Jump to content


Anarcho-Capitalism


Recommended Posts

I think anarcho-capitalism is useful in theory only. It's very similar in that way to Marxism. It's tempting to base opinions off of debates but success in debates seldom translates effectively to success in reality. Karl Marx could do a bang up job of trumpeting Marxism, but in reality it failed miserably.

 

A quick example of a problem with anarcho-capitalism is how is the society policed? I mean . . . you have this hypothetical society where everyone is motivated by personal ambitions. The most common form of personal ambition is probably the desire to accumulate wealth. The most efficient way of accumulating wealth (which a purely free market society would eventually demand) is to take it from others. However, without a unified government how could this hypothetical society fund an adequate police/military force to defend against such seizures of wealth?

 

The way I see it, the US Constitution provides the best example so far of a rule of law that strikes an effective balance granting the government enough power to protect the rights of all of it's citizens from outside interference . . . without trampling those rights with excessive governmental intrusion.

 

Anyways, it does raise some interesting points in a theoretical sense. Thanks for posting the links. (As a side note SOCAL, have you ever read Ayn Rand? I have a feeling you'd enjoy her. I'd recommend starting with the Fountainhead.)

 

Just started reading Atlas Shrugged!!

 

Also, you and Stigori bring up some common arguments against A/C, mostly pertaining to security, justice, and infrastructure, things we are forced to rely on the government for, today. The reality is the free market would take care of it much more fair and more efficient than the government could ever think of. Here's a few links that explains it quite clearly. Market For Liberty Privatization of Roads and Highways They are both pretty long so I'll try to find some articles that summarize both.

 

Of course you both are right about Lmtd Const. Gov't being the best government but since the concept of government is flawed at the root, it never brings about any type of freedom. Look at what "the" Constitution has done with our freedom since it was first introduced. Are we any more free than the people were the day it was signed into law, absolutely not!?! We are nothing more than indentured servants with the ability to quit our jobs.

 

Comparing A/C to Marxism is way off base. First of all, Marxism, Communism, and any other type socialism have "absolutely been proven not to work. Comparing something that has no contradictions to something that has been proven wrong absolutely is quite absurd. Wes Bertrand, the author of Complete Liberty discusses socialism here. Take a listen to Ch 1 at the beginning when he talks about the "timeless allure of Communism."

For someone arguing against someone looking over your shoulder for everything, the theories produced in those links just shift who is watching. I mean good God, a sticker on my car that would essentially keep track of every single street i went down, when i went down it, then charge me? Talk about 1984, just replace everytime 'government' is used and replace it with 'company'. I trust corporations less than the gov. A lot less. In our country we have some level of control of who runs things. Have you worked in or with any mega corps? I have, both in and with some of the largest in this country, and giving those men more power than they have now would be scary. And really the whole argument that A/C is making is a move from a world run by govs to one run by mega corps. Any idea that the common man gets some sort of massive gains is lunacy. Operations like Wal-mart would essentially become a small government, with their own 'security forces' to protect their interests.

 

And really, I call BS on the whole argument that government is at its root flawed. You simply are not going to put people together and not have them form some form of rudimentary government. Unless I missed one hell of a lot in history classes, no society in the history of the world has existed without a government.

 

:yeah

 

Good post strigori. You knocked that one out of the park.

 

How can you say that a "government", which is supposed to protect and promote the freedoms of individuals, is not flawed, when the only way that it can come into existence is through coercion, force and a loss of personal freedom. Does that contradiction not sound like a flaw to you? Sure, you could have voluntary collective societies but '"government" is not that. It isn't voluntary and it doesn't care if you disagree. It coerces people into paying taxes to support its very existence and then forces the subjects to abide by it's rules. What about the protection and promotion of liberty? Does government forget it's sole purpose once it's imposed? If that's not flawed I don't know what is.

 

The point is: Is government voluntary? Is government fair/just? Does it protect freedom? Does it promote personal responsiblity? Does it promote morality? Does it promote prosperity? Does government do any job that cannot be done by the free market? Does it even produce anything? If the answer is no, then what is the purpose of government?

 

(carlfense- your are right about it being a theoretical system, but unlike socialism, it's a logical theory based on history, praxeology/psychology and sound economics.)

Link to comment

I think anarcho-capitalism is useful in theory only. It's very similar in that way to Marxism. It's tempting to base opinions off of debates but success in debates seldom translates effectively to success in reality. Karl Marx could do a bang up job of trumpeting Marxism, but in reality it failed miserably.

 

A quick example of a problem with anarcho-capitalism is how is the society policed? I mean . . . you have this hypothetical society where everyone is motivated by personal ambitions. The most common form of personal ambition is probably the desire to accumulate wealth. The most efficient way of accumulating wealth (which a purely free market society would eventually demand) is to take it from others. However, without a unified government how could this hypothetical society fund an adequate police/military force to defend against such seizures of wealth?

 

The way I see it, the US Constitution provides the best example so far of a rule of law that strikes an effective balance granting the government enough power to protect the rights of all of it's citizens from outside interference . . . without trampling those rights with excessive governmental intrusion.

 

Anyways, it does raise some interesting points in a theoretical sense. Thanks for posting the links. (As a side note SOCAL, have you ever read Ayn Rand? I have a feeling you'd enjoy her. I'd recommend starting with the Fountainhead.)

 

Just started reading Atlas Shrugged!!

 

Also, you and Stigori bring up some common arguments against A/C, mostly pertaining to security, justice, and infrastructure, things we are forced to rely on the government for, today. The reality is the free market would take care of it much more fair and more efficient than the government could ever think of. Here's a few links that explains it quite clearly. Market For Liberty Privatization of Roads and Highways They are both pretty long so I'll try to find some articles that summarize both.

 

Of course you both are right about Lmtd Const. Gov't being the best government but since the concept of government is flawed at the root, it never brings about any type of freedom. Look at what "the" Constitution has done with our freedom since it was first introduced. Are we any more free than the people were the day it was signed into law, absolutely not!?! We are nothing more than indentured servants with the ability to quit our jobs.

 

Comparing A/C to Marxism is way off base. First of all, Marxism, Communism, and any other type socialism have "absolutely been proven not to work. Comparing something that has no contradictions to something that has been proven wrong absolutely is quite absurd. Wes Bertrand, the author of Complete Liberty discusses socialism here. Take a listen to Ch 1 at the beginning when he talks about the "timeless allure of Communism."

For someone arguing against someone looking over your shoulder for everything, the theories produced in those links just shift who is watching. I mean good God, a sticker on my car that would essentially keep track of every single street i went down, when i went down it, then charge me? Talk about 1984, just replace everytime 'government' is used and replace it with 'company'. I trust corporations less than the gov. A lot less. In our country we have some level of control of who runs things. Have you worked in or with any mega corps? I have, both in and with some of the largest in this country, and giving those men more power than they have now would be scary. And really the whole argument that A/C is making is a move from a world run by govs to one run by mega corps. Any idea that the common man gets some sort of massive gains is lunacy. Operations like Wal-mart would essentially become a small government, with their own 'security forces' to protect their interests.

 

And really, I call BS on the whole argument that government is at its root flawed. You simply are not going to put people together and not have them form some form of rudimentary government. Unless I missed one hell of a lot in history classes, no society in the history of the world has existed without a government.

 

:yeah

 

Good post strigori. You knocked that one out of the park.

 

How can you say that a "government", which is supposed to protect and promote the freedoms of individuals, is not flawed, when the only way that it can come into existence is through coercion, force and a loss of personal freedom. Does that contradiction not sound like a flaw to you? Sure, you could have voluntary collective societies but '"government" is not that. It isn't voluntary and it doesn't care if you disagree. It coerces people into paying taxes to support its very existence and then forces the subjects to abide by it's rules. What about the protection and promotion of liberty? Does government forget it's sole purpose once it's imposed? If that's not flawed I don't know what is.

 

The point is: Is government voluntary? Is government fair/just? Does it protect freedom? Does it promote personal responsiblity? Does it promote morality? Does it promote prosperity? Does government do any job that cannot be done by the free market? Does it even produce anything? If the answer is no, then what is the purpose of government?

 

(carlfense- your are right about it being a theoretical system, but unlike socialism, it's a logical theory based on history, praxeology/psychology and sound economics.)

There is no such thing as a 'voluntary collective' that is capable of working once progress past a handful of family groups. In order to maintain a civilized order in a society, there has to be some level of personal sacrifice for the good of the whole. "Personal freedom' is a loose term. If you ask ten people what that means, odds are you get ten answers. In order to maintain a civilization, there have to be some limits imposed on the 'personal freedoms' to maintain a functioning society. These limitations are what make the core of the set of laws a nation uses to develop a sense of security in the people. You simply can not have a functioning civilization if at any point someone can opt out of the laws because he feels like it. The whole theory you are promoting is so much based in an idealized vision of how people would behave without rule of law as to be pure fantasy. What actually happens when you remove laws is vastly different from what this theory promotes. Hell, our current economic mess is a good case point on what happens with one industry when rules and regulations are removed.

 

Your number one objection to government seems to be taxes, that word shows up more than anything else in your objections to a government. There is a reason why there is a phrase "'In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." No group of people can live together without a form of government, and no government can function without collecting some form of taxes. And the people who champion this unlimited free market theory, in nearly all cases, are motivated by greed. And yes, greed is bad. There is a difference between wanting to do well, and working hard for it, and greed. The guy who works hard to make a good living us good. The guy who lays off or fires hard working people, not out of necessity for the survival of the business, or from bad performance by the worker, but just to receive a larger bonus and put more money in his pocket is greed.

 

Is government voluntary? No, it cant be. Laws cant be voluntary, or you have chaos. People want and need order to feel safe.

 

Is government fair/just? You have to make a case by case judgment. North Korea? Nope. The US? Generally yes. But again, back to the definition of fair/just.

 

Does it protect freedom? Again, case by case basis. And you have to look at what the definition of 'freedom' is as well. There is more freedom in this country than in any other in the history of the world.

 

Does it promote morality? Define morality. Ours does by a number of standards. The core rules of law are there to protect people. But when you get into what the religious groups want legislated for their definition of 'morality' then a just government can not promote that definition of morality without becoming a theocracy.

 

Does government do any job that cannot be done by the free market? Yes. To start with, military and law enforcement. The idea that a business should be in control of either of those is sheer lunacy. Unless they are controlled by the gov, they will BECOME the gov, at gun point. Regulation of a great many industries is needed as well. Standardized currency is another thing. Without gov backed money, you are back to using only gold and silver, and weighing it to pay for things.

 

Does it even produce anything? A sense of security, safety and order. Can you buy and sell it, no. But that doesnt make it any less important.

Link to comment

SOCAL, you claim that the idea that government can protect freedom is illogical, and you also claim that only a lack of government can provide true freedom. However, a/c falls flat on it's face when confronted with the fact that many people are NOT rational actors.

 

Let's look at a simple example, say . . . theft. Anarcho capitalism is entirely based on the premise that people will attempt to accumulate wealth. However, what if people accumulate this wealth by taking it from others? In a society with a government, that person is condemned by society and punished accordingly. What about in a/c? People might avoid doing business with the thief, but that is hardly a deterrent to a person lured by such a lucrative activity. What does the thief care? He can just steal more. What response can a/c give to crime? And if a/c cannot protect us from criminals is this not less freedom than the protection afforded by a government? (remember we are talking theories here...so this is rather idealized.)

