The individual in society (2 Viewers)

[Planck]

I like the tesla quote and I know the feeling of which he speaks when yr creeating thingzzz

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Worth noting the prevalence of debtors prisons in the 18th Century... in some cases it may be more profitable to imprison someone than release them....

I doubt the same incentives would exist now.

-There is far less unskilled work that people can simply be forced to do in the developed world. When you add in the cost of feeding prisoners, housing them and supervising them it seems unlikely to be profitable compared to outsourcing to voluntary labor in the developing world.

-Attitudes have changed. Most people would not support forced labor camps. Would you choose a security firm that practiced this?

-People that are subject to imprisonment would often also be customers of other private security firms which would defend them from any security firm that tried to imprison them for slave labor. So rouge security firms that imprison people unjustly have to face the additional cost of fighting other security firms who are defending their clients, which would be extremely costly.

-Alternatively potential prisoners may be customers of the security firm that is prosecuting them. Obviously no one would patronise a security firm that had a reputation for enslaving its own customers.

 

[loquasagacious]

I doubt the same incentives would exist now.

-There is far less unskilled work that people can simply be forced to do in the developed world. When you add in the cost of feeding prisoners, housing them and supervising them it seems unlikely to be profitable compared to outsourcing to voluntary labor in the developing world.

Seems to depend entirely on the conditions in which you house them. After all freed from legal restrictions an security firm could operate a forced labour camp.

-Attitudes have changed. Most people would not support forced labor camps. Would you choose a security firm that practiced this?

Assuming that a security firm demonstrated that it achieved results I don't see why people wouldn't hire them. For example while it is distasteful most people at least tacitly accept that repo-men and debt-collectors exist.

-People that are subject to imprisonment would often also be customers of other private security firms which would defend them from any security firm that tried to imprison them for slave labor. So rouge security firms that imprison people unjustly have to face the additional cost of fighting other security firms who are defending their clients, which would be extremely costly.

This kind of thing really does not help the AC case. Who actually wants to live in an anarchic world where disagreements are settled by conflict? I think that the courts (contract/tort law in particular) have a valid place in society.

-Alternatively potential prisoners may be customers of the security firm that is prosecuting them. Obviously no one would patronise a security firm that had a reputation for enslaving its own customers.

And similarly no one would patronise a security firm which did not enforce their contracts....

Also I think you will find that many people routinely deal with companies who have a reputation for treating their customers poorly... money lenders of all sort (esp lenders of last resort), insurance companies, etc etc.

EDIT: pertinent article from the smh: Car repossessed with toddler inside

 

[bubbly89]

Why wouldn't you want to give back? Isn't the fact that going to school is free, and university a minimal cost an example of how society invests in us in the hope we'd contribute something back?

If no one contributed, the privledges society offers would cease to exist.

 

[volition]

Seems to depend entirely on the conditions in which you house them. After all freed from legal restrictions an security firm could operate a forced labour camp.

(1) It's probably not fair to suggest that firms are "freed from legal restrictions" because ACists argue for the existence of private law. Even in the cases where you think that such a rule wouldn't exist within the private law, look at the current situation. You have nations who imprison people against their will (eg. Guantanamo) - and there is no world government to police all the individual nation states. Are you a supporter of forced world government? If you are not, then you are being inconsistent here.

(2) At least the people who want to enslave other people would have to pay for it themselves. This is a big difference compared to the current situation, where some people (the politicians) make the decisions, and everybody else bears the burden of the cost. eg. imprisoning people for victimless crimes such as drug use in the current system. So it definitely costs more to be a bad guy in ACism than in statism.

(3) I think this whole forced slavery thing just wouldn't exist in true free markets. It's always going to be much more efficient to let people be employees rather than force them to be slaves. Employees are much more productive and motivated than slaves. They have something to aspire to, they have more reason to care about doing a good job (so they can have a good reputation amongst peers in the industry, have a good CV and hopefully get promoted/earn more down the track). They also have more incentive to do further study and improve their skills.

This kind of thing really does not help the AC case. Who actually wants to live in an anarchic world where disagreements are settled by conflict? I think that the courts (contract/tort law in particular) have a valid place in society.

