How do the immigrants know this before they migrated there? Or, what if that racism grew because of the immigration? I’m sure that my town in Spain did not dislike Romanian Gypsies as much before Romanian Gypsies actually started to immigrate to our town to look for work.
This is irrelevant. We are not talking about what is within one’s right. It’s accepted that they do not have the right to collude anybody into doing anything by the use of force.
This is true, but we are talking about this specific case. So, again, not very relevant (well, it might be indirectly relevant, but it’s not very helpful in terms of persuading my friend).
This actually brings up a valuable point. He seems to admit that competition is better than no competition (in this case, competition between States), and also seems to admit that despite this town being secluded, it is not secluded enough for the State to assume the role of arbitrator. Then, it should follow that if the State can do it, why couldn’t a private company do it? I didn’t see this hole last night.
That’s also idiotic. Just because they are the minority it doesn’t follow that they are also they are also poorer. The king was always the minority, yet he exercised control over his citizens. Hell, the federal government is made up of less people than the general populace yet it exercises control half over the entire world. Also, is your friend suggesting that the state would have to be composed of more people than compse the small town’s owners? After all, minorities cannot defend themselves.
Then he has conceded. He knows that he’s lost, so he keeps trying to play “what if”–stalling for time.
It sounds like it. He seems to be arguing that people are not rational, by imagining a world in which people are not rational. At some point, you have to stop and say, “I disagree that these conditions would ever exist in the real world.”
Really, you might as well counter, “What if a state starts torturing and killing all of its citizens? And no one is strong enough to stop the state employees doing the torturing/killing, and the state employees believe absolutely that what they are doing is the right thing to do. Thus, anarchism is better.”
I know it is “accepted”, but my question had to do as to why. And how is this not about rights? Are not we not talking about rights when the some owners in a small town are not being allowed to sell their land to a minority?
Let me make this easier for you. Assume that your friend is correct and we need the state. Now, following from this, what will then prevent the state from doing what the “gang” did?
Actually, it seems that it’s not persuading you.
It is a valuable point but it is also irrelevant.
It’s irrelevant. Or at least that is what Jonathan told me when I brought this up.
Jonathan, the owners that are preventing the other owners from selling land to the minority are a state. Thus, your friend’s argument is that we need the state to eliminate the state. So if your friend’s problem with anarchy is that a state can arise, how does it follow that therefore we need the state? Or is my question irrelevant? Lol.
We aren’t questioning anybody’s rights to do anything. What is within someone’s right is irrelevant, because the obvious statement that my friend made is that without a State anybody can violate another’s rights. So, “what rights do others have to others’ property” is irrelevant. We aren’t discussing the right they have to other people’s property.
Nothing, but for some reason he has decided that the people who run the State are more rational than the people who form the majority in the town.
I don’t need to be persuaded. When I dismiss an argument here it’s not because I necessarily disagree with it. It’s just not a very strong argument that I can use when I speak to him, again.
Fair enough. I suggest you make it sure you distinguish between you thoughts and the thoughts of your friend.
Hey I`m just trying to understand how your example works. It seems to work by magic. The minority is apparently dirt poor, prevented from starting buisiness and pressumably barred from work jet given a willing seller they would be in a position to purchase property. They were not actually permitted to purchase property jet somehow they managed to stay in the area (must be good at tresspassing) and actually many more of them arrived since despite that. The place is increasingly more racist and more hostile to the immigrants jet the immigration wave shows no signs of letting off with massive numbers of immigrants moving in without actually first finding out anything about the area. What is next? The water boils at 50 degrees celsius and people can go for days without breathing? You can not just accept a scenario where humans act totally contrary to any sane, reasonable expectations. Immigrants do not move into places where they will not be permitted to own property. Such places are where all the emigrants come from.
My first post here. I am only a beginner in the theory, philosophy, and history of libertarianism and anarchy, and find the discussions very interesting and elucidating. Am I right to assume that the majority of responders in this thread are proponents of a (free) society without laws, hence without any law enforcement? If so, why even go with complex concepts and hypothetical situations about discrimination against minorities and racism? How can we even talk about rights (property or otherwise) without a legal structure that defines them (laws) and without an enforcement structure that assures them? What prevents the more powerful groups – the ones more willing to “invest” in weapons and soldiers – from simply taking property away from the weaker individuals or groups who were merely wrong to allocate most of their resources to productive ends instead? How much of society’s resources would eventually end up being allocated to “security” as the weaker ones learn that they too better “invest” in protection instead of production? What is a likely equilibrium end state for the society resulting from such a race?
I emphasize my ignorance on these issues. The above questions are honest, and by no means sarcastic.
Z.
To: z1235 ---- A free society doesn’t mean one without laws. Libertarians oppose violations of person, property, and fraud, etc.
In a minarchist society, laws would be handled by the government court system and government police system.
In a anarchist/anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist society, property owners would set the rules (make the laws) on their own property. Free-market (emergent) courts and security services would handle disputes and crimes.
Rothbard tackles these questions in For A New Liberty:
Production of security: http://mises.org/daily/2088
To OP: The scenario already reflects a government. There is a criminal gang threatened to use force on people if they do a certain peaceful act. Through their actions, they are claiming a monopoly on violence within a given geography. The problem isn’t “anarchy” - it’s the “archy” !
Thanks for the clarifications and links. So a minarchist would have no problem answering the hypothetical question as the legal system and the government’s enforcement of it would simply interfere to stomp the bullying. I’ll have to read up on the literature on this but the question seems much tougher for an anarchist to tackle. From what little I know of human nature, the equilibrium would not paint a pretty picture. And how do courts (emergent or otherwise) or security forces (or “services”) handle disputes under infinite possible legal structures? Wouldn’t it just be most optimal to just “invest” in the biggest guns, in case the other side stubbornly sticks to their own version of fairness?
Z.
Welcome!
Good questions. I hope you’ll indulge the responses, and follow up on them.
I think we’d all say it was easier for an anarchist to answer. You see, the problem with minarchist enforcement is that it is the enforcement of one (not necessarily true) point of view, and thus essentially tyrannical. The capacity for law is there in a free society, but it will be polycentric, private or voluntary law. And there is no reason to expect human nature to radically change in the movement to freedom. Plus of course, we have the powerfully mediating factor of property.
In a free society, private defence services would protect the minority, or they would protect themselves (after all, an armed minority can potentially seriously hold its own). In a minarchist (unfree, but still a lot better than now’days) government would enforce its views on everyone. If a majoritarian democracy, it’s likely the government would enforce the views of the majority anyway.
Constitutions do nothing to stop political will.
I’m just trying to tell him where the argument will go against a statist ><
They probably are, and the rational thing is to do what the majority of voters want.