Poof The United States decided to let Texas seced and become an Austrian society today. With three stipulations.
They are going to protect you, against your will, from outside aggression for 1 year. They are fearful that Mexico will just send in the tanks and take over on day 2. They want you to have a legitimate shot at success so are going to make sure no one invades you or attempts to ‘coerce’ you into submission for that year, after which you are on your own.
They are going to let any Texan who does not wish to stay, leave the former State with a transition period of 1 month. Furthermore, they can take their possessions with them. If they can’t get it out within 1 month, then it stays and will be left there for the taking. Ownership will be left up to the new Austrian society to decide. So it is safe to assume there will be electric grids, water grids, homes, buildings, telephone lines, cable lines, already in place.
The Texans who choose to leave, can not attempt to sabotage the new society in anyway. This would include taking all violent prisoners out of the State, not allowing people to blow up water lines or electric power plants, etc. Furthermore because of the worry of sabotage, the United States would agree to prevent migration of criminal types to the region, ONLY if you request it. If the new “Austrians” want to allow anyone in then the United States will comply, but if you say “Don’t let the Bloods and Crips in” they would honor your wish.
Questions:
What would you do, assuming you went there?
Is the society already doomed to fail because of external forces? If so what are they and can they reasonable be removed.
What would this new Austrian Texas look like after a year?
What problems if any do you perceive?
Is the idea of an Austrian society completely abstract and not a realistic ‘dream’ at this juncture in history due to a variety of factors? (education levels and knowledge of austrian principles or lack there of comes to mind)
Ixtellor
P.S. If you were hoping “Your wish is granted” = Ixtellor is leaving. Sorry.
P.P.S. I personally believe #5 is true. There are too many external nations that would “mess” with any austrian society as to make it unworkable in the modern world. I may be wrong.
This thread should get some interesting responses. I’m not an Austrian, but don’t most of the Austrian anarcho-capitalists expect there to be a libertarian constitution in place prior to the formation of an Austrian anarcho-capitalist society? They might reject your example on those grounds.
That assumes there will be aggression. Why? Ok, I’ll go along with this assumption - imperialism and Mexico wants the land, resources etc. Whose to say the ancap society needs help? Practically the only form of weaponry the market would develop; would be DEFENCE. At the moment, with every state out there in the world, it is OFFENCE. The tanks wouldn’t stand a chance. More to the point, even in today’s world - can you imagine China invading the US and trying to occupy the 5 Boroughs? lol. It is laughable. In a free society, people would be able to protect themselves and their property. And that’s just a community essentially policing itself. If that community was being invaded by a foriegn enemy, I imagine they are going to face some serious resistance. Malita’s are a given. Demand for PDA’s services would be stellar.
Their possessions would be sold, obviously they would lower their sell price until it meets someone elses value. The ownership would be exchanged. Also, do you know about Lockean Homesteading rights?
They’d be caught, punished if they try. PDA’s would spring up pretty quick in my opinion; that is if there is a demand for them. Insurance companies would also have incentives to meet the needs of the market. In terms of personal freedom of movement, well depends on who owns the property.
Well, I’d be living there. And if not, I’d be doing whatever I could too live there. Get some property, set up a business, work, provide services for others and bask in the glory that is Capitalism all around me. lol
Well, apart from the entirely unrealistic notion that the United States government, the State, voluntairly gave up it’s power. Something that ain’t ever happened in the history of man, from what I am aware… shrugs see if that’s considered plausible then there really aren’t any threats - since that was the biggest one, that we just naturally phantomed away.
Most peaceful, prosperous civilized society on earth?
Typical crimes etc, but there will be far less of them and there will actually be justice.
“Ignoring the prime fact that no ruling caste in history has ever voluntarily surrendered its power, and that, therefore, liberalism had to break through by means of a series of revolutions, the Social Darwinists looked forward peacefully and cheerfully to thousands of years of infinitely gradual evolution to the next supposedly inevitable stage of individualism.”
But then Mises.org and the Austrian School haven’t ever been around before. [:)] It is practical though, the state could be toppled tomorrow, it just needs to be rejected, consent removed from the “governed”.
The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude is lucidly and coherently structured around a single axiom, a single percipient insight into the nature not only of tyranny, but implicitly of the State apparatus itself. Many medieval writers had attacked tyranny, but La Boétie delves especially deeply into its nature, and into the nature of State rule itself. This fundamental insight was that every tyranny must necessarily be grounded upon general popular acceptance. In short, the bulk of the people themselves, for whatever reason, acquiesce in their own subjection. If this were not the case, no tyranny, indeed no governmental rule, could long endure. Hence, a government does not have to be popularly elected to enjoy general public support; for general public support is in the very nature of all governments that endure, including the most oppressive of tyrannies. The tyrant is but one person, and could scarcely command the obedience of another person, much less of an entire country, if most of the subjects did not grant their obedience by their own consent.[9]
This, then, becomes for La Boétie the central problem of political theory: why in the world do people consent to their own enslavement? La Boétie cuts to the heart of what is, or rather should be, the central problem of political philosophy: the mystery of civil obedience. Why do people, in all times and places, obey the commands of the government, which always constitutes a small minority of the society? To La Boétie the spectacle of general consent to despotism is puzzling and appalling:
Am I wrong, or do I percieve some kind of new respect for the Austrian School from you? Your last two posts haven’t exactly been trollish. Not your usual strawmen and cheap jibes at least. Good to see you are learning. Hopefully you’ll pick up For a New Liberty next? Seems like it would answer a lot of your questions. [:)]
Mexico is already in a civil war. They are not going to go invade Texas.
No one has to leave. If anyone wishes their estate to remain the jurisdiction of the United States, that is their right.
Any attempt at sabotage would involve a confrontation with a property owner, whether a utility company or a communitylord (neologism on landlord). No criminal migration would take place as property owners would expel unwanted migrants and prevent them from settling permanently.
The most likely risk is a spill-over of the Mexican civil war. With drugs no longer outlawed and persecuted Texas would immediately develop an economy based on drug production for export to the U.S. If it were to continue this policy then it would have to seal up the new border, potentially sealing out its remaining jurisdictions in Texas. However this is highly speculative, and we can safely assume that if the U.S. is willing to allow its second most valuable state to break away that it has long given up on the war on drugs.
After a year of freedom it’s safe to say that Texas would be the safest, most prosperous country in the world.
My theory is that an AnCap society could not exist without some kind of predetermined set of ground rules, which you referred to as a Constitution. (Could be as simple as NAP)
Which, I think, presents 2 major problems.
How do you go about drafting it? It seems that inorder for it be valid under Austrian philosophy, it would have to have 100% approval. Because if even one person objected, the “constituion” would use ‘coerision’ in the form of PDA’s to make them conform. (Take your baby murderer for example he might not like a clause about obligations to currently non-rational beings and thus attempt to violate that portion of the Constituion - if you force him to comply, you are using coersion of a system he never signed up to.. )
Judicial power = the power to interpret law. I think it is very safe to say, that the NAP needs some interpretation based on the ‘child’ thread that got banned. (You know the thread where people were engaged in discourse about the NAP, rationality, and children) Is there some Austrian authority figure that has ‘decided’ exactly what the NAP means in terms of non-rational beings? ( I would call him the State, but thats just me)
Conza,
My theory: When I write things you disagree with you see it as “trollish, dumbass, leftist, statist, moronic, liar, or told to “get out””(All things I have been called on these forums), and when I write things you tend to agree with, you see me as being rational and reasonable. The truth of the matter, is that I attempt to be civil and rational, and my only purpose for posting is get answers to my questions in a way that hopefully leads to logical conclusions.
The closest I have come to “trolling” is when I made the blanket statement of “group-think” and all hell broke loose. (calling me a troll or any ad hominan attack you can think of = OK, me suggesting your a group of people who think the same way = over the line) and the fact I accused you of being a racist. Now that you are aware that 88 is the universal symbol of Nazi’s and Aryans, which I will assume you were unaware of, is it unreasonable for a person to make that ‘mistake’ that because you have the classic universal self-identifying Nazi symbol in your name? If I was going to join a childrens forum and I was born in 69, I would probably leave it off my tag. “GoodTimes69” has a certain connotation.
There certainly must be ethically grounded law for any society to prosper, but the fact that it is possible for a society to devolve into tyranny or anomie is not a valid excuse to construct a state. Needless to say, you’ve done exactly that by saying that a society must be founded on monocentric legal order.
I too see a multitude of problems with drafting up a constitution. That’s partially why I think it’s a waste of time. I’m in love with the polycentric law idea, which requires no constitution whatsoever.
