Hugo's defence of anarchy

[August1991]

Hugo's anarchy would be fine, if it were not for that stubborn human nature problem. That problem means that someone has to enforce the limits Hugo wants people to observe, or people will encroach on them wherever they feel they can advantageously. The strong will do it one way, the cunning another. But anarchy won't work.

DAC, you are wrong. You are describing the "law of the jungle".

Human affairs have always been more complex but never moreso than in the past 20,000 years or so. Humans have "recently" discovered a way to ensure self-interested behaviour leads to genuine (uncoerced) co-operation. Hugo calls this "anarchy" but his usage is misleading.

Huh? Marriage, corporations and governments arise because high transaction costs cause free markets to fail. (Or is that what you meant?)

It's still a market. Marriage is a market in the same way as any other.

I meant a market with prices. Even prior to marriage, the "market" in spouses doesn't offer that. After marriage, the transactions are even more difficult to fathom. John Nash made a start at the problem.

Airplanes can also find alternative routes. Airlines might also bundle their flight patterns, buy the property along their routes and then sell it again with the clause that their aircraft will be allowed to fly over it in perpetuity.

There you go again, Hugo. If it were profitable to do as you suggest, why hasn't somebody done it? I am sure there are people who understand flight paths much better than you or I do, and I'm sure they're looking for a buck too. [Please don't tell me that the State has a protection racket monopoly that keeps out the cheaper private operators.]

Thingi Iceland, Celtic Ireland, pre-Alfred Anglo-Saxon England, Holy Experiment Pennsylvania and even modern Somalia are all examples of libertarian or anarchist nations.

And these sterling examples show that the transaction costs of conducting all deals without any State are sometimes greater than the deadweight cost imposed by State sanctioned transactions. Once transaction costs (the costs of enforcing a contract, knowing what you're really signing) are taken into account, the State with all its flaws sometimes offers a better method to do the deal. (The same argument explains corporations, clubs, families and clans.)

I guess you've never got your brother-in-law to fix your car rather than the garage on the corner.

That's not a market failure either, it's another market. Either your brother-in-law is trading his services for your goodwill, for a favour from you later on, or he is giving you his services for nothing. In which case, it is a trade in which something only passes one way. Since your brother-in-law consented to it, it's not coercion.

The market failure occurs because I cannot trust the mechanic down the street. Now, my brother-in-law will perform a service without clear terms of trade, maybe without ever any "payment", for the simple reason that "we are in the same family". This family arrangement works better than a market with prices because signing an enforceable contract with the mechanic is more costly. Replace "brother-in-law" with "neighbour" and "family" with "State" and we're on the road to a theory of the State.

Don't get me wrong. I far prefer several mechanics competing on price for my custom; if I know the competency of the mechanics in advance.

Would you say the novels of Stephen King are a good indication of how things are in the modern age?

Wonderful reply. (Incidentally, the best evidence I saw of Hugo's claim concerned per capita meat consumption in England. It fell at the beginning of the 19th century and then began to rise around 1825, if memory serves.)

The "first rule" of anarchy is the Non-Aggression Principle.

In the case of State policies, this could be replaced with a rule of unanimity. That is, everyone would either abstain or vote in favour of a proposal. (I'm assuming there is a mechanism with incentives so that people vote truthfully.)

Secondly, when government makes laws regarding what an individual may do with himself (e.g. drug laws, same-sex marriage, motorcycle helmet laws), then this violates the same right to property.

I would say it impinges on your right to liberty. Why muck property into this?

If you are not free to dispose of the property as you want, then it is as if you don't own that particular aspect of the property. It is better to imagine "property" as a bundle of rights. The title (deed) to my house does not include the right to forbid (or charge a fee) for your radio waves that may pass through it.

[incidentally Hugo, these rights are often bundled in accordance with the transaction costs of selling the "property".]

a thing that I acquire right of disposal over by being the first to appropriate it

That's a wasteful way to do things. But I'm not surprised Locke would use such a definition.

Who says you own the products of your labour?

Classical liberal philosophers.

Huh? You lend your labour (in fact your time and effort) in return for compensation. The product of your time and effort belongs to whoever hired you. While your time and effort is rented to someone else, are you a slave? Who cares! IMV, the issue is whether you signed the rental contract voluntarily or not. If not, then it's not a contract really.

But there is no option whether or not to pay the fee or receive the benefit. It's like a Mafia protection racket, I pay a fee for "protection", but if I don't pay it, I get roughed up by Mafia goons.

Yes, there is the option of moving to another jurisdiction. Even in Friedman's private judicial system, each person would have to belong to a "protection racket". This indeed is how drug cartels operate.

If the state is charging me for membership in the country in that, as August said before, I can be charged taxes simply for living in Canada, it therefore follows that the state owns Canada and everything in it. My house isn't owned by me, it's owned by the government, because when I'm in it they can still tax me.

Huh? If I pay taxes, this means the State owns Canada, my house and me? Got me there.

If a wife gives money to her husband to buy beer, does this mean the "marriage" owns the "wife".

The State is a mechanism by which individuals conduct transactions - typically, long term contracts.

Perhaps this example will make it more plain. If a wife gives a meal to her husband, does this mean that the husband owns the wife?

Now, what if the wife has no option of divorce? Or, what if the wife never had the option of refusing marriage to her husband in the first place? In this last case, I would possibly say the husband owns the wife and possibly the wife is a slave. More important, would either be better off outside the marriage?

If the state existed purely to protect such rights, that would be a minarchist government as supported by people such as Ayn Rand or possibly our friend August (I believe).

I've never liked Ayn Rand. I find her writing style awkward and her philosophy a bizarre, fascist version of Adam Smith.

However, my argument against such a government hinges upon economics (the free market will provide better protection at less cost than a state monopoly)

What if transaction costs for private delivery of a certain service are such that a free market simply doesn't exist? Would you deny individuals the use of another method to transact?

and upon pragmatic morality, in that the right to use force should not exclusively rest in the hands of any one body.

I'll agree.

In viewing the role of the State, I would go with the second view and ask: what contract conditions would I have accepted before my birth?

None, because acceptance necessitates a free will, and before your birth your free will does not exist.

But what if it did?

----

Last point, I may defend the utility of the State but certainly not to the point where the State consumes some 25% of production, transfers between individuals about 25% of their income and regulates all manner of private transactions.

The question here is to understand how this happened.

[Hugo]

Hugo's anarchy would be fine, if it were not for that stubborn human nature problem. That problem means that someone has to enforce the limits Hugo wants people to observe, or people will encroach on them wherever they feel they can advantageously.

Like capitalism, anarchy actually relies upon utilising the omnipresent "dark side" of human nature. Socialism denies it, and all statism has an element of socialism. Quite simply, anarchy relies not upon a citizen being virtuous, but upon the idea that he will not tolerate less-than-virtuous behaviour in his neighbour.

I meant a market with prices. Even prior to marriage, the "market" in spouses doesn't offer that.

Gary Becker says that there is a marriage market with prices, marginal costs and so forth. Wing Suen of Hong Kong University used his work as the basis for computer simulation of the marriage market, resembling a Tobit model.

Becker has also done a lot of work into application of microeconomics to precisely the "market failures" you are talking about - marriage, family, crime and addiction, for example. For these efforts, Becker was awarded the Nobel prize in economics in 1992, and the National Medal of Science in 2000.

"Earnest money contributes to efficient transacting in real estate markets. Engagement rings contribute to efficient relationship formation in what Nobel laureate Gary Becker refers to as the marriage market. The giver of such a ring pledges, explicitly or implicitly, to work toward achievement of a marriage between himself and his fiancée. By taking herself out of the general marriage market, the recipient of the ring puts herself at risk. Specifically, she risks that while she is off the market, so to speak, she will miss meeting someone else with whom she might have enjoyed a happy and fulfilling relationship. By accepting her fiancé's ring, she gives up valuable opportunity, secure in the knowledge that if her fiancé dumps her, the value of the ring will compensate her for the costs implied by those lost opportunities. Analytically, the fiancé's pledge of good faith (purpose, incentives, and impact on behavior) is identical to that of a prospective house buyer."

-- David Labland and John Sophocleus, professors of economics at Auburn University, in The Freeman, January 1998, Vol. 48, No. 1.

If it were profitable to do as you suggest, why hasn't somebody done it?.. Please don't tell me that the State has a protection racket monopoly that keeps out the cheaper private operators.

Water takes the path of least resistance, people take the path of greatest profit. As it stands, since the state has arbitrary power it makes more sense for airlines to have the state forcibly make the arrangements for a new airport. This is more "efficient" only if you do not regard parties other than the airlines as having any desired outcome. Quite simply, it's like saying that the most efficient way for me to acquire a television is to steal yours. It's true, if your interests are disregarded entirely.

This is the same for other aspects of industry, such as outsourcing. If a firm stands to lose $5m from foreign competition, it makes economic sense to spend $500,000 on lobbying government to exact a protective import tarriff - even though such a tarriff impinges upon natural rights.

And these sterling examples show that the transaction costs of conducting all deals without any State are sometimes greater than the deadweight cost imposed by State sanctioned transactions.

Explain how. That's not a priori.

Replace "brother-in-law" with "neighbour" and "family" with "State" and we're on the road to a theory of the State.

Only if your family monopolises your business, uses force against you and expropriates your property.

In the case of State policies, this could be replaced with a rule of unanimity. That is, everyone would either abstain or vote in favour of a proposal.

I think that is unworkable. Even if you got everybody who voted to all vote "yea" (impossible), it would simply mean that those who abstained will be oppressed.

Even in Friedman's private judicial system, each person would have to belong to a "protection racket".

It's a misnomer. That sort of situation never arose in Iceland. Of course, with competition, if one police agency attempts to extort me I simply go to another police agency and say "that police agency is trying to extort me."

As it stands, there is no competition, so when the state police extort from you ("traffic offence" shakedowns, drug raids, tax enforcement, etc.) you have nowhere to go.

Huh? If I pay taxes, this means the State owns Canada, my house and me? Got me there.

No, you are missing my point. If the state has the right to levy taxes against me, and I can only avoid that by leaving the country, that would have to mean that the entire country was the property of the state. If it were not, that means the state is violating natural rights by disposing of and attaching conditions to the use of property they don't own.

The State is a mechanism by which individuals conduct transactions - typically, long term contracts.

No, it is not. You don't "negotiate" anything with the state. The state simply tells you what you are required to agree to on pain of imprisonment or death.

What if transaction costs for private delivery of a certain service are such that a free market simply doesn't exist? Would you deny individuals the use of another method to transact?

Until you can provide some examples that withstand scrutiny, such an argument is as useless as "what if resources were infinite?"

But what if it did?

How can an attribute of you exist before you?

The question here is to understand how this happened.

It's plain to see, historically, that arbitrary power invested in a state snowballs. Take the USA as an example. The original government after independence was pretty libertarian, allowing for a state purely for the purpose of co-ordinating defence, as it was during the Revolution. After that, the state progressively awarded more power to itself with successive amendments to the constitution (e.g. the right to tax).

Another point to note is that wars generally accompany an increase of domestic state power. The American Civil War ended the small state, after it followed central banking, state control of the economy, national debt (to this day, not yet repaid) and so forth. The First World War was followed by the embryonic welfare state, the Second by its completion, and the War on Terror leading us to the present situation where absolutely nothing is sacred, no aspect of human life is free of some kind of state interference, with the Patriot Act and so forth that allows the government to treat US citizens as POWs, denying them habeas corpus and their Miranda rights.

This is what you get when you award someone arbitrary power. Inevitably, somebody will use that power to award themselves more power. Consider that the examples of anarchist societies I gave were not destroyed from within but from foreign invasion. It follows that the greatest problem facing an anarchist state is self-defence rather than any internal problem.

[The Terrible Sweal]

If you believe that conscription is a form of "enslavement", then you would have to agree that any taxation is a form of "enslavement". Whether the State takes your money or your time, it is still a tax.

Not at all. Not in the least. Taxes (as I mentioned) are a fee collected by the state in return for what it provides. You can pay your taxes, just like your phone bill, with whatever source of funds you may have at your disposal. Conscription puts you bodily in service (at at risk). For you to contend that taxation is a form of enslavement, you must accept that your phone bill is a form of enslavement.

The issue, it seems to me, is whether the payment (fee or tax) is "voluntary" or not.

There are different ways to view this:

Ultimately, citizens voluntarily pay taxes because they choose voluntarily to be subject to the jurisdiction. ...

In viewing the role of the State, I would go with the second view and ask: what contract conditions would I have accepted before my birth?

I'm not sure that is the right question. Upon attaining adulthood all Canadians are entitled to leave Canada if they find the social contract here does not suit them. In other words, your participation here is not judged as at birth, but rather moment to moment in which you remain.

[The Terrible Sweal]

But first, explain what you mean by 'own'?

... , basically, a thing that I acquire right of disposal over by being the first to appropriate it, the first to labour upon it, or by gift, bequest or exchange.

That definition cannot serve, I'm afraid. First, it merely purports to define by reference to another equally indeterminate word, 'right'. Okay, what do you mean by 'right'? Second, it's propositions need more support/explanation: what does it mean to 'appropriate'? Why is being first relevant to this 'right'? What makes a gift valid?

Locke would tell you that this is a "natural right" which exists in humans even in an Hobbesian state of nature.

Which means he couldn't answer my questions. When something cannot be justified, it is often described as natural or self-evident.

Who says you own the products of your labour?

Classical liberal philosophers. ....

Sorry, I posed the wrong question. WHAT says you """'own'""" the products of your labour? (Try parsing that several ways before you answer.)

No, the state charges you the prescribed fee for the benefits you receive as a resident.

But there is no option whether or not to pay the fee or receive the benefit.

In the case of Canada, you do have an option. You can leave any time and seek a better deal in the international marketplace. Plus, if you're a citizen, Canada will always welcome you back on it's the standard prevailing terms at your option.

It's like a Mafia protection racket, I pay a fee for "protection", but if I don't pay it, I get roughed up by Mafia goons.

Not anymore, in the world's liberal democracies.

...you seem to have no problem with state monopolies and monopolistic practices. Why this  ... ?

Unless corrupted, a liberal democracy is not a monopoly, it is a co-operative. To the extent and (uncorrupted) liberal democracymight provide for a monopoly, it is so due to the competitive advantage a single provider can achieve in a fair market.

I would say it impinges on your right to liberty. Why muck property into this?

Because liberty - the right to do as you choose - hinges upon property.

The choice to do WHAT as you choose? The choice to do it where, and with who? What's in it for them? If your choice involves another person you must answer the last question sensibly. To make such an answer, you cannot isolate property (or indeed any other 'right') from a social interest. The only other option is to live alone in the woods (where you can discuss your 'rights' with the bears and the bugs).

You can only do as you choose with your property, which ties into your further point:

I do not accept the equation of personal liberty and 'owning oneself'. It seems to me that the interest (and therefore the rights) a person has in their bodily integrity/sovereignty and their freedom of thought is more than mere ownership.

If my body is not property at all, it follows that if it can't be my property it cannot be anybody else's either.

Yes, that's MY point. Your premise of self-as 'property' is a superfluous abstraction, used fallaciously to underpin the tautology I pointed out to you.

Whoa, stck with the computer... potentially, setting it alight on you porch could afflict your neighbors.

