A question about anarchism and the non aggression principle

[jrodefeld]

Hello everyone,

 

Like many I have abandoned minarchism and embraced anarchism as the only justifiable and ethical system of social organization.  However, when it comes to private law and the enforcement of that law I have some questions.  I feel like I am fairly well read on libertarian topics but I have been challenged in debates on a few points and I'm not sure of the best way to respond.

 

In short, libertarians accept self ownership and private property rights as we all know.  Our understanding of ethics means that in accordance with this view of private property, we view the act of aggression against person or property to be immoral and in a libertarian society such acts of invasion and violence should be illegal.  That makes sense rationally.

 

But in an anarchist society without a single arbiter and standard of law and order, who is to say that all voluntarily funded arbitrators, defense agencies and private laws that emerge will conform to the non aggression principle and defense of private property rights?

 

For example, suppose a community is very heavily religious and they believe strongly enough that drug use is immoral and that they should be permitted to use force to stop people from using drugs on their own property.  While it certainly seems less likely that people would want to voluntarily pay to have private police forces go after non-violent "criminals" than under a State controlled system, it is not impossible and one could imagine numerous cases whereby a committed and fundamentalist culture could voluntarily pay private contractors to violate the property rights of a minority, even in the absence of a State.

 

Is there any reason why something like this wouldn't happen?  How do we know that private law that emerges on the market will conform to libertarian ethics and the defense of private property and the non aggression principle?

 

While it may well be true that such a thing is MORE likely to happen in a State run society, I could see many people shying away from anarchism if they believe there is a good likelihood of private agencies adopting norms and laws that violate private property even if such agencies are funded voluntarily.  I could see a libertarian saying "see, this is why we need a central agency to administer libertarian law, to protect private property rights and the non aggression principle but nothing else".

 

What is your response to this?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

What do you mean "who is to say..."? 

 

The "central agency" proposed by minarchists is subject to the same potential problems and is founded on a property rights violation. So if they say we need such a central agency then they are not thinking.

[EveryVoluntaryistIsLemons]

A lot of your concerns are addressed in Stef's podcasts. Here are the relevant ones:

 

http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/tag/anarchism

 

I'd recommend starting with the earlier ones and going through them in order.

 

Or, if you have an iPhone (not sure if it's available on other smartphones) you can download the Freedomain Radio app, and go to the podcasts under "Category: Anarchism" which has a more concise list of podcasts that you can listen to, which address these issues.

[dsayers]

Like many I have abandoned minarchism and embraced anarchism as the only justifiable and ethical system of social organization.  However, when it comes to private law and the enforcement of that law I have some questions.  I feel like I am fairly well read on libertarian topics but I have been challenged in debates on a few points and I'm not sure of the best way to respond.

 

First, start by calling things by their proper names. You say "social organization" while organization refers to an external process. Anarchism is not a manner of organization. It is a description of the real world. You say "private law" but humans cannot make laws. Such as gravity, laws are binding. It's what the word means. Which brings me to my final example of calling things by their proper names: labels. You use words like minarchism, anarchism, libertarian, and (in the title) non-aggression principle. These words are summaries/conclusions. They can mean different things to different people. Since you mention a challenge in communicating ideas, avoiding these pitfalls will help.

 

Secondly, it would appear that what you're identifying as a stumbling block for you is people afraid of a free society because a State might emerge. Just to be clear, if the worst scenario they can envision is the emergence of a State, this is an argument against the State, not against Statelessness. The reason why the State gets away with immorality and aggression is because of their perception of legitimacy first and their lack of competition or consequence second. This is addressed by:

 

Third, in order to talk about a Stateless society, it's important to understand HOW such a thing could come to be. Namely by the peaceful parenting of children who will not speak the language of aggression. These people will grow up as rational thinkers who respect property rights. They would not be inclined to aggress against others and to do so would mean experiencing the pushback (competition plus consequence) of EVERYBODY ELSE. The State's perception of legitimacy is the reason we don't see that sort of pushback today.

 

So the simple answer to your question is competition and consequence, the two features of a free market that makes it self-correcting in every regard (not just attempts to rule). However, I think the other points I've made will help you to be free in your own mind first, which will help you to present these ideas to other people more effectively. Also, I highly recommend watching Stef's Bomb in the Brain series if you haven't already. Before you can influence other people, it's helpful to understand why they think what they do to begin with. That is to say that you cannot convince somebody out of a conclusion using logic, reason, and evidence unless they arrived at that conclusion by way of logic, reason, and evidence.

