Anarcho-capitalists provide their own reductios of their theory
This one is from Bob Roddis, in the comment section of Bob Murphy's blog:
"What do we do about the drug problem? Answer: druggies could be prohibited from driving on private roads and entering private neighborhoods and schools.
"What do we do about the porn problem? Answer: porn producers and consumers could be prohibited from driving on private roads and entering private neighborhoods and schools.
"What do we do about the problem of religious fanatics that won’t let us smoke dope? Answer: anti-drug fanatics could be prohibited from driving on private roads and entering private neighborhoods and schools.
"As a bonus, everyone will be safe, secure and prosperous."
But, in ancapistan, every road in neighborhood will be private, so "druggies," pornographers, and religious fanatics will be prohibited from going anywhere. Which, of course, will be a death sentence for them.
So, in the new, "liberal," world of ancapistan, to do drugs, produce pornography, or be a religious fanatic gets you a death sentence. But at least you will have "voluntarily" agreed to your own death sentence.
"Everyone" will be safe, secure, and prosperous, except if the ancaps don't like you. (Note that for Hoppe, the people who wouldn't be allowed to drive on private roads would include anyone advocating democracy or wealth redistribution.)
"What do we do about the drug problem? Answer: druggies could be prohibited from driving on private roads and entering private neighborhoods and schools.
"What do we do about the porn problem? Answer: porn producers and consumers could be prohibited from driving on private roads and entering private neighborhoods and schools.
"What do we do about the problem of religious fanatics that won’t let us smoke dope? Answer: anti-drug fanatics could be prohibited from driving on private roads and entering private neighborhoods and schools.
"As a bonus, everyone will be safe, secure and prosperous."
But, in ancapistan, every road in neighborhood will be private, so "druggies," pornographers, and religious fanatics will be prohibited from going anywhere. Which, of course, will be a death sentence for them.
So, in the new, "liberal," world of ancapistan, to do drugs, produce pornography, or be a religious fanatic gets you a death sentence. But at least you will have "voluntarily" agreed to your own death sentence.
"Everyone" will be safe, secure, and prosperous, except if the ancaps don't like you. (Note that for Hoppe, the people who wouldn't be allowed to drive on private roads would include anyone advocating democracy or wealth redistribution.)
Roddis isn't exactly the brightest bulb in the chandelier, is he?
ReplyDeleteBy private roads, private neighborhoods and private schools, Roddis meant those private roads, neighborhoods and schools the owners of which don't want to deal with or interact with druggies, porn producers or anti-druggies.
ReplyDeleteHe wasn't talking about ALL private property.
If druggies, porn producers or anti-druggies want to do drugs or produce porn or refrain from drugs, then ancapistan WELCOMES such behavior, as long as it is constrained to the lands of those who support it and wish to live like that, without forcing it on others. That not forcing it on others is what Roddis means by "banish them from private property."
Isn't that obvious?
Robert, your "solution" doesn't negate what I said above. If the band person happens to be surrounded by roads in neighborhoods he can't pass through, he is a dead man, even if there is someplace 500 miles away that welcomes him.
DeleteIsn't that obvious?
"…Roddis meant those private roads, neighborhoods and schools the owners of which don't want to deal with or interact with druggies, porn producers or anti-druggies."
DeleteWhich is still a bad thing.
"If druggies, porn producers or anti-druggies want to do drugs or produce porn or refrain from drugs, then ancapistan WELCOMES such behavior, as long as it is constrained to the lands of those who support it and wish to live like that, without forcing it on others."
Otherwise you're ****ed.
1/2
DeleteNo social problem is permanent. The incentives present in your scenario would be for individuals to become self-sufficient when they move into neighborhoods without any clause in the neighboorhood home buyer's contract that mandates existing sellers and future buyers to allow new resident individuals to "pass through" roads in exchange for whatever agreement, including no charge.
The problem you have set up is not in fact a negation of what Roddis said. His solution is in fact solution to the problem of individuals not wanting to interact with each other. You may not like it, because it compels individuals who live amongst others with radically different ways of life to become more independent, but it is a solution. It is in fact a solution you support, but you don't quite realize it, as I will explain below. But first...
If landlocked property without any "pass through" arrangement with surrounding lands presents a sufficient enough problem for existing owners who wish to sell their land, because the have difficulty finding willing buyers to buy land the contract of which lacks any "pass through" clause, and it becomes known that the other people in the neighborhood have no problems with allowing new residents to "pass in", but refuse to agree to any "pass out" contract such that they end up protecting and defending their own lands to the point at which landlocked individuals who cannot be self-sufficient die due to causes that might otherwise have been avoided had there been a "pass out" clause, then I don't see how the problem you pose can remain any significant one. All problems of private property have private property solutions, usually contracting.
Besides, landlocked individuals is not a unique potential problem to private lands. It is also present for lands constantly trespassed on by those we call statesmen, I.e. in "countries". For example, countries like Leichtenstein, Lesotho, and many other African countries are "landlocked". I recommend googling " list of landlocked countries".
Would you then say that governments are not a solution to the problem of people not wanting to deal with others, like Christian extremists and Muslim extremists living in neighboring countries, because it is possible for governments to do what the private individuals are doing in your scenario? Or are all governments angels?
2/2
DeleteYou should say governments are no solution, if you were consistent in your critique of private lands, because it is possible, and has happened to individuals, for landlocking ro occur because no neighboring government will allow them in by foot or car, or by plane over the airspace. In this example, the "landlocked" idividuals must remain in their "home country" and try to survive being trapped in the country. What if there is famine and neighboring countries say "You shall not pass!"? Would you then do what you seem to be asking of Roddis, and "switch sides" and become anarchocapitalist?
The argument you are making does not challenge private land ownership. It challenges scarcity. Well good luck with that. The solution is not states over provate property, but whatever allows individuals to personally agree with other individuals regarding their respective lands. That can't be done with countries.
You seem to be fully OK with governments controlling land, and for there to be landlocked countries. Are you calling for all countries today to be changed geographically so that every country has a land passage to say international waters? If not, then your support for countries remains one where the problem you seem to believe only applies to private lands, also applies to your preference.
Now before you come back to this as say "Oh please, it is one thing for an individual to be landlocked on their own lands, it is quite another to be landlocked in a whole country!", then please be advised that you would then not be against the principle of land locking, you would only be against the size of each land. So the solution implicated in your scenario is for the Earth to become one single country, where everyone can go wherever they please anywhere on Earth. Gee, that sounds like a familiar Utopian vision doesn't it?
If you then say that you would be against the scenario of countries surrounding a country in question, where the surrounding governments "collude" to refuse anyone in the country to step foot on or move in the airspace over those surrounding countries, then I am sure you'll permit those crazy anarcho-capitalists to advocate for private land ownership while still being against the terrible scenario you describe.
major freedom posts his usual completely illogical word dump.
DeleteIs Robert major freedom?
Deletewho is john galt?
DeleteYou should say governments are no solution, if you were consistent in your critique of private lands, because it is possible, and has happened to individuals, for landlocking ro occur because no neighboring government will allow them in by foot or car, or by plane over the airspace. In this example, the "landlocked" idividuals must remain in their "home country" and try to survive being trapped in the country. What if there is famine and neighboring countries say "You shall not pass!"? Would you then do what you seem to be asking of Roddis, and "switch sides" and become anarchocapitalist?
DeleteThat you are unable to see a difference between the two shows how absolutely out of touch you are with reality. Oh well. You know the saying about foolish consistencies and small minds.
The argument you are making does not challenge private land ownership. It challenges scarcity.
DeleteSeriously, I've seen many libertarians base arguments on scarcity. Where's the connection? What's the relevance? How is he challenging scarcity?
The solution is not states over provate property, but whatever allows individuals to personally agree with other individuals regarding their respective lands.
You seem to be making up some problem because I don't know what that is supposed to be a solution to. This doesn't even seem to be a fully formed statement or idea.
That can't be done with countries.
There are fundamental differences, but not THAT fundamental.
So the solution implicated in your scenario is for the Earth to become one single country, where everyone can go wherever they please anywhere on Earth.
Well, I don't have any particular objections in principle to a one-country world, but how is that an implication here.
"Gee, that sounds like a familiar Utopian vision doesn't it?"
No.
All problems of private property have private property solutions, usually contracting.
DeleteThis is probably one of the most nonsensical things I've ever seen a libertarian say. If a problem is caused by private property, then private property can't also be the solution. You're contradicting yourself. Also, what in the world do contracts have to do with any of this?
I'm hardly one to defend roddis, but I assumed that what he means is that druggies or religious fanatics will be banned from particular neighbourhoods of like-minded people, not from every private road.
ReplyDeleteOf course, his idea is still ridiculous: for how would you effectively identify every druggie or religious fanatic arriving in your neighbourhood without them just answering honestly they they are when asked? (what if they are dishonest?). Or alternatively how could you do it without some intrusive level of spying surveillance on people?
On other threads, Roddis actually implies that particular neighbourhoods of like-minded people will be free to pick and choose what private laws in Rothbard's law code they want to obey and even opt out of some laws, which raises the question how you enforce laws if people don't feel like obeying them.
Robert, it is true a country can be blockaded: but that is an act of war. If it is blockaded without cause, that is illegal under international law. Of course, enforcement of international law he's weak, and it is often violated.
DeleteBut there is a significant difference between a system in which blockades are illegal, but still happen, and one in which they are perfectly permissible, unless someone has in advance purchased an easement of some sort.
In other words, while a blockade is a violation of the emerging system of international law, it is a fulfillment of the system of ancap law: Roddis is actually boasting that this is a great feature of his system, that these people can be blockade it.
You are, in fact, offering me arguments I myself made 14 years ago, and figured out the answer to a decade ago. So let's not waste both our time.
Bob is just saying that you could reduce crime and undesirable behaviour by having police checkpoints absolutely everywhere.
ReplyDeleteMr., for the win!
DeleteGene, it's a rare post when Lord Keynes is forced to say that he thinks you are being unfair to Bob Roddis. (!)
ReplyDeleteI'm being serious, what exactly is your point with this series of posts? Yes, it is possible that a certain population of people, in a Rothbardian society, would starve someone to death.
Are you saying that that same group of people, if instead living under a democratic Republic, would vote for politicians who would force them to give the person food?
So please spell out exactly why I should be embarrassed by the fact that a guy hated by so many people would fare poorly under a private property framework.
Ok, I recommended that you just stop, but you did not. You are done commenting here.
ReplyDeleteGene,
ReplyDeletea good critique of ancap here from an actual anarchist. Worth a read:
http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionF1
I don't like people who think they get to control word usage.
Deletewell, that was only one part of the critique.
DeleteYes, it was just an initial reaction. I actually think it is pretty good. Thanks.
Deletemore here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionF