I do mean self interest in the sense of instrumental rationality - doing what seems best to further your own goals. Those goals can be altruistic, of course. The point is that the question that requires an answer is whether relying on self interest in that sense does actually always produce the best result, and how that is supposed to be established. — Echarmion

The rationality axiom is not a libertarian recommendation. It is a praxeological axiom. At any given moment, we are always acting in such a way that aims at satisfying our highest want. It is inconceivable that we could prioritise a lesser want over a higher want, for what could this ‘prioritising’ possibly mean, but that it is itself the higher want? Moreover, this is not even a distinctively libertarian claim. It just happens to be that libertarians (especially in the Austrian school) are the ones who tend to observe this. I don’t believe that the notion of self-interest plays a particularly important role in the argument I have presented. It seems like a red herring.

That seems like circular logic though. If people follow their own interests and respect the principle of non-aggression, they will bear the costs and benefits of their actions. If people do not bear the costs and benefits of their actions then they did not follow the principle of non-aggression. If any detrimental effect an action has on a third party is an "aggression" towards that party, the principle of non-aggression is so general as to be useless. — Echarmion

I don’t see what is circular. What I said is true: acts of aggression are predatory, such that one party benefits at another’s expense, and voluntary trade yields mutual benefit. So the fact that the non-aggression principle prohibits the former while permitting the latter goes a long way towards alleviating market failure.

But who is going to decide when compensation is required and how high it should be? Who is going to enforce the collection of compensation? — Echarmion

In the absence of the State, services like rights-enforcement and dispute-resolution would be provided by private firms, competing for consumer patronage.

You have said so repeatedly, but so far I don't see any argument for the claim. That private property avoids the tragedy of the commons is not equivalent to your claim. — Echarmion

The degree to which private property alleviates market failure is a relative one. We must always ask, ‘Compared with what?’ What I have argued and tried to illustrate is that collective or State ownership tend inevitably towards market failure, and a system of private property tends to alleviate these problems. Will it do so perfectly? Of course not, and it is not reasonable to expect it to do so. We are choosing from finitely many imperfect options. That it is conceivable that private property produce market failure problems is not a defeater of it, nor is it a vindication of any alternative in particular. That really was the whole tenor of my argument.

Your analysis is much too simplistic. For one thing, it is not clear to me at all that attacking someone and looting them is cheaper to me than trading with them. Not only is a fight to the death almost always a net loss for both parties in terms of the risk you assume, but the discipline of constant dealings makes it such that back-stabbing somebody today denies you an entire future of trading with them. The fact that some other aggressor might get to them first is not enough to outweigh these considerations, it seems to me. This is difficult, because we are discussing game-theoretic notions concerning a state of nature, with which we are not experientially acquainted in the least. But the very fact that we do not still all exist as atomised looters today means that it must obviously be in our interest to enter into non-violent relations with other persons over long periods of time. If this weren’t the case, the state of nature would still obtain.

About the only thing that I can see actually follows from your analysis is that an individual is unlikely to resort to aggression if the costs of doing so outweigh the profits he is likely to make from it. Indeed, there must be a ‘stronger power’ (stronger than any given individual who is considering becoming an aggressor) set in place in order to dissuade aggression in the first place. But there is no reason to think that this has to be a State.

It is interesting that you suggest that individuals might ‘gang together’, even if it is only for criminal purposes. Whatever their purposes may be, these gang-members must have a peaceful arrangement with one another. Each individual benefits from being in the gang because he has the protection of his comrades, and it is not in the interest of any given member to back-stab any other member, because he has the rest of the gang to answer to. So the inner-dynamic of the gang demonstrates why the leap that you make to Statism is unwarranted: the gang itself may well be perfectly egalitarian with respect to its members; the ‘stronger power’ is not so much a monopoly at the top as much as the rest of the gang. Recognising this gives us a clue as to how aggression can successfully be prohibited in a Stateless society. Each individual treats peacefully with everyone else, because if he doesn’t, he has the rest of the society to answer to; at the very least, they will not associate with him thereafter. So the discipline of constant dealings creates an incentive to treat peacefully with everyone else in perpetuity.

What is more, Statism is no serious solution to aggression, since the State is the aggressor par excellence. Your solution to the problem of criminality, it seems, is to place our trust in a criminal gang of unparalleled scale. Needless to say, this is not very convincing.

