on body "rights"

I showed in the last post that your control of your stuff is the result of a negotiation between all market participants.  You control your stuff, because, on average, market participants prefer for you to control it, rather than someone else.  I want to show here that even your control of your own body is necessarily subject to the negotiation of market participants.

Current market participants would generally prefer for each other to have full control over our own bodies.  But we only allow average adults under average circumstances to have full control.  We don't allow people who are infantile or senile. We don't allow the mentally handicapped or insane. We don't allow the comatose, suicidal, sleepwalking, intoxicated, or brainwashed. In all of these cases, market participants prefer to maintain some degree of stewardship over the bodies of others.

If you are a child, we will lock you up in the house at night like a prisoner and we won't pay you back for it. We will force you to eat green leafy vegetables, to go to bed at a reasonable hour, to get vaccinated against life threatening illnesses, to memorize multiplication tables, and a host of other things that we think are in your best interest and we will NEVER pay you back for it. We will never feel obligated to pay you back for it.

If you are mentally handicapped, if you suffer from Alzheimer’s, if you are in a coma, or if you are in any other way incapable of exercising adequate stewardship of your own body according to our opinions, we won't allow you to have complete control over it. We may keep you locked in a facility, or at least under constant supervision. We won't allow you access to certain resources like vehicles or weapons. We will commit an endless stream of offenses to maintain our control over your body. And we will never pay you back for it. We will never feel obligated to pay you back for it.

Rights theories are incompatible with this reality.

At what point does it stop being OK to force a child to stay locked in the home? How old is too old? When does it transition from responsible stewardship to evil body rights violation?

At what point does it start being OK to force an adult to stay locked in a facility? How handicapped is too handicapped? How senile is too senile?  When does it transition from imprisonment to assisted living?

We generally keep kids locked up until they prove they're responsible enough. And we generally leave adults alone until they prove that they aren't, but what gives us the right to restrict their rights in the first place?

As an An-Cap, I would have said that issues like these should be settled on a case by case basis in a free market for arbitration services, but that just begs the question. What is the objective criteria by which you determine the difference between violation and non-violation in this context? “The market will decide” isn't an answer. It's a black box.

All property arrangements are negotiated, even control of your own body. If the average sentiment of the community is that you can't be a responsible steward of your own body, then we won't let you control it. That is, you don't own your body. Nobody owns anything. Ownership doesn't exist. But we all want to control resources, and we all continually renegotiate with each other for who is going to control which resources.

Final thoughts:

1. Sometimes I support rape, but "sometimes" will never happen:

If the human species ever reaches a genetic bottleneck, if it is reduced to only 300 breeding pairs or whatever the hypothetical minimum would be, each surviving member would need to breed according to a stringent central plan in order to maximize genetic diversity and population growth to save the species. If certain members of this desperate tribe refused to submit to this program, I would rape them. I would minimize the trauma associated with it as much as possible, but I wouldn't spare anyone the responsibility of participation. I love the human race more than I love any individual member of it. The human race is the most precious thing the universe has ever produced. If you wont fuck to save your species, then your control over your body is forfeit.  But this is the only scenario I can imagine, and it's vanishingly unlikely.

2.  Moral feelings have evolved to maximize the long term value of tribal assets:

We say that it's "bad" to lock up average adults, because they have a "right" to control their own bodies.  But that isn't why it's bad.  The tribe needs people who can hunt, gather, fight, nurture, heal, and everything else.  Average adults are best suited to all these tasks, and they need to control their own bodies to perform them.  The tribe that disallows average adults to control their own bodies starves to death.

We say that it's "good" to lock up children, because they have a "right" to responsible stewardship.  But that isn't why it's good.  The tribe needs children to grow up to become average adults.  The tribe that allows children full control over their own bodies, watches them die.

so I guess I'm a socialist

 Moral Journey

  Almost immediately after I published the last post, I finally followed the logic of my own argument about homesteading.  Which made me recognize that anarcho-capitalism is actually socialism.  Which means that I'm a socialist.  But let's back up.

Let's actually do an overview of my moral evolution up to now.

1. Obey Jesus. (republican)

     Q: But is it ok to burn the gays forever for the crime of accidental same sex attraction?
     A: No.  So morality is not obedience to Jesus.

2. Don't burn the gays forever. (democrat)

     Q: Can we burn anybody forever?
     A: No. Neither gays nor burning are special.  Eternal punishment is bad.

3. Don't prescribe punishments in excess of the crime. (no party, but liberal who likes the market)

     Q: What counts as a crime?
     A:  Hurting people or their stuff or taking their stuff.  Or lying to them to get their stuff.

4. Don't initiate force against people or justly acquired property. (Libertarian (big L))

     Q: How does property get justly acquired?
     A: You homestead it.  You're the first to claim it and make use of it.  Works for your body too.

5. Don't initiate force against homesteaded property. (libertarian (small l))

     Q: How do you determine what counts as legitimate homesteading and what doesn't?
     A: That should be determined in a free market for arbitration services, not a government court.

6. No seriously, don't initiate force against homesteaded property. (anarcho-capitalist)

     Q: No seriously, how do you determine what counts as homesteading?  "The market will decide"
          isn't an answer.  By what objective standard do we distinguish between legitimate and
          illegitimate homesteading claims?
     A:  ...magic man done it?

Moral Roadblock

And this is where I'm at now.  I can't find any way to objectively distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate homesteading. That means that no matter how much I want it to be, my morality really isn't any better than any body else's. It means that the foundation of my moral philosophy is nothing but another baseless preference.

Moral U-turn

And what's more interesting is that this is a SOCIALIST preference. I want homesteading disputes to be resolved by the free market. That means I want them to be resolved according to the average preferences of the community, rather than by some codified permanent standard. That means I want prevailing property arrangements to reflect the average preferences of the community. That's what socialism is.

Moral Backpedaling

But now I need to distinguish myself.  Most socialists want to use authoritarian processes to achieve this arrangement:  That's logically impossible.  Most of the rest want to use unanimous democratic processes to achieve this arrangement:  That's functionally impossible.  I want to use the free market.

Moral Recalculating

But now I have to redefine "free market".  Before, I would say that the free market is the sum of all voluntary interactions.  But the concept of "voluntary" only makes sense within the context of property rights. Voluntary wants to mean “with the consent of the owner of the object”. But owners don't exist.  All claims to “own” something are subject to the average preferences of society. The current “owner” of an object is just the person who, on average, market participants currently prefer to maintain control over the object. That means that voluntary actually means, “in accordance with the prevailing average preferences of market participants”. That means that I can take an object from somebody, an object that they made a reasonable homesteading claim to, and without his consent, but if the broader community prefers for me to have it instead of him, then the interaction was still “voluntary”.

I think that a better definition of “free market” is:

"a market in which prevailing property arrangements reflect the averaged preferences of all participants".

That means that an “un-free market” is one in which prevailing property arrangements are biased in favor of the preferences of one or more participants.  So an "un-free market" is a biased market.  Governments aren't the only biased markets.  All authority based relationships are biased, whether they are political, commercial, spiritual, romantic, or anything else.

Are we there yet?

 Here's the final interesting thing.  Let's say I live in a community in which average preferences are for things I absolutely refuse to tolerate:  things like honor killings or clitorodectomies.  In that case, a decentralized and competitive system of arbitration companies would tend to produce property arrangements that I would not accept.  I would be not only willing, but eager to violently intervene in that market or even to violently abolish that market.  I would impose a bias for my preferences on to the property arrangements in that community.  And I would feel great about it.

Market mechanisms are only acceptable when the average preferences of market participants are sufficiently close to your own.  When the preferences of a market unacceptably diverge from yours, you must desert it, distort it, or destroy it.  I support free markets only for those who are worthy of them.  I support biased markets for most, cages for some, and bullets for the rest.

Join me in my touchy-feely pinko crusade to (sort of) liberate markets!  Yay Socialism!

On Nomenclature

I call myself an anarcho-capitalist. But that term is off putting to people on both ends of the political spectrum.

