[LibertarianEnterprise] An alternative to government? It seems possible!
One thing that's always bugged me about traditional Libertarianism, is the plain fact that no matter how willing we are, we're actually still submitting to force when being taxed for things like law enforcement and the military. Some time ago, I came across an extremely compelling article over at Freedomain Radio (http://www.freedomainradio.com/), that offers what I think is the first really consistent - and believable - approach to the Non-Aggression Principle that I've ever seen. I'll provide some excerpts here, but you should really go to the site and check it out yourself! Also, the article was made into a podcast (http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/stateless_society_take_2_320.mp3) , and a video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=1B-5Lbpk_3Y) == The Stateless Society: An Examination of Alternatives By Stefan Molyneux ...while most people are comfortable with the idea of reducing the size and power of the State, they become distinctly uncomfortable with the idea of getting rid of it completely. To use a medical metaphor, if the State is a cancer, they prefer medicating it into an unstable remission, rather than eliminating it completely. This can never work. A central lesson of history is that States are parasites which always expand until they destroy their host population ...Even the rare reductions are merely temporary. The United States was founded on the principle of limited government; it took little more than a century for the State to break the bonds of the Constitution, implement the income tax, take control of the money supply and the educational system, and begin its catastrophic expansion. There is no example in history of a State being permanently reduced in size. All that happens during a tax or civil revolt is that the State retrenches, figures out what it did wrong, and plans its expansion again. Or provokes a war, which silences all but fringe dissenters. Given these well-known historical facts, why do still people believe that such a deadly predator can be tamed? Surely it can only be because they consider a slow strangulation in the grip of an expanding State somehow better than the quick death of a society bereft of a State. Why, then, do most people believe that a society will crumble without a coercive and monopolistic social agency at its core? There are a number of answers to this question, but generally they tend to revolve around three central points: * dispute resolution; * collective services; and, * pollution. Dispute Resolution How can the free market deal with the problem of dispute resolution? Outside the realm of organized crime, very few people are comfortable with armed confrontations, and so generally prefer to delegate that task to others. Let's assume that people's need for such representatives produces Dispute Resolution Organizations (DROs), which promise to resolve disputes on their behalf. Thus, if Stan is hired by Bob, they both sign a document specifying which DRO they both accept as an authority in dispute resolution. If they disagree about something, and are unable to resolve it between themselves, they submit their case to the DRO, and agree to abide by that DRO's decision. So far so good. However, what if Stan decides he doesn't want to abide by the DRO's decision? Well, several options arise. First of all, when Stan signed the DRO agreement, it is likely that he would have agreed to property confiscation if he did not abide by the DRO's decision. Thus the DRO would be entirely within its right to go and remove property from Stan by force if necessary to pay for his side of the dispute. It is at this point that people generally throw up their arms and dismiss the idea of DROs by claiming that society would descend into civil war within a few days. Everyone, of course, realizes that civil war is a rather bad situation, and so it seems likely that the DROs would consider alternatives to armed combat. What other options could be pursued? To take a current example, small debts which are not worth pursuing legally are still regularly paid off and why? Because a group of companies produce credit ratings on individuals, and the inconvenience of a lowered credit rating is usually greater than the inconvenience of paying off a small debt. Thus, in the absence of any recourse to force, small debts are usually settled. This is one example of how desired behaviour can be elicited without pulling out a gun or kicking in a door ...But let's push the theory to the max, to see if it holds. To examine a worst-case scenario, imagine that Stan's employer is an evil man who bribes the DRO to rule in his favour, and the DRO imposes an unconscionable fine say, one million dollars on Stan. First of all, this is such an obvious problem that DROs, to get any business at all, would have to deal with this danger up front. An appeal process to a different DRO would have to be part of the contract. DROs
[LibertarianEnterprise] An Excellent Book Recommendation and Review...
A Review of the book: Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics, by Stefan Molyneux of: http://www.freedomainradio.com By Eugene, of: http://www.LessGovernment.com Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics, by Stefan Molyneux, is a difficult work to summarize without giving it away, so to speak. Since this is a book I believe every human being who breathes and thinks should read, here I will briefly attempt to react to the ideas therein without overtly rehashing them in an unbecoming manner. First of all, it should be noted that Mr. Molyneux has crammed an enormous amount of material into a relatively short book (223 pages, including the index and all appendices). The writing style, fluid and swift, manages a good pace that simultaneously does not seem hurried or lacking in detail. Complex ideas are put forth and explored in a clear, concise, refreshing manner that many nonfiction philosophy writers should take note of. Aesthetically, the layout of the book is very clean, even offering a point-by-point summary of ideas toward the end. On a more personal note, many of Molyneux's descriptions and explanations are extraordinarily hilarious, and I suspect some of this is just natural humor rather than blatant attempts to be funny. Or maybe it's just my own eccentricity. At any rate, a dull slog through some forbidden philosophical swamp this is not. If you have a pulse, you should recognize the entertainment value of this work and that says a lot, given the serious subject matter, a testament to the author's adept employment of the English language. My only real complaint centers on occasional lines that refer to something mentioned above, when in fact what is being referred to occurred many pages or sections back. While in word processor form, such references certainly pertain to something that occurred above, but this is not so in printed form. As such, I had a few moments of slight confusion as I scanned toward the top of a page in search of something, but I eventually got used to it. Anyway, this is a minor point of contention over an arguably irrelevant detail. Someone else might not even notice. Not counting the introductory sections, UPB is divided into three parts: Theory, Application and Practice. Part I: Theory establishes the Universally Preferable Behavior framework by using logic and with a complete regard for known hang-ups, such as Hume's is/ought dichotomy and the bottomless pit known as utilitarianism. Part II: Application tests the UPB framework by examining a number of ethical scenarios (rape, murder, theft, fraud and lying). Obviously, the UPB concept would be immediately suspect if it were to conclude, for instance, that rape and murder are good (universally preferable) behaviors. Thus Molyneux's approach of first using his system to verify some of the values already held by most humans is a great place to start. Part III: Practice delves into the null zone, a realm between little truths and great truths where nonexistent entities are allowed to completely rewrite or ignore reality. These entities are, of course, usually gods and governments, and Molyneux gives no quarter as these fanciful constructs are exposed for what they really are. The entire approach is extremely rational, and some readers might find themselves fascinated as they begin in Theory, where ethics are initially assumed to not exist, and behold the gradual process of reasoning which produces the UPB framework. Per Molyneux's intention, it becomes no more sane to call ethical propositions relative or subjective than to say the same of mathematics or the scientific method. We know two and two equal four, not five, and we know murder is good to be logically invalid. Further, two and two equal four regardless of what uniform a person wears, and murder is good remains invalid without respect to a person's race, title or professional affiliation. Early on, the author refers to philosophy's greatest beast, a seemingly unconquerable monster that has bested thinker after thinker through the ages. I am certainly not qualified to determine whether the behemoth of secular ethics has at last met its end, and even Molyneux himself seems hesitant to make premature pronouncements of success, as he reveals prior to Part I. Whether I have succeeded ... is not up to you, and it is not up to me. If the reasoning holds, the greatest beast is down. (Molyneux, UPB, pg. 16) Nonetheless, it is this layman's opinion that said beast is, at best, quivering on a cavern floor as it clings tenuously to life. If it survives, it will be only through a lame retreat into the null zone, where down is up, gravity makes things fall skyward, and two plus two make five. Having read a great deal of material from many writers Rand, Rothbard, Nozick, Stirner, Nietzsche, and others I can say without a doubt that Stefan Molyneux has presented one of the most coherent and accessible
