Bionic Mosquito didn't use the exact words I have put above in the title. In a response to my post, The Current State of Anarcho-Capitalist Theory (Part 1), hewrote a post with the title Wenzel Develops Theory That Could Never Survive Practice.
But my theory is nothing than my understanding of anarcho-capitalism. That is a society without government but a respect for private property, My preferred name for such a society is the Private Property Society.
It is based on the non-aggression principle.
As Rick Miller points out:
Here is the NAP as defined by Walter Block:
"The non-aggression [principle] ...is the lynchpin of the philosophy of libertarianism. It states, simply, that it shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another."
It appears that Bionic wants to ignore part of this principle but still hang on to the idea that he is an anrcho-capiatslist. He writes:
To set the stage, general descriptions regarding my earlier comments, as offered by Robert:
…[bionic] has left the world of anarcho-capitalism and entered the world of limited government.
…you are, at least, a limited government advocate.
These because I suggest culture would have a role in society.But Bionic just doesn't mean a general culture could be recognized by almost all. He means a society where the rules of aculture could not be ignored by anyone who chooses not to go along on his own private property. He clarifies in a comment to my post on such culture
I will go one step further: if a community decides that the penalty for a child stealing an apple is death, so be it. But if it is imposed by one individual without agreement by the others – no matter how great the theory sounds – further and escalating conflict will ensue.
But this is my point: if the community accepts the death of the child as payment…it is their culture – it has nothing to do with the NAP.It is here where he has left the anracho-capitalist camp and entered the world of government. Not because he argues a culture could develop that most would recognize, but because "the community" in his view can overrule an individual, who chooses, on his own property, to ignore the rules of a culture.
Culture does not equal government. But culture that is forced by a "community" on those who are on their own property and who don't want to live by such culture is government.
As for Bionic claiming my anarcho-capitalist position "has nothing to do with the NAP,"
it is the exact opposite. NAP is, significantly, about non-aggression on private property. If we have a "community" that imposes its culture on individuals, on their own property, who don't want anything to do with that culture, it is aggression. It is an attempt to demand acting in the manner approved by the culture on a given individual's private property---that's aggression.
Bionoic goes on to reveal that he buys into the myth that "governance" is needed in a society:
I have written often about the difference of “government” and “governance.” There will always be governance – else there is no civil society. It is to governance that I introduce and discuss culture.But this is a myth. People generally take measures to protect their own property. It is a myth that they rely on governance. If Bionic really believes governance protects people, then I suggest a test. Bionoic should pull $10,000 out of the bank--cash. He should put it on a park bench in San Francisco's Tenderloin with the note, "This belongs to Bionioc Mosquito. Please do not touch. I will be back for it in a few days"
Does he seriously think that "governance" will protect his money?
As a further test, I urge him to leave his DOB, SS#, bank account number along with online passwords in the comment section below. Since he believes in "governance" and there are now laws against identity theft, he should have no problem with this test.
If he does not act out either of these easy tests to prove his point, it means he rejetcs the idea that governance as opposed to individual protection, is the root of private property protection. I repeat, governance as a protector is largely a myth. The idea should be destroyed along with the notion that the government protects us against terrorists.
Bionic asks in his post:
So why write a post entitled “Additional Comments on Penalties for Violators of the Non-Aggression Principle”? If “people mind their own business and respect private property,” why speak of penalties? Why speak of violators?The answer is, of course, because people do violate private property on occasion. We are not discussing a world of angels. We are discussing methods by which a society could function where there is a general respect for private property, but still recognize the way the world is and that there will be those who become aggressors.
If the decision of penalties for a private property violations is left up to the owners of a properties, then we have no need for governance and no penalties which may not satisfy victims. And here again, we come to the point that there is no objective measure of appropriate punishment. Only victims can determine satisfaction for an aggression becasue they are the ones aggressed against and satisfaction is always subjective.
Bionic then goes on and makes some odd points:
Does a common, unifying culture increase or decrease the likelihood for the demand of the service of a monopoly fixer of all things? I say decrease...Is it “government” when neighbors voluntarily agree to abide by a certain code of conduct despite not being pleased with every single clause? No – it is called life.
Bionic can call a "common, unifying culture," life, but it is government when such a unifying culture is forced upon those who are on their own property and who are not interested in such culture as necessary for "life." Bionic is playing word games here, "a common, unifying culture," is government, that is some kind og monopoly fixer. This is not quite anarchy.
Bionic than takes another great leap away from fundamental NAP theory:
Is it possible for a penalty to cross the line into the initiation of aggression? Again, yes. (This isn’t self-evident to Robert, but perhaps one or two others might read it and say “duh, how stupid does bionic think we are?”)
Wenzel suggests shooting a child for stealing an apple is not initiating aggression. In any civil society – meaning any society that has some reasonable chance of putting libertarian theory into practice – he would be wrong.Bionic may not like it, but fundamental private property recognition means that the owner of the property should not be aggressed against and only he can set the rules, on his property, for aggression penalties. It is impossible for anyone other than a victim to know what is a satisfactory penalty for an aggression. (A victim by being on the property of another siginifies acceptance of aggression penalties as allowed by that property owner)
But let us look further into why Bionic objects to penalties determined by private property owners.. He tells us in his next paragraph:
Picture the scene: the child, dead in a pool of blood; the parents, neighbors, and other community members show up. Wenzel says “that dumb kid stole my apple, so I shot him. You have to respect my property rights.” Everyone says “you know, that Wenzel guy is right. Let’s buy him a beer.” And the child’s father picks up the tab.\
On what planet?First, I would not shoot a kid who stole an apple from a tree on my property, neither would almost all the rest of us.
But more important, the questions that must be asked that are not presented by Bionic are: Is it a dangerous world for children? Of course, it is. They could burn their hands on a stove, set fire to a house while playing with matches etc. That is why there are people called baby sitters. Children who potentially can harm themselves are not left alone. It is not because governance laws ban stoves, matches etc. It is because everyone recognizes that children must be watched after.
What planet does Bionic buzz around in that he does not understand this?
It would be the same way with a killer of children who trespass. Who would allow their children to go near such a property? Who would allow children to go near a property that doesn't disclose its rules and penalties? It wouldn't happen any more than parents allowing children to play on top of a hot stove or allowing them to go out and play in traffic?
This necessity of governance is a great myth. Life mainly goes on with people protecting their own property without the help of governance.
Bionic may not think this kind of society could survive, but it is the kind of society we live in, with a mythical, supposed all-powerful veil called governance over us that in reality does nearly nothing to protect us.
It is the great myth that must be exposed before we can move onto a Private Proprty Society, I suspect that many who call themselves anarcho-capitalists do not truly understand the logical road such a view leads to and I am sure that many recoil, as Bionic has done, to the punch in the gut as to the true nature of PPS. But the punch in the gut is felt because they don't truly understand the way the world really works now and that governance as a great protector doesn't exist.
But in time, perhaps, many will come to the view that in many ways we are already living a PPS life with government a leach that has no real value for us.
Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher at EconomicPolicyJournal.com and at Target Liberty. He is also author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics