Freedomain Radio

Hi there, Freedomainers!

 

Long story short, a good friend of mine with whom I always had exiting and constructive debates challanged me this the other day:

"Suppose we live in your AnCapistan-Utopia. Now, I inherit a decent amount of money and decide to buy some land with it. I also talk my neighbours into joining forces with me until we have a few square kilometers in our new alliance and are (for the most part) self-sustained. Now, since this is our property and we do whatever we want to, I decide to build a wall around it. We also would (voluntarily!) sign a treaty of submission to me and me only. I would be the dictator of this land by choice of everybody present, with taxes, monopoly on coercion and everything."

 

I only knew to answer in terms of how unlikely, inefficient and outright stupid it would be to sign such a contract and that such a mini-empire would be likely to collapse before you can say "Barriers to free trade". And I think that even satisfied my friend as an answer.

But still it kept me thinking.

 

What about the children born into such a society? Would they not be subject to a social contract their parents actually did sign but they themselves didn't? Isn't that the whole story of statism all over again, but this time in small? And could anybody be morally outraged against this kind of system since it's technically based on voluntarism and private property? I guess I somewhat expected "our" theory to prevent such things from happening by principle.

 

Help me, freedomainers, you are my only hope! *hologram brakes off* ;)

shakleton:

We also would (voluntarily!) sign a treaty of submission to me and me only. I would be the dictator of this land by choice of everybody present, with taxes, monopoly on coercion and everything.

 

More succinctly, your friend just gives his land to you and you therefore own all of it.

What about the children born into such a society? Would they not be subject to a social contract their parents actually did sign but they themselves didn't?

You own all the property, just as you might if you owned your house. Children born into that house are involuntary prisoners. None of their rights are subjugated. This is absolutely no different than any normal parent/child relationship.

And NO, they wouldn't be subject to a social contract even if their parents signed it. One party cannot agree to a contract on behalf of another party without specific prior agreement to do so.

And could anybody be morally outraged against this kind of system since it's technically based on voluntarism and private property? I guess I somewhat expected "our" theory to prevent such things from happening by principle.

It's not based on volunteerism if you think the children are subject to it. They didn't volunteer. You just snuck that assignment in there. No person has the power to enter someone else into an agreement, whether the relationship is parent/child, siblings, co-workers or random strangers.

Even in standard modern western law, a power of attorney assignment can be revoked.

Lots of good ideas and explorations about the unlikelihood of this sort of thing occurring in a free society in Stef's book Practical Anarchy. I will say in passing that your friend doesn't think very highly of people or himself if this is the disaster scenario he puts forward as a very real and dire emergency which might happen in an anarchist society, because it's basically what we have right now.

I find it hard to believe that a voluntary society would go back to statism once they've ditched it. Pretty much as unlikely that we'll go back to black slavery, bragging about beating children, being proud of killing jews, etc. Anarchy only can happen by a paradigm shift in the cultural zeitgeist; many (enough) people agreeing and acting upon voluntary principles.

 

shakleton's friend:

We also would (voluntarily!) sign a treaty of submission to me and me only.

Sorry, but hahahahaha. So, they go in with you and work hard for this in order to...submit their very persons and property to you?

And this is going to happen after we've thrown off the state and seen the benefits of living that way?

Umm...good luck I guess. I'm not too concerned about this, since I'm hardly going to accept that if I somehow live until anarchism in general. Also, if somebody wants to live that way, that hardly seems too unjust to allow them to. After all, everyone who wants to can abstain.

shakleton:

Would (children) not be subject to a social contract their parents actually did sign but they themselves didn't?

That's hardly just. Given that the whole point of contracts is moral, that is to be able to say that people consented without coercion and with understanding and that therefore they can justly be held to it, this is completely invalid.

Firstly, there is no utopia outside the mind of the individual and in my opinon, that's a point you desperately need to communicate to your friend(if not yourself, first). Otherwise, you will be forever flooded with these ridiculous, worst case queries which serve no other purpose than forcing you into a defensive position and, frankly, you shouldn't be on the one on the defense. Further, he even forced you into thinking from a statist point of view. Otherwise, you never would have pondered the implied social contract heirs would be bound to in his fantasy. After all, as was mentioned already, even the current statist system of law we live under doesn't force heirs into compliance with the voluntary contracts their parents enter (not legally, at least).

 

I think I would probably have retorted that the question posed was setting up a cult like scenario which is, again, based upon the statist/religious mindset and therefore would not be conceivable to those who accept the tenets and consequenses of anarchism. I would also have followed up with a reiteration (or perhaps an introduction) of the fact that no honest, ethical anarchist would turn off the switch to government tommorrow, even if that were possible. After all, you wouldn't teach your best friend to skydive by pushing him out of an airplane after saying only.... oh, btw, we're going skydiving and here's your gear!

There are only two primary scenarios within which I could personaly conceivably see an anarchist society reverting back to some form of statism.  The first would be if the anarchist society in question were somewhat small and a nearby statist imperial power were able to invade and overwhelm the anarchists and after what would surely be a very long and bloody occupation manage to convert the anarchist population into a statist one.  In this first scenario anarchist resistance efforts would likely be very fierce and incredibly flexible since a free market society would likely have access to a much wider range of skill sets and greater levels of freedom of thought (better tactics and strategy) than the generally intellectually stifling atmosphere of any statist society.  Resistance would be almost certain to be greatly effective, occupation forces would be out-thought and out-manouvred and would only be able to win through sheer numbers and brute force.

The second scenario I could see as being even remotely possible would require some kind of economic disaster of monumental proportions leaving the anarchist society economically crippled for a prolonged period (highly unlikely in itself I think).  The second thing that would have to happen, and this it think would potentially be a bit more likely, would be that there would have to be one more companies or persons with enough money behind them to survive the disaster more than their competitors.  These companies would have to be run by individuals corrupt enough to twist this situation to their own ends by perhaps convincing desperate people to perhaps sign on to some kind of exploitive employment contract which could then be used later to consolidate this system into a statist power.  I don't see this as very likely however.

You're friend's hypothetical is just that....a hypothetical. It has nothing to do with history. And the hypothetical is nonsense. Having a society of competiting property owners is better than having one property owner. That seems like basic logic even the most ignorant of economics. Nobody would ever sign up for such a thing. They would just continue living in their polycentric society.

He never explains why people would want to sign up for such a thing. People who abolished the state would already be skeptical of centralizations of power. How does he exactly quell the fears of the masses? He doesn't say.

He doesn't explain why because he has a preconceived notion that people in a free society would think like he does. i.e. as  statists. But then, you already answered that question in the middle of your response.

 

To me, that consideration is paramount in the debate over a free society vs. a statist society. If the statist you're debating cannot think outside the statist mindset he has, you have about the same chances of persuading him that a rape victim has of reasoning her attacker out of raping her (or him).

 

In short, this guy has filed away the gun in the room into the annals of his mind and as such, he cannot think in the same context as someone who consciously sees it. Until he sees it, he will continue to formulate this sort of nonsensical hypothesis.

DaveDoggOwns:

He never explains why people would want to sign up for such a thing. People who abolished the state would already be skeptical of centralizations of power. How does he exactly quell the fears of the masses? He doesn't say.

I look at the unacceptability of the contract enforcement, not the implausibility it would be accepted.  Nobody would use commercial software if they believed the EULA.  It seems human and automatic, stateless or not, to create endless tiny fine print that nobody will read but sign anyway.  It should remain accepted practice from nonviolence standpoint to ditch a contract when it becomes undesired.  It seems counter to freedom for my present self to be a forced servant of the stupid guy I might have been 10 years ago.  It is only words on paper, and it means only what we make of it, unlike a law of nature which cannot be turned off. 

