About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 5:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A stellar editorial.  Clear, to the point, and extremely well reasoned.  Definite without being hostile.  A model for others to follow.

Post 1

Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 6:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
RJB writes:

A precondition of a legitimate one-world government would be the existence of a global culture endorsing these Enlightenment premises. While that may be theoretically possible in the future, it certainly doesn't exist, and it's highly unlikely. And for us to endorse a "one-world government" in a world that rejects Enlightenment premises is suicidal.


So if there were a global government in place over our presently non-enlightened culture, am I to understand that you would favor its abolition?


Post 2

Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 10:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert, thank you for your kind comments. I agree with your observation that the libertarian movement has become philosophically agnostic.  This troubles me, because the political ideas that people come to accept as right inexorably derive from and reflect the more abstract, philosophical essentials those people embrace. In any antagonism between philosophical premises and politics, the more fundamental ideas eventually prevail, because they shape the world view from which politics springs.

My present understanding of legitimate government is that it must be consistent with the principle of individual rights, which include the principle of voluntary association. I have not devoted much time to thinking all of this through, but I think that private defense agencies would coalesce into some form of federation for the peaceful resolution of disputes, as Nozick and others have speculated. A reigning philosophical and cultural regime of reason is essential to the preservation of liberty, because it is essential to discovering moral values and ethical principles, including the principle of individual rights. Abandon reason, and the consequence will be unending political warfare, endless bloodshed, and eternal feuding. 

If a customer of a defense agency that joins such a federation were unhappy with the service it provides, he should be free end his association.  However, doing so might require the payment of great personal cost: the financial equivalent of declining to purchase gasoline or electricity. Moreover, removing himself from the protection afforded by such a federation--a government--might lead to his being ostracized by the vast majority who fear dealing with the disreputable. In this case, anyone would be free to withdraw from the protection of government, but the cost of doing so might be prohibitive.

I'll spare you further commentary on the issue of what constitues just war.


Post 3

Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 11:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert, thank you for this article. It's a great relief to me that someone other than myself is saying. loud and clear, what's happened to libertarianism and libertarians.

I'll give you an example that is the reductio ad absurdum of the libertarian-anarchist position. What I'm about to name was said by a man whom I know to be highly intelligent and thoughtful -- which is partly why it's so horrifying. It was after 9/11, during a discussion of the war. He said that 9/11 was not a reason to go to war, not in Afghanistan and not in Iraq; It was not the concern of the government or of the army or of anyone except the people who died that day and those who loved them. What should have happened is the following: if the families and friends and others concerned with those who died on 9/11 wished to fight back and to avenge the victims, that was their right; they were free to fly to Afghan or wherever terrorists might be found, and to attack them. But they had no right to attempt to involve Washington or the armed services in their fight.

I'm not making this up. Isn't it wonderful to know that there are such men who understand the world, who grasp what practical reality is all about, on our side? No, this isn't our side -- not even when it's less insanely exaggerated.

Barbara

Post 4

Wednesday, February 2, 2005 - 12:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Majesty wrote:

"Robert, thank you for this article. It's a great relief to me that someone other than myself is saying. loud and clear, what's happened to libertarianism and libertarians."

Not taking anything away from you or Robert, Majesty - au contraire - but I'm slightly puzzled as to how you could have imagined you were on your own in saying loud & clear what's happened to libertarianism & libertarians when certain other voices were being raised loud & clear about that & had been for some time. Though I admit it's disconcerting that when one points out that a "libertarian" organisation such as ISIL has become evil, protests come from the least likely quarters.

Linz



Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Wednesday, February 2, 2005 - 2:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

I agree completely that the divisions among libertarians were there long before Sept 11.  I've been arguing for years that the Iraq war was just the latest, most concrete form of the argument.  The issue goes back to anarchy vs. libertarianism, which makes it not surprising at all that you addressed this issue in this post.

Personally, I think even the anarchy debate is just a cover for the real issue.  If anarchists were really anti-state, you would expect them to take the side of the least totalitarian government.  And yet consistently the result is support of the most tyrannical.  While they bend over backwards to show that Bush lied about WMDs, they fall all over themselves to praise Saddam and claim we should have trusted him.  On Sept 11, it wasn't the radical left-wing in the US that was first to damn the victims and praise the terrorists, it was the anarchists in libertarian clothing.  When they support tyranny and evil in every concrete example, I don't see any reason why we should pretend that they're really concerned with anarchy.  When the results contradict even that theory every time, the benefit of the doubt has to be taken away, and we have to start asking what they're real motive is.  Instead of accepting their contradictory views, we should be asking what does it all mean in practice?

The easy explanation is that they're really anti-US.  It's a theory that explains all of their behavior.

Barbara, of all the people on this site, Lindsay is the most vocal about the direction most so-called libertarians have taken.  In fact, you've criticized him for being too vocal on the issue.  I would think if anyone has created a reputation here for being clear that he doesn't like the way so-called libertarians are acting, he should be the top of the list.

And of course, he's not the only one to bring it up.  Many SOLOists have pointed it out over and over.  I personally have made that point several times.  I've even received hate mail in the last week because of my views. 


Post 6

Wednesday, February 2, 2005 - 2:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe - you said:

"When they support tyranny and evil in every concrete example, I don't see any reason why we should pretend that they're really concerned with anarchy.  When the results contradict even that theory every time, the benefit of the doubt has to be taken away, and we have to start asking what they're real motive is.  Instead of accepting their contradictory views, we should be asking what does it all mean in practice? The easy explanation is that they're really anti-US.  It's a theory that explains all of their behavior."

And the easy explanation is actually the truth of it. Anarchy is not their issue - it's hatred for America & support for any totalitarian regime that is anti-American. The low-life Saddamite bastards. The one excellent thing about the surge of Saddamites on this board over the last few days is that they've confirmed their evil by their own very words.

You also said:

"Barbara, of all the people on this site, Lindsay is the most vocal about the direction most so-called libertarians have taken.  In fact, you've criticized him for being too vocal on the issue.  I would think if anyone has created a reputation here for being clear that he doesn't like the way so-called libertarians are acting, he should be the top of the list. And of course, he's not the only one to bring it up.  Many SOLOists have pointed it out over and over.  I personally have made that point several times.  I've even received hate mail in the last week because of my views."

And there's no hate quite like the Saddamites' hate.

Actually, there is: mine for them. And that of every decent human being worthy of the title on the face of this earth. Except we're not dirty & underhand in the way we express it.

Bravo, Joe!

Linz 










Post 7

Wednesday, February 2, 2005 - 2:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
One thing I have found especially infuriating about the orthodox (and I use that term with more than a hint of irony) libertarian take on the war is how difficult it has made it to connect fellow students to Rand's views. I have already met several libertarians here who, bombarded by campus activism and Tim Cavanaugh Reason editorials, recoil at the thought of any philosophy with pro-war adherents.

And have you ever noticed how libertarian articles seem to devote as much time to distancing themselves from Rand as they do to praising her? Take this line from Cathy Young's latest piece: "Libertarianism, the movement most closely connected to Rand’s ideas, is less an offspring than a rebel stepchild."
 
I'd say libertarianism is more like the ungrateful heir: more than willing to use Rand's political insights (including NIOF, the linchpin of any true system of liberty), yet somehow always finding new ways to put her down and squander her estate.


Post 8

Wednesday, February 2, 2005 - 8:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"I'd say libertarianism is more like the ungrateful heir: more than willing to use Rand's political insights (including NIOF, the linchpin of any true system of liberty), yet somehow always finding new ways to put her down and squander her estate."

Very well said Andrew.



Post 9

Wednesday, February 2, 2005 - 2:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Actually, Andrew, it was Rand who described Libertarians as "hippies of the right" and wanted nothing to do with them. Many Libertarians (at least here in New Zealand) are also Objectivists.

Post 10

Wednesday, February 2, 2005 - 5:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm delighted with the thoughtful responses here, and glad I could lend voice (well, electrons) to your growing concerns about the direction of the libertarian movement. Thanks all for your very kind remarks.

A few hours ago I attended the Rand centenary conference held by The Objectivist Center in the spectacular Members (of Congress) Room of the Jefferson Building at the Library of Congress. (I love that symbolism, and think Rand would have, too.) It was a thrill to have so many influential writers, editors, politicians, even bureaucrats stop by to pay homage to the greatest individualist of the past century.

Apropos this discussion: one panelist was Ed Crane, who heads the Cato Institute -- one of the most prominent and influential libertarian policy shops in the world, and certainly in Washington. Crane spent much of his time puzzling at the disputes between Objectivists and libertarians. And I was somewhat flattered that he chose to cite at some length my 1997 review of David Boaz's Libertarianism, in which I gave a guarded endorsement of the book, but raised concerns about the philosophical grounding for libertarianism put forth by Boaz and other libertarians. Crane's conclusion, seemingly echoed by a few others, was that he could care less what reason individuals cited for leaving him alone, as long as they left him alone. As I understood his point, philosophical differences didn't matter; what mattered was only political agreement.

After the conference I chatted with him. I briefly explained that my reason for raising the philosophical issues wasn't some authoritarian desire to impose ideological Groupthink, or some petty penchant for theoretical hairsplitting. Rather, my remarks were rooted in an entirely practical concern. One's philosophical premises shape the very meaning one attaches to concepts like "liberty" and "rights," and to all else that derives from those concepts. Therefore, failing to come to a common understanding of those philosophical premises will necessarily lead "libertarians" to wildly diverging conclusions on a host of important political issues -- and even on the broader question concerning the legitimacy of government itself.

To a pedophile, or a Marxist, or a conservative Christian fundamentalist, or a racist, or an anti-abortion activist, or an Islamicist, or a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, "liberty" and "rights" mean entirely different things -- and certainly different from what they mean to Ed Crane or to me. And how could it be otherwise? It is epistemology that establishes the definitions of such terms, and ethics that determines the values and beneficiaries and circumstances and extents to which they apply. Start with different premises in these areas, you will reach different political conclusions. Even within the Objectivist movement, those holding intrinsicist or subjectivist interpretations of the basic principles of Objectivism will come to different political conclusions. Philosophy works analogously to computers: GIGO: garbage in, garbage out. (Or good in, good out.)

So, appealing as Crane's simple "leave me alone" wish is, it is unrealistic for him to expect it from his neighbors -- even "libertarian" neighbors -- if their understanding of "freedom" is colored by bad philosophical premises. The fractious political disputes among libertarians, between libertarians and Objectivists, and even among Objectivists, are rooted in disagreements about the fundamental principles upon which politics rest.

Now, a few specific replies to each of you as individual posters:

Jeff: Thank you for your generous compliments.

Loudius: If I understand your question, and I'm not sure I do, I would definitely favor the abolition of any government -- global to local -- that embodied anti-Enlightenment premises that led to wholesale violations of individual rights.

Mark: Good to hear from you. Let me answer you separately at appropriate length.

Barbara: Gratias, dear lady. And FYI, I recall that I heard or read exactly the same argument about 9/11 from a libertarian. You're right: this sort isn't on "our side" -- quite the contrary.

Lindsay: I am very pleased that you have taken such a tough stand against the philosophical cancers eating away at the libertarian movement. I would love nothing better than to see the movement reform itself and excise these tumors; but alas, I believe the disease has long metastasized, and that the patient now has one foot in the grave. If you and other Objectivists can somehow salvage the movement from death's door, more power to you. But I think that time is past.

Joseph: I agree with you that a fair number of libertarians who have been bashing Bush and opposing U. S. defense measures are, in fact, simply anti-American. But many others are not. I believe they're simply wrong in understanding the implications of "non-initiation of force" as the principle applies to foreign policy. These latter often draw a simplistic analogy between the valid moral principle of "nonintervention" among individuals, and the wholly mistaken notion that therefore there should be "nonintervention" among states. But if a state is illegitimate, systematically violating the rights of its own people and threatening our best interests, we have every right to intervene by force.

For example, regarding Saddam, many libertarians apparently fail to grasp that rights can be violated by the mere threat of initiating force. They forget that by the "initiation of force" Rand said she meant physical force and its derivatives, including fraud and coercion -- i. e., the threat of aggression.

Nobody and no nation has the right to even threaten to initiate aggression against a peaceful individual or state. If someone is menacing you even by threatening to use force, that poses a direct impediment to your freedom of action in the world, forcing you to take anticipatory protective countermeasures that may impose large costs on you. Under such coercive threat, it's entirely proper to take pre-emptive, forceful action in your own self-defense. Facing the possibility of WMD falling into terrorist hands, that's exactly what President Bush did in the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq. And I praise him for it.

This misunderstanding of "noninterventionism" is actually very common among libertarians, and even many Objectivists. Therefore, except in the most explicit and obvious cases, it's not necessary to assume "anti-Americanism" as a primary motive for libertarian opposition to the war in Iraq -- or more broadly, in their acceptance of "noninterventionism" as a foreign policy. You don't need such motivational dissection in order to conclude that the dominant figures in the libertarian movement are, for whatever motives, dangerously wrong about foreign and defense policy -- and that this fact alone constitutes sufficient grounds for distancing oneself from that movement.

Andrew: Great point about many libertarians acting more like "ungrateful heirs" than "rebel stepchildren" of Rand. Maybe the solution, then -- metaphorically speaking -- is to write them out of her will and legacy.

Duncan: Yes, Rand repudiated libertarians early on, and not without reason. She had already encountered quite a sample of them first-hand, including the anarchist Rothbard faction, and she was reading regularly about others who included a lot of subjectivists, dope-smokers, anarchists, etc. As one who was present at the birth of the libertarian movement in the U. S., I saw all that for myself, and gave a controversial talk on that very subject in the late 1960s at a libertarian conference in Philadelphia. While the movement at that time was still philosophically mixed, Rand apparently thought it already was too corrupted to merit an alliance or direct participation.

She may have been premature: her standing among libertarians during the late '60s and early '70s was so high that she might well have fought successfully to claim the "libertarian" banner for her own views. But perhaps she believed she already had minted her own philosophic label, and didn't need another that had been publicly tainted. Such a conclusion may or may not have been justified 30 years ago; today, it certainly is.

(I'll leave for another day the issue of whether the term "Objectivism" has also been corrupted. Suffice it to say that I believe, with David Kelley, that we're still in a battle for the soul of the Objectivist movement -- that Rand's is a "contested legacy," and that the term "Objectivism" is still up for grabs.)

Once again, I invite those interested in my further thoughts on libertarianism and anarchism to check out the entries on my blog. (A listing of entries, by title and topic, appears beneath my photo.)

Post 11

Thursday, February 3, 2005 - 2:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Loudius: If I understand your question, and I'm not sure I do, I would definitely favor the abolition of any government -- global to local -- that embodied anti-Enlightenment premises that led to wholesale violations of individual rights.


I think I know what you're saying. You're talking about--for example--a government that acts on the principle of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" and thereby violates individual (is there another kind?) rights frequently and profoundly.

But strickly speaking, governments don't act; only individual people do. And though beliefs may motivate actions, that fact has little bearing on the issue of rights. Presumably, you oppose rights violations irrespective of the beliefs or affiliations of the violator, correct?

P.S., Linzi, Radical Individualists prefer to be called "low-life rothbardian rat-bastards." Please make a note of it.


Post 12

Thursday, February 3, 2005 - 10:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Loudius writes:

Presumably, you oppose rights violations irrespective of the beliefs or affiliations of the violator, correct?



Absolutely.

Post 13

Thursday, February 3, 2005 - 10:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
RJB: It's up to you to decide whether or not you qualify as an anarchist based on the answers you've given me. What follows is my long-winded reply to "absolutely."

The word "freedom," to my understanding, refers simply to the right to take actions that are not, in themselves, violations of rights. One either opposes a given action as a violation or defends it as a freedom. So far so good. Non-anarchists thus far enjoy a defensible position, if anyone does.

The problem comes about if you insist that your opposition to rights violations is unconditioned upon the violator; that it does not depend upon his affiliations, beliefs, etc., because now what we've said of actions applies to actors as well. Either we must condemn an actor as a violator, or we must admit that he acts within his rights.

Anarchists don't deny state actors the freedom to mount flashing blue lights on their vehicles and pursue people in traffic. Perhaps the officer acts within his rights. Perhaps pursuing people with flashing blue lights violates their rights. Whichever is the case, we may be certain of this much: if such is a violation, then everyone who does this is a rights violator, and not a defender. And if it's not, then anyone who does it acts within his rights--even a state actor.

What is anarchism, then? Anarchism is a form of skepticism; it is not a belief. The Anarchist is deeply skeptical of the notion that the social order depends on state actors because when these actors deny to others the right to actions they permit themselves, they thereby become violators under any consistent formulation of rights regardless of what you consider to be a right. Note that the freedom to violate rights is not consistent. This notion of a social order founded upon contradiction is an insurmountable obstacle to anarchists who disallow the reality of contradictions.

You're certainly right about the deep divisions within what might be called the freedom movement. But you're going to need Ayn Rand's ungulfable bridge for this chasm. Because with anarchists, you're not dealing with a differing application of principle, or even a difference of premises, but instead with a what we understand to be a commitment to rationality.




Post 14

Friday, February 4, 2005 - 7:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Loudius, I don't know if you've read anything I've written on the topic of anarchism, and why I believe it is incompatible with either rights or reason. If you have a mind to do so, I invite you to visit http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/?entryid=63, the "table of contents" page on my blog, scroll down to the posts under the subheading labeled "Anarchism vs. Limited Government," and start clicking away.

In those articles you will find my detailed explanation as to why it is rational -- and why it is no violation of individual rights -- to have an enforcement agency that retains a legal monopoly, and "final arbiter" status, on the retaliatory use of force. I also explain why, by contrast, "market anarchism" necessarily entails and/or leads to the initiation of force.

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 2/04, 7:18am)

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 2/04, 7:19am)

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 2/04, 7:55am)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Friday, February 4, 2005 - 9:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mark Humphrey writes:

Robert, thank you for your kind comments. I agree with your observation that the libertarian movement has become philosophically agnostic.  This troubles me, because the political ideas that people come to accept as right inexorably derive from and reflect the more abstract, philosophical essentials those people embrace. In any antagonism between philosophical premises and politics, the more fundamental ideas eventually prevail, because they shape the world view from which politics springs.
Absolutely agree with you there, Mark. And these fundamental premises will shape even their definitions of "force," "rights," "justice" and similar basic concepts. It is impossible to arrive at common conclusions concerning the proper application of these ideas to political questions if everyone is operating under clashing interpretations of them. A "libertarianism" that admits any philosophical grounding is doomed to arrive at incompatible political conclusions among its proponents -- and thus wind up meaning anything, and nothing.

 A reigning philosophical and cultural regime of reason is essential to the preservation of liberty, because it is essential to discovering moral values and ethical principles, including the principle of individual rights. Abandon reason, and the consequence will be unending political warfare, endless bloodshed, and eternal feuding. 
 
Exactly my point, above.

Now we get into an area of disagreement, as you describe some of the implications of what some call "market anarchism": 

If a customer of a defense agency that joins such a federation were unhappy with the service it provides, he should be free end his association.  However, doing so might require the payment of great personal cost: the financial equivalent of declining to purchase gasoline or electricity. Moreover, removing himself from the protection afforded by such a federation--a government--might lead to his being ostracized by the vast majority who fear dealing with the disreputable. In this case, anyone would be free to withdraw from the protection of government, but the cost of doing so might be prohibitive.
 What, exactly, does it mean to "withdraw from the protection of government" or of a "defense agency"? Presumably, such as "secessionist" (as many anarchists would call him) would have to take upon himself the responsibility for his own defense. But what would that entail?

First, he would have to employ some notion of what might constitute "aggression" against him, and also what would constitute "defense" and "retaliation." His philosophic premises, whatever they are, would inform those judgments. What happens if his conclusions about such matters clash with those of the "federation" of private defense agencies? Would they impose their standards and rules on him?

If so, then they would be acting as a "legal monopoly," and thus become a de facto government (and farewell, anarcho-capitalism). However, if not -- if they refrained from enforcing their rules, verdicts and judgments on him -- they would be a paper tiger: anyone could ignore or opt out of their system with impunity. And this leads to a number of problems.

First, it would grant a blank check to any sociopath, malcontent or aggressor who wished to flout the federation's rules. Thugs and thieves of all sorts would be the first to opt out of such a system, and to thumb their noses at its impotent "agents" who would lack any enforcement power against them.

Second, what customer would continue to pay for such a toothless "defense" of his rights? If anyone could ignore the federation's unenforceable edicts, why would anyone hire them?
 
Third, where would that dissatisfied customer then turn, if he really needed protection? Obviously, to some competing agency of armed mercenaries willing to actually enforce its rules against its paying customers' enemies and their agents.

Fourth, what kind of "agency" would emerge to succeed and dominate the "marketplace" in any such  competition in the use of force? The nicest, most peaceful and genteel? Or the most ruthlessly efficient?

