace "libertarian"
with "human beings." Human beings, like libertarians, include people
with a wide variety of different philosophies. Hence, in your terms,
"being a human being essentially refutes the need (or possibility) of a
philosophical base." Hence Objectivists are not human beings.
> Libertarians
> are
> home to many people whom I would consider espouse ideas that are quite
> contradictory to Objectivist thinking.
Many human beings espose ideas that ... .
I didn't say that all libertarians were Objectivists, but that
Objectivists are a kind of libertarian. That is fully consistent with
the fact that some libertarians disagree with Objectivism.
> Unless the libertarian party stands on a firm philosophical footing --
> and
> removes all those who wish to "hitch" onto the party in search of a
> contradictory system, like "anarcho-capitalism" -- I don't think it's an
> appropriate place to call home.
I didn't say anything at all about the libertarian party. I wrote
"libertarian" not "Libertarian," which has become the conventional way
of making that distinction.
> > Laissez-faire capitalism is not a political system but an economic
> > system, and both minarchist and anarcho-capitalists libertarians are in
> > favor of it. They merely disagree about the proper political framework
> > in which it can best function.
>
> This is no minor issue.
>
> > There are at least two distinct political systems being
> > advocated--minimal government, which was the political program of the
> > old classical liberals, and anarcho-capitalism, which takes that
> > program
> > one step farther.
>
> One could say -- and I do -- that that "one step farther" is stepping
> into
> the abyss. There's a HUGE gulf between "moral, minimal government" and
> "anarchy", IMO.
Obviously your position is shared by many others--that is why most
Objectivists, and a majority of libertarians, are not anarchists. My
point was not that your position is wrong (although of course I think it
is); I was merely correcting the previous poster's inaccurate
description of the disagreement.
> > Hence Objectivists have difficulty arguing against anarchism on moral
> > grounds.
>
> Anarchy does not forward or preserve the rights of individuals. It rule
> of
> the strong over the weak (just like democracy, but a little more naked in
> its advocacy).
That may be your opinion, but it is not the belief of those of us who
argue for anarchy, and I would guess (perhaps mistakenly) that you have
formed it without much familiarity with those arguments. If you want to
imagine my response to your description of anarchy, simply imagine your
response to a similarly hostile (and ignorant) description of
Objectivism--say "Objectivism cares nothing for human beings; it exults
individual greed and the rule of wealth above everything else."
Brad Wilson
> To see why this is nonsense, all you need do is replace "libertarian"
> with "human beings." Human beings, like libertarians, include people
> with a wide variety of different philosophies.
I have no choice on being a human being. I _do_ have a choice on being a
libertarian. Your argument is all about eliminating the essential, defining
characteristic of a voluntary group of people (and it's pseudo-conclusion is
quite funny).
You're far smarter than that, David. You're quasi comparing what I said to
collectivism (though you didn't actually say that), and implying that my
using the grouping was incorrect. You forgot that it is a _voluntary_
grouping.
> I didn't say that all libertarians were Objectivists, but that
> Objectivists are a kind of libertarian. That is fully consistent with
> the fact that some libertarians disagree with Objectivism.
I, as an Objectivist, am thoroughly disgusted at the idea of being "a kind
of libertarian", just as you could call me "a kind of republican" or "a kind
of democrat", since there is at least _one_ thing I agree with in both
parties.
You have, again, evaded the idea of the essential characteristic of what
libertarianism is, in the hopes to make it viable.
> I didn't say anything at all about the libertarian party. I wrote
> "libertarian" not "Libertarian," which has become the conventional way
> of making that distinction.
I am only speaking of the libertarian party. I have no seen, nor find any
need for, a distinction.
> Obviously your position is shared by many others--that is why most
> Objectivists, and a majority of libertarians, are not anarchists.
Anyone who is an Objectivist -- ie, someone who fully agrees with Rand -- is
not an anarchist. Period. Anyone who claims to reconcile anarchism with
Objectivism is lying to themselves or others, or does not understand the
terms.
Words have specific, definite meanings. Saying "I am an Objectivist" does
not make you one. Certainly, anyone who supports anarchy cannot, by
definition, be an Objectivist, just as anyone who is religious cannot, by
definition, be an Objectivist.
Again, this argument has been hashed too many times. I don't intend to say
any more about it than that, because I'm sure you'll disagree with it. It's
an endless spiral that amounts to a package-deal attempted by people who are
"mostly Objectivist".
> That may be your opinion, but it is not the belief of those of us who
> argue for anarchy, and I would guess (perhaps mistakenly) that you have
> formed it without much familiarity with those arguments.
I have read enough of them to know. I also have a good working definition of
what anarchy is (and the oxymoron "anarcho-capitalism").
> If you want to
> imagine my response to your description of anarchy, simply imagine your
> response to a similarly hostile (and ignorant) description of
> Objectivism--say "Objectivism cares nothing for human beings; it exults
> individual greed and the rule of wealth above everything else."
I wouldn't speak to someone who said that; I'd simply walk away.
You may feel free to do the same, if you think I'm so naive on the nature of
anarchy, but you sure cannot claim to speak for Objectivists and call them
"a form of libertarian". That is the only thing I intend to address. I do
not intend to get into a discussion on the pros and cons of anarchy.
Player 1DA7
>From: Brad Wilson bradw@#despam#pobox.com
>Date: Fri, 10 December 1999 01:19 PM EST
>Message-id: <82rg3...@news1.newsguy.com>
>
>
>I, as an Objectivist, am thoroughly disgusted at the idea of being "a kind
>of libertarian", just as you could call me "a kind of republican" or "a kind
>of democrat", since there is at least _one_ thing I agree with in both
>parties.
>
You aren't a libertarian because you have one thing in common with them. You
are a libertarian because you fit the defnition perfectly. As far as I know, a
libertarian is anyone who believes in the NIOF principle and advocates a
minimal government based on that principle.
Objectivists fit that description perfectly.
-Player
Brad Wilson
news:19991210141446...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> You aren't a libertarian because you have one thing in common with them.
You
> are a libertarian because you fit the defnition perfectly.
The definition of libertarian -- as in, a member of the libertarian party --
must, by nature, include only people who are members of the libertarian
party.
I may share some goals with libertarians, just as I do with republicans and
democrats. I am _none_ of those three, though, because I _say_ I'm not. It's
a voluntary association, and I hereby declare I am _not_.
No "persuasion" about the "nature" of "most" libertarians makes me into one,
without my consent. End of story.
Ernest Brown
of AS.
E. Brown
Wisdom's Children: A Virtual Journal of Philosophy & Literature
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/wisdom.htm
Submissions welcomed.
On 10 Dec 1999, Chris Cathcart wrote:
(snip)
> Either
> alternative would be demeaning as it would mean staying in Petey's good
> graces, though one would be to sanction intellectual dishonesty and
> buffoonery.)
(snip)
Tony Donadio
>stantial anarchist minority within the libertarian movement, the
>majority has always supported limited government.
I've been through this debate too many times in the past to think
that there is any good reason to get into it again, but I will offer
one comment that I've offered before. Most of us who don't take
the Libertarian movement seriously do so precisely because this
alleged anarchist "minority" has any place in it AT ALL. When
the intellectual leadership of the Libertarian movement throws
its "anarchist minority" out completely and on principle, then I'll
consider taking another look at it and at the Libertarian party.
By accepting anarchism as a "minority" view that is at least
consistent with the general Libertarian ideology, rather than
repudiating it as the crackpot aberration that it is, what the
movement's intellectual leaders are doing is declaring that
their ideas are in fact fundamentally anti-freedom and
opposed to everything that I and other civilized people
believe in and stand for. At least the Democrats and
Republicans, for all their flaws, aren't THAT low on the
intellectual food chain. For those who have trouble
understanding why Objectivists seem to be more hostile to
the LP than to the Republicrat parties, consider THAT.
--
Tony Donadio
-------------------------
STOP the DOJ's Persecution of Microsoft
http://www.capitalism.org/microsoft
Chris Wolf
>In article <38504715...@my-deja.com>, Brad Aisa
><ba...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> Objectivism doesn't claim to have invented classical liberalism nor the
>> concept of laissez-faire capitalism (which it advocates). It *does*
>> claim to have provided the first fully rational, moral defense of
>> capitalism (namely: rational egoism).
>Fair enough, and I agree that I shouldn't have said "merely a kind of
>libertarian," since obviously, even Objectivists are libertarians, that
>is not all they are. But that doesn't answer the question. Given the
>Objectivists are (among other things) a kind of libertarian, why Rand's
>hostility to libertarianism?
Because libertarianism is unprincipled. It seeks to divorce politics from
ethics. It attempts to make the non-initiation of force, an axiomatic
concept.
>> If one looks for common elements and common differences between all
>> self-declared libertarianas, one observes the following:
>>
>> A. There is not one, but at least *two* completely distinct political
>> systems being advocated:
>> 1) laissez-faire capitalism
>> 2) variations of anarchy
>Laissez-faire capitalism is not a political system but an economic
>system,
Which is why it is entirely unsuited to attempt to base a political system
on laissez-faire capitalism. Which is what the anarcho-capitalists try to
do.
>There are at least two distinct political systems being
>advocated--minimal government, which was the political program of the
>old classical liberals, and anarcho-capitalism, which takes that program
>one step farther.
And into the abyss.
>Part of the problem Objectivists have with anarchy is that, on its face,
>it is more consistent with substantial parts of Objectivism than minimal
>government, since it avoids the problem of how a monopoly government can
>get delegated to it rights which some people do not choose to delegate.
That's no problem at all. It's not necessary for every citizen to delegate
his rights to the government. The monopoly government protects the rights
of those citizens who HAVE delegated their rights to the government. If
you don't want your own rights protected, just say so. No one requires you
to delegate your rights to the government, but neither will we permit you
to endanger our lives by using retaliatory force on your own.
>Hence Objectivists have difficulty arguing against anarchism on moral
>grounds.
Actually, it is very easy to argue against anarchism on moral grounds. One
merely has to point out that anarchism permits the individual use of
retaliatory force, in order to defeat anarchism on moral grounds. Or one
merely has to point out that anarchism runs the risk of subjecting the
citizens to competing law, in order to defeat anarchism on moral grounds.
What is true is that it is almost impossible to argue against ANARCHISTS on
moral grounds, since they almost always reject morality, period. All they
know is economics, and they believe they can base government on economics.
Which is another reason why anarchism fails, on principle.
David Friedman
<bradw@#despam#pobox.com> wrote:
> David Friedman <dd...@best.com> wrote in message
> news:ddfr-03DBEC.0...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
>
> > To see why this is nonsense, all you need do is replace "libertarian"
> > with "human beings." Human beings, like libertarians, include people
> > with a wide variety of different philosophies.
>
> I have no choice on being a human being. I _do_ have a choice on being a
> libertarian. Your argument is all about eliminating the essential,
> defining
> characteristic of a voluntary group of people (and it's pseudo-conclusion
> is
> quite funny).
>
> You're far smarter than that, David. You're quasi comparing what I said
> to
> collectivism (though you didn't actually say that), and implying that my
> using the grouping was incorrect. You forgot that it is a _voluntary_
> grouping.
Fine--substitute some voluntary grouping, say "people who didn't vote
for Bill Clinton."
The essential characteristic of libertarians is that they accept certain
conclusions. That is consistent with believing that those conclusions
must be derived from a particular philosophical base (the Objectivist
position), it is consistent with believing that there are lots of
intellectually valid ways of deriving those conclusions, it is
consistent with believing that there is only one intellectually valid
way, but that people who have reached the conclusions in other ways are
still useful allies.
> I, as an Objectivist, am thoroughly disgusted at the idea of being "a
> kind
> of libertarian", just as you could call me "a kind of republican" or "a
> kind
> of democrat", since there is at least _one_ thing I agree with in both
> parties.
I said nothing at all about the Libertarian party.
> You have, again, evaded the idea of the essential characteristic of what
> libertarianism is, in the hopes to make it viable.
Because what you are claiming is the "essential characteristic"
isn't--as demonstrated by the fact that nobody but Objectivists thinks
that, in order to be a libertarian, one must believe that philosophical
foundations don't matter. That is simply a nutty idea invented (I think)
by Peter Schwartz, and at some point added to the profession of faith
required of Objectivists.
> > I didn't say anything at all about the libertarian party. I wrote
> > "libertarian" not "Libertarian," which has become the conventional way
> > of making that distinction.
>
> I am only speaking of the libertarian party. I have no seen, nor find any
> need for, a distinction.
But you were responding to me, and I wasn't talking about the
Libertarian party--if I had been I would have written Libertarian, not
libertarian. As it happens, I am not even a member of the LP--but I
certainly consider myself a libertarian. I wouldn't have said that
Objectivists are Libertarians because I presume that many, probably
most, of them are not members of the LP.
> > Obviously your position is shared by many others--that is why most
> > Objectivists, and a majority of libertarians, are not anarchists.
>
> Anyone who is an Objectivist -- ie, someone who fully agrees with Rand --
> is
> not an anarchist. Period. Anyone who claims to reconcile anarchism with
> Objectivism is lying to themselves or others, or does not understand the
> terms.
Your "fully agrees with" conceals the problem with your argument. If you
mean it literally, then anyone who thinks a rational woman might want to
be president, or that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, isn't
an Objectivist either. Is that your position?
I suspect what you, like others making this argument, really mean is
"someone who agrees with Rand on the fundamental elements of her
philosophy." Some people who believe they do, and who give as good
evidence of doing so as most here, consider themselves
anarchists--because they believe that Rand made a mistake in deriving
one implication of her philosophical position.
> Words have specific, definite meanings. Saying "I am an Objectivist" does
> not make you one. Certainly, anyone who supports anarchy cannot, by
> definition, be an Objectivist, just as anyone who is religious cannot, by
> definition, be an Objectivist.
Say it over enough times loudly enough and you won't have to actually
think about it and make arguments for it.
> > If you want to
> > imagine my response to your description of anarchy, simply imagine your
> > response to a similarly hostile (and ignorant) description of
> > Objectivism--say "Objectivism cares nothing for human beings; it exults
> > individual greed and the rule of wealth above everything else."
>
> I wouldn't speak to someone who said that; I'd simply walk away.
I have thicker skin than that, and less of a taste for the particular
sorts of posturing that appeal to many of Rand's fans.
> You may feel free to do the same, if you think I'm so naive on the nature
> of
> anarchy, but you sure cannot claim to speak for Objectivists and call
> them
> "a form of libertarian". That is the only thing I intend to address. I do
> not intend to get into a discussion on the pros and cons of anarchy.
I'm not speaking for Objectivism--I'm not an Objectivist. I was speaking
about Objectivism. I presume you feel free to speak about Marxism or
about Kantianism without being a Marxist or a Kantian--certainly Rand
did.
David Friedman
<bradw@#despam#pobox.com> wrote:
> Player 1DA7 <playe...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:19991210141446...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
>
> > You aren't a libertarian because you have one thing in common with
> > them.
> You
> > are a libertarian because you fit the defnition perfectly.
>
> The definition of libertarian -- as in, a member of the libertarian party
> --
> must, by nature, include only people who are members of the libertarian
> party.
But since nobody but you is talking about members of the LP, and since
my statement would have made no sense as a statement about members of
the LP, that is irrelevant. You are free to ignore the usual convention
for distinguishing between libertarians and members of the LP in your
writing if you wish, but to ignore other people's use of it, and thus
misstate what they are saying, is either culpable ignorance or
dishonesty--probably the former.
Owl
news:19991210141446...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> You aren't a libertarian because you have one thing in common with them.
You
know, a
> libertarian is anyone who believes in the NIOF principle and advocates a
> minimal government based on that principle.
I think libertarians also include those who think the NIOF implies
anarchism.
Selfish4
>From: Peter or Colleen Thomas fallentr...@cs.com
>Date: Wed, 08 December 1999 09:25 PM EST
>Message-id: <19991208212449...@ng-bd1.news.cs.com>
>
>I am new to this group. I am wondering if anybody can tell me exactly what
>Ayn
>Rand had against libertarianism (or classical liberalism). I've seen
>reference
>to her calling libertarians "hippies of the right". I find very little that
>she would disagree with in a libertarian outlook, however. Can anybody shed
>some light on this topic for me please?
>
Ayn Rand thought that definitions should list the distinguishing
characteristic(s) of the entity to be identified, and omit those
characteristic(s) measurements. She also thought that only the essential
characteristic(s) should be included in a definition. If we do that,
libertarianism means "government is a necessary evil." If this is true, and
holds for all cases, it means life where the strong do what they can, and the
weak submit. Of course, this definition would have to stand when the rule of
fundamentality is applied.
jp
You belong to you; I belong to me.
William
>libertarian is anyone who believes in the NIOF principle and advocates a
>minimal government based on that principle.
Actually, Liberty magazine recently had a poll that included the question about
the NIOF principle and about 50% of the respondants disagreed with it. There
has been a bit of debate in the magazine since then. Maybe David Friedman could
comment (as he did in Liberty)?
William
http://objectivism.cx/~wyatt
Keep it real.
Rock on.
Brad Aisa
>
> Part of the problem Objectivists have with anarchy is that, on its face,
> it is more consistent with substantial parts of Objectivism than minimal
> government, since it avoids the problem of how a monopoly government can
> get delegated to it rights which some people do not choose to delegate.
On this point, I agree with professor Friedman. Which is why I think the
"delegation" theory is wrong.
Men need government. (I won't rehash the excellent case made by Ayn
Rand.) Those who wish to erect a government for the purposes of
protecting their rights, have a moral right to do so. They do not need
the consent of anyone to do this, most pointedly: anyone not in favor of
fully protecting rights. A government obtains its moral foundation not
from any ineffable "consent of the governed", but from something
completely tangible: **its identity**. If its nature is the institution
in an area that defines and protects indididual rights objectively,
equally, and by an appropriately rational objective process, then it is
morally righteous. The fact that there can only logically be one
government in any jurisdiction (with regard to some aspect of
governance), may be contested by anarchists, but is nonetheless
specious.
In fact, "consent of the governed" implicitly emasculates Objectivists,
since they must, on some level, believe that only a government that
recieves popular elected support can be proper, thus seeking for an
unrealistic goal that will likely never be achieved: "converting" a
majority of the population to their political philosophy. (The
alternative, is of course recognizing exactly what Rand taught: that a
small minority of men -- the "Atlases" -- are responsible for keeping
everything working, and if they chose to establish the terms of the
politics in society, they could do so.)
> The less misleading statement, and the more relevant one, is that some
> of the people holding these beliefs have reached them from foundations
> other than Objectivism.
Uncontested. The issue, is whether those foundations can, in fact and
logic, lead to those conclusions. Objectivism holds that capitalism has
*one* basic philosophic foundation, not several mutually incompatible
ones. And more importantly, the corollary of this: those foundations
*actually* lead to alternative political philosophies, incompatible with
capitalism. Since this battle IS one of fundamentals, it is thus useless
to ally oneself philosophically with those whose ideas are incompatible
with one's own, and one's goals.
> [While Libertarianism] has has not received very much popular
> recognition and support, it has received a lot more of both than
> Objectivism, which (in your view) does have a rational, moral foundation
> and support.
And the two world wrestling federations have even millions more fans.
Your point being...??
Player 1DA7
>Message-id: <82rlp...@news2.newsguy.com>
>The definition of libertarian -- as in, a member of the libertarian party --
>must, by nature, include only people who are members of the libertarian
>party.
You may be thinking of "Libertarian" instead of "libertarian." The commonly
accepted definition of (small l) libertarian does not include being a member of
the libertarian party. It simply means you believe in NIOF and want a
governemnt or political system based on it.
>I may share some goals with libertarians, just as I do with republicans and
>democrats. I am _none_ of those three, though, because I _say_ I'm not. It's
>a voluntary association, and I hereby declare I am _not_.
I'm not saying you're part of their party of their formal group. I'm just
saying you fit the definition of a libertarian perfectly( if you advocate NIOF
and want your government based on it ), and therefore are a libertarian.
It doesn't matter if you claim you're not. If you smoked crack five times a day
you could say "I'm not a crackhead" all you wanted, but you'd still be a
crackhead.
-Player
Eric
Brad Aisa wrote in message <385274DE...@my-deja.com>...
>
>Men need government. (I won't rehash the excellent case made by Ayn
>Rand.) Those who wish to erect a government for the purposes of
>protecting their rights, have a moral right to do so. They do not need
>the consent of anyone to do this, most pointedly: anyone not in favor of
>fully protecting rights. A government obtains its moral foundation not
>from any ineffable "consent of the governed", but from something
>completely tangible: **its identity**. If its nature is the institution
>in an area that defines and protects indididual rights objectively,
>equally, and by an appropriately rational objective process, then it is
>morally righteous.
