The idea for this document comes from the science fiction book The Diamond Age, by Neal Stephenson.
The implementation of this particular document sucks, but I like the idea of an international “common economic protocol.” Are there any other efforts at such a document? Any interest in writing one?
Something like this is way too complicated in the details to be acceptable; there are so many protocols and statements that no one man could ever keep it in his mind, let alone follow it. The principle of individual rights based upon man’s rational nature is the best stated principle of dealing with others; and governments are necessary in order to insure individual rights.
I suspect that a lot of libertarians put this thing together, as there is no unifying principle, just a bunch of out of context statements of what they think is good – good by what standard and based one what facts and what philosophy? blank out.
I do agree that when it comes to international agreements over the Internet that individual rights ought to be observed, but trying to make the Internet a kind of domain unto itself aside from local governments is not going to work; for one thing, not all countries recognize the right to free speech and not all countries recognize the right to property. And so long as a server is in a country, I’m sure that country will want to impose their laws onto that property. In other words, trying to make an agreement with, say, someone in communist Cuba ain’t gonna fly, regardless of what you and he may agree to – those communist will not accept the enslaved individual as having a right to make such agreements outside of the communist line that he is a cog in the State Wheel.
Agreeing to common principles is necessary for any rational transactions between two or more people, and I guess I can cheer them for the effort to codify something like what they are doing, but I wouldn’t say that I am willing to follow the Common Economic Protocol because it is too much of a hash job.
Here is a case in point that the Internet is not considered to be its own government. China is ramping up its censorship of the Internet in the wake of turmoil from the economic turndown and important freedom based protest past events.
Now, which format is easier to keep in mind regarding this censorship – a long list of protocols or the concept of freedom of speech?
“The campaign coincides with efforts to stifle dissent and protest as the economy slows and China enters a year of sensitive anniversaries — particularly the 20th year since the bloody crackdown on pro-democracy protests in Tiananmen Square in 1989.”
Here are their core definitions:
Property:
Anything that can be the subject matter of contract.
Coercion:
The intentional interference with the property of another.
Crime:
The successful interference with the property of another. Successful coercion.
Justice:
The elimination or absence of coercion.
Freedom:
A condition where an individual’s will regarding his own property is unopposed by any other’s will
Although there is something nice about the ideas that they are promoting therein, there are many problem – enough that if you had a society build around these principles, you wouldn’t know what what is right and what is wrong.
For example, defining property as “anything that can be the subject matter of contract” doesn’t tell you what can be the subject matter of a contract. That means you can look at a thing and ponder whether it is property, and then have to answer that by figuring out whether it can be the subject matter of a contract. How can you determine that? If there is no actual contract pertaining to a thing, does that mean it can’t be property? How could a judge decide objectively if there could be a contract regarding a thing? He can’t do what is actually done, namely determine whether the thing is property.
Interestingly, one of the fundamental property concepts that libertarians adhere to is “one’s life”. But one’s life cannot be the subject matter of a contract: you cannot form a contract requiring a party to kill themselves. By this definition, your life is therefore not property. The error is that contract depends on property, not the other way around as they have it.
The definition of coercion as “the intentional interference with the property of another” depends crucially on knowing what “interference” is. Since this is a fundamental concept, we have to know what it is. The word literally means “hinder, impede”; well, if A outbids B in negotiating for C’s property, A has “interfered”. In fact, A may have interfered with C, if his offer is high enough. It’s quite possible that C wanted to sell to B, but A’s much better offer has impeded C’s decision-making process, requiring him to balance his affection for B and his affection for A’s superior offer. What’s starkly missing is the real important element, namely the use of physical force. Notice that the concept of physical force, whose prohibition is the root of Objectivist theories of law, plays no role in their definitions.
The definition of crime as “successful coercion” is plain wrong. A crime is that which is prohibited by law. A proper law would only prohibit initiation of force, but it is just evasion to say that because a law is not a properly-justified law that the act is actually not a crime. That is primacy-of-consciousness thinking for you. To make things worse, a proper law would also include failed attempts, so their idea that you need success is also wrong. Attempted murder is and should be a crime.
Justice is not “the elimination or absence of coercion”, it is “judging a man’s character and/or actions exclusively on the basis of all the factual evidence available, and of evaluating it by means of an objective moral criterion”. Justice is much broader than prosecution for the initiation of force. Their characterization of justice means that a proper decision in a contract dispute cannot be an instance of justice.
I must restrict their freedom, given their idea that freedom is “a condition where an individual’s will regarding his own property is unopposed by any other’s will”. Their idea (which is their property) is totally wrong, and I absolutely oppose it. Although I will not initiate force against them to make the point.
Oh well.
Wow, David, that was awesome, I certainly didn’t notice a lot of the issues you pointed out there.