Surely you don’t claim to know my motive by that statement, and surely you understand a difference between a consequence and a motive. I think a state could be built that would not be aggressive in any sense. Were that to turn out to be true, one would have to say that it redeems the idea of the state, or should do so, in the eyes of those who, like you, have continually accused it of being only capable of aggression in the long term.
Where’s my intention in that statement? My intention is to create a free society without aggression.
As I said, and as you ignored, if I were convinced we didn’t need some minimal form of societal cooperation then I wouldn’t advocate for one.
Not sure how I missed that, I’ll look it up.
It depends on the particular non-state replacement being advocated. As an example, the idea that those who breach contracts will be ignored and thereby punished, the ostracism method, strikes as particularly laughable. It relies on a small, insular community with whom cooperation is far more useful than would be betrayal, thus on incentive to remain honest.
In a large society, where one could meet a hundred new strangers for the rest of the days of your life, I see no incentive to not cheat, because that person can simply walk away to cheat another day.
It also seems to me that such a solution creates incentive for a particular kind of what you might call honesty-arbitrage. The incentive would be to build up as much faith as possible, such as say a banker. In the ostracism method, the owner of a bank could simply wait until everyone trusts him, then walk away with a couple billion in reserves, that one act making him wildly rich to the point where anyone’s ostracism means nothing to him–he doesn’t intend to conduct business anymore. Ignore him all you want.
Only a court of last resort, with the ability to force a wealth transfer out of his private accounts back to the wronged parties can provide justice in that situation.
But, iirc, I’ve said all this to you before. So.
You keep saying that, but not explaining why in principled terms. I counter that the NAP provides ways that coercion can be used ethically, so it remains theoretically possible for a state to not aggress. Which seems to invalidate your per se argument. Yet you’ve never followed up on this thread that I know of.
That’s fine, really doesn’t bother me. You may yet find some argument I consider compelling enough to abandon my idea.
It’s questions like this that make it hard to take you seriously. If your point is that nations are simply groups of people, just make the point and let’s skip the asking for a definition stage.
Yeah, those are examples of ‘societies,’ they often use this term explicitly in fact. They are also entitled to defend themselves as a group, say, were the chess club attacked by the football team.
They are, but that didn’t suddenly make tyranny possible. Tech suddenly does make autarchy possible.
If you could refute my NAP-argument for an ethical role for governemnt you would’ve done it by now :\ I’ve yet to see it. IIRC, your typical feint has been that all governments must eventually coerce. However, my parry is to talk about locus of control and the abandonment of the socialist-ethic of majority rule which is innately aggressive, and without which a society may not in fact be innately aggressive or tend towards aggression at all, but the reverse.
I did not disagree: “electing representatives with more or less power to negotiate on their behalf.”
Is there a need for this snide response? Let me rephrase what I said: could you please point out just where the term “minarchism” includes the term “anarch”? Because I see no more “anarch” in “minarchism” than I see “I” in “team”.
I see no reason to even bring up the notion of redeeming the state unless that was at least part of your motive. You’re more than welcome to (try to) refute this.
Hence, you think the state can be redeemed. Furthermore, since you clearly want to build a state that would not be aggressive in any sense, it follows logically that you want to redeem the state. QED.
All that aside, I see that you’re repeating the strawman argument that I and others have continually accused the state of being only capable of aggression in the long term. I don’t believe for a second that I or anyone else has said that. What I’ve said is that the state must employ aggression, and that it must do so systematically, and that it must do so by definition. None of those statements asserts or implies that the state is only capable of aggression. Do you understand? Please do not put words in my mouth.
And as I noted above, that intention is equivalent to the intention to redeem the state.
Where did I ignore that? Please point it out for me and everyone else.
Now it seems that you’re equating “the state” with “societal cooperation”. Is that accurate? If so, do you really think that the state is the be-all-end-all of social cooperation? What about all market phenomena? Apparently that’s not social cooperation in your book, which puts you at complete odds with Austrian-school economists as well as libertarians. I’m really at a loss to comprehend how you can believe that, without the state, no one would ever cooperate with anyone else.
You say that this is an example, yet it’s clear to me that you base your entire argument against anarcho-capitalism/voluntarism per se on this one, single example. That’s highly disingenuous, if not full-on dishonest.
So why don’t most people cheat? Do you really think it’s only ever because people are afraid of being arrested, imprisoned, etc.? That notion strikes me as particularly laughable.
The banker would be clearly committing theft by walking out with all those reserves. I’d consider his (former?) depositors to be well within their rights to forcibly reclaim their deposits.
Why must there be “a court of last resort”, i.e. a single one? Just because law is (more or less) the same over an area doesn’t mean there must be a single court to resolve disputes using that law.
Yes, which means either I’m failing to communicate to you the shortcomings of your arguments, or you have ulterior motives here. I’m starting to lean toward the latter, and I have an idea of what the ulterior motive could be: gaining supporters - especially financial supporters - for your pet projects.
Okay, what are you using as your definition for “coercion”? Is it the same as mine, namely “the use or threat of physical force”? I feel like I’ve asked you this before, but I could be wrong.
Anyway, if you’re using the same definition as me for “coercion”, then surely you agree that not all coercion is necessarily aggressive, because not all use or threat of physical force is aggressive. With this in mind, I’d like you to explain to me just how aggressive coercion - that is, aggressive use or threat of physical force - can be ethical under the non-aggression principle. Thanks in advance.
Perhaps, but I’m not holding my breath, because right now I have doubts about your honesty.
Hey, I can play that game too. It’s responses like this that make it hard to take you seriously, because apparently you refuse to think about the question I asked. It wasn’t really rhetorical. It was partly to point out that people (like you, apparently) use words without imputing any definite meaning to them, but nevertheless acting as though they’re objective categories about the world. The other part of my point was that nations are arbitrary. That is, the have no separate objective existence. Technically, a nation is a group of people sharing a common ancestry, but where do you draw the line there? Again, it’s arbitrary. There is no objectively proper line to draw.
So then you must allow for the existence of multiple overlapping “societies”. Furthermore, you must allow for the same people to be members of such multiple overlapping “societies”. So which of these “societies” is the “real” or “true” one? Or would you say they all are?
I don’t see how. Your assertion here seems to belie your implicit reference to an arbitrary collection of land, people, etc. labelled by the term “the United States of America”. I ask you to stop using that context, as I’m not using it.
I think I have done it. You’re either not getting it or you’re ignoring it. At this point, my money’s on the latter.
The aggressive nature of the state has nothing necessarily to do with majority rule. Do you agree with that or not? If not, why not?
Your single - and therefore monopolistic - court of last resort will either use aggression to suppress, if not eliminate, competitors within its claimed territorial jurisdiction, which will make it a de facto state in my book, or it will allow competitors, at which point it ceases to be a single court of last resort. Do you see a middle way in there? I sure don’t.
It sure looks to me like you did disagree. Plena potestas doesn’t mean “more or less power”. It means “full power”. Do you see the difference?
I brought it up because you’re so keen to demonize the state out of hand, not because of any motive to ‘save’ it on my own part. If indeed some minimal state mechanism is necessary to the function of a free society, then your unreasoned demonization of it is counterproductive to the creation of such a society.
If it were possible to build a non-aggressive state, there would be no points to accuse it on. That is all I suggest.
Yes, fine, you’re right I’ve continually made that error and only recently did you make that clear to me and I should not have repeated that thought again here.
However, there’s a very fine line between “must eventually employ aggression” and “only capable”, which is to say that the state must eventually become an aggressor should it last long enough. So, for thousands of years, apparently, the state could be a non-aggressor, yet you would maintain that it must eventually aggress, and therefore is unqualifiably evil and to be done away with.
So, the question is, under what circumstances must the state eventually aggress, according to you? And what necessitates systematic aggression? And please elaborate on this by definition aspect.