It seems to me that this system doesn’t solve what a State can’t. I personally don’t see the US government as necessarily coercive.

I think “coercive” is the term billionaires use when they don’t want to pay taxes. That’s why they funded your economics, poli sci, and philosophy departments at Oxford.

Moreover, it is simply incoherent to say that declaring an act of ownership is aggression. Certainly, it can be aggression (like in the case of theft), but it is not aggression per se. It is incoherent for the same reason as Proudhon’s dictum, ‘Property is theft’, is incoherent; as Marx himself observed, you have to first have a system of property in place before you can even recognise theft (or any other kind of aggression) for what it is. — Virgo Avalytikh

It is not the declaration of ownership, 'this is mine' which is an act of aggression, it is the declaration of a right to ownership, 'people have the right to own things', which is an act of aggression. So it's not comparable to 'property is theft' it is inherent within the concept of "right", the declaration of a right is an act of aggression against all those who do not believe that the declared right ought to be a right. This is the problem with Locke's concept of social contract, it is not a contract which we willingly agree to, and therefore rights are imposed and enforced. Locke's idea that there are natural rights is what is incoherent.

And it is a false premise to assume that a system of property is required to recognize an act of aggression, because many acts of aggression have nothing to do with ones property, they are attacks against the person.

If rights do not exist prior to the State, then my first question would be: Where does the State get its ‘right’ to govern? Either this right comes from the State’s own declarative statement about itself, or else it is a precondition of the State. The former is simply circular: it is no more persuasive to argue for the State’s legitimacy by appealing to what the State declares about itself than when I declare myself to be the supreme ruler of the universe. If the legitimacy of the State is the very thing in dispute, then appealing to the State’s authority to justify its authority is begging the question. And if the State’s right to govern is a precondition of the State, then your assertion is simply false: at least one right can and does exist, prior to and independently of the State.

The third possibility, of course, is that the State really doesn’t have the right to govern — Virgo Avalytikh

Your options here are not exhaustive, some might say God gives the right to the State. Regardless, people have rights, a State is not the type of thing which could have a right. So we agree on your third option, I think it's incoherent to say that the State has the right to govern. The problem though, which I mentioned in the last post, the rights which individual people are said to have, are given by the State, or some other social convention. If we abolish the State, we give up what is given by the State, and this includes rights. There is no such thing as "natural rights", this is incoherent. You yourself have dismissed talk of "the natural" as providing no useful distinction. So, would you agree that rights come into existence (naturally) as a product of human conventions, such as the State, and do not pre-exist such conventions, which bestow upon the individual human beings, various "rights"? And, since "rights" are commonly associated with "the State", and you advocate for removal of the State, why not dismiss rights altogether as an archaic concept produced for the purpose of gathering support for the State, and opt for a completely different sort of convention, without 'rights'?

Again, no: ‘aggression’ is used very specifically in the context of libertarianism. It is defined as the initiatory use of force against persons of property. — Virgo Avalytikh

The phrase "person of property" appears to be incoherent.

As I explained above, a system of property rights is a precondition of recognising acts of aggression for what they are. — Virgo Avalytikh

Again, this is incoherent, because you are defining "aggression" in relation to property, rather than in relation to people. It is very obvious that many acts of aggression occur against people regardless of the person's property. You cannot define "aggression" merely by reference to a person's property, or else you would have a decrepit principle of non-aggression which would only apply to property-related acts of aggression. You are merely subjugating you definition of "aggression" to the concept of property rights, to create the illusion that there is no incompatibility between "non-aggression" and "property rights". 'Aggression is an act against a person's property'. That's nonsense, and if we define "aggression" properly we see that the convention of "property rights" is itself an act of aggression.

Is it aggressive to lock your doors so that you can keep all of your possessions and your home? Do we own our bodies? According to you the State has the power to decide what we can or can't do with our bodies — Harry Hindu

I don't see how this is relevant, or how it is, as you say, according to me.

I’m not taking a side here, but I think she meant to say “persons or property.”

But there is no reason to think that this has to be a State. — Virgo Avalytikh

It is the number one instrument currently in use for that purpose.

It amounts to circling the wagons, so that the level of violence inside the perimeter becomes drastically lower than outside. This in turn facilitates trade, which in turn tends to increase income and wealth inside the perimeter, which in turn increases the potential pay-off of a successful attack.

