Comments on: Why Any Rights At All?

By: OK so I’m not really a cowboy. » Why Anarchy Isn’t A Satisfactory Protector of Natural Rights, Part I

Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:35:59 +0000

[...] Introduction Me and Francois Tremblay have decided to have a bit of a debate, sparked by ‘Why Any Rights At All?’ He says I mischaracterize anarcho capitalism. I say my piece was just badly written. I’d encourage you to read both posts before you read this as it’ll be pretty unintelligible otherwise. [...]

By: Francois Tremblay

Francois Tremblay — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 02:16:29 +0000

Post is up!

http://radicallibertarians.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-anarchy-is-most-conductive-to.html

By: Francois Tremblay

Francois Tremblay — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 23:27:03 +0000

So do you want me to make the topic- why anarchy is (most / least) conductive to the establishment and perpetuation of natural rights ? Or proper morality? Your entry is kindof all over the place.

I’ll still want to address one or two specific statements that you made, to guide the discussion and illustrate conceptually what I’m saying.

By: Francois Tremblay

Francois Tremblay — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 23:07:21 +0000

Good idea. I may do that today or tomorrow, either way I will email you when I’m done.

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 22:37:17 +0000

btw, I meant your inclusion as a compliment. I was intending to say that if anyone could beat the crap out of my argument, it’d be you (I’d bet on you).

I’d love to join a debate. You wanna make the first post? You could respond to this piece or frame a debate on your own terms. I’ll respond in a day or two on my blog.

Should be fun (if a short lived bout).

By: Francois Tremblay

Francois Tremblay — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 22:32:05 +0000

I wouldn’t mind debating you on your blog (or mine, for that matter) on whether anarchy could work or not. Why don’t we do that instead? At least you would get a real anarchist argument to knock down. ;)

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 22:24:21 +0000

Francois, my apologies. It was never my intent to mischaracterize you or make you into a straw man. I wasn’t even directly attacking the anarcho-capitalist position but just talking about anarchy wouldn’t work. I suck.

Brad, I’ll check out the book and return to this idea later.

By: Brad Warbiany

Brad Warbiany — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:23:37 +0000

I’d still recommend “The Machinery of Freedom”. It will give you a much clearer view of what an-caps truly believe. As I said, I still don’t believe what they believe, but I don’t know that your depiction of an-cap was accurate.

By: Wells Earl Draughon

Wells Earl Draughon — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:32:52 +0000

There are many mistakes in this discussion of negative and positive freedom. For a solid account of these and all other issues connected with individual liberty (including limits of liberty), see my book, What Freedom Is.

If you’re strapped for cash, you can read the critical part free on my website. But this does not include the presentation of a defensible definition of freedom nor a discussion of the problem of limiting freedom. For those, you have to shell out $16.95 for the book. Things are tough all over.

Wells

By: Francois Tremblay

Francois Tremblay — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:54:46 +0000

Incidentally, after reading your entry some more, none of what you say as the anarchist position is anything I would ever say. I feel robbed by being portrayed as supporting such a position. If you’re going to do this, then at least quote me. Is ad hoc straw men how you conduct all your refutations?

By: Francois Tremblay

Francois Tremblay — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:52:14 +0000

You have chosen a very, very bad example. I am the one who always has to defend the concept of rights against other anarchists. I am somewhat annoyed by the fact that you ASSUMED that when in fact reading my blog for a minute would have told you the truth.

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 03:11:00 +0000

as far as I can tell, although anarcho-capitalists acknowledge the basic rights of man, it’s more or less an empty acknowledgement, since it relies on cooperation between self-interested individuals to be protected.

As such, an anarcho-capitalist society is literally nothing more than humans participating in the same kind of groupings as the animal situations I compared it to. A rule-less society in which the practical constraints of behavior limited ‘crime’.

I could be off, I don’t claim to be an expert on anarcho-capitalism. But it certainly reads like what they’re talking about is what I alluded to in the conclusion: a human society devoid of laws, in which coercion, cooperation, threats, and opportunity costs all conspire to eliminate transgressions against life, liberty, and property.

Looking back, the way I explained myself, especailly when I got to talking about humans, I oversimplified myself which might be causing part of the confusion.

A lot of the mechanisms that anarcho-capitalists mention as acting to preserve liberty I was thinking about in my head. But didn’t quite make it to paper. I was thinking about all of those factors operating in an anarchistic society. Just didn’t get it down on paper. Because I suck at life.

I did take all of that into account before I made my statement that they essentially dismiss the basal level of transgressions against liberty which is a rather odd stance to take.

By: Brad Warbiany

Brad Warbiany — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 02:40:26 +0000

Nick, Have you read David Friedman's "The Machinery of Freedom"? I think you're drastically simplifying the position of a market anarchist. I personally believe the anarcho-capitalists make a couple of assumptions that are untenable, and that their society, if created, wouldn't be stable. To go into all my reasons is a job for another post, on another day, but I highly suggest you read it. In the blogosphere, Catallarchy is a prominent an-cap group blog, and autoDogmatic is one I've recently been reading quite a bit. You should check them out...

By: OK so I’m not really a cowboy. » Men Like Me

OK so I’m not really a cowboy. » Men Like Me — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 17:46:35 +0000

[...] New post up at Liberty Papers. There are those who say that positive rights and negative rights are two sides of the same coin. There are others who say that since rights are nothing but an artificial construct, applying them is nothing more than coercion. You’ve heard my response to the incoherent first position. The second position is a bit more difficult to attack. But I think I’ve provided a fair defense of classical liberal philosophy as opposed to anarchy. The central contention is that: But more importantly, the anarchist imputes too much to statement that ‘All men are created equal.’ Even at birth, some are taller, some are heavier. Some are healthier, some are more alert…In such a system, where some are capable of greater acts of coercion than others, and where the threat of retaliation varies widely from almost none to almost infinite, a few will inevitably come to control the many…The anarchist turns a blind eye to the difference between the perfect world of their assumptions and the real world. The classical liberal merely acknowledges them. He sees that for society to remain free from tyranny, individuals must treat each other as if they were equal. [...]