You're constructing a strawman out of an example by attaching conditions to it, changing the example in a way you think is beneficial to your viewpoint. Attack the argument.

That is an attack on the argument. Your example is flawed because it is reductionist and fails to validly test/prove your position.

Further, your example supports my viewpoint. You can do as you will with your own property as long as it does not infringe upon that same right in another individual. If my neighbour's property suffers from my burning of my property - soot on their walls or whatever - then I have violated their natural rights, therefore, I had no right to burn my computer in such a way.

Okay, so what 'right' do you have to dispose of this property? It seems to me that by YOUR definition, a 'right' is conditioned unavoidably by its impact on others. QED.

[Hugo]

It seems that you will disbelieve anything I say barring the Cartesian cogito, ergo sum. Nevertheless, I shall give it a try, but be aware that furthering your line of inquiry is likely to lead you down the path of solipsism, and this debate is fast changing from the political to the ontological.

Okay, what do you mean by 'right'?

Just entitlement. The natural right is the right I can give myself without any other individual having granted it to me, nor that I have appropriated without infringing upon the right of another to give himself the right.

If I am the only human being in existence and I come upon, say, a rock, I can claim it for myself and use it for whatever I want, constrained only by laws which do not come from man at all (i.e. the laws of physics). I need no force or any other human being to do this.

Second, it's propositions need more support/explanation: what does it mean to 'appropriate'?

To take into my possession.

Why is being first relevant to this 'right'?

Because if a second man comes along and wants my rock, he cannot acquire it without resort to force or negotiation. He does not have the same natural right to the rock because I did not have to do either to acquire the rock.

Which means he couldn't answer my questions. When something cannot be justified, it is often described as natural or self-evident.

I just defined that for you. I don't pretend to be a great philosopher, but if you want the word of a great philosopher, you can always consult their works.

Sorry, I posed the wrong question. WHAT says you """'own'""" the products of your labour?

See above. I am always the instigator of my own labour.

In the case of Canada, you do have an option. You can leave any time and seek a better deal in the international marketplace.

Then, as I have been saying to August, this means that the Canadian government must own the entire country and everything in it, if my departure is required to escape their jurisdiction.

If you disagree, then tell me what you would say is the justification for disposing of or attaching conditions to the use of what you do not own.

Furthermore, if you believe that the state does have these rights over you, then China and Cuba are waiting. As the example of American progression from liberalism to statism proves, once there has been created a state there is no logical stopping-point for it. It will continue to accumulate power and eventually become totalitarian.

Not anymore, in the world's liberal democracies.

That, simply, is a lie. Failing to file a tax return in the US is punishable by one year in prison. SIN fraud in Canada is punishable by the same. Try resisting arrest and force will be used against you.

Unless corrupted, a liberal democracy is not a monopoly, it is a co-operative. To the extent and (uncorrupted) liberal democracymight provide for a monopoly, it is so due to the competitive advantage a single provider can achieve in a fair market.

Monopolies don't exist in a fair market. A liberal democracy is not a co-operative because at least some of the citizens never consented to co-operate. I believe 77% of the Canadian electorate didn't vote for the Liberals. That's a pretty pathetic co-operative.

The choice to do WHAT as you choose?

Whatever.

The choice to do it where, and with who?

Wherever I have permission to do it from the rightful owner, and with anyone who also gives their permission (assuming I also consent to both).

What's in it for them?

Ask them! How should I know? If they willingly consent to whatever it is I'm doing, either there's something in it for them, or they just don't care. Either way, I'm not violating their rights, which remain the same as mine.

Your premise of self-as 'property' is a superfluous abstraction, used fallaciously to underpin the tautology I pointed out to you.

Actually, I gave you an alternate premise as well, and explained how both support my proposition.

That is an attack on the argument. Your example is flawed because it is reductionist and fails to validly test/prove your position.

No, Sweal, it's a strawman. I said, "I can do whatever I like with this computer. I can use it as a doorstop or set it alight." To which you replied, "what if your act of setting it alight interfered with your neighbours?"

Now, if you read above, you'll see that your question has already been answered. So either this is a strawman, or just a waste of time.

Okay, so what 'right' do you have to dispose of this property? It seems to me that by YOUR definition, a 'right' is conditioned unavoidably by its impact on others.

Exactly. But before you start about "impact on society", the anarchist viewpoint is that unless you can identify a specific individual or individuals upon whom your act is impacting, there is no other party, no victim. There is no such thing as crimes against society, or victimless crime. Either a crime has a victim, or it is not a crime.

For you to contend that taxation is a form of enslavement, you must accept that your phone bill is a form of enslavement.

But I can choose not to have a phone. I can't choose not to be conscripted. I suppose you could say that I have to be conscripted to pay the price for the great benefits the state gives me, however, I have no choice about whether I receive those benefits, either. Note how this can also be applied to taxation.

Now, if you believe that this is correct, then you are claiming that it is acceptable to force a payment from somebody as long as you force them to accept a service in return, even if it's a service they don't want, or an act only you judge to be a service. For instance, I could rape a woman, claim that I was doing her the "service" of impregnating her or giving her the chance at being impregnated, charge her $5000 for my service, and force her to pay at gunpoint.

If taxation is just, so is that.

[Guest eureka]

DAC!

I agree with you. As one philosopher (I forget who) said, Anarchy might be all right if we were all friends. There is, of course, a great deal more against it than that, but, standing alone, i points to the absurdity of denying human nature,

Hugo!

Bertrand Russell, amongst others, contested "cogito ergo sum. He said that the idea, in itself, contained an unknowable presumption.

77% of the Canadian electorate voted against the Liberals. You are correct in that. However, all who voted, other than you and your two? friends, voted FOR the system of liberal democracy. The election was about the administration of the system not its basic values.

[Hugo]

As one philosopher (I forget who) said, Anarchy might be all right if we were all friends.

That would be true of Communism, because since the rewards of communism are not proportionate to the effort, it requires effort without reward. Anarchism is the polar opposite of Communism and does not rely upon any aspect of human nature. If everybody is evil, anarchy works. If everybody is saintly, anarchy works.

Bertrand Russell, amongst others, contested "cogito ergo sum. He said that the idea, in itself, contained an unknowable presumption.

"I think on the whole the sort of method adopted by Descartes is right: that you should set to work to doubt things and retain only what you cannot doubt because of its clearness and distinctiveness." -- Bertrand Russell, Lectures, 182.

I've never come across any denial from Russell of the Cartesian axiom. Russell's work on epistemology and metaphysics mostly discusses how we arrive at knowledge, for example, that things are logical constructions whose nature we can only explore through 'sensibilia', our senses. He cited this as being proof against Descartes' demon or evil genius, whereas knowledge about an object derived without sensibilia is not.

Russell also made an effort to get beyond the Cartestain problem with his work on postulates of scientific inference in Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits, and argued for a priori knowledge that he termed 'animal expectation.'

What you call an "unknowable assumption" is simply the assumption that nothing cannot think.

77% of the Canadian electorate voted against the Liberals. You are correct in that. However, all who voted, other than you and your two? friends, voted FOR the system of liberal democracy.

Then around 40% of the electorate voted against the system of liberal democracy by refusing to participate in it. If we have 10 men in a room, does the vote of 6 of them to rob the other 4 legitimise their robbery?

[Guest eureka]

Perhaps you are unaware that Kruschev added "To each according to his contribution" to the equation.

Actually, Russell did. I have the reference in a book of his essays somewhere - not in his major works. As I recall, he devoted only a few sentences to the thought. I am not going to reread all the material I have on Russell so you will have to accept it or reject it as you will. Your citations from Russell do not contradict the rejection of the idea.

40% did not reject liberal democracy. Thay did not vote for the parties only. Presumably they did not like the way the system is being managed and saw no party offering better. Or, they were satisfied to leave things to chance expecting that any choice would still leave them basically satisfied.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

If we have 10 men in a room, does the vote of 6 of them to rob the other 4 legitimise their robbery?

Only under an anarchist system. Law governing the six would not cover the 4. They would be 'unclaimed wilderness' (at least the contents of their pockets would be).

Anarchism is the polar opposite of Communism and does not rely upon any aspect of human nature.

I was previously going to suggest that an Anarchist system could only work on a 'commune', but you saved me the trouble. Anarchism must be based on greedy selfishness, lest anybody get the crazy notion 'lets share' (access to water, laws, public parks etc)

and this debate is fast changing from the political to the ontological.

That is where it belongs. The only place one could set up an experimental Anarchist system is Fantasyland!

because since the rewards of communism are not proportionate to the effort, it requires effort without reward.

Not true, you are making a personal judgement call based on what you yourself value.

Because if a second man comes along and wants my rock, he cannot acquire it without resort to force or negotiation. He does not have the same natural right to the rock because I did not have to do either to acquire the rock.

Now, not to get nit-picky, but it would depend on the size of the rock. Lets say, Ayers Rock. Coming across it first gives you no more right to it than coming across it second. You can only deny the second man access to it, (assuming your defenses are adequate) and if he defeats and kills you, it is his (to deny access to others). This is the essence of 'ownership' Especially of land, because unlike a small rock, you cannot pick it up and take it with you.

[Hugo]

Perhaps you are unaware that Kruschev added "To each according to his contribution" to the equation.

Then Kruschev would have created capitalism.

I am not going to reread all the material I have on Russell so you will have to accept it or reject it as you will.

Then I reject it, because I've never encountered such a proposition in any of Russell's works and, given your track record for false statements (e.g. the 19th Century standard of living - a point you have dropped again), I certainly won't take your word for it.

40% did not reject liberal democracy. Thay did not vote for the parties only. Presumably...

I'm glad to see your argument is based upon mere presumption.

Only under an anarchist system. Law governing the six would not cover the 4. They would be 'unclaimed wilderness' (at least the contents of their pockets would be).

This is a strawman argument that ignores everything I have previously written on this subject.

I think you are just being facetious. You promised me that you could "rend asunder" my anarchist ideas, but so far all I've gotten is strawmen, historical and economic ignorance, and a failure to read my posts before you reply to them.

Either join in a serious debate, or bow out gracefully.

I was previously going to suggest that an Anarchist system could only work on a 'commune', but you saved me the trouble. Anarchism must be based on greedy selfishness, lest anybody get the crazy notion 'lets share' (access to water, laws, public parks etc)

But it doesn't need to be. That's the beauty of it. There is absolutely nothing to prevent a bunch of people in an anarcho-capitalist society from starting up a worker's collective or a commune as self-sufficient as they liked. In the anarcho-capitalist society, the only limit is human creativity. Nothing is forbidden save the violation of another's freedom.

Your thinking belies your preconceived ideas. You are so used to an existence of coersion and rules that you believe wherever a system exists, it must be bound by rules and coersion. You would realise that, in an anarcho-capitalist society, there would be no force to prevent voluntary socialism. If such socialism did not appear, the only explanation could be that people reject it and prefer the alternatives.

That is where it belongs. The only place one could set up an experimental Anarchist system is Fantasyland!

Or Iceland, Ireland, Anglo-Saxon England, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, or Somalia.

Not true, you are making a personal judgement call based on what you yourself value.

No, Communism does, because it stresses that only material things are of value and in all aspects of its doctrine, respects only the economic. Once again, there's nothing to prevent voluntary socialism in market anarchy. If people wish to be virtuous and work for rewards which are not of economic value, there is nothing in anarchy to prevent them.

Now, not to get nit-picky, but it would depend on the size of the rock. Lets say, Ayers Rock. Coming across it first gives you no more right to it than coming across it second. You can only deny the second man access to it, (assuming your defenses are adequate) and if he defeats and kills you, it is his (to deny access to others).

So, you are telling me that, according to you, my right is only equal to my success in using force to defend it?

Bearing that in mind, it's highly ironic that you would accuse me of respecting only the law of the jungle.

In your example, the second man would certainly have possession of the rock - wrongfully. And if these others you speak of discover my bloody corpse in the woods, dead at his hands, they're not very likely to respect his claim to the rock.

And this is another strawman.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Okay, what do you mean by 'right'?

Just entitlement. The natural right is the right I can give myself without any other individual having granted it to me, nor that I have appropriated without infringing upon the right of another to give himself the right.

If I am the only human being in existence and I come upon, say, a rock, I can claim it for myself and use it for whatever I want, constrained only by laws which do not come from man at all (i.e. the laws of physics). I need no force or any other human being to do this.

This concept makes no sense. You are alone on an island. You wave a rock about. In what way does a man alone on an island need or use a 'right'?

If an ape alone on an island waved the rock, is he exercising a right too?

Second, it's propositions need more support/explanation: what does it mean to 'appropriate'?

To take into my possession.

So what is 'possession'? Surely you are capable of giving meaning to you ideas beyond simply substitution of approximate synonyms.

Why is being first relevant to this 'right'?

Because if a second man comes along and wants my rock, he cannot acquire it without resort to force or negotiation.

Two questions:

What if he takes it when your back is turned? What makes resort to force a wrongful way to acquire your 'possession'?

He does not have the same natural right to the rock because I did not have to do either to acquire the rock.

Indeed. He has put forth greater effort for the rock, and so deserves to 'own' it, right?

... this means that the Canadian government must own the entire country and everything in it, if my departure is required to escape their jurisdiction.

Well, that is technically the case in law as it stands: Citizens hold all their landed property 'of the crown'. But in terms of political economy, we can speak in terms of sovereign authority rather than 'ownership'.

If you disagree, then tell me what you would say is the justification for disposing of or attaching conditions to the use of what you do not own.

My reply would be meaningless to you, in the absense of a usable understanding of 'own'.

Not anymore, in the world's liberal democracies.

That, simply, is a lie. Failing to file a tax return in the US is punishable by one year in prison.

:angry: Be careful with that word, 'lie'. Who says the US is a liberal democracy? And do you then reject all law?

Unless corrupted, a liberal democracy is not a monopoly, it is a co-operative. To the extent and (uncorrupted) liberal democracymight provide for a monopoly, it is so due to the competitive advantage a single provider can achieve in a fair market.

Monopolies don't exist in a fair market.

Nonsense.

A liberal democracy is not a co-operative because at least some of the citizens never consented to co-operate.

The are consenting by not departing.

The choice to do WHAT as you choose?

Whatever.

The choice to do it where, and with who?

Wherever I have permission to do it from the rightful owner, and with anyone who also gives their permission (assuming I also consent to both).

What's in it for them?

Ask them! How should I know? If they willingly consent to whatever it is I'm doing, either there's something in it for them, or they just don't care. Either way, I'm not violating their rights, which remain the same as mine.

It's a shame you didn't address my main point at the end of that series.

Okay, so what 'right' do you have to dispose of this property? It seems to me that by YOUR definition, a 'right' is conditioned unavoidably by its impact on others.

Exactly. But before you start about "impact on society", the anarchist viewpoint is that unless you can identify a specific individual or individuals upon whom your act is impacting, there is no other party, no victim.

Fine that does nothing to disturb my position. 'Rights' (including any ostensible rights to property) only have meaning to the extent they are given effect by and through the people around you.

For you to contend that taxation is a form of enslavement, you must accept that your phone bill is a form of enslavement.

But I can choose not to have a phone.

And you can choose not to live in Canada.

I can't choose not to be conscripted.

A country that practices conscription is not practicing liberal democracy.

[Hugo]

So what is 'possession'? Surely you are capable of giving meaning to you ideas beyond simply substitution of approximate synonyms.

Possession is the right I have over objects granted by rules, either moral or legal. In my case, I am appealing to moral rules, namely, that nothing shall interfere with free will. In this instance this is basically the Kantian argument that the only right is freedom. Freedom, as I see it, must be the only ultimate right because one man cannot lose his freedom without it being taken or abused by another, and there is nothing inherent to a man that would make his freedom more valuable than anothers. Of course, freedom has a boundary at the point where it detracts from anothers freedom, but that condition still does not elevate any man above his brothers.

At any point you could completely moot the discussion by stating that you don't agree that freedom is the only right or even a right at all. However, that does not prove either you or I wrong, it only proves that you disagree with me.

What if he takes it when your back is turned? What makes resort to force a wrongful way to acquire your 'possession'?

If he took it when my back was turned that would be an act of violence (seizure) exercised against my property. It would interfere with my freedom to use my possession (even use in a manner that wouldn't interfere with anybody elses freedom).

Resort to force is wrongful because it interferes with free will. If this man cannot resort to force to acquire my rock, then his acquisition of my rock must be done with my consent according to my free will.

Indeed. He has put forth greater effort for the rock, and so deserves to 'own' it, right?

No. That point is a non sequitur from my arguments. If it follows from yours, you'll have to give your starting point first so that I can see how.

Well, that is technically the case in law as it stands: Citizens hold all their landed property 'of the crown'. But in terms of political economy, we can speak in terms of sovereign authority rather than 'ownership'... My reply would be meaningless to you, in the absense of a usable understanding of 'own'.

Then define your understanding of ownership and rights in such a way as to justify the governmental right to set limitations on the use of objects that came into my possession according to the rules of ownership I laid out above. I expect that your definition of ownership differs from mine because otherwise your position would be inconsistent. I just want to know what it is.

Be careful with that word, 'lie'. Who says the US is a liberal democracy? And do you then reject all law?

I withdraw my accusation of lying on the condition that you give me an example of a "liberal democracy" as you define it. I don't reject all law, I reject all coercive law. The only morally just law is that which has been consented to by those it applies to.

Nonsense.

Well, some time ago I asked you to show me a monopoly that came into existence without state fiat. You were unable to.

The are consenting by not departing.

This brings us back to the question of who owns Canada. The government can only say I consent to their laws by being on their territory if it is, in fact, their territory. Otherwise, I could say that your act of breathing is your consent to giving me $10,000.

Fine that does nothing to disturb my position. 'Rights' (including any ostensible rights to property) only have meaning to the extent they are given effect by and through the people around you.

Of course. This is how the government is able to violate our rights. It has told us that they are not our rights at all.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

As The Terrible Sweal states,

Fine that does nothing to disturb my position. 'Rights' (including any ostensible rights to property) only have meaning to the extent they are given effect by and through the people around you.

This is akin to what I have stated regarding recognition of your 'right to ownership'.

If people wish to be virtuous and work for rewards which are not of economic value, there is nothing in anarchy to prevent them.

Material possessions are actually of little value, save what people give to them by covetousness. DVD players can't actually keep someone alive, for example.

So, you are telling me that, according to you, my right is only equal to my success in using force to defend it?

Bearing that in mind, it's highly ironic that you would accuse me of respecting only the law of the jungle.

In your example, the second man would certainly have possession of the rock - wrongfully. And if these others you speak of discover my bloody corpse in the woods, dead at his hands, they're not very likely to respect his claim to the rock.

And this is another strawman

Not according to me, according to everyone else! You use the word 'wrongfully' while I say 'practically'. Besides, how would one establish the 'clean slate' to start this anarchist system? Round everyone up and put them behind some sort of 'starting line' and say GO!? That is how it was done in the west, a cpuple of hundred years ago. Unfortunately, there were 'Injuns' using the land, who had no concept of the word 'ownership' and only by killing them could 'ownership' become possible.

[Hugo]

This is akin to what I have stated regarding recognition of your 'right to ownership'.

If what you are saying is that rights are conditional on the attitudes of others, what rights do they have? We are all individuals, and society does not consist of "me" and "everybody else."

Material possessions are actually of little value, save what people give to them by covetousness.

Nothing has value until somebody places a value upon it. But people's market decisions, indicated by pricing, consumer demand and so forth, reflect what value they place upon things. It's not always simple. For instance, if somebody prefers a DVD player to health insurance, it does not necessarily mean that he prefers watching DVDs to being healthy. It might mean that the certainty of watching DVDs is worth trading for the possibility that he will become ill.

Besides, how would one establish the 'clean slate' to start this anarchist system? Round everyone up and put them behind some sort of 'starting line' and say GO!?

There's several answers. Anarchists could simply all flee to some deserted island, as the Icelanders fled Norway in the 9th Century. Or people could become more averse to the idea of state interference, gradually rolling back state power until it disappears.

Not according to me, according to everyone else! You use the word 'wrongfully' while I say 'practically'.

You are saying - sorry, you are saying that "everybody else" is saying - that what is morally correct might not be possible, which would make it morally incorrect, which is a non sequitur.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

We are all individuals, and society does not consist of "me" and "everybody else."

That is exactly what society is! A long time ago, I had witten something while trying to define the difference between 'biblical' and pragmatic views of society. The teachings of Jesus, etc all boiled down to.... "one must view the world as though there are only 2 people, 'me', and 'the one who is not me'.(Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, etc, even if you view the other brother as jesus, God or Allah). Even your Anarchist theory seems to hold to this.

[Hugo]

We are all individuals, and society does not consist of "me" and "everybody else."

That is exactly what society is!

Only if you're a solipsist. If you believe that each human individual is as individual as you are, then "society" doesn't actually exist at all. Social trends are merely coincidental movements of individuals.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Possession is the right I have over objects granted by rules, either moral or legal. In my case, I am appealing to moral rules, namely, that nothing shall interfere with free will.

Your first sentence makes sense. You second sentence less so. The apparent distinction between legal rules and moral rules unclear. As between legal rules and moral rules, the former have an operational existence between people, the latter do not (unless they are embodied in the former). it makes your argument merely a normative opinion about how 'rights' ought to be ordered.

As for the contention 'nothing shall interfere with free will' there are two problems. First, as you conceded, there is the inherent limit imposed by the countervailing rights of other individuals to also be free. This is not a mere note-in-passing, it must be given effect in order that theorizing remains internally consistent. One cannot say: I am free to burn my computer unless it soots up my neighbors home, therefore I am absolutely free to burn my computer.

Freedom, as I see it, must be the only ultimate right because one man cannot lose his freedom without it being taken or abused by another, and there is nothing inherent to a man that would make his freedom more valuable than anothers.

Without necessarily disagreeing, again, I think your statement needs a closer evaluation. Valuable to whom?

What if he takes it when your back is turned? What makes resort to force a wrongful way to acquire your 'possession'?

If he took it when my back was turned that would be an act of violence (seizure) exercised against my property.

Oh dear. I had so hoped we were making progress, but your back in the tautology: you contend that property is that which only violence or your will can alienate from you, then you define violence as any alienation of 'property' against your will. A full circle.

Perhaps a hypothetical will help: Two men are walking in the wilderness. Man X arrives at a cherry tree and sits beneath it in the shade. Two minutes later Man Y arrives and starts picking cherries. The confront eachother and each asserts his exclusive rights to control and dispose of the tree. What resolves this dispute and why/how?

 

Resort to force is wrongful because it interferes with free will.

But your use of the rock interferes with my will to use the rock myself. Why should I suffer my will to be frustrated in service to your will when I can simply take your rock?

Indeed. He has put forth greater effort for the rock, and so deserves to 'own' it, right?

No. That point is a non sequitur from my arguments.

