On what basis

On what basis

Free Market Anarchy

Article by Juan Sebastián Ortiz.

Free Market AnarchyThe reasoning is simple.
Men use resources(means) to achieve ends.

On the basis of the correct principles of legality.

Men use resources to achieve goals.

These resources are not just necessary conditions(oxygen, sunlight, gravity) but finite and required to attain whatever ends are desired.
All resources are finite, limited, consumable, scarce, etc.
When men live together there’s the possibility of contlict over ends and the use of resources. From this the need for social rules develops.
IF one desires cooperation and peace then social rules must be based on an understanding of the nature of reality and of man.

The radical libertarian position is that private property, the non aggression principle, free association, the principles of contract, strict liability, restitution, compensation, estoppel and proportionality of punishment are the only correct ground rules to address the problem of social order and that they are all at least partially implied in all ethical systems.

1. Private property (Of bodies and objects)

On the basis of the Lockean rule of original appropriation it is established that where an individual establishes a visible border over a previously unclaimed
resource he acquires legitimate ownership and exclusive use, defensible by force if necessary over said resources. It is worth noting that A) By appropriating an
unclaimed resource the fortune of all others is not modified such that every other person’s posessions remain the same as before the resource was unclaimed as
their lot was neither increased nor diminished. B) Just as with the individual ownership of one’s own body, nobody else has a better claim over the
resource as from the original homesteader’s perspective everyone else is a latecomer. From this principle follows that all property acquired through original
appropriation, voluntary exchange or gift is legitimate while all property acquired through theft, fraud or extortion is illegitimate. This principle also provides the
basis for what is commonly understood as the rights of personhood, namely in that the body as a resource is the first instance of the property of the individual
as such no one may legitimate make use of it or trespass its borders without the prior consent of its owner, all else is agression.

2. The non-aggression principle

It can be said that one’s freedom finds its limits in the freedom of others. That is to say one is free to do as one wishes as long as it does not objectively impinge
into the freedom of other people. What this effectively means is that all individuals may do as they wish as long as they do not invade or make use
without permission of the property of others, including their bodies.

3. Free association and contract

It follows that where one owns one’s body and posesssions, e.g. legitimately acquired objects, one is free in their administration, in determining towards what
ends one’s resources will be directed and who one will cooperate with and who will associate with. It is therefore the ultimate freedom of all individuals to
choose who they associate with and who they refrain from associating with, one may reserve the right of entrance or exclusion into one’s property and one may
refuse to engage in business with other individuals. Any duress or form forced association can be considered illegitimate as it violates the valid exercise of
administration held in one’s property. It violates one’s property rights, from which all valid rights derive. One can only be bound on a contractual basis and the|
only legitimately enforceable contracts are those which involve the transfer of property titles.

4. Strict liability, restitution

From the administrative discretion one exercises over one’s property, be it one’s legitimately acquired posessions or one’s person derives the fact that one is
individually responsible of the effects caused by one’s body. As such one is individually responsible for the damages caused to third parties where one can be
found beyond the shadow of a doubt to have comitted an act of aggression against another person’s property. The only exception to this liability is where one’s
aggressive actions have been executed under duress or coercion and the responsibility is shared with the coercive third party. Where evidence can be gathered
that one has aggressed against the property of others one may legitimately be forced to provide compensation to the parties involved.

5. Estoppel and proportionality

The legal doctrine of the estoppel formalizes and illustrates how where one has commited a crime or an act of aggression against the property of others
one loses or waivers through action one’s rights until proper restitution or proportional retaliation has been granted to the victim.
For example, If I stab someone I may be captured by force, when I appeal that my rights are being violated by my captors I am “estopped” from
such ruse as his previous actions contradict his argument, if he were truly against force he would not have chosen it as his method of action; now that he has
chosen force as his method of action he implicitly accepts its validity and cannot object to its use.

Therefore he gives up the right to require force not be used against him until I have paid restitution or compensation to the victim or have been punished in
proportionality to the violation.

The principle of proportionality serves to establish precedent and disincentive where a perpetrator is:
A) wealthy enough to pay for compensation and continue to act aggressively with little or no consequence.
B) Where restitution is not posible for example the aforementioned example of having been stabbed, where even if one were to survive and one were to be
compensated one’s physical integrity would never return to its original state, there punishment proportional to the crime by the victim or its agent may serve a
disincentive and to bring a sense of justice to the victims
C) Where the perpetrator is a low life and does not have the means to compensate the victim.

The rationale behind the principle of proportionality is that no excess or abuse takes place where the perpetrator is.

It is on the basis of these natural principles of ethics (law) that the radical libertarian position (anarcho-capitalism) concludes that the institution of the state
is a criminal organization and its claim as the de facto authority in society is illegitimate. Since the state violates all of these principles in the form of taxation i.e.
institutionalized theft its position as a monopolist in the services of dispute resolution i.e. courts, property protection, i.e. police, and other services is illegitimate.
Economic theory shows us that wherever a monopoly is established (that is where competitors are forcibly excluded from entry into the market place) the quality
of services decreases and the cost for the consumer increases.

The radical libertarian (anarcho-capitalist) position thus calls out for the abolition of the state through ideological delegitimization, progressive secession and
evasion of its agents on a moral basis and on an economic basis it calls for the complete decentralization and delegation to the market of all services of
protection, dispute resolution, insurance, charity, such that all must be financed on a voluntary, contractual basis.

Furthermore economic theory shows us that the main consequentialist objections to such course of action presented by statists, such as who will protect the
poor? who will help the needy? who will prevent war? are the result of a misunderstanding of the origin of such problems. It is the state that is responsible through
taxation for most wars throughout human history where it would be impossible to carry out such efforts were they financed privately for such risky and
destructive ventures would soon prove unprofitable. It is the state through inflation of the monetary supply that causes a subsequent increase in the price of goods
and services thus hurting those on a fix budget. It is the state through a system of welfare that causes dependency and increases poverty by subsidizing it.
It is the effective monopoly the state holds that presents an obstacle for the services of dispute resolution and policing to be freely offered and financed in the
market where economic theory shows competition among providers will lead to a decrease in cost for the consumer.

Moreover, it bears keeping in mind that in spite all consequentialist objections it is on a moral basis that the institution of the state is to be execrated as
a criminal organization, financed by theft contrary to the natural norms of private property, law and order.

No hay comentarios

Dejar una respuesta