Anarcho-Capitalism: A Branden ‘Blast from the Past’

[anthony]

No, that's Statist rights. They are 'positive'. Objectivist rights are 'negative'.

The right TO something - at somebody else's expense. Positive.

You can do whatever you want, but not infringe on others' rights (to do what they choose.)Negative.

Bestowing, or permitting rights is a self-contradiction.

They are not any government's to bestow, but only to protect.

[Mikee]

Man's nature as neither slave OR master. A slave master or would be slave master has no life as Man either. And no rights.

History of mankind has also been for many centuries, a history of keeping slaves, with the masters probably enjoying their "life as Man" very much. Just think of life in Ancient Rome.

So there may well exist in man's nature the impulse to lord it over others, to make them act to serve one's own purpose.

Many of our ethical values are the product cultural evolution where humans prevail over their biological impulses, 'transcend' them, so to speak.

That's why building an ethics on a 'man's need for survival' premise can be such a slippery slope.

Take the NIOF principle for example. While it can be argued that NIOF does have some biological foundation: the desire of primates for harmony in a group, harmony being associated with security. Gestures of appeasement, of grooming, etc. qualify as a form of NIOF) - one is faced with another fact, the fact that the very opposite, IOF (initiation of force), had been been used for many millenia by our forefathers for the purpose of ensuring survival too.

It can be assumed that none of us would exist if our stone-age ancestors had not initiated force on others and their possessions ...

.

It is such a puzzle for me to figure out what you're getting at most of the time. You point out bits and pieces of man's behavior through the ages as if the contradictions in behavior from an earlier point in evolution negates the nature of man that has been driving the advance of civilization for all of these ages. "...think of life in Ancient Rome"; yeah, they're history aren't they? Perhaps they didn't survive because they tried to act against Man's true nature? Perhaps these civilizations can rise up because they loot the people who produce and trade, the people displaying the true nature of man. Are you going to ascribe man's true nature to the looters? Or the producers and traders? Who needs who more? Negative rights are an invention to protect producers from looters, whether they're the burglar breaking into your house or the local politician. "Positive" rights are the politicians attempt to continue looting.

[Dglgmut]

(Also note that the 'father' of all rights, right to property, is like all of them,

the right to action - not to 'things'. The action includes the actions of earning,

improving, discarding, defending, donating or destroying - property - it seems clear to me.)

Tony! The "action" of earning, without the right to own?

The actions which should be your right to perform are dependent on your property, not the other way around. How else would we decide what the limits of actions are? For example, if we use the natural law that humans need food to survive, and action is our primary concern, what reason would there be for one man not to steal food from another if he was going to die? You have your body/person before you can do anything. The concept of property is at the core of rights.

Also, the concept of ownership is at the core of the concept of consciousness -- in fact, they are pretty much one and the same. A rock is, but it does not have... Consciousness has--and clearly--while how much consciousness is is a complete mystery.

[Brant Gaede]

If you have a need to initiate force I have a need to direct retaliatory force at you so I create a governing entity in turn governed by political philosophy to do that for me. Rights are not "created" by government, they are protected. When the government creates a right it's a positive right which means it's actually initiating force violating the negative rights of sundry people or even just one person. The United States was built on negative rights' philosophy. No (negative) means no interfernce to right action. Yes (positive) means interference with right action. Or, no is right and yes is wrong. NIOF.

But in order for rights to be protected, they have to be bestowed upon before.

No, they have to be identified to be protected. The bestowing entity is the actor. He acts without initiating force, without violating the rights of others to act without also violating the rights of others. THAT IS HIS RIGHT! HIS RIGHT TO DO! THERE ARE INNUMERABLE THINGS TO DO! The "right" to food stamps is not a right except to those who think as you do. We might say that when it comes to rights, positive is negative. A positive right is the "right" to commit genocide by tyranicidals, for your reductio horriblium maximum bloodium!

--Brant

fight for your freedom!

correct my Latin

[anthony]

(Also note that the 'father' of all rights, right to property, is like all of them,

the right to action - not to 'things'. The action includes the actions of earning,

improving, discarding, defending, donating or destroying - property - it seems clear to me.)

Tony! The "action" of earning, without the right to own?

The actions which should be your right to perform are dependent on your property, not the other way around. How else would we decide what the limits of actions are? For example, if we use the natural law that humans need food to survive, and action is our primary concern, what reason would there be for one man not to steal food from another if he was going to die? You have your body/person before you can do anything. The concept of property is at the core of rights.

Calvin! But what comes first: the actions of thought, effort, and creativity - all driven by one's specific values, and nurtured by one's objective and hard-won virtues?

(The action of "earning" in other words.)

Or: the property itself, the ownership?

The self-sustaining, self-directing nature of man which AR often emphasises, must never

be interrupted by other men (or government) because only he can know and choose his goals, which means: his property. Though mainly, because all his property is the concretization of a man's effortful, independent thought. His mind = his life, and his

life is the primary right.

The right to act toward ownership, and the right to keep ownership. The complete concept of property rights - is the business of government, and why we need it at all.

[Dglgmut]

Ownership is the right to use/dispose of. Owning YOUR life / YOUR mind comes first--what else could? How can you put the act of thinking before having a life / mind?

I don't know why this is so important, though, when it comes to whether we should have government or not. It is clear that consent is a huge issue with government, and without the option to consent or not consent we have no freedom.

Objective law or not, the power to create laws should be linked to the capitalistic, self-interest method of everyone keeping everyone else in check. Rand was not a fan of average people, yet she was a fan of capitalism allowing people to vote with their wallets. Why? Because she had faith in human nature, which we all should.

[Xray]

Are you going to ascribe man's true nature to the looters? Or the producers and traders?

I don't think in terms of man's "true" nature, but see man's nature more as a conglomerate of complexities.

[Xray]

No, that's Statist rights. They are 'positive'. Objectivist rights are 'negative'.

The right TO something - at somebody else's expense. Positive.

You can do whatever you want, but not infringe on others' rights (to do what they choose.)Negative.

Bestowing, or permitting rights is a self-contradiction.

They are not any government's to bestow, but only to protect.

And who declares X to be a right? The right to own property for example?

The point is personal jurisdiction. Are you in charge of your life? If so, why can you not sit on your property with a loaded gun? You worked for that property, and you're not hurting anyone.

Owning property does not necessarily mean that one has had to work for it.

As for personal jurisdiction with a loaded gun - how is this supposed to work when it comes to more complex situations than sitting on a patch of land watching out for trespassers?

If for example, you have entrusted your money to a fraudulent banker and it is gone, your loaded gun won't bring it back.

[anthony]

No, that's Statist rights. They are 'positive'. Objectivist rights are 'negative'.

The right TO something - at somebody else's expense. Positive.

You can do whatever you want, but not infringe on others' rights (to do what they choose.)Negative.

Bestowing, or permitting rights is a self-contradiction.

They are not any government's to bestow, but only to protect.

And who declares X to be a right? The right to own property for example?

Each individual in a sane society, by reason of his self-evident right to life

and self-sovereignty.

[Dglgmut]

Owning property does not necessarily mean that one has had to work for it.

As for personal jurisdiction with a loaded gun - how is this supposed to work when it comes to more complex situations than sitting on a patch of land watching out for trespassers?

If for example, you have entrusted your money to a fraudulent banker and it is gone, your loaded gun won't bring it back.

You can get it as a gift... but it had to have been produced somewhere down the line.

Your loaded gun won't get the money back, but there should be a punishment that fits the crime, so to speak, so that justice is served - specifically for the victim. (Rothbard suggested a 2 eyes for an eye standard)

[Xray]

You can get it as a gift... but it had to have been produced somewhere down the line.

Wealth can be 'produced' under all kinds of circumstances and not all acts involved in acquiring wealth be called ethical.

As for inheriting land property - if one traces it back to its origins, there was no production involved. Somewhere down the line someone just sat down on patch of land and arbitrarily declared it to be his.

