Law in "practice" in an anarcho-capitalist society

[Juan]

The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite,

That is, “democratic statism” or mob rule. There’s nothing about individual sovereignty in that line of thinking,

It is not the right of self-determination of a delimited national unit, but the right of the inhabitants of every territory to decide on the state to which they wish to belong.

That is fully statist as well. Mises thinks that subjects are ‘free’ to be ruled either by state A or state B. Mises doesn’t think that individuals have any sort of natural rights as individuals. That’s why Mises advocates taxation, and conscription. He’s only saying that individuals are ‘free’ to choose to be taxed by state A or state B.

However, the right of self-determination of which we speak is not the right of self-determination of nations, but rather the right of self-determination of the inhabitants of every territory large enough to form an independent administrative unit. If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done.

Mises is again talking about creating states. What he’s saying is that the line which divides monopolistic tyrant A from monopolistic tyrant B is to be drawn according to the ‘wishes’ of ‘subjects’.

I suggest that people interested in knowing Mises position read the whole chapter which is about “Liberal foreing policy” http://mises.org/liberal/ch3sec2.asp

It has already been pointed out that a country can enjoy domestic peace only when a democratic constitution provides the guarantee that the adjustment of the government to the will of the citizens can take place without friction.

It must always be possible to shift the boundaries of the state if the will of the inhabitants of an area to attach themselves to a state other than the one to which they presently belong has made itself clearly known,

Adam Knott’s selective quoting, selective bolding and selective interpretation is misleading.

[Truth_and_Liberty]

Adam - thanks for the Mises quotes.

@Adam Knott

Two points I believe are important:

Mises’s conception of liberalism was based on individual political self-determination, which the above passages make clear. Though he was opposed to the idea of anarchism, conceived as a total absence of government (however government may be conceived), he was an advocate of political self-determination of the individual, so that in principle, every individual may choose the political association (government) to which he/she belongs.

It sounds like Mises means by individual political self-determination the same thing I mean when I say de facto libertarian property rights in the field of producing legal codes. He seems to mean by political association (government) what we might call PDA’s. This alone would seem to make him an anarchist, by the modern definition.

@Adam Knott

Perhaps the idea didn’t occur to Mises that political association need not necessarily be based on geographical location. Or maybe he briefly considered it, but believed such an idea was impractical and thus not worth mentioning. But it is clear from the underlined passage above that Mises believed that “if it were in any way possible to grant this right of [political] self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done.”

I need to think some more about the territoriality issue. AJ’s thread about this quickly descended into ANOTHER debate about objective/subjective ethics and natural law unfortunately.

[I_Ryan]

@Juan

Adam Knott’s selective quoting, selective bolding and selective interpretation is misleading.

I wonder why you ignored this passage, the most important passage that Adam Knott quoted:

@Ludwig von Mises

[I]f it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done.

[tacoface]

Because he is dishonest.

[nirgrahamUK]

trulib, i congratulate you on your thoughtful post.

I have questions on this :

@trulib

So Friedman’s description of anarchy assumes de facto libertarian property rights in the field of producing legal codes only.

I’m not sure what you mean by that…

[Amanojack]

@wilderness

@AJ

@wilderness

@AJ

…but my point is, what if I am not?

The individual still is, but it is a perversion.

What sentence is that connecting to?

The one above of yours I left on the post and underlined. The other half of the sentence stated for justice. Justice does not pervert itself that would be a contradiction.

Do you mean, the individual still is doing [the punishment] for justice? I’m not sure how that ties in. (Which individual?)

@wilderness

I especially want to thank AJ for his braveness and calmness through the process.

Thank you. I wasn’t expecting this debate to yield much at first, but it’s been surprisingly clarifying.

[Amanojack]

@Adam Knott

Perhaps the idea didn’t occur to Mises that political association need not necessarily be based on geographical location. Or maybe he briefly considered it, but believed such an idea was impractical and thus not worth mentioning. But it is clear from the underlined passage above that Mises believed that “if it were in any way possible to grant this right of [political] self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done.”

This is quite enlightening on Mises’s views. He was apparently fully libertarian/anarchist/panarchist in his views, save certain “practicalities.” Or, he simply awaited a “possible way” for it to work in practice, that he had not been able to envision. Rothbard and others would eventually lay out such “possible ways.”

@trulib

Think of it like this - if the government were to collapse tomorrow, we would have de facto libertarian property rights in the field of producing legal codes. And since most people aren’t libertarians, it is likely that many legal codes will at first be quite un-libertarian. So we would be in Friedman’s world. If Friedman is right, libertarian legal codes will triumph, and before long, we’ll be in Rothbard’s world where all courts (except a few rogue courts) use libertarian legal codes.

That is a great, succinct encapsulation of my thinking on this.

Let me close with Adam Knott’s important insight on the potential of the Internet:

@Adam Knott

Thus, Mises argued that in principle, political self-determination must be granted to every individual, but that for practical reasons, in his estimation, that could not be done at that time.

Thus to some degree, Mises’s vision of individual political self-determination anticipates the Internet era, since with the evolution of technology, with each passing day it becomes more feasible to base our various associations not on our geographical locations, but on our individual choices, something Mises is arguing for.

My sig says “Think outside the monopoly paradigm” and links two articles that I believe are germane to Mises’s point. The first directly explores the implications of the Internet and how it may make - or already has made - full anti-Statism practical, even supposing it wasn’t already in Mises’s time. The second link attempts to shed light on the question of why anarchy led to Statism (monopoly) in the past, and what factors are different now; hence it attempts to answer Mises’s implied question of “when” full self-determination became practical (or will become practical, for the minarchists out there), as well as what conditions of society better enable it to function without monopoly control, and indeed to reach a condition of full self-determination of one’s political association.

[Juan]

@I. Ryan

I wonder why you ignored this passage, the most important passage that Adam Knott quoted:

Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism: f it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done.

Did I suggest that you read what Mises said first hand instead of relying on Knott’s version ? You didn’t even understand my comments did you ? I addressed that part. What Mises says is that ‘individuals’ can choose between different states. Not that they can be really free.

[Juan]

@truthtaco

Because he is dishonest.

Are you talking about me sonny ?

[Juan]

This is quite enlightening on Mises’s views. He was apparently fully libertarian/anarchist/panarchist in his views,

No he was not. He supported taxation and conscription. Oh and panarchy and anarchy and libertarianism are different things.

[adam_knott]

@trulib

I need to think some more about the territoriality issue. AJ’s thread about this quickly descended into ANOTHER debate about objective/subjective ethics and natural law unfortunately.

Trulib:

It seems many posters just bypassed the question and delved right into old debates.

A great introduction to the subject is Max Border’s two-part article, which I believe AJ also linked to:

Towards YouTopia: Must All Public Good Providers Remain Earthbound?

[wilderness]

@AJ

Do you mean, the individual still is doing [the punishment] for justice? I’m not sure how that ties in. (Which individual?)

I went back to the original question. I see what you’re asking, maybe. Here’s an answer: The meaning of punishment (what kind) isn’t inferred from property rights, but it is implied due to self-defense. I can point out it is wrong that A did x, due to a logical inference of x in connection to property rights. What happens after that (the punishment) is debatable. Though I’ve come across some that are better than others.

[I_Ryan]

@Juan

Did I suggest that you read what Mises said first hand instead of relying on Knott’s version? You didn’t even understand my comments did you? I addressed that part. What Mises says is that ‘individuals’ can choose between different states. Not that they can be really free.

No. Here:

[quote=“Ludwig von Mises, “Liberalism””]

The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected and complied with.

[/quote]

[quote=“Ludwig von Mises, “Liberalism””]

If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done. This is impracticable only because of compelling technical considerations […]

[/quote]

If I assume that it were “possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person” and I replace, in the first passage, the boldfaced references to collections of individuals with an individual, that your point is misguided becomes obvious.

[quote=“Ludwig von Mises, “Liberalism””]

The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever [an individual] make[s] it known, by a freely [communicated choice], that [he] no longer wish[es] to remain united to the state to which [he] belong[s] at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, [his] wishes are to be respected and complied with.

[/quote]

If, at any time, an individual can choice to establish his own independent state or attach himself to some other state, how is that any different than the modern conception of so-called “anarchocapitalism”?

[I_Ryan]

@Juan

No he was not. He supported taxation and conscription. Oh and panarchy and anarchy and libertarianism are different things.

If you, as an individual who freely formed his own independent state, decides to “conscript” or “tax” yourself, does the words “conscription” or “taxation” still carry the same meaning?

[wilderness]

I. Ryan. Doesn’t that go a bit too far? softening the meaning of what Mises was saying (sophism). I don’t mean that in a derogatory sense, but I suggest reflecting upon that.

[I_Ryan]

@wilderness

I. Ryan. Doesn’t that go a bit too far? softening the meaning of what Mises was saying (sophism). I don’t mean that in a derogatory sense, but I suggest reflecting upon that.

Mises clearly viewed government as a collectivistic, territorial, monopolistic, bureaucratic institution which serves as the necessary prerequisite of the market economy. But he also clearly stated that, if to eradicate the collectivisticness were possible, it “would have to be done”.

[wilderness]

i understand that part and agree. I was referring to Mises’ advocation of conscription and taxes and your response to that.

[I_Ryan]

@wilderness

i understand that part and agree. I was referring to Mises’ advocation of conscription and taxes and your response to that.

Mises clearly supported certain, very limited instances of taxation and, at one point in his life, certain, very limited instances of conscription. But he also clearly, implicitly stated that, if to eradicate what makes them possible, what he considered as the very limited but “technically” necessary instances of collectivism, were possible, it “would have to be done”.

[Truth_and_Liberty]

@nirgrahamUK

@trulib

So Friedman’s description of anarchy assumes de facto libertarian property rights in the field of producing legal codes only.

I’m not sure what you mean by that…

I mean that he assumes a free market is operating in the legal code industry - competition as opposed to monopoly. The terms ‘free market’, ‘competition’ and ‘monopoly’ contain within them the concept of de facto libertarian property rights. A market where force is used routinely to prevent competition (i.e. where there are no de facto libertarian property rights) doesn’t function properly. Friedman’s analysis is based on a fully functioning legal code industry.

[Juan]

If you, as an individual who freely formed his own independent state, decides to “conscript” or “tax” yourself, does the words “conscription” or “taxation” still carry the same meaning?

I. Ryan, Mises supported a state that according to his amoralist/utilitarian views could ‘legally’ enslave its subjects. I frankly don’t see what’s the point in pretending that author X didn’t say what he actually said.

Are you trying to pretend that Mises was some sort of pacifist saint ? Well, he wasn’t, at all. If anything he was the typical statist who believes that absent the state civilization is not possible because people will kill each other.