Once again, good point. To clarify, effective use of violence, and the threat of violence. Of course the "ordinariness" of the use and threats helps, such is the benefits of perceived and manufactured legitimacy. I am in no way discounting the efficacy and usefulness of these techniques.

But I believe that in fact, the naked use and threat of violence is in fact what is actually going on. In other words, I believe the direct use of violence is in fact enough to qualify, to stretch the phrase, as "it in of itself". I understand what you are getting at, but believe me, history has shown that the point you are getting at is moot under attack. Ruling elites, regardless of ideology, don't have to follow their own rules, and they don't. Think about it, it is all about power relationships.

Sure everyone gets to try to use violence to further their means, if they wish. It all depends on the power relationships that exist how useful that attempt will be. An organized and determined prison population can attempt to use violence to achieve freedom. They may or may not succeed, and that may or may not be the best tactic at their disposal.

Your answer of "violence" here is completely vacuous, though. You've not really answered the issue. I mean, is anyone who utilizes violence a "ruling elite?" I don't think so, and I doubt you would claim as such either. So there must be some other distinguishing feature that differentiates the "ruling elite" with "everyone else."

It obviously isn't simply "violence," as violence is a phenomenon that spreads across all classes. So tell me, what is it exactly that makes one part of this special class of elites?

No I wouldn't, of course.

And once again a good point. I am really thinking about the distribution of power, as it would be really hard, and really meaningless, to try to define a "white line" in today's world. But I think you just mentioned "classes", so I'll agree with what you brought up here as my general idea.

But I think we can agree that right now IRL that most of the 6-bil on earth are embedded in extremely hierarchical and coercive social environments and that power relationships vary extremely. Excluding literal slaves, all the way almost complete dependence and helplessness to greater power, to the power to use and abuse thousands (or more) without consequence.

And dude, if ACists don't have a problem with how power is distributed IRL, what are they blogging about?

Right. So you see, using "violence" as an answer isn't particularly illuminating, here, is it?

Before you talk about the distribution of power, you must first not only clarify what exactly you mean when you speak of "power," but also what you are arguing as the primary mechanism responsible for the current distribution of "power."

I think you are constructing a straw man here about the "ACist" position, tbh.

I believe an ACist would argue that this so called "status quo power distribution" is largely the result of the institution and apparatus of "the state." In the hypothetical "stateless social order" this apparatus, by definition does not exist. The "distribution of power" would clearly be different as a result.

(For clarification, I think the best definition of "the state" is an entity (1) possessing enough force to deter a coalition of equal or greater force being formed in civil society, and (2) using its force to dispossess actors in civil society of such force as they may still hold and punishing them for using it.)

Treating power as a primitive concept for now, surely ACists concede that it would be distributed unequally in ACland, ie it would vary across individuals?

I thought ACists object to one unequal distribution of power (status quo) and not to another (ACland) because the former is at least partially a consequence of violating the NAP, whereas the latter is not. The distribution is beside the point, what matters is how it emerges.

Is this correct or am I misunderstanding ACism here?

The money that occurs first in any society, whether it flexes its "violence" or not, will operate in a way to limit any other entity(s) from acquiring an equal position. Does anyone really believe just because of this ACism of voluntary acts, there will not be aggressive, even punishing acts committed.

The first pioneers of kumbaya would be the ones plotting to take away the others stuff.

I'm a fan of the montius missiledog back and forth hope that hasn't stalled.

If you're not talking about aggression, then why does 'power' matter? Some people are richer than I am. So what? Their existence greatly benefits me (assuming a real free market).

Would you rather be completely broke in a total free market in the year 2211 or the richest man alive in a total free market in 2011?

Sure, I suppose in the same manner that some people are smarter/faster/stronger/etc than others.

They tend to believe egalitarianism is a fool's errand, and the pursuit of such an outcome leads to far more bad than good.

"ACists" tend to object to an institutionalized entity that, essentially, has a monopoly on the "distribution of power." Primarily because that institution will inevitably and systematically violate their person or property (unjustly).

Well ty, tyvm.

Actually I think violence what makes people submit to the various systems of exploitation. I don't think people in Iran pay their landlord because they believe in the Islamic Revolution, even though they might say that. I think they are afraid of being violently evicted or worse. They are afraid of violence is what is really going on, IMO, YMMV. I believe the same thing is what is going on in North Korea, people pay their rent because they are threatened with violence, not because they love the great leader. And I know that in the US people pay the landlord not be evicted, not because we have been trained and told our whole lives that Capitalism is the root of all good in the world. I believe it is fear of violence that keeps the system exploiting along, not the fact that most people who say they love Capitalism are so brainwashed that they have no idea what the word "capital" even means.

Like I said, I am not discounting the efficacy and efficiency to a ruling class to appropriate and manufacturing legitimacy. But the bottom line is the bottom line, and that always reduced to naked violence.

As I have blogged here before, I think the whole "exact definition" of this or that word can distract from discussing the underlying ideas. So let me give an example.

In the story The Most Dangerous Game the well armed villain owns an island called Ship-Trap Island which happens to serve up a steady stream of marooned sailors. The villain then negotiates with these unfortunate sailors, offering them the chance of prize money and transportation off of island if they let themselves be hunted as game. The sailors always have the option of swimming for the mainland, an almost impossible feat.

The villain and a sailor have a power relationship with each other. That power relationship will define how their negotiations proceed and what agreements, contracts, they arrive at. See what I am getting at here?

In fact, in LiberLand if the villain own the water rights surrounding Ship-Trap water he can booby-trap the waters to induce even more marooned sailors, as long as he commits no fraud. And even these sailors when they contract to be hunted as game are acting "voluntarily" under the twisted Libertarian (&etc) use of that word. Am I making any sense here?

Well no, actually the two paragraphs I wrote that you quoted were not related to each other, they just happened to follow each other. My bad for not making that clear. I assumed that you, me, ACists, and everyone else would consider our real world highly hierarchical. That was what the first paragraph stated.

The second, unrelated, paragraph was simply pointing out that ACists obviously don't care for how power is distributed now, that's why they are imagining calling for imagined change. I think both these statements are pretty elementary by themselves. I didn't mean to tie them together.

And here is where I get lost. In a Communist society there would be two loci of power, the government and the Communist Party. It would be farcical to try to attack one while defending the other, as they are both organizations which serve the same masters as a matching tools. Likewise in a theocracy their would be two loci of power, the government and the church. Likewise it would be farcical to try to attack one while defending the other, as they are both organizations which serve the same masters as matching tools.

And likewise in a Capitalistic society, like we live in in the US, Japan, EU, there are two loci of power, the government and the various powerful private industrial groupings. And likewise it would be farcical to try to attack one while defending the other, as they are both organizations which serve the same masters as matching tools.

See the pattern here, it is just not the use of governments by the powers that be, it is the use of the public/private shell game to manufacture legitimacy. Fixating on only one of the shells in this shell game misses the point.

So to you at least, ACism is positively redistributionalist. Would you consider it more or less redistributionalist than standard western political liberal partyism (Obama, etc)?

I really like where you are going here sir, that sounds like a good definition to me. I added the part in bold not to FYP, but to ask a follow up question... What would you call a group of entities (aka organizations) that act in the same manner as your fine definition of a "state"?

And getting back to Libertarianism (&etc) and privacy, I think I can settle some of the discussion in this regard...

Let us imagine that Libertarianism (&etc) was repressed by their arch evil twins on the best seller list wars... the Scientologists, and then interned. The internment is benign but strict: Libertarians are only allowed personal belongings as need bought from the commissary, and they may only spend credits they earned personally in prison. It being a prison, the Libertarians have no right of privacy from the guards, and the guards have a policy of confiscating all hoards and punishing the hoarders.

