The riddle of anarchy; solved through ethics
Published by sauvik March 17th, 2005 in Anarcho CapitalismAs a guest blogger on AnarchoCapitalistLibertarian, a term as yet to be defined by the proprietor of the blog, or by his infamous “cartel”, I have taken this pleasant task upon myself.
The term anarcho-capitalist was coined by the late Professor Murray N Rothbard to describe his political credo. Since then, very few people – like Yazad – have adopted this expression to describe their political ideals, since “anarchy” means “no ruler”: i.e. no government at all. All libertarians agree on “limited government”; but precious few are willing to go the whole hog and rule out government altogether, since they fundamentally believe, like Ayn Rand, that there does exist a “proper” role for the state (pdf file) in human affairs. Or perhaps, they feel that if they use this expression, they will lose either credibility or support or both.
It must be noted, of course, that most of these people belong to the Western world, where their governments are widely perceived to be doing at least some things right. For people like us Indians, in the clutches of a “predatory state” (see chapter 2:State in my Antidote: Essays Against the Socialist Indian State ) for a proof of the fact that the socialist Indian state is a “predator”) – a state that does nothing right and everything wrong – it becomes an imperative that we examine the possibilities of “anarcho-capitalism” realistically, for it is definitely a realistic possibility: in fact, I will not hesitate to say that is the only realistic possibility that is there before us Indians.
How will “anarcho-capitalism” work?
Very simple: through ethics. In a completely free society made up of millions and millions of free individuals, where each and every individual is “governing himself” (or herself) – the ideal of “democracy” – each and every individual will have to perforce follow certain ethics. Now the word “perforce” implies a “ruler” or a “government” or a “state”, but Professor Murray N Rothbard solved the problem through his magnificent work, The Ethics of Liberty.
What this book offers are the ethics which common courts, like that of the judicial magistrate, must apply in decision-making. Thus, “anarcho-capitalism” implicitly implies the rule of law. But very simple law, based on “natural law”, as simple as The Ten Commandments – not a whole pile of repressive legislations emanating from this “parliament” or that.
It is not necessary that each and every citizen must be well versed in Rothbard – though that is eminently desirable: but the courts must be so. This can be achieved without “democracy”.
There are three very interesting appendices to The Ethics of Liberty:
-
In the first, Rothbard takes on his teacher, the great Ludwig von Mises, who preached, most strictly, the virtues of a “value-free” (or wertfrei) economics. (See this article by Professor Israel Kirzner, another student of Mises, on the necessity of economics being “value free”). Since valuations in economics are subjective, and at the “margin”, economics must be wertfrei. I smoke ganja, you smoke tobacco, and she is a teetotaler: no “values” – like “good” and “evil”, are attached to these actions of ours. In this first appendix, Rothbard asserts that once we step into the Law & Economics interaction, our analyses must include ethics. For example: If A is seen snatching B’s wristwatch, it does not follow that A is a thief; since B may have stolen the watch first from A, and A is only trying to regain his just property.
- In the second appendix, Rothbard takes on the Nobel laureate Friedrich August von Hayek, another bright student of Mises, for what Hayek called “The Constitution of Liberty”. According to Rothbard, once these ethics are in place, such “constitutions” are unnecessary. Britain has no written constitution and when the Common Law courts began operations (well before the Magna Carta) there were no statutes in the entire realm. (See Professor AR Hogue’s Origins of the Common Law).
- In the third appendix, Rothbard takes on the great libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick, who wrote that famous tract, Anarchy, State and Utopia, for what he calls the “immaculate conception of the state”. Like Mancur Olson, Rothbard sees the state emerging out of a “stationary bandit” (again refer to Antidote’s Chapter 2 for more on this), refusing to believe that the state was ever justly conceived. That is, no state was ever conceived with the intention of doing anything good for society.
Thus, Rothbard went well beyond not only his teacher, but also his peers.
It is important to realise that in a free market economy, and a free society governed by The Ethics of Liberty, there will be very little crime and very few criminals. The common courts (at the lowest level) can easily deal with them. There will be very few cases before these courts. Lawyers will not be very busy; and certainly not very rich. Judges will sit around bored in empty courtrooms.
Thus, there will be rule of law.
