Objectivist Ethics and the State

[Nicky]

15 hours ago, Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2 said:

There are plenty of economists who have studied the dynamics of economic interactions in an anarchist system. Have you heard of the Ludwig von Mises Institute? If not I highly recommend you check it out. They have excellent economists who have studied how an anarcho-capitalist systems would work. The Austrian school of economics can provide several theories about how a free society might look. Murray Rothbard who was an Austrian economist founded the term "anarcho-capitalist" as a matter of fact.

Mises wasn't an anarchist.

Quote

Also it is important to keep in mind that justice and protection are marketable services just like any other kind and that virtually the same principles of economics would apply to them.

What's more important to keep in mind is that you just made that up. You're taking an economic principle, and pretending it applies outside the context it was used in by the economists who formulated it.

It's an arbitrary statement that has no merit to it whatsoever. Just because something is true in one context it should also be true in every context? You think that's how logic works?

Quote

If you accept that capitalism and competition leads to the best and most efficient services when it comes to things such as health care and banking then you should also accept that they will also work well for protective services and justice services as well

I should? Why exactly should I accept your non-sequitur?

[Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2]

On ‎12‎/‎29‎/‎2015 at 3:06 PM, Nicky said:

Ok, sounds simple enough. So here comes one of the many obvious monkey wrenches: what about rape?  Are you just gonna rape the guy back? Because I don't think a rapist would particularly mind getting raped by their victim. In fact, it would just be them having sex again with the lady they raped in the first place.

Restitution based civil law sounds decidedly rapist friendly to me.

Alright, so your proposition is that laws developed in this way are superior to laws developed by current governments, like the US, UK, Switzerland or Japan (just to name a few).

So, it stands to reason that the societies that developed these laws were more just than American, British, Swiss or Japanese society today. Would you mind naming one of these superior ancient societies? I would like to verify your proposition...just to run it against reality, and thus decide, once and for all, whether it's science or sci-fi.

There would be substitutionary punishments in place for retaliation against crimes that would be impractical to emulate. In a system of civil law that which is used in retaliation for a crime does not necessarily have to be exactly the same as the crime committed. I must merely be proportional to the crime committed. The criminal could be forced to work excruciatingly hard labor at a private detention center owned by the arbitration agency or be physically beaten and harmed in a manner similar to the manner in which they have harmed their victims to name a few examples. There would be a private court that would decide the just punishment in accordance with the circumstances surrounding the crime.

In regards to your comments about the comparison between law in a free society and laws developed by current government, I would first say that I'm not sure what gives you the impression that the laws of the countries you have just mentioned are anywhere near just. The American government grew from being a limited constitutional republic to being a collectivist, quasi-socialist, imperialist, statist society within just a couple hundred years as a result of the power vacuum created by the fact that there was a centralized state up for the taking by a series of individuals that have eroded liberty in America. The wars that the United States has been involved in over the years have resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent civilians and the destruction of entire regions of the world whether it be the War on Terror (especially in Iraq) or the bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The British government has had a long history of sophisticated and highly structure law by central governments. The result has been a series of systems that has oppressed, terrorized and murdered masses of people around the world. Although the Swiss government currently happens to be abstaining from violence they have had a notoriously bloody history. Japan is highly collectivistic and considers its citizens to be guilty until proven innocent. Governments have been far more disastrous for humanity than any private entity has ever been by any objective standard.

I cannot name an anarcho-capitalist society that has been exactly like what I have envisioned but then again few believed that a democratic-republic like that which was founded in America could have existed before the American Revolution. Just because something has never been tried before does not mean it cannot work in the future.

I can however name several places throughout history that have had functional and prosperous anarchist-like societies or local governments. Ancient Ireland functioned as an anarchist society with tuatha systems for over 9,000 years and was very prosperous for the time and had minimal conflict. Ancient Iceland also had a similar system with private protection agencies that were very effective. Iceland at the time had a very functional and productive society if you look in to it and was hardly the chaotic jungle that statists would imagine. Despite the negative reputation that feudal systems have gotten over the years, many of the decentralized ones were quite functional in the middle ages. While they were by no means libertarian in that land ownership and social status was granted by governmental decree, they do give concrete examples of how an anarchist society might function. The feudal lords had treaties with the other land owners that mandated peaceful negotiation of conflicts which were created by the demand for safety that the peasants had. There was rapid economic growth throughout the time along with private arbitration agencies to peacefully resolve disputes between land owners. The old west was also contrary to popular opinion, was much more peaceful than the east despite having no centralized law. There were fewer murders, bank robberies, incidences of violent crime, etc. The economy developed significantly at the time despite starting from nothing and was a huge attraction for immigrants.

[gio]

Hey Aziz,

Have you already seen the debates between Jan Helfeld and the anarcho-capitalists (Walter Block, Stephan Molyneux, David Friedman, Larken Rose, etc.) on Youtube ? He made plenty of debates and he defend the limited government from an objectivist point of view.

Edited January 23, 2016 by gio

[Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2]

3 hours ago, gio said:

Hey Aziz,

Have you already seen the debates between Jan Helfeld and the anarcho-capitalists (Walter Block, Stephan Molyneux, David Friedman, Larken Rose, etc.) on Youtube ? He made plenty of debates and he defend the limited government from an objectivist point of view.

I have seen parts of the debate between Walter Block and Jan Helfeld and Walter Block's response to Jan Helfeld's remarks. This is when I was first considering anarchism

[gio]

2 hours ago, Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2 said:

I have seen parts of the debate between Walter Block and Jan Helfeld and Walter Block's response to Jan Helfeld's remarks. This is when I was first considering anarchism

Walter Block contradict himself several times in this debate. And he refuses to answer some questions because there are "unproper for a libertarian" (because he doesn't understand the relation between morality and politic). Watch the analysis of the debate.

Edited January 23, 2016 by gio

[Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2]

3 hours ago, gio said:

Walter Block contradict himself several times in this debate. And he refuses to answer some questions because there are "unproper for a libertarian" (because he doesn't understand the relation between morality and politic). Watch the analysis of the debate.

Could you please give me examples? Because Helfeld had some pretty weak points too. He was unable to respond to why we should not have a world government if private protection agencies are chaotic. If one government is necessary to form an objective set of moral rules then why would it not be better to have a world government to apply these rules worldwide? This was the question that Helfeld never directly answered.

[2046]

Walter Block is pretty bad on a lot of things. Awful actually. Hetfield is terrible in this debate. I have a hard time thinking that this ranting and raving guy making sophomoic arguments is the same calm, cool and Socratic Hetfield seen in many of his other videos. Nonetheless neither of these guys exhaust the possibilities of argumentation in the debate on market vs monopoly legal systems.

[Reasoner]

On 12/31/2015 at 0:08 AM, Eiuol said:

You need to justify this claim. I'm disputing that a monopoly on force is -itself- a cause of corruption. I dispute that human nature operates as you say it does.

I am constantly running into this same argument.  If human nature is inherently broken and corrupt, favoring the morally subjective and dishonest, then any argument needs to justify less external human involvement in human affairs - as each individual, acting according to an honest assessment of human nature, is naturally the most favorable actor to partake in that scenario.  How can the alternative, massive oversight by OTHER human beings, rationally prove to be favorable?

[Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2]

38 minutes ago, Reasoner said:

I am constantly running into this same argument.  If human nature is inherently broken and corrupt, favoring the morally subjective and dishonest, then any argument needs to justify less external human involvement in human affairs - as each individual, acting according to an honest assessment of human nature, is naturally the most favorable actor to partake in that scenario.  How can the alternative, massive oversight by OTHER human beings, rationally prove to be favorable?

agreed

[Eiuol]

13 hours ago, Reasoner said:

How can the alternative, massive oversight by OTHER human beings, rationally prove to be favorable?

Are you just finishing out the reasoning of someone who thinks human nature is to some degree corrupted? It's exactly why I mentioned the idea. Aziz is making points about economic efficiency, but a deeper premise is that power of any sort always corrupts people. We'd be unable to do anything but manipulate and lie if we can get away with it, unless the market "watches" us. It's weird though, it'd also mean the best and richest company is the most corrupt in an AnCap society based on that idea, just that it's reined in thanks to the market. Needless to say, it's not a premise Objectivism accepts at all.

[gio]

18 hours ago, Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2 said:

Could you please give me examples?

Watch the analysis of the debate.

18 hours ago, Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2 said:

Because Helfeld had some pretty weak points too. He was unable to respond to why we should not have a world government if private protection agencies are chaotic. If one government is necessary to form an objective set of moral rules then why would it not be better to have a world government to apply these rules worldwide? This was the question that Helfeld never directly answered.

He did answer in the debate at 1'49'55 and 2'05''40. But Walter Block didn't understand the answer.

[Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2]

4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Are you just finishing out the reasoning of someone who thinks human nature is to some degree corrupted? It's exactly why I mentioned the idea. Aziz is making points about economic efficiency, but a deeper premise is that power of any sort always corrupts people. We'd be unable to do anything but manipulate and lie if we can get away with it, unless the market "watches" us. It's weird though, it'd also mean the best and richest company is the most corrupt in an AnCap society based on that idea, just that it's reined in thanks to the market. Needless to say, it's not a premise Objectivism accepts at all.

I'm not saying that everyone would be unable to do anything but manipulate and lie if they can get away with it in either system. What I'm saying is that if you are concerned about people initiating force in a market you should be much more concerned about it in a system with a centralized monopoly on the initiation of force. It makes it much easier for those with evil intentions to act on them.

[Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2]

3 hours ago, gio said:

Watch the analysis of the debate.

He did answer in the debate at 1'49'55 and 2'05''40. But Walter Block didn't understand the answer.

He did not adequately answer as Walter Block explains in his analysis. He merely says it's a faulty analogy because the quantities. He also says that there are differences between nations and a world government. He merely asserted a premise without explaining why it is valid. What basis does he have for these arbitrary distinctions? He also confuses a private dispute resolution organization with a government which has the right of initiatory force and a monopoly on justice in a given territory. The basic point still holds true. If the argument is that we need a government to prevent dispute resolution agencies from fighting (which by the way have a disincentive to fight and cannot forcibly collect taxes in a given territory thereby making fighting much less likely), then why do we not need a world government to prevent nations from fighting?

[Eiuol]

53 minutes ago, Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2 said:

What I'm saying is that if you are concerned about people initiating force in a market you should be much more concerned about it in a system with a centralized monopoly on the initiation of force. It makes it much easier for those with evil intentions to act on them.

 

So I'm saying the premise leading to this conclusion is wrong. Objectivism doesn't even accept an idea like "when presented with the opportunity, people will tend to take advantage of others", because there is no assumption that people tend to be good or bad by nature. What leads to corruption is embracing certain ideas that are corrupt, not the possession of power. It's one thing to argue that AnCap is more efficient, it's another to say a monopoly on force is by nature a corrupting force. You'd need to show that your premise on human nature is true.

[Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2]

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

So I'm saying the premise leading to this conclusion is wrong. Objectivism doesn't even accept an idea like "when presented with the opportunity, people will tend to take advantage of others", because there is no assumption that people tend to be good or bad by nature. What leads to corruption is embracing certain ideas that are corrupt, not the possession of power. It's one thing to argue that AnCap is more efficient, it's another to say a monopoly on force is by nature a corrupting force. You'd need to show that your premise on human nature is true.

If you don't accept this than you should have no problem with Anarcho-Capitalism. If the majority are not this way they will overshadow those that are this way in the market. If they are then surely having a government will attract those who want to take advantage of others. Regardless of your beliefs about human nature, anarcho-capitalism is superior to government, both ethically and practically

[Eiuol]

I actually find that since the premise is false, it opens up many of the supporting arguments for government. I'm not saying people tend to be good. Some people will be corrupt, others won't, but possession of power on its own is irrelevant. I already explained why economic efficiency does not automatically mean efficiency of justice. An economically efficient market of force doesn't mean efficient application of justice.

[Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2]

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

I actually find that since the premise is false, it opens up many of the supporting arguments for government. I'm not saying people tend to be good. Some people will be corrupt, others won't, but possession of power on its own is irrelevant. I already explained why economic efficiency does not automatically mean efficiency of justice. An economically efficient market of force doesn't mean efficient application of justice.

Right, so you'll have corrupt people in the market and in government. The difference is that the government is a violent monopoly that allows for a greater expression of corruption than in a private system. A private system must satisfy the desires of the consumer and will be put out of business should it choose to become aggressive. The incentive in a government is to expand power whereas the incentive in the market is to minimize conflict and satisfy the consumer. This is why small governments have always gotten bigger

[Eiuol]

30 minutes ago, Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2 said:

The difference is that the government is a violent monopoly that allows for a greater expression of corruption than in a private system.

So you need to prove this. i disagree that government is necessarily more dangerous or more corruptible. I already said the concern for me is tolerating and permitting any and all forms of justice. You seem to act as though there are no consumers who would be quite pleased to, say, imprison or kill those who give abortions. 

[Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2]

11 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

So you need to prove this. i disagree that government is necessarily more dangerous or more corruptible. I already said the concern for me is tolerating and permitting any and all forms of justice. You seem to act as though there are no consumers who would be quite pleased to, say, imprison or kill those who give abortions. 

I never said there are no consumers that would be pleased to do bad things. I am against abortion for the record and believe it violates the non-aggression principle but in the case of other issues of initiating force, I have already shown how the market provides an incentive for the upholding of the non-aggression principle as consumers are much more likely to spend money defending themselves than aggressing against others. It would be a very poor business model to get involved in conflicts which is why companies will in advance have a contract which requires them to submit to a private court to settle disputes. The private court would rule in the way that best upheld the non-aggression principle because companies would want to avoid conflict. You seem to think that private companies are governments. They're not they have to pay the cost of war or initiation of force themselves and be responsible for the risk that a conflict would bring them. You also seem to act as though there aren't voters who are wiling to elect politicians to do the things that you abhor. Even if you agree that abortion is a right, in a democratically elected government there will always be people who will disagree and will elect politicians who will violate this "right"

[Nicky]

On 1/24/2016 at 6:15 AM, Reasoner said:

I am constantly running into this same argument.  If human nature is inherently broken and corrupt, favoring the morally subjective and dishonest, then any argument needs to justify less external human involvement in human affairs - as each individual, acting according to an honest assessment of human nature, is naturally the most favorable actor to partake in that scenario.  How can the alternative, massive oversight by OTHER human beings, rationally prove to be favorable?

In a capitalist system, there is NO OVERSIGHT on the lives of non-criminals, whatsoever. All individuals are free to act in any way they please, without violating the rights of others.

It's in anarchy (as well as in socialism, the other extreme system in which people have no limits on exerting power over others) that the worst in humanity wins out...because both systems reward brutality: it's the only way to survive, in both.

Just look at the Middle East: the relatively capitalist UAE, despite being full of Muslims, many of them fanatical, is peaceful and prosperous. Because it has a strong government, that keeps the fanatics from acting out.

Next to it, in Syria (which is actually less fanatical), as soon as there was a power vacuum, all hell broke loose. That is basically what would happen in any other anarchy, in any other place on Earth, including in the United States. What is keeping evil individuals and groups (and there are plenty of them, in every country) from acting freely against innocents, is the government. Not "market forces". Market forces are morally neutral, they don't magically make everyone behave morally. If the system rewards bad behavior (as anarchy does...we see it time and time again: in every power vacuum, things invariably get worse, not better), then market forces cause evil to win out.

A "free market" can only exist when the use of force is banned. That's the definition of a free market: peaceful interactions. In anarchy, by definition, the interactions would be through force. It would be competitors in the marketplace using force to win. That's not called a "free market", that's called war. And that's why I hate debating anarchists: it takes such massive amounts of context dropping, and evasion of reality, to confuse the free market with war, that it's like debating someone whether a red pencil is red or blue.

Edited January 25, 2016 by Nicky

[Nicky]

8 hours ago, Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2 said:

It would be a very poor business model to get involved in conflicts

First off, that's an arbitrary claim even in a vacuum. But, more importantly, it's blatantly absurd once you take even so much as a peek at reality. Criminal organizations, terrorist groups, religious fanatics all thrive in anarchy. 

[Eiuol]

10 hours ago, Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2 said:

Even if you agree that abortion is a right, in a democratically elected government there will always be people who will disagree and will elect politicians who will violate this "right"

Of course, the difference is that those same people would have to be tolerated as long as they are operating, but I don't want to repeat my earlier big post. With a government, you can say "no" immediately. This doesn't mean I want a democratically elected government anyway - initiating force isn't up for a vote.

[Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2]

16 hours ago, Nicky said:

First off, that's an arbitrary claim even in a vacuum. But, more importantly, it's blatantly absurd once you take even so much as a peek at reality. Criminal organizations, terrorist groups, religious fanatics all thrive in anarchy. 

I have explained this in earlier posts. Your second claim is completely untrue. It is quite the opposite as a matter of fact. Criminal organizations bribe government politicians to get away with what they get away with and thrive off of government prohibitions on things like drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. It is also clear that religious fanatics have done far more damage under governments. The inquisition, and oppressive religious theocracies have all existed under governments not anarchy. This type of religious oppression has been far greater than any such oppression by private entities. If you are referring to terror groups in places such as the Middle East, you should note that these religious terrorist groups have been propped up because of regional instability created by a series of corrupt military dictators (who by the way readily take bribes from such groups) and foreign intervention by governments such as the United States governments. Organizations such as the Islamic STATE of Iraq and Syria want to set up a governmental theocracy. They are not calling for anarchy and certainly not the type of libertarian anarchy I am calling for.

[Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2]

On ‎1‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 9:56 AM, Eiuol said:

Of course, the difference is that those same people would have to be tolerated as long as they are operating, but I don't want to repeat my earlier big post. With a government, you can say "no" immediately. This doesn't mean I want a democratically elected government anyway - initiating force isn't up for a vote.

No you wouldn't have to tolerate them. I believe that upon establishing such a society, which will not happen overnight, we need to have a basic code based on the non-aggression principle that all such companies that are to be set up would agree to follow. Any company that deviated from this could easily be annihilated by other companies. There will also not be restrictions of firearms making oppression much more risky and an even worse business model. Companies would not engage in oppressive behavior in the first place because they would know how dangerous and self-destructive it would be to do so. Just like no company would sell a pencil for $100 because they would have no business if they were to do so. In the free-market companies form business models conducive to their survival. If the government which has a horrific track record of becoming oppressive does become oppressive you cannot simple "hire" another government if the government has a monopoly on force in your region like you can simply hire another voluntary protection agencies. This is especially true with a government not democratically elected. What makes you think governments can't form oppressive ideologies or become corrupt as they have throughout history? Why is this restricted to private companies? Both are run by humans. The difference lies in the incentives. One is subject to competition and market incentives while the other is monopolistic, coercive and largely unchecked by any other entity other than itself. With all due respect I think you unfairly place the burden of proof on the anarchist rather than the statist which it should be placed on.

[Eiuol]

Just now, Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2 said:

No you wouldn't have to tolerate them. I believe that upon establishing such a society, which will not happen overnight, we need to have a basic code based on the non-aggression principle that all such companies that are to be set up would agree to follow. Any company that deviated from this could easily be annihilated by other companies.

Hmm, I wonder what sort of way you could organize society so that you could easily annihilate the companies that deviated from a principle of non-imitation of force. We don't want to tolerate those who initiate force. We'd need a way to ban the imitation of force outright and not allow companies that use it to operate near us. Maybe even allow something like states or provinces such that there are some checks and balances from that standard-setting institution. It'd be revolutionary, I tell you!