Objections to the non-aggression principle

[Luther]

Libertarians seem pretty confident in their reasoning ability, but I'm yet to be convinced. In particular, I have two major objections to the non-aggresion principle:

We must coerce people into respecting each other's rights.
In a completely free society, we must assume the potential of infinite diversity. If we don't, our prejudices would prevent us from respecting the uniqueness of everyone's needs. This would make society quite unfree by definition.

Some people won't want to respect the rights of others.

Therefore, individual rights must be enforced by coersion.

(If you bring up the idea of "provocation", please define exactly what you think that word means. To me, the NAP is about the same as pacifism, and it's too easy to redefine provocation to suit one's argument.)

Aggression is fundamental to survival.
If someone needs food, and has no way to get it without killing or stealing, why shouldn't he do so? Without this basic survival instinct, humans would not have survived long enough to invent property rights.

Finally, if government is so inherently evil, how does it arise in the first place?

[1714758263]

1714758263

[1714758263]

1714758263

[1714758263]

1714758263

[1714758263]

1714758263

[1714758263]

1714758263

[1714758263]

1714758263

[Jon]

Conclusion: "Rights" are a fiction. "Evil" is only what we don't prefer as individuals.

[Bitcoin Oz]

The NAP = Dont Touch My Shit

[Hawker]

The NAP = Dont Touch My Shit

And when you get sick, the NAP doesn't apply because the new rule is "Heal me and no I haven't bothered saving up for your meds."

Most NAP advocates are actually freeloaders.  They don't want to contribute to society when they don't need it.  And they stay quiet about the times they take the benefits of living is a well organised society.

[FirstAscent]

Conclusion: "Rights" are a fiction.

Nothing could be more true.

There is non-fiction, which is a body of facts about the way nature works, and a body of facts about that which has happened.

[NghtRppr]

If you are wearing a watch and I take it from you, am I the aggressor or are you? Well, if you took the watch from me yesterday and I'm just getting my property back, then you're the aggressor. If it was always your watch then I'm the aggressor. See, you can't talk about the non-aggression principle in a vacuum. The other side of the coin is property rights, which tells us who exactly the aggressor is.

[Fizzgig]

We must coerce people into respecting each other's rights.
In a completely free society, we must assume the potential of infinite diversity. If we don't, our prejudices would prevent us from respecting the uniqueness of everyone's needs. This would make society quite unfree by definition.

By infinite diversity, you are referring to individual rights. Why are you claiming individual rights have infinite diversity? They may have infinite interpretations depending on infinite instances of disputes, but just because two people disagree on a right does not mean the disagreement cannot be resolved. It is between the two responsible parties to resolve disagreements. Creating government means a one-size-fits-all solution which destroys all demand for private contract resolution institutions, and also prevents innovation in this theoretical industry which could exist if not for government.

Rights are a construct created by man to relate to his fellow man. The tribe, through social interactions, agrees on the rights of it's members. They meet another tribe with slightly different rights, but the amazing thing is how similar they are! This is because to survive, one set of rights is better than another. For example, if the chief has the right to have his way with any female in the tribe, lots of strong young boys will start popping out and the tribe will gain strength. Rights are arbitrary, but survival is based on choosing the best set of rights for your current circumstance.

Americans live in an empire which has oppressed foreigners by stealing the value of their labor through fiat currency. Bitcoin enthusiasts should fully understand the implications of a world reserve currency controlled by a centralized entity. Imagine if every barrel of oil had to be purchased in bitcoins then converted to local currencies. Bitcoin holders would be pretty happy! Well imagine further if you could control the volume of bitcoins in circulation? Holy shit you have more power than anything in the world. The US has more power than anything in the world right now because of their world-wide reserve fiat currency.

Aggression is fundamental to survival.
If someone needs food, and has no way to get it without killing or stealing, why shouldn't he do so? Without this basic survival instinct, humans would not have survived long enough to invent property rights.

I have to agree with this point, but if he tries to kill for food, he may be killed himself. He is initiating aggression and that cannot be justified morally, but that would not stop him or anyone else if that was the ONLY option. But let's ratchet up the scenario, what if without a $75,000 hospital procedure you will die, is it then justified to steal? Of course not. Will people do it to survive? Yes. The question is how should we address this concern we have of starving people. Should we try to find a real sustainable solution to the problem, or should we force every person to throw in some money to give to people who need food. If you look at the result today in any meaningful way, you will see that force is not working as hunger in America has increased significantly.

Finally, if government is so inherently evil, how does it arise in the first place?

The body of people in society share the same moral principles and government enforces those principles. At first government serves the people, but the opportunity to take control and exploit the vast reserves of power government has is just too hard to pass up. Eventually nefarious entities gain control of the power center and all hell breaks loose (a few decades or centuries later). Once the body of people line their moral philosophy based on universal ethics, government is exposed as the fraud it is and can be cast aside. Until that happens let's learn the ways of peaceful interaction, and let's constantly expose the violence that is often hidden in interactions.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

We must coerce people into respecting each other's rights.

....

To me, the NAP is about the same as pacifism

That's not an objection against the NAP. Are you sure you read enough about it? NAP != pacifism.

You may use proportional force to repeal or punish an initiation of aggression (violation of rights).

Aggression is fundamental to survival.
If someone needs food, and has no way to get it without killing or stealing, why shouldn't he do so? Without this basic survival instinct, humans would not have survived long enough to invent property rights.

This is wrong.

First, it was our collaborative nature that helped our species to survive long enough. Most people would not kill or hurt other human beings because of food, even in primitive times, they would rather get together to hunt or collect. If they were to behave as you say they should then our species would probably be extinct already.

And second, no, you don't need to violate people's rights to eat.
In practically most modern societies, if you are in such a desperate need, people will help you out.
And if you live in a society which is such in a bad shape that people can't even afford to help an individual in famine, then you're probably not the only one who's screwed there. It is not by allowing robbery (that is, penalizing the few that produce something and helping those who don't) that such awfully poor society will get out of its misery.

Finally, if government is so inherently evil, how does it arise in the first place?

Because evil people exist, and most important, because most people (you included, apparently) fall for its "propaganda", believing it to be a necessary institution, while it is not. (I was among those one day too, of course, but then I ran out of excuses )

[FirstAscent]

You may use proportional force to repeal or punish an initiation of aggression (violation of rights).

So funny. For about the hundredth time in about the past six months, who exactly agrees that you may use proportional force? What if your neighbor doesn't buy into NAP?

[Luther]

This isn't true. You are confusing aggression with violence.

So educate me. What's the difference?

Finally, if government is so inherently evil, how does it arise in the first place?

Power in numbers.

People come together for one reason or another and then refuse to separate after the goals are achieved. Once the system is in place, certain individuals realize they can take advantage of it to achieve power without production. People accept it because responsibility is difficult work.

Well, sometimes those goals are ongoing. For example, public goods, like infrastructure, need maintenence. Society always needs some people in positions of power. People just need to know when to revolt.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

For about the hundredth time in about the past six months, who exactly agrees that you may use proportional force? What if your neighbor doesn't buy into NAP?

Is this an "ethical" or "practical" question?

For ethical learning, search for Hans Hermans Hoppe texts. He has some good texts on the ethics of private property.

If you want to imagine how things could work without a monopoly on justice, I suggest the first part ("Private Law") of this text: http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf
There are many mores besides this one, of course. It is particularly interesting to read about ancient societies which have had decentralized justice systems, like medieval Ireland or Iceland.


Learning this will obviously require some effort of yours. If you were simply expecting someone to answer all your doubts with a forum post, then good luck, you'll have to keep trying.

[Luther]

If you are wearing a watch and I take it from you, am I the aggressor or are you? Well, if you took the watch from me yesterday and I'm just getting my property back, then you're the aggressor. If it was always your watch then I'm the aggressor. See, you can't talk about the non-aggression principle in a vacuum. The other side of the coin is property rights, which tells us who exactly the aggressor is.

This would seem to make the NAP irrelevent: It's completely subsumed by whatever system of property we use.

[chrisrico]

To me, the NAP is about the same as pacifism, and it's too easy to redefine provocation to suit one's argument.

Then I think you fundamentally misunderstand the non-aggression principle. My understanding of the way the NAP is generally accepted is that it allows for the use of violence in response to violence, but only to an extent that is necessary to put an end to the initial violence. So, just because someone steals a thing from you, it doesn't give you the right to kill them. You would however be completely justified taking it back. If they tried to use violence to prevent you from doing so, then you are justified in defending yourself. After all, how could they possibly be more justified using violence to defend your thing that they possess than you are in taking it back?

