tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post4358844216321286276..comments2024-02-29T03:34:23.190-05:00Comments on Who Were the Sea Peoples?: Bob Murphy on Why We Need a Stategcallahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-62557054668292619122022-01-17T13:44:50.717-05:002022-01-17T13:44:50.717-05:00Your minarchist state would still need to use forc...Your minarchist state would still need to use force to ensure that the defense agencies only listen to it and not some other "final arbiter of force" so it would still be involved on some level with enforcing property rights. Otherwise, you effectively end up with anarchism back again. It would also need to levy taxes because then you would end with free rider problems as its benefits would not be excludable. BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02639095987526290064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-36535003711793472462021-09-29T01:02:39.209-04:002021-09-29T01:02:39.209-04:00Buddy, that's also Hobbes argument. That's...Buddy, that's also Hobbes argument. That's why Hobbes says as if. Gene was simply pointing out that no contract theorists like Hobbe have ever believed that everyone willing supported the existence of any single state. He's just saying that the vast majority of people accross people have supported a state so every state has come into existence with so much support that it's as if everyone supported their formation. BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02639095987526290064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-42444464438746107202021-09-29T00:37:32.112-04:002021-09-29T00:37:32.112-04:00If they and enough people choose to patronize ano...If they and enough people choose to patronize another private defense agency that's not part of the predetermined arbitration network, then you are back to the problem of trying to stop private defense agencies from fighting each other. Lets say Person A defrauds Person B. Person B wants to take Person A to court but Person A refuses so Person B sends his private defense company after Person A to compel him to court. Person A's defense agency is out of the arbitration network and Person A is a valuable customer so the defense agency will naturally come to his aid, regardless of his guilt. Violent and armed conflict will ensue and many innocent bystanders will die. The only way this will be prevented if both Person A's defense agency is part of the arbitration network. Obviously, in order to prevent something like I just wrote about from happening, no defense network capable of conducting public policy would let non-members show up and serve customers within the tettitory of the network. Such a network would thus have no reason not to tax everyone within the network because it would effectively be a cartel and face no external competition. Even if the network didn't tax everyone in its tettitory, there's nothing stopping it from from enforcing laws that not everyone consents to. Lets say the network discovers that the majority of crimes are committed during the night so all the agencies within it enforces a curfew after sundown in order to save costs. The curfew would apply to everyone, not just those who patronize the agencies within the network. Anyone outside during the night would be violently beat up and arrested. Since the law is effective at heavily reducing crime, some customers might relize that they could benefit from the curfew without having to pay any agency. The network would then quickly lose many customers. If the majority of people within the networks tettitory don't want to have to pay for the protection of freeriders, then the network will have no choice but to set up taxes. BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02639095987526290064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-85913636474704260522021-09-25T19:47:11.160-04:002021-09-25T19:47:11.160-04:00Hi Gene,
I heard you were once an An-cap. Con...Hi Gene, <br /> I heard you were once an An-cap. Considering your views in this article here, it's clear that you are no longer one. You mind writing an article about how you became an Ancap and stopped being one?BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02639095987526290064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-66774175398923644702012-10-08T17:39:14.050-04:002012-10-08T17:39:14.050-04:00Matt, you just trolling, or will you be around for...Matt, you just trolling, or will you be around for an answer?gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-8223192140713675122012-10-08T15:13:50.314-04:002012-10-08T15:13:50.314-04:00"And anyway, the best contract theorists, suc..."And anyway, the best contract theorists, such as Hobbes, never thought there was such an historical arrangement: their argument was "It is as if people had formed such a compact, and we should so regard the state.""<br /><br />And this is Murphy's argument. They make this claim, but that is not what happened, and to claim it is "as if" it happened is utter nonsense - on par with claiming that the state of affairs is "as if" you gave me all your stuff, so I'm not a thief, and really do own these things.Matt Tanoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02947545760259213385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-71465426571666816912012-09-16T16:21:40.899-04:002012-09-16T16:21:40.899-04:00Oh, OK, I thought you were with Murphy on this. My...Oh, OK, I thought you were with Murphy on this. My mistake.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-87402666753415030232012-09-16T16:20:26.492-04:002012-09-16T16:20:26.492-04:00-----
So, let's say you have a hunter-gatherer...-----<br />So, let's say you have a hunter-gatherer tribe for whom private property in anything other than a trinket or such is unheard of: everything else they share in common. Are you saying they are somehow immorally violating objective moral principles in not divvying up everything and "privatizing" it all?<br />-----<br /><br />You're confusing "Tom Knapp says that Robert P. Murphy appears to believe X" with "Tom Knapp believes X."Thomas L. Knapphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16271473384378782680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-43684688039258968012012-09-14T21:08:54.108-04:002012-09-14T21:08:54.108-04:00Sure, because the rest will be aggressing?
Here&#...Sure, because the rest will be aggressing?<br /><br />Here's an example so you understand my thought process. Let's say there's a geographical area with 100 people. 99 agree to not murder other people and 1 doesn't. The 99 voluntarily consent to pay for a private institution that will defend each of the 99 from those who decide to murder them (including members of the 99 who decide to murder other members). Well, unfortunately 1 individual doesn't consent! He goes around murdering everyone else anyway. He never agreed to this non-murdering rule!<br /><br />This is why I find it particularly ludicrous to say ancap defense entities are not formed upon complete voluntary consent. Sure, those who want to kill others or damage/steal other's property may not consent and may go around killing others and/or damaging/stealing others' property. This is understood though. Because aggressors' voluntary consent is not necessary since they are aggressing. Their liberty is taken away since they choose to use aggressive violence against others.<br /><br />So just because an individual doesn't consent to a private defense agency (which he doesn't have to even if he's not a murderer/thief of course; he could choose to defend himself, choose another agency, etc.), doesn't mean he can go around attacking people or their property. If they do, of course their consent will not be respected.<br /><br />The reason I use the murdering example is because it's likely you'll agree with that. But what is your position on property? Do you believe individuals don't have a right to own property?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-88689495803628057022012-09-14T18:54:14.442-04:002012-09-14T18:54:14.442-04:00"If Hobbes did believe that States could actu..."If Hobbes did believe that States could actually be formed upon complete voluntary consent..."<br /><br />He never denied this. And, as I keep demonstrating, ancapistan is not "formed upon complete voluntary consent"! Only those who wish a regime of "rule by property owners" will have consented to this regime. This rest will be involuntarily dragged along.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-76957271086651229042012-09-14T18:51:05.762-04:002012-09-14T18:51:05.762-04:00A) If Hobbes did believe that States could actuall...A) If Hobbes did believe that States could actually be formed upon complete voluntary consent, then I can't really argue this point. Sure, it's only an interpretation (unless he did actually say that somewhere), but it seems reasonable enough. However, libertarian theorists such as Rothbard stated their definition of the State as involuntary for some or many during its formation. The precise reason he argued for this definition was because "as if" is not actual, a very important distinction.<br /><br />So if we define States as (your intreptation of) Hobbes does, then I think libertarians would admit, sure it's a "State", but there still is an important distinction between this "State" and States formed with aggression.<br /><br />B) Lots of comparisons can be made to communism, it doesn't mean libertarianism is invalidated.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-75979466452792203722012-09-14T11:37:06.159-04:002012-09-14T11:37:06.159-04:00"If these entities are voluntary in their for..."If these entities are voluntary in their formation, i.e., every individual that has to pay for it consents to it, then it by definition is not the State that Hobbes was talking about. It is not "as if" people had formed such a compact, but a case where the people had actually formed the compact!"<br /><br />A) Because Hobbes did not hold that earlier states had arisen by such a compact, that means he would think an entity that did happen to arise by such an actual compact no longer qualified? No, he would say "that is even more of the Leviathan of which I speak."<br /><br />B) Many, many individuals who are not paying (and thus not consenting) will nevertheless be subject to this entity's laws. And many individuals who do pay may wish they lived under a different system, but will pay up because they see no alternative.<br /><br />"If the entity uses force in defense [OF LIBERTARIAN IDEAS], then it is acting in a libertarian manner... But this is nothing contrary to libertarianism."<br /><br />And if an entity uses force in defense of communist ideas, then it is acting in a communist manner. This is nothing contrary to communism.<br /><br />That fact is SOOO very interesting.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-282966952686895052012-09-14T07:56:24.787-04:002012-09-14T07:56:24.787-04:00"Hmm, I think there is a name for an entity l..."Hmm, I think there is a name for an entity like that. If the system Murphy talks about gradually developed from our current situation, it would be a shift from one form of state to another. That form might be better than the one we have, and it might not. But it is certainly not "purely voluntary." It certainly will (and must) use force against those who have "honest disputes" with its laws. Such rhetoric is a way of winning recruits, not a way of seriously analyzing whatever merits the envisioned form of state might possess."<br /><br />But you previously stated:<br /><br />"And anyway, the best contract theorists, such as Hobbes, never thought there was such an historical arrangement: their argument was "It is as if people had formed such a compact, and we should so regard the state."<br /><br />If these entities are voluntary in their formation, i.e., every individual that has to pay for it consents to it, then it by definition is not the State that Hobbes was talking about. It is not "as if" people had formed such a compact, but a case where the people had actually formed the compact!<br /><br />"It certainly will (and must) use force against those who have "honest disputes" with its laws."<br /><br />This is true. But this doesn't mean it's involuntary in the sense of aggression vs. non-aggression. If the entity uses force in defense, then it is acting in a libertarian manner; if it imprisons someone with force, it's undeniable that the imprisonment is involuntary for that individual. But this is nothing contrary to libertarianism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-20483675813326842012012-09-13T11:31:27.655-04:002012-09-13T11:31:27.655-04:00Well, I still think it is very weird to call the f...Well, I still think it is very weird to call the facts "Brits drive on the left" NOT an objective fact of reality when anyone can easily confirm it for themselves, while calling much fuzzier things objective facts. In fact, I'd say it is an objective fact of reality that property rights arise by convention, since we only need look and we can see that they do!<br /><br />"What I am trying to say is that per Murphy, property rights exist (as a correct moral principle), whether anyone other than the person exercising them in any particular instance agrees that they exist or not."<br /><br />So, let's say you have a hunter-gatherer tribe for whom private property in anything other than a trinket or such is unheard of: everything else they share in common. Are you saying they are somehow immorally violating objective moral principles in not divvying up everything and "privatizing" it all?<br /><br />gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-38178385715917274272012-09-13T08:48:23.338-04:002012-09-13T08:48:23.338-04:00Gene,
When I allude to an "objective fact of...Gene,<br /><br />When I allude to an "objective fact of reality," what I mean is "not only is X Y, but X would be Y whether or not anyone on earth agreed that X was Y."<br /><br />In that sense, social conventions aren't "objective facts of reality."<br /><br />But this may just point up a vocabulary deficiency on my part.<br /><br />What I am trying to say is that per Murphy, property rights exist (as a correct moral principle), whether anyone other than the person exercising them in any particular instance agrees that they exist or not. You, on the other hand, hold that property rights arise from social agreement/convention.Thomas L. Knapphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16271473384378782680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-85328251655864826352012-09-12T21:58:59.481-04:002012-09-12T21:58:59.481-04:00That would be cute, except I've shown there is...That would be cute, except I've shown there is nothing "anarchist" about this possibly workable system.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-1569248679582156042012-09-12T20:27:56.695-04:002012-09-12T20:27:56.695-04:00I'm going to link to this post and call it, &q...I'm going to link to this post and call it, "Gene Callahan on Why Anarcho-Capitalism Works."Bob Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04001108408649311528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-1557146219054540322012-09-12T16:33:24.934-04:002012-09-12T16:33:24.934-04:00You have no idea how frustrated I was getting. You have no idea how frustrated I was getting. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-36862570643081110502012-09-12T13:04:08.653-04:002012-09-12T13:04:08.653-04:00Or, to put it another way, Joe, you are harping on...Or, to put it another way, Joe, you are harping on the issue of whether these things are *logically* incompatible. They are not, they are not! You are correct on that point.<br /><br />But things can be *practically* incompatible as well as logically so: "They shouldn't get married: they're incompatible." The speaker is NOT saying it is logically impossible for the couple to marry!gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-62694962367382675942012-09-12T12:03:39.206-04:002012-09-12T12:03:39.206-04:00"because the ultimate goal is to prove whethe..."because the ultimate goal is to prove whether A+B=C, not whether A+Bx=C."<br /><br />Your ultimate goal. My ultimate goal is to talk about *reality*, not an abstract equation.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-32995135410735975792012-09-12T12:01:50.357-04:002012-09-12T12:01:50.357-04:00"But as Joseph points out, you're conflat..."But as Joseph points out, you're conflating two questions:"<br /><br />No, I'm not. I understand they are different questions. I'm saying that a negative answer to #1 means, for all practical purposes, a negative to #2, even if theoretically the answer to #2 is "yes."<br /><br />"Bob seems to consider private property a necessarily emergent phenomenon of human interaction (i.e. an "objective fact of reality"), while you seem to consider it an optionally emergent phenomenon of same (i.e. a "social construct")."<br /><br />This is odd, because:<br /><br />1) Social constructs ARE objective facts of reality: "Americans drive on the right while Brits drive on the left" is certainly an objective fact!<br /><br />2) I think you may be getting at something like natural versus conventional: it is natural for human beings to breath air, while conventional that in some cultures women wear veils in public.<br /><br />In that sense, having SOME notion of property arrangements is natural. But exactly what those amount to is conventional. And that is "an objective fact of reality": we only need look around and see how property rights differ from culture to culture.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-41868314434805251302012-09-12T10:22:26.665-04:002012-09-12T10:22:26.665-04:00"[A]n inability to defend private property is..."[A]n inability to defend private property is inseparable from pacifism."<br /><br />That's true. But as Joseph points out, you're conflating two questions:<br /><br />Question 1: Is pacifism incompatible with the defense of private property?<br /><br />Question 2: Is pacifism incompatible with private property?<br /><br />Consider it stipulated that the answer to question #1 is "yes."<br /><br />The answer to quest #2 is indeterminate because, among other reasons, you and Bob seem to disagree on what private property is, or rather what creates it. As concisely as possible, Bob seems to consider private property a necessarily emergent phenomenon of human interaction (i.e. an "objective fact of reality"), while you seem to consider it an optionally emergent phenomenon of same (i.e. a "social construct").<br />Thomas L. Knapphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16271473384378782680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-90807990613488425112012-09-12T01:20:20.976-04:002012-09-12T01:20:20.976-04:00Great Article.
Having considered myself an anarch...Great Article.<br /><br />Having considered myself an anarchist for the last 2 or 3 years, over the last few weeks I have come to the conclusion that any stable society is going to need a well-defined and commonly accepted and enforced set of property rights rights. This would indeed appear to require a "system of interlocking institutions that have the final say on what is and isn't the just use of force in some territory," that one might just as well call a state.<br /><br />This "minarchist" state would only have the role of defining property right on utilitarian principals and would not even need to get involved in enforcing these rights (this could be done by "voluntary network of market defense firms" or other forms of voluntary actions). This would still be wildly different from any modern state and offer the greatest level of individual freedom constrained only by the particular kind of property rights a territory chose to adopt.<br /><br />robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04682517711551179057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-42744507693129654862012-09-12T01:20:08.111-04:002012-09-12T01:20:08.111-04:00Great Article.
Having considered myself an anarch...Great Article.<br /><br />Having considered myself an anarchist for the last 2 or 3 years, over the last few weeks I have come to the conclusion that any stable society is going to need a well-defined and commonly accepted and enforced set of property rights rights. This would indeed appear to require a "system of interlocking institutions that have the final say on what is and isn't the just use of force in some territory," that one might just as well call a state.<br /><br />This "minarchist" state would only have the role of defining property right on utilitarian principals and would not even need to get involved in enforcing these rights (this could be done by "voluntary network of market defense firms" or other forms of voluntary actions). This would still be wildly different from any modern state and offer the greatest level of individual freedom constrained only by the particular kind of property rights a territory chose to adopt.<br /><br />robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04682517711551179057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-18080840622033428422012-09-11T23:11:22.943-04:002012-09-11T23:11:22.943-04:00A+B=C. Where C=2.
We cannot say that A+Bx=C (o...A+B=C. Where C=2. <br /><br />We cannot say that A+Bx=C (or even Ax+B=C), unless x is equal to 1. That is, x must be equal to 1 in order for us to test the compatibility of A and B being added together to produce C. You're attempting to plug in numbers other than 1 for x in order to prove that A+B=/=C. I agree that what you describe will be the case, that x will certainly be a variable in the real world of uncertainty, but that has nothing to do with A+B=C, or the compatibility of A to B.<br /><br />My essential disagreement is that any value other than 1 for x is incorrect for determining the compatibility of A and B to produce C, because the ultimate goal is to prove whether A+B=C, not whether A+Bx=C. If all that exists in the world is A+B, then where in the hell does this x that you speak of come from? It surely isn't derived from either A or B. It's an outside variable. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com