[SolarCross]

As a follow up of the thread Libertarian Monarchism I thought I would publish a brief outline of what a libertarian monarchy might look like.

"That government is best which governs least"

The libertarian monarchy will be like the hub of a great wheel, it is doing its job best by being a frictionless centre for all about to move, holding yet never binding. The government will do absolutely nothing unless it must as a matter of expedience.

Economics - Austrian all the way. Needless to say no tax, no duties, no regulation, no border control, no bureaucracy. State expenditures will be met out of the profits of state enterprises, and solicited donations to a commonwealth fund. If this proves inadequate some simple fees may be imposed on land ownership.

Law - Polycentric law as envisioned by David Friedman will be allowed. Supplementary to that the state will maintain a crown court, in the common law fashion, to act as a court of last resort.

Money - no legal tender, money shall be as people make it, competing currencies. Though the state may administer its own currency, a crypto-currency like bitcoin probably, but will force no one to accept it.

Religion - A true monarch is not any more separate from the divine than he is from the people. Thus he should be moral and spiritual after the people's fashion. If the people have a largely homogenous spiritual practice then this is easy. Where diverse practices occur the monarch shall be of all practices, a perennialist. A difficult juggling act to be sure but useful, even necessary, to encourage social harmony.

Welfare - The people are encouraged to make their own welfare: families, mutual aid societies, insurance, charities. Only where there is failures to meet some needs will the state step in but even then utilising exhortation rather than extortion to see it remedied.

Military / Arms - the libertarian monarch's main job is guarantor of the peace thus the maintenance of a professional, modern armed forces is practically his main responsibility. Militias will be allowed, as will personal ownership of weapons as far as no trouble comes of it. The expectation will be that all armed agents are loyal to the crown and a friend to the people. Where armed agents show disloyalty and enmity to the people they will be disarmed and defeated.

Roads, utilities, infrastructure - all shall be funded and created privately by the people, with the state only stepping in where absolutely necessary. Main thorough fares may be maintained as a King's Highway through state funds.

Eminent domain - allodial title is presumed for all landowners but the state may in dire need exercise eminent domain for security or development purposes, for all loss incurred to the owners full compensation to the market value plus an additional compensation for the inconvenience will be awarded out of state funds.

[anticlimacus]

This is really nothing but a fetishization of a state apparatus designed solely for the purposes of the "human" rights of property holders, and to be able to use all means in order to do so. It's as if you are saying, "pretend that those without capital actually had no influence whatsoever on the shape of government within capitalism..."

[Eran]

Economics - Austrian all the way. Needless to say no tax, no duties, no regulation, no border control, no bureaucracy. State expenditures will be met out of the profits of state enterprises, and solicited donations to a commonwealth fund. If this proves inadequate some simple fees may be imposed on land ownership.

What do you mean by "state enterprises"? Are those effectively private companies owned by the state (i.e. competing with no special privileges with other market participants)?

Law - Polycentric law as envisioned by David Friedman will be allowed. Supplementary to that the state will maintain a crown court, in the common law fashion, to act as a court of last resort.

Could people be compelled to have their disputes heard in the crown court, or would its status as "court of last resort" be by voluntary social acceptance? If it is the latter, could other "supreme" courts emerge to compete with that of the crown?

Only where there is failures to meet some needs will the state step in but even then utilising exhortation rather than extortion to see it remedied.

I assume these exhortations will be funded through voluntary contributions too?



Overall, you seem to be describing something between a state-like actor enjoying prestige and credibility (perfectly sensible and legitimate) and a micro-state (i.e. sub-minarchy) which is not (though obviously better than any larger states).

This is an opportunity to bring up an idea I once had for an "ultra-minimal" state. The ultra-minimal state would comprise of nothing but a supreme court, somewhat like your crown court. The constitution will stipulate that the judgement of that court are the supreme law of the land. Enforcement would still be private. Taxation won't be an issue, as the cost of running a court are minuscule.

Fighting amongst various private forces will be no more likely than fighting between the many different public forces currently operating in the US. There are thousands of different forces in the US, from local police departments through state police, national guard, various federal agencies not to mention numerous different units of the armed forces proper. The only reason they don't fight each other is that the US constitution clearly specifies means for peaceful resolution of any disputes.

As long as the constitution (lower-case 'c', i.e. actual rather than written constitution) of the society in question similarly calls for peaceful dispute resolution, the institutional affiliation of those forces is inconsequential.

This is really nothing but a fetishization of a state apparatus designed solely for the purposes of the "human" rights of property holders, and to be able to use all means in order to do so.

We are all property holders. The most important property anybody owns is himself. Protecting that self-ownership from the predation of public officials would greatly improve the lot of poorer members of society.

It's as if you are saying, "pretend that those without capital actually had no influence whatsoever on the shape of government within capitalism..."

No, it's as if you are saying "create a society in which powerful members, whether by wealth or political influence, cannot rob, directly or indirectly, weaker members"

In other words, there is a huge difference between a system whereby government possesses the power to oppress, and that power is taken over by the wealthy, and one in which such power doesn't exist, and therefore isn't subject to a potential take-over by anybody.

[anticlimacus]

We are all property holders. The most important property anybody owns is himself. Protecting that self-ownership from the predation of public officials would greatly improve the lot of poorer members of society.

Protecting self-ownership...except in the workplace, where you might spend half or more than half of your life, where you must submit to the authority of your supervisors and owners so that they can profit off of your labor.

[SolarCross]

What do you mean by "state enterprises"? Are those effectively private companies owned by the state (i.e. competing with no special privileges with other market participants)?

Yes, just this. No legal privileges or monopoly powers. However in so far as they carry with them the prestige of the monarchy and are believed to be provisioning for the common good they may indeed have in some sense a desired special privilege in the minds of many if not all people, though in essence this amounts to "brand loyalty" rather than anything coercive.

Could people be compelled to have their disputes heard in the crown court, or would its status as "court of last resort" be by voluntary social acceptance? If it is the latter, could other "supreme" courts emerge to compete with that of the crown?

The latter. Yes they could but depending on the loyalty of the people to the crown such rival courts may struggle to obtain the credibility needed to really compete. Would you see that as unfair?

I assume these exhortations will be funded through voluntary contributions too?

Most likely. By exhortation I mean the monarch going on TV or similar public platform and bringing attention to the deficit and asking people to do something about it, (not unlike how a churchman might do).

Overall, you seem to be describing something between a state-like actor enjoying prestige and credibility (perfectly sensible and legitimate) and a micro-state (i.e. sub-minarchy) which is not (though obviously better than any larger states).

Yes. What I am describing is not a "traditional" monarchy but a libertarian one. The attractive aspect to a libertarian monarchy is that actually it is not a very great modification of actual "traditional" monarchies which makes it rather plausible for such a thing to exist unlike a pure libertarian anarchy which for many will seem to be at best a utopian impossiblity or at worst a practical dystopia. It also solves the main objections people might have to a libertarian anarchy: no sense of community, insecurity, lack of international diplomatic presence. This I think could make it an easier "sell" at least to people who have some positive associations for monarchy which is actually quite a lot of people and rather more than a republican minded amercian would like to acknowledge.

This is an opportunity to bring up an idea I once had for an "ultra-minimal" state. The ultra-minimal state would comprise of nothing but a supreme court, somewhat like your crown court. The constitution will stipulate that the judgement of that court are the supreme law of the land. Enforcement would still be private. Taxation won't be an issue, as the cost of running a court are minuscule.

Sure that sounds functional but see it lacks romance.. People like romance, they like heros, they like belonging to a communal identity.. monarchy can give them that and at no more cost than your supreme court.

Fighting amongst various private forces will be no more likely than fighting between the many different public forces currently operating in the US. There are thousands of different forces in the US, from local police departments through state police, national guard, various federal agencies not to mention numerous different units of the armed forces proper. The only reason they don't fight each other is that the US constitution clearly specifies means for peaceful resolution of any disputes.

