Lengthy Conundrums

[SuaveFeline]

Hello all! I'm fairly new here, but have been researching Anarcho-Capitalism/Voluntaryism (are they synonymous?) for several months now. Currently I'm throwing together a 30 minute senior thesis presentation defending it, but I do have a few unanswered questions I've been pondering if you all would be kind enough to advise me.

 

These may be hypothetical, but they are worrisome all the same. And I apologize if you've answered these questions before, if so just post a link.

 

1. I assume the sex trade would probably still exist in a free society (if not grow larger due to no restrictions). Currently slavery is most prevalent in these businesses, at least from what I know.  Suppose a prostitute gave birth and the child was taken and forced to work for a brothel or for clients with very particular tastes. I'll just cut to the chase here: how are the defenseless liberated in a free society without violating the rights of the slave owner or oppressors? Moreover how can people prevent helpless, orphaned/neglected children from being taken advantage of by businessmen (like in the Industrial Revolution) by pedophiles or by child-abusers? By comparison today we have social services which attempts to handle such cases, but in the process they violate the rights of parents by taking away their children. Do we just sit by and tell the children to resist their captors? Do we bribe the oppressors? (but in doing so we would empower them with more resources to continue their deplorable practices) Boycotting isn't particularly effective since most people who care about children wouldn't have been using the services these businesses provide in the first place. I would think perhaps the only viable solution is coordinated osteracizing, but we also have to consider the business partners of these evil people probably wouldn't be up to it. Another option may be covert non-violent rescue operations, but still there's the possibility of things going wrong, and the whole invasion of property thing. Lastly we could try reasoning with the evildoers, but there's no guarantee that they would listen when slavery is so lucrative.

 

TL;DR: How do you rescue innocent/helpless people without using violence to violate other people's rights?

 

2. How do we stop a seemingly endless cycle of violence caused by crimes of passion, when both parties believe themselves to be in the right? For example feuds that used to rage for decades between families in the Appalachians. These feuds could cause property damage to third parties that have no quarrel. Usually when criminals are motivated by emotion rather than reason it is very hard to calm them and arbitrate without being perceived as a threat (since they think you are calling them liars or evil by not siding with them).

 

3. How should vigilantism be treated/viewed/handled?

 

4. How are anonymous criminals stopped? (Hacking, long range/stealth assassinations) Also how are crimes investigated without search warrants (assuming DROs don't have a contract for such things in place). It would be undesirable for investigators to have to break and enter (violating property rights) in order to prove crimes. I would assume that this problem could actually lead to more product or firearm regulation and tracking than we have today. In other words, firearms manufacturers would have contracts with DROs or investigation firms which would track the owner and exact usage of the firearm itself.

 

5. Would privacy be a lot less valued in a free society, since people who refuse to have public ledgers or 24/7 surveillance are more subjected to suspicion? A person's reputation would be paramount to their business so they would probably want to be as publicly readable as possible, just so that their customers are confident in who they do business with. I would think this is one advantage to a law system which adheres to the innocent until proven guilty idea. But as a consumer I view it as more risky to buy a product which has no rating, than a product that has a mediocre rating.

 

6. Also how does an economy recover from large natural disasters, market drops, massive blows to infrastructure, or terrorism? I know "there's insurance for that" but if the disaster is big enough, it could delay recovery for an extremely long time, or destroy the insurance companies themselves. Given that people get a lot more desperate when their basic needs aren't satisfied, rampant looting, crime, and other issues could arise (like we saw after Katrina). We can also look at the rapid rise of authoritarian governments when economies started to collapse after World War One. What could we do to try and stop this from happening in a free society? Immediate satisfaction of needs through a violent state seems a lot more appealing in the short term to the laymen (who hasn't eaten in days) than the philosophical ideal of the pure free market. This very fact may have been what kept feudalism going for so long.

