Private law will be just like Statism

"No, and you'd know that if you read my posts. You thought I was confused because you were confused about my views. Anyone is free to use violence whenever he wants, all I'm saying is that he shouldn't retreat to mystical concepts like god or rights or morals as justification."

So where do you draw the line between this and chaos?

SkepticalMetal:

hashem:

Anyone is free to use violence whenever he wants, all I'm saying is that he shouldn't retreat to mystical concepts like god or rights or morals as justification."

So where do you draw the line between this and chaos?

Well I'm not saying anyone should be free to use violence. I'm just acknowleding that they are, and saying that when they do they shouldn't make excuses about ridiculous concepts like god or morals or rights.

I see. It is true that humans are indeed "free" to do many horrible things. Isn't it true though that the formulation of "rights" are merely a necessary way of reconciling freedom with peace? (I'm speaking of the rights AnCaps promote, not the "rights" of something like the Constitution)

hashem:

Yes, private law will be just like statism.

What alternative to private law would not be "just like statism", according to you?

Probably worse in many respects.

Values are subjective and not amenable to aggregation. Worse in what (hopefully quantifiable) way, and for whom?

But the OP is the wrong way to approach this topic. The proper approach is: private firms will still use violence based on the worst terms that society can be pushed to accept at any given time.

What?

The main difference is the violence will be used to defend moral system X instead of moral system Y. And to the extent they use courts, perfectly arbitrary judgments will be made which is no improvement over the arbitrary court systems we already have. 

So to the extent that cars are being made, "perfectly arbitrary" judgments made by Honda and Porsche today are no improvement over the arbitrary decisions Stalin would make regarding how many and what kind of Lada cars must be made in the new Five Year Plan? 

 

I was saying it's silly to posit ancapism, that is, just to say "OK start with ancapism, now how does it solve X". As for why it may be silly to work toward ancapism, well it's silly because it's a violent system of arbitrary morals enforcement, which is no improvement over the current situation from my perspective.

Why not? People will be able to choose their protection agencies, that's a lot more voluntaryism. And what system doesn't enforce arbitrary morals?

Skeptical, pardon me for being unsure of what you're trying to say. Can you rephrase?

@ z1235

What alternative to private law would not be "just like statism", according to you?

Alternatives that aren't violent systems of arbitrary morals enforcement. Alternatives that don't rely on hegemonic dominance hierarchies.

Worse in what (hopefully quantifiable) way, and for whom?

Worse for people who feel that the natural tendencies of mankind will lead to better alternatives than simply a different brand of hegemonic dominance hierarchies of violent arbitrary morals enforcement.

[allegedly arbitrary decisions by] Honda and Porsche [are analogous to the arbitrariness of courts]

I'm not understanding your analogy...

Sorry. I was just saying that it seems to me that "rights" in the AnCap view are simply a way of bringing about as much peace as possible while preventing aggression. I don't see how it could ever be possible for a truly pacifist system to ever prevent violence.

Also, what's with the Rothbard avatar? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as though you disagree with his whole system.

"I would personally not like violence used against me, but I'm sure if I was the most powerful person in the world I would't be opposed to others using violence on my behalf. My main point has been that if anyone wants to promote violence, let him do it without retreat to mystical concepts like god or rights or morals. Just understand why violence is a pervasive tendency among homo sapiens, and why you support it in any given situation, without making excuses."

You're saying this but I don't believe anyone in this thread has called upon morality thusfar and yet you criticize them. Also, you talked about "the pure evil of government in theory and in history". Can you see why some of us are having a hard time understanding what exactly you're trying to say?

Hashem, your logic on this issue is truly bizarre.  You say that violence is a behavior and that the decision to be violent is made “without the need to retreat to mystical concepts like god or morality or rights.”  But behaviors don’t exist sans the influence of our environment (which includes religion, morals and rights).  People don’t behave certain ways in spite of being informed by the world around them,  they behave certain ways because they’re informed by the world around them.  So your violence is a logical impossibility.

You also say that it’s silly to posit a new order of morals and rights because, well, it doesn’t exist.  The world we live in now didn’t exist 100 years ago.  It had to be created, and it was created by people who posited and discussed this order of social control and how they would implement it on a grand scale.  And then they succeeded in changing things gradually (no seasteading required).  So it worked for them, but it’s useless for anyone else?

To top it off, you say that such a scenario would be “…no improvement over the current situation...”  The current situation is one in which ‘the state’ can inflict violence upon you without your consent or even so much as a say in what will happen to you, and virtually no one else’s consent or say means anything either.  In the theoretical ancap world, in which all power can potentially be exercised at the individual level, your explicit agreements (and those of others) are the binding authority.  So even if violence may be inflicted upon you, it can at least be accounted for through your agreements or the agreements of the person(s) who inflicted it.  And the difference of this dramatic shift of human incentives across a society would result in “no improvement”?

Unfortunate.  I was hoping you had a legitimate argument.
 

hashem:

@ z1235

What alternative to private law would not be "just like statism", according to you?

Alternatives that aren't violent systems of arbitrary morals enforcement. Alternatives that don't rely on hegemonic dominance hierarchies.

Such as...?

Worse in what (hopefully quantifiable) way, and for whom?

Worse for people who feel that the natural tendencies of mankind will lead to better alternatives than simply a different brand of hegemonic dominance hierarchies of violent arbitrary morals enforcement.

So, given these "natural tendencies of mankind" (of whose existence you are presumably certain) you propose that a centralized system by which monopolist law/enforcement privileges are given to the most sociopathic among humans would in some way be better than a system by which no such privileges are given to any entity? What exactly is dominant, hegemonic, hierarchical, violent and arbitrary about a free market in provision of law and defense? And is "arbitrary" supposed to be a negative, undesirable feature -- as opposed to what?

[allegedly arbitrary decisions by] Honda and Porsche [are analogous to the arbitrariness of courts]

I'm not understanding your analogy...

@ SkepticalMetal

bringing about as much peace as possible while preventing aggression.

Except the system, as one of arbitrary morals enforcement, is based on aggression. Regarding the pacifist system, I'm not advocating that so we shouldn't be concerned about such a topic. As for the Rothbard avatar, he was my first hero because he seemed profoundly rational and logical compared to anyone else I'd ever heard about, and so the avatar to me carries sentimental value.

@ Neodoxy

You're saying this but I don't believe anyone in this thread has called upon morality thusfar and yet you criticize them.

Pardon me for assuming that people around here aren't utilitarians.

Also, you talked about "the pure evil of government in theory and in history". Can you see why some of us are having a hard time understanding what exactly you're trying to say?

No, I'm not sure I can... I don't claim to believe that anyone shouldn't value evil, although I am saying that I personally wouldn't like evil used against me. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your implication, in which case please clarify and I apologize.

Could you please elaborate more on how the system is based on aggression? I thought it was based around defense of property and livelihood.

His point is that you can't defend those things without violence.

EDIT

Hashem, but according to what you advance there is no actual good and evil, all actions are equally value free in the real world.

humangetsme and z1235 I'll have to respond tomorrow. I'll leave you with a riddle:

I know the libertarianism is good because libertarianism says it's good
I know libertarianism knows it's good because a really good system would

hashem:

@ Autolykos

I was saying that I'm glad to see you acknowledge that people around here aren't opposed to violence. I said most people seem to be tricked into the belief that libertarianism promotes peace, and I stand by that. I feel that if you asked 100 people who had an opinion on the matter, most people would say it's generally felt that libertarians promote peace—that is, whatever 100 opinionated people feel the term 'peace' to mean within the context of libertarianism. When you asked me what I personally mean by peace, my answer was "pervasive nonviolence", not "complete absence of violence".

But I don't claim to believe violence is necessarily "bad", whatever that would mean. I can't fault you for not reading every post I make in every thread, but my general view is that violence is a type of behavior. Either someone will or won't engage in it, and that decision is made by each person individually without the need to retreat to mystical concepts like god or morality or rights.

I suspect that your issues with most libertarians are largely semantic in nature. For example, most libertarians don't seem to define "peace" the way you do - just as most of them don't seem to define "war" as "any interpersonal dispute", let alone "any violent interpersonal dispute". (Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you define "war" that way.) Most libertarians seem to define "peace" as "absence of war", where "war" is defined as "violent disputes between states". In an anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist world would then be a peaceful world by definition under those semantics. Does that make sense?

I understand that your answer was "pervasive nonviolence". But I was wondering just what you meant by "pervasive".

Certainly I agree that violence is a type of behavior. I readily admit to not having read every post you've made in every thread, but from what I have read, you seem to disapprove of violence per se. Furthermore, you seem to treat the words "violence" and "aggression" as synonymous. This is contrary to most libertarians, who consider "aggression" to be a subset of "violence". I'm not saying they're right and you're wrong, or vice-versa. All I'm saying is that there seems to be a difference.

With that said, what are your definitions of "morality" and "rights"?

Is "anarcho"-capitalism against the state?

@hashem

I find myself in agreement that systems of private law already exist.  Nature is inherently a system of anarchy which is evidenced by the geopolitic.  Governments are nothing more than mere corporations with investors, officers, employees, and customers.  As it is now no legislature has licensed any occupation of law because ignorance of law is no excuse but using statues or codes for profit is regulated by attorneys.  In every way there are already systems of competing private law.  The issue at hand for liberty and freedom has never been nature or any system but what people believe.

@autokylos

If the issue at hand is belief then how come libertarians do not have their own dictionary to eliminate inconsistencies in semantics to the greatest extent possible?  Private law has its own dictionaries.

I consider "violence" to be a subset of "aggression."

@ SkepticalMetal

Could you please elaborate more on how the system is based on aggression?

Going by the Rothbardian definition of the NAP, aggression may be classified as initial, or not-initial (e.g. defensive, retaliatory, etc.). Ancapism, or libertarianism, or other systems relying on private law, require at least defensive/retaliatory aggression. In other words, they're violent systems of arbitrary morals enforcement, which makes them no better than statism—the main difference is that libertarians/ancaps want to use violence to enforce arbitrary moral code X and statists want to use violence to enforce arbitrary moral code Y.

@ Autolykos

For example, most libertarians don't seem to define "peace" the way you do

I can't say I'm sure why you're disagreeing or what you're talking about. I'm quite sure that most people with an opinion on the matter, if caught for a 5 second interview while walking to work, would answer, "Yes," to the question, "Do libertarians promote peace?" And if the follow up question was, "So they don't promote violence, because they like peace?" the answer would often be "Correct."

Whatever. I can say "pervasive-nonviolence" if you prefer. I feel peace conveys the connotation of non-violence appropriately.

hashem:

Going by the Rothbardian definition of the NAP, aggression may be classified as initial, or not-initial (e.g. defensive, retaliatory, etc.).

No. Going by the Rothbardian definition of aggression - which, by the way, is one of the dictionary definitions of the term - aggression is the initiation of violence or the threat thereof. One may aggress in the course of defensive violence, but that is only if they in turn introduce more violence than the original aggressor.

hashem:

Ancapism, or libertarianism, or other systems relying on private law, require at least defensive/retaliatory aggression.

Any system of law, period, requires violence or the threat thereof by definition. If it doesn't have violence or the threat of violence, then it isn't law; it is most likely a norm or custom.

hashem:

In other words, they're violent systems of arbitrary morals enforcement, which makes them no better than statism—the main difference is that libertarians/ancaps want to use violence to enforce arbitrary moral code X and statists want to use violence to enforce arbitrary moral code Y.

This is almost true. I support voluntaryism because I prefer social cooperation over social conflict. If someone prefers conflict, then I have no problem with the law dealing with it accordingly. While no system is objectively or inherently more moral (or even moral at all), libertarianism and more specifically voluntaryism promote social cooperation the best out of all systems.

So the main difference between libertarian anarchists and statists is that statists prefer social conflict as a solution to problems. That or they prefer cooperation and do not understand that the state is adversarial in nature. It sounds like you are hung up on private courts meting out justice, and not all libertarians view private law courts as a place where the judge makes the law. If that is your critique, please stop stating that all libertarians believe this. That is like saying that libertarian minarchists and anarchists are the same. However similar they may be, they are not the same.

No. Going by the Rothbardian definition of aggression

Ya that's my mistake how could I be so careless. Obviously, he says no man may aggress. I was thinking he said "no man may initiate aggression". And he clearly defines aggression as the initiation of violence. When is violence non-initial then? I mean, if A initiates trade with B, doesn't B have to initiate trade with A in response in order for them both to be engaged in trade together? Or is B engaged in some behavior that doesn't require initiative on his part as well?

Regarding the rest, yes I'm hung up on the institutions of violent moral enforcement. Libertarianism and ancapism don't change from the state in that regard. As you agree, the difference is that one promotes violence as a solution in order to maintain moral system X, while the other promotes violence as a solution in order to promote moral system Y.

hashem:

Ya that's my mistake how could I be so careless. Obviously, he says no man may aggress. I was thinking he said "no man may initiate aggression". And he clearly defines aggression as the initiation of violence. When is violence non-initial then? I mean, if A initiates trade with B, doesn't B have to initiate trade with A in response in order for them both to be engaged in trade together? Or is B engaged in some behavior that doesn't require initiative on his part as well?

He may have at one time or another said "no man may initiate aggression". Just don't forget that Rothbard did have to work out his ideas at some point. He wasn't born a libertarian. He eventually settled into a standard use.

The point of initiation is that someone had to be the first to use violence. In one sense, a defender can intiate violence in response, but that is not the definition that Rothbard or libertarians in general use. Initiate is meant to be the first use of violence between two or more parties. A defender can become an aggressor if he uses more violence than the original aggressor. In other words, he is the first to use Y amount of violence, whereas the original aggressor was the first to use X amount of violence. But if the defender uses X amount of violence, then it's definitely not aggression.

It's the same with your trade example. If you and I are going to exchange some money for a car, one of us has to initiate the transaction. One of us has to say to the other, "Let's do a trade". Maybe at some point you may find two people who say it at the same time, but that is quite rare, and it doesn't disprove anything about libertarianism, as libertarianism promotes trade. But if it were a conflict, if two people punched each other at the same time, then they both aggressed against each other, and so long as the aggression was equal, then that's the end of it in terms of libertarian rights violations.

hashem:

Regarding the rest, yes I'm hung up on the institutions of violent moral enforcement. Libertarianism and ancapism don't change from the state in that regard. As you agree, the difference is that one promotes violence as a solution in order to maintain moral system X, while the other promotes violence as a solution in order to promote moral system Y.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with libertarians promoting system Y instead of system X. In fact, every single libertarian will say that it is a good thing that libertarians promote libertarianism. It's a total non-issue to libertarians. You will find it is a non-issue to pretty much anybody that X person promotes a system that he believes is good.

So I don't really know what your point is, other than that you find all systems of law distasteful.

I advanced my point earlier, maybe you missed it: I agree with OP that private law is like statism, but OP's argument was weak in my opinion. The problem isn't that private militaries—excuse me, defense agencies—will war with each other. The problem is that it's exchanging violent system of arbitrary morals enforcement X for violent system of arbitrary morals enforcement Y.

Private law is to statism as water is to carbon monoxide.

That doesn't even make sense. A better analogy would be...private law is to statism what a bloody steak knife is to a bloody paring knife.

It makes perfect sense:

Private law and statism share violence.

Water and carbon monoxide share one molecule of oxygen.

Water is healthy for people. Private law is healthy for society.

Carbon monoxide is poison for people. Statism is poison for society.

I think the problem most people have when trying to understand the privatization of anything that the govt currently (and especially historically) has nationalized is that they apply the same business model (I use this term loosely) to the entrepreneur as they do the bureaucrat. Like it or not, any business decision (including the decisions within the business of courts and law) will usually be made based on costs-benefits analysis. We cannot know how law will function in a free society, but we do know that business works this way - using cost benefits analysis. The calculation problem proved that govts cannot do this. Concordantly, mirroring what has already been said, competing private courts/protection agencies/insurance companies/whatever will not go to war because it would simply be cheaper to come to an agreement when a dispute arose. The state can only go to war when its monopoly on the courts is challenged and it typically does.

Also, the OP's question implicitly assumes that public law systems somehow "work" now. They don't, and there is plenty of data out there (not done by libertarians) that suggests that they don't. 

I'd also like to note one more thing. One f the first responders to the OP noted that "public courts" could be a legitimate response to aggressions of private courts - if they even occurred. One might think, "Public courts? Isn't that what yu guys are against?" I just want to make it clear that "public" is used differently here. IT means a group of people VOLUNTARILY got together, pooled their money, and made one based on their own opinions of what good law is and they pay for it.

Libertarians are not against the govt and the state strictly speaking. We are against the initiation of violence and, for the state to exist, they must initiate violence, so we oppose it most openly. If a group of people voluntarily want to form a public court with their own money, they can do so. They just cant force the rest of us to use it.

Holy shit I'm on a roll. Lol. :(

Anyway I tend to side with nature, in the sense that whatever we have that has proven to be effective at persisting and proliferating is what I would call—to borrow your term—"healthy". Preference for statism (hegemonic dominance hierarchies?) over non-statism in all the environments so far has proven to be embedded in our psychology and biology.

Private law may prove to be "healthy" for society some day, but it clearly isn't right now, at least from that perspective. And that doesn't mean I concede it's an improvement over statism, which I maintain it isn't, since they both rely on violence and arbitrary morals enforcement.

Goodnight.

hashem:

Anyway I tend to side with nature, in the sense that whatever we have that has proven to be effective at persisting and proliferating is what I would call—to borrow your term—"healthy". Preference for statism (hegemonic dominance hierarchies?) over non-statism in all the environments so far has proven to be embedded in our psychology and biology.

Do people have an inborn preference for statism? I don't see that as the case. In fact, history is filled with people rebelling against the state. If you really want to go with predominant systems, then we must prefer social cooperation as the predominant system. And the state is socially adversarial in nature. So the state is a poison to the predominant system of voluntary exchange that is embedded in our psychology and biology.

hashem:

Private law may prove to be "healthy" for society some day, but it clearly isn't right now, at least from that perspective. And that doesn't mean I concede it's an improvement over statism, which I maintain it isn't, since they both rely on violence and arbitrary morals enforcement.

I don't see how whatever exists is necessarily healthy. Cancer exists in many people, and it is absolutely not healthy.

Anyway, it sounds like you have a distaste for law, and that is your arbitrary moral feeling.

When private legal jurisdictions compete it will either be violent conflict with neighboring jurisdictions or to acquire the customers of a neighboring jurisdiction, which is really just war, right?

1. War is really expensive. You have to pay your PDA employees extra pay, buy more equipment at a faster rate, etc.
2. Who says the jurisdictions won't overlap? The free market breeds competition, and would do so with PDAs.
3. Third party arbitration is a much less expensive, much more efficient process than slugging it out with every other PDA. Besides, people wouldn't stand for that kind of bullsh!t going on. When they see the company is trying to be tyrannical, they'll just switch to another firm and collectively shut down efforts by the rogue PDA.

 

I don't see how competing private legal jurisdictions are any different from states.

Without the perceived "authority" (i.e. right to rule), no organization can be thought of to be a state. States require the widespread perception of the authority to rule, along with illusory rights that no person or institution can logically possess. With PDAs, you can always switch firms. The PDA doesn't have extra rights, it can only act as a representative in that it extends your negative rights against force, fraud, coercion, breach of contract, etc.

 

Doesn't the libertarian philosophy just suppose all these private jurisdictions will somehow "obey" the principles of voluntarism?

No, through solid rational thinking, anyone can come to the same conclusion. How these firms will act is unknown, yet we have historical examples of such firms in Ireland, Iceland, The (Wild) West, among others. We know how markets tend to work; we also know how public property and the state corrupt and pervert nearly everything they lay their hands on. At the very least, we can easily conclude that private law and private defense agencies would do the job better than government, at a lower cost.

hashem:

@Autolykos

For example, most libertarians don't seem to define "peace" the way you do

I can't say I'm sure why you're disagreeing or what you're talking about. I'm quite sure that most people with an opinion on the matter, if caught for a 5 second interview while walking to work, would answer, "Yes," to the question, "Do libertarians promote peace?" And if the follow up question was, "So they don't promote violence, because they like peace?" the answer would often be "Correct."

Whatever. I can say "pervasive-nonviolence" if you prefer. I feel peace conveys the connotation of non-violence appropriately.

First off, I'd appreciate it if you'd respond to all of my post, not just part of it.

Second, I thought I made it clear that I'm pointing out the differences between your semantics and those that most libertarians seem to have. Did I not say that I'm not saying you're wrong?

What do you think is logically invalid about what I said before? If "war" is defined (at least for the sake of argument) as "a violent dispute between states", and "peace" is defined as "the absence of war", then to say "libertarians promote peace" means "libertarians promote the absence of violent disputes between states", does it not? The logic is clear. So the question is whether most libertarians define "war" and "peace" that way or some other way.

If you really want to go with predominant systems, then we must prefer social cooperation as the predominant system. And the state is socially adversarial in nature. So the state is a poison to the predominant system of voluntary exchange that is embedded in our psychology and biology.

I'm not understanding how you and malachi keep ariving at this conclusion. Human action is driven by several factors, not just the drive toward social releations (which may or may not require cooperation and/or mutually voluntary exchange). For example, we respond to authority figures, see the Milgram experiments. A majority of people are willing to inflict fatal damage to people purely because an authority figure says to. Also the concept about ingroup loyalty and outgroup hostility. We acknowledge groups, and classify them in our brains as in or out within different contexts, and tend to behave accordingly. There's self-deception, and how we tend to create myths about reality to feel better about factors that would otherwise make us uncomfortable. All of these and many more have culminated in a history and present and future of homo sapiens where we organize into hegemonic dominance hierarchies. Mutually voluntary exchange has persisted, and is widespread yes, within hegemonic dominance hierarchies (HDH's?). The social arrangements that persist and proliferate are HDH's—even prisoners can engage in mutually voluntary exchange.

When I said "healthy", I made it clear that I mean healthy in the evolutionary sense: it's responsible for the persistence and proliferation of what we see around us. We don't see the biggest, most powerful, most persistent and prolific types of societies being based on rejection of HDH's. What we do see is repeatedly, on different continents and throughout different times and cultures, homo sapiens organizing into societies of HDH's.

First off, I'd appreciate it if you'd respond to all of my post, not just part of it.

Well then I apologize, because long drawn out posts get tiresome. If I saw several distinct key points in your post then maybe I'd approach each of them individually, otherwise for the sake of time and space I imagine we're having a live debate. That means I can look at your whole post when responding to it, and acknowledge that there are several nuanced points, and yet try to respond to them as though they were as few distinct arguments as possible. I'm trying to avoid having posts that get consistently longer like what happened between Malachi and I (that would be a great band name). Hopefully we're responsible enough to acknowledge to ourselves that there is more than one line of text in any post... If you feel I missed something critical, or failed to consider it within the context of my response to a different portion of your post, please remind me of the specific part.

What do you think is logically invalid about what I said before?

Red herring. I'm not looking for a logical inconsistency, because I simply refused to accept your premise that libertarians have to think in terms of strict definitions instead of being able to think dynamically about meanings within contexts. Peace may be "defined" one way (it's not), but it can also be used in the context of peace vs violence, which I was advancing.

hashem:

I'm not understanding how you and malachi keep ariving at this conclusion. Human action is driven by several factors, not just the drive toward social releations (which may or may not require cooperation and/or mutually voluntary exchange). For example, we respond to authority figures, see the Milgram experiments. A majority of people are willing to inflict fatal damage to people purely because an authority figure says to. Also the concept about ingroup loyalty and outgroup hostility. We acknowledge groups, and classify them in our brains as in or out within different contexts, and tend to behave accordingly. There's self-deception, and how we tend to create myths about reality to feel better about factors that would otherwise make us uncomfortable. All of these and many more have culminated in a history and present and future of homo sapiens where we organize into hegemonic dominance hierarchies. Mutually voluntary exchange has persisted, and is widespread yes, within hegemonic dominance hierarchies (HDH's?). The social arrangements that persist and proliferate are HDH's—even prisoners can engage in mutually voluntary exchange.

Social cooperation is the dominant form of human interaction. Period. Just go outside and interact with anyone. The vast majority of those interactions are not conflicts (they don't resort to violence or the threat thereof). The Milgram experiment says nothing to disprove what I said.

So, I'm not understanding how you keep trying to dismiss social cooperation as the predominant form of interaction amongst humans.

hashem:

When I said "healthy", I made it clear that I mean healthy in the evolutionary sense: it's responsible for the persistence and proliferation of what we see around us. We don't see the biggest, most powerful, most persistent and prolific types of societies being based on rejection of HDH's. What we do see is repeatedly, on different continents and throughout different times and cultures, homo sapiens organizing into societies of HDH's.

So cancer is healthy in the evolutionary sense? I mean, seriously, you are on a forum of a website that promotes Austrian Economics, and you say things like "[the state is] responsible for the persistence and proliferation of what we see around us." What hogwash! Just open any book on economics and you will see that this is nonsense. Humans are responsible. The division of labor is responsible. Property rights is responsible. The freer the market, the wealthier the society. The bigger the state, the worse things get. The US is seeing a slowdown and reversal in some cases of wealth. The US won't be able to continue to ride on the existing capital for much longer if the state keeps going along the way it has been.

But seriously, just don't say things like the state is responsible for what we have. It's nonsense and you know it.

 

 

hashem:

Anyway I tend to side with nature, in the sense that whatever we have that has proven to be effective at persisting and proliferating is what I would call—to borrow your term—"healthy". Preference for statism (hegemonic dominance hierarchies?) over non-statism in all the environments so far has proven to be embedded in our psychology and biology.

gotlucky:

Do people have an inborn preference for statism? I don't see that as the case. In fact, history is filled with people rebelling against the state. If you really want to go with predominant systems, then we must prefer social cooperation as the predominant system. And the state is socially adversarial in nature. So the state is a poison to the predominant system of voluntary exchange that is embedded in our psychology and biology.

hashem:

I'm not understanding how you and malachi keep ariving at this conclusion. Human action is driven by several factors, not just the drive toward social releations (which may or may not require cooperation and/or mutually voluntary exchange). For example, we respond to authority figures, see the Milgram experiments. A majority of people are willing to inflict fatal damage to people purely because an authority figure says to. Also the concept about ingroup loyalty and outgroup hostility. We acknowledge groups, and classify them in our brains as in or out within different contexts, and tend to behave accordingly. There's self-deception, and how we tend to create myths about reality to feel better about factors that would otherwise make us uncomfortable. All of these and many more have culminated in a history and present and future of homo sapiens where we organize into hegemonic dominance hierarchies. Mutually voluntary exchange has persisted, and is widespread yes, within hegemonic dominance hierarchies (HDH's?). The social arrangements that persist and proliferate are HDH's—even prisoners can engage in mutually voluntary exchange.

gotlucky:

Social cooperation is the dominant form of human interaction. Period. Just go outside and interact with anyone. The vast majority of those interactions are not conflicts (they don't resort to violence or the threat thereof). The Milgram experiment says nothing to disprove what I said.

hashem:

You're advancing a red herring. I already acknowledged that slaves/prisoners engage in cooperative/mutually voluntary behavior.

It's not a red herring. It's what we've been talking about. You say that X is the dominant system. I say that Y is the dominant system. Just because I say Y instead of X doesn't make it a red herring. It means I believe you have your facts wrong.

You have yet to prove that social conflict is the preferred and "healthy" state of affairs, especially considering social cooperation is the predominant form of human interaction. And you even stated that whatever was preferred and persisted is healthy. Well, seeing as social cooperation vastly outnumbers social conflict, I cannot see how you can claim that people in general actually prefer conflict, when it is clear by their actions that this is not the case.

You have also yet to prove that social cooperation exists within social conflict. It does not. They are different types of interactions. If two people cooperate in order to kill another person, the cooperation wasn't "within" the conflict. It is merely a description of the relationship between the two killers. The killers' relationship with the killed is that of conflict. Neither exists within the other.

It's the same with states. My cooperation with the cashier at the supermarket does not exist within the conflict with the state. They are separate relationships. The state is in conflict with me, and I am cooperating with the cashier. It's the same with slaves. The slave owner and the slave are in conflict with each other. That is the nature of their relationship. If two slaves cooperation or fight, that is a separate relationship entirely.

hashem:

What I'm arguing is that things which proliferate and persist better than things which don't are more "healthy" to borrow your term. In the context of the overall organization of societies, hegemonic dominance hierarchies proliferate and persist better than societies which reject hegemonic dominance hierarchies. I wouldn't necessarily choose to use the term healthy for cancer because it would probably convey the wrong meaning.

I need you to define "proliferate", "better", and "healthy". The standard definition of "proliferate" is "increase rapidly in numbers". The standard definition of "healthy" is "the state of being free from illness or injury".

I do not see how states are increasing rapidly in numbers. I also do not see how states are not injurious to society. By your own admission, you consider states to be injurious to society. So I fail to understand how you can say it is bad for society on the one hand, but then turn around and claim it is somehow good for society.

I see social conflict as I see cancer. It is injurious to individuals.

Look your post is too long. I'm not interested in responding to something like that. It's not as complicated as you're making it.

To be completely clear, I ALREADY AGREE that the majority of interpersonal relations are mutually voluntary. My point is that they take place WITHIN hegemonic dominance hierarchies. There's no point in continuing this discussion until you make yourself familiar with the concept of dominance hierarchies. I can't be held responsible for your ignorance on the subject. Once you make yourself acquainted with the subject, you'll know what I'm talking about and you'll see why the definitions game is ridiculous. A reasonable introductory book may be Human Evolution and the Origin of Dominance Hierarchies—although it's by no means flawless, or the only source.

Beyond that the health comment isn't very important. The word doesn't have to be healthy, and if you familiarize yourself with natural selection you'll know what I'm talking about.

@hashem, is there something in that book that explains your figurative use of the preposition "within"? Obviously you dont mean that these voluntary actions take place inside of a physical object called a "hegemonic dominance hierarchy."

secondly, what do you think about cooperation between belligerents during wartime?

I haven't read the book so I'm not sure. Within may be considered interchangeable with between members of, if that helps you grasp the concept until you actually take the initiative to learn about the concepts.

In that case, those coercive actions only occur within voluntary systems. Homo sapiens is homo voluntarsis.

Sure, depending on your perspective. I'm saying mutually voluntary exchange occurs within hegemonic organization, you're saying hegemony occurs within mutually voluntary organization. I think my perspective is a little bit more realistic, and is supported by evolutionary science, psychology, biology, anthropology, and other sciences. You think your perspective is the only correct one from any angle and is supported by...your opinion and semantic games.