Your loaded gun won't get the money back, but there should be a punishment that fits the crime, so to speak, so that justice is served - specifically for the victim. (Rothbard suggested a 2 eyes for an eye standard)

Imo this would be a relapse in vindictiveness exceeding even the dark Biblical ages.

[rhartford]

. . . It is clear that consent is a huge issue with government, and without the option to consent or not consent we have no freedom.

An institution devoted to protection of political freedom only applies force to those who would violate a political freedom, and rightly does so without the violator’s consent.

All those acting in accord with political freedom are left alone, and their consent to be left alone is not required.

The “huge issue” is not with consent, but with the means to establish and maintain an institution or institutions restricted to exerting force against violators of political freedom.

[anthony]

. . . It is clear that consent is a huge issue with government, and without the option to consent or not consent we have no freedom.

An institution devoted to protection of political freedom only applies force to those who would violate a political freedom, and rightly does so without the violator’s consent.

All those acting in accord with political freedom are left alone, and their consent to be left alone is not required.

The “huge issue” is not with consent, but with the means to establish and maintain an institution or institutions restricted to exerting force against violators of political freedom.

Yes, I don't understand the "problem of consent". Once a proper, limited and self-delimiting government has been set up, it is delegated consent - if only implicitly - from every citizen, to act on his/her behalf.

Consent is not required thereafter, from either violator or violatee.

A government has no options, but to act automatically, 'robotically', within its mandate, at every infringement of individual rights.

The violation of one person's rights, is a crime against all people's rights, in effect, (the way I see it) and the violater would most likely go on to infringe upon others', too.

[Dglgmut]

First of all, landed property is created just as any other property is: by mixing it with one's labor. Simple rule of thumb: If a patch of land has the mark of man, consider it owned. That's from Rothbard.

Anything provided by nature that has not been used is free game, anything that has been used is off limits, permanently.

Consent is an issue with government because without consent you separate the government from the governed, turning them against each other. However, the whole concept of government neglects consent. So while it may be consented by 100% of the population, part of it is an agreement to an alienated future.

You cannot sell yourself into slavery. Rothbard basically says that because freedom exists in the present, for you to sell yourself into slavery, though seemingly a free act of self-governance, is agreeing that your future freedom be taken away. In the future, when you no longer want to be a slave (slavery cannot possibly be voluntary) you must have the freedom not to be.

You can sell your labor, but not your freedom. In selling your labor you have the option to break the contract at anytime, with consequences, obviously.

Selling your future freedom to a government, in order to protect freedom, cannot work. You cannot use your freedom to create a government, then forfeit the only thing that can possibly protect freedom (use of force) and expect the government to serve justice.

Organized force is not bad; it should be used by rational people to protect their own rights, and possibly be sold to protect the rights of others. Rational organized force is what the world needs.

[Mikee]

Man's nature as neither slave OR master. A slave master or would be slave master has no life as Man either. And no rights.

History of mankind has also been for many centuries, a history of keeping slaves, with the masters probably enjoying their "life as Man" very much. Just think of life in Ancient Rome.

So there may well exist in man's nature the impulse to lord it over others, to make them act to serve one's own purpose.

Many of our ethical values are the product cultural evolution where humans prevail over their biological impulses, 'transcend' them, so to speak.

That's why building an ethics on a 'man's need for survival' premise can be such a slippery slope.

Take the NIOF principle for example. While it can be argued that NIOF does have some biological foundation: the desire of primates for harmony in a group, harmony being associated with security. Gestures of appeasement, of grooming, etc. qualify as a form of NIOF) - one is faced with another fact, the fact that the very opposite, IOF (initiation of force), had been been used for many millenia by our forefathers for the purpose of ensuring survival too.

It can be assumed that none of us would exist if our stone-age ancestors had not initiated force on others and their possessions ...

.

It is such a puzzle for me to figure out what you're getting at most of the time. You point out bits and pieces of man's behavior through the ages as if the contradictions in behavior from an earlier point in evolution negates the nature of man that has been driving the advance of civilization for all of these ages. "...think of life in Ancient Rome"; yeah, they're history aren't they? Perhaps they didn't survive because they tried to act against Man's true nature? Perhaps these civilizations can rise up because they loot the people who produce and trade, the people displaying the true nature of man. Are you going to ascribe man's true nature to the looters? Or the producers and traders? Who needs who more? Negative rights are an invention to protect producers from looters, whether they're the burglar breaking into your house or the local politician. "Positive" rights are the politicians attempt to continue looting.

Xray: your reply to the above [Are you going to ascribe man's true nature to the looters? Or the producers and traders?]:

"I don't think in terms of man's "true" nature, but see man's nature more as a conglomerate of complexities."

Let's try again. You say "Many of our ethical values are the product cultural evolution where humans prevail over their biological impulses, 'transcend' them, so to speak."

You are describing what I mean when I suggest that the cultural evolution of mankind is driven by man's true nature. This "transcendence" as you call it would be the delineation of man's nature from the beasts. Regarding "man's need for survival": men need other men, known and unknown, to thrive (rather than survive). Our language, our knowledge of science, technology, industry, medicine, art and music, mathematics, all of the methods for producing everything we take for granted in modern living are the products of countless others both living and dead. It's true, much of this knowledge was gained in earlier ages, times where the majority of men lived in hardship and bare subsistence. A few minds through lucky circumstance in earlier ages added to humanities store of knowledge. These individuals may have been rulers, or kept by rulers, masters or slaves, monks, warriors, or just exceptional individuals in good circumstances. But for the majority of men to live truly human lives, lives of their own making, lives that are not full of drudgery or simply following the orders of other men, men have to be free. The condition of freedom is also where man's store of knowledge explodes. Where every mind is free to innovate and offer his discoveries to other men for trade. Your socialist, command society is a throwback, proven to demotivate and discourage innovation, where a few elites rule others under the guise of "common good". It is a temporary reversal of the course of human history, reactionary rather than progressive.

[Dglgmut]

Haven't been reading much, but I am still working my way through this Rothbard book... He makes some really good points, like: the State should follow its own laws. (which would mean anarchy)

[Brant Gaede]

Haven't been reading much, but I am still working my way through this Rothbard book... He makes some really good points, like: the State should follow its own laws. (which would mean anarchy)

How does that work? Actual law has its own logic. Thus real contradictions in the context of said law can exist and do. You seem to be talking about law in a more abstract sense like the theoretical pre any codifications.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Your loaded gun won't get the money back, but there should be a punishment that fits the crime, so to speak, so that justice is served - specifically for the victim. (Rothbard suggested a 2 eyes for an eye standard)

Imo this would be a relapse in vindictiveness exceeding even the dark Biblical ages.

However bad it wouldn't be good. I watched on tv a while back as the victim was allowed to use an assault rifle to execute the bad guy. This was in Afghanistan.

--Brant

[Dglgmut]

Maybe I left too much up to people's imagination with that line about 2 eyes for an eye. It's that to the extent that an individual's rights have been taken away by a criminal, they should be able to retaliate by taking away rights equal to what they lost.

This means if you were robbed of $1000, you should get your $1000 back, and the criminal should lose an additional $1000 as punishment.

If you invade someone's property, proportionate punishment is not too difficult to calculate, but in the case of invasion of one's property of person, when violent punishments come into play (as maximums, not requirements), then it is a bit uglier, I suppose.

But that's what justice is, deciding when and how much violence should be used.

[Brant Gaede]

Maybe I left too much up to people's imagination with that line about 2 eyes for an eye. It's that to the extent that an individual's rights have been taken away by a criminal, they should be able to retaliate by taking away rights equal to what they lost.

This means if you were robbed of $1000, you should get your $1000 back, and the criminal should lose an additional $1000 as punishment.

If you invade someone's property, proportionate punishment is not too difficult to calculate, but in the case of invasion of one's property of person, when violent punishments come into play (as maximums, not requirements), then it is a bit uglier, I suppose.

But that's what justice is, deciding when and how much violence should be used.

