Recently when having lunch with a semi-prominent hardcore libertarian, the man said to me that he thought all the deep thinking about libertarianism had been done and that there was not much more that needed to be hashed out..
I objected vehemently. I stated that there was much more that had to be developed and that there were very few that understood exactly what anarcho-capitalism meant.
My current discussion with regard to the nature of a Private Property Society (my preferred term for anarcho-capitalism) here at Target Liberty is an object lesson. The discussion points out gaps in current theory, but also the lack of understanding by most libertarians as to exactly what a PPS would look like--as far as the theory has already been developed
I view the idea that government is necessary as largely a myth. Government, for the most part, is simply an organization that seeks to survive and expand, driven by the people in charge of it. A change in government power is simply new people taking over power spots.
Government does not protect us against terrorists, it does not improve healthcare, it is terrible at charity and the police do little to protect us against crime. Government is a propaganda machine that creates the impression that it is needed for all these matters when in fact it is a suffocater of real solutions.
My working definition of anarcho-capitalism is a society where no government exists but where private property is recognized and respected.
Let's take this definition and look at some comments made at my recent post: Additional Comments on Penalties for Violators of the Non-Aggression Principle.
I am not sure Bionic Mosquito realizes it here, but he has left the world of anarcho-capitalism and entered the world of limited government. The moment there is a central party, be it culture or whatever, that sets the rules that overrule the desires of a person on his property, it is a central power, that is, it is government. Regardless of how modest the desires of such a ruling power that is what it is. It is no longer anracho-capitalism.
Yet, another that has left the world of anarcho-capitalism and leaves us with the horrific thought that the masses are "not biologically selected to be libertarians" and, therefore, government is here to stay.
This, of course, flies in the face of my perspective that everyone, from libertarian scholars to the masses, spend most of their day acting just as they would if there was no government. I repeat what the government allegedly provides is either done poorly or is a complete myth.
The masses may never become deep thinkers of libertarian philosophy, but it is not difficult to imagine them, at some place and some time, adopting the view that people should just be left the hell alone.
"Unless surrendered via contract..."
In a PPS, surrendering rights to the owner of the property is a given. Otherwise, we are back to the limited government situation where rules are determined by a central power.
I think there is an implication here that people would be wandering off into areas where they would be tortured or perhaps murdered and that somehow rules overruling private property must be necessary to prevent this.
But this fails to understand how people act now. They don't walk at 3:00 in the morning counting cash in the open in a bad section of town because there is a government law against it and the government police will protect them. They simply stay out of bad areas, as would occur in a PPS. There aren't many modern day Americans who are going to wander on the property of someone who will kill them because of the smallest infraction.
It doesn't happen now, no thanks to government, and it wouldn't in a PPS.
Yes, I have made my point clear that it is impossible for anyone other than the victim to determine what is satisfactory punishment. However, I wish to emphasize once again that no one is going to wander into areas where significant danger lurks. Government doesn't protect us from such dangers now, we just avoid such areas. Why wouldn't we avoid them in a PPS?
You are all falling into the trap that the government is somehow needed to protect us from dangerous areas. They don't. We just stay away from such areas. You are all setting up the scenario where people are not going to be cognizant of where they are in a PPS, even though they are now, with a supposed government to protect them now.
sonepatchworthJanuary 16, 2016 at 8:52 AM...That is why conflicts not covered by pre-agreements are so deeply problematic...
No they are not. If there are no set rules or designated arbiter, then the private property owner has the last say. But again who is going to go on a property where it isn't clear what the rules are or who the arbiter might be?
Property in a PPS is not a legal concept. It is simply a society where the population respects private property and respects the idea that the owner of the property sets the rules on that property.
I am not here discussing the specific mannerof how property ownership develops in a PPS (Like I said there is much theory in an anarcho-capitalist society that needs to be developed). I am at this point only discussing the nature of a PPS. How property ownership is determined in a PPS is for another time and another essay.
"And if someone is wrongly accused by the property owner? So if a property owner *believes* someone has violated his terms of entry to his property, he can simply administer summary justice on the spot? What if he's wrong or just doesn't like the person? Or what if there is shared blame?"
Again, why are you going to go on a property where you don't know the rules? This stuff isn't going to happen. Do you think Macy's would survive if it practiced summary justice? No one would go in the damn store.
theageofnowJanuary 16, 2016 at 12:11 AMWhy would there not be private, impartial businesses that judge disputes? Private police that communities pay to enforce laws. Jails/work camps to punish aggressors based on the victims preference (so far as he is a consumer of the service).
It's almost as if you guys are thinking bounty hunters, police, courts, judges, lawyers and jails would not exist in a free society. There would no doubt be wild west areas as there are still today but the vast majority of us would gladly be a member of some protection service. With all the extra income we would have protection services would thrive and these wild west NAP justice theories would be a tiny afterthought.Go to the head of the class, though to the degree it's communities, it would be private property owners getting together and deciding to recognize certain rules, etc.
No, pie in the sky is believing that government is actually protecting you somehow. That is the great myth. What I am describing is how people live now, with the unfortunate veil of government that suffocates and oppresses.
bionic mosquitoJanuary 16, 2016 at 1:22 PMAs I think about this more, I keep returning to a couple of thoughts:
1) When does "penalty" cross the line into "initiation of aggression"? Libertarian theory does not hold an answer to this question, to my understanding; we even cannot settle on a definitive line regarding what "aggression" is in the first place (not that I find it necessary to do so).
2) Subjective value is not a concept that flows from libertarian theory, at least not in any way that I see. Therefore, one could presumably justify a penalty code based on subjective value, but I do not see how it can be built on the foundation offered by the NAP.
Any light / links on either matter would be appreciated.
Separately,this idea put into practice is seen in gang wars and the relationship of Israel / Palestine, among other places where blood feuds are normal). If it is valid in libertarian theory (which, so far, I do not see) it is not conducive to a civil society and would certainly result in the welcoming of a monopoly fixer of all grievances.
A libertarian society could not survive this practice.1) If you are an anrcho-capitalist, the only answer is the property owner. If you are an advocate of an overruling group of laws, then you are, at least, a limited government advocate.
2. You are talking penalty codes, this is a central planning concept, that is, a limited government that somehow and someway, rules over private property. There is no such overruling body if NAP is recognized completely, such rules would be an aggression against a person or his property,
"Separately,this idea put into practice is seen in gang wars and the relationship of Israel / Palestine, among other places where blood feuds are normal). If it is valid in libertarian theory (which, so far, I do not see) it is not conducive to a civil society and would certainly result in the welcoming of a monopoly fixer of all grievances
"A libertarian society could not survive this practice."
Now, you sound like a total government propagandist, Last I looked, Israel was a government and there are governments from around the Middle East aiding and abetting different sides in that conflict, not to mention involvement by the US government, but yet you attribute this to what anarcho-capitalism would look like? I am talking about a society where people mind their own business and respect private property, I really don't think this is outside the realm of possibility, becasue as I say, in most cases people are already acting as if they are in a PPS, though there is a remarkable desire, even among libertarians to suffocate such a world with central rules.
The Israeli-Palestine conflict has as much to do with anarcho-capitalism as does Bernie Sanders.
To be continued...
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