Somalia Libertarian Paradise

[Winchester]

If an individual who is harmed has some right to restitution, they may also be able to delegate that right to a third party, much like collection agencies. I have not developed that line of thought very far yet.

It's no different from hiring any other agent to act on your behalf. You could sell the title to that property to someone, with them taking on the risk of not reclaiming the property.

[Nihil Obstat]

No, the authority doesn't come from them, but they are the recognized guardians of authority and law, for whatever reason (status, wisdom, profession, winning an election, etc). The values and laws come out of culture and civilization.

 

It's one of the big unanswered questions about modern law and civilization...can there be such a thing as an abstract law, not rooted in culture and civilization (and, by implication, religion), but purely aimed at preserving individual autonomy?

 

I'm saying that authority and force are necessary to have values and community. But this authority and force is always born out of a particular community / civilization / etc., which is why change is possible. Authority is not absolute or abstract, and that makes revolution and evolution possible.

 

This is why Christ can say "You have heard it said, but I say to you..." He was creating a new community, a new source of law and authority.

 

Ok, so I essentially agree with that, but that still does not explain how a collective entity suddenly gains more moral authority than any individual from whom arises that collective.

 

 

It's no different from hiring any other agent to act on your behalf. You could sell the title to that property to someone, with them taking on the risk of not reclaiming the property.

There may be a good argument about some rights not being delegate-able, but I am not sure where to start on that one.

[Era Might]

Ok, so I essentially agree with that, but that still does not explain how a collective entity suddenly gains more moral authority than any individual from whom arises that collective.

 

I agree. I think you have to start from the premise that we live in a world that is based on on balancing power and force. It is true that worldly power is a matter of violence and force, just as the animal world is. Not to say ideals are not important, but we have the world we have, and have to make due with it. Maybe I'm too realpolitik, though, idk.

[Nihil Obstat]

I agree. I think you have to start from the premise that we live in a world that is based on on balancing power and force. It is true that worldly power is a matter of violence and force, just as the animal world is. Not to say ideals are not important, but we have the world we have, and have to make due with it. Maybe I'm too realpolitik, though, idk.

Fair enough. So we need to bridge the gap between power and authority. How does a person with power gain the moral authority to use it justly? That is my starting point.

[Winchester]

 

 

 

There may be a good argument about some rights not being delegate-able, but I am not sure where to start on that one.

It's not really a right being delegated. You're talking about a claim on property. The right to transfer property titles is already accepted, and the right to that property would simply be given to another. That's how collection agencies work, by purchasing a debt for a depreciated amount in anticipation of collecting. This could also work in the case of stolen property. You could sign over items stolen to some kind of recovery agent. You'd get the money they paid in anticipation of recovering the item.

 

[Era Might]

Fair enough. So we need to bridge the gap between power and authority. How does a person with power gain the moral authority to use it justly? That is my starting point.

 

That is why I think power has to be put into the context of community. I think that moral authority comes from the community, directly or indirectly. This doesn't have to take any particular form, it could by dynastic rule, elected rule, priestly rule, etc.

 

But, I guess that still pokes a lot of holes, because in practice, power in history has been gained by conquest, and then becomes de facto legitimate. But I think history has a way of letting things resolve themselves through revolutions, collapse, etc. When power no longer suits a society, things go bad.

 

I think I would change the terms a bit. I don't see it as having power and seeking a way to justly legitimize it...rather, a person has power and that power is shaped by the values, laws, etc. of a society / civilization / etc. This can be a constraining or enabling...it could restrain rulers, as in American politics, or it could turn badly when a society changes, and an ambitious leader can change with it, and make it change at the same time (ala Hitler).

Edited August 18, 2013 by Era Might

[4588686]

advocate. oppose. ha. An idea has consequences unconnected to what its fathers explicitly advocate or oppose. Socialists don't advocate gas shortages as far as I know.

 

 

Which is exactly why anarchocapitalism is so very, very vapid and utopian.  

[4588686]

I think the libertarian anarchic theory (or whatever you prefer to call it, Hasan) deserves to be taken seriously, rather than simply being brushed aside with sarcasm. It is not like any particular contrasting political theory works all that well in the first place. In fact everything else seems to work like absolute garbage. So give some thought to other solutions. Have some intellectual humility.

 

 

I don't think that it needs to be taken any more seriously than any other Utopian ideology.  It's an ideology which sanctifies property without being able to give an intellectually coherent definition of what property is or any moral defense of why property ought to be allowed.  It can't even deal with basic conceptual questions.  When a theory makes property and non-aggression its foundations and then cannot even answer a basic question like "why do you have a right to cordon off a subset of the natural world for your personal use and retain that subset of resources with violence?" then there clearly isn't much point is treating it like a serious idea.  

[4588686]

I disagree with right-libertarians but they can, at least, answer basic conceptual questions about their ideology in a way the merits a serious response.  Anarchocapitalism doesn't even get off the ground.  

[4588686]

I want to cover these two first.

 

This is the law that exists naturally. There is nothing in natural law permitting anyone to use violence to force others to provide aid. 

 

 

No, there is.  It's in section two.

[Winchester]

I disagree with right-libertarians but they can, at least, answer basic conceptual questions about their ideology in a way the merits a serious response.  Anarchocapitalism doesn't even get off the ground.  

What is a "right-libertarian"?

[havok579257]

What is a "right-libertarian"?

he's the opposite of a "wrong-libertarian"

[Era Might]

An article I happened to read this morning, Confucian "soft power"...may relate to our discussion about how power is legitimized:

 

http://thediplomat.com/china-power/soft-power-or-ancient-wisdom/

[Nihil Obstat]

An article I happened to read this morning, Confucian "soft power"...may relate to our discussion about how power is legitimized:

 

http://thediplomat.com/china-power/soft-power-or-ancient-wisdom/

My initial reaction is that I very much agree with that, at least in theory. Perhaps not in practice, if it is indeed a core principle to Chinese Communist rule. But the description of moral influence seems to match very closely the same way in which I use the term.

[Winchester]

he's the opposite of a "wrong-libertarian"

I deserved that.