If you find yourself in a hole,
stop digging.
On the topic of libertarian punishment, I have pretty much
dropped my back-and-forth with Wenzel for a couple of weeks or so. If it wasn’t obvious, his views on this
struck me rather deeply. Suggesting that
it is acceptable within libertarian theory for a property owner to shoot a
child for stealing an apple makes a mockery of the non-aggression
principle. My passion in my earlier
responses reflects my passion for the beauty of the NAP.
Whatever he has written on the topic in the intervening
time, I have pretty much ignored. But
today he offers a real whopper. After
describing what can only be described as a dysfunctional and dangerous
inner-city neighborhood, Wenzel
offers this:
Government security is a myth. You
take care of yourself, move away from danger and that is about it. Anyone that
thinks government or "governance" would stop what is going on at the
Melrose Houses, and places like it, is denying reality.
Go ahead, governance people, go to
the Melrose Houses and put "governance" "community culture," whatever, in
place, show me how that works.
This is an incomprehensible statement. First of all, he seems to offer as
interchangeable the terms government and governance. I won’t bother going into it again here –
anyone who wants to understand my meaning already has by now.
Further, there is a “community culture” at the Melrose
Houses. It certainly is not a culture conducive
to achieving, let alone maintaining, a libertarian order. There is little voluntary governance (family,
church, community institutions of various sorts, etc.) – at least not of the
peaceful type.
This example only makes my point. Do you want a libertarian society? There must be some common culture conducive
to non-aggression; there must be governance.
Of course, to be considered “libertarian,” it must be accepted and
conformed to voluntarily (but don’t expect perfection or unlimited choices, as Ryan
McMaken wonderfully explains).
Try this, slightly modifying Bob’s challenge:
Go ahead, private property society people, go to the Melrose Houses and put your
private property society or whatever,
in place, show me how that works.
It won’t work, and this is the point. Wenzel doesn’t even realize that his “private
property society” requires both governance and a common culture. I am not going to bother to search for the
exact quote, but he has offered that his PPS is a society where people
generally respect private property.
Get that? The people generally respect private
property…. Is this not a common culture?
More basic: for a society where the people generally respect
private property…
…is there some common understanding
of “property” and where mine ends and yours begins?
…is there some means to
document this?
…is there some means to
adjudicate disagreements?
…is there some means to deal
with those who choose to remain outside of a system of adjudication?
…do the same questions apply to
the aggression towards persons?
In any libertarian society that hopes to survive, the
answers will certainly be yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes.
What is all of this but governance?
Conclusion
There are three kinds of men:
The ones that
learn by reading.
The few who learn
by observation.
The rest of them
have to touch an electric fence.
-
Will Rogers
Bob, let go of the fence.
NB: slightly modified since original posting
Addendum
I guess I could have skipped writing this post, as I now see
the first comment at Wenzel’s site, by Perry Mason. Unfortunately, Wenzel’s reply makes clear
that he doesn’t get Perry’s point.
Well heck. I just left a comment on Bob's blog before I read this post.
ReplyDeleteSO, I will ask the same thing. While I do think you give a round about answer already to my question, I would like it nailed down.
What is your definition of governance? When you use the term, what the heck do you mean to convey by it?
We would all do well to define our terms, especially when we are arguing points of Libertarianism. Or anything for that matter.
It's a simple thing to do. Define your terms first, then have at it.
Give us readers a better understanding of what you are talking about.
"There must be some common culture conducive to non-aggression; there must be governance. Of course, to be considered “libertarian,” it must be accepted and conformed to voluntarily "
DeleteThis is your guide to his meaning Joshua-
The "rules"(governance) he outlines later below:
"…is there some common understanding of “property” and where mine ends and yours begins?"
and the rest etc. et al
Very well done btw BM!
Hopefully I've answered to both your satisfaction Joshua & BM's.
Thanks, Nick. I will add:
DeleteI will define it with examples, as I have done often. The market provides governance – prices and profit and loss provide governance. If these are respected, much of what I consider to be governance is taken care of…voluntarily.
Imagine the governance required to fill a grocer’s shelf. Imagine the governance required for a worker to continue receiving a paycheck. Imagine the governance required for an investor to consider financing a ten-year project. Imagine the governance provided by a loss-making entity going out of business.
I could write a book on the governance provided – voluntarily – by the market.
Beyond this, the family provides governance – husbands with wives, parents with children, parents with their parents. Respect for the local culture provides governance.
Churches and other religious institutions provide governance, social and community organizations provide governance, business organizations provide governance, hobby clubs provide governance. To the extent people want “community” – that is, to have relationships with other people – they will find such organizations with which they have some affinity and voluntarily conform to the rules and expectations of the group.
Voluntary insurance and security services provide governance, homeowners associations and condominium associations provide governance. If you don't like the rules, no one will force you to move into the neighborhood.
If this isn’t enough…what separates “governance” from “government”? I want to hope the answer is by now clear, but just in case: except for being born into a family, joining is voluntary. In all cases, the financing is voluntary.
One need not accept any of the forms of governance as suggested above. In this case, all I suggest is: be prepared for the consequences – like what the father and neighbors of the dead child will bring to the overly-zealous apple-farmer.
That will be an example for others about the "governance" around these here parts....
Nick and Mosquito, if I may be nit picky, the above examples are merely examples of the word in provision.
DeleteChurches, businesses, communities, cultures, the family...
provide governance.
Imagine someone who does not understand the meaning of the word governance.
What is your definition of it?
Not who must function with it and who can't function without it.
What is IT?
So, in short, governance is the rule and order that comes from people voluntarily submitting to the rules, social norms, expectations, etc of cultures and groups with which they voluntarily affiliate that provides some level of guidance and direction to interactions.
DeleteDiffering from government, wherin the association is not voluntary and enforced top-down.
Or something like that.
Joshua, meet Linsey.
DeleteHello Linsey.
DeleteI think this interpretation is a misinterpretation between the term government and "the State"?
Aren't there governments which allow secession?
I think the first definition fits fairly close to what I feel the term governance is though.
Thank you.
BM, I am not trying to be a troll, I just wondered if you and Bob hashed out a definition to this term you have both been using, there would be more clarification for both your readers, which obviously a lot of us out here enjoy both your blogs. And maybe it would be easier for some to make their own conclusions in the subject.
Thank you.
Joshua, I am not trying to be a troll, but you throw the terms "government" and "state" around without defining them.
Delete:-))
Hahaha, touché, although I am not the one in a most epic battle at the moment for the very meaning of Libertarianism on this blog and Target Liberty, fair is fair.
DeleteI think there is a difference between the two, for sure.
"When the state is defined in this manner, then the various debates among minarchists and anarchists about whether “government” is libertarian or not become purely semantic (see, e.g. my post Machanarchy). If by “government” the minarchist means a (small) state, then it is criminal and unlibertarian. If by “government” they mean merely the non-state institutions of law and justice in a free society, then we are not opposed to it because such institutions are not inherently aggressive. In other words, when minarchists talk about government, the question is not how we classify it or what the best words are for state, government, etc., semantically: but rather: the question is: does the “government” that “minarchists” (?) favor engage in institutionalized aggression, or not? If not, it’s not a state, and it’s not unlibertarian. If it does, it’s merely a type of state."
Stephan Kinsella
http://www.stephankinsella.com/2010/05/the-nature-of-the-state-and-why-libertarians-hate-it/
In all my time as a libertarian I have never seen anyone actually argue that to trespass against someone's property right is to forfeit all of your own property rights. Until now, apparently. This position of Wenzel's blows my mind - just as Block's "evictionism" does. Block was and remains the only person I've ever read who can give the unborn all the rights of a human, and yet support its destruction without cause. It's essentially the same mistake as Wenzel's.
ReplyDeleteIgor Karbinovskiy
Nicely done, all. Linsey nailed it.
ReplyDeleteWhy I'm going to do this is beyond me. I agree that Wenzel has likely not been a reader of this blog, because otherwise it would be hard to miss the examples of governance as opposed to government that have been repeatedly offered by my friend the Mosquito.
I think any libertarian society that is not minarchist, would most likely be held together by the governance of society as envisioned by BM. Hurrah to that clear thinking.
However, I'm still a little troubled. I believe RW was more speaking of what happens when you get some old coot that owns some private property and he doesn't volunteer to any of this. To keep it clean, let's say his attitude is "go to heck" when it comes to what happens on my property. "Don't want to get eaten by my dogs, then stay the heck off of my property. I am sovereign here. No one stands over me and my property and I will gladly suffer the social consequences of enforcing my rules on my property."
