What Individualism Is Not • Frank Chodorov

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Do you agree or disagree that a free market forms spontaneously from human nature.

I agree that markets form spontaneously from human nature.

Are they free?

In all the examples of society doesn't someone, or a group of people, take over?

AC is just a pipedream. There is nothing in it that will keep people from doing what they have always done. Form groups and conspire.

AC has a nonaggression principle. Deadly force is allowed in only in defense. People happy with AC, as it is assumed most would be most of the time, would be on alert for such conspiracies.

Tactically, surprise favors the attacker, but everything else favors the defender.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
AC has a nonaggression principle.

Great, what does that mean to those who don't care to follow AC?

Why do you assume that people would be happy with AC? As a counter to that I claim I would point out that the frontier lands in the US sooner or later came searching for statehood. We know how that ended so maybe, you are assuming too much?

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
AC has a nonaggression principle.

Great, what does that mean to those who don't care to follow AC?

They can do what they want to. Natural born socialists would probably from a state. Nonaggression is the guideline.

Why do you assume that people would be happy with AC?

Because AC will give them the freedom to do what they want to. Everything would cost less money. Each person would probably spend some time accumulating money, but not as much money would be required to live. The source of unhappiness would be boredom as much as anything.

As a counter to that I claim I would point out that the frontier lands in the US sooner or later came searching for statehood. We know how that ended so maybe, you are assuming too much?

There was no doubt that the federally owned lands of the frontier (all frontier land was sold or homesteaded by the federal government) would become states. After the War to Centralize the Government, the collectivist Union part of society filled all of the frontier leadership positions. There was no choice offered about statehood.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
AC has a nonaggression principle.

Great, what does that mean to those who don't care to follow AC?

Why do you assume that people would be happy with AC? As a counter to that I claim I would point out that the frontier lands in the US sooner or later came searching for statehood. We know how that ended so maybe, you are assuming too much?

The non-aggression principal is a hotly debated issue even among libertarians but, not for any disagreement about it as an ethical anchor.

It isn't that anybody is opposed to it but, Zwolinski argues that it should not be the "sole and absolute criterion of libertarian justice."

Six Reasons Libertarians Should Reject the Non-Aggression Principle

Many libertarians believe that the whole of their political philosophy can be summed up in a single, simple principle. This principle—the “non-aggression principle” or “non-aggression axiom” (hereafter “NAP”)—holds that aggression against the person or property of others is always wrong, where aggression is defined narrowly in terms of the use or threat of physical violence.

From this principle, many libertarians believe, the rest of libertarianism can be deduced as a matter of mere logic. What is the proper libertarian stance on minimum wage laws? Aggression, and therefore wrong. What about anti-discrimination laws? Aggression, and therefore wrong. Public schools? Same answer. Public roads? Same answer. The libertarian armed with the NAP has little need for the close study of history, sociology, or empirical economics. With a little logic and a lot of faith in this basic axiom of morality, virtually any political problem can be neatly solved from the armchair.

On its face, the NAP’s prohibition of aggression falls nicely in line with common sense. After all, who doesn’t think it’s wrong to steal someone else’s property, to club some innocent person over the head, or to force others to labor for one’s own private benefit? And if it’s wrong for us to do these things as individuals, why would it be any less wrong for us to do it as a group – as a club, a gang, or…a state?

Defending the Non-Aggression Principle

According to Zwolinski, the non-aggression principle (NAP) “holds that aggression against the person or property of others is always wrong, where aggression is defined narrowly in terms of the use or threat of physical violence.”

As I noted in Part 1 of this series, “the NAP usually is (and should be) expressed in terms of physical force, not violence.” A possible distinction between these two terms may be illustrated as follows: Suppose a large man physically blocks the doorway of an old lady’s house and will not allow her to enter. We might say that this is not literally a violent act, since the man never comes into contact with the lady. And even if we agree that his action should reasonably be interpreted as an intent, or threat, to use violence should she attempt to enter her own house, it is the blocking of the entrance by physical means that qualifies as a violation of her property rights. Thus, in this as in many other cases, it seems more appropriate to speak of physical force rather than of violence per se.

Given that Murray Rothbard often framed the NAP in terms of “violence,” Zwolinski cannot be faulted for following his lead. But it should be kept in mind that many (and perhaps most) libertarians follow Ayn Rand in framing their fundamental political principle as the non-initiation of physical force (often abbreviated NIOF), rather than speaking of violence. As Rand wrote in “Man’s Rights”:

To violate man’s rights means to compel him to act against his own judgment, or to expropriate his values. Basically, there is only one way to do it: by the use of physical force.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Do you agree or disagree that a free market forms spontaneously from human nature.

I agree that markets form spontaneously from human nature.

Are they free?

In all the examples of society doesn't someone, or a group of people, take over?

AC is just a pipedream. There is nothing in it that will keep people from doing what they have always done. Form groups and conspire.

Yes, make companies and compete, no pipe dream necessary.

If your group can do a better job, your group should be the preferred vendors to the consumers of those goods.

You can always choose to buy from a vendor based on some other criteria than cost and efficacy.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
They can do what they want to.

You just don't see it.

If what they want to do is force government onto a population then what?

There was no choice offered about statehood.

And here is the answer to the question above.

originally posted by: greencmp
Yes, make companies and compete, no pipe dream necessary.

The pipedream lies in thinking that everyone is going to play fair.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
They can do what they want to.

You just don't see it.

If what they want to do is force government onto a population then what?

There was no choice offered about statehood.

And here is the answer to the question above.

Again, the description of the unmolested market is simply that is exists without government interference.

This does not mean that there is no government (certainly not in our constitutional republic) nor that there are no laws even in the absence of government, just that government does not endeavor to guide, manipulate, favor or discourage any economic activity.