 

(Also, you say that government can only come into existence through coercion, force, and a loss of freedoms. I'm fairly sure that you live in a country that did not come into existence through coercion and a loss of freedoms; quite the opposite in fact. It did come about through force, but not force against it's citizens but against an outside tyrant.)

 

Again, let's keep this simple. What response can a/c give to the need for a criminal justice system and a military?

Link to comment

1. How can you say that a "government", which is supposed to protect and promote the freedoms of individuals, is not flawed, when the only way that it can come into existence is through coercion, force and a loss of personal freedom. 2. Does that contradiction not sound like a flaw to you? Sure, you could have voluntary collective societies but '"government" is not that. 3. It isn't voluntary and it doesn't care if you disagree. It coerces people into paying taxes to support its very existence and then forces the subjects to abide by it's rules. What about the protection and promotion of liberty? 4. Does government forget it's sole purpose once it's imposed? If that's not flawed I don't know what is.

 

The point is: Is government voluntary? Is government fair/just? Does it protect freedom? Does it promote personal responsiblity? Does it promote morality? Does it promote prosperity? Does government do any job that cannot be done by the free market? Does it even produce anything? If the answer is no, then what is the purpose of government?

 

5. (carlfense- your are right about it being a theoretical system, but unlike socialism, it's a logical theory based on history, praxeology/psychology and sound economics.)

 

1. Who said the sole purpose of government was to protect personal freedoms? Are you forgetting about national security and preserving domestic law and order?

 

2. No it does not. Many governments (unfortunately not most) are chosen by the people they govern. Your scary "coercion, force, and loss of personal freedom" phrase is empty. Provide some facts if you want to argue that.

 

3. Actually, it is voluntary in most places. It's voluntary in that if you don't like the rules of a certain place you have the option to move somewhere that has laws that you prefer. Also, it does care if you disagree, because you can change the government through democracy.

 

4. Again, the sole purpose of the government is NOT to protect personal freedom. That is one purpose, but it's balanced with the other purposes. See number 1.

 

5. That's a weak response. You are essentially saying "Yeah, Marxism (I wasn't talking about socialism) was a theoretical system that didn't work out. A/C on the other hand . . . is also a theoretical system, but this one WILL work out!" Read up on your Karl Marx. He makes a very logical and convincing argument about why his political system will work . . . it just turns out that he was completely wrong. I see A/C similarly. It's a decent idea in theory, but there is no way it would work in the real world.

Link to comment

I realize I have been arguing/debating/discussing many of my points from the "effect" standpoint and therefore can never be won because of the "what if" viewpoint. Read this articles, hopefully it'll answers many of the questions/arguments you may have about/against an anarcho-capitalism system.

 

The Argument From Morality

(you can also listen to it here, click the title The Argument From Morality in the player on the right and then click play.)

 

At the end of my article "Forget the Argument from Efficiency," I promised to write about the argument from morality – which is also, in my view, how we will win – and so here it is.

 

The argument from morality is the most powerful tool in any freedom-lovers arsenal – but also the most personally costly, since it draws lines in relationships that can never be erased. The argument from morality can cost you friends, family, community – and so approach it with courage, and understand that, once you decide to use it, your life will never again be the same.

 

Simply put, the argument from morality is the most powerful approach to changing society because all major social decisions are made on the basis of ethics. If a population believes that a certain program is moral – i.e. war, welfare, social security and so on – then they may grumble, but they will also roll up their sleeves, get to work and support it no matter what their personal cost. Men will go off to war, mothers will turn their kids over to nannies, people will surrender massive portions of their income and freedom with nary a protest – all in the name of what is good.

 

Redefining "the good" is very, very hard. Throughout their lives, people make thousands of decisions based on certain moral principles – and it if turns out that those principles were wrong, then they will be forced to admit that their whole lives have been spent in the service of falsehood, or corruption, or evil – and that is more than most people can stomach. In order to preserve their illusions of goodness, they will fight any close examination of moral principles almost to the death!

 

Morality is a fairly complex subject, of course, but it suffices here to say that morality must be based on a universal and logically-consistent set of principles – if it is just a matter of opinion, then no course of action can be "better" than any other course of action – any more than liking blue is "better" than liking red.

 

Most people believe that their decisions are based on a consistent set of moral principles, but those moral principles – as Socrates discovered millennia ago – crumble within minutes under any rigorous logical examination. I have found that the most effective approach is to be curious and persistent – but not be afraid to call a spade a spade.

 

To begin, there are really only three principles to remember when using the argument from morality:

 

1. Nothing exists except people.

 

There is no such thing as "the government," or a "country," or "society." All these terms for social aggregations are merely conceptual labels for individuals. "The government" never does anything – only people within the government act. Thus the "government" – since it is a concept – has no reality, ethical rights or moral standing. Moral rules apply to people, not concepts. If anyone argues with you about this, just ask them to show you their "family" without showing you any individual people. They’ll get the point.

 

2. What is good for one must be good for all.

 

Moral beliefs, in order to rise above mere opinion, must be applicable to everyone. There is no logically consistent way to say that Person A must do X, but Person Y must never do X. If an action is termed "good," then it must be good for all people. If I classify the concept "mammal" as "warm-blooded," then it must include all warm-blooded organisms – otherwise the concept is meaningless. The concept "good" must thus encompass the preferred behaviour for all people – not just "Orientals" or "Policemen" or "Americans." If it doesn’t, then it’s just an aesthetic or cultural penchant, like preferring hockey to football, and loses any power for universal prescription. Thus if it is "good" for a politician to use force to take money from you and give it to me, then it is also "good" for anyone else to do it.

 

3. What is bad for one must be bad for all.

 

Conversely, if it is wrong for me to go and steal money from someone else, then it is wrong for anyone to go and steal money from anyone else. If shooting a man who is not threatening you is evil in Atlanta, then it is also evil in Iraq. If being paid to go and shoot someone is wrong for a hit man, then it is also wrong for a soldier. If breaking into a peaceful citizen’s house, kidnapping him and holding him prisoner is wrong for you and me, than it is also wrong for the agents of the DEA.

 

Thus far, the argument from morality is very similar to the argument from consistency. The argument from morality comes in by stating that, if it is wrong or evil for me to rob Peter to pay Paul, then it is wrong or evil for anyone – including politicians – to do it. Thus a man who defends state welfare programs, for instance, can only do so on the grounds of personal preference, but he cannot claim that it is moral. In fact, he must admit that, on the basis of any universal principles, the welfare state is immoral, since if it is wrong for anyone to steal, then it is also wrong for everyone to steal – including politicians!

 

Using the above principles, here are some examples of arguments from morality:

 

Gun Control

 

If owning guns is bad, then it is bad for everyone. Guns, then, should be banned. Thus policemen and soldiers must give up their weapons. If policemen and soldiers need guns to protect themselves from dangerous criminals, why not ordinary citizens? Does that mean that possessing guns is sometimes good and sometimes bad? What is the difference? Remember – there is no such thing as "a policeman" or "a soldier" – those are mere concepts. Only people exist, and if gun ownership is a good idea for a soldier, but a bad idea for a private citizen, what happens to the soldier when he goes on leave? Does his nature change somehow, so that now he no longer has the right to own a gun? What about when a policeman changes out of his uniform? Does he change in some fundamental manner, and so loses the right to be armed? Is it only his uniform that has the right to carry a gun? What if someone else puts on that uniform? Of course, these questions cannot be answered, and so the whole argument for gun control becomes logically foolish. People will then turn to the argument from effect – i.e. general gun ownership leads to increased violence – which can also be easily countered. If gun ownership leads to increased violence, then surely the cops and soldiers will become increasingly violent if they alone have guns. Since dictatorships and war are worse than crime (because you can defend yourself against criminals, but not governments), then surely that is an argument against only allowing people who work for the state to carry guns. Thus a person can only argue against gun ownership from a subjective "me no like" perspective – which is a perfect time to explain how the stateless free market can grant him his wish!

 

War

 

The ability to wage war requires that politicians retain the right to steal from certain citizens to pay other citizens to murder people. In other words, George Bush must be able to steal from some Americans to pay other Americans to go murder Iraqis. Of course, if Bush is allowed to do this, why is only Bush allowed to do this? Why am I not allowed to do this? Why does the government make it illegal for anyone else (i.e. the Mafia) to do this? Why is it only good for people wearing certain clothing to be hired on as murderers? Also – if the government can steal from citizens to pay soldiers to shoot Iraqis because Iraqis are a threat, then what about the stealing that pays for it all? Isn’t the government itself the greatest threat to me, since it robs me at gunpoint to pay for a war which encourages terrorism? If it is moral to rob me to pay people to kill those who threaten me, aren’t I morally required to hire mercenaries to shoot those who come to rob me in the first place? If it’s bad for me to do that, why is it not bad for Bush to do that? What is the difference between me and Bush? Are we some kind of different species? If not, then why do we have such diametrically opposite moral commandments? (Here, people will often talk about our "voluntary transfer" of moral authority to the government, but then state force is not required, and so taxation can be eliminated without effect.)

 

Minimum Wage

 

If Person A can shoot Person B for not paying Person C enough, why can Person C not also do that? Why can I not do that, if I think my wages should be higher? Why do some people have the right to supplement their income with violence and others do not?

 

Also, what exactly is the moral difference between $5 and $5.15 per hour? Why is one an evil to be punished and the other not? Does the extra fifteen cents turn the first five dollars from an evil into a good? Does it change the nature of the first five dollars somehow? Also, if it is moral to use violence to increase one’s income, can people on welfare shoot government officials if they want more money? What about people on social security? If not, why not?

 

Government Parks

 

If one person (say, Bill Clinton), can draw on a map and transfer the ownership of the property he outlines in perpetuity, why only Clinton? Why can’t I do that? If Clinton can pay state troopers to shoot those who trespass on property he has never visited, can anyone do that?

 

Drugs

 

The war on drugs is based on the principle that Bob can decide what Sally may do to her own body in the privacy of her own home. Why only Bob then? Why cannot Sally also decide what Bob may do in the privacy of his own home? And are drugs illegal because they are always bad? But they are not always bad – no more than alcohol. Ever listen to Sergeant Pepper's? What about Pink Floyd? Bohemian Rhapsody? Chet Baker? Ray Charles? Beautiful stuff. All composed on hard drugs. Is it the self-destructive excess that is bad? But it is not the excess that is bad, but even occasional recreational use. Then that must mean that all behaviour that can lead to self-destructive excess must be banned. Working can lead to workaholism. Going to the gym can lead to compulsive exercise. Desserts can lead to obesity. Credit cards can lead to excessive debt. All these things must then be banned – which leads to a logical contradiction. If all activities which can lead to abusive excesses must be banned, then what about the government itself? Is it not an abusive excess to have a government with the terrible power to monitor and punish just about every aspect of citizens’ lives? And finally, what about the budget of the DEA itself? Hundreds of billions of dollars have been wasted in the war on drugs, just to raise profits for criminals and government agencies and chain millions of people in the drug gulags – is that not a textbook example of "abusive excess?" What about government deficits and debts in general? What about the government’s excellent adventures in foreign policy? Its habit of arming and funding foreign dictators? Training and supporting Bin Laden? Giving aid and military helicopters to Saddam Hussein? Invading Iraq? Are they not the greatest and most egregious examples of an excess of self-destructive behaviour? Aren’t the inevitable brutalities of state power – which truly harm the innocent – far more destructive than smoking a joint? If not, why not?

 

The State

 

Certain people calling themselves "the state" claim the moral right to use force against other people – a moral right, they claim, that is based on elections. Very well – all we have to do is ask which moral principle justifies this rather startling right. The answer we will get is: when the majority of people choose a leader, then everyone has to submit to that leader. Excellent! Then we must ask if senators and congressmen ever defy their party leader. If they do, then aren’t they acting immorally? Their party has chosen a leader – don’t they then have to obey that person? If they don’t, then why do we? Also, if the principle is that the majority can impose the leader’s decisions on the minority, why is that only the case for the government? What about women, who outnumber men? What about employees, who outnumber managers? And last but not least, what about voters, who outnumber politicians? If the majority should forcibly impose its will on the minority, shouldn’t we all have the ability to throw politicians in jail if they don’t do what we want? What if atheists outnumber Christians in a certain town? Can they ban churches? Can Mormon wives "outvote" their husbands? Students in universities outnumber professors – can they then threaten jail for bad marks? Patients outnumber doctors, prisoners outnumber jailers – the list goes on and on. If the moral theory of "majority rule" is valid, then it must be valid for all situations. If not, then it is a pure evil, since it supports the use of all the ghastly horrors of the state – theft, kidnapping, imprisonment – and sometimes, as we all know, torture and execution. Thus the moral theory which justifies and demands the exercise of such terrible power better be pretty damn airtight – and as you can see, it is riddled with nonsense.

 

When you present the above contradictions, if your listener cannot resolve them – and trust me, he won’t be able to – then he has to admit that, until they are resolved, he has no moral basis for his beliefs. He can still hold his beliefs, of course, but he cannot claim that they represent any universal principles – they’re just little personal preferences – like if he said that he liked muffins more then doughnuts. He has no right to impose such personal preferences on others – and certainly no right to champion them as state policy. Ask him if he will refrain from advocating his preferences until he solves the problem of universal application. If he says yes, then ask him if he will also oppose such state policies until he solves the problem. If yes, congratulations! Baptize him an anarchist and send him out to spread the word! If not, then tell him that if he continues to advocate what he knows to be false – or at best questionable – then he is a hypocrite.

 

I know, it doesn’t sound very nice, but really – we are facing people advocating the total power of the state – is sparing the feelings of those arming our enemies to be our main concern? The ideal of freedom deserves defenders made of slightly sterner stuff.

 

I’m sure the basis for the argument from morality is fairly clear now – and so now, with some practice in the Socratic method of "blank slate" premise-questioning, you are poised to become an expert in the destruction of false morality.

 

A word of caution, however. As Socrates himself found, the decision to deploy the argument from morality should not be taken lightly. Asking fundamental moral questions makes many people become frightened, scornful or outright hostile. It is though, in my view, the only way that we can win the fight for freedom. Since society makes all of its fundamental decisions based on moral premises, our only chance for success is to undermine and change those moral premises – which requires the skillful, persistent and consistent application of the argument from morality. For too long we have been on the defensive, crying our truths from lonely peaks – and all too often, only to each other. It is time that we took the offensive, and began to cross-examine those who are so sure of their right to use violence to achieve their ends. It will not be easy – and here I speak from personal experience – but it is essential. It is right and good to ask such questions – and, if you decide that you are brave and strong enough to start using the argument from morality, you will have already joined that tiny group of honest thinkers that have forever saved mankind.

Link to comment

Another must read!! This is the one that blew me away, chew on this one for a while.

 

Proving Libertarian Morality

 

One of the central challenges faced by libertarians is the need to prove that libertarian moral theory is universally correct, while statist and collectivistic moral theories are incorrect. Until moral rules can be subjected to the same rigour and logic as any other propositions, we will forever be stymied by subjectivism, political prejudices and the argument from effect.

 

Why is this approach so important? Why bother with the grueling task of building a logical framework for the examination of moral rules – and the even more grueling task of communicating that framework to others? Well, as I have argued in previous articles, the freedom movement has made remarkably little progress throughout history. Von Mises wrote seminal works disproving the economic efficiency of socialism and communism in the 1920s – now, eighty years later, Western societies are still sliding into the predicted morass of ever-expanding state power, ever-increasing public debts and declining economies. Although free market economic theories have made some progress in academia (and even the popular media!) they have done nothing to even slow down – let alone reverse – the constant expansion of state power.

 

In my view, the reason for this is simple: libertarians have never won the argument from morality. These days, none of our opponents argue that the government is more efficient than the free market, or that communism will set us free, or that private property is theft. All the old socialistic shibboleths have been laid to rest – and yet still people support government power, because they believe that government power is moral. Most people believe that the government takes care of the poor, old and sick, protects us from enemies both corporate and militaristic, educates the young, builds us roads, blah blah blah – we’ve all heard the same nonsense since the dawn of time. All we say in response is that the government is inefficient at doing these things, and that the free market would be better – none of which touches the central rationale of state power, which is that people believe that it is good.

 

Our enemies understand the power of the argument from morality far, far better than we do. They constantly harp on the virtue of state power, starting in kindergarten with environmentalism, ‘friendly cops’ and the need for ‘childproofing.’ The world is dangerous, children hear, and capitalists want to kill you with smog, but your friendly government is always eager to serve, help and protect. Children first experience state power as firm, kindly and friendly teachers – so how could they see and appreciate the violence that underpins the government?

 

How can we oppose this? How can we best work to undo the endless propaganda of pro-state school, media and prejudice?

 

By learning from history, that’s how. To win a battle, one must first ask: how were similar battles won in the past?

 

The closest historical analogy to our current situation occurred in the 15th and 16th centuries, during the rise of the scientific method. The early pioneers who advocated a rational and empirical approach to knowledge faced all the same prejudices that we face today – all the same irrationality, entrenched power of church and state, mystical and subjective ‘absolutes’ and early educational barriers. Those who advocated the primacy of rationality and empirical observation over mystical ‘insights’ and Biblical fundamentalism faced the determined opposition of those wielding both cross and sword. Many were tortured to death as heretics for their intellectual honesty – we face far less risk, and so should be far braver in advocating what is true over what is believed.

 

In order to attack the false morality of state power, we must start from the beginning, just as the first scientists did. Francis Bacon did not argue that the scientific method was more ‘efficient’ than prayer, Bible texts or starvation-induced ‘visions.’ He simply said that if we want to understand nature, we must observe nature and theorize logically – and that there is no other route to knowledge.

 

We must take the same approach with defining and communicating morality. We must begin using the power and legitimacy of the scientific method to prove the existence and universality of moral laws. We must start from the beginning, build logically and reject any irrational or non-empirical substitutes for the truth.

 

What does this look like in practice? All we have to do is establish the following axioms:

 

Morality exists.

Moral rules must be consistent for all mankind.

The more consistent a moral theory is, the more valid it is.

Libertarianism is the most consistent moral theory.

Therefore, libertarianism is the most valid moral theory!

Sound like a tall order? But give me three thousand or so words, and we can at least take a swing at the first three.

 

To start from the very beginning… do moral rules – or consistently preferred human behaviour – exist at all?

 

There are only two possibilities when it comes to moral rules, just as there are in any logical science. Either moral rules exist, or they do not. (In physics, the question is: either physical rules exist, or they do not.)

 

If moral rules do exist, where do they exist? Certainly not in material reality, which does not contain or obey a single moral rule. Moral rules are different from the rules of physics, just as the scientific method is different from gravity. Matter innately obeys the rule of gravity or the second law of thermodynamics, but ‘thou shalt not kill’ is nowhere inscribed in the nature of things. Physical laws describe the behaviour of matter, but do not contain a single prescription. Science says that matter behaves in a certain manner – never that it should behave in a certain manner. A theory of gravity proves that if you push a man off a cliff, he will fall. It will not tell you whether you should push him or not.

 

Thus it cannot be said that moral rules exist in material reality, and neither are they automatically obeyed like the laws of physics – which does not mean that moral laws are false or irrelevant. The scientific method does not exist in reality either – and is also optional – but it is neither false nor irrelevant.

 

Subjecting moral theories to the scientific method will provide the same benefits that subjecting physical theories to the scientific method did. Before the rise of the scientific method, the behaviour of matter resulted from the subjective whim of gods and devils – just as morality is now. Volcanoes erupted because the mountain-god was angry; good harvests resulted from human sacrifice. No absolute physical laws which limited the will of the gods were believed to exist – and so science could never develop. Those who profited from defining physical reality as subjective – mostly priests and kings – fought the subjugation of physical theories to the scientific method, just as those who profit from defining moral reality as subjective – mostly politicians and soldiers – fight the subjugation of moral theories to the scientific method.

 

The rise of scientific truth resulted from the expansion of the scientific method, which was a methodology for separating accurate from inaccurate theories by subjecting them to two central tests: logical consistency and empirical observation – and by always subjugating logical consistency to empirical observation. If I propose a perfectly consistent and logical theory which says that a rock will float up when thrown off a cliff, any empirical test proves my theory incorrect, since observation always trumps theory.

 

A further aspect of the scientific method is the belief that, since matter is composed of combinations of atoms with common, stable and predictable properties, the behaviour of matter must also be common, stable and predictable. Thus experiments must be reproducible in different locations and time. I cannot say that my ‘rock floating’ theory is correct for just one particular rock, or on the day I first tested it, or at a single location. My theories must describe the behaviour of matter, which is universal, common, stable and predictable.

 

Finally, there is a generally-accepted rule – sometimes called Occam’s Razor – which states that, of any two explanations, the simpler is probably the more accurate. Prior to the Copernican revolution, when Earth was considered the center of the universe, the retrograde motion of Mars when Earth passed it in orbit around the sun caused enormous problems to the Ptolemaic system of astronomical calculations. ‘Circles within circles’ multiplied enormously, which were all cleared away by simply placing the sun at the center of the solar system.

 

Thus any valid scientific theory must be A. universal, B. logical, C. empirically verifiable, D. reproducible and E. as simple as possible.

 

Now the methodology for judging and proving a moral theory is exactly the same as the methodology for judging and proving any other scientific theory.

 

The first question regarding moral theories is: what are they? Simply put, morals are a set of rules claiming to accurately and consistently identify preferred human behaviours, just as physics is a set of rules claiming to accurately and consistently identify the behaviour of matter.

 

The second question to be asked is: is there any such thing as ‘preferred behaviour’ at all? If there is, we can begin to explore what such behaviour might be. If not, then our examination must stop here – just as the examination of ‘ether’ ceased after Einstein proved that the speed of light was constant.

 

The proposition that there is no such thing as preferred behaviour contains an insurmountable number of logical and empirical problems. ‘Preferred behaviour’ must exist, for five main reasons. The first is logical: if I argue against the proposition that preferred behaviour exists, I have already shown my preference for truth over falsehood – as well as a preference for correcting those who speak falsely. Saying that there is no such as thing as preferred behaviour is like shouting in someone’s ear that sound does not exist – it is innately self-contradictory. In other words, if there is no preferred behaviour, then one should oppose anyone who claims that there is preferred behaviour. However, if one ‘should’ do something, then one has just created preferred behaviour. Thus preferred behaviour – or moral rules – must exist.

 

Syllogistically, this is:

 

The proposition is: preferred behaviour must exist.

Anyone who argues against the existence of preferred behaviour is demonstrating preferred behaviour.

Therefore no argument against the existence of preferred behaviour can be valid.

How else do we know that moral rules exist? Well, all matter is subject to physical rules – and everything that is organic is in addition subject to certain requirements, and so, if it is alive, has followed preferred behaviours. Everything that lives, for instance, needs fuel and oxygen in order to stay alive – even plants strain for sunlight. Any living mind, of course, is an organic part of the physical world, and so must be subject to both physical laws and has followed preferred behaviours – to argue otherwise would require proof that consciousness is not composed of matter, and is not organic – an impossibility, since it has mass, energy, and life. Arguing that consciousness is subjected to neither physical rules or preferential choices would be like arguing that human beings are not subject to gravity and can flourish without eating. Thus it is impossible that anyone can argue against preferred behaviour, since if he is alive to argue, he has followed preferred behaviours such as breathing, eating and drinking.

 

Or:

 

All living organisms require preferred behaviour to live.

Man is a living organism.

Therefore all living men are alive due to the existence and practice of preferred behaviour.

Therefore any argument against preferred behaviour requires the existence of preferred behaviour.

Therefore no argument against the existence of preferred behaviour can be valid.

Since the scientific method requires empirical corroboration, we must also look to reality to confirm our hypothesis – and here the existence of preferred behaviours is fully supported. Almost every human being believes in moral rules of some kind. There is much disagreement about what constitutes moral rules, but everyone is certain that moral rules are valid – just as scientific theories disagree, but all scientists accept the validity of the scientific method itself. Disproving something that everyone believes in is almost impossible. One can argue that the Earth is round and not flat – which is analogous to changing the definition of morality – but one cannot argue that the earth does not exist at all – which is like arguing that there is no such thing as preferred behaviour.

 

Or:

 

For a scientific theory to be valid, it must be supported through empirical observation.

If preferred behaviour exists, then mankind should believe in preferred behaviour.

Almost all men believe in preferred behaviour.

Therefore empirical evidence exists to support the existence of preferred behaviour – and the existence of such evidence opposes the proposition that preferred behaviour does not exist.

The fourth argument for the existence of preferred behaviour is also empirical. Since human beings have an almost-infinite number of choices to make in life, to say that there are no principles of preferred behaviour would be to say that all choices are equal. However, all choices are not equal, either logically or through empirical observation. To take one example, if food is available, almost all human beings eat every day. If not themselves subjected to violence, human beings are generally not violent. Almost all parents choose to feed and shelter their children. There are many examples of common choices among humankind, which indicate that preferential behaviour abounds and is part of human nature – and requires that any theory claiming otherwise must explain away this teeming evidence.

 

Or:

 

Choices are almost infinite.

Most human beings make very similar choices.

Therefore not all choices can be equal.

Therefore preferred choices must exist.

The fifth argument for the existence of preferred behaviour is biological. Since all organic life requires preferential behaviour, we can assume that those organisms which make the most successful choices are the ones most often selected for survival. Since man is the most successful species, and man’s most distinctive organ is his mind, it must be man’s mind that has aided the most in making successful choices. The mind itself, then, has been selected as successful by its very ability to make successful choices. Since the human mind only exists as a result of choosing preferred behaviour, preferred behaviours must exist.

 

Or:

 

Organisms succeed by acting upon preferred behaviour.

Man is the most successful organism.

Therefore man must have acted most successfully on the basis of preferred behaviour.

Man’s mind is his most distinctive organ.

Therefore man’s mind must have acted most successfully on the basis of preferred behaviour.

Therefore preferred behaviour must exist.

Due to the above problems, any argument against the existence of preferred behaviour can be dismissed as incorrect.

 

Since we have proved the existence of preferred behaviour, the question of morality now shifts. Since preferred behaviour does exist, what theories can quantify, classify, explain and predict it?

 

First of all, we must remember that morality is optional. As we all know, every man is subject to gravity and requires food to live, but no man has to act morally. If I steal or kill, no thunderbolt from the sky strikes me down. Moral rules, like the scientific method or biological classifications, are merely ways of organizing the facts and principles of what exists.

 

The fact that compliance with moral rules is optional has confused many thinkers into believing that because morality is optional, it is subjective. Nothing could be further from the truth! Living organisms are part of material reality, and material reality is rational and objective. Applying moral theories is optional, but that does not mean that moral theories are subjective. The scientific method is optional, but it is not subjective. Applying biological classifications is optional, but biology is not subjective. Choices are optional; consequences are not. I can choose not to eat, but I cannot choose to live without eating. I can choose to behead someone, but I cannot choose whether or not they can live without a head. Morality is thus optional, but the effects of moral choices are measurable and objective. There is no subjectivity involved whatsoever.

 

Now, since morality exists, the next question is: to what degree or extent does morality exist? As mentioned above, the first test of any scientific theory is universality. Just as a theory of physics must apply to all matter, a moral theory which claims to describe the preferred actions of mankind must apply to all mankind. No moral theory can be valid if it argues that a certain action is right in Syria, but wrong in San Francisco. It cannot say that Person A must do X, but Person B must never do X. It cannot say that what was wrong yesterday is right today – or vice versa. If it does, it is false and must be refined or discarded.

 

To be valid, any moral theory must also pass the criteria of logical consistency. Since the behaviour of matter is logical, consistent and predictable, all theories involving matter – either organic or inorganic – must be also be logical, consistent and predictable. The theory of relativity cannot argue that the speed of light is both constant and not constant at the same time, or that it is 186,000 miles per second, five fathoms in depth and also green in colour!

 

However, since moral theories apply to mankind, and mankind is organic, the degree of consistency required for moral theories is less than that required for inorganic theories. All rocks, for instance, must fall down, but not all horses have to be born with only one head. Biology includes three forms of ‘randomness,’ which are environment, genetic mutation and free will. For example, poodles are generally friendly, but if beaten for years, will likely become aggressive. Horses are defined as having only one head, but occasionally, a two-headed mutant is born. Similarly, human beings generally prefer eating to starving – except anorexics. These exceptions do not bring down the entire science of biology. Thus, since moral theories describe mankind, they cannot be subjected to exactly the same requirements for consistency as theories describing inorganic matter.