If someone needs food, and has no way to get it without killing or stealing, why shouldn't he do so? Without this basic survival instinct, humans would not have survived long enough to invent property rights.

In order for there to be no way to get food without aggression (if we assume theft or trespassing is the initiation of force), all of the following must be true:

• There is no unclaimed property
• There is no way for you to hunt/gather without trespassing
• Your labor was worth absolutely nothing to anybody
• Nobody will charitably give you food or a way to get it

While you could come up with a thought experiment where all that is true, I find it highly unrealistic that this scenario occurs (edit... a chronically unemployed person's labor is not worth zero, it's just worth less than the legal minimum wage. Think about it.)

The only valid objection I've heard to the non-aggression principle is that the definition of force or violence is disputed. As a response to this, I would merely say that a stateless society provides a better way to come to agreement on the definition of violence than through the use of a state.

[FirstAscent]

If you want to imagine how things could work without a monopoly on justice, I suggest the first part ("Private Law") of this text: http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf

Obviously, you have missed the 200 page threads where this subject has been debated to death. Tell me now, if private law is the order of the day, why would one have to hire courts or protection that adheres to NAP? Who exactly says that one must hire firms which adhere to NAP?

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

If you want to imagine how things could work without a monopoly on justice, I suggest the first part ("Private Law") of this text: http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf

Obviously, you have missed the 200 page threads where this subject has been debated to death. Tell me now, if private law is the order of the day, why would one have to hire courts or protection that adheres to NAP? Who exactly says that one must hire firms which adhere to NAP?

I avoid huge threads, yes. And you obviously have not read what I've suggested you to.

If "private law" is what's practiced in a society, then by definition the NAP is being respected as all laws would be contractual.
Please, just read about the subject instead of complaining "nobody explains it to me".

[FirstAscent]

If you want to imagine how things could work without a monopoly on justice, I suggest the first part ("Private Law") of this text: http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf

Obviously, you have missed the 200 page threads where this subject has been debated to death. Tell me now, if private law is the order of the day, why would one have to hire courts or protection that adheres to NAP? Who exactly says that one must hire firms which adhere to NAP?

I avoid huge threads, yes. And you obviously have not read what I've suggested you to.

If "private law" is what's practiced in a society, then by definition the NAP is being respected as all laws would be contractual.
Please, just read about the subject instead of complaining "nobody explains it to me".

There is no contract between you and some random person you've never met. There is simply no guarantee that NAP would be the order of the day. I have had this discussion a hundred times. Most people here want NAP to be a reality so badly that they fail to objectively see its faults.

Dream on.

[nebulus]

We need government so everyone can keep their primal urges to themselves and we can have a large functioning society. I don't think a civilization can exist without a government. History shows that people always needed a government. Some probably are going to argue this and it's okay. On the global scale of things, these people don't matter anyway because they are just a bunch of pissed off ignoramuses. Thank your government that you have any rights at all.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

There is no contract between you and some random person you've never met. There is simply no guarantee that NAP would be the order of the day. I have had this discussion a hundred times. Most people here want NAP to be a reality so badly that they fail to objectively see its faults.

Dream on.

You clearly don't understand it. Just read the first half of the tiny book I pointed you to. Read about how decentralized justice systems have worked in ancient societies.
Educate yourself. The "faults" you think you're raising have been refuted by many important writers already.

I say you don't give a shit about learning, all you want is to carry on purposeless discussions. If you really wanted to learn anything, you'd have already figured out that's not through forum discussions that you'll learn much (particularly in a forum that is about a technology, not economy or ethics).
EDIT: Well, actually forums may be useful. They are useful to solve punctual doubts, or to get pointers to more extensive knowledge somewhere else, as I'm try to provide here. But you must want to follow such pointers.

[FirstAscent]

There is no contract between you and some random person you've never met. There is simply no guarantee that NAP would be the order of the day. I have had this discussion a hundred times. Most people here want NAP to be a reality so badly that they fail to objectively see its faults.

Dream on.

You clearly don't understand it. Just read the first half of the tiny book I pointed you to. Read about how decentralized justice systems have worked in ancient societies.
Educate yourself. The "faults" you think you're raising have been refuted by many important writers already.

I say you don't give a shit about learning, all you want is to carry on purposeless discussions. If you really wanted to learn anything, you'd have already figured out that's not through forum discussions that you'll learn much (particularly in a forum that is about a technology, not economy or ethics).
EDIT: Well, actually forums may be useful. They are useful to solve punctual doubts, or to get pointers to more extensive knowledge somewhere else, as I'm try to provide here. But you must want to follow such pointers.

I have read portions of your document - the section entitled "Private Law". There is nothing new there that hasn't been discussed here. Point number 1: U.S. states aren't analogous, as they operate under the umbrella of the Federal Government. Point number 2: Using the diverse set of world nations is analogous, and I have pointed out that very fact in other threads. The ultimate libertarian "contract law" experiment is the world, and it is rife with problems, wars, takeovers, complete disregard for contracts, power plays, allies ganging up on others, and, believe it or not, the only model under which nuclear arms have been used against others.

[chrisrico]

The ultimate libertarian "contract law" experiment is the world, and it is rife with problems, wars, takeovers, complete disregard for contracts, power plays, allies ganging up on others, and, believe it or not, the only model under which nuclear arms have been used against others.

Those things are behaviors of states, entities which have geographic monopolies on the initiation of violence. There is no realistic analog to a state in a stateless society. Yes, as a property owner I would have a "monopoly on the initiation of violence" on my property, but it is a very limited monopoly, both in size and scope. However, you are correct that statism, the current societal paradigm, "is rife with problems, wars, takeovers, complete disregard for contracts, power plays, allies ganging up on others, and [...] the only model under which nuclear arms have been used against others".

[FirstAscent]

The ultimate libertarian "contract law" experiment is the world, and it is rife with problems, wars, takeovers, complete disregard for contracts, power plays, allies ganging up on others, and, believe it or not, the only model under which nuclear arms have been used against others.

Those things are behaviors of states, entities which have geographic monopolies on the initiation of violence. There is no realistic analog to a state in a stateless society. Yes, as a property owner I would have a "monopoly on the initiation of violence" on my property, but it is a very limited monopoly, both in size and scope. However, you are correct that statism, the current societal paradigm, "is rife with problems, wars, takeovers, complete disregard for contracts, power plays, allies ganging up on others, and [...] the only model under which nuclear arms have been used against others".

So wrong you are. Nations in our world analogize very accurately to individuals in your NAP world.

[Hawker]

There is no contract between you and some random person you've never met. There is simply no guarantee that NAP would be the order of the day. I have had this discussion a hundred times. Most people here want NAP to be a reality so badly that they fail to objectively see its faults.

Dream on.

You clearly don't understand it. Just read the first half of the tiny book I pointed you to. Read about how decentralized justice systems have worked in ancient societies.
Educate yourself. The "faults" you think you're raising have been refuted by many important writers already.

I say you don't give a shit about learning, all you want is to carry on purposeless discussions. If you really wanted to learn anything, you'd have already figured out that's not through forum discussions that you'll learn much (particularly in a forum that is about a technology, not economy or ethics).
EDIT: Well, actually forums may be useful. They are useful to solve punctual doubts, or to get pointers to more extensive knowledge somewhere else, as I'm try to provide here. But you must want to follow such pointers.

Have you read it?  From the second paragraph, it falls apart as it assumes that everyone shares the same property values.  If I think its morally wrong for you to have 20 cows when I have one, the whole thing fails.

[chrisrico]

So wrong you are. Nations in our world analogize very accurately to individuals in your NAP world.

Are you claiming that in a stateless society that values the NAP, all individuals will feel they have the right to initiate violence against any other individual? What?

[Fizzgig]

Have you read it?  From the second paragraph, it falls apart as it assumes that everyone shares the same property values.  If I think its morally wrong for you to have 20 cows when I have one, the whole thing fails.

No it doesn't, you can think having 20 cows is morally wrong all you want, but it's not. In this situation you would just be a jealous douche. If you acted on these thoughts by trying to steal a cow, what would happen? The same thing that would happen if you went out today and tried to steal a cow, you'd get shot.

The point I'm trying to make here is that as human being we interact with each other using the Non-Aggression Principle all the time. If there is a government to resolve disputes between parties, that doesn't change anything when a trespasser is in the act of stealing one of my f'ing cows.

[chrisrico]

Have you read it?  From the second paragraph, it falls apart as it assumes that everyone shares the same property values.  If I think its morally wrong for you to have 20 cows when I have one, the whole thing fails.

No it doesn't, you can think having 20 cows is morally wrong all you want, but it's not. In this situation you would just be a jealous douche. If you acted on these thoughts by trying to steal a cow, what would happen? The same thing that would happen if you went out today and tried to steal a cow, you'd get shot.

Let's say that Hakwer is right, and (from some perspective) he is morally justified in taking one of my cows. Well, then it is your equally valid moral opinion that he has too many cows and you have too few, and you are exactly as justified in taking his (your) cow back from him as he was taking it from you in the first place. Now, I'm going to assume that at this point he will argue that he is justified in using violence to prevent you from taking the cow, but that's merely because it's his cow, not yours. See, moral opinions are only legitimately backed by force when the opinion works in the statist's favor.

[Hawker]

Have you read it?  From the second paragraph, it falls apart as it assumes that everyone shares the same property values.  If I think its morally wrong for you to have 20 cows when I have one, the whole thing fails.

No it doesn't, you can think having 20 cows is morally wrong all you want, but it's not. In this situation you would just be a jealous douche. If you acted on these thoughts by trying to steal a cow, what would happen? The same thing that would happen if you went out today and tried to steal a cow, you'd get shot.

The point I'm trying to make here is that as human being we interact with each other using the Non-Aggression Principle all the time. If there is a government to resolve disputes between parties, that doesn't change anything when a trespasser is in the act of stealing one of my f'ing cows.

You are missing the point. 

The whole idea of property is a legal concept.  It comes from the state.  If you take away the state, the whole idea of property rights goes with it and you end up in a tribal situation where ownership is a flexible concept and violence over how things like cows get shared is the norm.  If there is no law, people who disagree with you owning 20 cows are not jealous douches any more than you are.

[Hawker]

So wrong you are. Nations in our world analogize very accurately to individuals in your NAP world.

Are you claiming that in a stateless society that values the NAP, all individuals will feel they have the right to initiate violence against any other individual? What?

In a stateless society, for example Iraq in 2003, a huge number of people felt just that.  In London last year when the state withdrew from certain streets, it took less than 30 minutes for the looting and beatings to start.  People were literally killed in the street.

Civilisation is a thin veneer on top of a brutal humanity. 

[chrisrico]

So wrong you are. Nations in our world analogize very accurately to individuals in your NAP world.

Are you claiming that in a stateless society that values the NAP, all individuals will feel they have the right to initiate violence against any other individual? What?

In a stateless society, for example Iraq in 2003, a huge number of people felt just that.  In London last year when the state withdrew from certain streets, it took less than 30 minutes for the looting and beatings to start.  People were literally killed in the street.

Civilisation is a thin veneer on top of a brutal humanity. 

Let me clarify, when I say stateless society, I mean one in which the people willfully desire and achieve the lack of a state. Iraq was an invaded and failed state, big difference.

[Hawker]

So wrong you are. Nations in our world analogize very accurately to individuals in your NAP world.

Are you claiming that in a stateless society that values the NAP, all individuals will feel they have the right to initiate violence against any other individual? What?

In a stateless society, for example Iraq in 2003, a huge number of people felt just that.  In London last year when the state withdrew from certain streets, it took less than 30 minutes for the looting and beatings to start.  People were literally killed in the street.

Civilisation is a thin veneer on top of a brutal humanity. 

Let me clarify, when I say stateless society, I mean one in which the people willfully desire and achieve the lack of a state. Iraq was an invaded and failed state, big difference.

You still have the basic problem.  No laws means gang law.

[chrisrico]

You still have the basic problem.  No laws means gang law.

Only if you make an unjustified assumption that given a demand for law, the market would not satisfy this demand.

[Fizzgig]

If you take away the state, the whole idea of property rights goes with it

First there was no state, then it came into existence. Your statement implies there were no property rights before the state. It seems to me that I have the right to retain ownership of my property. If I do not have the right to retain ownership of my property, logical inconsistencies arise.

In London last year when the state withdrew from certain streets, it took less than 30 minutes for the looting and beatings to start.

The state provides protection via police in London. Claiming that removing that protection is somehow equivalent to a stateless society is misguided because in a stateless society protection is provided in a decentralized way. The stores were looted because there was nothing protecting them from being looted. Your example shows the weakness of centralized state power. The state failed to protect the people, they failed in their responsibility so the people had to suffer for it. In a stateless society the responsibility would be on the institution providing the protection and the clients who are looted would have recourse. If you believe that a society without government is dependent on all citizens acting what today would be considered "lawful" you are incorrect.

[Hawker]

If you take away the state, the whole idea of property rights goes with it

First there was no state, then it came into existence. Your statement implies there were no property rights before the state. It seems to me that I have the right to retain ownership of my property. If I do not have the right to retain ownership of my property, logical inconsistencies arise.

In London last year when the state withdrew from certain streets, it took less than 30 minutes for the looting and beatings to start.

The state provides protection via police in London. Claiming that removing that protection is somehow equivalent to a stateless society is misguided because in a stateless society protection is provided in a decentralized way. The stores were looted because there was nothing protecting them from being looted. Your example shows the weakness of centralized state power. The state failed to protect the people, they failed in their responsibility so the people must suffer for it. In a stateless society the responsibility would be on the institution providing the protection and the clients who are looted will have recourse. If you believe that a society without government is dependent on all citizens acting what today would be considered "lawful" you are incorrect.

Your property is yours under state law.  Take away the state and what was your property is the property of whoever can take it by force.

Its not enough to assert that I am incorrect.  I can show that violence falls and quality of life rises are we get into modern organised states.  I know you want to improve on what we have and so do I.  But I don't believe you can wish away the huge percentage of the population that will resort to violence within 30 minutes of state protection being taken away from people and property.

[chrisrico]

The whole idea of property is a legal concept.  It comes from the state.

I dispute that law, or the idea of property "comes from" the state. I will however assume that it does so for the sake of argument.

That the idea of property, as a legal concept, comes from the state does not imply that it those same arrangements/services could not be provided at least as efficiently by a private market (not geographical monopolies).

What you don't seem to grasp is that there is a demand for law, it's merely that the state has a violent monopoly on the market. Take away the state, and you don't take away the demand, you just take away the monopoly. In the absence of a perceived legitimate monopoly, competition flourishes, just as it does in any market.

[Fizzgig]

Hawker when I said you are incorrect, I meant that to be coming from my point of view, it is my opinion you are incorrect. I just want to repeat, a stateless society works with participants who are violent criminals, thieves, and rapists.

[Hawker]

Hawker when I said you are incorrect, I meant that to be coming from my point of view, it is my opinion you are incorrect. I just want to repeat, a stateless society works with participants who are violent criminals, thieves, and rapists.

I know it does - as we saw in London last year and see in umpteen stateless regions all over the world today, stateless societies are playgrounds for violent individuals. 

That's why I prefer the idea of a state.  If we need violence to protect ourselves, then one body with a monopoly on violence is preferable.

[Hawker]

The whole idea of property is a legal concept.  It comes from the state.

I dispute that law, or the idea of property "comes from" the state. I will however assume that it does so for the sake of argument.

That the idea of property, as a legal concept, comes from the state does not imply that it those same arrangements/services could not be provided at least as efficiently by a private market (not geographical monopolies).

What you don't seem to grasp is that there is a demand for law, it's merely that the state has a violent monopoly on the market. Take away the state, and you don't take away the demand, you just take away the monopoly. In the absence of a perceived legitimate monopoly, competition flourishes, just as it does in any market.

We agree on the demand for law.  Where we disagree is on the most efficient way to provide it.  A state with a monopoly on violence which is tied down by rules as to when it can use violence is a simple and efficient way of providing a safe social environment.  

If you know of a better one, let me know but it does have to be better - not just different for its own sake.  

[Fizzgig]

By "works" I mean society functions in an efficient and just manner, even if undesirable behavior exists.

[Hawker]

By "works" I mean society functions in an efficient and just manner, even if undesirable behavior exists.

I get that and we all share that objective. 

What I don't get is an efficient fair alternative to one party having a monopoly on violence and that party being tied up by all kinds of rules and regulations as to how it can use violence. 

