praxeologist (u/praxeologist)

praxeologist commented on How for-profit prisons have become the biggest lobby no one is talking about washingtonpost.com/postev... · Posted by u/bontoJR

ifdefdebug · 10 years ago

Yes. In none of those businesses you are allowed to restrict the fundamental rights of human beings. In private prisons that's the core business model.

praxeologist · 10 years ago

The real problem here is government and not "private" (corporatist) prisons who would only exist as they are because gov't enabling.

Were we to abolish gov't and it's geographic monopolies on law and policing, then truly private prisons would both be way less common and nothing at all like what's talked about in the article.

Some of the statistics on crime are outdated but Benson's The Enterprise of Law is a great book to look at understanding the problem here.

Conditions were so terrible before the move for privatization in federal prisons (sometime in the 70's). With a move back toward that system (which would never happen because more politicians' and bureaucrats' pockets are being lined) you might not have quotas and the push for continued prohibition from this one little angle, but gov't is not a business[0], so the comparison to private hospitals or electric companies is faulty.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqoBZLSm1WA

praxeologist commented on How for-profit prisons have become the biggest lobby no one is talking about washingtonpost.com/postev... · Posted by u/bontoJR

spiritplumber · 10 years ago

So don't have private prisons.

Even Ayn Rand said that government should only be in the military and judicial business, how did we end up to the right of her?

praxeologist · 10 years ago

>Even Ayn Rand said that government should only be in the military and judicial business, how did we end up to the right of her?

You didn't overall. The idea of left and right politics is a false dichotomy and false mechanistic analogy, but I get what you are saying.

I take issue with even calling these prison co's "private". Corporatist is more accurate. To be truly private there would also not be monopolies on lawmaking... police and judges should all be privatized. Government should be abolished and politician should no longer be a job option.

Those companies who lobbied along with politicians for unjust laws, like punishment for putting any substance in my body so long as I harm none, all ought to be branded criminal and punished themselves. This is the position[0] of consistent, anarchist libertarianism, and those such as myself who hold these positions are not fans of Ayn Rand BTW[1].

[0] http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/b...

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIk5C2qsRH8

praxeologist commented on The Difference Between Saying 'Thank You' in Chinese and English theatlantic.com/internati... · Posted by u/ColinWright

adevine · 10 years ago

As you say, though, it all depends on tone. Excuse me can either be respectful, or it can be an accusation that you're being rude. When it's the latter, what the speaker really means is "Excuse you!"

praxeologist · 10 years ago

Could you please elaborate with the language?

praxeologist commented on Zimbabwe offers new exchange rate: $1 for 35,000,000,000,000,000 old dollars theguardian.com/world/201... · Posted by u/shahocean

laumars · 10 years ago

The ironic thing is a million Zimbabwean dollars is worth far more as a novelty note sold on ebay, than it is as currency in it's own country.

praxeologist · 10 years ago

I bought one early in the bitcoin era when 1BTC was ~$1, probably spent over $3,000 at least in today's BTC or something.

praxeologist commented on Google Launches Sidewalk Labs plus.google.com/u/0/+Larr... · Posted by u/resmi

pnut · 10 years ago

The US government is abolished, but the legal system is preserved? Not how it works. There would be a vacuum and a brutal rush to reappropriate resources according to rules other than property rights, which ceased to exist along with the government.

Government evolved from much worse scenarios. What's to stop me from building a militia and taking over a town? Taking your house and wife? I've got overwhelming force and I say they're mine.

praxeologist · 10 years ago

>The US government is abolished, but the legal system is preserved? Not how it works.

I said this was a thought experiment to sort of isolate this one issue. It's how we (praxeologists of law) might give suggestions to the polycentric legal system rising from a previously state-ruled region.

You might not have this misunderstanding but many do. Anarchy simply means a lack of rulers. It doesn't necessarily entail chaos and it certainly doesn't mean a lack of law.

Anarchist libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism is distinguished from early leftist-"anarchism" by two main characteristics.

The former is radically and uncompromisingly for free markets and anti-state, with a focus on sound legal theory (a combination of a set of static legal grundnorms, viz. the praxeological aspect or a set of laws reasonably suited to all humans, with room for free variation among groups/cultures understanding that personal ideology will shape jurisprudence).

The latter—leftist-"anarchists" as you'll probably see protesting the next Gx Summit or depicted on the TV—make varieties of socialist or communistic ideological proposals which results in a total lack of consistent legal theory. As an ideology, "an-cap" is relatively new and our body of attendant legal writings already dwarves theirs. Where leftist-"anarchism" has been tried, it's failed to maintain civil order and the "leaders" have been nigh-indistinguishable from other despots.