Violence is a sub-category of force. Violence is a devolution or derivative of force. The dividing line can be fuzzy. The robbers forced their way into the home and (violently) shot the homeowner (initiating force) who (violently) shot the robbers dead using (retaliatory force) his 12 gauge shotgun.

--Brant

if I have confused you I have been successful

[ThomasHägg]

I hold that the idea of getting every new generaltion to consent to a form of government is just as flawed in the human nature premise as in telling people they don't choose the families they are born into, so toddlers have the right to seek another family to raise them.

After having read your post, I decided I would create an account so I could answer it. First of all of course, the government is nothing close to a family, but let's leave that aside for a moment because there actually are some similarities between the two and so this enables us to use the family as an example.

I would argue, when any person (such as the child you speak of) mature to the point that they become capable of providing for themselves unless actually prevented by others, if they then would rather choose to work for their own income, leave their (perhaps unloving) family behind or choose to start their own family, they should be absolutely allowed to do so. There is no magic age where all of this is supposed to happen and so naturally it currently differs even between western nations.

In the same way, if an individual born into a state or otherwise, should want to choose to create new courts, police and defense against an invasion without changing the basic premise of working for his own income and without breaking ethical code, he should be absolutely allowed to do so. The basic code of Objectivism empowers you to do so.

"But then by whom should he be allowed to do this?" you may ask and "Who would protect the right to do so?"

This is a great question. In fact, I might even call it "the perfect question". Of course, as Rand herself emphasized, a liberty is not a liberty (even though it might be the only moral option) unless it is protected as such.

This right should be protected by whom ever is currently superior, be it

1. A single individual - This would probably be an absolute dictatorship and the dictator would obviously be highly unlikely to ever accept this new right. In such a case, such liberty might have to be taken by force in retaliation against the current tyranny if the dictator can not be tricked or played.
2. A group of individuals - This would be a) A government (for example a democracy) - The above may still apply, but voting may be better if it can be done without risk for ones life.

   b) An already established network of such private defense agencies. Could such a systems exist? Actually, Yes. (Science and History)

The main obstacle in/with/too Anarcho-Capitalist (free market policing, -courts and -defence) I think is actually slowly going away. As long as we can keep some capitalist element alive in our current world society, we will be outgrowing it. Technology in all areas is actually starting to catch up to political philosophy.

(Worldwide communication in less than a second is possible. Even to people within absolute dictatorships, though it may be risky. Medicine moves forward, IT moves forward, (Civilian-)Robotics move forward. Few people these days are actually able to keep up with the development that occurs because of the speed it is now reaching. It is monstrous. It is riskfull. It is almost unavoidable. It will be used for both good and bad of course. But mostly it is absolutely beautiful.

In a few years perhaps, there can begin to be made available computer simulations of how and to what degree different kinds of societies would actually work.

Then perhaps, purely theoreticaly, in the next 5 decades or so, smaller "experimental" societies can be created all over the world, in part still perhaps within the already existing boundaries of the dominant nation states... But still!)

I will cut my message short here for time saving purposes.

Kindly,

Thomas

[ThomasHägg]

Who knows... I might be able to revive this thread. =)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Thomas,

Welcome to OL.

Irrespective of any freedom-based social system, I am convinced that freedom only can exist if people want to be good and try to be. Freedom among a bunch of scumbags does not really mean much. In fact, it goes away and gangs form.

Thus freedom in practice is based more on the activity of intellectuals and artists--especially the morality based folks--than it is on any politician or political theory.

I include religious people in this argument. When they spread the desire to be good, they enhance freedom. When they get cult-like or put a huge focus on scapegoating, they work against freedom.

As to technology, there are great things coming. But there are bad things, too. Our society is turning into a snitching society (electronic snitching by algorithms) and I definitely don't see freedom arising from that. A snitching culture is one of the characteristics of all dictatorships.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I hold that the idea of getting every new generaltion...

Did I really write "generaltion"?!!

Good Lord!

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Theoreticals out of theoreticals creating even more theoreticals.

--Brant

brains gone wild