Had to butt in on this one.
Libertarianism in general is not based strictly on economics. It also has plenty of ethical considerations. Murray Rothbard himself argued that utilitarian economics by itself is not enough to establish the basis for a libertarian system of thought, and may very well be used to justify the status quo in the absence of any genuine ethical theory of rights.
Libertarianism isn’t strictly economic, but the arguments for Minarchism are because they weren’t exactly laid out by a diverse group of scholars.
The two most influential arguments for Anarcho-Capitalism come from:
Murray Rothbard, “Man, Economy, and State” – an argument on the basis of natural rights
David Friedman “The Machinery of Freedom” – an argument on the basis of utilitarianism
Both men are economists. Although Rothbard invokes a lot of Classical Liberal political theory, he invokes it very sloppily and he still largely relies upon his background as an economist. That should be clear enough from the title itself.
Why exactly it should be, “Man, Economy, and State” and not “Man, Society, and State” isn’t quite clear.
And don’t give me that “society doesn’t exist” nonsense. Libertarians, even here, have pointed out how the idea of “society” is pretty obvious and in no way contradicts methodological individualism. Libertarian hostility towards the word “society” seems to result from the fact that the field of Sociology has been historically dominated by Marxist theories about “classes” and “social groups” apparently acting as conscious entities. Even today, such theories seem to predominate in Sociology. However, theories of society can be based upon individual human action and you pretty much have to invoke society if you’re talking to talk about what things will be like for people under any particular political or economic system. A very basic definition of society is “what things are like for people.”
In America, you and I speak english, eat cheeseburgers, and have a strong regard for liberty. In the Middle-East, they speak Arabic, eat kebab, and have a strong regard for Islamic theocracy. Recognizing these facts in no way contradicts individualism. We simply have to recognize their individual component parts. “You” and “me” speak English, as individuals, because we were born in America. The individual people in the Middle-East speak Arabic because they were born there. There’s no problem in recognizing, then, that there are “English-speaking countries” and “Arab-speaking countries.” There isn’t any problem with this, except when collectivists start treating these groups as conscious entities in and of themselves rather than groups made up of conscious entities.
As noted elsewhere, “society” is no more intrinsically collectivist than “economy.”
Also, a quick note: The last two paragraphs weren’t attempts at straw-mans – just a pre-emptive rebuttal to what Libertarians tend to say, when the word “society” is invoked.
My point is that the argument that ‘language is vague’ is no real defence of minarchism vis-a-vis anarchism. Clearer now? As for gangs, we have one now monopolistically claiming power and calling itself a State, and which offers little in the way of justice. So how, precisely, is it preferrable to anarchism?
As for your pre-emptive rebuttal, it is again, pointless. Austrians base their defence of markets on their cooperative nature. Typically the phrase ‘society does not exist’ refers to some entity above and apart from individuals.
the problem you have with our 85iq having dead man is that he did not comprehend the contract the crazy billionaire was offering. there was no meeting of the minds. he did not agree to being shot just as an illiterate person staring at the sign would not have been consenting to death by walking into the building.
as far as assisted suicide is concerned…yes, there can be assisted suicide between two concenting parties. if the suicider backs out on the suicidee and does not recompensate the suicidee (a refund or something of the like), then he should be penalized and/or his business will suffer accordingly.
It is because Market Anarchism relies upon assumptions of clarity of language. If language isn’t clear and two people can read a contract carefully, sign it, but still walk away with completely different beliefs about what just happened, then a society based simply on contracts isn’t workable. This, as I said, goes against mainstream philosophy and mathematics – both a priori schools of thought you can’t reject on anti-positivist grounds.
And, as I said, by the same token, then, a society based purely on legislature and/or with a Constitution is equally susceptible to this problem, if not even more so. The common law has long found ways to deal with such issues, as have various civil law systems. The vagueness of language applies equally to any and all legal systems.
Trianglechoke7,
If I have not threatened your or anyone else’s life, or raped you or anyone else, or signed a contract saying you may kill me, then you may not kill me. I don’t forsee many private arbitors deciding in favour of the homicidal rich dudes, and I don’t forsee many customers patronising the private arbitors that do.
Your argument does not convince me that government is any less threatening than this scenario you propose. However, if you wish to advocate a voluntaryist government a la Auberon Herbert (one without the power to tax or compell coercion), that’s perfectly fine with me.
That would be murder and the owner would be treated as a murder by private courts.
You have fallen for a grand fallacy: that people respect decency because of governments. In reality, people force governments to respect decency more highly than governments otherwise would.
Not true. Contracts are not promises or agreements. They exist as legal documents involving rights to property.
In the words of Rothbard. “Those contracts which do not involve implicit theft should not be enforceable in a libertarian society.”
Also see “Punishment and Proportionality,” pages 85-96, in The Ethics of Liberty.
Does my preemptive contract not solve this billionaire issue?
Also, it would help clarify things if contracts were named. If you see a contract that doesn’t have a familiar name that would go a long way toward your decision to enter said contract. Also, there could be certain pre-defined portions of contracts that make them more agreeable or clearer. You could submit the contract name into your cell and get a reply from a contracting agency that represents you. A computer could quickly view the contract and if portions are outside the domain of ‘predetermined clauses’ it would be flagged.
Oops, gotta run. But I think theres all sorts of ways that a heavily contract-based society could thrive.