The Anarchist Proof From Non-Bigotry

Widespread adoption and consistent application of a social norm of non-bigotry towards the non-native born must logically result in one of two policy options: Anarchy (in the best way) or a single world government. Hayekian knowledge problems make the second option impossible. Therefore, a consistent commitment to functional non-bigotry must lead one to anarchism. Q.E.D.

Share this

No, since it's defined as

No, since it's defined as rational behavior. I would say it's collectivist, and in many cases unfair, harmful, and unnecessary.

How is it harmful?

How is it harmful?

It's harmful to the

It's harmful to the individual member of a collective group to be excluded from employment/housing/etc. because of the statistical attributes of the average member of that group, and unfair when that individual member does not share those same attributes as the average member.

Of course, I am using harm in a much broader, Millian sense, and I assume you reject that notion of harm for the stricter libertarian definition.

So you admit that you are

So you admit that you are harming me by continuing to not turn all your property over to me as I requested last time you claimed this?

Surely only a monster would inflict such harm on me every day. Not to mention everyone else you harm...

It's harmful to the individual member of a collective group to be excluded from employment/housing/etc. because of the statistical attributes of the average member of that group, and unfair when that individual member does not share those same attributes as the average member.

Unfair? What is it the supposed victim is entitled to that he's not getting?

Do you believe you harm me

Do you believe you harm me every day by not turning all your property over to me?

I guess it really is no

I guess it really is no exaggeration at all to say that non-bigotry is your central moral axiom. It seems awfully specific to me, though, like making non-incest the central moral axiom and deriving everything from that.

I provided this as a possible

I provided this as a possible proof, not the only possible proof. For those who accept the axiom of non-bigotry, this argument may be compelling. For those who do not accept the axiom, this argument does not apply. The argument is contingent on the acceptance of this principle; it is in the form of a hypothetical imperative, not a categorical one.

If you wish to speak to others who do not already share your views or principles, it may be useful to form arguments based on principles they already share, rather than convince them to adopt new principles using sky hooks.

Even accepting your axiom

Even accepting your axiom your argument has holes in it through which I can fly fleets of starships.

Sure. One must accept

Sure. One must accept non-bigotry, the impossibility and/or inefficiency of one world government given Hayekian knowledge problems, and the premise that anarchy can function. If one rejects any of those premises (and probably more), the argument doesn't go through.

You point to the failure of

You point to the failure of the Soviet Union to conquer the world as evidence that government cannot scale to fill the world, but where is the anarchic society that has scaled to anything like the size of the Soviet Union?

In the face of this you claim that anarchic society can definitely scale to fill the world but it is impossible for government to do so.

Does that even sound credible to you?

You point to the failure of

You point to the failure of the Soviet Union to conquer the world as evidence that government cannot scale to fill the world, but where is the anarchic society that has scaled to anything like the size of the Soviet Union?

I think you miss the point of my original argument. Anarchist societies (plural) need not scale to fill the world, for there can be many different anarchist societies without violating the non-bigotry principle. There cannot be many governments without violating the non-bigotry principle. In order for a government to avoid violating the non-bigotry principle, it would need to allow completely free migration and/or distribute tax burdens and welfare benefits on a non-nationalistic basis. Only a single world government could accomplish this (or so I posit).

I understand how to count

I understand how to count governments in a world of governments. How would you count anarchic societies in a world without governments. What do you have when you bring twelve crowds together? I call it a crowd. What do you have with twelve coexisting anarchic societies? An anarchic society.

Where is it that anarchic societies (plural) have scaled to anything like the size of the Soviet Union?

The illogic of this argument is breathtaking.

How to begin? One world government is no more impossible than the Soviet Union was impossible. I think the most that Hayek showed was that central planning must be highly inefficient, not that it cannot continue to exist. If the point is any centrally planned regime must collapse given infinite time that still doesn't mean it can't be replaced with another such regime, at most it suggests that there will be no stable equilibrium.

So the apparent form of the argument becomes:

Since one world government will not result in a stable equilibrium it follows (as night the day) that anarchy will.

"In the quiet words of the Virgin Mary... come again?" - Brick Top

One world government is no

One world government is no more impossible than the Soviet Union was impossible.

The Soviet Union, despite repeated attempts to do so, did not govern the entire world. So to the extent that the Soviet Union was impossible, or at the very least highly inefficient, a fortiori a one world government would be more impossible and/or more inefficient than the Soviet Union.

I think the most that Hayek showed was that central planning must be highly inefficient, not that it cannot continue to exist.

Scale matters, though. As Coase showed, individual firms are central planners. The inefficiencies associated with the principle-agent problem and other problems of scale create a natural limit on the efficient size of firms. So too, principle-agent problems, knowledge problems, and coordination problems in the absence of a market for factors of production create a natural limit on the efficient size of governments.

So too, principle-agent

So too, principle-agent problems, knowledge problems, and coordination problems in the absence of a market for factors of production create a natural limit on the efficient size of governments.

I can think of two governments existing today with more subjects than the entire population of the world throughout almost all human history.

You don't know how far governments can scale. Obviously they can scale to more than a billion people.

Is it impossible for the population of the world to dip below a billion?

Good point. I was treating

Good point. I was treating the current population of the world as fixed, but of course it isn't. Changes in world population would change the force of the argument.

On the other hand, one counter-argument is that the Soviet Union had the advantage of being able to look at external markets to help determine factor prices, whereas in the absence of any markets, no factor prices would exist.

Since you're a propertarian

Since you're a propertarian anarchist you allow corporations to buy up islands and then sell long term leases on plots of land with preferences to customers who were children of previous customers.

If its done by private companies, it's not bigoted. Ah, the wonderful world of magical libertarianism where metadata matters more than physical reality.

That's why my central guiding political principle has become "does this proposal create a place that is nice to live for a long period of time without doing anything too horrible to anybody?" rather than "does this proposal offend the ghost of Murray Rothbard?"

That's why my central guiding

That's why my central guiding political principle has become "does this proposal create a place that is nice to live for a long period of time without doing anything too horrible to anybody?" rather than "does this proposal offend the ghost of Murray Rothbard?"

I share your central guiding political principle. I don't self-identify as a propertarian anarchist, although I share many similarities with those who do. I disagree with Rothbard about lots of things. The NAP is not my central guiding principle. And private companies can be bigoted. I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Perhaps you are arguing with someone else?

It is bigoted to prefer

It is bigoted to prefer family to foreigners. It's a bigotry that's been bred into us for millions of years for obvious reasons. Montaigne recognized this bigotry and held his relationships based on blood to be merely accidental and distinctly inferior to his freely chosen relationships. He didn't recommend that the general population try going cold turkey.

Apriorism

Micha,

In this thread you make some puzzling references to apriori arguments. You link to this article by Roderick Long which you indicate explains the proper understanding of a key to libertarianism. What's puzzling here is that the argument Long presents is of a form you routinely reject out of hand. It's an apriori argument from self evident principles. You think such an argument is a fallacy, don't you? So if this argument provides the proper understanding of a key to libertarianism then it seems libertarianism is based on a fallacy. After all, if libertarianism is reasonable we certainly cannot say that a fallacy explains the proper understanding of a key to libertarianism, can we? This could all be sensible so far, but it can't be reconciled with the fact that you identify yourself as a libertarian.

1. Do you think that Long's argument for equality of authority is valid?

2. Do you recognize that his argument is apriori?

In the body of your article you say Hayekian knowledge problems make a single world government impossible. But Hayek's argument for the principle you invoke is praxeological/apriori.

3. Do you think Hayek's argument is valid?

Note that neither Hayek or Long are saying anything like "this would be true if you accept certain premises...", rather both are claiming that their results are objectively true because they follow logically from self evident principles. So when I ask you if their arguments are valid I'm not asking if they are valid given certain premises. I'm asking if you recognize that they have successfully demonstrated that their results are objectively true - since that is their claim.