You don't have to be anti-Democratic to be an anarhcho-libertarian.

Economics Political Theory
1

I use the phase anarcho-libertarian rather than anarcho-capitalist because I find the phrase anarcho-capitalist to be a misleading slur that people use to describe people who tend to believe in anarchism and capitalism at the same time. Anarcho-capitalists accept being called this because they believe in it, but, I think that anarcho-capitalism is far more limiting than anarcho-libertarianism.

I also believe that other economic systems can work within the frameworks of captialism. I think that socialism could use their means to achieve their ends throughout a capitalist framework and create a more sustainable community for living for an area with underdeveloped resources, but, still work within the bounds of private property.

I haven’t been coming here lately because I’ve been involved with a libertarian club at my school and I’ve been trying to help get it started up. I’ve also tried to avoid this forum for a while because while though on one hand I didn’t like all the discussions since they were so dogmatic, on the other hand, I didn’t like how anti-Democratic the place seemed at times.

This article written by this www.slate.com guy really pissed me off. In the article Stephan Metcalf says that Robert Nosewick rejected libertarianism in the end because of the period of economic growth we were going through in the 1980s, and, because he realized that Democracy wasn’t really a bad thing (http://www.slate.com/id/2297019/). It actually reminded me of this forum, and, I thought I’d make a critique about what I think are some things that we are thinking focusing too much on, and other things we should be thinking about, while critiquing the article in question.

The first that I wanted to bring up is that an issue that people here who regulate this forum should be familiar with. If someone bases all of their theories and all of their opinions on economics rather than philosophical or intellectual merits, or, other facts or other conditions they are bound to overlook other aspects of things and their philosophy will fail. That is why a lot of anarcho-capitalists and libertarians fail to consider other elements that arise due to the unpredictable circumstances that drive human anture.

If someone bases their entire economic argument on taxes, or, on if government intervention hurts the economy, you won’t be able to really have a solid case to support your position that having a laissez-fair economy will help the economy get better. I think that Ludwig Von Mises’s utilitarian arguments regarding the free-market are actually the best ones, because, while we’re on the subject of utility, everyone else is talking about the false-dichotomy of regulation versus the free-market, while no one’s talking about the effects that the regulation of the government will actually have without resorting to talking points.

It’s because people get so bogged down on numbers and pricing mechanisms and how price-points work that sometimes people fail to consider the fact that certain things could be handled Democratically. I suppose as an anarchist myself I’ve never had this flaw that Robert Nosewick had because while I have been against government-- I’ve never fallen to the trap where I became anti-Democratic.

Democracy has its problems, I admit that, but if you have a functional Democracy, with the rule of law applied, and protection from coersion I don’t see too much of a problem with that. The problem comes with the government and the states. Democracy at the federal and the state level fail because it is managed by unrepresentative bureaucrats and by people that think they know better than everyone else and because of lobbyists and corporations that try to tie up the process and take the power away from the people. Hence, i suppose what we have is not a problem with a Democracy, but a problem with a Republican form of government.

I believe a simple solution could be provided to Robert Nosewick’s former struggles with Democracy, and, that would be to allow a lot of the societal functions to be carried out with capitalism. But, there would still be some elements of Democracy left over. There still needs to be lawyers and judges, for, without them, who would write the laws and judge them? They could be private, or, they could be public. Anarchy doesn’t imply lawlessness, and, it does not imply the absence of lawyers. It might seem to the untrained observer that that’s what happens when you have anarchy, but, you know the prhase-- “order comes out of chaos”. So, after the initial period of turbulance that would result from abolishing the federal government, these Democratic functions could come up after that and start working without a state to overlook it.

In addition to having Democratic institutions still be in place for the communities, in an anarchial society, the lawyers would make sure everyone has civil rights, and, they would be protected. It’s not that hard to see a future where the normal functions of society would be carried out under a stable anarchical society. And just because you have anarchism doesn’t necessarily you need to have Rothbard’s crazy vision of having all the streets be weird, or, no uniformity at all… you could still have laws for that kind of thing (Rothbard had a lot of good ideas, but some weird ones, this one was his bad one).

The second problem with Robert Nosweick’s regression back into statism is because his philosophy changed as a result of current events at the time. The United States was about to go through its period of irrational exuberrance. The college bubble was just started to come up, people were becoming really educated, America seemed like it was on top of the world, crony capitalism started developing at this time. All of it seemed to be real. Robert Nosweick should have seen the amount of heightened intervention being used and how it would eventually come to crash later on as part of the Austrian Busienss Cycle. I don’t know what Austrian scholars thought at the time but I would think that would be the logical thing to predict that would happen… they were good times, but, they would go away eventually. It’s too bad Robert Nosweick didn’t end up seeing that happening.

Anyhow, reading this article got me infuriated because it made the assumption that in order to be an anarcho-libertarian you had to be against Democracy. But I wanted to make the point that it’s not as simple as that author makes it out to be… I haven’t been here in a while, but, I think this article has motivated me to come back here and speak my mind about some things to some of the members here. I know that many people on this site will disagree with me and I await their responses. Bt, I hope to engage other people in a debate about the merits of local Democracy, and, having an involuntary government that allows for more of a responsive Democratic system with certain elements of society that capitalism wouldn’t be touching if the people didn’t want it to.

2

What if I don’t agree with what has been democraticaly decided, do I get beaten up by the majority until I comply with their decision?

What if I couldn’t care less about ‘civil rights’ and decided to use my property as I see fit?

3

Who is this Robert “Nosewick”? Is he the producer of a line of nose-shaped candles or something? :stuck_out_tongue:

4

It may be a proverbial sign of our original sin that we are necessarily cursed with lawyers - not to mention economists - but a ‘judge’ is just a glorified lawyer emboldened with certain state powers. “A law student who marks his own papers,” in the words of H.L Mencken. I guess you can call the lawyer who produces the arguments that an arbitrator ultimately undersigns a “judge” if you really want to, though. It’s just a word, and judges are just lawyers.

Democracy is an ill-defined concept at the best of times. I am concerned about the mechanisms for the application of the ‘public will’. If the mechanisms concern voluntary, honest, mutually beneficial transactions between individuals, then ‘democracy’ is not incompatible with the non-aggression principle, but I suspect you may be placing a greater burden on the logical and semantic resources of the English language than they can reasonably be expected to bear.

Neither you nor I nor Rothbard has any right to tell the consumer what kind of streets they should want, nor the ability to predict what they will. Maybe if you build a road network without forcing people to pay for it and use it, and it’s successful, you can say that you have a relatively good idea of what the consumer wants.

5

This is the only kind of politics I can approve of

http://gaplauche.com/docs/plauchedissertation.pdf

6

What is democracy without coercion?

7

"If someone bases all of their theories and all of their opinions on economics rather than philosophical or intellectual merits, or, other facts or other conditions they are bound to overlook other aspects of things and their philosophy will fail. That is why a lot of anarcho-capitalists and libertarians fail to consider other elements that arise due to the unpredictable circumstances that drive human anture. "

  • Basing in economics allows to show the most effective method of subsistence and beyond. Einstein didn’t base his ideology in economic, but intellectualism and he empowered the most awesome bomb ever. Maybe the intellectual merits of doing something because it is expanding knowledge isn’t worth it? Marxism is a philosophy that based itself in altruism and self reliance and look where it got people? Anything like this taken to extreme will fail. And i thought the market was not only the truest expression of democracy, but regulations being non existent, it allows for radical reactions to unpredictable circumstances. Expectations and uncertainty; this is why we have insurance and diversify investment.

“It’s because people get so bogged down on numbers and pricing mechanisms and how price-points work that sometimes people fail to consider the fact that certain things could be handled Democratically.”

  • I can see people voting for redistribution and politicians promising the printing press and democracy will quickly lead them into debt and ultimately destroy their ability to produce and depend on themselves. Then, someone like Ron Paul could stand up and tell them the folly of their ways and they would be mad. Face it, democracy, to function in everyones best interest and as a political system, is just like Plato’s cave. The right thing, the moral thing, the tough thing, is hidden outside and when you try and tell the people what is going on out there and that the shadows aren’t what they seem, they will laugh and ridcule and continue to be impressed by the shadows on the wall, giving no concern for those making the shadows and why. But they will have their group, and out vote you.

There has never been a democracy, the closest thing is the mob rule of the French revolution. All “democracies” are dominated by oligarchs. We call them the ‘elite’ or the ‘power elite’. Really, David Rockefeller’s vote carries a whole lot more weight than mine.

“Democracy has its problems, I admit that, but if you have a functional Democracy, with the rule of law applied, and protection from coersion I don’t see too much of a problem with that.”

  • Democracy can’t guarantee a rule of law or protection from coersion. The voters can always go and not enforce, or change the meaning of the words. In anarchy if one dispute comes up and another person that has a different worldview disagrees fundamentally on a certain point there is very little contructive mitigation that can take place. The mob will come and accuse me of whatever and since it’s the mob they can overrule my demand for trial or whatever. Maybe they can split, 50/50, the negative costs? And good luck getting people to agree on some kind of fundamental set of rules that we will all abide by and respect. I like Rothbard, but when we come to courts and laws in the free market i think we get talking about contradictions and move into giving Noam Chomsky some credibility. That first chapter in Power and Market has mystified me ever since i read it. I mean, i get defense, police, fire, ambulances, but c’mon courts and laws?

The market is like an excuse, to say that people can, if they choose, act only in their self interest, constantly, and still benefit others directly and indirectly, through the creation of wealth and simple cooperation.

“In addition to having Democratic institutions still be in place for the communities, in an anarchial society, the lawyers would make sure everyone has civil rights, and, they would be protected.”

  • What is a civil right in anarchy? I can understand the natural right argument, i would say that argument is valid, but civil rights? So if the democracy voted for education as a right, then what? Can anyone snap their fingers and make people educated? Do we need lending institutions involved at that point?

Democracy is not a type of government or society it is a way to decide what type of government or society you have. Rights can only be “trivialized” by naming them. If you have a ‘right’ to get married and a ‘right’ to travel, what’s to say of your ‘right’ to smoke weed or see prostitutes? Couldn’t we include all of these under liberty? What happens to the box of rights when we break rights into categories, as we have done in the U.S. (natural, civil, fundamental)? The courts refuse to define any of them! Because they can’t! They just say it’s a “prenumbra”; they are implied rights that only the courts can decipher from the founding father’s hidden code. No substantive, objective, democratic definition of rights will ever be accepted by all. At best the market may create locally agreed upon, by all involved, rules to respect a certain definition of society and its norms. The closest thing we have, in my opinion, is natural rights. life (freeing you of uncertainty towards being murdered for no reason), liberty (open ended and that is the beauty of it), property (keep what you create [however that may be] hopefully honestly).

Locke left all of this up to the “Law of reason” which is basically you judge what wrong has been done and what would rectify it. It will help, “all of those who would but consult it.”

8

I believe a lot of anti-libertarian/anarchist opponents change their position when they realize that the forming of collectivisms is not prohibited in a free(d) society. Groups of individuals who are voluntarily participitating in collectivisms such as democratic, communism, socialism etc are in their every right to do so.

However, coercing and forcing individuals to stay within a certain system is prohibited because it is no longer voluntary and against free will. Liberty is non-existant when there is a tyranny of the majority.

I agree that these forms of systems or collectivisms cannot work on the level that the state currently enforces it’s monopoly on. I also agree that these forms of collectivisms could work on a much smaller scale, in which there is less potential for abuse and more accountability. In a free(d) society, individuals have diverse alternatives to choose from and participate in any collectivism they think works best.

In my ideal government, there would also be judges such as private law described in Rothbard’s Manifesto. These judges would concern themselves in the studies of political philosophy and natural law. Applying the concept of private property and self-ownership into consideration when discovering law.

I think in order to be anarcho-libertarian one needs to be consistent. I don’t agree with ‘involuntary government’, but I like the idea of voluntary government where individuals choose from many alternatives and come to their own conclusions about what works best. In a free(d) society, the collectivisms and organizations that prove to be ineffective or coercive will eventually fail.

9

If the people voting are allowed to disband and disobey the decision then it’s alright with me. Then again, it’s not really democracy at that point.

10

A voluntary democracy is no longer a democracy in the traditional sense of what democracy means. If you start to redefine democracy as some sort of voluntary exercise that does not require a state or taxation or coercion then it is no longer democracy and would require a new word.

What good is a democracy without a state? The state is a central part of a democracy. By its very definition democracy is coercive, there is no other way to look at the system of majority vote wins than coercion.

The place for collective organization and collective means within an anarchist society is not with the majority dictating to the minority what they can and can not do. It will be with negotiation, compromise and reasonability.

11

Isn’t it possible to have a gated community where everyone signs a contract saying that they can live there only if they abide by the decisions of the majority but if they don’t then they must leave, or go to jail, or whatever? This seems to agree with the NAP because everyone consents to it, unlike states today where no one signs an explicit contract.

12

@^^

What about someone who doesn’t sign the contract, but still wanders on the property? Who puts the person in jail? Why is there a jail?

13

They would be trespassing, so they could be removed from the community by force if they do not leave after being warned.

The local private police.

Because the majority voted that there should be one. Or maybe there isn’t one if the majority voted that there shouldn’t be.

14

please tell me you aren’t saying that anarcho/libertarian democracy can justify detention of an individual for trespassing. Deportation from the property, yes, but imprisonment, no.

Also, this is where Noam Chomsky starts to make sense. A private agreement, whether democratic or not, is in essence a private tyranny. If you form a corporation and buy all of the land around my property on a lake and begin to pollute it and when i sue you for destroying my property (my part of the lake), but the ‘private justice system’ agrees with you and polluting (maybe because the corporation benefits more people than my private property), then what recourse do i have? how can justice be served? Or will democracy have spoken?

A private police organization that can use force is walking a fine line of private coercion. Especially if it can detain people. State sanctioned police act after crime is committed and because of the law cannot act before, private police would only really have the ability to prevent because the law is in no way, and cannot ever be, agreed upon by everyone. That, I thought, was why Rothbard said that it would be more likely for police services to arise from preventative insurance. Like the neighborhood watch. And what do they do when crimes are happening and they do see? Call the state sanctioned police.

I’m sticking with my statement that democracy can in no way ensure private property or a rule of law. No matter what ideology is claiming democracy as its arbiter.

Democracy is NOT a type of government, it is a way to decide what type of government people have.

15

A gated community and an entire country are completely different, it is far easier to set up a voluntary democracy or even communism within a small gated community, but the moment that region grows to a larger size the more chance that it will end up being involuntary because it is less likely that you will be able to get a larger region to consent to whatever social systems or contracts, that is due to human nature.

16

I agree.

First off, have you watched this?

And Clayton sums up law and recourse really nicely here and here.

Ancaps have no problem with coercion, as long as it isn’t aggression. Coercion is a perfectly just response to aggression.

Read Rothbards For A New Liberty chapter on police starting on p. 219. Private police can act when they see a crime.

There is no such thing as the rule of law.

AnCaps have no problem with governments, only with the State. Wikipedia: Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.

17

Individuals can consent to such a contract in an entire region (like the entire world, theoretically speaking) or scattered and sparsely distributed among any population or region. This is because of polycentric law.

In this video David Friedman talks about the difference between polycentric law which is a legal structure in which providers of legal systems compete or overlap in a given jurisdiction, as opposed to monopolistic statutory law according to which there is a sole provider of law for each jurisdiction:

http://seasteading.org/blogs/main/2009/11/23/david-d-friedman-legal-systems-very-different-from-ours