Journal of a Libertarian Anarchist and Austrian Economist
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Friday, 14 October 2011
Law without Government, Part Three: The Bargaining Mechanism
The third part of my video series exploring a world with law but without a compulsory monopoly provider of it.
This part looks at a conflict between protection agencies about principles, namely a disagreement about whether the death penalty is a suitable punishment for murderers. It explains how, in a system of competing providers of security and law, consumer preferences for justice are reflected in the policies, decisions and agreements of the protection agencies.
This part is heavily inspired by David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom, chapter 29 "Police, Courts, and Laws - on the Market".
Monday, 19 September 2011
Sunday, 11 September 2011
Response to comment on my video "Conflict Resolution in a Free Society"
This is a response to a youtube comment left on my video "Law Without Government Part 2: Conflict Resolution in a Free Society" by WelcometotheUnknown.
WelcometotheUnknown says:
Thanks for this thoughtful response, which is worthy of a detailed reply.
First, let’s not get bogged down in terminology. We’re using several words differently. You are saying any security firm (like Dawn Defense) that uses force is by definition a government, and any such force is “political power”. I use a different definition of government. I would say that government is by definition a monopolist, so Dawn Defense is not a government. I use the term government interchangeably with State; all governments are compulsory; all governments tax. So “multiple governments competing for the voluntary funding of individuals on a market [in the same geographic area]” is a misuse of the term government, by my definition. If they’re competing for customers, they’re not governments.
Anarchy, since it means anti-government to us both, means different things to us because we have a different definition of government. To me, the situation in my video – multiple firms competing in the same territorial area competing for voluntary funding - is the definition of anarchy. The only requirement for anarchy is no monopolist. To you, it is not anarchy because there is still force being used against aggressors. I would call this situation pacificism, which is a kind of anarchy.
Now to our substantive disagreement about the kind of society we advocate. My position is that a pacific society (what you call anarchy) is desirable, in fact ideal. However, I also consider it somewhat utopian. Yes, ostracism would be a very powerful check on criminals, but the question is: would it be enough to maintain order? We can speculate about this, but we’ll only know by finding out, through a competitive law system.
My opinion is that voluntary actions like ostracism would not be sufficient, at least at first, for maintaining order. Ostracism just isn’t a big enough deterrent against some criminals; force would be needed against them. I may be wrong. I hope I am wrong. It may be that a competitive law system will become less and less coercive over time, until coercion is not used at all, and law becomes voluntary.
My video is an attempt to describe competitive law, and I used competitive-coercive law as I think that it is more realistic, and takes things one-step-at-a-time. The competitive part is what makes this society anarchy, by my definition. You are advocating a society of competitive-voluntary law. The voluntary part, to you, is necessary for it to be called anarchy. This is a mere terminological difference; our essential point of disagreement is that we speculate differently about whether coercion will be used in a competitive law system. We both agree it would be ideal; I say it is also unrealistic.
The current situation, of course, is monopolistic-coercive law, and both of us oppose the monopolistic part. That’s the most important thing; whether law is to be coercive or voluntary is just speculation about how things might turn out in a competitive environment.
You bring up the non-aggression principle.
So we must now step out of the descriptive realm (where we think about how a competitive law system might work in practice) and into the normative realm (where we think about what kinds of actions are justified according to libertarian principles)…
I insist that, if Dawn Defense did use force against Bill to take their $10,000, they would NOT be violating the NAP. The NAP forbids aggression, which is the initiation of coercion. What Dawn Defense did was retaliatory coercion; coercion in response to aggression. This is defensive action, not aggressive action, and thus not a violation of the NAP. Dawn Defense is acting on behalf of Alice, who was aggressed against, and she is entitled to retaliate, at least to attain restitution.
Within libertarian circles it is up for debate how much retaliatory coercion is justified. That is, at what point retaliatory coercion becomes a new aggressive action, and thus forbidden. Stephan Kinsella, for example, would say that retribution is primary; the “equal suffering” principle. The Rothbardian position is that retaliation is acceptable only to attain restitution; the “restore the victim” principle.
You say that using physical force is justified only in “self-defense”. The question is: what do you include within this term? Surely Alice has a right to use force take back her stolen handbag, if nothing else? And surely she also has the right to pay someone to use force on her behalf?
If by “self-defense” you mean she is not allowed to pay someone to use force on her behalf, then that is an odd rejection of the division of labor. What’s wrong with Alice’s wrestler boyfriend going round Bill’s house to grab the stolen handbag?
If by “self-defense” you do not include any right of Alice is to use retaliatory coercion even to attain restitution, then you are at odds with most libertarians, who are at least restitutionists (Rothbard, Block, Long), if not retributionists (Kinsella) as well.
In fact, the term “self-defense” is often used very loosely by libertarians. It is used interchangeably with “defense”. When someone like Rothbard says “only force used in self-defense is justified” he might as well say “only force used in defense is justified”. He does not mean to imply any of the two interpretations above by the use of “self-defense” rather than merely “defense”.
It may help if you can clarify what degree of retaliatory coercion you see as justifiable.
In my video, I left it ambiguous whether Dawn Defense were demanding $10,000 as retribution, or restitution only, or how they came up with the amount. It could be, for example, that Alice had $10,000 cash in the handbag Bill stole, so Dawn Defense are demanding pure restitution only. If Bill does not admit his guilt and voluntarily give the money back (perhaps ostracism is no worry to him), do you maintain that Dawn Defense are still violating the NAP if they threaten Bill with force to get him to pay the money back? If so, you are using an uncommonly broad definition of “aggression”, which extends the NAP to forbid far more than it usually does. It extends so far that criminals are justified in keeping the proceeds of their crimes, since it is unjustified for the victim to take back his property using force.
WelcometotheUnknown says:
[At 4:20 in the video you say] "...threatening to use force against him if necessary." This is a tyrannical government then. It differs from our current governments in that there are multiple governments competing for the voluntary funding of individuals on a market. While this would be a lot better than our current system, it still does not qualify as anarchism as Dawn Defense will use force to make Bill pay whatever amount DD deems is fair. Under true anarchy, the enforcement of this will be by ostracism not coercion.
It seems to me that what you are advocating in this video is not a truly free society (anarchy). What you are advocating is competing governments in a single geographic area. You say that rather than being forced to pay taxes to the US government and their courts, police, and law systems, I can choose which law organizations I wish to subscribe to. This does not qualify as anarchism because you still give these law organizations political power.
The ability to "legitimately" use physical coercion to make Bill pay the $10,000 is called political power, something that is non-existent in a free society. If Bill agrees to follow by the ruling of his protection agency or dispute resolution organization and agrees to have the agency enforce their rulings against him should he not follow them, then if his agency says he owes the person $10,000 and he refuses to pay, then the coercion is justified.
But, if he does not agree to have the organization's ruling on the crime imposed against him forcefully to make him pay X in retribution, then that is illegitimate in terms of the non-aggression principle that defines a free society. Thus, if Bill doesn't agree to follow the rulings of any protection agency like DD, etc, then we cannot justly use force against him to make him pay retribution. Using physical force against Bill is only justified in self-defense.
So you might ask, how then is society to deal with thieves such as Bill? Easy, if someone in society doesn't agree to follow the rulings of some third party dispute resolution organization, then ostracize that person, because you know that if a dispute should arise (such as whether or not he committed a crime or how much he has to pay up if he did) then there will be no easy peaceful way of dealing with it.
By "ostracize" I basically mean to cut all economic (and/or social) ties with him. People are very dependent on each other. If there is someone who does not wish to submit himself to some third party arbitrator who can make dispute resolution easier, then that person is too difficult to live with. Don't buy anything from him, don't sell him anything, etc, unless he agrees to accept the rulings of some organization like DD when he fails to resolve disputes himself.
Thanks for this thoughtful response, which is worthy of a detailed reply.
First, let’s not get bogged down in terminology. We’re using several words differently. You are saying any security firm (like Dawn Defense) that uses force is by definition a government, and any such force is “political power”. I use a different definition of government. I would say that government is by definition a monopolist, so Dawn Defense is not a government. I use the term government interchangeably with State; all governments are compulsory; all governments tax. So “multiple governments competing for the voluntary funding of individuals on a market [in the same geographic area]” is a misuse of the term government, by my definition. If they’re competing for customers, they’re not governments.
Anarchy, since it means anti-government to us both, means different things to us because we have a different definition of government. To me, the situation in my video – multiple firms competing in the same territorial area competing for voluntary funding - is the definition of anarchy. The only requirement for anarchy is no monopolist. To you, it is not anarchy because there is still force being used against aggressors. I would call this situation pacificism, which is a kind of anarchy.
Now to our substantive disagreement about the kind of society we advocate. My position is that a pacific society (what you call anarchy) is desirable, in fact ideal. However, I also consider it somewhat utopian. Yes, ostracism would be a very powerful check on criminals, but the question is: would it be enough to maintain order? We can speculate about this, but we’ll only know by finding out, through a competitive law system.
My opinion is that voluntary actions like ostracism would not be sufficient, at least at first, for maintaining order. Ostracism just isn’t a big enough deterrent against some criminals; force would be needed against them. I may be wrong. I hope I am wrong. It may be that a competitive law system will become less and less coercive over time, until coercion is not used at all, and law becomes voluntary.
My video is an attempt to describe competitive law, and I used competitive-coercive law as I think that it is more realistic, and takes things one-step-at-a-time. The competitive part is what makes this society anarchy, by my definition. You are advocating a society of competitive-voluntary law. The voluntary part, to you, is necessary for it to be called anarchy. This is a mere terminological difference; our essential point of disagreement is that we speculate differently about whether coercion will be used in a competitive law system. We both agree it would be ideal; I say it is also unrealistic.
The current situation, of course, is monopolistic-coercive law, and both of us oppose the monopolistic part. That’s the most important thing; whether law is to be coercive or voluntary is just speculation about how things might turn out in a competitive environment.
You bring up the non-aggression principle.
So we must now step out of the descriptive realm (where we think about how a competitive law system might work in practice) and into the normative realm (where we think about what kinds of actions are justified according to libertarian principles)…
I insist that, if Dawn Defense did use force against Bill to take their $10,000, they would NOT be violating the NAP. The NAP forbids aggression, which is the initiation of coercion. What Dawn Defense did was retaliatory coercion; coercion in response to aggression. This is defensive action, not aggressive action, and thus not a violation of the NAP. Dawn Defense is acting on behalf of Alice, who was aggressed against, and she is entitled to retaliate, at least to attain restitution.
Within libertarian circles it is up for debate how much retaliatory coercion is justified. That is, at what point retaliatory coercion becomes a new aggressive action, and thus forbidden. Stephan Kinsella, for example, would say that retribution is primary; the “equal suffering” principle. The Rothbardian position is that retaliation is acceptable only to attain restitution; the “restore the victim” principle.
You say that using physical force is justified only in “self-defense”. The question is: what do you include within this term? Surely Alice has a right to use force take back her stolen handbag, if nothing else? And surely she also has the right to pay someone to use force on her behalf?
If by “self-defense” you mean she is not allowed to pay someone to use force on her behalf, then that is an odd rejection of the division of labor. What’s wrong with Alice’s wrestler boyfriend going round Bill’s house to grab the stolen handbag?
If by “self-defense” you do not include any right of Alice is to use retaliatory coercion even to attain restitution, then you are at odds with most libertarians, who are at least restitutionists (Rothbard, Block, Long), if not retributionists (Kinsella) as well.
In fact, the term “self-defense” is often used very loosely by libertarians. It is used interchangeably with “defense”. When someone like Rothbard says “only force used in self-defense is justified” he might as well say “only force used in defense is justified”. He does not mean to imply any of the two interpretations above by the use of “self-defense” rather than merely “defense”.
It may help if you can clarify what degree of retaliatory coercion you see as justifiable.
In my video, I left it ambiguous whether Dawn Defense were demanding $10,000 as retribution, or restitution only, or how they came up with the amount. It could be, for example, that Alice had $10,000 cash in the handbag Bill stole, so Dawn Defense are demanding pure restitution only. If Bill does not admit his guilt and voluntarily give the money back (perhaps ostracism is no worry to him), do you maintain that Dawn Defense are still violating the NAP if they threaten Bill with force to get him to pay the money back? If so, you are using an uncommonly broad definition of “aggression”, which extends the NAP to forbid far more than it usually does. It extends so far that criminals are justified in keeping the proceeds of their crimes, since it is unjustified for the victim to take back his property using force.
Sunday, 21 August 2011
Law without Government, Part Two: Conflict Resolution in a Free Society
This is part 2 of my video series exploring a society where law is provided not by government, but by competing voluntary institutions.
In this part, Alice is mugged, and her protection agency identifies Bill as the mugger. But Bill protests his innocence. Things start to get interesting when Bill's protection agency stands by him.
How will the two protection agencies resolve this conflict?
In this part, Alice is mugged, and her protection agency identifies Bill as the mugger. But Bill protests his innocence. Things start to get interesting when Bill's protection agency stands by him.
How will the two protection agencies resolve this conflict?
Saturday, 20 August 2011
Believing in Government Makes No Sense (by Larken Rose)
This is a video of Larken Rose's presentation at the Free Your Mind Conference in Philadelphia, PA on April 10, 2011. Larken clearly explains the illusion of human "authority" in a unique and dramatic way.
Monday, 25 July 2011
The Privatization of Roads and Highways (video)
The Privatization of Roads and Highways
Walter Block spends half an hour making the case for privatizing roads and highways, then answers questions about it. The subsequent debate and discussion goes off at tangents, with Block giving an excellent, pithy description of a private law society to an audience utterly unfamiliar with the idea.
Walter Block spends half an hour making the case for privatizing roads and highways, then answers questions about it. The subsequent debate and discussion goes off at tangents, with Block giving an excellent, pithy description of a private law society to an audience utterly unfamiliar with the idea.
Tuesday, 28 June 2011
Law without Government, Part One: Principles
Law without Government, Part One: Principles
Part One of a series of films exploring a society where there is law and order, but no government.
This part introduces the definitions of law and government, illustrating the concepts using a simple desert-island scenario.
Part One of a series of films exploring a society where there is law and order, but no government.
This part introduces the definitions of law and government, illustrating the concepts using a simple desert-island scenario.
Friday, 4 March 2011
How To Rescue A Child (without the State)
How might child abuse be handled in a stateless society?
The Scenario
Single-father Bob physically abuses his 3-year old daughter, Jane. (Jane’s mother died while giving birth to her, and there is no extended family.) A nursery nurse becomes suspicious that Bob may be mistreating Jane. She informs the charity Friends-of-Babies, which investigates cases of child abuse, and re-homes abused children. Friends-of-Babies investigate the allegations made by the nurse. They make an assessment, and conclude that Bob is indeed abusing Jane, and that she would be better off if she were removed from that situation, and re-homed with loving foster parents.
A Free Market in Law
Law is the resolution of disputes. What is being disputed here is the ownership right to raise Jane. Bob currently owns this right, and the Friends-of-Babies organization is challenging him for it; they are claiming it for themselves. Assuming Bob objects to the charity’s claim, there is a dispute and the case will go to court. The court will award the right to raise Jane to one disputant or the other.
Free markets produce according to consumer demand. Free market firms strive for excellence in satisfying consumers, and firms that fail to use resources efficiently for this purpose do not survive the competition. This is as true for a free market in the law industry as it is for any other industry. The laws that are produced are those that consumers demand. If free market courts produce laws that are seen as unfair or unjust, they will lose customers. For a free market court, a reputation for honesty, fairness, wisdom and good judgment is essential for continued business.
Friends-of-Babies present their evidence to the court. The court becomes convinced that Bob is an abusive parent. Now they must make their decision. Child abuse, of the kind Bob committed, is widely considered by individuals in society as sufficient justification for intervention; this child needs rescuing. Therefore the court will likely decide in favor of Friends-of-Babies. They would not want to be known as an organization that lets child abuse continue. Following the court decision, Bob must give up Jane to the charity. If he resists, the charity can physically take Jane from him, and Bob has no grounds to complain. Thus Jane is rescued from her abusive father, and is soon found a loving new home.
Some Objections
Now a few objections to this scenario…
1. What if Friends-of-Babies doesn’t exist?
Lots of people feel strongly about protecting children from abuse, and would be willing to donate to such an organization, so we may be confident that such charities will exist.
2. What if Bob doesn’t agree to go to court?
As with any dispute, the alternative to arbitration is a martial contest, which neither disputant wants. If Bob is innocent, he has incentive to go to court to defend himself against the spurious claim. If Bob is guilty, he still has an incentive to go to court, if only because the consequences of not going to court would be worse. With a court decision, the harm that Friends-of-Babies inflicts on Bob is strictly limited, but if Bob refuses to go to court (makes himself an outlaw), the actions taken against him could be much more severe.
3. How do you define ‘abuse’?
That is to be decided by the consumers of laws. There will always be different opinions about what actions justify intervening in the parent-child relationship. The variation will be reflected in the choice of laws offered to consumers, and could vary significantly between cultures. With no monopoly on law, there is no need to search for an ‘objective’ definition, and no need for universal agreement on the definition.
4. Isn’t this just kidnapping, and aggression against Bob?
See note…
5. Doesn’t this imply parental obligations, and “positive rights”?
See note…
Conclusion
I have outlined how child abuse might be handled in a stateless society, with free markets in law and child protection. For all the usual reasons that free markets are better than monopolies, we would expect the laws produced and the protection given to children to be superior with the free market system. Therefore, all other things being equal, children will be safer and child abuse will be far less common without the State.
Note
The last two objections involve libertarian legal theory. My answer is that this court decision may well be consistent with libertarianism. To understand how this could be the case, see Walter Block’s Libertarianism, positive obligations and property abandonment: children's rights, and Stephan Kinsella’s How We Come to Own Ourselves.
The Scenario
Single-father Bob physically abuses his 3-year old daughter, Jane. (Jane’s mother died while giving birth to her, and there is no extended family.) A nursery nurse becomes suspicious that Bob may be mistreating Jane. She informs the charity Friends-of-Babies, which investigates cases of child abuse, and re-homes abused children. Friends-of-Babies investigate the allegations made by the nurse. They make an assessment, and conclude that Bob is indeed abusing Jane, and that she would be better off if she were removed from that situation, and re-homed with loving foster parents.
A Free Market in Law
Law is the resolution of disputes. What is being disputed here is the ownership right to raise Jane. Bob currently owns this right, and the Friends-of-Babies organization is challenging him for it; they are claiming it for themselves. Assuming Bob objects to the charity’s claim, there is a dispute and the case will go to court. The court will award the right to raise Jane to one disputant or the other.
Free markets produce according to consumer demand. Free market firms strive for excellence in satisfying consumers, and firms that fail to use resources efficiently for this purpose do not survive the competition. This is as true for a free market in the law industry as it is for any other industry. The laws that are produced are those that consumers demand. If free market courts produce laws that are seen as unfair or unjust, they will lose customers. For a free market court, a reputation for honesty, fairness, wisdom and good judgment is essential for continued business.
Friends-of-Babies present their evidence to the court. The court becomes convinced that Bob is an abusive parent. Now they must make their decision. Child abuse, of the kind Bob committed, is widely considered by individuals in society as sufficient justification for intervention; this child needs rescuing. Therefore the court will likely decide in favor of Friends-of-Babies. They would not want to be known as an organization that lets child abuse continue. Following the court decision, Bob must give up Jane to the charity. If he resists, the charity can physically take Jane from him, and Bob has no grounds to complain. Thus Jane is rescued from her abusive father, and is soon found a loving new home.
Some Objections
Now a few objections to this scenario…
1. What if Friends-of-Babies doesn’t exist?
Lots of people feel strongly about protecting children from abuse, and would be willing to donate to such an organization, so we may be confident that such charities will exist.
2. What if Bob doesn’t agree to go to court?
As with any dispute, the alternative to arbitration is a martial contest, which neither disputant wants. If Bob is innocent, he has incentive to go to court to defend himself against the spurious claim. If Bob is guilty, he still has an incentive to go to court, if only because the consequences of not going to court would be worse. With a court decision, the harm that Friends-of-Babies inflicts on Bob is strictly limited, but if Bob refuses to go to court (makes himself an outlaw), the actions taken against him could be much more severe.
3. How do you define ‘abuse’?
That is to be decided by the consumers of laws. There will always be different opinions about what actions justify intervening in the parent-child relationship. The variation will be reflected in the choice of laws offered to consumers, and could vary significantly between cultures. With no monopoly on law, there is no need to search for an ‘objective’ definition, and no need for universal agreement on the definition.
4. Isn’t this just kidnapping, and aggression against Bob?
See note…
5. Doesn’t this imply parental obligations, and “positive rights”?
See note…
Conclusion
I have outlined how child abuse might be handled in a stateless society, with free markets in law and child protection. For all the usual reasons that free markets are better than monopolies, we would expect the laws produced and the protection given to children to be superior with the free market system. Therefore, all other things being equal, children will be safer and child abuse will be far less common without the State.
Note
The last two objections involve libertarian legal theory. My answer is that this court decision may well be consistent with libertarianism. To understand how this could be the case, see Walter Block’s Libertarianism, positive obligations and property abandonment: children's rights, and Stephan Kinsella’s How We Come to Own Ourselves.
Sunday, 27 February 2011
Ten Books That Influenced Me
These are the books that had the greatest impact on my worldview. All of them are from the last few years, which emcompass my intellectual journey from political apathy and economic naiveté, to being a radical libertarian anarchist and Austrian economist.
I list the books in the order that I (first) read them, with the year in which I first read them in brackets. This post is not to be taken as a blanket endorsement of these books. They are the ones that influenced me most, not those I consider the greatest works, nor those that I would recommend to others necessarily.
1. The Road To Serfdom, F.A. Hayek (2007) – This book introduced me to a new way of thinking about politics. It introduced me to basing political views on principles rather than on whims. I identified myself as an individualist, and became opposed to all forms of collectivism. I understood that governments, even if they start off extremely limited, will always tend to grow, especially if the public has a collectivist mindset.
2. The Revolution: A Manifesto, Ron Paul (2008) – Ron Paul cured my apathy about politics. I found him online in November 2007, and became a massive fan very quickly. He took principled positions, he obviously knew what he was talking about economically, and had held those stances his whole career without wavering or compromising. I began questioning my own views about the role of government. I stopped believing in the left-right paradigm, and started to understand a far better paradigm: libertarianism versus statism.
3. Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt (2008) – The title is so appealing that I made this the first book on economics I read. I found it through the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which Ron Paul had directed me towards. Immediately, the fallacies of mainstream economics, and the wealth-destroying nature of socialism and all kinds of interventionism, became apparent to me. Hazlitt’s lesson is so remarkably powerful, that I immediately felt confident enough to reveal my political preferences publicly and argue for free markets in practically every area of society. The economic arguments in favor of a state are untenable, and quite obviously so.
4. For A New Liberty, Murray Rothbard (2008) – It took me about 9 months to go from a Ron Paul-inspired limited constitutional government position, to a full libertarian anarchist position. More than any other author, Murray Rothbard deserves most of the credit for that. This book was so clear, and made the case so powerfully, that I instantly saw the superiority of the anarchist position. It was also the first time I had encountered an explanation of how security and law can be provided without a government.
5. Anarchy and the Law, Edward Stringham et al (2008) – This compilation of essays and book excerpts sealed my anarchism. I read alternative justifications for and visions of anarchy: from David Friedman, Linda and Morris Tannehill, Randy Barnett, Roderick Long, Roy Childs, Hans Hermann Hoppe, John Hasnas. These all helped shape my worldview and especially sharpened up my thinking about how security and law can be provided without a state.
6. The Enterprise of Law, Bruce Benson (2009) – This book gave me my first encounter of public-choice economics. Benson took a whole different approach to Rothbard and Friedman, with a great deal of historical, empirical research into customary law, as well as a detailed analysis of the state law-making process and how it compares to law produced by private courts.
7. Democracy: The God That Failed, Hans-Hermann Hoppe (2009) – Just when I thought my political views were fully-formed, Hoppe hit me with his idea that monarchy is superior to democracy (though anarchy is still best of all, of course). I had taken it as given that if we must have a state, let it at least be democratic, and I had always seen the recent historical transition from monarchies to democracies as a positive thing. This book changed my view completely, and gave me a whole lot more reasons to oppose modern states. If we must have a state, let it at least be a monarchy, I now say.
8. Boundaries of Order, Butler Shaffer (2010) – This book played a vital role in my forming my position, contra Rothbard, as a subjectivist ethicist. In particular, it provided me with the terminology that reveals the flaws in his natural rights justification for libertarianism. It allowed me to move past Rothbard and develop a sophisticated subjectivist justification for libertarianism, free from terminological baggage and smuggled norms.
9. The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins (2010) – I thought I understood evolution pretty well, until I read this book. I had not realised the importance of asking at what level evolution takes place. It is at the level of the gene, and this has enormous implications for how we view evolution. I was struck by the beauty and structure to be found in nature and evolution, as Dawkins masterfully described. I was fascinated by the idea that morality can be explained in evolutionary terms; this idea fit perfectly with my subjective ethics worldview.
10. How The Mind Works, Steven Pinker (2010) – This book is full of remarkable ideas, about how our minds evolved to deal with reality. It brings to life the story of how and why we developed language, self-awareness and morality. I have not yet fully absorbed all that this book has to offer, and will probably need to read it a few more times before I feel I have a good grasp on it. But I already feel that it has had a profound affect on my thinking.
Looking over my list, the thing that jumps out at me is that there is no Ludwig von Mises. He will have to be contented that his views influenced me through others: particularly Rothbard, Hoppe, Hazlitt and Paul. Human Action, Theory and History and Socialism come closest to being on this list. His shorter works, The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, Profit and Loss, and Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth all deserve a mention as well.
Murray Rothbard is probably my single greatest influence, and if I had the space, would have had more than one entry in this top ten. I learned economics from Man, Economy and State, and The Ethics of Liberty was highly influential as well. Rothbard’s crowning glory, however, has to be his epic A History of Economic Thought, which shows off his masterly scholarly skills, and wonderful writing style, to the maximum.
Some more short works that influenced me include The Politics of Disobedience (Etienne de la Boetie), The Production of Security (Gustave de Molinari), No Treason (Lysander Spooner), Against Intellectual Property (Stephan Kinsella) and The Depoliticization of Law (John Hasnas).
I list the books in the order that I (first) read them, with the year in which I first read them in brackets. This post is not to be taken as a blanket endorsement of these books. They are the ones that influenced me most, not those I consider the greatest works, nor those that I would recommend to others necessarily.
1. The Road To Serfdom, F.A. Hayek (2007) – This book introduced me to a new way of thinking about politics. It introduced me to basing political views on principles rather than on whims. I identified myself as an individualist, and became opposed to all forms of collectivism. I understood that governments, even if they start off extremely limited, will always tend to grow, especially if the public has a collectivist mindset.
2. The Revolution: A Manifesto, Ron Paul (2008) – Ron Paul cured my apathy about politics. I found him online in November 2007, and became a massive fan very quickly. He took principled positions, he obviously knew what he was talking about economically, and had held those stances his whole career without wavering or compromising. I began questioning my own views about the role of government. I stopped believing in the left-right paradigm, and started to understand a far better paradigm: libertarianism versus statism.
3. Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt (2008) – The title is so appealing that I made this the first book on economics I read. I found it through the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which Ron Paul had directed me towards. Immediately, the fallacies of mainstream economics, and the wealth-destroying nature of socialism and all kinds of interventionism, became apparent to me. Hazlitt’s lesson is so remarkably powerful, that I immediately felt confident enough to reveal my political preferences publicly and argue for free markets in practically every area of society. The economic arguments in favor of a state are untenable, and quite obviously so.
4. For A New Liberty, Murray Rothbard (2008) – It took me about 9 months to go from a Ron Paul-inspired limited constitutional government position, to a full libertarian anarchist position. More than any other author, Murray Rothbard deserves most of the credit for that. This book was so clear, and made the case so powerfully, that I instantly saw the superiority of the anarchist position. It was also the first time I had encountered an explanation of how security and law can be provided without a government.
5. Anarchy and the Law, Edward Stringham et al (2008) – This compilation of essays and book excerpts sealed my anarchism. I read alternative justifications for and visions of anarchy: from David Friedman, Linda and Morris Tannehill, Randy Barnett, Roderick Long, Roy Childs, Hans Hermann Hoppe, John Hasnas. These all helped shape my worldview and especially sharpened up my thinking about how security and law can be provided without a state.
6. The Enterprise of Law, Bruce Benson (2009) – This book gave me my first encounter of public-choice economics. Benson took a whole different approach to Rothbard and Friedman, with a great deal of historical, empirical research into customary law, as well as a detailed analysis of the state law-making process and how it compares to law produced by private courts.
7. Democracy: The God That Failed, Hans-Hermann Hoppe (2009) – Just when I thought my political views were fully-formed, Hoppe hit me with his idea that monarchy is superior to democracy (though anarchy is still best of all, of course). I had taken it as given that if we must have a state, let it at least be democratic, and I had always seen the recent historical transition from monarchies to democracies as a positive thing. This book changed my view completely, and gave me a whole lot more reasons to oppose modern states. If we must have a state, let it at least be a monarchy, I now say.
8. Boundaries of Order, Butler Shaffer (2010) – This book played a vital role in my forming my position, contra Rothbard, as a subjectivist ethicist. In particular, it provided me with the terminology that reveals the flaws in his natural rights justification for libertarianism. It allowed me to move past Rothbard and develop a sophisticated subjectivist justification for libertarianism, free from terminological baggage and smuggled norms.
9. The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins (2010) – I thought I understood evolution pretty well, until I read this book. I had not realised the importance of asking at what level evolution takes place. It is at the level of the gene, and this has enormous implications for how we view evolution. I was struck by the beauty and structure to be found in nature and evolution, as Dawkins masterfully described. I was fascinated by the idea that morality can be explained in evolutionary terms; this idea fit perfectly with my subjective ethics worldview.
10. How The Mind Works, Steven Pinker (2010) – This book is full of remarkable ideas, about how our minds evolved to deal with reality. It brings to life the story of how and why we developed language, self-awareness and morality. I have not yet fully absorbed all that this book has to offer, and will probably need to read it a few more times before I feel I have a good grasp on it. But I already feel that it has had a profound affect on my thinking.
Looking over my list, the thing that jumps out at me is that there is no Ludwig von Mises. He will have to be contented that his views influenced me through others: particularly Rothbard, Hoppe, Hazlitt and Paul. Human Action, Theory and History and Socialism come closest to being on this list. His shorter works, The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, Profit and Loss, and Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth all deserve a mention as well.
Murray Rothbard is probably my single greatest influence, and if I had the space, would have had more than one entry in this top ten. I learned economics from Man, Economy and State, and The Ethics of Liberty was highly influential as well. Rothbard’s crowning glory, however, has to be his epic A History of Economic Thought, which shows off his masterly scholarly skills, and wonderful writing style, to the maximum.
Some more short works that influenced me include The Politics of Disobedience (Etienne de la Boetie), The Production of Security (Gustave de Molinari), No Treason (Lysander Spooner), Against Intellectual Property (Stephan Kinsella) and The Depoliticization of Law (John Hasnas).
Monday, 10 January 2011
A Critique of Murray Rothbard's Idea of a "Basic Legal Code"
Here is a passage from The Ethics of Liberty:
Firstly: how detailed it this basic law code? Consider the two extremes:
Rothbard says that the basic law code will be agreed upon by all reasonable courts. I take him to mean everybody except serial killers, rapists etc, i.e. 99% of the population. With such widespread agreement required, it seems hopelessly unrealistic to suppose that the basic law code is narrowly defined, down to the last detail. Even among libertarians, there is a disagreement over IP, abortion, punishments, etc. There is no way the entire population of reasonable people is going to agree on every little detail of libertarian theory. The entire field of economic analysis of law - how laws get produced and what kinds of laws get produced - is skipped over by making this supposition.
To Rothbard, there were two types of court: reasonable courts, which have signed up to the basic law code, and outlaw courts, which have not. Rothbard does not provide any analysis - any mechanism - of how reasonable courts and outlaw courts will resolve disputes between them. This may not be much of an issue if we assume 99% of courts are reasonable, but see above.
So maybe the basic law code is broadly defined, leaving a lot of scope for interpretation, so that widespread agreement is possible. But then how will disputes about things which might fall into the area of interpretation - say IP disputes - get resolved? There needs to be a mechanism to explain this... how disputes between courts which have both agreed to the basic (broadly defined) law code will be resolved, when their interpretation of that law code differs. Rothbard has not provided us with a mechanism for this.
David Friedman, in chapter 29 of The Machinery of Freedom, has described a mechanism for how courts which provide different laws (perhaps very different laws) will resolve their disputes: the bargaining process.
[L]aw and the State are both conceptually and historically separable, and law would develop in an anarchistic market society without any form of State. Specifically, the concrete form of anarchist legal institutions—judges, arbitrators, procedural methods for resolving disputes, etc.—would indeed grow by a market invisible-hand process, while the basic Law Code (requiring that no one invade any one else’s person and property) would have to be agreed upon by all the judicial agencies, just as all the competing judges once agreed to apply and extend the basic principles of the customary or common law. But the latter, again, would imply no unified legal system or dominant protective agency. Any agencies that transgressed the basic libertarian code would be open outlaws and aggressors, and Nozick himself concedes that, lacking legitimacy, such outlaw agencies would probably not do very well in an anarchist society.Here is the problem as I see it, with this idea of a "basic law code"...
Firstly: how detailed it this basic law code? Consider the two extremes:
- Broadly defined. "No one may invade anyone else's person and property". No more detail than that. ("Invade" and "property" are not given definitions... that is for the courts to interpret)
- Narrowly defined. The basic law code is identical to the libertarian law code, as developed by Rothbard, Kinsella, Block, etc... down to the details... like the basic law code is specific about IP, abortion, capital punishment, etc. (There is very little scope for interpretation of the basic legal code... the courts task is limited to applying the law code)
Rothbard says that the basic law code will be agreed upon by all reasonable courts. I take him to mean everybody except serial killers, rapists etc, i.e. 99% of the population. With such widespread agreement required, it seems hopelessly unrealistic to suppose that the basic law code is narrowly defined, down to the last detail. Even among libertarians, there is a disagreement over IP, abortion, punishments, etc. There is no way the entire population of reasonable people is going to agree on every little detail of libertarian theory. The entire field of economic analysis of law - how laws get produced and what kinds of laws get produced - is skipped over by making this supposition.
To Rothbard, there were two types of court: reasonable courts, which have signed up to the basic law code, and outlaw courts, which have not. Rothbard does not provide any analysis - any mechanism - of how reasonable courts and outlaw courts will resolve disputes between them. This may not be much of an issue if we assume 99% of courts are reasonable, but see above.
So maybe the basic law code is broadly defined, leaving a lot of scope for interpretation, so that widespread agreement is possible. But then how will disputes about things which might fall into the area of interpretation - say IP disputes - get resolved? There needs to be a mechanism to explain this... how disputes between courts which have both agreed to the basic (broadly defined) law code will be resolved, when their interpretation of that law code differs. Rothbard has not provided us with a mechanism for this.
David Friedman, in chapter 29 of The Machinery of Freedom, has described a mechanism for how courts which provide different laws (perhaps very different laws) will resolve their disputes: the bargaining process.
One can imagine an idealized bargaining process, for this or any other dispute, as follows: Two agencies are negotiating whether to recognize a pro- or anti-capital-punishment court. The pro agency calculates that getting a pro-capital-punishment court will be worth $20,000 a year to its customers; that is the additional amount it can get for its services if they include a guarantee of capital punishment in case of disputes with the other agency. The anti-capital-punishment agency calculates a corresponding figure of $40,000. It offers the pro agency $30,000 a year in exchange for accepting an anti-capital-punishment court. The pro agency accepts. Now the anti-capital-punishment agency can raise its rates enough to bring in an extra $35,000. Its customers are happy, since the guarantee of no capital punishment is worth more than that. The agency is happy; it is getting an extra $5,000 a year profit. The pro agency cuts its rates by an amount that costs it $25,000 a year. This lets it keep its customers and even get more, since the savings is more than enough to make up to them for not getting the court of their choice. It, too, is making a $5,000 a year profit on the transaction. As in any good trade, everyone gains.The same mechanism applies to all courts, so there is no need to call some courts "outlaw courts." Hence the idea of a basic law code dissolves. Each court is just producing laws, which may or may not be close to plumbline libertarian laws.
Monday, 22 November 2010
The End of War, or How to Minimize Conflicts
In a trivial sense, anarchy will eliminate war, because war can be defined as a conflict between states.
Needless to say, this response is not satisfactory to people who believe that without states, there will be more war. They are using a broader definition of war than just conflict between states.
The broadest possible definition of war would be any conflict between two individuals. Then the question of whether statism or anarchism will have less war becomes the question of what system will minimize conflicts.
The question of what ultimately causes conflicts lies largely outside the realm of political philosophy and economics (and in psychology), but we can ask:
Before thinking about how the security and law industries might be structured in a free market (which is difficult because we are all personally familiar only with how states structure these industries), we can say, using general economic principles, that we can expect greater quality, efficiency and service, lower prices, more dynamism, diversity and choice, and less corruption, with a free market arrangement than with a state monopoly.
All this means that we have every reason to believe that there would be fewer conflicts if the security and law industries were provided by a free market, i.e. libertarian anarchy. That is, in the broadest sense, war would be minimized by anarchy.
For an examination of how free markets in security and law might be structured, see the writings of Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe and David Friedman.
Needless to say, this response is not satisfactory to people who believe that without states, there will be more war. They are using a broader definition of war than just conflict between states.
The broadest possible definition of war would be any conflict between two individuals. Then the question of whether statism or anarchism will have less war becomes the question of what system will minimize conflicts.
The question of what ultimately causes conflicts lies largely outside the realm of political philosophy and economics (and in psychology), but we can ask:
- Will conflict prevention industries be more effective in a free market or under state control?
- Will conflict resolution industries be more effective in a free market or under state control?
Before thinking about how the security and law industries might be structured in a free market (which is difficult because we are all personally familiar only with how states structure these industries), we can say, using general economic principles, that we can expect greater quality, efficiency and service, lower prices, more dynamism, diversity and choice, and less corruption, with a free market arrangement than with a state monopoly.
All this means that we have every reason to believe that there would be fewer conflicts if the security and law industries were provided by a free market, i.e. libertarian anarchy. That is, in the broadest sense, war would be minimized by anarchy.
For an examination of how free markets in security and law might be structured, see the writings of Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe and David Friedman.
Thursday, 9 September 2010
Does 'no government' mean 'no laws'?
Introduction
A government is defined as a territorial monopolist of the production of law. Law is the resolving of disputes. The defining feature of government, then, is the use of force (violence or threats of violence) to forbid anyone else acting as the final arbiter in cases of a dispute.[1]
With a monopoly on law, government can forbid competition in other industries, through the act of legislation. For example, it can outlaw private currencies, or private schools, or private restaurants. By doing this, the government establishes for itself a monopoly of the money industry, or the schooling industry, or the restaurant industry.
‘No government’ (i.e. anarchy) therefore means ‘no monopolist over the law industry’. The alternative to a monopoly, as always, is a free market. An anarchist is therefore defined as an advocate of a free market in law (and therefore also free markets in all other industries). [2]
Restaurants: Free Markets vs. Monopoly
Government has little interest in establishing for itself a monopoly over the restaurant industry. Free market firms operate and compete with each other in that industry. Entrepreneurs are free to respond to the demand for restaurants by providing restaurants.[3]
Few people, perhaps only communists, would argue that governments should take over all existing restaurants and outlaw all competition. Not only would such action be highly unethical, but it would also lead to catastrophic consequences in terms of the quality of the product. Free markets in restaurants give us high quality food and service, diversity that matches the diversity of consumer tastes, and the efficient use of resources to bring us the lowest possible prices. Competition eliminates any restaurant that is failing to meet consumer demand and provide a quality product. Bad restaurants go bankrupt and close down.
Schools: Free Markets vs. Monopoly
Schools are run as a government monopoly.[4] As a result, the quality of the product – the standard of education – is lower than it would be if schools were provided by competing free market firms. With a government monopoly, there is always inefficiency, waste, a lack of diversity, high prices, poor service, and a large potential for corruption. Politicians and special interest groups determine what is taught in schools, and how. There is no mechanism for ensuring that the schools are satisfying consumer demand, or making good use of resources. Bad schools endure.
Despite the existing government monopoly on schools, it is not difficult to imagine how schooling could be delivered on a free market. Firstly, full government monopolies over the schooling industry only began in the late 19th / early 20th century, so we can look to the past to get clues as to how a free market in schools may work.
But more importantly, we can apply economic insights, since these apply to all industries. The question is always the same: free markets or monopoly. We can learn a great deal about a free market in schools by examining existing free markets and drawing analogies.
Schools and Restaurants: An Analogy
Here are some questions that may arise when contemplating a free market in schooling:
They work because of the economics of the free market system, where entrepreneurs are constantly striving to satisfy consumer demand. If there are not enough, or too many, restaurants in town, for example, this will quickly be corrected, when an entrepreneur sees the potential for profits by opening a new restaurant, or suffers losses and has to close down. The only thing that can stop this market process, of constantly adapting the structure of production to best satisfy consumer demands, is government intervention.
The Production of Law
We are not used to thinking of law as a product. We are not used to applying economic insights to law. But from the economic perspective, law is a product no different from any other. It is demanded by consumers, and it can be provided either by a monopoly or by free market firms.
Now consider the following questions:
Much has been written about how law might be delivered in a free market. While throughout history there have been far more statist societies than anarchic societies, there is much that can be learned from studying how law has previously been produced in the absence of government.[6]
Anarchists such as Murray Rothbard, David Friedman and Hans-Hermann Hoppe have speculated about how a future free market in law may work, informed by economic insights (including analogies to existing free markets), historical precedents, and legal/political theory. They attempt to provide answers to the questions and concerns listed above. In this brief essay, I intend merely to point out that the concerns are directly analogous to concerns about free markets in any industry.
