[Soixante-Retard]

A common misinterpretation I see from people, who don't entertain libertarianism (or haven't given it any serious thought), is that they see individualism and equate it with egoism and thus often dismiss libertarianism there and then.

I would like to clarify what egoism, individualism, altruism and collectivism, to me, is.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's start with egoism.
Egoism is selfishness. Egoism is opposed to altruism.

Okay, so far so good, let's proceed to altruism.
Altruism is unselfishness. Altruism is opposed to egoism.

Collectivism.
A good summary of collectivism is: "the end justifies the means". Collectivism is opposed to individualism.

Individualism.
I think individualism can be best summed up by the Kantian notion: recognize that individuals are ends in themselves and not means to your ends. Individualism is opposed to collectivism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So to be an individualist is not necessarily to be an egotist, likewise, to be a collectivist is not necessarily to be an altruist. You can be an individualist and an altruist, an individualist and an egotist, a collectivist and an altruist, a collectivist and an egotist.

In other words individualism and altruism are not mutually exclusive, likewise, collectivism and egotism are not mutually exclusive.


The libertarianism I advocate is individualist (of course, individualism is a necessary but not sufficient condition for libertarianism - at least in my eyes) altruism. As Karl Popper noted in his Open Society and Its Enemies:

It [individualism united with altruism] is the central doctrine of Christianity ('love your neighbor,' say the Scriptures, not 'love your tribe'); and it is the core of all ethical doctrines which have grown from our civilization and stimulated it.

Emphasis added.

Just thought I'd get that off my chest.

[maxstep]

People I have come across seem to think individualism means "you against the world" or think that people who believe in individualism are socially represive and do not believe in team or group work whatsoever. Its quite irritating actually.

[Soixante-Retard]

People I have come across seem to think individualism means "you against the world" or think that people who believe in individualism are socially represive and do not believe in team or group work whatsoever. Its quite irritating actually.

I second that.

[Eran]

A good summary of collectivism is: "the end justifies the means".

I disagree. As I see it, collectivism sees the interests of the group as being independent of, and superior to, the interests of the group's members.

Criminals who also see their selfish ends as justifying means can be individualistic. Collectivists can still believe that some means are not justified in achieve their group-oriented goals.

It is amazing how often people use collectivist logic. For example, in this thread on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I keep pointing out to other participants how they repeatedly think of people merely as group members, rather than as individuals.

We were all rightly horrified at the idea that, after 9/11, Muslims would be prosecuted merely for being Muslims. Yet the very same collectivist mindset is everywhere in the minds of both statists and left-anarchists.

[Soixante-Retard]

^ Eran, you make a good point. I concede to your better definition.

[Rich]

I disagree. As I see it, collectivism sees the interests of the group as being independent of, and superior to, the interests of the group's members.

Isn't that a form of collectivism? So for example I would say every human being has the right to be free from Islam, regardless of what group their born into or where they live. But I support land use tax.

9/11ism is just silly. I'm totally opposed to Al Qa'ida, but after the West had led the sanctions against Iraq which led to the murder of over a million people, together with Britain and America's earlier support for Saddam's war of aggression against Iran, we could hardly complain about the tactics of 9/11. 9/11 led to the ending of Iraqi sanctions, the removal of American troops from Saudi and majority rule in Iraq. Overall it had a positive effect despite the disastrous hubris of Afghanistan. Anyway I digress. The point is that collectivism is not easy to pin down.

[SpaciousBox]

I don't believe people associate individualism with egoism. There are many individualist philosophies that have countermeasures in place to prevent exploitation, or the selfish attempts of single people to somehow harm or rule others. I believe the link with Libertarianism is that your ideology allows egoism to fester best. The less control you have over something, the more control, or chance of control, it has over you - this is a very simple and quite logical conclusion, in my mind. Whilst I fall in agreement that individualism is the way forward, it cannot be denied that individuals have already exploited the present system to their egoistic ends. This would clearly be even more possible under Libertarianism, which seeks to release as many constraints as it possibly can. Whilst I accept that not all of you wish to end the role of the state, there are still many more that would allow the sort of systems where egotists could most easily exploit those around them. As a result, your individualist philosophy becomes more heavily linked with the one thing your trying to move away from... Thoughts?

[Eran]

So for example I would say every human being has the right to be free from Islam, regardless of what group their born into or where they live. But I support land use tax.

You have a weaker form of collectivism than most. But land tax borrows its logic from the assumption that others have a claim over your efforts, even if just your efforts to raise the value of land you developed. This to me is a form of collectivism.

I believe the link with Libertarianism is that your ideology allows egoism to fester best.

I disagree. Statism allows people to move ahead using force. Libertarianism means that you can only rely on others' voluntary cooperation. That tends to make you care more and think more of others.

Admittedly, you tend to think of others as customers, employees, etc. But still you get used to the mindset of thinking about other people's preferences, rather than of imposing your own on others.

The less control you have over something, the more control, or chance of control, it has over you - this is a very simple and quite logical conclusion, in my mind.

That doesn't make any sense. You and that "something" can have nothing to do with each other. Why does less control from your end imply more control from the other end?

Whilst I fall in agreement that individualism is the way forward, it cannot be denied that individuals have already exploited the present system to their egoistic ends.

That is because the current system of government control allows and even encourages exploitation of others. Lobbying government officials is a non-violent and socially-acceptable way of exploiting others. The pain is spread amongst millions, so nobody feels too much pain.

Whilst I accept that not all of you wish to end the role of the state, there are still many more that would allow the sort of systems where egotists could most easily exploit those around them.

How would an egoist exploit those around them in a system in which private property rights are protected? In a pure laissez faire system, one can only get ahead by making others happy - by cooperation.

[SpaciousBox]

Let be honest here Eran, we have probably done this dance before. If I didn't believe your conclusions were impossible, I would probably be a Libertarian! so I imagine this will be an agree to disagree result. However, there are a few points of logic I will attempt to debate:

I disagree. Statism allows people to move ahead using force. Libertarianism means that you can only rely on others' voluntary cooperation.

How will it ever be voluntary? Corporations are just as capable of abusing power as their states. In fact, I'd say they are more likely to abuse power. Even if misguided more often than not, states exist to serve their people, where as business does not.

That doesn't make any sense. You and that "something" can have nothing to do with each other. Why does less control from your end imply more control from the other end?

As I wrote; chance of control. You don't believe that if left to their own devices people won't attempt to control each other? I mean no disrespect, but doesn't that seem a bit naive to you? We have systems in place to prevent monopolies of power. Economics is the strongest form of power in a capitalist society. Ergo, anything that allows mass economic power leaves itself open for the chance of control. I am not one of these people who believes deregulation would lead to a lack of monopolies. However I do think the present system isn't enforcing competition enough.

How would an egoist exploit those around them in a system in which private property rights are protected?

Buy up all the property and charge a single set rate? Whilst assuring that competition is not possible through either economic or coercive tactics?

[Eran]

How will it ever be voluntary? Corporations are just as capable of abusing power as their states. In fact, I'd say they are more likely to abuse power. Even if misguided more often than not, states exist to serve their people, where as business does not.

States don't exist to serve people. States exist to rule over people. It is true that in recent centuries, states (more accurately, governments) found it more and more efficient to rule by providing people with some services. It is also true that many people believe what you said. Many people also believe that the god Vishnu will help them if asked. Belief doesn't make it so.

Very few states have been explicitly created by the people. I know of no case in which a society voluntarily made the transition from having no government to having government. Do you?


Now back to your main point. It is an excellent one, and I thank you for asking it.

Every (stable) society requires shared political culture which determines what would be considered legitimate means for resolving conflicts.

Let's start by exploring the society with which we are most familiar - a stable democracy. I have picked the United States as an example.
In a democracy, the shared belief is that duly elected officials, acting in a manner consistent with the (written or unwritten) constitution have a legitimate authority to make decisions within the territory (and often also outside the territory) of the state.

It is important to understand that such shared belief is a precondition on the democracy being stable. A precondition, rather than a result of having government or a written constitution. If you are not convinced, ask yourself the following question: Why does the President of the US comply with unpopular Supreme Court decisions? It is obviously not because the Supreme Court possesses superior power. The President of the US is the most powerful man in the world. It is not because the act itself would be politically unpopular (as I just stipulated that the SC decision was unpopular). Rather, it is because the vast majority of Americans would view such violation as unacceptable.

We will probably never find out how that shared perception would manifest itself, because no President is likely to do that under normal conditions. We can speculate, for example, that Congress might try to impeach such a President. But why should the President care? Why, come to think about it, do President respect the results of elections in which they lose? After all, Africa is full of countries in which elections have not been respected by the then-sitting President. What would happen, for example, if the President ordered the Marines to storm Congress?

In all likelihood, the General commanding the Marines would refuse such an order. If not him, individual marines would. You play the scenario out.


Now let's turn to an Anarcho-Capitalist society. Just as a democracy requires certain shared beliefs to be stable (with African countries often demonstrating the consequences of the absence of such shared belief), so does an ancap society. In the case of an ancap society, the belief is in the legitimacy of private property (justly acquired) to determine the resolution of conflicts. Specifically, the owner of a scarce resource has the right to determine what is to be done with the resource, subject to prior contractual obligations and, of course, to avoiding unwelcome physical invasion of of another person's property - aggression).

I believe this is a very natural belief, certainly more plausible than the belief on which absolute monarchy was based (the divine right of kings). I find it much more plausible than the democratic belief, though I am obviously in a tiny minority.

Two points to emphasise:
1. Just as the presence of a small minority of monarchists or anarchists doesn't prevent a democratic society from being stable, so the presence of a small minority of people who fail to accept private property ethics will not prevent an ancap society from being stable. The society will have institutions and mechanisms to force the minority to accept the principles of the majority.

2. Having shared beliefs as to the legitimate mechanism of dispute resolution doesn't mean there are no disputes. In a democracy, such disputes are manifested at both the political and inter-personal levels. In an ancap, there is no political level. All disputes exist (and are resolved) at the inter-personal level.

We can now finally answer your original question - wouldn't corporations use force? The answer is - not with impunity. If a corporation initiates the use of force (i.e. is guilty of aggression), its victims would be able to sue it in arbitration courts. If found guilty, the corporation (or its officers and relevant employees) would be forced to pay restitution to their victims. Decisions by respectable arbitration courts would be respected just as decision by the USSC are. They would be enforced by enforcement agencies just as USSC decisions are ultimately enforced by the police and other government forces.

You can start considering scenarios whereby enforcement agencies would fight each other. Such scenarios are even less likely than the highly-unlikely scenario whereby the Marines are fighting the Army, the President unleashes the National Guard against Congress, etc. Each of those is theoretically possible, but is highly unlikely given incentives (fighting is very expensive!) and that share political culture mentioned above.

You don't believe that if left to their own devices people won't attempt to control each other?

It depends on how you define "control". You mentioned economic power in the context of a capitalist society. Do you think Bill Gates could control you if he so chose? Obviously he could tempt you to do almost anything. I know I would jump through many hoops to get my hands on a cool billion. So in one sense, Bill Gates could "control" me. But in another sense, he has zero ability to do that. Bill Gates couldn't force me to do anything I didn't choose to do. He could only tempt me to do things by offering a deal that I would consider attractive.

In a free (ancap) society, wealthy people would all be like Bill Gates in the example above. They could be viewed as having a lot of power in the sense of being able to tempt people to do their bidding. But in a different sense, they will be less powerful than the most junior civil servant. They have absolutely no power to force anybody to do anything.

Buy up all the property and charge a single set rate? Whilst assuring that competition is not possible through either economic or coercive tactics?

Using coercive tactics is in contradiction to my stipulation that private property rights are protected. An egoist might try to buy all the property, but they will never succeed. The more property they buy, the higher the price of the remaining property. Further, they can only buy property off willing sellers. Not all sellers are likely to be willing. If those sellers are willing, it must be that the price offered is higher than the value of the property for them.

In practice, buying the competition is not a viable option. Rockefeller tried, and failed miserably.

This is also the reason why it makes no sense to talk of "enforcing competition". All that is required to allow competition is to scale back any barriers to competition. In our society, virtually all such barriers (in the context of legal activities) come from government. To maximize competition, government just needs to get out of the way.

[SpaciousBox]

States don't exist to serve people. States exist to rule over people.

Some states exist to rule over people, not all, and certainly not innately. Unless of course, you mean economic ruling, in which case I'm afraid that is the price we pay for freedom. I do not want a world where anyone can do anything to anyone else - I accept the need for a guardian. However to say that all states rule (in a social context) is quite impossible. Some libertarians for example advocate a mini-state that very clearly does not fit into this category. I personally want a Liberal state, which exists as guardian and protectorate.

I know of no case in which a society voluntarily made the transition from having no government to having government. Do you?

I know of no situation where a civilised people were not ruled by some form of government. As you point out correctly below this, society requires some form of organisation. Lack of organisation leaves the weakest open to exploitation. You correctly demonstrate this in the example of Africa. Well how many of our western companies have abused, exploited, and committed down right criminal acts in that part of the world? - individual power is always weaker than collective, or that of a state.

In the case of an ancap society, the belief is in the legitimacy of private property (justly acquired) to determine the resolution of conflicts.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Just as the presence of a small minority of monarchists or anarchists doesn't prevent a democratic society from being stable, so the presence of a small minority of people who fail to accept private property ethics will not prevent an ancap society from being stable. The society will have institutions and mechanisms to force the minority to accept the principles of the majority.

Congratulations. You have just created your first private sector state. Which just as you opposed in your previous argument, rules over people based on a binding principle of how society should be allowed to exist. The evil state just became the evil corporation - nothing has changed, you still end up ruling with the same assumed power and in the same manner.

2. Having shared beliefs as to the legitimate mechanism of dispute resolution doesn't mean there are no disputes. In a democracy, such disputes are manifested at both the political and inter-personal levels. In an ancap, there is no political level. All disputes exist (and are resolved) at the inter-personal level.

You cannot have any system of organisation that is not political. Politics is the running of governmental affairs. Anything that tells others how to act, is very clearly governmental; your shop keeper is a governor, your local school board are governors. The only tangible difference between them and politicians is that they govern a specific role, where as your overall governors govern everybody.

We can now finally answer your original question - wouldn't corporations use force? The answer is - not with impunity. If a corporation initiates the use of force (i.e. is guilty of aggression), its victims would be able to sue it in arbitration courts. If found guilty, the corporation (or its officers and relevant employees) would be forced to pay restitution to their victims. Decisions by respectable arbitration courts would be respected just as decision by the USSC are. They would be enforced by enforcement agencies just as USSC decisions are ultimately enforced by the police and other government forces.

So, once again, you have created a state. But where as the democratic state is a state run with input from the community it rules, yours is an absolutist state, that follows a single unchangeable set of principles and refuses to acknowledge any possible difference, disagreement, or variation. I hate to say it, but we call that authoritarianism.

You can start considering scenarios whereby enforcement agencies would fight each other. Such scenarios are even less likely than the highly-unlikely scenario whereby the Marines are fighting the Army, the President unleashes the National Guard against Congress, etc. Each of those is theoretically possible, but is highly unlikely given incentives (fighting is very expensive!) and that share political culture mentioned above.

The difference here is strength in numbers. In a state, your protection is guaranteed as everyone follows the same set of rules. All police, military, politicians, etc, come under a single banner. If you are trying to create this, congratulations on your new found private sector absolutist state once again. If not however, then yes, it makes it highly more likely. I wouldn't at all be surprised if half these corporations made a bid for power! Once again; please see Africa.

It depends on how you define "control". You mentioned economic power in the context of a capitalist society. Do you think Bill Gates could control you if he so chose?