Maybe, maybe, maybe it is possible to lower violence and aggression within the perimeter by other means, but I would first want to see that in practical operation.

In the meanwhile, awaiting a successful example of how such alternative could work, I am not much of a fan of removing the legions sitting on top of the outer boundaries of the perimeter or shutting down the patrols within the perimeter, because otherwise I would need to quickly resort to looting all the good stuff before anybody else does.

So the inner-dynamic of the gang demonstrates why the leap that you make to Statism is unwarranted — Virgo Avalytikh

Ganging together makes you more successful at looting and pillaging anything that is not too hot or too heavy. No doubt about that. Once the gang exists, it will not disband itself for as long as there is stuff to confiscate from non-gang members. If everybody within the perimeter has become a member of the gang, the gang will still not disband itself, because then it can protect the outer boundaries of the perimeter and also patrol inside, in exchange for a fee, or so.

Each individual treats peacefully with everyone else, because if he doesn’t, he has the rest of the society to answer to; at the very least, they will not associate with him thereafter. — Virgo Avalytikh

The gang will simply coerce these people, in successive rounds of face fisting. It will be a case of "give me what I want, or else!" That strategy works like a charm, seriously,

Your solution to the problem of criminality, it seems, is to place our trust in a criminal gang of unparalleled scale — Virgo Avalytikh

Well, I don't really trust them either, and it obviously does not solve the problem gracefully.

I am not much of a fan of removing the legions sitting on top of the outer boundaries of the perimeter or shutting down the patrols within the perimeter, because otherwise I would need to quickly resort to looting all the good stuff before anybody else does. — alcontali

What @Virgo Avalytikh doesn’t seem to get, and this is probably because she has no concept of the riff raff, living the privileged life of an Oxford grad (forgive me if I didn’t peg you right, but I’m pretty good at this), is that most of the poor would go looting without a State-sanctioned police force to stop them. I have lived in the ghetto, both in Madison and in Chicago (although it wasn’t the worst part where it wouldn’t be safe for a young white boy to go), and I know my people.

I don’t believe that the notion of self-interest plays a particularly important role in the argument I have presented. It seems like a red herring. — Virgo Avalytikh

I use "self-interest" intentionally here, as a replacement for the use (misuse, in my opinion) of the term "market" that is preferred by libertarians. When everything is supposed to be governed by "market forces" or "market systems", what this actually means is that everyone is supposed to act according to their own rational (as in instrumental rationality) self-interest. This is then supposed to produce the "market", and thereby prosperity for all. I find this highly questionable, and that is why I bring it up. Since "market failure" is a significant part of your argument, I think the role of self-interest in libertarian models is very much on topic.

I don’t see what is circular. — Virgo Avalytikh

It's circular because the conclusion that "self-interest combined with non aggression usually leads to a fair (paraphrased) distribution of burdens and profits" is reliant on defining non-aggression as "whatever rules lead to a fair distribution of burdens and profits". The conclusion is inherent in the premise, that is in the way non-aggression is defined.

What I said is true: acts of aggression are predatory, such that one party benefits at another’s expense, and voluntary trade yields mutual benefit. So the fact that the non-aggression principle prohibits the former while permitting the latter goes a long way towards alleviating market failure. — Virgo Avalytikh

And the problem here is that you haven't provided justification for the claim that the non-aggression principle does so, you just use that as a premise. Which leads me to my above criticism.

In the absence of the State, services like rights-enforcement and dispute-resolution would be provided by private firms, competing for consumer patronage. — Virgo Avalytikh

The obvious problem though is that private firms don't enforce rights - they provide a service. It is entirely irrelevant to the service provide whether or not that service happens to coincide with a right. So what you are talking about is not enforcement of "rights" but of "interests". And naturally the interestst of the strongest will end up being enforced most effectively.

The degree to which private property alleviates market failure is a relative one. We must always ask, ‘Compared with what?’ What I have argued and tried to illustrate is that collective or State ownership tend inevitably towards market failure, and a system of private property tends to alleviate these problems. Will it do so perfectly? Of course not, and it is not reasonable to expect it to do so. We are choosing from finitely many imperfect options. That it is conceivable that private property produce market failure problems is not a defeater of it, nor is it a vindication of any alternative in particular. That really was the whole tenor of my argument. — Virgo Avalytikh

Right, but in that case your argument boils down to "no system is perfect, all systems have their problems to deal with". That may be an insightful realization, it just doesn't do anything to argue for any particular system.

Right, but in that case your argument boils down to "no system is perfect, all systems have their problems to deal with". That may be an insightful realization, it just doesn't do anything to argue for any particular system. — Echarmion

Because she drank the Kool-Aid of the billionaire class that funded her educational curriculum. Perhaps daddy is rich, too? States seem particularly coercive to the rich when they don’t want to pay taxes.

As I pointed out above, it is not possible to determine an action as definitively ‘aggressive’ unless one already has a system of rights in place by which to make that judgement. ‘Aggression’ is not a property which inheres in an action; it is a relation of an action to a specific (property) right. Consider something ostensibly aggressive, such as my punching you in the face. Does this constitute an act of ‘aggression’? That depends. Perhaps we have both signed up for a boxing match. Perhaps we are acting and this is part of the scene. Or consider something ostensibly innocuous, like simply standing. Is this aggression? Again, it depends. If I am standing in my own living room, then probably not. If I am trespassing in your living room, and have been asked to leave, then yes. To say of any particular action that it is ‘aggressive’ presupposes a background schema of rights. Therefore, rights are a precondition of aggression. Therefore, declaring a right of ownership in the first instance cannot be aggression. That is to put the cart before the horse.

Invasions of one’s person are just a sub-species of invasions of one’s property in general. Property rights begin with the right to self-ownership. Obviously, I must first own myself before it can be determined what (else) I may own. All rights are ultimately just rights of use or ownership over scarce resources that have alternative uses, whether these be our own bodies, or whatever.

Your options here are not exhaustive, some might say God gives the right to the State. Regardless, people have rights, a State is not the type of thing which could have a right. So we agree on your third option, I think it's incoherent to say that the State has the right to govern. The problem though, which I mentioned in the last post, the rights which individual people are said to have, are given by the State, or some other social convention. If we abolish the State, we give up what is given by the State, and this includes rights. There is no such thing as "natural rights", this is incoherent. You yourself have dismissed talk of "the natural" as providing no useful distinction. So, would you agree that rights come into existence (naturally) as a product of human conventions, such as the State, and do not pre-exist such conventions, which bestow upon the individual human beings, various "rights"? And, since "rights" are commonly associated with "the State", and you advocate for removal of the State, why not dismiss rights altogether as an archaic concept produced for the purpose of gathering support for the State, and opt for a completely different sort of convention, without 'rights'? — Metaphysician Undercover

Not to nit-pick, but ‘divine right’ would come under the second category I mentioned. It seems to me that my categories are indeed exhaustive. And I agree that the third option in fact obtains.

I have agreed with you that rights are conventions. Moreover, conventions can and certainly do exist independently of the State (take language, as an example), and to this degree, are ‘natural’. The leap you make from this to a justification of Statism is completely unwarranted, logically. You simply insist that, if we do away with a State, we would have to do away with rights too. But I see no reason to think that this is so. The fact that rights are commonly ‘associated’ with a State is not particularly decisive. There may be a ‘common sense’ that the State is the source of rights, but I think there is an equally strong ‘common sense’ that it is possible for States to commit rights-violations of their own, implying that there is a higher standard of rights to which States are subject. It is probably the case that most people’s common-sense intuitions just are not terribly refined on this point.

I don’t really know what more there is to say. A defence of Statism, it seems to me, must be of one of two kinds. Either, the State is defended on the grounds that it is legitimate, that its coercively monopolistic position is rightful, or else it is defended on the grounds of its necessity, that we simply must have such a thing and that it would not be possible to function without it.

I have not seen you make any substantial claim for the former. You seem to be making a purely pragmatic or consequentialist case. But I see no reason to think that the State is either the only possible way in which services like rights-enforcement and dispute-resolution may be provided, nor that it is the best way. All that it really has going for it is that it happens to be the status quo.

On the other hand, I see some very good reasons for thinking that the State is a poor solution. The answer to aggression is not to have an enormous agency of aggression ‘encircle’ us. There does seem to be an unwarranted assumption here: that this enormous criminal gang is not itself corrupt, that it can be trusted to protect our rights, and that will not itself break the peaceful ‘perimeter’ and aggress against us in the way that it prevents others from doing. Indeed, this is precisely what States do. States are coercive monopolies by nature. Monopolistic criminality is not a serious solution to criminality in general.

It's circular because the conclusion that "self-interest combined with non aggression usually leads to a fair (paraphrased) distribution of burdens and profits" is reliant on defining non-aggression as "whatever rules lead to a fair distribution of burdens and profits". The conclusion is inherent in the premise, that is in the way non-aggression is defined. — Echarmion

But I never said that this was the definition of the NAP.

If I aggress against you, perhaps by killing, assaulting, or stealing from you, I win and you lose. If you and I trade peacefully, we both enter into such arrangements with the expectation of individual benefit. The NAP prohibits aggression, and allows for peaceful trade. So it prohibits the former and permits the latter. There is nothing circular about any of this. The NAP is simply a just and worthy principle.

The obvious problem though is that private firms don't enforce rights - they provide a service. It is entirely irrelevant to the service provide whether or not that service happens to coincide with a right. So what you are talking about is not enforcement of "rights" but of "interests". And naturally the interestst of the strongest will end up being enforced most effectively. — Echarmion

They provide services, such as rights-enforcement. There might be criminal service-providers too, such as assassins or whatever else. But that doesn’t mean that the market will not or could not provide those services for which the State is usually considered necessary. All I am pointing out is that, just because the State does x, it does not follow that x would not get done in the absence of the State.

Right, but in that case your argument boils down to "no system is perfect, all systems have their problems to deal with". That may be an insightful realization, it just doesn't do anything to argue for any particular system. — Echarmion

This is certainly true, but only one part of the argument. The vindication of libertarianism for which I have argued also involves the fact that there is good reason to presume in favour of liberty (in other words, that aggression is something to be resorted to rather than a starting point), and that, while liberty is imperfect, the alternatives are much more imperfect. This is the entire point of the argument I presented initially.

What Virgo Avalytikh doesn’t seem to get, and this is probably because she has no concept of the riff raff, living the privileged life of an Oxford grad — Noah Te Stroete

Because she drank the Kool-Aid of the billionaire class that funded her educational curriculum. Perhaps daddy is rich, too? States seem particularly coercive to the rich when they don’t want to pay taxes. — Noah Te Stroete

Could we maybe stop with all the ad hominem, please? I thought we were doing political philosophy here. You really don't know enough about my life to make these kinds of judgements.

There may be a ‘common sense’ that the State is the source of rights, but I think there is an equally strong ‘common sense’ that it is possible for States to commit rights-violations of their own, implying that there is a higher standard of rights to which States are subject. It is probably the case that most people’s common-sense intuitions just are not terribly refined on this point. — Virgo Avalytikh

She makes a valid point. And I respect her for not taking my bait.

Could we maybe stop with all the ad hominem, please? I thought we were doing political philosophy here. You really don't know enough about my life to make these kinds of judgements. — Virgo Avalytikh

Yes. You’re absolutely right to call me out. I respect your dignity.

dabs

No need. I know when I’m wrong. :kiss:

Therefore, declaring a right of ownership in the first instance cannot be aggression. That is to put the cart before the horse. — Virgo Avalytikh

I think I actually agree with this point.

dabs — Virgo Avalytikh

Plus, I’m not really sure what this means. I assume it’s forgiveness? That seems like something a gracious person would do, and that’s how I now think of you.

I tend to think that if half of the planet weren’t complete animals like myself, and more of us were like Virgo, then this whole libertarian thing would work out splendidly.

Plus, I’m not really sure what this means. I assume it’s forgiveness? That seems like something a gracious person would do, and that’s how I now think of you. — Noah Te Stroete

Nothing. A dab is a kind of pose. It's meaningless.

But, @Virgo Avalytikh is saying that the State is redundant. Rights can be enforced through private means if necessary.

Ah. Well, I still think you’re gracious for not being vengeful. You are true to your philosophy, something very few of us can say.

All that it really has going for it is that it happens to be the status quo. — Virgo Avalytikh

Well, yeah, we are waiting for someone to show that another solution would be viable. In the meanwhile, I indeed think that it is in our own interest to make-do with the existing mess.

I am a great fan of cryptocurrencies. I hold pretty much 99%+ of my own financial assets in bitcoin, except for a small amount of physical gold and a small revolving buffer of USD.

So, it's not that I would particularly be in favour of State-orchestrated fiat bankstering.

