Degrees of Freedom: Lay It Out For Me: Politics, Philosophy and Economics from a libertarian point of view.

Lay It Out For Me Tuesday, January 26, 2010

After engaging in several debates on libertarian truisms and the application of force, I find myself constantly juggling between the sides of Limited-government libertarianism/minarchism and complete market anarchy. I am torn between my desire to be intellectually consistent and my desire to reconcile well-adopted theories of government behavior in economic matters.

Instead of lobbing unassailable axioms at me for anarchy, would you be more realistic about your position? How would life fundamentally change were government to be abolished (if much at all)? What are some problems with anarchy that government, through force, mitigates well and without would be unable to "solve?"

I am still rather tenuous on the position of rule of law and courts/judicial process, so bear with me on this. I have been on the fence for awhile and the arguments you two (Taylor and James) champion indeed have merit.

Would you please be more pedestrian in explaining how an anarchic society would function as opposed to any sort of society with a government?

12 Comments:

At Tue Jan 26, 10:04:00 AM EST, Taylor Conant said...: Mattheus,

I think you're coming at even this question, all wrong. The way you have phrased your request seems to imply "Please reassure me everything will be a-okay under anarchy and that everything will 'work' perfectly."

There are two general discussions one can have about these matters. They are:

1.) Discussion of what is just, regardless of current realities. By this I mean, a discussion of the correct, consistent principles by which human beings should accord themselves if they wish to live in a just society. This discussion is abstract and normative in nature.

2.) Discussion of how to live within the context of what is just. By this I mean, developing ideas, strategies and technologies (mechanical and social) that can serve as alternatives to the current order and organization of society as various aspects of the State are rolled away. This discussion is concrete and descriptive in nature.

Now, the correct way to go about these two discussions is for you (or anyone else in your situation) to wrap their head around #1, first, before attempting to tackle #2. The idea isn't to accept that anarchy is "workable" and then concede that it is logically consistent and the only description of justice, that's backwards. That would be akin to saying something like, if I manage to keep myself fed by stealing from others, this must be just because it "works" as far as keeping me nourished.

This, in fact, is how the government "solves" many problems today, as you hinted at in your post. But this is an absurd and corrupt conception of the "workable" because it attempts some kind of aggregated, utilitarian comparison of objective collective values and ignores the real, subjective costs to individual victims who must suffer in the meanwhile.

I'm not going to even begin to attempt to describe a State-free world for you until you can find a way to accept these "unassailable axioms" and drop the whole pretext that government is somehow natural, normal and just.
At Tue Jan 26, 05:48:00 PM EST, Mattheus said...: Taylor,

So let's begin with the 1st concept.

I believe your premise for justice revolves around the concept that coercion is absolutely wrong, in all contexts and circumstances.

This logically entails the observance of property rights and prohibits any measure to infringe on them, government being the biggest offender.

Is it possible to develop theories that consider the act of coercion immaterial? Plato's concept of justice in The Republic is one example.

How can we really know what is just and why do you consider coercion to be the decider?
At Tue Jan 26, 05:59:00 PM EST, Taylor Conant said...: Mattheus,

I assume when you say "coercion" you are replying to instances of aggressive initiation of the use of force, and not self-defense uses of force in response to aggressive force. If this assumption is correct, then here is my response:

Please elaborate on this Platonic theory of justice because it's been a long enough time since I've read it that I don't really have the desire to go back and re-read it in hopes of figuring out what it is, specifically, you're asking me to respond to.

As for your last question(s), How can we really know what is just and why do you consider coercion to be the decider?

I don't know. I suppose that gets into some incredibly abstract philosophy if you really want to explore the issue. But I don't think that's what you want to do, or even what you've been trying to do up to this point. You have been operating off of some premise of justice this whole time which seems to be in some concurrence with mine, which is that the use of coercion in social affairs is unjust. If coercion is unjust, then government is not a solution to this injustice but simply an expansion of it.

Without getting into a deeply philosophic and general discussion of "what is just" ("to live according to nature!" "to live according to virtue!" "to live according to the good!" "to live according to god's laws!" etc. etc. etc. etc.), the specific context within which I am concerned with justice is social interactions amongst individuals. My premise is that any involuntary exchange of values is not just because it violates an individual's property rights (in themselves, in their property, etc.). This means assault, murder, fraud and theft are unjust, and it's unjust for any and all individuals to perpetrate them, not just the individuals outside of government.