Sure it is a bit of an outlier, and RW has acknowledged that. It would probably not be a common thing in any AC society that was able to keep it together.
But what if an old coot "volunteers" for none of it. He sees his land as sovereign and he makes the rule on it. Think Saudi Arabia. I hate to mix states into this thing, but imagine this guy thinks he is sovereign on his own land. What happens on his land is his rules. Don't want to suffer my rules, then don't come on my land. Should libertarians "intervene"... Somewhat like having an "interventionist foreign policy"? I hope you get what I'm getting at, because I think I'm swimming against the stream even by asking the question. Which is all that I am doing.
What if Eygore doesn't volunteer to *anything* but stays on his own property and prohibits aggression of his property with deadly force. By what authority do others band together to hand out retribution? The NAP?
It is rhetorical only. I'm arguing nothing. I'm just asking. It nags at me, because I question everything. On sovereign land why must others' rules apply if the old coot has opted out of everything? What rule, that is not accepted by him, over-rules his own on his property.
I see RW arguing past BM, probably not fully getting the governance thing, which BM has fully and well articulated. But if I am fairly articulating RW's point (in the form of a question, for sure), then how is that outlier situation addressed?
By rope and a tree? By what authority? The NAP?
Just asking, as always. Please be kind. Kind enough anyway.
gpond: To keep it clean, let's say his attitude is "go to heck" when it comes to what happens on my property. "Don't want to get eaten by my dogs, then stay the heck off of my property. I am sovereign here. No one stands over me and my property and I will gladly suffer the social consequences of enforcing my rules on my property."
DeleteBM: He is free to suffer the social consequences. He is also free to suffer physical consequences if his neighbors feel his enforcement and punishment methods are in violation of the NAP.
gpond: What happens on his land is his rules. Don't want to suffer my rules, then don't come on my land.
BM: some questions are raised: how clearly marked are the borders and how well-known are these rules? Are there any disputes about these borders? Who, if anyone, will adjudicate the dispute? How will members of the community feel about the reasonableness of a child getting shot because she happened to cross a couple feet over the line a half-mile from the old coot’s house? No matter how well-known or delineated, does a minor trespass justify the grossest violence against the so-called perpetrator? What is proper punishment for a violation? When, if ever, does the punishment cross the line and become a violation of the NAP?
It is too naïve and simple to write about the NAP as if every interpretation and application is completely objective – common in all circumstances for all people in all cultures around the world. It isn’t. It is too simple to say merely “the private property society is one where everyone generally respects private property.” As I note above in my post, even this simple statement begs many questions.
The middle ground of violations – call these the fairway – almost all can agree (except for Wenzel, it seems); it is on the edges – the rough – where it is perfectly acceptable within the NAP that different people (cultures) come to different answers. None of these questions come with black / white answers derivable from the NAP.
gpond: By what authority do others band together to hand out retribution? The NAP?
BM: depending on the answers to the above questions (some of which are governance and some are cultural), they might feel perfectly justified by the NAP (and derivable punishment) to put a bullet in the old coot’s head. Depending on the answers, I might agree with them.
If the father and the neighbors of the little girl feel wronged because their answers to the above questions are different than the old coot’s answers, they will take it out of the old coot’s skin. Then the old coot’s son (because he also doesn’t accept the generally understood culture) will take it out on the father. Then the father’s son will take it out on the old coot’s son.
What happens to the precious private property society then? I maintain it cannot survive without some common understanding of culture and some commonly accepted methods of governance.
"Just asking, as always. Please be kind. Kind enough anyway."
DeleteI'm going to go a bit "collective"(horrifying!) and suggest that libertarians as a group could really be more kind and gracious to one another in their disagreements.
Disagreeing without being disagreeable...
Anyway-
"What if Eygore doesn't volunteer to *anything* but stays on his own property and prohibits aggression of his property with deadly force. By what authority do others band together to hand out retribution? The NAP? "
The issue of juristiction hasn't been discussed in these debates..and you bring up a valid point.
I personally believe that there's no way to completely remove subjectivity from the NAP, we should try as best we can...but there will be times it will be impossible IMO.
So along those lines...let's say your kid wanders into a jurisdiction that condones cutting off a thief's hand for theft and your kid steals an apple & has his hand cut off and is returned to your jurisdiction...
