-
Website
http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle -
Original page
http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/05/29/wherein-i-do-not-accept-crispin-sartwells-challenge/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
- A Little Mystic Nationalism
- Scott Winship on Income Inequality
- Now Let Us Praise Results-Facilitating Virtue!
- Why Are There So few Women in Philosophy?
- Hey, I Can’t Actually Quite Imagine a World in Which Things Are Exactly as Different as the Need to Be to Give Me What I Want, but It Would Be Neat if I Could!!
This is reminding me of voting: If many people have different opinions about what to do, what do you do?
Or in this case: if you give credence to multiple moral theories, and they prescribe different actions, what do you do?
There is no "perfect" voting, just as there is no "perfect" way to merge simultaneously believed yet incompatible moral theories.
Maybe the best I can do is to give each moral theory some weight (according to how strongly I believe it), and give preference to the actions that don't really strongly clash with any of my moral theories.
When there is a really strong clash, I have a tough decision. And my decision often feeds back into the "weight" that I will give each moral theory next time around. If I decide in favor of X this time, I probably tend to let the weight for X grow a bit stronger.
People like Crispin are trying to create the appearance of a really strong clash. "X or Y, what's it going to be, can't be both??!!!" Is that helpful?
Will makes an eloquent defense of value pluralism. While I don't share his exact weights (and thus don't call myself a libertarian), I think that's the way to go given where we are in human history.
Someday we may really really understand what makes us satisfied, and be able to use a very precise metric to help us with our decisions. Since we are not there, some diversity of moral conceptions is good. It helps us to not get "stuck" trying to maximize some overly simple metric that cannot fully capture the complex underpinnings of human satisfaction.
Where is the empirical evidence my rights and safety are better secured under anarchism?
Sweden vs. (the artist formerly known as) Somalia. No contest.
If we allow this, can one also say that robbery and murder by "civilians", committed in no sense defensively, might also be defensible? Or is the point of this post to say that "Yes, the state (or more precisely the flawed individuals that comprise it) is simply a completely different beast, wherein these acts of robbery and violence, if not continued massively on a regular basis but only upon the establishment of a state, are not necessarily morally indefensible if they aim at human "flourishing"?
So, even assuming the idea of "flourishing" is more important than legitimacy, where is the legitimacy in restricting competing entities in the attempt to provide said flourishing? Either initially or currently. That would seem to be the argument to make precisely if one upholds value pluralism and multiple "moral vocabularies".
Free State Iceland vs. Nazi Germany. No contest. Hell, Somalia vs. Pol Pot's Cambodia. No contest. I could go on all day.
Cherry-picking is a double edged sword.
Somalia wasn't a pleasant place without a state, but it wasn't great with one either. It became better than many other sub-saharan African states. To me the real argument against anarchism is that government is inevitable.
If the main line of argumentation runs: "force without consent is wrong, and force with consent be no force at all", as I assume, then are we really objecting to the State, or are we objecting to our inability to consent to the State?
If a man walks into your house and hands you 1 kg. of solid platinum and then demands (at gunpoint) that you pay $5, then that transaction is morally illegitimate. The objection isn't to the trade of Pt for $ in general (those are excellent terms!) but to your lack of choice in the matter.
We clearly have the same relationship with the State as you do with the platinum-bequeathing villain. It seems to me that the argument against State coercion isn't an argument against the trading of total autonomy for certain protections, rights, and social services. To make an argument [b] for anarchism [/b] you'd need to show how consenting, collective trade in rights and property (a la, the State) is [b] always [/b] wrong regardless of how much the participants favor it.
Arguments against coercion seem to point towards an opt-out model of citizenship which is distinct from anarchy. Upon adulthood, you'd have the choice to either opt-in to the social contract and become a citizen, or opt-out and become 'outlaw' in the most original sense of the term.
The pre-Christian Icelanders reserved this as sort of punishment. People could be sentenced to skoggangur (literally "outlaw") and were placed outside the legal norms of Icelandic society. Viking people being, well, Vikings, you can guess that this usually didn't work out well for the outlaws- they could murder and steal with impunity, but all others could steal and murder them without the slightest consequence and indeed received considerable bragging rights for the act.