I hope that helps.
At Tue Jan 26, 06:38:00 PM EST, James said...: Mattheus,

I've written about this here

In short: I can't lay anything out for you in terms of a plan for how life without government is supposed to work, because I'm not offering an alternative plan.
At Tue Jan 26, 08:37:00 PM EST, Mattheus said...: Taylor,

The purpose of philosophical inquiry is to understand the reasons we believe certain things to be true. Some people believe in God; instead of saying "I believe because I believe," many of these people follow epistemological roads to that conclusion. Namely, that because corporeal science cannot explain the creation of Earth, it must have a metaphysical or ephemeral origin - hence, the belief in God.

Similarly, you justify your belief that coercion is wrong by citing various philosophical arguments: That we have complete self-ownership of our bodies and that we alone judge value.

But in order to ascertain if these reasons are valid, we must turn to philosophy. Economics and politics are, in fact, born from philosophy. The criteria we use to determine that a democracy is better than despotism follows our philosophical belief that humans should have some say in their governance.

Plato's concept of justice is rather murky. Throughout The Republic, Socrates (through Plato) argues with some Greek contemporaries about the nature of justice. Through this discursive method, he builds this belief that a just man can only be found in a just state, and a just state is one that is ruled by the mythical "Philosopher Kings." They are perfectly honorable and moral and execute government policy always with the most precise wisdom imaginable.

I am simply wondering what makes the other arguments for justice illogical. I am completely with you that, that given your premises are true, government is unjust and anarchy is the proper solution to injustice.

Why does Mises' definition of justice, that any act that damages the market economy is unjust, fall short?
At Tue Jan 26, 08:40:00 PM EST, Mattheus said...: James,

Your link is broken - it keeps returning me to this same thread.

I was simply wondering how life would change without government. I expect public utilities, roads, a police system, and a fire department because the government finances them through taxes.

Without such involuntary theft that is a prerequisite for government, what would the world be like?
At Tue Jan 26, 08:51:00 PM EST, Taylor Conant said...: Mattheus,

Government damages the market economy. The market economy is the sum total of voluntary exchanges. Government does not involve itself with voluntary exchange, it involves itself with involuntary exchange.

To that extent, Mises's argument doesn't fall short at all.
At Tue Jan 26, 09:00:00 PM EST, Taylor Conant said...: Mattheus,

Without such involuntary theft that is a prerequisite for government, what would the world be like?

Not what would the world be like, what could the world be like. This is the point of Bastiat's "That Which Is Seen, And That Which Is Unseen" for example.

We're not your intellectual baby-sitters. There is plenty of material out there where people have shared different visions and different ideas about what a stateless world could look like. As James points out, our point this entire time has not been to sell you an alternative to the State but rather to impress upon you the inherent injustice of the State.

I believe I've given you this link before but if I haven't, here's a start: The Laws of the Jungle, by Allen Thornton

I remember in an essay or an e-mail (which I can't find now) Thornton once responded to the rhetorical "What will people do when they are free?" by saying, "Everything. Some of it we will find disgusting."
At Tue Jan 26, 09:04:00 PM EST, Mattheus said...: Taylor,

But Mises does not find government to be unjust. He claims that its role in minarchist ideology reinforces the market because it allows the game to be played at all. Government is the medium by which voluntary trade is made possible. According to Mises, voluntary exchange could not exist because there is no plenary power to punish coercive means.

Not to digress and argue for government (again), but that is Mises' case.

Where does that go wrong?
At Tue Jan 26, 09:06:00 PM EST, Taylor Conant said...: Mattheus,

If you can't answer that question yourself, it's because you don't understand what a market is and what a market isn't.

And if you want me to explain it to you again, I won't, because I've already done so. Go back and read all the things we just finished saying to one another.
At Tue Jan 26, 09:23:00 PM EST, James said...: Mattheus,

Sorry about the bad link. Try this. Failing that, click
my name.

Since you asked, Mises errs in assuming that government and only government can protect property rights. This is false. Mises wasn't especially concerned with justice and never developed any theory of justice.

Other arguments about justice, like Plato's, fail because they presume that individuals acting on behalf of states are not to be judged by the same standards that would be applied to those same individuals acting privately. Most of the stuff that statists endorse for people in governments to do, they would readily condemn if anyone did privately. They are half right.
At Tue Jan 26, 09:53:00 PM EST, Mattheus said...: James and Taylor,

Thanks for the info (and for the links - they are very helpful). Maybe Mises' contributions were only economic after all.

I apologize for constantly bringing the topic up over and over again, but it is my own shortcoming that I am perhaps slow to learn.

This conversation has been quite enlightening.