I’m primarily an anarcho-capitalist because I think it is (or soon will be) the best way to organise a society, not because I think it’s morally correct or anything. If I find some compelling evidence or see an example of the futarchy/democracy combo (for example) dominating, I’ll likely switch camps.
Every single time you have replied to my posts, you either threaten me or make a personal attack. You never once made any meaningful contribution.
Since you can lock posts, I assume you are a mod. If you are soo eager to ban me just be done with it, and stop hiding behind your only argumentative strategy of ridicule, strawmen, and coersion.
Ixtellor
P.S. Its ironic that a person with engages in personal attacks 100% of the time, would call someone else inept.
You’ve yet to make any serious contributions to the board. You simply whine and lie. It’s time you grew up.
Now then, respond to my post. Here, I’ll repost it for you:
That contradicts the above statement of secession.
I doubt we’ve even plumbed the depths of your ineptitude.
You get one more shot. Should you refuse to address the first sentence of that response, you will find yourself outside. You’ve have more than enough chances.
That statement was not meant to come off as amoral or dismissive of the moral arguments of libertarians; just that I find myself far more in line with the consequentialist libertarian writings than the deontological.
Relating that back to this thread, the typical Austrian view, it seems to me at least, is that the NAP is so important that one can not risk not having it in a constitution. My view is that the risks of unbridled polycentric law (leading to the occasional non-libertarian law) are less than the risks of having a constitution that can be amended to suit the majority.
If this means that within an unbridled polycentric law anarcho-capitalist society some drug takers are arrested, so be it. This scenario is unlikely to be common, but I find that possibility to be a lesser evil than having an in-built constitution that is inevitably susceptible to majority amendments. Feel free to offer arguments otherwise.
I think you are being overly harsh, when there is very little reason to be so. Secondly, your post saying " I doubt we’ve even plumbed the depths of your ineptitude" may not be a full out ad hominom but it certainly does not address the topic. In fact, any remark used in an argument that brings into the argument the person of the opposing party is a dishonest trick, and does not belong here.
In being a moderator, you should hold yourself to a higher standard than that.
Yes, Rothbard advocated a libertarian legal code, so perhaps that is the typical Austro-Libertarian position. In fact, I find myself supporting that over an “unbridled polycentric law”.
Since I see that most people do not hold the “NAP”, and would rather demand certain things to be criminalized while other things perhaps not (which would be in violation of the NAP), that demand would be supplied in a “polycentric” legal code.
Although I support a libertarian legal code, I also support a “polycentric” legal system. Or, a system of competing courts.
I once read an essay online that argued that Texas is wayyy too fond of the death penalty, and thank god we have federal judges to keep them in line. I don’t quite know what to make of that, but I would probably consider that before moving to the Republic of Texas.
Now, I would probably move to free California or free Vermont, but not free Texas.
lx, to be honest with you, I don’t think you realize there’s absolutely nothing keeping society together as it is right now. To explain, one of our ‘cousins’ in the primate family, the Baboon, have a very strict social order in their groupings, but what’s interesting about these groupings is that a dead piece of meat can tear it all down in a moment’s notice. It’s something of an interesting part of the Baboon’s behavior considering that even one’s position in a Baboon grouping is predetermined by one’s birth mother’s position in that grouping (among other things) and how even the higher-up Baboons will delegate power to lower ranked individuals (and so on).
What this reasoning leads to is very simple: society is wholly based on consent. It’s easy enough to see when society decoheres for the human species just as it does for the Baboon, but it seems that you wave a magical wand trying to claim by implication that humans have stronger social bonds than Baboons (hint: we don’t, we’re more like the Chimpanzees, having only the strongest social bonds with our parents…). Therefore, the assumption that some how that an anarcho-capitalistic society would be any more worse off than a non-anarchistic (or non-anarcho-capitalistic) society is wholly absurd and not based on any fact of anthropology or primateology. I would strongly suggest you dig through a few papers on both fields with regard to social groups (for anthropology look at how Pervian tribes form extra-legal institutions, for primateology look at any studies on “economics” [yes even the primates have economies…]).
So, your hypothetical situation is based on a stack of assumptions that are easily refuted, which means any hypotheticals set upon them are equally refuted. Therefore, go back to the drawing board and LOOK AT THE BASIC PRINCIPLES AGAIN.