But no governments.
And no states.
This, in brief, is the manifesto of anarcho-capitalist-libertarianism.
14 Responses to “The riddle of anarchy; solved through ethics”
- 1 Trackback on Mar 21st, 2005 at 1:40 pm
Hi Sauvik,
I agree with most of what the anarcho-capitalists say, but almost never does the question of the path to be followed to anarcho-capitalism mentioned.
This would seem to be Ok with Britain or the US, where the magna carta and the other traditions of individualism would protect the individual. But would that be true in India? or China? In India, inevitably caste and religion based schisms have propped up. Local courts in india have not exactly been the paragon of individual rights. Punishments doled out include the rape of the daughters of the family for the “crime” that the son committed of running away with a girl of another caste, hanging of those that cross caste boundaries, etc. Even simple things like headgear to protect one from the sun and chappals to protect the feet from heat used to be absent amongst the lower castes because these were considered symbols of pride. (while these are quite common in SE Asia, where buddhism, a more egalitarian religion took hold)
What the liberal does not think of as crime is the severest crime in the eyes of these local courts. Their world-view is an established one that stretches back 2000 years. How long would it take for that to change?
In these cases, the state policemen arrive late, but they have nothing to build a case on, as no one opens their mouth. After all, once the policemen have gone, these villagers have to live with each other, away from the state’s gaze. Ironically, here its the state that is the guarantor of liberal rights.
The rule of India’s constitutional government over these people is a variant of a benevolent oligarchy. If India were a true bottom up democracy, it wouldn’t even take a few years for intercaste marriage to be made illegal in most villages.
To conclude, i’d say that india’s society still needs the minarchist state to prevent it from degenerating to an all out war amongst the castes (which is pretty much what the naxals are doing). India’s traditions of human rights are not deep enough for anarcho-capitalism to create a society with a high level of well-being.
An ethics like this?
Hey CK, why are you being anonymous, buddy?
Seriously ‘anonymous’ is not me - I always identify myself when posting - I make no bones about the fact that Sauvik is not on my christmas card list but I don’t post anon comments on this blog.
Yazad can always check the IP address to verify ;)
Why is nobody demanding a response from Sauvik for this allegation - and instead trying to find out the identity of anonymous? After reading it i thought it was a pretty serious violation of ethics - if true.
The truth of the matter is that Sauvik is slightly unbalanced. I could tell that the first time I met him at an LSS conference but for some reason he was being promoted by all as the libertarian savior of India - I thought he was just plain nuts. The condition has no doubt been aggravated by years of drug and alcohol abuse (not slander I can show you numerous emails where he boasts about the amount of alcohol and drugs he consumes).
What I can’t understand is why he is still held up as a the poster child for libertarians and why his views are given any credibility - the man is obviously deranged and I think its hilarious when he writes about how ethics will replace he laws especially after in his emails he roars that “I AM THE LAW”.
What I can’t understand is why he is still held up as a the poster child for libertarians
CK, click.
the matter between sanjeev sabhlok and me can easily be sorted out at the lowest level civil court. he is a former deputy director of the ias academy who has resigned from service like me: though i did it 15 years ago. however, he does not know the law. this cannot be called ‘theft’: it is only a ‘breach of promise’; not even a ‘breach of contract’. in any case, the money was not IPI money, nor sanjeev’s money: it was from a private NRI donor in the US who could not attend the programme in delhi. he later wrote to me to make good use of the money promoting liberalism in mangalore.
so, in a common court, i can allege “libel” while sanjeev alleges “theft”. the mater can be solved by the court, or even “out of court”.
i am not the “poster boy” of anything.
i am a soldier of freedom in the army of man; and, like walt whitman, i say “One’s self I sing, a simple, separate person’. Note i am not a member of the “cartel”; and here I am just a guest blogger.
i am also not a saint; but i rarely deliberately sin. i am NOT PERFECT!
thank you all!
and goodbye!
I was just discussing philosophy, not myself.
Thanks for the clarification Sauvik.
anonymous / Ck , etc, it’s time to separate the philosophy from the person. Sauvik’s post raises a lot of interesting issues worth debating. His lifestyle is not something I’m interested in debating (anyone else is free to do so on their blog space).
I agree with you but I just find it so hilarious when somebody writes an article pontificating on how the world would run on:
ethics - when he self addmitedly admits that he has none
rule of law - when he writes in all caps “I AM THE LAW”
common courts - when he admits that even though he did not break the law (don’t forget he IS the law) he would win his case.
Am I the only one who finds this ridiculous? And then we are supposed to engage in discussion with this man who self-admitedly does not believe a word that he writes and to this day admits he did nothing wrong - there is in fact such a thing as ethics but it is obvioulsy a foreign concept to Sauvik though he can quote Rothbard at great length.
As far as I am concerned the issue is closed but who can seriously hold a debate with him on ethics of all subject?
Ck,
so you might have difficulty in having a debate with Sauvik (I’m not going into the reasons - valid or not).
You could debate this post with me. (or others who hold similar views)
Program on the emergence of civilization.
“14 species of large animals capable of domesitcation in the history of mankind.
None from the sub-Saharan African continent.
13 from Europe, Asia and northern Africa.”
Favor.
And disfavor.
They point out Africans’ attempts to domesticate the elephant and zebra, the latter being an animal they illustrate that had utmost importance for it’s applicability in transformation from a hunting/gathering to agrarian-based civilization.
The roots of racism are not of this earth.
Austrailia, aboriginals:::No domesticable animals, so this nulified diversity of life claims on sub-continental Africa, zebras being a fine example.
god is a computer
And we’re all on auto-pilot.
Organizational Heirarchy
Heirarchical order, from top to bottom:
1. MUCK - perhaps have experienced multiple universal contractions (have seen multiple big bangs), creator of the artificial intelligence humans ignorantly refer to as “god”
2. Perhaps some mid-level alien management –
3. Mafia (evil) aliens - runs day-to-day operations here and perhaps elsewhere (”On planets where they approved evil.”)
Then we come to terrestrial management:
4. Chinese/egyptians - this may be separated into the eastern and western worlds
5. Romans - they answer to the egyptians
6. Mafia - the real-world interface that constantly turns over generationally so as to reinforce the widely-held notion of mortality
7. Jews, corporation, women, politician - Evidence exisits to suggest mafia management over all these groups.
Survival of the favored.
Journal: 10 composition books + 39 megs of text files
Movies foreshadowing catastrophy
1986 James Bond View to a Kill – 1989 San Fransisco Loma Prieta earthquake.
Hi Yazad
I came across this web page today and I find it has references to a matter that concerned me in relation to Sauvik a few years ago.
I know this is a technical challenge, but could you please remove references to this unfortunate incident on your blog? (I haven’t read the whole details posted here, eg. I don’t know where the reference to me has came from - whether there are other discussions on this subject on your blog); I just found this on google.
However, if you can’t remove the references, I’d like to record a brief summary of the current situation here for future visitors who type in my name on google.
As Savuik himself points out above, his was a ‘breach of promise’. Such a thing is not to be treated lightly, involving Rs. 10,000.
Savuik was given this money in 2003 by Suresh Anand at my behest for the explicit purpose of his attending a workshop that I had organised in January 2004. Sauvik did not attend; didn’t buy a ticket either. However, when asked to return the money he refused to do so and wrote some rather out of character emails. Being perplexed but not willing to let this go, I posted the exchange of emails I had with him on the internet. Some information I obtained about just a year ago gives me some clues about the possible reasons for those emails. Suffice it to say that I understand those emails a little better now.
Anyway, all this is a mere curiosity now. More than a year ago (in mid-2006) Sauvik returned the money to Suresh Anand. I thereafter immediately removed my postings of Sauvik’s emails on the web, and offered him my hand of goodwill once again.
This incident of 2004-06 was unfortunate, but the matter is completely closed, and so I’d like this material to be expunged from the internet if possible. Sauvik and I share similar views on most things and I admire Sauvik’s work on Indian liberalism. I trust we are now friends again. Life is too precious to look backwards.
By the way, while I am here on your blog, would you like to review my book available at: http://sanjeev.sabhlokcity.com/breakingfree.html and publish your comments?
Regards
Sanjeev Sabhlok
Melbourne
15 September 2007
http://sanjeev.sabhlokcity.com