There has been some ongoing dialogue at a couple of recent
posts (here
and here)
regarding the topic of discrimination and exclusion. I would like to explore this topic further,
interactively (to the extent such is possible given the format of this blog). I continue to reflect on the following (from
one of the aforementioned posts):
Inherently, property is
exclusionary. Conclusions can be drawn from this; these conclusions do not make all
libertarians happy.
Gay, Moslem, Mexican, whatever. For sake of this post (and to avoid getting
caught up in the emotion of any supposedly disadvantaged group), please picture
“Martians” when you think about what group it is to which I might be referring.
I will build from what I believe to be the more basic concept
to the more complicated concepts on this topic.
With each step, I ask two questions:
A)
Does the above conform with libertarian theory? If no, please explain why in the comments
below.
B)
If yes, yet you do not like it, what would you
do to stop the practice and on what basis do you justify your intervention?
To not over-complicate this, I assume “property” as those with
a reasonable respect for property in the west generally understand it; more
specifically, land and any improvements on it that are claimed owned by an
individual or other legal entity.
With that, let’s begin:
1)
Regarding my home and the land on which it sits,
I have the right to exclude whomever I choose from access or otherwise manage
to whom I allow or disallow access.
2)
My neighbor and I have agreed to certain
parameters on the conditions raised in question 1) above. We agree to implement common conditions in
accord with these parameters and further have agreed to support the other in
defense of these parameters.
3)
The two of us have found that twenty other
property owners in our immediate neighborhood like what we have started. They have agreed to join us under the same
conditions.
4)
One of these property owners also owns several
rental units. He decides that similar
conditions will be applied for these properties.
5)
This same rental-property-owning tycoon is in a consortium
of such property owners; many like what he has done and they have agreed to
similar conditions for their properties.
6)
There are others in the larger community that
like the concept of what we have implemented, but do not agree with the
specific conditions we have placed. They
therefore have decided on a different set of conditions for their neighborhood.
7)
In any / each / all of the above, the relevant
property owner(s) has (have) decided to hire an agent to implement these
decisions.
In your response, please identify specifically to which item(s)
from the above list of seven you are addressing.
What's not to like? Discrimination is both moral and natural. It may not be fair, but neither are free markets. The nature of the world, and humans, has always been one of competition. Libertarian theory and the NAP can't change that.
ReplyDeleteBM,
ReplyDelete(A) Points 1-7 conform to Libertarianism as I understand it.
(B) My problem with this is the narrow conception of sovereignty. What I don't like is that it is an insufficient framework for maintaining a civilization.
Before I get into my criticism I would like to throw you a bone. If we waved a magic wand and had this sort of arrangement tomorrow I believe it would transform quickly into the society I would like to see out of pure necessity (without many libertarian rights violations needing to occur). This is why I am, in the America context, an anarchist. We share the same enemy, the state, but not the state in the abstract, but in the particular- The American Federal Government. However, this is just to give you an idea of where I am coming from. We will never have the luxury of your libertarian order (property rights and voluntary exchange) as a starting point, which is why in most of my comments I focus on the preconditions for a good society generally and what present trends we need to be aware of moving forward.
What I don't like is failing to recognize the need for a sovereign beyond individual property owners. This is, in my opinion, the primary flaw in anarcho-capitalism.
A sovereign is, per Carl Schmitt, "he who decides on the exception." The sovereign asserting itself and making an exception with regard to the normal rules (in this case property rights) is the "emergency state." This is the only way to respond to an existential threat. You can't let your rules get in the way of your survival.
What if the tycoon (4) does not accept your rules and instead decides to import Martians who are a threat to your way of life? Maybe they are low-IQ rapists Martians who practice a barbaric religion that demands absolute obedience from all earth-lings at the point of a ray-gun? Who can over-ride this decision for the benefit of the larger society? The power to make the exception to a regime of private property rights is essential for being able to maintain it.
In order to minimize the State as much a possible (as you would like) it would be necessary to have a strict process of selecting members for a society and having rules that non-members cannot own property. Once that is established you need rules in the society to maintain the discipline. Perhaps a rule that only allows joint ownership of property until a man reaches a certain age and has proven his loyalty and character to the community.
What of people doing things on their property that should not be done at all? Molesting their children for instance. There is no way to justify an intervention into that situation without having something sovereign above property owners.
By the time you get to (7) it is beginning to look like a State, which is why I said above that a starting point like that would turn quickly into a minimal state serving the interests of the people.
BM I really appreciate what you are doing here. This is by far the best place I have found to discuss these questions, I should have hopped in sooner. Thanks m8.
UC, see my reply here:
Deletehttp://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-preconditions.html
UC, how do you prevent the sovereign from becoming a state?
ReplyDeleteJeff,
Delete"how do you prevent the sovereign from becoming a state?"
Interesting question.
Short Answer: You don't.
Long Answer:
There are many different definitions of "State," and there are many different forms of sovereign entities that you could call states (and they are not all equal). The definition libertarians tend to prefer is Max Weber's- a territorial monopoly on violence. What should be apparent for those willing to go beyond libertarian dogma is that this description can be applied to private property as well, particularly as is conceived in an anarcho-capitalist society. With Weber's definition a "stateless" society would be better understood as Somalia rather than Ancapistan. In Ancapistan (I am not suggesting this is possible) you would have as many States as you do people. Every man would be a King on his property and every dispute between Kings would be a kind of war.
If I may, it seems the question you are really asking is: how do you prevent a sovereign from becoming self-serving?
You need an elite that identify with the people and are loyal to them. In my view what is needed is good genetics (eugenics), a healthy sense of identity, especially on behalf of the elite (in-group consciousness), and a sense of responsibility or duty on behalf of the population to one another (nationalism). These things run counter to the forces that bring a society down such as dysgenics, fratricidal conflict, and rootless cosmopolitanism. Similarly, a healthy society needs a vitalizing and life-affirming spirituality to prevent degeneracy and decadence.
Aristotle described the State as a natural outgrowth of the basic arrangements of family and community. I find nothing sinister about a state that serves its people. I believe libertarianism appeals to white Americans because the U.S Federal Government has made clear its unbridled hostility to them and their way of life (I know that is why it appealed to me). If we didn't have a hostile State there would be much less to complain about and we could get on with our lives and build new things.
Here is a great speech by an Afrikaner who lives in the intentional community of Orania: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er46kIOWK_M
It really is a must watch for anyone who is seriously interested in these questions. These people know something about what it takes to build a society that serves your people.
A) Yes. Libertarian theory cannot necessarily force someone to agree or disagree with anything. We can disagree with "Martian" marriage, we can disagree with "Martian" bathroom rights" - we can even detest these things vehemently, but we cannot use force, lethal or otherwise, to stop these activities if we are not being forced to partake somehow.
ReplyDeleteThey can do the same to me, and that's just fine.
B) I exercise my opinion with my property - this may include using a blog of my own creation to voice my disagreements, or I may just spend my wealth elsewhere. If I'm a property owner and desire tenants/customers/etc, and there's a demand for exclusionary property that I'm willing to conform to, maybe I can offer that.
Again, they can do the same to me and that's just fine.
In A and B, we can assume there are property owners providing different criteria for expectations, though similar services. If everything was one size fits all, we wouldn't have multiple chains of stores in the same industry competing for consumer money and confidence. It's because everyone discriminates, especially the people that insist they don't.
Markets could correct themselves, if there's an untapped incentive to not operate in a discriminatory way.
Example: Is there an untapped market in here that I can serve? Is this market large enough to offset my costs? Do I want to serve this market?
I wrote a post on my blog some time back, "Discrimination is Fantastic". It talks about similar things here.
With that, let’s begin:
1) I can't consider a compelling argument against this.
2) This is fine, as long as these conditions do not violate what we call the NAP. I disagree with the labeling of the term, but I'll use it for the sake of definition.
