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.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
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.
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".
Oh Juan, there you go all funny again.
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."
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.
Think outside the monopoly paradigm. Net-based microsecession | Why anarchy hasn't worked
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
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap