Arguments for Market Anarchy

[Francois Tremblay]

Burden of proof: Logic dictates that the burden of proof be put on the positive claim. In this case, while common belief dictates that the anarchist has the burden of proof, it actually belongs to both parties. Both are making a positive claim about social organization. Furthermore, most statists make the same claim as the anarchist (i.e. that markets should exist) but adds an extra claim (i.e. that the state should exist), therefore the statist has an extra burden of proof. Statists are incapable of shedding this extra burden, which makes this a powerful argument, if you can get an honest statist to admit that he's making a positive claim.

Moral Argument: A moral principle or system, or a political principle or system, is invalid if it is asymmetrical in application (to locations, times or persons). Can also be called "universality." Argument made by Murray Rothbard in his book The Ethics of Liberty.
Examples: Gun control is invalid because it sets one principle for one group (state exploiters)- you can have guns- and another principle for the rest of us- you can't have guns. Taxation is invalid because theft remains criminal in all other instances. If it is just for some people to steal in the name of the "common good", then it should be good for everyone. And so on.

Geometric Argument: Consists of setting up a fictional scenario involving three people on a desert island, pointing out that statist behaviour in such a scenario is immoral (such as taxation- two people deciding to steal a third's resources because they think he has too much) without noting that it is statist behaviour, and expanding the situation in numbers until you reach the "millions of people" stage, at which point you reveal the statist analogy.

Argument from the State of Nature: Consists of examining every possible alternative about the nature of man and showing how the state is undesirable in all these alternatives. For example: if everyone is born good, then we don't need a state, if everyone is born evil, then the state would be evil as well, and if everyone is a mixture of good and evil, then a state only gives an opportunity for the most evil to wield power over the rest of us.

Semantic Argument: Consists of pointing out the conceptual absurdity of concepts such as "state", "country" and "citizenship", and showing that statism is literally meaningless. A favourite argument of Marc Stevens'.

Argument from Freedom: Consists of explaining the value of freedom, and demonstrating how Market Anarchy is the system most conductive to freedom.

"The defining mark of the state is authority, the right to rule. The primary obligation of man is autonomy, the refusal to be ruled. It would seem, then, that there can be no resolution of the conflict between the autonomy of the individual and the putative authority of the state. Insofar as a man fulfills his obligation to make himself the author of his decisions, he will resist the state's claim to have authority over him. That is to say, he will deny that he has a duty to obey the laws of this state simply because they are the laws. In that sense, it would seem that anarchism is the only political doctrine consistent with the virtue of autonomy."
Robert Paul Wolff

Argument from Public Goods

1. A public good is defined as a good which cannot be efficiently provided because its provision benefits a wide population regardless of how many people paid for the good. Every single agents is faced with a high cost and a low proportion of the benefit, and thus will most likely not desire to shoulder any costs, making financing impossible. (Standard statist definition)

2a. In a democratic system, good governance is a public good because:

* Any individual voter would need to shoulder great costs in order to form informed opinions on all issues of public policy, and, if his vote means anything at all, would only reap a very small proportion of the benefits. Therefore each individual voter has a negative incentive in bringing about good governance.

* In trying to improve his situation, any individual lobbyist is faced with two alternatives: attempt to repeal the hundreds of laws passed by his opponents which make his life slightly worse (and which repeal could cumulatively make his life much easier), or pass one law for his interest group which makes life much easier for himself and slightly worse for everyone else. Since it is much easier to pass one law than repeal a hundred laws, he will necessarily choose the former.

2b. In a Market Anarchist system, good governance is a private good, because every individual directly reaps the reward of his good decisions, due to the one-to-one relationship between the customer and his agency. He faces the full costs, but reaps the full benefits as well.

2c. In a Market Anarchist system, bad governance is a public good because:

* Any individual customer would need to shoulder additional costs in order to endorse a bad rule or institution (such as the War on Drugs), and therefore every individual customer has an incentive to reduce bad governance.

* Any individual trying to bring about a State or other collectivist structure cannot do it alone. He would need the support of most people living on the same territory, as the State is a territorial monopoly. In doing so, he (and his eventual supporters) shoulders an enormous cost, with the anticipation of reaping only a small proportion of the (assumed) benefits of a State. Therefore States will tend to be very difficult to form within a Market Anarchy.

