“No, and you’d know that if you read my posts. You thought I was confused because you were confused about my views. Anyone is free to use violence whenever he wants, all I’m saying is that he shouldn’t retreat to mystical concepts like god or rights or morals as justification.”
So where do you draw the line between this and chaos?
Well I’m not saying anyone should be free to use violence. I’m just acknowleding that they are, and saying that when they do they shouldn’t make excuses about ridiculous concepts like god or morals or rights.
I see. It is true that humans are indeed “free” to do many horrible things. Isn’t it true though that the formulation of “rights” are merely a necessary way of reconciling freedom with peace? (I’m speaking of the rights AnCaps promote, not the “rights” of something like the Constitution)
What alternative to private law would not be “just like statism”, according to you?
Values are subjective and not amenable to aggregation. Worse in what (hopefully quantifiable) way, and for whom?
What?
So to the extent that cars are being made, “perfectly arbitrary” judgments made by Honda and Porsche today are no improvement over the arbitrary decisions Stalin would make regarding how many and what kind of Lada cars must be made in the new Five Year Plan?
Why not? People will be able to choose their protection agencies, that’s a lot more voluntaryism. And what system doesn’t enforce arbitrary morals?
Skeptical, pardon me for being unsure of what you’re trying to say. Can you rephrase?
@ z1235
What alternative to private law would not be “just like statism”, according to you?
Alternatives that aren’t violent systems of arbitrary morals enforcement. Alternatives that don’t rely on hegemonic dominance hierarchies.
Worse in what (hopefully quantifiable) way, and for whom?
Worse for people who feel that the natural tendencies of mankind will lead to better alternatives than simply a different brand of hegemonic dominance hierarchies of violent arbitrary morals enforcement.
[allegedly arbitrary decisions by] Honda and Porsche [are analogous to the arbitrariness of courts]
I’m not understanding your analogy…
Sorry. I was just saying that it seems to me that “rights” in the AnCap view are simply a way of bringing about as much peace as possible while preventing aggression. I don’t see how it could ever be possible for a truly pacifist system to ever prevent violence.
Also, what’s with the Rothbard avatar? Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems as though you disagree with his whole system.
“I would personally not like violence used against me, but I’m sure if I was the most powerful person in the world I would’t be opposed to others using violence on my behalf. My main point has been that if anyone wants to promote violence, let him do it without retreat to mystical concepts like god or rights or morals. Just understand why violence is a pervasive tendency among homo sapiens, and why you support it in any given situation, without making excuses.”
You’re saying this but I don’t believe anyone in this thread has called upon morality thusfar and yet you criticize them. Also, you talked about “the pure evil of government in theory and in history”. Can you see why some of us are having a hard time understanding what exactly you’re trying to say?
Hashem, your logic on this issue is truly bizarre. You say that violence is a behavior and that the decision to be violent is made “without the need to retreat to mystical concepts like god or morality or rights.” But behaviors don’t exist sans the influence of our environment (which includes religion, morals and rights). People don’t behave certain ways in spite of being informed by the world around them, they behave certain ways because they’re informed by the world around them. So your violence is a logical impossibility.
You also say that it’s silly to posit a new order of morals and rights because, well, it doesn’t exist. The world we live in now didn’t exist 100 years ago. It had to be created, and it was created by people who posited and discussed this order of social control and how they would implement it on a grand scale. And then they succeeded in changing things gradually (no seasteading required). So it worked for them, but it’s useless for anyone else?
To top it off, you say that such a scenario would be “…no improvement over the current situation…” The current situation is one in which ‘the state’ can inflict violence upon you without your consent or even so much as a say in what will happen to you, and virtually no one else’s consent or say means anything either. In the theoretical ancap world, in which all power can potentially be exercised at the individual level, your explicit agreements (and those of others) are the binding authority. So even if violence may be inflicted upon you, it can at least be accounted for through your agreements or the agreements of the person(s) who inflicted it. And the difference of this dramatic shift of human incentives across a society would result in “no improvement”?
Unfortunate. I was hoping you had a legitimate argument.
Such as…?
**
So, given these “natural tendencies of mankind” (of whose existence you are presumably certain) you propose that a centralized system by which monopolist law/enforcement privileges are given to the most sociopathic among humans would in some way be better than a system by which no such privileges are given to any entity? What exactly is dominant, hegemonic, hierarchical, violent and arbitrary about a free market in provision of law and defense? And is “arbitrary” supposed to be a negative, undesirable feature – as opposed to what?
**
Centrally planned production of X is not the same (much less better) than a production of X in a free market where a complex web of “arbitrary” subjective valuations determines the quantity and quality of X being produced via the price system. What works for cars, also works for law and defense/security. They are all goods/services demanded by acting humans.
@ SkepticalMetal
bringing about as much peace as possible while preventing aggression.
Except the system, as one of arbitrary morals enforcement, is based on aggression. Regarding the pacifist system, I’m not advocating that so we shouldn’t be concerned about such a topic. As for the Rothbard avatar, he was my first hero because he seemed profoundly rational and logical compared to anyone else I’d ever heard about, and so the avatar to me carries sentimental value.
@ Neodoxy
You’re saying this but I don’t believe anyone in this thread has called upon morality thusfar and yet you criticize them.
Pardon me for assuming that people around here aren’t utilitarians.
