Territoriality and Monopoly

Economics Political Theory
1

In another thread, Adam Knott writes:

…I might refer to Rothbard’s vision [for society] as “natural rights capitalism.” It is a capitalistic system with natural rights legal code.

…I might refer to Friedman’s vision as “market based law provision.” It is a system that envisions law arising out of “consumer demand,” this conceived mainly along traditional market/exchange lines.

…

If all people do not agree on either system—if there is not complete unanimity—then the question naturally arises as to the legal status of those not agreeing with the system in question (the legal status of outsiders, as defined by the AnCap legal code or system we are referring to).

If they are to be considered outlaws in the legal sense (not just the non-binding moral sense), then the legal system inflicts consequences which involve some form of coercion.

If the outsiders are not considered outlaws in the legal sense, but are allowed to proceed unharmed, then we have some kind of legal coexistence.

Later he writes:

As a movement, libertarianism hasn’t come to terms with how to approach monopolism versus polycentrism, and I believe that the notion of separating political association from geography will play a part in solving this dilemma, or at least moving us toward some form of libertarian future.

With the rise of the Internet, the idea is occurring to more and more people that social organization needn’t necessarily be territorial.

Most arguments on the Mises forums seem to take for granted that whatever system (usually AnCap) will be applied universally within a given territory, and anyone in that territory who does not conform to that system will be a “criminal.”

For what reasons does the legal system need to be universal across the enter span of a given territory?

2

defacto legal systmes will be what they are. whether those that are realised are just or not is another question.

Here I quote David Friedman from his website:

My (very tentative) conclusion is that the normative universe, like the physical universe, exists. Certain ought statements are true, certain ought statements are false. Torturing small children for the fun of it really is wicked. I cannot go behind that and explain “ought” as derived from “is”–or “is” from “ought.” Both are undefined terms, which I am confident that normal human beings understand. I can observe “normative facts” and try to form theories about them, just as I can observe physical facts and try to form theories about them. But I should not be surprised if other people form other theories in both cases.

3

Given these distinctions:

Normative rights: the claims that ought to be respected and protected.

Legal rights: the claims that a given legal institution officially announces it will respect and protect.

De facto rights: the claims that actually receive respect and protection in a given society.

As I see it, normative rights (i.e. justice) apply universally to all interpersonal relations. So anyone who violates normative rights is a criminal.

But whether normative rights are also legal and defacto rights is a different question. Here I agree with D. Friedman that competition in legal systems (i.e. institutions that provide dispute resolution) will tend to produce laws that are consistent with normative rights. In other words, anarchy will tend to be libertarian.

I am assuming here that objective morality is true. It seems this debate hinges on this point.

4

A territory is either sovereign or other agents within it are. It follows that if there are sovereign people in that territory, then whatever system there remains there is now the universal law.

But if you look at it from a global perspective, the Earth is not a territory, it is an anarchy of nation-states, with some pure anarchy in-between (oceans, space, etc). These nation-states have their own internal law, but they also have multi-lateral law (international law) set by various precedents written in peace treaties and so on. The most important precedent is the Treaty of Westphalia, which defined the modern sovereign state into law.

So for example if American Catholics decide they are no longer going to obey to the laws of Massachusetts, then Massachusetts is no longer a sovereign territory. But Catholics in Massachusetts still have relations and conflicts with other citizens of the territory, and there is going to develop a body of law to regulate those relations, while, as members of the Catholic church, they will be bound by the internal law of the church on things such as marriages and general behavior.

5

It seems to me that on the one hand that it is taken for granted as you say and on the other hand it involves the concept of property rights.

It is taken for granted in the sense that most people haven’t ventured in this direction enough to actually form an opinion or theory about it. I’m speculating that most people are so used to a monopolistic legal system that they don’t see how it could be any other way. They have an intuition that something is wrong with the legal systems we have to day, so they go about trying to think of better legal systems, but fail to think of legal systems outside the realm of a monopolistic legal system.

It involves the concept of property rights in the sense that property rights implies that a legal system punishes those who attempt to steal or damage a piece of geography that is been legally owned by someone. This idea could be considered a legal system across a given territory as presented in your question. I don’t think I need to dive into the reasons that people think the idea of property rights needs to exist.

In my view, markets only fail to perform when they aren’t allowed to perform. And one way in which the market is not allowed to perform is in the protection of property. Lets say that a market emerged somewhere for the protection of property and in one instance a “protection provider” fails to protect some piece of property. The consequences would not be legal consequences. The consequences would be similar to other products and services in the free market when they fail to achieve consumer demands. Possibilities include: damage to the reputation of the “protection provider” resulting in a loss in profit, consumers switching to a competing “protection provider” which might result in a restoration of control by the original property owner, etc…

What I have presented here certainly does not cover all of the issues associated with your question. But I would like to pose another question:

If the market can provide protection of property, then why do we need a monopolistic legal system to protect property?

6

AJ, do you think I should put this question into a new topic? I think it might limit the scope of your question if people start responding to it.

7

If you don’t agree with anyone, anytime, anywhere on anything, you just have to weight the pros and cons of forcibly making him change his mind, of peacefully trying to convince him to act differently or to just do nothing about it, and then you act according to your preferences. The “de facto” legal tradition of a society emerges out of the such judgments of all its members.

So, when at (least) I say that a system of un-legitimately violable property rights, based on homesteading and voluntary transfer of property (i.e. “anarchy” or “panarchy”) is to be preferred, I intend that a) most people would willingly cling to such standards of justice emanating out of property rights, if given a chance to, as it would turn out to be a preferable agreement to most people and that b) those disagreeing will be in no position to forcibly challenge this tacit concordat. Anyone wishing for anything more than this is an utopian and shall never find peace or satisfaction.

8

I think it does hinge on that. I’ve always found your comments highly insightful, so perhaps you could define what you mean by objective morality. I don’t find the concept to be immediately meaningful.

9

Interesting example. Does this mean that you believe there is no particular reason for law to be territorial? I couldn’t nail down an answer from the rest of your post.

10

I fully agree. This represents is a major paradigm shift that I think has taken many in the libertarian movement by surprise.

I don’t believe we do need a monopolistic legal vision to protect property, and even if we did I don’t see how it would be possible to enforce such a vision. The people who advocate this seem to believe that the supposed a priori nature of natural law will win enough of the thinking people over in the end. I find this doubtful in the extreme, not least because I’ve never seen a satisfying proof of any sort for any natural laws.

I think it’s plain to see that the whole project of trying to “prove natural law” (and related endeavors) is nothing more than an effort to take a persuasive concept (natural rights) and add some kind of extra force to it. That’s a natural tendency we humans have, as social creatures: we want others to share our views, and sometimes persuasion doesn’t work well enough. There are ways to make arguments more persuasive, but I don’t think invalid “proofs” rank high on the list.

So I guess we’re back to debating “objective ethics,” which is fine with me. I certainly agree to become an advocate of objective ethics if anyone can prove the concept to me, but I also expect objective ethicists to recant their position if I or anyone else can prove their defining notion of objective ethics wrong or incoherent.

11

What is the difference between Normative Rights and De facto Rights?

12

Name another law other than property rights. One that doesn’t conflict with property rights, may rid property rights or in other words substitute property rights. This is about justice.

It’s not advocated as a utopia.

It doesn’t matter who is won over. If the truth dies with the last person on this earth while everybody else lies - so be it.

It doesn’t matter what you think.

It doesn’t matter.

It doesn’t matter.

You have a mind. Figure out the world yourself.

Objective is a strawman and a red herring.

Name another law other than property rights.

13

I take it to mean that there are facts about what people ought and ought not to do. For elaboration I recommend checking out Long’s article “The Basis of Natural Law.” Can you point me to some articles defending your position?

14

Objective ethics really rests on your goals. If your goal is to live, and live well, then there is an algorithm that can guide you to being socially moral. It’s part of game theory, and it’s called tit for tat (with random forgiveness). This algorithm has always bested every other algorithm in game theory. If your goal is not to live, then this is not the ethic for you. This does not deny the objective nature of the ethic, it only denies the goal. In other words, If you want to live, this is your objective ethic. I can not however say, “you should want to live”. There is no should about it, simply kill yourself, or don’t do things that are required for you to live, and become as dust for the rest of us to make use of.

I should note that it may very well be your ultimate goal to kill as many innocent people as you possibly can and that may include living in order to kill those people. Fine, but don’t be surprised when those people you are trying to kill finally kill you.

15

Thank you, Sage. I’ve read most of that article before, but as it says, “A full-scale defense of Natural Law theory, however, is a task beyond the scope of this article.” Rothbard says something similar in TeoL, as does Hoppe. I am wondering where the full defense or proof is. As far as Long - who seems to me the most sophisticated defender of this type of theory - his approach seems to hinge on the concept of constitutive means, which is critically examined in this thread.

My position, as a position, is merely: If objective morality or objective ethics is a meaningful and valid concept, there should be a clear definition of it somewhere, followed by a clear proof. So far I have found all such arguments either incoherent, logically flawed, or too vague to debate. Since I merely await a clear definition and valid proof, there are no articles I can reference for that awaiting. However, I can point to specific articles and some threads where, in response to attempted proofs of natural law or other objective ethical theories, I have given concrete refutations stating my position viz a viz those theories.

For example, I posted critiques of Rothbard’s self-ownership (continues below), Hoppe’s argumentation ethics, and Rasmussen and Den Uyl’s groundwork for natural rights. Also, I found Patrick O’Neil article Ayn Rand and the Is-Ought Problem quite relevant to the overall discussion.

As I await such a proof, I grow doubtful one exists, and I suggest that there is no need for a proof to back concepts that are already persuasive on their own, and that to attempt to prove the unprovable is unlikely to be healthy for the cause of libertarianism in general. I there is an need for an alternative, Mises’s praxeological approach seems promising.

Right, this is saying “Given that your goal is Y, you ought to do X.” Like, “If you want to go to the supermarket, you ought to turn left at that gas station over there.”

If this is what is meant by “objective ethics,” then I am in agreement with it. It’s just something akin to Mises’s utilitarianism or consequentialism. But I think (hoping to be wrong) that most advocates of objective ethics mean something a little different from this.

16

These are good points, especially the part I bolded. I’m also wondering, though, if you can articulate the reasons why such a legal system would need to be binding to everyone in a given territory.

17

You haven’t been ever able to refute natural law. You simply refuse to explicitly accept what is good and just as opposed to what is bad and unjust. The proof is in this self-evident axiom. You use what you try to deny. Don’t act as if that’s never been explained to you and you have never been referred to the writings covering this. Don’t be coy.

18

I’ve never seen anybody take something so simple and make not only a mound out of the mole hill but a mountain range larger than the Rocky’s. AJ - lol - you complicate everything so much…lol. cheer up

19

Wow, I haven’t heard somthing like this since Toruemada:) Come on people, the very fact that the existence of natural right is ofet debated by libertarians (in this very blog), should proove that there is no such thing as a “universal, inehrent” ethical standard.

20

Merlin; how is disagreement on an issue proof that neither side is correct?