Finally, if no particular set of rules, standards or moral premises were to have a "legal monopoly," wouldn't each ideological faction and demographic gang -- even among libertarians -- want to have its own "agency," each employing its own philosophical interpretations, standards, definitions and values?
 
Mark, every single time I read an anarchist essay, I marvel at its blithe utopianism -- its underlying assumption that everyone will somehow align themselves with the writer's private interpretation of the implications of "rights" and "justice," and resolve disputes simply on the basis of utilitarian cost-benefit motives. These articles always assume that few people would want to bear the increased costs and risks of seceding from the "private federation" of "protection agencies."

How unbelievably naive! War and violence are totally destructive enterprises, yet people have engaged in them, willingly bearing their enormous costs, since the beginning of human society. Has a narrow economic notion of "self-interest" deterred millions from engaging in wholesale theft and slaughter? No? Then on what basis do anarchists assume that "self-interest" will deter them from defying a toothless federation's proclamations and rules, and using force to get what they want?

Anarchism would "work" only if every human being had precisely the same understanding of "aggression," "rights" and "justice," and could therefore voluntarily agree on one single standard or framework of rules. Lacking any enforcement mechanism (that would amount to a "legal monopoly on force," you know), everyone would have to voluntarily accept and go along with ALL the federation's verdicts and arbitration rulings. The minute that a single person refused, the "market anarchism" system would totally break down: by failing to impose its rulings against the rule-violator, all the federation's OTHER customers would cry foul, either demanding enforcement, or seeking it elsewhere -- perhaps on their own, as vigilantes.

Power -- like nature -- abhors a vacuum. People in society need clear, enforceable rules in order to peacefully interact and resolve disputes. Ultimately and unavoidably, those rules will arise, and they will be somebody's rules. The only questions are: Will they be decided upon rationally, and will the power to enforce them be limited constitutionally with checks and balances -- or will they simply be imposed on everyone, arbitrarily and without limit, by the people with the most powerful weaponry and goon squads?

My support of constitutionally limited government arises from the recognition of these simple facts. Given that somebody's rules will be imposed on society, I would prefer that they be defined by a rational, civilized process, and that they incorporate many institutional constraints that will limit those rules to morally appropriate purposes.


Post 16

Friday, February 4, 2005 - 9:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Linz, Joe, when I indicated that others were not presenting the case against present-day libertarianism, I was not referring to the two of you. I was talking about many people in the circle I sometimes frequent. Please be calm.

Barbara

Post 17

Friday, February 4, 2005 - 7:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert, I'll look over your blog and check out your articles, when I get some time.

Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Sunday, February 6, 2005 - 9:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bob, thanks for your comments on anarchism versus limited government.

You misunderstand my position, in that I haven't written anything about "the federation" (evolved from competing defense agencies) refusing or declining to do what its clients voluntarily pay it to accomplish, namely uphold and defend their negative rights to liberty. If a former client decides the federation is not worth what it charges, he has not violated anyone's rights by succeeding, and so he should, by rights, be left unmolested by the federation.  However, if he subsequently engages in violating the rights of clients of the federation, then that institution would properly respond using defensive force. Nothing I wrote advocates non-enforcement by such a federation, which I think might evolve from "a state of nature" by competitive pressures among private "Pinkerton Agencies". Those competitive pressures emphatically do include profit and cost considerations, in that aggressive warfare is a long-term losing proposition financially. It makes sense that agencies that restrcit their activities to defending the contractual and property rights of their clients will be less likely to incur the horrendous costs of active warfare.

Of course, people and states have engaged in warfare without a scintilla of concern for costs, or consequences, or theories of rights, from time immemorial. Unfortunately, that fact doesn't prove your case, or my case. What it does prove is that cultures dominated by irrational philosophical "premises" produce people who behave destructively, and who organize and try to live through coercive institutions designed to impose hegemony. Such coercive institutions reinforce the irrationalism of the culture, for all sorts of reasons that you understand.

Under the rule of even a democratic state, meaning a "government" that routinely violates individual rights such as the U.S. federal government, the incentives for incessant warfare and endless feuding over unproven, rival ethical claims, are reinforced by the activities of the state. This reinforcement takes the form of the state picking up the tab for the battles people want to precipitate on behalf of their favorite gripe (abortion activists come to mind), or on behalf of robbing other people (farmers and their ridiculous demands for government subsidies come to mind). The state picks up the tab for this warfare by holding elections, the cost of which "everyone" bears, the outcome to which is "undisputed". True, some have to spend time and energy and money fighting these battles, but the political system rewards mid-level and higher level players generously. Even the political operators whose side loses an election win big, through book contracts, television and radio opportunities, and appointments and salaries when their side scores later. I know you oppose all this, as I do. But this warfare is real and very costly: ranchers driven off their holdings by the Feds at the urging of merciless environmentalists; confiscatory income taxes; rapidly proliferating regulations that cost money and make problem solving ever more difficult; lawsuits that enforce "social justice" for the express purpose of robbing Peter to Pay Paul and for the enrichment of the state's robber baron attorneys and judges. The unbridled warfare you write about is already partly in place. If the state were abolished today, would all of this go away, to be replaced by "utopia"? Of course not. The necessary condition, a cultural/philosophical regime of reason, is conspicuously lacking.

But given such a regime, private defense agencies would spontaneously gravitate toward a federation for the purpose of resolving disputes, thereby sparing federation members of the costs of dog-eat-dog warfare. Under such a system, the ultimate legitimacy for rights and rights-enforcement would be the ideas inculcated in judges and entrepreneuers by philosophers--just as it is today, in the United States. However, given a philosophical regime of reason, there is good reason to believe that institutions would evolve entirely consistent with the voluntarism that man requires in order to flourish. In such a non-utopian world, cranks and ambitious gun slingers would still create problems for other people, but the state would not be there to subsidize their anti-social trouble-making. For example, religious anti-abortion zealots would now be confronted with the reality of cost: they would have to organize and pay for an army to impose on the vastly larger number of sensible, peace loving folks their notions about the "murder" of terminating a 30 day pregnancy. Would a profit-oriented Pinkerton Agency really jump at the "opportunity" to incur the costs and risks of offensive war for the purpose of imposing the wacky ideas held by 5% of the population--scattered across a large geographical area--on the remainder? Of course, if such an army of religious zealots were to organize, it would be swept away for lack of tangible, financial support (talk is cheap, money speaks), and by defensive retaliation by agencies comprising the "federation" whose clients were bullied or murdered.

To provide one more example, assume that a rogue army of bandits were financed by a billionaire crank--say someone like George Soros, who wants to impose social justice on the unwashed masses before he dies. This fictitious someone buys out the largest two defense agencies, and after failing to take over the Federation, (composed of other reputable companies aghast at what this guy is advocating), prepares to impose taxation on the Federation's clients for the "greater good", or perhaps his own "good". Is Soritos likely to succeed in imposing his hegemony? It appears very unlikely, because his defense companies are now rapidly hemoraging clients, who are opposed on moral principle to robbery, and who would lose business and public respect by associating voluntarily with a war lord or ganster. True, Soritos has several billions to waste.  However, the Federation agencies now collect voluntary payment from the former clients of the Soritos agencies. Nearly everyone who has a stake in peace, freedom, and productivity--businesses and business people, land owners, home owners, workers who earn their way and pay their own bills, oppose and are eager to pay for their defense against the depredations of a psychopath...voluntarily. The largest share of financing the defense naturally falls on those with the greatest assets at risk, similar to insurance. Anyone who sides with Psycho Soritos knows that his reputation--and his goose--is cooked when Napolean is defeated, because most of the economic resources of a free society are marshalled to defeat this ambitious, unmerciless war lord.

All of this is imaginary, so one can dream up any number of possibilities and counter possibilties. However, under a cultural regime of reason, competition of ideas and defense-enforcement companies would culminate in the institutionalization of widely accepted norms of justice. The natural tendency is for voluntary federation, and the emergence of government--not a taxing, regulating state. For example, if two clients are protected by different companies, and enter into a business or employment contract, each client has a financial interest in paying to secure and enforce his contractural rights. Each company shares that interest, and so have a standing agreement as to the principles and proceedures by which disputes will be resolved.  Lacking such a standing agreement, their risks and costs skyrocket. The same calculus applies to domestic disputes, violent crime, and other forms of predatory activity. Among clients of such companies, violence is not an option. For if one initiates force or fraud, he imposes risks and costs on his defense insurance company, which responds by canceling his protective policy. Those who choose to associate with criminals are likely to become impoverished social outcasts. So, in contrast to a state, in which irrational, short-sighted behavior is rewarded,  the principle of free competition encourages  rational, long-range decisions and behavior, and evolves toward government consistent with the principle of voluntary association.

I'll reread your comments on your web site on the subject, Robert. I am also going to give more thought as to how competition would culminate in generally accepted norms of ethics, similar to the market process that selects a universally accepted medium of exchange, which becomes money. 

One last comment. In reading about the history of the West, one discovers numerous examples of spontaneous and voluntary defense arrangements that were common-place. For example, the gold camps of the American West were situated literally beyond the reach of the American state, by a distance that required months of travel. If someone were caught stealing, he was brought before a miner's court, an informal panel of men who were respected and admired by most of the miners.  No taxes were imposed to support this voluntary, spontaneous government, and it enforced justice rapidly and efficiently, often simply expelling from the camp someone who had been caught stealing, occasionally hanging a murderer. Everyone agreed as to the definition of theft and murder, and there is no record of waring, rival courts. However, when the state was imposed on Montana  several years later, brigands and gangsters took over the administration of "justice". The Henry Plumber Gang , organized covertly by the sheriff of Helena,  rountinely robbed gold-bearing stagecoaches, stole livestock, and murdered innocent passengers and ranchers. Now rival courts did emerge, as the vigilante movement spontaneously sprang into life to track down and eventually hang Sheriff Plumber, Big Nose George, and their ruthless associates.

The American West, far from the reach of the federal state over a period of decades, was predominently peaceful and respectful of individual rights, although certainly no Utopia. The Johnson County, Wyoming, range war, short-lived but violent, is one example; notorious because of its abnormality. More typical were Dodge City, and Abilene Kansas, teeming shipping points for the herds trailed north from Texas, and frequented by carousing, hard riding, fun seeking cowboys. These shipping towns have acquired an unwarranted history of notorious bloodshed and anarchy. Hollywood and court historians depict those towns, and others like them, as violent hellholes, where gun slingers made greenhorns "dance", gun fire rang out at the O.K. Corrals, and hoodlums ruled the bars and Mainstreet. In fact, the per capita murder and crime rate in both Dodge City, Abilene, (and other shipping points) have been shown to have been substantially lower than in the large Eastern and Midwestern cities that were supposed to be protected by the state. This comparison was during the height of the cattle shipping boom, which lasted only a few years.

Another example of the culture of peace and respect for individual rights dominant in the Old West, far from the arm of "The Law", comes from a story written by Teddy Blue Abbot, who worked as a cowboy trailing herds north from Texas to Montana in the 1870's. A group of cowboys, looking for entertainment, built a straw man which they hung from a telegraph pole in full view of the passengers of an approaching train. As the train rumbled past, the cowboys commenced firing their six shooters at the straw man, for the benefit of passenger and train crew. One of the cowboys lowered the "corpse", dallied the end of the hang rope around his saddle horn, and galloped off along side the speeding train, while his compatriots raced along shooting the bouncing, careening straw man full of lead! The passengers, from the East, were appreciative of and suitably horrified by the show, with two of the women fainting, or so claimed Teddy Blue. My point is simply that if men lived in a desperate culture of rampant murder and violent anarchy, would they be likely to find humor and entertainment in portraying more murder and more unbridled bloodshed? Of course not. The prank was funny because it portrayed the West as it was not, the West of dime store fiction. Most people were too busy working, trying to make money and accumulate something, to engage in gun slinging and robbery in spite of almost no organized authority. The few who chose that life hid away from respectable society, in the Missouri River Breaks. 


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Monday, February 7, 2005 - 10:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Mark,

You cover WAY too much territory in this post to respond to. Let me concentrate on just one issue, at the heart of the moral debate.

That issue is: the status of "enforcement" under anarchism.

I contend that all the various historical examples you cite of so-called private defense agencies (such as those in the American West) are examples not of anarchism, but of de facto governments. All used force and coercion against unwilling participants to compel their compliance with a set of rules written and implemented by others -- and none allowed "secession" or "competition" from outside agencies or individuals.

Put very simply: Under anarchism, what is the difference between a "secessionist" and a "criminal" -- and who has the right to enforce such a distinction?

I have yet to hear an intelligible, non-contradictory answer to this question from an anarchist.

Let's clarify things by reiterating the exact anarchist "moral" complaint against government:

Anarchists specifically repudiate governments because they serve as the final ("monopoly") arbiters of disputes in a given geographical area, and enforce their verdicts and rules on all who live there -- i. e., they use force against those who break their rules. This is immoral, they say, because such to compel those who refuse to recognize their authority, and who would "opt out" of their system of rules, constitutes a violation of the dissenter's "inalienable rights" either to retain his own "right of retaliation" for himself, or to delegate that right to some other "competing" agency.

It is this "monopoly" aspect of government -- its use of force to eliminate competing agencies, to punish would-be secessionists, and to compel everyone to accept its own rules and verdicts -- that is immoral, say the anarchists.

I believe this is a fair and accurate characterization of the essential moral objection to government as put forth in the '60s and '70s by "anarcho-capitalist" pioneers such as Rothbard, Childs, and the Tannehills, and which argument has since been reiterated countless times in anarchist literature, Web sites, etc. I could quote many leading individual anarchists on this point.

Leaving aside the anarchists' economic arguments, Mark, do you agree that I have accurately summarized the gist of the anarchist moral complaint against government?

If I have, then consider what you offer to be historic examples of an alternative to government: the supposedly "private" justice institutions of the American West. Here is your own description of these arrangements:

If someone were caught stealing, he was brought before a miner's court, an informal panel of men who were respected and admired by most of the miners. No taxes were imposed to support this voluntary, spontaneous government, and it enforced justice rapidly and efficiently, often simply expelling from the camp someone who had been caught stealing, occasionally hanging a murderer. Everyone agreed as to the definition of theft and murder, and there is no record of warring, rival courts.

[my emphasis added]

Note the words I underscored. Mark, I submit that what you are describing are NOT "voluntary" arrangements: they are de facto governments.

First of all, you speak of "an informal panel of men who were respected and admired by most of the miners." You say that the panels were respected by "most" of the miners. What about the dissenters: Did they have to obey the verdicts of these panels, even if they didn't respect them? Or was this an example not of individual rights, but of unlimited majority power?

You say this was "an informal panel of men..." Men? What about women? Were these white men, or did they include blacks? How about Indians? If not, why not?

And if women, blacks or Indians dissented with this "informal panel" of white guys, did they retain the "right" to opt out of its judgments, to "secede" from its verdicts? If they were tried and convicted against their will by such a panel, did they retain a "right" to appeal? To whom? Was there any competing "informal panel"? Was such a thing even permitted?

You move from saying "most" respected the panels to saying that "everyone agreed" to the definitions of theft and murder. Everyone? Is that claim true? If it isn't, does that mean the "informal panels" did NOT have the right to impose their definitions of these crimes on dissenters?

And what of the punishments? Why social expulsion for theft? Why not restitution? Incarceration? Torture? Suppose miner Smith thought that banishment was the wrong kind of punishment for theft -- too tough, or too lenient. Did he retain the right to "compete" by setting up his own "panel," to which disputants could repair, in order to mete out a different kind of punishment? And did those (say, Quakers) who had moral objections to capital punishment imposed by an "informal panel" of "respected" white males have the right "secede" from or to appeal such a verdict? Again: appeal...to whom?

It is transparently untrue that in those camps, "everyone agreed as to the definition of theft and murder." The facts of each of these situations were obviously and often in dispute. Clearly, many of those deemed outlaws did NOT agree with the definitions or verdicts of the panels. Many probably thought that in their violence they were only reclaiming their own rightfully owned but stolen property -- or that they had used mortal violence in "self-defense" against another aggressor.

So who were these "informal panels" to have arrogated to themselves the monopoly power to make such determinations, and to have "enforced justice" -- i. e., using their own definitions of what constitutes "justice"?

In short: Were these tribunals and their decisions truly "voluntary" -- or were they enforced?

If the latter (and in truth, they were enforced), then these "voluntary" panels actually were operating as final monopoly arbiters of force in given geographic areas, arrogating to themselves the power even to make life-and-death judgments on those accused of crimes. They were, therefore, "governments" -- in precisely the sense that anarchists define them.

What, in truth, was the moral difference between "an informal panel of men who were respected and admired by most" and those eminent social leaders who met in Philadelphia in to draft the U. S. Constitution? What in their rule-making did the latter do in principle that was any different from what was done by those "informal panels" of miners in the Old West?

I could advance the same line of inquiry against that anarchist paradise, Medieval Iceland -- or, in fact, against ANY of the "voluntary" historical arrangements cited by anarchists that I've seen in the past 35 years. Were they really "voluntary"? Hell, no. Every single one of these used force to impose verdicts against unwilling participants. In his seminal discussion of the "Icelandic model," anarchist David Friedman offers some summary caveats not often quoted by those who cite his research as describing an anarchist paradise:

...whether the Icelandic institutions did work well is a matter of controversy; the sagas are perceived by many as portraying an essentially violent and unjust society, tormented by constant feuding. It is difficult to tell whether such judgments are correct. Most of the sagas were written down during or after the Sturlung period, the final violent breakdown of the Icelandic system in the thirteenth century.
[emphasis added]

And does Friedman's following description of the Icelandic anarchist "model" really seem to be that of anarchism -- or of some "faith-based" religious cult, operating as a government?

At the base of the system stood the godi (pl. godar) and the godord (pl. godord). A godi was a local chief who built a (pagan) temple and served as its priest; the godord was the congregation. The godi received temple dues and provided in exchange both religious and political services.

Under the system of laws established in A.D. 930 and modified somewhat thereafter, these local leaders were combined into a national system. Iceland was divided into four quarters, and each quarter into nine godord. Within each quarter the godord were clustered in groups of three called things. Only the godar owning these godord had any special status within the legal system, although it seems that others might continue to call themselves godi (in the sense of priest) and have a godord (in the sense of congregation); to avoid confusion, I will hereafter use the terms "godi" and "godord" only to refer to those having a special status under the legal system.

The one permanent official of this system was the logsogumadr or law-speaker; he was elected every three years by the inhabitants of one quarter (which quarter it was being chosen by lot). His job was to memorize the laws, to recite them through once during his term in office, to provide advice on difficult legal points, and to preside over the lögrétta, the "legislature."


Now really, Mark: a description of pagan priests who owned a cowering and devout congregation unwilling to "question authority," of "a system of laws" that became "a national system" when Ireland was divided into quadrants, and in which ONLY the priests had "special status within the legal system," and whose "law-speaker" was elected by majority vote (that apparently couldn't be protested by "dissenters") -- THIS is "anarchism"???? Where are all those "competing defense agencies"? Where is that individual "right to secede"? What I see here is not anarchism, but simply a national, religious-cult-based tribal government.



Mark, I have written repeatedly that the only real options under anarchism are (1) evolution into a de facto government, or (2) an enforcement vacuum that leads to a social breakdown into chaotic violence, as gangs "compete" to establish a final arbiter of rules.

The reason -- and the fallacy of anarchism -- hinges on this simple little fact of reality: any effort to enforce a rule, law, or judicial verdict against unwilling participants constitutes a "legal monopoly on force." Ultimately, there is no way, in logic or in reality, to make a verdict stick against the unwilling (whether they are principled dissenters, or simply criminals) without the threat of force to compel compliance.

Anarchists are, in fact, protesting against legal enforcement as such -- on principle. But you can't have any system of law, therefore social peace, without an enforcement mechanism. So without exception, all the alleged alternatives anarchists posit (hypothetically or historically) employ legal enforcement of their rules. Thus they function as de facto "legal monopolies on force" -- i. e., as governments -- even though anarchists never call them that.

So before we continue any further fanciful and purely speculative thought experiments about how anarcho-capitalism might function, I invite you, or any anarchists reading this, to answer one simple, basic, unavoidable question that lies at the heart of the anarchist "moral" complaint against government:

Do you -- or do you not -- favor establishing social institutions or arrangements that have the power to ENFORCE compliance with their laws and verdicts, ultimately by recourse to the threat and/or use of physical force?

If not, then the anarchist paradise will disintegrate the first time someone (even a criminal) "secedes," or simply refuses to recognize its unenforceable verdicts and laws.

If so, then your system isn't anarchism: it's government...whether you care to admit it or not. And then the anarchists' "moral" case against government disappears.

Let's stick with that one basic question for now. If we can get beyond that, perhaps later we can start debating economics and history, okay?


(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 2/07, 10:20am)

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 2/07, 5:54pm)


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.