Larken Rose: Statist Contradictions

[TDB]

1. How do you determine how to make rules, how do you make rules and how do you enforce it?2. How do you deal with those who disagree?

I think it boils down to "how do you settle disputes?" The implicit answers I was hearing were,"don't really need rules when you've got the NAP, and we deal with those who disagree the same way as everyone else, if they violate the NAP we defend ourselves."I think that these answers are a bit abstract, as in, I don't feel like arguing against them, but I also don't understand what they mean very well. OTOH, maybe it's a good idea to keep it abstract, and fill in the details when it becomes practical.

[labmath2]

I think it boils down to "how do you settle disputes?"The implicit answers I was hearing were,"don't really need rules when you've got the NAP, and we deal with those who disagree the same way as everyone else, if they violate the NAP we defend ourselves."I think that these answers are a bit abstract, as in, I don't feel like arguing against them, but I also don't understand what they mean very well. OTOH, maybe it's a good idea to keep it abstract, and fill in the details when it becomes practical.

 

I feel like people conflate disagree with violate. The answers i received are similar to what i hear from statist who do not have a problem with people being forced to pay taxes when a libertarian is arguing about the morality of taxes. Again, i give the example of someone who is a communist and doesn't believe in individual's right to own land and trespasses on someone's land. He would not care if you walked on his land since he doesn't own one, neither does he believe in the concept. However, you can forcibly remove him from your land because you believe in private ownership of land.

[Gavitor]

I feel like people conflate disagree with violate. The answers i received are similar to what i hear from statist who do not have a problem with people being forced to pay taxes when a libertarian is arguing about the morality of taxes. Again, i give the example of someone who is a communist and doesn't believe in individual's right to own land and trespasses on someone's land. He would not care if you walked on his land since he doesn't own one, neither does he believe in the concept. However, you can forcibly remove him from your land because you believe in private ownership of land.

If someone "disagrees" that you own your body and feels its ok to use your body as they see fit, including but not limited to taking parts for their use what would you do/ how would you react?

 

You would just be ok with that?

[powder]

I feel like people conflate disagree with violate. The answers i received are similar to what i hear from statist who do not have a problem with people being forced to pay taxes when a libertarian is arguing about the morality of taxes. Again, i give the example of someone who is a communist and doesn't believe in individual's right to own land and trespasses on someone's land. He would not care if you walked on his land since he doesn't own one, neither does he believe in the concept. However, you can forcibly remove him from your land because you believe in private ownership of land.

I think you are conflating 'believing' in something with truth.  a communist can say or believe whatever they want, they are simply wrong when it comes to understanding property rights, as Gavitor exemplified with his question above.  

[TDB]

I feel like people conflate disagree with violate. The answers i received are similar to what i hear from statist who do not have a problem with people being forced to pay taxes when a libertarian is arguing about the morality of taxes. Again, i give the example of someone who is a communist and doesn't believe in individual's right to own land and trespasses on someone's land. He would not care if you walked on his land since he doesn't own one, neither does he believe in the concept. However, you can forcibly remove him from your land because you believe in private ownership of land.

Am I "people" in this case?I think when it actually came down to it, neighbours would know about each other and work something out. The first time they encountered each other, there would be strife, dispute. Maybe they would seek arbitration, or maybe they'd fight it out. Eventually they'd find some workable compromise. Should we, sitting in our armchairs, necessarily be able to predict what solution would satisfy them? I am reminded of a fascinating book by Robert Ellickson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Ellickson) titled "Order without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes". The author went out and compared the armchair predictions of economists to the actual experience of disputes between cattle ranchers and farmers in a particular place. If I remember correctly (it's been a while), he found that the law on the books specified one thing, but that what actually happened in most cases was different, that an informal system had been worked out. Elinor Ostrom is famous for studying similar things, informal means of managing common resources (like fisheries), but I've never laid hands on her book, so I'm pretty ignorant about the details. That's pretty unsatisfying to us system builders and universal moralists, and I have digressed from the point of your question. Let me see if I can find my way back.

answers i received are similar to what i hear from statist who do not have a problem with people being forced to pay taxes when a libertarian is arguing about the morality of taxes.

Here's the difference I see. Most statists you describe haven't thought about it, and might reject the "rulers own you and your output" premise underlying their claims if it is pointed out to them. The ancaps you're talking to have thought about private property, and they're pretty certain that private property is non-negotiable and fundamental. Their utopia is set up in a certain way, and people who have incompatible ideologies need to figure out what's up. They also are more flexible than the statists, in that your communist is able to buy some land and start a commune and no one will come on his land and try to stop him. And if communism is really superior, it can spread and take over. The statists are not offering any such olive branch/booby prize.

How would you deal with someone who does not believe in private property in a voluntary society?

So, if it's an ancap society, I'd explain to them that their beliefs are incompatible with the way things run around here, and he needs to save up some money or borrow some or get a rich benefactor and buy some land to start a different society. Or leave, or persuade everyone, or adapt.

What would you say to this statist?[...] "A society is a group of individuals who have to come to some consensus about the way their society is run. [...] If anyone disagrees with the way we choose to govern ourselves, they have two options; find a society more suitable to them or seek to change their current society by working within the confines of the current rules."

I'd say, check the dictionary, I don't think "consensus" means what you think it does. If the consent of the governed concerns you, you need a reasonable method that dissenters can use to opt out or secede.

Why should anyone be able to draw lines on the ground and use force on anyone that enters that land?

This question does not seem serious. If the question is, how do we justify property rights in land, Stef and a lot of the people on this forum would point at UPB. I would point to the fact that "drawing some lines" is less confusing than having no lines whatever, and in fact every society is going to "draw some lines" somehow. In every society, someone will decide where the lines are and what happens within these lines or those, it's just a question of "who decides?" and "how does it change?" The communist you describe also draws lines, he just has a different rule for what entitles him to change the lines or change who is in charge within a set of lines. He just doesn't want to call it private property, to emphasize some minor differences. My opinion is, this is just confusing. If property is theft, then possession is theft, unless you twist the ordinary meaning of these words into something much more difficult for a normal person to understand. It is jargon to be invoked while giving the secret handshake to fellow cultists, not helpful for communicating clearly.In my ideal world, people with different ideas about how to run society could run experiments and those that attracted attention by making people more happy, creative, and productive would expand, and those that starved people or made them miserable would contract. People would choose from different options and try to innovate new options. And I am not sure the process would ever end. This is all too consequentialist to get approval from Stef, I think.

[labmath2]

If someone "disagrees" that you own your body and feels its ok to use your body as they see fit, including but not limited to taking parts for their use what would you do/ how would you react?

 

You would just be ok with that?

This is actually a clever response. It does not work because it would require the person espousing those claims to apply it to himself which would invalidate the whole thing. I would react by saying "well then you also do not own your body, and i am also free to use it as i see fit." However, a communist could very well apply those standards to himself.

 

TDB i am not sure what your point is, but the thing about communist buying land where he can practice his believes is contradictory since he does not believe in land ownership. 

"So, if it's an ancap society, I'd explain to them that their beliefs are incompatible with the way things run around here, and he needs to save up some money or borrow some or get a rich benefactor and buy some land to start a different society. Or leave, or persuade everyone, or adapt."

Consensus- General agreement.

I read through your comments and i get the sense that you believe the majority (or super majority) will win and those who disagree can either capitulate, persuade or relocate.

[TDB]

TDB i am not sure what your point is, but the thing about communist buying land where he can practice his believes is contradictory since he does not believe in land ownership.

I am assuming your communist is one lone dissenter in an ancap society. So is he so principled that he would rather start a violent revolution (by himself) than pay for something, or is he just so stupid he can't understand the concept of buying land? Perhaps it would be contradictory for me to pay the USG to allow me to secede, but I would do it if I thought they would really stick to the bargain. Is the point really so obscure? In ancapistan, the communist can do most of the things he can do currently (rebel, persuade, emigrate, or put up with the pain, minus one option, bribe a congressman) plus one additional option, which is, he could buy his way out. If he wants to start a commune, he could buy some land, and the ancaps will leave him alone after that. Don't you think Marx would have been happy to use some of Engels's money to buy a little communist utopia? Buy the land and "liberate" it. Out-produce the capitalists, recruit all their workers, buy more land. Lather, rinse, repeat until you have achieved world revolution without spilling a drop of blood. Or until it all falls apart.

I read through your comments and i get the sense that you believe the majority (or super majority) will win and those who disagree can either capitulate, persuade or relocate.

Nope.

[Gavitor]

This is actually a clever response. It does not work because it would require the person espousing those claims to apply it to himself which would invalidate the whole thing. I would react by saying "well then you also do not own your body, and i am also free to use it as i see fit." However, a communist could very well apply those standards to himself.

 

You didn't answer my question...

[labmath2]

You didn't answer my question...

The point is that the question is irrelevant since the enforcement of that rule also allows others to force their preferences on the advocate of the rule which invalidates it. Unless you mean the advocate of that rule has not intention of it applying to himself, which violates the universal clause.