When precisely does a government become morally unrighteous? Who decides?
When this line has been crossed, what actions do individuals have the right
to perform?
If a government says you can't drink alcohol, use drugs, or read certain
books, do you have the right to withdraw consent? If you say consent isn't
an issue, then what's to stop righteous government from becoming a dictator.
I think Rand's belief that a government's authority is based on the consent
of the governed is perfectly valid, or else you end up having a vague and
undefined relationship between individuals and governmental authority.
Unless "its identity" is always objective, then you must discuss the issues
of emigration, secession, and the right to replace the corrupt government.
>In fact, "consent of the governed" implicitly emasculates Objectivists,
>since they must, on some level, believe that only a government that
>recieves popular elected support can be proper, thus seeking for an
>unrealistic goal that will likely never be achieved: "converting" a
>majority of the population to their political philosophy.
I think the "consent of the governed" explicitly makes it clear that
governments are individuals who have no special rights, but limited powers
that are transferred to them by the people.
David Friedman
<ba...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Men need government. (I won't rehash the excellent case made by Ayn
> Rand.) Those who wish to erect a government for the purposes of
> protecting their rights, have a moral right to do so. They do not need
> the consent of anyone to do this, most pointedly: anyone not in favor of
> fully protecting rights.
So far I have no problem, save for the first sentence, which is
reasonable but, I think, mistaken--if "government" means "monopoly
government" rather than "some organized way of enforcing rights and
arbitrating disputes."
> A government obtains its moral foundation not
> from any ineffable "consent of the governed", but from something
> completely tangible: **its identity**. If its nature is the institution
> in an area that defines and protects indididual rights objectively,
> equally, and by an appropriately rational objective process, then it is
> morally righteous. The fact that there can only logically be one
> government in any jurisdiction (with regard to some aspect of
> governance), may be contested by anarchists, but is nonetheless
> specious.
You are using "jurisdiction" in a somewhat confusing way, apparently in
the belief that it is a geographical rather than a legal term. Consider
the question "do the Federal courts or the courts of California have
jurisdiction over case X?" Or, if you prefer, consider the question of
jurisdiction over some dispute between firms in different countries.
If those examples don't make it clear, consider that in a functioning
A-C system of the sort I have described, there is at most one court that
has jurisdiction over any particular dispute. In that system,
juridiction is defined not by geography but as a pairwise function of
the disputants. To some degree that is true of our system as well (I am
thinking of disputes between citizens of different states in the U.S.),
except that the groups of potential parties (citizens of state X, of
state Y) are defined by geographical categories.
> In fact, "consent of the governed" implicitly emasculates Objectivists,
> since they must, on some level, believe that only a government that
> recieves popular elected support can be proper, thus seeking for an
> unrealistic goal that will likely never be achieved: "converting" a
> majority of the population to their political philosophy. (The
> alternative, is of course recognizing exactly what Rand taught: that a
> small minority of men -- the "Atlases" -- are responsible for keeping
> everything working, and if they chose to establish the terms of the
> politics in society, they could do so.)
So long as what your government is doing is using force to defend
people's rights, I have no quarrel with this. It is only when it uses
force to prevent people from defending their rights--as a monopoly
government must, if it is to protect its monopoly--that you require
previous consent to justify its doing so.
> > The less misleading statement, and the more relevant one, is that some
> > of the people holding these beliefs have reached them from foundations
> > other than Objectivism.
>
> Uncontested. The issue, is whether those foundations can, in fact and
> logic, lead to those conclusions.
That is certainly one important issue. But the question originally
raised was not "why did Rand think that many libertarians held correct
beliefs for bad reasons" or "why did Rand think that a political
alliance between Objectivists and other libertarians was imprudent," but
"why was Rand hostile to libertarianism?" (Not an exact quote, but I
think a fair summary). Since "libertarianism" does not require the
belief that several mutually incompatible philosophic foundations for
capitalism are all correct--indeed, few if any libertarians hold that
belief--I don't think your response answers that question.
> > [While Libertarianism] has has not received very much popular
> > recognition and support, it has received a lot more of both than
> > Objectivism, which (in your view) does have a rational, moral foundation
> > and support.
>
> And the two world wrestling federations have even millions more fans.
> Your point being...??
I was responding to a previous poster, who appeared to be arguing that
the reason libertarianism had so little support and recognition was its
lack of a proper foundation. If that were true one would expect that
Objectivism which, in the view of that poster did have such a
foundation, would have been more successful by those criteria. It hasn't
been.
Chris Wolf
>>Brad Aisa (who I am glad to see back) writes:
>><ba...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> A government obtains its moral foundation not
>> from any ineffable "consent of the governed", but from something
>> completely tangible: **its identity**. If its nature is the institution
>> in an area that defines and protects indididual rights objectively,
>> equally, and by an appropriately rational objective process, then it is
>> morally righteous. The fact that there can only logically be one
>> government in any jurisdiction (with regard to some aspect of
>> governance), may be contested by anarchists, but is nonetheless
>> specious.
>You are using "jurisdiction" in a somewhat confusing way, apparently in
>the belief that it is a geographical rather than a legal term. Consider
>the question "do the Federal courts or the courts of California have
>jurisdiction over case X?" Or, if you prefer, consider the question of
>jurisdiction over some dispute between firms in different countries.
>
>If those examples don't make it clear, consider that in a functioning
>A-C system of the sort I have described, there is at most one court that
>has jurisdiction over any particular dispute.
Which is pure wishful thinking on David Friedman's part. Any time you have
competing legal systems, in the same geographical area, you face the very
real possibility of having the citizen subjected to conflicting
jurisdictions.
Which is why A-C fails, on principle.
(Ever notice how advocates for A-C always reassure us that A-C will act
like a monopoly government to keep from subjecting the citizens to
conflicting laws, rather than acting like a free market?)
>> In fact, "consent of the governed" implicitly emasculates Objectivists,
>> since they must, on some level, believe that only a government that
>> recieves popular elected support can be proper, thus seeking for an
>> unrealistic goal that will likely never be achieved: "converting" a
>> majority of the population to their political philosophy. (The
>> alternative, is of course recognizing exactly what Rand taught: that a
>> small minority of men -- the "Atlases" -- are responsible for keeping
>> everything working, and if they chose to establish the terms of the
>> politics in society, they could do so.)
>So long as what your government is doing is using force to defend
>people's rights, I have no quarrel with this. It is only when it uses
>force to prevent people from defending their rights--as a monopoly
>government must, if it is to protect its monopoly--that you require
>previous consent to justify its doing so.
A monopoly government does not forbid people from defending their rights,
in order to protect its monopoly. It properly forbids people from
defending their rights, on their own, in order to protect the rest of us
from having retaliatory force unleashed, on whim, by other individuals.
David Friedman
<cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
> >If those examples don't make it clear, consider that in a functioning
> >A-C system of the sort I have described, there is at most one court that
> >has jurisdiction over any particular dispute.
>
> Which is pure wishful thinking on David Friedman's part. Any time you
> have
> competing legal systems, in the same geographical area, you face the very
> real possibility of having the citizen subjected to conflicting
> jurisdictions.
I don't know what you think "jurisdiction" means. You certainly face the
risk of having more than one person trying to use force to resolve a
dispute. But to say that a court has jurisdiction is to say that that is
the court entitled to decide the dispute. Under anarcho-capitalism, what
entitles a court to decide a dispute--at least, the nearest equivalent
to the concept of "jurisdiction" under a monopoly government--is the
prior agreement of the enforcement agencies representing the parties. If
no such agreement exists, what you have is not multiple jurisdictions
but no court having jurisdiction--at which point the question is decided
by who is better able to use force to get his way.
Similarly, of course, disputes under a system of monopoly goverments are
often decided that way--whether because a government is unable to
enforce its decisions (consider any successful black market, for
example) or because more than one government is trying to enforce its
decisions. If A-C ends up with many disputes between people who are out
of law with each other, that is indeed a problem--just as the tendency
of monopoly governments to settle disputes with each other by force is a
problem for that system. But Chris is uninterested in the (economic)
arguments and evidence relevant to the question of whether such problems
would be endemic or rare under A-C, because he believes that such issues
are properly decided by philosophical arguments, rather than by trying
to actually learn something about the relevant facts of reality.
Who, by the way, had jurisdiction of Manuel Noriega at the point when
the U.S. arrested him? For that matter, what court has jurisdiction over
the crimes that Pinochet is accused of committing?
> (Ever notice how advocates for A-C always reassure us that A-C will act
> like a monopoly government to keep from subjecting the citizens to
> conflicting laws, rather than acting like a free market?)
"Ever notice how advocates of capitalism reassure us that capitalism
will act like a well planned socialist economy to coordinate human
behavior, rather than creating the sort of conflict, waste and chaos
that capitalism actually produces?" (Wolf Mark II arguing against
capitalism)
Or in other words, Chris is first assuming that A-C will misfunction in
a particular way, then objecting that if I disagree I must be claiming
A-C is like a monopoly government. But if he has been paying attention,
he surely realizes that what I describe is quite unlike a monopoly
government--merely not unlike it in the particular undesirable respects
he claims.
Chris Wolf
>In article <3852ee76...@news.supernews.com>, Chris Wolf
><cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>
>> >If those examples don't make it clear, consider that in a functioning
>> >A-C system of the sort I have described, there is at most one court that
>> >has jurisdiction over any particular dispute.
>> Which is pure wishful thinking on David Friedman's part. Any time you
>> have
>> competing legal systems, in the same geographical area, you face the very
>> real possibility of having the citizen subjected to conflicting
>> jurisdictions.
>I don't know what you think "jurisdiction" means.
I know what it means under A-C. It means two competing justice agencies,
with conflicting law, trying to enforce that law on the citizens in the
same geographical territory.
>You certainly face the
>risk of having more than one person trying to use force to resolve a
>dispute. But to say that a court has jurisdiction is to say that that is
>the court entitled to decide the dispute. Under anarcho-capitalism, what
>entitles a court to decide a dispute--at least, the nearest equivalent
>to the concept of "jurisdiction" under a monopoly government--is the
>prior agreement of the enforcement agencies representing the parties.
Assuming they have been able to reach agreement. When nations are unable
to reach agreements with other nations, they frequently go to war. Private
justice agencies, attempting to enforce conflicting laws, would be no
different.
>If
>no such agreement exists, what you have is not multiple jurisdictions
>but no court having jurisdiction--at which point the question is decided
>by who is better able to use force to get his way.
In other words, under a system of A-C, might makes right. In other words,
under A-C, force will be used to settle disputes. David Friedman would
take the mechanism by which nations settle disagreements when negotiations
fail, that of war, and apply it to ALL disputes.
Which is why A-C fails, on principle.
>Similarly, of course, disputes under a system of monopoly goverments are
>often decided that way--whether because a government is unable to
>enforce its decisions (consider any successful black market, for
>example) or because more than one government is trying to enforce its
>decisions. If A-C ends up with many disputes between people who are out
>of law with each other, that is indeed a problem--just as the tendency
>of monopoly governments to settle disputes with each other by force is a
>problem for that system.
In other words, David Friedman wants to take the fact that wars are not
limited almost exclusively to conflicts between nations, and bring it all
the way down to the level of the individual.
Could there be a better example of A-C's moral bankruptcy? Or why it fails
on principle.
>But Chris is uninterested in the (economic)
>arguments and evidence relevant to the question of whether such problems
>would be endemic or rare under A-C, because he believes that such issues
>are properly decided by philosophical arguments, rather than by trying
>to actually learn something about the relevant facts of reality.
In other words, David Friedman thinks philosophy is useless when it comes
to reality. The only way to find out if something works, is to try it.
I suppose, using David's logic, we could try black slavery again. With
computers, we might be able to make it work this time.
David Friedman is a perfect example of what happens when you try to
resolves moral questions, like systems of government, without philosophy.
When a system of government, like A-C, permits the individual use of
retaliatory force, and when it exposes the citizens to the threat of
conflicting law, then it fails, on principle, and I do not care what the
"economic" arguments might be; just as I do not care what the "economic"
arguments for stealing might be. When something is demonstrated to be
wrong, on principle, that's the end of it, and we do not need to do a
cost/benefit study of it.
That's the beauty of principles. Which is something that David Friedman
has never grasped.
>> (Ever notice how advocates for A-C always reassure us that A-C will act
>> like a monopoly government to keep from subjecting the citizens to
>> conflicting laws, rather than acting like a free market?)
>"Ever notice how advocates of capitalism reassure us that capitalism
>will act like a well planned socialist economy to coordinate human
>behavior, rather than creating the sort of conflict, waste and chaos
>that capitalism actually produces?" (Wolf Mark II arguing against
>capitalism)
Cute. Irrelevant, but cute.
Or does David really think that an advocate of capitalism would EVER try to
sell it by comparing it favorably to a planned, socialist economy?
No advocate of Capitalism, trying to sell a former citizen of the Soviet
Union on Capitalism, would EVER say "You'll get all the benefits of a
planned socialist economy." That would be guaranteed to send the citizen
screaming in the other direction.
Yet that is exactly what David Friedman does when he talks of the benefits
of A-C. He explains how A-C will give us all the benefits of the monopoly
government (no conflicting law, no individual use of retaliatory force).
He constantly tries to reassure us that the free market in government will
act like a monopoly government, rather than a free market.
Of course, David HAS to argue this way. If he argued the real "benefits"
of the free market in government (conflicting law, overlapping
jurisdictions, individual use of retaliatory force), he would have no
supporters at all. So instead he argues for the benefits of a monopoly
government, and claims that A-C will probably give us what monopoly
government guarantees to give us.
It's a staggering stolen concept.
>Or in other words, Chris is first assuming that A-C will misfunction in
>a particular way, then objecting that if I disagree I must be claiming
>A-C is like a monopoly government.
That's because you DO claim that A-C is like a monopoly government. Only
better.
>But if he has been paying attention,
>he surely realizes that what I describe is quite unlike a monopoly
>government--merely not unlike it in the particular undesirable respects
>he claims.
Let's look at the facts. Even David Friedman admits that the citizens need
to live under the same law. So the first thing he has his system of A-C
do, is for all the private justice agencies to negotiate treaties with each
other, to decide which courts will hear the case, in case of conflict in
the law. In other words, the law ends up being standardized, just as it is
under a monopoly government. So the first thing David does in his system
of "free-market law," is to get rid of all of the elements of the free
market! All of the private justice agencies end up enforcing the same set
of laws. Instead of competing with different systems of law, they merely
compete to see who can best enforce the same set of laws. We can have the
latter, now, with monopoly government. We don't need to convert to A-C to
get that particular benefit.
Then the private justice agencies will discover that they cannot permit
individuals to use retaliatory force, and still protect their customers,
and so they will forbid its use by private citizens.
And in no time at all, you're right back to monopoly government in
everything but the name.
This is a perfect example of David Friedman's staggering stolen concept,
called A-C.
David Friedman
<cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
> David Friedman writes:
> I know what it means under A-C. It means two competing justice agencies,
> with conflicting law, trying to enforce that law on the citizens in the
> same geographical territory.
No more than the arrest of Noriega implies that jurisdiction, under
monopoly government, means two competing governments with conflicting
law trying to ... .
> In other words, under a system of A-C, might makes right. In other
> words,
> under A-C, force will be used to settle disputes.
Under all systems, might determines what happens--good systems are those
structured so that the people who are in the right almost always are the
ones who have sufficient might to win out. You might as well say "in
other words, under monopoly government might makes right." After all,
under monopoly government if a mugger catches you unarmed with no police
around, he succeeds in stealing your wallet.
Under A-C, if I have correctly described it, almost all disputes are
decided by prechosen courts, and the person who wins the court case
almost always then has sufficient force on his side so that the verdict
is enforced without violence being necessary. You may, if you wish,
describe such a situation as "might makes right," or "force will be used
to settle disputes," but you must then apply precisely the same terms to
your preferred institutions. When a convicted defendant goes to jail, it
is because the government has used force to settle the dispute.
> David Friedman would
> take the mechanism by which nations settle disagreements when
> negotiations
> fail, that of war, and apply it to ALL disputes.
You are again not paying attention. I would apply it to disputes between
people who are out of law with each other, just as you would apply it to
disputes involving nations. Not only do I expect that not to be all
disputes, I expect it to be very few disputes--precisely because it is
an unattractive way of settling disagreements, hence one people will
choose to avoid.
> In other words, David Friedman thinks philosophy is useless when it comes
> to reality. The only way to find out if something works, is to try it.
Chris seems to have an odd idea of the alternatives to philosophy--he
apparently thinks that the only alternatives are philosophical arguments
or empirical observation. That simply assumes away all of science. He
might as well say that the only to find out where a missile is going to
go is to fire it and watch.
> No advocate of Capitalism, trying to sell a former citizen of the Soviet
> Union on Capitalism, would EVER say "You'll get all the benefits of a
> planned socialist economy." That would be guaranteed to send the citizen
> screaming in the other direction.
>
> Yet that is exactly what David Friedman does when he talks of the
> benefits
> of A-C. He explains how A-C will give us all the benefits of the
> monopoly
> government (no conflicting law, no individual use of retaliatory force).
To begin with, monopoly government doesn't give us either of those
benefits, as judged by its behavior in the real world.
More fundamentally, if someone arguing for socialism said "how, under a
capitalist system, will you make sure there is enough steel produced so
that the auto companies can make cars," the response would be an
explanation of why the capitalist system would actually accomplish the
coordination that the socialist system claims but fails to accomplish.
Similarly, when Chris objects that we will get whim rather than justice
out of anarcho-capitalism, I reply with an explanation (or a pointer to
an explanation) of why the a-c system will tend to generate just
law--something monopoly government claims to do but doesn't.
> Let's look at the facts. Even David Friedman admits that the citizens
> need
> to live under the same law. So the first thing he has his system of A-C
> do, is for all the private justice agencies to negotiate treaties with
> each
> other, to decide which courts will hear the case, in case of conflict in
> the law. In other words, the law ends up being standardized, just as it
> is
> under a monopoly government.
You are not paying attention. Under my system there could, in the
limiting case, be a different law applying between every pair of
individuals. The only "standardization" that is necessary is that there
is a single court to decide any dispute between a single pair of people.
Any standardization beyond that is not a constraint of the system but a
market outcome--just as some standardization of products is a common
outcome, without government requirements, in many other markets.
> So the first thing David does in his system
> of "free-market law," is to get rid of all of the elements of the free
> market! All of the private justice agencies end up enforcing the same
> set
> of laws.
You really haven't been paying attention. I suggest reading my book, not
just trying to find bits you can use in argument. They do not all end up
enforcing the same set of law.
Chris Wolf
>In article <385d0a09...@news.supernews.com>, Chris Wolf
><cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>
>> David Friedman writes:
>
>> I know what it means under A-C. It means two competing justice agencies,
>> with conflicting law, trying to enforce that law on the citizens in the
>> same geographical territory.
>No more than the arrest of Noriega implies that jurisdiction, under
>monopoly government, means two competing governments with conflicting
>law trying to ... .
Pure evasion. The arrest of Noriega was an example of jurisdiction BETWEEN
two monopoly governments; not UNDER a monopoly government, as you are
trying to pretend. Nor do monopoly governments compete with each other.
That's another wonderful little contradiction-in-terms that David is fond
of. A monopoly government does not COMPETE with anyone. That's why we
call it a monopoly. Duh!
>> In other words, under a system of A-C, might makes right. In other
>> words, under A-C, force will be used to settle disputes.
>Under all systems, might determines what happens
Wrong again. Under a proper monopoly government, the Constitution and the
Law, determine what happens. That, of course, is the fundamental
difference between the Law, and the Free Market. In the Free Market, force
IS the only determining factor, since the very concept of law has been
junked.
Law that is for sale, is not law. It's only pretending to be law.
>--good systems are those
>structured so that the people who are in the right almost always are the
>ones who have sufficient might to win out.
Once again, an example of Friedman's obsession with "structure," instead of
philosophy.
>You might as well say "in
>other words, under monopoly government might makes right." After all,
>under monopoly government if a mugger catches you unarmed with no police
>around, he succeeds in stealing your wallet.
Now we're talking GROSS evasion. Friedman is trying to switch the context
from how a monopoly government operates, to how a mugger operates.
Pitiful.
>> David Friedman would
>> take the mechanism by which nations settle disagreements when
>> negotiations
>> fail, that of war, and apply it to ALL disputes.
>You are again not paying attention. I would apply it to disputes between
>people who are out of law with each other, just as you would apply it to
>disputes involving nations.
As I said earlier, under A-C war is no longer confined to conflicts between
nations. Now it comes to the neighborhood.
>Not only do I expect that not to be all
>disputes, I expect it to be very few disputes--precisely because it is
>an unattractive way of settling disagreements, hence one people will
>choose to avoid.
