"Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
>
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
> >
> > Bradley Felton wrote:
> > >
> > > At 12:47 PM 9/26/2000 -0700, Corwyn J. Alambar wrote:
> > > >As a first point, many of the libertarian principles that I have seen seem to
> > > >be a slightly repackaged form of some of the more practical theories of
> > > >anarchism. In this case, it almsot seems libertarianism is an example of
> > > both
> > > >predictive anarchism and possibly a series of templates for the construction
> > > >of social temporary autonomous zones (and here is where I fail in
> > > attribution;
> > > >this idea is NOT mine).
> > >
> > > Libertarianism taken to its logical extreme does indeed lead to anarchy, or
> > > "anarcho-capitalism" to be exact. Some of your further comments suggest
> > > that you don't appreciate that there is a whole spectrum of political
> > > thought among anarchists:
> >
> > I disagree. Please show your argument that libertarianism, strong human
> > rights, leads to anarchy or anarcho-capitalism.
>
> It follows from the more individualist end of the libertarian philosophy, that
> the state's monopoly on force should end. When it ends, what replaces it? Most
> people think chaos and barbarism when they think of the word anarchy, but that
> is just a deep meme they've been infected with continuously since childhood by
> the entire power structure around them. It could not be further from the truth.
> Anarchy is not about chaos or lawlessness, it is about privatizing law and
> making its providers competitors in the market to provide the best justice
> possible.
Actually, your first sentence does not follow unless (at least) there
are no critical functions done by a state that cannot be done as well or
better by private parties. But this is the core of the dispute. I
think that to successfully argue libertarianism leads to anarchy one
would have to delineate all state functions and show for each that it
could be performed quite adequately and without producing as bad or
worse problems privately. As bad or worse hinges around as bad or worse
for individuals and individual rights being upheld. Of course to do
this comparison there also needs to be agreement on what individual
rights are and are not and even some meta-agreement on the core that
such rights grow out of.
I do not see how multiplying the number of private law providers and
enforcers actually makes life and cooperative, predicatable activity
more likely. On the surface it seems to add extra levels of
complication. Problems that did have on central body of law and
arbitrators now have N such bodies. These bodies act similarly to small
States in this respect. So domestic conflicts are escalated into
international (er, inter-syndicate?) ones.
- s.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:39:19 MDT