Hugo's defence of anarchy

[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?

Thelonious Monk, I think you have hit the proverbial nail. IOW, it is simply too much hassle (or impossible) to exclude someone from using the entry. So, everyone has to pay. This solution is imperfect but it's better than not renovating the entry at all.

[bear in mind that I have assumed that the overall benefit to residents is greater than the sum of the individual payment each is willing to bear if each resident told the truth.]

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.

My own take, as I've said elsewhere, is that the Law is like grammar. For both law and grammar, the intent is to facilitate human interaction. Both change over time to cope with new technology. We even have a parallel in the Civil Code (a single language authority) and common law (diverse grammar rules for a single language).

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.

That's false. Different people give up their freedom for different benefits. IOW, we value our freedom differently.

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.

Hey guys, this is a sterile debate. It doesn't matter who owns the tree as long as it can be traded. Different societies have decided this issue in many different ways. Each way is equally valid.

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

Exactly.

Hugo says the first person to claim it. I could just as validly argue the first person to see it.

IOW, there is no way to argue that one ownership rule is better than another ownership rule. This is a question of fairness. At most, the ownership right (property right) should go to the person most likely to trade it.

An example: If each property owner has the right to forbid radio waves passing through his property, I might find it difficult to broadcast my signal because I'll never be able to trade to get all those rights. It would be better to assign that property right to me from the start.

In fact, this is issue is much more complex once information is considered. Suffice to say that a general rule is "The incentive should fall where it will do the most good." Here, the term "most good" is moral in that a resource will go to the most highly valued use. IOW, all potential deals will occur.

Perhaps you are claiming that "might makes right" and the only true right is that which you can enforce.

Might? The incentive to compete is great when the benefits of co-operation are not obvious. "Why steal when you can get more by trading?"

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

Sometimes rules work, they are self-correcting. Think of stopping at a red light. Why do people do it? Because of police? Or because there is a risk of an accident if you disregard the rule? To me, property law and contract law (the rule of law) are the same as the rule of stopping at a red light. Ultimately self-correcting.

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.

According to you, a criminal would be sentenced to house-arrest. I see no difference with prison. A criminal could also buy his freedom or in effect, he could be deprived voluntarily of his property. We do all of that now. It amounts to ostracism.

On the issue of criminals, you ignore the incentive aspect. We don't punish criminals because it is just. We punish criminals to deter others.

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.

There are natural monopolies, but their viability depends on changing technology. There is no doubt that monopolies are bad (immoral?) in that they prevent beneficial trades. Can the State improve on this situation?

The CRTC and Internet telephony are providing an example.

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 is an entire thread waiting about standardization and the State. I'm with Hugo. I think the State gets it wrong more often. Cleaning up after the State's error is greater. (But think of VHS and Betamax.)

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 wasn't. But now we have the curious situation of a State entity (a monopoly) controlling the reserve currency but independent of the State.

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?

You do if my mortgage has a variable interest rate clause. Conditional contracts are common.

Most networks are natural monopolies. Legal system, too.

Why?

Why is it too costly to have two water-pipe systems in a city?

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.

I'm glad you accept this argument here. I will now try to make you accept this argument for a city.

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.

So, don't apply it to a country. Apply it to a small town.

The condo owners are the town council - or rather, the council are their agents. Each individual condo owner owns his apartment. But the entity itself "belongs" to all.

Does a town council own the town? Well, to the extent the council can impose taxes, or regulate zoning.

It would be preferable that any Council decision be unanimous but unfortunately, people are not always honest. Some will lie strategically thinking that they can pass a cost on to others without sacrificing the project.

No one has yet designed a mechanism like market prices to make people tell the truth for common property.

A small note: Mathematics was not invented to understand the universe. It was invented to facilitate trade. I suspect humanity's next great innovation will have a similar cause.

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.

Robbery is costly to society. A robber wastes his efforts instead of producing something of value. A victim wastes efforts preventing theft. I would expect that we, as a species, would find a way to prevent such theft. This is a pragmatic argument which justifies western morality. [Well, western morality had an origin somewhere.]

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.

Eureka, are you addressing yourself to Hugo? Me? Whom?

If you want to show us "the things you know that others do not" then please tell us. there is a keyboard before you. Greg, I'm sure, will not censure you.

[Hugo]

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.

Au contraire, my dear Eureka, it is the mark of serious enquirer, the sceptic if you will, that he accepts nothing. You repeatedly threatened to educate me and enlighten me earlier in this thread, so please, go ahead and cite these works of Russell you are so keen to have in your argument.

Where's your argument on 19th Century standards of living gone to, again? It's like a mirage. Every time we get close to discussing it, it vanishes in your bluster.