Conflict would be the last resort, seeing as it is so expensive. It's likely that there would be less conflict in an AC world than in a statist one. (See above about how it's much cheaper to be a bad guy in statism than in ACism) There is definitely room for contract law to exist in ACism, seeing as contracts are very fundamental for the operation of markets and trade. There is nothing stopping private courts arising and mediating/arbitrating on these matters.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

And similarly no one would patronise a security firm which did not enforce their contracts....

http://smh.drive.com.au/motor-news/car-repossessed-with-toddler-inside-20100115-maho.html

This is what it comes down to. I have nothing against "debt slavery" as such. If people want to sign contracts where debt slavery upon default is a condition, I have no problem with that.

Obviously most people would not agree to such contracts.

 

[Enteebee]

No one owes society anything.

The only way you can accrue a debt is by agreeing to do so. This is something almost everyone acknowledges routinely, except in the case of the mythical "social contract" where people have been conditioned to make a hypocritical, nonsensical exception.

Those in favor of social obligations argue that since "society" provides us things we use, we owe something to society. But we never contract voluntarily with society for those things.

If the society wants it can exclude people who it judges to be failing to contribute to society from enjoying such benefits. Using exclusion and ostracism is perfectly legitimate. Kidnapping people at gun point and locking them in violent rape dungeons (prisons) is not.

Say we're living in a libertarian society and someone starts up a private community for people to go in live in. They have to pay 'taxes', follow certain 'rules' or face punishments, and there is a board of directors chosen by votes etc who shape the rules.

Children born into the community are in the first instance subject to the wishes of their parents, then at whatever age is acceptable can choose to either stay or leave in the community.

If they stay in the community I think we could find tacit acceptance of the rules merely by the fact that they stay in the community, knowing they could leave and not have to follow the rules of the community -- and knowing that if they stay, the community expects them to follow the rules.

Where, in your opinion, does the private community overstep their right?

 

[ComingUpForAir]

This is what it comes down to. I have nothing against "debt slavery" as such. If people want to sign contracts where debt slavery upon default is a condition, I have no problem with that.

Obviously most people would not agree to such contracts.

Here you have it ladies and gentlemen, the inner workings of a slave-traders mind.
And what a soiled sight it is, I didnt realise libertarians still classified blacks as 'non-humans' (and thus came under a white mans 'private property')

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Say we're living in a libertarian society and someone starts up a private community for people to go in live in. They have to pay 'taxes', follow certain 'rules' or face punishments, and there is a board of directors chosen by votes etc who shape the rules.

Children born into the community are in the first instance subject to the wishes of their parents, then at whatever age is acceptable can choose to either stay or leave in the community.

If they stay in the community I think we could find tacit acceptance of the rules merely by the fact that they stay in the community, knowing they could leave and not have to follow the rules of the community -- and knowing that if they stay, the community expects them to follow the rules.

Where, in your opinion, does the private community overstep their right?

Never. If it expands in this voluntary way, it is legitimate, even if it results in something that resembles a nation state which is obviously what you are getting at.

The problem is that today's nation states did not come about in this way. Nation states have all taken control by seizing enormous amounts of land by force, well beyond what the rulers had actually homesteaded and mixed their labor with (the way of acquiring land which libertarians argue for).

The other problem is that people are not really able to reject the community they are born into by leaving due to immigration restrictions, and the ubiquity of nation states which have claimed every piece of land on this planet. For instance, there is not a single place on this planet where a person can legally use certain drugs for recreational purposes.

In many cases, governments impose laws on their citizens regardless of where they travel. US citizens are required to pay tax no matter where they live as though they are slaves, born the property of the government. A similarly grim situation exists here. Sure, we can travel quite easily to the New Zealand or the UK, but these countries have comparable rates of taxes, and similarly oppressive laws. Try moving from a high taxes country to go live in Liechtenstein or Switzerland.

 

[KFunk]

The problem is that today's nation states did not come about in this way. Nation states have all taken control by seizing enormous amounts of land by force, well beyond what the rulers had actually homesteaded and mixed their labor with (the way of acquiring land which libertarians argue for).

The other problem is that people are not really able to reject the community they are born into by leaving due to immigration restrictions, and the ubiquity of nation states which have claimed every piece of land on this planet. For instance, there is not a single place on this planet where a person can legally use certain drugs for recreational purposes.

I want to raise a related issue. Even in the case of private property arising through the liberal mechanism of mixing labour with natural land and resources a similar problem is generated. In the case of overpopulation, say on a small island, it is still possible for the movement of individuals to be similarly restricted. If vagrant individuals must respect the right of self-determination of property owners within the bounds of their property and yet find no free tracts of land that they can claim as their own then they will similarly find themselves bound to the will of some master. One might conjure up a more extreme scenario in which no property owner is willing to take the lone wanderer into their homestead, instead leaving them as a refugee cast adrift on some mangy raft. Might we not then assert the responsibility of individuals to extend use of their property and resources to those whose wellbeing is threatened by the near-total ownership of resources?

In any case, how does a libertarian overcome the problem of overpopulation? I think here of Locke's proviso that it is permissible to acquire private property from nature so long as there is 'enough and as good' left for others. I always found it interesting that Lockean property rights have been just as readily taken up by some socialists in order to counter claims to property which they believe would not satisfy the Lockean proviso. I realise that this often descends into an argument about what constitutes 'enough and as good'.

In many cases, governments impose laws on their citizens regardless of where they travel. US citizens are required to pay tax no matter where they live as though they are slaves, born the property of the government.

Aye, I am a dual citizen and US taxation is certainly something of a frustration. However, it is possible to obtain exemptions based on foreign residence and foreign tax paid but is a big headache to do so (certainly I don't think residence on a tax-free private island would satisfy the criteria).

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

I want to raise a related issue. Even in the case of private property arising through the liberal mechanism of mixing labour with natural land and resources a similar problem is generated. In the case of overpopulation, say on a small island, it is still possible for the movement of individuals to be similarly restricted. If vagrant individuals must respect the right of self-determination of property owners within the bounds of their property and yet find no free tracts of land that they can claim as their own then they will similarly find themselves bound to the will of some master. One might conjure up a more extreme scenario in which no property owner is willing to take the lone wanderer into their homestead, instead leaving them as a refugee cast adrift on some mangy raft. Might we not then assert the responsibility of individuals to extend use of their property and resources to those whose wellbeing is threatened by the near-total ownership of resources?

In any case, how does a libertarian overcome the problem of overpopulation? I think here of Locke's proviso that it is permissible to acquire private property from nature so long as there is 'enough and as good' left for others. I always found it interesting that Lockean property rights have been just as readily taken up by some socialists in order to counter claims to property which they believe would not satisfy the Lockean proviso. I realise that this often descends into an argument about what constitutes 'enough and as good'.

The problem already exists and is worse under the current situation of nation statism. There are millions stateless people and refugees who end up being held for years in detention centers (including by our own democratic government), or who face a choice between persecution or extreme poverty and living in fear in a foreign land as an illegal alien.

Approximately 200 governments claim some sort of control over all the land on earth. If we had allodial title, where individuals could have full control over their land (subject only to provisos they consented to), even if land did end up being held by a relatively small number of people it would still be far more than 200 different groups. Probably in the millions if not the hundreds of millions or billions.

So a person who finds them self without land can choose from many more people and groups to petition to allow them onto their land than they could presently. Obviously land owners also have an incentive to allow people onto their land, as they will pay rent. Agricultural land is pretty worthless without people to work the fields, just as urban land is useless without people living in the cities working in the offices and factories and renting your accommodation. You would probably argue this could lead to exploitation, but again, at least people born without wealth have more choices available to them than they do in the present situation where people born into poor countries are often trapped there for life.

 

[KFunk]

So a person who finds them self without land can choose from many more people and groups to petition to allow them onto their land than they could presently. Obviously land owners also have an incentive to allow people onto their land, as they will pay rent. Agricultural land is pretty worthless without people to work the fields, just as urban land is useless without people living in the cities working in the offices and factories and renting your accommodation. You would probably argue this could lead to exploitation, but again, at least people born without wealth have more choices available to them than they do in the present situation where people born into poor countries are often trapped there for life.

I feel that to say that a person simply will find a sympathetic or open-armed property owner sidesteps the issue of overpopulation and limited resources. I am still interested to know what approach you advocate when land and resources become tight. In particular does the well-fed property owner have any responsibility to alleviate the hunger of the poor vagrant in the context of a resource shortage?

And yes, as you suggested, I do contend that exploitation will be a natural outcome of such employment in the setting of poverty (in the absence of industrial relations legislation which protects the interests of poor, unskilled workers to some degree). Of course, I realise that such positive realisation of certain outcomes ('fair' employment) means less to you than the negative permittance of choice, noting your comment about having 'more choices available'.

I do wonder, though, whether a state is better able to realise the libertarian vision of private property. In particular, history and human nature would incline me to believe that the powerful will continue to obtain property through force, especially if power is decentralised to the extent you recommend. At least in a state in which such libertarian values are institutionalised it is possible to enforce contracts and prevent/punish wrongs (with respect to property) to an extent which promotes the ideal libertarian social metabolism of the fair and free acquisition and trade of property. A world of individuals, on the other hand, seems to lack the kind of power which could discourage or correct such trespasses. Again I wish to bring up the Hobbesian state of nature. Though I thoroughly disagree with the power Hobbes grants his monarch I nonetheless see the logic in using a centralised power to enact formal arbitration. The more refined political theory of Kant advocates a legislative body, as the positive, institutional realisation of Right - a realisation which would be incomplete without a judiciary to judge and an absolute power to enforce judgements. Part of the institutional problem is then how best to ensure the separation of powers - e.g. into the trias politica, which Kant follows, of executive, legislative and judicial powers.

 

[Enteebee]

Nation states have all taken control by seizing enormous amounts of land by force, well beyond what the rulers had actually homesteaded and mixed their labor with (the way of acquiring land which libertarians argue for).

When it comes to land rights, while it may seem unjust I can't see any practical option than to say that might is right.

It is only once you have a state, or at least something like a powerful association of "land owners" who band together to claim land as their own and enforce those claims through force (economy, politics, military) -- that anything more 'moral' becomes possible. That is to say that once such an association exists do I think within it questions of "What is the most just way to distribute land throughout our association?" become possible.

-----------------------

I think your essential problem with my analogy is that there is no way for a person born into a state to say "I don't agree with the rules of this state" and leave... however, our options will always be limited by the available resources (states willing to take you in, how much money/ability you have to leave in the first place, the market cost of different things).

I read your reply to K_Funk regarding overpopulation etc and noticed you think that basically there would be 'millions' of such associations compared with say 200 now (probably far fewer whom have strong sovereign control against big powers).

While this does make it look far more likely that a person living in a state they dislike could then find one they like, I find the idea of millions of smaller powers unfeasible. I think it is far more efficient for these groups to merge and beat out the smaller competition... so over time I imagine you'd see a slow degradation of these small associations in power in favor of larger ones (as we have seen throughout our history) -- meaning that the options may not be as great as you might suspect.

 

[loquasagacious]

I think that the essential problem with the AC idea of a stateless society is that the state will emerge. People will group because it offers a competitive advantage, they will develop a system of rules, they will defend themselves from aggressors and they will take land and resources by force where possible. In short the state will emerge.

Afterall this is essentially the history of human civilisation to date. Why would it be any different a second time around?

And would it even be possible anyway? For example say that there was a libertarian revolution in Australia and the Australian state was abolished, why wouldn't our neighbours make aggressive land grabs? China in particular could seize raw materials and maybe some naval bases in WA. If we all band together to repulse the incursion or to pay someone to repulse the incursion then we (at the very least) start to look minarchist not AC....

Failed states in the developing world certainly don't fill me with optimism for the complete abolition of the state.

 

[volition]

Yo loquasagacious + Kfunk, here is a quick response:

(1) States offer a "competitive advantage"? in what?

(2) Why would it be different a second time around? - Correct me if I'm wrong but this looks sort of like an appeal to tradition. ACists argue that when more ppl support the idea of private property, states cannot exist. If you lived in the 1800s, would you say "It doesn't matter what you do, slavery will ALWAYS exist"? I think this is an example of where people changed their beliefs on a wide enough scale that it happened.

