I will show you why I am an anarcho capitalist libertarian
-
I'm starting this thread to explain libertarian beliefs. I do not want people to carp on me, troll me, or personally attack me. Any questions are welcome, but I have no intention of arguing with people. This is for education.
There are two ways of doing anything.
One is by choice.
The other is by force.
The #1 premise of libertarian belief, is that doing things by choice is superior to being forced to do it.
Government works by coercion and compulsion. The free market works by each party, the buyer and seller, feeling they are better off BY CHOICE in exchanging money for services or products, selling products and services in exchange for money.
In a market transaction, the buyer is better off because he bought the thing. The seller is better off because he sold the thing.
And it's all voluntary.
Say you are in a free market and need to buy schooling for your child. You find a school who offers the best service and price and quality that you can afford.
But in a coercive compulsive system, there is a monopoly of government schools that are forced on the customer. People are robbed via taxes and the government imposes monopoly schools on them, so they have no choice.
I'll get into non aggression next.
-
The primary tenet of libertarianism, in the anarcho capitalism interpretation, is the non aggression principle. This says that you should have complete freedom to do whatever you want, so long as you don’t hurt (aggress against) someone else.
I have noticed that Libertarian principles are built into how we think, into our brains. We have a built in sense of fairness, of “you give me something, I give you something”, of reciprocity.
That is the idea of choice, of voluntary actions and voluntary exchanges. Aggression is the opposite. It is coercing or compelling someone to do something they do not want to do.
One big question people always bring up is the question of “public goods.” Of why not pollute the rivers with your factory pollution, which is a form of aggression, since you don’t own them, and there is no reason not to commit aggression by polluting someone else’s rivers or streams.
The answer is that in a libertarian world, someone owns everything. So if you want to pollute a river, you are polluting “my” river, and you need to work something out with me, that is, compensate me so I’m okay with your pollution.
The non aggression principle is core. But so is the idea of ownership and specifically owning what you create or extract out of the world. I’ll talk about that next time.
-
what to do about scarce resources?
what is the minimum amount of state that is needed before you develop absolute tyrrany? what institutions do we need to have?
Marxists are dialectic materialist. What is your ultimate world view that you build of your theory from?
How do you value citizenship? What duties and rights should Citizens have?
What would be the best tax systen for anarcho capitilism?
should there be a death tax? Not cohersion as I see it, as the person is dead.
How should the money supply be formed? If not by state, will there be enough trust in the system for it to work?
Iceland was anarcho capitalistic but was conquered. How to organize from outside threats and envy from the lowlife commies?
-
@Ecstatic_Hamster said in I will show you why I am an anarcho capitalist libertarian:
I have noticed that Libertarian principles are built into how we think, into our brains. We have a built in sense of fairness, of “you give me something, I give you something”, of reciprocity.
LOL, you seem to like to oversimplify and don't see that things are context-dependent...
I would recommend learning some more anthropology and cognitive science... Not to mention epistemology...
Moreover, Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged - is not science it's just a poorly written utopian fiction...
BTW Have you heard about the Dunning–Kruger effect?
-
@Ecstatic_Hamster said in I will show you why I am an anarcho capitalist libertarian:
I have noticed that Libertarian principles are built into how we think, into our brains. We have a built in sense of fairness, of “you give me something, I give you something”, of reciprocity.
Lol. Libertarian economic theory is based on the exact opposite of this, Adam Smith himself said we don't get nourishment from a baker or butcher out of in-built human compassion, but by self-interest. If you seriously believe that human's have in-built fairness and reciprocity, then you're considered a Leftist by any libertarian.
-
I agree with libertarian economic theory. Inflation, federal reserve, fractional reserves, government fiat are all responsible for the decreasing of the standard of living. And all the autistic screeching from the left about raising minimum wages will just make the problem worse. We have a crises of economic illiteracy in the West.
However I don't think Mises or Rothbard got it all right. Both of them give really lackluster proposals for moralism. Utilitarianism and natural law are both wack shit in my opinion. Max Stirner is that chad motherfucker utilitarians look under their beds for before they sleep at night, lol.
-
In a libertarian world, numerous sources issue money and this is a market function. Think BTC and XMR as competitive crypto. Easy peasy. We used to have a competitive market in money, in the form of bank notes that people could accept at par or at a discount depending upon the issuer.
Scarce resources aren’t “allocated.” They are owned by someone. Everything is owned by someone.
For the death tax, everything is owned by someone. That person can designate others to own his assets, in event of death. Taking from him is the same as stealing from his family and beneficiaries.