It is only an non sequitur from where you THINK your argument goes, but in fact your argument has not yet precluded the applicability of that framework. Your justification for property so far does not sensibly preclude the rightness of force.

Then define your understanding of ownership and rights in such a way as to justify the governmental right to set limitations on the use of objects that came into my possession according to the rules of ownership I laid out above. 

Impossible. The rules of 'ownership' you assert are the very matter under question. I am presently showing you that they are logically hollow, and so, I can hardly apply to them in justifying anything.

I expect that your definition of ownership differs from mine because otherwise your position would be inconsistent. I just want to know what it is.

Well, I gave you two alternative definitions for property earlier. In the absense of rule of law, property is whatever you can obtain and hold against others who may try to take it from you. In the presense of rule of law, your property is whatever your society says it is and will assist you in defending against others who would try to take it from you.

I think a difficulty between us in this discussion is the understanding of 'rights'. I think your use of the concept incorporates a normative element, whereas mine does not. Inclusion of the normative element is problematic in that it requires a separate justification from the descriptive.

Be careful with that word, 'lie'. Who says the US is a liberal democracy? And do you then reject all law?

I withdraw my accusation of lying on the condition that you give me an example of a "liberal democracy" as you define it.

I accept your withdrawal, but reject the notion that any 'condition' is applicable. Instead I will give you reasons to reject the US as a good example of the liberal democracy I mean. You can decide which states in the world are better in these respects. First, the US taxes its citizens resident or not, on worldwide income. In effect, you cannot opt out of Uncle Sam's racket. Second, I believe that conscription would be considered legal and legitimate by the American state. There may be other reasons, but these suffice.

I don't reject all law, I reject all coercive law.

I don't mean to say this harshly, but I defy you to give any content to that statement.

Non-coercive law is self-contradictory. A normative imperative only becomes a law when it is made the subject of coercibility. I.e. the implication of coercion is an essential condition of being 'law'.

The only morally just law is that which has been consented to by those it applies to.

You must be more coherent in your positions. Don't let rhetoric confuse you. The statement quoted above is not consistent with your other assertion, ie. the universal morality of 'Lockean' free will.

If I will not consent to your freedom, what do you do?

Nonsense.

Well, some time ago I asked you to show me a monopoly that came into existence without state fiat. You were unable to.

Even if there were no such example, the existence of state action does not preclude the monopoly being justified by market theory.

The are consenting by not departing.

This brings us back to the question of who owns Canada. The government can only say I consent to their laws by being on their territory if it is, in fact, their territory.

That position is incorrect, which can see when the proper pronouns are used: Our state can only say I consent to our laws being on our territory if it is, in fact, our territory.

Otherwise, I could say that your act of breathing is your consent to giving me $10,000.

You could say it, but you can't enforce it. Why not? What do you lack that the state commands?

Fine that does nothing to disturb my position. 'Rights' (including any ostensible rights to property) only have meaning to the extent they are given effect by and through the people around you.

Of course. This is how the government is able to violate our rights. It has told us that they are not our rights at all.

What distinguishes a 'right' from a demand?

[Guest eureka]

Hugo:

Your ignorance does not excuse you from retaliation. I do not because your rigidity of mind explains if it does not excuse.

Why on earth would I reread thousands of pages of Bertrand Russell merely to prove to you what I know to be true. If you want intelligent discussion, you will have to open up your mind a little to the possibility that others just might know something.

It is the same with the 19th. century standards. You are trying to dispute that Colonialism, Imperialism, Slaver and new diseases did not bring prosperity to people. Even in England, for large industrial areas the life expectancy was only in the twenties for a substantial part of the century. Child labour was the norm and often the only support for a family.

If you don't like Dikens, read Thomas Hood - or read a more recent novel of conditions in the North-East; "The Dresser" - I don't remember the author.

To this time, you seem to be limiting your "Anarchism" to economic affairs. Is it that you have not yet read enough of the tracts to think of the liberation of the Passions?

Anarchism is no more than an extrerme Liberalism. The impetus that drove it over into Libertarianism and Anarchism was Romanticism. The same source and the same intelligences that brought Fascism also.

I am waiting to see something intelligent from you.

I could not find a suitable rock on my walk this morning and so I claimed the atmosphere immediately surrounding me. However, when I got home, the scent of fresh air in the same portion had become tainted with wood smoke from a neighbouring home. What action should I take against someone who has deprived me of my possession of that fresh air?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

I seems we are at an impasse regarding the definition of 'ownership'. This is not overly crucial, for every 'state' adheres to some form of recognized 'ownership'.

It strikes me as odd, though, that you have no sense of 'society' and social responsibility save what the individual recognizes as directly self-beneficial.

However, I have a few questions. Assuming you mean that (Canada, for example) a 'group' of '30 million nations of one' could potentially operate harmoniously, how would there be standardization? Currency, laws governing the safety standards of buildings and bridges, etc. Who would have the right to mint money? Everybody?

[August1991]

They are consenting by not departing.

This brings us back to the question of who owns Canada. The government can only say I consent to their laws by being on their territory if it is, in fact, their territory. Otherwise, I could say that your act of breathing is your consent to giving me $10,000.

It is not the government that owns Canada, it is all the people living here. And they don't own "Canada the land", they own "Canada the legal system".

Canada is a cooperative, a gated community or a condominium.

Hugo, we do not live in a world with one government. We live in a world with many governments. No government in this world is a monopoly. [Excepting North Korea...]

Well, some time ago I asked you to show me a monopoly that came into existence without state fiat. You were unable to.

Most networks are natural monopolies. Legal system, too.

----

One cannot say: I am free to burn my computer unless it soots up my neighbors home, therefore I am absolutely free to burn my computer.

I could not find a suitable rock on my walk this morning and so I claimed the atmosphere immediately surrounding me. However, when I got home, the scent of fresh air in the same portion had become tainted with wood smoke from a neighbouring home. What action should I take against someone who has deprived me of my possession of that fresh air?

In Hugo's world, you would find the name of the neighbour's private protector and then agree on the appropriate court. Your private protector would action the neighbour in a court . But we'd first have to determine whether you indeed own the atmosphere or your neighbour does. [i suppose the computer soot case is more clear on this issue.]

If you own the atmosphere, damages would be assessed. If you don't own the atmosphere, you could buy it from your neighbour.

Well, we sometimes do all that now. But we also sometimes say that the hassle of doing all that is greater than any benefit. Let's have a simple rule: No open fires.

Here's a better example:

A condominium wants to renovate the building's main entry. It will cost $100,000. How to collect the money from the different residents in the building? This can't be done voluntarily since everyone will lie and say they don't want to pay (when in fact they really do want a new entry and are prepared to pay for it).

So, to avoid this hassle, a simple rule is used: Everyone pays $1000.

It is the same with the 19th. century standards. You are trying to dispute that Colonialism, Imperialism, Slaver and new diseases did not bring prosperity to people.

Eureka, I think you would agree that ordinary people in Europe today live better now than say 500 years ago. Why has this happened? Because people can deal with one another. They can trade.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

So, to avoid this hassle, a simple rule is used: Everyone pays $1000.

Hugo calls this 'enforced robbery', a tax. If one refuses to pay, he will be 'kidnapped' and killed. (If he resists with force). I believe this to be the crux of Hugo's argument, that one does not the have right to 'not participate in society'.

The problem would lie in, if Hugo refuses to pay taxes for the 'common good'(or entrance), how does the rest of society deny him access/useage to that which he did not pay for?

[Hugo]

The apparent distinction between legal rules and moral rules unclear. As between legal rules and moral rules, the former have an operational existence between people, the latter do not

Then that would probably make you a legal positivist. The opposite opinion would be that laws are the rules as they are, morality is the rules as they should be.

But neither viewpoint accurately describes the relationship of law and morality. To refute legal positivism, the fact is that in legal rulings judges often refer to morality when ruling in ambiguous cases. The refutation of the latter is that laws may be unjust, but they are still law.