(3) just with China invading Australia etc... I think you're heavily discounting the possibility of people banding together to save themselves. Also, generally the defending side can often make it so that it is prohibitively expensive to invade, which makes it a non-profitable venture for China (just for example's sake), so China wouldn't do it.

(4) Failed states aren't necessarily 'posterboys' for ACism because it's meant to be an apples with apples comparison. Most people say/think its the govt that provides order with its guns and police/army, when I think that it actually comes from people having liberty initially and wanting to live in a peaceful society. So I think it's a case of people attributing the praise in the wrong direction.

(5) Also, please answer my question above about whether you support world govt

(6) Kfunk - Just broadly with the whole over population and scarce resources thing... I think you guys are forgetting the whole point of the price mechanism. It's meant to account for things like that, and when an area becomes overpopulated, the prices will push people towards areas that are more able to accomodate them. Also, when the government isn't screwing with interest rates and prices so much, investors and businesses will have a better time of being able to carry out long term investment and being able to deal with expansion in population. Think about the advances taht were made in farming over the last few hundred years, they were able to create sooo much more food than they could in the past, and I think similar advances will be made in the future with respect to stuff like housing and general everyday needs.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

(2) Why would it be different a second time around? - Correct me if I'm wrong but this looks sort of like an appeal to tradition. ACists argue that when more ppl support the idea of private property, states cannot exist. If you lived in the 1800s, would you say "It doesn't matter what you do, slavery will ALWAYS exist"? I think this is an example of where people changed their beliefs on a wide enough scale that it happened.

This point is crucial. We do not advocate a sudden anarcho-capitalist (AC) revolution, but rather we believe in convincing enough people in the merits of AC for it to come about slowly and peacefully.

I'm happy to concede that if AC were rapidly imposed in say present day Australia (where most people believe in the state) it would almost certainly fail, and we would revert back to statism (probably in a worse form).

When it comes to land rights, while it may seem unjust I can't see any practical option than to say that might is right.

It is only once you have a state, or at least something like a powerful association of "land owners" who band together to claim land as their own and enforce those claims through force (economy, politics, military) -- that anything more 'moral' becomes possible. That is to say that once such an association exists do I think within it questions of "What is the most just way to distribute land throughout our association?" become possible.

I don't think powerful associations of land owners are necessary at all. Armed people who believe in defending their land can do a lot themselves. Add to that private security firms that people could hire. You seem to be envisioning that people within a contiguous geographical area would ban together to form an "association" which resembles a government.

In an AC society (where people actually believe in AC or libertarian values) most people would want to avoid the formation of such organisation. So people would retain absolute title over their land, and simply pay private security firms to defend it. The firms would compete, and people could sack their firm at any time in accordance with the contract.

So you may be defended by firm A, while your neighbor is defended by firm B. Neither of you are bound together because of geographical proximity. Of course you could chose to enter into such an arrangement, but like I said most people would be individualistic and wary of anything resembling government if enough people had been converted to AC for it to come about peacefully.

I think your essential problem with my analogy is that there is no way for a person born into a state to say "I don't agree with the rules of this state" and leave... however, our options will always be limited by the available resources (states willing to take you in, how much money/ability you have to leave in the first place, the market cost of different things).

I read your reply to K_Funk regarding overpopulation etc and noticed you think that basically there would be 'millions' of such associations compared with say 200 now (probably far fewer whom have strong sovereign control against big powers).

While this does make it look far more likely that a person living in a state they dislike could then find one they like, I find the idea of millions of smaller powers unfeasible. I think it is far more efficient for these groups to merge and beat out the smaller competition... so over time I imagine you'd see a slow degradation of these small associations in power in favor of larger ones (as we have seen throughout our history) -- meaning that the options may not be as great as you might suspect.

As I said, I don't think "associations" would be the norm at all. I don't think they would beat out the competition either.

Throughout history conquerers have never relied purely on military strength. Brainwashing the subjugated people into believing slavery was their lot in life has always been a key strategy. Various lies have been used from religion, to the devine right of kings, to nationalism and the supposed virtues of democracy. There are always insurgents, but brainwashing the masses is usually necessary for conquest and slavery to be viable.

In an AC world where people are militantly individualistic, anti government and armed to the teeth, it would be difficult and expensive for a rouge "association" to do a lot of damage by conquest, especially since most people would oppose its actions. Private security firms could even have contracts to work together in the event that a rouge security firm begins attacking their customers.

And yes, as you suggested, I do contend that exploitation will be a natural outcome of such employment in the setting of poverty (in the absence of industrial relations legislation which protects the interests of poor, unskilled workers to some degree). Of course, I realise that such positive realisation of certain outcomes ('fair' employment) means less to you than the negative permittance of choice, noting your comment about having 'more choices available'.

How do we judge when a voluntary relationship has become unacceptably "exploitative" or whether it is "fair?"

 

[williamc]

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

Prime minister Margaret Thatcher, talking to Women's Own magazine, October 31 1987

 

[KFunk]

(2) Why would it be different a second time around? - Correct me if I'm wrong but this looks sort of like an appeal to tradition. ACists argue that when more ppl support the idea of private property, states cannot exist. If you lived in the 1800s, would you say "It doesn't matter what you do, slavery will ALWAYS exist"? I think this is an example of where people changed their beliefs on a wide enough scale that it happened.

So you may be defended by firm A, while your neighbor is defended by firm B. Neither of you are bound together because of geographical proximity. Of course you could chose to enter into such an arrangement, but like I said most people would be individualistic and wary of anything resembling government if enough people had been converted to AC for it to come about peacefully.

It's not quite an appeal to tradition as I understand the term. That would be to use a conservative argument that we should retain states because that is what we have done in the past. This argument is based on a historical tendency towards conflict as well as a scientifically observed tendency towards conflict in certain corners of biology and the social sciences - in particular in competitive settings of low resources (water, food, coal, oil). You might also replace conflict with triumph of the powerful. Of course, power ultimately boils down to social relations and so I am sure that there are ways to counteract concentrations of power, but I am not at all convinced by the AC story that you folks are telling.

Granted it is a fair hypothesis and I would be interested to know whether it could work out. However, as it stands it seems to me like a 'just so story' from evolutionary biology (e.g. see Darwin's story of how a whale might have evolved from a bear) which posits a hypothetical without any solid empirical grounding for its possibility. Sure, I can entertain the possibility you suggest, but what reason do we have to see it as realistic?

For example, Jennyfdb, I don't buy the idea that people can suddenly become thoroughly individualistic. To start with we have the family which exists as a natural form of social grouping - a baby is born and is raised by one or more parents with whom it forms bonds. We form groups based around economic interests (co-ops, firms), sociocultural interests (food, the arts, education), religious inclination and so on. Is there a particular reason why you endorse the feasibility of the thoroughly individualistic being?

(5) Also, please answer my question above about whether you support world govt.

My feeling is that there is a point where a large government ceases being duly sensitive to local needs, though there may be some things which can be legislated for and administered on a global level. I am generally an advocate of public fora and political participation (civic virtues and whatnot... I suppose this goes with a certain vision of civic republicanism, or some variation thereof). My feeling is that the relative autonomy of smaller regions (say states in Aus or the USA) or even local governments/counties enables political participation. Nonetheless, I am open to the idea of world government depending on its form. Certainly it seems unrealistic in the short term.

(6) Kfunk - Just broadly with the whole over population and scarce resources thing... I think you guys are forgetting the whole point of the price mechanism. It's meant to account for things like that, and when an area becomes overpopulated, the prices will push people towards areas that are more able to accomodate them. Also, when the government isn't screwing with interest rates and prices so much, investors and businesses will have a better time of being able to carry out long term investment and being able to deal with expansion in population. Think about the advances taht were made in farming over the last few hundred years, they were able to create sooo much more food than they could in the past, and I think similar advances will be made in the future with respect to stuff like housing and general everyday needs.

I still feel this is sidestepping this issue by saying that it simply won't happen. If an individual lives on an overpopulated island which is relatively short on resources (Japan?) there might not be an easily accessible cheap region so I wouldn't expect a guarantee that they can afford transport to a region of abundance. Of course, they could always enter the sex trade, sell non-vital organs, or enter murder park to be hunted by rich white males, but for me this crosses the exploitation threshold.

Technological-economic optimism is great in an idealist sense, but I think it is dangerous if it prevents us from thinking up ways of dealing with present problems. I often place it in a basket with the danger of Christian eschatology - 'don't worry about it, the final judgement will sort everything out'.

 

[KFunk]

How do we judge when a voluntary relationship has become unacceptably "exploitative" or whether it is "fair?"

I expect the dividing line to be a fuzzy one. Some paradigm cases would be selling organs or body parts (kidney, cornea, liver, intestine, face, etc...), sex slavery, murder park (or otherwise consenting to grievous harm/torture). Of course, some people would engage in such activities even in times of plenty - so be it. However, if you ask 'would you do this if your basic needs were met in terms of food and shelter' and the answer is 'no' then I would label the relationship exploitative.

I realise that this is an overly short answer but I am about to head out. I will post more later.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Granted it is a fair hypothesis and I would be interested to know whether it could work out. However, as it stands it seems to me like a 'just so story' from evolutionary biology (e.g. see Darwin's story of how a whale might have evolved from a bear) which posits a hypothetical without any solid empirical grounding for its possibility. Sure, I can entertain the possibility you suggest, but what reason do we have to see it as realistic?

Systems close to anarcho-capitalism worked well for centuries in medieval Iceland, Ireland and to some degree the USA prior to WW2. The Wild West, and the laws of pirates also provide good examples of people preferring to use decentralized co-operation where no government exists, rather than fighting it out state of nature style.

Whenever we see the worrying state of nature type of anarchy, it is almost always after the abrupt collapse of a state power (eg Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan), never because the people have a love of freedom and have decided to peacefully dismantle the state.

For example, Jennyfdb, I don't buy the idea that people can suddenly become thoroughly individualistic. To start with we have the family which exists as a natural form of social grouping - a baby is born and is raised by one or more parents with whom it forms bonds. We form groups based around economic interests (co-ops, firms), sociocultural interests (food, the arts, education), religious inclination and so on. Is there a particular reason why you endorse the feasibility of the thoroughly individualistic being?

Individualistic was the wrong word. Of course people would still care about their families, friends and community. A better description would be a rejection of nationalism; the ridiculous idea that we are bound to strangers because they happen to be born within the same arbitrarily defined geographic area as us. Of course people would still care about others, but they would voluntarily choose who they associate with.

I expect the dividing line to be a fuzzy one. Some paradigm cases would be selling organs or body parts (kidney, cornea, liver, intestine, face, etc...), sex slavery, murder park (or otherwise consenting to grievous harm/torture). Of course, some people would engage in such activities even in times of plenty - so be it. However, if you ask 'would you do this if your basic needs were met in terms of food and shelter' and the answer is 'no' then I would label the relationship exploitative.

Good answer. However, the solution appears to be to ensure that people's basic needs are met. Simply preventing them from engaging in exploitive relationships actually makes their condition worse.

For instance, in countries where many poor women go into prostitution, the solution is to ensure that their basic needs are met, then if they still prefer prostitution to other sources of income that is their choice. But to simply ban prostitution is more cruel than allowing it, since now they will have no way of even providing basic needs for themselves and their families.

So far government around the world have consistently failed to ensure people's basic needs are actually met. In fact, the wars waged by so called liberal democracies have specifically ensured that millions have suffered destitution and starvation.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit: Fair enough that you identify problems that could arise under AC. We're not presenting it as utopian. To some extent you would be right, and there would still be violence. The question is, would there be more or less violence than there is under governments? Look at all the atrocities that have been, and continue to be committed by governments (including democracies). Even if there was significant amounts of violence and conflict under AC, there is a good chance it would still be better than under governments.

A lot of what you have identified about human nature tending towards violence is correct, but it is neither an argument for, nor against AC. Because of the nature of human beings there will always be violence whether we have nation states, AC, or something else.