What’s The Alternative To Theft?
Jun 20, 05 | 7:33 pm by John LopezThat’s the essence of the crying questions being put forth by voting conservatives in comments here. They need government to steal from you in order to survive, they say: they simply can’t think of any other way to exist except by having a section of everyone’s life carved off and dumped into the common pot for the common good, and they challenge anyone to come up with a better way for them to live their lives.
My questions are these: Am I required to provide robbers with an alternative career? Does my failure to do so invalidate the idea that people ought not steal?
These are pretty simple questions, but I don’t think I’ll hold my breath waiting for any answers.
June 20th, 2005 at Jun 20, 05 | 8:52 pm
Mr. Lopez, I knew I could count on you to chime in!
I can see that I’m going to have to write another essay on the topic.
The question isn’t really, “what’s the alternative to theft,” but “How does one set up a system where no one establishes organized theft?” To date, it hasn’t been accomplished with any success outside of the most primitive tribal groups. And once thieving begins, it’s simply a matter of scale.
Really, Anarcho-capitalism is a beautiful theory. Unfortunately, most people aren’t made that way. It’s the same problem Marxism has. And, apparently, constitutional Republics. Some humans just can’t seem to keep their hands to themselves, and there’s enough of them who are that way to make the problem non-trivial and so far insoluble, regardless of all the gibbets, gullotines, gas chambers and gulags used to eliminate the undesireable elements that ruin otherwise elegant theories.
Well, this isn’t the forum for my essay, so I’ll toddle along. Give me a day or so. I’ve got to hammer out some boilerplate, bind up a few strawmen, round up a couple of cliches, and dig up a myth or two.
June 20th, 2005 at Jun 20, 05 | 9:17 pm
No, these questions don’t require an essay. Reiterating:
What’s the alternative to theft?
Am I required to provide robbers with an alternative career?
Does my failure to do so invalidate the idea that people ought not steal?
June 20th, 2005 at Jun 20, 05 | 9:51 pm
Checking out that link Lopez provides, it doesn’t appear to me Kevin is interested in much serious discussion. Aside from dodging Lopez’ questions above, he seems content to retort with glib remarks like the following:
Africa is a marvelous example of what anarchy promises. Thank you, no. I’ll pass.
Well yeah, if the majority of the population is starving and/or aligned with some warlord(s) bent on marauding and conquering the countryside then not much good is likely to result. Care to back up the claim this is a necessary result of anarchy?
June 20th, 2005 at Jun 20, 05 | 9:53 pm
Some humans just can’t seem to keep their hands to themselves
Therefore, give them a seat in Congress or a chance to vote money out of your pocketbook. Makes perfect sense, Kev.
June 20th, 2005 at Jun 20, 05 | 10:34 pm
Stefan,
Baker’s not interested in serious discussion.
June 20th, 2005 at Jun 20, 05 | 11:09 pm
Kevin,
My question: Ought *you* endorse and collaborate in organized theft?
June 21st, 2005 at Jun 21, 05 | 12:02 am
Ah, Lopez is right.
June 21st, 2005 at Jun 21, 05 | 12:40 am
Well, I should probably qualify that a tad. As best I can tell from these threads Kevin thinks that government will ALWAYS exist no matter what and therefore we should all try to support whichever kind of government Kevin favors. Probably the best response to that (which Kevin evidently didn’t read the first time) was something Micha quoted from Anthony De Jasay in some other post:
“Throughout its history, humanity has permanently displayed a physical condition classified in ordinary language as “illness” or “disease.” There has always been what Hume would call a “constant conjunction” between human life and illness.
The Hobbesian hypothesis that illness is a necessary condition of the human species has strong empirical support. It has never been falsified.
Throughout its history, humanity has permanently displayed a social condition classified in ordinary language as “the state” or “government.” There has always been what Hume would have called a “constant conjunction” between human society and government.
The Hobbesian hypothesis that government is a necessary condition of social life has strong empirical support. It has never been falsified.
Arguments in favour of the prevention or eradication of disease are evidently misguided, and may be dangerous. They are often put forward by naive persons with little understanding of reality.
Arguments in favour of fostering society’s capacity to evolve anarchic orders and live with less or no government are evidently misguided, and may be dangerous. They are often put forward by naive persons with little or no understanding of reality.”
- Anthony De Jasay, Justice and Its Surroundings
June 21st, 2005 at Jun 21, 05 | 12:44 am
Colby Cosh inadvertently brushes the subject:
Similarly, the Somalis are doing quite a bit better than the inhabitants of Rhodesia.
Hmmm - speaking of Somalia, it’s odd that voting conservatives overlook the wonderful free market in weaponry, there. No pesky ATF, no waiting periods: “you pay, you get, you go.” But of course the vast majority of said conservatives are in favor of gun control (for wogs), anyhow.
June 21st, 2005 at Jun 21, 05 | 1:09 am
Wikipedia has this interesting tidbit to say:
“Somalia has a market economy. As one of the world’s poorest and least developed countries, Somalia has relatively few resources. Much of the economy has been devastated by the civil war, but has gained significant ground since the collapse of the government. Agriculture is the most important sector, with livestock accounting for about 40% of GDP and about 65% of export earnings. Nomads and semi-nomads, who are dependent upon livestock for their livelihood, make up a large portion of the population. After livestock, bananas are the principal export; sugar, sorghum, maize, and fish are products for the domestic market. The small industrial sector, based on the processing of agricultural products, accounts for 10% of GDP; most facilities have been shut down because of the civil strife. Moreover, in 1999, continuing civil disturbances in Mogadishu and outlying areas interfered with any substantial economic advance and with international aid arrangements.”
- Wikipedia
I guess cheap cell-phones are preferable to mass-slaughter.
June 21st, 2005 at Jun 21, 05 | 7:04 am
Life is to disease as social communities are to government?
And since we haven’t cured every physical malady we won’t ever be able to cure the “disease” of the state?
I think the advances in medicine over the last century give hope that even the disease of Democracy will one day be cured. People don’t like walking around with their freedoms hemorrhaging all over the place.
June 21st, 2005 at Jun 21, 05 | 7:55 am
You know, I’d forgotten about that. No need to write that essay after all.
June 21st, 2005 at Jun 21, 05 | 7:58 am
Whoops! Wrong comment. Try this one.
June 21st, 2005 at Jun 21, 05 | 4:39 pm
And since we haven’t cured every physical malady we won’t ever be able to cure the “disease” of the state?
Well, the intended meaning is that we’ve made vast improvement in eliminating disease, to the point where people live until 75 or so on average instead of 30 or 40.
June 21st, 2005 at Jun 21, 05 | 4:51 pm
I figured the quote is appropriate since Kevin accuses anarchy of being “an ideal system which ignores human nature” maybe every other post he makes. As Kevin (apparently) refuses to do, I’ve read serious anarchist authors like Rodderick Long, Anthony de Jasay, Rothbard, Tucker, Spooner, etc and their proposals don’t sound to me like pie-in-the-sky pipe-dreams.
I don’t know if Kevin will bother reading this either, but for what it’s worth market anarchism and Marxism do have some similarities but of course some major differences as well, as Hoppe explains here.
June 21st, 2005 at Jun 21, 05 | 8:08 pm
Stefan:
I read it. “(M)arket anarchism and Marxism do have some similarities”. Indeed they do. They require almost everyone to conform to the relevant philosophy, and neither has any answer for situations in which a significant fraction of the population does not agree to go along. Neither system has been successfully established because of this inherent flaw. There seems to be this “then a Miracle occurs!” faith in both systems that, eventually, all people will become enlightened to The Truth and will embrace the philosophy wholly, and things will thenceforth be wonderful.
They certainly share that.
Unfortunately greed, ignorance, sloth, rapacity, busymindedness, cussedness, anger, idiocy, and a host of other ills also exist in human nature in varying amounts, and for that reason the ideals of anarcho-capitalism and Marxism fail in the real world. Further, they’re unable to overcome the inertia of existing systems - regardless of the lack of philosophical consistency, much less elegance, in those systems.
Billy Beck was complaining that most people don’t have a philosophy - and on that he and I are in complete agreement. But apparently he (and most of you in here) believe that they can all get one - and I don’t believe that, either. Most people get along in the system they’re born into, unless it gets too bad to stand:
“…all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Which most often looks a lot like the government they just threw off - or something worse.
All of us here, you me, everyone who spends time in here reading this stuff, has the intellect, inclination, free time and motivation to think about philosophy.
And what percentage of the population do we represent? How many people don’t have any or all of the prerequisites? What portion of the population - worldwide - is interested only in accumulating enough food for themselves and their children? Is secondarily interested in the safety, security, and health of same? And will follow anybody who promises to provide that? Or at least promises to stay taking that, so long as they cooperate? How many will sacrifice themselves if it means the promise of the future safety of their children?
That’s why I call these ideas utopist pipe-dreams. You ignore all the evidence of history. I don’t.
June 21st, 2005 at Jun 21, 05 | 8:32 pm
I seriously doubt that Beck or anyone else thinks that *everyone* can in fact get one.
You’re proof to the contrary.
June 21st, 2005 at Jun 21, 05 | 8:34 pm
There seems to be this “then a Miracle occurs!” faith in both systems that, eventually, all people will become enlightened to The Truth and will embrace the philosophy wholly, and things will thenceforth be wonderful.
Kennedy doesn’t believe this. He has been quite explicit in his belief that government will continue to exist until it becomes impractical. Whether that would ever happen is unknown, at least to me.
Unfortunately greed, ignorance, sloth, rapacity, busymindedness, cussedness, anger, idiocy, and a host of other ills also exist in human nature in varying amounts, and for that reason the ideals of anarcho-capitalism and Marxism fail in the real world. Further, they’re unable to overcome the inertia of existing systems - regardless of the lack of philosophical consistency, much less elegance, in those systems.
Unfortunately greed, ignorance, sloth, rapacity, busymindedness, cussedness, anger, idiocy, and a host of other ills also exist in human nature in varying amounts, and for that reason the ideals of abolitionists and Marxism fail in the real world. Further, they’re unable to overcome the inertia of existing systems - regardless of the lack of philosophical consistency, much less elegance, in those systems.
June 21st, 2005 at Jun 21, 05 | 9:45 pm
You ignore all the evidence of history and plain common sense besides, every time you set foot in a voting booth.
June 23rd, 2005 at Jun 23, 05 | 8:56 am
They require almost everyone to conform to the relevant philosophy, and neither has any answer for situations in which a significant fraction of the population does not agree to go along. Neither system has been successfully established because of this inherent flaw.
Speaking for market anarchy, there’s a reason most of it’s theories don’t have suggestions to force people to conform to the philosophy.
It’s because doing so is wrong.
Unfortunately greed, ignorance, sloth, rapacity, busymindedness, cussedness, anger, idiocy, and a host of other ills also exist in human nature in varying amounts, and for that reason the ideals of anarcho-capitalism and Marxism fail in the real world.
Are you saying An-Cap (or similar) societies once existed and then died out? If so, how does this square with your implications elsewhere that such societies have never existed?
June 23rd, 2005 at Jun 23, 05 | 7:30 pm
On that note, Long mentions in his famous anarchy talk a couple of theories on the formation of the state, although of course I have no idea if they’re true or not:
Theory 1: Foreign invaders, probably nomads or something, periodically plunder an agricultural area, kill the people, and take their stuff. Then they gradually decide that it’s more productive if they don’t kill _all_ the people and take _all_ their stuff, then they decide, well why leave when we could stay?
Theory 2: In this scenario the invaders are successfully fended off by a band of warriors which gradually begins to have more and more domestic power. Long cites the English monarchs as a possible example here, where the early English kings (think Beowulf) were mainly war-chiefs who battled foreign invaders and led troops of soldiers.
June 23rd, 2005 at Jun 23, 05 | 9:07 pm
No need for theories:
May I present his Excellency, President Sana Ojeda: