Freedom FAQ
From Free Talk Live
Freedom
Liberty is the absence of force allowing one to act according to one's natural rights.
- "There are only two types of people; those who want to be left alone and those who will not leave them alone." – Ernest Hancock
Those who will not leave them alone are the problem, not those who want to be left alone.
Freedom can be succinctly defined as the absence of enslavement. One must remember however, that 10% enslavement is none the less enslavement.
"Government is literally force. It violates everyone's rights daily, and people seem to regard it as a necessity. The belief in the need for Government runs deep, as most men are barbarian, and enjoy dominating others, and exploiting their wealth 'for the common good'. The anarchist is only being intellectually honest when concluding that Government is unnecessary, and evil."
Anarchy
Why isn't Government legitimate?
Government is illegitimate because individuals do not necessarily consent to be subject to it, unlike a club.
How are taxes theft?
Taxes are theft becase victims do not consent to relinquishing their wealth in exchange for government services. Even if a victim does consent, taxation by definition is compulsory, and underneath the contribution is the threat of violence.
There are several claims made by Statists to justify taxation.
- Taxes are part of a social contract, an agreement between voters and government to exchange money for the government's goods and services.
This line of reasoning is clearly mistaken because even if a robber buys you lots of nice stuff afterward does not mean that is what you would have bought, and thus is not justified.
Another argument against this fallacious one is that only independent entities can contract, not abstract concepts like 'voters' and 'goverment'. Only individuals can act, and thus only individuals can contract. - In a democracy, you agree to abide by the rules because you have the ability to change them; so you signify your willingness to obey the laws (or face the punishment) by living in the country.
Laissez-faire Capitalism
Isn't Capitalism inherently exploitative, and thus undesired?
No. Capitalism as we define it, is simply private ownership. Private ownership means that individuals make choices about their own transactions, so all transactions are voluntary, so all transactions are mutually beneficial. The current economic system of the world is a mixed economy. Thus, all criticisms of the current system are not criticisms of the system that we are advocating.
Isn't being unequal undesired?
Well, what does one mean by "inequality"? Human beings aren't equal, certainly in reference to our talents, traits and abilities. Should Roger Federer's tennis skills be lessened because he is better than many people are at tennis? Should Lindsey Lohan's physical attractiveness be curbed because other people may be uglier than her? In this sense, inequality is inherent to human nature.
Libertarians are egalitarians in terms of rights and the rule of law. If we are free, then government has no right to discriminate against us. In regards to economic equality, libertarians would feel that a free society would possess sufficient levels of social mobility, meritocracy and movement between social classes, so any "rights" of the poor would be safeguarded.
Is self-interest (a.k.a. greed) part of human nature?
Here are some examples of arguments from a paper against the existence of greed:
Despite the odds stacked against it we can find just as many examples of caring and co-operation as we can of selfishness and competition. Solidarity strikes are an obvious one. We even saw workers in Dunnes Stores go on strike for months in support of black workers in South Africa whom they had never even met. Look at any working class neighborhood and you will find people caring for each other. They are organizing football teams for the teenagers, summer projects for the younger children. This doesn't make sense if greed is part of our human nature. Greed and selfishness don't motivate people to carry kidney donor cards or make them want to donate blood to the transfusion service. Greed did not inspire the late Willie Bermingham to start up ALONE to care for the elderly living on their own. Selfishness does not lead people to give money to charities. It does not explain why nurses volunteer to work unpaid for Concern projects in the less developed countries.
Each example is merely a misinterpretation of what greed is. To them, only seeking money profit is greed, psychic profit is completely ignored. This explains why workers would go on strike for people they had never met: they achieve a psychic profit. Caring for others increases one's psychic profit, as does carrying donor cards or donating blood.
What is money?
The American Heritage Dictionary defines money as
- A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit in a checking account or other readily liquifiable account.
It is a scarce commodity that is the most desirable good in a market, but it is often desired simply because it can be exchanged with other traders later. This function of money helps facilitate large scale trade because it removes the need to find someone who wants what you have and has what you want before trading can take place.
