Politicians

[Hugo]

Proof, please?

There are countless stories of Canadians being killed and terrorised because Canadians are prevented from owning and using firearms in their own defence, for example.

In August 1996, a woman was killed and her husband seriously injured by a bear in Kluane Park. No firearms are allowed in the park - firearms which would have saved a life.

In April 1995, two men named Wes Young and Santo Michelin stopped on Highway 117 to assist at the scene of a single-car accident. Both were shot in the head and killed without provocation.

On July 14, 1995, Ida Rudy, an 82-year-old widow, was beaten to death in her bed with a hammer and a lead pipe.

On June 27, 1994, 80-year-old "Peggy" MacDonald was brutally killed in her home by intruders.

There are many more such cases. In all these cases, however, these people were denied the right to defend themselves by the Canadian Government. In the case of the aged and infirm, or people fighting off bears, only firearms can be an adequate protection - and Canada has made it clear that firearms are not to be tolerated. Firearm laws mean that any firearm could not possibly be used for self-defence. They cannot be carried, cannot be stored loaded, cannot be left out of a locked gun cabinet, and so forth.

The realities of the world we live in and human nature itself have rendered it an impossibility. The example of agarian Massachusetts doesn't really apply today.

Modern-day Somalia is an example of an anarchist state. Somalia is more peaceful and prosperous without government than it ever has been with any centralised government. Somalia still has problems, but none of them can be chalked up to lack of central authority.

In the end, state monopoly on violence would be replaced by some other form of institutionalized violence, possibly even less accountable and more arbitrary

And what do you base this upon?

Furthermore, since the only laws concern the protection of private propert, what's to prevent such property from being aquired through coercion or outright force?

Who said the laws concern only the protection of private property?

There are many libertarian law proposals. Any, all or none of them can be valid, since libertarianism favours polycentric law. The one key tenet that all libertarians value is the non-aggression principle, which is:

No individual may initiate the use of force or aggress against another individual or his property.

The concept behind libertarian law is that justice is a commodity, which is consumed like any other. Right now, the state has a monopoly on justice, and what is called "theft" in private practice can be legitimised by the state as "taxation", what is called "slavery" in private practice can be legitimised as "conscription", and so forth. Basically, the problem with a state monopoly of justice is that the state itself will become a criminal, and the government in Canada is the biggest criminal organisation in the country.

If the free market is applied to justice, the predictable outcome is - as with every other commodity opened to free trade - that the best justice will be provided at least cost. Private security forces will compete based upon strength of protection and competitive pricing and private courts will compete based upon impartiality, fairness and competitive pricing.

[Black Dog]

There are countless stories of Canadians being killed and terrorised because Canadians are prevented from owning and using firearms in their own defence, for example.

Not good enough. First, Canadians are allowed to own firearms (with restrictions) and can use them in self-defence. They just have to convince a jury that they acted in such a way.

Furthermore, none of your anecdotes back up your claim that "innocents are suffering more than criminals".

Modern-day Somalia is an example of an anarchist state. Somalia is more peaceful and prosperous without government than it ever has been with any centralised government. Somalia still has problems, but none of them can be chalked up to lack of central authority.

I would hardly consider Somalia a "modern" state. Nor is it particularily peaceful, but stricken with tribal warfare and civil unrest.

But hey, if you want to move ther and sample the government free life, you hav emy blessing.

And what do you base this upon?

Common sense. Good judgement. An understanding of human nature. History.

No individual may initiate the use of force or aggress against another individual or his property.

That's great. Until someone accumulates enough wealth or power to place themselve above that principle. Or until a group of individuals decide to annoint themselves the central authority. And you're back to the same problems you face with government.

Details aside, though, the biggest problem with an anrachic system is that it requires a complete dismantling of the curent social order. My gut tells me that it just can't happen.

[Hugo]

--

[Black Dog]

For another example, every Canadian citizen pays taxes. Taxes are theft. If you disagree, give me an accurate definition of taxation that doesn't also describe theft, high-minded or otherwise.

Your statement was:

innocents are suffering more than criminals.

Nothing to do with taxes or bear attacks. Show me something (maybe some evidence on how great it is in prison, or how people with criminal records have a higher average income than anyone else) to back it up. Simple.

Here are some articles on modern-day Somalia.

And yet Somalia is moving towards a central government.

By your link's own admission:

Poverty and starvation still abound. Warlords still vie for power, and meaningless, brutal death still strikes without warning. Moreover, Somalia has no exports to speak of; most of the cash that keeps the country going flows from the Somali diaspora, the million or so Somalis who live and work throughout the world and send cash back to their families and clans.

Meaningless, brutal death? Hey, at least there's no taxes. Got your plane ticket yet?

[Hugo]

Not good enough. First, Canadians are allowed to own firearms (with restrictions) and can use them in self-defence.

With restrictions? What right does the state have restricting a citizen's right to defend himself?

Furthermore, none of your anecdotes back up your claim that "innocents are suffering more than criminals".

For another example, every Canadian citizen pays taxes. Taxes are theft. If you disagree, give me an accurate definition of taxation that doesn't also describe theft, high-minded or otherwise.

I would hardly consider Somalia a "modern" state. Nor is it particularily peaceful, but stricken with tribal warfare and civil unrest.

Here are some articles on modern-day Somalia.

The Answer for Africa

According to Andrew Cockburn in the July 2002 issue of National Geographic magazine, Somalia is rising, phoenix-like, from the ashes of the 1993 war (which inspired the movie Black Hawk Down) and becoming an economic powerhouse in western Africa precisely because anarchy has reigned ever since.

Incidentally, the local Muslim fundamentalists can't get a foothold, not since 1993, anyway. People have better things to do. And clan loyalties, now allowed to flourish, prevent the fundamentalists from controlling any significant power-base.

Hear what telecommunications tycoon Abdirizak Ido told Mr. Cockburn: "We have been through some hard times, but the worst was when we had a government. Once there was no government, there was opportunity!"

The article admits that all is not well in Somalia. However, it does make the crucial caveat that Somalia is doing much better than many of it's international-aid-receiving neighbours, for instance.

Is Somalia a Model?

"The Somali nation abolished its central government ten years ago and became a stateless nation... During that time, the fears expressed by many international observers that Somalia would fall into chaos have not only not been realized, but many Somalis are finding statelessness an agreeable condition. Somalia is more peaceful, and the people are becoming more prosperous.

Somalia and Anarchy

I don't think there are any warlords in Somalia. There are war leaders, or militia leaders, in various parts of Somalia. People who defend their homes often organize militias; it is done in places as gentile as Switzerland, Texas, and Israel. You find that the mainstream media tends to call the leaders of these militia "officers" in countries other than Somalia. Very often, the elders of a community choose a war leader or officer, and he chooses his lieutenants and subordinates. He provides leadership, until the crisis is past or until another officer is chosen to replace him, or until he dies. Calling him a warlord and calling his lieutenants "henchmen" doesn't further a discussion of these issues.

The countryside was peaceful, and the few reminders of warfare were museum-piece tanks and armored cars... So, it isn't like the sort of war-torn, strife-ridden area that many Western journalists convey the idea that Mogadishu has been for some time.

What is to prevent warlords from demanding a share of the profit? I don't know. Again, show me the warlords... In the case of war leaders from neighboring or distant clans, the local community would be eager to enforce the terms of the mineral lease arrangement. Somalis are not complacent when it comes to defending their homes or their businesses. They are very proactive.

But, what of war leaders from within the community? Their role is to serve in war time, to organize the defense of the community. That’s all... Indeed, when war leaders attempt to form governments or dictatorships, they are removed from power, sometimes killed.

Common sense. Good judgement. An understanding of human nature. History.

History includes many examples of successful anarchist states. The Anglo-Saxon borh, which I repeatedly mention and which nobody seems to have heard of, is one such example. The Icelandic Althingi is another. Anarchist Icelandic society existed for longer than the USA has, and was only destroyed by Norwegian invasion.

An "understanding of human nature" should tell you that humans are social creatures that co-operate as a rule. Division of labour is present in all societies.

That's great. Until someone accumulates enough wealth or power to place themselve above that principle. Or until a group of individuals decide to annoint themselves the central authority. And you're back to the same problems you face with government.

So, the biggest problem you can see with abolishing government is that government might re-appear? And thus, you want to retain government to protect us from government? How ironic.

The fact is that in a free market nobody reaches that critical mass necessary for absolute power. The only monopolies that have existed were granted by the state, which was able to do so because it in turn monopolised power. If there is no monopoly of power, there is no backer for further monopoly, and monopoly cannot exist again.

Details aside, though, the biggest problem with an anrachic system is that it requires a complete dismantling of the curent social order. My gut tells me that it just can't happen.

A thousand years ago it would be difficult to imagine that around 60% of the world's population would live in democratic nations, too. But it did happen. It will take time and effort to achieve liberty, but the prize is well worth the investment.

[Hugo]

Nothing to do with taxes or bear attacks. Show me something (maybe some evidence on how great it is in prison, or how people with criminal records have a higher average income than anyone else) to back it up.

Alright, the thieves (taxmen) get rewarded and the citizens get stolen from.

Meaningless, brutal death? Hey, at least there's no taxes.

Hey, meaningless brutal death can strike in Canada too. Didn't you read the examples? Moreover, poverty is responsible for a lot of that. In a much richer nation, with a tradition of individual rights based upon the Scottish enlightenment, Locke and so forth, rather than a clan-based society, the problems would be far less.

[Black Dog]

Alright, the thieves (taxmen) get rewarded and the citizens get stolen from.

But that's not what you said. You said: "under our current laws innocents are suffering more than criminals". Now, as I understand it, a criminal, under our current laws, is someone who has broken those laws. Collecting taxes, under our current laws, are not against the law.

You weren't talking about taxes, but the current criminal justice system.

So prove it. You're not wiggling out on this one.

To be perfectly frank, arguing the virtues of anarcho-capitalist society is a lot like debating how many angels can dance on a pin head. It's not going to happen, most people probably wouldn't want it to happen, and if it did happen, it probably wouldn't work like you think it would.

[Guest eureka]

Hugp!

What I have contributed for your benefit is a little reality. It may be beyond you to have something put in straightforward terms so in love with your innocent view of anarchy and libertarianism are you.

Your faith in an absurdity is childlike in the extreme. Take care that the Tooth Fairy does not operate with the selfishness of your beliefs.

[Hugo]

You said: "under our current laws innocents are suffering more than criminals". Now, as I understand it, a criminal, under our current laws, is someone who has broken those laws. Collecting taxes, under our current laws, are not against the law.

So are you saying that moral authority rests with the state? That the state can create morality and make things ethical if it chooses? There are three choices.

1) There is some notion of "higher" ethics which everyone is beholden to, no matter if they are state or individual. The state is equally wrong to break these ethics as an individual would be.

2) The state is the sole source of ethics. It can say what is right and wrong and anything it does is automatically moral, even though it may outlaw the same acts in the citizenry.

3) Something in between. The state may do some things that are considered crimes in private life, but not others.

Which is your personal philosophy, Blackdog? It might seem that I am ducking the question, but I am not. I agree with the first case, and depending on your answer it will probably transpire that we are coming at the issue from different viewpoints. I view theft as a crime, whether perpetrated by individuals or by state, whereas you do not, or so it would seem. But this is why I want to clarify it with you.

To be perfectly frank, arguing the virtues of anarcho-capitalist society is a lot like debating how many angels can dance on a pin head.

As Thoreau said, when men are ready for it, they'll get it.

[Black Dog]

So are you saying that moral authority rests with the state? That the state can create morality and make things ethical if it chooses?

I can't say I buy any of the options. In this instance, you operate from the example that taxes are theft. I don't believe that, as the fruits of our labours are never soley the product of our own labour or initiative. Society, through the state, provides us with the means to make something of ourselves. Does that meant the actions of the state are intrinsicaly ethical and mora? No. But, as Locke said, "it is fit everyone who enjoys a share of protection should pay out of his estate his proportion of the maintenance of it."

In your vision such protection would be provided by the private sector operating under a undefined code (who would have the authority to enact "liberetarian law" in the first place?). This highly regressive, as it doesn't account for people's ability to access or afford such services. It's safe to say (and medieval Iceland is a good example of this) that such a society would quickly degenerate into rule by the rich, as only those with sufficient wealth would be able to afford the few protections availablea nd would almost certainly be able to afford to circumvent what few laws would exist in Hugo's utopia.

Really, what I find most roubling is the failure to distinguish between paying taxes and bona fide slavery. You are not a prisoner, nor are you being held for ransom. You are a guest in a hotel, taxes are your rent and you are free to check out anytime you so desire. Somalia is waiting.

[Hugo]

I can't say I buy any of the options. In this instance, you operate from the example that taxes are theft.

I am offering you three choices: first, that all forcible expropriation of property, including taxes, is theft. Second, that forcible expropriation of property, including taxes, is not theft when done by the state. Thirdly, a compromise - some expropriations are theft, some are not.

It's safe to say (and medieval Iceland is a good example of this) that such a society would quickly degenerate into rule by the rich, as only those with sufficient wealth would be able to afford the few protections availablea nd would almost certainly be able to afford to circumvent what few laws would exist in Hugo's utopia.

I don't think it's safe to say that at all. Firstly, the biggest encumbrance to the generation of wealth is the state. Remove it, and riches and prosperity for all are guaranteed. Look again at Somalia. Since their casting off of government, their wealth creation has been outstanding. It is unfair to say that Somalia is poorer than Canada, because Somalia started in 1993 with a condition of great poverty and civil strife. That does not, however, detract from their great rate of increase in wealth creation.

Secondly, you assume that people are not in the slightest way inclined to charity or community spirit. The empirical evidence shows the opposite. You can see this in the philanthropic tendencies of the rich, the existence of so many private charities in our own society (with no assistance from government save tax-exempt status), even in the willingness of a sizeable proportion of the electorate to vote for political parties that favour wealth redistribution and welfare. The American Seeing-Eye Dogs foundation, for instance, receives more money each year than it requires to perform its services.

I have seen studies by economists that show, even when there is no compulsion, charitable giving is prevalent. The Bishop's Storehouse of the Mormons is a good example of noncoercive welfare. It is also very probable that organisations such as the historical fraternal insurance groups would arise to fill the "welfare gap". Up until recently, many North Carolina fire departments were wholly voluntary, which is another example of private citizens stepping forward to provide a needed community good or service.

In fact, when taxes are relaxed, charity increases. Without any taxes at all, it is fair to assume that charity will increase to the point of being able to cover those who cannot afford for themselves, and that itself is a segment of the population that will increasingly shrink over time as the libertarian state becomes more prosperous.

Regarding the power of the rich to circumvent law, you should note that this happens today because the rich are able to lobby government to do their bidding. With no government, the rich are forced to lobby the public directly, through doing that which the public approves of. You also assume that the rich have a vast amount of power. Firstly, the truly rich are not very numerous. A rich man might gather a private army, but it's almost certain that a citizen militia would be able to eliminate it. Secondly, a rich man who pursues a quest for power is not only a threat to the commoners, but to other rich men. In such a circumstance it is certain that not only the average citizens but the rest of the rich would also ally against this man.

There is the problem of cartels being formed, but this has always been kept in check in the free market by the pendulum swinging between short-term and long-term greed. Cartels serve long-term greed, but as they begin to form the balance shifts back to short-term greed (look at the East India Company) and they collapse again.

You are not a prisoner, nor are you being held for ransom. You are a guest in a hotel, taxes are your rent and you are free to check out anytime you so desire.

In a hotel I can leave whenever I wish. What if I cannot afford a ticket to Somalia? Will the state buy one for me?

Really, what I find most roubling is the failure to distinguish between paying taxes and bona fide slavery.

There is no difference. I'm still waiting for a definition of taxation that doesn't define theft.

You quoted Locke and alluded to the state as a provider of services. However, we have no choice in whether or not we want these services, we must pay for them. The state in this regard is absolutely no different from a Mafia protection racket. And the Mafia, too, could say "You are not a prisoner, nor are you being held for ransom... you are free to [leave] anytime you so desire." But does the (presumed) ability of the victims of the Mafia protection racket to flee for another town or province reduce the extent of the Mafia crime at all?

[Hugo]

Sorry Blackdog, I almost forgot to address this point:

Society, through the state, provides us with the means to make something of ourselves.

You infer that society creates an environment in which we can prosper, so we owe society. Fine. But the identification of state with society is a massive lie.

What is society? It's the 30-odd million people in Canada. You might even say there are multiple societies - the Chinese immigrant community in BC, or even the differences between outlook and values of Albertans, Ontarians and Quebecers. You are society. I am society.