One jurisdiction considers the punishment a NAP violation(like Rothbard's gum example to some extent), the other does not...due to culture.
War? Feud? Both see a NAP violation committed by the other...
My only personal conclusion is that the NAP is not perfect but for now it's the best philosophy we have in terms of trying to get voluntary society across multiple cultures.
We never established in any of these discussions if the farmer and the parents of "applegate" were members of a community that share the same culture/values, hence the understanding of the NAP.(which as Rothbard said, also doesn't speak on punishment)
You're very thoughtful gpond. All this typing, yet I feel I offered nothing in response.
"One jurisdiction considers the punishment a NAP violation(like Rothbard's gum example to some extent), the other does not...due to culture."
DeleteDuring the European Middle Ages, a stranger who was accused of a violation was asked - before judgment: "what is your law?"
In other words, the law from his tribe followed the person; the law was not based on geographic location.
A new can of worms is opened while an old can of worms is closed. My intent isn't to go off on this tangent, only to offer that there have been other (reasonably NAP-consistent) possibilities in the past.
Nick, that you said I was "thoughtful" is above anything I ever wanted. Correct, or not, I'm happy. I just like to think about things.
Delete@ BM
DeleteBrilliant! Thank you.
Hi BM,
DeleteI will try to respond to your questions, though not necessarily answer them. All I am doing is questioning. And what I am questioning is the *principles* or *values* or *higher ethics(?)* by which we are judging this kind of situation. (I prefer the example not use a child, as that muddies the water ever so slightly, what with the minor thing and all.)
But where you are asking for greater specificity of the actual details of this theoretical situation, perhaps to clarify it, I am doing the opposite. I am asking more abstract questions trying to get at first principles. In a PPS, or AnCap I have thought that the NAP plus property rights are the highest principles (given thin application). However, this idea that a NAP violation that is defended against aggressively is reason for the mob to rise up and put a bullet behind the defender’s ear whispers to me that there are some other principles guiding a decision such as that other than property rights. Something being held above NAP and property rights. It is this itch that I am scratching at. It seems to me that if we (in theory?) believe the NAP and property rights to be the ultimate mutually agreed upon first principles, and we did cling to that, then the bullet behind the ear would be unjustified. So there is something else, some other value or principle at play.
So to your questions:
“BM: some questions are raised: how clearly marked are the borders and how well-known are these rules? Are there any disputes about these borders? Who, if anyone, will adjudicate the dispute? How will members of the community feel about the reasonableness of a child getting shot because she happened to cross a couple feet over the line a half-mile from the old coot’s house?”
[Given my framework, looking for principles in the abstract, these questions are asking for specificity that I do not have. The one about “who will adjudicate” is interesting. By and large the answers to these questions do not get me to where *I’m* going.]
“BM: No matter how well-known or delineated, does a minor trespass justify the grossest violence against the so-called perpetrator? What is proper punishment for a violation? When, if ever, does the punishment cross the line and become a violation of the NAP? “
[Given my framework, these really are the great questions! The $64K questions indeed! Given what I’m up to, they lead me right to the point I’m trying to get at, the questions I am asking myself. It is this: By what principles, values, and ethics, are we to attempt to answer these excellent questions? And by using the word “we” there, I may have fallen into our constant collectivist trap. Must we *all* agree with these principles and ethics? Or is the beauty of the NAP and absolute respect for property that these allow us to settle disputes even in cases where we disagree about the other principles and ethics. At any rate, these are the great questions that you asked. I’m certain I don’t have the answers.]
Kind regards,
dpong
“In a PPS, or AnCap I have thought that the NAP plus property rights are the highest principles (given thin application).”
DeleteYou know the saying: better dead than red? The idea being that it is better to defend with nuclear holocaust than succumb to the communist threat (no freedom, no property, no nothing). But is this so? As I have read in a book regarding the ethics of nuclear deterrence: the red can choose to be dead; the dead can’t choose anything.
Life precedes property. There is no reason for me to be concerned about property rights if the NAP does not apply to my physical person. This is what the father of the little girl is leaning on.
“Given my framework, these really are the great questions! The $64K questions indeed! Given what I’m up to, they lead me right to the point I’m trying to get at, the questions I am asking myself. It is this: By what principles, values, and ethics, are we to attempt to answer these excellent questions?”
The NAP – even taking into account it applies to life as well as property – cannot give definitive answers. The best I have found from others (and the four corners of my mind) it that the NAP offers guidelines at best. I am certain that via the NAP it is possible to identify if a specific punishment has crossed the line into initiation of aggression – not where the exact line is, but that the punishment has crossed the line. You need not agree with me on this – it doesn’t change the answer to the bigger question.
You want to remove the child from the equation as it muddies the waters? I will do so, but not before pointing out: my entire point in going to this example was precisely to muddy the waters – more specifically, to offer an egregious and shocking example.
Let’s make it an adult – and to avoid any risk of doubt about age, a balding, graying man. Now, of course, we cannot be certain that he has all his mental capacities, but let’s also remove that gray area.
He has picked an apple from the tree. He ate it. He went home to nap on the sofa. Farmer Jones finds out about the apple, comes to the man’s home and shoots him.
Has punishment crossed the line into initiation of aggression? I say yes. However, if we cannot say yes to this based on libertarian theory, then we must admit that the definition of aggression is completely cultural and outside of the NAP – this admission doesn’t cause me any grief, nor does it dilute for me the value of the NAP. Of course, this admission only further strengthens my point regarding culture in the grander discussion on this topic.
So, by “what principles, values, and ethics, are we to attempt to answer these excellent questions?” If it is cultural (and I suggest to at least some degree it is), there inherently cannot be a one-size-fits-all answer.
“And by using the word “we” there, I may have fallen into our constant collectivist trap. Must we *all* agree with these principles and ethics?”
I suggest within a given region, the answer is (on the big stuff) yes. This is the beauty of McMaken’s post. Decentralization – always; this will afford ever-increasing choices for individuals to find a good fit. Not a perfect fit and not infinite choices – just a good fit.
“Or is the beauty of the NAP and absolute respect for property that these allow us to settle disputes even in cases where we disagree about the other principles and ethics.”
To reiterate – if I don’t have property in my body, I don’t have property.
BM: " Farmer Jones finds out about the apple, comes to the man’s home and shoots him."
DeleteIf the homeowner/apple theif shoots the farmer under these circumstances, has the homeowner violated the NAP?
"BM: " Farmer Jones finds out about the apple, comes to the man’s home and shoots him."
DeleteIf the homeowner/apple theif shoots the farmer under these circumstances, has the homeowner violated the NAP?"
Hey Bionic- have you any thoughts on the above question?
As the apple thief is rightly in fear for his life, it is self-defense.
DeleteGiven the circumstance I have described, perfectly justified via a proper application of the NAP, I say.
"As the apple thief is rightly in fear for his life, it is self-defense.
DeleteGiven the circumstance I have described, perfectly justified via a proper application of the NAP, I say."
Funny- we come to the same conclusion for different reasons! My reason he can shoot the farmer is that the apple thief is now on his property, and he can defend his property with lethal force against the farmer's trespass.
Since you are basing your decision on "intent", I have a few questions:
How can you know for sure as an "outsider" what the feelings are of either the farmer or apple thief at any given time?
Who is to determine if one is "rightly" or "wrongly" in fear for his life?
Can your reasoning not be applied to the farmer in the original scenario, especially in the context of having guard dogs? Clearly, the farmer is, on an ongoing basis, in fear of aggression- enough to employ guard dogs to protect the property. Since it is demonstrable that the farmer is "in fear for his life, it is self-defense" when the dogs protect him and repel (or destroy) the aggressor, correct?
"How can you know for sure as an "outsider" what the feelings are of either the farmer or apple thief at any given time?"
DeleteI cannot. Now we come full circle. Who will decide what constitutes "aggression"? Who will decide who "initiated aggression"? Who will decide appropriate punishment or restitution? Who will judge these actions?
Either each individual is free to be judge, jury and executioner, or individuals within a community agree to / accept some common rules of behavior and adjudication.
I have made my view on this clear.
"Either each individual is free to be judge, jury and executioner, or individuals within a community agree to / accept some common rules of behavior and adjudication.
DeleteI have made my view on this clear."
Ironically, I know- what have you made your view clear on? What are you referring to?
The part before that reminds me of Lawrence Vance's article on LRC today, especially this part:
"If you answered that you should decide these questions then you are a libertarian—whether you call yourself a libertarian. If you answered that the government should decide these questions then you are a statist—whether you call yourself a Democrat, a Republican, a liberal, a conservative, a moderate, a progressive, a populist, a neoconservative, a democratic socialist, a centrist, an independent, or non-partisan. If you answered that the government should decide most of these questions then you are simply an inconsistent statist.
