From: Michael Hohensee <mah248@nyu.edu>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 14:46:00 +0800
To: "Cypherpunks (E-mail)" <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net>
Subject: Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <5F152E6E8E6FD21195DF00104B2425AD02B258@yarrowbay.chaffeyhomes.com>
Message-ID: <3643E9AE.24027635@nyu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Matthew James Gering wrote:
> 
> Laissez Faire capitalism is based on a concept of individual rights.
> Therefore the proper role of any government (in a libertarian state) or
> individual/social institution (in rational anarchy) is to protect individual
> rights (life, liberty, property), and act as an objective framework for
> retributive force.

No government can protect individual rights.  The only way one could do
so would be if it: (a) could predict the future, and act to prevent
certain futures from happening; or (b) it controls every aspect and
motion of each individual's life, thereby ensuring that nobody steps out
of line.

Unfortunately, the first scenario is impossible, given the current state
of the art, and the second results in the complete extinction of
individual rights in the name of safety (which is the ultimate goal of
the current powers that be, it seems).

All any state can do is threaten to "retaliate" against (why not just
say "attack") people who disobey its edicts.  In order for this threat
to be credible, the state must wield sufficient power to kill any
individual (or group of individuals) who would stand against it.  If it
does not have this power, it cannot govern.  The problem is, if it does
have this power, then there is nothing to stop those individuals in
control of the state from violating the individual rights of its
citizens.  As often seems the case today, for example.

The system you suggest, which I assume consists of a state with a
"minimal" amount of power, run by enlightened people, is in a state of
extremely unstable equilibrium (if it is indeed in equilibrium).  If it
wields just enough power to enforce its will, that power can be used by
evil men to increase its power.

Just look at what happened after the Constitutional coup took place in
the fledgling USA.  Remember the Whiskey Rebellion?  When we lost the
Articles of Confederation, we were taking the first steps down the road
to the tyranny of today.  The anti-federalists predicted this, although
they sorely underestimated how far it would go --assuming that it would
be stopped by another revolution.

The minimalist state has been tried.  It lasted less than a decade
before it started turning into what we have today, and what was left of
its spirit died with the war of northern aggression.

The only truly free system is one in which there is no body of people
calling itself a government which can enforce its will over the
individual.  The only way people can seem to be free living under such a
body is entirely dependent upon the good will of their masters, and this
is a shaky assumption to make.

> Therefore, any transaction that violates individual rights is immoral (if
> not illegal) and constitutes a black market.

How about:  Any action that involves the initiation of force against the
property of another person (the person belongs to himself, of course) is
immoral.

This neatly tidies up the obvious question of exactly what "individual
rights" are.  There's a partial list of them in the bill of rights, but
it is not complete, by its own admission.  Furthermore, the above
definition excludes such dubious rights as the "right to an education",
the "right to welfare", etc.

> e.g. assassinations, ransom, stolen goods, extortion, slavery, etc.

All of the above involve the initiation (or threat of initiation) of
force.  Hence they are immoral, and the victims and any bystanders would
be morally justified in using force against the initiators.  Of course,
this would not be true in a governed society, where the state must hold
a monopoly on the use of force, if only to maintain its own position. 
Much less efficient.  

Besides, putting a subset of the population to the task of defining what
is and isn't moral leads to such inanities as "homosexuality is
immoral", "premarital sex/underage sex is immoral", and "ingesting
certain compounds is immoral."  

We've all got our pet peeves.  Would you like to live under mine?  Would
I like to live under yours?  Can I trust you to be tolerant?  Can I
trust your successors, 20 years from now?  Can my descendants trust
subsequent successors, 200 years later?  Experience tends to show the
contrary.

> To create a anarcho-capitalist definition of free market where everything
> goes and there is no concept of individual rights is as immoral and perverse
> as the statist concepts that similarly have no concept of individual rights
> (fascism, communism).

The anarcho-capitalist free market is not one where "everything goes,"
and there is indeed a strong concept of individual rights.  What is
moral and not moral is defined by society on an individual basis.  The
first and only rule is:

No one has the right to initiate force against another or another's
property.

This is the fundamental and only "social contract" we make.  Anyone who
disagrees with this is obviously antisocial, and nobody's going to want
to live with him (or allow him to continue living, if he attacks
someone).

>From this, morality follows.  If X does Y to Z, and if Y is perceived as
immoral, then X is not going to be very popular with Z or anyone else,
unless he can make amends.  No one will want to trade with him, be near
him, etc.  This is a very strong motive to avoid doing immoral things.

If Y is really nasty, such as the initiation of force, then X is going
to be in *deep* trouble.  Z may well shoot him out of self defense, and
even if he survives his action, he'll have to pay a *lot* of restitution
before people will trust him again, if ever.  Law enforcement by
ostracism --read L. Neil Smith's "The Probability Broach", for a more
detailed description.  

In summary, a free market is far from being an immoral market.  In fact,
it is the most moral market there is, since there is no state which
holds the "right" to initiate force.

Regards,

Michael Hohensee