Also, you talked about “the pure evil of government in theory and in history”. Can you see why some of us are having a hard time understanding what exactly you’re trying to say?
No, I’m not sure I can… I don’t claim to believe that anyone shouldn’t value evil, although I am saying that I personally wouldn’t like evil used against me. Or maybe I’m misunderstanding your implication, in which case please clarify and I apologize.
Could you please elaborate more on how the system is based on aggression? I thought it was based around defense of property and livelihood.
His point is that you can’t defend those things without violence.
EDIT
Hashem, but according to what you advance there is no actual good and evil, all actions are equally value free in the real world.
humangetsme and z1235 I’ll have to respond tomorrow. I’ll leave you with a riddle:
I know the libertarianism is good because libertarianism says it’s good
I know libertarianism knows it’s good because a really good system would
I suspect that your issues with most libertarians are largely semantic in nature. For example, most libertarians don’t seem to define “peace” the way you do - just as most of them don’t seem to define “war” as “any interpersonal dispute”, let alone “any violent interpersonal dispute”. (Please don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying you define “war” that way.) Most libertarians seem to define “peace” as “absence of war”, where “war” is defined as “violent disputes between states”. In an anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist world would then be a peaceful world by definition under those semantics. Does that make sense?
I understand that your answer was “pervasive nonviolence”. But I was wondering just what you meant by “pervasive”.
Certainly I agree that violence is a type of behavior. I readily admit to not having read every post you’ve made in every thread, but from what I have read, you seem to disapprove of violence per se. Furthermore, you seem to treat the words “violence” and “aggression” as synonymous. This is contrary to most libertarians, who consider “aggression” to be a subset of “violence”. I’m not saying they’re right and you’re wrong, or vice-versa. All I’m saying is that there seems to be a difference.
With that said, what are your definitions of “morality” and “rights”?
I find myself in agreement that systems of private law already exist. Nature is inherently a system of anarchy which is evidenced by the geopolitic. Governments are nothing more than mere corporations with investors, officers, employees, and customers. As it is now no legislature has licensed any occupation of law because ignorance of law is no excuse but using statues or codes for profit is regulated by attorneys. In every way there are already systems of competing private law. The issue at hand for liberty and freedom has never been nature or any system but what people believe.
@autokylos
If the issue at hand is belief then how come libertarians do not have their own dictionary to eliminate inconsistencies in semantics to the greatest extent possible? Private law has its own dictionaries.
I consider “violence” to be a subset of “aggression.”
@ SkepticalMetal
Could you please elaborate more on how the system is based on aggression?
Going by the Rothbardian definition of the NAP, aggression may be classified as initial, or not-initial (e.g. defensive, retaliatory, etc.). Ancapism, or libertarianism, or other systems relying on private law, require at least defensive/retaliatory aggression. In other words, they’re violent systems of arbitrary morals enforcement, which makes them no better than statism—the main difference is that libertarians/ancaps want to use violence to enforce arbitrary moral code X and statists want to use violence to enforce arbitrary moral code Y.
@ Autolykos
For example, most libertarians don’t seem to define “peace” the way you do
I can’t say I’m sure why you’re disagreeing or what you’re talking about. I’m quite sure that most people with an opinion on the matter, if caught for a 5 second interview while walking to work, would answer, “Yes,” to the question, “Do libertarians promote peace?” And if the follow up question was, “So they don’t promote violence, because they like peace?” the answer would often be “Correct.”
Whatever. I can say “pervasive-nonviolence” if you prefer. I feel peace conveys the connotation of non-violence appropriately.
No. Going by the Rothbardian definition of aggression - which, by the way, is one of the dictionary definitions of the term - aggression is the initiation of violence or the threat thereof. One may aggress in the course of defensive violence, but that is only if they in turn introduce more violence than the original aggressor.
Any system of law, period, requires violence or the threat thereof by definition. If it doesn’t have violence or the threat of violence, then it isn’t law; it is most likely a norm or custom.
This is almost true. I support voluntaryism because I prefer social cooperation over social conflict. If someone prefers conflict, then I have no problem with the law dealing with it accordingly. While no system is objectively or inherently more moral (or even moral at all), libertarianism and more specifically voluntaryism promote social cooperation the best out of all systems.
So the main difference between libertarian anarchists and statists is that statists prefer social conflict as a solution to problems. That or they prefer cooperation and do not understand that the state is adversarial in nature. It sounds like you are hung up on private courts meting out justice, and not all libertarians view private law courts as a place where the judge makes the law. If that is your critique, please stop stating that all libertarians believe this. That is like saying that libertarian minarchists and anarchists are the same. However similar they may be, they are not the same.
No. Going by the Rothbardian definition of aggression
Ya that’s my mistake how could I be so careless. Obviously, he says no man may aggress. I was thinking he said “no man may initiate aggression”. And he clearly defines aggression as the initiation of violence. When is violence non-initial then? I mean, if A initiates trade with B, doesn’t B have to initiate trade with A in response in order for them both to be engaged in trade together? Or is B engaged in some behavior that doesn’t require initiative on his part as well?
Regarding the rest, yes I’m hung up on the institutions of violent moral enforcement. Libertarianism and ancapism don’t change from the state in that regard. As you agree, the difference is that one promotes violence as a solution in order to maintain moral system X, while the other promotes violence as a solution in order to promote moral system Y.