I think the bracketed comment is indicative of how it’s being dealt with. 
Did you see my earlier post in this thread? I sent you a PM but you haven’t responded.
What is wrong, in my opinion, is that he is making a case for majoritarianism: if a clear majority–even near-unanimity–favor a coercive action, then so be it. He is claiming that private property can be subverted if a large number of other people have a good intention.
No, actually, I specifically didn’t:
- “Fleischer is right to emphasize, in a utilitarian fashion, that such abuse could very well be much less in an anarchistic society and so anarchy is thus preferable.”
- “Right now, there are industries trafficking in child abuse that can be geographically located (e.g., Thailand).”
No. The problem is trying to find a way to carry over a statist goal to an astate system. Which you are also doing. It’s important as a libertarian to be realistic. You can’t have everything in the world exactly your way.
I completely agree–or, at least its troubled when considered from a rights-based moral viewpoint. Using my own philosophic foundations, I don’t necessarily prohibit foreign entities from “invading” a home to secure a child from acts that violate moral customs. This is similar, in my opinion, to an argument from David Friedman: “He gives an example of using a rifle, the owner of which does not wish to lend it to anyone (even if it would save lives), to shoot a madman who is about to kill several people in a crowd. Whereas libertarian rights theory would suggest that it is not acceptable for someone to take the gun, Friedman would prefer that someone take the gun rather than letting the madman kill lots of people.”
Is a baby a self-owner? If so, is a parent responsible for feeding it? If children are entirely self-owners, do parents have any obligation to even care for them? The concept of “self-ownership” breaks down once applied to the actual world where not all agents can be considered rationally autonomous (à la Kant).
If “the legal ‘regime’ of the stateless society” can approve of violations of private property (entering onto a man’s land and snatching away his child), then how are self-ownership and private property being upheld by this brand of libertarianism? If it all depends upon what “many (let alone most) other people” feel, then how is individual sovereignty being held as the foremost value?
If a man (a self-owner) has legitimately purchased his land (and thus owns it entirely; he’s not renting, for instance), then how can an external force (even if legitimized as a legal force by others) break in to enforce the moral code of others?
Or, for instance, let us suppose there is a “country” (a remote island, let’s assume) where child-sex tourism is a central industry, and where customers from all over the world travel; this island has its own private police force (like Paradise Island) and its own internal rules. Could one legitimately intervene? The children are nourished with the basic essentials (e.g., food, shelter, etc.) and are being treated according to the laws purchased by the island’s residents. What can be done, except coercive war, to remedy this? I, for one, would happily endorse coercive measures to insure better lives for those children.
What exactly is the “statist goal” you allege I am trying to carry over to a stateless society?
Stopping every instance of this event that you find unsightly.
No one has claimed that we can stop “every instance of this event that [we] find unsightly.”
To stop it all, though, was a policy endorsed by Walter Block, so unless you are willing to accuse him of the same “statist goal,” then I must confess not understanding your point.
That is why I made no such accusation. But you are the one that said this: “How does believing the issue of child abuse to be one of the weakest points of anarcho-capitalist theory mean I do not understand it?” So, it is a weakness to you that something unsightly might not be countered by libertarianism.
Thanks for a thought-provoking response!
I was under the impression that libertarian rights theory was more concerned with correcting wrongs (i.e. justice) than with preventing them. Am I mistaken?
Regarding David Friedman’s example, I guess the question is which action is seen as more morally wrong. Now, I’d argue that no one has a duty or an obligation to prevent a madman from killing several people in a crowd. I’d also argue that taking one’s property against his wishes is still immoral. However, what’s more important to me is not that immoral behavior is prevented, but that it is compensated for. So I’d find it more egregious if the person who stopped the madman then refused to pay restitution for his theft of the rifle.
Strictly speaking, I’d say that a baby is a self-owner. However, she’s in a state of dependence on something else to take care of her until she develops to the point where she can take care of herself.
I do think that children aren’t as dependent on their parents as most people seem to believe. The idea that a human being cannot be considered fully accountable for her actions until she reaches her late teens is ludicrous, IMO. A lot of the modern-day dependence of children on adults seems to be due to two things: prohibitions on child labor and mandatory schooling.
Sorry, but I have to admit to being confused by your questions. Maybe it’s because I’m not so concerned as to whether a stateless society is a perfect embodiment of a given moral theory, whether one bills said theory as being “libertarian” or not. I figure that a stateless society would by and large uphold self-ownership and private property, but there are always boundary cases. Perfect adherence to any moral theory seems impossible when we’re talking about large numbers of independent human actors.
Please understand that I’m not saying it would necessarily be morally right for others to invade his land. I’m merely saying that, if they are then willing to provide restitution for the invasion, then justice will be served. Does this make sense?
“Laws purchased by the island’s residents”? Can you explain what you mean by that?
Otherwise, if the children no longer want to participate in that industry, I’d say they’re free to leave. If they’re kept against their will, then this is another case of violation of self-ownership.
Well, Thailand is not exactly a stateless society, so I’m not sure if the comparison is completely valid, but I do see what you are saying.
I guess this begs the question, though… if people are too indifferent towards child abuse to expend economic and social pressure against its perpetrators, then how can we expect them to vote for and support a government that will do it for them? Either people care about it or they don’t, right?