The state is not society. It is a few hundred politicians who have arbitrary power over society, power that ultimately rests on the power to kill, power enforced by the state's ancillary branches of law enforcement and the justice system.

Why power to kill? If a citizen insists on resisting the decrees of the state, the only ultimate recourse the state has to enforce its power is to kill him. John Singer of Utah was shot dead by law enforcement officials in 1979 after several years of fighting with the justice system, who insisted that he stop homeschooling his children. Singer committed no acts of aggression to any other individual, but was determined to protect his rights, by force if necessary. This being the case, the justice system was forced either to back down or to kill him.

So perhaps we do owe a debt to society. But the state is not society and has no business pretending to be society in order to appropriate for itself what is owed to society.

I don't believe that, as the fruits of our labours are never soley the product of our own labour or initiative.

Goods and services are a conjunction of three components. Firstly, labour. Secondly, material resources. Thirdly, ideas. If the owner of each component is being rewarded the state has no claim to reward for any component. To illustrate, a factory line worker contributes labour. The wholesaler is the supplier of raw materials, like rolled steel, glass, plastic etc. The designer of the product is the source of the ideas. If all three are being paid for their services in mutual agreement, what business does the state have appropriating any of it?

[Black Dog]

I don't think it's safe to say that at all. Firstly, the biggest encumbrance to the generation of wealth is the state. Remove it, and riches and prosperity for all are guaranteed. Look again at Somalia. Since their casting off of government, their wealth creation has been outstanding.

Somalia's wealth is almost completely due to the generosity of the Sonmalian disapora. presumably, these people were able to become successful enough unde rthe western taxpayer system that they are now able to prop up the entire system in their homeland.

Secondly, you assume that people are not in the slightest way inclined to charity or community spirit.

No, only that all it takes is one or more well-appointed, less-than-charitable sorts to upend the whole applecart.

With no government, the rich are forced to lobby the public directly, through doing that which the public approves of.

Why? What's to prevent the rich from doing as they please? The law?

You also assume that the rich have a vast amount of power. Firstly, the truly rich are not very numerous. A rich man might gather a private army, but it's almost certain that a citizen militia would be able to eliminate it?

Wouldn't that make the citizen militia a de facto organ of the state? Furthermore, what's to guarantee that outcome?

Secondly, a rich man who pursues a quest for power is not only a threat to the commoners, but to other rich men. In such a circumstance it is certain that not only the average citizens but the rest of the rich would also ally against this man.

Unless the other rich people are similarily inclined. Certainly the spirit of sharing applies here. The rich would simply divy up the wealth amongst themselves.

There is the problem of cartels being formed, but this has always been kept in check in the free market by the pendulum swinging between short-term and long-term greed.

Ah the myth of the free market. There's no such thing. It's a construct.

Indeed, aracho-capitalism sets down excellent preconditions developing monopolies and degnerating into statism.

In a A/C system, there's no limits on the accumulation of private property outside of shadowy "market forces" (never mind the historical realities that show unchecked market forces tend to lead to monopolies). Thus, whosoever accumulates the most property could monopolise the means of production. This allows the monopolists to become a ruling elite by accumulating vastly more wealth than the workers. This elite then uses its wealth to control the coercive mechanisms of society (military, police, "private security forces," etc.), which it employs to protect its monopoly and thus its ability to accumulate ever more wealth and power. Thus, private property, far from increasing the freedom of the individual, has always been the necessary precondition for the rise of the state and rule by the rich. Medieval Iceland is a classic example of this process at work.

In a hotel I can leave whenever I wish. What if I cannot afford a ticket to Somalia? Will the state buy one for me?

But the state is not keeping you here. If you can't curently afford a ticket, why not rely on the charity you espouse?

I grow weary of this game. Here's a couple of well-reasoned debunkings of libertarian ideas.

Robert Nozick, Libertarianism, And Utopia

A critique of liberetarianism

Incidentally, that's also where I got the analysis of Iceland.

[Hugo]

Somalia's wealth is almost completely due to the generosity of the Sonmalian disapora. presumably, these people were able to become successful enough unde rthe western taxpayer system that they are now able to prop up the entire system in their homeland.

