Clayton, thanks for that quote, that’s really powerful stuff. I have a lot of reading to do… hope to keep this thread alive, though, as I gain more exposure to these ideas. Thanks for all your input thusfar.
Joe: Happy to help. Anyone who’s just interested in learning and finding the truth in their own way is always welcome on this board… we even keep a token revleft guy around just to maintain an appearance of diversity. 
But seriously, starting with economics back in 2007, I have begun a journey of “personal englightenment” - if that term is not too grandiose - and realized that what really matters is seeking the truth in whatever form it may come and however much it might upset my beliefs about the way the world is. Many atheists report undergoing a similar transition when they deconvert from religion and relinquish many of the cognitive dissonances they maintained as a believer. Gerald Celente uses the term “political atheism” as in “I don’t believe in any political religion - Democrat, Republican or otherwise” and I think that’s where I’m at right now.
It’s not so much that I want to see a dramatic upset of the social order - I do not. I’m not a disgruntled youth. I have a professional job and two children. Nevertheless, I do not believe that any political party has my family’s interests at heart. I do not believe that the government or anyone running for office has my family’s interests at heart. They are all - with negligible exceptions such as Ron Paul - thieving, lying, conniving, spin-mongering crooks.
And painting it as a simple “public/private” dichotomy is an over-simplification. Is Lockheed-Martin really a private corporation? Or is it just a sub-bureaucracy of the Pentagon that happens to pay its top bureaucrats much higher salaries? I can go on and on with this. The Republican privatization mantra is just a slightly more fascistic way of organizing the very same system of exploitation and oppression. To hell with it.
That said, I’ve realized over time the importance of change by degree. We need a radical revolution in ideas and a gradual evolution in governance. But without the radical revolution in ideas, the gradual evolution is impossible because it has no direction. The Republican party is the perfect illustration of this. Their ideas are “moderate”… slightly shrinking the size of government, shifting the focus of government expenditure more towards military spending and less on education and welfare. But with their milquetoast ideas, what have they actually done? They’ve expanded Federal medical spending to record levels, they’ve expanded the military budget to unprecedented levels, the debt has been exploded to unprecedented levels… all before Obama took office.
What is the radical revolution in ideas? Well, it starts - and Ron Paul is leading the charge, here - with ending the system of central banking because this is what has enabled the precipitous expansion of the welfare-warfare state over the last century. And it’s worse today than ever. Everybody wants to get stuff from the government and nobody wants to pay taxes. The central bank is what enables the government to give the illusion that it can do both, at once. “Deficits don’t matter” Dick Cheney said. And he’s right, they don’t matter because the government doesn’t actually need to repay its debts to the Federal Reserve. But we all pay, in the end, at the grocery checkout and the gas pump … right where it hurts the poor the most. This system is heartless and anti-human and needs to be exposed for what it is.
From there, who knows where it will lead. I would like to see gradual, peaceful break-up of political unions - secession - which would increase localization of political power and enable people in communities to have a bigger say in how their smaller, more local government is run. One vote in 300 million is pretty much meaningless. Imagine how meaningless 1 vote in 6 billion would be. The idea of global democracy is laughably silly but this is what the Establishment has been trying to peddle as the solution to all the world’s woes for at least the last half-century. The faithful are in Mogadishu with Predator drones and foreign troops “fighting the good fight”, even as we speak, paving the way to make the world “safe for democracy.”
We need a radical revolution in ideas and I think we’re currently at a cusp in human history where such a revolution is a real possibility.
Clayton -
You’re very quick. And you’re right, plenty of people throughout human history have believed they were wiser than others, and the little people needed to be guided and taken care of (i.e. told what to do, i.e. forced into doing “the right thing” because they do not know what is best for themselves, but the elite do.) Even those being ordered around believed it was the best arrangement for them. And I do not doubt this is where your Chinese friends are coming from…Like I was saying earlier, never underestimate the power of indoctrination. When you grow up being told you need something, you tend to believe it. Hell, you tend to believe anything you were told in your formative years…even after you later find out it isn’t and was never true.