The absolute theoretical form of the free market (anarcho capitalism) which we are using to hypothesize these various circumstances is useful for comparison but, it is not really central to the economic argument.

a reply to: greencmp
That post has nothing to de with economics but just an example of force upon a population.

In both the anarcho and capitalist side, when people stop playing fair, AC fails.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
Yes, make companies and compete, no pipe dream necessary.

The pipedream lies in thinking that everyone is going to play fair.

It is another application of the concept of balanced powers keeping each other in check.

The fairer you play, the more competitive you are. That is, if you don't siphon resources away from the production cycle and keep your overhead low (no wild parties with hookers for politicians, etc.), more corrupt and less productive suppliers will not be able to compete.

It gets really interesting when you start talking about employee mobility which gives workers a say in their pay and treatment and tends to spread successful practices throughout industries in ways that planners could never do.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: greencmp
That post has nothing to de with economics but just an example of force upon a population.

In both the anarcho and capitalist side, when people stop playing fair, AC fails.

Just clarifying that you started with questions about the ability of a free market to solve problems and resist monopoly prices and you ended with an hypothetical invasion force over the horizon.

a reply to: greencmp

Application of a concept? Where?

Your talking about honest businessmen and I'm talking about the mafia. You asked way back why you would buy these peoples products and the answer is you have no choice.

a reply to: daskakik

What if the victims decide to take out the mafia operations? They will likely have buildings, vehicles, goods and treasure presumably in fixed positions. Why would anyone risk that if they didn't have to?

Could such an organization afford to maintain the cost of defending itself against an angry mob ready to slit their throats?

No, I don't think mafias thrive in open systems, it is a phenomenon of pack behavior and is more closely related to closed systems like prisons, schools and social engineering in general.

originally posted by: greencmp
What if the victims decide to take out the mafia operations? They will likely have buildings, vehicles, goods and treasure presumably in fixed positions. Why would anyone risk that if they didn't have to?

But mafias do exist.

Could such an organization afford to maintain the cost of defending itself against an angry mob ready to slit their throats?

Again, you are painting a picture that is seldom seen. Are there mobs ready to slit the warlords throats in Somalia?

No, I don't think mafias thrive in open systems, it is a phenomenon of pack behavior and is more closely related to prisons, schools and social engineering in general.

Open systems, like what? Where?

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
What if the victims decide to take out the mafia operations? They will likely have buildings, vehicles, goods and treasure presumably in fixed positions. Why would anyone risk that if they didn't have to?

But mafias do exist.

Could such an organization afford to maintain the cost of defending itself against an angry mob ready to slit their throats?

Again, you are painting a picture that is seldom seen. Are there mobs ready to slit the warlords throats in Somalia?

No, I don't think mafias thrive in open systems, it is a phenomenon of pack behavior and is more closely related to prisons, schools and social engineering in general.

Open systems, like what? Where?

Somalia is not representative of a truly free market, an open system.

Several surrounding states are funding various "warlords" who are attempting to secure territory and resources for themselves. They can be considered states for the purposes of this discussion.

If there is a profession there at all it is piracy on the high seas.

I guess I would have to call any attempt to form a mafia would be the same as attempting to form a state. So, as long as everyone within the boundaries declared agree, poof they are a state.

This is a major problem with actual anarchy but it would have to rise to that level in which case, the new state would become a separate entity.

I just don't think we need actual political anarchy, it is just the best place to start the economic argument as the free market does requires economic anarchy.

originally posted by: greencmp
Somalia is not representative of a truly free market, an open system.

Nothing is, that is the whole point. The closest example doesn't even come close.

Several surrounding states are funding various "warlords" who are attempting to secure territory and resources for themselves. They can be considered states for the purposes of this discussion.

Yes, and that is what happens in the real world.

If there is a profession there at all it is piracy on the high seas.

I'm sure honest tradesmen in that part of the world would disagree.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
Somalia is not representative of a truly free market, an open system.

Nothing is, that is the whole point. The closest example doesn't even come close.

Several surrounding states are funding various "warlords" who are attempting to secure territory and resources for themselves. They can be considered states for the purposes of this discussion.

Yes, and that is what happens in the real world.

If there is a profession there at all it is piracy on the high seas.

I'm sure honest tradesmen in that part of the world would disagree.

You kind of went through this earlier. You are presenting a known mismatch as a candidate for comparison.

Let us hope they do have them still, honest tradesman.

originally posted by: greencmp
You kind of went through this earlier. You are presenting a known mismatch as a candidate for comparison.

Yes, well you have yet to offer a matching example so we are left with the most lawless place around as an example of, well, lack of laws.

It does match my point, less laws don't necesarily mean more violence but that is usually the result.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
You kind of went through this earlier. You are presenting a known mismatch as a candidate for comparison.

Yes, well you have yet to offer a matching example so we are left with the most lawless place around as an example of, well, lack of laws.

It does match my point, less laws don't necesarily mean more violence but that is usually the result.

Oh, I wouldn't say there are no laws in Somalia at all, you just wouldn't necessarily know what they are at any given time or in any particular place and the punishments for violations are likely to be equally unpredictable.

But, I will think about your question about what is an acceptable example of a truly free market in action.

originally posted by: greencmp
Oh, I wouldn't say there are no laws in Somalia at all,

I didn't say there are no laws, part of my point is that even if there is no official government or legislation, there can still be rules that a group has to follow.

I agree that the warlords in Somalia are, for all practical purposes, government. A local gang, if they coerce you into something against your will are also controlling you. That is my point.

But, I will think about your question about what is an acceptable example of a truly free market in action.

Good luck. I can't think of any.