-
Mr.Hamster:
There are always more than 2 ways. Almost all our actions are governed by a subliminal/unconscious expectation of our reality based on early life programming that becomes set in stone by the time we attend school. We rationalize that we are or will be this way or that without the capacity to step outside ourselves to see that what we consider choice is merely an illusion offered up by our internally chattering companion called the Ego. I understand the simple rationale of your premise but, in the end, almost everyone mimics the reality they perceived as infants/very young children with perhaps only slight shadings of differentiation. What passes for thought is almost invariably simply a reactionary response to stimuli which is then decided upon based on past experience/future expectation that we receive from that false personality called our Ego. Most people will never actually have a unique thought which leads to unique action in their lives. It is in this decidedly oblivious state that we feel we have choices, be they freewill or to submit. -
@Ecstatic_Hamster
Perhaps a more sane approach is to acknowledge that, despite the illusion of a title, we never really own anything but all must depend on the natural resources for sustenance. I anyone pollutes the river everyone pays the price through a negative feedback loop of ecology/health. The concept of ownership must be transmuted into the concept of stewardship.
If we can't take "it" with us when we leave this plane then we are only borrowing it for a time as many have before us & many will after. -
you didn't show me anything? You stated your opinion, yes, but you showed me nothing
-
@Ecstatic_Hamster Glad you wrote this thread, however I would argue that Anarcho-capitalism is not a belief. It is based on Natural Law (jusnaturalism) which is the only legal system that can be deduced logically and Rationally, this has nothing to do with belief since it is logically and objectively demonstrated.
Every other political and legal system is based on Utilitarianism, subjective beliefs and coercion. People that endorse other systems want to impose their value systems to others because they believe in the superiority of such systems, without being able to demonstrate it.
-
@Creuset said in I will show you why I am an anarcho capitalist libertarian:
I would argue that Anarcho-capitalism is not a belief. It is based on Natural Law (jusnaturalism) which is the only legal system that can be deduced logically and Rationally, this has nothing to do with belief since it is logically and objectively demonstrated.
LOL, what a naive BS...
You probably never heard about ontology, epistemology, phenomenology, epistemic uncertainty, or even nuance, have you?
BTW Objectivism has been already qualified as utopian pseudoscience...
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. ~Bertrand Russell
Panta rhei... | Liberté 🏴 | It depends... ;-)
A little Learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring:
~Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism -
@Kvirion Relax man, I'm used to trigger people emotionally like you all the time because of jusnaturalism, but take a deep breath and grab something sugary, you will feel better.
So you're clearly ignorant of what jusnaturalism is if you conflate it with Objectivism. I am not an Objectivist, so you're wrong in your assessment. I don't have any sympathy for Ayn Rand and she wasn't an anarcap anyways.
Natural Law is an ancient legal concept, primarily developed by European scholars during the Middle Ages. They sought to define a normative law that was divinely inspired and compatible with human nature. Despite the term "natural", this concept has nothing to do with fixed "ontologies" such as "human nature" or God anymore in 2024, it was refined and evolved into a logical and coherent theory.
What justifies Natural Law: It is justified by the human necessity for clear rules to guide social interactions. Any other system of law are called Positive law, which is man made, Utilitarian and imposed arbitrary to members of society. Natural Law is discovered by reason.
Traditionally, the state has been essential in enforcing Positive law (Regalian power, Absolute Monarchy or Republic), while Natural law allows for anarchy and the abolition of hierarchies. With the evolution of individuals to less Authoritarian states of mind and a desire for decentralization, there's been a push for laws that are fair, universal, logical, non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory. This was probably the aim of constitutions and human rights in the first place, but they often fall short in practice and are constantly denied and contradicted by other laws, they have no coherence in themselves.
There's also the issue of "legal inflation", where politicians promise new rights to various groups and minorities if they are elected, leading to an overabundance of laws that keep growing and contradicting each others. These laws are nonetheless illogical and arbitrary (it is for example illegal to evict squatters from your own property in many countries or prevent illegal immigrants from entering your territory). Also, since very few people understand what is a legitimate law, they can accept having their most fundamental rights being violated all the time without any justification, if an authority tell them to do so (such as what happened during covid). That's why any mass crime can happen such as during nazi Germany. This is the danger of having a population that can easily be manipulated and doesn't understand basic political and legal philosophy.