>There would be a vacuum and a brutal rush to reappropriate resources according to rules other than property rights, which ceased to exist along with the government.

You'll probably get that anyhow if you are so unlucky to live in a country that implodes and it is more likely that most people will just go on following the status quo than you and others being so swayed by my words and we see an orderly unwinding of your gov't.

Throughout civilized history, from tribalism to today, we've seen paradigm changes. What's next when democracy fails? Ideology and law can both be seen broadly as "technologies". A few of us are working on a backup plan. Most people who are even interested involve themselves in electoral politics and/or try to use the web for "smart gov't".

>What's to stop me from building a militia and taking over a town? Taking your house and wife? I've got overwhelming force and I say they're mine.

The simple answer is that feuding is expensive, even more so of a drain without a mass of people to extract wealth from to fund wars.

Really though, if you were concerned with these objections you'd realize you already live in such conditions and become a libertarian anarchist! You live in a state (geographic monopoly on law, arbitration and the use of violence).

Democracy is an insidious advancement in ideological technology because it gave the populace the idea that "anyone can be king". The US was a noble experiment but I consider it a failure. You have a massive drain on standards of living from bureaucracy and regulations, meanwhile the political elite is not much different than in previous paradigms.

Why take houses by brute force when you have everyone in them convinced that X/Y/Z must be provided by gov't, and that gov't needs it's "revenues"?

Polycentric legal orders similar to what we propose have maintained civil order longer than the US has existed so far[0]. It was just after WW2 that the dollar upended the pound sterling as the world's reserve currency and there was a sudden huge rise in prices and chaos in Britain.

It will be an interesting chapter in history for how long the US maintains its global hegemony. Why not, with half of world military spending or whatever doesn't the US just start picking off little countries here and there like you say? Well they sort of actually do by proxy wars and "economic warfare".

At a basic level, governments are in a state of anarchy amongst themselves though. Why might it not work at other levels? I'm convinced that we can have what's promised by states but under-delivered by abolishing them. A lot of those suffering the sort of Stockholm syndrome concomitant with statism see what I am saying as crazy but I'm unconcerned.

This is one tactic on bringing about libertarian anarchy and many who in debate will say they oppose it actually are helping bring it about[1]. If you want a more in depth answer to your actual questions see here perhaps[2]. A DRO is a startup too ambitiously frightening for today's YC, but it actually funds many who feed into said tactic. Legal praxeology is just a hobby for myself and I doubt I'll live to see my dream of a free society, so I am working on a large global health problem which again is part of the tactic.

[0] https://mises.org/library/medieval-iceland-and-absence-gover...

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20140530221508/http://www.anti-s...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o

praxeologist commented on Google Launches Sidewalk Labs plus.google.com/u/0/+Larr... · Posted by u/resmi

untog · 10 years ago

But you're comparing apples and oranges. Are you seriously suggesting that we could duplicate or triplicate all the roads in the country to allow competition between private road companies?

(and your example is a bad one - here in my area of NYC, Time Warner absolutely does have a monopoly, I have no other providers to choose from. So it makes sens that someone regulates them.)

praxeologist · 10 years ago

>Are you seriously suggesting that we could duplicate or triplicate all the roads in the country to allow competition between private road companies?

If you want to seriously consider alternatives to the status quo or at least be able to capably debate those like myself who do propose total privatization of roads, I'd point you to Walter Block's The Privatization of Roads and Highways.

free PDF/epub here: https://mises.org/library/privatization-roads-and-highways

I don't think that it would make sense to just multiply the roads we already have. For privatization of roads to exist, the gov't would have to give up its monopoly on their provision first, but the problem is much deeper than just this one unlikelihood.

You mention that if TWC/Comcast/etc. are given state-granted monopolies, why not, of course, ought they not be regulated? If I have a broken knee, why not get a doctor to fix it?

If I have a broken knee and it became this way because of the widespread acceptance of a legal order where nobody is punished for brandishing tire irons and kneecapping, the problem, then, really lies with this legal order. As an anarchist libertarian, I hope that one day governments worldwide will be abolished and until such time will work toward solutions for the problems to come from the inevitable insurrection of the "great" Western democracies.

My position is so unpopular, and so many people now are unable to consider that maybe democracy isn't such a great thing or that gov't shouldn't have its paws on healthcare, education, etc. I certainly don't suggest a step backwards toward feudalism or some sort of dictatorship, but you ought to keep in mind that besides the US, democracy before WW1 was only in 2 European countries.

I really do share the sentiments of those indoctrinated by statism, to want to see peace and prosperity, children be educated, the elderly having healthcare and so on, I just disagree with the technical (legal and economic) approach.

If one can overcome the idea that government MUST do X/Y/Z in order for civil order to be maintained or a good/service to be provided (and these ideas are often easily disproven by historical examples), then it can at least be a fun thought experiment.

So, to answer your question on multiplying roads we'll imagine that somehow the US gov't has been abolished. All the roads now would have a legal status of being unowned. Private companies could branch off roads but not just swoop in and toss up roadblocks or tollbooths. The reason here, and similar logic applies to public parks and other municipal monopolies, is that citizens have been granted easement rights to travel the roads.

Assuming the citizen is not a criminal member of the political elite, there's no reason to be able to take away these easement rights to travel. Companies could begin a very slow process of homesteading or coming to own the previously public roads by making improvements, patrolling for drunk drivers, etc.

For a road company to succeed, given that they can't just extract tolls from easement rightsholders, they'd have to add some value like as mentioned with fixing potholes, you'd probably see some expansions like the original ideas for I-70 in Baltimore, then there would probably be some bundling in with auto insurers and DRO's ("dispute resolution organizations", which could be for- or non-profit police and judges basically).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_70_in_Maryland#Histo...

praxeologist commented on Innovation’s Dependence on Regulation wired.com/2015/05/silicon... · Posted by u/jk4930

Brakenshire · 10 years ago

> You could see the Law Merchant throughout Europe as one example

That is not an example of justice in the absence of the state. All the principal trading cities were governed, whether as city states (Venice), as quasi-independent city states within a federated league (Lubeck, Hamburg, and the other Hanseatic States) or as cities within national kingdoms (London, Ipswich and other cities under the English crown). It is an example of states agreeing to standardized laws to attract traders and provide a solid basis for ongoing trade.

From the Merchant of Venice:

The duke cannot deny the course of law.

For the commodity that strangers have

With us in Venice, if it be denied,

Will much impeach the justice of his state.

Since that the trade and profit of the city

Consisteth of all nations.

The presence of common merchant law does not mean the absense of a state.

praxeologist · 10 years ago

I said private law, not purely anarchic examples. I could give more anarchic ones if you liked but it's revisionist history so you'd have to do a good bit of reading to really discuss it.

Iceland is an example of polycentric law fairly close to what anarcho-capitalists advocate. You didn't really address that or the other points.

The first big difference between the Lex Mercatoria and present-day law is the source being jurisprudence and not bureaucratic legislation. The second would be cases being torts with an identifiable victim versus today's with victimless "crimes against society".

For why legislation is awful and for a hint at solutions under an eminently human system of law in a free society see these:

https://www.mises.org/sites/default/files/11_2_5_0.pdf

http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/b...

praxeologist commented on Innovation’s Dependence on Regulation wired.com/2015/05/silicon... · Posted by u/jk4930

Brakenshire · 10 years ago

How can you enforce property rights and private contracts without a state? You have a contract with the richest person in the local area (aka the man with the largest army / aka the local warlord). How do you ensure he pays when he is liable to pay? Moreover, how do you ensure he doesn't just kidnap you, and force you to work for him for free?

praxeologist · 10 years ago

While states dominate history, private law has proven successful. You could see the Law Merchant throughout Europe as one example or medieval Iceland, where civil order was maintained for longer than the US has existed so far, as another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_mercatoria

https://mises.org/library/medieval-iceland-and-absence-gover...

Regarding your other concerns see points 8 & 6 here:

http://c4ss.org/content/13612

While I have some differences with this author, you could consider this video as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o

praxeologist commented on The Libertarian Futurism of Peter Thiel (2011) newyorker.com/magazine/20... · Posted by u/romefort

s73v3r · 10 years ago

So you believe might makes right?

praxeologist · 10 years ago

No, and I am not sure why you would say that. Totally irrelevant to what was said.

praxeologist commented on The Libertarian Futurism of Peter Thiel (2011) newyorker.com/magazine/20... · Posted by u/romefort

baldfat · 10 years ago

I get the funniest looks when someone says that they are a Libertarian. My response is oh your an anarchist, but at what level? EDIT: The libertarian looks at me funny.

Seriously, libertarians have no idea of the history of the political movement they are involved in.

praxeologist · 10 years ago

You get or give funny looks when some one says they are a libertarian?

Your post doesn't make sense to me at all. What is this about levels of being an anarchist? I'm an anarcho-capitalist, basically, which is quite different than the typical leftist "anarchists".

>Seriously libertarians have no idea of the history of the political movement they are involved in.

Kind of a pointless remark don't you think? I'm pretty well-versed in the history of libertarian anarchism and lest-"anarchism".