The most probable interpretation of law is that it is not a snapshot but a continuing process that reflects not only morality but also legal history.

If you are viewing law as inherently subjective, you presuppose that rights and morality are inherently subjective too, that there are no "true" human rights. Of course, this raises the question of to whom is it subjective? Herding Jews into gas chambers might not have been immoral to Nazis, but it was immoral to the Jews.

As for the contention 'nothing shall interfere with free will' there are two problems. First, as you conceded, there is the inherent limit imposed by the countervailing rights of other individuals to also be free.

Well, this is what I have been saying for a long time now and I thought we could probably take that as read.

Without necessarily disagreeing, again, I think your statement needs a closer evaluation. Valuable to whom?

My freedom is more valuable to me. The other mans freedom is more valuable to him. The only mutually acceptable conclusion is that our freedoms are equal and equally valuable.

Two men are walking in the wilderness. Man X arrives at a cherry tree and sits beneath it in the shade. Two minutes later Man Y arrives and starts picking cherries. The confront eachother and each asserts his exclusive rights to control and dispose of the tree. What resolves this dispute and why/how?

Who claimed it first? If Man X claimed the tree first, and he can prove it (which he can, by the fact that he was there before Man Y), then Man X has the rights to the tree.

But your use of the rock interferes with my will to use the rock myself. Why should I suffer my will to be frustrated in service to your will when I can simply take your rock?

Because my will to use the rock was exerted before anybody elses.

Your justification for property so far does not sensibly preclude the rightness of force.

Perhaps you are claiming that "might makes right" and the only true right is that which you can enforce. By that standard, of course, you have no objection to the Holocaust or anything of that ilk, since the Nazis simply used greater force against the Jews.

However, humans as a rule don't respect the right of might. Most animals do. A lion exerts his power over his pride, until a bigger lion comes along and kills him and his cubs. Humans, when put together, generally co-operate rather than fight. As reasoning creatures, humans recognise that the law of the jungle only benefits them as long as they are the strongest. Therefore, to settle for less in co-operation is a better option when one considers the future.

The rules of 'ownership' you assert are the very matter under question.

Actually, for this thread it doesn't matter. There are a great number of anarchists who disavow property altogether, like Proudhon, Bakunin or Chomsky. Therefore, an attack on property is not an attack on anarchism, and if you'll read the title of the thread, that is what you are setting out to take apart here.

I am presently showing you that they are logically hollow, and so, I can hardly apply to them in justifying anything.

Your assertions would mean that the only right is that which you can enforce, but when reading your prior posts on this forum I know that you don't actually believe that. What is the reason for this self-contradiction?

I accept your withdrawal, but reject the notion that any 'condition' is applicable. Instead I will give you reasons to reject the US as a good example of the liberal democracy I mean. You can decide which states in the world are better in these respects. First, the US taxes its citizens resident or not, on worldwide income. In effect, you cannot opt out of Uncle Sam's racket. Second, I believe that conscription would be considered legal and legitimate by the American state. There may be other reasons, but these suffice.

I want to know what you think of as a "liberal democracy". I don't believe that any nation-state currently existing fits your criteria. Like Eureka, you are basing your argument on what you would like to be true, rather than what is true. You would prefer to believe that democratic government can safeguard rights and be just and fair, but history shows that no government safeguards rights and is just and fair.

Non-coercive law is self-contradictory. A normative imperative only becomes a law when it is made the subject of coercibility.

Basically, non-coercive law is law that does not require the use of force to bring criminals into submission. Under anarchist law, prisoners willingly attend their trials and willingly carry out their punishment. It is the existence of public property which prevents this currently. In a pure private-property society, a criminal can get away with not being punished as long as he can exist without ever setting foot off his own property or dealing with another human being for the rest of his life. Even if he had a large, self-sufficient farm, he would effectively be sentenced to hard labour for life.

Even if there were no such example, the existence of state action does not preclude the monopoly being justified by market theory.

Where a monopoly exists in a free market, it is transient, or it serves a purpose on the market (i.e. to have a monopoly is more efficient than not to have a monopoly). The exploitative and long-lived monopolies we have seen in our semi-free market have all been the result of state sanction.

Why on earth would I reread thousands of pages of Bertrand Russell merely to prove to you what I know to be true.

Because, in the past, you have presented as fact that which has been proven false. Therefore, unless I have good evidence that you are speaking the truth, I am forced to believe that you are lying. Since I have no evidence that Russell ever said that which you allege, I must disbelieve your statement.

You are trying to dispute that Colonialism, Imperialism, Slaver and new diseases did not bring prosperity to people.

These are the policies of state governments.

Even in England, for large industrial areas the life expectancy was only in the twenties for a substantial part of the century.

Prove it.

Child labour was the norm and often the only support for a family.

The free market killed slavery and child labour, because in the evolving labour market both ceased to be economically viable. The state only moved to abolish slavery and child labour after they were virtually extinct anyway.

If you don't like Dikens, read Thomas Hood - or read a more recent novel of conditions in the North-East; "The Dresser" - I don't remember the author.

I already said to you:

Why don't you show me some economic or historical commentary of the times? Would you say the novels of Stephen King are a good indication of how things are in the modern age?

And what is your response? Another novelist.

However, I have a few questions. Assuming you mean that (Canada, for example) a 'group' of '30 million nations of one' could potentially operate harmoniously, how would there be standardization?

There seems to be a good deal of standardization in the computer industry without state control. The myriad technology companies have all agreed upon standards like USB, Firewire, PCI, AGP, RAM applications, and so forth. There also doesn't seem to be a lack of standardization in paper sizes, say, or in the sizes of pop cans.

Currency, laws governing the safety standards of buildings and bridges, etc.

I'll give you a hypothesis. It's actually more than that, really, since it has already happened countless times. Somebody sets up a body to establish standards for safety and quality. Manufacturers and builders subscribe to these standards and if they meet them, get to place a stamp of approval on their products. Customers look for the stamp, those manufacturers who can't meet the standards go out of business. Similarly, if the standards body sells out and starts stamping unsafe products, their stamps become worthless, consumers distrust them, and manufacturers will cease to subscribe.

For example, how many car manufacturers advertise how safe Consumer Guide found their cars to be?

Who would have the right to mint money? Everybody?

Yes. But unless you mint money that is of a certifiable value and backed by a stable commodity, nobody will accept your money. Therefore, money will be minted by people with large gold stocks, like banks, just as it was two centuries ago, when the money supply was more stable.

It is not the government that owns Canada, it is all the people living here. And they don't own "Canada the land", they own "Canada the legal system".

That just takes us back where we started. What right to they have to impose a legal system on somebody else's property? Do I have the right to change the contract you have with your mortgage company?

Most networks are natural monopolies. Legal system, too.

Why?

A condominium wants to renovate the building's main entry. It will cost $100,000. How to collect the money from the different residents in the building? This can't be done voluntarily since everyone will lie and say they don't want to pay (when in fact they really do want a new entry and are prepared to pay for it).

The public goods problem. Basically, how to find private funds for public goods. How to make the individual pay for that which he'll get to use whether he pays or not. There are many solutions.

But this problem is already resolved, in the form of condo fees, or "bundling" as it is understood in economic terms. Basically, you agree to pay for the public goods when you buy the private. If you don't like it, you find another condo.

And no, this cannot be applied to Canada as a whole. The condo owners are the holders of the condo building in entirety, so for this analogy to be valid, once again, the government would have to own Canada in entirety.

It strikes me as odd, though, that you have no sense of 'society'

I think it can be said that a large portion of the evil in the world is tied up with failing to treat people as individuals.

[The Terrible Sweal]

As for the contention 'nothing shall interfere with free will' there are two problems. First, as you conceded, there is the inherent limit imposed by the countervailing rights of other individuals to also be free.

Well, this is what I have been saying for a long time now and I thought we could probably take that as read.

Please pay attention. I'm pointing out that your approach fails to take it into account, "read" or not. This is an inconsistency that you need to address.

Without necessarily disagreeing, again, I think your statement needs a closer evaluation. Valuable to whom?

My freedom is more valuable to me. The other mans freedom is more valuable to him. The only mutually acceptable conclusion is that our freedoms are equal and equally valuable.

You haven't answered my question, or your answer is contradictory. I asked to whom. You say that your freedom has 6 value to you than your neighbor, but then you arrive at the conclusion they are equally valuable. Equally valuable TO WHOM?

Two men are walking in the wilderness. Man X arrives at a cherry tree and sits beneath it in the shade. Two minutes later Man Y arrives and starts picking cherries. The confront eachother and each asserts his exclusive rights to control and dispose of the tree. What resolves this dispute and why/how?

Who claimed it first?

I cannot answer without knowing what do you mean by 'claimed'. And why does that meaning apply to the case?

Man X sat in the shade, and after that Man Y began to pick cherries.

If Man X claimed the tree first, and he can prove it (which he can, by the fact that he was there before Man Y), then Man X has the rights to the tree.

Whoa whoa whoa!!! Now in addition to a meaning and justification for 'claim' you've openned several other cans of worms.

(1) 'Prove' it how? To whom? Why that method why and that person?

(2) Your position seems to be that arriving at the tree first equates to 'claiming' it. I don't see why that should be.

But your use of the rock interferes with my will to use the rock myself. Why should I suffer my will to be frustrated in service to your will when I can simply take your rock?

Because my will to use the rock was exerted before anybody elses.

You're running on a treadmill. Why should I respect your primacy instead of making you respect my force?

However, humans as a rule don't respect the right of might.

What is their response when it is applied?

Humans, when put together, generally co-operate rather than fight.

EXACTLY. Humans provide and defend their 'rights' together (i.e. collectively).

As reasoning creatures, humans recognise that the law of the jungle only benefits them as long as they are the strongest. Therefore, to settle for less in co-operation is a better option when one considers the future.

RIGHT AGAIN except we don't "settle for less", we make an exchange we interpret as advantageous.

Your assertions would mean that the only right is that which you can enforce, but when reading your prior posts on this forum I know that you don't actually believe that. What is the reason for this self-contradiction?

Absent the rule of law there are no 'rights'. Under the rule of law, the only 'rights' are those that you can call on others to give effect to.

I want to know what you think of as a "liberal democracy". I don't believe that any nation-state currently existing fits your criteria.

Perhaps not, but the only criteria we need to worry about it whether the state lets you opt out. Canada does, along with many others.

Non-coercive law is self-contradictory. A normative imperative only becomes a law when it is made the subject of coercibility.

Basically, non-coercive law is law that does not require the use of force to bring criminals into submission. Under anarchist law, prisoners willingly attend their trials and willingly carry out their punishment.

Oh yeah. What incentive induces this behavior?

In a pure private-property society, a criminal can get away with not being punished as long as he can exist without ever setting foot off his own property or dealing with another human being for the rest of his life.  Even if he had a large, self-sufficient farm, he would effectively be sentenced to hard labour for life.

And that doesn't seem coercive to you?!?!? Hugo, man, pause and reflect before launching this switchbacking rhetoric please.

Where a monopoly exists in a free market, it is transient, or it serves a purpose on the market (i.e. to have a monopoly is more efficient than not to have a monopoly).

Good, we agree on that much then.

[Hugo]

Please pay attention. I'm pointing out that your approach fails to take it into account, "read" or not. This is an inconsistency that you need to address.

I don't see it as inconsistent at all. Freedom is absolute until it crosses the boundary into the freedom of others. Anything else basically amounts to a defence of tyranny, that it is permissible for the freedom of some men to infringe upon others.

You haven't answered my question, or your answer is contradictory. I asked to whom. You say that your freedom has 6 value to you than your neighbor, but then you arrive at the conclusion they are equally valuable. Equally valuable TO WHOM?

To us in consensus. My freedom is more valuable to me, his to him, but together we can agree that our freedoms are equal. So therefore, we build a society upon the idea of equal freedom.

I cannot answer without knowing what do you mean by 'claimed'. And why does that meaning apply to the case?

Man X sat in the shade, and after that Man Y began to pick cherries.

You should know what a claim is. And in this case, the argument would probably hinge upon whether Man X had claimed the tree or just the shade from it. If the latter, then Man Y could do whatever he liked to the tree as long as that did not impinge upon Man X's shade.

'Prove' it how? To whom? Why that method why and that person?

Prove it to the other man, ultimately. There is, of course, a difference between not having been proven and having been proven but unaccepted, and in the latter case, one man is simply wrong.

If the two men could not settle their differences between them then, as you suggested in another thread, they should probably appeal to a mutually agreeable arbiter and agree beforehand to respect his decision. In such a case, they must "prove it" to the arbiter, whose decision then "proves it" to the men themselves.

If both men consented, they could duel for it.

Your position seems to be that arriving at the tree first equates to 'claiming' it. I don't see why that should be.

Why? What are your grounds for legitimate claim?

Why should I respect your primacy instead of making you respect my force?

Morality. To argue for the latter basically states that you have no respect for your fellow human beings, which means that you are bucking the trend of humans as social creatures.

I think you are confusing the moral with the practical. Even if you can assert a "claim" to my possessions by using force, does that make such a claim moral?

What is their response when it is applied?

That depends upon the people, doesn't it?

RIGHT AGAIN except we don't "settle for less", we make an exchange we interpret as advantageous.

No, the exchange is mutually advantageous. A robbery is more advantageous than a trade, but only to one party, which goes back to my point about freedoms. If you like, by co-operating instead of fighting we are trading freedom instead of robbing it from each other.

Under the rule of law, the only 'rights' are those that you can call on others to give effect to.

Who makes the law and what gives their laws moral legitimacy?

What if two groups of unequal or equal size face off on an issue of law? In effect, each group gives effect to the "rights" of its members.

Absent the rule of law there are no 'rights'.

That cannot be true. If rights don't exist without law, but law protects rights, then neither would ever come into existence because each necessitates the other.

Perhaps not, but the only criteria we need to worry about it whether the state lets you opt out. Canada does, along with many others.

Opt out of what? Once again, to say that I can opt out by leaving is saying that the government of Canada owns Canada.

Oh yeah. What incentive induces this behavior?

The incentive to survive. Humans almost invariably can't survive without other humans, and if other humans refuse to deal with you because of some crime, you have to resolve that issue or die.

And that doesn't seem coercive to you?!?!? Hugo, man, pause and reflect before launching this switchbacking rhetoric please.

Think about it. The criminal is not made to go anywhere, not clapped in irons, not forced under threat of violence to do anything. All that is happening is that the other people in the society are refusing to deal with him, as is their right. Basically, it's a deal. Live alone and away from us, or atone for your actions. Whichever the criminal decides, nobody will use force against him.

Under the current system, of course, only the latter choice is open.

[Guest eureka]

I have no intention of proving what is known to prove your obduracy. You make assertion after assertion of what is no more than hypothesis and theory and want any statement of known fact to be "proved" to you It is time you learned that if you want to be taken as a serious enquirer, you accept that others may just know some things that you do not. That way is learning: that way is the way to get you over your amusing obsessions.

You might give a little thought to one of your phrases: "Might makes Right." When Carlyle made that observation, he meant it as it actually reads. Not that Might triumphs over Right, but that it uses its power to ensure Right. He was somewhat the same as you in his liberal romanticism. And, he was just as wrong as the world moved on past those idealists.