Libertarianism (was Ship of Fools)

[Martin_Taylor2]

[Martin Taylor 2007.09.20.09.09]

I'm trying, as always to bring the discussions back to PCT. It seems very hard, since most of the content quickly goes back to the writers' views on the correctness of their own positions, whether they believe in the Libertarianism philosophy (knowledgeably or not). My little disturbances are easly countered by strong control systems.

Richard has said that the unbelievers don't know the main tenets of Libertarianism, despite their having been stated repeatedly on this forum. I must confess for myself that having read all of this thread, as well as others in which the topic has arisen, I am rather mystified as to what those tenets are. Every time I think I understand, either Mike or Richard says something that convinces me my understanding is very poor.

My lack of understanding is what led me to write one of my little disturbances, which Rick called an English-style humourous response to Mike Acree. It wasn't meant to be humorous at all. Mike had written a clear statement [From Mike Acree (2007.09.18.1157 PDT)]:

But color me a fiscal respectatarian, too: No prohibitions on capitalist acts between consenting adults.

I considered this to be something I understood, and I thought I understood one other tenet of Libertarianism, that there would be no prohibitions of people voluntarily combining to promote their own interest, such as, for example, paying taxes to the group in support of a project, or creating a police force to sell services and to protect their own interests (this seems to be implied by Mike's "no prohibition" tenet, anyway). Mike at least responded, but in a disarmingly non-responsive way, so I'll repeat the question in different words later in this message in the hope of getting comments on where the logic, which demonstrates a self-contradiction, goes astray.

Before I do that, one short PCT-related comment about Laws and regulations. What is prohibited by laws that are enforced by police are actions. Laws don't affect the values of reference signals, except inasmuch as the corresponding perceptions specifically imply certain kinds of action (e.g. "I want to see him dead by my own hand", rather than "I want to see him dead"). If certain actions are prohibited AND the person has a reference to perceive him/herself as law-abiding, then the environmental feedback pathway doesn't invlude the effects of the prohibited actions, and the person will use other feedback pathways.

There are two main reasons the law refers to actions and not reference levels for perceptions: (1) Only actions are visible to outsiders, and (2) Onle actions have side-effects that may create disturbances to the controlled perceptionsof other people or may change the environmental feeback paths of other people. Factor 1 is a practical consideration that might conceivably be changed by future technology, whereas Factor 2 is a permanent issue.

Factor 2 is what led to my question to Mike.

I assume that "No prohibitions on capitalist acts between consenting adults" is a Libertarian tenet, since Mike presented it in that context.

I made the further assumption that another tenet is that there is no prohibition against people voluntarily combining to advance their own interests.

These two assumptions seem to be mutually inconsistent, so either they are not both part of Libertarian philosophy, or my analysis is faulty. I asked Libertarians on the list to explain which was the case.

The argument is simple: Acts have side-effects. Side-effects may disturb other people's controlled perceptions or affect their environmental feeback pathways. "capitalist acts betweem consenting parties" are a class of acts that may have such side effects. In normal PCT, a person acts to counter a disturbance. The person's actions in counering the disturbance may include joining a voluntary organization or committing a "capitalist act" by hiring such an organization (e.g. a private police force). The disturbance-countering acts may prohibit the original "capitalist act" that would, if committed, cause the disturbance.

Mike answered, not by addressing the argument or my misunderstanding of the Libertarian tenets, but by offering a sample of buy and sell trades of different kinds. I hope that this time it is the argument or its premises that are addressed.

However, illustrations are not unhelpful, so I propoe one of my own. X owns some forested hilly terrain. Y would like to buy logging rights, and Y is known to use clear-cut methods, being cheaper than other logging techniques. Z owns property at the bottom of the area, across the highway. Other people, P...Q enjoy the existing view and like to hike over that terrain, which X has permitted. Many other people use the highway at the foot of the area.

I have mentioned three classes of people whose controlled perceptions or environmental feedback paths might be affected by the voluntary transaction between X and Y. Z has a direct interest, since landslides from the clearcut would affect that value of his property, and would alter the uses to which his property could be put. A landslide migh even destroy Z's house and kill his family.

Can Z declare a prohibition on the transaction between X and Y? If Z isn't rich enough to offer X more money than Y is offering, Z has no mechanism, acting alone, without initiating force of some kind. Can Z hire some private police to enforce a prohibition on the transaction? What would they do without the threat of initiating force? I conclude that Z must do nothing and simply accept that the transaction freely entered into by X and Y may result in the death of his family or requre him to move his house and lose the value of his property.

Can the people who like to look at the forested view or hike through the terrain do something to counter the disturbances to their controlled perceptions? The disturbance to any one person is probably quite minor (ther may be exceptions), but there are a lot of them. How can they combine their individually weak counters to those disturbances in a way that is consistent with Libertarian philosophy, without the possibiity of there being a "prohibition on capitalist acts between consenting adults"?

How about the people who use the highway every day to get to work? The disturbance in their case would be massive if the highway were to be destroyed in a landslide that would be a side-effect of the transaction between X and Y.

I may have quite misunderstood how these situations would be resolved under the tenets of Libertarianism, in the absence of government regulation backed by the threat of force. But in the narrower sense, Mike's "No prohibitions on capitalist acts between consenting adults" seems clear enough, and to imply its own negation without reference to further assumptions.

Where am I wrong, and could the answer please be put in a way that helps elucidate what Libertarianism is about in the language of PCT?

Martin

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2007.09.20.0910 MDT)]

Martin Taylor 2007.09.20.09.09 –

I think your post does get us back to PCT principles, but it digresses
into logic about who has what interests and rights. The basic principle
you’re bringing up is stated from a true systems point of view since it
doesn’t take the part of any individual, being limited to describing how
the whole system works – the interactions rather than the actions. The
points you make about actions and side-effects lead naturally, it seems
to me, back to the central issue of conflict, because X and Y want their
transaction to take place and Z (plus cohorts) wants it to not take place
– the reasons are varied and unimportant. What’s important is that as
soon as the two sides take their positions, the terms of the conflict are
set; if nobody changes, it will grow to the maximum intensity inherent in
the system (given the existing loop gains and reference
signals).

What you get to eventually is the fact that the transaction between X and
Y has side-effects that disturb Z and others, and their attempt to
correct their errors disturbs X and Y, so the scene is set for conflict.
We can predict great expense, mutual harm, and even dead bodies to
result. Who was right or wrong is not important. They both were both.
What is important is the possibility that nobody has the sense to look
ahead to the inevitable and reorganize. The conflict plays out in the
usual dreary predictable way. The survivors stand in the wreckage beating
their chests and saying “See? You can’t push ME
around.”

Best,

Bill P.

[Martin_Taylor2]

[Martin Taylor 2007.09.20.13.48]

[From Bill Powers (2007.09.20.0910 MDT)]

Martin Taylor 2007.09.20.09.09 --

What you get to eventually is the fact that the transaction between X and Y has side-effects that disturb Z and others, and their attempt to correct their errors disturbs X and Y, so the scene is set for conflict. We can predict great expense, mutual harm, and even dead bodies to result. Who was right or wrong is not important. They both were both. What is important is the possibility that nobody has the sense to look ahead to the inevitable and reorganize. The conflict plays out in the usual dreary predictable way. The survivors stand in the wreckage beating their chests and saying "See? You can't push ME around."

All I can say is "Yes", but I'm a little disappointed it was you that made the post, rather than Mike or Richard, who are equally capable of seeing the point. I still hope that they will be able to see, and to express, ways around it that are rooted in PCT.

There's a further underlying point, which I will allow you or them to make (you have made this underlying point in the past, so I hope it will be one of them).

Martin

[Acree_Michael]

[From Mike Acree (2007.09.20.1408 PDT)]

Martin Taylor 2007.09.20.09.09--

I thought I
understood one other tenet of Libertarianism, that there would be no
prohibitions of people voluntarily combining to promote their own
interest, such as, for example, paying taxes to the group in support
of a project, or creating a police force to sell services and to
protect their own interests

You're right that libertarians wouldn't prohibit any voluntary
relationships or transactions between people. But voluntary payments
are not called taxes.

Mike answered, not by addressing the argument or my misunderstanding
of the Libertarian tenets, but by offering a sample of buy and sell
trades of different kinds. I hope that this time it is the argument
or its premises that are addressed.

However, illustrations are not unhelpful, so I propoe one of my own.
X owns some forested hilly terrain. Y would like to buy logging
rights, and Y is known to use clear-cut methods, being cheaper than
other logging techniques. Z owns property at the bottom of the area,
across the highway. Other people, P...Q enjoy the existing view and
like to hike over that terrain, which X has permitted. Many other
people use the highway at the foot of the area.

I wasn't being tricky; I genuinely didn't understand your question, and
was asking for clarification. What I meant by "capitalist acts" (the
phrase was Nozick's) was buying and selling. I infer that my examples
didn't qualify as the kind of concern you had in mind. Your example, if
I understand it, includes the condition that X is selling something
which is not his, so that the "capitalist act" is fraudulent.
Clear-cutting would damage Z's property, and Y couldn't buy the right to
damage Z's property from X. X could have previously purchased such a
right from Z, paying compensation for damage by logging, but that was
not part of your scenario. Libertarians would not prohibit the sale, or
contract, between X and Z, or between X and Y subsequent to the contract
with Z. In a libertarian society, in the absence of a prior agreement
between X and Z, Z would be entitled to collect against X or Y, or both,
for damages. The first great irony here is that, under our present,
nonlibertarian system, the government has not been protective of
property rights, so Z has not been able to sue for damages, and
clear-cutting has proceeded apace. The second great irony is that
lumber companies generally do not practice clear-cutting on their own
property, just because it is destructive of that land, as well as of
property downhill, or downstream. Clear-cutting typically occurs on
land that is owned by the government, and leased to lumber companies.
Federally owned Western rangelands have been similarly destroyed by
overgrazing. "Public-spirited" lessees know that, if they hold back,
the next one will destroy the property, and they will have accomplished
nothing by their sacrifice. Other environmental disasters have occurred
where property rights have either not been well defined (oceans,
atmosphere) or enforced.

You also mentioned the side effect of someone's view being destroyed.
This consequence is more remote and intangible, but might still be
serious. For someone undertaking an expensive operation, like logging,
it is generally prudent to explore in advance the possible side
consequences that would be actionable. But in practice the details of
such judgments (at the opposite extreme, whether you have damaged my
view with your ugly shirt, or your ugly face, or your genitals) are the
sort of thing that is worked out over time in case law.

Mike

[Richard_Kennaway]

[From Richard Kennaway (2007.09.21.0650 BST)]

[Martin Taylor 2007.09.20.09.09]

Richard has said that the unbelievers don't know the main tenets of Libertarianism,

Small "l", please. Big "L" means a political party.

Before I do that, one short PCT-related comment about Laws and regulations. What is prohibited by laws that are enforced by police are actions.

In almost every case, what is prohibited is actions accompanied by criminal intent -- the _mens rea_. Without the "guilty mind" -- the guilty reference signal -- there is no guilty act.

I assume that "No prohibitions on capitalist acts between consenting adults" is a Libertarian tenet, since Mike presented it in that context.

I made the further assumption that another tenet is that there is no prohibition against people voluntarily combining to advance their own interests.

Indeed, you can hardly have freedom of economic exchange without freedom to associate.

These two assumptions seem to be mutually inconsistent, so either they are not both part of Libertarian philosophy, or my analysis is faulty. I asked Libertarians on the list to explain which was the case.

The argument is simple: Acts have side-effects. Side-effects may disturb other people's controlled perceptions or affect their environmental feeback pathways. "capitalist acts betweem consenting parties" are a class of acts that may have such side effects. In normal PCT, a person acts to counter a disturbance. The person's actions in counering the disturbance may include joining a voluntary organization or committing a "capitalist act" by hiring such an organization (e.g. a private police force). The disturbance-countering acts may prohibit

*BONG*

the original "capitalist act" that would, if committed, cause the disturbance.

How are you envisaging this association of people "prohibiting" the thing they want to not happen?

However, illustrations are not unhelpful, so I propoe one of my own. X owns some forested hilly terrain. Y would like to buy logging rights, and Y is known to use clear-cut methods, being cheaper than other logging techniques. Z owns property at the bottom of the area, across the highway. Other people, P...Q enjoy the existing view and like to hike over that terrain, which X has permitted. Many other people use the highway at the foot of the area.

I have mentioned three classes of people whose controlled perceptions or environmental feedback paths might be affected by the voluntary transaction between X and Y. Z has a direct interest, since landslides from the clearcut would affect that value of his property, and would alter the uses to which his property could be put. A landslide migh even destroy Z's house and kill his family.

Can Z declare a prohibition on the transaction between X and Y? If Z isn't rich enough to offer X more money than Y is offering, Z has no mechanism, acting alone, without initiating force of some kind. Can Z hire some private police to enforce a prohibition on the transaction? What would they do without the threat of initiating force? I conclude that Z must do nothing and simply accept that the transaction freely entered into by X and Y may result in the death of his family or requre him to move his house and lose the value of his property.

The answer is property rights, and the question has nothing specifically to do with the transaction between X and Y, and therefore nothing to do with Mike's maxim about capitalist acts. Z would be equally threatened if X cut down the trees himself. He would be equally threatened if X deliberately set out to cause a landslide, or took wrecking equipment and demolished Z's house. Likewise the highway users.

For a description of how property rights might be managed in a libertarian society, see David Friedman's "The Machinery of Freedom". (It's not the only book, just the one I'm most familiar with.)

Can the people who like to look at the forested view or hike through the terrain do something to counter the disturbances to their controlled perceptions?

Yes. They can contemplate the beauty of nature somewhere else. Or they can club together to buy X's land. These things happen in the real world already without governments being involved. I am not seeing a problem here. Who is to say how much joy in the contemplation of a managed forest is worth the value to X of selling the timber, and the value of that timber to the people who will eventually use it? You? A government agency? Let X and the sightseers come to their own arrangement.

How about the people who use the highway every day to get to work? The disturbance in their case would be massive if the highway were to be destroyed in a landslide that would be a side-effect of the transaction between X and Y.

Who owns the highway? Let them take X to court for their property rights. Do the users of the highway have a property right in passage? Let them do the same. Are their lives being recklessly endangered? The same. Again, this happens in the real world already. The only difference is that courts are mostly run as a function of government. Op. cit. for how that might work otherwise, and for a real world example, commercial disputes are often settled by private arbitration.

Where am I wrong, and could the answer please be put in a way that helps elucidate what Libertarianism is about in the language of PCT?

Libertarianism is as different from current democracies as they are from absolute feudalism, and as feudalism is from hunter-gatherer tribes. It, like those other concepts, is a fundamental idea that can be applied to everything in society. If you cannot immediately see how some particular situation might be handled without governments, it would pay to spend some time trying to come up with an answer before concluding that there isn't one, otherwise you're in the same position as someone 600 years ago trying to imagine the common people choosing their own rulers.

PCT relevance? Not specifically, but as a general point, B:CP is as different from P:CB as those political philosophies are from each other. How many psychologists who have learned traditional P:CB grasp B:CP on first sight?

···

--
Richard Kennaway, jrk@cmp.uea.ac.uk, Richard Kennaway
School of Computing Sciences,
University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.