 

7. One of my friends, when I was speaking with him, had a concern about how average intelligence levels may drop considerably when public schools are removed. Yes charity is probably the solution, but are there any statistics that I can use to show that general education thrives much more free of public financing? (or just historical examples if there aren't any hard stats) I also wondered whether free business-funded trade schools who educate children in return for a promise of X many years of work or apprenticeship would be a solution. (but again that dips into the tricky territory of child labor and all the possible abuses that go along with it)

 

8. Just one more thing (and I'm sorry this is long). One of my professors made a case against the elimination of government-funded public goods showing that in Redmond, or the general Seattle area, regular public transportation had to be cut or reduced since it was not making enough money. Why? Because big software companies were actually paying for transportation of their employees with their own private buses! This may sound good up front, but any non-employee who didn't have a car or friend with one was stuck because the lack of the old bus line. They couldn't get a ride anywhere outside the city so they were screwed (couldn't go to job interviews, work, or buy goods). When I tried to counter with "well there's a massive demand so someone will enter the market and make a killing on a new bus line" she claimed that the buses were heavily subsidized and no one with a brain would start a similar public bus line since it could never be profitable without government intervention. After thinking about it for a while outside of class I came up with this solution, which I'd like to get an opinion on: Couldn't businesses create free/cheap public services via advertising? It works excellently online, for example with Spotify, Free2Play games, Facebook, most Google products, and other free services. In fact, Google Fiber is providing completely free internet to select cities (just an installation fee, but after that no monthly payments!). They can do this since the Google advertising these people view while on the internet makes up for the minimal cost of the somewhat low-speed internet hookup. I could see this method funding public roads, mail, TV stations, or just about any service the government currently provides. Ads do get annoying, but if people don't like it, they can pay a fee for the service and eliminate them.

 

But these services, like Facebook, free games etc, survive off of the personal info you feed them. It's essentially cheap market research for businesses. But this also raises the question of whether you have a right to your own information, and whether by necessity you'd have to give up that privacy to survive in a free society. (not here to start a flame war about intellectual property and whether it is a government construct or natural right, but if it gets brought up I'd love to discuss that as well).

 

Thanks, hope to hear some responses! I've got a couple weeks before my written speech for the presentation is done, so no rush.

[Alan C.]

Anarcho-Capitalism/Voluntaryism (are they synonymous?)

 

While some use those terms interchangeably, and they share similarities, I'd argue that they're not synonymous.

 

A voluntaryist community could conceivably exist in which everyone agrees to a property rights theory based upon 'occupation and use.'

 

I don't agree with that property rights theory because it's devoid of moral considerations and also because it would discourage the deferment of consumption (which would undermine capital formation and long-term planning).

[NumberSix]

8) I'm not familiar with the area, so this is speculation... 

It is unlikely that those suburbs would have been developed without the government subsidizing transportation or building highways.  In other words a business person would not have built housing there in the first place without prior government interference.  Or another possibility is that due to lack of transport options, housing prices would be cheaper and buying a car would be a viable option.  Also, local business might be willing to donate to a bus run by charity.  So, the government “helps” by providing transportation where there isn't a sufficient demand to support a business and then the community becomes dependent.

[dsayers]

Hey, Suave. If you don't mind me saying so, I think there's a fundamental lack of understanding here.

 

1. I assume the sex trade would probably still exist in a free society (if not grow larger due to no restrictions).

 

"Sex trade" is vague. Also, you spoke as if restriction 1) is the only variable in its size and 2) would not exist in a free society. No rules and no rulers are very different things. Also, much of the sex trade is the result of childhood trauma being recreated in all parties involved. There would be a whole lot less of this in a society enlightened enough to reject coercion as a means of resolution. The vestiges of this trade, such as a widower looking for companionship, would likely want a service that respected its workers and/or would be publicly shunned for using a service that did not.

 

Which also addresses your question of how to get others to conform without initiating the use of force against them.

 

TL;DR: How do you rescue innocent/helpless people without using violence to violate other people's rights?