3. Therefore, Market Anarchy will more easily bring, maintain and cultivate good governance than democracy can, because democracy suffers from a fatal public goods problem, while Market Anarchy doesn't.

Freedom's Imperative
by Jim Davies

Proving that Market Anarchy is the only justifiable organizational system by demonstrating that self-ownership is axiomatically true and that Market Anarchy is the only organizational system built on that premise.

The Problem of Collectivist Obligation

(1) One or more of three possibilities must obtain:
a. Morality does not exist.
b. Morality is determined by the individual (realism, subjectivism, etc).
c. Morality is determined by the collective (autocracy, utilitarianism, etc).
(2) Morality necessarily exists, because:
(2a) Morality is axiomatic (cannot be denied without direct contradiction).
(2b) Morality is a necessary fact for all moral agents.
(3) Either morality is determined by the individual moral agent, or the collective, or both. (from 1 and 2)
(4) Collectivist obligation is inter-subjective relative to the collectivist belief system.
(5) Any moral obligation towards the collective would have to be demonstrated objectively (i.e. as a fact that exists independently from the group).
(6) It is impossible to go from inter-subjective propositions to objective propositions, as any given sum or network of inter-subjective propositions must still remain grounded to the belief system.
(7) It is impossible to justify the passage from collectivist obligation to moral obligation. (from 4, 5 and 6)
(8) Morality cannot be determined by the collective. (from 7)
(9) Morality can only be determined by the individual moral agent. (from 3 and 8)


Spooner's Dilemma

If there be such a natural principle as justice, it is necessarily the highest, and consequently the only and universal, law for all those matters to which it is naturally applicable. And, consequently, all human legislation is simply and always an assumption of authority and dominion, where no right of authority or dominion exists. It is, therefore, simply and always an intrusion, an absurdity, an usurpation, and a crime.

On the other hand, if there be no such natural principle as justice, there can be no such thing as injustice. If there be no such natural principle as honesty, there can be no such thing as dishonesty; and no possible act of either force or fraud, committed by one man against the person or property of another, can be said to be unjust or dishonest; or be complained of, or prohibited, or punished as such. In short, if there be no such principle as justice, there can be no such acts as crimes; and all the professions of governments, so called, that they exist, either in whole or in part, for the punishment or prevention of crimes, are professions that they exist for the punishment or prevention of what never existed, nor can ever exist. Such professions are therefore confessions that, so far as crimes are concerned, governments have no occasion to exist...

Lysander Spooner, "Natural Law," Section V


Argument from Private Property: The State claims to own our bodies (through legislation), all the land (through confiscation and property taxes), as well as various industries (by socializing an industry or making them illegal). But all of these things legitimately belong to the people. Therefore anyone advocating statism is advocating the continuation of criminal activities (thievery of land, persons and industries).

[Cassidy]

Burden of proof: Logic dictates that the burden of proof be put on the positive claim. In this case, while common belief dictates that the anarchist has the burden of proof, it actually belongs to both parties. Both are making a positive claim about social organization. Furthermore, most statists make the same claim as the anarchist (i.e. that markets should exist) but adds an extra claim (i.e. that the state should exist), therefore the statist has an extra burden of proof. Statists are incapable of shedding this extra burden, which makes this a powerful argument, if you can get an honest statist to admit that he's making a positive claim.

This is helpful for arguing the point but is not itself an argument. Even if a statist fails to meet his burden of proof, the default position is not anarchy so the anarchist must still meet theirs.

Moral Argument: A moral principle or system, or a political principle or system, is invalid if it is asymmetrical in application (to locations, times or persons). Can also be called "universality." Argument made by Murray Rothbard in his book The Ethics of Liberty.
Examples: Gun control is invalid because it sets one principle for one group (state exploiters)- you can have guns- and another principle for the rest of us- you can't have guns. Taxation is invalid because theft remains criminal in all other instances. If it is just for some people to steal in the name of the "common good", then it should be good for everyone. And so on.

For this to work you must defend universality which you do not do here. Also your examples are poor because you would sanction asymmetry if instead of citizen and government the examples were applied to land owner and tenant. Thus this technique cannot be used to argue against the state until you first demonstrate that the state is unjustified. After that this is an effective tool.