There will be records and credit ratings of how faithful we are to our contracts.  But it seems to me that the contract itself can never be a valid tool to enslave somebody no matter how the contract was written or accepted.  The deterrent to dishonesty seems like it cannot be forced.

 

Freedom comes along with the cost of responsibility. The legalese in EULA's and most other contract documents are there to protect the party who wrote the contract in the event of the most unlikely scnario. With that said, in the absense of the myriad laws the state imposes and the inevitable holes in those laws, what we currently see as contracts contain much more "fine print" than would a contract in a free society. That's not to say that there would be no fine print in an anarchist contract... it's just to say that much of that verbiage would be unneccessary. In the end, you have to take responsibility for the contracts you sign or you have to prove you signed them under duress.

shakleton:

Hi there, Freedomainers!

 

Long story short, a good friend of mine with whom I always had exiting and constructive debates challanged me this the other day:

"Suppose we live in your AnCapistan-Utopia. Now, I inherit a decent amount of money and decide to buy some land with it. I also talk my neighbours into joining forces with me until we have a few square kilometers in our new alliance and are (for the most part) self-sustained. Now, since this is our property and we do whatever we want to, I decide to build a wall around it. We also would (voluntarily!) sign a treaty of submission to me and me only. I would be the dictator of this land by choice of everybody present, with taxes, monopoly on coercion and everything."

 

I only knew to answer in terms of how unlikely, inefficient and outright stupid it would be to sign such a contract and that such a mini-empire would be likely to collapse before you can say "Barriers to free trade". And I think that even satisfied my friend as an answer.

But still it kept me thinking.

 

What about the children born into such a society? Would they not be subject to a social contract their parents actually did sign but they themselves didn't? Isn't that the whole story of statism all over again, but this time in small? And could anybody be morally outraged against this kind of system since it's technically based on voluntarism and private property? I guess I somewhat expected "our" theory to prevent such things from happening by principle.

 

Help me, freedomainers, you are my only hope! *hologram brakes off* ;)

 

You rightfully point out the improbability not to mention impracticality of such a set-up. However, you should add that your friend is making an argument from apocalypse, a logical fallacy where one stipulates a scenario where X has failed, then asking how X can prevent the situation from occurring – which naturally it cannot, as X has been incapable of doing so in the very scenario we’ve been presented with. The correct approach is instead to argue how X is likely or will necessarily lead to the situation described; where is the logical connection between voluntaryism and dictatorships – why would people in a society based on the non-initiation of force against the person and property of another decide to violate this principle and instead revert back, not merely to democracy, but to authoritarianism. Naturally, that’s up to him to prove, not you to disprove; he’s the one having to do the explaining.

Besides, even if a connection can be found (voluntaryism may/must lead to statism), it doesn’t follow that we must therefore have a statist society. To use a popular if not unpleasant metaphor: if we find ourselves with a tumor, are we to refrain from removing it simply because it may (or must) return in the future? On the contrary, we would have it carefully removed, and should it return, do so again – and maintain our good health. After all, a newly formed tumor is much easier to deal with than one that is old and well-established.  As we know, there are many logical problems with advocating a monopoly on violence as a remedy to the initiation of force (and oppression). It’s inconsistent to fight oppression by creating an even greater authority, to fight monopolies with an even greater monopoly, to fight evil with more evil et cetera.

bbeljefe:

Freedom comes along with the cost of responsibility. The legalese in EULA's and most other contract documents are there to protect the party who wrote the contract in the event of the most unlikely scnario. With that said, in the absense of the myriad laws the state imposes and the inevitable holes in those laws, what we currently see as contracts contain much more "fine print" than would a contract in a free society. That's not to say that there would be no fine print in an anarchist contract... it's just to say that much of that verbiage would be unneccessary. In the end, you have to take responsibility for the contracts you sign or you have to prove you signed them under duress.

If two people can bind each other's future action by contract, then one can bind oneself unilaterally by contract.   I could sign and distribute a note, let's say promising not to smoke cigarettes, and also agree to pay any witness seeing me do this 12 dollars cash.  The witness does not need to sign to collect the 12 bucks because they are not bound to do anything (only I am bound).  A will is essentially the same way, unilateral.  If you need to add an executor or proxy to make it "officially" two-party contract, fine.  But you could do that with anything unilateral.

As such, I can sign a contract "limiting the scope of all future contracts I sign".  One of the limits will be that this particular contract of limitation is the only irrevocable contract and can never be modified.  Therefore, if I sign a future contract, I can never "break" it because the guy who signed (me) was not authorized to agree to everything contained.  I might even be bound to sign it automatically without responsibility because of previous promises I made in the initial contract.  The first contract takes precedence, under theory of contracts, does it not?  So am I always right to revoke later contracts.

In any case, I don't accept "you have to take responsibility" for contract.  You can choose to or not.  You'll just be judged in the future.  I don't think you can sign away principles of nonviolence, for example, and then you must go limp when somebody attacks.  A free society will have much less evil fine print, just as it will have less murder.  But I maintain irrevocable right to tweak contract by future action.  A person who does this is still accountable to others for failing to take proper responsibility.  But I am not convinced responsibility of the contract variety can be ethically forced.

 

You can bind yourself to any contract you like. We often call that self binding contract a resolution... many of which are entered into at the beginning of the year. However, no such unilateral contract affects your obligation to perform in a later, multi party contract. If you sign a contract that says you are expected to cut my grass on each Monday for a year and I'm expected to pay you five dollars on each Tuesday for that same time period, you are duty bound to fullfill that contract. And, if you present me with your prior, unilateral contract one month after our aggreement is made, that does nothing to alter the terms you and I have. You still must cut my grass. To be sure, you can choose not to honor your part of the contract and in that event I would certainly take our contract to my DRO or to a court. In the end, your unilateral contract would not hold sway in either the current courts or in a DRO environment. Why? Because you are the sole owner of you and as such, you cannot be legally harmed by any breach of your unilateral contract. Or more rightly stated, having changed your mind.

 

As for resolving to abide by the NAP, your argument pre supposes that the NAP states one can never use violence under any circumstance. But yes, you do not have to take responsibility for contracts you sign. However, it is certainly ethical for me to enforce our contract should you not perform as promised.

 

I'm wondering, though... on what grounds do you challenge the ethics of contract enforcement?

I think this is a good question to ask if you are openminded enough to accept that a voluntary society is more moral in theory over a coercive one.  From this perspective, one is testing their philosophical position with the real world.

If this is not the case, and one is just throwing out roadblocks in an attempt to confuse the moral issue, I wouldn't bother continuing the conversation.

This seems to be an analogous scenario to the question of voluntaryists escaping society to the woods.  I guess one could start a freedom loving society in the wilderness as well.  I have considered what it would mean to "head to the hills" in search of true freedom.  What could I expect?  No access to health care, fuel, culture, fresh fruit and vegetables, gum, coffee, and all of the other great technology living cooperatively within our larger society provides.  Now, some people may enjoy this.  I don't see them rising to any influencial or dangerous position as they would be unable to resupply or enter into any contracts with the outside world.  

I think the question of whether this isolated sub-culture is voluntaryist or a dictatorship is a separate issue.  In a free society, nature would select good ideas over bad.  Could children suffer? Yes.  Do children suffer today?  Yes, much more.

In my opinion, a greatly underappreciated effect of living without a government, has got to be this overwhelming sense of frailty within our cosmos. It seems to me that one of the many failings of our perverted "capitalist" system is that greed is not balanced with fear.  To remove the concepts of country and government, and more consciously comprehend that one's quality of existence is dependent on the value that that individual brings to society is crucial to aligning perception with reality.   Modern society is incomprehensively interconnected.  To understand this should influence which hair brained cults or communes one may choose to join.  If one does not appreciate the potential dire consequences of failure, one will be more likely to choose the bizarre.

Great questions to ask, unless the goal is to cloud the moral argument.