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

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

but this also causes conflict, the indians can prove they first established ownership, but the worker would lose his home and in old age would starve in the streets

That scenario is exactly why rectification must follow the minimal-conflict rule that I already told you about.
If both claims are valid (the original title of the tribe & the worker's later good-faith possession) then restitution must satisfy justice without creating new victims. In libertarian terms, it means correcting the earliest aggression by the least invasive means that completes restitution.
That can mean a compensation in value rather than eviction, or a partial restitution of unused land rather than a full reversal of every transaction. The rule is restore what can be restored, compensate where direct restoration would create a fresh conflict.

the worker is free from guilt and does need the home more than the indians

Problem: Need is not a normative standard, but non-aggression is. Need only enters the picture when deciding how to complete restitution (i.e. proportionality). The worker's peaceful use givse him a derived claim on the product of his labor, even if the original title was tainted. Justice stops when restoring the past would violate the peace of an innocent in the present.

In practice, it means:
The tribe's proven historical right grounds a claim for restitution.
The worker's peaceful possession grounds a claim for protection from fresh aggression.
The intersection of these claims is resolved by proportional correction. Restore or compensate the tribe to the extent possible without dispossessing innocents.

That's the logical end of a system that rejects both conquest and perpetual guilt. That way, justice is bounded to what can be known and restored without contradiction.

 

[The Last Stand]

In a law-governed society, no one is above the law,

Except the people that enforce the law and abuse it. This is illegal, why isn’t he arrested? Because I said so, as Governor/DA/officer, etc.

 

[Meriasek]

Except the people that enforce the law and abuse it. This is illegal, why isn’t he arrested? Because I said so, as Governor/DA/officer, etc.

Well, we are talking about how things should be. And in a law-governed society, none would be above the law, including anyone writing or enforcing the laws, and in principle it shouldn't be possible for anyone to excempt themselves from the law.
That's why it's kinda boring to talk about which utopian concept is the most pure and free of internal contradictions, because when things work as intended, well, they work. Cool. I could also solve a shitload of problems with room temperature superconductors. Which is a bad example, because those are more feasible than enough people playing nice in an anarchist world.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Well, we are talking about how things should be. And in a law-governed society, none would be above the law, including anyone writing or enforcing the laws, and in principle it shouldn't be possible for anyone to excempt themselves from the law.
That's why it's kinda boring to talk about which utopian concept is the most pure and free of internal contradictions, because when things work as intended, well, they work. Cool. I could also solve a shitload of problems with room temperature superconductors. Which is a bad example, because those are more feasible than enough people playing nice in an anarchist world.

How things should be is precisely the normative domain, i.e. the domain that this thread is supposed to be in
However, calling that "utopian" is a category error. Ethics is not a weather forecast, but a standard of right action. "People might not follow it" is a sociological prediction, not a refutation.
By your logic, mathematics would be utopian because some people can't count. The validity of 2+2=4 does not hinge on universal compliance, and neither does the validity of the position I posited.
That said, if you think my position is contradictory, identify the contradiction. If you merely think people often violate it, that's already conceded, it's the reason we need ethics in the first place.

Perhaps this is worth pointing out, for the entire thread.
If there is even a single contradiction within the framework I outlined, then even in a case in which every human being in the universe were to abide by it perfectly 100% of the time, it would still fail to prevent conflict in practice.
Communism is contradictory, classical liberalism is contradictory, "might makes right" is contradictory, democracy is contradictory, minarchism is contradictory, etc.pp., which is the sole reason why they have failed and why they will always fail. I am now presenting a framework which looks non-contradictory to me, and the open challenge is to identify even one contradiction.

 

[Meriasek]

I am now presenting a framework which looks non-contradictory to me, and the open challenge is to identify even one contradiction.

The problem is that your "framework" is so trivial that there's not enough in there to find any contradiction.

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).

It's quite literally "Resolve conflict by not having conflict". The core tenet axiomatically resolves conflict.
"The only universalizable non-contradictory rule that resolves conflict is who wins in single combat". Boom, conflicts resolved. Looks pretty non-contradictory to me.
There's conflict about what someone else has or whatever? Whoever is left standing wins. Anything else that follows is sociology, and we do not care about that here.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

The problem is that your "framework" is so trivial that there's not enough in there to find any contradiction.

It is my stance that ethics should be minimal. Plus, the fewer assumptions there are in a framework, the easier it is to identify and expose contradictions.

It's quite literally "Resolve conflict by not having conflict". The core tenet axiomatically resolves conflict.

That's not a tautology, it's an identification of what conflict is.
Ontologically, conflict means mutually exclusive actions over the same scarce good. The only way to make such actions compatible is to define boundaries of exclusive control (read: property rights) so each agent can act without impeding another.

"The only universalizable non-contradictory rule that resolves conflict is who wins in single combat". Boom, conflicts resolved. Looks pretty non-contradictory to me.

The problem with this is that it's not universalizable, because it re-introduces conflict as its mechanism. It depends on ongoing aggression to function. The moment two agents both claim exclusive use by force, each negates each other's control, so the rule contradicts itself in practice.
By contrast, the norms I outlined prescribe a structure in which those conflicts cannot arise in principle (this is the meaning of "conflict-avoidance").

Now if you want to claim that "might makes right" is also non-contradictory, then try to universalize it. Everyone has a right to use force to impose their will. The result is that no one can consistently claim that right without denying it to others. That's a direct contradiction.

That is why I am positing a framework that tests ethics on logical universality, not empirical dominance. And so far it looks like the only framework that passes the test is libertarian ethics.
And if there is even a single contradiction in my position, it means the show is over, I pack up, and proceed to spend time gazing at navels.

 

[The Last Stand]

Well, we are talking about how things should be. And in a law-governed society, none would be above the law, including anyone writing or enforcing the laws, and in principle it shouldn't be possible for anyone to excempt themselves from the law.

That's my point: any system can be "proved" feasible or correct in theory, but human beings are not infallible by nature or virtue.

In libertarian terms, it means correcting the earliest aggression by the least invasive means that completes restitution.
That can mean a compensation in value rather than eviction, or a partial restitution of unused land rather than a full reversal of every transaction. The rule is restore what can be restored, compensate where direct restoration would create a fresh conflict.

Here's the first contradiction. You're using land as an example. One tribe wages conflict against another for their land. By your logic, you'd expect them to initiate conflict, then try to compensate through contract or trade to resolve it. History would prove that assertion incorrect, case in point, several Indian tribes in America before Columbus even step foot.

"Public interest" is either definable without violating reciprocity (the principle is prior) or it's an exemption (then it's whim). Define it without exemption or drop it

"Public interest" consists of "the welfare or well-being of the general public." It's intentionally interpretative because the term "public" would need flexibility to account for one's needs, conflict or outcry.

By your logic, mathematics would be utopian because some people can't count. The validity of 2+2=4 does not hinge on universal compliance, and neither does the validity of the position I posited.

That's horrible logic because mathematics is rooted AROUND universality. One's inability to count would not negate the basic premise of addition or subtraction.

The only problem exists when records and witnesses are gone and identification is impossible. And in that case, peaceful present possession stands as the least-conflict alternative.

Correct.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

You're mixing two categories that must stay separate if we're talking about ethics, namely validity and compliance.

The question of validity is whether a rule can be universalized without contradiction. Compliance is an empirical measure of how often people follow it.
That people often don't follow valid norms tells you nothing about the norm's validity, it only tells us something about psychology or power. History is a record of violations, not refutations, of principle.

One tribe wages conflict against another for their land.

Is a description of an instance of aggression. It does not show that aggression can be justified. If anything, norms exist precisely to prevent such failures.

"Public interest" consists of "the welfare or well-being of the general public."

Flexible, interpretative, depends on needs, these things are precisely the kind of exemption that destroys universality. If "public" can expand or contract with convenience, then no individual is able to predict when their control will be respected. And that reduces law to whim.

mathematics

Universality in ethics works the same way it does in math. The validity of the rule is constant regardless of how many people apply it correctly. The fact that someone miscounts does not make arithmetick false. In the same way, someone violating property rights does not make non-aggression false.

Please remember that the test here is logical universality.
If the rule, in principle, physically cannot be followed universally or the rule fails to prevent conflict even if all human beings in the universe abide by it perfectly 100% of the time, then it's false.
By that criterion, communism, democracy, classical liberalism etc. are all failures. They are not "good in theory, but don't work in practice", they are bad in theory as well.
My argument is that these contradictions can be identified and exposed without needing to sacrifice even a single human life in a failed experiment. And that's not some esoteric skill that only I as some sort of enlightened thinker possess. If you recall, in Die Gemeinwirtschaft, written around 100 years ago, the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises used the same kind of reasoning to demonstrate that socialism cannot even function conceptually, before millions of people were killed by communist dictators.

 

[The Last Stand]

god created the 10 commandments to form an objective law that stops conflict from occurring
these are not senseless rules created because "someone said so", they dont derive their validity from authority
god created them BECAUSE they are true, they set a perfectly logical groundwork for human societal organization
the 10 commandments are very similar to the NAP in that regards, in fact the NAP is a part of the 10 commandments

Not everybody believes in God or YOUR god.

Flexible, interpretative, depends on needs, these things are precisely the kind of exemption that destroys universality. If "public" can expand or contract with convenience, then no individual is able to predict when their control will be respected. And that reduces law to whim.

Sure, "public" could consist of multiple different interpretations. Examples, one town over has a majority population of older people. The neighborhood town's population consist of suburban families with a mean of three children per family unit. Both towns may require different needs, therefore they may vote differently to accustom those needs.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Sure, "public" could consist of multiple different interpretations. Examples, one town over has a majority population of older people. The neighborhood town's population consist of suburban families with a mean of three children per family unit. Both towns may require different needs, therefore they may vote differently to accustom those needs.

Exactly, and that is the problem.
If "public interest" can only be identified after votes are tallied or outcomes are observed, then no agent can know in advance whether his action is right or wrong. A norm that can't be applied before the fact is dysfunctional and unfit to be a norm.
For a rule to be ethical, it must be able to tell every actor in advance which actions are permissible and which actions are not. "Public interest" depends on ever-changing aggregates. It cannot coordinate behavior, it can only rationalize later whatever the majority happened to want at the time.
By contrast, the ethics I posit is functional because the normative status of every action for every actor is identifiable before the act. That means that it can successfully guide action, for each agent can know whether they are in the right without polling the neighborhood first

 

[The Last Stand]

If "public interest" can only be identified after votes are tallied or outcomes are observed, then no agent can know in advance whether his action is right or wrong. A norm that can't be applied before the fact is dysfunctional and unfit to be a norm.

That site I sourced addresses that:

The judiciary interprets the public interest by weighing it in rulings, particularly those involving government actions or constitutional rights. When a law uses the phrase “in the public interest,” a court often has the discretion to determine what is best for society in that context, ensuring government actions align with principles of justice.

The concept is intentionally broad to allow its application to the specific context of any given situation. At its core, the public interest prioritizes what benefits society collectively over the advantages of a single person or commercial enterprise.

This may get messy, but I want to support this tenet of "public interest." Donald J. Trump's utilization of ICE agent to enforce illegal immigration through forceful ejection and deportations. You're probably thinking: is that ethical because of government intervention? I would say yes. It's unethical to intrude into one's property without explicit permission, then demand the property owner to abide to new ownership.

ICE, and Trump's executive orders as supported by the Constitution, are itself serving a public interest in rightfully exiling unwanted, illegal trespassers that create hinderance to the general public. The libertarian ideology of "property norms" in regards to immigration falls flat because that itself creates conflict through unwanted people impeding with your property.

 

[not william stenchever]

I am sure that someone has already said this in the thread but my argument is showing up with more droogs holding guns and telling you "Look at me, look at me, I am the captain now"

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

That site I sourced addresses that:

I don't think you realized that the site illustrates the point instead of fixing it.
A rule that must be "interpreted" case by case is not a rule, it's a blank check permission for discretion. If "public interest" means whatever a judge happens to think serves "society", then it's nothing but an opinion backed by force. No person can know beforehand whether they are acting rightly until the court announces it after the fact.
"The concept is intentionally broad to allow its application to the specific context of any given situation." is another way of saying that the concept has no determinate content. A principle that can be twisted and turned to justify any outcome cannot function as a principle to solve the problem of the possibility of conflict. All it does is rationalize power.
"At its core, the public interest prioritizes what benefits society collectively over the advantages of a single person or commercial enterprise." is similarly nonsensical. What is "society" if not an abstraction for a set of persons? Harming some people "for society" just means harming some individuals for the sake of other individuals.
The notion of "public interest" means that law reduces to whim. The "collective" is simply whichever group currently dominates the judiciary or the vote.

Donald J. Trump's utilization of ICE agent to enforce illegal immigration

Do you realize you're attempting to deny libertarian premises while borrowing them?
You call deportation ethical because it removes trespassers. But trespass presupposes property boundaries.
If the land is owned by the state, then individuals cannot be trespassing on their own tax-funded property.
If the land is owned by private persons, then enforcement is justified only on the consent of those owners, not on "public interest"
In any case, your argument depends on the very property principle you described as falling flat

The libertarian position I posited resolves this very cleanly. Rightful control is defined by property, and violations of that control are aggression. "Public interest" cannot override that without making the concept of "right" useless

 

[The Last Stand]

I am sure that someone has already said this in the thread but my argument is showing up with more droogs holding guns and telling you "Look at me, look at me, I am the captain now"

That's an argument the OP said he would not address.

 

[draggs]

That's an argument the OP said he would not address.

Because they have no way to address it

 

[not william stenchever]

Because they have no way to address it

There's a reason they say nature abhors a vacuum. Power will consolidate. No man is an island. The important questions are what are the foundational principles that power is erected upon, and how can we keep the purpose of power from being perverted from its' original goal?

 

[The Last Stand]

There's a reason they say nature abhors a vacuum.

I don't know what a vacuum is in that context.

 

[not william stenchever]

I don't know what a vacuum is in that context.

Imagine that there are no nations, the level of organization is at household. You have a really fertile plot of land and neighbor Cletus, his sons, his brothers and their sons, their cousins, and so on, realize that they could make great use of your land. So they come with clubs and turn you and your family into chattel to work the land for them. Repeat this pattern until it stabilizes into a polity. That polity will then use its' monopoly on violence to start making rules.

 

[The Last Stand]

Imagine that there are no nations, the level of organization is at household. You have a really fertile plot of land and neighbor Cletus, his sons, his brothers and their sons, their cousins, and so on, realize that they could make great use of your land. So they come with clubs and turn you and your family into chattel to work the land for them. Repeat this pattern until it stabilizes into a polity. That polity will then use its' monopoly on violence to start making rules.

Then the libertarian principle would be to negate that force/aggression with an equal or greater force. Of course, if you're a protected class, then we call that colonization.

 

[not william stenchever]

Then the libertarian principle would be to negate that force/aggression with an equal or greater force. Of course, if you're a protected class, then we call that colonization.

The sad fact of the world is that there will be winners and losers. This applies across all scales of human organizations from the family level to clan level all the way to the international level. All we can do as individuals is try to overcome bullshit and look out for our families. And to elaborate on the definition of a power vacuum, if nobody is winning at the moment then prisoner's dilemma's logic dictates that at some point someone is going to break the metastatic equilibrium and win or die trying.