A discussion in another thread raised a question in my mind and wanted to get some opinions.
State militaries are immoral due to the fact that they are supported by tax dollars and more importantly because they kill. From what I understand a PDA is a free market alternative to state militaries. It is reasonable that at times a PDA may be put in a situation where they may take innocent lives to be effective. Is it possible to provide for a common defense, whether through a state military or PDA without being immoral? Or, assuming they are acting in a strictly defensive way, are PDA's absolved from responibility and the blame put on the aggressor?
Anarchy doesn't guarantee that libertarian ethics will be followed. A good example in line with your post is that PDAs might find it cheaper to carpet bomb a region than to selectively kill bad people.A counter to state v state conflicts is that states can externalize their costs onto their citizens through taxation and conscription. PDAs are limited to whatever resource are given to them by customers, and their consumer base can bail out at any time. It is likely that the modern concept of war is the way it is because states have typically fought between themselves. Conflicts would probably look very different between PDAs. We can imagine that assassination and guerrilla terrorism would be big deterrents to stop PDAs and their consumers from abusing their power. Governments typically use terrorism as a way to justify reduction of civil liberties to their civilians.
PDA's are employed for defensive purposes only. They have no special privileges; anyone can set up a PDA. PDA's have strong incentives to not engage in aggression: 1) they may be sued, 2) aggression+defense is more expensive than defense only. Is it possible they may aggress accidentally? Sure. But they are highly incentivised to minimize mistakes. Aggressive PDA's soon go bankrupt.
Compare this to the incentives of the State. The State faces no such constraints to their operations: 1) they do not get sued for aggressing (whether intentionally or unintentionally), 2) their income is not dependent on their service quality, and they face no competition. Aggressive States endure.
Government Explained
Law without Government
Southern:From what I understand a PDA is a free market alternative to state militaries.
Actually, it is likely closer to insurance + private security.
Southern: It is reasonable that at times a PDA may be put in a situation where they may take innocent lives to be effective.
It is reasonable that at times a PDA may be put in a situation where they may take innocent lives to be effective.
For example? Killing innocents means making more enemies. How can swelling the ranks of your enemies be effective in the long run?
Southern:It is reasonable that at times a PDA may be put in a situation where they may take innocent lives to be effective.
No, it won't. Because unlike a state, they don't have sovereign immunity. They have to bear the costs of their transgressions. In blood, treasure and reputation.
Their incentive is to minimize casualties and property destruction, not to increase it (like the incentives for the military industrial complex to destroy and then rebuild).
Snowflake:It is likely that the modern concept of war is the way it is because states have typically fought between themselves. Conflicts would probably look very different between PDAs. We can imagine that assassination and guerrilla terrorism would be big deterrents to stop PDAs and their consumers from abusing their power. Governments typically use terrorism as a way to justify reduction of civil liberties to their civilians.
My concern is really not about PDA oversteping thier bounds and abusing their power. It was more about the moral implications. If the state and their defense agencies are illegitimate because they violate the rights of others, then how do we justify PDAs, who in the process of providing for the common defense of thier clients find themselves in a situation where they have violated the rights of others. Nothing sinister, but honestly trying to provide the service for which they have been contracted.
Imagine a transitional world where both states and anarchistic societies exist. For what ever reason one state decides to extend its control (which states are known to do) over an anarchistic area. The PDA must fulfill its obligations to its customers and defend them against the aggressor. There would be collateral damage no matter how carefull the PDAs were.
In the process of fulfilling it contractual obligations it is likely that non-clients and others would be killed and or displaced by the actions of the PDA (a violation of rights). Does this make them just as illegitimate as the state militiaries? Or are they not to be held responsible because they were acting in a purely defensive manner? I might be missing the whole point and the state maybe illegitimate for completely diffrent reasons.
I have tried to construct a resonable situation to illustrate my concerns.
Southern:Or are they not to be held responsible because they were acting in a purely defensive manner?
Defense is not immoral/unethical. A PDA is just a division of labor to perform the act of defense, which all individuals have a right to do, ethically. If the PDA was acting in a purely defensive manner, what do you imagine they are being "held responsible" for?
Southern:In the process of fulfilling it contractual obligations it is likely that non-clients and others would be killed and or displaced by the actions of the PDA (a violation of rights). Does this make them just as illegitimate as the state militiaries? Or are they not to be held responsible because they were acting in a purely defensive manner? I might be missing the whole point and the state maybe illegitimate for completely diffrent reasons.
Snowflake:Anarchy doesn't guarantee that libertarian ethics will be followed. A good example in line with your post is that PDAs might find it cheaper to carpet bomb a region than to selectively kill bad people.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Well there is no doubt that I still have a lot to learn. So on what grounds is the state rejected? Is it diffrent from person to person, are there different schools of thought? I was coming from a free market point of veiw which I assumed (I guess incorrectly) would have a great deal to do with libertarian ethics. Which I thought would veiw the violation of rights as the reason the state was illegitimate.
Snowflake: Southern:In the process of fulfilling it contractual obligations it is likely that non-clients and others would be killed and or displaced by the actions of the PDA (a violation of rights). Does this make them just as illegitimate as the state militiaries? Or are they not to be held responsible because they were acting in a purely defensive manner? I might be missing the whole point and the state maybe illegitimate for completely diffrent reasons. So I think in some cases self defense might hurt the rights of innocents. It is possible that some aspects of the action are legitimate and others are not. I do believe that it will be cheaper for PDAs to carpet bomb their enemies, particularly if the bad guys are hidden among innocents, so I do believe there will be a lot of innocent casualties if you exert your right to self defense.Of course, there is another option; namely to ignore the conflict and try to minimize your exposure to your aggressors. I am a big believer in walking away from conflicts regardless of the right to self defense: it is an expensive and, as you've pointed out, ethically problematic right to exert.
So how do we reconcile the conflict between our right to defend ourselves and the potential violation of anothers right in the context of war?
I have always been one to avoid and walk away from conflict myself, however there are times when it can not be avoided. When you are dealing with the state it is impossible if you have something that they want. Unless you aquiesce to their demands.
Which I thought would veiw the violation of rights as the reason the state was illegitimate.
liberty student: Southern:It is reasonable that at times a PDA may be put in a situation where they may take innocent lives to be effective. No, it won't. Because unlike a state, they don't have sovereign immunity. They have to bear the costs of their transgressions. In blood, treasure and reputation. Their incentive is to minimize casualties and property destruction, not to increase it (like the incentives for the military industrial complex to destroy and then rebuild).
For the most part I agree with this; however, imagine a future where the Earth is mostly free of states/governments, and a well developed polycentric legal order based on the libertarian doctrine existed. This would, in my opinion, be a great human achievement to dissolve the legal fiction of state sovereignty. Even if such an order came about, and there can be logically valid corollaries developed from the non-aggression principle, the potential application must accompany human error.
I highly suspect that carpet-bombing would become much less common. What must be remembered is that a generally well-intentioned PDA who carpet bombs 3 innocent children along with 350 of Kim Jong-Il's henchmen might just go unpunished. Imagine a future technological situation analogous to the time between DNA testing being unheard of to being common and affordable, as today. Without some obvious intentions which are not adherent to libertarian law, the impetus to punish such aggressors ought to be lessened by preexisting market forces.
I think that this paper by Walter Block can be a good introduction for you Southern: Radical Libertarianism: Applying Libertarian Principles to Dealing with the Unjust Government, Parts I & II
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Southern: In the process of fulfilling it contractual obligations it is likely that non-clients and others would be killed and or displaced by the actions of the PDA (a violation of rights). Does this make them just as illegitimate as the state militiaries? Or are they not to be held responsible because they were acting in a purely defensive manner? I might be missing the whole point and the state maybe illegitimate for completely diffrent reasons.
Southern:Imagine a transitional world where both states and anarchistic societies exist. For what ever reason one state decides to extend its control (which states are known to do) over an anarchistic area. The PDA must fulfill its obligations to its customers and defend them against the aggressor. There would be collateral damage no matter how carefull the PDAs were.
Southern:My concern is really not about PDA oversteping thier bounds and abusing their power. It was more about the moral implications. If the state and their defense agencies are illegitimate because they violate the rights of others,
States/militaries are immoral because the very foundations upon which they are established and maintained are immoral. They are immoral because of their means, not because of the ends they seek (which may very often also be immoral). A PDA which uses immoral means would be no less condemnable. A PDA which seeks immoral ends, likewise.
The difference between the two, is that a "State" can't exist without violating people, whereas it is at the very least conceivable for a private/mutual defense & arbitration agency to exist.
============================
David Z
"The issue is always the same, the government or the market. There is no third solution."
David Z: The difference between the two, is that a "State" can't exist without violating people, whereas it is at the very least conceivable for a private/mutual defense & arbitration agency to exist.
Well put. That is indeed the most relevant thing that can be said about it.
Southern: So how do we reconcile the conflict between our right to defend ourselves and the potential violation of anothers right in the context of war? I have always been one to avoid and walk away from conflict myself, however there are times when it can not be avoided. When you are dealing with the state it is impossible if you have something that they want. Unless you aquiesce to their demands.
Southern:Well there is no doubt that I still have a lot to learn.
Maybe so, but part of it is that many people here are still confused.
Southern:So on what grounds is the state rejected?
Monopolies on force cause a higher incidence of outcomes that most people would find immoral or un-libertarian, and are also a highly inefficient way for society to operate.
Southern:Which I thought would veiw the violation of rights as the reason the state was illegitimate.
In Ancap, PDAs would still violate rights, because people would still violate rights. They would just do it a lot less, because they wouldn't have the privilege of monopoly status.
It's not that States (in the sense of monopolies on force) must violate rights to exist, it's that they always do violate rights. A company in AnCap that somehow got large enough to monopolize force may still for some reason and by some miracle respect the NAP completely (all income from voluntary payments), so it's not immoral or illegitimate by its very nature.
By the same token, if a scientist invented a doomsday device with the power to destroy the world with a single button press, he would not be "illegitimate" or immoral. Nor would it be especially un-libertarian of him to ask you to bring him a pizza, even though he knows you will almost definitely comply out of fear of upsetting him. Nor if he casually commented that the fact that Mr. X was alive made him nervous, although probably Mr. X wouldn't live long after that. The scientist would still be following the NAP. Moreover, I would feel no qualms about destroying his doomsday device, even though that would be violating his property rights.
Hence we can see that - strictly speaking - the morality/legitimacy of the State is not the issue, because there is nothing that is absolutely necessarily immoral about a monopoly on force purely by its nature. The issue is that is a monopoly on force is undesirable, and the reasons it is undesirable are that its existence dramatically increases the frequency and severity of outcomes that most people consider immoral or otherwise unfavorable. In any case, if we are speaking carefully it makes no sense to say the State is immoral (a collective is not a human being, and most libertarian ethicists say that only a human being can be moral agent), but that State acters are immoral and that the State is simply undesirable.
What factors determine whether a society will be anarchic or statist? Help advance my work: 13fX6FXUxLCNzLDtmHoh7SqSKciD6PETud
Juan:The anarchy that some people in this forum talk about is just some nonsensical pet theory of amoral 'economists'.
Oh Juan, there you go all funny again.
Southern:Well there is no doubt that I still have a lot to learn. So on what grounds is the state rejected? Is it diffrent from person to person, are there different schools of thought? I was coming from a free market point of veiw which I assumed (I guess incorrectly) would have a great deal to do with libertarian ethics. Which I thought would veiw the violation of rights as the reason the state was illegitimate.
There are different schools of thought. Some will claim there are not, but as far as I am concerned, if you come to libertarian conclusions, I don't really care if it is because Buddha, Shiva or Jesus directed you there. I don't care if it is because you're into natural rights, Thomas Jefferson or Gandhi.
There are some small minded folks who do care about aesthetics more than ideas, but pay them no mind.
E. R. Olovetto:For the most part I agree with this; however, imagine a future where the Earth is mostly free of states/governments, and a well developed polycentric legal order based on the libertarian doctrine existed. This would, in my opinion, be a great human achievement to dissolve the legal fiction of state sovereignty. Even if such an order came about, and there can be logically valid corollaries developed from the non-aggression principle, the potential application must accompany human error.
What is up with the hard to read font?
I also have no idea what you are talking about.
AJ: In Ancap, PDAs would still violate rights, because people would still violate rights. They would just do it a lot less, because they wouldn't have the privilege of monopoly status. It's not that States (in the sense of monopolies on force) must violate rights to exist, it's that they always do violate rights. A company in AnCap that somehow got large enough to monopolize force may still for some reason and by some miracle respect the NAP completely (all income from voluntary payments), so it's not immoral or illegitimate by its very nature. By the same token, if a scientist invented a doomsday device with the power to destroy the world with a single button press, he would not be "illegitimate" or immoral. Nor would it be especially un-libertarian of him to ask you to bring him a pizza, even though he knows you will almost definitely comply out of fear of upsetting him. Nor if he casually commented that the fact that Mr. X was alive made him nervous, although probably Mr. X wouldn't live long after that. The scientist would still be following the NAP. Moreover, I would feel no qualms about destroying his doomsday device, even though that would be violating his property rights. Hence we can see that - strictly speaking - the morality/legitimacy of the State is not the issue, because there is nothing that is absolutely necessarily immoral about a monopoly on force purely by its nature. The issue is that is a monopoly on force is undesirable, and the reasons it is undesirable are that its existence dramatically increases the frequency and severity of outcomes that most people consider immoral or otherwise unfavorable. In any case, if we are speaking carefully it makes no sense to say the State is immoral (a collective is not a human being, and most libertarian ethicists say that only a human being can be moral agent), but that State acters are immoral and that the State is simply undesirable.
But if we accept your argument then a company in AnCap that somehow got large enough to monopolize force, but is still for some reason respecting the NAP completely, is a state (in the sense of monopolies on force), which is clearly silly. Also a mad scientist who had devised a way to instantanously disintegrate all weaponary in existance except for his own 90 feet tall nuclear weapons armed mech with ability of telekinesis backed up by a private army of 200 John Rambos is also a state (in the sense of monopolies on force) which is again silly. Ability to monopolise force is not the same as actually monopolising force. Until the mad scientist or the large company start to monopolise force and declare every use of force except their own to be unlawful vigilantism they are not actually monopolies on force.Existance of the state does actually already mean somebodies rights are being violated. Namely the rights of all the people who are being sanctioned for "vigilantism".
Juan:Or again you fail to see how laughable the positions of the resident 'philosophers' are.
No, I see that. But the demagogues are still funnier.
Juan:Truly, you are grasping at straws eh ?
Nope. I forgot to buy straws last time I went shopping.
Juan:Or are you talking about yourself and your pandering to both nihilists and religious conservatives who, in order to support their absurd religious positions, need to subscribe to nihilism to some degree ?
AFAIK, you are the only person on this forum I pander to.
liberty student: There are different schools of thought. Some will claim there are not, but as far as I am concerned, if you come to libertarian conclusions, I don't really care if it is because Buddha, Shiva or Jesus directed you there. I don't care if it is because you're into natural rights, Thomas Jefferson or Gandhi.
Marko:But if we accept your argument then a company in AnCap that somehow got large enough to monopolize force, but is still for some reason respecting the NAP completely, is a state (in the sense of monopolies on force), which is clearly silly. Also a mad scientist who had devised a way to instantanously disintegrate all weaponary in existance except for his own 90 feet tall nuclear weapons armed mech with ability of telekinesis backed up by a private army of 200 John Rambos is also a state (in the sense of monopolies on force) which is again silly. Ability to monopolise force is not the same as actually monopolising force. Until the mad scientist or the large company start to monopolise force and declare every use of force except their own to be unlawful vigilantism they are not actually monopolies on force.
Relevance? If you define State as a "monopoly that violates rights," the conclusion that the State is a rights violator is hardly remarkable.
AJ: Relevance? If you define State as a "monopoly that violates rights," the conclusion that the State is a rights violator is hardly remarkable.
That is not what I had done. What I had done is stated that what you implied was a monpoly on force is actually not a monopoly. Being in possesion of a wondrously powerful weapon is not the same as having a monopoly on force as you claim.
Instead a monopoly on force is a situation where a certain entity is able to and stands willing to employ force to prevent every other actor from having a realistic shot at using force to attain a goal. It is not possible to do this and at the same time follow NAP.Having the ability to do so, but not being willing to do so, is not having an actual monopoly on force, since other actors than yourself have untied hands to use force should they choose so.You are akin to someone who is claiming that the queen has a monopoly on king`s time for being in position to keep him in his company indefinetely even as the king is actually in a meeting with his cabinet. If the king is actually not at the moment in queen`s company then she obviously is not monopolising his time and therefore no monopoly on king`s time exist! That the queen is in a position to monopolise his time and thus introduce a previously unexisting monopoly on king`s time if she so chose however is an entirely different matter.
Marko:Instead a monopoly on force is a situation where a certain entity is able to and stands willing to employ force to prevent every other actor from having a realistic shot at using force to attain a goal. It is not possible to do this and at the same time follow NAP.
I see what you mean. We were using different definitions of "monopoly on force." I am writing from the perspective that when an organization attains the ability to easily monopolize force (in the sense you mean), the matter of whether it chooses to actually monopolize or chooses to stay perfectly libertarian is rendered essentially moot by human nature. As far as I know, history has universally shown that any organization that has enough power to readily monopolize it will do so soon enough.
To make that clearer, an additional point I perhaps should have made first is, whether we consider an organization that is powerful enough to credibly monopolize a territory a "State" or not, or a "monopoly" or not, doesn't really matter much in practice. I think history strongly suggests that someone in that organization will soon have power lust enough to take the monopoly control that is so readily available. Or if no one does, there will be many power-hungry people trying to infiltrate the organization in order to do the same.
Therefore, the issue I was addressing and wish to discuss is that the problem to eliminate is monopoly (or rather, the ability of any person or group to credibly monopolize - regardless of whether they're actually using that ability yet).
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
[email protected] | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap