Saturday, December 5, 2009

 

Potpourri

* Bob Roddis takes us back to a more pleasant time, before Rothbard started dating Yoko Ono.

* When Edward Gonzalez (occasional guest writer here at Free Advice) said that he didn't consider himself an anarchist, he wasn't kidding!

* An intrepid critic tries to blow up my Climategate post with a medical analogy. Doesn't he know I'm the three-time heavyweight champ of medical analogies from people who know nothing of medicine?



Comments:
Hey Ed,

I don't want to pay my taxes. Will your government protect my right to my own property, or will you help them confiscate my property in the name of financing itself so it can... protect my property rights?
 
Maybe anarcho-capitalists and small government types are talking past each other. Don't An-Caps actually want a voluntary "government" or "governments"? They have nothing against a "policing" force. A purely private neighborhood would surely have a private police force. I've never liked using the word "anarchy" when refering to private voluntary associations because in common usage the term means "chaos" which is certainly not what most private neighborhoods would entail. What's wrong with the term "voluntary government" and/or "private voluntary government"? In fact, Mr. Gonzalez' story from Iraq sounded to me like the citizens of the town in fact created a voluntary (private) governmental association. And it worked.

(Similarly, I don't like the term "inflation" applied to fiat money expansion because in common usage "inflation" means prices increases. I like to call fiat money expansion "money dilution" because it gets right to the point and helps average people quickly understand the nature of fiat money.)
 
Bob,

Yes, they want a voluntary "government" not a voluntary government. For instance, if my neighbors and I agree, voluntarily, to keep an eye on each other's homes and to question/arrest anyone who trespasses on our respective property, why must this be called "government"?

Why are we so quick to call everything related to policing, security/defense and judicial activities "government" when government in practice, uniformly, polices arbitrarily, engages in aggression and not defense and violates justice daily simply as a matter of existing?

Can we get past the Big Daddy Fetish of "government" and start to understand that government is a source of tyranny, not stability, in social matters?
 
Taylor,

I have a question for you. If your goal is an anarcocapitalist society, do you think the best way to attain that goal is a step by step progression, or do you think a total collapse of our current system might result in anarcocapitalism?

For me, my goal is a government funded without confiscated taxes.

On another note, as an educator I have started educated people on classical liberal/libertarian philosophy. What I find interesting, is that those most simpathetic to communism, once they understand the price system, make a total jump to anarcocapitalism. Maybe I shouldn't have been suprised, but I was.

In your attempts to educated people, I have found it is a good group to reach out to.
 
Ed,

I think it is a bit rude to ask me a question without responding to mine. However, since I have some questions of my own for you still, I will make an attempt to answer yours before I ask my next ones.

If your goal is an anarcocapitalist society, do you think the best way to attain that goal is a step by step progression, or do you think a total collapse of our current system might result in anarcocapitalism?

My goal is not an anarcho-capitalist society. My goal is a voluntary society. I want to live in a world where people understand, accept and live by two principles, one is political and the other is economic but both work toward a harmonious social functioning:

1.) politically, no individual has the right to initiate the use of force against any other individual
2.) economically, all value is subjective, meaning that value is individually determined by each and every person on their own according to their own judgment and preferences

Both principles rule out government as a solution to anything. According to P1, we know that the existence and operation of the govt is unjust because it relies on the initiation of the use of force. According to P2, we furthermore understand that even if initiating the use of force were just, it could not result in a higher utility outcome than the non-coercive, voluntary alternative because when force is used, one set of values is being substituted for all other competing sets of values as objectively correct.

Because I understand these principles to be true, I attempt two things:

1.) to share this understanding with other people and convince them of it
2.) to live according to my own principles, to not be a hypocrite or to suffer under the delusion that as a matter of 'practicality' I am right to violate these principles even though others are not

For me, my goal is a government funded without confiscated taxes.

Two questions then (everything comes in twos today it seems!):

1.) Does this mean you share my principles?
2.) If yes, why do you feel you are justified in violating our principles as a means of bringing about your desired end (violation of principle 1). If no, which principle(s) do you disagree with and why?
 
Hi Taylor,

First, I am sorry, didn't mean to be rude. I did try to answer your question, although it was later on.