People on the right hear “anarcho” and assume that I support a society that devolves into barbarism. They assume that I have no understanding of or concern for the rule of law. They assume that I have given no thought to protocol for the would be victims of violent crime. They hear “anarcho” and they immediately assert that, “Freedom isn't free”, as if I disagreed, as if I expected to immediately trust every other human being in the world so completely that I would need to invest no time or money into protecting myself, my assets or the people I love, as if I expected to wilt the vestigial remnants of criminality with a care bear stare.

People on the left hear “capitalist” and assume that I support a society that produces wealth for the few at the expense of the many. They assume that I have no understanding of or no concern for vulnerable populations. They assume that I support frivolous consumerism. They hear “capitalist” and they immediately assert that “people are more important than money”, as if I disagreed, as if I were secretly a miserly sociopath fantasizing about all the poor people I might someday enslave.

Of course, when I say “anarcho”, all I mean is the non-aggression principle. And when I say “capitalist” all I mean is homesteading. When I call myself an anarcho-capitalist, I'm only asserting two principles:

1. It's not OK to initiate force or to threaten to initiate force against persons or property, and
2. Property is legitimately owned originally through an act of homesteading.

There's nothing particularly controversial about the first principle. Almost everybody adheres to it in their private lives. Most people don't steal or vandalize, and almost nobody rapes or kills.  People already agree on the non-aggression principle even if they don't call it by it's name.  Differentiating my group from other groups by claiming that only we support the non-aggression principle isn't just inaccurate, it's insulting and alienating.  But at the same time, most people don't believe that government actions necessarily violate the non-aggression principle.  What we disagree on isn't the ban on initiating force, but on what constitutes force.

It's the second principle that's controversial.  We disagree on what constitutes force, because we disagree on the origin of property rights. People on both ends of the political spectrum want to argue that property rights are not based on homesteading but instead derive from the consent of society. They both believe that society has the authority to declare by fiat what property rights are for that time and place.

So,

Dear Anarcho-Capitalists,

By toting the non-aggression principle as our maxim, we insult the people we are trying to reach. We hear “liberal” or “conservative” and we immediately assert, “It's not OK to threaten people with murder to pay for your hobbies!”, as if they disagreed, as if they were all gleefully pondering whether continuing to watch us cringe in terror still outweighs the satisfaction of watching our brains splatter against the wall.

What really separates us from all other ethical positions is our insistence that property rights can not be declared by regulatory fiat, but are a natural extension of our biology and must be discovered through the market process. The name of our position ought to reflect our real rather than our imagined differences.  The difference between us and all other ethical positions is the same as the difference between atheism and religion.  It's the same as the difference between science and magic. Fundamentally, it's the difference between methodology and ideology.

May I suggest that we call ourselves, “market methodologists”?  I invite your suggestions.

Final thoughts:

1. I DO support the rule of law. I recognize that it is a natural byproduct of the market process. I recognize that expectations about the enforceability of property rights claims evolve with social and technological change, and that these expectations are discovered through a decentralized and competitive arbitration system. I further recognize that a state can never produce the rule of law because it must always make exceptions for itself. It must grant to itself lethally enforceable monopoly privileges that no individual citizen can claim. Therefor, states are violations of the rule of law by definition. I support the rule of law; You support the arbitrary whims of popular psychopaths.
   
   
2. I DO support vulnerable populations. I recognize that equality under the law is all any vulnerable population requires to protect itself. I recognize that affirmative action, minimum wage laws, welfare programs and all other manner of social justice tinkering brands vulnerable populations as permanently disabled and benevolently relegates them to an official second class status. I support vulnerable populations; You support the inflation of your own ego at the expense of underprivileged children.
   
   
3. Jump in the line, Bastille! Only Harry Belafonte is allowed to say “Day O”.

You don't get to call me a racist.

I'm a pancake waiter in the Midwest.

There's a certain kind of people who it's a pleasure to serve. They're pleasant to talk to. They order something off the menu without substitutions, and they decide quickly so they're ready when you are. They're satisfied with their meal. They pay for it happily, and they tip you well. They might be young or old, male or female, black or white, rich or poor, or anything in between. What they have that others don't is class. They have both the desire and the capacity to understand what your job is like and they take thoughtful steps to make sure your interaction with them doesn't add to your frustrations. And you do thoughtful things for them as well. You are constantly asking clarifying questions, reading people and anticipating preferences to ensure that your guests' experiences are as pleasant as possible.

There's another kind of people who ruin your day. They're disruptive, obnoxious and vulgar. They ignore you when you're ready to talk to them, and they yell across the restaurant at you while you're at other tables. They're not ready when they say they are and they hold you at their table while they decide. What they finally do order is so complicated with special requests and substitutions that the cook is guaranteed to make a mistake. They complain about the wait before they get their food and then they complain about their food the second it's in view. They demand that you remake something or remove something or discount something, and they never tip you. They might be young or old, male or female, black or white, rich or poor, or anything in between. What sets them apart is their complete lack of class. They treat you like a slave and they get offended if you don't act the part.

I give everybody exactly the same quality of service regardless of how well they treat me. I smile and say please whether or not you return the favor. I sprint across the restaurant for you whether or not you appreciate the effort. I dedicate exactly as much time to you as I do to all of my other tables regardless of how much I expect you to tip me. No matter how pleasant or offensive you are, the quality of service that I provide you never waivers. I pride myself on this.

So it's particularly upsetting to me when a table full of the crassest people you could ever hope to avoid, that's been rude to me since the second they walked through the door, decides to call me a racist. They will have to wait longer than they wanted for a table, and it isn't because they have a large party on a busy day, it's because I'm a racist. Their food will take longer to cook than they wanted, and it isn't because they ordered well done steaks, it's because I'm a racist. Or their food won't be prepared exactly the way they like it, and it isn't because they don't know how to order, or because they ordered something impossibly complicated, it's because I'm a racist. This used to happen at least once a week. It happens less frequently now, because I've gotten better at stroking the egos of the self righteously ignorant, but I'm over it.

You don't get to call me a racist.

You don't get to come into my restaurant flagrantly disregarding expected standards of behavior, reeking of weed, blasting club music on your phone, guffawing like a fog horn, yelling obscenities at me across the restaurant, screaming at people sitting 2 feet away from you sentences filled with more N-words than a Klan rally, sloppily and scarily hitting on every woman who strategically avoids you on her way to the bathroom, complaining about everything, demanding special treatment, intending to stiff me, and then on top if it all, accuse ME of being ignorant, and especially not on evidence as flimsy as the quality of your eggs.

You don't get to call me a racist, because while I'm not a racist, YOU ARE. Because if I were black, no matter how unjustifiably bad the service was, it would never occur to you to call me a racist. When you accuse me of being ignorant enough to hate you on sight, and petty enough to manifest my hate in the quality of service I provide you, when all you know about me is that I'm white, you are being racist. When the color of my skin is a factor in you determining the most likely explanation for why you are unsatisfied, you are being racist. When you make assumptions about my character based on the color of my skin...

YOU ARE BEING RACIST.

Final thoughts:

1. When I ask you how you want your steak prepared, don't shout at me that you want it “well done but not burnt” like it's a crime I've committed against you in the past. If my restaurant so consistently over cooks your steaks that you feel the need to specifically request that the cook please not fuck it up this time before I've even had a chance to ring it in, then just go to a different restaurant. Also, your steak isn't burnt, it's just dry. And it's dry because you ordered a lean cut well done. My cooks aren't your problem; reality is.
   
   
2. You can order your eggs “fried”, and you can order your eggs “over hard”, and depending on the restaurant you're in, those might even mean the same thing, but you can't order your eggs “fried hard”. That isn't a thing. Stop asking for it.
   
   
3. Dear smart friend, if class is a demonstration of empathy, which is a demonstration of self knowledge, which is a demonstration of virtue, then etiquette books are like cheat codes to help cowards pretend to be virtuous. Also, it just occurred to me that these books are used as a weapon against class itself. The crass and cowardly pretend that rules of etiquette are arbitrarily dictated by authors of books, rather than discovered through thoughtful interaction. Actually, expecting strict adherence to inherited rules to manipulate others into providing you with benefits, rather than expecting genuine and spontaneous acts of empathy to improve the lives of others around you, is just one more example of magical thinking. Next post?

outreach and the anarchist/statist divide

In the past, when I tried to communicate anarchy to people, I assumed that we agreed on basic moral principles. I assumed that they were also opposed to theft. I thought all I had to do was prove to them that taxation is theft and they'd immediately become anarchists. I was wrong. They want to be opposed to theft. At least, they want to appear to be opposed to theft, but they also want to be able to commit theft to further their own ends.

When I demonstrate that taxation is theft, they first try to argue that it isn't. They all bring up club dues. They all bring up expatriation. We go through their whole exhaustive list and I prove every argument wrong. If they make it this far, they agree that taxation is theft, but they continue to support it anyway.

They next try to argue that taxation is necessary to avoid greater injustice. They all invoke a Hobbesian nightmare. They all equate anarchy to chaos. They all ascribe god like civilizing powers to government force. So I ask them if they or any of their friends would kill and steal in the absence of government. They usually say no.  So I ask them what evidence they have to support their claim and who they think is going to be committing all these crimes. It's surprising how eager they are at this point to reveal their bigotry. Liberals will tell you that greedy capitalists and ignorant religious conservatives would be committing these crimes. Conservatives will tell you that greedy poor people and godless liberal atheists would be committing these crimes. These conversations never produced any anarchists. The only benefit that came of them was my own greater understanding of the depth of the fear of other people among statists.

So I changed the conversation recently. I've been trying to show people that theft is wrong for the same reason that rape is wrong. I figured that nobody would support universal rape, no matter how Hobbesian the world might be in it's absence. I've been using the argument that I made on this blog here. But, at least in person, nobody wanted to follow the logic of the argument. So instead, I started just asking people why they are opposed to rape. I figured that I would just keep challenging their reasons why rape is bad until they came to the non-aggression principle. This didn't work either. Here's a transcript of my most successful attempt.

Me: why is rape bad?

Her: Because it causes physical and emotional pain.

Me: What if you rape someone in a coma? It doesn't cause pain. Is it still bad?

Her: That's not the same thing.

Me: Raping someone in a coma isn't rape?

Her: I have to go.

I'm not having these conversations anymore either. They never produced any anarchists. The only benefit that came from them was my own greater understanding of how little statists care about moral principles. If I didn't have a good reason for a moral position I asserted, I wouldn't just be embarrassed; I'd be horrified. Nothing else would matter to me until I could answer that question. Statists genuinely don't care.

And this, I realize, is the real difference between statists and anarchists. Anarchists care about justice. They care about defining what justice is for themselves, about the process of self discovery that is necessary to achieve it, about the unobstructed intimacy that is the reward of it, and to building a society based on this standard above everything else. Anarchists are the kind of people who hold justice as their highest value. How many times have you heard an anarchist say that it feels like they were always an anarchist and they just didn't know it yet. Isn't that how you feel? That's certainly how I feel. Anarchy is the conclusion that we all came to, because it is the only logical conclusion you can come to, if you are passionately dedicated to defining justice.

Statists don't care about justice. They care about fear avoidance. Liberals are afraid of poverty. Conservatives are afraid of criminality. They're both so terrified of other people, that they're willing to support the universal threat of murder, even against the people they love most, to keep the monsters away. These people are cowards.

So I want to make the case for a new avenue for outreach. We've already recognized that the political process is a waste of time. I've become convinced that making both pragmatic and moral arguments is also largely a waste of time. They help the kind of people who hold justice as their highest value to come to anarchy more quickly, but they do absolutely nothing to convince statists to value justice over fear avoidance.

If we want to reach statists, we need to understand how people form their values. We need a fully integrated and fully elaborated system of logical deductions concerning the process of value formation. We need something like praxeology, if it isn't an extension of praxeology itself. To put it another way, we need an “Austrian” school of psychology. I don't know what that looks like yet, and I have no idea what it will tell us about how best to reach statists, but I've become convinced that it's the only way that we ever will. And we have to learn how to reach statists if we want to have any hope of achieving liberty in our lifetime.