Maybe the simplest way to explain it,
here:
Anarchy is a system of law in which those who apply the law don’t have any specially privileged status to do things that would be crimes if other people did them.
For example, taxation is theft. War, as conventionally understood, is mass murder. Arrest for a “crime” with no actual victim is kidnapping.
In hunter-gatherer systems, there frequently was no legal prerogative. Roughly, we anarchist-types are simply suggesting that states act like criminals...but because they convince other people to call them "states", they are treated differently. Or maybe it's because they have superior firepower, and people are finitely interested in calling powerful bullies powerful bullies.
Posts
16 comments:
Is charging rent theft too? How do you distinguish difference between taxation and rent?
Devin,
I suppose it depends your model of the state. Libertarian model of the state is (roughly) identical to the Mafia: You pays us "protection" or else your house might burn down accidental-like.
A homeowner builds (or pays someone else to build) a house, then offers an exchange...pay me money and you can live in the house that I was living in.
In one case, it's an exchange of good for good. In the other case it's extortion.
If your don't understand the history of the state as "thugs with swords threaten farmers, extract tribute, rinse, repeat", you might get the silly idea that the state has some sort of moral claim to the land, equivalent to that of a landholder. But we libertarians aren't there.
The state owns a huge hunk of land. By staying in this land, you agree to pay rent (taxes), submit to the state's rules, and accept the given punishments if you don't pay rent or you break the rules. If you don't like that, you can renounce your citizen ship and find a different landlord (ie move to a different country).
A landowner owns a hunk of land. For instance, there is a landlord that owns the apartment I live in. If I refuse to pay rent, or I break his rules, I will be forcibly be removed from the land. If I make a serious infraction, I will face jail time. In the libertarian world, the landlord would be able to enforce the contract and rules himself. If I commit some grievous crime, he'd be in rights to shoot me.
I fail to see the distinction between the state and the libertarian landlord, except that the state is much, much bigger.
If your don't understand the history of the state as "thugs with swords threaten farmers, extract tribute, rinse, repeat", you might get the silly idea that the state has some sort of moral claim to the land, equivalent to that of a landholder.
I do understand the history of the state as thugs with swords. I just also understand the history of landholders the same way. As the War Nerd once said, "Blood paid your mortgage". Just about all the property owned in America was at one point stolen from someone or some tribe. In fact, just about all the property in the world was stolen at some point. If you deny property rights in cases where the land was originally stolen, then you deny property rights altogether.
May I turn the question around?
Guido "owns" a few blocks in New York/Chicago/Sicily, that he "inherited" from his mafia sponsor: if you don't want to pay protection money, move to a different block/town.
Jose built a house with his own two hands, plus those of his wife, kids and cousins. Now he wants to move back home to New York, and he offers to rent you his place.
Are these the same situation, or different situations?
I say they're different situations, and that if it wasn't the state in Guido's place, you'd say it's a Mafia, and that they're extorting protection money.
Hell, it's the same service as the Mafia...pretend to defend against rival gangs, but really just extort $ from the populace.
The difference between the mafia and the state, or the mafia and the home builder, is that the mafia's control of its territory is almost certainly still contested under the terms of adverse possession.
If the city government is unable or unwilling to contest the mafia takeover of a neighborhood, then it should formalize the mafia as the government/landlord of those blocks. Formalizing the ownership will minimize violence and create predictable rents/taxes, and will turn the mafia into a stationary bandit, who are always better than roving bandits.
The U.S. Government stole the land of America from the states in 1865. The states stole it from the British crown in 1783. The crown stole it from the Indian tribes before that. None of these thefts are contested. According to the principal of adverse possession, the U.S. Government owns America.
This is not to make any moral claims about ownership. Ownership is. The ownership by U.S. government of America is a matter of military reality. Given this military reality, it's better that this ownership be formalized (government by laws) than informal (gangsterism).
I've answered your question. Now answer mine. How do you distinguish between the landlord and the state in my example?
Ok, how about this counter if you don't like Devin's: who is the criminal equivalent of Frederick the Great?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_The_Great
We seem to be effectively in the same place. The government is an effective, unchallenged Mafia who extracts protection money.
Libertarians think that the moral issues matter. This means that governments should be given all the deference a mafia is. Pay the damn protection money...and call it extortion, like it is.
Moldbuggian reactionaries/hyper-realpolitik-ers think that the moral issue doesn't matter, and this means that an effective mafia should be treated as the owner of the block, leasing to the "owners"...and that states should be treated the same way.
Simply, libertarians dispute the concept of state ownership, just as everyone else (sans hyper-realists like you/Moldbug) disputes the concept of Mafias legitimately owning the block.
Probably the issue is best understood as a dispute over relevance. I claim that there is a moral difference between theft and trade, and that the moral difference is the one that matters if you are using terms like theft.
It seems that you are talking as if moral relevance doesn't matter, and only ability to use force matters.
Foseti,
It's not that I don't like Devin's. It's just that when the two of you get going, it's very hard to keep up.
Your one-sentence question about Frederick the Great is non-obvious to me at least. Perhaps that's a coded concept? Are you asking if there are real criminals that do lots of good things, like the fictional Don Corleone?
Moldbuggian reactionaries/hyper-realpolitik-ers think that the moral issue doesn't matter, and this means that an effective mafia should be treated as the owner of the block, leasing to the "owners"...and that states should be treated the same way.
The moral issues matter when we're talking about the specific people responsible for the theft. When a settler kills an Indian and steals his land from an Indian, that's morally abhorrent. But when that land gets passed down four generations, I do not hold the descendants morally culpable for the actions of the original settler. Nor do I hold their land title as illegitimate. If we deemed all land titles as illegitimate if the land was one at one point stolen, then there would be no such thing as land titles.
Again, as I said before, the mafia is morally blameworthy because it is still in the act of stealing, people still contest the mafia's control, Guido and his family were personally involved in the theft and are likely actively involved in crime, etc, etc.
To paraphrase and repeat my original question:
Let's say you are renting an apartment. The owner of the apartment is of old American stock. His family has owned the land since colonial days, before which the land belonged to some long dead Indian tribe. Would you: "call it extortion, like it is." Or would you call it rent, and view it as legitimate?
And again, what separates this landowner from a "state"? You claim, "libertarians dispute the concept of state ownership". Well how are you defining a state? The only sensible definition of a state that I can think of is: "An organization that holds a territory and defends its own claim to that territory, without depending on any superior authority". I simply cannot see how you can distinguish between the "state" and the libertarian/anarchist landlord.
Ownership is a simple concept. The landowner who added his labor to raw nature owns. He is the owner, under all normal English discussions.
Is the state also the owner? Is the person we call the owner not actually the owner? Or is there some other complicated relationship?
It seems to this rather simple blogger that EITHER ownership is about who owns the land (the landowner), or about who has the capability of exercising force to shoot the owner (state/mafia).
My line is that normal English ownership, as well as the political theory on which the US was founded is: ownership is the guy's...the state is an extra party.
So you're either in a case where the owner doesn't own his land (your position?), or where in a very non-Moldbuggian fashion, ownership is divided, or where the landowner owns, and the state is a criminal organization that demands protection money. Pick 1.
I'll agree that the common conception doesn't make much sense...but you seem to (have to) be suggesting that normal notions of ownership are not ownership, because in reality, the government owns the stuff.
I don't think a State can Actually OWN land. It may be able to hold land in escrow, but I don't see how a fictional entity can OWN something.
A State or government is entirely different than an individual or corporation. If a corporation owns property that simply means that the shareholders own it proportionally to their ownership stake in the company.
Aretae-
I believe in multiple levels of ownership. For instance, there is landlord of my apartment. I in turn lease from the landlord. It is possible that I could negotiate a 99-year lease, or a permanent lease from that landlord, with rights to make changes to my apartment. In a sense, I would "own" the apartment but I'd still have to pay rent every year. Of course, I might be away for a few months, and sublease the apartment to someone else, and so on.
What we call "ownership" in our society, is in reality more of a permanent lease, since you still have to pay property taxes to the city government every year. What we own is certain defined rights to the land; but we do not own the land with absolute control. We must pay taxes, abide by zoning laws, get building permits, etc. Moldbug once coined the terms "primary ownership", referring to independently secured property. The "primary owner" of a territory secures the territory with its own force, and pays rent to no one. A "secondary owner" does not have the means to secure his ownership himself, and therefore owns certain rights to a piece of land via agreement with the "primary" owner.
Ownership is a simple concept. The landowner who added his labor to raw nature owns. He is the owner, under all normal English discussions.
This is not true at all. I mean, all existing ownership of English land came originally from the spoils of conquest. William and his band of ruffians conquered the land, and then they divided it up, and the different lords got their own "property".
English law recognizes the concept of adverse possession. A person owns land if the law recognizes that person as owning land. One way that can happen is homesteading, but that's not the only way. And even homesteaders stole the land from Indians.
You're still avoiding my questions. You are renting land from someone's who long past descendants stole the land from the Indians. Would you "call it [paying rent] extortion, like it is." Or would you call it rent, and view it as legitimate?
Have you ever read Moldbug's, Why I'm not a libertarian piece?. Also check out The Magic of Symmetric Sovereignty and Limited Government as Anti-Propertarian Idealism. The last piece has a great comments section in which he and Nick Szabo go at it.
Finally, Karl Widerquist wrote a great paper A Dilemma for Libertarians in which he points out that strong property rights ultimately lead to the maximal state.
Devin,
First, let me thank you greatly for the link to the Szabo/Moldbug discussion. Moldbug in conversation with another well-researched person comes off ever so much more reasonable than he does in his normal posting.
Moldbug seems to have agreed to basically all the historical propositions that I and Nick push:
Life was (relatively, in context) good in England because of very limited authority. Governments were highly constrained, power was highly fragmented, absolutism was a fiction, and that made life good for everyone.
Which means that the debate you and I have had over the months has largely already been had and agreed upon by Mencius and Nick: Historically, the path to prosperity was highly constrained government. What is possible now?
Second, I attempt to answer your questions.
Yes, I can buy or rent from the man whose ancestors stole from the Indian. I would call it buying or renting.
Third, summarizing:
I think our core difference is on the ownership question. I could negotiate a lease, with some rights...but we all in common usage make a BIG distinction between lease and own.
Your line is: the state owns, we lease. My line is: we own, the state preys upon.
Both are AFAICT consistent lines, but as usual, you are siding with the Moldbugian side and I'm closer to Szaboism. I'm especially with Nick on the property rights VS master-servant relationship bit.
I'll have to read Wilderquist soon. Prior objections before reading the paper:
1. Stable property rights have done more for economic growth than any other single factor in human history... and growth has done more for positive freedom than any other single factor.
2. Historically, property rights + right to free exchange has massively promoted liberty, rather than vice versa. Since reading Julian Simon, I've come to believe that when history says A, and logic says B, history is right most of the time, even when you can't see it.
3. Nick Szabo's stuff on unbundled property rights is also interesting. I'm inclined to think that the strongest property arguments would be ones with clauses in them that prohibit future use ...
4. I'm a left-libertarian because my primary concern is over the interests of the weak. I have no doubt that corporatist institutions massively disenfranchise the weak.
Again, many thanks for the links. Fabulous
Devin,
Note also that in the Szabo/Moldbug debate, an Agorist (Daniel Nagy) pops up. Agorism is a variety of left-libertarianism advocating extra-governmental activity...much as the Cryptonomicon does.
"but we all in common usage make a BIG distinction between lease and own"
You Americans might. In English law, the technical legal term for owning the land is "Freehold Tenancy" - the owner is still a tenant of the King. Many holdings that are considered owned, are in fact not freehold, but leased on long leases, and that's considered a legal technicality.
Mr. McGuinn,
Thanks for the visit and the info. I, provincial American that I am, hadn't know that.
We Americans annoyed the King enough that he left us alone some 200 years ago, and we never adopted that thinking.
Yet another datum for my hypothesis that liberty in America means something different than liberty elsewhere in the world.
Post a Comment