 

If person A is initiating the use of force against person B, person A has created a positive obligation that others may collect in the event that the victim(s) is unable to. In other words, to save a rape victim, even if that requires force, this is not described as violence or violating the rights of the rapist.

 

5. Would privacy be a lot less valued in a free society, since people who refuse to have public ledgers or 24/7 surveillance are more subjected to suspicion?

 

They wouldn't be subjected to suspicion, they just wouldn't enjoy the benefit of reputation. Also, privacy compared to what? Would I really want to stop at a toll gate every block to satisfy my bill for use of that segment of road or would I rather have something in my car that transmits where I've driven so I can just satisfy the bill on a monthly basis, which would be divvied among the various owners of the roads I used? The latter sounds like an issue of privacy in a statist paradigm, but in a free society, it would likely be a welcome matter of convenience to the point of being a requisite of use of most roads.

 

I think the short answer is yes: Without a large predator ready to abuse access to personal information, I think privacy would be less important.

 

7. One of my friends, when I was speaking with him, had a concern about how average intelligence levels may drop considerably when public schools are removed.

 

This is a stark parting from the empirical evidence of how we learn, what public unions have done to impact schooling, the model of schooling itself, etc. You damage intelligence the moment you schedule and enforce sitting still and not talking on somebody you're pretending to educate. It's anti-educational.

 

8. Just one more thing (and I'm sorry this is long). One of my professors made a case against the elimination of government-funded public goods showing that in Redmond, or the general Seattle area, regular public transportation had to be cut or reduced since it was not making enough money. Why? Because big software companies were actually paying for transportation of their employees with their own private buses!

 

First of all, it's in error to call it government funded. Government has no money without stealing from people in the present or creating money out of thin air which steals from the unborn. That aside, the "problem" being talked about is equivalent to saying that people need to be stolen from more because an ice cream stand at the north pole wasn't doing well. In a free market, what you're describing is a signal that the demand isn't high enough somewhere for a service to exist in its current state.

 

The Statist paradigm has created this odd belief that anybody who puts forth effort deserves reward. However, through creative destruction and failure of business that are mismanaged, we all benefit and/or resources then go into the hands of the more competent.

 

The bottom line to your thesis is that the initiation of the use of force is immoral. Unless you're talking about theft, assault, rape, or murder, there's nothing that violence pretends to solve that voluntary action wouldn't actually solve and more efficiently and morally.

[SuaveFeline]

@Alan is that the only difference between the two? Would I be safe, when talking with someone who wasn't familiar with either, to use them interchangeably? I'm only curious because Anarcho-Capitalism has two roots which our society generally doesn't think very fond of (at least in the intellectual realm), whereas Voluntaryism sounds much more politically correct, at least to me. I'd think just for the sake of not turning people off to new ideas I'd favor the latter term when speaking to a large group.

 

@sayers firstly I'm curious what exactly is going on in your avatar (sorry if you've been asked that too many times) anyway, thanks for the long response!

 

 

 

If person A is initiating the use of force against person B, person A has created a positive obligation that others may collect in the event that the victim(s) is unable to. In other words, to save a rape victim, even if that requires force, this is not described as violence or violating the rights of the rapist.

 

 

This is why I wanted some info on vigilantism, because sometimes the judgement of an single outside party isn't correct. Let's say you see a struggling child being carried away into an alley. You could assume that the person is a kidnapper and use violence against him, when in reality it's just a father about to drive home a reluctant child after an exciting party. There are a lot of ambiguous cases I'm sure, which is why using force on sight, without some sort of trial or court system (DRO or otherwise) wouldn't be the most wise choice as far as I know.

 

When I say "Sex trade" I mean human trafficking for the most part (though prostitution commonly has human rights violations as well, just because of the clientele they usually cater to). Also, I feel as though you assume that the perverse market would die out because no one would be as violent or inhumane anymore. I'm assuming that, realistically (and for the sake of argument) that there would still be closet perverts and violent people that existed in a free society. What I'm after is a solution to those types of people if they acted on their impulses. I guess I'm just not satisfied with, "everything will be fine because people will be respect each other's rights and condemn those that don't" because I know that much already. I'd rather have a theory as to how violent people are treated in special cases. And perhaps I'm asking an impossible question but I'd like to hear input.

 

Another contention a friend raised was that most people don't care about human rights violations in this age, and purposely live in ignorance towards it for fear of experiencing guilt. For example: the plants that produce iPhones and cheap Chinese products (and most industries in China for that matter). I would wager that, if we all knew what transpired in those factories we'd refuse to buy products from Apple and cheap things from Walmart. Second is the matter of convenience. Looking into the background and morality reviews of companies requires time, and most people are more concerned with which product is cheapest and highest quality rather than the way it was produced. (there is a market for organics and *Made in USA type products, though most of that is out of blind national pride and concern for your own health rather than supporting companies you like).

 

Oh one more thing. So if a person is invading upon your property, with an intent to harm you, have they surrendered all their rights to you? Since you have the right to defend yourself using lethal force if necessary, could you also take away other rights from that person besides their right to life, such as their own property or even possibly (and I know this is a stretch) enslaving them after their attempted invasion? What are the limits of self-defense, in other words? Thanks!

[dsayers]

Let's say you see a struggling child being carried away into an alley. You could assume that the person is a kidnapper and use violence against him, when in reality it's just a father about to drive home a reluctant child after an exciting party.

 

What's the difference? I see two descriptions of the same event. Landing a sperm into a human egg doesn't fundamentally change a person in a way that morality applies to them differently. If they cannot make the case to the child, if they failed to negotiate leaving after/at a specific time, if they haven't developed a relationship where the child is considerate of the parent's needs also, this is a failing on the parent. Using superior force to drag a human being away against their will is immoral and anybody who physically intervened could not be called a vigilante.

 

I feel as though you assume that the perverse market would die out because no one would be as violent or inhumane anymore.

 

How could you assume this? Amid lack of specificity of what was meant by sex trade, I talked about prostitution or other "adult workers." Human trafficking is something completely different.

 

One thing to keep in mind, and this applies to all criminal acts that are actually criminal, in a statist paradigm, the offenders can bribe authorities to look the other way or give special treatment. In a free society, literally everybody you come into contact with that isn't a business cohort could be somebody that would intervene or flee to seek a greater intervening force. In other words, predation would be shoved into the margins all the more since there wouldn't be a corrupt, centralized, coercive body that you could pay off AND would chase off competing businesses and interests.

 

I guess I'm just not satisfied with, "everything will be fine because people will be respect each other's rights and condemn those that don't" because I know that much already. I'd rather have a theory as to how violent people are treated in special cases. And perhaps I'm asking an impossible question but I'd like to hear input.

 

It's very healthy to be skeptical and I certainly appreciate you being frank about it. I didn't mean to make it sound as if the world was going to be popsicles and rainbows. I do think the quote there (which somewhat misrepresents what I said) is more true than you might think. This is why I approached your thread by sharing that I think there's some lack of understanding of the fundamental nature of the problems you're talking about.

 

If you feel my point above about every person being a source of resistance rather that just people with badges in marked cars, let me know and I'll try to address any concerns.

 

Another contention a friend raised was that most people don't care about human rights violations in this age, and purposely live in ignorance towards it for fear of experiencing guilt. For example: the plants that produce iPhones and cheap Chinese products (and most industries in China for that matter). I would wager that, if we all knew what transpired in those factories we'd refuse to buy products from Apple and cheap things from Walmart.

 

So much to say about this. First of all, people DO refuse to buy Apple products. Walmart hatred is very fashionable.

 

Secondly, your friend's concern is self-contradictory. He's claiming to care about human rights violations while asserting that people don't care about human rights violations.

 

Third, you're talking about the end of a story. Where are the beginning and middle parts? The State has so many coercive regulations that companies actually experience better profits manufacturing abroad and shipping the finished products. The State prevents those workers to work for competitors that offered better conditions. This is about as far from a free market problem as you can get.

 

Fourth, Walmart is a horrible example. Yes they make use of foreign sweat shops that pay wages we think are appalling. People worked for those wages in the US as well until such a time that we generated enough capital and wealth that we could rise above. Some of the children working in those shops, if they didn't have a sweat shop to work at, might have to turn to prostitution to help their families. In other words, if you're worried about the conditions of the workers in the factories Walmart makes use of, the best thing you could do to help is to shop at Walmart! This would help them to amass more capital and wealth and generally improve their working conditions. Which would lead to innovation and efficiency improvements that would lead to an even cheaper price coming back to you. Everybody wins.

 

if a person is invading upon your property, with an intent to harm you, have they surrendered all their rights to you? Since you have the right to defend yourself using lethal force if necessary, could you also take away other rights from that person besides their right to life, such as their own property or even possibly (and I know this is a stretch) enslaving them after their attempted invasion? What are the limits of self-defense, in other words? Thanks!

 

I wanted to recommend this video that was VERY helpful to me in terms of considerations of this type. Basically, the most accurate way to describe it is that when a person violates your property, they are creating a positive obligation to you. How you settle that debt is between the two of you, though in the moment, you'll have limited options. The important thing is that it's enough to make victimizing others unattractive, but not so much that being victimized is attractive.

 

You ask about enslaving them and the answer is: Yes! Say they stroll onto your property to steal your car. You take note and try to stop them. They give you a Nancy Kerrigan and run off to avoid being seen. You're able to identify and prove who it is. You keep a lovely yard, but are unable to walk as a result of their injury. You might decide that restitution includes them servicing your landscaping needs until you recover, as well as making trips to the store for example. Your attacker can choose to comply or face the reality of being unable to buy groceries or gas until such a time as he does.

 

With all due respect, I'm sticking by my claim of a lack of fundamentals. A lot of the "issues" you mention are superficial and looking at how they came to pass makes things look a lot different. That's the act of cutting through propaganda to reach the truth.

[SuaveFeline]

Sorry if I'm appearing to dwell on superficial issues. I agree with all the principles, these are just silly hypothetical situations either I've thought up to test my own stance, or others have questioned me with, and I apologize if I've wasted much of your time. Thanks for the video! I have a relatively better understanding of how your illustration works now, and the sweat shop explanation will definitely help me explain things to my friend.

 

It's hard because, usually when I bring this up with colleagues we get stuck on hypotheticals because we're both used to a statist methodology of solving problems, and the tendencies of people wanting to take advantage of others.

 

I would however like to hear how Intellectual Property is treated with this philosophy. I've always been a proponent of freedom of information, but believe if I get some use or enjoyment out of something I've pirated, I should pay the creator, so that he survives and can make even better content. I know this might be a controversial issue, but it is something I've been curious about for a while. I think Stefan holds that IP is just a government induced monopoly, but is there even a small a basis for it in Natural Law? What are your opinions on the matter?

[dsayers]

No waste of my time. It's just important to understand that any conclusion you've been handed without a case being made is likely wrong, which is why the case wasn't made and just the conclusion was inflicted upon you.

 

Another point I forgot to mention is that alot of these considerations suggest that the statist approach actually works. It's also making the claim that morality takes a backseat to utility. Not only is this not true, but it prevents people from seeking out peaceful alternatives as they believe they've found an answer that works.

 

Another video (series) I would suggest is Stef's Bomb in the Brain series. If you're going to try and influence others, it's important to understand how we (don't) think.

 

I've always been a proponent of freedom of information, but believe if I get some use or enjoyment out of something I've pirated, I should pay the creator, so that he survives and can make even better content.

 

It looks to me like you've nailed it. If you've received value, give value. The ability to download digital material challenges creators to do better things and actually leads to increased sales because people can know their money won't be misplaced.