3) Same as point 2.
4) Same as point 3. But, if a property owner terminates an agreement with customers or patrons as a result, said property owner should, or could, expect a potential blow to his reputation somehow. It's a legitimate market force. If this is a risk the property owner doesn't mind taking on, it's his resources.
5) Yep.
6) Strong and/or beneficial cultural norms and standards spread. Nobody is spreading this through the barrel of a gun, so why not?
7) While I sympathize with UnhappyConservative's view that by the time we hit point 7 we're starting to look like the State, any group of individuals can potentially operate as a State. Gangs, groups of property owners (Neighborhood Watch, HOA), so on, so forth. We know this because it happens today. Like minded people can band together to achieve the same goals, and this is perfectly libertarian in and of itself. Until this step, or any other step violates the NAP, I'm not within my bounds to respond with force.
At this step, or any step, this is only consistent with liberty if someone can withdraw their consent.
"At this step, or any step, this is only consistent with liberty if someone can withdraw their consent."
DeleteThis.
Until you have the right of individual choice with whom (or none) to associate, it is not a state but territorial or ex territorial contractual jurisdiction
.
"At this step, or any step, this is only consistent with liberty if someone can withdraw their consent."
ReplyDeleteI think this is an important concept that needs further fleshing out.
I have always liked the HOA type analogy- exploring a bit further, it is not uncommon for a HOA to operate under some time of covenant, think "Constitution" on a small scale.
Along those lines, let's say I'm not happy with how the HOA is being run, but I signed onto it voluntarily and am now bound by its rules.(unlike the Constitution, which presumes my agreement to it's contractual terms, which no one happens to follow much anymore anyway...lol)
In order for me in a legal sense "withdraw my consent" I would have to find that the HOA is somehow violating the terms of the contract, correct?
So on the surface there would appear to be times I might be unable to withdraw my consent legally. I would be forced at that time to sell my property if I want "out" of the HOA, or abandon it, etc. et al
Also, I'm interested in how I might go about rectifying HOA contract violations by the HOA administration itself...do I have to appeal to the HOA members, then force it to comply with it's rules with their aid? What if everyone in the HOA is "ok" with it violating the original terms of the contract? At that point in time it would appear I would have to employ an outside security/arbitration firm to enforce the HOA contract on itself....
I offer no "solutions" to this situation...I'm just positing, in a pseudo-Socratic method(which I like).
I find it somewhat important on the basis of a decentralized, libertarian society(ies) and how they might function.
“In order for me in a legal sense "withdraw my consent" I would have to find that the HOA is somehow violating the terms of the contract, correct?”
DeleteI think one of three risks are possible:
1) They are violating the terms of the contract.
2) They have made a change to the terms that you do not like. For this, I assume the change was made in accordance with procedures in the contract, otherwise see 1) above.
3) You find that what you thought was meant in the contract is not reality – a mistake or misrepresentation.
“So on the surface there would appear to be times I might be unable to withdraw my consent legally. I would be forced at that time to sell my property if I want "out" of the HOA, or abandon it, etc. et al”
If you cannot withdraw “legally,” (I prefer to think “contractually”), why should the other members of the HOA suffer from your violation of the contract? Your problem is your problem.
“Also, I'm interested in how I might go about rectifying HOA contract violations by the HOA administration itself...do I have to appeal to the HOA members, then force it to comply with it's rules with their aid? What if everyone in the HOA is "ok" with it violating the original terms of the contract? At that point in time it would appear I would have to employ an outside security/arbitration firm to enforce the HOA contract on itself....”
The steps for appeal are normally spelled out in every commercial / business contract, usually ending with private arbitration. As you have agreed to these steps when you signed agreed to become a member of the HOA, this is life!
"If you cannot withdraw “legally,” (I prefer to think “contractually”), why should the other members of the HOA suffer from your violation of the contract? Your problem is your problem."
DeleteOh yes, I agree entirely. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing any point per se, just talking them through for my benefit(and maybe the benefit of others? lol, or maybe not?)
"The steps for appeal are normally spelled out in every commercial / business contract, usually ending with private arbitration. As you have agreed to these steps when you signed agreed to become a member of the HOA, this is life!"
Yes, I agree.
Here's the interesting thing to me though in the context of "application":
When the Founder's codified the "right to petition"(amazing to think they didn't put it in the Constitution, well to me anyway), it would seem to have acknowledged this notion we are discussing.(even though we can trace it to the Magna Carta)
But look at it's subversion(per wiki):
Some litigants have contended that the right to petition the government includes a requirement that the government listen to or respond to members of the public. This view was rejected by the United States Supreme Court in 1984:
"Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court's case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues."
I can't help but wonder if the same could happen in an HOA of sufficient size/power.
I think the issue of "what" private arbitration exists to check such a thing is an issue to some degree, especially as HOA's increase in size/power.
This to me is a question to ponder...what does the mechanism for arbitration look like? (we all know that an internal mechanism, like the IA dept of a police department or the Supreme Court in the case of the US gov't are mostly failed devices...and they are truly "third party")
One has to wonder at the scope of size of both HOA's and private arbitration/defense industries....
Again, I offer nothing...I'm just throwing things against the proverbial wall.
I've read the argument about "war being expensive" as a check in general...but when the gains of war are measured against the costs of waging it, I could see self interest taking over(removing morality from the picture).
“One has to wonder at the scope of size of both HOA's and private arbitration/defense industries....”
DeleteWithout the power of law to form monopolies, there will be competition. We don’t worry about such things (the scope and size of the providers) in markets that are relatively free; I find no reason to be concerned in this case.
edit:
Delete"and they AREN'T truly "third party""
Anyway, yes- I hope you're right and that competition would prevent the monopolization the defense/force industry.
It just seems that you have to question what would happen if a private defense/force agency was so successful it became "Microsoft" in it's business(force)...and then suddenly in self interest decided to use it's dominance in "force" to bend the world(or locale) to it's will.
I'm playing devil's advocate here. (I suppose some might say Microsoft became dominate via gov't...but I guess we'll see)
That some might want to use such power for nefarious ends, I have no doubt.
DeleteWe would be no worse off than we are today; a chance worth taking, perhaps.
If a customer is dissatisfied with one such abuser, another service provider could highlight how they aren't doing the things that this bloated tyrant does. If no such provider exists, there's an incentive for someone to create it. Competing consumer electronics, search engines, etc. do this today.
DeleteTo highlight the Microsoft example, someone could consider Linux. While not a product actively stocked at larger chains - and it may require above average computer literacy, it's out there for anyone who wants it.
This is why I do not like HOA (what is actually some kind of territorial contractual jurisdiction) as a model of a free society. I would prefer, if all things are equal, the world of competing ex territorial contractual jurisdictions, a panarchy. Where you will not have to sell your property and leave the "territory" to exercise your right to "exit" but you would be able to "exit" (joining the other contractual ex territorial jurisdiction or creating your own one) "taking" your property with you and not leaving your home.
Delete"I offer no solutions to this situation"
ReplyDeleteThis might be the more important concept when it comes to application of libertarian theory. I'm not sure Libertarian theory can have a one size fits all diagnosis for all woes in all places. We'd likely have to call it Central Planning if it did.
The San Francisco Collective would likely look infinitely different than the Republic of Texas, in a heavily decentralized world. Even more so than say, the Confederation of Independent Southwestern Sovereigns.
Whatever these solutions could be would likely vary based on a lot of things. What do the participating properties look like? Is it an urban sprawl, suburbs, or rural? Or some kind of composite of the three? Who is participating? Why did participants sign up?
Are participants members of this entity based on geographic location, or do they just sign up based on having similar ideals? When you sign up, is there a "Terms of Use"?
I don't think anyone, anywhere, could offer a one size fits all solution - application of libertarian theory or not. Markets would likely decide on this, similar to how we chose to spend or invest today.
Agreed, well written.
Delete