Conclusion
What will we say to the Soviet man, living through the collapse of communism, when he asks us how restaurants will be provided without a government monopoly? Just that free markets work. Any problems will sort themselves out through the market process. There is nothing to fear. There is everything to gain by having a free market in restaurants. The quality of restaurants can only get better by being subjected to market forces.
Does ‘no monopoly in the restaurant industry’ equate to ‘no restaurants’? Of course not: it means that they will be provided by the free market firms. Would ending the government monopoly on schools mean there would be no more schools? Again, no, because there is consumer demand for them, so free market firms will provide them.
Does ‘no government’ equate to ‘no laws’? Clearly the answer is no. It means that laws will be produced by free market firms in response to consumer demand. Anarchy means no rulers; this does not equate to no rules.
References
Footnotes
A government is defined as a territorial monopolist of the production of law. Law is the resolving of disputes. The defining feature of government, then, is the use of force (violence or threats of violence) to forbid anyone else acting as the final arbiter in cases of a dispute.[1]
With a monopoly on law, government can forbid competition in other industries, through the act of legislation. For example, it can outlaw private currencies, or private schools, or private restaurants. By doing this, the government establishes for itself a monopoly of the money industry, or the schooling industry, or the restaurant industry.
‘No government’ (i.e. anarchy) therefore means ‘no monopolist over the law industry’. The alternative to a monopoly, as always, is a free market. An anarchist is therefore defined as an advocate of a free market in law (and therefore also free markets in all other industries). [2]
Restaurants: Free Markets vs. Monopoly
Government has little interest in establishing for itself a monopoly over the restaurant industry. Free market firms operate and compete with each other in that industry. Entrepreneurs are free to respond to the demand for restaurants by providing restaurants.[3]
Few people, perhaps only communists, would argue that governments should take over all existing restaurants and outlaw all competition. Not only would such action be highly unethical, but it would also lead to catastrophic consequences in terms of the quality of the product. Free markets in restaurants give us high quality food and service, diversity that matches the diversity of consumer tastes, and the efficient use of resources to bring us the lowest possible prices. Competition eliminates any restaurant that is failing to meet consumer demand and provide a quality product. Bad restaurants go bankrupt and close down.
Schools: Free Markets vs. Monopoly
Schools are run as a government monopoly.[4] As a result, the quality of the product – the standard of education – is lower than it would be if schools were provided by competing free market firms. With a government monopoly, there is always inefficiency, waste, a lack of diversity, high prices, poor service, and a large potential for corruption. Politicians and special interest groups determine what is taught in schools, and how. There is no mechanism for ensuring that the schools are satisfying consumer demand, or making good use of resources. Bad schools endure.
Despite the existing government monopoly on schools, it is not difficult to imagine how schooling could be delivered on a free market. Firstly, full government monopolies over the schooling industry only began in the late 19th / early 20th century, so we can look to the past to get clues as to how a free market in schools may work.
But more importantly, we can apply economic insights, since these apply to all industries. The question is always the same: free markets or monopoly. We can learn a great deal about a free market in schools by examining existing free markets and drawing analogies.
Schools and Restaurants: An Analogy
Here are some questions that may arise when contemplating a free market in schooling:
- Who will run the schools?
- What will they teach?
- Couldn’t a ‘greedy capitalist’ indoctrinate the kids?
- How can we ensure teaching is high quality, without government-granted licences to teach?
- How many schools will there be in my town?
- How much will they cost?
- How much diversity will there be among schools?
- Won’t rich people get a better education than poor people?
- What about poor people who cannot afford any type of school?
- Who will run the restaurants?
- What food will they serve?
- Couldn’t a ‘greedy capitalist’ serve poor quality or poisonous food?
- How can we ensure chefs are high quality, without government-granted licences to cook?
- How many restaurants will there be in my town?
- How much will they cost?
- How much diversity will there be among restaurants?
- Won’t rich people go to better restaurants than poor people?
- What about poor people who cannot afford to go to restaurants?
They work because of the economics of the free market system, where entrepreneurs are constantly striving to satisfy consumer demand. If there are not enough, or too many, restaurants in town, for example, this will quickly be corrected, when an entrepreneur sees the potential for profits by opening a new restaurant, or suffers losses and has to close down. The only thing that can stop this market process, of constantly adapting the structure of production to best satisfy consumer demands, is government intervention.
The Production of Law
We are not used to thinking of law as a product. We are not used to applying economic insights to law. But from the economic perspective, law is a product no different from any other. It is demanded by consumers, and it can be provided either by a monopoly or by free market firms.
Now consider the following questions:
- Who will run the courts and write the laws?
- What laws will they write?
- Couldn’t a ‘greedy capitalist’ produce laws that are biased in his favor?
- How can we ensure private judges are wise, honest and fair?
- How many different producers of law will there be in my town?
- How much will I have to pay to buy laws?
- How much diversity will there be among law codes?
- Won’t rich people get better quality laws?
- What about poor people who cannot afford to buy laws?
Much has been written about how law might be delivered in a free market. While throughout history there have been far more statist societies than anarchic societies, there is much that can be learned from studying how law has previously been produced in the absence of government.[6]
Anarchists such as Murray Rothbard, David Friedman and Hans-Hermann Hoppe have speculated about how a future free market in law may work, informed by economic insights (including analogies to existing free markets), historical precedents, and legal/political theory. They attempt to provide answers to the questions and concerns listed above. In this brief essay, I intend merely to point out that the concerns are directly analogous to concerns about free markets in any industry.
Conclusion
What will we say to the Soviet man, living through the collapse of communism, when he asks us how restaurants will be provided without a government monopoly? Just that free markets work. Any problems will sort themselves out through the market process. There is nothing to fear. There is everything to gain by having a free market in restaurants. The quality of restaurants can only get better by being subjected to market forces.
Does ‘no monopoly in the restaurant industry’ equate to ‘no restaurants’? Of course not: it means that they will be provided by the free market firms. Would ending the government monopoly on schools mean there would be no more schools? Again, no, because there is consumer demand for them, so free market firms will provide them.
Does ‘no government’ equate to ‘no laws’? Clearly the answer is no. It means that laws will be produced by free market firms in response to consumer demand. Anarchy means no rulers; this does not equate to no rules.
References
- Benson, Bruce – The Enterprise of Law (1990)
- Friedman, David – The Machinery of Freedom (1974)
- Hoppe, Hans-Hermann – Democracy: The God That Failed (2001)
- Rothbard, Murray – For a New Liberty (1973)
- Stringham et al, Edward – Anarchy and the Law (2007)
Footnotes
[1] This includes disputes involving the government itself. The government is judge in its own cases. There is no third-party arbiter in disputes between individuals and the government.
[2] In this essay, when using the term ‘anarchist’, I mean libertarian anarchist. The modifier is unnecessary from a theoretical perspective, but is added for clarity since the term sometimes refers to ‘anarcho-communists’ and other non-libertarian anarchists.
[3] Government enforces regulations on restaurateurs, but compared to other industries, the regulations are small in extent; there is a considerable amount of freedom in that industry.
[4] Even the nominally ‘private’ schools are subject to strict and heavy regulations.
[5] Such questions were common around the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Many people feared they would starve to death without state-provided food and a central planning monopoly commanding the food production industry. “How will the farmers know what food to produce and how much of it?”
[6] Examples of anarchist, or near-anarchist, societies include Medieval Iceland, pre-conquest Ireland, and the early American colonies. See Rothbard, Friedman, Benson, Stringham et al. Roman Law, Common Law and Merchant Law all originally developed under free market conditions, but co-existed and were later subsumed into government-provided law.
[2] In this essay, when using the term ‘anarchist’, I mean libertarian anarchist. The modifier is unnecessary from a theoretical perspective, but is added for clarity since the term sometimes refers to ‘anarcho-communists’ and other non-libertarian anarchists.
[3] Government enforces regulations on restaurateurs, but compared to other industries, the regulations are small in extent; there is a considerable amount of freedom in that industry.
[4] Even the nominally ‘private’ schools are subject to strict and heavy regulations.
[5] Such questions were common around the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Many people feared they would starve to death without state-provided food and a central planning monopoly commanding the food production industry. “How will the farmers know what food to produce and how much of it?”
[6] Examples of anarchist, or near-anarchist, societies include Medieval Iceland, pre-conquest Ireland, and the early American colonies. See Rothbard, Friedman, Benson, Stringham et al. Roman Law, Common Law and Merchant Law all originally developed under free market conditions, but co-existed and were later subsumed into government-provided law.
Thursday, 26 August 2010
What is a Right?
All rights are property rights, or rights of ownership. That is, the word ‘right’ does not make any sense except in terms of property and ownership. So, first of all: what is property?
Property
Property is the word given to scarce objects which are under human control, claimed, and given boundaries. Property rules are rules establishing what individuals can and cannot do with the scarce objects around them. They are rules used for resolving conflicts peacefully.
Now I will deconstruct this definition of property.
A scarce object is one over which a conflict may arise, where two individuals both want to use the object, but they cannot. Scarcity is context-dependent. Usually, oxygen in the air is not a scarce resource, because my use of the oxygen in the air does not prevent you from also using the oxygen in the air. Water is usually scarce, because only one individual can use a given piece of water; my drinking the water prevents you from drinking it.
A scarce object is under human control if one individual possesses the ability to use the object as some means in action. The sun is not under human control, since no one has the power to control it.
A scarce object is claimed if one individual expresses his will to use the object and to exclude others from using it.
The scarce object being claimed must have definite boundaries, delimiting the extent of the control asserted in the claim.
The first step to resolving a conflict (a property dispute) is to ask the question: has a legitimate property boundary been violated? Aggression is the term given to a violation of a legitimate property boundary.
Ownership
The owner of a property is the individual who has expressed a claim to it; the individual claiming ultimate decision-making power over how the property is used. When two or more individuals claim to be the owner of some property, a conflict arises.
Let us suppose the conflict relates to an apple. A has eaten the apple, but B claims that he was the owner of the apple, and hence A has violated his legitimate property boundary, i.e. B claims A has aggressed against him. A retorts that in fact he had ownership of the apple, and therefore did not violate any property boundary. Both men are claiming ownership of the apple. Both men are claiming the right to be able to use the apple: the right to ultimate decision-making jurisdiction over it.
We can now elaborate three different senses of ownership:
De facto ownership. A de facto owner of some property is the individual who, in fact, has ultimate decision-making power over how a property is used.
Legal ownership. A legal owner of some property is the individual who, were a dispute to arise over the property, a given court (dispute resolution service) will award ownership to.
Normative ownership. A normative owner of some property is the individual who should have ownership of the property, according to some particular legal philosophy.
To continue with the example, who is the owner of the apple? Well, suppose that, for some reason, B backs down and accepts that A was the owner of the apple. Then, it is the case that A is the de facto owner of the apple. His will prevailed.
Let us suppose instead that A and B both stand firm, and decide to approach C to try and resolve the conflict through peaceful means. C decides that B was the owner, so A did violate a legitimate property boundary. In this case, B is the legal owner of the apple, according to the property rules as pronounced by C.
All legal philosophies relate to who should have ownership of a given property. They make assertions about who the rightful (proper, just, normative) owner of a given property is. They are based on some principle of assigning property rights.
For example, consider a philosophy which asserts that the normative owner of all apples is A. According to this philosophy, A is therefore the rightful owner of the disputed apple. If the case is taken to C, and C uses property rules based on this philosophy, he will award legal ownership to A.
Libertarianism is a philosophy which asserts that the rightful first owner of any property is the homesteader (the individual who has established an intersubjectively ascertainable link between himself and the object, by bringing that property into existence). Subsequent owners are only considered legitimate if they have all acquired the property through voluntary exchanges.
Let us suppose that it was B that picked the apple from an unowned tree. According to the libertarian philosophy then, B is the rightful owner. A libertarian court, pronouncing property rules based on the libertarian philosophy, would award legal ownership of the apple to B.
Rights
I will now return to the original question: what is a right?
There are three senses of rights. De facto rights are those rights that are actually in place in a given situation. If it is the case that A eats the apple, and B accepts this, then A has a de facto right to eat the apple. He is the de facto owner of the apple. Legal rights are those rights which are recognized by a given court. Normative rights are the rights that are regarded as just by some particular legal philosophy.
Much confusion arises due to confusing these different senses of rights. Consider the following example: the right to possess heroin. A legal scholar may turn to a set of laws and discover that no one (except the government) has the right to possess heroin. He is referring to legal rights.
A socialist philosopher may argue that no one (except the government) has the right to possess heroin. A libertarian philosopher may argue that all individuals have the right to possess heroin. They are both talking about normative rights; they disagree because they have different ideals and principles for how property (and therefore rights) should be assigned.
It may be the case that some heroin is not in fact owned by the government, but non-government individuals actually have full control of some of it. The government has expressed a claim to be the only ones with the right to possess heroin, but they are unable to enforce their claim. The heroin possessors have de facto rights to their heroin, but no legal rights, according to the government-run courts. Anyone who has a view about whether heroin should be legal or not is making a normative assertion about rights, based on their ethical values.
The Existence of Rights
Confusion over the definition of rights leads some people to proclaim that “rights do not exist”. Given the definitions above, it is clear that de facto rights always exist, and legal rights always exist, so this statement is incorrect. It may be claimed that what is meant by this statement is that normative rights do not exist. However, this is also incorrect. Everyone who has a view about what justice is, about what actions are aggression, about what constitutes ethical and unethical behaviour, is making a judgment about how property rights should be assigned.
The sentiment behind this statement could be better stated as “objective normative rights do not exist”. That is, there are no objective rules about ethics, about how property rights should be assigned.
That rights exist is undeniable. It is up for debate what constitutes just property rights, and legal philosophers of all kinds attempt to answer this question – libertarians and socialists alike.
Property
Property is the word given to scarce objects which are under human control, claimed, and given boundaries. Property rules are rules establishing what individuals can and cannot do with the scarce objects around them. They are rules used for resolving conflicts peacefully.
Now I will deconstruct this definition of property.
A scarce object is one over which a conflict may arise, where two individuals both want to use the object, but they cannot. Scarcity is context-dependent. Usually, oxygen in the air is not a scarce resource, because my use of the oxygen in the air does not prevent you from also using the oxygen in the air. Water is usually scarce, because only one individual can use a given piece of water; my drinking the water prevents you from drinking it.
A scarce object is under human control if one individual possesses the ability to use the object as some means in action. The sun is not under human control, since no one has the power to control it.
A scarce object is claimed if one individual expresses his will to use the object and to exclude others from using it.
The scarce object being claimed must have definite boundaries, delimiting the extent of the control asserted in the claim.
The first step to resolving a conflict (a property dispute) is to ask the question: has a legitimate property boundary been violated? Aggression is the term given to a violation of a legitimate property boundary.
Ownership
The owner of a property is the individual who has expressed a claim to it; the individual claiming ultimate decision-making power over how the property is used. When two or more individuals claim to be the owner of some property, a conflict arises.
Let us suppose the conflict relates to an apple. A has eaten the apple, but B claims that he was the owner of the apple, and hence A has violated his legitimate property boundary, i.e. B claims A has aggressed against him. A retorts that in fact he had ownership of the apple, and therefore did not violate any property boundary. Both men are claiming ownership of the apple. Both men are claiming the right to be able to use the apple: the right to ultimate decision-making jurisdiction over it.
We can now elaborate three different senses of ownership:
De facto ownership. A de facto owner of some property is the individual who, in fact, has ultimate decision-making power over how a property is used.
Legal ownership. A legal owner of some property is the individual who, were a dispute to arise over the property, a given court (dispute resolution service) will award ownership to.
Normative ownership. A normative owner of some property is the individual who should have ownership of the property, according to some particular legal philosophy.
To continue with the example, who is the owner of the apple? Well, suppose that, for some reason, B backs down and accepts that A was the owner of the apple. Then, it is the case that A is the de facto owner of the apple. His will prevailed.
Let us suppose instead that A and B both stand firm, and decide to approach C to try and resolve the conflict through peaceful means. C decides that B was the owner, so A did violate a legitimate property boundary. In this case, B is the legal owner of the apple, according to the property rules as pronounced by C.
All legal philosophies relate to who should have ownership of a given property. They make assertions about who the rightful (proper, just, normative) owner of a given property is. They are based on some principle of assigning property rights.
For example, consider a philosophy which asserts that the normative owner of all apples is A. According to this philosophy, A is therefore the rightful owner of the disputed apple. If the case is taken to C, and C uses property rules based on this philosophy, he will award legal ownership to A.
Libertarianism is a philosophy which asserts that the rightful first owner of any property is the homesteader (the individual who has established an intersubjectively ascertainable link between himself and the object, by bringing that property into existence). Subsequent owners are only considered legitimate if they have all acquired the property through voluntary exchanges.
Let us suppose that it was B that picked the apple from an unowned tree. According to the libertarian philosophy then, B is the rightful owner. A libertarian court, pronouncing property rules based on the libertarian philosophy, would award legal ownership of the apple to B.
Rights
I will now return to the original question: what is a right?
There are three senses of rights. De facto rights are those rights that are actually in place in a given situation. If it is the case that A eats the apple, and B accepts this, then A has a de facto right to eat the apple. He is the de facto owner of the apple. Legal rights are those rights which are recognized by a given court. Normative rights are the rights that are regarded as just by some particular legal philosophy.
Much confusion arises due to confusing these different senses of rights. Consider the following example: the right to possess heroin. A legal scholar may turn to a set of laws and discover that no one (except the government) has the right to possess heroin. He is referring to legal rights.
A socialist philosopher may argue that no one (except the government) has the right to possess heroin. A libertarian philosopher may argue that all individuals have the right to possess heroin. They are both talking about normative rights; they disagree because they have different ideals and principles for how property (and therefore rights) should be assigned.
It may be the case that some heroin is not in fact owned by the government, but non-government individuals actually have full control of some of it. The government has expressed a claim to be the only ones with the right to possess heroin, but they are unable to enforce their claim. The heroin possessors have de facto rights to their heroin, but no legal rights, according to the government-run courts. Anyone who has a view about whether heroin should be legal or not is making a normative assertion about rights, based on their ethical values.
The Existence of Rights
Confusion over the definition of rights leads some people to proclaim that “rights do not exist”. Given the definitions above, it is clear that de facto rights always exist, and legal rights always exist, so this statement is incorrect. It may be claimed that what is meant by this statement is that normative rights do not exist. However, this is also incorrect. Everyone who has a view about what justice is, about what actions are aggression, about what constitutes ethical and unethical behaviour, is making a judgment about how property rights should be assigned.
The sentiment behind this statement could be better stated as “objective normative rights do not exist”. That is, there are no objective rules about ethics, about how property rights should be assigned.
That rights exist is undeniable. It is up for debate what constitutes just property rights, and legal philosophers of all kinds attempt to answer this question – libertarians and socialists alike.
Saturday, 14 August 2010
What is Anarchy?
Anarchy is absence of government. Government is a territorial monopolist of law. Anarchy is therefore a free market in the production of law.
The term anarchy literally means “no rulers”. The relationship between rulers and the people they rule over is a master-slave relationship. Anarchy, then, can also be interpreted as “no slavery”.
Absence of rulers does not mean absence of rules. Rules – laws specifying property ownership – are necessary for society to function, and they can be voluntarily agreed to. The usefulness of rules creates market demand for them, as with any other good. Entrepreneurs will therefore strive to meet that demand, by establishing courts and employing judges to resolve disputes.
Driven by the profit motive, the laws produced under a free market arrangement will reflect the customs of society and the views of consumers about justice. As always under a free market arrangement, the laws will be high quality, produced efficiently and for a low price. There will also be diversity of courts available for consumers to choose from, perhaps using different legal codes.
All legal systems specify rules for property ownership. They determine who the “rightful” owner of any given property is. In the event of a dispute, a court must determine if a violation of property boundaries has taken place, and then specify a resolution. If necessary, courts will employ law enforcement to see that justice is administered. Conflicts between courts will be resolved by using a voluntarily agreed-upon third court.
An anarchist, qua anarchist, is not concerned with the content of law; only with the arrangements under which law is provided. Under an anarchic arrangement, each individual can choose the set of laws he would like to live by. No one is bound to any set of rulers, based on his territorial location, nationality, or anything else. No one is a slave.
The term anarchy literally means “no rulers”. The relationship between rulers and the people they rule over is a master-slave relationship. Anarchy, then, can also be interpreted as “no slavery”.
Absence of rulers does not mean absence of rules. Rules – laws specifying property ownership – are necessary for society to function, and they can be voluntarily agreed to. The usefulness of rules creates market demand for them, as with any other good. Entrepreneurs will therefore strive to meet that demand, by establishing courts and employing judges to resolve disputes.
Driven by the profit motive, the laws produced under a free market arrangement will reflect the customs of society and the views of consumers about justice. As always under a free market arrangement, the laws will be high quality, produced efficiently and for a low price. There will also be diversity of courts available for consumers to choose from, perhaps using different legal codes.
All legal systems specify rules for property ownership. They determine who the “rightful” owner of any given property is. In the event of a dispute, a court must determine if a violation of property boundaries has taken place, and then specify a resolution. If necessary, courts will employ law enforcement to see that justice is administered. Conflicts between courts will be resolved by using a voluntarily agreed-upon third court.
An anarchist, qua anarchist, is not concerned with the content of law; only with the arrangements under which law is provided. Under an anarchic arrangement, each individual can choose the set of laws he would like to live by. No one is bound to any set of rulers, based on his territorial location, nationality, or anything else. No one is a slave.
What is Libertarianism?
Libertarianism is a political philosophy. Like all political philosophies, it is a system, or set of principles, for allocating property ownership. It provides an answer to the question: who is the rightful owner of X?
Law is the application of political philosophy. All courts must operate according to some political philosophy, since dispute resolution involves, first and foremost, determining who the rightful owner of the disputed property is.
In libertarianism, property can be rightfully acquired only by (a) homesteading, or (b) voluntary exchange. These principles are held to be universal: no-one can rightfully acquire property any other way, for example, by stealing it.
Property is originally created through the interaction of labor and nature. The homesteading principle is that the first owner of the property – the “homesteader” – is the individual who supplied the labor. It is the formation of an objective link between the homesteader and the property that gives him the right to ultimate decision-making jurisdiction over how that property is used, i.e. ownership rights.
Property ownership rights can be transferred from one individual to another by either voluntary exchange or coerced exchange. Libertarians believe that only voluntary exchanges constitute a rightful exchange of property. Involuntary exchanges include murder, rape, slavery, assault, theft, fraud and trespass. Under libertarian law, these activities are outlawed.
Libertarianism can be contrasted with socialism. Under socialism, the first owner of original property is not always the homesteader; the most obvious case being the outlawing of drugs. And some involuntary exchanges are lawful; the most obvious case being taxation.
Socialism is necessarily non-universal; there are different laws for State employees, such as tax collectors, than there are for non-State employees. Most individuals are not allowed to threaten others with violence if they do not pay tribute.
Government is incompatible with libertarianism. A government is a territorial monopolist of law. The only way a government can maintain this territorial monopoly is by aggressing against potential new competitors in the production of law and forcing individuals within the territory from using any other legal system for conflict resolution. Government therefore necessarily violates the libertarian principle that only voluntary exchanges are rightful.
A libertarian, qua libertarian, is concerned with ending acts of aggression, as that term is understood according to libertarian philosophy. Under libertarian law, no individual is allowed to initiate coercive exchanges.
Law is the application of political philosophy. All courts must operate according to some political philosophy, since dispute resolution involves, first and foremost, determining who the rightful owner of the disputed property is.
In libertarianism, property can be rightfully acquired only by (a) homesteading, or (b) voluntary exchange. These principles are held to be universal: no-one can rightfully acquire property any other way, for example, by stealing it.
Property is originally created through the interaction of labor and nature. The homesteading principle is that the first owner of the property – the “homesteader” – is the individual who supplied the labor. It is the formation of an objective link between the homesteader and the property that gives him the right to ultimate decision-making jurisdiction over how that property is used, i.e. ownership rights.
Property ownership rights can be transferred from one individual to another by either voluntary exchange or coerced exchange. Libertarians believe that only voluntary exchanges constitute a rightful exchange of property. Involuntary exchanges include murder, rape, slavery, assault, theft, fraud and trespass. Under libertarian law, these activities are outlawed.
Libertarianism can be contrasted with socialism. Under socialism, the first owner of original property is not always the homesteader; the most obvious case being the outlawing of drugs. And some involuntary exchanges are lawful; the most obvious case being taxation.
Socialism is necessarily non-universal; there are different laws for State employees, such as tax collectors, than there are for non-State employees. Most individuals are not allowed to threaten others with violence if they do not pay tribute.
Government is incompatible with libertarianism. A government is a territorial monopolist of law. The only way a government can maintain this territorial monopoly is by aggressing against potential new competitors in the production of law and forcing individuals within the territory from using any other legal system for conflict resolution. Government therefore necessarily violates the libertarian principle that only voluntary exchanges are rightful.
A libertarian, qua libertarian, is concerned with ending acts of aggression, as that term is understood according to libertarian philosophy. Under libertarian law, no individual is allowed to initiate coercive exchanges.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)