Didn’t Friedman answer these notions in Machinery of Freedom? I’m just asking, because I’m not done with it. We can play these “what if” games and say, “what if a society performs human sacrifice and its protected by PDAs?” Well, what if child trafficking is a problem in Thailand the authorities do nothing to stop it? What if females in the Middle East are forced to cover their heads and bodies? What if Hutus gain control of the Rwandan military force and slaughter Tutsis? I mean, this is all dependant on the society we are talking about. Erecting a State isn’t really going to do anything to stop child abuse more than a PDA would. A society that supports slavery can support slavery in democracy or on a total market. It doesn’t really work as an argument against the State and it doesn’t serve as an argument against a total market either.
I generally go with the NAP even as a moral skeptic/anti-realist because it seems like a subjective thing that we just agree upon that doesn’t have to be subject to truth-value. But even saying that, in an extreme situation like child abuse, I don’t care if PDAs violate the custodial “rights” bestowed upon the parents. The child isn’t regarded as property, it is regarded as having some type of ability not to be coerced against and they obviously don’t have the economic capacity to pay for defense themselves.
Anyway, you could also make a utilitarian argument that more competition is better, but not all “coercion” is bad. I mean, currently in the United States if I want to smoke a joint I can’t, so even if a PDA had an anti-pot law and coerced pot smokers into giving up their stashes of marijuana, I honestly don’t see what the difference is. If you’re not 100% opposed to coercion in principle, you could also make the case that competition between enforcing something like drug laws would still be more efficient. So you could even be a conservative market anarchist
- You assert that I am trying to carry over a “statist goal.”
I then question, “What exactly is the ‘statist goal’ you allege I am trying to carry over to a stateless society?”
You answer:
- You thereby claim that my “statist goal” was attempting to stop “every instance of this event that [I] find unsightly.”
Then, I answer, “No one has claimed that we can stop ‘every instance of this event that [we] find unsightly.’”
You retort:
- You, somehow, shockingly deny any such accusation. What exactly was your accusation, then, when you said I had a statist goal? Oh, wait, you already said it was “stopping every instance of this event that [I] find unsightly.” But, wait, no… that can’t be right because you “made no such accusation”!
Do you think there is no difference between wanting to do something being able to? I don’t see what is confusing here.
He’s talking about democracy or majoritarianism, not libertarianism.
What if they break in and he is not doing a dastardly act? What if they don’t “catch” him doing anything? Haven’t they just violated his property? What is libertarian about vigilantism?
So basically, any court which would defend property rights would go out of business, because property rights don’t matter if it isn’t the majority view.
Again, what does anything about Block’s position have to do with libertarian anarchism?
Or more simply, taking a huge intellectual shortcut and appealing to natural rights.
They aren’t weak points of the theory. They are areas that are weak in theory, and in some cases, only practice can find us answers (beyond theory). The notion that ancap is flawed is based on an assertion by you that it must be able to provide a satisfactory answer for child abuse and environmental issues. Ancap doesnt deal with either, nor does it pretend to. No one is asserting ancap will always result in great outcomes, or that it is capable of manufacturing a utopia.
If you want to critique ancap, point out where it fails itself, the way statism and liberal democracy fail themselves. Don’t critique it for what is not. Ancap also doesn’t handle immortality or time travel well. So what?
I fully agree with this.
I’m not sure how one demarcates what “ancap” does “deal with” and what it does not “deal with”; how have you done that? On what grounds do you assert that anarcho-capitalistic theory “doesnt [sic] deal” with, for instance, “environmental issues”? I would assert that it most certainly does and it especially should given current popular concerns (e.g., global warming).
Since we both agree that anarcho-capitalism will not “always result in great outcomes,” then aren’t those–as I had originally phrased it–“weak points,” especially when arguing against opposing worldviews? Frankly, claiming that I believe some areas are “weak points” and your claiming that some outcomes won’t be “great” seem roughly the same position to me.
What is incredibly confusing, for me, is that you asserted I was pursuing a “statist goal” by voicing a preference against child abuse–a position, likewise, being discussed by Walter Block.
Actually, I would argue that scientific advances such as those are more likely to be attained in a wealth-maximizing process of development (i.e., anarcho-capitalism).
I believe that’s what I am doing. Child-sex tourism, for instance, is a black market–given all the common criticisms against the War on Drugs, consider the same criticisms as applied to the former industry: once the market is freed from Statist prohibition, anarcho-capitalism seems capable of generating profitable industries in child prostitution. That is, in my opinion, a point worthy of more consideration–and, contrary to your assertion, it’s a point that’s specific to anarcho-capitalism.
@StrangeLoop, I think the rights of children is a very important point to be made in an-cap circles. But honestly, if there is demand for child protection, it can be provided. The basic idea is that parents are custodians and not owners, and with this in mind, the lack of economic capacity for children to purchase defense has to be factored into the equation. If they are being coerced against, I’m sure PDAs would come to their defense as a matter of public safety.
Another point, what the idea of defense competition provides is what kind of defense are you willing to purchase? It’s easy for a conservative to sit at his home and then go to the ballot box to vote against medical marijuana and have the state enforce his personal preference with other people’s money. It’s quite a different thing to enforce it with your own money. The idea is that with the competition and with people wanting to be as cheap as possible, I think PDAs would resemble what a libertarian law would look like. I’m 99% positive that child defense will be part of a PDA’s customer package. It could even be a public funding type thing (I know, socialism!) where they kind of just look out for the defense of people at large with the permission of court rulings that are publicly respected. I mean it wouldn’t be much different from how it works now, there would just be more competition. Barack Obama taking a pen and marking his signature on a piece of paper doesn’t magically legitimize child services, these child services “violate” the right of abusive parents every single time and since most of society approves and probably would pay for such a service, the market can easily provide for child defense.