The point is the Scientologists have made it impossible for the Libertarians to practice private property rights among each other. Because of the prison rules, it is impossible for any Libertarian to have a property based relationship with any other Libertarian. So if the rights of privacy are dependent and contingent on the practice of private property, and the practice of private property is suppressed... well there goes any rights of privacy.

The Libertarians in this prison would have no reason to afford each other any mutual rights of privacy, because they cannot practice private property with each other. The rest of us believe in some kinds of rights of privacy, rights of basic human dignity, which exist outside and independently of the "right to charge rent and violently evict people".

Ahh then I must stop you right here and ask what you mean by "exploitation." None of these concepts can be taken in a vacuum, obviously.

FWIW I do not subscribe to Marx's notions of "exploitation."

Of course violence is an influence. But once again, that isn't saying much as it is a condition present in all human societies. It is hardly the only thing establishing a "system" (ie civil society). Social convention, for one, is another powerful motivator. And what differentiates "just" violence from "unjust" violence in your mind?

Your gripe seems to be with the idea of rent, or interest. This is, I believe, your fundamental argument with "ACists." You believe the source of the unequal "distribution of power" primarily arises out of rent or interest, no?

One can reduce almost any reciprocal human behavior to "naked violence" in that case. The fear or concern of retribution plays in the calculus of just about any social interaction. This isn't by any means limited to "capitalism."

Ok, on what measure is the villian here under obligation to provide any terms for the sailors? Surely the onus is on you to demonstrate that such an obligation exists in the first place, no?

In a voluntary exchange, once each side has delivered and received the agreed contribution, the parties are quits. The question of whether the exchange is or is not "equitable" for the parties, or that they have unequal "bargaining power" is rather hollow. It is far from sure that one can define bargaining power (or compare the bargaining power of two parties) independently of the actual bargains they in effect reach. Such comparisons are empty unless they can be related to some independent benchmark.

This whole line goes back to a confusion of concepts of "rights" with freedoms/liberties, imo

Sure, but I have yet to see an "ACist" arguing for the status quo (a world made of states, which is a specific and existing "distribution of power"). I do not know why you keep implying that they are, or where you get that notion from.

Perhaps it is because "ACists" do not believe in the idea that rent/interest is "exploitation" that you feel this way? But this does not follow that this means they "are pro-status quo" or anything of the sort.

And this is where I believe you are incorrect. Clearly, they are concerned with how power is distributed, as they do not believe the state apparatus is a justified institution. And the existence of a state implies a particular distribution of power (particularly wrt that of the "political class").

No. There is a reason I did not say "group of entities" in my definition. If there are more than one, then the definition doesn't hold. There is no monopoly. It is not a "state," but rather an arrangement of something different.

"Capitalists" are not an entity in the manner you seem to be implying. They are not "a party." It is not some organization or group that acts unilaterally with a certain particular political will.

It is "redistributionalist" in the sense that if you change an element or "rule" of a given game, it changes how it is played and potentially the end result. Clearly a stateless social order would be a paradigm shift from a "statist" social order. People will finally be stopped from claiming through politics what is denied them by economics.

So it is not "redistributionalist" in the sense that is normally meant by the word in today's discourse, no.

Well it could be a number of things (or combination of things), depending on their particular organization or makeup. It could be in the form of an oligarchy, an oligopoly, various "panarchist" social orders, a "state of nature" social order, etc. There are other variables that come to play here.

Once again, all this "rights talk" simply confuses the issue more than necessary I think.

I mean, if your point was that having privacy is impossible without a system that respects property, I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, I would say the concept of "privacy" is pretty much meaningless without "property."

Caveat: I've barely skimmed the above exchange, but Montius's reply regarding The Most Dangerous Game caught my eye.

Is a philosophy which countenances entrapping the hapless in order to enslave them and force them to murder each other really the one which maximizes liberty?

If one is already adopting an ill-founded notion of "voluntary" is there no place to recognize the above scenario as involving coercion?

