I hope Richard will correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe what he means is that any system of ‘rights’ is just as arbitrary as the next, so prescribing any system of rights is still enforcing arbitrary value judgements on other people. A praxeological approach would focus on the cause and effect relationship between actions and by expanding praxeology into the realm of social issues it might be possible to understand the optimum way to allocate resources to deal with problems in the most efficient ways. When he said prescriptions would become unnecessary, he meant that once we have a praxeological understanding of social issues, it will not be necessary to dictate which system of ‘rights’ must be followed because we will then have a solid understanding of cause and effect to guide our actions (just as praxeology gives us that kind of understanding in the realm of economics).
I had a look at the site. Looks like a good start. I see that most of the countries of choice are actually in Africa.
I would however not dismiss the importance of any theoretical work. Also, I would put that idea to other social critiques as well. And yet most won’t put their money where there mouth is.
They propose thinkabilities, but if one does do a simulation of it in his mind. One will realize, that while many of the things make sense in the abstract, problems would arise as soon as it is put into practice in the real world. There is a simple reason why states arise. The supporters of the state found it convenient for them. And the opponents of state power didn’t bother that much and minded their own business. Within an anarchy / pro forma libertarian society it won’t take long that state-like structures would arise again, depending of the composition of the population and the attitudes of it’s members. The problem is rather cultural then political.
Indeed the informal sector is large in many African countries. Most of them have their formal sector in the capital city, while most of the rural areas are actually free of any government effective interference, due to inefficiencies. Still the government can remain, cashing in on food aid and no prospering market economy arises in the areas beyond their grasp.
Very Important Statement made here:
Yes it is, but some “systems of rights”/“value judgements” etc. do actually make more sense then others do. If they make sense, rephrase: how well they make sense may depend on the kind of people you are dealing with as well. And in order to work a value or legal system needs to be accepted by the people it is applied to. There is a reason why the natural rights tradition found resonance in the Anglo-Saxon world, but never got any real hold in i.e. Africa or China.
And what gives him the right to say that?
Negative rights aren’t arbitrary and aren’t enforced values. If you reject negative rights because you think they’re enforced values, you should have no problem with enforced values.
The problem I see with this is that in the marketplace if you miscalculate you may lose your shirt but if you miscalculate in your ‘defensive solution’ you could very easily lose your life. There aren’t too many ways to correct that error.
Without any real punishment ‘to make someone else sorry for exploiting this miscalculation’ there is nothing stopping someone from killing off their competitors up until the day they miscalculate and find themselves pushing daisies.
Don’t even get me started on a serial rapist under this plan.
You may intend this only to apply to a PDA, I don’t know, but without ‘justice’ built into the system then all the victim (or their family) have to fall back on is Jungle Law and that is very destructive for a free society.
What ‘gives’ anyone the ‘right’ to do anything? Rights are a social construct.
Would you mind explaining to me what it is about negative rights that makes them non-arbitrary?
Jon, thanks for your question. I’ll do my best to explain.
You ask how normative prescriptions can become unnecessary simply because one might manage to achieve a value-free analysis of how chosen means necessarily relate to intended ends. Perhaps a familiar illustrative example would help to answer this question.
Every Austrian thinker is well aware of how praxeology helps us understand the consequences of something like inflationary monetary policy. If a financial czar is trying to figure out the best way to improve the economic welfare of all citizens, and if he decides that increasing the supply of money is a possible means to that end, then praxeological law will allow us to know what the necessary result must be: Given the same demand for cash holdings, the monetary unit must fall in value.
Now, assume that the financial czar was unaware of this connection. If he was, and he genuinely wanted the economic well being of the citizenry to be improved, then being unaware of this connection would mean that he could conceivably investigate an increase in the money supply as one possible means toward that end. Without knowledge of the law, this option could not be ruled out.
But what if this policy maker becomes aware of the connection? And by this I mean, he really believes it, and does not reject it outright, nor pretend to believe it when he actually does not. If he really understands the connection to exist, then he is suddenly in a new position with regard to his means. He will no longer understand inflation as a means to achieve general prosperity.
Naturally, if he secretly wanted something other than general prosperity all along, or if he thought the loss of every citizens’ purchasing power was a consequence he could find acceptable, then he might proceed with inflation policy despite being aware of the law of inflation. But the point here is, without knowledge of the law, he cannot intentionally abstain from inflation policy as a means to avoid its necessary consequences.
To bring this example back to our discussion, I would ask: For the financial czar who sincerely wants to improve the economic well being of every citizen, and who also is unaware of the law of inflation, and who believes therefore, that an increase in the money supply is a possible means toward that end, what would be the point in telling him that he should not do this because his goal is “against God” or “against Natural Right” or even “against his own nature”? Such a lofty and otherworldly appeal could hardly hope to make an impression on him, and for good reason. He believes he is in possession of means to his ends. Telling him why his ends should be other than they are is of no use, because right now, his ends are what they are. But a demonstration which instead reveals how his means are not actually means at all, that his chosen course must fail to achieve what he intends, making his effort contrary to his own purposes, would give him the kind of information he could conceivably find of value.
If the czar does not care about the consequences revealed by praxeological law, then such knowledge will not dissuade him, of course. But the point here is, arguing that he follow normative prescriptions which are based on principles the czar does not personally value can never dissuade him. On the other hand, in the case where the consequences revealed by praxeological law do matter to the czar, then knowledge of praxeological law must dissuade him. This is why an appeal to his values as they are, instead of an appeal to some principle which supposedly supersedes them, is a more potentially effective approach.
The purpose of praxeologial law is to precisely reveal when chosen means must necessarily succeed or fail. This is why I say that normative prescriptions become unnecessary (meaning unneeded) whenever knowledge of the inescapable consequences of proposed actions become known. If such consequences become known, then actors become empowered in a meaningful sense, by acquiring new information about their means. If the consequences remain unknown, then from the perspective of those urgently seeking to have order in society, normative prescriptions could seem to fill an important gap, by allowing us to intuitively determine how one might proceed in the absence of praxeological law.
Unfortunately, without a rigorous grounding in praxeological law, normative prescriptions will not be able to entirely overcome the problem of personally perceived irrelevance. This problem arises because the underlying principles on which normative prescriptions are based, must essentially ignore the values actors currently have, and seek instead to establish the values that actors should have. By taking this approach, actors are not shown anything about the efficacy of their means, and quite naturally, see such prescriptive pronoucements as effectively meaningless. To compound the issue further, these normative prescriptions will be competing with multitudes of rival normative prescriptions for the attention of various actors, and one will have no nonarbitrary way to decide between them, as there would be no knowledge of any law instructing on how following any particular prescription must necessarily bring about some personally undesirable consequence.
This problem of essential arbitrariness among rival normative prescriptions is precisely what makes the idea of legal enforcement so appealing. Positive legal institutions have been resorted to all throughout the world as a means to address this serious problem. An officially established normative principle may outwardly appear to be less arbitrary than rival principles which are not officially established. But legal enforcements, as we all know, are not universal in their application, meaning that the consequences of violating legal orders can sometimes be escaped.
In contrast, praxeological law cannot be escaped. What is described by such law is universally applicable, in all times and places, meaning that no police power is ever required to establish what it reveals. As such, in the absence of strict praxeological law, the problem of arbitrariness among rival normative prescriptions remains unsolved, even where legal enforcement exists.
Richard D.
Thanks, for the interest in the Liberty Colony. I hope you will join the forums and sign up to at least participate in the intial selection stage for the location of the Liberty Colony. Now that there is finally a real effort to create freedom I hope you will be participating.
Theoretical work is important but only if the intention is to create something. What many pursue in the freedom movement is what I call intellectual pursuit without purpose. It is like studying engineering without ever intending to build anything. Theoretical study without any attempt at application is of no value.
The State is not necessary but some functions of the State are needed. These things can be created without the State but we as believers in freedom who want to create a free society must create the infrastructure to demonstrate that the State is not needed. As you indicated in many parts of the world the State is essentially non-existent on the local level. Many in the freedom movement are of the mindset that we must first eliminate the State and then create the structures for a free society. I believe we need to create the basic infrastructure of a free society in an area where essentially the State is already very weak and then we can demonstrate that the state is not needed. The masses can not create the free society. We must create the path for them to follow.
Again, I hope you join the forums and participate in the process for selecting the site for the Liberty Colony.
Nonsense. Statists have proven that government can provide said solutions (albeit with such a host of injustices that it’s probably not worth it even if nothing else could), the burden of proof is on anarchists to show that their system could provide the same. We advocate the position, and it is up to us to show that it is viable. Similarly, since you had to go there for some reason, theists can certainly demonstrate that machines and systems such as are found in life forms can be designed by an intelligence. It is up to atheists to show that they can come about through naturalistic means.
In short, it is up to the person making the claim that one or another system or theory is viable to prove that it is so, not up to those who do not advocate such to show it is not.
Your point is basically that there is no non-arbitrary way to decide between competing moral principles (which has not been demonstrated, but asserted) but that given knowledge of the consequences of certain actions, one might be able to persuade others to change their actions. Well that’s nice, but that still doesn’t explain why one would be justified in acting in self-defence, for instance. It remains a significant question. All praxeology can do is illuminate what the consequences of certain actions are, given certain ends. When it is actually proven that ends cannot be criticized rationally, and that this criticism has no impact on the ends undertaken by individuals (again, no proof of this has been offered - and positing determinism will be futile as it will undermine your own case here), I will agree that moral concepts are unnecessary. Praxeology in its scientific role is merely suggestive of the correct means to realize a certain end. It is not sufficient to displace ethical discussion. Simply because someone fails to see the truth of something does not absolve them from being in error, and thus if they wilfully ignore the truth of a moral principle or are too dense to grasp it, then so be it; truth is not contingent on agreement. It is gratuitous, to say the least, to assume this cannot be the case as well with means-ends forms of analysis, i.e. that one may simply choose to ignore the truth of praxeological reasoning or use smoke and mirrors to obfuscate its truth (as positivists do.)
Nje, here’s a little exercise for you - prove that rights are a social construct. I see this posited all the time, but never proven. If anything, it is the assertion itself that is “arbitrary”.
No JCFolsom, they have not proven it. The burden is on them to show that only in the presence of government can said services be provided, which they have not done.
-Jon
How can you assume that society is the prerequisite of rights? That makes no sense. There must be a right prior to action. If there is not, any and all action is unjustified. Organizing as a society or even debating on what rights society should posess is a display of negative rights. If those believing negative rights do not exist try to construct a system of rights, they are complying with a negative right in assuming the ability to act in constructing the system of rights.
You aren’t forced to obey negative rights. Any action against negative rights is arbitrary action. If negative rights do not exist there is no such thing as “arbitrary” since to claim it is arbitrary implies negative rights.
People are not really for the State, it is that they see no alternative that can exist in fact. The point that people who favor the state have on their side is that the state does exist and it is providing certain critical services, perhaps poorly but it still is functioning. The problem you have Jon is that even if people were to agree with your position there is nothing they can do about it because you can propose no alternative or direction of action to create an alternative. The fact that you propose no action that would argue in favor of your position is strong evidence in fact that you believe its not possible. It is a simple case of put up or shut up.
Get real - anarcho-capitalists have devoted tons of literature to how a possible anarchist order might function. However, when it comes to justifying interventions in the lives of otherwise peaceful individuals, and when the statist asserts that without the state order cannot exist, these are things that it is the statist’s burden to prove. So I have no “problem” per se.
-Jon
I’m not sure where Jon’s views on action towards freedom lies, but there are quite a few agorists on this board. However, we’re not talking about action. And Your proposed support of freedom is extremely questionable, given the closed door nature of your operation in relation to the customer. I’d rather join an agorist cell, thank you very much, and I find the North American Continent to be quite lovely, there’s no reason to move to Africa, or wherever.
I’m also an adherent of agorism, but that’s not what I was discussing at that stage with dchernikov and DriftWood. What I was discussing was the ease with which statists assume they have no need to prove anything they assert.
-Jon
Nope. we only have to demonstrate that interested individuals accomplish ends more efficiently than when coerced.
To assume that “the three branches of government” are somehow cosmicly destined to exist and must be recreated in order for people to live together is arrogance and ignorance.
So what? Now they have to prove that ONLY government can provide said solutions. That is: they have to prove that there is something so special about those solutions that only a government can provide them.
No, they really don’t. Can’t you see that we’re not making any progress, here? Statists are seizing ever more power, and if we’re not careful the coming crisis will even further cement their rule. History shows us that people will not turn away from the status quo unless, first, things are really, really bad, and second, an easy-to-understand and very viable-seeming alternative is available. They just won’t. You can whine all you want about how you shouldn’t have to bear the burden of proof. You can refuse. All it will do is make us fail in trying to bring about a better way.
Yes, they really do. It’s called “burden of proof”. If they wish to claim that a coercive expropriating territorial monpolist (in the words of Hoppe) is the only way such services can be provided (which is their claim), then they need to back it. Period. Full stop. End of discussion.
That is really not my problem, and speaks to the disingenuousness of the statist.
As far as the theoretical argument goes, Knight’s right. As far as the practical one goes, JC is right. Neither should be neglected.
Practicality ought to neglect logic?