Jim Choate wrote:

Forwarded message:

...

Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 01:33:18 -0500 From: Michael Hohensee <mah248@nyu.edu> Subject: Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)

...

No government can protect individual rights.

That isn't a reasonable statement. There is nothing in the definition or application of 'government' or 'individual rights' that preclude this. The issue becomes in a practical sense how the practitioners of a government system respect individual rights. If they are willing to do away with them to protect them (as we seem to be moving toward in this country) then of course there are no individual rights.

You missed my point. What I'm trying to point out is that no government (or any other body, for that matter) can prevent someone from doing something. All the state can do (and does, if you look closely) is offer to punish anyone who disobeys it. It doesn't matter whether that state is protecting individual rights or not --it can only punish, not prevent.

Of course, this implies there are no collective rights either.

Correct. There are none. There are no collectives, only groups comprised of individuals. Therefore it would be meaningless to speak of "collective" rights.

...

The only way one could do so would be if it: (a) could predict the future, and act to prevent certain futures from happening; or (b) it controls every aspect and motion of each individual's life, thereby ensuring that nobody steps out of line.

What has that to do with protecting individual rights? Clarify please.

I'm explaining why it is impossible for the state to protect individual rights. I offer two mechanisms by which the state *could* _protect_ individual rights, and then point out why they are impossible. It is something of a strawman argument, but if you disagree, I'm willing to tear down any mechanism you might propose. :)

...

All any state can do is threaten to "retaliate" against (why not just say "attack") people who disobey its edicts. In order for this threat to be credible, the state must wield sufficient power to kill any individual (or group of individuals) who would stand against it. If it does not have this power, it cannot govern.

This is a quaint and completely artificial distinction.

Is it really? Then could you please explain to me exactly why I would have to pay taxes (or otherwise make submission) to a state which did *not* have the power to kill me? If it lacks this power --and I mean this in a physical sense, not a legal one-- then what is to stop me or anyone else from telling it to fuck off? Such a state cannot govern those who do not wish to be governed, and so would not be a government.

...

The problem is, if it does have this power, then there is nothing to stop those individuals in control of the state from violating the individual rights of its citizens. As often seems the case today, for example.

We also see quite a few situations where the opposite occurs as well.

Occasionally, yes. The state does not yet have absolute power, or does not yet choose to wield it fully in all situations. But we've already got an impressive list in the USA alone. We've had Ruby Ridge, we've had Waco, the countless raids on the homes of innocent people in the name of the drug war (and the countless raids on the homes of innocent drug-addicts, for that matter).

...

The system you suggest, which I assume consists of a state with a "minimal" amount of power, run by enlightened people, is in a state of

Anyone who assumes noble oblige is an idiot. There are no enlightened people, intelligence and wealth no more prepare an individual for a position in government than they prepare them for anything else. Rich/intelligent people don't make less mistakes than those who aren't.

Correct, which is the main reason that we cannot trust a state in any shape or form, regardless of how good the people running it may seem.

...

extremely unstable equilibrium (if it is indeed in equilibrium). If it

If you're talking of Hayek's equilibrium, it's nothing more than a bastardization of a thermodynamics term to represent the status quo. Equilabrium in the economic sense simply means that people do today what they did yesterday. In general they do about as often as they don't.

Actually, I wasn't thinking of Hayek at all. ;) I was just pointing out that a "benign" state, even if it were possible to create one (which, as you pointed out in your last paragraph, is impossible), would not stay benign very long. Economics is not discussed in this portion of the argument.

...

wields just enough power to enforce its will, that power can be used by evil men to increase its power.

Evil? Where did religion come into this at?

Forgive me, I was trying to shorten the sentence a bit, and assumed that "evil men" would be understood to refer to those men (and women) who wish to rule other people, for whatever reason. Your personal definition of evil may vary. Can we agree that it is wrong to rule others? This is the fundamental distinction which sets us apart from the statists.

...

Just look at what happened after the Constitutional coup took place in the fledgling USA. Remember the Whiskey Rebellion? When we lost the Articles of Confederation, we were taking the first steps down the road to the tyranny of today. The anti-federalists predicted this, although they sorely underestimated how far it would go --assuming that it would be stopped by another revolution.

There have been several since then. The Civil War and the civil rights movement in the 60's are two good examples (on the opposite end of the 'use-of-violence' scales).

The war of northern aggression is more of a reverse revolution, from this standpoint. The south peacefully left the union, and the north reconquered it. It's roughly analogous to what would have happened had the british won the american revolution. As for the civil rights movement; it just goes to show that not *everything* that happened after 1776 was a bad thing.

...

The minimalist state has been tried.

No, that was a non-federalist state where the individual states acted as individuals in a collective. Because of the collective nature of the state governments it didn't work. A minimalist state would be anarchy.

Not by the definition of a state given above. The minimalist state must wield sufficient power to rule those who would disobey its edicts, otherwise it's not a state --just a bunch of losers who dress pompously and issue meaningless proclaimations. Anarchy is the *absence* of the state.

...

The only truly free system is one in which there is no body of people calling itself a government which can enforce its will over the individual. The only way people can seem to be free living under such a body is entirely dependent upon the good will of their masters, and this is a shaky assumption to make.

No it isn't the only way. The only way is to clearly define the duties of each level of government and build a system of checks and balances that prohibit them from moving outside their domains. A good first attempt at this was the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (in particular 9 & 10). The problem is that there are individuals who don't want to be limited in their authority. It's a person problem not a government problem.

You are proposing a means of setting up a benign government. For it to be a government, it must wield sufficient power to rule. For it to be benign, it must be run by "good" men (i.e. those who will not use the state to increase their personal power). But as you pointed out, it is foolish to trust that the state will be run by such individuals, regardless of who they are. Thus it would seem that it is impossible to create a benign state. Thus we should avoid having one.

...

How about: Any action that involves the initiation of force against the property of another person (the person belongs to himself, of course) is immoral.

Morality? Why do you keep bringing religion and individual beliefs into it?

I used the word because the person I responded to used it. Exactly what is considered "immoral" does of course vary from person to person. Perhaps a better word would be "wrong", "antisocial", "socially unacceptable", or perhaps "not to be tolerated".

A person is, they don't belong to anyone.

No, a person belongs to him or herself. *Someone* is directing my actions, and guess what: it's me. I choose what I will and will not do. I choose what I say. I choose what I think. I belong to me.

It should be:

Any act that harms a person or their property without their prior permission is a crime.

Correct. It is wrong to initiate force against another person or their property. It is of course no problem if the person owning the property gives you permission to harm it. Then it's not initiation of force.

There are no exceptions other than immediate personal self defence, which terminates upon the application of minimal force to guarantee the threat will not reoccur (in many cases this means kill the attacker). This should apply to all individuals participating in a governmental role as well.

I agree. This more detailed explaination of how much force should be applied in response to an attack. It should be small enough to ensure that you don't accidentially end up looking like you're in the wrong afterwards, and large enough to ensure that there *is* an afterwards. ;)

...

This neatly tidies up the obvious question of exactly what "individual rights" are. There's a partial list of them in the bill of rights, but it is not complete, by its own admission.

By it's own admission they are protected from denial by the 9th and 10th so they don't need to be listed (unlike the 10th lists the duties of the government system). The problem is conservatives and liberals alike don't respect those boundaries. They want more.

Correct. No state can be benign if it is run by corrupt individuals. This is another example which supports the idea that the state is a bad idea.

...

Furthermore, the above definition excludes such dubious rights as the "right to an education", the "right to welfare", etc.

Now you're doing exactly what you are complaining about. Your defining others rights when you don't want them defining yours.

No, I'm describing what are obviously *not* rights. If someone has a "right" to an education, then that means that he has a right to get it whether or not he can pay for it. That is, if he can't pay for it, he has the right to take money which belongs to other people (i.e. steal the property of others). (either that or he has the right to a "free" education, which translates to him having a right to make someone teach him without compensation, which is also theft). The same argument applies to welfare. If you do not agree, then what you said about it being wrong to harm another person or that person's property without their consent is sheer hypocrisy.

People may very well have a right to welfare and an education (I believe people have a civil right to medical and legal advice gratis - stems from the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness). The issue isn't that. The issue is *what are the duties of the government as defined in its charter*. If those duties are not in there (and they're not) then it shouldn't be doing it without an amendment from the charter.

So, you're saying that you're a statist? :/

...

All of the above involve the initiation (or threat of initiation) of force. Hence they are immoral, and the victims and any bystanders would be morally justified in using force against the initiators. Of course, this would not be true in a governed society, where the state must hold a monopoly on the use of force, if only to maintain its own position. Much less efficient.

Go read the Constitution, it's true here in our governemnt though many people don't want it to be so. As a result they find all kinds of childish and inane reasons to deny the obvious.

Like it or not the federal governments panapoly of current powers are as vacous as the king is naked.

It's like executive orders, unless you happen to work for the executive branch they aren't worth the paper they're written on. Why? Because at no point is the office of President given this authority over anyone other than executive branch employees. He has no more authority to dictate general behaviour via that mechanism than you or I do - zero. Per the 10th there is not one sentence in the Constitution that delegates that authority to the office.

In a strictly legal sense, you are correct. In reality, however, things are slightly different, since there is a large supply of men with guns who are apparently willing to execute these legally unjustified orders --and me, if I get in their way. When I talk about power, I'm not talking about namby-pamby _legal_ power. I'm talking about raw *physical* power. From a practical point of view, what's written on a piece of paper is irrelevant if I'm confronted with armed men who are willing to ignore it.

...

We've all got our pet peeves. Would you like to live under mine? Would I like to live under yours? Can I trust you to be tolerant? Can I trust your successors, 20 years from now? Can my descendants trust subsequent successors, 200 years later? Experience tends to show the contrary.

There is more at stake than toleration or trust. You paint with too narrow a brush. If you're saying we should have anarchy then you're as kooky as the people who don't literaly interpret the Constitution.

Why? Is it insane not to trust in the state? *You yourself* have pointed out why we cannot trust those organizations called states. If I'm insane, you appear to be schizophrenic. ;)

...

The anarcho-capitalist free market is not one where "everything goes," and there is indeed a strong concept of individual rights. What is moral and not moral is defined by society on an individual basis. The first and only rule is:

First, it is one of everything-goes because there is no mechanism that will stop anybody from doing anything. There are NO concepts of *rights* in such a system, let alone individual rights. If anything the only rights are who has the capitalist backing to stave off the anarchic forces. That's not justice, equality, or respect for rights.

You are forgetting *social* mechanisms. You are assuming that everyone won't care if one of their friends is hurt. You are assuming that people will never take action against those who they percieve to be threatening or harming them or their friends. These assumptions are *invalid*.

...

No one has the right to initiate force against another or another's property.

Attack me with your body and property and watch it happen junior.

You misunderstand what is meant by the "initiation of force". If I were to attack you, it would be I who would be initiating force, not you. The force you use in response to my initiation of force would not have initiated the conflict, thus you are not initiating force.

...

This is the fundamental and only "social contract" we make. Anyone who disagrees with this is obviously antisocial, and nobody's going to want to live with him (or allow him to continue living, if he attacks someone).

Oh bullshit. There is much more involved like not stealing which isn't the use of force and allowed by your anarcho-capatilism as well as your definition of valid use of force above.

It's gibberish.

Nope. Theft is an initation of force against my property. If I happen to be there, it would usually involve the initiation of force against me, as I would probably desire to keep my property.

...

...

From this, morality follows. If X does Y to Z, and if Y is perceived as immoral, then X is not going to be very popular with Z or anyone else, unless he can make amends. No one will want to trade with him, be near him, etc. This is a very strong motive to avoid doing immoral things.

