Attack libertarian/anarcho-capitalist philosophy - see if you can do it

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Hi
I'm posting this thread as an open challenge: Can anyone successfully attack or refute libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism as outlined below?
Since this is Deep Thoughts, I expect replies to meet the stated standards, incl. no bait, no shallow thoughts, no chimp-outs. The topic at hand is primarily ethics, secondarily metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, and other normative disciplines. The goal is to have a discussion that is intellectually useful and informative, rather one that decays into personal attacks or noise.

Without further ado,

The position I am defending​

Reality exists and is primary. Everything in reality is what it is and acts according to its nature. There exist living beings. Life itself is not a done deal, it is contingent on continued sustenance and life-sustaining measures. Among living beings are those with volition and agency, aka the capacity for goal-directed action. All purposeful action requires the use of means, among which are physical objects. Physical objects are rivalrous, such that two or more agents cannot simultaneously use the same good in incompatible ways without getting into a physical conflict with one another. Since life-sustaining action depends on such goods, the possibility of conflict among volitional agents is inherent in existence as we know it.
Because conflict over rivalrous goods is possible, norms become necessary to enable peaceful coexistence among agents. The only universalizable non-contradictory rule that resolves conflict is respect for each agent's control over what they first appropriate (homesteading) or acquire by consent (production trade).
That rule, which you may have heard of as libertarian property rights theory, or libertarian property assignment rules, is the only coherent ethic. Accordingly, the only permissible social/political outcome is "anarcho-capitalism" or "libertarianism" or a free society


Regarding this thread, the unfortunate reality is that libertarian arguments often attract non-arguments. To keep this thread usable and informative, I would like to pre-empt a few things.

• Personal attacks / arguments from identity / slur as argument
  "You're autistic/delusional/whatever" is not an argument. "You X, therefore you're wrong" is no an argument either. It doesn't even address the position. If you insist on bringing up demographics, then do it with evidence and an argument.
• Threats or calls to violence
  "We'll just kill you libertarians", "you and what army" and similar posts are not debate, they are intimidation.
• Performative fantasies or hypotheticals framed as proof
  like "if we just X, then Y" is not an argument. Advocating for fantasy violence is off-topic.
• Strawmen or quote mining
  If you quote positions I've made previously on KF, make sure you're attacking the argument, not me as a person. Either way, quote fully and accurately.
• Fatalism
  "Humans are lazy/criminal or will never be libertarians" is not a justification. The topic at hand is normative, describing how things ought to be. The fact that it is possible to commit murder and get away with it is not a justification for murder. Murder is prohibited precisely because it is unjustified.
• Appeals to other libertarians
  are irrelevant. I don't care what other libertarians say, especially if it doesn't align with the position outlined above.
• Caricatures
  like "you want feudalism" or "you want to abolish the age of consent so you can diddle kids" or "you just want poor people to die" are unserious. If you don't understand the argument, you are free to ask for clarification.
• Statist coping
  like "but we need the state to build roads" belongs in its own thread.
• Don't demand impossible proofs
  Philosophical reasoning uses reason and premises, and omniscience or omnipotence are unreasonable standards for any philosophy
• Dogpiling
  seen as multiple users posting identical or near-identical stuff, adds nothing to the discussion.

A point I need to make very clear is the nuance between description, justification, and implementation. This thread is pertaining to normative philosophy, that means description or implementation are off-topic.
Describing that people steal, kill, are ignorant, stupid, or loyal slaves to the state explain what is, it does not justify what ought to be. Ethical truth is independent of how many people obey it, just as mathematical truth does not care about how many people are able to count. And the question of "why should anyone care?" or "what army is going to enforce it?" is pertaining to psychology or power, not normativity. Normativity is about which actions are right and wrong. Enforcement or adoption is a separate empirical question. This thread is to see if any of the principles are wrong, in which case it is possible to make a coherent argument to point out the contradiction. If you think that libertarianism is correct, but nobody is going to follow it, that's a sociology, not philosophy.

In short, if you have a genuine objection against the position I outlined, then phrase it as an argument and not an insult or slogan. If you have a question, ask it clearly. Anything else clearly adds nothing to the discussion. I vow to treat all replies in this thread with the respect and rigor they deserve.


With that, the challenge is issued.
If you are capable of attacking or even refuting the position as I outlined it, be my guest, I'm looking forward to some proper argumentation. And if not, the silence speaks for itself.

 

[No-Eyed Square Guy]

tl;dr

People are not rational.

The nearest they come to purely economic behavior is short-sighted theft (niggers stealing your bike, "tech" replacing you with jeets, bankers destructively inflating the currency, etc).

No woman is a libertarian because libertarians are unfuckable. The incomprehensibly complex and ancient forces of evolution reject your nerd penis.

 

[The Last Stand]

Presented without comment:



The complete decentralization of law or structure through self-governed principles would merely foster more instability through escalation of force. Be that from religion, creed, or even breach of contract.

I'm guessing you're a fan of David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom. State coerion exists because the people in charge refuse to enforce law as is written, i.e. Portland, Oregon. If tomorrow, anarcho-capitalism would be standardized, what would happen to ANTIFA? I'd say, because there's NO state to enforce or enable, ANTIFA would grow stronger. That's not to say resistance wouldn't exist; rather, because of privatization through say law, healthcare or security, ANTIFA and its believers could just stronghold those institutions and create their own state. Hence, that comic.

 

[A Very Big Fish]

Caricatures
like "you want feudalism" or "you want to abolish the age of consent so you can diddle kids" or "you just want poor people to die" are unserious. If you don't understand the argument, you are free to ask for clarification.

The fact that you felt the need to preemptively clarify this is almost as funny as the fact you want to try and have a super serious discussion like this on the fucking farms of all places.

Godspeed.

 

[The Last Stand]

No woman is a libertarian because libertarians are unfuckable.

Ayn Rand would like a word with you. Well, more, her philosophical viewpoints spearheaded modern libertarianism as we know it.



She had a boxy head.

 

[Private Tag Reporter]

That rule, which you may have heard of as libertarian property rights theory, or libertarian property assignment rules, is the only coherent ethic.

Your argument fails to provide logical proof for this clause. It is a tautology by your own logic and you've fundamentally failed to prove anything.

Your argument also fails to address anything non-prototypical, it doesn't present a means for cooperation other than trade, and doesn't present any form of defense against an enemy agent.

Can your ethics address theft, murder, war? You cannot even present your own ethics without an increasing number of restrictions on the form of counter-argument, which is necessarily non-libertarian.

 

[mave957]

You can have perfect property rights theory on paper, but humans are not perfectly rational agents. Every system that assumes they are collapses under real behavior — greed, coercion, tribal loyalty.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

You've raised three separate questions

It is a tautology

The claim that conflict over rivalrous goods is possible is an empirical observation, not a self-referential definition. If two agents can't use the same object simultaneously, that is not wordplay, it's a structural fact about physical reality. The need for norms follows logically. There is no circularity. Show which premise repeats the conclusion if you disagree.

it doesn't present a means for cooperation other than trade, and doesn't present any form of defense

Cooperation is any voluntary coordination of action. Trade is one subset, but others are language, shared norms, or joint defense. The philosophy defines the conditions under which cooperation is ethical, not which forms of cooperation exist. Regarding defense, restitution and proportional response are covered under the same non-aggression logic that forbids the initial aggression.

restrictions on the form of counter-argument, which is necessarily non-libertarian.

The subforum and thread rules restrict the format, not the content. They are a form of cognitive hygiene, not coercion. Me asking that replies contain arguments is not an invasion of anyone's property. Libertarian ethics are about physical interference and not forum discipline.

If you think any premise is false, name it explicitly and I'll address it.

 

[Private Tag Reporter]

Libertarian ethics are about physical interference and not forum discipline.

And therefore are incoherent to run a forum; and therefore are universally insufficient.

is the only coherent ethic.

Is fundamentally unproven by your axioms and arguments and therefore doesn't logically follow, sorry, try again.

 

[Smoltine Kiminal]

libertarianism might work on a virgin planet, or an infinite plane, but it fails miserably at a fair distribution of current day earth

every place on earth is claimed in one way or another, and was claimed many times over, many of these claims are the direct result of violence, even more the indirect result, and some are valid according to libertarian thought

someone brought the land his house stands on from the government, the government stole the land 400 years ago from native (feather)indians, but the man worked hard and long hours for it, did so consensually and lived an all-around moral life, but the money he earned from a company, which does some contracts for the government, comes in part from taxes, which are blood money extracted by threat of force, however he had to pay taxes too, which where extracted from him under threat of force.
should he keep his house, or does it go to the indians?
all his lives labour is in this house, its his pension plan, taking it from him would mean he was a slave his whole life, he also needs the house to survive without charity

someone brought a lot of land, that the government stole from (feather)indians 400 years ago, build a factory on it and made a lot of money, created products, employed people consensually, but he also did a lot of government contracts, which means he was paid in blood money, extracted by threat of force. he also paid taxes, extracted from him under threat of force, but profited far more from blood money than the simple worker, but he profited far more from consensual contracts in the private sector as well
should he keep his factory, or does it go to the indians?
even if he had to give up all land claims, he would still have his 3 megajachts, a private jet and 10 villas around the world, some of which might even have a consensual claim on some distant island
would it change anything if he did lobbywork to increase government contracts, decrease his taxes, etc.?

the factory owner is a net profiteer of taxes, while the worker is a net looser from taxes, does this make a difference?

under libertarianism the answer is clear, the entire americas belong to the natives, not to european colonizers, because they had their land stolen from them, this is all well documented, even which tribes had which land stolen from them, and which consensual contracts with them the us government violated again and again
but giving back the house of a worker, who worked his entire life for it to the indians would still be stealing his labour

Ayn Rand would like a word with you

3/10

And therefore are incoherent to run a forum; and therefore are universally insufficient.

thats the dumbest thing ive read today

 

[The Last Stand]

Cooperation is any voluntary coordination of action. Trade is one subset, but others are language, shared norms, or joint defense. The philosophy defines the conditions under which cooperation is ethical, not which forms of cooperation exist. Regarding defense, restitution and proportional response are covered under the same non-aggression logic that forbids the initial aggression.

I want to touch back on my ANTIFA example with this snippet. I’m sure you’re aware what ANTIFA is and how they operate. Indirect, hidden cooperation to enact on shared norms or intimidation fueled through lawyers, teachers, politicians, crowdfunding. Yes, the state allows ANTIFA to flourish unimpeded, self preservation be damned. But, again, with how libertarianism works in theory, ANTIFA could continue to exist through cooperation from entities. Correct my rebuttal if you can.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

And therefore are incoherent to run a forum; and therefore are universally insufficient.

The forum example reinforces my point, it's not a refutation. A forum operates by voluntary agreement under the owner's property rules, and moderation is the exercise of that owner's control, not a public law. That's entirely coherent with libertarian ethics.

Is fundamentally unproven by your axioms and arguments and therefore doesn't logically follow

1. Conflict over rivalrous goods is possible
2. Conflict between volitional agents is the ontological negation of justification itself, for any claim that justifies conflict presupposes the very norms it denies
3. Therefore, only exclusive control over first use or consensual transfer resolves conflict without contradiction
If you believe any divergent rule can resolve the same conflicts without contradiction, post it explicitly and we can compare

---

every place on earth is claimed in one way or another, and was claimed many times over, many of these claims are the direct result of violence, even more the indirect result, and some are valid according to libertarian thought

The problem you're raising is title rectification, aka how to handle holdings in the present that are tainted by aggression in the past.
The guiding rule is simple: Rectify specific, provable aggressions with minimal, proportional means necessary to complete restitution. Actions that are defensive/restitutional are not a "new aggression", but rather a correction of past aggression. But where no identifiable claimant and no causal link exist, seizing from a current peaceful possessor would itself create a fresh conflict, so the default is to leave with the current possessor.
To apply this to your cases:

someone brought the land his house stands on from the government, the government stole the land 400 years ago from native (feather)indians, but the man worked hard and long hours for it

If a living claimant (or their clear heirs/assignee) can show a specific dispossession of this parcel, then restitution is due. A practical remedy could be restoring the land title or equivalent value. The worker's improvements (his labors) remain his property and must be compensated if kept or removable if feasible. But in the absence of a specific, provable claim, the worker's peaceful title stands.

build a factory on it and made a lot of money, created products, employed people consensually, but he also did a lot of government contracts, which means he was paid in blood money, extracted by threat of force.

Income and assets derived from coercive privilege (tax-funded contracts, monopoly grants, successful lobbying to extract transfers) are mixed claims. The traceable portion that's tied to aggression is subject to restitution to the victims (for example, wrongfully taxed parties or excluded competitors), but the legitimately earned portion (from voluntary trade) stands. Lobbying to expand transfers increases liability, but merely paying taxes under duress does not.

What you must keep in mind, since I am familiar with your reasoning, is that there is no "cosmic guilt" or "all the Americans go to Group X". The libertarian ethic is case by case. Identify the concrete victim, identify the concrete asset/value, correct no further than necessary, and do not fabricate new conflicts where proof is gone.

Now if you think there is a different rectification rule that resolves old aggression without contradiction and with less conflict, post it explicitly and we can compare

---

ANTIFA

Under libertarian ethics, cooperation is ethically neutral, as it is simply cooperation among agents. By neutral I mean that the normative status of cooperation depends entirely on what these cooperating agents do.
If a group coordinates purely for non-aggressive goals (for antifa, that could be publishing, education, mutual aid, protest on their own property), that is permissible. The moment any member engages in or conspires to initiate nonconsensual physical interference with the body or property of others, then that act (+ any voluntary assistance that makes it possible) becomes aggression and generates full restitutional liability.

As you probably already know, libertarian philosophy does not exempt aggressors because they are decentralized or ideologically aligned. If antifa go burn a car, the specific aggressors (+ any provable co-conspirators or funders) owe restitution to the victim. If someone merely shares their political view, but takes no part in and makes no material step toward aggression, they are not liable.

The difference between a gang that is tolerated under a state and one that is tolerated under a libertarian society is liability. Under the state, aggression is selectively shielded or subsidized. In a libertarian society, there is no legal privilege, which means that all aggression is actionable, regardless of who commits it. Accordingly, groups that commit aggression do so at their own cost and risk.

ANTIFA could continue to exist through cooperation from entities

The conclusion is that ANTIFA could continue to "exist". However, once they aggress, they exist as outlaws and are treated accordingly through restitution or defensive action.

 

[Neodanthril]

Let's get the usuals out of the way
1. Who builds the roads
2. If no one has any obligation to another what is the relationship between parent and child

outlaws

What laws are there to be outside of

 

[daffodils]

The only universalizable non-contradictory rule that resolves conflict is respect for each agent's control over what they first appropriate (homesteading) or acquire by consent (production trade).
That rule, which you may have heard of as libertarian property rights theory, or libertarian property assignment rules, is the only coherent ethic.

1. How exactly does one appropiate something? What actions have to be taken?
2. Are property rights absolute? Can there ever be good reasons to violate them?
3. When you say this is the only coherent ethic, do you mean it's the only coherent account of property rights? Or do you literally mean that all questions about what one ought to do reduce to questions of property?

 

[Staticness]

sir free market means that indian labour best value for dollar please sir import more indians to do work locals will not do without more pay

what are they going to do, start their own? they will be bought out and sunsetted like what GM did to Saturn.

 

[WelperHelper99]

1. Who builds the roads

The roads just appeared in a dream one day, stalker government child. It didn't take a monumental state effort to map every trail and lay tens of thousands of concrete, brick, and asphalt, no, this was all private companies doing it out of the goodness of their hearts for the betterment of mankind.

like "you want feudalism" or "you want to abolish the age of consent so you can diddle kids" or "you just want poor people to die" are unserious. If you don't understand the argument, you are free to ask for

Prove otherwise faggot

 

[Smoltine Kiminal]

specific dispossession of this parcel

this is dishonest, the "parcel" was only created by the government after the land was stolen
you also simply ignore every cultural organization except your own, be it voluntary or not
why are indians not allowed to use their own voluntary property structure? they voluntarily associated with their tribe, they where not under duress, but their tribe was their family
is voluntary association in groups in a way they please not a core tenet of libertarianism?
i suppose it just doesnt matter anymore when it becomes uncomfortable for the founding of ancapistan

Now if you think there is a different rectification rule that resolves old aggression without contradiction and with less conflict, post it explicitly and we can compare

this is of course not libertarian, but the worker keeps his house and land.
the factory owner that didnt do any lobbying pays back any bloodmoney-derived income, as well as further income he derived from investing that income, which is split between net-taxpayers.
the factory owner that DID lobbywork for more government grants has all his assets confiscated, part of which go to the indians, the rest being split between net-taxpayers, he then has to work 10 years manual labour in a concentration camp.

 

[The Last Stand]

Under libertarian ethics, cooperation is ethically neutral, as it is simply cooperation among agents. By neutral I mean that the normative status of cooperation depends entirely on what these cooperating agents do.
If a group coordinates purely for non-aggressive goals (for antifa, that could be publishing, education, mutual aid, protest on their own property), that is permissible. The moment any member engages in or conspires to initiate nonconsensual physical interference with the body or property of others, then that act (+ any voluntary assistance that makes it possible) becomes aggression and generates full restitutional liability.

That first point about non-aggression from ANTIFA, we both know that's not possible. Their entire ideology is centered AROUND aggression and coercion. Now, your point about restitution and liability would fall flat under a libertarian society. Theoretically, with how ANTIFA operates, any sort of restitution would be futile because they'd create some flimsy argument. (short of depriving them from their own self property.) If anything, you'd just be back to where you started, only instead of a "state," it's a collective, decentralized entity where their cooperation would abolish them of most responsibility.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

1. How exactly does one appropiate something? What actions have to be taken?

Appropriation occurs when an agent emborders an unowned rivalrous good through purposeful first use (that is, when their action imposes a discernable boundary that excludes others from simultaneous use). The act must identify the good, integrate it into the actor's plan of action, and exclude conflicting uses.
Examples include cultivating land, building a structure, mining ore, or capturing a resource. Merely declaring ownership or walking past something does not qualify because no boundary of use has been established.

2. Are property rights absolute? Can there ever be good reasons to violate them?

Property rights are categorically valid, but not unbounded. That is, the boundary of every property right is the point at which enforcement would create new conflict. For instance, you may defend what's yours proportionally to the aggression against it, but not beyond, otherwise you would become the aggressor. So property rights cannot be "violated for good reason", but they can end where defense would contradict non-aggression.
In short, rights are absolute within their boundaries, and those boundaries are defined by the avoidance of conflict, not by emotion or utility.

Or do you literally mean that all questions about what one ought to do reduce to questions of property?

This.
All ethical questions reduce to conflict over control of scarce means. "What one ought to do" is ethically valuable only when actions can potentially cause conflict. Every other norm (speech, contract, punishment, restitution) is derived from property boundaries (who has the right to decide what happens with which scarce resource?)
Where no rivalry exist, like in thought, ethics doesn't apply. Only logic or aesthetics.

If any of those points are unclear or if you think there's a counter-example that breaks the structure (like a good that's rivalrous but not emborderable) feel free to point it out and I'll address that case separately

---

That first point about non-aggression from ANTIFA, we both know that's not possible. Their entire ideology is centered AROUND aggression and coercion.

I personally agree with your feelings regarding ANTIFA, but you must keep in mind that an empirical prediction is not the same as an ethical classification. However, if their ideology requires aggression, then they condemn themselves ethically before acting. If they act peacefully, they're ethically neutral.

Theoretically, with how ANTIFA operates, any sort of restitution would be futile because they'd create some flimsy argument

That's an enforcement concern, not a validity concern. If a collective hides liability or dissolves to escape restitution, that's an instance of unresolved aggression, and not a refutation of the norm against aggression. A failure to execute justice does not falsify what justice is. In the same way, the fact that some murders go unsolved does not make the prohibition of murder invalid.

their cooperation would abolish them of most responsibility.

This is already addressed by libertarian ethics. Responsibility comes from voluntary participation in an action that causes conflict. No ideological declaration or collective name can dissolve individual liability. Every volitional participant remains ethically accountable for the aggression they facilitate.

Please keep in mind that normative theory defines what counts as aggression and who owes restitution. It does not pretend that every aggressor will voluntarily accept liability. The distinction between valid principle and imperfect compliance is exactly why I posit that normativity must be derived from ontology rather than popularity.

 

[daffodils]

the boundary of every property right is the point at which enforcement would create new conflict
[...]
rights are absolute within their boundaries,

Is it essential to libertarianism to have absolute rights instead of prima facie rights? That seems like quite a philosophical burden.

All ethical questions reduce to conflict over control of scarce means.

How does that account for common moral judgements such as "Torturing dogs for fun is wrong", "Courage is good", "It is wrong to cheat on your wife", etc.?

I mean, it can probably be done somehow, but I suspect it gets pretty weird and controversial. Is this essential to libertarianism? Is libertarianism incompatible with more mainstream moral theories?