Two, I do share your principles; but my problem with anarcocapitalism as it is currently presented does not address what I see as the most vital (only legitimate) role of government in society, the use of retaliatory force.

Your second questoin goes to my current goals. I believe that a total collapse of our current society would lead to millions being killed. Historically speaking, it almost always leads to strong men seizing power. I believe people choosing to move away from our current system to live in a voluntary society would be much more peaceful.

I hope that answers your questions.
 
Ed,

Thanks. I believe I forgot to respond to one of your points as well, because I rejected the conditional part of the question (which I tried to clarify-- I am after a voluntary society).

Your question was, clarified:
If your goal is a voluntary society, do you think the best way to attain that goal is a step by step progression, or do you think a total collapse of our current system might result in voluntaryism?

The questions is yet still flawed because of undefined collectives and aggregates. But rather than nitpick too much and ask you to define which, specifically boundaried "system" you are referring to I'll respond as follows--

I don't have a problem with gradualism and I don't necessarily prefer it to instantaneousism (is that what you call an overnight change?) My problem is justifying the violation of our shared principles, political and economic, as a means to a shared end (voluntary society). You can not put a shit-covered t-shirt into a washing machine, pour in liquid shit instead of detergent, and expect a clean shirt at the end of the process.

Perhaps part of the confusion arises from some kind of implicit utilitarianist/majoritarian belief that individual instances of aggression/violence/injustice are permissible so long as the greater whole of people are "better off" in being more free, etc. But that is a violation of shared principle number 2, that all value is subjective. Austrianism is pretty clear on this-- there is no possible way to conduct interpersonal utility comparisons. You have no idea if harming one to help many is maximizing or minimizing total utility.

That's really the grand point, isn't it? It's the individual that counts, not the whole. If you could kill one innocent person to free everyone, would you do it, Ed? Would you overlook the fact that for that one innocent person, the greatest possible injustice/loss of utility that could possibly befall them, has befallen them? How do you overlook that?

I hope I am not getting too far ahead of myself here or building strawmans, not my intent, just making guesses at how you think about all of this from what you've said in the past. I am curious how, if not based on majoritarianist/utilitarianist views of welfare and the value of individuals, you come to the conclusion that it's okay for you to violate our shared principles as a means of making everyone better off?

I am not sure where your confusion with "anarchocapitalism" lies (again... I did not say I am after that, if people want to live in a voluntary commune let them, I don't care) as far as "the use of retaliatory violence" is concerned. Rather than guess, can you just tell me what your hang-up is. And can you explain to me also how government providing it coercively and monopolistically, does not violate shared principles 1 and 2?

Your second questoin goes to my current goals.

Correct me if I am wrong here: your current goal is to get elected into government, whereby you will personally wield the monopoly force of government according to your own judgment. This is just, how?
 
Ed,

(part 2)

I believe that a total collapse of our current society would lead to millions being killed. Historically speaking, it almost always leads to strong men seizing power. I believe people choosing to move away from our current system to live in a voluntary society would be much more peaceful.

Total non sequitur. Okay, so a "total collapse" will result in millions being killed... this is related to anarchocapitalism/voluntaryism... how, exactly? If one govt collapses and another band of thugs and thieves rise in its place, that sounds like a problem with coercive institutional violence, not a problem with anarchocapitalism or voluntaryism.

The only reason you can say something like "strong men coming to power" as if the current system is not led by a strong man/men, is because you choose to look at things on an aggregate, not an individual, level. A "strong man" is simply someone who seemingly spares no individual from his wrath. Under the current system, many individuals still suffer under a "strong man", luckily, however, not everyone does (yet).

Finally, I agree, if everyone moved away that'd be dandy. Non sequitur as far as what we're discussing (my original question was, will you protect my right to my own property as a member of the govt, or will you assist in pillaging it from me?) I'd like it if everyone could figure this all out tomorrow and there were no more wars... that's not really relevant to the discussion however.


GRAND SUMMARY: By running for govt and then participating in it, you're violating your own principles. Why are you allowed to violate your own principles and, is it possible that if you are, maybe other people are as well (in which case you have no argumentative legs to stand on in terms of criticizing the current social system we exist within)?
 
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]





<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]