Uh-huh. Just like crime is so unattractive, that very few people ever
engage in it. Just like wars are so unattractive, that they are seldom
fought.
>> No advocate of Capitalism, trying to sell a former citizen of the Soviet
>> Union on Capitalism, would EVER say "You'll get all the benefits of a
>> planned socialist economy." That would be guaranteed to send the citizen
>> screaming in the other direction.
>>
>> Yet that is exactly what David Friedman does when he talks of the
>> benefits
>> of A-C. He explains how A-C will give us all the benefits of the
>> monopoly
>> government (no conflicting law, no individual use of retaliatory force).
>To begin with, monopoly government doesn't give us either of those
>benefits, as judged by its behavior in the real world.
False. That is EXACTLY what monopoly government gives us. There is no
conflicting law under monopoly government, and retaliatory force is always
legally prohibited. Neither of these conditions is guaranteed under A-C.
>More fundamentally, if someone arguing for socialism said "how, under a
>capitalist system, will you make sure there is enough steel produced so
>that the auto companies can make cars," the response would be an
>explanation of why the capitalist system would actually accomplish the
>coordination that the socialist system claims but fails to accomplish.
>Similarly, when Chris objects that we will get whim rather than justice
>out of anarcho-capitalism, I reply with an explanation (or a pointer to
>an explanation) of why the a-c system will tend to generate just
>law--something monopoly government claims to do but doesn't.
Actually, under A-C we would undoubtedly get both justice AND whim. The
free market will happily deliver either one, depending on what the customer
wishes to pay for. And that is why A-C fails, on principle. Under the
free market, a whim is just as good as a principle. The only thing that
talks is CASH.
Anarcho-capitalism basically tells people, "Go hire whatever form of
justice you wish." And they will.
Justice that can be hired, is not justice. It's simple retaliation.
>> Let's look at the facts. Even David Friedman admits that the citizens
>> need
>> to live under the same law. So the first thing he has his system of A-C
>> do, is for all the private justice agencies to negotiate treaties with
>> each
>> other, to decide which courts will hear the case, in case of conflict in
>> the law. In other words, the law ends up being standardized, just as it
>> is
>> under a monopoly government.
>You are not paying attention. Under my system there could, in the
>limiting case, be a different law applying between every pair of
>individuals. The only "standardization" that is necessary is that there
>is a single court to decide any dispute between a single pair of people.
And that is all that is necessary to completely standardize the law.
>Any standardization beyond that is not a constraint of the system but a
>market outcome--just as some standardization of products is a common
>outcome, without government requirements, in many other markets.
The difference is that law MUST be standardized under A-C. This is not
true of any other product or service. Market standards may arise for other
products, but no one is obliged to follow them. No conflict arises if I
elect to sell hamburgers shaped like pyramids. However as soon as any
justice provider elects to step outside of the standard for law, he is
necessarily in conflict with the rest of the law. That's the difference
between selling law, and selling all other goods and services. And it's a
difference that David Friedman never seems to grasp.
Like I said, under A-C, the first thing that is done is to standardize the
law. As soon as a pro-abortion justice agency, and an anti-abortion
justice agency have chosen the court to hear their dispute, they have
standardized the law. Because the court MUST have a standard for deciding
such cases, and it will either be pro-abortion, or anti-abortion. It
cannot be both. Abortion cannot be legal on Monday, and illegal on
Tuesday. So as soon as the court is chosen, one side has lost, and the
other side has won, and the law has been standardized.
>> So the first thing David does in his system
>> of "free-market law," is to get rid of all of the elements of the free
>> market! All of the private justice agencies end up enforcing the same
>> set
>> of laws.
>You really haven't been paying attention. I suggest reading my book, not
>just trying to find bits you can use in argument. They do not all end up
>enforcing the same set of law.
If they don't all end up enforcing the same set of laws, then the laws will
conflict. You can't have it both ways. (Which doesn't stop you from
trying.)
And for your information, David, I first read your book about twenty-five
years ago, and several times since then. For awhile I even called myself
an anarcho-capitalist. So don't try to pretend that I have never read your
book, and don't know what I'm talking about when I speak of
anarcho-capitalism.
I've been there. I've read your book on A-C, I've read Rothbard's books on
A-C, and a host of other A-C writers whose names I've forgotten. I know
exactly what A-C is, and what it means.
In fact, I know it better than you. My grasp of philosophical principles
gives me an enormous advantage over you.
David Friedman
<cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
> David Friedman writes:
>
> >In article <385d0a09...@news.supernews.com>, Chris Wolf
> ><cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
> >
> >> David Friedman writes:
> >
> >> I know what it means under A-C. It means two competing justice
> >> agencies,
> >> with conflicting law, trying to enforce that law on the citizens in
> >> the
> >> same geographical territory.
>
> >No more than the arrest of Noriega implies that jurisdiction, under
> >monopoly government, means two competing governments with conflicting
> >law trying to ... .
>
> Pure evasion. The arrest of Noriega was an example of jurisdiction
> BETWEEN
> two monopoly governments; not UNDER a monopoly government, as you are
> trying to pretend.
And a conflict between two people who are out of law with each other
under an A-C system is not occurring under an a-c court.
I don't, by the way, know what you think "jurisdiction between two
monopoly governments" is supposed to mean--it sounds as though you are
making up a variety of meanings for the word "jurisdiction" without any
idea of what it actually means.
> >> In other words, under a system of A-C, might makes right. In other
> >> words, under A-C, force will be used to settle disputes.
>
> >Under all systems, might determines what happens
>
> Wrong again. Under a proper monopoly government, the Constitution and
> the
> Law, determine what happens.
Even without might on their side? The Constitution and the Law just
magically enforce themselves?
> >You might as well say "in
> >other words, under monopoly government might makes right." After all,
> >under monopoly government if a mugger catches you unarmed with no police
> >around, he succeeds in stealing your wallet.
>
> Now we're talking GROSS evasion. Friedman is trying to switch the
> context
> from how a monopoly government operates, to how a mugger operates.
The mugger exists in a society with a monopoly government. That monopoly
government gets its way when it has superior might in the particular
situation; the mugger gets his way when he does.
> >> Yet that is exactly what David Friedman does when he talks of the
> >> benefits
> >> of A-C. He explains how A-C will give us all the benefits of the
> >> monopoly
> >> government (no conflicting law, no individual use of retaliatory
> >> force).
>
> >To begin with, monopoly government doesn't give us either of those
> >benefits, as judged by its behavior in the real world.
>
> False. That is EXACTLY what monopoly government gives us. There is no
> conflicting law under monopoly government, and retaliatory force is
> always legally prohibited.
Chris seems to be confusing "no individual use of retaliatory force,"
which is a statement about what happens, with "retaliatory force is
legally prohibited," which is a statement about what the law is.
> >You are not paying attention. Under my system there could, in the
> >limiting case, be a different law applying between every pair of
> >individuals. The only "standardization" that is necessary is that there
> >is a single court to decide any dispute between a single pair of people.
>
> And that is all that is necessary to completely standardize the law.
You regard a system where there is one law between you and me, another
between me and Brad, and a third between you and Brad as entirely
standardized? That is an odd use of Enlish.
> The difference is that law MUST be standardized under A-C. This is not
> true of any other product or service. Market standards may arise for
> other
> products, but no one is obliged to follow them. No conflict arises if I
> elect to sell hamburgers shaped like pyramids. However as soon as any
> justice provider elects to step outside of the standard for law, he is
> necessarily in conflict with the rest of the law. That's the difference
> between selling law, and selling all other goods and services. And it's
> a
> difference that David Friedman never seems to grasp.
Actually, I spent a good deal of "Anarchy and Efficient Law" on
discussing the difference between the market for legal assent and
ordinary markets.
> >You really haven't been paying attention. I suggest reading my book, not
> >just trying to find bits you can use in argument. They do not all end up
> >enforcing the same set of law.
>
> If they don't all end up enforcing the same set of laws, then the laws
> will
> conflict. You can't have it both ways. (Which doesn't stop you from
> trying.)
If there is one set of laws between customers of agency A and agency B,
and another between customers of agency B and agency C, and a third set
of laws between customers of agency C and agency A, are they "all
enforcing the same set of laws?" Obviously not. Do the laws conflict? No.
> And for your information, David, I first read your book about twenty-five
> years ago, and several times since then. For awhile I even called myself
> an anarcho-capitalist. So don't try to pretend that I have never read
> your
> book, and don't know what I'm talking about when I speak of
> anarcho-capitalism.
I'm afraid I am using a stronger definition of "read" here than you are.
I am not surprised that you have read the words, but you quite commonly
(as here) make arguments that imply that you don't understand the ideas.
> I've been there. I've read your book on A-C, I've read Rothbard's books
> on
> A-C, and a host of other A-C writers whose names I've forgotten. I know
> exactly what A-C is, and what it means.
And you think it means the same thing to me as to Rothbard?
Player 1DA7
>Actually, Liberty magazine recently had a poll that included the question
>about
>the NIOF principle and about 50% of the respondants disagreed with it. There
>has been a bit of debate in the magazine since then. Maybe David Friedman
>could
>comment (as he did in Liberty)?
Do you remember how they asked it? Did they say something like "Is it always
wrong to initiate force, no matter what?" or did they say "Do you feel the NIOF
principle is a good rule of thumb?"
_Player
David Friedman
<playe...@aol.com> wrote:
I can't give you the exact words, but it amounted to the former. Bill
Bradford likes to confront people who claim to believe that it is always
wrong to initiate force no matter what with scenarios in which very few
people would actually follow through on that principle.
David Harmon
David Friedman <dd...@best.com> wrote:
>No more than the arrest of Noriega implies that jurisdiction, under
>monopoly government, means two competing governments with conflicting
>law trying to ... .
If Clinton, after he leaves office, takes a vacation trip to England,
do the Somalis get to have him arrested and extradited for acts of
terrorism, like Pinochet?
David Friedman
<sou...@netcom.com> wrote:
> On 12 Dec 1999 22:23:55 GMT in humanities.philosophy.objectivism,
> David Friedman <dd...@best.com> wrote:
>
> >No more than the arrest of Noriega implies that jurisdiction, under
> >monopoly government, means two competing governments with conflicting
> >law trying to ... .
>
> If Clinton, after he leaves office, takes a vacation trip to England,
> do the Somalis get to have him arrested and extradited for acts of
> terrorism, like Pinochet?
The Sudanese, actually. There is some dispute about what crimes Pinochet
did or did not commit, but Clinton confessed on television to blowing up
a pharmaceutical plant in a country we were at peace with.
Paul Zrimsek
>> Do you remember how they asked it? Did they say something like "Is it
>> always
>> wrong to initiate force, no matter what?" or did they say "Do you feel
>> the NIOF
>> principle is a good rule of thumb?"
>
>I can't give you the exact words, but it amounted to the former. Bill
>Bradford likes to confront people who claim to believe that it is always
>wrong to initiate force no matter what with scenarios in which very few
>people would actually follow through on that principle.
"No person has the right to initiate physical force
against another human being." That's it.
http://www.libertysoft.com/liberty/features/70libpoll.html
Paul Zrimsek pzri...@earthlink.net
--------------------------------------------------------------
The presence of the star Fomalhaut in Pisces this week doesn't
mean anything special. It's always been there. -- The Onion
Eric
David Friedman wrote in message ...
>
>I can't give you the exact words, but it amounted to the former. Bill
>Bradford likes to confront people who claim to believe that it is always
>wrong to initiate force no matter what with scenarios in which very few
>people would actually follow through on that principle.
>
Which is is silly because neither would Rand yet he uses this strawman
argument against her.
I made a trip to Port Townsend a few weeks ago and stopped by Liberty. I
was talking to two employees that work there and I saw Bradford walk by and
I said, "hey I recognize that guy (because I saw him on TV), and the two
people were like, "yeah that's Bill, he's not in a good mood today". I
don't have a point except that I got the impression he is a grumpy fella.
-Eric
David Friedman
<roa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> David Friedman wrote in message ...
> >
> >I can't give you the exact words, but it amounted to the former. Bill
> >Bradford likes to confront people who claim to believe that it is always
> >wrong to initiate force no matter what with scenarios in which very few
> >people would actually follow through on that principle.
> >
>
>
> Which is is silly because neither would Rand yet he uses this strawman
> argument against her.
You would have to point to an example. I would have said that he uses it
against the many libertarians who argue as if it were really an all or
nothing issue--and there are lots of them.
> I made a trip to Port Townsend a few weeks ago and stopped by Liberty. I
> was talking to two employees that work there and I saw Bradford walk by
> and
> I said, "hey I recognize that guy (because I saw him on TV), and the two
> people were like, "yeah that's Bill, he's not in a good mood today". I
> don't have a point except that I got the impression he is a grumpy fella.
Not my experience.
Chris Wolf
>In article <387c60fc....@news.supernews.com>, Chris Wolf
><cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>>
>> Pure evasion. The arrest of Noriega was an example of jurisdiction
>> BETWEEN
>> two monopoly governments; not UNDER a monopoly government, as you are
>> trying to pretend.
>And a conflict between two people who are out of law with each other
>under an A-C system is not occurring under an a-c court.
Immaterial. I'm not claiming that good things will tend to happen when two
monopoly governments come into conflict. You, on the other hand, ARE
making such a claim for A-C, when two private justice agencies come into
conflict. And so you are held accountable for it.
>I don't, by the way, know what you think "jurisdiction between two
>monopoly governments" is supposed to mean--it sounds as though you are
>making up a variety of meanings for the word "jurisdiction" without any
>idea of what it actually means.
Not being an Objectivist, there are many things that you don't know.
>> Wrong again. Under a proper monopoly government, the Constitution and
>> the Law, determine what happens.
>Even without might on their side?
Frequently, yes. That is the beauty of a monopoly government with a proper
constitution. Since a proper Constitution appeals to the moral sense of
the citizens, they will frequently do what is right, rather than what they
have the power to do. For example, the Army is far more powerful than the
civilian government, and could overthrow the government any time it
pleased, seize power, and set up a military dictatorship (as it does in
many other countries). But because the principle of Law is so deeply
ingrained in most Americans, the Army is willing to take orders from a
civilian government that is much weaker than the Army.
Under A-C, of course, people simply do what they get paid to do. Which is
fine for making cars and hamburgers, but utterly inadequate for government.
Good government requires a moral sense, not just a good bottom line.
To quote Professor Bernado de la Paz, "Power always lies in the hands of
some individual man." Which is very true. Which is why it is so vitally
important to make certain that that man has a good moral sense, so he will
do the right thing, rather than just being a paid mercenary.
>The Constitution and the Law just magically enforce themselves?
It might look like magic to you, but there's nothing magic about it. It's
simply good law, based on good philosophy. And it works FAR better than
any comparable free market system could ever hope to do.
>> Now we're talking GROSS evasion. Friedman is trying to switch the
>> context
>> from how a monopoly government operates, to how a mugger operates.
>The mugger exists in a society with a monopoly government. That monopoly
>government gets its way when it has superior might in the particular
>situation; the mugger gets his way when he does.
And you think this proves something?
Perhaps it proves that you see no difference between a monopoly government,
and a mugger. Which would not be surprising.
And a monopoly government does NOT always get its way when it has superior
might in the particular situation. The monopoly government can easily be
restrained by its moral sense. Unlike a private justice agency, concerned
only with making a profit, a monopoly government can afford to do the RIGHT
thing. Since it does not compete with anyone, it is never forced to sell
out its customers' rights, just to make a deal with a competing justice
agency.
>> False. That is EXACTLY what monopoly government gives us. There is no
>> conflicting law under monopoly government, and retaliatory force is
>> always legally prohibited.
>Chris seems to be confusing "no individual use of retaliatory force,"
>which is a statement about what happens, with "retaliatory force is
>legally prohibited," which is a statement about what the law is.
I know the difference, and so do you. You're simply trying to evade the
point.
>> >You are not paying attention. Under my system there could, in the
>> >limiting case, be a different law applying between every pair of
>> >individuals. The only "standardization" that is necessary is that there
>> >is a single court to decide any dispute between a single pair of people.
>> And that is all that is necessary to completely standardize the law.
>You regard a system where there is one law between you and me, another
>between me and Brad, and a third between you and Brad as entirely
>standardized?
And you regard such an absurd arrangement as even possible in the real
world? Then you ARE living in a fantasy world.
Once you decide to negotiate away any differences in the competing legal
systems, you are on your way to complete standardization of the law,
because anything less would be totally unmanageable in the real world.
That is the second lesson that your private justice agencies will quickly
learn. Each agency cannot afford to have a different system of law with
different justice agencies. Such an arrangement would be impossible to
administer, impossible to afford, and would utterly baffle the citizens who
tried to live under such an absurd arrangement.
This is why almost nobody takes A-C seriously. It is borderline crackpot.
>That is an odd use of Enlish.
And an even odder way to spell it.
>> The difference is that law MUST be standardized under A-C. This is not
>> true of any other product or service. Market standards may arise for
>> other
>> products, but no one is obliged to follow them. No conflict arises if I
>> elect to sell hamburgers shaped like pyramids. However as soon as any
>> justice provider elects to step outside of the standard for law, he is
>> necessarily in conflict with the rest of the law. That's the difference
>> between selling law, and selling all other goods and services. And it's
>> a
>> difference that David Friedman never seems to grasp.
>Actually, I spent a good deal of "Anarchy and Efficient Law" on
>discussing the difference between the market for legal assent and
>ordinary markets.
Pity you missed the most important distinction.
>> >You really haven't been paying attention. I suggest reading my book, not
>> >just trying to find bits you can use in argument. They do not all end up
>> >enforcing the same set of law.
>> If they don't all end up enforcing the same set of laws, then the laws
>> will
>> conflict. You can't have it both ways. (Which doesn't stop you from
>> trying.)
>If there is one set of laws between customers of agency A and agency B,
>and another between customers of agency B and agency C, and a third set
>of laws between customers of agency C and agency A, are they "all
>enforcing the same set of laws?" Obviously not. Do the laws conflict? No.
Could such an arrangement even exist in the real world? No. Yet THIS,
Ladies and Gentlemen, is what David Friedman proposes as a PRACTICAL system
of government! What the law is, depends on who you are dealing with.
Before you date a woman, you'd better find out what justice agency she
subscribes to, and what the law on rape is, for that particular agency.
Otherwise you may find that unless you get a signed agreement before having
sex, you are legally guilty of rape. This is the sort of nightmare that is
quite possible under A-C. It's also why virtually no one takes A-C
seriously.
The idea that every justice agency could negotiate a different set of laws
with every other justice agency, is absurd nonsense. Such a system would
be unworkable. If you had more than a handful of justice agencies, the
permutations and combinations would quickly grow so large that even a
computer could not keep track of them all; let alone a citizen.
Imagine having to know a dozen different systems of law, just so you are
prepared to properly deal with any citizen you might encounter. This is
what makes Friedman's A-C such absurd nonsense.
If the law is not the same for everyone in a particular jurisdiction, then
you will have conflict. The idea that such conflict can be avoided by
having everyone make separate agreements with everyone else, is absurd
nonsense.
As you can see, David Friedman lives in a fantasy world. But then, he has
to, since it's the only way he can make his A-C nonsense work.
>> And for your information, David, I first read your book about twenty-five
>> years ago, and several times since then. For awhile I even called myself
>> an anarcho-capitalist. So don't try to pretend that I have never read
>> your
>> book, and don't know what I'm talking about when I speak of
>> anarcho-capitalism.
>I'm afraid I am using a stronger definition of "read" here than you are.
>I am not surprised that you have read the words, but you quite commonly
>(as here) make arguments that imply that you don't understand the ideas.
Actually, I understand them better than you do. Unlike you, I am not
wiling to resort to trips to fantasyland to make my ideas work.
>> I've been there. I've read your book on A-C, I've read Rothbard's books
>> on
>> A-C, and a host of other A-C writers whose names I've forgotten. I know
>> exactly what A-C is, and what it means.
>And you think it means the same thing to me as to Rothbard?
In principle, yes.
David Friedman
<cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
> Immaterial. I'm not claiming that good things will tend to happen when
> two
> monopoly governments come into conflict. You, on the other hand, ARE
> making such a claim for A-C, when two private justice agencies come into
> conflict. And so you are held accountable for it.
That depends on what you mean by "conflict." I am not claiming that good
things happen when two agencies are out of law with each other, any more
than you are claiming that good things happen when two governments are
at war with each other.
I agree that it is logically possible, under a-c institutions, for
people who disagree to end up settling their disagreement by violence
rather than through the courts. You agree that it is logically possible
under your preferred institutions for the same thing to happen--as in
war between nations (or criminal violence within a nation). The question
then becomes which form of breakdown is more likely to happen, does more
damage if it does happen, etc. I offered arguments on that subject in
_The Machinery of Freedom_, and since you have told us that you have
read the book, you presumably are familiar with them--and haven't, so
far as I can tell, answered them, or offered any reason to think that
breakdown of my institutions--which you treat as if it were the normal
situation--is more likely than breakdown of yours, which you mostly
ignore as a possibility.