Bill Gates could control all of us, yes, very easily in fact. Pretty much every computer in the world has a Microsoft chip in it. Do you know how they work? They can either take control of your PC from afar, or they can simply stop you from accessing it indefinitely (it's for hacked / illegal CD keys). That is a lot of control to me. How might he use it? Well, I guess hold everyone to ransom? - he could shut down the entire western world, lets remember! We are living in an electronic age. Maybe access all our banks? buy things from Amazon? Publish your financial details online? Or it could be even simpler or more imaginative - go wherever your heart leads. That said, I'm not too fussed on that one, the computer world is a prime example of market failure, but it isn't exactly life threatening. I would be more worried about living in geographical proximity. No reason he cannot simply take over the town and force everyone to work for the food they put on their table. Solution? send for the state! Democratic, or Libertarian.

An egoist might try to buy all the property, but they will never succeed. The more property they buy, the higher the price of the remaining property.

They just need to buy it all in a specific area... do you honestly believe the poor in our countries choose to live where they live? The market isn't going to be able to compensate for their new found exploitation. And come to think of it, why should they have to wait for the market to save them (assuming I accept it even would...) when we could simply rule against them being exploited in the first place. Let me tell you a local story; in my area there are only two bus companies. One does a very small number of roots, the other does them all. Due to it's dominance, this bus company charges the same for a 2 mile trip, as it charges to go the full 15 miles to the city centre. Why? because it can. We are all being forced to pay full line tickets to go from A to B because there is no alternative.

In practice, buying the competition is not a viable option. Rockefeller tried, and failed miserably.

I'm sorry but this is just not correct, people have been buying each other out for market dominance for years. Actually, this happens every day... BskyB for example in the UK presently.

To conclude; it appears that all you want is a state that enforces property rights. This is nice, but all it is is just another state with a total laissez-faire policy. Except your state is absolutist, where as mine at least has aspects of input and the ability to change.

[Eran]

Some states exist to rule over people, not all, and certainly not innately.

The question of the purpose of something as complex and varied as the state is indeed difficult to articulate, let alone answer.

What I should have said is that governments were neither formed for, nor in practice do serve people. They were formed for the purpose of ruling over people, supposedly for their own good ("guardian and protectorate").

We come from very different places, but I'd like to correct a few misconceptions you seem to have about libertarianism.

I do not want a world where anyone can do anything to anyone else - I accept the need for a guardian.

I don't a world like that either - which is precisely why I oppose all states. In our world, government officials can do anything to anyone. True - they sometimes must go through some legal hoops, but in principle, there is no limit to the power of government.

In the world I am advocating, it is truly the case that nobody can do anything to anyone else. Specifically, no person or group has the right to physically invade another person's property. You property is inviolable. As for guardians, those are for children. From my perspective, you want a government that treats everybody like children. I am not a child. I don't need or want to be treated like one.

We do need help sometimes to protect ourselves. For that, we can hire guards, not guardians. Guards you hire work for you. They don't tell you what to do.

I know of no situation where a civilised people were not ruled by some form of government.

That depends on your definition of "civilised". Until a few hundred years ago, an equivalent statement would have noted that no civilised people have ever had a society without slavery. Or with equal legal rights for women. Or with broad representative democracy. Or where government didn't impose religious duties on its citizens. There is a first time for everything.

Well how many of our western companies have abused, exploited, and committed down right criminal acts in that part of the world? - individual power is always weaker than collective, or that of a state.

Western companies have done much wrong, though not nearly as much as have western governments. In general, I challenge you to specify a time and place in which government was, on the whole, behaved more morally than the typical corporation.

As for individual power, you are right. I am not advocating individualism in the sense of self-sufficiency. Rather, I welcome social cooperation, including cooperation in the area of right protection. I just want that cooperation to be voluntary rather than forced.

You have just created your first private sector state.

No. There are several differences. First, government maintains a monopoly over the use of force. No corporation does that. Second, government reserves the right to tax. No corporation could do that. Third, government officials enjoy a legally privileged status. A police officer can do things to you that you cannot do to a police officer, for example. No corporate employee would enjoy such privileges.

You cannot have any system of organisation that is not political. Politics is the running of governmental affairs.

Precisely. Without government - there is no politics. There is a reason we distinguish between private-sector authority and government. As I pointed above, private-sector players can indeed set the rules within their own property. But only there. They cannot impose their rules over other people's property the way government officials do.

Private property tends to be very fragmented. That means that competition is easy. If you don't like the rules imposed by your employer or landlord, it is relatively easy to find other ones. Much easier than moving to a different country.

But where as the democratic state is a state run with input from the community it rules, yours is an absolutist state, that follows a single unchangeable set of principles and refuses to acknowledge any possible difference, disagreement, or variation.

Private corporations are nothing if not responsive. They must and do respond to their customers. Those who don't, vanish in the competition. Plus, I repeat my points about competition, limited domain, lack of legal privilege, etc.

In a state, your protection is guaranteed as everyone follows the same set of rules. All police, military, politicians, etc, come under a single banner.

Under government, there isn't a single set of rules. First, government officials operate under a completely different set of rules than the rest of us. Second, government can and does constantly change the rules - that's what legislation is.

But the single banner is precisely the problem. There is no competition. There is no objective, impartial and independent judge to settle disputes between you and the state - all judges are nominated by and employed by the very same state.

No reason he cannot simply take over the town and force everyone to work for the food they put on their table.

I would he take over the town? He has no troops, and no legal right to use force. How would he do that?

Let me tell you a local story; in my area there are only two bus companies.

I don't know where you live, but I would be astonished if local transportation is not heavily regulated. The reason you only have two bus companies is that government makes further competition either impossible or very difficult and expensive.

To conclude; it appears that all you want is a state that enforces property rights.

If you read what I wrote above, you couldn't fairly still hold this view. I am advocating a society based on voluntary interactions. In the area of property right protection, as in food production, clothes making and computer programming, we each benefit greatly from social cooperation. Specialized firms would assist individuals in protecting their property rights. Those companies, however, enjoy no monopoly, legal privilege or ability to tax. They have to "play nice", or else find themselves sued and arrested like ordinary criminals.

[Phred]

The society will have institutions and mechanisms to force the minority to accept the principles of the majority.

And this is different from government... how, exactly? You can call them "dispute regulation agencies" or "town councils" till the cows come home, but if they enforce their rulings through the application of force, they are de facto government organs. A bear in a frilly skirt is not a ballerina, it is a bear. If your "dispute regulation agency" can imprison someone it has deemed to be a rapist, then it is no different from a court in a stable democracy. It is - in fact - a court. A government. Not metaphorically, not "in a manner of speaking" but in actuality, by any reasonable definition. The problem is, it is just one court of many, each with different ideas of what is punishable, and what punishment is appropriate. I have no difficulty envisioning situations where the defendant acts in a manner which would be overlooked by one such "DRA" as being acceptable behavior, while a neighboring DRA judges it to be a heinous crime. Although I could provide a list of dozens (or even hundreds with a few days thought) of such behaviors, let's go alphabetically and leave the audience to ponder just one: abortion.

Anarcho-Capitalists from at least the time of Murray Rothbard have been stumbling over this rut in the road because it cannot be surmounted. If there is a single overarching body of law which all may consult at any time in order to know in advance which behaviors are punished, and a single overarching justice system available to all in which those accused of behaving counter to this framework are dealt with consistently, what possible benefit is there to having multiple DRAs administering it? Answer - none whatsoever.

The only time the concept of multiple DRAs makes any sense is if there is not one overarching legal framework, but a multiplicity of conflicting ones, in which case the key question the AnCaps dodge is (and always has been) - whose DRA ruling trumps whose? The plaintiff's? The defendant's?


Phred

[Eran]

And this is different from government... how, exactly?

Mainly because those institutions and mechanisms will not involve (1) a forced monopoly, or (2) legitimised violation of people's property rights.

If your "dispute regulation agency" can imprison someone it has deemed to be a rapist, then it is no different from a court in a stable democracy.

Teachers in public schools teach students. Does that mean that a private school is really a public school because in it teachers also teach students?

An arbitration court fills a similar service to that of a court in a stable democracy. But it is as different from it as the rapist is different from a lover. I don't have a problem with using force - I am not a pacifist. But I believe that force should only be used to protect or restore property rights (justly acquired).

It is possible to envision a society in which the use of force is indeed limited to the protection and restoration of property rights (justly acquired), but that restriction is inconsistent with government, whose very definition includes, at the very least, using force to stop competing organizations.

It is - in fact - a court. A government. Not metaphorically, not "in a manner of speaking" but in actuality, by any reasonable definition.

No. A reasonable definition of government includes its monopoly status. A court need not have such a status, hence it isn't government.

The problem is, it is just one court of many, each with different ideas of what is punishable, and what punishment is appropriate

It's not a bug, it's a feature. Courts wouldn't have "different ideas of what is punishable". There is only one kind of action which is punishable - violation of another person's property rights. Period. As to what punishment is appropriate, there will be variations, just as there are variations today, from state to state, from one judge to another, and from one year to another (as new legislation continues to change the rules of the game).

I have no difficulty envisioning situations where the plaintiff/defendant acts in a manner which would be overlooked by one such "DRA" as being acceptable behavior, while a neighboring DRA judges it to be a heinous crime.

I do. If we accept the principle above (only property right violations are crimes), what do you have in mind?

Anarcho-Capitalists from at least the time of Murray Rothbard have been stumbling over this rut in the road because it cannot be surmounted.

As opposed to Randians or minarchists who have made great progress??

If there is a single overarching body of law which all may consult at any time in order to know in advance which behaviors are punished, and a single overarching justice system available to all in which those accused of behaving counter to this framework are dealt with consistently, what possible benefit is there to having multiple DRAs administering it?

Several benefits. I am surprised you even ask.

For the purpose of this discussion, I'd like to divide right-protection functions into two (greatly simplifying)
1 - Courts used to decide who is right in case of dispute
2 - Organisations able to physically implement court decisions.

At both levels, having competition is very healthy.

Courts all share an overarching view on the broad principles of justice - namely the preservation and restoration of property rights (justly acquired). Here start and end their commonalities. Courts may differ:
1. In specialization (not unlike today), with some courts specialising in commercial disputes, others with violent crimes, etc.
2. In procedure. Some courts may choose to use juries. Others won't. Different courts may have different evidence rules, and so on.
3. In service quality. Some courts may operate faster than others. Some courts may gain better reputation for fairness, objectivity or reasoning.
4. In cost.
5. In identity. If you have a dispute with one court company, you'd like a different one to hear your grievance. That ability is greatly harmed when all courts available to you are merely different organs of the same overarching organization

Decision enforcement organisations will similarly differ in specialisation, procedure, service quality, cost and identity.

[Phred]

Mainly because those institutions and mechanisms will not involve (1) a forced monopoly...

From the point of view of those enmeshed in the machinations of the mechanism doling out the punishment, this is scant comfort. It is a distinction without a difference if - as you insist - these multiple institutions and mechanisms all operate under the same overarching legal code. The fact that the same punishment is decreed by a single court rather than by several competing courts is a matter of no import to either the plaintiff or the defendant.

The advantage of a forced monopoly is that there is a single overarching framework. With competing DRAs, there is no such guarantee. Quite the reverse. Since the DRAs need to make a profit in order to continue to operate, they will naturally tend to compete with one another through differentiation, each targeting different market segments.

... or (2) legitimised violation of people's property rights.

As opposed to a violation of someone's property rights by a DRA supported by (in your words) a majority of "society"? Please name whose property rights were being violated in, say, New York State in 1800 when a rapist was imprisoned? The fact that it is a Minarchist-authorized court doling out the punishment doesn't necessarily mean anyone's property rights are being violated more than they would be by a "majority of society" -authorized DRA. There is nothing inherently rights-violating about either court.

Does that mean that a private school is really a public school because in it teachers also teach students?

The operative concept here is "school". The two can have identical curricula, and identical qualities of staff.

It is possible to envision a society in which the use of force is indeed limited to the protection and restoration of property rights (justly acquired), but that restriction is inconsistent with government, whose very definition includes, at the very least, using force to stop competing organizations.

Again, this is no difference from one DRA reaching a different verdict from another. How does one of them prevent the other one from enforcing the (wrong, in the view of its competitor) verdict if not by using force? I can't help but note your evasion of my abortion example.

A reasonable definition of government includes its monopoly status. A court need not have such a status, hence it isn't government.

See my argument above. This is mere semantic quibbling designed to evade the core concept under discussion. What matters in this context is not whether or not some neighboring court exists, but what powers any court possesses.

Courts wouldn't have "different ideas of what is punishable".

So the AnCaps keep claiming, with exactly zero justification. Again, see "abortion".

There is only one kind of action which is punishable - violation of another person's property rights. Period.

Again - abortion.

As to what punishment is appropriate, there will be variations, just as there are variations today, from state to state, from one judge to another, and from one year to another (as new legislation continues to change the rules of the game).

Who writes the legislation, if not government? If you want to play word games re the de facto "governmentness" of an AnCap court with the power to do everything to malefactors that existing Stable Democracy courts can do, then I can do the same and point out that "legislation" is a false concept in the absence of a government body charged with writing it.

If we accept the principle above (only property right violations are crimes), what do you have in mind?

As I suggested, let's do this alphabetically. Start with abortion.

As opposed to Randians or minarchists who have made great progress?

Indeed. The Founding Fathers (Minarchists, all) did quite well. Tough to improve on their work.

2. In procedure. Some courts may choose to use juries. Others won't. Different courts may have different evidence rules, and so on.

What if I as an indigent accused rapist am brought before a DRA court which doesn't use juries and has next to no restrictions on the admissibility of evidence? Am I allowed to have my case moved to a DRA of my choosing which uses the unanimous jury decision paradigm and very restrictive rules of evidence (mandatory Miranda warnings, no hearsay allowed, no mention of my past criminal record allowed, etc.). If not, why not? If so, how do my wishes trump those of my accuser, who would of course prefer a court with the exact opposite procedures?

3. In service quality. Some courts may operate faster than others. Some courts may gain better reputation for fairness, objectivity or reasoning.

Reputation with whom? With the accusers or with the defendants? Whose preferences trump whose in this case, and why?

4. In cost.

Cost to whom?

In identity. If you have a dispute with one court company, you'd like a different one to hear your grievance.

Of course you would. Hence my repeated question in this and the several other past threads which you have repeatedly evaded - which DRA ultimately rules on such conflicts (and more importantly, has the authority to direct people to enforce that ruling)? Would such an uber-DRA not be the conceptual equivalent of a supreme court in a Minarchy? Of course it would, regardless of what you chose to call it. Despite all this talk of choice and responsiveness and competition being better than monopoly, you can't get around the fact that ultimately there must be one such court where the buck stops. A monopoly.


Phred

[Eran]

I started answering each of your sentences, and realised I am repeating myself. Let me try to make my case coherently.

Our discussion seems to confuse two functions currently at the hands of the state - dispute resolution and legislation.

Courts are supposed to engage in the former, but not the latter. The function of determining who is right in light of existing law is the classic court function. That function can be performed more or less well along a number of parameters, including wisdom, clarity, efficiency and objectivity.

In that function, I would argue that competitive non-monopolistic system has the same advantage that it has in all other areas of life. Competition promotes efficiency. And unlike a monopolistic arrangement, a multi-polar system always allows an objective third party to preside over any dispute.

Enforcement of court orders, btw, is subject to the same range of considerations. Competition breeds efficiency and reduces abuse (because, unlike government forces, competitive enforcement agencies enjoy no legal privilege).


You seem very concerned about the question of a uniform overarching legal framework. Let's explore that question (and I will get to Abortion, I promise). First, let's acknowledge that our world functions perfectly well with a complex web of partially-overlapping but varying legal frameworks. Different countries as well as different states have different legal codes, and those keep changing. Questions of jurisdiction arise and are peacefully resolved all the time. If governments (where decision-makers do not bear the cost of violence) can resolve those questions peacefully, all the more so private companies in which the cost of violence cannot be externalized.