Won't free markets lead to booms and busts?
No, see The Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle. Basically, government is the cause of booms and busts.
Won't a laissez-faire capitalist society lead to a great divide between rich and poor?
A laissez-faire capitalist society will put an end to corporate welfare. Without government intrusion, more individuals will start their own businesses and enjoy the fruits of their labors. With little or no taxation, individuals will be able to spend or save money as they see fit.
By contrast, a non-laissez-faire system imposes a heavy tax, license and regulatory burden most easily borne by large corporations. This causes a disincentive to create new startup companies and unnaturally entrenches the powerful in their positions to the detriment of everyone else.
Won't unregulated capitalism become dominated by monopolies?
See Monopoly and Competition, Chapter 10 of Man, Economy, and State.
Isn’t a capitalist similar to a dictator?
The difference between a capitalist and a dictator is that the dictator claims already owned property, while the capitalist voluntarily trades his owned property for another's owned and voluntarily traded property or utilizes unowned property to make it his.
Shouldn't we abhor increases in technology because workers are laid off?
Increases in technology generally drive down production costs for equivalent goods. While it is true that sometimes workers are displaced, they generally find work in the new fields opened up by the new technology. When the automobile became popular, many worried about the future of horse-related jobs. Many lost their jobs. These freed workers could then find new jobs to increase productivity. The increased productivity causes a simultaneous rise in the standard of living and a drop in the cost of living. Ultimately, all consumers benefit.
If we do not embrace the best of productive new technologies, we put ourselves at a competitive disadvantage to others who do. Ignoring new technologies is the surest way to get laid off.
Weren't workers exploited and oppressed by corporations during the Industrial Revolution?
Anarcho-capitalism
Here's an article that addresses some of the issues below: Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections, by Roderick Long
Doesn't the Anarchist FAQ prove anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction, thus not anarchism, and inherently unstable?
The Anarchist FAQ is an amazingly fallacious long-winded F.A.Q. written by self-proclaimed "social anarchists," which ignores Austrian economics to the point of bigotry.
Won't competing protection agencies fight against other protection agencies?
Probably the most popular argument against libertarian anarchy is: well, what happens if (and this is Ayn Rand’s famous argument) I think you’ve violated my rights and you think you haven’t, so I call up my protection agency, and you call up your protection agency – why won’t they just do battle? What guarantees that they won’t do battle? To which, of course, the answer is: well, nothing guarantees they won’t do battle. Human beings have free will. They can do all kinds of crazy things. They might go to battle. Likewise, George Bush might decide to push the nuclear button tomorrow. They might do all sorts of things.
The question is: what’s likely? Which is likelier to settle its disputes through violence: a government or a private protection agency? Well, the difference is that private protection agencies have to bear the costs of their own decisions to go to war. Going to war is expensive. If you have a choice between two protection agencies, and one solves its disputes through violence most of the time, and the other one solves its disputes through arbitration most of the time – now, you might think, "I want the one that solves its disputes through violence – that sounds really cool!" But then you look at your monthly premiums. And you think, well, how committed are you to this Viking mentality? Now, you might be so committed to the Viking mentality that you’re willing to pay for it; but still, it is more expensive. A lot of customers are going to say, "I want to go to one that doesn't charge all this extra amount for the violence." Whereas, governments – first of all, they’ve got captive customers, they can’t go anywhere else – but since they're taxing the customers anyway, and so the customers don’t have the option to switch to a different agency. And so, governments can externalize the costs of their going to war much more effectively than private agencies can.
Won't an anarcho-capitalist society just degenerate into all versus all?
Quite the contrary. Fighting over resources diminishes the total gain. Therefore most people will only resort to fighting if there is no possibility of trading. Anarcho-capitalism however is based on the free market which in turn is based on free trade and ownership of every resource, so trading is always an option. Only with government interference into the free market some possibilities of trade are restricted by government which in turn makes only violence an option of social interaction. In short: Due to the inherent costs of violence most people will resort to non-violent trade if allowed to.
