Fine article by Ryan Faulk on free market research:
Dirt poor Africans hijacked an American merchant vessel as it was attempting to deliver a shipment of food to even poorer Africans. The attempt failed, but the attackers managed to kidnap the ship’s captain and set off in a lifeboat, which soon ran out of fuel. A five-day standoff ensued, and the drama ended with one pirate surrendering and U.S. Navy snipers taking down the other three. Those were the only casualties, and the unharmed captain was taken aboard the U.S.S. Bainbridge.
I’m glad it’s over, and I’m glad the captain and his fellows weathered the ordeal safely. However, what has been painfully obvious to me since the whole thing began is how simple prevention should have been. Three words:
Arm the crew.
Imagine a handful of pirates scaling the sides of a ship manned by sailors with automatic weapons. It’s not a pretty sight that I have in mind, at least not if you’re opposed to the idea of thieves and kidnappers turned into chum. As usual, this solution isn’t even on the radar of the various governments who have repeatedly proven inept (surprise!) at putting a stop to this shit.
“Armed citizens??? Why, the inhumanity!”
Arrrrgh, matey, let’s just continue to roll the dice with the mental stability of these aggressors. Yeah. There’s a great idea.
I recently received a private message through YouTube from a user called Individualism101, who purports to be an “Anarcho-capitalist and Agorist working my ass off to save money, to raise capital, to start ventures.” The message contained the bizarre claim that Murray Rothbard’s property ethic (the “homesteading principle”) rests upon the long-disproved labor theory of value. This is a gross misrepresentation of Rothbard’s position, because he never claimed that labor added any intrinsic value to anything (he subscribed to the Austrian school, after all), but labor is rather a mere means of appropriation. Value is always subjective.
I informed Individualism101 of this and rather politely told him I would think about making a video on the matter if I came to any other startling revelations about his idea. That was essentially the end of civil discourse, and I’ll let portions of the “discussion” speak for themselves from here on (Individualism101 in red, me in green).
It seems to me that the concept of transforming the land is simply arbitrary, and can be heavily abused. If I wanted to own the entire moon I could simply let loose some robots up there to put a flashing beacon every 100 meters, thus transforming the entire moon and appropriating it to myself. I don’t think anyone would really consider this to be a valid title of property. By the same argument I could release a bacteria into the atmosphere of mars thus transforming it; this would not constitute valid property title either.
Again, I’m not sure you are accurately representing Rothbard. If you don’t think robots and bacteria create valid property titles, that’s fine — it’s a dubious prospect at best. But I don’t recall any argument leveled by Rothbard or any other Austrian or Chicago school — or ANY Lockean-friendly school — economist that even hints at such. Rothbard would probably argue that releasing bacteria in one region and letting nature take its course doesn’t constitute labor on your part. On the same token, nor does the “currently in use” theory of mutualism purport that someone should be able to seize your farm simply because the crops fail one season. That is also a gross misrepresentation of the position. If I’m in error, please point me to some sources supporting your claims, but as it stands I have no idea from whence you’ve derived these conclusions.
Rather than acknowledging that his position has no relation to Rothbardian or mutualist property theory, he then repeats his argument:
If I am an entrepreneur who hires labour to bulldoze a site and erect a factory it is not my labour, but I am still said to be the owner, because it was my capital which paid the workers and hired the capital equipment.
>
If you replace workers with robots, does the story change? If you replace robots with biological robots, such as genetically engineered bacteria, does the story change?
>
If I invest the capital to develop a bacteria to terraform mars, and succeed, am I now in ownership of the atmosphere of mars?
>
Surely you concede that the criteria of basic transformation is too open ended to constitute a valid principle of first ownership — or is it? And from the mutualist standpoint a criteria of current use is again too open ended.
Neither system is too “open ended” if you actually understand what they entail and do not entail. Rothbard specifically argued against atmosphere ownership, which you apparently are not even aware of. As for dispatching your biological or mechanical minions, have at it, but don’t expect anyone to recognize your ownership simply because you’ve painted every other tree or released a microbe into the air. What you describe Rothbard would label feudalism (and Kevin Carson more accurately labels “bastard feudalism), which he (Rothbard) also opposed vociferously.
>
Carson outlines the modern Mutualist position in “Mutualist Political Economy,” and once again I have never gleaned anything even approaching what you have apparently concluded from his writings. Have you read any of his material at all, for that matter?
>
Directly related, there is quite a discussion in a Stephan Kinsella blog post at mises.org on this very issue — “absentee landlordship” specifically in Carson’s context — and it includes some very interesting points and counter-points. If you’re looking to put mutualist property theory through the ringer, that’s the place to start rather than making up bizarre ideas that don’t even reflect what the theory actually is, like “someone can steal my farm if the crops fail.” That’s erecting a straw-man and attacking it with a machine-gun, and I’m, frankly, bewildered that you even think you’re attacking valid ideas here. To make a comparison, what you’ve done is like someone analyzing the libertarian opposition to the welfare state by attacking libertarians for wanting to starve poor children. It simply doesn’t make sense.
Again, unable to make a salient point, he repeats his argument (noticing a pattern yet?):
I’m not deliberately misrepresenting Rothbard or Carson (although, as you point out, I have not read the latter). I am aware Rothbard argued against atmosphere ownership but I am yet to see any principle by which original ownership can be strictly defined, as to leave no doubt in the minds of onlookers.
>
Further, I was not attempting to construct a strawman with respect to mutualist property title; I was just arguing that it would lead to injustice if, again, no strict definition of current ownership were established. Perhaps there exists such a strict definition, if so I am ignorant of it. Please reply with a link to it if you know of one.
>
As Rothbard himself points out, feudalism would essentially be equivalent to a libertarian society if the lords respected the negative liberty of their renters and if the land was homesteaded through valid original ownership by the lords. And this is really what confuses and irritates me.
>
Because we now have technology to amplify the power we (as individuals) wield, a criteria based on homesteading, or first transformation, or first use, becomes little harder to satisfy than planting a flag and just declaring the land yours…
If you can’t see this, then what is your suggestion? If you think labor transformation or own-through-use concepts are arbitrary, open-ended or whatever, what would you consider NOT open-ended and arbitrary? Something more along the lines of Max Stirner?
>
- “Might is a fine thing, and useful for many purposes; for ‘one goes further with a handful of might than with a bagful of right’”
>
- “Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property.”
>
- “What I have in my power, that is my own. So long as I assert myself as holder, I am the proprietor of the thing.”
>
That constitutes a clearly delineated account of property yet in my estimation is no more or less arbitrary than declaring property a result of labor or use. It’s also incredibly open-ended, because someone can just, to borrow your example, conquer an entire planet. Seriously, I don’t know what you’re looking for. Everything, in the end, is arbitrary, even if you write detailed laws and enforce them universally and fairly. Even the libertarian non-aggression axiom is ARBITRARY. I consider it ESSENTIAL, mind you, in order for any flavor of my political philosophy to be viable, but it is no less arbitrary.
Cue the scene where I am accused of being negative, defensive, rude, etc….
“Wow you give me a pretty negative vibe, as though I am an enemy of liberty or something”
“…the original transformation criteria of original ownership becomes no harder to satisfy than parking your space-yaught in orbit and claiming mars for your own.”
And as I have explained to you repeatedly, this does not satisfy any criteria of original ownership that I’m familiar with. If I need to say it in another language, let me know and I’ll try to accommodate.
“…but the burden of proof isn’t on me.”
I would say that it is, because you have yet to demonstrate that you’re even accurately representing the ideas you’re attempting to attack.
“There is no need to be rude.”
Don’t confuse rude with honest. But if you’re really getting a “negative vibe,” maybe you should just go talk to someone who agrees with you.
Regrettably, I cannot quote directly from his last message, because it has mysteriously vanished from my inbox. I don’t know if I deleted it accidentally or if YouTube is behaving oddly again, as it often does. At any rate, I’ll summarize his final points from memory.
- I am intellectually dishonest for calling him wrong without explaining why he is wrong.
- I am an ass.
- He hopes I will never be a leader within the libertarian movement.
- I can go fuck myself.
I attempted to respond to him one last time, but apparently he has blocked me from communicating with him (which is why his crap is now posted here). Had I been addressing him with unmitigated belligerence, I suppose that’s a fair reaction, but in light of his ideas having no merit whatsoever, he strikes me as petty, childish, and not fundamentally different from a religious zealot who simply cannot face being wrong. In fact, in the reply I typed before realizing I was blocked, I told him I could not tell any difference between his behavior and that of a creationist who insists I believe the “universe came from nothing” and “humans evolved from monkeys,” no matter what I tell him to the contrary. It’s a wonder my patience lasted as long as it did.
Anyway, addressing his final bullets:
- I did explain why he was wrong. His initial premise was incorrect, because Rothbard’s property theory relies on labor as a means of appropriation, not a means of conferring value, as value is subjective. Also, in terms of claiming moons and planets, I suggested that would fall under what Rothbard terms “feudalism,” which he fervently opposed. Individualism101 even provided a possible answer to himself, whereby even if we accept the flawed interpretation of homesteading, a “landlord” can either not violate libertarian principles when dealing with tenants or be willing to sell his land freehold to new residents. At any rate, the “whys” regarding my opposition to Individualism101’s claims were clearly expressed, whether he would acknowledge them or not.
- I never claimed I wasn’t an ass, though I think my discourse in this matter was largely civil until it reached “creation vs. evolution” status.
- Don’t worry, as I have no aspirations to lead anyone. I’m asocial and hate crowds. That said, I hope anyone who does fancy himself a leader has a much clearer understanding of libertarian principles than one Individualism101.
- He concluded his message by telling me to go fuck myself. Need I say more?
I think we’re done here.
An excerpt from a recent AP article about the Latter Day Saints polygamy situation reads as follows:
An expert in children in cults testified Friday that while the teen girls believed they were marrying out of free choice, it’s a choice based on lessons they’ve had from birth.
“Obedience is a very important element of their belief system,” said psychiatrist Bruce Perry, who interviewed three girls seized in the April 3 raid. “Compliance is being godly, it’s part of their honoring God.”
He also said that many of the adults at the Yearning For Zion Ranch owned by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are loving parents and that the boys seemed emotionally healthy when he played with them.
But, he noted, the sect’s belief system “is abusive. The culture is very authoritarian.”
This is interesting. Now, as far I can determine, “obedience” and “compliance” are not exactly the same thing from a behavioral science standpoint. Nonetheless, the aforementioned psychiatrist uses the two words interchangeably, so I’m left to deduce that only one definition applies. After all, it doesn’t make any sense to use two words interchangeably but insist upon incompatible definitions.
This leaves the following possibilities:
Obedience – 1. the state or quality of being obedient; 2. the act or practice of obeying; dutiful or submissive compliance.
Compliance – 1. the act of conforming, acquiescing, or yielding; 2. a tendency to yield readily to others, esp. in a weak and subservient way; 3. conformity; accordance; 4. cooperation or obedience.
Essentially, all of these definitions are just alternate ways of describing the same behavior. The difference-maker is what leads one to the behavior. For example, a person might obey or comply out of respect, agreement or a desire to bring about certain ends within a group. On the other hand, one might obey or comply due to brainwashing or the threat or actuality of violence, such as within some oppressive variety of institutional framework.
So I’m reminded of another demand for obedience:
“Obedience of the law is demanded; not asked as a favor.” -Theodore Roosevelt
Indeed, the very nature of government is authoritarian, not unlike a cult that either trains its subjects to comply or forces compliance by projecting an authoritative air. A cult like the Latter Day Saints appeals to an invisible deity that is claimed to exist while having all the properties of nonexistence, while the state similarly derives its authority from nothing but mystical ideas like “social contract” and “consent of the governed,” yet demands unquestioning loyalty and capitulation.
A notable distinction here is that, in the case of the state, humans at least exist. However, the humans who ultimately enforce the edicts and whims of faceless gods are every bit as corporeal as those who wield pen or rifle in the name of the state.
Ultimately, the million-dollar question is this:
If members of an institution hold obedience to be “a very important part of their belief system,” and this is the cornerstone for a culture that is “very authoritarian,” then what is the logical conclusion regarding a state that operates in exactly the same manner?
It’s not that statism is a cult per se. Still, one must engage in brazen hypocrisy in order to condemn the brainwashing, threats and requisite obedience of a cult while defending the brainwashing, threats and requisite obedience of a state.