This does not mean that you decide these things in a vacuum. Just because you decide does not mean that you don’t consult your family, friends, club, church, pastor, priest, minister, physician, psychologist, psychiatrist, coworkers, and/or acquaintances. Ultimately, however, the decision is yours to make. This does not mean that that things are all safe, healthy, moral, or a good idea. And this does not mean that anyone or everyone should do any or all of these things.
It simply means that in a free society, you decide. In an authoritarian society, the government decides. Libertarians believe in a free society. Statists believe in a society heavily controlled by legislation, laws, regulations, judges, bureaucrats, ordinances, prisons, violence, force, aggression, coercion, badges, and guns.
I will take the free society."
Bionic,
DeleteDo you have anything to say about these things from above?
"Funny- we come to the same conclusion for different reasons! My reason he can shoot the farmer is that the apple thief is now on his property, and he can defend his property with lethal force against the farmer's trespass."
Do you agree or disagree that the trespass is justification alone for shooting the farmer in defense?
Also, do you have any thoughts on this?
"Can your reasoning not be applied to the farmer in the original scenario, especially in the context of having guard dogs? Clearly, the farmer is, on an ongoing basis, in fear of aggression- enough to employ guard dogs to protect the property. Since it is demonstrable that the farmer is "in fear for his life, it is self-defense" when the dogs protect him and repel (or destroy) the aggressor, correct?"
Rick
DeleteI have answered these questions numerous times, including to you above, at February 9, 2016 at 9:40 AM
Bionic,
DeleteWith respect, I have not seen the "numerous" answers to these questions, (especially in the above listed post). So, I will just wing it, and feel free to let me know if I didn't get something right!
I think you disagree that the trespass is in and of itself justification for the shooting of the farmer. To you, there needs to be something else to push the defender over that precipice into violent defense. The thief is "...in fear for his life", and this is why the shooting is just.
Yet, the property owner, in spite of all of the demonstrable evidence that he is experiencing fear (i.e. taking steps to prevent aggression), as well as the fact that there is a stranger present on the property who could be there to kill cannot defend himself with lethal force. Why?
Perhaps the farmer was just coming by to "borrow" an apple...
By the way, the questions that I am compelled to ask, are not necessarily asked of anyone in particular. There may or not be a good answer. I just like to think of these things, and ponder.
ReplyDeleteDescartes apparently allowed himself to doubt whether he even existed or not. If one could doubt that, then these other doubts seem somewhat minor in comparison. And therefore "doubt-worthy". Never stop questioning.
Part of the problem is that Wenzel is a biology denier. He denies that biological factors in human beings, such as IQ or disposition to authoritarianism, has anything to do with their capacity to live in a 'libertarian society'. It seems to me that he does understand the concept of governance, but deems it irrelevant because once his PPS is up and running it will be universally accepted by everyone, he believes.
ReplyDeleteHow will Wenzel's PPS protect itself against rival states? And how will the PPS protect itself against domestic state formation?
Wenzel, in his email exchanges with Walter Block touches on an interesting point about slant drilling for oil. Walter Block says that slant drilling, where someone drills at an angle to reach under another person's property to extract oil is acceptable under 'libertarian law'. In a PPS, how is that going to work? There is no due process in Wenzel's PPS, and the mere assertion of a NAP violation is sufficient justification to initiate force against someone. Unless the idea that slant drilling is universally deemed to be OK, there is going to be a lot of bloodshed.
Are there any libertarianish societies today? The Amish come close. Despite predictions of the imminent demise of Amish society, the Amish are a growing group. Amish people that don't fit into Amish society leave, and those Amish with stronger Amish traits (let's call it AQ - Amish Quotient) remain and are strongly selected for 'Amishnesss'. The Amish of the present day are far more Amish that their ancestors. What would Amish society look like if they allowed the people that Wenzel refers to as 'Urban Primitives' to join their communities? What would a PPS look like? To ask is to answer.
Wenzel's PPS can't survive on its own terms even were it somehow to come into existence. Recognising that something is a bad idea is not the same as being a statist as Wendell claims. It's the libertarian equivalent of calling someone a blasphemer.
Hi Mosquito, I have been a reader and fan for years and consider you one of the most thoughtful libertarian-type bloggers out there.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if you have yet encountered Mencius Moldbug. Some of your posts of the past few years suggest you may find his work as interesting and thought-provoking as I have. His Letters to an Open Minded Progressive series of posts is a good starting point. I have not looked at American and European history and present-day politics the same since encountering Moldbug.
Wishing you the best,
Anonymous Coward
BM: "BM: depending on the answers to the above questions (some of which are governance and some are cultural), they might feel perfectly justified by the NAP (and derivable punishment) to put a bullet in the old coot’s head. Depending on the answers, I might agree with them."
ReplyDeleteWow? Are you surprised I said WOW?
Do you have an opinion on thick vs. thin libertarianism, and if so, what is the difference?
Is there a difference? What is it?
gpond, it depends why you say WOW.
DeleteBefore we get to thick and thin, answer the questions I have raised. Demonstrate how the answers are strictly derivable from the NAP, with nothing other than the extension of the NAP as support.
If you can answer these questions in this manner (and get a wide-body of libertarian scholars and thinkers to agree with you), I will be the one to say WOW.
Very intelligent and well-meaning libertarian scholars cannot even agree on what specific events constitute "initiation of aggression," let alone all of the questions raised above. But have a go!
:-)
After this, we can discuss thick and thin.
Wow. I will never argue for a wide-bodied consensus of well-meaning libertarian scholars. I have never been a 'consensus guy'. That means nothing to me.
DeleteWe will just have to agree on other terms. As friends, of course. :)
gpond, this is my point: well-meaning libertarians cannot agree on several items of application of the theory. Walter Block has written 500 papers, many of these debating with other equally qualified libertarian scholar on some point of application or another.
DeleteYet, somehow, you seem to expect that the old coot and the father of the now-dead girl will see eye to eye on application of the NAP. On what basis would you believe this?
Among many other open questions, there is no widely accepted (and definitive for every situation) application of punishment within the libertarian world. There are guidelines, but these are nothing more than guidelines.
But somehow the old coot and the father - perhaps after a rousing intellectual discussion - will part as friends? The neighbors, now in fear for the safety of their own children - for a relatively harmless trespass - will leave well enough alone, hoping that the kickball doesn't cross that not-very-well-marked-and-in-any-case-disputed property line?
I will ask you - do you find it consistent with the NAP for a child to be shot for trespass under the conditions I have described in my post and during my conversation?
If so, explain.
And always, as friends.
BM: I will ask you - do you find it consistent with the NAP for a child to be shot for trespass under the conditions I have described in my post and during my conversation?
ReplyDeleteIf so, explain.
dpong: To judge whether it is consistant with the NAP we need appeal to some other principles or values or ethics that is not contained directly within the NAP and respect for property. Not all "communities" may chose the same principles to decide. Old Coot may consider himself part of a different community or he and his family as their own separate community. By what authority does one "community" judge the NAP by their ethical system and then punitively apply this to a different community? Again, this is a theoretical question, and I think a difficult one. I'm not sure "I know it when I see it" is a satisfying answer.
Still, I agree with you that the best chance for an AnCap society would be one where the overwhelming majority share culture and customs which would greatly lower the incidents of this kind of outlier theoretical situation.
I ask these questions, because I sometimes wonder if we have been so steeped in government propaganda that we still assume some "ether of justice" (or authority) that remains and hangs around in the absence of that supposed authority. Meh. I ponder.
“Old Coot may consider himself part of a different community or he and his family as their own separate community. By what authority does one "community" judge the NAP by their ethical system and then punitively apply this to a different community?”
DeleteWe need not worry too much about this. If the father of the child and the friends and relatives of the father believe the old coot went too far (and to be clear, I am certain the old coot violated the NAP in his unilateral choice of punishment; if he did not, then the NAP is a meaningless political theory), they will handle it as they see fit. If they are customers of some private security and insurance agency, they might appeal to it.
Or they might decide to just shoot the old coot. We need not debate if this is consistent with the NAP or not – they won’t care. For some reason we want to remove human action from the application of libertarian theory. What is the point of that? In our application of (thin) libertarian theory, we must recognize and take into account human nature, human frailties, and human emotion – otherwise we are like the communists, wanting to create some “new man.”
Some new man: Wenzel wants to create a new man that will not retaliate for his daughter being shot for stealing an apple. This is a real practical political theory.
In any case, the action of the father and his friends will help shape the future culture of the neighborhood – for good or bad. But the next old coot might think twice before shooting the next little girl for picking an apple – which, I say, is a good thing.
And this is (one of) my point(s).
Hi Bionic,
ReplyDeleteYour back and forth with Wenzel has inspired me to write on the topic of governance, government and the NAP. If you can make the time I would appreciate you taking a look and giving me any kind of feedback.
http://bromidesandkibitzes.blogspot.com/2016/02/governance-government-and-nap.html
I still think that most of the problems caused by someone who executes children for trespassing can be solved by contracts along with encirclement and concerted refusals to deal without invading the property of the jerk. But not all of them. Suppose someone lives on a tract of land and announces that he is going to viciously torture anyone who might even accidently trespass upon his land and he’s able to withstand the encirclement and refusal to deal for years. Some grannies and their granddaughters are blown off course and inadvertently parachute onto his property. They land on some rocky land, causing no damage whatsoever. He claims to the right to imprison them and to inflict unimaginable tortures upon them forever. According to RW, I think it would/should be forbidden for outsiders to invade his land in order to rescue them. And we should like it. And if you don’t like it, you do not support AnCap (like Walter Block). Do I have that right or am I missing something.
ReplyDeleteI think the problem arises by over-emphasizing the protection of physical property over the protection of bodies. The AnCap purpose of protecting physical property is ultimately to protect bodies. Since the neither the outlier landowner nor his land have been harmed, he simply cannot be allowed to harm the bodies of inadvertent trespassers. The punishment must fit the crime.
There comes a point where punishment crosses the line into the initiation of aggression, thereby a violation of the NAP. Your example fits this description, it seems to me.
Delete(Others might disagree with my conclusion. I believe I have addressed the possibilities associated with this agreement in my various comments and posts on this topic.)
In any case (and given my conclusion), it is consistent with the NAP for third parties to intervene - provided they do so voluntarily and without forcing others to fund their efforts.
Bob Roddis, any attempt at encirclement that you describe is guaranteed to lead to bloodshed. And by the way, how will anarcho-capitalists deal with a group of people that have made a decision to form a state?
DeleteAs for RW, he says that it would be forbidden for other people to intervene on private property but who forbids it? And besides with no due process you can just make any assertion of an NAP violation without evidence and exact summary retribution.
any attempt at encirclement that you describe is guaranteed to lead to bloodshed.
DeleteI see encirclement as a BIG step away from the initiation of violence and would need to be used sparingly, like when dealing with truly horrible situations that might not rise to the level of a violation of the NAP. People would know and understand ahead of time the appropriate circumstances for its application.
And by the way, how will anarcho-capitalists deal with a group of people that have made a decision to form a state?
What does that mean? A bunch of people on their own property decide to contractually allow certain members of their group the right to initiate violence against them? It's their property. It's their bodies. What's the problem?
I've since bowed out of the back and forth. It's not that I'm unwilling. It's not that I'm not convinced of my position - save for a few gray areas. But, like I've said elsewhere, libertarianism doesn't address every gray area that could be at all times - No philosophy really does.
ReplyDeleteBut, I have bowed out because RW doesn't seem to understand his stance can be used to defend the State we know in this reality, and he may not be interested in hearing any such claim. He's also giving traits to folks who disagree that said folks obviously aren't holding (Why would we all be here talking about this if we believed Capital G government worked?), and I don't think it's moving the discussion anywhere worthwhile.
He called me out, I responded in the comment section of the article in question, and my comment isn't seen. Of course he's not obligated to show or do anything - for all I know the fault isn't his (but, I did try twice). I'd think that a libertarian thinker would welcome adverse opinion - If I'm wrong he can refute it. Or anyone can.
My thoughts can be summarized as follows: Wenzel, this PPS you hold so dear has arrived, and the property holders are inside the beltway. If advocates of Governance vs Governments are minarchists, then Wenzel might be the Statist. If he can defend a farmer defending the apple with lethal force, why not defend the State - should we resist parking tickets, taxes, etc. they can argue just as easily we're violating their property rights. After all, they claimed the land first. (I'm exaggerating, but the point is there.)
Without intending to leech traffic, I have a post up on my blog addressing ... whatever it is he's saying. It's titled "Where does it End, Part II"