Geometric Argument: Consists of setting up a fictional scenario involving three people on a desert island, pointing out that statist behaviour in such a scenario is immoral (such as taxation- two people deciding to steal a third's resources because they think he has too much) without noting that it is statist behaviour, and expanding the situation in numbers until you reach the "millions of people" stage, at which point you reveal the statist analogy.

This assumes what it's trying to prove, that social contract or other statist theories are incorrect. Once you have shown the basic premise then you can argue this, but this cannot prove the basic premise as the statist will rightfully respond with his theory of justification and consent. This just adds an unnecessary step and possibly argument from emotive language.

Argument from the State of Nature: Consists of examining every possible alternative about the nature of man and showing how the state is undesirable in all these alternatives. For example: if everyone is born good, then we don't need a state, if everyone is born evil, then the state would be evil as well, and if everyone is a mixture of good and evil, then a state only gives an opportunity for the most evil to wield power over the rest of us.

Except that the argument works both ways. If they believe we are all evil the anarchism is just giving evil free reign. if we're all good then any government will be justified and righteous. And if we are both good and evil then government can be an oppurtunity for the most good to wield power over the rest of us. Also this is a gross oversimplification of Hobbes and Rousseau states of nature. Oversimple as in missing key points, not as in reducto.

Semantic Argument: Consists of pointing out the conceptual absurdity of concepts such as "state", "country" and "citizenship", and showing that statism is literally meaningless. A favourite argument of Marc Stevens'.

Warning, can also work to point out the absuurdity of property, individual, and desert.

Argument from Freedom: Consists of explaining the value of freedom, and demonstrating how Market Anarchy is the system most conductive to freedom.

Will be countered by an argument from morality or other principle like humanism. These are not good arguments against the state. The only good argument against the state is how the state derives it's power. Anything else (anarchist conclusions) will be easily countered by statist conclusions. Attack the premise if you are really interested in debating, otherwise these seem like mostly popular appeals, not philosophical arguments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proving that Market Anarchy is the only justifiable organizational system by demonstrating that self-ownership is axiomatically true and that Market Anarchy is the only organizational system built on that premise.

Even if we accept self-ownership other systems also recognize that but do not recognize other types of ownership. One does not necessarily imply the other. Also self-ownership is easily challenge. Ddd you choose to be born? Can you choose, of your will alone, not to sweat? Can you choose, of your will alone, not to be aroused? Can you choose, of your will alone, not to think? Can you choose what affects your psychological development? And if we bring determinism into it the idea of self-ownership goes out the window.

Also what are you meaning here by axiomatic, see below.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) One or more of three possibilities must obtain:
a. Morality does not exist.
b. Morality is determined by the individual (realism, subjectivism, etc).
c. Morality is determined by the collective (autocracy, utilitarianism, etc).

This excludes that morality is determined objectively (by neither individual or group). This also seems to exclude noncognitivist and emotivist views of morality.

(2) Morality necessarily exists, because:
(2a) Morality is axiomatic (cannot be denied without direct contradiction).
(2b) Morality is a necessary fact for all moral agents.

You are using the term axiomatic wrong. An axiom is: a self-evident truth that requires no proof, or a universally accepted principle or rule, or a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it. We'll ignore the obvious parallel to faith.

You say it cannot be denied without direct contradiction. That is not the language of an axiom but a synthetic proposition like all bachelors are married. Even then there is no direct contradiction to say there is no objective morality, or that there is no normative morality, or even to say there is no morality.

Also to say that morality is a fact for moral agents is circular. Moral agency presumes the presence of morality. It's like saying free will is necessary for free willed persons. This does not address whether or not what we think of as a moral sense is morality at all. You are ignoring large swaths of meta-ethics with your generalization.

(3) Either morality is determined by the individual moral agent, or the collective, or both. (from 1 and 2)

Or is determined objectively outside the individual or collective or is determined by something other than the two, like say emotions (happiness, the need for belonging, etc.) or determined psychological characteristics.

(4) Collectivist obligation is inter-subjective relative to the collectivist belief system.

Pure obfuscation. Collective obligation is inter-subjective to belief in as much as any concept is. For example, individualism, consciousness, or property are inter-subjective concepts relative to a belief system. I can take any given proposition and show how it is inter-subjective to a belief. For example, the law of thermo-dynamics is inter-subjective and relative to ontological realism. If you have an actual argument then I suggest you make it.

(5) Any moral obligation towards the collective would have to be demonstrated objectively (i.e. as a fact that exists independently from the group).

This ignores your above option of morality being dependent on both the collective and the individual as well as jumping from a relative/dependent moral stance to an objective one. Here's an example form desire utilitarianism (used here only for effect not for advocacy): humans are obligated to follow their desires, contributing to a common good increases the likelihood of having one's own desires fulfilled, thus we are obligated to contribute to a common good. Hedonism would have something similar and so would traditional Mills-Bentham happiness utilitarianism. As long as action toward a collective goal has a positive benefit there can exist objective obligations.

(6) It is impossible to go from inter-subjective propositions to objective propositions, as any given sum or network of inter-subjective propositions must still remain grounded to the belief system.

This is funny considering it is what is often done in libertarian and anarcho-capitalist theory. Not to mention that if the underlying belief system is sound then any inter-subjective proposition can also be sound. Value neutrality does not apply to many of your own political conclusions so I find this line of syllogism particularly misplaced.

(9) Morality can only be determined by the individual moral agent. (from 3 and

So you are a relativist? Morality is not objective but subjective to the individual agent? Interesting, I suppose a Stirner style nihilism works as a justification for individualist anarchism. Of course I don't think that's what you meant despite your choice of words. Perhaps you mean value?

Either way what can the person determine without collective interaction? A person by themselves cannot value anything more than his own base needs. Complexities of language, higher order values, even basic reasoning are learned from the community. So are you advocating some kind of innate morality like a moral sense or some species of platonism/dualism? What of psychology? This would fly in the face of behavior and cognitive science. Our moral intuitions/emotional reactions are shaped by family and community environment. If you take this a step further to determinism then you eliminate the ability of the individual to produce, ex nihilo, value entirely.

Further resolution is needed here, perhaps you simply oversimplified for the sake of space but ther eis insufficient information for anyone to follow your conclusions or accept our premises.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the other hand, if there be no such natural principle as justice, there can be no such thing as injustice.

This assumes that justice is objective and not relative. if it is relative then both non-universal justice and injustice can both exist. Since justice is not a property of nature there can be no such thign as natural justice. What seems to be referenced here is objective justice, not natural justice.

Also this assumes that if objective justice exists we can have perfect knowledge of it. If we are aware the concept exists but not have knowledge of it then all human institutions are approximations. Therefore objective justice and objective injustice become useful ideals, not emperical standards.

This also assumes that without objective justice there can be no justice. However if justice is relative or subjective there can still be injustice. The idea that laws "are professions that they exist for the punishment or prevention of what never existed" assumes what it's trying to prove, that justice is objective. If justice is not, and never was objective, then these condemnations are hollow and meaningless.

[Thank You]

Cassidy, I think this is intended as a guidebook for anarchist debaters, not as a complete argument in its own right.

[Dan Mac]

Still, it was entertaining watching buddy construct elaborate arguments against what were obviously overview summations. Just goes to show that lots of education and common sense are distinct and separate entities.
.

[Cassidy]

Still, it was entertaining watching buddy construct elaborate arguments against what were obviously overview summations. Just goes to show that lots of education and common sense are distinct and separate entities.
.

What I wanted is for Tremblay or others to expand these into actual arguments. That's why I only elaborated on his syllogism for ethics. Either that or I was bored, which is certainly possible.

[Francois Tremblay]

Yes, I am not interested in debating the arguments. This is not the place.

I am also not interested in debating Anarchy with non-Anarchists.

[MustangGT]

I am also not interested in debating Anarchy with non-Anarchists.

You used to be interested in it. What happened?

[Francois Tremblay]

I am interested in discussing points of discussion, not arguing.

[NoDeity]

You're using "arguing" in a more colloquial sense, then?

I take it that it's the difference between having a conversation with someone who has honest questions as opposed to defending anarchistic ideas against someone who has already made up his mind that he's against anarchy.

[Francois Tremblay]

Yes, basically.

[PlatypusOfCarnage]

One of my roommates is sincerely open to the idea of anarchy and looking to investigate more. I thoroughly enjoy talking with him about it.

[MustangGT]

I hope he gets his deconvert on. Keep it going, Platypus!