Thelonious Monk, I think you have hit the proverbial nail. IOW, it is simply too much hassle (or impossible) to exclude someone from using the entry. So, everyone has to pay. This solution is imperfect but it's better than not renovating the entry at all.

The public goods fallacy is a circular argument. Public property exists, so we need public provision of goods, to support public property. Remove public property and the argument for public goods disappears.

Your other fundamental error is to assume that the state is godlike and outside the system. The truth is that the state is made of individuals, and it is not an arbiter of the system but a player in it.

That's false. Different people give up their freedom for different benefits. IOW, we value our freedom differently.

From an ontological viewpoint, our freedoms are equal. Similarly, the only way to order a society is to agree that our freedoms are equal. Of course, you could say that you will trade freedom, but consider that if you were trading, you would do it of your free will, and so be free. If you agree to serve another man, have you actually given up any of your freedom?

According to you, a criminal would be sentenced to house-arrest. I see no difference with prison. A criminal could also buy his freedom or in effect, he could be deprived voluntarily of his property. We do all of that now.

No, we do not. We subject the criminal to a punishment against his will. We decide this punishment not with consultation of the victim, but arbitrarily and nonsensically. We then proceed not only to fail to compensate the victim, but to actually force the victim to pay for the incarceration of the criminal.

Justice is a commodity. People want justice, and they'll pay a certain price for a certain quality and quantity. The state does not have the mechanisms to respond to consumer demand as the free market does, so a state-delivered commodity will never reflect what people want. This is why our justice system outrages so many people. It isn't delivering what they want. A free market justice system will reflect what the people actually demand in justice.

On the issue of criminals, you ignore the incentive aspect. We don't punish criminals because it is just. We punish criminals to deter others.

Our overcrowded jails speak to the fallacy of that argument.

There is no doubt that monopolies are bad (immoral?) in that they prevent beneficial trades. Can the State improve on this situation?

No, because the state isn't God, it is another institution. To "improve" on the monopoly situation by using the state simply proposes to solve monopolies with a monopoly, i.e. total nonsense.

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 wasn't.

Yes, it was. Hyperinflation, monetary panic and so forth are exclusively the domain of state-issued currency. In hyperinflation, the eventual result is that people reject the currency. Where there are competing, private currencies, this is no problem. Where there is only one currency, it becomes a collossal problem.

You do if my mortgage has a variable interest rate clause. Conditional contracts are common.

I can't affect your mortgage, August.

Why is it too costly to have two water-pipe systems in a city?

Waste, and so the free market will find a way around it, as they have in the UK where water supply and power generation are private without having multiple water pipes or power lines.

I'm glad you accept this argument here. I will now try to make you accept this argument for a city.

You can't do that. The condo owners own the condo. Unless the city government owns the city, the same example cannot be used. Of course, if the city government did own the city, it wouldn't be a government any more.

The condo owners are the town council - or rather, the council are their agents.

Hold on, that's a non sequitur. How does a town council equate condo owners?

Does a town council own the town? Well, to the extent the council can impose taxes, or regulate zoning.

How can you own something to "an extent"? Either you own it, or you don't. You don't own something "slightly" or "just a bit." You can own just a bit of something, but that is a different concept entirely.

Robbery is costly to society. A robber wastes his efforts instead of producing something of value.

The government are robbers, August, and yet you continue to defend them. The only way you can say that government produces anything is that it produces what people may not want, at a price they may not want to pay, of a quality and quantity they do not desire, and then forces them to buy under threat of violence.

[Guest eureka]

Hugo, I am not bowing to your request because it is foolish. I believe you wish to deny the 19th. century since you want only to keep dancing on the head of your pin. That century was the crucible of Anarchism and Libertarianism as well as Socialism which was not unrelated. It embodied the Utopian dream as well as the reasons that Anarchism could never be a dominant ideal.

As fo the Russell citation, if I come across it again some day, I will give it to you. But, as I have said, I am not going to reread Russell merely to find something I know is there.

[Hugo]

That century was the crucible of Anarchism and Libertarianism as well as Socialism which was not unrelated. It embodied the Utopian dream as well as the reasons that Anarchism could never be a dominant ideal.

Then prove it, with logic and facts.

But, as I have said, I am not going to reread Russell merely to find something I know is there.

Then by all means, return to debating with yourself. I'm sure you'll find yourself much more agreeable than I.

[The Terrible Sweal]

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 don't see the inconsistency in saying something is

"absolute, subject to..." ? Hello?!!

To the extent your freedom is subject to the freedom claims of others (i.e. integrally), it is not absolute.

... 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.

These are sloppy semantics. You don't agree that they are equal. You value yours more. and your opinion on that doesn't change. Your agreement must be based on something else.

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.

I know what I would mean by it if I had said it, but I'm asking you what you think YOU mean by it, since you used the term.

And in this case, the argument would probably hinge upon whether Man X had claimed the tree or just the shade from it.