I remember hearing a story about a group of circus elephants, all raised in captivity. From the moment they were born, most of their day was spent tied to a gate. They learned from a very early age, jerking at their leash never got them free, but did usually result in a beating or an electric shock. As the elephants grew, the trainers were able to use the elephant’s conditioning such that they didn’t even need to secure them to anything substantial. A full-sized elephant could be kept in one place simply by putting on a leash and tying it to anything…even a tent pole. During a show one evening all 6 fully grown elephants were secured to a simple guardrail, the movable kind used to designate how people should line up for a carnival ride, or to show that certain areas were off limits. A horrible accident occured, and one of the torches used by the jugglers caught the tent on fire…everything erupted so quickly, and there was such panic that everyone basically moved as quickly as possible to get out from the tent. All six elephants burned…still tied to the single rail…that one man carried into place.
Humans are not so different. Indoctrination is incredibly powerful. People remain tied down to things they could easily break free from, simply because of what they believe. They were always afraid something, so they remain afraid of it. They always needed something, so they think they still need it.
As for the elites, Thomas Sowell has written extensively about them. He calls them “the anointed.” I highly recommend his works. His trilogy of books The Quest for Cosmic Justice, The Vision of the Anointed, and A Conflict of Visions deal with this very phenomenon, and tackle the very issue why humans maintain the ideological positions they do. And excellent intro to the latter installment is this video: A Tale of Two Revolutions.
Hehe. There’s plenty available for you.
Here was my suggestions to another beginner.
…but before you get to that, I have a feeling you might actually want to start with this paper by John Hasnas. I think it will help clarify a lot on the topic we’re currently discussing. Then you might start with those 3 videos at the bottom of that beginner link.
Excellent thread, guys.
I started reading Murphy’s “Chaos Theory” and I have to say every other sentence makes me cringe. I’m operating under the assumption that this is just my government indoctrination trying to expel these ideas from my system 
. This is gonna be a long post…
I. Contract
Do you literally need to sign a contract for every place you enter? Sign a contract when I walk out on the street? What if someone is murdered on the street and the owners are not present to witness it? How do people know who to call, since there is no universal “911”? People would need to be aware of the private security firm for every area they enter? Since different “public” areas would have different owners, people would need to be aware of the “contract rules” for each area they enter. It could be that you walk across town and there is a completely different set of rules, depending on what the owner decides. Would I need to read a detailed contract in order to walk across town? Or could there at least be some kind of local town “government” (I apologize for using that evil word) that standardizes some basic rules (no murder, rape, fucking in public, whatever). I’d assume there is a possibility that each owner would use a different arbitration agency, so I’d also have to be aware upon entering a new area of which agency served that area, making sure they are fair.
II. Law
Obviously law is rarely 100% clear cut, but with our system now, there is a long history of decisions and precedents that have been set. Jurors are trained to learn about these, and although they have their own interpretations, we can assume that there is at least some common basis of understanding in terms of the history of law. But it seems like in a system of private law the only thing on which to go by is the contract between the two parties. What happens if the contract is incomplete? There will certainly be many cases where an unforseen circumstance arises that was not anticipated by the contract. When this happens in our current system, there is a long history of precedent to turn to. In the case of market anarchy, all rests on that particular judge and that particular firm? Since everything is private, how does one get a sense of a firm’s merits? What if the firms do not release detailed case histories?
III. Collusion
Wouldn’t it be relatively easy for corporations to collude with arbitrators, leading to corruption? What if a situation developed where a vast majority of major employers develop a close relationship with 1 or 2 arbitrators and refuse to use anybody else. An employer who is in a sound financial position is in a position of power compared to employees who need work. Businesses could choose to only use certain arbitration agencies known to be more “pro-employer”. While they couldn’t force employees to agree to a contract including these agencies, a different kind of coercive force, that of poverty or a need to feed one’s family, might force a large number to sign anyway.
IV. Mandate
Free market advocates talk about how bad it is to have a mandate - but with this system you are essentially making it mandated for people to have this “social” insurance. You may not be doing it by force of gun or government decree, but if people are unable to get a job or even browse through a store due to lack of insurance, it is essentially a mandate. This gives insurance companies enormous power. What would stop an insurance company from, say, making all black people pay a higher premium? Just as health insurance companies have undue power today, and can deny people coverage for ridiculous reasons, as well as charge outrageous premiums pretty much across the board, these social insurance companies could do the same. Living without health insurance is bad, but it isn’t the end of the world. Living without this new kind of insurance is catastrophic, as you’d be unable to work, and unable to feed yourself. Now, in order to make money they obviously cannot charge so much that nobody can afford to pay. But just like anyone with a “mandate”, they will charge the absolute maximum they can, wring every penny out of their customers, knowing that they are indispensible.
I’m not far into it but the ideas are so foreign and radical to me that I’m forcing myself to read it slowly and go over things several times. I’m sure many more questions will be forthcoming…
On a more philosophical note, are you guys at all uncomfortable with the idea of “owning” every inch of everything? Aren’t there some things, some aspects of nature, that are the natural domain of everyone born on this planet ? In a deeper sense, can you really “own” a river, a mountain, a forest? Should money have a limitless reach? If a billionaire wants to buy Yellowstone and turn it into a giant amusement park, is that something we should allow? In my opnion, ownership is an essential concept for a functioning society, but market-anarchists seem to elevate it to one of the main human values (life, liberty… ownership??). I think there is something to be said for maintaining some areas of this planet “unowned”, or owned by society. For me a meaningful philosophy of life has to recognize both the individual and his connection to a larger whole. The libertarian perspective taken to such an extreme elevates the narrative of “man as separate from nature” to never-before-seen heights. In my opinion, that is one of the most damaging ideas, and will eventually lead to us destroying the earth. In a pure-market environment, the incentive is always to destroy and “monetize” as much of nature as possible. I’m not a tree-hugger by any means, but at some point we need to realize that we grow “out of” this planet, and depend on it for everything we deem valuable. The resources we depend on for survival are limited, and the market incentive is to use them up, fast. The market incentive is also to pump as much carbon into the atmosphere as possible, so long as it means making a profit. I’ve noticed that I never hear libertarians discuss environmental issues, and I think this is a major reason - preserving this planet requires consensus, and strong collective action, which goes against this philosophy. I find the argument that “private property rights” will solve all environmental issues to be so hollow.
The whole idea of abolishing government monopoly on security is to abolish any aggressive monopoly, public or private. You would only need to know “your” 911, the same way you need to know the phone number for your car insurer. If you find someone murdered on the road, call your private defense agency (PDA), they’ll contact the owner of the road who will then probably clean up the scene (likely preserving any forensic evidence to avoid liability once the relatives of the victim find out and begin pursuing justice).
Contracts are not necessary for entering public space. Unowned property is unowned and is governed by common law, not contract.
Common law otherwise known as customary law. It operates just like what we currently have, except there is no coercive monopolist of law who may compel you to use his services. I have written about this at length.
That’s the current system. In a competitive market, brand and reputation is everything, particularly for someone in the business of impartially settling disputes. Corruption will happen, and so will bankruptcies as a consequence. In the current system, corruption goes on uncorrected until it becomes so hairy and multi-headed that something has to be done about it.
Again, you’re describing something that is very much like what the modern State is. You are assuming that there is an inherent animosity between business and government. There is not. They work hand-in-hand and each benefits from the other in more ways than not. Businesses make it easier for the government to collect taxes by deducting them at the point of payment (weekly paycheck) and government reduces competition in the marketplace through regulations that favor incumbent business interests.
I think you’re misunderstanding the essential idea. “Social” insurance is an inherent part of every society, whether it’s provided as part of a brick-and-mortar business or more indirectly through the assumption that your relatives can be collected on whether through direct liability or through legal extortion (help your son pay his bankruptcy settlement or see him go to jail). You can always do whatever you want on your own property or on any unowned land or water.
You keep ignoring the cartelizing effect of government regulation. Health insurance is an insanely heavily regulated industry. You don’t think that the cartelizing influence of these regulations grant the last companies standing enormous power over consumers? Of course it does. Compare the customer service (in ascending order) of: the DMV, your local power company, your health insurer, your grocery store, the nail salon. Now, compare the amounts of regulation on each of these and ask yourself if there is or is not a definite correlation. Regulation reduces competition between producers. Reduction in competition between producers increases prices and reduces quality, thereby punishing consumers.
There are a few things to consider, here:
-
All nature-given resources ought to be treated as unowned until they are appropriated and any seizure of such appropriated property ought to be treated as theft. For example, the native Americans had appropriated much of the North (and South) American continent before the arrival of Europeans, who proceeded to commit genocide and seize all this property for the simple reason that they could. Unfortunately, we are too remote from most of the crimes to correct them, so we’re at a new status quo and the same goes for all sorts of natural resources that are locked up by governments and government-created corporations who have no more right to them than the man on the moon.
-
Property is not the enemy… in fact, it is your friend. Property in land always has some capital value. When a private owner defaces and destroys a piece of land, he is squandering this capital value. Squandering will happen and so will bankruptcy and dissipation of the wealth of those who manage their property foolishly. in the present system, the temporary caretakers of public lands have no vested interest in them and really do a horrible job taking care of them. I live in the Northwest where trees are a primary natural resource. Millions of acres of forest land in the US have been burnt up over the decades. In fact, our national forest service explicitly says that allowing forest fires is “nature’s way” and we just have to let it burn. This is nonsense. Private ownership of forests would result in better maintenance of these lands. Forest fires would not be permitted to just start and burn to exhaustion.
-
Common law or customary law is not incapable of handling the concept of natural resources that are a cultural heritage and may not be appropriated by virtue of community easement. Let’s say a town has an unmaintained road that goes down to a river. Everybody uses this road. One day, a wealthy capitalist buys up all the land between the town and the river, including all the land which the road passes over. Libertarian legal theory says that the wealthy capitalist still does not own the road because he cannot buy the easement which exists by virtue of the long use of the road by the town’s inhabitants.
Similarly, let’s say there is an area outside of town where the inhabitants gather once a year to celebrate an annual festival that is as old as anyone can remember. The wealth capitalist buys up the land on which the festival grounds exist. He does not own the festival grounds themselves, nor the path into and out of them again by virtue of the easement which exists by virtue of the townspeople’s long use of these grounds.
What does or does not constitute a valid claim of easement is something that can only be determined through customary law, that is, through a competitive system of law arbitration.
Quite the opposite. Private ownership incentivizes the preservation of capital value. If you own a tract of forest, no one has to tell you to replant it after you cut it down, that’s obvious. It’s only “public” forests which suffer from over-harvesting.
You’re way off on this one. Rothbard and others have written extensively on this subject.
Clayton -
Are there any books or videos you would recommend that discuss this effect? I think it might help if I study this a bit more first, in order to gain a greater understanding of the problems in the current system. I have a fairly good idea of the problems in monetary policy, the FED, etc. but I’m not well versed in the problems with regulation in other areas.
Regarding the transition to more private ownership - in the selling of currently unowned/public or government owned land, who would receive the profits from the initial sale? Do you think it is important to keep ownership fairly local or at least within national borders, or do you see no problem with the sale of assets to foreigners, sovereign wealth funds, etc.
I’ll look up some Rothbard writings on this.
Joe, Clayton already addressed your post nicely. I wish I had more time these days to dig into it myself. I just had to quickly comment on this part:
Do you think that insurance is more of a “mandate” (or more indispendable) to a person than food? Following your logic, shouldn’t food producers “charge the absolute maximum they can, wring every penny out of their customers, knowing that they are indispensible”? If they would/should, why do you think they (obviously) don’t?