I think it's an equally plausible analysis that the diaspora was able to prosper away from the violence and corruption of the Somali state. You could say that Somali wealth fled overseas and returned after the advent of anarchy.

No, only that all it takes is one or more well-appointed, less-than-charitable sorts to upend the whole applecart.

I don't see how that can be true. How could one or a few uncharitable people can cause the collapse of the whole concept of charity? There are plenty of people now who don't give to the seeing-eye dogs foundation and wouldn't give if they were asked, yet that doesn't stop that charity receiving more than enough money from those who are charitable.

Consider also that coercive charity, no matter how noble its cause, is robbery. Taking the rightful possessions of people away without their consent is a crime. It doesn't really matter where those possessions wind up. As Huxley said, the means become part of the ends. Evil means to good ends twist those ends to evil.

Furthermore, no act committed under duress has any moral value. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor by means of violent expropriation makes everybody in the chain immoral. The rich had no chance to show their charity and good spirit, they can show no morality by being robbed. Those who took from them are thieves, they are immoral since they took what was not theirs by force or threat thereof. Those who received are immoral because they benefited from ill-gotten gains, profiting from that which they did not earn and do not deserve.

Why? What's to prevent the rich from doing as they please? The law?

The market. Recall your von Mises. Riches come from trade, and those who trade must satisfy the market if they are to stay in business. If the market demands justice and fair dealings, then justice and fair dealings it will have. All business wants the mass market, so it will deliver what the masses want. Nobody gets rich from a niche market, at least, not nearly as rich as those who sell to the masses.

Wouldn't that make the citizen militia a de facto organ of the state?

No. How can it if there's no state?

Furthermore, what's to guarantee that outcome?

Once again, the market. I'm sure you envision clashes between armed mobs, but let's remember that that is generally the privy of states. Take Waco as an example. Of course, one mob wore "FBI" logos, but that doesn't change either the method or the outcome.

Unless the other rich people are similarily inclined. Certainly the spirit of sharing applies here. The rich would simply divy up the wealth amongst themselves.

It has never happened and will never happen. The one thing you can say about the rich is that they are greedy, if they weren't, they wouldn't be rich. Their greed will ultimately prevent them from forming any kind of cartel. The best that can happen between competitors is an uneasy truce, but everybody in such a truce is just waiting for a chance to stab his competition in the back, and watching for signs that his competition may be preparing to stab him.

Thus, whosoever accumulates the most property could monopolise the means of production. This allows the monopolists to become a ruling elite by accumulating vastly more wealth than the workers. This elite then uses its wealth to control the coercive mechanisms of society (military, police, "private security forces," etc.), which it employs to protect its monopoly and thus its ability to accumulate ever more wealth and power.

So, we're back to this - again. The worst outcome you can see for anarchy is the re-emergence of a state, therefore, you prescribe a state to protect us from a state.

But the state is not keeping you here. If you can't curently afford a ticket, why not rely on the charity you espouse?

You didn't answer my second point about that. What is the difference between the state and the Mafia protection racket who says to its protectees, "you are free to leave at any time, of course?" Why should citizens be obliged to flee their lives, their friends, their homes, their country in order to have liberty?

I grow weary of this game. Here's a couple of well-reasoned debunkings of libertarian ideas.

I have read such things before. Generally, they suffer from one of two flaws. The first is that they don't know enough about libertarianism. The first of your citations is an example of that. Nozick may be a libertarian of sorts (technically, a minarchist) but he was not the only one, and shortcomings or omissions in his theories have been addressed by other libertarian thinkers.

The second flaw is using faulty logic or simply being wrong about basic facts. Your second example displays this. For instance, the author alleges that the free market cannot be free because of the constraints placed upon it of fair dealing. He has confused "liberty" with "license". It is called a free market, not a licentious market, so it is incorrect to criticise it for not allowing license. Furthermore, he believes that rules of good conduct must be imposed upon a free market by an outside force. This is also incorrect, as van Mises and others have shown, the market imposes these rules upon itself.

He also claims that the free market must have coercion to function, which he feels is a self-contradiction within libertarianism, however, he obviously has not read enough libertarian theory to know that it has been proposed to do away with coercion altogether, even in the punishment of crimes, by several libertarian thinkers, in plausible ways.

I could go on, however, you did not write these critiques and so I would be addressing my complaints to the wrong man.