Still without any content to the word 'claim' here but anyway look ... HOW can it be determined what man X claimed? WHO is to determine it?

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

Prove it to the other man, ultimately.

The case posits that they are at an impasse. You can't just change the case to suit your needs.

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. 

You say mutually agreeable, not me. HOW will they select the arbiter? On what principles will the arbiter decide? Why those principles instead of others?

Lest you have forgotten my point by now, it is this ... rights do not arise from nature or from an individual. The arise from the collective of individuals (i.e. society).

If both men consented, they could duel for it.

There is NO consent or agreement in this case. You must deal with it as put: mutual intransigence.

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?

We are discussing your position, not mine. Please just answer the question, why doncha?

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,

You are not answering the question really. An appeal to YOUR morality doesn't resolve a dispute between US. I reject your morality. I say that to deprive me of my free use of that rock shows you have no respect for my superior holiness.

Now you will say that position is absurd, but that's just your opinion versus mine, is it not? What gives your morality a superior value?

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 makes something moral at all?

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?

That's what I've been asking you to explain for your theory.

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

Nonsense. Laws are simply the promulgation of the rights society intends to provide. Here's the sequence: society -> intention -> laws -> rights.

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.

No. You forget that that argument has been disposed of. You opt out of Canadian society by leaving Canada.

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.

However lenient it appears to you does not change the fact that it is a sanction imposed on the individual. It is coercive.

[Hugo]

To the extent your freedom is subject to the freedom claims of others (i.e. integrally), it is not absolute.

Within those boundaries, it is absolute.

You don't agree that they are equal. You value yours more. and your opinion on that doesn't change. Your agreement must be based on something else.

So what?

The case posits that they are at an impasse. You can't just change the case to suit your needs.

Then there's no resolution. If the two men won't come to an agreement, won't accept arbitration and are doomed to eternal impasse, there won't be a compromise, will there?

I know what I would mean by it if I had said it, but I'm asking you what you think YOU mean by it, since you used the term.

To demand, request or take as one's own.

You say mutually agreeable, not me. HOW will they select the arbiter? On what principles will the arbiter decide? Why those principles instead of others?

Now, you see, you're falling into statist patterns of thinking again. You're asking me to define how an anarchist society would work. I will not and cannot. The whole idea of the anarchist society is that people will select, in this case, whomever they want as an arbiter, on whatever principles they like.

Lest you have forgotten my point by now, it is this ... rights do not arise from nature or from an individual. The arise from the collective of individuals (i.e. society).

So, what do we need government for?

We are discussing your position, not mine. Please just answer the question, why doncha?

No, you refuted my claim with insufficient argument. I want clarification. Why don't you see why first arrival is grounds for just claim?

An appeal to YOUR morality doesn't resolve a dispute between US. I reject your morality. I say that to deprive me of my free use of that rock shows you have no respect for my superior holiness.

Then find an arbiter or make me an offer.

Now you will say that position is absurd, but that's just your opinion versus mine, is it not? What gives your morality a superior value?

Nothing. How is this an argument for government?

That's what I've been asking you to explain for your theory.

Well, as you say, laws come from society. That's fine. However, the state isn't society, it's a collection of individuals who have taken on for themselves power to make the laws.

Nonsense. Laws are simply the promulgation of the rights society intends to provide. Here's the sequence: society -> intention -> laws -> rights.

And where's government? By explicitly removing it from your process, you are supporting anarchy.

No. You forget that that argument has been disposed of. You opt out of Canadian society by leaving Canada.

It's not been disposed of at all. I am still waiting for an answer to my question. By what right does the group of individuals who style themselves the Government of Canada demand that a group of individuals who do not style themselves the Government of Canada leave their own property if they fail to follow the first group's demands?

However lenient it appears to you does not change the fact that it is a sanction imposed on the individual. It is coercive.

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, 1996:

Main Entry: co·er·cion

Pronunciation: kO-'&r-zh&n, -sh&n

Function: noun

: the use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal (as discharge from employment) or other intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will; also : the defense that one acted under coercion

How does what I said fit in with "coercion", exactly?

You see, the others in this society are not threatening to do anything. They are threatening not to do something. Do you count failure to act as an action? By that rationale, aren't you starving thousands of children in Africa right now by failing to give them food?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

QUOTE 

Lest you have forgotten my point by now, it is this ... rights do not arise from nature or from an individual. The arise from the collective of individuals (i.e. society).

So, what do we need government for?

Gov't is necessary because it is the the only legitimate 'enforcer' of law. You contend that these societal laws are arbitrary, but they are not, they are generally designed to prevent anarchy, or more correctly, chaos. You also claim that society is merely 'chance meetings' of the threads of individual lives, but I must ask: How can you give 100% importance to a 'spider's thread' (an individual life),and yet deny that the web it creates has any reality, benefit or importance at all, (or worse, that the web is harmful to the individual thread?)

You wished to see the 'feasability' of anarchy contested, well here it is:

1. You cannot be trusted to mint your own money. (Gold deposits are nice, but whom would ensure to the others you've minted for, that you did not sell your scrip and your gold? )

2. You cannot be trusted to 'self-police'. (Which will lead to #3)

3. You cannot be trusted in the situation, of: meeting (or beating) man X at a cherry tree, killing him and burying the evidence, and claiming 'first' and inviolable rights to the tree (or land, etc)

4. You cannot be trusted to have the intellect, or reasoning ability, to see what may appear to be a 'transgression' of your individual rights in the light of future beneficial mutual interest.

I am a bit short of time, so must end this post here. In short, however, I will say that as a believer in 'the greater good (ie. society) that in the points listed above, I feel that if I should not be trusted, therefore you cannot be trusted.

PS., dear Hugo, when I used the term 'you' above, it was not literally you, I meant "The one who is not me".

[Hugo]

Gov't is necessary because it is the the only legitimate 'enforcer' of law.

You say that as though government was God, or some other supreme arbiter quite apart from the affairs of men.

But government is not God, it is merely a group of human individuals like you or me. Therefore, the question for you is what makes these individuals the "legitimate enforcers of law" over you and me?

You contend that these societal laws are arbitrary, but they are not, they are generally designed to prevent anarchy, or more correctly, chaos.

There is a human tendency to want to replace chaos with order, to attempt to neaten up a perceived mess. The empirical evidence, however, is that chaos is better than order, and is best left alone. The chaotic free market provides a far superior economy to tightly regimented and neat socialism.

You also claim that society is merely 'chance meetings' of the threads of individual lives, but I must ask: How can you give 100% importance to a 'spider's thread' (an individual life),and yet deny that the web it creates has any reality, benefit or importance at all, (or worse, that the web is harmful to the individual thread?)

By treating the threads as individual, and not attempting to deal with the (in our case, incomprehensible) web as a whole.

You cannot be trusted to mint your own money.

You can mint whatever you want. Others will judge if it is trustworthy or not.

Let me throw my first contention back into this argument. The state is just individuals. Why are some individuals to be trusted to mint money and others not?

You cannot be trusted to 'self-police'.

Same again. You won't police yourself, of course, but others will be interested in policing you, and you them. Apply the original point once more. If men cannot police men, why do you say that some men can police men?

You cannot be trusted in the situation, of: meeting (or beating) man X at a cherry tree, killing him and burying the evidence, and claiming 'first' and inviolable rights to the tree (or land, etc)

No, and you couldn't be trusted in that situation with a state in existence either. If there's little likelihood of another discovering your crime in anarchy, there's little likelihood of them discovering it under a government either.

Or are you claiming that governments eliminate crime?

You cannot be trusted to have the intellect, or reasoning ability, to see what may appear to be a 'transgression' of your individual rights in the light of future beneficial mutual interest.

So, I cannot be trusted, but other people (the government) can? If we were witnessing the Second Coming I might accept that, but the Kingdom of God doesn't seem to be forthcoming, which leaves us with the situation of men ruling men.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

The chaotic free market provides a far superior economy to tightly regimented and neat socialism.

Not true, laws give it (and us) safety by regimenting it. Monopoly laws, truth in advertising laws, employment standards (not minimum wage, but safety standards) child labour laws, are all constraints to keep 'the chaotic monster of free enterprise' in check. And only a gov't can wield the power on behalf of the 'peoples' equitable and fair interest.

You say that as though government was God, or some other supreme arbiter quite apart from the affairs of men.

No, you like to hear it as such. I am convinced of the falliability of man, whereas you think the individual can be trusted to be god-like, to a man.

If men cannot police men, why do you say that some men can police men?

Because 'police men' [sic] are expected to put the law of all citizens above their own personal law, whereas anarchists do not believe it to be valuable to themselves to do so. I consider it noble, you consider it foolish.

Therefore, the question for you is what makes these individuals the "legitimate enforcers of law" over you and me?

I expect that if one were required to 'promise not to personally profit or gain, any more than is equally profited by those that they govern' from their position as elected representatives, they they could be truly trusted to govern fairly.

But this would make them socialists and not anarchists!

[Hugo]

Monopoly laws, truth in advertising laws, employment standards (not minimum wage, but safety standards) child labour laws, are all constraints to keep 'the chaotic monster of free enterprise' in check.

All the laws you have cited are unnecessary in the free market, and as I said, are a foolish attempt to control chaos.

Monopolies don't arise or last unless there's an economic (not political) imperative, safety and child labour laws usually follow the changes they want made anyway rather than set precedents. In the free market, firms must compete in the labour market by offering a safe and rewarding workplace. For instance, by the time government got around to legislating against slavery and child labour, these practices were already virtually extinct.

Truth in advertising laws are unnecessary since companies who lie don't survive. For instance, as soon as the news on Enron broke, their share values plummetted before the government had even moved against them. Even if the feds had never brought charges, Enron would have gone bankrupt anyway.

No, you like to hear it as such. I am convinced of the falliability of man, whereas you think the individual can be trusted to be god-like, to a man.

So, let me get this straight. You think that men are fallible, so some men should be given arbitrary power and a monopoly over the exercise of violence?

I think that men are fallible, therefore, it would be extremely foolish to give any one of them a measure of arbitrary power.

Because 'police men' [sic] are expected to put the law of all citizens above their own personal law

You just said men were fallible. Now they're not fallible? Or they instantly become infallible when they don a police uniform?

BTW, "police" in my sentence was the verb and "men" the accusative noun. Nice try at a spelling flame, though.

I expect that if one were required to 'promise not to personally profit or gain, any more than is equally profited by those that they govern' from their position as elected representatives, they they could be truly trusted to govern fairly.

I thought you said men were fallible? If fallible, how can they be trusted to keep such a promise once they gain the awesome power of government?

You just said that we need laws for truth in advertising. So you expect that a corporation will lie, and we need to be protected, but you expect that a politician wouldn't lie and make false promises when he was trying to get an office of great power?

Doesn't that strike you as extremely naive?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Monopolies don't arise or last unless there's an economic (not political) imperative,

The imperative is to increase market share. That is why corporate takeovers and mergers are so commonplace now. The formula is 'buy out your competitor', thus increasing your market share, and the share value of the 'bought company increases in the short term. The investors gain a few dollars/share in the short term,the new 'super company' can lay off some of the staff from the old company, and 'cut costs' by eliminating redundancies. What percentage of the market share do companies aim for? 50%? 10%? Do they aim to do 'just good enough'?

For instance, by the time government got around to legislating against slavery and child labour, these practices were already virtually extinct.

If this were true, there would have been no need for the 'Emancipation Proclamation", would there? Indeed, why not lift slavery and child labour laws, then. Nike, Martha Stewart Inc. and J.C. Penny would be banging down your door to do business on your lawless 'Anarchist land holding'.

You just said men were fallible. Now they're not fallible? Or they instantly become infallible when they don a police uniform?

Humans are quite fallible, and never become infallible (unless you think that Jesus was an example of one). They are asked to become a servant to the 'greater good', of society and all citizens, when they don a police uniform. For some, it doesn't happen. For the majority, I believe, it does.

You just said that we need laws for truth in advertising. So you expect that a corporation will lie, and we need to be protected, but you expect that a politician wouldn't lie and make false promises when he was trying to get an office of great power?

Sadly, I expect they both will lie, and in fact they both do.

However, I still claim that a 'democratic' gov't is the only mechanism that can wield the power of law (and force) for the basic good of every individual, (because there is an opposition party who has a legitimate crack at usurping the incumbent gov't through the will of the majority) rather than the will, law, and dubious morality of any one individual.

[Hugo]

The imperative is to increase market share.

That's not an economic imperative. In a free market, a monopoly is only held when the result is Pareto optimal.

If this were true, there would have been no need for the 'Emancipation Proclamation", would there?

The "need" for the Emancipation Proclamation was not ending slavery anyway. Read it. It wasn't a great document of human rights, it was simply a piece of wartime Union realpolitik that happened to be a stroke of luck for the slaves.

Indeed, why not lift slavery and child labour laws, then.

Well, you can't have legalised slavery in a free market anyway because you can't alienate the will. Slavery laws would never be lifted in an anarchist system because slavery runs completely counter to anarchism. What I was telling you was that slavery laws followed the economic rejection of slavery rather than caused it.

And as regards child labour, what's the difference between educating children against their will and working them against their will? Maybe they benefit from an education, but they benefit from a wage, too.

Humans are quite fallible, and never become infallible... They are asked to become a servant to the 'greater good', of society and all citizens, when they don a police uniform. For some, it doesn't happen. For the majority, I believe, it does.

So, the "majority" of policemen are, in fact, superhuman ubermensch. Is that what you're telling me?

However, I still claim that a 'democratic' gov't is the only mechanism that can wield the power of law (and force) for the basic good of every individual

But the mechanism wields absolutely nothing since "democratic government" is an abstract concept. What that becomes when enacted is a group of individuals, with individual drives, the same as everybody else. The main difference with individuals in government, of course, is that they have a lot more power to further their goals than everybody else does.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

While I have respect for your knowledge of philosophy, and for your command of the english language, I must end this debate, as it has become quite clear that you are mad.

So, the "majority" of policemen are, in fact, superhuman ubermensch. Is that what you're telling me?

Yes, I'm sure I said that once men wear police uniforms, they become impervious to bullets, faster than a speeding train, enlightened by God, yada yada. Same goes for all who embrace social equality. Surprised you haven't heard the rhythmic drumming of our jackboots late at night. (Or perhaps you do?)

what's the difference between educating children against their will and working them against their will?

Yes, the will of the child, so founded on reason.....What are parents thinking? Jelly beans for supper, and all my economic decisions shall be decided by which spot on the paper my puppy piddles!

As far as I can see, Anarchy would throw human civilization back about 10,000 years, with the inviolable right to cannibalism 50 paces to my right, and to my left, a toddler, whom after deciding he could do without an education, is building a suspension bridge as my only access to Bubba's Groceries and Heroin Market.

Thank you, NO.

[Hugo]

I must end this debate, as it has become quite clear that you are mad.

This is a pretty poor excuse for bowing out of a debate. I'm disappointed, especially after you bragged of how easily you could destroy my ideas.

Anarchy is not "madness". There are a great many fine minds who endorse and who have endorsed libertarianism. The Libertarian Party is actually the largest political party in the USA (besides the Big Two, obviously). If I'm mad, then so are a lot of Nobel-grade economists, political theorists and philosophers.

This basically amounts to an ad hominem attack. I am not insane, Thelonius, I have defended my ideas to you very well and you simply cannot understand them, or you cannot get over your psychological dependency upon the state. The state-citizen relationship is like the parent-child relationship, and a lot of children are afraid to cut the apron-strings and live in the real world. You're one. Your defence of statism is not grounded in reason but in emotion.

Yes, I'm sure I said that once men wear police uniforms, they become impervious to bullets, faster than a speeding train, enlightened by God, yada yada.

What you said was that policemen promise to serve the public good, and you're fully confident that a "majority" of them wouldn't just promise that falsely for reasons of personal gain, and by giving them a monopoly on power, you are essentially trusting them without actually ensuring their worthiness in any way.

It doesn't have to be that they are corrupt and evil, but perhaps they don't so much care for the law as they do for a stable income. But you are naive enough to believe that this is a workable system.

Yes, the will of the child, so founded on reason.....What are parents thinking? Jelly beans for supper, and all my economic decisions shall be decided by which spot on the paper my puppy piddles!

Ah, a good old strawman argument. You can't beat one of those when you have no reasoned response, can you, Thelonius?

I ask you once again: what is the difference between working children against their will and educating them against their will?

As far as I can see, Anarchy would throw human civilization back about 10,000 years, with the inviolable right to cannibalism 50 paces to my right, and to my left, a toddler, whom after deciding he could do without an education, is building a suspension bridge as my only access to Bubba's Groceries and Heroin Market.

Another strawman argument. The quality of your debate certainly drops off fast, doesn't it?

It seems that as I refute your contentions, you just drop them one by one (e.g. monopolies, public goods, your misconceived First Law of Anarchy, the supposed lack of historical examples of anarchy, standardisation, currency, etc.) and now, you are dropping the entire argument.

If you feel you've lost, just admit it, rather than blustering and slinging insults.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

If you feel you've lost, just admit it, rather than blustering and slinging insults.

My apologies, you are right, slinging insults is wasteful. However, my frustrations arise from not receiving answers to direct questions. I would certainly be happy to revisit certain points and address their feasability, but I must say that your examples of 'working anarchy' are far less than 1% of history's model examples. Any scientist would certainly take a 1% 'success rate' as not feasible.

Actually, the USA lasted a mere 85 years. The Civil War was the failure of the American Experiment and the country that emerged from it was not the same, having abandoned most of the liberal ideals it was founded upon

Failed Anarchism? I believe in the right of the individual, but only as a starting point to build a society.

[Hugo]

My apologies, you are right, slinging insults is wasteful.

Accepted.

However, my frustrations arise from not receiving answers to direct questions.

Are you kidding me? You've been dropping my points like hot potatoes. I have been careful to address a reply to everything you have said, and if you can find an instance I have overlooked, post it now and I will give you a reply.

but I must say that your examples of 'working anarchy' are far less than 1% of history's model examples.

The same could be said of democracy. It only reared its head well into the 20th Century and even then took a long time to even cover half of the world's population. Taking history into account, it's fair to say that the overwhelming majority of people - maybe even 99% - have never lived in a democracy. Does that prove democracy a failure?

Failed Anarchism? I believe in the right of the individual, but only as a starting point to build a society.

The demise of historical anarchist societies was universally brought about by foreign military force or the imminent and dire threat thereof.

Iceland survived for over three centuries (far longer than the USA has existed) as an anarchist nation, until King Haakon IV of Norway invaded the island to "restore order" to the chaos that his agents such as Snorri Sturluson had created.

Holy Experiment Pennsylvania survived until British Redcoats appeared and created a government by bayonet and musket.

Anarchist Celtic Ireland was subdued by invasions from England.

Anarchism in England itself was badly mauled by King Alfred, who sought to build an army to resist imminent Norman invasion. William I, upon the conclusion of that successful invasion, finished off English anarchism.

Anarchist Somalia will probably exist until either the UN or the US decides it isn't fit to live and invades.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

What percentage of the market share do companies aim for? 50%? 10%? Do they aim to do 'just good enough'?

Here's one.

[Hugo]

They aim for 100%. So do all their competitors.

[August1991]

I'll repeat this exchange between Hugo and myself above (I ask for patience):

Hugo

Me

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.

I'm glad you accept this argument here. I will now try to make you accept this argument for a city.

You can't do that. The condo owners own the condo. Unless the city government owns the city, the same example cannot be used. Of course, if the city government did own the city, it wouldn't be a government any more.

The condo owners are the town council - or rather, the council are their agents.

Hold on, that's a non sequitur. How does a town council equate condo owners?

Does a town council own the town? Well, to the extent the council can impose taxes, or regulate zoning.

How can you own something to "an extent"? Either you own it, or you don't. You don't own something "slightly" or "just a bit." You can own just a bit of something, but that is a different concept entirely.

OK, Hugo. You don't accept my city analogy. So, imagine the condo is on an island with no one else. The 100 condo residents are now the "town".

The "condo fees" as you call them could just as well be called "local taxes". The "condo managment committee" could be the "town council".

So who owns the building?

You tell me Hugo, they're on an island.

The condo owners set up a council - does the council "own" the condo building (the island)? Or do the condo owners own it collectively. Who cares!

Hugo, gotta problem with collective ownership? Who owns Microsoft? [Hint: I have a few shares in my portfolio I think.]

Hugo, gotta problem with owning something to an extent? Easy. I own my car but I can't drive it on your lawn. There is no "property". There are only "property rights".

Since you are sometimes arrogant Hugo, allow me this: For a Libertarian, you are sometimes pathetic.

----

Ungracious comments aside, let's be clear. People like to deal with one another. They like to work together, talk, trade. Why? Because both sides of a deal benefit. Government is just another way to allow people to deal with one another, work together. Like the market, the government offers another way to cooperate for everyone's benefit.

[Hugo]

OK, Hugo. You don't accept my city analogy. So, imagine the condo is on an island with no one else. The 100 condo residents are now the "town".

This has already been answered. I said to you:

The condo owners own the condo. Unless the city government owns the city, the same example cannot be used. Of course, if the city government did own the city, it wouldn't be a government any more.

So, now you say, "but what if the city [condo] government owned the city [condo]?"

Hugo, gotta problem with collective ownership?

I already answered that too:

You don't own something "slightly" or "just a bit." You can own just a bit of something, but that is a different concept entirely.

Hugo, gotta problem with owning something to an extent? Easy. I own my car but I can't drive it on your lawn.

Does this mean I own your car, or some of it? Does it mean you own your car any less?

Or does it just mean that you own your car, I own my lawn, and never the twain shall meet unless it be by our mutual consent?

Government is just another way to allow people to deal with one another, work together.

No. Government is a way to allow some people to coerce other people. If it didn't involve coercion, it wouldn't be government.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Government is a way to allow some people to coerce other people. If it didn't involve coercion, it wouldn't be government.

Let's say Canada is a vehicle, one driving into the future. You and I (and others) are passengers. We all vote as to which direction we shall go, (hopefully to a brighter future, and not to some sordid place like Tijuana, or Washington D.C.) and you are the lone dissenter. Do we force you to continue with us, or do we stop by the roadside and kick you out? It seems, as an anarchist, you do not want to go anywhere. Why did you get in the CanadaMobile in the first place? (I guess you could say you were born there) So, should the others (parents forcing an education on you, for example) make available to you the information regarding your options? Do you have the right to refuse such information? (of course you do, you can also disbelieve it, or twist it to conform to whatever belief you may have chosen).

Then, if you say to your fellow passengers, "stop the Canadamobile, because I wish to go nowhere!", what obligations to the other passengers are there to stay at the roadside with you? I say they should be free (as you) to make their choice and proceed or secede. But you can't take the car!

[The Terrible Sweal]

Gov't is necessary because it is the the only legitimate 'enforcer' of law.

You say that as though government was God, or some other supreme arbiter quite apart from the affairs of men.

?!?!

Nonsense. His description applies perfectly well to the modern 'consensual' state.

... the question for you is what makes these individuals the "legitimate enforcers of law" over you and me?

In a democracy, because they are chosen by 'you and me' for the purpose.

You also claim that society is merely 'chance meetings' of the threads of individual lives, but I must ask: How can you give 100% importance to a 'spider's thread' (an individual life),and yet deny that the web it creates has any reality, benefit or importance at all, (or worse, that the web is harmful to the individual thread?)

By treating the threads as individual, ...

Impossible. In a web, every thread is connected to some others.

You cannot be trusted to 'self-police'.

Same again. You won't police yourself, of course, but others will be interested in policing you, and you them. Apply the original point once more. If men cannot police men, why do you say that some men can police men?

Hmmm. It sounds to me like you just admitted the necessity of policing.

*Ergo, you admit the impossiblity of anarchy.*

If there's little likelihood of another discovering your crime in anarchy, there's little likelihood of them discovering it under a government either.

What crime?

Man Y discovered a new cherry tree. Lo and behold, lying beneath it was a trespasser, Man X. If Man Y kills Man X, in this situation, why would it be a crime?

=======

Hugo, it boils down to this ... the choices available are limited: isolation, domination, or society.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

In regards to monopoly, you admit this...

They aim for 100%. So do all their competitors.

If 'free enterprise' were really free, one should be able to pursue monopoly. If one is to increase market share, the most it could be increased to is 100%. Once one of the competitors reaches a certain level, (let's say 51%) buying out the competition becomes easier.

The point of any competition is to win. If there is unlimited freedom (or self-policing), monopoly becomes the ultimate goal (why aim for less than 100%?). Monopoly over every industry, every supplier, and the monopolist becomes a living (if resented) God. If anarchy promises the ability to attain this, who wouldn't want it?

[Hugo]

Let's say Canada is a vehicle, one driving into the future.

There's too much omitted from your description. For instance, who owns the car, why, and how? Who is the driver, and why? How do we decide a route? Who proposes the routes we can pick from?

Nonsense. His description applies perfectly well to the modern 'consensual' state.

The modern 'consensual' state is still made of individuals, so my point stands. You both say that some individuals should be able to coerce other individuals 'for their own good.' I say no individual has the right to coerce any other individual, and a crime is a crime, whether perpetrated by an individual qua citizen or an individual qua government.

In a democracy, because they are chosen by 'you and me' for the purpose.

What if you and I picked a different candidate, who lost? Then we would have actually chosen not to have this person exercise power over us, and yet there he is.

Impossible. In a web, every thread is connected to some others.

And you treat those threads as individual threads too. Furthermore, as the web itself is far too vast or complex to be seen, it is foolish to imagine that you could make a rational decision about the fate of the web as a whole.

Hmmm. It sounds to me like you just admitted the necessity of policing.

Yes. All anarchists are in favour of policing and law. The difference between anarchists and statists is that anarchists feel that the police should not be a monopoly, that no one group should have the sole 'right' to violence, and that law and policing should be polycentric rather than monocentric.

What crime?

You've already assumed that you and I are omniscient observers. Therefore, we know what the crime is. If I kill somebody and am never discovered, have I committed a crime or not? If I cut a tree down in the forest, alone, does it make a sound?

Hugo, it boils down to this ... the choices available are limited: isolation, domination, or society.

I choose "society." You choose "domination."

If 'free enterprise' were really free, one should be able to pursue monopoly. If one is to increase market share, the most it could be increased to is 100%. Once one of the competitors reaches a certain level, (let's say 51%) buying out the competition becomes easier.

Under current laws, maybe, sometimes. However, history shows that monopoly is not sustained unless it has a Pareto optimality, in which case it is moral that it should be sustained. You also have to understand that markets compete not just within themselves but with other markets. Even if Microsoft completely dominated the computer market, they still have to compete with the manufacturers of big-screen televisions for the same consumer dollars. Therefore, the only true monopoly is one of the entire economy, or to put it another way, Communism.

If anarchy promises the ability to attain this, who wouldn't want it?

Anarchy promises the ability to attain monopoly in the same way as it promises the ability to sprout wings from your shoulders and fly. It doesn't rule it out, but it still won't happen.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

If I cut a tree down in the forest, alone, does it make a sound?

'Sound' is a human word that represents the registration of percussive waves against human receptors, or eardrums. If a tree falls in the forest, does it make percussive waves? Yes, absolutely. Does it make 'sound'? Not unless a human receptor calls it such. Until then, percussive waves have no 'humanly identifiable or understandable' name. (A dog or a coyote couldn't tell you what they call it).

What if you and I picked a different candidate, who lost? Then we would have actually chosen not to have this person exercise power over us, and yet there he is.

That is the nature of 'representative democracy'. One (actually everyone) is expected to swear fealty to the candidate given the 'mandate of the masses', rather than 'true' democracy. Technically, the Gov't does 'own' Canada. That 'ownership' is transferred every election.