Will you get religion the hell out of here please.

Again, I apologize for using the word "morality", since it obviously triggers your religion button.

Y is obviously popular with X or else they wouldn't have used it. It further follows that there are more than one X-type out there. So your premise falls down on its face in the dirt.

Afraid not. Just because there's more than one X out there doesn't mean that Y is still a good thing to do. If there is a sufficient number of Z's who are willing to ostracize any X who does Y, then X is given a strong motivation to not do Y, lest X end up starving and alone. If, however, very few people consider Y immoral, then X will have no problems. Any Z's who treat X badly for Y will tend to be shunned by X and his friends, putting pressure on the Z's to mind their own business. This an example of a negative feedback loop --in stark contrast to the positive feedback associated with the level of corruption in a state.

...

If Y is really nasty, such as the initiation of force, then X is going to be in *deep* trouble.

With who? In an anarcho-capitalist society as you paint it the optimal strategy is to allow others to reduce your competition opening up the market for you.

No, I never painted it that way. This is what *you* associate with anarcho-capitalism.

Let's take an example. Imagine we live on a street and we notice a person going from house to house down the other side of the street. What is our optimal strategy? It isn't to call the cops (there aren't any) and it isn't to immediately kill the intruder (it isn't our property after all) since there is an opportunity to make a considerable gain here improving our status in the society as a whole. The optimal strategy is to wait and let this bozo kill our neighbors up to our house and *then* kill the intruder. At that point we have just inhereted an entire street of houses and its included properties. You put up a fence across each end of the street and wallah, your own little fifedom. If you're really lucky something similar will happen on the next street over and they won't be as lucky at killing the intruder. Then after they are all dead and the intruder has consolidated their gains (probably by fencing their street in) you can begin to scheme ways of taking that property since its obvious yours is next.

This is not the optimal strategy. The optimal strategy is to warn your neighbors, or call the neighborhood security service. You do this because you want them to do the same for you, should you come under attack. This is why most primates (specifically humans) live in groups --it's easier to see the predators coming with everyone watching, and it's easier to fend them off if everybody picks up a stick. Fortunately, most people are already programmed to behave in a social fashion (the ones who weren't got eaten 40,000 years ago). The scenario you paint above relies on the assumption of a sudden change in human nature, if the all protecting state were to evaporate. This is an incorrect assumption. Many have been the times that people have thought they could change human nature, and equally many are the failures.

...

Z may well shoot him out of self defense, and even if he survives his action, he'll have to pay a *lot* of restitution before people will trust him again, if ever. Law enforcement by ostracism --read L. Neil Smith's "The Probability Broach", for a more detailed description.

Wait a second, there is no law to enforce here outside of make money, obtain property, keep somebody else from taking it.

You are overlooking common law.

...

In summary, a free market is far from being an immoral market. In fact, it is the most moral market there is, since there is no state which holds the "right" to initiate force.

In summary a free-market is a anarchy of kill or be killed, take or get taken. He with the most goodies wins until somebody with a better strategy comes along. There is nothing to moderate the use of force, especialy when its the optimal strategy to increase ones holdings.

Except, as I've pointed out, it is *not* the optimal strategy. Perhaps you would enjoy the works of Richard Dawkins. He goes into great detail describing exactly how nonviolent strategies are superior to violent ones. I'll just give one example here. When two bears approach the same berry bush, they do not immediately start fighting over it. Instead, they each stick to one side of the bush, and do not disturb one another. Why, if your strategy is the optimal one, would this be the case? After all, bears are already pretty good at attacking things. It would be pretty easy for a exceptional bear to break this rule, and become dominant over the other bears, if what you say is true. But it is obvious that bears *don't* do this. That any bears or ancestors of bears that ever did do this were somehow out-competed by their peaceful counterparts. Thus it would appear, from available evidence, that your approach *is not* superior to the peaceful approach. Read Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" for a more in-depth argument. Michael Hohensee