Feudal Land Arrangements Under Anarcho Capitalism.

liberty student:

I can't see how, with rigorous seriousness and realism, the post state world will not be closer to Giles and Byzantine's model, and further from the flat model of the Rod Longs and Brainpolice.

I am of the belief that we would never be able to know. 

 

What I mean is that there might be a lot more secrecy by default.  Most people will not care about what is going on in Oakland or Camden because they will not be threatened by Oaklandians or Camdenites. 

liberty student:

They both gladly play the bad guy, but if you follow the argument closely, they make their arguments, and their opponents do not refute them with ideas or facts.

Giles' theories about land ownership/usage are nonsense and easily refuted by basic economics. Maybe you've not been paying attention. If that's the case perhaps you should refrain from commenting.

Also, the fact that conservatism is not libertarianism needs no further explanation. Just as true is the fact that cultural conservatism is NOT cultural libertarianism.

It should be fairly obvious that a free society can only exist if people have a healthy disregard for authority and hierarchy and acknowledge the fact that only individual self-government can work in the long run.

Conservatives are childish. They are attached to their religious fairy tales, arbitrary customs and authoritarian worldview, and don't realize, or pretend they don't realize that such mindset is the basis for statism. Conservatives only dislike the state as long as it's not a conservative state...

liberty student:

spires:

I must agree with Brainpolice.

As an aside: as I lurk, it sounds as through Byzantine And GilesStratton are striving to sound like cartoon villain caricatures. This is all very entertaining! Keep it up.

They both gladly play the bad guy, but if you follow the argument closely, they make their arguments, and their opponents do not refute them with ideas or facts.  Just dissent.

I think the people most irritated by what they say, are the ones who think that anarchy or libertarianism will guarantee social justice in the broadest sense of the word.  Read carefully, and Giles and Byzantine never make an argument for coercing someone.  They merely point out, that the state coercively supports a lot of social institutions that would probably wither from lack of support and special privilege in a free market.

And that really upsets some people, who ironically claim that their opponents (apparently including myself based on past posts) are conservative (attached to established order) when in fact, their notion of social justice is the state established position.

Also note, that while Giles and Byzantine are attacked for being pro-hierarchy, ask yourself honestly, does mankind naturally order itself hierarchically?  I would say so.  There are too many examples outside of the state to make the case.

And yet BP will argue that hierarchy by itself is a state institution and the post state world (anarchy) would feature a flat social order.

This is counter to honest discourse on liberty.  The state seeks to make us all equal, it's our differences that drive evolution in the market, in ideas, in genetics when set free.  All preferences are not equal.  All preferences do not share the exact same opportunity costs.

I can't see how, with rigorous seriousness and realism, the post state world will not be closer to Giles and Byzantine's model, and further from the flat model of the Rod Longs and Brainpolice.

I largely disagree with your perception of the exchanges here. I do believe that everyone is being sincere, however. Your attempted defense of GilesStratton and Byzantine is thin. Brainpolice in particular gives very specific rationales for his positions, he does not just slither in and whine 'boohiss'. A problem libertarianism has generally, is that many of it's adherents don't care about liberty, but liberty towards achieving some other social agenda that does not remotely exist within the spirit of liberty, and just barely the letter. 

If you wish to just strike down the 'inferior' or exclude the 'culturally unworthy' or demonize 'immigrants' or the 'faithless' after just blithely assuming the cultural status quo will persist under real liberty, just bypass the liberty part and become an outright racist, or a high priest, or a high school quarterback, or start a moralist religious cult, or attempt to conscript subjects into your new kingdom, or just become a corporate lobbyist. Why drag all that baggage into a movement primarily about human liberty? It seems like lots of steps removed from the goals chosen.

liberty student:

  The state seeks to make us all equal, it's our differences that drive evolution in the market, in ideas, in genetics when set free.