The public security agencies you mention whilst all being distinct and in some respects independent from each other still all carry with them the notion of allegience with each other, the political establishment and the people they "serve". Purely anarchistic, essentially mercenary, agencies would not have that almost by definition. There are historical precedents to widespread use of mercenaries.. the Condottieri of the Italian City States of the Renaissance period for example.. It was not unknown for very successful mercenary captains to be assassinated by their own employers when they had no further use for them lest their skills be hired by a rival for use against them. Condotteri did in fact change sides for higher sums. They did fight each other because that was what they were hired to do but tended to conspire to make bloodless mock fights that ended in a draw, so both sides could live to claim their pay. Their performance against the Royal Armies of France and Spain was often exceedingly poor. The business of war is really not very like the business of selling cakes.

[Eran]

Protecting self-ownership...except in the workplace, where you might spend half or more than half of your life, where you must submit to the authority of your supervisors and owners so that they can profit off of your labor.

Oh, you mean the workplace where you might spend half or more than half of your life, collaborating with other people including your employer so that you can profit from their entrepreneurship, capital, existing relations and know-how, organisational skills and everything else they bring to the table.

Unless you are self-sufficient (and necessarily very poor), you must work in collaboration with others to produce goods and services for society to consume. Any such collaboration, even as buyer/seller and more intensely as co-producer, imposes constraints on your a-priori freedom of action. The physical reality in which we live imposes such constraints even if you are a Robinson Crusoe, completely autonomous and on your own. If you grow wheat, you have to wake up and engage in a variety of tasks at specific points in time during the year/day. You are not perfectly free.

When you work for a syndicate, you might have a vote, but having voted, you are still subject to the rules decided by your fellow workers and yourself. You are subject to the collective authority of those with whom you work. When you get married, you accept the constraints associated with the marriage institution. When you join a church you might accept the authority of your faith, whether mediated through church officials or not.

What makes all these situations voluntary and distinguishes them from slavery is the critical fact that you chose to subject yourself to those constraints because you deemed the benefits from such subjugation to outweigh the costs. Further, you are generally at liberty to quit and/or change your affiliation.

Precisely the same holds for your employment relations. Mutually-beneficial and undertaken voluntarily because the benefits exceed the costs.

It also solves the main objections people might have to a libertarian anarchy: no sense of community, insecurity, lack of international diplomatic presence. This I think could make it an easier "sell" at least to people who have some positive associations for monarchy which is actually quite a lot of people and rather more than a republican minded amercian would like to acknowledge.

Ok, I think, based on your other answers, you are describing a perfectly legitimate form of society. The power and value of the institution of monarchy critically depends on its social acceptance, itself the result of a long history of broadly popular monarchy. Thus it is only possible for a few fortunate nations like those belonging to the Commonwealth and some other countries like north-European monarchies or perhaps Thailand and Japan.

It is not a model that can easily be implanted on traditional republics like US, France or Germany, Russia or China.

However, over time, we may well see multiple non-territorial nations develop and co-exist, many of which may have a charismatic and/or historically-privileged head figure performing many of the royal functions you envision.

[anticlimacus]

Oh, you mean the workplace where you might spend half or more than half of your life, collaborating with other people including your employer so that you can profit from their entrepreneurship, capital, existing relations and know-how, organisational skills and everything else they bring to the table.

Unless you are self-sufficient (and necessarily very poor), you must work in collaboration with others to produce goods and services for society to consume. Any such collaboration, even as buyer/seller and more intensely as co-producer, imposes constraints on your a-priori freedom of action. The physical reality in which we live imposes such constraints even if you are a Robinson Crusoe, completely autonomous and on your own. If you grow wheat, you have to wake up and engage in a variety of tasks at specific points in time during the year/day. You are not perfectly free.

When you work for a syndicate, you might have a vote, but having voted, you are still subject to the rules decided by your fellow workers and yourself. You are subject to the collective authority of those with whom you work. When you get married, you accept the constraints associated with the marriage institution. When you join a church you might accept the authority of your faith, whether mediated through church officials or not.

What makes all these situations voluntary and distinguishes them from slavery is the critical fact that you chose to subject yourself to those constraints because you deemed the benefits from such subjugation to outweigh the costs. Further, you are generally at liberty to quit and/or change your affiliation.

Precisely the same holds for your employment relations. Mutually-beneficial and undertaken voluntarily because the benefits exceed the costs.

See this is, again, getting at one of the basic points in the various discussions I have been having with you and Tax: there is no sense of history or context in this newfangled NAP society. We live in a world of vast inequality which has been institutionally defended and expanded by the most powerful in society. For some reason you and Tax seem to think the NAP by itself will put an end to this, bring us to ground zero and allow everybody an equal opportunity to share in the worlds wealth by their own private initiative.

In contrast, the very idea of syndicates has developed by actual working class people so that they could have more control over their working lives, as opposed to being told what to do, how to do it, and becoming just another means towards producing a profit for somebody else. It's the repulsion to the very real and documented experience of being a mere appendage to the machine, a mere capital cost to producing profits, that the idea has developed in history by the actual working class. Syndicalism and other forms of social unease within modern capitalism, has developed out of the experience that their wage-work has not been mutually beneficial, but, in fact, antagonistic to their very existence as human beings. It is telling that the modern history of grass roots social revolutions has not been a story of instituting more robust forms of free-market, capitalist societies. Rather they have, more often than not, been revolutions geared towards social solidarity and social control over the means of production--a sense of equality and shared wealth. Capitalist societies, in contrast, have come to be dominant as instituted from above, both by the state and the most economically powerful.

[Eran]

See this is, again, getting at one of the basic points in the various discussions I have been having with you and Tax: there is no sense of history or context in this newfangled NAP society. We live in a world of vast inequality which has been institutionally defended and expanded by the most powerful in society. For some reason you and Tax seem to think the NAP by itself will put an end to this, bring us to ground zero and allow everybody an equal opportunity to share in the worlds wealth by their own private initiative.

I spend very little time discussing the transition to an NAP-based legal system from our current predicament. Most of my writing addresses the structure and nature of the ultimate society, and is thus properly free of historic context.

As you may remember, I don't view the NAP as religiously protecting existing property titles. Many of those are demonstrably unjust. A good example would be title to large tracts of land which have feudal arrangements in their historic origins. Many others are largely unjust, though not as clearly so. Those would include the wealth of crony-capitalists such as bankers and those working in subsidised, protected or outright government-owned industries.

The question of how to make the transition is a difficult one. Fortunately, since wealth continues to be created all the time, the "cost" of making a mistake as part of the transition process will diminish, in relative terms, over time.

In contrast, the very idea of syndicates has developed by actual working class people so that they could have more control over their working lives, as opposed to being told what to do, how to do it, and becoming just another means towards producing a profit for somebody else. It's the repulsion to the very real and documented experience of being a mere appendage to the machine, a mere capital cost to producing profits, that the idea has developed in history by the actual working class.

That's fair. The NAP will protect working class people from the wide array of tools used by crony capitalists and their government collaborators to limit their ability to work independently, to compete and to collaborate with others. As I keep saying, syndicates per se are not contrary to the NAP, and capitalists, under an NAP-based legal system could do little to block workers who prefer working for such syndicates.

[anticlimacus]

That's fair. The NAP will protect working class people from the wide array of tools used by crony capitalists and their government collaborators to limit their ability to work independently, to compete and to collaborate with others. As I keep saying, syndicates per se are not contrary to the NAP, and capitalists, under an NAP-based legal system could do little to block workers who prefer working for such syndicates.

But the very thing that syndicalists and other working class movements are contrary too--private control over capital by a small group--is protected by the NAP, which is precisely the problem and the reason it would never got off the ground as a grass roots movement, at least as far as I can tell. In fact, it is the very reason no popular, working class movement has ever been based on the idea of protection of private property rights as equivalent to the protection of persons. Equal opportunity, more sharing of economic wealth, control over production--these have been the aims of most social movements, born out the experience not only of vast inequality, but of lack of control over their lives.

[lucky]

Ok, I think, based on your other answers, you are describing a perfectly legitimate form of society.

Eran-approved. So we're done here.

[Eran]

But the very thing that syndicalists and other working class movements are contrary too--private control over capital by a small group--is protected by the NAP, which is precisely the problem and the reason it would never got off the ground as a grass roots movement, at least as far as I can tell. In fact, it is the very reason no popular, working class movement has ever been based on the idea of protection of private property rights as equivalent to the protection of persons. Equal opportunity, more sharing of economic wealth, control over production--these have been the aims of most social movements, born out the experience not only of vast inequality, but of lack of control over their lives.

Let's imagine you had your revolution, and the workers have confiscated all productive capital from the hands of their exploiters. From that point on, where exactly do you see the need for society to institutionalised violations of the NAP?

[anticlimacus]

I don't think institutionalizing something as abstract as the NAP, which is fundamentally a principle designed to protect property rights, should ever be the goal of an anarchist revolution.

One of the main differences that I have noticed between you and me is that where you find a need to begin by institutionalizing this general principle, the NAP, in order to create a just society, I, in contrast, find that an anarchist society, a libertarian socialist society, develops out of the conditions of working persons, the poor, and communities coming together in solidarity both to overcome domination and to share in their produced wealth (and I take "wealth" in an all-encompassing sense, not just economic) so as to create a society where all can determine themselves without being unjustly coerced by others. This does need the institutionalization of an abstract principle--this needs actual real concrete solidarity, a common orientation towards the well-being of all, that is concretely put into practice addressing real concrete grievances.

To me, it seems you want to begin with the need to protect private property with the NAP, and that is telling. You envision a society where the main concern is protection of person and property, which also means that you envision a society where person and property are threatened and therefore greatly unequal. It seems to me that the NAP, although a moral principle, has the tendency towards legalism and a legal institution, and the force to back it up. I view anarchism as much more organic than you do and that it does not begin with the idea that people need protection, particularly of their property. The idea of anarchism is that nobody wants to be controlled, whether by a state or a wealthy person, both of whom can limit one's conditions of existence, and therefore create all forms of need, want, and misery. Such a society develops not by turning to an abstract principle, but by the dominated coming together and combating situations--whatever they may be--that cause oppression and domination.

[Eran]

Historically, a great many social experiments started with the kind of rhetoric I hear from you - liberating the masses from their oppressors, providing prosperity, local autonomy, social solidarity, etc.
Without exception, these experiments ended up with failure, either total (communist countries) or partial (social democracies) and re-emergence of ruling elites, whether characterised by wealth or by political power.

A common denominator to all abusive regimes is the exception claimed by ruling elites (directly or through government collaborators) from the basic rule of inter-personal conduct we all learned in pre-school, namely, don't start fights and don't take what's not yours.

As soon as you allow some people to violate this rule with perceived legitimacy, that power will result in abuse. Depending on the specific constitution, people with wealth, demagogues, or physical strength and cunning will converge on the prize. Democracy helps, but doesn't solve the problem. The issue with democracy is that ordinary working people can, in practice, only pay limited attention to questions of governance. That means that the detailed decisions of government have to be made by a small elite group. Democratic oversight fails because a small group which benefits from a decision can easily outspend (not necessarily money, but also lobbying efforts, political capital, etc.) a broadly-disinterested majority.

Coalitions form, horses are traded, unpopular minorities are oppressed, logs are rolled and cronyism (again, not necessarily relating to property) emerges. Majoritarianism is virtually as oppressive and dangerous as a dictatorship.

Your model of localised vs. centralised control certainly helps, but doesn't solve the problem. Local oppression can still take place and, without strong principles protecting individuals and even small communities, their interests can easily be ignored or outright crushed.


I view the NAP, not as the be-all principle defining society, but rather as a critical shield to protect individuals from abuses by others. What form society will take under an NAP is completely open and depends on both the physical and technological circumstances and the values, sentiments and culture within society.

this needs actual real concrete solidarity, a common orientation towards the well-being of all, that is concretely put into practice addressing real concrete grievances.

Your model society depends for its flourishing on strong shared sentiments relating to mutual aid and sharing of both power and physical resources. These sentiments will dominate the nature of society even in the presence of NAP as a supporting principle. People will still share and cooperate, work together and help each other.

Your inability to answer my simple question (where is the need, in the context of your society, of institutionalising violations of NAP) is telling. You are right that we approach the question of an ideal society from different directions. However, on the issue of NAP, I believe we can converge. You might not think of it as the goal because you have far more urgent agenda, namely empowering workers. But even if it isn't the goal, I think you should accept it as a valuable supporting principle. Compare to the US Bill of Rights. When first proposed, it was opposed by many who believed it to be unnecessary. After all, the Federal government was both shackled with complex power balancing mechanisms and Constitutionally limited to a handful of enumerated powers. Over the life of the US, some of the protections offered in the Bill of Rights have proved essential against government abuses. Regrettably, both the separation of powers and the enumerated powers doctrine have withered away, but that's a different story.

To me, it seems you want to begin with the need to protect private property with the NAP, and that is telling. You envision a society where the main concern is protection of person and property, which also means that you envision a society where person and property are threatened and therefore greatly unequal.

You are reading meanings in the NAP which aren't there. Especially if you focus on my formulation in which the word "property" doesn't even appear. My formulation refers to initiation of force against peaceful projects. Which projects people will choose to engage in and, most importantly, whether they choose to engage in such projects as individuals or communally, depends on local circumstances and culture. If very few people desire to initiate projects as individuals, private property need never emerge at all, NAP notwithstanding.

The NAP's primary purpose isn't to protect the person and property of the ruling elite but rather to protect the person and property of the masses from abuses by the ruling elite. Historically, such abuses have been very common. It is thus peculiar that you associate the need for such protection with inequality.

NAP is violated when a legitimately-wealthy person is taxed, but it is also violated when farmers are prohibiting from freely exporting their goods, when occupational licensing prohibits working people from starting a business, when the drug war is used as an excuse to raid poor neighbourhoods, and when taxes extracted from ordinary people are used to bail-out banks.

The idea of anarchism is that nobody wants to be controlled, whether by a state or a wealthy person, both of whom can limit one's conditions of existence, and therefore create all forms of need, want, and misery. Such a society develops not by turning to an abstract principle, but by the dominated coming together and combating situations--whatever they may be--that cause oppression and domination.

Fine words. But the guardians of the dominated and oppressed have, time and time again, themselves became oppressors. A political majority is just as easily capable of being oppressive as a central government.


I will end by repeating my question. Understanding that you don't view the NAP as a central principle, by rejecting it altogether you must have in mind instances in which its violation will be called for, right? What are some such instances, in your mind?

[anticlimacus]

Your model society depends for its flourishing on strong shared sentiments relating to mutual aid and sharing of both power and physical resources. These sentiments will dominate the nature of society even in the presence of NAP as a supporting principle. People will still share and cooperate, work together and help each other.

Your inability to answer my simple question (where is the need, in the context of your society, of institutionalising violations of NAP) is telling. You are right that we approach the question of an ideal society from different directions. However, on the issue of NAP, I believe we can converge. You might not think of it as the goal because you have far more urgent agenda, namely empowering workers. But even if it isn't the goal, I think you should accept it as a valuable supporting principle. Compare to the US Bill of Rights. When first proposed, it was opposed by many who believed it to be unnecessary. After all, the Federal government was both shackled with complex power balancing mechanisms and Constitutionally limited to a handful of enumerated powers. Over the life of the US, some of the protections offered in the Bill of Rights have proved essential against government abuses. Regrettably, both the separation of powers and the enumerated powers doctrine have withered away, but that's a different story.

The NAP conditions freedom on how private property is distributed:

The central core of the libertarian creed, then, is to establish the absolute right to private property of every man: first, in his own body, and second, in the previously unused natural resources which he first transforms by his labor.

With the absolute right of private property established and the inability for one to make decisions about another's private property, those with the most private property end up having the most guaranteed freedom in society. As a result, in theory a socialist society could develop if capitalist and worker, rich and poor alike both agreed to share everything communally. But that is naive, and why we must look at things historically, not through the lens of an ideal situation in which we all come together as equals and decide what kind of world we want. Those who control capital will not willingly give it up, but will assert their absolute property rights over and against the rest of society. This is simply a top-down model, which I libertarian socialism rejects. Again, I reject the private ownership of property just as I reject the state: both are forms of hierarchical, top-down control and domination.

You are reading meanings in the NAP which aren't there. Especially if you focus on my formulation in which the word "property" doesn't even appear. My formulation refers to initiation of force against peaceful projects. Which projects people will choose to engage in and, most importantly, whether they choose to engage in such projects as individuals or communally, depends on local circumstances and culture. If very few people desire to initiate projects as individuals, private property need never emerge at all, NAP notwithstanding.

This is how I understand the NAP:

The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the "nonaggression axiom." "Aggression" is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion.

As I have mentioned before, your definition is vague and simply begs the question: What constitutes a "peaceful project"? Once you spell that out, what you really mean is exactly what Rothbard states above. So why not just use that definition?

I will end by repeating my question. Understanding that you don't view the NAP as a central principle, by rejecting it altogether you must have in mind instances in which its violation will be called for, right? What are some such instances, in your mind?

And as I have stated many times, absolute right to private property, just like the state, would be abolished. Capital would be socially controlled, through a federated system of communities within which syndicates thrive.

[SolarCross]

Anticlimacus - Please do you have to turn every thread into an argument over property? 99.9999% of the world accepts the concept of private property as a natural fact. I appreaciate that while your ideas are highly unusual that does not automatically make them wrong but its just inconsiderate to spam them on every single thread. Try not to be so selfish.

[anticlimacus]

Well, Tax...when you stop posting shit like libertarian Monarchist manifesto which basically boils down to laissez-faire capitalism with a monarch then we won't have to talk about property and who controls what (and therefore who actually benefits from monarchical power). The problem is that you completely and utterly avoid context, and so to you owning a pencil is the same thing as owning a major transnational bank. From that perspective, I can totally see that there is no point in talking about ownership when such glaring discrepancies and their social impact cannot even be distinguished.

[Eran]

With the absolute right of private property established and the inability for one to make decisions about another's private property, those with the most private property end up having the most guaranteed freedom in society.

You are missing a critical element in this logical chain, namely how people may come to own private property. Rothbard, in the quote you provided, makes that clear. He recognises property in one's own body (and each of us has exactly one body - perfect equality) and in previously-unused natural resources.

If a natural resource is unused, that must be because it has no value for most people. This is obviously the case, for if a natural resource does have a value for you, and you can use it freely, you would. So the rule states that a natural resource becomes the property of the first person to find it valuable. Such a rule doesn't deprive anybody else in society of anything they find of value. It does, however, give an incentive for risk-taking entrepreneurs to invest and risk their savings, time, effort to bring more natural resources into productive economic use.

What you cannot do is consider the implications of the NAP's property-rights protection while drawing your understanding of property distribution from a society in which the NAP isn't respected - in which governments can arbitrarily assign property to preferred individuals and groups and the expense of less politically-powerful people.


We live in a very large world. It is virtually impossible for any one person or small group (absent the use of aggressive force) to monopolise natural resources over a large scale. That has never happened and never will. Thus while some people may have much more wealth than others, no one person (or small, coordinated group) will amass so much wealth as to allow them to control the lives of others. Only government force can do that.

Finally, "freedom" or "liberty" are nice slogans for libertarians but, in my humble opinion, are poor concepts on which to base one's political ideology. This is because, like other terms such as "fairness", "coercion" and "exploitation" they are ill-defined.

As a result, in theory a socialist society could develop if capitalist and worker, rich and poor alike both agreed to share everything communally. But that is naive, and why we must look at things historically, not through the lens of an ideal situation in which we all come together as equals and decide what kind of world we want.

Using exactly this logic, a racist living, say, 150 years ago, could argue:
"As a result, in theory a colour-neutral society could develop if white and black alike both agreed to work together. But that is naive, and why we must look at things historically, not through the lens of an ideal situation in which we all come together as equals and decide what kind of world we want"

And historically, as of that time, deep animosity, resentment, suspicion and fear dominated the relations between the races.

In fact, I am not suggesting a naive understanding of human society, nor do I expect its members to have abnormal levels of generosity, communal spirit or altruism. I expect people to be morally similar to the way they are today, with only one difference, namely the substitution of the NAP for constitutional democracy as the dominant political constitution. Having made that assumption, we can logically examine how people are likely to behave.

Take your capitalist. We can stipulate that he is motivated by maximising his personal wealth, subject to the normal societal pressures to conform with cultural norms. To maximise his profits, he must efficiently produce products that consumers are willing to pay for. To do so, he must make attractive employment offers to competent employees who have the freedom to choose any of his competitors or go into business on their own. These two factors greatly constrain the range of options open to our capitalist. He cannot "exploit" workers by offering them "unfair" working conditions for fear of losing them to his better-behaved competitors. He cannot "exploit" his customers by offering shoddy products at high prices for fear of losing them to his better-behaved competitors. Thus competition keeps capitalists in line with respect to how they interact with both their workers and customers.

Whether production will be organised in capitalist fashion is itself an open question. A capitalist has nothing without a willing workforce. One doesn't need a revolution to give power to workers - under the NAP, being full self-owners, they already possess a huge amount of power, both as workers and as consumers. If consumers decide they prefer Facebook to Myspace or iOS to Windows-for-phones, nothing those wealthy capitalists can do can stop them. They will get their way. Similarly, if workers decide they prefer working for each other in syndicates over working as employees for capitalists, there is nothing those capitalists can do (consistent with the NAP) to stop them!

As I have mentioned before, your definition is vague and simply begs the question: What constitutes a "peaceful project"? Once you spell that out, what you really mean is exactly what Rothbard states above. So why not just use that definition?

What constitutes a "peaceful project" will depend on circumstances. I would anticipate local communities to develop their own standards (as they have done for centuries) with national or international standards gradually emerging through a comparable mechanism to the emergence of the Common Law or Merchant Law in Europe.

And no, what I mean isn't the same as Rothbard's definition. The most obvious difference is that Rothbard makes no reference in that quote to use-rights, i.e. the right to use a natural resource on a non-exclusive basis. Such use can be part of a peaceful project, and thus inviolate under my formulation, while not being recognised under Rothbard's. Elsewhere, Rothbard does make reference to such rights (or "easements"), but only as a side-effect.

Thus members of a community fishing in a lake can organise to decide on quotas that help prevent over-fishing. Such quotas aren't property rights per se, but may be perfectly consistent with the NAP.

Similarly, every person requires, as part of virtually any project they may want to pursue, reasonable freedom to travel away from their home. That requirement makes the prospect of abusive encirclement (one person buying all the land around my house and then extorting me to get out) impossible.

The focus on property rights in Rothbard's formulation reflects, in my opinion, a pro-property-right bias that some right-libertarians exhibit.

And as I have stated many times, absolute right to private property, just like the state, would be abolished. Capital would be socially controlled, through a federated system of communities within which syndicates thrive.

In other words, if I take my personal property (which you don't oppose to) and start making peaceful and productive use of it (i.e. use it as means of production) I run the risk that "your people" would come and initiate force to confiscate it from me?