I feel that a system of (tit-for-tat) trade -- within the perimeter of lowered aggression and violence -- is necessary, because giving everyone else hamlet-style sharing rights on your assets, does not scale properly.

Still, tit-for-tat trade needs to be supplemented with mandatory and voluntary charity; simply, because not everybody seems to be equally able to adjust to the requirements of commerce, and may also not be able to draw assisting resources from extended family. A good example are stranded travellers, or even people who have had to flee their native "perimeter". I draw heavily on Islamic views here.

So, I am not --completely-- in favour of the status quo, because I do reject fiat bankstering and State-controlled social security. I also reject involvement of the State in education and healthcare. In fact, I am wary of State involvement in practically anything, except in duly monitoring the security perimeter.

To say of any particular action that it is ‘aggressive’ presupposes a background schema of rights. Therefore, rights are a precondition of aggression. — Virgo Avalytikh

This is clearly false. There is no need for "aggression" to be defined in relation to "rights". You are just making this up in order to subjugate "non-aggression", thereby creating the illusion of compatibility between non-aggression and the right to property.

An act of aggression is an act of offence. There are offensive (aggressive) acts which do not violate another's rights. But sometimes if such behaviour becomes extremely hurtful, human beings will enact rights to protect people from it, as is the case with hate speech for example. Hate speech is an aggressive act.

Perhaps we have both signed up for a boxing match. — Virgo Avalytikh

Clearly, a punch in a boxing match is an act of aggression. Most sports are aggressive, and much competitiveness in general, is aggressive.

I see that you trying to qualify "aggression" for the purpose of your argument. I think that to define "aggression" in relation to "rights" is really a mistaken enterprise, because aggression existed long before rights. Life forms other than human are aggressive, but they do no have human rights, so "aggression" is the wider category. Therefore there is aggression which is not relative to rights. This is extremely evident in acts of aggression which do not amount to an infringement on an individual's rights. To limit "aggression" to "right infringement" does not give a clear description of what aggression really is. And, as I told you, "right" is a concept which has emerged as a form of aggression itself.

The leap you make from this to a justification of Statism is completely unwarranted, logically. — Virgo Avalytikh

I didn't attempt to justify Statism. What I am arguing is that non-aggression is incompatible with the right to property. I even said that saying a State has the "right" to govern is incoherent. where does it look like I am trying to justify Statism?

You simply insist that, if we do away with a State, we would have to do away with rights too. But I see no reason to think that this is so. The fact that rights are commonly ‘associated’ with a State is not particularly decisive. — Virgo Avalytikh

I am not saying that it is necessary to do away with rights if we do away with State, but why not do away with rights? If "rights" are the means by which some aggressively oppress others, "right" is a harmful concept.

There may be a ‘common sense’ that the State is the source of rights, but I think there is an equally strong ‘common sense’ that it is possible for States to commit rights-violations of their own, implying that there is a higher standard of rights to which States are subject. — Virgo Avalytikh

Again, I see no reason to call this "higher standard" by the word "rights". If it is a higher standard, then it does not categorize as rights.

Is this just an opinion of yours or do you have justification for these assertions? — Noah Te Stroete

This is why I don't engage in ethical and political discussions much. Ethical and political discussions always comes down to feelings, or opinions. There is no such thing as an objective morality. It makes no sense to ask questions like, "what is the best way to live for everyone?" or "What is the best government for everyone?" There is no objective answer to such questions, so it makes no sense to ask for justification for the way everyone should live or be governed. It is personal, so how I want to live and be governed may be different than how you want to live and be governed. This is the basic foundation of Libertarian thought - that I know what is best for me, not what is best for everyone else.

Sure, there are many people in the world that can't live their lives without being told how to live them or what to think, just as there are many people who can't live their lives without telling others how to live their lives and what to think. Then there is everyone else who know how they want to live and what they want to think without anyone else's input, and don't feel the need to impose it on everyone else (Libertarians).

The number I found was 34.000. Having 34.000 dollars in assets is not "poverty" according to any definition I am aware of. It's also for every single person, not household assets. For the vast majority of the population, that would be significant wealth. — Echarmion

Sure, that was the upper range of the numbers that I saw. I saw numbers as low as $10,000. I thought I would be a little less biased by putting up a number in mid-range. You also ignored the fact that most of that money is tied up in commodities and property. So, using your number, people would get around $10,000 cash, and then they would own a fraction of a beach house on the California coast. They would have a place to stay for two weeks out of the year, but then what would they be able to own with just $10,000?

Ownership is a social convention though, so you cannot necessarily enforce your own view on what you own. — Echarmion

LOL. Isn't this what we are discussing - which version of "ownership" is "better" for everyone? If you have to share everything, do you really own anything?

I could enforce my view by physically defending what I own. Sure, there could be a larger group of people (ie a government, because that is all a government is - a group of people with a social contract and the resources to defend it) that come and take what I own, but then does that make it "right" or "wrong"? Is there such a thing as an objective "right" and "wrong" way to live and be governed?

The issue here is an uninteresting semantic one. 'Aggression' has a specific meaning in the context of libertarianism: it is the initiatory (in distinction from 'defensive') use of force; hence 'non-aggression principle'. Whether an instance of force is initiatory or defensive is determined by the relevant property rights. If I grit my teeth and growl at you, this may be 'aggressive behaviour' in a common sense of the term, but it does not constitute 'aggression' in a sense that is relevant to our purpose here.

I didn't attempt to justify Statism. What I am arguing is that non-aggression is incompatible with the right to property. I even said that saying a State has the "right" to govern is incoherent. where does it look like I am trying to justify Statism? — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, if justifying Statism is something you have no interest in doing, then you're not presenting anything that is particularly threatening to my thesis.

Well, if justifying Statism is something you have no interest in doing, then you're not presenting anything that is particularly threatening to my thesis. — Virgo Avalytikh

So far, no good arguments have been given for Statism over Anarcho-Libertarianism regarding market failure. It’s just a matter of the proven, tried and true, for protecting relative freedom, and the unproven of Anarcho-Libertarianism.

But, that only addresses the thesis. The practical matter is, there isn’t enough real estate to divide up the world equitably to start this project out from the beginning. That’s why, I believe, the billionaire class loves this idea of Anarcho-Libertarianism. They seem to get that they would get to keep their shares that were gained through the State because there is no practical way to start from a blank slate. The powers that be JUST SIMPLY WON’T ALLOW IT, anyway. And the riff-raff would rebel in a system without a centralized propaganda machine if the billionaire class got to keep their property.

This all, of course, doesn’t address the OP, so I wouldn’t expect Virgo to respond to these points if she doesn’t want to.

So far, no good arguments have been given for Statism over Anarcho-Libertarianism regarding market failure. It’s just a matter of the proven, tried and true, for protecting relative freedom, and the unproven of Anarcho-Libertarianism. — Noah Te Stroete

This is certainly a refreshing concession. Though, I would point out that there is a growing market in private justice. The US presently has nearly twice as many private security guards as there are police officers, and more and more civil cases are being devolved to private alternative dispute resolution, like arbitration. This is especially common for in-house disputes within a company or within a particular industry. The basis of a system of private justice is already in place. The situation is simply that there is one agency, the State, which presently has an enormous market share with respect to these services and uses its coercive power to preserve this monopoly.

But, that only addresses the thesis. The practical matter is, there isn’t enough real estate to divide up the world equitably to start this project out from the beginning. That’s why, I believe, the billionaire class loves this idea of Anarcho-Libertarianism. They seem to get that they would get to keep their shares that were gained through the State because there is no practical way to start from a blank slate. The powers that be JUST SIMPLY WON’T ALLOW IT, anyway. And the riff-raff would rebel in a system without a centralized propaganda machine if the billionaire class got to keep their property. — Noah Te Stroete

One thing that the right-libertarian and the Marxist have in common (one of the few things) is that they are both sceptical of the unholy and totally corrupt alliance between the State and private business. ‘Corporations’ (which are themselves a legal construct) benefit far more from the State’s existence than they would from its absence. It’s not at all difficult to see why. The State is an agency of aggression. Aggression is a predatory activity which can only benefit one party at another’s expense. It follows that the State can only ever be a weapon to be wielded by some against others. If you don’t seek to exploit its advantages, others will, and they will do so at your expense. It stands to reason that those who will benefit most from the State are those from whom the State itself will benefit the most: those who are already rich and powerful. Libertarianism is not the philosophical contrivance of billionaires. Statism is. Don’t be under the misapprehension that the State and the capitalist are bitter rivals, locked in epic struggle for influence. They are intimate bedfellows, and I don’t see how it could ever be otherwise.