 

Actually, I think the state manages to do both at the same time. The socialist states in Eastern Europe are good example of this: While the general populance was more or less "united in poverty", the inner circle of the party could live a life comperable to someone with a high income in say, West Germany.

 

And this seems to be a feature of most planning: a race to the bottom for those at the recieving end of the plan while those doing the planning will be sheltered from the effects.

liberty student:

I think the people most irritated by what they say, are the ones who think that anarchy or libertarianism will guarantee social justice in the broadest sense of the word.  Read carefully, and Giles and Byzantine never make an argument for coercing someone.  They merely point out, that the state coercively supports a lot of social institutions that would probably wither from lack of support and special privilege in a free market.

This is true. But how true is it that the state enforces equality? There are plenty of libertarian made cases proclaiming with good reasoning and evidence that things such as quotas and racial one-ups in legislation do more to harm those infatuated wroshipers and recipients than to aid them.  

Also note, that while Giles and Byzantine are attacked for being pro-hierarchy, ask yourself honestly, does mankind naturally order itself hierarchically?  I would say so.  There are too many examples outside of the state to make the case.

And yet BP will argue that hierarchy by itself is a state institution and the post state world (anarchy) would feature a flat social order.

I believe I know and understand brainpolice fairly well. I also believe that he and I are much the same in speaking of ethics and our politics. And so I feel rather comfortable saying that this statement of yours, quoted above, is just well... wrong. 

I do not believe Brainpolice has ever put forward that society would be 100% horizontal, or even that it ought to be. I believe he takes a position much like my own in that the state has subsidized vertical-ness in society, and that in the states abscence, various economic and social organizations would likely be far MORE horizontal, not completely horizontal. A result of the forces of compeititon, demand, and free choice to determine ones own fate found in anarchic society.  

This is counter to honest discourse on liberty.  The state seeks to make us all equal, it's our differences that drive evolution in the market, in ideas, in genetics when set free.  All preferences are not equal.  All preferences do not share the exact same opportunity costs.

I can't see how, with rigorous seriousness and realism, the post state world will not be closer to Giles and Byzantine's model, and further from the flat model of the Rod Longs and Brainpolice.

I think it would do you much good to clear up the way in which Brainpolice and I support equality by reading Roderick Long's article here on Mises.org entitled: Equality: The Unknown Ideal

Juan:

Giles' theories about land ownership/usage are nonsense and easily refuted by basic economics.

Such as?

Juan:

Also, the fact that conservatism is not libertarianism needs no further explanation.

Thankfully, no one put that burden on you.

Juan:

It should be fairly obvious that a free society can only exist if people have a healthy disregard for authority and hierarchy and acknowledge the fact that only individual self-government can work in the long run.

Cooperation requires a hierarchy.  Sophisticated cooperation like the division of labour, require sophisticated hierarchies.  They can be temporary, voluntary and spontaneous, but hierarchies can, will and do emerge.

Juan:

Conservatives are childish. They are attached to their religious fairy tales, arbitrary customs and authoritarian worldview, and don't realize, or pretend they don't realize that such mindset is the basis for statism. Conservatives only dislike the state as long as it's not a conservative state...

I agree.  I find your and BP's conservative egalitarianism anachonistic and offensive.

Charles Anthony:

liberty student:

I can't see how, with rigorous seriousness and realism, the post state world will not be closer to Giles and Byzantine's model, and further from the flat model of the Rod Longs and Brainpolice.

I am of the belief that we would never be able to know. 

What I mean is that there might be a lot more secrecy by default.  Most people will not care about what is going on in Oakland or Camden because they will not be threatened by Oaklandians or Camdenites.

I'm not sure I agree, but that is an honest response.  And I have to acknowledge it could be very true.

 

spires:

I do believe that everyone is being sincere, however. Your attempted defense of GilesStratton and Byzantine is thin. Brainpolice in particular gives very specific rationales for his positions, he does not just slither in and whine 'boohiss'.

Please reference some of these specific rationales.

spires:

A problem libertarianism has generally, is that many of it's adherents don't care about liberty, but liberty towards achieving some other social agenda that does not remotely exist within the spirit of liberty, and just barely the letter.

Nearly every libertarian is guilty of that.  And it should be so, if we believe in a market, then we believe to some degree in utility.  And a freedom agenda that undermines utility, or provides no gain in utility (real or perceived) would lack the energy to gain momentum.  That's just human nature.

spires:

If you wish to just strike down the 'inferior' or exclude the 'culturally unworthy' or demonize 'immigrants' or the 'faithless' after just blithely assuming the cultural status quo will persist under real liberty, just bypass the liberty part and become an outright racist, or a high priest, or a high school quarterback, or start a moralist religious cult, or attempt to conscript subjects into your new kingdom, or just become a corporate lobbyist.

What rubbish.  First, you strawman, second you are taking your own super-moralistic stance, while accusing others of being guilty of the same.

No one here has spoken about striking anyone down.  On the contrary, those who must be propped up, be they christian or atheist, muslim or jew, buddhist or hindu, straight, bi or gay, white, black, brown, red or yellow will have to swim and thrive on their own merit in the marketplace.  And if you believe there are no differences in genetics, or sex, or age or creed/code, then you are a fool.  Some will be disadvantaged, and the state will not be there to protect them coercively.  Thus, some, might even perish due to the fact that they were distortions in nature or under the state in the first place.

That rant from you comes across as very immature, very unintellectual.

spires:

Why drag all that baggage into a movement primarily about human liberty? It seems like lots of steps removed from the goals chosen.

What baggage dragged in?  In a free market, if you are of a different race or sex or orientation, you can be ostracized and that is totally compatible with the liberty of others, and the fact you cannot impose a positive obligation on anyone to respect, like, employ, feed, talk with etc. you.  You have no right to demand that others treat you the same as someone else.

The failure to understand that, is a failure to look at liberty in the broadest sense.  Liberty isn't utopia, or goodness and light.  There are downsides to liberty (depending on your perspective) and it's childish to ignore those and dream some egalitarian dream that has never been a reality in or out of the state.

liberty student:

The state seeks to make us all equal...

This is pure nonsense. The state presumes there are rulers and the ruled. That is a fundamental inequality irreconcilably at odds with natural equality. 

People will form hierarchies, but they will form natural hierarchies. Hierarchies between people who possess the same natural rights and are  voluntary. People will form voluntary hierarchies, because there exist natural elites. However these hierarchies are not a negation of equality but its confirmation, since they are associations of people of equal legal rights and therefore of equal status. And further such hierarchies are never to be confused with phony, artificial and forceful hierarchies of today or of the past which is something that byzantine and Giles don`t seem to graps or pretend not to by invoking "feudalism" which is synonymous with artifical, phony, forceful, statist hierarchies.

liberty student:

[I think the people most irritated by what they say, are the ones who think that anarchy or libertarianism will guarantee social justice in the broadest sense of the word.  Read carefully, and Giles and Byzantine never make an argument for coercing someone.  They merely point out, that the state coercively supports a lot of social institutions that would probably wither from lack of support and special privilege in a free market.

Actually what they do is ride their hobby horse in order to wave the red cloth. Which would be fine it they did not try to make themselves particularly obnoxious by trying to pass their preferences for the preferences of society at large. They can have their private kingdoms or whatever, but if they think regular people are just dying to move in with some rich dude that likes to stick his nose into other people`s buisiness then they are delusional. People care about their family, their job, their beer and their football club. They could care less about playing serfs for a local half-king-of-the-hill-half-moral-authority.

liberty student:

The state seeks to make us all equal...

This is pure nonsense. The state presumes there are rulers and the ruled. That is a fundamental inequality irreconcilably at odds with natural equality. 

People will form hierarchies, but they will form natural hierarchies. Hierarchies between people who possess the same natural rights and are  voluntary. People will form voluntary hierarchies, because there exist natural elites. However these hierarchies are not a negation of equality but its confirmation, since they are associations of people of equal legal rights and therefore of equal status. And further such hierarchies are never to be confused with phony, artificial and forceful hierarchies of today or of the past which is something that byzantine and Giles don`t seem to graps or pretend not to by invoking "feudalism" which is synonymous with artifical, phony, forceful, statist hierarchies.

liberty student:

[I think the people most irritated by what they say, are the ones who think that anarchy or libertarianism will guarantee social justice in the broadest sense of the word.  Read carefully, and Giles and Byzantine never make an argument for coercing someone.  They merely point out, that the state coercively supports a lot of social institutions that would probably wither from lack of support and special privilege in a free market.

Actually what they do is ride their hobby horse in order to wave the red cloth. Which would be fine it they did not try to make themselves particularly obnoxious by trying to pass their preferences for the preferences of society at large. They can have their private kingdoms or whatever, but if they think regular people are just dying to move in with some rich dude that likes to stick his nose into other people`s buisiness then they are delusional. People care about their family, their job, their beer and their football club. They could care less about playing serfs for a local half-king-of-the-hill-half-moral-authority.

ThorsMitersaw:

This is true. But how true is it that the state enforces equality? There are plenty of libertarian made cases proclaiming with good reasoning and evidence that things such as quotas and racial one-ups in legislation do more to harm those infatuated wroshipers and recipients than to aid them.

Collectively.  Individually, many people benefit from state privilege.  The aggregate net may be a loss, but certainly some prosper.

ThorsMitersaw:

I believe I know and understand brainpolice fairly well. I also believe that he and I are much the same in speaking of ethics and our politics. And so I feel rather comfortable saying that this statement of yours, quoted above, is just well... wrong.

We'll see.

ThorsMitersaw:

I do not believe Brainpolice has ever put forward that society would be 100% horizontal, or even that it ought to be.

I don't believe I claimed that either.

ThorsMitersaw:

I think it would do you much good to clear up the way in which Brainpolice and I support equality by reading Roderick Long's article here on Mises.org entitled: Equality: The Unknown Ideal

I think I have read it before, I will read it again.  I'm not too big on Long these days.  I don't find him very credible.

Marko:

This is pure nonsense. The state presumes there are rulers and the ruled. That is a fundamental inequality irreconcilably at odds with natural equality.

It's only nonsense because you didn't understand my statement in the context it was made in, and as usual, look for any excuse to argue, whether there is a disagreement or not.

 

Marko:

People will form hierarchies, but they will form natural hierarchies. Hierarchies between people who possess the same natural rights and are  voluntary. People will form voluntary hierarchies, because there exist natural elites. However these hierarchies are not a negation of equality but its confirmation, since they are associations of people of equal legal rights and therefore of equal status. And further such hierarchies are never to be confused with phony, artificial and forceful hierarchies of today or of the past which is something that byzantine and Giles don`t seem to graps or pretend not to by invoking "feudalism" which is synonymous with artifical, phony, forceful, statist hierarchies.

Yes, this is exactly what Giles and Byzantine are talking about, but one or both use the word feudal, and you react like a 3 year old who has lost his lolly.

You're talking past me and others as usual.

 

Marko:

Actually what they do is ride their hobby horse in order to wave the red cloth. Which would be fine it they did not try to make themselves particularly obnoxious by trying to pass their preferences for the preferences of society at large.

O Rly?

Marko:

They can have their private kingdoms or whatever, but if they think regular people are just dying to move in with some rich dude that likes to stick his nose into other people`s buisiness then they are delusional.

Now who is trying to ascertain the preferences of society at large?

 

liberty student:

Collectively.  Individually, many people benefit from state privilege.  The aggregate net may be a loss, but certainly some prosper.

Point taken but I still think there is little to say that equality is TRULY enforced, not that it ever CAN be enforced, as its enforcement neccesitates that some are not equal to the enforcing persons. I think that at the very least there are always two classes who ar enot equal, those who make their living with labor and effort and ideas and trade, and those who make their living by forcing the aformentioned to cede their belongings. Nock and Oppenheimer would agree with that. And in this way at the least, the state can never be said to enforce equality in any MEANINGFUL way. 

I don't believe I claimed that either.

"And yet BP will argue that hierarchy by itself is a state institution and the post state world (anarchy) would feature a flat social order." - your words. But none the less, I believe it is absolutely true that by shielding business from competition through regulation and controls and license and the like, that the state simotaneously protects them from their own internal inefficiencies - including excessive and unwaranted expansion of power (the never ending string of managers). The same incentive that the bearucrat has to expand his arbitrary power exists in this mercantile economy. This incentive may not exist to the extent that it does in state, but this is like saying the incentive to bereaucratize is less prevelant in America than in Britain or Switzerland or Soviet Russia. Its only a matter of degree and a very small degree at that. 

ThorsMitersaw:

I think I have read it before, I will read it again.  I'm not too big on Long these days.  I don't find him very credible.

I fail to se how he is not credible. I think he has done much good for libertarianism. In both his vindication and defense of Austrian economics from objectivists and others, and his incredible work on libertarian ethics in the Aristotilean tradition. Hopefully, with his efforts, the influence will continue and expand.

LS:

J:

Giles' theories about land ownership/usage are nonsense and easily refuted by basic economics.

Such as?

As I said, read previous posts.

Sophisticated cooperation like the division of labour, require sophisticated hierarchies. They can be temporary, voluntary and spontaneous, but hierarchies can, will and do emerge.

Division of labor is not the same thing as hierarchy. Your argument reduces to conflating division of labor and hierarchy. But notice I'm opposed to authority and hierarchy, not to division of labor.

Juan:

Division of labor is not the same thing as hierarchy. Your argument reduces to conflating division of labor and hierarchy. But notice I'm opposed to authority and hierarchy, not to division of labor.

Do you have a job?

 

 

Juan:

But notice I'm opposed to authority and hierarchy, not to division of labor.

Ever play team sports?  Work for a business?  Or does your principled opposition prevent you from engaging in such authoritarian, hierarchical ventures?

ThorsMitersaw:

I don't believe I claimed that either.

"And yet BP will argue that hierarchy by itself is a state institution and the post state world (anarchy) would feature a flat social order." - your words.

Right, but I never claimed it would be 100% flat, although I didn't remove that possibility either.

My point is, BP's position in many posts here, is that hierarchy is state.  He makes little or no allowance for voluntary hierarchical ordering. Juan also parrots this (see up thread).

ThorsMitersaw:

I think I have read it before, I will read it again.  I'm not too big on Long these days.  I don't find him very credible.

I fail to se how he is not credible. I think he has done much good for libertarianism. In both his vindication and defense of Austrian economics from objectivists and others, and his incredible work on libertarian ethics in the Aristotilean tradition. Hopefully, with his efforts, the influence will continue and expand.

His recent anti-business letters have featured arguments made in a shoddy manner.  He's much too clever to make such poor arguments unintentionally.  I'm left to believe that he is not very credible.

liberty student:

Nearly every libertarian is guilty of that.  And it should be so, if we believe in a market, then we believe to some degree in utility.  And a freedom agenda that undermines utility, or provides no gain in utility (real or perceived) would lack the energy to gain momentum.  That's just human nature.

I find libertarianism useful, but not because I want to become a feudal lord. I'm not saying ideas shouldn't have utility. I was suggesting that the self-identified adherents of liberty should find libertarianism useful for the purposes of liberty, not for the purposes of feudalism - for example. Perhaps a freedom agenda not motivated by freedom lacks the energy to find new adherents. Imagine a would-be baron faced with the sheer face of austrian economics, when all he wants is some free labor and a rent check!

liberty student:

What rubbish.  First, you strawman, second you are taking your own super-moralistic stance, while accusing others of being guilty of the same.

No one here has spoken about striking anyone down.  On the contrary, those who must be propped up, be they christian or atheist, muslim or jew, buddhist or hindu, straight, bi or gay, white, black, brown, red or yellow will have to swim and thrive on their own merit in the marketplace.  And if you believe there are no differences in genetics, or sex, or age or creed/code, then you are a fool.  Some will be disadvantaged, and the state will not be there to protect them coercively.  Thus, some, might even perish due to the fact that they were distortions in nature or under the state in the first place.

That rant from you comes across as very immature, very unintellectual.

What was my implicit stance? Your hyperbole sensor is broken, apparently. I was just saying in a very colorful way, that if these were some goals, (I have gotten the impression in places here, that perhaps they were) then I was suggesting quicker ways to achieve them, without all the hassle of dismantling the state. Perhaps the idea of a new kingdom might be hard to establish, but establishing some of the other ones shouldn't be as hard as bringing down the whole state just to create a private version. 

liberty student:

In a free market, if you are of a different race or sex or orientation, you can be ostracized and that is totally compatible with the liberty of others, and the fact you cannot impose a positive obligation on anyone to respect, like, employ, feed, talk with etc. you.  You have no right to demand that others treat you the same as someone else.

The failure to understand that, is a failure to look at liberty in the broadest sense.  Liberty isn't utopia, or goodness and light.  There are downsides to liberty (depending on your perspective) and it's childish to ignore those and dream some egalitarian dream that has never been a reality in or out of the state.

This isn't news. You actually sound like me two years ago, which has its own introspective value! I've baited a strawman objection out of you, and then you turn around and strawman me. I'm not an egalitarian, despite what you've gleaned from a few short posts. Also, that charge has an imprecise whiff about it. Even if people are all radically unequal, which I'm perfectly comfortable with, does not lead to the conclusion that certain social aesthetics will eventually dominate.

I've never defended coercive association here, so don't pretend or react as though I have. That the logical end of liberty is a society where free association is used as a club universally and consistently against certain perceived groups, is a fallacy. Other people may have a different idea of who to accept and who to exclude. Perhaps your social values will be surprisingly and consistently excluded. I don't hang my hat on social aesthetics.

Also, I guess light joking, sarcasm and hyperbole will be labeled 'anti-intellectualism' and will actually kill much of the enjoyment here, especially if the antics are not RL sensitive.

LS:

Do you have a job ?

Self-employed. Next ?

Byzantine:

Ever play team sports? Work for a business? Or does your principled opposition prevent you from engaging in such authoritarian, hierarchical ventures?

Are you dumb or what ? I said that I don't see division of labor as hierarchical so I've nothing against it.

Marko:

"feudalism" which is synonymous with artifical, phony, forceful, statist hierarchies.

As democracy trends toward outright socialism and then collapse and chaos, non-state institutions will emerge to offer services formerly monopolized by government, eventually supplanting democratic government in their spheres of influence.  Over time, these will evolve into hereditary structures.  They will differ from the early feudal institutions in that they may or may not be land-based.  Also, they will be forced to compete for human capital and, by the same token, will evict net consumers, who will have to make do as best they can outside the protection of, for lack of a better term, the private fees.

Those are the two differences from medieval feudalism:  1) not necessarily tied to a geographic region (though some most certainly will be in key transportation or natural resource areas), and 2) competition for human capital, since there will be no shared self-interest of governments for uniform confiscatory tax rates and high regulation.  The anti-egalitarian ethos follows from this model.  The good news for the Left is that the Right's nanny state and foreign wars will be obsolete.  The bad news is the guilds, the fees, clans, etc. will give similarly short shrift to the Left's crackpot social engineering and redistributive justice.