 

The final test that any scientific moral theory must pass is the criteria of empirical observation. Thus for instance, a moral theory must explain the universal prevalence of moral beliefs among mankind, as well as the results of human moral ‘experiments’ such as fascism, communism, socialism or capitalism. It must also explain some basic facts about human society, such as the fact that state power always increases, or that propaganda tends to increase as state power increases. If it fails to explain the past, understand the present and predict the future, then it fails.

 

How does all this look in practice? Let’s look at how the requirement for universality affects moral theories.

 

If I say that gravity affects matter, it must affect all matter. If even one speck of matter proves resistant to gravity, my theory is in trouble. If I propose a moral theory which argues that people should not murder, it must be applicable to all people. If certain people (such as soldiers) are exempt from that rule, then I have to either prove that soldiers are not people, or accept that my moral theory is false. There is no other possibility. On the other hand, if I propose a moral theory which argues that all people should murder, then I have saved certain soldiers, but condemned to evil all those not currently murdering someone (including those being murdered!) – which is surely incorrect.

 

If, to save the virtue of soldiers, I alter my theory to argue that it is moral for people to murder if someone else tells them to (a political leader, say), then I must deal with the problem of universality. If Politician A can order a soldier to murder an Iraqi, then the Iraqi must also be able to order the soldier to murder Politician A, and the soldier can also order Politician A to murder the Iraqi. This problem cannot be solved, and so my theory is proven invalid.

 

I also cannot logically argue that is wrong for some people to murder, but right for other people to murder. Since all human beings share common physical properties and requirements, having one rule for one person and the opposite rule for another is impossible – it is like proposing a physics theory that says that some rocks fall down, while others fall up. Not only is it illogical, it contradicts the observable facts of reality, which is that human beings as a species share common characteristics, and so cannot be subjected to opposing rules. Biologists have no problems classifying certain organisms as human because they share common and easily-identifiable characteristics – it is only moralists who seem to have this difficulty.

 

Furthermore, if my moral theory ‘proves’ that the same man should not murder one day, but should murder the next day (say, when he steps out into the Iraqi desert), then my position is even more ludicrous. That would equivalent to arguing that one day a rock falls downward, and the next day it falls upward! To call this any kind of consistent theory is to make madness sanity.

 

Since scientific theories require logical consistency, a moral theory cannot be valid if it is both true and false at the same time. A moral theory which approves of stealing, for instance, faces an insurmountable logical problem. No moral theory should, if it is universally applied, directly eliminate behaviour it defines as moral while simultaneously creating behaviour it defines as immoral. If everyone should steal, then no one will steal – which means that the moral theory can never be practiced. And why will no one steal? Well, because a man will only steal if he can keep the property he is stealing. He’s not going to bother stealing your wallet if someone else is going to immediately steal that wallet from him. Any moral theory proposing that ‘stealing is good’ is also automatically invalid because it posits that property rights are both valid and invalid at the same time, and so fails the test of logical consistency. If I steal from you, I am saying that your property rights are invalid. However, I want to keep what I am stealing – and therefore I am saying that my property rights are valid. But property rights cannot be both valid and invalid at the same time! Similarly, any moral theory which advocates rape faces a similar contradiction. Rape can never be moral, since any principle which approves it automatically contradicts itself. If rape is justified on the principle that ‘taking pleasure is always good,’ then such a principle immediately fails the test of logical consistency, since the rapist may be ‘taking pleasure,’ but his victim certainly is not. (The same goes, of course, for murder and assault.)

 

Thus subjecting moral theories to the scientific method produces results which conform to rationality, empirical observations and plain common sense. Murder, theft, arson, rape and assault are all proven immoral. (Universal and positive moral rules can also be proven – i.e. the universal validity of property rights and non-violence – but we shall talk about that another time!)

 

To aid in swallowing this rather large conceptual pill, here is a table which helps equate theories of physics and biology with scientific theories of preferred (or moral) behaviour:

 

 

(see link for table)

 

In conclusion, it is safe to say that A. moral rules exist, and B. moral theories must be subjected to the scientific method, just as theories of physics and biology. Furthermore, any moral theory based on non-universal or self-contradictory principles is demonstrably false.

 

If libertarianism is to succeed, we must examine all moral theories and commandments in this light – otherwise we relinquish moral truth to our enemies, which will only ensure our continued failure.

 

To further reinforce the value of this point, we shall do just this in our next conversation: the application of the scientific method to the Ten Commandments, to see which can be considered valid.

Link to comment

I read several of them. They are only obliquely relevant to the questions posed. Do you have any real answers to the questions I asked? Or do you just have more articles about libertarianism? (which is odd because I thought we were talking about A/C) Anyways. I still think that A/C is interesting in theory but not practical or possible. Either way I guess it's interesting.

Link to comment

Good thing you both wish to berate or ignorantly disprove a philosophy you know absolutely nothing about.

 

 

Wow!!! Did socal actually make a short post?

 

Seriously, speak for yourself, and make the point. I can't see anarcy as a reasonable answer and you aren't going to move me some vast manifesto.

Link to comment

All those prove is that you can convince someone of nearly anything if you ramble long enough and use enough circular logic. Comparing physics to morals is quite possibly the most asinine thing I have ever seen.

 

You mean like liberals and their claim of global warming? :dumdum

 

(Sorry I know that's off topic but I just couldn't resist.)

Link to comment

All those prove is that you can convince someone of nearly anything if you ramble long enough and use enough circular logic. Comparing physics to morals is quite possibly the most asinine thing I have ever seen.

 

You mean like liberals and their claim of global warming? :dumdum

 

(Sorry I know that's off topic but I just couldn't resist.)

claim? liberals? are you kidding?

 

since when is global warming a political agenda, for or against? it's scientifically proven.

 

you just don't want to stop polluting.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...