It seems to me that I have been attacking you 'by definition’ label of the state as aggressor, since I’ve been able to define an autarchic state incapable of aggression. One that would be systematically unable to aggress, and that need not aggress eventually.
I may however be wrong and so I will listen readily to your answer. Finally we get to a point I wanted you to speak to months ago when we first started talking.
Of course not. I’ve repeatedly referred to the NAP and an autarchic state as using responsive coercion, in terms of civil and criminal courts and of national defense–all coercion related aspects of governance.
In an ideal society the government would allow a maximization of societal cooperation without getting in the way.
Hah, yet you don’t offer another example. I attack this one particularly because it’s the one everyone seems to continually raise as a primary solution. Go ahead, offer another. The others are even worse, I’m sure.
It’s not a question of most people. That’s what you don’t get. Of course most people will retain their integrity, laws and police or not. The question is how a society will deal with those who will cheat no matter what. If a society cannot deal with those, it fails. I don’t suggest people don’t cheat because of threat of punishment, but neither is this suggestion of yours an answer to my statement.
So you support a return to barbaric concepts of justice, where the injured party exacts his pound of flesh without the intervention of disinterested 3rd parties who can do so in a measured way. You would create civil wars and gang violence as your notion of justice. How would that be a societal advance? That’s a return to barbarism.
I use the term in general fashion and will now be more specific.
In the system I would setup, there would be a local, that is a city-state, court with the force of law to achieve things that can only be achieved via use of responsive-coercion, such as obtaining money from private accounts that don’t belong to a person.
Should one like to appeal a ruling against them, they could appeal to the courts of nearby city-states to get objective rulings, drawn ad-hoc fashion from nearby judges, up to something like a national supreme court. And should one still not agree to the ruling, your recourse is to secede and start your own thing.
So, while there is a jurisdictional monopoly on law, as there must be for law by its nature must have a jurisdictional monopoly, it need not be the only jurisdiction one can appeal to. That is one check upon judicial power.
In actual practice, I expect most people would default to a private court before appealing to a state court of last resort, the judges of which would likely still be drawn ad-hoc fashion from private judges of the region.
Here you go casting aspersions on motives again Don’t worry, I won’t be asking for anyone’s money. Geez dude. I like the idea, I’d like to see it catch on, I think more and more it’s a good one as it has been matured by fire, and I intend to build an autarchic republic at some point on the ocean, but we’re talking a decade off at least. I’m working on another project at the moment.
You really think your reasoning is so godlike that the only possible reason I haven’t accepted it is because of ulterior motives. Honestly.
Sure, I’ll accept your definition, and thank you for actually suggesting one so we can shorten the back and forth a bit.
That is the heart of my argument, yes. And I propose a state which systematically uses no aggression, only responsive-coercion to stop aggression.
You’ve skipped a step. It’s the step where you show, in principle, where a state must eventually use aggression. I envision an autarchic republic which only uses responsive coercion, no aggressive coercion at all. It mystifies me why you keep skipping this step.
Honestly, I think it comes down to your assumption that all states must operate via majority rule–a practice which I will agree with you is innately aggressive. I think you further assume that no state without majority rule is possible, though this may not be a conscious assumption. However, the autarchic republic I propose abandons majority rule.
You have no basis for such doubts. I have not asked anyone for money, you have merely accused me of wanting too. Attacking motives is the typical way to assassinate someone’s character. Check your own motives.
If I were to proceed along such lines, I’d likely start a foundation or somesuch, establish a website and produce an actual body of literature for it, then build business-plans to present to Peter Thiel and his like, to get a pilot off the ground. I’ve discussed with ACTF the possibility of starting a pilot as a profit-seeking venture. I can imagine manufacturers of various stripes liking the idea of a floating business district just offshore free of rent and property tax.
There’s also specialist industries that would be viable, such as biofuel production which may have advantages offshore, and of course various kinds of floating fisheries whcih are just becoming viable.
So my motive? Primarily to make sure I’m not making a huge mistake philosophically before I commit energy to such an idea
National ancestry is not essential to the definition of a nation. But that’s besides the point.
In the autarchy I propose, there would be an objective line, it would be the property boundaries of those whom self-identify as a nation. National defense would then be the group organizing to defend itself as a group, against a foreign aggressor group.
Yes, there are many overlapping societies. How is the relevant? If I speak of a family, that is a certain kind of group relationship. If I speak of a nation, that is a certain kind of group relationship.
I tend to use ‘society’ and ‘nation’ interchangeably. Is your point that I shouldn’t do so? I assume it is. I don’t know why you would attack such a usage, but okay. In an autarchic republic, any society could decide it wants to be a nation and secede and become one. Thus, there is no ‘true’ society, and all is voluntary.
Can you imagine trying to get 100 million people in the same room or even area to hear a speech or vote on something? Not feasible. But could you text 100 million people at the same time, or televise a speech? Sure. Tech makes things possible that weren’t previously possible. Direct representation is possible such as it never was before.
An autarchic republic is very much like direct representation, and it would be facilitated digitally.
To my knowledge, you’ve never addressed why a state must eventually aggress necessarily. You’ve said it must several times, however without supporting rationale.
You do snotty things like this. I suppose I need to define ‘feint’ for you?
Did you perhaps assume ‘feint’ has a ‘g’ in it? That would be ‘feign’ meaning to fake, whereas I wrote ‘feint’ as in something akin to a parry, as in your typical conversationaly parry, ie: a metaphorical description of how we’ve argued in the past. Where exactly is the ‘[sic]’? If you’re going to do something as elitist as put a '[sic] in someone’s quote, at least make sure you’re right about a misspelling or misusage.
It has everything to do with it. That’s the only inherently aggressive and systematic form of aggression I can find within current nations. Absent majority rule you might have a state free of systematic aggression.
Finally some meat to your argument. So let’s analyze this.
A. It’s a court of last resort, meaning it already is assumed to have many private competitors in the form of private courts and arbitors.
B. Since its jurisdiction is made up of only those whom accept its jurisdiction, a new city-state could spring up next-door over which is would have no legal authority and could not stop in any way from competing with it. Neither can it stop citizens from leaving its jurisdiction, as secession is constitutionally protected.
C. It has no police force at its command. It’s coercive power would be typically used purely for remedy, such as retrieving stolen funds from a private account, in a way that can only readily be done with a court order, as businesses are not in a position to adjudicate conflicts.
I think you’re falling back on age-old reasoning without thinking it through again. This reasoning doesn’t seem to apply to my proposal, though I agree it would apply to current states generally.
Since each jurisdiction is created by consent of its founding member(s), the consequent court will not have used aggression to establish its position, nor to maintain it.
Sure, the middle-way is to allow there to be more than one jurisdiction and to have jurisdictions compete for citizens and to grow and die as they attract citizens or not.
This is the great problem that this idea of an autarchy seems to solve, how you can reconcile the inherent monopolistic nature of law with the potential abuses of a monopoly on coercion and the desirability of a purely voluntary society.
This requires a new way of thinking about jurisdictions in an autarchy. No longer are jurisdictions entities designed to last forever along permanent boundaries, but living, growing entities much like a business is a living, growing entity whose existence is not permanent but dependent on demand for its services.
The City of Los Angeles (my city) will continue to exist no matter how many people hate it. In an autarchy, its existence would be contingent on voluntary association with it of the people whom are in it.
Yes, but when I wrote “more” I subsumed within that statement the idea of plena potestas.
In other words, I’m standing in your way of getting what you want. That’s fine by me. I feel no obligation to help you to complete your pet projects.
Now then, back to the debate. I stand by what I said previously. To recap, you wrote here that you think there’s another way to redeem the state - namely to establish a state that’s incapable of aggression. It’s clear to me that you wish to establish such a state, which logically means you wish to redeem the state, since “establishing a state that’s incapable of aggression” is a kind of “redeeming the state”. Throw however many accusations at me as you want - it does nothing to refute the logic here.
As I believe I’ve noted before, we’re clearly using different definitions for the word “state”. I can’t recall anytime recently where you’ve actually given your own definition. If you have, please point it out.
However, if I define “state” such that systematically aggressing is part of the definition, then talking about a non-aggressive state makes as much sense as talking about a married bachelor.
Your use of the word “fine” implies a reluctance to admit an error on your part. Why is that?
No, there isn’t a very fine line between those phrases. “Only capable of aggression” means the same thing as “incapable of non-aggression”. “Must eventually/ultimately employ aggression” says nothing about capability of non-aggression. Instead of a fine line between those two terms, I see a yawning chasm.
Keep in mind that I consider at least some threats to constitute aggression. So a state may not have to actually use force to maintain its monopoly - it may only have to threaten force. I would certainly consider such threats themselves to be aggressive.
The state does not allow free competition within its jurisdiction. Any disputes that are resolved without explicitly resorting to the state are considered by the state to nevertheless implicitly resort to it. In other words, disputes that are resolved privately are done so at the state’s mercy. Since the state qua the state must at least threaten (some) competitors as a matter of policy, the aggression it employs is systematic.
As far as I can tell, in order to “define an autarchic state incapable of aggression”, you have to use a different definition of “state” from the one I’m using. However, I also think that having one and only one “court of last resort” necessarily renders your “autarchic state” completely capable of aggression, because some form aggression must be employed for there to be one and only one “court of last resort” to always exist.
I’ve been giving you the same answer over and over for months. You’ve either ignored it or not understood it.
Earlier you wrote: “As I said, and as you ignored, if I were convinced we didn’t need some minimal form of societal cooperation then I wouldn’t advocate for one.” For one thing, you still haven’t pointed out where exactly I’ve ignored that. Second, it’s clear to me that you’re substituting “societal cooperation” for the term “state” or “government”, which means you equate those terms. If you don’t equate those terms, then why did you write what you wrote? What other interpretation do you expect me to make from it?
This is quite different from what you wrote before.
Whether I offer another example is irrelevant to my point. I hereby accuse you of making a red herring argument. Now I demand that you actually address my point rather than try to distract me away from it.
It’s quite an answer to your statement, because you said: “In a large society, where one could meet a hundred new strangers for the rest of the days of your life, I see no incentive to not cheat, because that person can simply walk away to cheat another day [emphasis added].” How does that not mean that you think most (if not all) people would cheat in a “large society”?
I consider it legitimate for an individual to “take the law into his own hands”. But notice that doesn’t mean do whatever he wants - the term “the law” is in there. If he oversteps the law, then the other party now has a cause of action against him. Even the term “pound of flesh” implies measured (and hence limited) retribution. Call it “barbaric” all you want. I refuse to consider myself obligated to always ask permission (and from who?) before doing what I think is right.
The fact that courts are hierarchical in your “autarchic state” doesn’t obviate my point whatsoever. There is still one and only one court system (I shouldn’t have used “court” before, as that’s ambiguous), and for it to continue being the one and only one court system, it must resort to a policy of coercion (again defined as “the use or threat of force”) against free competition within its claimed jurisdiction. I consider that policy of coercion to be aggressive.
If by “godlike” you mean “clear”, then yeah, pretty much at this point. Honestly. I stand by what I said before.
As I’ve explained I-don’t-know-how-many times already, your proposal is flawed.
I can only surmise that you’re accusing me of skipping a step because either you really have no idea how your “autarchic state” would still be capable of aggression, or again this just serves the ulterior motive you may have (getting me out of your way so you can attract more supporters for yourself).
Once again, if I define “state” such that eventual/ultimate employment of aggression is a part of that definition, then saying “a state eventually/ultimately employs aggression” is tautologically true. There’s one principle. You apparently define “state” differently, such that eventual/ultimate employment of aggression is not part of your definition. Since all definitions are arbitrary, that’s fine. But I have no good idea just what your definition of “state” is.
On the other hand (still once again), a necessarily single “court system of last resort” must employ aggression to maintain itself as such. Why is that? Because coercing against free competition constitutes aggression. The only other alternative is to consider this “court system of last resort” to actually own the territory that it claims as its jurisdiction - but that would mean anyone who thought he owned part of that territory himself has been either defrauded or outright robbed. So there’s another principle.
This is entirely unfounded. I make no assumption that all states must operate via majority rule. Nor do I assume that no state without majority rule is possible. Let me be clear: I consider majority rule to be entirely superfluous to my definition of “state”.
My own motive is to convince you of the flaw in your idea. But that presumes that you’re being honest. If you’re not being honest, then my motive is to point out your dishonest to the fullest extent I can, and to not let you get away with it. If you want to call that “character assassination”, so be it. It makes no difference to me.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt - at least for the moment - I’ll say that I think you are making a huge mistake philosophically. That’s been my whole point all this time.
To speak of “the definition” is false. There is no necessary definition for any word. By “technically”, I meant “referring to the established etymology”. The word “nation” comes from a Latin verb meaning “to be born”.
It seems here that the only thing essential to your definition of “nation” is sovereignty. Do I have that right? If so, then what about the notion of individual sovereignty?
Part of my point is that using “society” and “nation” interchangeably is inconsistent with your definitions for those terms, as they’re not the same (apparently - you haven’t laid out your definition for “nation” just yet).
On the other hand, the fact that you said any society could secede means that there must be two or more individuals seceding. In other words, individual secession is not allowed. Why is that?
And finally, as I’ve said before, all is not voluntary in your “autarchic republic/state”.
That begs the question - why must there be 100 million people hearing a speach or voting on anything? Why do you assume that the “autarchic state” must have such a large number of people?
I’ll also note that even direct voting on things constitutes majority rule if the vote is not unanimous, yet nevertheless considered binding on everyone (perhaps even those who abstain).
I know I’ve addressed why before, in at least one thread (the one originally about Rand Paul endorsing Mitt Romney).
Here’s the Wiktionary entry for the noun “feint”. I see the first two definitions as being applicable here. Notice that both of those definitions imply dishonesty. Also, the word “feint” comes from the same roote as “feign”. In other words, I concluded that you were accusing me of being dishonest, which I wasn’t being - and that’s why I added “sic” in quoting you there.
I see the part I emphasized above as a big problem. Why do you restrict yourself to current nations? I see no reason to do that.
Irrelevant. Those private courts and arbiters operate at the mercy of the court of last resort.
The court of last resort is actually the “federal” one, isn’t it? So this is also irrelevant. New city-states are able to spring up next door only at the mercy of the court of last resort, which exists and operates at the “federal” level (i.e. over all of the [potential] city-states).
To be consistent here, it must allow free competition within its claimed jurisdiction, which removes its status as court of last resort.
I think you’re mistaken. See above. Also, why again do you refer only to “current states”? Why limit yourself like that? It’s things like this which make me question your motives.
This ignores the “federal” court, which is the real “court of last resort”, as you mentioned at times in the past.
You’re really referring to sub-jurisdictions, given your earlier assertions that your proposed system is “federal” in nature. The sub-jurisdictions are just parts of a greater whole, which does not allow free competition.
I see another way to reconcile it - recognize the law as something that emerges from people, rather than being imposed upon them. People will adopt common law as they adopt common language. That in no way means that actually resolving disputes must be monopolized.
Except at the “federal” level. If you’ve done away with that, then please state so explicitly.
Please prove that the City of Los Angeles will always and necessarily exist in the future. (My point is that you can’t.) If in an “autarchy”, its existence would indeed be contingent on voluntary association, then there’s no guarantee whatsoever that the City of Los Angeles will continue to exist forever.
My point was that, as far as I’m aware, representatives in the American Colonies never had less than plena potestas.
Don’t worry, I won’t be asking for anyone’s money. Geez dude. I like the idea, I’d like to see it catch on, I think more and more it’s a good one as it has been matured by fire, and I intend to build an autarchic republic at some point on the ocean, but we’re talking a decade off at least. I’m working on another project at the moment.