[chrisrico]

A state with a monopoly on violence which is tied down by rules as to when it can use violence

Why would or how could the same individuals who bind the state so securely not do the same to a competitive marketplace in the provision of law and justice? Just look at how each type of service is provided. It is considered legitimate (through social norms and state-run education) for the state to threaten violence against those who do not fund it, regardless of their satisfaction with services received. Private organizations, on the other hand, have no such guaranteed source of income, and must convince individuals to purchase their services without threat of violence.

is a simple and efficient way of providing a safe social environment.

Simple? Do you consider, for instance, the federal government of the United States, with its origin as an intentionally limited government, to be simple and efficient? I can't find an authoritative answer, but I've heard that the entire USC is over 200,000 pages long.

If you know of a better one, let me know but it does have to be better - not just different for its own sake. 

That's exactly what I'm trying to do. Conversely, you seem stuck on the fallacy that currently exists must be beneficial for the fact that it exists. If, for instance, statist solutions to poverty really worked, don't you think they would have by now, in a world where governments have the largest welfare budgets of all time?

[Hawker]

chrisrico - the reason the state is tied up in regulations as to how it uses violence is that within its borders, there is only 1 law.

Remove the state and you have no one single law.  So every dispute will require violence.  For example, a dispute over who gets the house in a divorce will have the husband's hired thugs enforcing his rules against the wife's hired thugs enforcing her's.
 
Same will apply in inheritance law.  If Grandad leaves the entire estate to his daughter, she will have to hire thugs to fight off her brother's thugs as her brother will say that the will was not valid.

There are great benefits to having only 1 law and 1 force authorised to use force. 

[chrisrico]

chrisrico - the reason the state is tied up in regulations as to how it uses violence is that within its borders, there is only 1 law.

I believe you are incorrect. First, there is not "one law". The law is constantly changing and is subject to jurisdictional dispute. I will give you that with states, there is ultimately a final authority on law in a given region, but would you want a final authority on any other good or service in a region? That's called a monopoly, and most people recognize that they provide poor quality service. Second, the state is "tied up" in regulations of its own making. Those regulations could disappear in an instant if the state wanted badly enough to violate them. For example, take a look at the recent murder of a United States citizen by his own government. Citizens are forbidden from learning the legal justification under which any of them might be summarily killed, because it is a state secret.

Remove the state and you have no one single law.  So every dispute will require violence.

How do you come to this conclusion? There is no "single law" for the entire world, and almost all disputes are resolved peacefully. Almost all of the most violently resolved disputes are between governments. Does that speak nothing to you?

Please understand, I do not advocate for a stateless society in which every individual acts like a state. I merely believe that most individuals will generally prefer to solve problems non-violently, and this tendency is suppressed when immersed in a culture which celebrates the use of violence. I believe the state, as a fundamentally violent institution, provides such a culture.

[Hawker]

chrisrico - the reason the state is tied up in regulations as to how it uses violence is that within its borders, there is only 1 law.

I believe you are incorrect. First, there is not "one law". The law is constantly changing and is subject to jurisdictional dispute. I will give you that with states, there is ultimately a final authority on law in a given region, but would you want a final authority on any other good or service in a region? That's called a monopoly, and most people recognize that they provide poor quality service. Second, the state is "tied up" in regulations of its own making. Those regulations could disappear in an instant if the state wanted badly enough to violate them. For example, take a look at the recent murder of a United States citizen by his own government. Citizens are forbidden from learning the legal justification under which any of them might be summarily killed, because it is a state secret.

Remove the state and you have no one single law.  So every dispute will require violence.

How do you come to this conclusion? There is no "single law" for the entire world, and almost all disputes are resolved peacefully. Almost all of the most violently resolved disputes are between governments. Does that speak nothing to you?

Please understand, I do not advocate for a stateless society in which every individual acts like a state. I merely believe that most individuals will generally prefer to solve problems non-violently, and this tendency is suppressed when immersed in a culture which celebrates the use of violence. I believe the state, as a fundamentally violent institution, to provide such a culture.

You are contradicting yourself.

1. As you said, there is 1 final authority on law.  Thats one law.  Why call it anything else?
2. Monopolies are not always inefficient.  They work well for things like health and defence.  In fact, I don't know of any health or defence system worth having that isn't monopoly based.  
3. Disputes are resolved peacefully when the cost of violence is too high.  Events like the invasions of Poland and Iraq show you what happens when you don't have legal protection and the other party sees little cost to attacking you.

And this is my problem with the NAP.  It doesn't allow for people who are plain aggressive and outgun you.  And it doesn't allow you to create monopolies where needed or to raise taxes.  It doesn't allow for creation of property rights.  Even simple things, like for example, to build a road requires compulsory purchase.  NAP advocates say this means no new roads.  I don't see that as a good thing.

[FirstAscent]

So wrong you are. Nations in our world analogize very accurately to individuals in your NAP world.

Are you claiming that in a stateless society that values the NAP, all individuals will feel they have the right to initiate violence against any other individual? What?

How is such a question relevant? First of all, I made no such claim. Secondly, I did in fact claim that you can't presuppose that a stateless society would value the NAP, thus the point of our discussion is for you to demonstrate that a stateless society would universally adopt the NAP. You're getting absolutely nowhere by trying to argue for the existence of a scenario by presupposing it.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

Nations in our world analogize very accurately to individuals in your NAP world.

Nations, definitely not.
Governments, in some senses, related to sovereignty, perhaps. But you should never forget that individuals in a free society would not be able to force millions of others to pay for their expenses. It's much easier to do stupid things or violent wars when you're not paying the bill. The decision makers in governments barely need to bother in making bad decisions, while a free individual would internalize all of his costs.

And by the way, if even governments, which don't pay the true price for they actions, manage to solve most of their disagreements diplomatically, it makes no sense thinking sovereign individuals would live in constant war. Logic and history show otherwise. (medieval Ireland, for instance, had less and smaller wars than continental Europe in the same period).

Also, if you realize that governments are in anarchy in relation to each other, and if you support the (wrong) idea that a ultimate decision maker is imperative for society organization, than the only logical conclusion is that you support the abomination of a World Government... do you?

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

You still have the basic problem.  No laws means gang law.

"Gang law" is exactly what we live in today. The strongest armed group of a territory imposes its law through coercion. That's precisely what libertarians are against.

[Hawker]

You still have the basic problem.  No laws means gang law.

"Gang law" is exactly what we live in today. The strongest armed group of a territory imposes its law through coercion. That's precisely what libertarians are against.

A state with a monopoly on violence, with its ability to exercise force subject to democratic control, is preferable to being subject to the whims of gang law or mob rule where violence is meted out as and when a gangster feels like it.

We already know you oppose democracy - what you are failing to do is offer something better. 

[FredericBastiat]

THE LAW

Men, Women, Agent(s), Person(s), and Life collectively or individually have synonymous equivalent meaning herein. De facto entrusted crucially dependent Life admits safe guardianship or conveyance thereto.
1.   All men are equal in Rights.
  1.1.   All men are intrinsically free, whose expression when manifest, admits autonomy.
  1.2.   Rights exist because man exists (consequent to Life).
  1.3.   Rights are inalienable and inherent, hence discovered not created.
  1.4.   Man commits autonomous choices apart from all other men.
2.   Rights are defined as the Liberty to control, secure and defend one’s Property and Life.
3.   Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything not in violation of other’s Rights.
4.   Rights Violations are unprovoked physical aggressions (UPAs) initiated by man against another, or Breaches of Contract (BOCs), resulting in an incontrovertible diminishment in one’s Rights.
  4.1.   UPAs are non-consenting acts which cause an Object (Property or Life) to undergo a transferred or transformed change to the Object’s original energy state or condition.
  4.2.   Energy transfer to/from an Object or energy transformation of the Object occurs by means of three ways, namely: thermodynamic work, heat transfer, or mass transfer.
  4.3.   Contracts are compulsory promissory agreements involving Property or Life (and specific performances or forbearances therewith) between mutually consenting men.
  4.4.   Misrepresentation of Contract obligations or BOCs resulting in misappropriation of Property or Life, or expenditures related thereto, is subject to Rights Violations.
5.   Property can be anything comprised of physical material matter (PMM).
6.    Property is the exclusive non-simultaneous possession or dominion of discrete PMM.
  6.1.   Unconstrained/non-delimited/uncontrolled PMM (UPMM), UPMM effusions or energy transmissions, are not Property; they are ownerless nonexclusive UPMM or Emissions thereof, until physically made to become otherwise.
  6.2.   A Property’s inertial reference frame, dimensions, Emissions/Emitters, usage and genesis thereof, define and constitute its Property Scope Ambit (PSA).
  6.3.   PSAs that initiate tangible material perturbations which intersect or preclude another’s preexisting or antecedent PSAs may be subject to Rights Violations.
6.4.   Preexisting antecedent unconstrained Emitters cannot proscribe the receipt of similar, both in magnitude and direction, intersecting Emissions Flux.
  6.5.   Property cannot transform into something extracorporeal, extrinsic or compulsory due to the manipulation or interpretation of its PMM composition.
  6.6.   Absent Contract and Force, Property or Life of one man shall not control, compel or impede Property or Life of another.
  6.7.   Unintentional personal ingress vouchsafes unimpeded passage and egress.
7.   Force is the means –proportionate to the aggression– to obstruct, inhibit or extirpate the Rights of any man who interferes with or imminently threatens the Rights of other men.
  7.1.   Force can only be applied to resolve Rights Violations and is consequently just.
  7.2.   Man, or an Agent to man, must ascertain that a Rights Violation has occurred.
  7.3.   Man is severally liable and accountable for solely his Rights Violations a posteriori.
8.   Justice, viz., lawfulness effectuates disjunctive Rights between men.
9.    That which is neither just nor lawful is Violence and imperils the Rights of man.
10.   Violence causes inequality (unequal in Rights of man) and is forbidden.

[Hawker]

Fred, why not make a thread where your effort to create your own law can be discussed? 

I can see its been revised and improved it over the first draft I saw; is this something you created yourself?

[FredericBastiat]

Fred, why not make a thread where your effort to create your own law can be discussed? 

I can see its been revised and improved it over the first draft I saw; is this something you created yourself?

It is my writing. I wouldn't call it my creation per se. I claim the word combinations but none of the individual concepts.

[FredericBastiat]

I disagree with the use of the word "Violence" in 9 and 10.

Would you not agree though that the opposite of lawfulness and justice would be violence at least in the context of the aforementioned definitions? As in things that are unjust and unlawful are violent, and if they are not violent, then they may be a "crime" without a victim, and therefore not "criminal" to begin with? Or at least not a proportional punishment/force/response relative to the measure of the physical aggressive acts themselves.

I'm interested in proportionality of punishment, restitution and marginal deterrence, and thus any response in excess of the "crime" committed is "unfairly" disproportionate and unwarranted. It would appear we have many laws that meet this description. We make criminals out of relatively ordinary people.

It's very difficult to make a statement/definition maintain it's truthfullness and conciseness without some context.

[Hawker]

Fred, why not make a thread where your effort to create your own law can be discussed? 

I can see its been revised and improved it over the first draft I saw; is this something you created yourself?

It is my writing. I wouldn't call it my creation per se. I claim the word combinations but none of the individual concepts.

1.2.   Rights exist because man exists (consequent to Life).

1.2 is an assertion that everyone can make their own version of.  For example, I see your compatriot Rick Santorum saying that rights come from God and that the Constitution merely frames them.  Marxists would say rights come from dialectal materialism and so on.

Is it your position that rights are simply rules that we assert and that everyone has his own set of rights to assert?

[FredericBastiat]

1.2 is an assertion that everyone can make their own version of.  For example, I see your compatriot Rick Santorum saying that rights come from God and that the Constitution merely frames them.  Marxists would say rights come from dialectal materialism and so on.

Is it your position that rights are simply rules that we assert and that everyone has his own set of rights to assert?

Sure, to an extent (these are 'is/ought' philosophies after all). The only caveat being that it not infringe upon others from doing the same (equivalent supremacy to act or to own). Which is to say, you can act upon yourself and your things, but not upon others without their express permission. This assumes there is some tangible distinction between what is yours, mine, and ours (in the contractual sense of the word).

A reasoned and logical definition using physical descriptions of discernably separable and divisible objects (aka physical property) is helpful. And anything that makes it difficult to separate these concerns (reified concepts, or unconstrainable spaces and objects) results in things that are either not possessable, or in the commons -which might create potential conflict- conflict best avoided I would think.

Simply speaking if I may, it would seem an excellent ideal that your assertions shouldn't violate my assertions otherwise they aren't valid assertions (unless you believe might makes right). In which case, who needs laws, or property, or justice?

[Hawker]

1.2 is an assertion that everyone can make their own version of.  For example, I see your compatriot Rick Santorum saying that rights come from God and that the Constitution merely frames them.  Marxists would say rights come from dialectal materialism and so on.

Is it your position that rights are simply rules that we assert and that everyone has his own set of rights to assert?

Sure, to an extent (these are 'is/ought' philosophies after all). The only caveat being that it not infringe upon others from doing the same (equivalent supremacy to act or to own). Which is to say, you can act upon yourself and your things, but not upon others without their express permission. This assumes there is some tangible distinction between what is yours, mine, and ours (in the contractual sense of the word).

A reasoned and logical definition using physical descriptions of discernably separable and divisible objects (aka physical property) is helpful. And anything that makes it difficult to separate these concerns (reified concepts, or unconstrainable spaces and objects) results in things that are either not possessable, or in the commons -which might create potential conflict- conflict best avoided I would think.

Simply speaking if I may, it would seem an excellent ideal that your assertions shouldn't violate my assertions otherwise they aren't valid assertions (unless you believe might makes right). In which case, who needs laws, or property, or justice?

Are you really saying that we all get to assert our own ideas about rights but all the ones that you don't agree with are not valid?

[FredericBastiat]

Are you really saying that we all get to assert our own ideas about rights but all the ones that you don't agree with are not valid?

No. Just saying that you can assert any right/idea/liberty, of which there are an infinite number, in such a way that doesn't willfully impart a significant force (F = ma) or change the condition of my person or things, since increasing or decreasing the mass or energy of the system of my person/property may be interpreted as aggression.  To wit, don't violate 4.1 or 4.2 and we should be just dandy. It explains it quite concisely and uses physics constructs to boot. Cool huh?

I can dislike your assertions all I want, but merely disliking them isn't sufficient justification to prevent you from exercising them (lawfully proscribe). It's only when they affect me significantly (using the laws of physics to measure them) that we might have an issue.

Of course, everything we do imparts some change in other objects in the universe and vice versa, but how much, where, and with what intent, matters. Whatdya say we keep the unwarranted physical intersections to a minimum; and when we can't find a way to resolve them, try to apply the least amount of violence?

[Hawker]

Are you really saying that we all get to assert our own ideas about rights but all the ones that you don't agree with are not valid?

No. Just saying that you can assert any right/idea/liberty, of which there are an infinite number, in such a way that doesn't willfully impart a significant force (F = ma) or change the condition of my person or things, since increasing or decreasing the mass or energy of the system of my person/property may be interpreted as aggression.  To wit, don't violate 4.1 or 4.2 and we should be just dandy. It explains it quite concisely and uses physics constructs to boot. Cool huh?

I can dislike your assertions all I want, but merely disliking them isn't sufficient justification to prevent you from exercising them (lawfully proscribe). It's only when they affect me significantly (using the laws of physics to measure them) that we might have an issue.

Of course, everything we do imparts some change in other objects in the universe and vice versa, but how much, where, and with what intent, matters. Whatdya say we keep the unwarranted physical intersections to a minimum; and when we can't find a way to resolve them, try to apply the least amount of violence?

The physics thing is odd. 

You are still saying that your rights are better than other people's so they should accept your rules are better.  For example, I can say that property rights are a human creation and that they are used to make a more stable prosperous society.  You can say that God made the rights or whatever and that all we can hope to do is discover them.  Do my property rights have equal value to yours?

[NghtRppr]

So funny. For about the hundredth time in about the past six months, who exactly agrees that you may use proportional force? What if your neighbor doesn't buy into NAP?

Then either the neighbor believes one of two things:

1. He can use aggression whenever he wants but nobody can use aggression against him.
2. Anybody can use aggression on anyone at anytime.

If he believes (1) then he's just trying to set a double standard for himself and his wishes have no merit. If he believes (2) then he can't consistently object to anything I do to him, including responding proportionally when using violence.

[Hawker]

So funny. For about the hundredth time in about the past six months, who exactly agrees that you may use proportional force? What if your neighbor doesn't buy into NAP?

Then either the neighbor believes one of two things:

1. He can use aggression whenever he wants but nobody can use aggression against him.
2. Anybody can use aggression on anyone at anytime.

If he believes (1) then he's just trying to set a double standard for himself and his wishes have no merit. If he believes (2) then he can't consistently object to anything I do to him, including responding proportionally when using violence.

