Daniel:
Sorry, but you can’t redefine anarcho-capitalism as non-aggression. It’s a neat trick, but hardly a good argument. So, can you demonstrate why anarcho-capitalist institutions and actors won’t make an attempt at rent-seeking? That’s a really basic form of aggression in this natural rights-anarcho-capitalism school of thought.
Why must it be therefore, the state? If anything it’s a critique of moralistic arguments that support the abolition of the state. States could very easily be seen as a natural, emergent order. At least the very basic institutions of governance that gain legitimacy through monopolizing legitimate coercion. Not all states, but some. I believe government is inefficient, and that the majority of today’s formal governments aren’t acting in a welfare-maximizing way. I believe that in general, policies shouldn’t rely on government provision/allocation unless there is no possible market-based solution. I’m not a big fan of grand schemes to reorganize emergent institutions of governance, but I also doubt that you would disagree with me.
I really don’t know what the optimal institutional environment for society is. None of us do. I do know markets are typically the most efficient means for allocating scarce resources, and that political failure is much more dangerous to society (on average) than market failures (which have happened, but I think the use of market failure in public policy debates is absolutely assinine). But does that lead one to believe that cultural preferences will shift towards anarchism? Furthermore, if the cost of implementing anarchism in the short term is extremely high, is it worth possible long-term benefits? That’s an important question, at least it is to me.
Autolykos:
“In that case, why do you bother to oppose any existing government? “All is for the best in this best of all possible worlds,” according to you.”
Um, excuse me? This is a terrible straw man. Pointing out empirical facts says nothing about my normative beliefs. Why not dispute my claim if you believe it to be wrong, instead of telling me what I meant? If anything, one could easily ask you the same question. Why do you oppose existing governments? Empirical studies show that if anything, citizens own a large share of the blame within democratic societies, so why constantly attack political actors instead of those who influence the actions of political actors?
Daniel doesn’t have to demonstrate anything. No one will coerce him, and I hardly think my posting on this account intimidates him. If that is the impression I gave, I apologize for the seemingly harsh rhetoric. But I would like him to demonstrate it if he wants me to find legitimacy in his arguments. That’s all.
“Let me start by asking you this question: how do you distinguish between “legitimate” and “illegitimate” coercion? Please note that this is a normative question, not a descriptive one.”
Normatively, I’d say that cultural customs and other informal institutions of governance are very, very legitimate whereas political discretion is illegitimate. Though, I wouldn’t create a supporting argument by using my personal values. Value-free is the way to go.
A PDA and community counsel decide that the burglar must pay restitutions to the victims of his crimes. A drug dealer cuts off the arm of one of his competitors, threatening to do worse if he doesn’t stop interfering with the dealer’s market oligopoly.
Legitimacy in a political sense can depend on a lot of things. What is legitimate in Venezuela would be seen as illegitimate here. That is a descriptive answer, but I really don’t think that my personal value-statements carry a lot of weight in the real world.
“My own notions are as follows. It’s not a question of governance vs. no governance, it’s a question of what governance. I certainly don’t think that all governance is created equal. Furthermore, my own notion of “natural rights” is not that they exist in an objective sense (i.e. as things-in-themselves). Rather, I think that there’s a conception of “rights” that is natural for nearly all people to hold. Does that make sense?”
Of course it’s a question of what governance. This doesn’t provide an answer to my question, though:
“How can governance be provided with legitimacy without the threat of coercion?”
As far as how common-sensical your definition of natural rights is, I find it confusing. Empirical observations have noted that voters are systematically biased. Call it a hunch, but I doubt that the average voter supports the same “natural” rights as you. When you get into specific demographics and cultures, it becomes even less likely.
I define the state as an entity which is able to claim a monopoly on the legitimate use of coercion.
Can you please define what exactly you believe to be “forcing non-aggressive people to obey the commands of the state even if they don’t want to”?
The threat of coercion is implicit in any form of efficient governance. The dispute resolves around the market share of coercion, so to speak. Does an instutution require a monopoly on legitimate coercion? Or will the threat of coercion and the cultural backing of such coercion enough? Is there really a difference (ignoring the semantics)?
But they don’t have modern security for their crops, livestock, or farm equipment, do they? Or are you also implying that they’re benign parasites on statist legal and protection systems as well?