So to create an objective, impartial and universal law (Natural Law) derived from logic:
-
Its rights must be negative ones, also called claim rights or liberty rights (they are non-prescriptive). They are descriptive only so they don't violate Hume's Guillotine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights -
Its different rights must be non-contradictory between themselves (principle of noncontradiction in logic). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
-
Its rights must be applicable to all humans, common to everybody (isonomy). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_before_the_law
-
It must concern the individual only, not society or a public institution.
The only three rights that meet these criteria are:
-
Right to property (including 3 attributes which are usus, abusus, fructus).
-
Right to associate freely consensually without interference from a 3rd party.
-
Right to not be harmed (non-aggression principle).
Examples of how positive rights are not logical (they violate the noncontradiction principle):
-
Right to get a pension -> This forces another person to pay taxes to pay for your pension, which violates the right of property (theft). This also violates Hume's Guillotine because this is prescriptive.
-
Right to live -> This would force a doctor or nurse to take care of you whenever you want it and guarantee that you will live and survive, this is slavery and illogical (because nobody can guarantee that you will live no matter what).
Prescriptive Positive law always imply that an individual, because of his status or nature, or any other arbitrary thing, has to do something for another group of people, that others won't have to do, which denies the isonomy in rights (for example when poor people have more rights than rich people which need to pay for their privileges). You can also see how politicians can easily seduce easy-to-manipulate groups of voters by promising them special privileges and advantages compared with another group.
The benefits of Natural Law include:
-
Resolving double binds which create learned helplessness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind
-
Establishing genuine individual sovereignty.
-
Fostering personal responsibility.
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-locus-of-control-2795434 -
It provides a strong model to identify manipulation and domination.
-
Allows for diverse societies (panarchy) and what we call mixed strategies in game theory (instead of a fixed strategy). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Émile_de_Puydt#Panarchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_(game_theory)
For further reading on morality, I recommend Jonathan Haidt's books. He explores how our moral values, which may be hereditary, are subjective, and naturally differ from individual to individual. This then shows how inborn moral impulses can be exploited by politicians to divide and rule like all Machiavellians do. Another insightful book is "Moral Calculations" by László Mérő which bridges Game Theory with Morals.
-
-
@Creuset Thank you for the comprehensive explanation.
Still, this concept of the Natural Law sounds "logical" and coherent, but is still wrong/unrealistic in many parts.
Current (well-researched and supported by evidence) science says, that for example:
- Natural Law is ontologically wrong because it assumes a stable, knowable, and universal world. We are living in a context-dependent, uncertain, and constantly evolving/adapting complex ecosystem.
- It's epistemologically wrong because it assumes that all info can be deduced and assumes that it cannot be falsified because "it's true and natural"
- It's phenomenologically wrong because it assumes objectivism and rationalism. In reality, our understanding of the world is limited, biased, and subjective.
Moreover, humans are mostly social beings, individualism is just an exceptional special case.
And there are many more counter-arguments based on natural sciences, etc...Therefore, "Natural Law" can only be used as a thought experiment (limited/simplified model), to reason/argue about changes in the law.
...all models are approximations. Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful. However, the approximate nature of the model must always be borne in mind.... ~George Box
The rationalist imagines an imbecile-free society; the empiricist an imbecile-proof one, or even better, a rationalist-proof one. ~Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Panta rhei... | Liberté 🏴 | It depends... ;-)
A little Learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring:
~Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism -
"It became quite clear to me that the Natural Law mystique, in Catholic, libertarian or neo-pagan forms, remains basically a set of rhetorical strategies to hypnotize others into the state which Bernard Shaw called "barbarism" and defined as 'the belief that the laws of one's own tribe are the laws of the universe'." - Robert Anton Wilson
-
@Mulloch94 said in I will show you why I am an anarcho capitalist libertarian:
"It became quite clear to me that the Natural Law mystique, in Catholic, libertarian or neo-pagan forms, remains basically a set of rhetorical strategies to hypnotize others into the state which Bernard Shaw called "barbarism" and defined as 'the belief that the laws of one's own tribe are the laws of the universe'." - Robert Anton Wilson
Nice one. Thanks!
-
@Kvirion said in I will show you why I am an anarcho capitalist libertarian:
Thank you for the comprehensive explanation.
Hey, I appreciate that you decided to change your tone and to be polite, respectful and reply with arguments and not with ad hominem.
Since it appears that we can have an intelligent discussion, I will take time to reply to each of your points in detail.
Still, this concept of the Natural Law sounds "logical" and coherent, but is still wrong/unrealistic in many parts.