To phrase it differently, isn't this evidence that the proposed definition of "voluntary" is overworked? If the sailors were to resist the "bargain" by violence would that be the illegitimate act?

There's a difference between actively trapping someone and helping them out of a trap they've gotten themselves into.

Well, kidnapping is certainly not admissable.

In the above scenario, it could very easily be argued that it is not a voluntary contract by any means, as the use of coercion or duress was used by one of the parties to compel the other. It does not, however, follow that things like employment/housing/other economic contractual relations are of the same (which I have a nagging suspicion that this was intent of introducing above scenario to begin with).

If the sailors were to resist engaging in "contractual relations" with said villan and instead resorted to violence, then what you have is a seperate phenomenon called "war." It is not something that can easily be analyzed within a framework of "voluntary" or "contractual" relations, and one that is not so easily designated as legitimate/illegitimate without additional considerations (imo).

And this.

(And Montius my friend, thanks for the fine conversation. Again you make some fine points, which I will attempt to discuss at some later point. My BA level is much to low at this time, LOL).

Sure to most people. Most people have a basket of "rights" that would cover this scenario. But we are talking about Libertarians (&etc), who believe in exactly one axiom to prove their moral calculus.

The question is how do Libertarians deal with this using their CRAP, er NAP (or whatever). If a landlord notices there is a folk short-cut across his property, and if that landlord does whatever is imagined to clear his property of any folk-easement and then actively allows the trespassers whatever is imagined as due notice, then...

What is morally or legally wrong, specifically to the Libertarian (&etc) moral code, to dig a disguised pit on your property and then negotiate "voluntary" contracts like the Buffalo Bill perv in The Silence of the Lambs with whoever you find at the bottom?

And what if the landlord just passively takes advantage of what nature gave him, like the proverbial Ship-Trap Island, does that change anything?

Or what if the landlord gives whatever is imagined as due notice to warn repeat trespassers of the "voluntary" negotiations they may be forced to participate in if they continue to voluntarily trespass?

Is it OK for the Landlord to bait his property with "free flatscreens and food to those not at the bottom of pits", again giving whatever is imagined as due notice?

Sure there is a difference, but is there a difference under the Libertarian (&etc) moral code?

Beware: not all libertarians are "natural rights" libertarians.

In the case of Buffalo Bill, etc. that is kidnapping.

(oh wait...was she that great big fat person?)

OK I am warned. Of course I have no idea what the difference between a Natural Rights Libertarian and whatever the other kind(s) may be. I was assuming that all Libertarians (&etc) believe in the CRAP, er NAP, ie anything besides force and fraud is cool. The word "force" being defined in some idiosyncratic Libertarian manner, of course. So, you are warning me some Libertarians have other "axioms" than the NAP?

No "it" was the plump "precious" that the perv wanted to make into a sweater or something, IIRC. And we can both agree that kidnapping someone, tossing them in a pit, then negotiating "voluntary" contracts with them is just plain wrong. My hypothetical is imagining that the person ended up in the pit by non-kidnapping means, indeed by Libertarian-NAP approved angle shooting pretty much. I am pointing out the vacuous and intellectually dishonest use of the word "voluntary" by the Libertarians (&etc) by examining the "border conditions" of their morality.

But as long as I am talking about movies, they already made basically a documentary of how privacy would work in LiberLand, check out The Truman Show, 1998. Privatized orphanages under Libertarian morality = we get really good TV shows, until this this hottie ruins it for us all...

There are "rights" libertarians (deontological), consequentialist libertarians, and contractarian libertarians.

Once again, there is a difference between someone actively trapping someone and being obligated to help someone out of a trap they've gotten themselves into.

Yeah I guess that is possible. But is it at all likely? I think not.

Very good. Do they all subscribe to the NAP? Do some of them have more than one "axiom" in their moral toolbox?

Can that difference be expressed using the NAP? Or do other "axioms" come into play? And what about passively trapping people, is that cool, as it seems you might be implying? Or how about my early idea of bumhunting poor folk who are disaster victims, is that cool?

(Because in LiberLand... Kumbaya, Kumbaya, Kumbaya people just wouldn't do bad things anymore... Sorry couldn't help it, my bad.)

And that is the point, that it is possible. Making an overarching moral claim, like mainstream Libertarians (&etc) do regarding their NAP, really need to be examined to all the logical conclusions, in other words, "border conditions" count.

And I guess we need to talk about the term "unlikely". Do you mean that it is unlikely that you personally would have your life "Trumanized". Sure I can't imagine more than dozen or so shows in production out of the more than six billion humans, so the odds would be infinitesimal for any particular person. Or do you mean it is not likely that anyone's life would ever be "Trumanized", even for a while, given that would be considered both legal and moral to do so in an imagined LiberLand? I think this kind of reality TV would be huge in LiberLand, but YMMV.

The wingnut wing of the wingnut philosophy, the Block-Rothbard-Nozick school, who condone "voluntary" slavery are really missing the point when they say it wouldn't happen "very much" and only in "uncommon circumstances". There would always be a customer base for sex slaves for example, as long as there are wealthy pervs. And those customers will be served regardless of how "uncommon" the creation of those sleek little animals happen to be.

Most people who believe in Property Rights at all, believe this...

No Slavery > Property Rights
Basic Rights of Privacy > Property Rights

Libertarians are arguing that those people have their priorities wrong. And they admit that things like, depending on their "flavor", a utter lack of privacy to absolute slavery are acceptable prices to be paid by setting Property Rights above all. The question is why? The question is what is the wonderfully good payoff that justifies these evil practices?

Probably in some form or another. But it may not be the same conceptualization of "aggression" as you hold. For instance, you probably think a rent-seeker as an "aggressive actor."

If the will to trap an individual exists for the purpose of exploiting them can be proven, is it really "passive?"

You aren't helping the civil discussion here.

No. The rational thing is to see what is reasonably probable given a particular scenario. One can come up with all sorts of unrealistic fringe negative hypotheticals for any social system.

Lack of utopian perfection does not equate to "no good."

I am making the assertion that it would not be likely that anyone's life would be Trumanized, for obvious reasons.

1) It should be clear that there is a rather large difference between voluntary slavery and coercive slavery. The one has absolutely nothing to do with the other, except for sharing one word, "slavery."

2) Rothbard opposed "voluntary slavery" contracts fwiw.

3) Slavery is involuntary by definition.

I am starting to wonder if you really know what most people who believe in "property rights" really believe....

There is no "rights of privacy" without so-called "property rights." It is a hollow and empty concept.

What in the **** does the phrase "an utter lack of privacy to absolute slavery" even mean? Sorry, but at this point you are just coming across as someone who is trying to combine as many emotionally charged phrases as they can into a sentence and pass it off as some sort of actual argument.

This sort of thing should be negiotated and agreed upon when the employee is hired. I think a compromise solution exists here. The employer should be able to some extent see what his/her employees are doing. But not completey.

I agree, but living on Ship-Trap Island (as in the story) suggests that the general is simply availing himself of nature's bounty.

OK. I don't see how the first half can really be a matter of dispute: "do this or I will have my manservant knout you to death" seems like a pretty clear-cut case of coercion to me.

Hmmm. I'm not so convinced by this, but based on the above, it doesn't matter (that is, my earlier objection is relevant only if you hold the villain's conduct is held to be legitimate).

Then the way to avoid the situation all together is for ships to stay the **** away from Ship-Trap Island.

Yes, and it is clearly different from an actual, say, employment contract, no?

You aren't convinced that it is "war" or....what?

Yes. The only reason I replied in the first case was because you were treating them similarly...

When is "voluntary" illegitimate?

Everything is "contract" or "war" by that definition, and everyone can always choose to enter "war" by defaulting on the contract. The legitimacy of the default, then, is pretty critical, and the unstated "additional considerations" become rather prominent.