[jrodefeld]

What do you mean "who is to say..."? 

 

The "central agency" proposed by minarchists is subject to the same potential problems and is founded on a property rights violation. So if they say we need such a central agency then they are not thinking.

 

I agree with that.  All States are funded by violations of private property rights so how can they logically be seen as defenders of private property rights?  

 

However I am more interested in why an anarchist society won't produce voluntarily funded institutions that violate private property rights and the non aggression principle?  

 

I don't need to prove that it is impossible but I think that to convince people of our position we need to have a good explanation of why this is less likely and that law that emerges on the market will conform to the non aggression principle.  It is one thing to go on and on about how aggression is immoral yet just say "law that emerges on the market may or may not conform to ethics,  I just don't know."  

 

I am already convinced of the anarchist position for other reasons, I am justly playing the devils advocate to improve my responses to challenges by Statists.

[Mister Mister]

However I am more interested in why an anarchist society won't produce voluntarily funded institutions that violate private property rights and the non aggression principle?  

 

I don't need to prove that it is impossible but I think that to convince people of our position we need to have a good explanation of why this is less likely and that law that emerges on the market will conform to the non aggression principle.  It is one thing to go on and on about how aggression is immoral yet just say "law that emerges on the market may or may not conform to ethics,  I just don't know."  

    Well on the one hand there is no guarantee that people won't do bad things in the absence of a government.  But also I would say you may be approaching this from the wrong point of view.  A stateless society is merely the result of enough people being convinced of rational ethics: Universal Non-Aggression and Property Rights.  It is not a "system" that we build over the ruins of the old one, but rather it is a society in the absence of superstitious beliefs about ethics, law, authority, nations, and so on.  So rather than trying to convince someone that you have some vision for society that is better than this one, I would question their ideas about ethics in order to figure where they disagree with Non-Aggression and Property Rights, and WHY, and what it would look like to act on these principles IN YOUR OWN LIFE, rather than supporting or condeming some system (which is of little relevance).

 

 That said, I will also offer this on the topic.  A more rational system of law might be to withdraw resources from a supposed offender, rather than to steal resources from everyone in order to give them free room & board in a cage.  There are many precedents for this: economic & social ostracism can be very powerful.  While it is immoral to lock a drug-user in prison, it may actually be a practical solution to ostracize them unless they agree to some kind of treatment.  Now, it also may be that the community has irrational beliefs, for example, that homosexuals should be shunned.  If this is the case, it is far more subject to correction than State law.  Violence tends to escalate, in the case of the drug war for example, it has gotten so ridiculous and catastrophic that there is a war developing along the border, and governments are willing to escalate the violence and fight this war rather than consider that they have been wrong about drugs all along.  This would be to acknowledge that they have been taking part in the assault and kidnapping of millions of peaceful victims, and it is very rare and difficult for people to redefine ethics so as to define themselves as evil.  The same goes for wrongful imprisonment, or any number of failed social programs - the tendency is to double-down.  

 If, on the other hand, the consequences of breaking a community's law was mere ostracism, there is a lot more flexibility.  Families and friends of the homosexual, or the wrongly accused man, could break the social norm and reach out to him, even as a minority they have a great deal of social and economic power whereas today minorities have virtually NO political power.  In general it would be easier for a society to apologize for ostracism than for violence, and to make restitution, whereas there is no practical ethical restitution for 10 years of unjust imprisonment.

 

 If, on the other hand, as I think you are suggesting, a society is still using barbaric practices such as imprisonment for non-violent "crimes", the power of ostracizing can again work to correct this.  If there is one community enforcing barbaric practices surrounded by more rational communities who now refuse to trade with them, they will quickly find themselves either blinking out of existence, or having to rethink their foolish ways.  There are many examples of how trade & communication can overcome violence, and this is how it will/must be eventually done at a large scale.

 

Hope that gives you a new angle to think about this.

[DCLugi]

Corporations voluntarily fund lawmakers to violate the nap in our current system so what you're describing as an anarchic society is not one I would advocate. A state or stateless society is simply one either with or without violence. The task is to recognize and eradicate violence as a solution and this is done by not teaching violence to the next generation.