Government jurisdiction is typically geographical, but sometimes personal. Historically, for example, the jurisdictional line between the King's Court and the Ecclesiastical Court depended on the identity of the accused, rather on where the crime took place. Similarly, several countries (including Israel) has multiple courts dealing with family issues, with the religion of the family determining the court to hold jurisdiction. In Israel, as a matter of fact, both Rabbinical and Civil courts hold jurisdiction over family matters for Jews, with jurisdiction awarded to the court in which action is first lodged.

Mechanisms for adjudicating jurisdictional questions would have to evolve in a multi-polar society as well. Factors determining jurisdiction may include geography (with priority for the court system designated by the landlord) or personal (e.g. using the court system agreeable to the insurance company representing the accused). Please note that jurisdiction is less easy to abuse in such a society. While competing courts will tend to defer to the court of original jurisdiction (as they do today), such deference would be limited. Basic principles would have to be respected by any court, and deviations would be subject to correction through appeal, just as they are today.


Finally, let's talk about Abortion. Abortion will probably remain a controversial question within society in the foreseeable future. While it seems to me that hard-core libertarians are converging on Walter Block's analysis of abortion-as-eviction, the process is far from over. Let's assume then that an ancap society is still split over the question. So what? Our society is also split. Different states used to have completely different rules, as different countries have today. And the world isn't collapsing. Abortion is a political question, with exact rules changing with the political winds. How is that a better system? In your ideal government system, it is presumably the majority opinion that will determine "the law". Why is that a particularly good solution?


My concern with a government, even a limited one, arises from the American experience. That experience clearly shows how a government designed to be very limited has, over time, far exceeded its original mandate. The self-interest of politicians will always create a bias in favour of greater rather than lesser scope for government action.

Beyond the inherent injustice of prohibiting a competing organisation from doing exactly what you do (which government qua government would have to engage in), such monopoly is problematic along very pragmatic lines. It is problematic for precisely the same reason that it is problematic in food production, education, health-care provision and every other area of life. A monopolist need not worry about customer satisfaction. There is no pressure to become more efficient, lower prices, reduce waiting times, or treat people nicely. Your income as assured either way. With judges, the problem is particularly great. To avoid complete political capture, judges have to be somewhat immune to the pressure of elected officials. That independence is critical when government officials are themselves on trial. It is problematic because it diminishes even the weak feed-back mechanism of democracies in improving government services due to voter pressure.

[SpaciousBox]

Well, I had written a reply to this, but then the internet eat it. So I'll only add a few comments for now and re-join the discussion once I have more free time again closer to the weekend. Sorry for my absence from this topic over the last day or two, work commitments etc.

I generally believe we have reached a point in the discussion, where we are debating two issues:
1. What actually constitutes and defines a state?
And
2. Is market failure possible?

For the purpose of this discussion, I'd like to divide right-protection functions into two (greatly simplifying)
1 - Courts used to decide who is right in case of dispute
2 - Organisations able to physically implement court decisions.

Eran, much of your response to me was related to issues of legality. This confused me, as it is impossible to both have the rule of law, and not creates a state. Allow me to expand:

Government is a method of ruling. It can be central government affecting everyone, or it could be a school teacher. In both cases, there are a group of people laying down rules to which you have no choice but to follow. You yourself have told me you believe in government – as you have accepted that law should be binding to all within the vicinity of that law. For this reason, it appears your issue is not with the rule of government, but rather your ability to escape it. On this account however, you must accept that you are in fact not against the state, but rather against the present state. What is the difference between a government of a country, and a government of a town? Assuming independence, they make the same decisions, rule in exactly the same manner, and carry exactly the same level of involuntary cooperation. The difference is that you could move towns. Well, I would argue that you could move countries. Someone else might argue you could just move counties (if that happened to be the level to which we were decentralising). What is important here is you accept that you do not in fact believe in voluntary cooperation, as you are quite happy to impose law, and especially the law of property rights! Instead, we are simply discussing the level to which devolution should happen. I might say it should be country wide, with more power to local councils. Someone else might want to make it county wide, with each county becoming their own mini-state. Some communists feel we should have a global regime. However far you go, one thing is important; you still accept the role and principles of the state, just dispute its geographical boundaries of power.

[Eran]

I'll start by addressing your last comment about law, government and state, and then say a few words about market failure.

Government
Clearly, part of our communication difficulties is purely semantic. I use one definition of "state" or "government", you use another. Semantic arguments are usually a waste. To avoid it, let me propose the following definitions:
1. Political Government is the group controlling the Political State
2. Political State is an organization with a monopoly over the use of force in a given geographical area. Typically (though not as a matter of definition), a Political State funds its activities through taxation.

In previous post, I refer to Political Government as simply "government", and Political State as simply "state".

You prefer to refer to people or organizations who set out and then enforce rules of behaviour are "government", whether they are political, commercial or otherwise. Fair enough.

In that case, I will restate my position as one of categorical opposition to Political Government and State (as defined above), with mixed position with respect to government broadly defined.

I believe that property rights (justly acquired) form both the legitimate and the pragmatic basis for "government". Each person or organization can legitimately set rules of behaviour to apply on his (justly acquired) property.

To make things clear, I will use the following definition
3. Property Rights are those actions that a person or a group may legitimately do with respect to a specific physical resource (including one's own body, chattel and real-estate) without interference from others. Further, a person may use (proportional) force to both secure those rights and obtain restitution upon their violation. Property Rights may only be acquired using four processes:
a. Every person has Property Rights in his own body (unless lost following the commitment of a crime)
b. Every person has Property Rights over resources for which the previous Property Right owner transferred to him title. (In other words, over property that was voluntarily transferred to him)
c. Every person has Property Rights in previously-unowned resources which he homesteads, subject to respect of pre-existing use patterns.
d. A person may acquire Property Rights as restitution for prior violation of his Property Rights.


Political Governments, as a matter of historic fact, never secure Property Rights (as defined above) over their entire territory. I only support government in the sense of people and groups exercising their Property Rights.



There are two important classes of differences between Political Government and government through Property Rights:
1. On the ethical level, Property Rights are never acquired through the initiation of force against another person, or his ongoing projects. If you go over a-d above, you should be easily able to persuade yourself of that. Political Government, by contrast, routinely initiates force and/or interferes with people's ongoing projects. In fact, virtually everything government does falls into this category.

2. On the pragmatic level, Political Government tends to rule over a wide geographic area, making the choice of leaving one Political Government for another relatively expensive. This is a relative, quantitative difference. Some Political Governments rule over relatively small areas (e.g. municipal governments), while for some organizations, moving jurisdictions is relatively easy.

As a matter of practice, however, Property Rights tend to cover much smaller areas than Political Government.

To summarise, for the reasons above, I advocate a system in which the only form government is Private Property, and in which no Political Government exists.


Market Failure
Market Failure can only be defined as markets operating in a manner which is not as good as an alternative manner. To define Market Failure we have to adopt some metric for what constitutes better or worse operation. "Efficiency" is a common metric, though others (e.g. "Equality") could also be adopted.

Clearly, the choice of metric is a subjective matter.

Regardless of metric, however, the concept of Market Failure is of only academic interest if the alternative being considered is not within the realm of possibility. Nobody, for example, thinks food markets fail merely because we don't have perfectly healthy food - perfectly healthy food is not possible.

In practice, the term Market Failure is usually used to designate situations in which the speaker believes government intervention in the operation of the market can improve their operation. Typically, the speaker then contrasts the operation of actual markets (with varying degrees of existing government intervention) with the theoretical improvement possible with optimal government intervention.

It is true that market operations along many dimensions could be theoretically improved by government intervention. The problem, as analysed in detail by Austrian Economics and Public Choice Theory, is that optimal government intervention is not possible. For example, Pigovian taxes could, in theory, mitigate the problem of externalities. In practice, however, such taxes would make things worse if set at a level which is too high. Further, determining the correct level of such taxes is impossible both theoretically, due to knowledge problem, and practically, due to the type of incentives and pressures faced by political actors.

More broadly, Government Failure - the failure of government actors to behave optimally - is at least as severe (typically much more severe) a problem as Market Failure.

[Someone5]

I disagree. As I see it, collectivism sees the interests of the group as being independent of, and superior to, the interests of the group's members.

I would characterize the collectivist view as holding that the interests of the group are related to, but distinct from the interests of the group's members. Or perhaps one might say that the interests of the group are independent of the interests of the individual memberships, but despite this it is still distinctly meaningful.

I don't know many collectivists who say outright that the needs of the group supersede the interests of its individual membership. Rather, the needs of the group are equally as important as the needs of its individual members.

We were all rightly horrified at the idea that, after 9/11, Muslims would be prosecuted merely for being Muslims. Yet the very same collectivist mindset is everywhere in the minds of both statists and left-anarchists.

Collectivists do not dismiss the importance of individual goals; they merely point out that group goals are also important. Your commentary on treating foreign groups as a group, rather than individuals, is really just a consequence of unfamiliarity and informational limitations. When someone who doesn't personally know people involved talks about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, they really don't have much information on the individuals on which to comment. It's not surprising that group identification becomes more important in a situation where nothing is known about individual preferences.

People can only build opinions on information they actually have, and if they only thing they know about people is that they're Muslim and have a problem with Israel, those two facts will color that person's opinion. I'm not sure why you would expect them to analyze it from the perspective of the individuals when the person forming the opinion knows nothing about the individuals.

[Eran]

I don't know many collectivists who say outright that the needs of the group supersede the interests of its individual membership. Rather, the needs of the group are equally as important as the needs of its individual members.

Fair enough.

When someone who doesn't personally know people involved talks about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, they really don't have much information on the individuals on which to comment.

I think you are confusing stereotypes with group-think. By "stereotype" I mean opinions we have on people merely by virtue of their belonging to a group. Stereotypes can be justified ("African Americans are dark-skinned") or unjustified ("African Americans are ignorant"). Stereotypes fulfil in important role when information about individuals is unknown. When I walk down a dark street, and see a group of people approaching, I will understandably feel differently depending on whether the group is made of noisy teenagers vs. construction workers. The former tend towards violence more than the latter. I might have done them injustice individually, but under the circumstances, I have to go with the information at my disposal.

Group-think, on the other hand, applies ethical considerations at the group level. For example, a statement such as "white owe blacks reparations for the crime of slavery" does that. It groups all whites together, and makes a normative statement that applies to all group members based on actions of only some group members.

In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a stereotype would be to associated Palestinians with terrorism (partially justified). Group-think would be to claim that Palestinian refugees deserve to have lost their homes because "they started the 1948 war".


I don't have a problem with (justified) stereotypes. I have a big problem with group-think, typical of collectivists.



I'd like to ask people who view themselves as collectivists to give examples of when they view valuable group interests that are distinct from the interests of group members.