UNR Students for Liberty

Really? Not a single person has anything to say about this? Is anyone convinced a modicum more about the plausibility of anarchocapitalism? Yes? No? Why or why not?

It seemed for a moment there, there was a whole bunch of people with a whole bunch to say…isn't John's example relevant?

So there was no standard law, but was decided on a case-by-case basis? “How the Irish Saved Civilization” provides a good history of Ireland. The Irish suffered numerous attacks from the Vikings of Norway from as early as 800 through the 13th c. From there Ireland was fought over among various kingships, or lordships. Gaelic (or Celtic), Norman, and later English forces were in constant conflict over various parts of Ireland. I would hardly call this a peaceful existence, although probably freer than under English tyranny. (I would also check out “The Prince” by Machiavelli). Btw, what does the symbol on the stone represent?

I had to watch that a couple times, and I still need to watch it a few more, but I concede, anarchocapitalism is absolutely possible.

It relies on an entire group ostracizing an individual though. Do you think this could happen in a population of several million? I can see it theoretically working in the modern world, but I'm not sure.

Although, now that I hear it again, I don't really see how this is not government. You have groups which have laws. You have to obey the laws to be part of the group, and you can leave if you decide those laws aren't for you. Take America for example, it has laws which you have to obey, or you have to leave.

Now the argument generally against this, is that you have to go to another State system, so there is no choice. But how is this different? If you want to leave you have to go to another tribe (unless you choose to live on your own in the wilderness, which you can still do in our system).

It may be said, you don't have to pay taxes to be in the tribe (I'm not sure thats accurate–the video doesn't go into it), but even so, taxes are just another law. You either obey the laws, or you are an outlaw and forced to leave.

I don't know, but I'll listen to it again to see what exactly I missed. Perhaps the difference is that the people choose to exile you rather than having forced exile (or imprisonment) from a central authority. Is this the difference?

Also, apparently slavery was legal, so I don't know how this can be described as without coercion.

1) A society of tribes
2) A society that ultimately embraced Christianity
3) A society that fell to monarchical dictatorship
4) A society that failed
5) A video on YouTube without citation (for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU)

I understand very well the ideas of markets, free competition and liberty with no-harm rule (“doing whatever you want so long as it doesn’t adversely affect others”).

How is that operational system in a modern society with anonymity, extreme resource scarcity and weak collective action systems or the free rider problem (i.e., the demonstrated inability to achieve collective goals without coercion–whether it be by law, stigma, dogma, social pressure etc).

This last point is especially important and one I don't feel has ever been addressed adequately. How is the free-rider problem addressed (beyond just trusting people to be good) in a society without coercion? It doesn't matter if you have 99 noble people and only one asshole, the asshole can still ruin the system.

Perhaps John felt that the narrator's voice was a giveaway, but it's an excerpt from (I believe) “For a New Liberty,” by Rothbard. The audio is definitely from Mises.org.

It seems like you have legitimate concerns about anarchocapitalism and you appear not be spamming for the sake of spamming. So I'm going to offer you the same deal as 'Keabag': email me BarryBelmont@unrforliberty.com and we'll discuss these ideas fully. I believe this will cause us both to evaluate our positions carefully.

But when you do, I'd like to turn the tables and have you answer me something: what would it take to convince you that anarchocapitalism is the system to which we should strive? What evidence is necessary for you to say “yes, anarchocapitalism is 'better' than other societies”?

This is important as I believe we may all be talking at odds with one another.

So, take your time and think about it — what exactly is it about the idea of a completely voluntary society that you find so bothersome?

I guess history is irrelevant to you.

…said the girl who doesn't know the anarchy symbol…

STFU!!

Hi, my name is Julie (from Texas!) and I use fake pseudonyms because I’ve developed a bad rap for being a jackass.

Opposed to a non-fake pseudonym?

Did you not get my email, or did you reply, and I not get your reply?

I know the question wasn't addressed to me, but I would say that all that is necessary for anarchocapitalism to be the best possible system, is to show that 1) it will not fall apart into chaos where no one listens to laws 2) it can adequately deal with the free-rider, thief, and murderer scenarios 3) it can stop oppression (i.e. if one group decided to enslave another) 4) it can defend itself against a foreign state 5) it can exert all of these qualities in a population with very large size with low social cohesion and possible anonymity.

I am willing to accept law, boycott, social pressure, stigma and cultural dogma as forms of social control that do not require a state (but you still have to address how to ensure these are used in a large, diverse population).

This is the response I emailed you nearly a week ago:

Hello.