It is logical and coherent, and I have never seen a good refutation of its current form, mostly misunderstandings and categorical and methodological confusion, but let's analyze your counterarguments one by one, maybe you will have me think about things I've never considered before and eventually have me change my mind.
Current (well-researched and supported by evidence) science says, that for example:
Okay, so here is your first mistake: Law is not a science (just like maths are not a science), and Natural Law has nothing to do with empirical statistical methods, utilitarianism or the hypothetico-deductive method. Natural Law is derived from an a priori synthetic judgement, just like mathematical theorems are.
Natural Law is ontologically wrong because it assumes a stable, knowable, and universal world. We are living in a context-dependent, uncertain, and constantly evolving/adapting complex ecosystem.
Again, your mistake is a categorical one. You believe that law should be derived from empirical methods without ever proving why, and I will actually show you why it is not possible to derive a coherent system with these methods.
For law to be fair, objective and coherent, you need it to apply to every human, to have isonomy of rights, for the rights to respect the law of noncontradiction, and for them to be non-prescriptive (Hume's Guillotine). Otherwise, your system of law is just a derivative of the "law of the strongest" which is subjective.
So tell me of any system of law derived from empirical methods or from utilitarianism that respect these conditions?
Spoiler alert: this doesn't exist, and if you accept such systems of law as legitimate, you're just accepting that an arbitrary authority can at any time tell you that "you won't own anything and you will be happy and you will eat bugs" or if there is a consensus that killing millions of innocent people is fine, that's enough to justify it, you just need a little bit of social engineering, majority of population that agrees, and "voilà".
All of that while being told that you are in "democracy" and that you have a "right to property" (noncontradiction law is completely obliterated and nobody even understand something as simple as that). Georges Orwell warned us a long time ago, but most people still accept doublethink and double binds. If you try to defend such systems as legitimate, you are just coping in a state of Stockholm syndrome.It's epistemologically wrong because it assumes that all info can be deduced and assumes that it cannot be falsified because "it's true and natural"
I've never said that all info can be deduced, please don't put words into my mouth, this is not an honest debatting technique (I actually think that there is ample room for empiricism, the scientific method and induction in other domains), and I've never made any claim of truth or "naturality" (it is just confusing because the Natural Law theorists were postulating a human nature during religious Middle Age, but Natural Law in 2024 doesn't have anything to do with that anymore, don't conflate the two). I only claimed that Anarcho-capitalism is not based on beliefs, just like maths are not based on beliefs, and that Natural Law is the only coherent legal system that we know of.
So I just defined what law is, and I then demonstrated that only Natural Law satisfies the criterias of a coherent system of law (which is why it is an a priori synthetic judgement). All other systems don't satisfy these criterias because the "rights" of Positive law or utilitarianism contradict themselves and create double binds (such as when you're told you have right of property but cannot remove squatters from your property). They violate Hume's Guillotine, and because there is no isonomy (a group of people should have more rights than others). This is the perfect recipe for Machivellians to continue to divide and conquer populations.
I'm pretty sure that you don't have any problem to admit that the Pythagorean theorem is valid even though you cannot falsify it. The problem is that you're trying to apply the Popperian method to law, which doesn't work, as it would not work with maths and other formal systems such as logic. According to Popper, maths are not a science as well because they cannot be falsified, and it still works perfectly well within the confines of its own domain.
It's phenomenologically wrong because it assumes objectivism and rationalism. In reality, our understanding of the world is limited, biased, and subjective.
It is called "objective" because it doesn't depend on a human subject, like any a priori synthetic judgement. That is actually its strenght and why it allows for anarchy and decentralization, because you don't need any 3rd party to define it for it to still exist and make sense, which wouldn't be the case if it was a posteriori/empirical like what you're suggesting.
By the way, you did not prove why it should be wrong, you just claim things here but there is no demonstration.
"Rationalism" is just a set of deductive methods, just like "Empiricism" is another set of inductive methods (and you have another category of methods which is called abduction in other contexts). I've demonstrated earlier how this is done, but I think you did not really understand, it seems that you believe that empiricism is the only valid method in every domain of human knowledge and every context, which is very limited and lacks nuance and context.
Moreover, humans are mostly social beings, individualism is just an exceptional special case.
Yes we are, however methodological individualism works to create a coherent system of law. I am not denying that humans are social beings, the system I am talking about just doesn't sacrifice individuality, while still allowing for individuals to form human groups and function in societies. The opposite is not true, collectivism usually sacrifice individuals.