There are lots of people in category 1.  Charismatic individuals who have followers and thus unless you have an army, you can't do a thing to him.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

So funny. For about the hundredth time in about the past six months, who exactly agrees that you may use proportional force? What if your neighbor doesn't buy into NAP?

Then either the neighbor believes one of two things:

1. He can use aggression whenever he wants but nobody can use aggression against him.
2. Anybody can use aggression on anyone at anytime.

If he believes (1) then he's just trying to set a double standard for himself and his wishes have no merit. If he believes (2) then he can't consistently object to anything I do to him, including responding proportionally when using violence.

There are lots of people in category 1.  Charismatic individuals who have followers and thus unless you have an army, you can't do a thing to him.

Oh, the fact that we are "hostages" to authoritarian people like you, we already know very well.

All we can do is complain, argue, try to move to less authoritarian places, try to support ideas/projects that might reduce the power of such people (like bitcoin, seasteading, Free cities etc) and so on.
I have no hope - and I believe most libertarians neither - of ever become a truly sovereign individual. Maybe in a very distant future that will be a possibility, but we'll be all dead by then. I have much less hope of ever seeing a world without intentional murders. That does not mean I will support a "minimum rate of murders" because "it has always existed", "society can't be organized without it" etc.

[Hawker]

So funny. For about the hundredth time in about the past six months, who exactly agrees that you may use proportional force? What if your neighbor doesn't buy into NAP?

Then either the neighbor believes one of two things:

1. He can use aggression whenever he wants but nobody can use aggression against him.
2. Anybody can use aggression on anyone at anytime.

If he believes (1) then he's just trying to set a double standard for himself and his wishes have no merit. If he believes (2) then he can't consistently object to anything I do to him, including responding proportionally when using violence.

There are lots of people in category 1.  Charismatic individuals who have followers and thus unless you have an army, you can't do a thing to him.

Oh, the fact that we are "hostages" to authoritarian people like you, we already know very well.

All we can do is complain, argue, try to move to less authoritarian places, try to support ideas/projects that might reduce the power of such people (like bitcoin, seasteading, Free cities etc) and so on.
I have no hope - and I believe most libertarians neither - of ever become a truly sovereign individual. Maybe in a very distant future that will be a possibility, but we'll be all dead by then. I have much less hope of ever seeing a world without intentional murders. That does not mean I will support a "minimum rate of murders" because "it has always existed", "society can't be organized without it" etc.

If I might offer an analogy, its not enough to say the roof on a house is leaky; you have to offer a way to fix it or a way to replace it with a better roof.  You rightly point out that modern societies are not perfect.  The problem is that you don't offer an alternative that is better.

[chrisrico]

If I might offer an analogy, its not enough to say the roof on a house is leaky; you have to offer a way to fix it or a way to replace it with a better roof.  You rightly point out that modern societies are not perfect.  The problem is that you don't offer an alternative that is better.

Unfortunately for you, repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true.

The alternative we offer is a society organized from the bottom-up. I'm sorry that you are unable to wrap your mind around that.

Let me offer an analogy for why your criticism is flawed. In the time when slavery was a widespread institution, it was a valid criticism to say that slavery should be abolished, even if you did not offer any alternative to how the things slaves did would get done. In the same way, anarchists of various stripes say that the state should be abolished, even though we do not (and cannot) tell you exactly how the things government does will be accomplished. To think that one person or one small group could tell you that is the pretense of knowledge, and is one of the reasons that centralized institutions like states fail at their goals.

[NghtRppr]

its not enough to say the roof on a house is leaky; you have to offer a way to fix it or a way to replace it with a better roof

A leaky roof is a poor analogy because there are no moral or ethical implications. As chrisco correctly points out, saying we should stop doing something immoral, even without suggesting an alternative, does make sense. I don't need to tell a rapist how he's going to get laid. I do know that he should stop raping though.

[Hawker]

its not enough to say the roof on a house is leaky; you have to offer a way to fix it or a way to replace it with a better roof

A leaky roof is a poor analogy because there are no moral or ethical implications. As chrisco correctly points out, saying we should stop doing something immoral, even without suggesting an alternative, does make sense. I don't need to tell a rapist how he's going to get laid. I do know that he should stop raping though.

That is an even worse analogy.  Rape is a clearly understood concept and all are agreed its bad.  Living in a democracy is also a clearly understood concept but no-one really thinks its bad.

[chrisrico]

That is an even worse analogy.  Rape is a clearly understood concept and all are agreed its bad.  Living in a democracy is also a clearly understood concept but no-one really thinks its bad.

Your analogy had nothing at all to do with the morality of human interaction. Our analogies have everything to do with the morality of human interaction. Government is an entity which mediates human interaction, and claims to be moral doing so. How is it possible that our analogies were worse than yours?

I also dispute the claim that rape is a clearly understood concept and all agreed it is bad (rape is common in many places of the world, and the line between rape and consensual sex is fuzzy in many cases). I would agree if you had made that claim about slavery, except that is a fairly recent development. There was a time when many people considered slavery to be necessary and perfectly moral. Did that make it so?

[FirstAscent]

Oh, the fact that we are "hostages" to authoritarian people like you, we already know very well.

All we can do is complain, argue, try to move to less authoritarian places, try to support ideas/projects that might reduce the power of such people (like bitcoin, seasteading, Free cities etc) and so on.
I have no hope - and I believe most libertarians neither - of ever become a truly sovereign individual. Maybe in a very distant future that will be a possibility, but we'll be all dead by then. I have much less hope of ever seeing a world without intentional murders. That does not mean I will support a "minimum rate of murders" because "it has always existed", "society can't be organized without it" etc.

That sounds like an admission that NAP is not realistic. It's one thing to pine for a society where it will work, and in theory it could work if the society was small and all were fervent NAP believers, but it simply isn't workable in the real world.

So, we've been asking the same question to you guys over and over. How do you make NAP work? And we finally got an answer: it won't work, accept in small isolated communities.

[chrisrico]

That sounds like an admission that NAP is not realistic. It's one thing to pine for a society where it will work, and in theory it could work if the society was small and all were fervent NAP believers, but it simply isn't workable in the real world.

So, we've been asking the same question to you guys over and over. How do you make NAP work? And we finally got an answer: it won't work, accept in small isolated communities.

You're reading too far into it. It merely means that right now most of society has accepted the state's proposition that it is acceptable to initiate the use of violence. This, of course, is because that acceptance is necessary in order for the state to exist. However, the state's use of violence always comes back to bite it's citizens, and the hope is that by spreading the message of NAP, eventually people will say "enough", and refuse to tolerate a state any longer.

[Hawker]

That is an even worse analogy.  Rape is a clearly understood concept and all are agreed its bad.  Living in a democracy is also a clearly understood concept but no-one really thinks its bad.

Your analogy had nothing at all to do with the morality of human interaction. Our analogies have everything to do with the morality of human interaction. Government is an entity which mediates human interaction, and claims to be moral doing so. How is it possible that our analogies were worse than yours?

I also dispute the claim that rape is a clearly understood concept and all agreed it is bad (rape is common in many places of the world, and the line between rape and consensual sex is fuzzy in many cases). I would agree if you had made that claim about slavery, except that is a fairly recent development. There was a time when many people considered slavery to be necessary and perfectly moral. Did that make it so?

OK.  Point taken.  there is nothing worse than an analogy that is meant to make things clear but actually obfusticates; my leaky roof analogy did that so please ignore it while I try to myself clearer.

I think we are both agreed that society is far from perfect.

We both know that there is violent chaos if the present system breaks down.  In London, a city that has been at the heart of a strong state for over 1000 years, it took all of 30 minutes for riots and mayhem to start once word got out that the police were not going to protect property last summer.  The same is true for every city.

If you want to remove the state, you have to offer a way to protect people from this violence and chaos first.  

So how do you do it?  

[NghtRppr]

If you want to remove the state, you have to offer a way to protect people from this violence and chaos first.

I have to? No, I don't.

[FirstAscent]

If you want to remove the state, you have to offer a way to protect people from this violence and chaos first.

I have to? No, I don't.

Correct. You won't have that responsibility. And you might not have the resources. In fact, you almost certainly won't have the ability or resources to protect even yourself from certain individuals and their followers. You'll just hope that such individuals don't take a liking to your neck of the woods.

[chrisrico]

OK.  Point taken.  there is nothing worse than an analogy that is meant to make things clear but actually obfusticates; my leaky roof analogy did that so please ignore it while I try to myself clearer.

I appreciate your willingness to concede that the analogy is unfit.

I think we are both agreed that society is far from perfect.

Yes. I would say it is fundamentally flawed.

We both know that there is violent chaos if the present system breaks down.

Actually, I believe that the present system is chaotic, and that you mistake top-down chaos for order.

In London, a city that has been at the heart of a strong state for over 1000 years, it took all of 30 minutes for riots and mayhem to start once word got out that the police were not going to protect property last summer.

First of all, can you please provide a citation for your claim that riots began after "word got out that the police were not going to protect private property"? My understanding is that the riots began after police killed Mark Duggan.

Second, in what way is this not a condemnation of the state? These are individuals educated in the state's educational system, taught implicitly and explicitly that it is sometimes acceptable to initiate violence against others. Is it any wonder that when faced with socio-economic hardship, they turn to violence?

If you want to remove the state, you have to offer a way to protect people from this violence and chaos first.

So how do you do it?

You are convinced that a violent monopoly is necessary in order to maintain peace, and that chaos is in fact order. I have no idea how to convince you that this is completely self-contradictory if it is not immediately obvious.

[Hawker]

...snip...

First of all, can you please provide a citation for your claim that riots began after "word got out that the police were not going to protect private property"? My understanding is that the riots began after police killed Mark Duggan.

Second, in what way is this not a condemnation of the state? These are individuals educated in the state's educational system, taught implicitly and explicitly that it is sometimes acceptable to initiate violence against others. Is it any wonder that when faced with socio-economic hardship, they turn to violence?

If you want to remove the state, you have to offer a way to protect people from this violence and chaos first.

So how do you do it?

You are convinced that a violent monopoly is necessary in order to maintain peace, and that chaos is in fact order. I have no idea how to convince you that this is completely self-contradictory if it is not immediately obvious.

What we have now is orderly societies all over the democratic world.  If these states are not peaceful orderly societies, then there has never been an orderly society and I dread to think what you would call societies like Syria or Iraq. 


If you define what we have now as "top down chaos" then its a bit pointless talking with you.  Why not agree to use words as they are commonly understood?

[chrisrico]

What we have now is orderly societies all over the democratic world.  If these states are not peaceful orderly societies, then there has never been an orderly society and I dread to think what you would call societies like Syria or Iraq. 

If you define what we have now as "top down chaos" then its a bit pointless talking with you.  Why not agree to use words as they are commonly understood?

For thousands of years, the world has been run by states under the assumption that a few given power at the top of the pyramid can provide outcomes that benefit all the rest. That brings us to today, where you state that the world is far from perfect. How much more power must be given to the few in order to generate a more perfect outcome? Is it not possible that the underlying assumption, that order can be created from the top down, is invalid?

Anyway, as you said this discussion is pointless, so I shall not expend any further effort replying.

[Hawker]

What we have now is orderly societies all over the democratic world.  If these states are not peaceful orderly societies, then there has never been an orderly society and I dread to think what you would call societies like Syria or Iraq. 

If you define what we have now as "top down chaos" then its a bit pointless talking with you.  Why not agree to use words as they are commonly understood?

For thousands of years, the world has been run by states under the assumption that a few given power at the top of the pyramid can provide outcomes that benefit all the rest. That brings us to today, where you state that the world is far from perfect. How much more power must be given to the few in order to generate a more perfect outcome? Is it not possible that the underlying assumption, that order can be created from the top down, is invalid?

Anyway, as you said this discussion is pointless, so I shall not expend any further effort replying.

Any conversation where someone is using words out of their agreed meaning is pointless. 

For 1000s of years, people have wanted to have a society where they feel safe.  We currently have that in a great many countries.  A single state monopoly on violence and people being able to vote on how that power is exercised have proved to be good things. 

You keep saying there is an alternative.  Do you not have a way to articulate it?

[NghtRppr]

If you want to remove the state, you have to offer a way to protect people from this violence and chaos first.

I have to? No, I don't.

Correct. You won't have that responsibility. And you might not have the resources. In fact, you almost certainly won't have the ability or resources to protect even yourself from certain individuals and their followers. You'll just hope that such individuals don't take a liking to your neck of the woods.

The market supplies for our demands of juice, jump ropes and jet engines. What makes you think that the market won't supply for our demands of justice? Serious analysis please, not "ZOMG roving gangs". That's just FUD.

[FirstAscent]

If you want to remove the state, you have to offer a way to protect people from this violence and chaos first.

I have to? No, I don't.

Correct. You won't have that responsibility. And you might not have the resources. In fact, you almost certainly won't have the ability or resources to protect even yourself from certain individuals and their followers. You'll just hope that such individuals don't take a liking to your neck of the woods.

The market supplies for our demands of juice, jump ropes and jet engines. What makes you think that the market won't supply for our demands of justice? Serious analysis please, not "ZOMG roving gangs". That's just FUD.

Your analogies are laughable. The very definition of justice pertains to fairness, equity and the upholding of law. Please show where orange juice and jet engines are products in which individuals expect the same from.

[chrisrico]

Your analogies are laughable. The very definition of justice pertains to fairness, equity and the upholding of law. Please show where orange juice and jet engines are products in which individuals expect the same from.

Your fatal assumption is that you assume justice is an objective thing. It's not, it's subjective; what I consider to be just you may not. Orange juice and jet engines are the same way... what I consider to be good OJ, you may not. Thankfully, there is not a single monopoly supplier of orange juice or jet engines, so competition allows the satisfaction of diverse demands for those products. Unfortunately, in every geographical region, there is a single monopoly supplier of justice. In the United States, that means justice looks like this.

[Luther]

We must coerce people into respecting each other's rights.
In a completely free society, we must assume the potential of infinite diversity. If we don't, our prejudices would prevent us from respecting the uniqueness of everyone's needs. This would make society quite unfree by definition.

By infinite diversity, you are referring to individual rights. Why are you claiming individual rights have infinite diversity?

By infinite diversity, I mean that each person's needs and wants are unique. For the sake of evolution, that's a good thing. It's also possible that a person's needs are so unique that others cannot understand them. This is why I'm skeptical of any generalizations that libertarians make about the way people behave.

Creating government means a one-size-fits-all solution which destroys all demand for private contract resolution institutions, and also prevents innovation in this theoretical industry which could exist if not for government.

Not so. We do have private arbitration. And people are free to criticize court rulings with reasoning that could influence future rulings. Government services do not imply monopoly.

Rights are a construct created by man to relate to his fellow man. The tribe, through social interactions, agrees on the rights of it's members. They meet another tribe with slightly different rights, but the amazing thing is how similar they are! This is because to survive, one set of rights is better than another.

Even if this is true, each tribe would develop under its own unique circumstances, requiring different customs for survival. There are also customs where no single practice is clearly better than another.

Aggression is fundamental to survival.
If someone needs food, and has no way to get it without killing or stealing, why shouldn't he do so? Without this basic survival instinct, humans would not have survived long enough to invent property rights.

I have to agree with this point, but if he tries to kill for food, he may be killed himself. He is initiating aggression and that cannot be justified morally, but that would not stop him or anyone else if that was the ONLY option. But let's ratchet up the scenario, what if without a $75,000 hospital procedure you will die, is it then justified to steal? Of course not. Will people do it to survive? Yes.

Of course it would be justified to steal. I wouldn't expect anyone to sacrifice their life only to uphold property rights.

The question is how should we address this concern we have of starving people. Should we try to find a real sustainable solution to the problem, or should we force every person to throw in some money to give to people who need food. If you look at the result today in any meaningful way, you will see that force is not working as hunger in America has increased significantly.

Citation needed. If you're refering to the rich/poor gap, that can easily be explained by the vast majority of power being consolidated in corporations. Yes, that is a use of force, so you might be partially right.

Finally, if government is so inherently evil, how does it arise in the first place?

The body of people in society share the same moral principles and government enforces those principles. At first government serves the people, but the opportunity to take control and exploit the vast reserves of power government has is just too hard to pass up. Eventually nefarious entities gain control of the power center and all hell breaks loose (a few decades or centuries later). Once the body of people line their moral philosophy based on universal ethics, government is exposed as the fraud it is and can be cast aside. Until that happens let's learn the ways of peaceful interaction, and let's constantly expose the violence that is often hidden in interactions.

Well, I'm all in favor of exposing stuff, but there will always be people that are more powerful than others (making government an inherent feature of society), and they will make mistakes, so I'm certain that some violence will always be necesary.

[Hawker]

If you want to remove the state, you have to offer a way to protect people from this violence and chaos first.

I have to? No, I don't.

Correct. You won't have that responsibility. And you might not have the resources. In fact, you almost certainly won't have the ability or resources to protect even yourself from certain individuals and their followers. You'll just hope that such individuals don't take a liking to your neck of the woods.

The market supplies for our demands of juice, jump ropes and jet engines. What makes you think that the market won't supply for our demands of justice? Serious analysis please, not "ZOMG roving gangs". That's just FUD.

Its important not to get into magical thinking here.  Whether its "the market" or "the fairies" its silly to say that stuff you want will just happen and that bad stuff is the fault of "the state" or "the trolls."

For example, the market doesn't meet your demand for health care and it never can.  So you have no reason to say a market in goons is a good replacement for a police force.

[Luther]

I don't have near enough time to respond to everything that's being said, so I probably won't be posting anymore. But I couldn't resist this:

If I might offer an analogy, its not enough to say the roof on a house is leaky; you have to offer a way to fix it or a way to replace it with a better roof.  You rightly point out that modern societies are not perfect.  The problem is that you don't offer an alternative that is better.

[snip]

Let me offer an analogy for why your criticism is flawed. In the time when slavery was a widespread institution, it was a valid criticism to say that slavery should be abolished, even if you did not offer any alternative to how the things slaves did would get done. In the same way, anarchists of various stripes say that the state should be abolished, even though we do not (and cannot) tell you exactly how the things government does will be accomplished. To think that one person or one small group could tell you that is the pretense of knowledge, and is one of the reasons that centralized institutions like states fail at their goals.

Sure, if all the cotton was produced by slaves, we could find a way to get by without cotton. Just like if we abolished copyright, we would find a way to survive without lame-ass movies coming out every week. It would be tough, but at least the strongest among us would survive.

HOWEVER, if we abolished the state, a new one would simply take its place. This is because every society has structure, and some people are creative enough to use that structure to seize power.

If we try to make a concious decision about what form that new state will take, we will either make the world a better place, or we will learn from our mistakes (hopefully both). Either way, it's a net plus.

If we merely abolish the state and then go about our business, some people would seize power and we'd be oppressed all over again. We'd break even, at best.

[Fizzgig]

If there was no state, you think one would just 'slip' in? I think I'd notice if a government slipped in and started taking my money. But it's okay as long as they buy something with it and let me use it right?

[Hawker]

If there was no state, you think one would just 'slip' in? I think I'd notice if a government slipped in and started taking my money. But it's okay as long as they buy something with it and let me use it right?

If there was no state, you will have armed militias financed by foreign states. One of them will control the area you live in and you will either comply with it or be killed by it. 

[Luther]

@Fizzgig: Just because you cannot personally think of how something might be done, doesn't make it impossible. Any con man knows how to manipulate social power structures.

[Fizzgig]

Any con man knows how to manipulate social power structures.

Exactly.

The problem is that you don't offer an alternative that is better.

If a man is enslaved, should I offer up an alternative before I condemn slavery? The fundamental building block of any government is a monopoly of force, how can you build anything stable from that?

[Hawker]

Any con man knows how to manipulate social power structures.

Exactly.

The problem is that you don't offer an alternative that is better.

If a man is enslaved, should I offer up an alternative before I condemn slavery? The fundamental building block of any government is a monopoly of force, how can you build anything stable from that?

What an odd question!  Here we are in a peaceful stable set of societies and you are asking how we can build a stable society.  No need - its been done and we like it.  The idea of forums like this is that you offer an improvement.

[Luther]

Any con man knows how to manipulate social power structures.

Exactly.

So what's your point, exactly? Any time you get 3 or more people together, you get a power structure. To get rid of government, you'd have to ban nearly all social interactions.

The fundamental building block of any government is a monopoly of force, how can you build anything stable from that?

If the government had a monopoly on force, it would be impossible for anyone to commit illegal violence. So by your definition, we already live in an anarchy.

I contend that government is built on the need for monopolized services. The source of its seemingly disproportionate power is the fact that there are people who are willing to publicly risk their lives to enforce its polocies. People like that can easily whoop anything you can establish with just property rights and contracts.

[Hawker]

...snip...

I contend that government is built on the need for monopolized services. The source of its seemingly disproportionate power is the fact that there are people who are willing to publicly risk their lives to enforce its polocies. People like that can easily whoop anything you can establish with just property rights and contracts.

There you have the core fault in the stateless society argument.  Once you come to deal with people who are willing to die for their beliefs, you need a state to protect you.  Since you know these people are out there, the best thing is to work for a state that respects the rights of people of all kinds.

[nybble41]

Here we are in a peaceful stable set of societies and you are asking how we can build a stable society.

The whole point is that current societies are neither peaceful nor stable. The law is in constant flux, riddled with special cases and loopholes, and driven by political expediency and the whims of special-interest groups. Aggression of all forms--theft, fraud, assault, wrongful imprisonment, even murder--is not only widespread, but systemic.

Government is force. That is its defining characteristic. If it did not practice aggression it would not be a government. There is no such thing as a peaceful society which endorses the use of force against non-aggressors. It may prove impossible in practice to have a peaceful society in the absence of government, but one thing is for sure: you will never have a peaceful society with government.

[Hunterbunter]

Is there really a difference, save for scale and different names, between government of a country and government of a private property? In both cases, anyone who uses your land does so under your rules, and it is in your benefit to remove disturbers of the peace for the sake of other tenants, to avoid good tenant flight (although good is entirely subjective, of course).

Either taxes or rent pay for the maintenance of the property, tenant services, and your time in governing (managing).

Government owned the country before you were born. The landlord bought the house before you did. Both defend them, usually to someone's death. It also helps that human's need land to survive for very long, making ownership the win on many counts.

If you get enough people to support your cause, and you can overwhelm defenses of either state; you can take over either the government or a private property.

It sounds to me many libertarians misunderstand this difference in scale. Smaller doses of private owners watching their own fences will still have government of that property, as they will have their own rules, and what you're really asking for is to be in charge of the country...but have a billion little countries. Wouldn't it be lovely paying a billion different tariffs when you want to ship something from NY to LA.

How many libertarians are against the idea of ownership?

[Hawker]

Here we are in a peaceful stable set of societies and you are asking how we can build a stable society.

The whole point is that current societies are neither peaceful nor stable. The law is in constant flux, riddled with special cases and loopholes, and driven by political expediency and the whims of special-interest groups. Aggression of all forms--theft, fraud, assault, wrongful imprisonment, even murder--is not only widespread, but systemic.

Government is force. That is its defining characteristic. If it did not practice aggression it would not be a government. There is no such thing as a peaceful society which endorses the use of force against non-aggressors. It may prove impossible in practice to have a peaceful society in the absence of government, but one thing is for sure: you will never have a peaceful society with government.

Its nice to debate theories but you can't invent you own facts.  Societies that have phenomenally low violence rates, constitutions that are ancient and that are well established democracies are peaceful and stable.

[Fizzgig]

I think a very important point to understand about the human condition is that we are animals seeking to maximize our stuff. Generally, the best way to maximize your own stuff is by interacting with other people in a voluntary manner. However, situations occur where the best way to maximize your stuff is by cheating others out of their stuff. The NAP describes a way for people to interact so that risk is contained, competition is encouraged (failure is common), and barriers to entry are low.

The introduction of an all-powerful entity into an ecosystem does nothing to keep risk contained, encourage competition, or keep barriers to entry low. All it does is attract powerful players looking to bend this all-powerful entity to their own will (like when regulation is passed which benefits the established businesses over future start-ups).

Bailing out gigantic institutions which can kill our economy demonstrates a lack of redundancy, an abundance of offloaded risk, and a lack of competition.

Systems in nature have certain characteristics in common: redundancy, mutation, and selection for good reason...they're sustainable, yo.

And yes, I am saying that our current system is not sustainable. I can see how it would be much harder to entertain the idea of the NAP if you believe this system can continue. The dollar is a ponzi scheme and will collapse into rubble, dust, and other stuff.

[Hawker]

I think a very important point to understand about the human condition is that we are animals seeking to maximize our stuff. Generally, the best way to maximize your own stuff is by interacting with other people in a voluntary manner. ...snip...

That's only true in a state with a proper legal system.  Outside of a state structure, people like Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun found the best way to maximise their stuff.

I'm not disagreeing that the NAP is morally nicer but history tells us that if there is no restriction, its the real bastards who do well and its the decent people who end up as peons.