It is ironic that you should bring up your discussions with “creationists.” Most likely they are of the new flavor of 'Intelligent Design.' It is ironic because presumably you see through the flaws of their arguments quite easily: no intelligent designer is necessary to create the order and complexity we see around us. We know this because there is evidence that a bottom-up system called natural selection does this. In fact, evidence presented in favor of intelligent design (the human eye, the nervous system, prefrontal cortex, bacteria flagellum, etc) all not only point toward natural selection but would be really silly evidence in favor of an intelligent designer (for instance, why would an intelligent designer put the eye upside down and backward?). You are able to see quite easily the flaws in their arguments in favor of “intelligent design” but when you are asked to reconsider your beliefs in an intelligent designer, namely the State, you get just as up in arms as they do. Indeed, it seems you fall into many of the same traps they do.

Consider for instance that you are an anarchist to every other government but your own. You certainly do not recognize the legitimacy of the Egyptian government's claim over you or France's sovereignty over you. You don't recognize the Queen of England as anything more than a figurehead, the same goes for the Pope and the Dalai Lama. You recognize the American government's dominion over you simply because you happened to have been born under it. Had you been born in Egypt or France you would have claimed they had dominion over you. There is an obvious parallel to be made to which religion you happen to subscribe to. One supports intelligent design because they just happened to have been born a Christian in contemporary America. This Christian knows what it's like to be an atheist to all other gods, just as you know what it's like to be an anarchist to all other governments.

More to the point how can one coherently believe in a State without believing there should be a Total State? All the currently governments have lived in a state of anarchy amongst each other, have they not? If Amsterdam has marijuana legalized and America does not, who is to remedy this injustice? Or are laws as fickle as all that? And if they are, if laws are so arbitrary and context specific, why call them laws? If one advocates the existence of a State, invariably they must follow this logic to its bitter end with all people under the banner of a single (hopefully benevolent) State.

But as you said, there exists in-group/out-group (IG/OG) mentality within the human race. Fair enough. I can accept that. But how is this such a bad thing? We must separate the issues. In-group/out-group doesn't mean anything by itself. People are either a part of UNR SFL or they're not. I treat people who are members differently than those who are not. There is nothing wrong with this. The problem would come if I aggressed against someone because of this. But this is a separate issue. It's not the IG/OG that's bad, it's the coercion. Mets fans may hate Yankees fans but so long as there isn't any violence or threats of violence, then where is the harm? Do you see why we must pull these two issues apart? If there is no actual harm in being a part of a group, then, what exactly is wrong with it?

So say I want to be part of private society A and you wanted to be part of private society B. One like country, the other likes rock'n'roll. One likes chunky peanut butter, the other smooth. Just completely irreconcilable societies who won't even trade with one another, that's how much this bitter feud has gone on. So long as it's all completely voluntary there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. What if, you may object, they hate each other so much that they decide to fight? But remember that is a different issue. It's not the tribalism that is wrong there, it is the coercion. The exact same critique can be made of existing States: what happens if Canada finally gets sick and tired of America and decides to attack them? Or New Mexico decides to fight Old Mexico or Arizona. Detroit vs Luxembuorg. Certainly numerous scenarios can be presented as “What if A, *verbs* B?” As long as the *verbs* part is voluntary in nature (“loves,” “trades with,” “hates”…) there is nothing wrong with it. There can't be…unless you think that there are voluntary actions which people should not be allowed to freely engage in. It's when *verbs* becomes coercive (“fights,” “kills,” “invades”…) that problems arise.

I don't think you would be so bold to claim that tribalism necessarily causes violence, but let's assume you were. This claim has already been undermined by the fact that UNR SFL is tribal in nature and is completely nonviolent. Adherents to Jainism are tribal and by their very nature non-violent. There are tons of examples ranging from basketweaving classes to high schools to basketball teams' fans to you name it that are very much prone to IG/OG mentality and yet are not violent to a significantly larger extent than would be predicted by chance alone. So this empirical claim of IG/OG -> violence is not viable.

Where does this leave us? I think I have shown that your objection to the idea of a purely voluntary society on the grounds of IG/OG is not strong enough to warrant casting such a society aside and replacing it with a coercive State apparatus. Simply because IG/OG mentality exists is not evidence in favor of the necessity of coercion, of taxes, of a monopoly of defense services. Indeed, imagine if your IG/OG argument was strong enough to overturn the idea of a voluntary society: it would necessarily be strong enough to overturn the idea of even a governable society on two accounts: 1) The governed and the governing would split into two groups that would not peaceably interact. If they could peaceably interact than the coercive apparatus between them wouldn't be necessary. 2) What is to prevent the monopolistic agent of defense services, an in-group, from aggressing against all other out-groups, to the point of eliminating them entirely as they are the only ones with a sizeable supply of tools for eradication? What is to prevent IG/OG aggression in this realm and not others? It is quite clear that if IG/OG dynamics wouldn't reach a crescendo in such an environment as that between the monopolistic defense agency and all others (what could be easier than the military extorting us all for money?) then clearly IG/OG is not a sufficient criticism of a voluntary society.

I know you had more in that letter of yours, but I would like to ask that we try to remain focused in this series of letters. I don't mind a tangential point or example periodically, but we should really hammer home one point at a time. For instance, I asked a very specific question when I asked you to participate in this: what are the conditions that I need to meet to convince you that anarchocapitalism is a good idea? In other words, I would like to know that you are willing to change your mind and what it would take to do this. We should be up front with one another about this. For example, I would renounce anarchocapitalism entirely if it turned out people weren't mostly “not-bad.” Or I would believe in a benevolent dictator if it could be shown that it would vastly improve the human condition. Or I would believe in democracy if it turned out the majority was always right. These are very specific things which someone could convince me of. I would like to know that you are willing to be convinced that a voluntary society is possible. Because if you're not, then we likely won't have nearly as fruitful a conversation as I had imagined.

Hope this helps,
Barry

I can't respond if I can't read your comment, which makes you a coward. If you're as clever as you think you are than who the hell am I?

I don't know why I didn't get your email, but if the nets screw up your next response, I'll let you know a bit earlier (well, I'll just post something on UNRforliberty after about a week).
Wow there is a lot there for such a small scope of discussion, but I will try to be concise as possible.
I only mentioned Creationism to point out that I am unwilling to read enormous numbers of other books. But if you want to argue along those lines, I see the point of your argument but it does not apply (at least not in the same way). Creationism is about what is (or was). This philosophical discussion of governance is about what should be. I don't doubt that you could feasibly have an anarchist community for a while. The question is what type of place will it be, and what will it eventually become. For example, if a creationist argued with me about the effect of having each type of belief, that would be an argument that is not based on faith (despite usually being based on bull shit but thats a whole different story).
Perhaps you can understand the way I feel about being an “anarchist to every other government but [my] own” were I to explain it like this. Different governments are not mutually exclusive. If America is real, that does not mean that Egypt is not. This is not true with religions. Its not that other governments exist, its just that I don't accept their authority over me. In much the same way, every business has its own set of internal rules, and its own governing board. But the only ones that have authority over me would be the ones I work for.
“how can one coherently believe in a State without believing there should be a Total State?”-Easy. There are some things that the State is better at doing, and there are some things that free peoples making their own decisions are better at doing. For example, I think the state is better at dispensing justice. I think that the State is better at protecting peoples freedoms. That type of thing (there are others but since they are on shakier ground I think we should hash out the details on them after addressing the validity of the State).
The reason I mentioned IG/OG is to say that people are not necessarily moral. I agree with you completely that opinions are fine until they become used as a form of coercion. The question is, how does a governmentless society deal with one group oppressing another?
I don't claim that IG/OG will necessarily lead to violence, but I do claim that such divisions will often undermine morality. This is a specific attack on the claim that people are nearly always moral. This is not saying that IG/OG mentality will always lead to immorality.
The two accounts of this argument being used against government: 1) The governed and governing generally do split into two groups where the governing try to oppress the governed. This is why specific types of governments are better than others, primarily in their ability to prevent this. 2) This is also a problem. One in which there is no easy answer. Governments do have IG/OG mentality against each other, and often use this to oppress one another. For this reason, I think that world government is inevitable (either that or global annihilation). We have global laws and courts already, but they have no teeth. Since they do not have the ability to coerce anyone, they are largely ignored (hopefully you see where this line of reasoning leads).
As far as the military turning on us: you forget that the military is formed of people. These people identify more strongly with other Americans than they do with the military. If the leaders of the military tried to become oppressive, the individuals that form the military would turn on them. That said, this is a constant fear as military coups are not uncommon.
The proper way to do government is to have the people with the power to oppress others robbed of the ability to do so. Our system is not the best, but it does have some qualities that make it better than others. If any of the ruling class begin to oppress the others, they are voted out. If any of the courts start stop dispensing justice, they are removed (either by other courts or by the voting population). If the military becomes oppressive, it will fracture plus gun ownership would make actually conquering America difficult (but I don't think a standing army would exist in an ideal State). Ideally states were able to make nearly all of the rules. This allowed people to leave to governments that had better rules.
Keegan

“For example, I would renounce anarchocapitalism entirely if it turned out people weren't mostly “not-bad.” “

Why?

If people are mostly bad, a group still should not have coercive power over others. I think anarcho-capitalism maximizes peaceful cooperation irregardless of the level of goodness in people.

That is just a mess of formatting, please, let us continue this through email.

I thought I had sent it through e-mail. That's weird that it posted that here. Computers creep me out sometimes.