Well, Rothbard/Hoppe/Block says that would not be permitted!

One very curious ancap habit is to declare what would actually transpire in ancapistan by looking in some book by an ancap writer. So, for instance, when asked "Would there be IP rights in ancapistan?" they look in Block's work and answer, "Well, Walter Block says 'no,' so, no."

But Walter Block will not be the king of ancapistan, so how he thinks ancapistan ought to work is almost completely irrelevant as to how it will work. To answer that question, we should look to the interests of those with the most money to pay defense agencies to get the rules that they want. And once we do that, we can see that almost certainly ancapistan will have stronger IP rights than we do at present: the large corporations that own those rights today can pay a hell of a lot more to have them enforced and enforced more strongly than they are today, than Stephan Kinsella and his coalition of 50 anti-IP activists can pay to have them done away with.

Incentives matter, but according to ancaps, apparently they will no longer matter in the earthly paradise of ancapistan.

31 comments:

  1. Just by doctrine Jeb cannot be rightfully starved. Agreed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed, but there are multiple ancap doctrines.

      Delete
    2. Of course, Block was obviously the one in mind. But it's also true for other extremists like Long, possibly Hoppe too. (I haven't read him in a while so I could be mistaken there)

      Delete
    3. I think part of the problem is that many libertarians believe their own set of libertarian beliefs to be the set of libertarian beliefs. That or they just've forgotten the fundamental nature of politics.

      Delete
    4. I think you're onto something there, but it should obviously be applied more generally.

      From what I've gathered both sides of the libertarian blogosphere are just painfully ignorant about libertarianism. I've read ancaps claims that minarchists aren't *real* libertarians and then the exact reverse. Leftist critics call it a right-wing plot, conservatives call it left-wing social engineering in disguise, egoists call it collectivistic, communitarians call it individualistic, and neo-reactionaries just call it "retarded."

      Something that agitates so many walks of life is a work of art.

      Delete
    5. "Something that agitates so many walks of life is a work of art"

      Nah, it's just a dumb political ideology.

      Delete
    6. That doesn't really exclude it from being art, friend.

      Delete
    7. "From what I've gathered both sides of the libertarian blogosphere are just painfully ignorant about libertarianism."

      Don't forget that differences in opinion on a single issue can fracture the movement unlike with liberalism or conservatism. Liberals can get still along with each other even if some differ on abortion and conservatives can still get along with each other (though this is becoming less and less common) even if some support same-sex marriage. Gather ten libertarians in a room and get them to speak their minds on an issue as petty as fractional reserve banking? You've got a feud on your hands.

      Delete
    8. Unless you're commenting purely on the temperament of libertarians - to which I'd agree that it's a bit like herding cats - the idea itself *specifically allows* for a ridiculously large room for disagreement. Primitivism alongside traditional values alongside hyper-leftism. Individual contractors alongside soulless corporations alongside worker's co-ops...

      Again, it's quite the work of art.

      Delete
    9. "the idea itself *specifically allows* for a ridiculously large room for disagreement. Primitivism alongside traditional values alongside hyper-leftism"

      False. Right-libertarianism is a specific political ideology. It is not the coexistence of different political ideologies.

      Delete
    10. I agree with Mr. here: there is a *pretense* of diversity, but only if you agree in property rights absolutism do you really have the right to do what you want within that framework.

      Delete
    11. "False. Right-libertarianism is a specific political ideology. It is not the coexistence of different political ideologies."

      So I say "libertarianism" and you jump to "right-libertarianism", I say "ridiculously large room for disagreement" and you jump to "political ideology"?

      I think I can falsify everything in the world with this method.

      Is there a reason behind "right-libertarianism"?

      "I agree with Mr. here: there is a *pretense* of diversity, but only if you agree in property rights absolutism do you really have the right to do what you want within that framework."

      1. So what? Is that still not room for a lot of disagreement? Maybe you and I just differ as to what constitutes "ridiculously large".

      2. What of all the libertarians who reject property rights absolutism? Huemer, Preston, Carson...

      Delete
    12. Unless you're commenting purely on the temperament of libertarians - to which I'd agree that it's a bit like herding cats - the idea itself *specifically allows* for a ridiculously large room for disagreement. Primitivism alongside traditional values alongside hyper-leftism.

      Nope. Doesn't work. Primitivists want to get rid of industrialism, traditionalists want traditional norms enforced, and leftists want to eliminate business. None of them wants to live in a society that doesn't fit their views. They want society to change.

      Delete
    13. "Nope. Doesn't work. Primitivists want to get rid of industrialism, traditionalists want traditional norms enforced, and leftists want to eliminate business. None of them wants to live in a society that doesn't fit their views. They want society to change."

      Sure, that's on them though. Libertarians go a long way to make peace between factions who simply no interest in doing so.

      Of course, I can quote you leftists, traditionalists, and even primitivists who say that they're happy to sign the libertarian "gentleman's agreement" but they represent the fringe of their respective movements.

      Delete
    14. "Libertarians go a long way to make peace between factions who simply no interest in doing so."

      Nonsense. Where have they? Libertarianism—nea, no ideology—can offer compromise between people whose politics are diametrically opposed. Privatization of wildlife, for example, would get absolutely no support from animal rights activists. Libertarianism is not compatible with the views of people who want to end animal abuse or animal experimentation.

      "Of course, I can quote you leftists, traditionalists, and even primitivists who say that they're happy to sign the libertarian 'gentleman's agreement' but they represent the fringe of their respective movements."

      Then thy aren't being true to their politics.

      Delete
    15. 'The state' is a concept which *specifically allows* for a ridiculously large room for disagreement. Primitivism alongside traditional values alongside hyper-leftism, alongside free-market laissez-faire, alongside communism or fascism or liberal democracy, or whatever.

      It's quite the work of art

      Delete
    16. "Nonsense. Where have they?"

      Like, literally, every libertarian work ever. Would you like me to list a few for you?

      "Libertarianism—nea, no ideology—can offer compromise between people whose politics are diametrically opposed."

      Do you hear yourself, Samson? Anyone can *offer* a compromise! A compromise is nothing more than give and take. The likelihood of it being agreed upon is the question.


      "Then thy aren't being true to their politics."

      Good for them. Doesn't change the point. I can name you animal rights activists who do support the privitization of wildlife, so let's say they aren't "true to their politics" all day long, the have the same concern.

      Mr.,

      "It's quite the work of art"

      I agree that the state is a work of art.

      Delete
    17. "Like, literally, every libertarian work ever. Would you like me to list a few for you?"

      Go ahead (specific examples), but I don't know how this makes any sense. Saying that two groups will get along isn't the same as actually offering a compromise acceptable to both sides.

      "Do you hear yourself, Samson? Anyone can *offer* a compromise! A compromise is nothing more than give and take. The likelihood of it being agreed upon is the question."

      No disagreement here. But what I'm saying is that two sets of norms can't coexist. In other words, you can't have communism existing inside capitalism. There would simply be capitalism.

      "I can name you animal rights activists who do support the privitization of wildlife, so let's say they aren't "true to their politics" all day long, the have the same concern."

      I'm meant groups like PETA, ALF/ELF, etc. But if a primitivist accepts industrialism, then they aren't a primitivist.

      Delete
    18. "No disagreement here. But what I'm saying is that two sets of norms can't coexist. In other words, you can't have communism existing inside capitalism. There would simply be capitalism."

      Why? How about the world we live in now? Do two or more sets of norms coexist? You'll have to elaborate on what exactly you mean by "coexistence", I wouldn't want to get into another semantics debate.

      "I'm meant groups like PETA, ALF/ELF, etc. But if a primitivist accepts industrialism, then they aren't a primitivist."

      This just sounds like "No True Scotsman" I believe David Graham actually is a member of the ALF and a libertarian. Maybe he's not "truly" either.

      Delete
  2. "To answer that question, we should look to the interests of those with the most money to pay defense agencies to get the rules that they want"

    Even that doesn't really make sense. 'Who has the most money' would basically mean who controls the most resources. Who decides who controls which resources? Those with the most money? It's completely circular.

    When you say 'who has the most money' in ancapistan , you just mean 'who has the most power'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I am assuming (which most ancap schemes assume) that we start with the current distribution of resources.

      Delete
    2. Your argument holds in any situation where a serious inequality of resources obtains. And all ancap writers anticipate that happening.

      Delete
  3. I can see the argument saying "well, they'd still exist at some level at some capacity" how did you come to the conclusion that they'd be stronger than today though?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because the people with the money to pay the defense agencies will want more IP.

      Delete
    2. How does that compare to today?

      Delete
    3. Checks and balances, non-commercial justice, democracy, etc.

      Delete
    4. No Samson, you're answering a question I didn't ask. How does one compare the desired amount of IP enforceable in Ancapistan to that of today.

      I can think of ways but they're all incredibly flimsy and speculative.

      Delete
  4. "Sure, that's on them though. Libertarians go a long way to make peace between factions who simply no interest in doing so."

    Why in the world is "that on them"?! If I am, say, a traditionalist, I think enforcing traditional values is RIGHT, and the libertarian is wrecking society with his property rights absolutism. If that is what I think, why would I agree, "Yep, my bad!"

    I'd say it is "on them" only if you think libertarianism is correct, and so it is ok to force it on everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Why in the world is "that on them"?! If I am, say, a traditionalist, I think enforcing traditional values is RIGHT, and the libertarian is wrecking society with his property rights absolutism. If that is what I think, why would I agree, "Yep, my bad!""

    If that's what you think then obviously making a libertarian pact would be foolish. I was purposefully contrasting traditionalists versus leftists, libertarianism can be viewed (in theory, as always) as a compromise between the two camps.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It really isn't. Traditionalism is one thing, leftism another, and libertarianism is like arsenic-based life.

      Delete
    2. You'll have to flesh it out a little better than that.

      Delete