I heartily endorse an opt-in/opt-out citizenship model.No one should have to suffer the burdens of the State without consent. But I fail to see how arguments against coercion disallow consenting citizens to make certain transactions involving their rights and property. Of course, I haven't read Sartwell's book.
Would that we lived in a world where Sartwell could, with a stroke of a pen in a notary's office, sign away all of the burdens and benefits of the State. If that happy day ever dawns, remember, I have dibs on his car.
does it matter to your argument that atomic weaponry has already been developed?
Are you a George Kateb fan? Me too!
Gee, that's not a very big assumption, is it?
As for myself, believing in government by consent of the people, the basic moral argument is that the preservation of civil and human rights is a social enterprise. Anarchy cannot preserve civil rights at all, having no organized authority or mechanism to do so. There is certainly a fair debate to be had on the level of organization or the power that the state mechanism should have (one reason cherry pickings like "Nazi Germany" and "Pol Pot's Cambodia" are far less convincing than "Sweden" is that Sweden's is far more representative of self-govenrment). However, there is a relatively simple argument that, morally, anarchy provides greater opportunity for unjustified government to rise to power than does an organized, representative government using the minimal amount of "coercion."
One of the great problems with such too-clever-by-half philosophical arguments like these is that they don't truly function in the real world. The only way an uncoercive state of anarchy could exist for long is if everyone agrees to respect each others rights. That such respect has not been accomplised in human history, even with some level of organization and coercion (over those who would run roughshod over the defenseless in such a system), makes the argument very much akin to angels and the heads of pins.
It's certainly fair to observe that organized, "coercive" governments have failed to reach a state of civil harmony, as far as individual rights go, but it's folly to pretend that in the real world any state of anarchy could come as close as these systems have. One must also argue this from a global perspective. Cherry-picking the ad-hoc example of some small, fairly harmonious collective that managed to avoid organized government for a time is stealing a base. Those naturally get swallowed up, either by oppresive forms of government or the representative ones, the latter being a far better compromise.
To not understand the basic fact that anarchy/Libertarianism pressuposes a Rational/sinless world and we obviously do not live in such a world makes your support of such.....Irrational.
Great Somalia link. The selected comparison drew some serious attention here, but I was mainly being glib.
For the most part I believe social organization comes from the bottom up, so an anarchist Sweden would in my opinion be a comparatively ordered society, just as East Germany was relatively functional compared to other Communist states. Both societies are filled with cooperative and capable individuals.
An anarchist society would function relatively well where the people themselves work, cooperate and organize spontaneously to a high degree (e.g. Japan; see Kristof on Kobe earthquake), and where threat from organized external violence is low; most likely due to the beneficence of a great state military power, as in the modern world, or from geographic isolation from others, as with the older Iceland. (unsustainable and externally predicated conditions)
But even with these conditions, such a society still would not live as well, or as fairly as under state government.
but anarchy is impossible in the sense that the state is a snowball: it has increased the pervasiveness of its authority since it was established, and cannot be stopped. so, putting it mildly, we're fucked.
the Mafia families are a prime example of alternative Govt. and orginizations like that are inevitable if/when the Civil State is gone..in theory. There is always Order in Disorder, that is a Scientific statement and applies politically.
If Mafia families are the alternative to the state, then the question becomes whether the market competition between Mafia families is a better check on power than the check electoral democracy places on a monopoly Mafia family. Anarchist libertarians generally view the power of Exit more favorably than the power of Voice; competition is superior to monopoly.
And, in the end, I don't think that there exists compelling justification for a state considerably more exstensive than a minimal one, even on the "social contract" reasoning. There are just too many hurdles one encounters at each step you attempt in moving away from Friedman-style "anarchy." Again, short of *compelling* justification, people should otherwise be left free in their own affairs and pursuits. If there were compelling justification for believing that people would be going hungry under laissez-faire conditions, and that private charitable institutions couldn't deal with such problems, you could justify state action in that area, but the compelling justifications just aren't there. And there is *certainly* no compelling justification for the egalitarian intuitions that a Rawls brings to his "original position" from which deviations have to justified. The only justifiable "intuition" (and it's not even right to call it that) to bring to such a hypothetical social-contract situation from which deviations have to be justified (via some compelling justification) is the libertarian one -- people should be left free.
Will's argument is interesting but I'm not sure that human flourishing and legitimacy are so independent. Consent is a big part of the legitimacy of an agreement; and in general people consent to what they believe to be good for them, what will increase their freedom or capacity to do what they want. If anarchy doesn't increase human flourishing, most people won't want it. If they don't want it, they won't consent to it, and I don't see how it can be legitimate to impose anarchy on the unwilling.
The State is the consequence of that reality. Debating a morality of the state (or the legitimacy of states doing what they do, i.e., exercising their monopoly on violence) is as useful as debating the morality or legitimacy of gravity.
Personally, I would love to live in a world with much less coercion than we experience now. But nobody arguing for less coercion offers any reason to believe that it is possible given the current state of civilization. Creating a less coercive state in this world might be as functional as de-clawing a cat and releasing it into the woods.
You are free to depart the social contract at any time. Plenty of places still exist where one can drop off the map and disappear, living for all intents and purposes free of any governmental attention or requirement. Some country may claim power over that area but as it will never choose to use it during your lifetime as long as you stay there and do them no harm it is a difference that makes no difference.
I argue that government does not rest on force or coercion insofar as you have the opportunity to take it or leave it. It rests on a social contract. It is the lack of understanding or adherence to this social contract either on the part of the government or the human that causes events which require the use of force on the part of either the government or the human. Many uses of force can be justified morally and many cannot, but it depends on the nature of the crime against the contract.
Further, he claims:
With this in mind, it should now be clear that many anarchists believe that violently overthrowing (say) the US government is ludicrous. For one thing, national states control (and use) the greatest means of violence in human history. And even if it were possible, one entirely likely outcome is some form of fascism. Because the culture hasn't yet cultivated the sort of bottom-up social institutions that would be necessary.
Many anarchists believe in an advanced, industrial society run on principles such as solidarity and worker self-management. When we look at history, doing away with feudalism, chattel slavery, etc, required many generations of struggle and preparation.
If you're interested in one proposed anarchist vision to use as a frame of reference, Participatory Economics is an interesting possibility for some aspects of society. (Of course, any real improved society would require experimentation. So it's a vision, not some rigid blueprint.)
1) On an island with 100 democrats, 90 of them vote to establish a tax and enforce it with guns. The other 10 opt not to pay the tax; the island police force arrests them under the law.
2) On an island with 100 anarchists, 90 of them band together and sign a contract to pay for common roads. The other 10 opt to use the roads, which go everywhere, anyway. The island's majority contracts to form a roadways-defense-force to prevent this misuse, and the 10 are locked up in a small POW camp.
One of these is unjustified and immoral coercion, the other is a rightful private action in defense of property. Yet the options available to all parties, and the results---10 people locked up because the 90 will them to be locked up---are exactly the same.
That's why I think anarchists are talking themselves in circles. If you use the word "government" they imagine themselves in the harassed-underdog role; if you use the word "private militia" they imagine themselves as the self-defending strongman on top.
1. If you cannot provide a good argument for P, then you are rationally required to believe -P.
2. You cannot provide a good argument for P.
Therefore, you are rationally required to believe -P.
The argument's invalid because 1 is false. It can be rational to believe neither P nor -P.
Sartwell's argument is of this invalid form.
I have a question regarding the anarchy/government discussion above. Can it be said that government is the inevitable result of anarchy? After all, government has been the definite historical result this time around.
So I think rather than "anarchy vs state" dichotomy the question becomes the granular "lower barriers to migration are better," combined with "no state should interfere internally with another."
Thus, as long as we had many jurisdictions with low barriers to entry, we could imagine a mix of states and non-states (eg Disney, La Cosa Nostra) coexisting, all "marketing" themselves to a mobile population as a check on quality and a spur to policy innovation.
The justification is that business interaciton between strangers can only be maintained through the threat of force. There is no reason for my gorcer to honor a deal or a price unless there is the threat of lawsuit. There is no reason for an oil company to honor my property boundries without the threat of police aciton. Without force purely consensual trading only works in tight-knit groups or in a perfect world. Even anarchism supposes the necessity of force, they just want to have multiple arbiters of force to choose from.
Whats funny about wanting the ability to opt for another provider of force is that they can already do so, by moving. It is most likely that you will have to move in order to acquire the services of different arbiters of force in an anarchist system, but they see no problem with that. We already have a free market on force, it's call the world and there are many nations to choose from.
As to anarchism, I think it is utopianism. There is nothing in anarchism to protect your "rights". With anarchism the strong will always prey on the weak. Security companies (or DROs or whatever) will have geographic monopolies in mos areas, where their the only game in town. So without another security company paid to keep an eye on the first security company, those with the training and the weaponry can do whatever they want with the citizens. Dictatorships will arise, price manipulation similar to the mafia will occur, and the rich will get away crime while the poor are victimized. Hobbes was right, life in the state of nature is nasty, brutish, and short.
Then that itself provides the compelling justification the person to whom you were responding is looking for. But that is not a justification for government, only a justification for using force in self-defense against contract violation.
Well, no, that's not funny. The Coase theorem taught us that what is most important for efficient market outcomes is transaction costs. When I want to switch cell phone providers, I just pick up the phone and make a call. That low transaction cost provides the check of competition on regulating cell phone providers. But if I have to move in order to switch governments, the transaction costs of switching are much higher, and thus the regulatory check of competition is much lower. Which is one of, if not the major reason we get piss poor government.
Absolutely untrue. A central tenet of free market anarchism is that there is no need for granting firms geographical monopolies on force. The territories would overlap in the absence of monopoly. Search Google for the term "polycentric law" or "polycentric legal order" and read the work by Tom Bell and Randy Barnett on this issue.
Notice the disconnect between the first sentence and the second two sentences. You first acknowledge that a free market in the use of force exists on an international level, but then immediately claim that a free market in the use of force (e.g. anarchism) is utopian. How is it that, under the international anarchist order (for there is no central state), the rights of weak countries remain protected against the will of stronger countries?
This is precisely what anarchists deny. Without a government to enforce a monopoly, competition thrives.
Anarchism is more than just a market on the use of force and you're right, the current scenario of international competition is apples and oranges.
I also simply disagree that geographic monopolies will not occur. Rural areas and sparse population don't encourage business diversity, especially for something with a high market entry cost like defence. Of course even if you could absolutely guarantee, not just make geographic monopolies unfavorable, you would still incur the problem already discussed. One of the biggest of which is without uniform justice we have no guarantees that our DROs won't simply enslave us. All the arguments I've seen in favor or a just anarchism rely on a miracle of fine-tuning, to keep all DROs perfectly in line with each other, each individual signing up to a large bureaucracy of overlapping protection, and voluntary regulation.
Correction: Problems already discussed above.
Well, I don't think any anarchist - definitely not this one - thinks that you can absolutely guarantee the non-existence of geographic monopolies; the best we can do is structure incentives in such a way that they are unlikely to arise.
As for your claim that "Rural areas and sparse population don’t encourage business diversity", I completely agree - all the more reason not the live in rural areas with sparse populations. This is an argument frequently made against privatizing things like the Postal service or public schools or roads. No one is entitled to live wherever they please. There is no reason why urban dwellers should have to subsidize rural communities. Part of the cost of choosing to live in a rural community is doing without some of the same services enjoyed by more concentrated populations.
But we have no such guarantee now regarding our governments. Demanding such a guarantee is utopian, for there is no higher authority to turn to to reign in the lower authority, for if there was such a higher authority, the problem would be recreated one level higher. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The relevant question is not which system makes a guarantee possible, because no system does that. The relevant question is whether electoral democracy or market competition act as better checks on power.
And this differs from electoral democracy...how?