4 ms·

I have seen this argument expressed several times on HN and I find it quite puzzling. To paraphrase the argument goes something like: "Society giveth and socie

by ancap 11y ago

I have seen this argument expressed several times on HN and I find it quite puzzling. To paraphrase the argument goes something like: "Society giveth and society taketh away" Implied in the argument is that the state is synonymous with society. Even in a democratic society you have the issue that a) a limited percentage of the population actually vote and b) of those who vote a minority did not get what they wanted. Regardless of what extent the government does reflect the will of society, you still have the issue that we currently do have a system of personal property rights. If you believe those rights exist only because society willed them be for whatever reason, then arguing that no one really owns anything is quite the circular argument.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Regardless of what extent the government does reflect the will of society, you still have the issue that we currently do have a system of personal property rights. We have a system of personal property rights in which personal property is subject to taxation, both ad valorem taxation of wealth (usually, in practice, certain classes of assets are targeted for this, but there is no systemic prohibition in our system of it being applied anywhere) and taxes on particular uses or exchanges of property. So using the existence of those property rights to argue against taxation to support public priorities is quite the self-contradictory argument.
- ancap 11y ago
  You are again conflating that society is synonymous with the state.
  - learc83 11y ago
    So you're argument is not that individuals don't owe a debt to society for facilitating the creation of wealth, but that the state functions poorly as a proxy for society? If that is the case, what would function as a better proxy through which society can collect its debt?
    - ancap 11y ago
      I suppose you would have to expound on what is meant by "facilitating the creation of wealth" for me to answer that question.
      - learc83 11y ago
        Police and military protecting trade routes from bandits, and pirates. Roads, and other infrastructure that facilitates trade and communication. Courts that enforce contracts. Water rights management to that facilitates the creation of cities (note I'm talking large scale here, not municipal water companies--think the federal government prevents people in State A from draining all the water from a river before it gets to State B) Public health infrastructure (large scale, like fighting epidemics) That kind of thing, plus many smaller scale and more intangible benefits that come from living in a civilized society.
        ancap 11y ago
        There has been plenty written on how those things could be privatized (see the writings of Murray Rothbard and Walter Block). Regarding your earlier comment about "a debt to society", no one is in debt to society for those things, because no one contractually agreed to be in debt. Yes those services exist, and yes they provide real benefits, but the problem is they are not voluntary. Being in debt involuntarily is akin to slavery. Now, that is the philosophical justification for one who believes in the non-agression principle. Obviously such a belief is more of a hope for a utopia which will never be realized in the foreseeable future.
        learc83 11y ago
        I considered myself first a libertarian and then an anarcho-capitalist from about 15 to 27, so I'm pretty familiar with the arguments (though I'll note that I'm no longer convinced by all of them). The concept that involuntary debt is automatically bad is an axiom that most people who believed like I did start with. But it's not the self-evident axiom that I once thought. There are many cultures that consider children to have certain filial obligations (and some states in the US still have such laws), you might consider that wrong, but it's not self-evident that it is. There are also situations where the law considers continued enjoyment of some good or service to create an obligation to pay for that good or service regardless of whether the person enjoying it requested it in the first place. I don't think this is self-evidently wrong either. To explain why I'm not longer an anarcho-capitalist: As I got older, I started to realize that almost everything I'd accomplished was primarily a result of the situation I was born into. Intelligence and success are primarily a product of upbringing and genetics, not something I accomplished on my own that I should feel proud of. I haven't moved over to pure socialism, but I no longer feel that allocating wealth based purely on the circumstances of birth (because let's face it, an individual's ability to make money is based almost entirely on the circumstances of their birth.) is the best system. There are times when capitalism is the best, most efficient system for everyone involved (even if it's not the most egalitarian). But I've increasingly realized there are also time when capitalism reaches a local optimum. And I don't think we should let ideology blind us to that.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > You are again conflating that society is synonymous with the state The state is simply the name given to whatever aspect of a bounded society the society itself recognizes as governing it.

by ancap 11y ago

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Regardless of what extent the government does reflect the will of society, you still have the issue that we currently do have a system of personal property rights. We have a system of personal property rights in which personal property is subject to taxation, both ad valorem taxation of wealth (usually, in practice, certain classes of assets are targeted for this, but there is no systemic prohibition in our system of it being applied anywhere) and taxes on particular uses or exchanges of property. So using the existence of those property rights to argue against taxation to support public priorities is quite the self-contradictory argument.

ancap 11y ago
You are again conflating that society is synonymous with the state.
- learc83 11y ago
  So you're argument is not that individuals don't owe a debt to society for facilitating the creation of wealth, but that the state functions poorly as a proxy for society? If that is the case, what would function as a better proxy through which society can collect its debt?
  - ancap 11y ago
    I suppose you would have to expound on what is meant by "facilitating the creation of wealth" for me to answer that question.
    - learc83 11y ago
      Police and military protecting trade routes from bandits, and pirates. Roads, and other infrastructure that facilitates trade and communication. Courts that enforce contracts. Water rights management to that facilitates the creation of cities (note I'm talking large scale here, not municipal water companies--think the federal government prevents people in State A from draining all the water from a river before it gets to State B) Public health infrastructure (large scale, like fighting epidemics) That kind of thing, plus many smaller scale and more intangible benefits that come from living in a civilized society.
      - ancap 11y ago
        There has been plenty written on how those things could be privatized (see the writings of Murray Rothbard and Walter Block). Regarding your earlier comment about "a debt to society", no one is in debt to society for those things, because no one contractually agreed to be in debt. Yes those services exist, and yes they provide real benefits, but the problem is they are not voluntary. Being in debt involuntarily is akin to slavery. Now, that is the philosophical justification for one who believes in the non-agression principle. Obviously such a belief is more of a hope for a utopia which will never be realized in the foreseeable future.
        learc83 11y ago
        I considered myself first a libertarian and then an anarcho-capitalist from about 15 to 27, so I'm pretty familiar with the arguments (though I'll note that I'm no longer convinced by all of them). The concept that involuntary debt is automatically bad is an axiom that most people who believed like I did start with. But it's not the self-evident axiom that I once thought. There are many cultures that consider children to have certain filial obligations (and some states in the US still have such laws), you might consider that wrong, but it's not self-evident that it is. There are also situations where the law considers continued enjoyment of some good or service to create an obligation to pay for that good or service regardless of whether the person enjoying it requested it in the first place. I don't think this is self-evidently wrong either. To explain why I'm not longer an anarcho-capitalist: As I got older, I started to realize that almost everything I'd accomplished was primarily a result of the situation I was born into. Intelligence and success are primarily a product of upbringing and genetics, not something I accomplished on my own that I should feel proud of. I haven't moved over to pure socialism, but I no longer feel that allocating wealth based purely on the circumstances of birth (because let's face it, an individual's ability to make money is based almost entirely on the circumstances of their birth.) is the best system. There are times when capitalism is the best, most efficient system for everyone involved (even if it's not the most egalitarian). But I've increasingly realized there are also time when capitalism reaches a local optimum. And I don't think we should let ideology blind us to that.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > You are again conflating that society is synonymous with the state The state is simply the name given to whatever aspect of a bounded society the society itself recognizes as governing it.