> >I don't, by the way, know what you think "jurisdiction between two
> >monopoly governments" is supposed to mean--it sounds as though you are
> >making up a variety of meanings for the word "jurisdiction" without any
> >idea of what it actually means.
>
> Not being an Objectivist, there are many things that you don't know.
That is possible, but since "jurisdiction" is a term in legal theory,
not philosophy, it seems rather more likely that it is your ignorance
that is at fault in this case.
> >> Wrong again. Under a proper monopoly government, the Constitution and
> >> the Law, determine what happens.
>
> >Even without might on their side?
>
> Frequently, yes. That is the beauty of a monopoly government with a
> proper
> constitution. Since a proper Constitution appeals to the moral sense of
> the citizens, they will frequently do what is right, rather than what
> they
> have the power to do.
In which case the people supporting the right have the power on their
side as a result. All you are saying is that who has the might depends,
among other things, on people's beliefs about legitimacy, right and
wrong, etcetera. That is hardly inconsistent with my point--all of the
might is controlled by human beings, so obviously how those human beings
act determines where the might is.
> >You regard a system where there is one law between you and me, another
> >between me and Brad, and a third between you and Brad as entirely
> >standardized?
>
> And you regard such an absurd arrangement as even possible in the real
> world? Then you ARE living in a fantasy world.
And you, despite your claim to have read my book, are again
demonstrating that you don't understand it, and so are attacking your
own fantasy.
Answer the question: Is such a system entirely standardized? If not,
then your claim is false, and you are confusing the two different sorts
of standardization that I described in my post.
> Once you decide to negotiate away any differences in the competing legal
> systems, you are on your way to complete standardization of the law,
> because anything less would be totally unmanageable in the real world.
1. As usual, you are thinking in terms of enforcement agencies each of
which has its own legal system--which is not the set of institutions I
proposed, as you would have realized when you read the book if you had
been paying attention.
2. In fact, lots of real world polities have functioned and do function
with a whole lot less standardization than you describe. Indeed, at
present, the same dispute may be decided by different law according to
who you are having it with. I realize that you deny that our federal
system is a proper monopoly government (actually, you think it is 99% of
a monopoly government, so only deny it when tactically useful), but are
you now saying that our present legal system is, in that respect,
"totally unmanageable?" It is, after all, a feature of the real world.
> Could such an arrangement even exist in the real world?
Can and does, quite routinely.
> The idea that every justice agency could negotiate a different set of
> laws with every other justice agency, is absurd nonsense.
As it happens I disagree. But I am more interested in pointing out that
you are the one who claims to be familiar with the ideas you are
attacking--having read my book twenty-five years ago and even been
briefly converted (if I correctly understand your post). Yet you are now
reacting with shock and outrage to my pointing out one of the central
features of the institutions I described there. Point proved.
> >> I've been there. I've read your book on A-C, I've read Rothbard's
> >> books
> >> on
> >> A-C, and a host of other A-C writers whose names I've forgotten. I
> >> know
> >> exactly what A-C is, and what it means.
>
> >And you think it means the same thing to me as to Rothbard?
>
> In principle, yes.
In principle, no.
Owl
news:385650d8...@news.earthlink.net...
> "No person has the right to initiate physical force
> against another human being." That's it.
In that case, I would suspect that a lot of the apparent disagreement is
due to differing interpretations of the statement. A generalization of
this sort, when not otherwise specified, can usually be assumed to mean
"under normal conditions." But some people will interpret it to mean
"under any conceivable conditions."
Eric
David Friedman wrote in message ...
>> >I can't give you the exact words, but it amounted to the former. Bill
>> >Bradford likes to confront people who claim to believe that it is always
>> >wrong to initiate force no matter what with scenarios in which very few
>> >people would actually follow through on that principle.
>> >
>>
>> Which is is silly because neither would Rand yet he uses this strawman
>> argument against her.
>
>You would have to point to an example. I would have said that he uses it
>against the many libertarians who argue as if it were really an all or
>nothing issue--and there are lots of them.
Example of what? If I recall correctly, Bradford always uses "emergency"
ethics to make his case, but Rand addressed this in one of her essays.
Chris Wolf has Rand transcripts on his page, and she says she would initiate
force to break into a cabin.
The point is that he is confusing the "deontological" natural right
supporters such as Rothbard with Rand's unique (and evolving) approach.
Rights aren't absolute but are simply moral principles that apply in most
situations. Actually, Rand seemed to change her mind on rights as she
matured. Compare these two statements she made-
"Rights are a moral concept -- the concept that provides a logical
transition from the principles guiding an individual's actions to the
principles guiding his relationship with others---the concept that preserves
and protects individual morality in a social context--the link between the
moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and
politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral
law."
"Since man has inalienable rights, this means that the same rights are held,
individually, by every man, by all men, at all times."
This last earlier sentence seems to be what Bradford was attacking.
>> I made a trip to Port Townsend a few weeks ago and stopped by Liberty. I
>> was talking to two employees that work there and I saw Bradford walk by
>> and
>> I said, "hey I recognize that guy (because I saw him on TV), and the two
>> people were like, "yeah that's Bill, he's not in a good mood today". I
>> don't have a point except that I got the impression he is a grumpy fella.
>
>Not my experience.
>
Bad day I guess.
-Eric
David Friedman
<roa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> David Friedman wrote in message ...
> >You would have to point to an example.
Example of Bradford misrepresenting Rand on this. I would have said he
was aiming at least as much at Rothbard, and I don't know if he is
aiming at Rand specifically, as opposed to views expressed by some of
her followers.
Paul Zrimsek
> was talking to two employees that work there and I saw Bradford walk by
> and I said, "hey I recognize that guy (because I saw him on TV), and the two
> people were like, "yeah that's Bill, he's not in a good mood today". I
> don't have a point except that I got the impression he is a grumpy fella.
Perhaps some wiseacre had just asked him, "if you think libertarians
are going all consequentialist, how come you keep buying so many
articles about Ayn Rand?"
Paul Zrimsek pzri...@earthlink.net
------------------------------------------------------------
My Legions of Terror will be an equal-opportunity employer.
Conversely, when it is prophesied that no man can defeat me,
I will keep in mind the increasing number of non-traditional
gender roles. -- www.eviloverlord.com
Paul Zrimsek
>> "No person has the right to initiate physical force
>> against another human being." That's it.
>
>In that case, I would suspect that a lot of the apparent disagreement is
>due to differing interpretations of the statement. A generalization of
>this sort, when not otherwise specified, can usually be assumed to mean
>"under normal conditions." But some people will interpret it to mean
>"under any conceivable conditions."
That's surely part of it. But 90% of respondents agreed with the same
statement in 1988, so something else must be at work. (I agree with
Prof. Friedman that that something else is more likely the dilution of
the pool of respondents with people who would not formerly have
identified themselves as libertarians, rather than a mass change of
heart among people who've called themselves libertarian all along.)
Dena L. Bruedigam
>The definition of libertarian -- as in, a member of the libertarian party --
>must, by nature, include only people who are members of the libertarian
>party.
That's an interesting definition of libertarian, and one that I've never
heard before. I'm curious as to where you found it.
I'm also curious as to the criteria you have used to determine who is an is
not a member of the Libertarian Party.
For example, in Ohio, since we were just recently acknowledged by the State
as a party, there are technically (at least according to the State) no
Libertarian Party members until the primary election next March after which
time the State will deem all who ask for a Libertarian ballot as
Libertarian Party members. That means that right now I can say (as you do)
that I'm technically not a member of the LP, even though I'm the chair of
the Libertarian Party of Ohio. I am however, a member when other criteria
are taken into consideration., i.e., I donate money, pay dues, etc.
>I may share some goals with libertarians, just as I do with republicans and
>democrats. I am _none_ of those three, though, because I _say_ I'm not. It's
>a voluntary association, and I hereby declare I am _not_.
So do you vote in primaries, then? If so, and if you ask for a party
ballot, in most states you are defacto joining that political party. Do
you then believe that by saying you are not, you are not, even though the
law states that you are?
Just curious.
--Dena
Dena L. Bruedigam
>By accepting anarchism as a "minority" view that is at least
>consistent with the general Libertarian ideology, rather than
>repudiating it as the crackpot aberration that it is, what the
>movement's intellectual leaders are doing is declaring that
>their ideas are in fact fundamentally anti-freedom and
>opposed to everything that I and other civilized people
>believe in and stand for. At least the Democrats and
>Republicans, for all their flaws, aren't THAT low on the
>intellectual food chain. For those who have trouble
>understanding why Objectivists seem to be more hostile to
>the LP than to the Republicrat parties, consider THAT.
These are the kinds of comments that I hear from Objectivists that make me
wonder.
What you are saying here is that Republicans and Democrats, who not only
support such horrible evils and assaults on the individual as excessive
taxation, the drug war, the public education system, the welfare state,
etc., but also ENACT their policies in support of these evils into law and
force them upon us are BETTER than Libertarians because some Libertarians
are anarchists.
It would be funny, but it's too sad.
--Dena
Brad Wilson
news:3.0.32.19991215...@pop.service.ohio-state.edu...
> So do you vote in primaries, then?
I don't vote at all any more.
Chris Wolf
>>In article <3863af4e...@news.supernews.com>, Chris Wolf
>><cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>>
>> Immaterial. I'm not claiming that good things will tend to happen when
>> two
>> monopoly governments come into conflict. You, on the other hand, ARE
>> making such a claim for A-C, when two private justice agencies come into
>> conflict. And so you are held accountable for it.
>That depends on what you mean by "conflict." I am not claiming that good
>things happen when two agencies are out of law with each other, any more
>than you are claiming that good things happen when two governments are
>at war with each other.
The difference is that A-C takes the potential for national disputes, and
turns them into the potential for neighborhood disputes.
>I agree that it is logically possible, under a-c institutions, for
>people who disagree to end up settling their disagreement by violence
>rather than through the courts. You agree that it is logically possible
>under your preferred institutions for the same thing to happen--as in
>war between nations (or criminal violence within a nation).
No, that is NOT the same thing, and it is very dishonest for you to claim
that it is. Once again, you completely drop the context. It's like saying
that since injustice can happen in both America, and the Soviet Union,
therefore there is no essential difference between the two governments.
This is one of Friedman's regular tricks to attempt to give A-C moral
legitimacy. He points out something bad that can happen in both systems,
and then tries to imply that this proves that one system is not inherently
better than the other. All it proves, of course, is that Friedman cannot
argue his system on the basis of principled difference, and is reduced to
arguing concrete details.
Criminal violence will exist under either system, so that is immaterial.
Wars can certainly exist between monopoly governments, but that is not even
remotely the same as the violence that can break out between rival justice
agencies under a system of A-C. Such justice agency wars cannot even exist
under a monopoly government, since rival justice agencies are not even
permitted to exist. THAT is the crucial difference between monopoly
government, and A-C, and it's a difference that you constantly evade. A-C
tolerates the risk of wars between private justice agencies, while monopoly
government eliminates such risk. (Monopoly government risks civil war, but
that is a war between the citizens themselves, and can also occur under
A-C, and so is immaterial.)
Monopoly government also eliminates the risk of conflicting law within the
country, while A-C must tolerate such risk as a matter of course.
These two points alone, risk of conflicting law, and risk of wars between
justice agencies, are enough, on principle, to completely sink A-C as a
candidate for a system of government.
Of course, the BIGGEST point that sinks A-C, is its insistence on divorcing
government from philosophy. The idea that the free market can replace good
philosophy.
Of course, A-C isn't even a system of government. That's another
staggering stolen concept. A-C is just the idea of arbitration on a
nationwide scale. It's the idea that arbitration can replace principled
law.
It's important to remember that A-C has no principles. If a justice agency
for child molesters was in conflict with a justice agency for parents with
children, David Friedman's A-C "court" would happily try the case under the
premise that child molesting would be legal under "certain circumstances"
and not under others. For this is the only kind of "court" that can settle
conflicts of laws under A-C. A court that is entirely unprincipled. A
court that is willing to divorce law from principle.
You cannot negotiate differences in moral principle, which includes
conflicting law. There is nothing to negotiate. Unless you first abandon
all principle. And this is exactly what an A-C court must do when the law
conflicts.
>The question
>then becomes which form of breakdown is more likely to happen, does more
>damage if it does happen, etc.
That is David Friedman's question, but it isn't mine. On matters of
principle, one does not do a cost/benfit analysis (which is all David
Friedman knows how to do).
Questions of government are questions of moral principle, and such things
can ONLY be decided on the basis of philosophy. They CANNOT be decided by
doing a cost/benefit analysis, which is what Friedman tries to do.
A-C loses, on principle, because it attempts to divorce philosophy from
government. It loses, on principle, because it permits individuals to use
retaliatory force. It loses, on principle, because it exposes the citizens
to the risk of conflicting law.
>I offered arguments on that subject in
>_The Machinery of Freedom_, and since you have told us that you have
>read the book, you presumably are familiar with them--and haven't, so
>far as I can tell, answered them, or offered any reason to think that
>breakdown of my institutions--which you treat as if it were the normal
>situation--is more likely than breakdown of yours, which you mostly
>ignore as a possibility.
That's because I don't deal in "likelihoods" when it comes to moral
principles, such as systems of government. Since for you, moral principles
are simply something to be bought and sold, like hamburgers, I'm not
surprised that you can only deal in "likelihoods."
And that, of course, is why your system of A-C utterly fails, on principle.
By rejecting the need for philosophy, and embracing "likelihoods" as its
highest moral principle, it does not even reach the level of principle.
>> Not being an Objectivist, there are many things that you don't know.
>That is possible, but since "jurisdiction" is a term in legal theory,
>not philosophy, it seems rather more likely that it is your ignorance
>that is at fault in this case.
Dream on.
>> >You regard a system where there is one law between you and me, another
>> >between me and Brad, and a third between you and Brad as entirely
>> >standardized?
>> And you regard such an absurd arrangement as even possible in the real
>> world? Then you ARE living in a fantasy world.
>And you, despite your claim to have read my book, are again
>demonstrating that you don't understand it, and so are attacking your
>own fantasy.
More evasion. I was attacking what YOU said.
>Answer the question: Is such a system entirely standardized?
Of course not. It also has nothing to do with reality. It is a fantasy.
>If not,
>then your claim is false, and you are confusing the two different sorts
>of standardization that I described in my post.
Is the law standardized in your absurd fantasy of different systems of law
among different individuals and agencies? No, not at all. The law in your
fantasy is definitely not standardized.
When I talked about the requirement for the law to be standardized, I was
talking about something that can exist in the real world; not a fantasy
world.
>> Once you decide to negotiate away any differences in the competing legal
>> systems, you are on your way to complete standardization of the law,
>> because anything less would be totally unmanageable in the real world.
>1. As usual, you are thinking in terms of enforcement agencies each of
>which has its own legal system--which is not the set of institutions I
>proposed, as you would have realized when you read the book if you had
>been paying attention.
Once again, you're simply trying to evade the principle by throwing out
irrelevant detail.
I do not care if each of your private enforcement agencies has its own
legal system, or merely goes to a system of courts, each of which has its
own legal system. The principle is the same either way. The law must be
standardized, and the number of links in the chain is irrelevant.
I deal in principles; not irrelevant concretes.
>2. In fact, lots of real world polities have functioned and do function
>with a whole lot less standardization than you describe. Indeed, at
>present, the same dispute may be decided by different law according to
>who you are having it with.
And you have to go to a different country, or state, for this to happen.
Within the country, or state, the law IS completely standardized.
A lack of standardization, between states or nations is possible because
such entities tend to be self-contained. You can easily live your life
without getting involved in the differing laws of different states or
nations. But this is not possible under A-C, where EVERY place is subject
to differing laws.
>I realize that you deny that our federal
>system is a proper monopoly government (actually, you think it is 99% of
>a monopoly government, so only deny it when tactically useful), but are
>you now saying that our present legal system is, in that respect,
>"totally unmanageable?" It is, after all, a feature of the real world.
Not at all. Groups of monopoly governments, such as the fifty states, can
function fairly well. Any necessary standardization is easily provided by
the Federal government.
>> The idea that every justice agency could negotiate a different set of
>> laws with every other justice agency, is absurd nonsense.
>As it happens I disagree.
Glad to hear it. It shows just how close to the Crackpot bin you really
are.
Just imagine the impossibility of living, if the city of Seattle was under
the jurisdiction of even four different justice agencies, each subscribed
to a different court system with a different set of laws. Every citizen
would have to know four different sets of laws, just to go about the
business of everyday living. The law would literally depend on who he was
dealing with.
Yet David Friedman apparently thinks that such a screwball arrangement is
possible, and even desirable.
>But I am more interested in pointing out that
>you are the one who claims to be familiar with the ideas you are
>attacking--having read my book twenty-five years ago and even been
>briefly converted (if I correctly understand your post). Yet you are now
>reacting with shock and outrage to my pointing out one of the central
>features of the institutions I described there. Point proved.
Not at all. I simply have a tendency to try to fit your ideas on A-C into
the real world as much as possible. As I go about this business, every now
and then I suddenly realize just HOW ABSURD a particular bit of your A-C
lunacy really is. I suddenly realize just what it would mean to try to
implement such nonsense into daily life. Only I don't react with shock and
outrage. A big belly laugh is more like it.
I look at what would happen if A-C were really tried, and can easily see
how things would eventually end up, by necessity. It always amazes me to
find out that you really DO believe that people could live and function
quite well, when the law can vary from person to person within the
immediate community.
Even MY imagination can't reach that far into fantasyland.
But this is what happens when you drop all principle, and then try to set
up a government. Without principles, there are no end to the screwball
fantasies you can dream up.
David Friedman
few points:
I wrote:
> >I agree that it is logically possible, under a-c institutions, for
> >people who disagree to end up settling their disagreement by violence
> >rather than through the courts. You agree that it is logically possible
> >under your preferred institutions for the same thing to happen--as in
> >war between nations (or criminal violence within a nation).
>
> No, that is NOT the same thing, and it is very dishonest for you to claim
> that it is. Once again, you completely drop the context. It's like
> saying
> that since injustice can happen in both America, and the Soviet Union,
> therefore there is no essential difference between the two governments.
The essential difference is not in whether injustice can happen, but in
how much of what sort happens. And my point, which you never answer, is
that we have reason to expect more violence in a system of nation states
than in a system of rights enforcement agencies, not less.
> Wars can certainly exist between monopoly governments, but that is not
> even
> remotely the same as the violence that can break out between rival
> justice
> agencies under a system of A-C.
For example, unless enforcement agencies end up as geographical
monopolies, they will be unlikely to engage in mass bombing of civilian
areas, since some of the victims will be their customers. Since they are
not territorial sovereigns, they will have access to much smaller
resources than national governments. Since the institutions they are
embedded in do not take it for granted that they have special rights
others do not have (as the institution of the nation state does), they
will be able to get away with considerably less monstrous acts without
offending their own customers and employees.
Or in other words, violence is violence, the argument is about which
system is likely to produce more and worse violence, and your assumption
that it is obviously my system that will has so far not been supported
and isn't terribly plausible.
> Such justice agency wars cannot even exist
> under a monopoly government, since rival justice agencies are not even
> permitted to exist. THAT is the crucial difference between monopoly
> government, and A-C, and it's a difference that you constantly evade.
Or in other words, solve the problem by definition. You might as well
say that under a theocracy, government oppression by atheists will not
exist, and that is an essential difference, and the reason we need
theocracy. The question isn't whether you call the people doing the
violence governments, enforcement agents, or criminals--it is how much
violence, of what sort, and on behalf of what sorts of objectives you
can expect them to do.
> Of course, the BIGGEST point that sinks A-C, is its insistence on
> divorcing government from philosophy. The idea that the free market can
> replace
> good philosophy.
That is an argument against me, not against anarcho-capitalism. Someone
who shared your faith in the ability of philosophy to save the world,
and your scepticism about the importance of institutions, could still
support anarcho-capitalism, merely for different reasons than I do.
> It's important to remember that A-C has no principles. If a justice
> agency
> for child molesters was in conflict with a justice agency for parents
> with
> children, David Friedman's A-C "court" would happily try the case under
> the
> premise that child molesting would be legal under "certain circumstances"
> and not under others.
If most of the people in the society share your principles on this
issue, then the only viable courts will be ones that share them too. If
there is a lot of division, then your monopoly government may well (in
fact does, in other areas) end up violating rights on an immense scale.
Again, you are implicitly comparing A-C with bad philosophy to
government with good philosophy.
> >1. As usual, you are thinking in terms of enforcement agencies each of
> >which has its own legal system--which is not the set of institutions I
> >proposed, as you would have realized when you read the book if you had
> >been paying attention.
>
> Once again, you're simply trying to evade the principle by throwing out
> irrelevant detail.
>
> I do not care if each of your private enforcement agencies has its own
> legal system, or merely goes to a system of courts, each of which has its
> own legal system. The principle is the same either way. The law must be
> standardized, and the number of links in the chain is irrelevant.
>
> I deal in principles; not irrelevant concretes.
Except that you don't.
A large part of your argument depends on assuming that courts are
functions of agencies instead of pairs of agencies. That is where you
get your confusion between the two sorts of standardization, one of
which is central to the working of the system and one of which is, to
some degree, a market outcome, with the degree depending on costs and
benefits of standardization. That is where you get the idea that
conflict of laws is the norm. That is where you miss the relevant sense
of jurisdiction in A-C. I could go on, but I won't.
> >2. In fact, lots of real world polities have functioned and do function
> >with a whole lot less standardization than you describe. Indeed, at
> >present, the same dispute may be decided by different law according to
> >who you are having it with.
>
> And you have to go to a different country, or state, for this to happen.
> Within the country, or state, the law IS completely standardized.
Not true, because jurisdiction isn't automatically defined by where a
dispute takes place--indeed, not all disputes have a geographical
location.
> Not at all. Groups of monopoly governments, such as the fifty states,
> can
> function fairly well. Any necessary standardization is easily provided
> by
> the Federal government.
But it in fact provides essentially no standardization of (say) contract
law, or tort law. There is quite a lot of standardization of both, but
it comes from private organizations which produce legal summaries that
are or are not adopted, in whole or in part, by state courts or state
legislatures--as you would know if you actually troubled to examine the
facts of reality, instead of making them up to fit your theory.
> Just imagine the impossibility of living, if the city of Seattle was
> under
> the jurisdiction of even four different justice agencies, each subscribed
> to a different court system with a different set of laws.
And again you demonstrate that haven't bothered to try to understand the
system you are attacking. *An* agency doesn't subscribe to *a* court
system.
John Fast
David Friedman <dd...@best.com> wrote:
> Chris Wolf responds at length but doesn't, I think, say anything new.
A
> few points:
> > Of course, the BIGGEST point that sinks A-C, is its insistence on
> > divorcing government from philosophy. The idea that the free
market can
> > replace
> > good philosophy.
>
> That is an argument against me, not against anarcho-capitalism.
> Someone
> who shared your faith in the ability of philosophy to save the world,
> and your scepticism about the importance of institutions, could still
> support anarcho-capitalism, merely for different reasons than I do.
That would be me, I think.
> > It's important to remember that A-C has no principles. If a
justice
> > agency
> > for child molesters was in conflict with a justice agency for
parents
> > with
> > children, David Friedman's A-C "court" would happily try the case
under
> > the
> > premise that child molesting would be legal under "certain
circumstances"
> > and not under others.
>
> If most of the people in the society share your principles on this
> issue, then the only viable courts will be ones that share them too.
If
> there is a lot of division, then your monopoly government may well
(in
> fact does, in other areas) end up violating rights on an immense
scale.
> Again, you are implicitly comparing A-C with bad philosophy to
> government with good philosophy.
I addressed Chris about this comparison in a relatively recent post,
and he replied, although we didn't get a chance to go very far. I
think that for the two of you to discuss your (implicit) assumptions
would help clarify things (especially since Chris has so incredibly
many misunderstandings about what we're talking about -- not merely
about how we expect it to work, but about how it's *supposed* to
work).
Personally, I like to explain the anarcho-capitalist legal system
by comparing it to a system in which local government jurisdiction
is defined, not by arbitrary boundaries set by whim, but rather by
the property owned by individuals who choose which particular local
government they want to be under.
I'm wondering whether Chris (and others who have similar criticisms
of anarcho-capitalism) have any objection to such a system (as
opposed to "monopoly government").
> > Just imagine the impossibility of living, if the city of Seattle
was
> > under
> > the jurisdiction of even four different justice agencies, each
subscribed
> > to a different court system with a different set of laws.
>
> And again you demonstrate that haven't bothered to try to understand
the
> system you are attacking. *An* agency doesn't subscribe to *a* court
> system.
And the City of Seattle is under the jurisdiction of at least three
different jutice agencies, each subscribed to a different court
system with a different set of laws: federal, state, and local.
And there are plenty of other areas the size of Seattle with even
more agencies, because there are several adjacent local governments
in a small area. The only real difference I can see between that and
anarcho-capitalism is that in a-c, each individual gets to decide
which particular local government he prefers.
In Broward County, where I live, several municipalities decided to
give up having their own police departments, and instead pay a fee
to the Broward Sheriff's Office to provide police service. Also,
there are at least two cities (which have their own police) which
include non-contiguous territory.
--
John Fast
<clea...@netscape.net> or <cal...@gate.net>
"Raise consciousness, not taxes."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dena L. Bruedigam
>I don't vote at all any more.
>
That would explain your lack of knowledge about politics, and is probably
better given your lack of knowledge about politics.
--Dena
Brad Wilson
> That would explain your lack of knowledge about politics, and is probably
> better given your lack of knowledge about politics.
So, by your logic, everyone who votes is an expert in politics?
I think you need to brush up on cause and effect.
Dena L. Bruedigam
>So, by your logic, everyone who votes is an expert in politics?
No, I didn't say that. However, it is logical that someone who has no
interest in the simple political act of voting may also have no interest in
the political system.
Your comments indicated that you do not know the difference between someone
who is a member of a political party and someone who holds certain
political views and that you probably don't even know how someone becomes a
member of a political party. That tells me that you don't know that much
about politics. Hence I'm not surprised that you have no interest in
voting.
--Dena
Brad Wilson
> No, I didn't say that. However, it is logical that someone who has no
> interest in the simple political act of voting may also have no interest
in
> the political system.
>
> Your comments indicated that you do not know the difference between
someone
> who is a member of a political party and someone who holds certain
> political views and that you probably don't even know how someone becomes
a
> member of a political party. That tells me that you don't know that much
> about politics. Hence I'm not surprised that you have no interest in
> voting.
You've made two whole paragraphs of incorrect assumptions. Good show.
Dena L. Bruedigam
Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on my supposedly incorrect assumptions....
Are you saying that people who don't vote really are politically savvy,
politically active, etc.?
Are you saying that you really do know the difference between a Libertarian
Party member and a libertarian? (If so, isn't this contrary to your
previous remark to David?)
Are you saying that you really are well-informed about political parties
and membership requirements?
What exactly is it that you are saying?
I'm curious to know, especially given that you have responded to two of my
posts without answering any of my questions or addressing any of the points
I made. I wonder why that is....???
--Dena
Brad Wilson
news:3.0.32.19991217...@pop.service.ohio-state.edu...
> Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on my supposedly incorrect assumptions....
If I must.
> Are you saying that people who don't vote really are politically savvy,
> politically active, etc.?
I'm saying that one has nothing specifically to do with another. It is naive
to think that just because someone votes or doesn't vote, that that has
anything to do with their knowledge about politics. You didn't ask me
questions that would reveal any of my political knowledge; your entire
diatribe is based on the fact that I say that I do not (currently) vote.
> Are you saying that you really do know the difference between a
Libertarian
> Party member and a libertarian? (If so, isn't this contrary to your
> previous remark to David?)
I don't care what the difference is. My emails were apparently regarding big
L, rather than little L. Even so, it's pretty stupid to use the two words to
represent (supposedly) very different things. Two different words are a much
better choice (or at least putting the word "party" after the l word when
you mean the party).
It has been my experience that people who intend to use one word to mean two
non-interchangable ideas often have ulterior motives (i.e., to misrepresent
one or the other, or to blur the distinction in the mind of the listener).
Regardless of whether or not this is true in this case or not, I
specifically state that I meant the LP when queried (repeatedly).
> Are you saying that you really are well-informed about political parties
> and membership requirements?
I never made any claims to this, nor do any of my claims rest on the
"membership requirements" of any specific party. Re-read my articles, if you
care, and you will see this. I was rejecting the notion that someone could
categorize and judge me by something I explicitly refused to be associated
with. That's all.
> What exactly is it that you are saying?
That you have proven to be a naive fool, jumping into the middle of
conversation, and one who has made some rather stupid assertions without any
proof or understanding of the underlying issues that I'm speaking about,
without even querying as to what I meant. You simply went off and made a
bunch of assumptions, then made a bunch of accusations. For what purpose
remains to be seen.
> I'm curious to know, especially given that you have responded to two of my
> posts without answering any of my questions or addressing any of the
points
> I made.
You didn't ask any questions.
> I wonder why that is....???
Because you're a nobody, who has proven that you aren't worth responding to
on this subject.
Last post. Rant on.
David Friedman
<bradw@#despam#pobox.com> wrote:
> It has been my experience that people who intend to use one word to mean
> two
> non-interchangable ideas often have ulterior motives (i.e., to
> misrepresent
> one or the other, or to blur the distinction in the mind of the
> listener).
I think that is one of the charges made about the Schwartz piece--that
he uses "libertarian" in a way designed to blur the distinction between
the LP and libertarianism. A central element of the Objectivist critique
of libertarians is, insofar as it is anything substantial, a statement
about the policy of the LP.
> Regardless of whether or not this is true in this case or not, I
> specifically state that I meant the LP when queried (repeatedly).
And the people you were arguing with repeatedly pointed out that that
made your comments irrelevant to the discussion you had just joined,
since that was a discussion about libertarians, not about the LP.
...
> That you have proven to be a naive fool, jumping into the middle of
> conversation, and one who has made some rather stupid assertions without
> any
> proof or understanding of the underlying issues that I'm speaking about,
> without even querying as to what I meant.
Doesn't that precisely describe what you did, when you entered a
conversation about libertarians with comments that turned to to depend
on your assumption that it was about Libertarians? It surely wouldn't
have taken much thought to figure out that when people asserted, not
that Objectivists ought to be libertarians but that Objectivists were
libertarians, that "libertarian" didn't mean "member of the Libertarian
Party."
--
David Friedman
http://www.best.com/~ddfr
Paul Zrimsek
wrote:
>Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on my supposedly incorrect assumptions....
You evidently assumed that it was possible to reason with Brad Wilson.
They don't come much more incorrect than that....
Paul Zrimsek pzri...@earthlink.net
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alarmism is dooming our society!
Dena Lynn Bruedigam
>"Dena L. Bruedigam" <brued...@osu.edu> wrote in message
>news:3.0.32.19991217...@pop.service.ohio-state.edu...
>
>> Are you saying that you really do know the difference between a
>Libertarian
>> Party member and a libertarian?
>
>I don't care what the difference is. My emails were apparently regarding big
>L, rather than little L. Even so, it's pretty stupid to use the two words to
>represent (supposedly) very different things. Two different words are a much
>better choice (or at least putting the word "party" after the l word when
>you mean the party).
>
>It has been my experience that people who intend to use one word to mean two
>non-interchangable ideas often have ulterior motives (i.e., to misrepresent
>one or the other, or to blur the distinction in the mind of the listener).
>Regardless of whether or not this is true in this case or not, I
>specifically state that I meant the LP when queried (repeatedly).
Interesting. So then if one attempted to make a distinction between
democracy and the Democratic Party, then one would have ulterior motives,
at least in your opinion?
--Dena
Dena Lynn Bruedigam
>.... you have proven to be a naive fool, jumping into the middle of
>conversation, and one who has made some rather stupid assertions without any
>proof or understanding of the underlying issues that I'm speaking about,
>without even querying as to what I meant. You simply went off and made a
>bunch of assumptions, then made a bunch of accusations. For what purpose
>remains to be seen.
I didn't realize that entering a conversation in the middle is some sort
of faux pas on HPO. My curiosity was aroused whenever you stated that
there was no difference in the terms "Libertarian Party" and "libertarian"
and I wanted to find out why you would believe such a thing. (I still
don't know).
I suppose that you also believe there is no difference in democracy and
the Democratic Party....
>... you're a nobody, who has proven that you aren't worth responding to
>on this subject.
>
>Last post. Rant on.
I have little interest in continuing a discussion with you, too, although
I admit I was curious to find out for myself if you are as rude and
obnoxious as the others have stated you are.
Personally I don't understand why some Objectivists seem to place such a
high value on being an asshole. In my personal experience I have found it
to be a hindrance in achieving my goals. Perhaps you have found it to be
an asset, but that seems highly unlikely.
--Dena
David Friedman
> Personally I don't understand why some Objectivists seem to place such a
> high value on being an asshole. In my personal experience I have found
> it
> to be a hindrance in achieving my goals. Perhaps you have found it to be
> an asset, but that seems highly unlikely.
I don't think the observation, and the puzzle, is limited to
Objectivists. There are quite a lot of posters on Usenet, including some
fairly intelligent ones, who seem to go out of their way to project an
image of rudeness and arrogance. In a few cases I have offered your
argument to them (generally to ones who were on my side of the relevant
arguments), and gotten back explanations of why they think their
behavior is an effective tactic, although not ones I find terribly
convincing. The obvious alternative is that the behavior is intended to
give pleasure to the person doing it rather than to produce desirable
effects on the person it is done to.
Ernest Brown
B. Wilson-
(snip)
> > That you have proven to be a naive fool, jumping into the middle of
> > conversation, and one who has made some rather stupid assertions without
> > any
> > proof or understanding of the underlying issues that I'm speaking about,
> > without even querying as to what I meant.
>
> Doesn't that precisely describe what you did, when you entered a
> conversation about libertarians with comments that turned to to depend
> on your assumption that it was about Libertarians? It surely wouldn't
> have taken much thought to figure out that when people asserted, not
> that Objectivists ought to be libertarians but that Objectivists were
> libertarians, that "libertarian" didn't mean "member of the Libertarian
> Party."
>
> --
> David Friedman
> http://www.best.com/~ddfr
>
>
Wilson's idiotic melding would make no distinctions between republicans
and Republicans.
Wisdom's Children: A Virtual Journal of Philosophy & Literature
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/wisdom.htm
Submissions welcomed.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Jim Klein
Dena Lynn Bruedigam <brued...@osu.edu> wrote:
>Personally I don't understand why some Objectivists seem to place such a
>high value on being an asshole. In my personal experience I have found it
>to be a hindrance in achieving my goals. Perhaps you have found it to be
>an asset, but that seems highly unlikely.
Wrong; you just have different goals. If your goal were "to hold onto my
particular beliefs as supreme no matter what the truth is and no matter how
convincing any arguments against it are," you would find being an asshole an
asset rather than a hindrance.
Less interaction and so less evasion required; hence more efficient!
And then imagine what might happen if you could find some other assholes
with exactly the same goals _and_ beliefs. Pretty tough to figure that one
out, eh?
It's profound what can happen when we don't choose our goals carefully.
jk
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
>
> Brad Wilson <bradw@#despam#pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> So, by your logic, everyone who votes is an expert in politics?
>
> has no interest in the simple political act of voting may also
> have no interest in the political system.
That would depend on whether they think their vote has any effect on the
political system, wouldn't it?
-- M. Ruff
David Friedman
<Storyt...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
1. The belief that one's vote has an effect on the political system
provides a motive for paying attention to that system in order to decide
how best to vote.
On the other hand ...
2. The act of paying attention to the political system is likely to lead
you to the conclusion that your vote has essentially no effect on the
outcome, hence lead you not to vote.
David Harmon
Brad Wilson <bradw@#despam#pobox.com> wrote:
>Last post. Rant on.
"Facts will not sway me on this issue." -- Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
J. Kendrick McPeters
>> Are you saying that people who don't vote really are politically savvy,
>> politically active, etc.?
Brad Wilson replied:
>I'm saying that one has nothing specifically to do with another. It is naive
>to think that just because someone votes or doesn't vote, that that has
>anything to do with their knowledge about politics. You didn't ask me
>questions that would reveal any of my political knowledge; your entire
>diatribe is based on the fact that I say that I do not (currently) vote.
You're obviously a newcomer to the perennial LP vs GOP vs nonvoting
debate. Any honest person (who hasn't had their brain permanently
shut down by Petey's scummy essay) has to admit that the platform and
positions of the LP are not only perfectly in sync with Objectivism,
but orders of magnitude superior to anything the GOP or Democrats
foist on the public.
The twist comes in with the fact that "opposition to 'Libertarianism'"
has become the number one litmus test of the Petey-Lenny camp of true
believers. Ergo, a Righteous Objectivist has only two choices--
either support the GOP (despite flaws and contradictions too numerous
to bother mentioning) or abstain from the political process
altogether.
Option number one, which is practiced by Betsy Speicher, is nothing
much more than hypocrisy writ large. Whatever the faults of the LP,
they pale in comparison to the evil of the GOP, so it is simply
ludicrous to support scummy Republicans in any race where a LP
candidate is running.
Of course, Betsy will say that she'd be sending the "wrong message" by
voting LP. The answer to that, is simply to do as I did in 1996, by
voting Libertarian, while notifying (both in usenet and via snail
mail) the leadership of the GOP precisely why Bob Dole was an
unnaceptable candidate, and what, at a minimum, it would take to get
me to vote GOP in a future election.
No "mixed message" there, I assure you.
Regarding the second option, which you practice, I'm afraid there's
not much good that can be said for it. On the surface, it looks more
principled that voting for Republicans, but you undercut your own
position by slamming the LP in this forum. Understand, we're talking
about POLITICS here. Almost nobody gets 100% of what they want in any
political situation. In politics, the "perfect" is not only the enemy
of the good, but it's almost always an impossibility to boot.
So, my advice to you is, remain on the electoral sidelines if you
wish, but don't be so quick to criticize the principled efforts of
folks like Dena who are genuinely trying to advance the cause of
individual freedom.
[regarding the difference between a Libertarian Party member and a
libertarian]
>I don't care what the difference is.
This is monumentally stupid. If you'd look at the facts in an honest
manner, you'd see that there exists within the population a set which
embraces individual freedom and capitalism (small l libertarians) and
within that set, there are many subsets, including both Objectivists
and Libertarian Party members.
In a similar manner, there are many people who embrace Objectivist
metaphysics, and reject the belief in the supernatural. But, within
the larger set of atheists, there are both ethical egoists (like Rand)
and altruists (like Karl Marx). Within the set of atheist altruists,
there are subsets who believe in implementing their altrusism via
revolution and expropriation (Marx again) and those who at least pay
lip service to democracy and quasi-free institutions (eg Isaac
Asimov).
Now, suppose someone is violently opposed to "Godless Communism." How
would you feel if such a person viewed your atheism as being the only
defining characteristic that mattered, and thus lumped you in with the
Commies? You'd be pissed, right? You'd insist that the totality of
your beliefs mattered more than just one belief that you happened to
share with a group of folks who are the reigning champions of mass
murder... right?
>My emails were apparently regarding big L, rather than little L.
Which can be equal to the difference between a Marxist atheist and an
Objectivist atheist. A non trivial difference, no?
>Even so, it's pretty stupid to use the two words to represent (supposedly
>very different things.
So, do we need to coin a new word for "non belief in a god" since
"atheism" has been tainted by the Commies and Humanists?
>Two different words are a much better choice...
Gee, who died and made you language cop? The fact is, the word
"libertarian" predates the founding of the "Libertarian Party" by some
seven decades or so. It also happens to be a word that succinctly
conveys the general political platform--- free enterprise and limited
government--- intended by those who founded the LP. Why on earth
should they have chosen a different word?
I grant that many of those who called themselves "libertarian" prior
to the founding of the LP may not have liked the LP's appropriation of
the word. Alas, there was nothing these folks could do--- they were
never consulted, and the word itself was in the public domain...
>....(or at least putting the word "party" after the l word when you mean t
>he party).
Which is the standard practice of everyone on hpo, other than those
unduly influenced by Petey's crappy "essay." (You do realize, BTW,
that the letters "LP" are short for "Libertarian Party," right?)
>It has been my experience that people who intend to use one word to mean two
>non-interchangable ideas often have ulterior motives (i.e., to misrepresent
>one or the other, or to blur the distinction in the mind of the listener).
I couldn't agree with you more! What you've described is PRECISELY
the sort of package deal that Petey has done, blurring the lines not
only between "libertarians" and the LP, but between individualist
libertarians in the USA, and so-called "libertarian socialists" in
Europe who have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with traditional American
libertarianism, the Libertarian Party, or any "Libertarian movement"
which exists outside of Petey's fevered imagination.
>Regardless of whether or not this is true in this case or not, I
>specifically state that I meant the LP when queried (repeatedly).
And this shows how out of touch with reality you are. When David said
"Given the Objectivists are (among other things) a kind of
libertarian, why Rand's hostility to libertarianism?" you ignored the
obvious fact that referring to Rand as "a kind of libertarian" could
ONLY mean (given her public stance against the LP) that David was
referring to a generic "small L" kind of libertarian.
Yet, you ignored what David was OBVIOUSLY talking about, and said
(foot firmly in mouth) "I don't think Objectivists are "a kind of
libertarian", because they have directly conflicting ideas."
Assuming, which is generous, that the "they" you are referring to are
"card carrying Libertarians" this still means that what David was
discussing went right over your head.
>> Are you saying that you really are well-informed about political parties
>> and membership requirements?
>
>I never made any claims to this, nor do any of my claims rest on the
>"membership requirements" of any specific party. Re-read my articles, if you
>care, and you will see this. I was rejecting the notion that someone could
>categorize and judge me by something I explicitly refused to be associated
>with. That's all.
What you "refuse to be associated with" is what David was talking
about as being the "kind of libertarian as Rand"--- ie, plain vanilla,
non partisan libertarianism. If you didn't understand the difference
between "libertarianism" and the LP, that's really nobody's problem
but your own.
>> What exactly is it that you are saying?
>
>That you have proven to be a naive fool, jumping into the middle of
>conversation, and one who has made some rather stupid assertions without any
>proof or understanding of the underlying issues that I'm speaking about,
>without even querying as to what I meant. You simply went off and made a
>bunch of assumptions, then made a bunch of accusations. For what purpose
>remains to be seen.
Wow, this is really quite a hilarious example of projection! Let's
rewind and replay:
>That you have proven to be a naive fool, jumping into the middle of
>conversation,
Like you did? Or are you proud of the fact that you've been flaunting
your ignorance of the difference between libertarianism and the LP?
>...and one who has made some rather stupid assertions without any
>proof or understanding of the underlying issues that I'm speaking about,
More stupid than getting confused as to the difference between a plain
vanilla libertarian (such as Rand or yourself) and one who, like Dena,
is a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party?
>without even querying as to what I meant.
You jumped into a conversation between David and Brad, and started
shooting your mouth off about something you clearly didn't understand.
And no, you not only didn't ask for clarification, but you ignored
those who tried to point out the blatant error in your thinking.
>You simply went off and made a bunch of assumptions, then made
>a bunch of accusations. For what purpose remains to be seen.
Just guessing, I'd imagine that Dena's purpose was to remove the
Schwartzian blinders from your eyes. Too bad she failed!
>Because you're a nobody, who has proven that you aren't worth responding to
>on this subject.
Get with the program, dude. You shouldn't be calling Dena a "nobody."
The Objectively Correct pejorative is "entity."
>Last post. Rant on.
Hopefully, you will spend the time you might otherwise have wasted
composing senseless drivel, by reading carefully and thinking about
what the other folks in this thread have recently posted.
---Kendrick
Steveinstl
disagreements, or challenge the ones they already have.
http://www.lp.org/platform/intro.html#toc
> Any honest person (who hasn't had their brain permanently
>shut down by Petey's scummy essay) has to admit that the platform and
>positions of the LP are not only perfectly in sync with Objectivism,
>but orders of magnitude superior to anything the GOP or Democrats
>foist on the public.
While I wouldn't claim perfectly in sync, definitely very close, and far
superior to Republicrats.
>Whatever the faults of the LP,
>they pale in comparison to the evil of the GOP, so it is simply
>ludicrous to support scummy Republicans in any race where a LP
>candidate is running.
Agreed again, The evidence I hear against the LP is generally about just
individual people who call themselves libertarians, NOT about candidates, or
the platform itself.
If we're gonna condemn the group on the basis of some of its supporters (an
elected politician in this case, forget his name), all I need do is bring up
the Republican-Mississippi "Smoke a joint Lose a Limb Bill.
If we wanna stick closer to the party line-compare the LP to the republican 6%
govt growth-tax cut. That the rate of spending growth has increased since reps
took the houses (as compared to Clinton w/Dem houses). Republicans general
stance for EXPANDING the drug war-More restrictions on consensual sex and
sexual practices (sex toy restrictions in Alabama and Oklahoma).
I've heard the LP bashed because some of their members stand opposed to the
civil war (I've only heard that objection from the LP based on the opposition
to national power, yet, how many reps oppose the civil war on racist grounds
(that is the implication of condemning opposition to Civil war, correct?) In
their speeches maybe, but in action, I see absolutely nothing superior about
Republicans as compared to Democrats. Could continue, but back to the post.
>The answer to that, is simply to do as I did in 1996, by
>voting Libertarian, while notifying (both in usenet and via snail
>mail) the leadership of the GOP precisely why Bob Dole was an
>unnaceptable candidate, and what, at a minimum, it would take to get
>me to vote GOP in a future election.
>
Excellent answer, and is exactly why I would vote against Reps even if there
were not a party that mirrored my ideals as well as the LP. As long as reps
and dems have a common lock on power, they will continue to expand govt. Loss,
or fear of losing their power is the one thing that will bring them to curtail
it, even if my candidate does not win.
I agree with much of the rest, but also missed the preceding discussion, so
have no comment there.
I'll close by asking those of you who would vote Republican to just stay home,
at least at this point, a rep, or dem will highly likely win, not much
difference either way, and your vote will only serve to make them feel their
lock on power is more securely held, and they'll feel more comfortable
expanding their power more.
As evidence-the slowing of govt growth when Clinton took the presidency with
dem houses. You think they did it cause they wanted to? No, Perot scared em,
not that I supported Perot, but again fear of losing their power is the only
thing that will make them curtail it.
Steve
Steve Davis
> http://www.lp.org/platform/intro.html#toc
The LP platform is good for nothing but an occasional belly laugh.
On the other hand, it is bad in many ways. The sections on Crime, Indian
Rights, Individual Sovereignty, and Secession essentially call for anarchy
and the abolition of objective law.
The section on Secession, in particular, points out the absurdity of
Libertarianism. It reads:
"We recognize the right to political secession. This includes the right to
secession by political entities, private groups, or individuals. Exercise of
this right, like the exercise of all other rights, does not remove legal and
moral obligations not to violate the rights of others."
The so-called right to "secession" can not be trumped by any "legal"
obligation. Otherwise the term "secession" is meaningless. Libertarians
can't have it both ways, much as they try. You either have a government
with the authority to use force to enforce its laws, or you have anarchy.
There is no inbetween, and no "third way".
Chris Wolf
>Chris Wolf responds at length but doesn't, I think, say anything new. A
>few points:
>
>I wrote:
>
>> >I agree that it is logically possible, under a-c institutions, for
>> >people who disagree to end up settling their disagreement by violence
>> >rather than through the courts. You agree that it is logically possible
>> >under your preferred institutions for the same thing to happen--as in
>> >war between nations (or criminal violence within a nation).
>> No, that is NOT the same thing, and it is very dishonest for you to claim
>> that it is. Once again, you completely drop the context. It's like
>> saying
>> that since injustice can happen in both America, and the Soviet Union,
>> therefore there is no essential difference between the two governments.
>The essential difference is not in whether injustice can happen, but in
>how much of what sort happens. And my point, which you never answer, is
>that we have reason to expect more violence in a system of nation states
>than in a system of rights enforcement agencies, not less.
Then I'll be happy to answer it right now. Your point is absurd nonsense.
The amount of violence in a political system is determined by the
philosophy of the citizens; not by the structure of the government they
happen to live under. Your argument is no different, in principle, than
the arguments of the gun control crowd, who claim that if we would only
outlaw private ownership of firearms, we would have much less violence.
Once again, you simply try to deny the pivotal role of ideas in human
behavior. You attempt to set up a system of government that is independent
of philosophy. It won't work.
We have NO reason to expect more violence in a system of nation states,
than in a system of rights enforcement agencies. The level of violence, at
all levels, is determined by the philosophy of the citizens; not by the
system of government they live under.
One does NOT pick a system of government on the basis of some wild-ass
guess as to which system would lead to less violence in practice. One
picks a system of government on the basis of PRINCIPLE. A-C utterly fails,
on principle, because it morally permits individual citizens to engage in
acts of retaliatory force, and risks subjecting the citizens to conflicting
law. That, alone, is enough to forever morally condemn A-C, and to cause
one to refuse to even consider it as a possible system of government.
>> Wars can certainly exist between monopoly governments, but that is not
>> even
>> remotely the same as the violence that can break out between rival
>> justice
>> agencies under a system of A-C.
>For example, unless enforcement agencies end up as geographical
>monopolies, they will be unlikely to engage in mass bombing of civilian
>areas, since some of the victims will be their customers.
Which is an argument against A-C. When the next Hitler or Tojo arises, we
can't count on private enforcement agencies to do what has to be done to
stop him, because they will have customers in those countries, and will be
reluctant to lose them.
In other words, if you want to be protected, get yourself a monopoly
government that is only concerned with protecting your rights, rather than
the bottom line.
>Since they are
>not territorial sovereigns, they will have access to much smaller
>resources than national governments.
Which means you'll have lots of local tyrannies, rather than one big
tyranny. Big improvement.
>Since the institutions they are
>embedded in do not take it for granted that they have special rights
>others do not have (as the institution of the nation state does), they
>will be able to get away with considerably less monstrous acts without
>offending their own customers and employees.
Or they may decide to get away with far more monstrous acts, since such
behavior is determined by philosophy, and not by the size or structure of
government. Uganda is a very small country, but Idi Amin actually resorted
to cannibalism on several occasions.
In other words, David Friedman has once again demonstrated that he does not
consider ideas or principles to be the deciding factor in human behavior.
For him, it's only a question of availability and opportunity. So he
thinks that by limiting the opportunity for government agencies to steal,
or engage in violence, this will somehow reduce the actual level of
violence. What nonsense!
David Friedman obviously hasn't a clue as to what motivates human beings to
do what they do. His system of A-C is merely another attempt to divorce
behavior from ethics and philosophy. He thinks that a system of A-C will
somehow make a corrupt people behave morally, by limiting their
opportunities for bad behavior
What a load of amoral nonsense!
>Or in other words, violence is violence, the argument is about which
>system is likely to produce more and worse violence, and your assumption
>that it is obviously my system that will has so far not been supported
>and isn't terribly plausible.
In principle, a system that morally permits individual citizens to engage
in acts of retaliatory force, is going to be a very violent place. If it
isn't, it's only because the citizens very quickly realize that they cannot
permit individual acts of retaliatory force, and quickly establish a de
facto monopoly government where such acts are forbidden.
Which is why I consider arguments about which system is likely to produce
more violence, to be a silly waste of time.
Your claim that a system of A-C would be cheaper, with less violence, than
a monopoly government, is nothing more than a wild-ass guess, with zero
principles to support it. In fact, it is nothing more than a gigantic
stolen concept. You cite the fact that free markets are peaceful, with
low-cost goods, and sellers eager to serve the customers, and claim that a
system of government, based on the free market, would likely be less
violent and cheaper than a monopoly government. But you completely drop
the context that a free market is only peaceful and cheap because a
monopoly government has outlawed the use of force, in order to create a
free market. When the government itself is placed on the free market, the
inherent low-cost, and lack of violence, of the free market, disappears.
This is the point that you never grasp. This is the stolen concept on
which your entire system of A-C is based. And it's why A-C fails, on
principle. There is no such thing as a "free market" in government. A
free market is entirely the creation of an existing government. A "free
market" in government, is a contradiction in terms.
>> It's important to remember that A-C has no principles. If a justice
>> agency
>> for child molesters was in conflict with a justice agency for parents
>> with
>> children, David Friedman's A-C "court" would happily try the case under
>> the
>> premise that child molesting would be legal under "certain circumstances"
>> and not under others.
>If most of the people in the society share your principles on this
>issue, then the only viable courts will be ones that share them too. If
>there is a lot of division, then your monopoly government may well (in
>fact does, in other areas) end up violating rights on an immense scale.
>Again, you are implicitly comparing A-C with bad philosophy to
>government with good philosophy.
There's no question that monopoly governments can get just as bad as any
other form of government. But my point is that the court system in a
monopoly government is always based on a set of principles, while the
"courts" under a system of A-C are actually just arbitration agencies,
willing to arbitrate anything.
If a pro-abortion agency, and an anti-abortion agency have a dispute, it
can't be settled in a court of law, since there is no standard for the
court to use to decide the case. The dispute can only be taken to an
arbitration agency, which involves neither courts of law, nor principles.
>> >1. As usual, you are thinking in terms of enforcement agencies each of
>> >which has its own legal system--which is not the set of institutions I
>> >proposed, as you would have realized when you read the book if you had
>> >been paying attention.
>> Once again, you're simply trying to evade the principle by throwing out
>> irrelevant detail.
>>
>> I do not care if each of your private enforcement agencies has its own
>> legal system, or merely goes to a system of courts, each of which has its
>> own legal system. The principle is the same either way. The law must be
>> standardized, and the number of links in the chain is irrelevant.
>>
>> I deal in principles; not irrelevant concretes.
>Except that you don't.
>
>A large part of your argument depends on assuming that courts are
>functions of agencies instead of pairs of agencies. That is where you
>get your confusion between the two sorts of standardization, one of
>which is central to the working of the system and one of which is, to
>some degree, a market outcome, with the degree depending on costs and
>benefits of standardization. That is where you get the idea that
>conflict of laws is the norm.
Sorry, but I've never claimed that conflict of law is the norm under A-C.
In fact, I think it's far more likely that any system of A-C would promptly
evolve into a de facto system of monopoly government. For obvious reasons.
My argument has always been that since A-C morally permits laws to be in
conflict, it fails the fundamental test of a proper system of government.
So I haven't the slightest interest in your claim that conflict of laws
wouldn't be the norm under A-C.
>> Just imagine the impossibility of living, if the city of Seattle was
>> under
>> the jurisdiction of even four different justice agencies, each subscribed
>> to a different court system with a different set of laws.
>And again you demonstrate that haven't bothered to try to understand the
>system you are attacking.
I understand it well enough to know where it fails. And if you can't be
bothered to explain the details here, why should I care?
>*An* agency doesn't subscribe to *a* court system.
Who cares? The difference would only be important to one of your
disciples. I deal in principle, not trivial detail. And the principle, of
course, is that under A-C, you have competing justice agencies, with the
distinct possibility of competing and conflicting laws. That destroys A-C,
in principle. All else is unimportant detail.
Robert J. Kolker
Chris Wolf wrote:
>
> Which means you'll have lots of local tyrannies, rather than one big
> tyranny. Big improvement.
That is one of the reasons the Founders preferred Federal Government to
National Government. Better a lot of small tyrannies than one big one.
The worst of all being a World Government, perish the thought. Except for
the matter of national defense I would prefer government at the county level.
At least you would know the son of bitch who is picking your pocket
personally.
Bob Kolker
Chris Wolf
>In article <ddfr-383ED2.1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
> David Friedman <dd...@best.com> wrote:
>>
>> If most of the people in the society share your principles on this
>> issue, then the only viable courts will be ones that share them too.
>>If
>> there is a lot of division, then your monopoly government may well
>>(in
>> fact does, in other areas) end up violating rights on an immense
>>scale.
>> Again, you are implicitly comparing A-C with bad philosophy to
>> government with good philosophy.
>I addressed Chris about this comparison in a relatively recent post,
>and he replied, although we didn't get a chance to go very far. I
>think that for the two of you to discuss your (implicit) assumptions
>would help clarify things (especially since Chris has so incredibly
>many misunderstandings about what we're talking about -- not merely
>about how we expect it to work, but about how it's *supposed* to
>work).
Maybe you could explain how it's "supposed" to work. David Friedman always
seems to be too busy to bother.
>Personally, I like to explain the anarcho-capitalist legal system
>by comparing it to a system in which local government jurisdiction
>is defined, not by arbitrary boundaries set by whim, but rather by
>the property owned by individuals who choose which particular local
>government they want to be under.
>
>I'm wondering whether Chris (and others who have similar criticisms
>of anarcho-capitalism) have any objection to such a system (as
>opposed to "monopoly government").
I do. I object to competing governments, on principle.
>> > Just imagine the impossibility of living, if the city of Seattle
>was
>> > under
>> > the jurisdiction of even four different justice agencies, each
>subscribed
>> > to a different court system with a different set of laws.
>> And again you demonstrate that haven't bothered to try to understand
>the
>> system you are attacking. *An* agency doesn't subscribe to *a* court
>> system.
>And the City of Seattle is under the jurisdiction of at least three
>different jutice agencies, each subscribed to a different court
>system with a different set of laws: federal, state, and local.
And these different agencies don't compete with each other. Which means it
is NOT an example of competing justice agencies.
Try not to drop the context when you cite examples.
>And there are plenty of other areas the size of Seattle with even
>more agencies, because there are several adjacent local governments
>in a small area. The only real difference I can see between that and
>anarcho-capitalism is that in a-c, each individual gets to decide
>which particular local government he prefers.
And if the local governments subscribe to different sets of laws, then you
have conflicting laws. And if they all get together and decide to follow
the same set of laws, then you have a de facto monopoly government.
Which means you can't get anything under a system of A-C that you don't
already get, for free, under monopoly government.
Chris Black
jurisdiction (county, city, town, subdivision) I work in has different
building codes (laws) and amendments (laws) and covenants (laws), and
somehow we in the A/E/C (architecture/engineering/construction) industry
manage to get along and build our buildings. Peacefully. With no violence.
And unions (those lazy bastards!).
Yes, sometimes it is a bit confusing. But we big boys manage to sort it all
out.
Expand your intellectual mind frame. It is amazing what individuals can
accomplish, IN SPITE OF all the stupid LAWS we have to deal with.
Tony Donadio
>...what is inherently wrong with "conflicting laws?" Hell, every
jurisdiction (county, city, town, subdivision) I work in has different
building codes (laws) and amendments (laws) and covenants (laws), and
somehow we in the A/E/C (architecture/engineering/construction) industry
manage to get along and build our buildings. Peacefully. With no violence.
Would you be able to function effectively if you had different codes in the
*same* jurisdiction? That is the issue.
--
Tony Donadio
-------------------------
STOP the DOJ's Persecution of Microsoft
http://www.capitalism.org/microsoft
David Friedman
"Would you be able to function effectively if you had different codes in the
*same* jurisdiction? That is the issue."
They currently have multiple jurisdictions in the same physical
location--because Federal, state and local laws all apply. In particular, they
must conform both with ADA requirements and with local building codes.
Note that jurisdiction is a legal concept, not (as your question seems to
assume) a geographical one. Conflict of law issues arise not only between
geographically distinct units, such as different states, but also between state
and federal courts.
Chris Wolf
>Wolf, what is inherently wrong with "conflicting laws?"
The same thing that's wrong with "conflicting realities."
>Hell, every
>jurisdiction (county, city, town, subdivision) I work in has different
>building codes (laws) and amendments (laws) and covenants (laws), and
>somehow we in the A/E/C (architecture/engineering/construction) industry
>manage to get along and build our buildings. Peacefully. With no violence.
>And unions (those lazy bastards!).
Those aren't conflicting laws. They're different laws in different
jurisdictions; just like the United States and Canada have different laws.
But they don't conflict.
An example of conflicting laws would be if you had two different groups of
building inspectors in the same town, with contradictory requirements, and
each claiming to have jurisdiction over you.
>Yes, sometimes it is a bit confusing. But we big boys manage to sort it all
>out.
Try putting up your building when one set of building codes calls for two
inch water pipe, while the conflicting set of building codes calls for
three inch water pipe.
>Expand your intellectual mind frame. It is amazing what individuals can
>accomplish, IN SPITE OF all the stupid LAWS we have to deal with.
It's amazing to me that a man who is forced to deal with many different
laws, every day, would want to increase his burden by adding conflicting
laws.
Tony Donadio
<20000103101348...@ng-ci1.aol.com>...
>Tony Donadio asks:
>
>"Would you be able to function effectively if you had different codes in
the *same* jurisdiction? That is the issue."
>
>They currently have multiple jurisdictions in the same physical
location--because Federal, state and local laws all apply. In particular,
they must conform both with ADA requirements and with local building codes.
I should have been more precise. The issue with multiple jurisdictions is
that one has to take precedence over the other in the case of conflict -- in
other words, you need a hierarchy of jurisdictions. Otherwise, if Federal
law , for example, made doing something mandatory, and state law made the
same thing illegal, then you would be unable to avoid breaking the law in
that state. One of the legal jurisdictions has to trump the other in the
case of conflict -- or else, you have anarchy.
>Note that jurisdiction is a legal concept, not (as your question seems to
assume) a geographical one. Conflict of law issues arise not only between
geographically distinct units, such as different states, but also between
state and federal courts.
I'm afraid I don't at all see how my question assumes that.
John Fast
Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
> John Fast writes:
> > David Friedman <dd...@best.com> wrote:
> >> Again, you are implicitly comparing A-C with bad philosophy to
> >> government with good philosophy.
>
> >I addressed Chris about this comparison in a relatively recent post,
> >and he replied, although we didn't get a chance to go very far. I
> >think that for the two of you to discuss your (implicit) assumptions
> >would help clarify things (especially since Chris has so incredibly
> >many misunderstandings about what we're talking about -- not merely
> >about how we expect it to work, but about how it's *supposed* to
> >work).
>
> Maybe you could explain how it's "supposed" to work. David Friedman
> always seems to be too busy to bother.
1. Normally I refer people to standard anarcho-capitalist texts
like _The Machinery of Freedom_ or _The Market for Liberty_, but
IIUC you've read TMoF (and it apparently didn't help), so I'll be
happy to give it a try.
2. Let's start by having you explain how you think it's supposed
to work, and/or how it will work -- whichever you're complaining about.
> >Personally, I like to explain the anarcho-capitalist legal system
> >by comparing it to a system in which local government jurisdiction
> >is defined, not by arbitrary boundaries set by whim, but rather by
> >the property owned by individuals who choose which particular local
> >government they want to be under.
> >
> >I'm wondering whether Chris (and others who have similar criticisms
> >of anarcho-capitalism) have any objection to such a system (as
> >opposed to "monopoly government").
>
> I do. I object to competing governments, on principle.
1. Why?
2. I suspect we either have different definitions for the term
"competing governments" or else my explanation wasn't explicit
enough to overcome your existing misconceptions. The governments
of, say, Canada, Mexico, and the USA are competing with each other
today the same way as the governments in the system I describe; so
are the governments of Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana. (The only
difference is that, in an anarcho-capitalist system, there would be
open borders; and also people would be allowed to decide which
particular jurisdiction they wanted [their property] to be under.)
3. I assume you simply misunderstood the model I described; otherwise,
doesn't your objection to "competing governments" logically have to
apply to the existence of different state and national governments?
If not, why not, and what makes the system I described -- at least as
you understand it -- different from the one we have today?
> >And the City of Seattle is under the jurisdiction of at least three
> >different jutice agencies, each subscribed to a different court
> >system with a different set of laws: federal, state, and local.
>
> And these different agencies don't compete with each other. Which
> means it is NOT an example of competing justice agencies.
>
> Try not to drop the context when you cite examples.
1. Does that mean that non-monopoly governments are okay with you,
as long as they're not competing? (I assume you're not saying the
current federal system is a monopoly government, since you explicitly
stated in an earlier post that it isn't a *true* monopoly government,
although you think it is close.)
2. I suspect we have different definitions for the term "competing
governments" or "competing justice agencies." How do you define the
term "competing" as used in this particular context? And can there
be non-monopoly governments that are non-competing, and/or monopoly
governments that are competing?
> >And there are plenty of other areas the size of Seattle with even
> >more agencies, because there are several adjacent local governments
> >in a small area. The only real difference I can see between that and
> >anarcho-capitalism is that in a-c, each individual gets to decide
> >which particular local government he prefers.
>
> And if the local governments subscribe to different sets of laws,
> then you have conflicting laws.
Not if each local government's laws only apply to its own territory,
which is the system we have now -- or are you saying that we also
have the same problem of conflicting laws under the current system
(as well as any other system that doesn't have all laws enacted by
a World Council)?
> And if they all get together and decide to follow the same set of
> laws, then you have a de facto monopoly government.
1. It sounds like you're saying that all governments, at least inside
the United States, "follow the same set of laws" where the federal
Constitution is the particular "same set of laws." Is that correct,
or am I misunderstanding you?
2. If that's what you mean, then what if I claim that under anarcho-
capitalism all governments will also "get together and decide to
follow the same set of laws," where that set of laws is something
very minimal, like Richard Epstein's list of "Simple Rules for a
Complex World"? Does that satisfy your desire for "de facto monopoly
government"? What if the anarcho-capitalist "same set of laws" is
something trivial -- can I point to the collected copies of all the
agencies' standard contracts with their customers, and all the
inter-agency agreements for resolving disputes, and claim it's the
functional equivalent of the Constitution because it exhaustively
specifies the set of laws that all agencies must follow?
> Which means you can't get anything under a system of A-C that you
> don't already get, for free, under monopoly government.
Depending on how you (Chris Wolf) define "competing governments" and
"monopoly government," A-C might very well be what you would consider
a monopoly government. I can't say for sure, until we clarify how
you define the terms -- which I'm confused about -- and the way A-C
(as David Friedman or I describe it) would work -- which *you* seem
to be confused about.
--
John Fast
<clea...@netscape.net> or <cal...@gate.net>
"Raise consciousness, not taxes."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
David Friedman
"I should have been more precise. The issue with multiple jurisdictions is
that one has to take precedence over the other in the case of conflict -- in
other words, you need a hierarchy of jurisdictions. Otherwise, if Federal
law , for example, made doing something mandatory, and state law made the
same thing illegal, then you would be unable to avoid breaking the law in
that state. One of the legal jurisdictions has to trump the other in the
case of conflict -- or else, you have anarchy."
Federal law does not in general "trump" state law. In legal theory, local
governments are creations of state governments, which have unlimited power to
control them, but state governments are not creatures of the Federal
government, and a conflict between a state law and a Federal law is not
automatically settled in favor of the Federal.
The respect in which you are correct, however, is that if such conflicts go to
court, they can eventually be appealed into the Federal court system--which,
unlike Congress, does have the power to decide what state laws should or should
not be enforced.
On the other hand, there are lots of historical examples of societies with
multiple jurisdictions in which none of them had the sort of ultimate authority
you describe. Consider the division between royal courts and church courts in
the Middle Ages. Do you really want to argue that all of Western Europe was
anarchy for four or five centuries?
Even in our society, a conflict between state and Federal law doesn't
necessarily get resolved--it depends on the nature of the conflict. Suppose,
for example, the ADA mandates that all doorways in new buildings be at least
48" wide to allow wheelchairs to go through, and local fire regulations forbid
any doorway more than 45" wide. That is the sort of problem the original poster
had in mind (I think), but it isn't a literal inconsistency--people are free to
obey both laws by not building any new buildings. It isn't clear whether or not
you could successfully sue in Federal court to get the local regulation
overthrown--and one can easily imagine less extreme cases where one could not.
Chris Wolf
>In article <387707e0....@news.supernews.com>,
> Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>>
>> Maybe you could explain how it's "supposed" to work. David Friedman
>> always seems to be too busy to bother.
>1. Normally I refer people to standard anarcho-capitalist texts
>like _The Machinery of Freedom_ or _The Market for Liberty_, but
>IIUC you've read TMoF (and it apparently didn't help), so I'll be
>happy to give it a try.
>
>2. Let's start by having you explain how you think it's supposed
>to work, and/or how it will work -- whichever you're complaining about.
All variations of A-C share a common principle; namely that government can
be obtained on the free market in a more effective and just manner than via
monopoly government, based on the idea that goods and services are better
provided by private enterprise than by government.
>> I do. I object to competing governments, on principle.
>1. Why?
Competing governments permit every citizen to be his own judge, jury, and
executioner. Thus, competing governments do not place the use of
retaliatory force under objective control. Thus, competing governments
fails the essential test of a proper system of government.
Competing governments expose citizens to the threat of conflicting law,
that may only be resolvable by going to war. Monopoly government does not.
Thus, competing governments fails the essential test of a proper system of
government.
>2. I suspect we either have different definitions for the term
>"competing governments" or else my explanation wasn't explicit
>enough to overcome your existing misconceptions. The governments
>of, say, Canada, Mexico, and the USA are competing with each other
>today the same way as the governments in the system I describe; so
>are the governments of Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana. (The only
>difference is that, in an anarcho-capitalist system, there would be
>open borders; and also people would be allowed to decide which
>particular jurisdiction they wanted [their property] to be under.)
That is NOT competition. Those are all examples of independent monopolies,
where no competition is permitted. If this is your idea of "competition,"
then I suggest you buy yourself a good dictionary.
>3. I assume you simply misunderstood the model I described; otherwise,
>doesn't your objection to "competing governments" logically have to
>apply to the existence of different state and national governments?
State and national governments don't compete with each other. This is
simply an idiotic claim, dreamed up the A-C advocates, to try to get their
foot in the door by claiming that competition between governments already
exists, and they're simply trying to refine it.
Won't work.
>> >And the City of Seattle is under the jurisdiction of at least three
>> >different jutice agencies, each subscribed to a different court
>> >system with a different set of laws: federal, state, and local.
>> And these different agencies don't compete with each other. Which
>> means it is NOT an example of competing justice agencies.
>>
>> Try not to drop the context when you cite examples.
>1. Does that mean that non-monopoly governments are okay with you,
>as long as they're not competing?
If you can come up with an example of a non-monopoly government that does
not compete, does not expose the citizens to the risk of conflicting laws,
and keeps the use of retaliatory force under objective control, I'll be
happy to consider it. Personally, I can't even imagine such a thing.
Good luck.
>2. I suspect we have different definitions for the term "competing
>governments" or "competing justice agencies." How do you define the
>term "competing" as used in this particular context?
Any time you have two or more agencies, vying for the same authority over
the same group of people.
>And can there
>be non-monopoly governments that are non-competing,
I cannot imagine such a thing.
>and/or monopoly governments that are competing?
I cannot imagine such a thing, since a "competing monopoly" is a
contradiction in terms.
>> And if they all get together and decide to follow the same set of
>> laws, then you have a de facto monopoly government.
>1. It sounds like you're saying that all governments, at least inside
>the United States, "follow the same set of laws" where the federal
>Constitution is the particular "same set of laws." Is that correct,
>or am I misunderstanding you?
Correct.
>2. If that's what you mean, then what if I claim that under anarcho-
>capitalism all governments will also "get together and decide to
>follow the same set of laws," where that set of laws is something
>very minimal, like Richard Epstein's list of "Simple Rules for a
>Complex World"? Does that satisfy your desire for "de facto monopoly
>government"?
The only thing that will satisfy my desire for a de facto monopoly
government is a true monopoly government; not some elaborate Rube Goldberg
setup.
>What if the anarcho-capitalist "same set of laws" is
>something trivial -- can I point to the collected copies of all the
>agencies' standard contracts with their customers, and all the
>inter-agency agreements for resolving disputes, and claim it's the
>functional equivalent of the Constitution because it exhaustively
>specifies the set of laws that all agencies must follow?
So that I have to abide by one set of laws when dealing with my neighbor
across the street, and a different set of laws when dealing with my
neighbor next door? No thanks. It's bad enough that I sometimes have to
cope with different laws when going to a different state or nation. I
certainly would not wish to live under such a state of affairs on a daily
basis.
>> Which means you can't get anything under a system of A-C that you
>> don't already get, for free, under monopoly government.
>
>Depending on how you (Chris Wolf) define "competing governments" and
>"monopoly government," A-C might very well be what you would consider
>a monopoly government.
Sure. All you have to do is figure out how to invent a competing monopoly.
Good luck.
Chris Black
> All variations of A-C share a common principle; namely that government can
> be obtained on the free market in a more effective and just manner than via
> monopoly government, based on the idea that goods and services are better
> provided by private enterprise than by government.
No Chris, you are missing the point. Anarchy is the ABSENCE of ANY
government at all. NO GOVERNMENT. Nada. Zip.
There are variations of "anarchy" (anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-socialism,
etc., et al) but the one distinguishing characteristic of "anarchy" is the
total absence of a state. Any state. Not min-archy, but an-archy (the
absence of archy, or state). Methinks this is why you consistently talk past
the subject.
It can be argued that ALL goods and services can be provided with NO state.
Most (perhaps all) "anarchists," of all stripes, believe it is the POWER of
the state (any state) that ultimately leads to evil. Therefore, any state is
inherently evil (granted, some states are more evil than others, but this is
a matter of degree, not kind), regardless of how "just" and "objective" it
may be for an instant at creation.
-----
Tangent subject: We have too many people named "Chris" here in HPO. Even I,
one of them, have a hard time keeping track of which "Chris" said what.
Chris Wolf
>Chris Wolf says:
>
>> All variations of A-C share a common principle; namely that government can
>> be obtained on the free market in a more effective and just manner than via
>> monopoly government, based on the idea that goods and services are better
>> provided by private enterprise than by government.
>No Chris, you are missing the point. Anarchy is the ABSENCE of ANY
>government at all. NO GOVERNMENT. Nada. Zip.
Sorry Son, but you're the one who's missing the point. I know the formal
definition of "anarchy" just as well as you do. And when I write about
"government being obtained on the free market," I'm talking about using the
free market to obtain the SERVICES normally performed by the government
(securing justice, protecting rights, settling disputes, etc.).
I'm also aware that some anarchists consider any sort of cooperation
between men, in order to secure justice, to be a violation of anarchy. It
depends on what you consider a "government" to be.
In the future, I suggest you pay a little more attention to the nature of
the discussion before quoting the dictionary at me.
>There are variations of "anarchy" (anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-socialism,
>etc., et al) but the one distinguishing characteristic of "anarchy" is the
>total absence of a state. Any state. Not min-archy, but an-archy (the
>absence of archy, or state). Methinks this is why you consistently talk past
>the subject.
Son, let me give you a tip. I've been on this newsgroup for years, and
I've probably studied philosophy for more years than you've been alive. So
don't make the mistake of thinking that I don't know the language of
philosophy, or the definition of basic terms such as "anarchy."
>It can be argued that ALL goods and services can be provided with NO state.
It can also be argued that the Earth is flat. Law and justice are not
goods and services, and as such, don't play by the rules of the free
market. This is a point that the anarchists never seem to get.
>Most (perhaps all) "anarchists," of all stripes, believe it is the POWER of
>the state (any state) that ultimately leads to evil. Therefore, any state is
>inherently evil (granted, some states are more evil than others, but this is
>a matter of degree, not kind), regardless of how "just" and "objective" it
>may be for an instant at creation.
And what anarchists never realize is that their private justice agencies
would end up just as evil (or good) as any state, since good and evil is
determined by the philosophy being practiced, and has very little to do
with the structure of the government.
Making justice agencies private, does not automatically make them good.
That is an anarchist fantasy, based on the fallacy of the stolen concept.
Jim Klein
Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>And what anarchists never realize is that their private justice agencies
>would end up just as evil (or good) as any state, since good and evil is
>determined by the philosophy being practiced, and has very little to do
>with the structure of the government.
This is a fairly straightforward admission that your stance against anarchy
makes no sense, even to you. You pretend that only through monopoly
governance can "justice" be accomplished, which I assume is the "good" to
you in a political context. Yet here you admit that the structure of
government has very little to do with it. Why all the bandwidth then?
>Making justice agencies private, does not automatically make them good.
>That is an anarchist fantasy, based on the fallacy of the stolen concept.
From what I've seen, it's a fantasy alright but one invented by you and
attributed to anarchists, at least in the case of David Friedman. Not only
has he never said he holds that position, I'm pretty sure that he's
explicitly stated--like maybe 100 times or more--that his argument has
nothing to do with the idea that his vision of competing agencies will
automatically make them good.
Indeed, that's my problem with his position...he doesn't seem to consider
good or bad at all; I guess that's because he's an economist and not an
ethicist. The more interesting observation is that apparently neither do
you, judging from your previous comment.
jk
John Fast
Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Those aren't conflicting laws. They're different laws in different
> jurisdictions; just like the United States and Canada have
> different laws.
> But they don't conflict.
Anarcho-capitalism doesn't have competing laws, either. Each
"justice provider" -- each police service and/or court -- might have
different laws, but they don't conflict because they're in different
jurisdictions.
Apparently you misunderstood this, and I'm willing to bet I even
know why you made that mistake. (What I'm still trying to figure
out is why David Friedman doesn't see why you made it, too.)
> An example of conflicting laws would be if you had two different
> groups of building inspectors in the same town, with contradictory
> requirements, and each claiming to have jurisdiction over you.
And the reason this doesn't happen in a POG or other
monopoly-government, like the current system, is because there is a
meta-rule which clearly defines which group of building inspectors,
or which set of laws, has jurisdiction in any particular case, right?
That's fine -- because there will also be a meta-rule which clearly
defines which agency, and which set of laws, has jurisdiction in any
particular case under anarcho-capitalism, too.
It might not be the same rule used in the United States today,
but Canada also has a slightly different rule for determining
jurisdiction, and Britain has one that's even more different, and . . .
Tom S.
"John Fast" <clea...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:855quq$fm5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3871e489....@news.supernews.com>,
>
> Anarcho-capitalism doesn't have competing laws, either. Each
> "justice provider" -- each police service and/or court -- might have
> different laws, but they don't conflict because they're in different
> jurisdictions.
And these courts are under what jurisdiction? Who determines that
jurisdictions powers and boundaries?
Tom Scheeler
--
"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from
oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that
will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
Chris Wolf
>In article <3898fe21...@news.supernews.com>,
> Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>
>>And what anarchists never realize is that their private justice agencies
>>would end up just as evil (or good) as any state, since good and evil is
>>determined by the philosophy being practiced, and has very little to do
>>with the structure of the government.
>This is a fairly straightforward admission that your stance against anarchy
>makes no sense, even to you. You pretend that only through monopoly
>governance can "justice" be accomplished, which I assume is the "good" to
>you in a political context. Yet here you admit that the structure of
>government has very little to do with it. Why all the bandwidth then?
It would help if you read what I actually said. I did not say that
government structure has very little to do with how much justice is
accomplished. I said that government structure has very little to do with
whether or not a government agency (public or private) was good or evil.
Good and evil, per se, are determined by the philosophy being practiced,
but how much good and evil actually take place, as a whole, is very much
determined by the structure of government.
It doesn't matter if every private justice agency has the best intentions
in the world. Under A-C, individual acts of retaliation are just as
legitimate as those carried out by a giant justice agency, but any society
that permits individual acts of retaliation is in for a truly HORRIBLE
amount of injustice.
>>Making justice agencies private, does not automatically make them good.
>>That is an anarchist fantasy, based on the fallacy of the stolen concept.
>From what I've seen, it's a fantasy alright but one invented by you and
>attributed to anarchists, at least in the case of David Friedman. Not only
>has he never said he holds that position, I'm pretty sure that he's
>explicitly stated--like maybe 100 times or more--that his argument has
>nothing to do with the idea that his vision of competing agencies will
>automatically make them good.
On the contrary, that's exactly what he does claim. He says that private
justice agencies are much less likely to violate the rights of their
customers, since they ARE customers, and are free to take their business
elsewhere (unlike a monopoly government).
This, of course, is a gigantic stolen concept, since Friedman is describing
a situation that only exists AFTER a government has outlawed the use of
force in business dealings.
John Fast
Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
> All variations of A-C share a common principle; namely that
> government can be obtained on the free market in a more effective
> and just manner than via monopoly government, based on the idea
> that goods and services are better
> provided by private enterprise than by government.
That may be a definition of A-C, but it's not an explanation of
how it works (e.g., how disputes are decided), which is what I
assume you're objecting to.
> >> I object to competing governments, on principle.
>
> >1. Why?
>
> Competing governments permit every citizen to be his own judge,
> jury, and executioner.
How?
Are you saying that in A-C a citizen might pick up a gun and
become violent, even though it's illegal? Possibly -- but the
same is true in every other system, even a POG: people sometimes
commit crimes and run amok even though it's illegal.
If you're saying that (in A-C) individuals are *legally* allowed to
become violent, then I think you're mistaken. More accurately, I'd
say that "competing governments permit every citizen to be his own
judge, jury, and executioner only to the extent that he conforms
to the same standards as a legitimate private police service, i.e.
only defend people's objective rights."
Do you think that self-defense and retaliation should be legal
under a POG? That is, if an individual private citizen uses force
to defend himself, or enforce his rights, and later proves in court
that he didn't do anything that a police officer wouldn't have been
allowed to do, should he be punished anyway?
What limits would there be on self-defense and retaliation in a POG
system? That is, what acts which really are self-defense (i.e. a
person defending his legitimate rights as defined by Objectivism)
should be illegal?
> Thus, competing governments do not place the use of retaliatory
> retaliatory force under objective control. Thus, competing
> governments fails the essential test of a proper system of government.
1. At the risk of repeating David Friedman's question, what does
"place . . . force under objective control" mean?
If it means "make sure that force is only used in ways consistent
with Objectivist ethics" then even a POG wouldn't punish force that
was only used consistently with Objectivism, i.e. in self-defense or
retaliation, and therefore individuals could "be their own judge,
jury, and executioner" as long as they followed Objectivist principles
(and presumably could demonstrate that in court, if necessary).
If it has another meaning (and I can think of several possibilities)
please explain it. (For example, you might define "brought under
objective control" as meaning "be clearly defined" . . . in which
case a totalitarian police state run by ideological fanatics would be
consistent with your definition if the rulers actually followed the
rules.)
> Competing governments expose citizens to the threat of conflicting
> law, that may only be resolvable by going to war.
Is that true of current governments, e.g. the United States and
Canada, which have different laws? Obviously not, because their
different laws don't conflict because their jurisdictions don't
overlap. A Proper Anarcho-Capitalism also has jurisdictions clearly
defined. (Of course, occasionally ambiguous situations will occur in
a PAC, just like they will in a POG, and be resolved peacefully and
rationally almost all the time in both systems.)
> >2. I suspect we either have different definitions for the term
> >"competing governments" or else my explanation wasn't explicit
> >enough to overcome your existing misconceptions. The governments
> >of, say, Canada, Mexico, and the USA are competing with each other
> >today the same way as the governments in the system I describe; so
> >are the governments of Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana. (The only
> >difference is that, in an anarcho-capitalist system, there would be
> >open borders; and also people would be allowed to decide which
> >particular jurisdiction they wanted [their property] to be under.)
>
> That is NOT competition. Those are all examples of independent
> monopolies, where no competition is permitted. If this is your
> idea of "competition," then I suggest you buy yourself a good
> dictionary.
I'll repeat the difference between a Proper Anarcho-Capitalism and
the current system: in a PAC, every individual and (voluntary) group
is free to choose which particular government has jurisdiction over
their property.
If nations have open borders, so that people are free to switch
residence and citizenship at will simply by moving, would you say
that the governments are (or could be, if they cared to do so)
competing with each other for citizens? (Everyone would leave
Cuba and Red China and North Korea, for example, and move to
Florida, Taiwan, and South Korea.)
The only difference between that and a PAC is that people won't
actually have to move, and instead would simply fill out the
appropriate forms and fly a different flag in their yard to give
notice to everyone.
> State and national governments don't compete with each other.
How do you define "compete"? Did East and West Germany compete
with each other? Do North and South Korea compete? Do Red China
and Taiwan? Do California and Florida (which both advertise to
attract tourists from the rest of the country)? Do France and
Britain (which are engaged in a trade war over beef)?
> Won't work.
It will if you don't define "competition" clearly (and probably even
if you do).
> >1. Does that mean that non-monopoly governments are okay with you,
> >as long as they're not competing?
>
> If you can come up with an example of a non-monopoly government that
> does not compete, does not expose the citizens to the risk of
> conflicting laws, and keeps the use of retaliatory force under
> objective control, I'll be happy to consider it. Personally, I
> can't even imagine such a thing.
I'm sure that you can't, which is the reason for the misunderstandings.
:-/
Seriously, though, if you define "compete" in a way which doesn't
apply to the relationships between contemporary nations (or even the
various governments in a POG) I'm sure it also doesn't apply to a
Proper Anarcho-Capitalism.
> Good luck.
Thanx!
> >2. I suspect we have different definitions for the term "competing
> >governments" or "competing justice agencies." How do you define the
> >term "competing" as used in this particular context?
>
> Any time you have two or more agencies, vying for the same
> authority over the same group of people.
How does that apply to the relationship between agencies in a PAC and
not to, for example, East and West Germany, or Cuba and Florida, or
Red China and Taiwan (and Hong Kong, when it was free), all of which
"competed" for the residence of various people (i.e., Castro wants to
keep Cubans under his control, etc.)?
> >And can there
> >be non-monopoly governments that are non-competing,
>
> I cannot imagine such a thing.
>
> >and/or monopoly governments that are competing?
>
> I cannot imagine such a thing, since a "competing monopoly" is a
> contradiction in terms.
Fine, just double-checking. Then if I show that agencies in a PAC
are non-competing (according to your definition) or else that
nations today and in a POG are competing (ditto), the problem
is solved?
> >1. It sounds like you're saying that all governments, at least
inside
> >the United States, "follow the same set of laws" where the federal
> >Constitution is the particular "same set of laws." Is that correct,
> >or am I misunderstanding you?
>
> Correct.
>
> >2. If that's what you mean, then what if I claim that under anarcho-
> >capitalism all governments will also "get together and decide to
> >follow the same set of laws," where that set of laws is something
> >very minimal, like Richard Epstein's list of "Simple Rules for a
> >Complex World"? Does that satisfy your desire for "de facto monopoly
> >government"?
>
> The only thing that will satisfy my desire for a de facto monopoly
> government is a true monopoly government; not some elaborate Rube
> Goldberg setup.
If you're going to be irrational and simply change your defintions
and standards according to whim to guarantee whatever outcome you
want, of course nothing will satisfy you. OTOH, if you're rational,
can you explain why a Proper Anarcho-Capitalism in which all the
agencies follow Richard Epstein's rules, or some other set of laws,
isn't satisfactory?
It sounds like you're saying that "competing governments" aren't
satisfactory even if they all follow the same laws -- IOW that
following the same laws is not sufficient, which seems to be a change
in your position.
> >What if the anarcho-capitalist "same set of laws" is
> >something trivial -- can I point to the collected copies of all the
> >agencies' standard contracts with their customers, and all the
> >inter-agency agreements for resolving disputes, and claim it's the
> >functional equivalent of the Constitution because it exhaustively
> >specifies the set of laws that all agencies must follow?
>
> So that I have to abide by one set of laws when dealing with my
> neighbor across the street, and a different set of laws when
> dealing with my neighbor next door? No thanks. It's bad enough
> that I sometimes have to cope with different laws when going to a
> different state or nation. I certainly would not wish to live under
> such a state of affairs on a daily basis.
Is it legitimate to have different sets of laws for different states
or nations? If so, then AFAICS it's also legitimate to have
different sets of laws for local governments, neighborhoods, and even
individual pieces of property. The difference is merely one
of degree, not of kind. Complaining that it's inconvenient is
a consequentialist argument; and it also means you need to set up an
arbitrary "standard" or dividing line such that having different laws
is okay for areas bigger than X, but not for areas smaller than X.
This looks arbitrary, irrational, and completely subjective and
whim-based, AFAICS -- am I overlooking something?
John Fast
"Tom S." <tms...@sk.uswest.net> wrote:
> "John Fast" <clea...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > Anarcho-capitalism doesn't have competing laws, either. Each
> > "justice provider" -- each police service and/or court -- might have
> > different laws, but they don't conflict because they're in different
> > jurisdictions.
>
> And these courts are under what jurisdiction? Who determines that
> jurisdictions powers and boundaries?
That's an important question, and I just posted an enormous post so
I'll be brief:
1. Read the appropriate chapter of _The Machinery of Freedom_ either
in print or on the web at David Friedman's site, because I think it
answers the question. (_The Market for Liberty_ by Tannahill and
Tannahill does so even more explicitly, but it's hard to find.)
2. "What do *you* think the answer is?" or "How do you think an
anarcho-capitalist would answer your question?"
I'll save my own personal opinions for a later post.
Chris Wolf
>In article <3871e489....@news.supernews.com>,
> Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>> Those aren't conflicting laws. They're different laws in different
>> jurisdictions; just like the United States and Canada have
>> different laws.
>> But they don't conflict.
>Anarcho-capitalism doesn't have competing laws, either. Each
>"justice provider" -- each police service and/or court -- might have
>different laws, but they don't conflict because they're in different
>jurisdictions.
That's going to come as a real shock to a lot of A-C advocates. Every
version of A-C I've ever seen, over a span of about thirty years, assumes
competing justice agencies in the same jurisdiction.
>Apparently you misunderstood this, and I'm willing to bet I even
>know why you made that mistake. (What I'm still trying to figure
>out is why David Friedman doesn't see why you made it, too.)
Maybe you'd better take this up with David Friedman. I think he agrees
with my interpretation.
>> An example of conflicting laws would be if you had two different
>> groups of building inspectors in the same town, with contradictory
>> requirements, and each claiming to have jurisdiction over you.
>And the reason this doesn't happen in a POG or other
>monopoly-government, like the current system, is because there is a
>meta-rule which clearly defines which group of building inspectors,
>or which set of laws, has jurisdiction in any particular case, right?
Right.
>That's fine -- because there will also be a meta-rule which clearly
>defines which agency, and which set of laws, has jurisdiction in any
>particular case under anarcho-capitalism, too.
Oh, I see what you mean. The various justice agencies will quickly realize
that it's not in their interests to compete in the same territory, or with
the same type of law. So you might have one type of agency that
specializes in personal assault crimes, while another agency specializes in
property theft.
All well and good. I've always said that the first thing a system of A-C
will have to do, is convert itself into a de facto monopoly government.
Of course, if this is the case, then why bother with a system of A-C? You
spend a lot of time and resources, just to get back to a system of monopoly
government. Plus you have all of the drawbacks that exist under a system
of A-C, that don't exist under monopoly government.
David Friedman
"That's going to come as a real shock to a lot of A-C advocates. Every version
of A-C I've ever seen, over a span of about thirty years, assumes competing
justice agencies in the same jurisdiction."
>Apparently you misunderstood this, and I'm willing to bet I even
>know why you made that mistake. (What I'm still trying to figure
>out is why David Friedman doesn't see why you made it, too.)
"Maybe you'd better take this up with David Friedman. I think he agrees with
my interpretation."
You are wrong. The reason you are wrong is that, as I think I have pointed out
several times in recent weeks, you misunderstand the meaning of "jurisdiction."
Under A-C, there are competing rights enforcement agencies and private courts
in a geographical area--but "jurisdiction" isn't a geographical term. For any
particular dispute, one court has jurisdiction--the court pre-selected by the
enforcement agencies that the parties to the dispute are customers of. The
exception is a dispute between parties who are out of law with each
other--either not customers of any agency, or customers of agencies that have
no preexisting agreement--in which case no court has jurisdiction.
As I keep pointing out, the same pattern exists, in a less extreme form, with
lots of real world legal systems, including ours. What court has jurisdiction
doesn't depend only on geography--indeed, legal disputes don't always have a
geographical location. What court has jurisdiction over a particular dispute
depends not only on what happened where but on who the parties were and what
kind of legal issues are involved.
David Friedman
John Fast
David Friedman <dd...@aol.com> wrote:
> Chris Wolf writes:
> "Every version of A-C I've ever seen, over a span of about thirty
> years, assumes competing justice agencies in the same jurisdiction."
David, your new newsreader, which uses quotation marks instead of
carats, is a real challenge. (That's a euphemism for "It stinks!")
(I wrote:)
> >Apparently you misunderstood this, and I'm willing to bet I even
> >know why you made that mistake. (What I'm still trying to figure
> >out is why David Friedman doesn't see why you made it, too.)
>
> "Maybe you'd better take this up with David Friedman. I think he
> agrees with my interpretation."
>
> You are wrong. The reason you are wrong is that, as I think I have
> pointed out several times in recent weeks, you misunderstand the
> meaning of "jurisdiction."
Right, he uses it as synonymous with "geographical area." The idea
of different courts having jurisdiction in the same area -- for
example, separate courts for criminal, civil, traffic, tax, family,
and patent-and-trademark cases -- is either too much of a stretch for
him to figure out on his own (which is why he apparently doesn't
realize we have it already) or else too upsetting for him to think
clearly about; and the idea of non-contiguous jurisdiction -- where
different pieces of property belong to different local governments,
or otherwise have different legal rules -- freaks him out. :-(
> Under A-C, there are competing rights enforcement agencies and
> private courts in a geographical area--but "jurisdiction" isn't a
> geographical term.
Well, it can be based on geography, sometimes . . .
> For any particular dispute, one court has jurisdiction--the court
> pre-selected by the enforcement agencies that the parties to the
> dispute are customers of.
I think Chris could understand this more clearly if you/we gave him
examples. The case of a single legal system with different courts
for different types of cases (which we have today), or multiple legal
systems with jurisdiction based entirely on geography -- but where it
is not necessarily contiguous -- might help.
Another example is the idea of competing private security firms in
today's market, where you and your neighbor might call different
companies when you are burglarized.
Another example, slightly more complicated, is different drivers
having different insurance companies, which deal with each other
in case of an accident. This situation is AFAICS extremely close
to people in an A-C with different "justice providers."
Presumably, Chris' arguments against multiple governments can be
applied to advocate insurance monopolies. While Chris doesn't
favor it, he'd need to explain why police protection, or arbitration,
are different from automobile insurance. I'm not saying that they
aren't, merely that I haven't seen any good arguments that explain
why or how they are.
> The exception is a dispute between parties who are out of law with
> each other--either not customers of any agency, or customers of
> agencies that have no preexisting agreement--in which case no court
> has jurisdiction.
>
> As I keep pointing out, the same pattern exists, in a less extreme
> form, with lots of real world legal systems, including ours.
[snip]
But Chris is, er, "imaginatively challenged" in this area, so you
need to give him specific examples.
Chris Wolf
>In article <38cdbff7....@news.supernews.com>,
> Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>> All variations of A-C share a common principle; namely that
>> government can be obtained on the free market in a more effective
>> and just manner than via monopoly government, based on the idea
>> that goods and services are better
>> provided by private enterprise than by government.
>That may be a definition of A-C, but it's not an explanation of
>how it works (e.g., how disputes are decided), which is what I
>assume you're objecting to.
I have MANY objections to A-C, but my principle objection is to the idea
that government can be obtained on the free market, since a free market
can't even exist until a government first outlaws the use of force. Or
that you can have "competition" when it comes to law, or the use of force.
>> Competing governments permit every citizen to be his own judge,
>> jury, and executioner.
>How?
Because that's what it MEANS to have a free market in justice. Anyone who
wants to enter the market, may do so. So if justice is on the free market,
then every citizen has the both the moral and legal right to be his own
judge, jury, and executioner. And if not, then you don't have a free
market in justice.
A free market in justice doesn't mean that only large, well-funded justice
agencies get to play.
>Are you saying that in A-C a citizen might pick up a gun and
>become violent, even though it's illegal?
I'm saying that under A-C, every citizen must have the moral and legal
right to pick up a gun and act as his own judge, jury, and executioner.
And the other justice agencies are morally obliged to deal with him on this
basis.
>If you're saying that (in A-C) individuals are *legally* allowed to
>become violent, then I think you're mistaken.
That's what it will amount to when individuals are permitted to take the
law into their own hands.
>More accurately, I'd
>say that "competing governments permit every citizen to be his own
>judge, jury, and executioner only to the extent that he conforms
>to the same standards as a legitimate private police service, i.e.
>only defend people's objective rights."
I have no problem with that. Provided that you agree that individual
citizens have the right to be their own judge, jury, and executioner under
a system of A-C, as long as they do it "correctly."
>Do you think that self-defense and retaliation should be legal
>under a POG?
Self-defense, yes. Retaliation, no.
>That is, if an individual private citizen uses force
>to defend himself, or enforce his rights, and later proves in court
>that he didn't do anything that a police officer wouldn't have been
>allowed to do, should he be punished anyway?
Yes. Absolutely. It is far too dangerous to permit individuals to take
the law into their own hands.
>What limits would there be on self-defense and retaliation in a POG
>system? That is, what acts which really are self-defense (i.e. a
>person defending his legitimate rights as defined by Objectivism)
>should be illegal?
It's self-defense only so long as you are actually defending yourself from
attacks on your person or property. When it's time to punish the offender,
that's retaliation, and is properly forbidden to individuals.
>> Thus, competing governments do not place the use of retaliatory
>> retaliatory force under objective control. Thus, competing
>> governments fails the essential test of a proper system of government.
>1. At the risk of repeating David Friedman's question, what does
>"place . . . force under objective control" mean?
It means that force is permitted to be used only under rigidly defined
conditions, and in such a way as to guarantee that whim is eliminated as
much as possible.
And it's not possible when every citizen has the right to be his own judge,
jury, and executioner.
>If it means "make sure that force is only used in ways consistent
>with Objectivist ethics" then even a POG wouldn't punish force that
>was only used consistently with Objectivism, i.e. in self-defense or
>retaliation, and therefore individuals could "be their own judge,
>jury, and executioner" as long as they followed Objectivist principles
>(and presumably could demonstrate that in court, if necessary).
It doesn't mean that.
>> Competing governments expose citizens to the threat of conflicting
>> law, that may only be resolvable by going to war.
>Is that true of current governments, e.g. the United States and
>Canada, which have different laws? Obviously not, because their
>different laws don't conflict because their jurisdictions don't
>overlap. A Proper Anarcho-Capitalism also has jurisdictions clearly
>defined. (Of course, occasionally ambiguous situations will occur in
>a PAC, just like they will in a POG, and be resolved peacefully and
>rationally almost all the time in both systems.)
If the jurisdictions are clearly defined, then you don't have
anarcho-capitalism. Under A-C, every citizen or organization has to be
free to enter the justice market whenever they please.
That's the problem when justice is on the free market. Even if you and the
other justice agencies, in the area, agree to divide up the territory, you
have no right to forbid others to compete with you in your territory.
This is the same problem that radio stations faced, early in the last
century (God, I'll never get used to saying that!), when they tried to
institute voluntary agreements to keep from interfering with each other's
frequencies. They had no way of preventing others, who weren't party to
the agreement, from competing with them on their frequencies.
>> >2. I suspect we either have different definitions for the term
>> >"competing governments" or else my explanation wasn't explicit
>> >enough to overcome your existing misconceptions. The governments
>> >of, say, Canada, Mexico, and the USA are competing with each other
>> >today the same way as the governments in the system I describe; so
>> >are the governments of Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana. (The only
>> >difference is that, in an anarcho-capitalist system, there would be
>> >open borders; and also people would be allowed to decide which
>> >particular jurisdiction they wanted [their property] to be under.)
>> That is NOT competition. Those are all examples of independent
>> monopolies, where no competition is permitted. If this is your
>> idea of "competition," then I suggest you buy yourself a good
>> dictionary.
>I'll repeat the difference between a Proper Anarcho-Capitalism and
>the current system: in a PAC, every individual and (voluntary) group
>is free to choose which particular government has jurisdiction over
>their property.
Which means nothing, since the citizen is still subject to the jurisdiction
of all the other agencies that are operating in the same territory.
>If nations have open borders, so that people are free to switch
>residence and citizenship at will simply by moving, would you say
>that the governments are (or could be, if they cared to do so)
>competing with each other for citizens?
No.
>> I cannot imagine such a thing, since a "competing monopoly" is a
>> contradiction in terms.
>Fine, just double-checking. Then if I show that agencies in a PAC
>are non-competing (according to your definition) or else that
>nations today and in a POG are competing (ditto), the problem
>is solved?
Perhaps. I will promise to keep an open mind.
>> The only thing that will satisfy my desire for a de facto monopoly
>> government is a true monopoly government; not some elaborate Rube
>> Goldberg setup.
>If you're going to be irrational and simply change your defintions
>and standards according to whim to guarantee whatever outcome you
>want, of course nothing will satisfy you.
I never do that.
>OTOH, if you're rational,
>can you explain why a Proper Anarcho-Capitalism in which all the
>agencies follow Richard Epstein's rules, or some other set of laws,
>isn't satisfactory?
It would be satisfactory. It also would not be an example of
anarcho-capitalism. It's just a modified monopoly government; very much
like the current United States, where you have a bunch of states that have
decided to get together and subscribe to the same set of laws (i.e., the
Constitution).
>It sounds like you're saying that "competing governments" aren't
>satisfactory even if they all follow the same laws -- IOW that
>following the same laws is not sufficient, which seems to be a change
>in your position.
"Competing governments" are just fine when they all follow the same set of
laws. But of course they aren't competing governments at that point.
>> So that I have to abide by one set of laws when dealing with my
>> neighbor across the street, and a different set of laws when
>> dealing with my neighbor next door? No thanks. It's bad enough
>> that I sometimes have to cope with different laws when going to a
>> different state or nation. I certainly would not wish to live under
>> such a state of affairs on a daily basis.
>Is it legitimate to have different sets of laws for different states
>or nations?
Certainly. The water rights laws of New England will not work in the
American Southwest, and vice-versa.
>If so, then AFAICS it's also legitimate to have
>different sets of laws for local governments, neighborhoods, and even
>individual pieces of property.
We have that now. What we don't have is competing systems of laws in the
local governments, neighborhoods, etc.
>The difference is merely one
>of degree, not of kind. Complaining that it's inconvenient is
>a consequentialist argument; and it also means you need to set up an
>arbitrary "standard" or dividing line such that having different laws
>is okay for areas bigger than X, but not for areas smaller than X.
>
>This looks arbitrary, irrational, and completely subjective and
>whim-based, AFAICS -- am I overlooking something?
Yes. John, it looks to me like you're trying to equate having different
laws, in different areas, with actual competing systems of laws. And they
are NOT the same.
I do not accept the claim that different laws in different areas
constitutes competition, and therefore a system of A-C would simply take
the existing system and stretch it a little further.