If your value systems make you lean more towards leftist moral values where social groups are extremely important, please know that Kropotkin that Ray was talking about, respects Natural Law, since everything in his philosophy is based on voluntary action. Like I said, Natural Law allows for panarchy and so many different systems to coexist (even systems that use Positive Law if the individuals of this society want it, but a Positive Law that would be voluntary chosen by every individual in a contractual way, and not imposed to people), not just Anarcho-capitalism (which also requires applying principles of the Austrian school of economics, that's another discussion and debate).
And there are many more counter-arguments based on natural sciences, etc...
Well you don't share any argument here and just claim without details, but if your counter-arguments are on the same level as what you previously shared, I'm afraid you will need to do much better.
Therefore, "Natural Law" can only be used as a thought experiment (limited/simplified model), to reason/argue about changes in the law.
Wrong, it can be used to make a functional decentralized society that doesn't sacrifice individuals, and even Ray was a Kropotkinian anarchist, who actually respect Natural Law. Even people from the 16th century such as La Boetie in his Discourse on Voluntary Servitude talk about Natural Law. Most anarchists were aware of Natural Law, but it is very rare in contemporary people that talk about political science, because most people don't understand basic epistemology or logic. Most people think that "anarchy is anomie", they don't even know or understand what jusnaturalism is.
And in terms of psychological developmental stages, only a few people can currently truly understand anti-authoritarianism, because everybody is brainwashed with social engineering since birth, so obviously it will be hard to create societies based on Natural Law as long as people don't free themselves from that, which of course doesn't refute that Natural Law is a coherent system, it is only because Natural Law is not imposed to individuals just like mathematical theorems are not imposed to individuals (and humans existed for thousands of years without knowing such theorems which doesn't invalidate them), you actually need to be intelligent enough to understand them.
You just have to see how Charlie acts on the Ray Peat Forum, and other members in this community, most people don't reach very high psychological development stages during their life, even though they try to "boost their metabolism". That's sad, but that's how it is, humanity currently doesn't have the means as a whole to live in a non-authoritarian way, which people like Peat or Ecstatic Hamster try to rectify here....all models are approximations. Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful. However, the approximate nature of the model must always be borne in mind.... ~George Box
I know these kind of claims, and I have done a lot of research on the limits of human knowledge, epistemological skepticism and the likes. And I don't necessarily disagree with it. This by the way applies to every model and system, not just Natural Law. However, some models and systems are still more robust than others, we still use maths or logic to act in the world, because even if "the map is not the territory", some maps are better drawn and more precise than others, which helps to navigate inside the territory much better. That's the case with Natural Law.
The rationalist imagines an imbecile-free society; the empiricist an imbecile-proof one, or even better, a rationalist-proof one. ~Nassim Nicholas Taleb
I really appreciate NNT and have read most of what he has written, and this is pretty obvious that you're quoting him out of context. NNT criticizes rationalism in the field of statistics and finances, with midwits that stupidly believe that statistics and probabilities can perfectly predict the future and find the causes of every effects because they are based on laws such as the Normal law/bell curve. And I completely agree with him in this context, but being the intellectual that he is and a mathematician, I am pretty sure that NNT understands a priori synthetic judgements and mathematical theorems, and that he doesn't criticize rationalist methods in every fields of knowledge. Again, context and nuance my friend.
So, you did not change my mind as you did not refute anything so far, you showed your subjective preference that every field of human knowledge should be subjected to empiricism, and you didn't provide any demonstration or explanation of why this should be the case. Hope I brought a bit more clarity here and helped you understand one or two things.
-
@Mulloch94 said in I will show you why I am an anarcho capitalist libertarian:
"It became quite clear to me that the Natural Law mystique, in Catholic, libertarian or neo-pagan forms, remains basically a set of rhetorical strategies to hypnotize others into the state which Bernard Shaw called "barbarism" and defined as 'the belief that the laws of one's own tribe are the laws of the universe'." - Robert Anton Wilson
Nice words salad. Let's replace a few words in your quote:
It became quite clear to me that the Ray Peat mystique, in online communities, remains basically a set of rhetorical strategies to hypnotize others into the state which Bernard Shaw called "barbarism" and defined as 'nutrition alone can cure all diseases'.
You see? no arguments, just empty affirmations and strawmen. Can you do better than that?
-
I just so happened to be listening to this:
Matt Ehret on Why You Can't Be A Libertarian And A Nationalist.
-
I agree with a lot of what you said here. People are trying to hit you with gotcha questions because they disagree with libertarian politics.