Don't public goods/externalities/market failures prove anarcho-capitalism can't work?
Quite the contrary. It has been shown both in theory and in practice that the government cannot efficiently handle any of these cases while the private sector can. Simply put, because government forces people to buy their services, they have no incentive whatsoever to adjust their services to their "customer"'s needs. And this is what creates all problems in the first place.
Won't corporations be running the scene in anarcho-capitalism?
If a corporation becomes too powerful, then competitors can always emerge, who will produce rival goods and services.
In reference to a corporation/private protection agency becoming a quasi or "pseudo-state", then people can simply stop trading with this organization and develop rivals to it. That's all that is necessary. The existence of competition, in addition to a lack of barriers into markets, would forestall the emergence of a predominant agency converting into a pseudo-government.
Won't anarcho-capitalist societies be conquered by States?
See Defense in an Anarcho-Capitalist society.
Won't States emerge from anarcho-capitalist communities?
This is a question that originally was raised by Robert Nozick and has since been pushed farther by Tyler Cowen. Nozick said: Suppose you have anarchy. One of three things will happen. Either the agencies will fight – and he gives two different scenarios of what will happen if they fight. But I’ve already talked about what happens if they fight, so I’ll talk about the third option. What if they don’t fight? Then he says, if instead they agree to these mutual arbitration contracts and so forth, then basically this whole thing just turns into a government. And then Tyler Cowen has pushed this argument farther. He said what happens is that basically this forms into a cartel, and it’s going to be in the interest of this cartel to sort of turn itself into a government. And any new agency that comes along, they can just boycott it.
Just as it’s in your interest if you come along with a new ATM card that it be compatible with everyone else’s machines, so if you come along with a brand new protection agency, it is in your interest that you get to be part of this system of contracts and arbitration and so forth that the existing ones have. Consumers aren’t going to come to you if they find out that you don’t have any agreements as to what happens if you’re in a conflict with these other agencies. And so, this cartel will be able to freeze everyone out.
Well, could that happen? Sure. All kinds of things could happen. Half the country could commit suicide tomorrow. But, is it likely? Is this cartel likely to be able to abuse its power in this way? The problem is cartels are unstable for all the usual reasons. That doesn’t mean that it’s impossible that a cartel succeed. After all, people have free will. But it’s unlikely because the very incentives that lead you to form the cartel also lead you to cheat on it – because it’s always in the interest of anyone to make agreements outside the cartel once they are in it.
Bryan Caplan makes a distinction between self-enforcing boycotts and non-self-enforcing boycotts. Self-enforcing boycotts are ones where the boycott is pretty stable because it’s a boycott against, for example, doing business with people who cheat their business partners. Now, you don’t have to have some iron resolve of moral commitment in order to avoid doing business with people who cheat their business partners. You have a perfectly self-interested reason not to do business with those people.
But think instead of a commitment not to do business with someone because you don’t like their religion or something like that, or they’re a member of the wrong protection agency, one that your fellow protection agencies told you not to deal with – well, the boycott might work. Maybe enough people (and maybe everyone) in the cartel are so committed to upholding the cartel that they just won’t deal with the person. Is that possible? Yes. But, if we assume that they formed the cartel out of their own economic self-interest, then the economic self-interest is precisely what leads to the undermining because it’s in their interest to deal with the person, just as it’s always in your interest to engage in mutually beneficial trade.
How will an anarcho-capitalist society deal with unforeseen problems?
Free people are amazingly adept at dealing with complicated problems.
What about roads?
Road owners could fund roads through user fees (tolls), advertisements (billboards), or allowing utilities (gas, water, electric) to build near them for a price.
Sendtoscott's Arguments
These are various anarchist responses to statist arguments from this thread.
- The only nations where taxation is theft are those which you aren't allowed to leave. Period.
And if I don't want my neighbor to break in and steal my TV, I can move to another neighborhood.
I use that argument against leftists when the State does something they don't like (such as refuse to recognize gay marriage), and I'm told "we never said if you don't like it, you can leave". Then someone comes along and says "if you don't like it, you can leave". Why does this only apply to taxes? Why aren't benefit cuts just people voluntarily turning down State checks because they've agreed to it by not leaving?
Why should I be allowed to leave? Leaving and not paying taxes both deprive hungry Americans of my income. Can I take my money with me if I leave? If not, then both my leaving and staying are used to justify confiscation.
- Any sincere libertarian who honestly felt that taxation is theft would not be on the Internet (nor would they be making use of roads, the electricity grid, anything that requires educated personnel to run, or much else of US infrastructure): so we can safely assume that anyone who is defending the principle of "taxation is theft" on the Internet has either not thought this principle through, or is insincere/hypocritical.
Basically, the argument is that since the State has gotten too big to possibly avoid (and giving more credit to the State than it deserves), my failure to avoid it is implied consent.
That argument is so sweeping, as a matter of fact, that it can be easily turned around. Every leftist who has private medical insurance has agreed to that being handled by the private sector, and thus has no business demanding that be taken away from the private sector (to which he now owes his life) and given to the State. Can a good liberal keep his house (on what used to be the land belonging to some Indian tribe) and still protest how Israel treats the Palestianians?
- For the non-initiation principle to be a valid benchmark, someone would have to construct a situation in which they aren't relying on others' violations of it, and I can't see that that's possible in a world with our history.
For the non-war-of-aggression-and-conquest principle to be a valid benchmark, someone would have to construct a situation in which they aren't relying on others' violations of it, and I can't see that that's possible in a world with our history. On to Syria and Iran!!!!!!!
- It would be NICE if there were a privately owned internet that was entirely the result of capitalism, but there isn't.
Again, the State shoves itself into so many things that it can claim parenthood of anything it wants, regardless of how (un)necessary the State would have been otherwise. Given the amount of waste in the Military Industrial Complex (no good liberal would contest that part), I have no doubt we would have had an internet sooner if all that money was available for private research.
- I think my problem with honest-to-God libertarianism (as opposed to the "I don't wanna pay taxes" set) is that it's incredibly theoretical and doesn't seem to take into account real-life conditions.
People defend the State w/ arguments that "in theory" things like the military protect us all. Our largest military expense right now is the Iraq war, which instead of protecting us all makes us all less safe. Add to that the number of military programs planned and budgeted based on which Congressional district would get the revenue and not what best "defends us all". That's mere real-life conditions, the theory that supposedly justifies the State says otherwise. Y'all argue for an idealized State, not for any group of mere mortals that will ever exist to have power.
No State big enough to satisfy a progressive would limit itself to things that can be argued w/ a straight face to benefit 'everyone'. Throw billions of dollars around, and it's a guarantee that they will go to special interests. Party doesn't matter; every prospective officeholder or bureaucrat is from the same fallen, imperfect species as the rest of us. There are no philosopher kings.
- Let's see, without a national government there would be no: 1) Common means of exchange (i.e. money)...
Assumes everything the State does can only be done by the State, which is an unproven assertion on your part. As we don't have a world currency, international trade is impossible by the logic in your point 1.
- When you get down to the core, all libertarian rhetoric is about the Ayn Rand "virtue" of selfishness.
As is "it benefits everyone". No Compassionate™ liberal will allow me to only pay for what benefits me personally (as I'm just as much part of 'everyone' as someone on welfare). Compassion™ requires me to give to those the left deems fit w/o regard to whether I benefit. Otherwise, I'm a selfish bastard Republican. Compassionate™ progressivism requires taxes that are theft on "it's justified because it benefits everyone" grounds.
If "it benefits everyone" is the standard, and I can come up w/ things that don't benefit everyone (the Iraq war, Senator Byrd's ongoing attempt to pave all of W. Virginia, etc), then you have to accept that large portions of our taxes, possibly a majority, even by y'all's standard, are illegitimate theft - armed robbery. That's a huge step down from the current claim of "taxes are not theft, period".
- Face it, as a species we are not that evolved. Ethical behavior is not yet part of our genetic structure.
Members of that same unethical species cannot be trusted w/ State power.
