Libertariansim and Anarchism; Delusional and Utopian

Post Reply New Topic

How do Marxists intend to bring it into being? A revolution with their lack of followers? Oh, wait, they'll get their followers because their broken predictions demand that these followers will emerge. Look, Marxism does not have a sensible theory about how to bring it into being.

And how many human systems are benevolent? Libertarians assume that markets are efficient at creating growth, and efficient organizational frameworks, and that these things are public benefits. They do not talk about markets necessarily being benevolent, however, some will even argue that private organizations are better at benevolence than other bodies.

Revolutions are great in telling that they created something absolutely new. But: They are based on former decision. Even the great French Revolution did not created a new state, but used the idea of the state as it has been developed since the long gone days of the Greek Polis and the Roman Republic and Empire.

Our societies rely on an institution which has the unquestioned power to impose rule. To set rules how a contract regarding rent has to be designed, what nature of contract is (if you think that is is clear than you may look up the two main systems regarding contracts: the Common Law doctrines and the doctrines based on the Roman Law; and even within the modern system of Civil Law there differences - namely those which are based on the Code Napoleon, with a more straight forward thinking and those which follow the idea of the "Abstraction Principle", namely the German BGB, which is based here on the Roman doctrines of the creation of "Condictiones").

To say that a contract just appear because to people agree is a hyper simplification, which is not practically: Because even a simple deal of buying some cheese without a state how defines product liabilities, regress etc. pp. would need an enormous amount of paper work.



You need one institution, the state, which defines the valid version of this rules. You need institutions which are able to enforce this rules.

Well, I think there is also a deontological strain of libertarianism which might argue that it really is irrelevant whether markets make nice outcomes or not; a lot of the basic arguments in Anarchy State and Utopia had less to do with efficiency and more to do with justness (and I seem to recall one author criticizing the occasional intrusion of almost utilitarian justifications when the efficiency of markets is brought up). In that case, I don't think one needs to care if the markets are benevolent, positive, or anything like that at all, as that is an ends based approach. Although in general yes of course most people tend to assume that a capitalist economy will in fact work well.

In the same vein as Orwell's video post:

(Sorry, I don't "do" You Tube...)

http://lneilsmith.org/AtlantaDeclaration.swf

Do you?

Rules are mutually agreed upon strictures. If you don't agree to the terms, you don't "play ball", in that, they are self regulating. It doesn't require an outside "authority" to determine the rules for the participants.

Should either of the parties, through force or fraud, attempt to alter the "rules" there are alternate methods of dispute resolution that do NOT require Nanny to come over and threaten both parties, innocent and wronged, with the proverbial switch.

Contract law is complicated only because Governments have made it complicated.

You buy 150 g of cheddar cheese - the most trivial example: What liability has the producer or the seller of the cheese regarding bacteria contamination? If you think this particular cheese makes you sick, to which extent you have a claim against the seller of the cheese? Or against the producer of the cheese - but you don't have a contract with producer, how is most likely not the seller? So how shall pay? How to prove that your illness is caused by cheese? Do you have only the right to get your money back or you have the right of further compensation?

You rent a flat: After a while the roof leaks and water enters the flat. Do have to right to withhold the rent? Or do must give the landlord the chance to repair it? How long shall the landlord has time to so?

etc. etc. etc.

Regulations did not fall from the sky, but came out of necessaries. And if you have regulation than you need an authority to enforce those.



It is so complex, because live is so complex. The Roman Law was in its first written version, the Ten Table Law, very simple, but when trade and industry got more-and-more complex the rules became more and more complex. In a relative primitive agricultural society, like Rome at the the time of the Ten Table Law or Germany in the Time of the Sachsenspiegel (ca. 1250) you can work quite well with simple laws. But if societies become more complex the legal framework must follow. One of the main reasons why the Roman Law has been adapted in Europe during the 14th century and later was that this law was fit to govern the complex society of the Roman Empire and the traditional Germanic and other tribal laws were no longer seen fit for the raise of a society in which trade is a central point.

E.g. When I sign a bill of exchange I must know the conditions attached to such a bill and the receiver must know this rules too and what differs this from writing a cheque or a letter of credit - and how this fits in e.g. the terms of a purchase.

^^^ Another reason why I prefer a simple non-corportist psudeo-agragarian society with microindustry capability...

I understand your points and referants Dussel, I just think that they are the RESULT of too much government, not the cause of it.

If you haven't read Probablity Broach (preferably followed by "American Zone") you really should. It describes the position I and others take perfectly... warts and all.

Is it a Utopia? Yeah, but then, isn't this thread all about Utopias?

Last edited by MrMisanthrope on 04 Mar 2009, 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Not really, the law of the contract is created by the power of social acceptance. The state has no power to make laws that people will not enforce(as in, they can pass legislation, but without enforcers this is meaningless), and laws that the state does not make, will still be enforced by the people if necessary. The assumptions about the nature of law assumed in your analysis seem to suppose that social rules did not exist prior to an absolute monarch, but that kind of assumption seems flatly wrong by anthropological analysis, and given the fact that early variants of law, rather than seeming imposed by a ruler, as a Hobbesian view would indicate, rather seem to suggest that people saw the laws as fixed parts of their culture like their religion was. As well, ideas such as "natural law" which preceded Hobbes by centuries, further suggests that in the minds of men, laws are not set by a monarch, only enforced by one, which seems to suggest that laws are social based upon individual concepts about them.

Because of that, it seems as if laws would continue without a state, including contract laws. In fact, an instance where lawful behavior persisted without a central governing figure, actually happens to be in pirates, as economist Peter Leeson has pointed out. Pirates were one of the first groups to create relatively democratic systems, and there was no form of great oppressor, as pirate wages were actually much more egalitarian than that of the average ship of the time. Heck, multiple legal codes existed during the middle ages in Europe(1050-1250), with none of these laws automatically trumping the others, but this seems to contradict the "supreme sovereign" view of law.

They were also one of the few truly racially integrated societies in the world at that time, often Electing African Ex Slaves to high (even capitancy) positions in an otherwise majority "white" crew.

Competency was everything to those guys.

What do you mean "I think"? We both know about this, as Nozick was basing his view on procedures vs outcomes as a rebuttal to Rawls. You are right though, I just simply didn't care to put forward/defend deontological positions.

I like hedge phrases, I think. :p

Well, I also see surprisingly little use of deontological arguments among people I see nowadays supporting libertarian positions, so I'm not sure what role they play now, even if that was how Nozick viewed things.

Me too!

Yeah... well, I know Rothbardians also support deontological positions, but most people automatically shift to utilitarianism when they defend things. The major issue is that you have to get into ethics, and most people don't like getting into high-minded philosophy. Interestingly enough, I was reading about American law, and it talked about how American law tended to avoid high-minded philosophy for more pragmatic approaches.

Deontological arguments are harsher and less appealing to most people.

Correction

Going through your point:

1) I never said that it must be (or even was) an absolute ruler/monarch needed for such a process. I do know German to well that even in a highly federalist system without a real central power, as the Holy Roman Empire (HRE)after the 13th century, a process of creating a unified law happens. But: It necessary to have institutions, how complex and federal organized, which are committed to enforce this law. In the case of the HRE even it was an highly independent court, the Imperial Chamber Court, which was central in the development of a unified legal system.

2) The origin of old laws is often in the dark - but: The codification is not. The multiple legal code in High Medieval Period exited. But: They were replaced by a unified legal system in the centuries after. This system was the Roman Law and its interpretation. The "supreme sovereign" was formally borrowed from the antique Roman Empire, thus the HRE saw itself as the same legal entity than the state run by Augustus and Hadrian. This law was only able to get enforce by authorities which were able to execute power: Local and on the level of the realm.

3) It was necessary to have a central institution for the interpretation of the law. Such institutions emerged in 15th and 16th century: The Imperial Chamber Court in HRE, the Starchamber in England and the Parliament of Paris in France. There was a need for a unified legal system.

4) It does matter in this respect how the power is created. It can be quite democratic, like in the city republics in Germany and Italy, it can be centralized in the person of Monarch like in France or into an assembly like it developed in England. Again: It is important that the rules are clear and can be enforced.

5) Laws have their history: Even when I would follow your idea about the laws as the common of individuals, the ideas of each individuals what is right-or-wrong are based in the society the person had grown up. Therefore ideas of the Common Law survived in England for centuries as well the Roman Law survived on the continent.

6) Modern societies are bigger than historic societies (perhaps with the exception of the Roman Empire). Therefore we need more unified laws - the law making of the EU is here only the most recent example. A dealer in Stockholm must know what "Peaches Trade Class A 2" means when order those in Spain. A central institution with the power to make this laws and institutions, in this case the national states, must exist to enforce such rules. So the dealer in Stockholm can make a claim to to court and the judgement could enforced.

Last edited by Dussel on 04 Mar 2009, 9:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Such authors refer preferred to the US-Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. I think the US have here a general problem.

Western Europe made the development from a relative primitive agricultural society to a highly complex and legalistic society during a period of more than 1000 years, from the early beginnings of the reorganisation of society in the 9th century till the process of final codification in the 19th century. This process was slow and driven by the need of developing more and more sophisticated set of rules and institution to enforce those - and not without resistance.

The US ran this process in less than 200 years. The idea of a self-organising society with only simple rules failed in Europe in 15th and 16th century. Even the on their independence form a central government jealous minded prices of the Holy Roman Empire agreed 1495 for a central court with the monopole of the interpretation of the law as an important means to stop anarchy within the realm, because of the costs for everyone.

Perhaps this process is just for some in the US to fast to understand the real need of such institutions.