Anarchy

[themuzicman]

Huh? What state of nature is that? I've never seen it.

That's because you live in a cultured and governed society.

The closest we have to what you are describing are the hunter-gatherer groups of the earliest humans (you know, the one where altruism and monogamy evolved).

That's your assumption. Given what people who fall out of cultural controls are capable of (see gang activity), I have my doubts as to whether these things would develop "naturally".

At least the effects of bad men are dampened by the masses, whereas a single bad person getting into power in your statist scenario can do ungodly amounts of terrible things.

It is a trade-off, but without culture and government the bad men rule.

Wrong. Humans are hard-wired for social interaction. What you think would be a reality is only possible in a nature-less blob of person. Thankfully, that doesn't describe reality.

I didn't say people wouldn't have social interaction. However, without culture and government those interactions would tend to go bad quickly.

I don't want our culture or society.

Go join a gang, then.

No we don't. We assume that people will act in their best interests.

Which is laughable. We live in the most educated, most sophisticated culture in the history of the world, and we're still taken in by sales people and marketing campaigns.

You obviously have no idea what libertarianism is.

I know exactly what it is. You think that people will make rational choices about what is best for them in the long term, if left to choose for themselves, and thus you advocate leaving people to succeed or fail for themselves. Unfortunately, your premise is false.

Michael

[Philosophickle]

That's because you live in a cultured and governed society.

Have you read Hobbes, Michael? His brutish state of nature is literally impossible to return to because his vision of what a person is was radically false, not to mention completely empirically unverified. Yet statists like you and other liberals refuse to give up an old tired argument and just insist that it's true. For example...

That's your assumption. Given what people who fall out of cultural controls are capable of (see gang activity), I have my doubts as to whether these things would develop "naturally".

Lawl. Gangs are the result of non-govts? You mean these kids have never been subject to terrible public schooling, mistreatment by the law and have never paid taxes? I suppose Al Capone was like "wow, there really is no govt. in the US, I think I'll make beer."

It is a trade-off, but without culture and government the bad men rule.

? And with govt? Pol Pot? Stalin? Mugabe? Ahmadinejad? All non-govt. anarchists?

I didn't say people wouldn't have social interaction. However, without culture and government those interactions would tend to go bad quickly.

What's your evidence for that? Why would people act any different?

Go join a gang, then.

I'm running for office next year.

Which is laughable. We live in the most educated, most sophisticated culture in the history of the world, and we're still taken in by sales people and marketing campaigns.

Because our govt. undertakes a sort of mass price-fixing by reducing the impact of bad decisions. Because of you nanny-staters, people don't understand personal responsibility.

I know exactly what it is. You think that people will make rational choices about what is best for them in the long term, if left to choose for themselves, and thus you advocate leaving people to succeed or fail for themselves. Unfortunately, your premise is false.

My premise doesn't have to be true. Not initially. No one is completely rational. But people act out of their best interest. Over time, people (rational or not) tend to act in a way that benefits themselves, and very quickly we would learn what it is to be a real person making real decisions again.

[themuzicman]

Have you read Hobbes, Michael? His brutish state of nature is literally impossible to return to because his vision of what a person is was radically false, not to mention completely empirically unverified. Yet statists like you and other liberals refuse to give up an old tired argument and just insist that it's true.

libertarianism is empirically unverified, as well. But that doesn't stop you.

Lawl. Gangs are the result of non-govts? You mean these kids have never been subject to terrible public schooling, mistreatment by the law and have never paid taxes? I suppose Al Capone was like "wow, there really is no govt. in the US, I think I'll make beer."

Gangs, not Organized Crime. Sheesh.

You know the ones that sell drugs and shoot people for being on their "turf"?

? And with govt? Pol Pot? Stalin? Mugabe? Ahmadinejad? All non-govt. anarchists?

And George Washington, Lincoln, Margret Thatcher, Winston Churchill, etc.

At least there is potential for good.

What's your evidence for that? Why would people act any different?

Evidence: inner city gangs. Lawless bands of males owning turf and killing whomever they want.

People would act differently for three reasons:

1) No legal recourse for violent actions
2) Social reinforcement of violent actions
3) Fear of death or violence being committed against us

Because our govt. undertakes a sort of mass price-fixing by reducing the impact of bad decisions. Because of you nanny-staters, people don't understand personal responsibility.

You obviously don't know where I stand on anything.

My premise doesn't have to be true.

Not initially. No one is completely rational. But people act out of their best interest.Over time, people (rational or not) tend to act in a way that benefits themselves, and very quickly we would learn what it is to be a real person making real decisions again.

Again, this is laughable. One only needs look at the current housing crisis and US history of employment to see that this is simply untrue.

Michael

[Challenger Grim]

libertarianism is empirically unverified, as well. But that doesn't stop you.



Gangs, not Organized Crime. Sheesh.

You know the ones that sell drugs and shoot people for being on their "turf"?



And George Washington, Lincoln, Margret Thatcher, Winston Churchill, etc.

At least there is potential for good.



Evidence: inner city gangs. Lawless bands of males owning turf and killing whomever they want.

People would act differently for three reasons:

1) No legal recourse for violent actions
2) Social reinforcement of violent actions
3) Fear of death or violence being committed against us



You obviously don't know where I stand on anything.







Again, this is laughable. One only needs look at the current housing crisis and US history of employment to see that this is simply untrue.

Michael

Hey now everyone, let's not fight over how we agree.

Philosophickle, you should at least be able to admit that there is a potential for things to go wrong as seen in some lawless african nations.

However, the muzicman, you should be able to admit that there's some merit to Philosophickle point in that we've obviously built civilization from anarchy scratch (unless you believe, somehow, that civilization sprang into being fully formed like Athena from Zeus' head)

I think we can all agree that too much of the state is a bad thing, especially when it becomes intrusive.

[themuzicman]

Yes, people emerged from a "state of nature" and evolved governments. That's why I cited Thomas Hobbes.

And I do agree that limited government is necessary. Government can't fix man's shortcomings. But it can limit the ability of those who gain power through political or financial means to manipulate and enslave others.

Michael

[Philosophickle]

libertarianism is empirically unverified, as well. But that doesn't stop you.

That's because my view is based on natural rights. Statists are the ones who need to justify their utilitarian views on empirically verified grounds, not me.

Gangs, not Organized Crime. Sheesh.

You know the ones that sell drugs and shoot people for being on their "turf"?

Ah yes, because the govts prohibition on drugs has nothing to do with the funding of gang violence.

And George Washington, Lincoln, Margret Thatcher, Winston Churchill, etc.

At least there is potential for good.

I'll give you Washington, and you keep the others. But what do you mean "there is potential for good"? So what? Are you saying good people aren't possible in the private sector? I have no idea what your point is. Unless you can somehow prove that goodness only exists within govt, then this is really silly.

Evidence: inner city gangs. Lawless bands of males owning turf and killing whomever they want.

Rebuttal: Washington DC politicians. Lawless bands of males owning turf and killing whomever they want. I know perfectly well what inner city life is like, and I'd take these lawless males over the vipers in office any day, even if I cede your point (which is wrong) that libertarianism would somehow lead to mass gang violence and rape and terror.

People would act differently for three reasons:

1) No legal recourse for violent actions
2) Social reinforcement of violent actions
3) Fear of death or violence being committed against us

The private sector would quickly compensate for any of the govts supposed necessary functions. Libertarianism is compatible with a minimal public court system, even though I pass on those too.

Again, this is laughable. One only needs look at the current housing crisis and US history of employment to see that this is simply untrue.

What are you claiming? That libertarians think that, somehow, people would stop making bad decisions if there wasn't a nanny anymore? Are you claiming that the govt. has nothing to do with the housing crisis and unemployment? Either this is horribly off course, or you really don't understand any even in the history of the United States.

[themuzicman]

That's because my view is based on natural rights. Statists are the ones who need to justify their utilitarian views on empirically verified grounds, not me.

So you claim. On waht basis do you somehow arrive at what 'natural rights' are?

Ah yes, because the govts prohibition on drugs has nothing to do with the funding of gang violence.

So you acknowledge that gangs are an example of what happens in an anarchist and extreme libertarian setting. Great.

I'll give you Washington, and you keep the others. But what do you mean "there is potential for good"? So what? Are you saying good people aren't possible in the private sector?

No, both are possible. The original point was that without a governmental and cultural structure, bad men rule. You pointed out example of where this happens in a governmental setting. The point is that a governmental setting at least allows for good men to create settings where good can happen through organizing a governmental force.

I have no idea what your point is. Unless you can somehow prove that goodness only exists within govt, then this is really silly.

My point is that without the force of government, those most willing to commit violence and use force would rule.

Rebuttal: Washington DC politicians. Lawless bands of males owning turf and killing whomever they want.

Really? Why haven't you reported them for murder?

I know perfectly well what inner city life is like, and I'd take these lawless males over the vipers in office any day, even if I cede your point (which is wrong) that libertarianism would somehow lead to mass gang violence and rape and terror.

Really? You'd prefer your daughters be repeatedly raped, and your life ultimately ended over a misunderstanding about something your neighbor did. Sure. Right.

The private sector would quickly compensate for any of the govts supposed necessary functions. Libertarianism is compatible with a minimal public court system, even though I pass on those too.

The private sector cannot exist without a government enforcing laws and contracts. There may be some who provide minimal services, but as we've seen historically in settings where there is little control on business owners, most of the rest end up being essentially slaves.

What are you claiming? That libertarians think that, somehow, people would stop making bad decisions if there wasn't a nanny anymore? Are you claiming that the govt. has nothing to do with the housing crisis and unemployment? Either this is horribly off course, or you really don't understand any even in the history of the United States.

I understand history perfectly. We were not formed as a libertarian nation. The federal government was designed to have far less influence in the state's business than it does today, but these changes have come as a result of many states' failure to do the right thing (especially regarding slavery.)

We don't need a nanny, but we do need a judge who enforces laws, including those about how employees may be treated, and enforces contracts between companies. You need to study the history of the private sector in the US and how we came to have many of the protections employees have today. It is very eye opening and is the best argument against libertarianism.

Michael

[Challenger Grim]

So you claim. On waht basis do you somehow arrive at what 'natural rights' are?



So you acknowledge that gangs are an example of what happens in an anarchist and extreme libertarian setting. Great.



No, both are possible. The original point was that without a governmental and cultural structure, bad men rule. You pointed out example of where this happens in a governmental setting. The point is that a governmental setting at least allows for good men to create settings where good can happen through organizing a governmental force.



My point is that without the force of government, those most willing to commit violence and use force would rule.



Really? Why haven't you reported them for murder?



Really? You'd prefer your daughters be repeatedly raped, and your life ultimately ended over a misunderstanding about something your neighbor did. Sure. Right.



The private sector cannot exist without a government enforcing laws and contracts. There may be some who provide minimal services, but as we've seen historically in settings where there is little control on business owners, most of the rest end up being essentially slaves.



I understand history perfectly. We were not formed as a libertarian nation. The federal government was designed to have far less influence in the state's business than it does today, but these changes have come as a result of many states' failure to do the right thing (especially regarding slavery.)

We don't need a nanny, but we do need a judge who enforces laws, including those about how employees may be treated, and enforces contracts between companies. You need to study the history of the private sector in the US and how we came to have many of the protections employees have today. It is very eye opening and is the best argument against libertarianism.

Michael

It would be nice if we could compromise and go back to a stronger style of federalism. That way, if you want to live in a much more libertarian state, you can go move there, but if you want to live in a stronger statist society, there's a place to go move to as well.

However...

The federal government was designed to have far less influence in the state's business than it does today, but these changes have come as a result of many states' failure to do the right thing (especially regarding slavery.)

I'd ask, wasn't the point of American freedom the freedom to be... well "not nice"?

I mean, I'll agree that slavery should have been stomped out (it violates the libertarian cornerstone I talked about earlier) but I'm always concerned about the idea of "well what isn't 'the right thing' for states"?

Simple example: What if the federal government decides that states aren't doing the right thing in giving their citizens universal health care?

[themuzicman]

It would be nice if we could compromise and go back to a stronger style of federalism. That way, if you want to live in a much more libertarian state, you can go move there, but if you want to live in a stronger statist society, there's a place to go move to as well.

Nah.. I'm more pragmatic than that.

I'd ask, wasn't the point of American freedom the freedom to be... well "not nice"?

Equal before the law with preservation of rights and "for the general welfare."

I mean, I'll agree that slavery should have been stomped out (it violates the libertarian cornerstone I talked about earlier) but I'm always concerned about the idea of "well what isn't 'the right thing' for states"?

State rights were a cornerstone of the US Constitution as laid out in the Bill of Rights (9th amendment, if memory serves.) However, the 14th put an end to many of those rights.

Simple example: What if the federal government decides that states aren't doing the right thing in giving their citizens universal health care?

Well, it isn't just the federal government that has to act. The states (3/4s of them) have to be involved in altering the constitution.

And I'm not saying that the solution to slavery was the right one. It has had many unintended consequences.

Michael

[joel]

I know exactly what it is. You think that people will make rational choices about what is best for them in the long term, if left to choose for themselves, and thus you advocate leaving people to succeed or fail for themselves. Unfortunately, your premise is false.
Michael

This would be an argument against democracy/republic. If people cannot be allowed to run their own lives--"choose for themselves"--then neither can they be trusted to vote (for laws or representatives, for it is not reasonable for wards to elect their own guardians).

But really, who says you know better than they?

(On a side note, I think 'Phil's premise could be adjusted a bit. The only 'assumption' the study of economics requires is that people will do what they prefer. No need to assume people will act 'rationally'.)

libertarianism is empirically unverified

One could say that no (pure) political philosophy has been empirically verified. On the other hand, we do see that liberty works, looking at the spectrum of historical "experiments". Both theoretically and empirically, a movement in the direction of liberty and protection of rights is an improvement.

One only needs look at the current housing crisis and US history of employment to see that this is simply untrue.

The housing crisis would not have happened without government intervention (notably, subsidizing of credit risk and inflating the money supply.) Also, unemployment and other negative effects on workers historically have been predominately caused by government intervention.

The original point was that without a governmental and cultural structure, bad men rule. You pointed out example of where this happens in a governmental setting. The point is that a governmental setting at least allows for good men to create settings where good can happen through organizing a governmental force.

Good and bad can be done both within and separate from a State.

My point is that without the force of government, those most willing to commit violence and use force would rule.

With the force of government, those most willing to use force would be drawn to political office.

The private sector cannot exist without a government enforcing laws and contracts.

How do you reach that conclusion? What if free people voluntarily organized to enforce contracts? Again, the anarcho-capitalists do not advocate a lack of enforcement of contracts and defense against violence, theft, fraud, etc. Again you are arguing against a straw-man.

[themuzicman]

This would be an argument against democracy/republic. If people cannot be allowed to run their own lives--"choose for themselves"--then neither can they be trusted to vote (for laws or representatives, for it is not reasonable for wards to elect their own guardians).

This is a mischaracterization of what I said. But typical of Joel.

But really, who says you know better than they?

Straw man assumptions.

(On a side note, I think 'Phil's premise could be adjusted a bit. The only 'assumption' the study of economics requires is that people will do what they prefer. No need to assume people will act 'rationally'.)

And many would prefer to kill you as resolve the issues between you. And in a state of anarchy, that's what would happen.

One could say that no (pure) political philosophy has been empirically verified. On the other hand, we do see that liberty works, looking at the spectrum of historical "experiments". Both theoretically and empirically, a movement in the direction of liberty and protection of rights is an improvement.

Ah, but that's not libertarianism. Liberty works as long as a culture embraces the right set of values and morals and continues to adhere to them in subsequent generations.

Since libertarianism ignores cultures and cultural mores, it doesn't work.

The housing crisis would not have happened without government intervention (notably, subsidizing of credit risk and inflating the money supply.) Also, unemployment and other negative effects on workers historically have been predominately caused by government intervention.

Again, Joel completely misses the point.

Tell me, Joel, did the government force these bad mortgages on these people?

Good and bad can be done both within and separate from a State.

Again, Joel misses the point.

With the force of government, those most willing to use force would be drawn to political office.

Ah, but governments can be designed to limit that political power, as it has in the US.

There are no limits in anarchy.

How do you reach that conclusion? What if free people voluntarily organized to enforce contracts? Again, the anarcho-capitalists do not advocate a lack of enforcement of contracts and defense against violence, theft, fraud, etc. Again you are arguing against a straw-man.

This is why libertarianism will never go anywhere... People voluntarily submit to a group so that contracts they don't want to abide by will be forcibly enforced upon them?

Michael

[Challenger Grim]

themuzicman, it does seem like you're confusing libertarianism and anarchy in your replies there. While they may be brothers, they are not the same thing.

And if you want to confuse the point more, look up cracked's "5 inspiring acts of kindness by terrifying crime syndicates" (sorry, can't link).

[themuzicman]

Anarchists and libertarians make many of the same incorrect assumptions about human nature. Libertarians are a bit more realistic in understanding the need for contract enforcement and military defense for economic growth, but both fail to look at the history of industrialized employment and see that workers are easily forced into conditions where they are forced to choose between feeding their family and avoiding slavery.

Michael

[joel]

And many would prefer to kill you as resolve the issues between you. And in a state of anarchy, that's what would happen.

True, that's why we would still want to organize to defend individual rights.

Since libertarianism ignores cultures and cultural mores, it doesn't work.

This is like saying that because the pure science of physics does not address culture and morality, it doesn't work.

Again, Joel completely misses the point.

Tell me, Joel, did the government force these bad mortgages on these people?

No, you miss the point. If credit risk is subsidized, then it is literally impossible for actors in the market to simply act as the would have otherwise. For one thing, it would be impossible to determine what the pricing of risk (or interest rates) would have been otherwise. For another, in most cases the original option that a person would have chosen is no longer an option at all. Thus the market distortion and bubble was unavoidable, given the government's intervention.

Again, Joel misses the point.

How so?

Ah, but governments can be designed to limit that political power, as it has in the US.

There are no limits in anarchy.

Every design to limit government has tended to be overstepped. Through history people have posited necessary conditions for legitimate government authority, and over time they have tended to be misconstrued as sufficient conditions.

The divine authority of kings was originally intended to limit the power of kings--a necessary condition. Later it was coopted as a sufficient condition.

Consent of the governed was originally intended to limit the authority of government (as a necessary condition). Today it is often taken as a sufficient condition, thus granting the government saction to do whatever it wants, because it's a republic.

Likewise for the concept of "rights," which people distort.
And over the U.S. history, we have been systematically tearing down the limits established by the Constitution, employing less and less strict interpretations over time.

This is why libertarianism will never go anywhere... People voluntarily submit to a group so that contracts they don't want to abide by will be forcibly enforced upon them?

First, you misunderstand. I am libertarian, but I do not hold to anarcho-capitalism. I was simply explaining what their position is, trying to correct your misunderstanding of their position.

Secondly, if you don't want to abide by a contract, then you don't have to enter it. Contacts should be void if they aren't entered voluntarily. When entering a contract, both parties have an interest in the contract being enforced. If either thought the other would be likely to breach without restitution, they wouldn't enter into the contract. Private escrow companies are a great example of what you think is so ridiculous here.

[joel]

Anarchists and libertarians make many of the same incorrect assumptions about human nature.

Such as?

Libertarians are a bit more realistic in understanding the need for contract enforcement and military defense for economic growth

So do the anarcho-capitalists.

, but both fail to look at the history of industrialized employment and see that workers are easily forced into conditions where they are forced to choose between feeding their family and avoiding slavery.

Oh, we're back to this discussion that you always seem to abandon once we get going? Competition among employers prevents wages (in the broad sense, including all 'conditions') from being below the marginal revenue due to labor. Employers cannot "easily" subject workers to less than that. So what, are you complaining that employers do not pay more than the marginal revenue--that they aren't giving gifts to their employees beyond their productivity? Labor legislation tends to either have no effect or harms workers.