A place to discuss Anarcho-Capitalist theory and practice, as well as other topics of interest to me and my readers
As we have seen, anarchy is any society in which everyone is expected to follow the NAP or be subject to the usual social sanctions for violating it.
This means that the path to anarchy is whatever actions make it less socially acceptable for anyone, including State actors, to violate the NAP. Once we have made that socially unacceptable for anyone, we will have arrived at anarchy.
Definition of Anarchy
Any society in which everyone is expected to follow the NAP, or be subject to the usual social disapproval, is an anarchy.
Proof
State actors must violate the NAP in the course of their duties, as otherwise they would be unable to force compliance.
The reason that it is possible to find people to do this is that the vast majority of people believe that it is right or at least acceptable to violate the NAP if one is acting in the name of a State.
This is necessarily true because the only difference between the behavior of a criminal and that of a State actor is this different expectation on the part of the general public: that while it is not acceptable for a criminal to violate the NAP, it is acceptable for a State actor to do so.
So if there were no exception to the rule of following the NAP made for State actors, there would be no State.
Q. E. D.
Note regarding NAP violations
Note that of course this does not mean that there would be no NAP violations in anarchy; of course it is likely that there would be, because some people are criminals. The sole (but immensely important) difference is that no sanction would be given to these violations, so they would be far more expensive to those committing them.
Q. Is it all right to use violence against people who belong to NAP-violating organizations (e.g., Nazis)?
A. It may seem reasonable to think that if person A belongs to, or agrees with, an organization that propounds notions contrary to the NAP, it is therefore acceptable for anyone else to use violence against person A. After all, their organization wouldn’t have any compunctions against using violence against you.
Let’s just look at this practically, forgetting for the moment the moral issue of pre-emptive NAP violation.
Virtually everyone in society belongs to one of these organizations, or at least agrees with NAP violations propounded by one of these organizations. These organizations are called “political parties”.
If you have the view that anyone who agrees with one of these organizations’ NAP-violative policies is “fair game” for “defensive” violence, you have just turned almost everyone in society into your mortal enemy.
This is not a very good approach to reforming society in a positive way, so the answer is “No”.
Q. Is trespass a NAP violation?
A. Yes, because trespass forcibly prevents you from using your own possessions as you wish.
Q. Does trespass authorize lethal force against the trespasser?
A. Not unless that is an appropriate level of force. The requirement to use only an appropriate level of force applies in this case as in all others.
All the US government has to do is to revalue the Treasury’s gold enough that they can use it to pay off the debt and still have backing for the “new dollar”. This will probably require some kind of subsidy for the electronics industry because otherwise they wouldn’t be able to afford gold needed in circuitry, and similarly for other industries that absolutely must have gold to function. But that is a minor problem compared to either declaring bankruptcy or destroying the remaining value of the “dollar”, which are the other possibilities.
Of course they also have to close down the Fed, guarantee 100% gold backing for the “new dollar” and balance the budget, preferably with constitutional amendments to ensure that all of those changes stick. Fortunately, after the next general election cycle in 2018, if Trump does reasonably well and the Democrats continue with their “strategy” of throwing a constant tantrum about absolutely everything he does, it’s possible there will be enough Republicans in Congress and the state legislatures to put those Constitutional amendments through quickly.
It should be obvious that there is a big problem in society, namely that people don’t generally follow the Golden Rule very seriously. Sure, in a specific case where they know the person(s) involved, most people will avoid causing intentional harm most of the time. But most people generally don’t care if someone harms others in their name, e.g., in political action via the State. In fact, many are all too happy with apparently getting something for nothing even though they themselves wouldn’t want to be on the other end of that transaction, i.e., getting nothing for something.
Why is this? Of course there can be many reasons why people act, but in this case it seems obvious that most people look around them and see that others are getting away with horrible behavior, e.g., stealing (“taxation”), kidnapping (imprisonment for “victimless crimes”), and even murder (“war”). Nothing seems to happen to those people who commit these vile acts, so why not participate in the plunder?
The missing piece would have to be one that solves this riddle of bad actions seemingly not leading to bad results for those committing those actions.
But what if consciousness survives bodily death and the next time we come back here, we have the detritus of our past actions as a millstone around our necks? Note that I’m not saying that there is a personal God who keeps score. All this requires is the law of cause and effect: if we cause harm to others, that harm becomes part of us until we face up to it and take responsibility for it, thus changing ourselves for the better.
If this is true (which I think it is), then the best course of action in every case is to act in the best way we can, following the Golden Rule to the best of our ability. Any slacking off or attempted shortcuts by violating the sanctity of other people’s rights to decide their own fate will come back to (possibly literally) haunt us later. It’s easier and more pleasant just to face up to it on the spot rather than leaving it for later.
So all we have to do is to convince people of this, and the world will be a better place.
A few years ago, a friend of mine asked me the question “If you could have two wishes granted by an all-powerful, all good, all knowing genie, what would they be?”
I thought for a few seconds and then answered “I don’t need two wishes. I only need one.”
My friend argued with me briefly that, based on a complex logical analysis, I really did need two wishes, the first of which was to set up the conditions for the second one.
I repeated, “I don’t need two wishes. I only need one.”
He replied, “Okay, what is it?”
“I would wish for what is best.”
He continued to try to find reasons why his analysis was superior to mine. To each of these I replied “Would the results of your wish be better than the results of mine?”
“Yes. And here’s why…”
I patiently explained that the results of his wish could not possibly be better than mine, because I wished only for what was best. By definition, nothing could be better than what is best.
He countered that with “But what if what is best isn’t what is best for me?”
That was a little bit more difficult than the original question of what to wish for in the first place, but I shortly realized the answer wasn’t much more complicated: “Then you should change so that what is best is best for you.”
I believe this is within the reach of each of us, and if we accept the challenge, the world will be a different and better place.
There are many paths to spiritual enlightenment. Each person must choose for himself or herself which path best suits their abilities, previous experience, and approach to life.
But there are many people who don’t seem to be able to find a path that they can use, even with the hundreds or thousands of different options to choose from. I was one of these people, until I read a book called Conversations with God. I had tried a number of different approaches previously, but none of them had really done the job for me. I had become disillusioned with the “standard” varieties of organized religion early in life, but had been willing to try other approaches. I did so on several occasions, in one case spending years trying to advance along one particular path. Although I did find that approach quite helpful in some areas of spiritual advancement, I found it too doctrinaire and limiting, and eventually terminated my involvement in it.
So I was between “faiths” when I ran into an alumna of my alma mater, Shimer College, at a meeting that I had set up for such alumni in North Texas. She asked me if I had read Conversations with God, by Donald Walsch. I said that I had not. She replied that I must read it.
I took her advice, and was almost instantly converted from a fairly staunch atheist (albeit one who believes that this is not the only plane of existence, and that we are reincarnated again and again to work out our problems, a fairly standard neo-Buddhist approach) into a, well, a “Conversationalist” (to use the term coined by my wife Susan).
I won’t try to give a thorough account of the spiritual system propounded by the Conversations with God books; you should read them for yourself. However, very briefly, they portray a God who is simultaneously omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent. I’d never before seen even a hint of a system that could (logically consistently) portray such a God; they all foundered on the shoals of the question “How can God permit suffering?” Of course, Christians would claim that they have such a system, but I’m afraid I must respectfully disagree. Of course, I do not wish to denigrate or minimize the spiritual comfort that Christianity and other organized religions provide to millions of people around the world. However, that does not mean that they provide a path that is appropriate for everyone.
To get back to the “Conversationalist” system, even more briefly, the answer to the question about suffering is “God created the world to experience every possibility of life. This inevitably includes pain and suffering. However, we experience pain and suffering as such only because we do not see through the illusory nature of the apparent world.”
As you may already know, the Buddha taught that attachment was the basis of suffering, and this is consistent with the “Conversationalist” approach. Buddhism also has the “Eightfold path” which teaches how one can live life better (i.e., more morally). I have no disagreement with their precepts, but driven by a desire to simplify, I have tried to figure out if there is one overarching principle that, followed consistently, would result in a happy and moral life.
I believe there is such a principle, one that has been discovered many times. It has been known by many names, such as “The Categorical Imperative (Act as though your actions were a universal law that everyone would follow)”. But its most commonly known name in our current society is the “Golden Rule” (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you)”.
So could I possibly have anything to add to this well-worn topic?
Yes, I think I do. Although there is fairly general agreement that this rule, if followed, would make the world better, because each person wishes others to treat him fairly, there has (up to now) been no explanation of exactly how this rule works on an individual level, i.e., how it directly makes each individual person’s life better for him, not just for society in general.
I believe I have found that explanation.
The rule that one should wish for “what is best” is closely related to the Golden Rule. This relationship is revealed by the question “best for whom?”.
If you act as you would have others act toward you, then what is best in an overall sense will also be what is best for you. This is because the motive of your actions will then be consistent with the good of everyone.
To see this, let us examine the ramifications if everyone followed the Golden Rule. Would there be war? No, because no one wants to be warred upon. Rape? No, because no one wants to be raped. Murder? Likewise.
Actually, the uncontroversial nature of the Golden Rule is quite remarkable. Have you ever heard anyone say they disagreed with it? What possible argument could anyone make against it? Even those who violate it every day, e.g., criminals and politicians, claim they are in favor of it.
The real question, then, is not whether it is true or whether people agree with it, but how we can convince people that they should follow it.
I believe there is a way to explain to people why they should obey the Golden Rule, and what the consequences are for not doing so.
The key is that everyone, even those who violate the Golden Rule, would prefer that other people follow it. Therefore, violating the Rule, from a strictly practical viewpoint, causes your intentions to be misaligned with the intentions of others, and thus causes conflict between you and those others.
This can be rather easily seen from the fact that, from the viewpoint of anyone else but yourself, you are one of the “others”. Therefore, that other person would like you to follow the Rule. However, we know from our assumption that you aren’t following it. Therefore, there is conflict.
On the other hand, if you do follow the Rule, there is no inherent conflict between your behavior and the behavior you expect from others, either from your viewpoint or the viewpoint of those other persons. Of course, you can still disagree with others on exactly how to implement the Rule. However, such disagreements are not inherent in the nature of things, as those caused by Rule-breaking are.
This still leaves the question of whether “what is best” is always “what is best for you”. We have already seen that if this is true, then you will not have any inherent conflicts in following the Rule. However, this does not answer the question of whether it is indeed true.
Here is another key to the puzzle: If you define “what is best for you” as “what is best in a global sense”, then these two apparently different notions fuse into one. This immediately quashes the possibility that they will be in conflict, and leads directly to the ability to seek “the best” without qualification.
A problem and a solutionBut there is still one problem that people often bring up when I suggest this simple, yet radical, approach to living: what if others take advantage of one’s generosity and kindness? Wouldn’t that put Golden Rule followers at a disadvantage?
Perhaps it would, in some cases. But there is a relatively simple mechanism by which this problem could be avoided: creating a registry of Golden Rule adherents and a means by which they could settle disputes should any arise.
A service like Facebook should be an excellent way to start such a movement, as it would make the requirements much easier to fulfill:
Of course, this does not exhaust the possibilities. I’m sure there are many other collaborative tools that people might find useful. But these tools alone could make following the Golden Rule much more desirable and profitable, in many senses.
The Golden Rule has been part of morality for thousands of years. One famous formulation is “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.” (credited to Hillel the elder. See https://infogalactic.com/info/Golden_Rule#Judaism)
Given the validity of the Golden Rule, we can prove the NAP very simply:
1. NAP requires only that you don’t force anyone to do anything (or to refrain from doing anything).
2. It is logically impossible to want to be forced to do anything (or to refrain from doing anything), as anything you are willing to do (or refrain from doing) doesn’t require force to get you to do it (or refrain from doing it).
3. Thus, forcing someone else to do something (or to refrain from doing something) violates the Golden Rule, because you are doing to someone else what you wouldn’t want to have done to you.
Q. E. D.
The Non-Aggression Principle is the fundamental requirement for being a libertarian. If you accept it as valid, then you are a libertarian. If you don’t, you aren’t a libertarian.
But what is it exactly? Nothing more (and nothing less) than the agreement that you will not use violence against other people other than defensively (to protect yourself, your possessions, or another innocent person). This means that all people have the right under the NAP not to have aggressive violence used against them, even if they themselves do not accept the NAP.
The NAP is not pacifist. You can use (an appropriate level of) violence against other people to defend a value. E.g., self-defense is not a NAP violation, but holding someone up with a gun to get their wallet, or for that matter shooting them just because they annoy you, is a NAP violation.
Having said that, there seems to be some confusion about what the NAP does and doesn’t imply.
1. What it does imply: That people who follow it will never be in a position to have defensive violence used against them, because they themselves do not employ aggressive violence. Thus, any violence used against them must be aggressive rather than defensive, and therefore will by definition be prohibited by the NAP.
2. What it doesn’t imply: that people who follow it are behaving in a moral way, i.e., that that their actions are morally right or socially acceptable. That is, a person can follow the NAP but still be a jerk. In that case, others still can’t use violence against that person without violating the NAP, but those others can shame, boycott, or use any other non-violent means to teach that person a lesson.
3. Also please note that actual violence or a credible threat of actual violence against a person or people is required to violate the NAP. Mean words or even very nasty actions like doxxing someone, don’t violate the NAP, although they are still bad actions.
What does this mean? It means that just because some action doesn’t violate the NAP doesn’t mean it is a good or socially acceptable action. Groups have rules that often require considerably more than just following the NAP. For example, you can be thrown out of a group for calling others names or advocating violence, even though neither of these violates the NAP. More generally, you can follow the NAP while disregarding the Golden Rule, although it is advisable for many reasons to follow the Golden Rule to the extent possible.
Note: “people” and “person” refers to entities that are capable of agreeing to accept the NAP. To the extent of our current knowledge, the only entities that satisfy this requirement are members of homo sapiens. If it can be demonstrated that there are animals, aliens, or AI entities that can accept the NAP, then it would apply to them also.