If Permanent Portfolio existed during the American Revolution what would the 4th branch be

[Kshartle]

If I made this seem contentious  I'm sorry guys. Maybe we can all try to make it a discussion about ideas rather than a battle of tit for tat and I gotcha's.

These are big philosophical questions that people have struggled with for perhaps thousands of years.

That doesn't mean the questions don't have answers and we can't figure them out though.

[moda0306]

This is interesting.  Nevermind all the other disagreements we have... arguing that we're defending others' property when we stop them from doing something unknowingly against their interests might be a valid concept.

I guess a lot of this stems from assumptions about property.

You do realize, K, that many (if not most) anarchists of the past vehimently disagree with your view of property, right?

I could post a bunch of sources (not sure you're interested in those), but I really, really don't understand how you can be so sure that your definition of valid property is so correct, when there are VASTLY differing opinions on this (usually regarding land, animals, and the means of production) even within those who advocate the NAP.


- what's the legal consensual age for sex or contract?

- do animals have any "defensible" moral value?

- is all pollution aggression?

- are behaviors that are risky to the well-being of others aggression?

- what if someone is trying to commit suicide, and knows what they are doing... do I stop them?


If we can come to terms with the fact that people have VASTLY different views on what constitute legitimate property rights (even anarchists do), and that a violation of property is defensible with force (and doesn't require "cooperation"), then I don't see how you can be so confident about how we can "defend property" so flippantly.  Maybe property is just a social construct (similar to government) to allow some people to control others.

Here's a good summary of the debate, if you'll read it.

A few quotes I liked:

But if “Trespassers Will Be Shot On Sight”? is a valid assertion of property rights by the owner, then it is clear that self-ownership has become alienable and inferior to property rights.  Yes, of course, I might shoot someone because they are a credible threat to my life, but this is true whether they’ve threatened me in the home I own, the apartment I rent, the hotel where I’m staying, or the restaurant where I’m eating: it has nothing to do with my being the owner of the property.

Furthermore, even to the extent property rights are legitimate, dispute resolution over property cannot be territorially based, because that means begging the very question.  You can’t do that on my property!  Who says?  The judge says!  Which judge?  The judge I selected for all disputes involving my property!  Who says it is your property?  The judge! Which judge?  The judge I selected for all disputes involving my property!  I want a different judge!  You have no choice, since you’re on my property!  According to who?  The judge! Which judge?  The judge I selected for all disputes involving my property!

Based on their great longevity, I think experiments in anarcho-capitalism have proven more successful than those under anarcho-communism.  But I think the anarcho-communists have the answer to why the former still eventually failed: concentrations of power are dangerous even when they result from voluntary behavior. In both Iceland and Ireland, voluntary law and private property prevailed for centuries, but the acceptance of Christianity and, more importantly, of the tithing of money to the church, led to increasing concentrations of wealth in the hands of those overseeing church operations, and what was voluntary became coercive once that concentrated wealth was used to project violent power.

What grows from an atmosphere of mutual respect is unpredictable, differs from place to place, and changes over time.  I believe that private property has proven its value, but that it isn’t sustainable without a suspicion of all concentrations of wealth and power, even voluntary.  As much as I think anarcho-communists are dead wrong about the need to abolish rent and wages, I think they are dead right about the need to be suspicious of all imbalances of authority and to openly condemn those who take advantage of such imbalances.

Overall though... this guy raises some of your points.  It's a pretty balanced article... though, of course, compromise is not an indication of a valid argument .

But I don't share his optimism.  Put anarcho-communists and anarcho-capitalists in the same dream world and disagree with each other so much on property that you wouldn't really have a functioning society, IMO.  If a large chunk of the population views another's power as illegitimately obtained, that environment isn't conducive to "cooperation."

The article I linked to even questioned whether we can defend property with violent force, since that is placing the property above the individual.

I think you need to realize that even within people think that the NAP is the beginning, middle and end of ethics, there is massive disagreement on how to define property, which (of course) doesn't mean one isn't right, but it surely means that when applied to the REAL WORLD, your NAP will fail to deliver the happiness you predict..

For the record, I find anarcho-communists to be equally rigid and arbitrary in their thinking, if not more-so in many ways.  I just find it interesting to watch anarchists argue with each other so vehemently.  Almost makes you think they're going to start aggressing towards each other.

[moda0306]

I guess a lot of this stems from assumptions about property.

most of it does. but regardless of whether we manage to answer the unanswerable question of absolute morality, the functionality remains, and i have yet to hear of a non property rights assumption based system or a community based property assumption, that doesn't almost instantly become crippled with inherent contradictions and failure to be functional (i would love to debate/consider one, if somebody has one to put forward).

- is all pollution aggression?

all pollution that causes measurable and demonstrable harm to the lives/property of others. Pollution is not always harmful but often it is, some probably falls in to the debatable gray area (or needs clearer science for actionable proof of harm).

- what if someone is trying to commit suicide, and knows what they are doing... do I stop them?

if somebody tries to commit suicide and knows what they are doing, they should do it in a place and time where they stand no chance of being stopped, the default position mentioned before that "the assumption is that property,life and liberty are something that we all want defended." applies and stopping them is acting on that understanding..

But if “Trespassers Will Be Shot On Sight”? is a valid assertion of property rights by the owner, then it is clear that self-ownership has become alienable and inferior to property rights.  Yes, of course, I might shoot someone because they are a credible threat to my life, but this is true whether they’ve threatened me in the home I own, the apartment I rent, the hotel where I’m staying, or the restaurant where I’m eating: it has nothing to do with my being the owner of the property.

it is not a valid assumption of NAP property rights, this wack-a-mole has popped up a few times before and "shoot on site" is a straw-man that has nothing to do with NAP, where does being on property equate to intent to do harm? NAP demands intent to do harm before defense is justified..

Simon,

So something is only aggression if someone else can prove it's demonstrable and measurable?  This gets back to risk, and one of the articles I posted.... if an action I take is 100% likely to do someone some physical harm, most of us can agree in most circumstances it shouldn't be done... however, what if something has a 5% chance of doing massive harm?  How is risk assessed and viewed from NAP?  I mean this as a real question... not just trying to poke holes.  I see a lot of people justify irrational decisions on the basis that "they didn't know it would cause harm," or "didn't mean to cause harm."  How do we employ NAP in our personal lives when it comes to risk?


More communal type of property recognition methods may "not be functional," but this is arguing from results, something NAP enthusiasts hate.  And "functional" to what end?  Liberty?  Well if you define property differently, so will you define liberty differently. 


I'm not asking what the person COMMITTING suicide should do, I'm asking what an observer should do if they are trying to abide by NAP.


Anarcho-capitalists believe that you can defend property from aggression with force.  It's not a straw-man to bring up instances where one individual views their property rights to be ahead of human rights of people (or animals).  Further, NAP enthusiasts should realize that we're simply taking their ethics to their logical conclusion... which most ethics systems, held out as pure, usually fail to satisfy when we test them with "what if's."  It's not to say a utilitarian is in favor of gang-rape or a Kantian wouldn't scratch someone's finger to save the world.  It's just to carry these things to their logical conclusion to test their usefulness.

Critics of NAP do this with ALL ethical theories, and they all tend to break down.  Utilitarian, Kantian... they all seem to make some sense until you start asking "too many questions."  This isn't a straw-man.  These are abnormal scenarios that beg certain questions, and since people tend to see things the way that would benefit them, if left un-addressed, could lead to social non-cohesion.

What is "intent to do harm?"  Stealing a few ears of corn?  What if you're from a tribe that I have grown to distrust?  Can I assume intent do do harm?  There's always going to be uncertainty, and not just obscure, gray area stuff... HUGE differences in how people view their property (at least the part that's just sitting all around us that God (or whoever) gave us for free), "rights" could arise from wannabe NAP followers, both sides of which think they have legitimate rights to "defend from aggressors," and engage in violent conflict. 

Simon,

So something is only aggression if someone else can prove it's demonstrable and measurable? This gets back to risk, and one of the articles I posted.... if an action I take is 100% likely to do someone some physical harm, most of us can agree in most circumstances it shouldn't be done... however, what if something has a 5% chance of doing massive harm? How is risk assessed and viewed from NAP? I mean this as a real question... not just trying to poke holes. I see a lot of people justify irrational decisions on the basis that "they didn't know it would cause harm," or "didn't mean to cause harm." How do we employ NAP in our personal lives when it comes to risk?

how does anybody asses risks in life? how does government asses and control the risks people take any better? if you take a chance and do harm then you can and should be held liable, is taking a chance of doing harm a "pre-crime" which should result in a minority report swat team busting down your door?

More communal type of property recognition methods may "not be functional," but this is arguing from results, something NAP enthusiasts hate. And "functional" to what end? Liberty? Well if you define property differently, so will you define liberty differently.

not sure all supporters of NAP feel that way... kshartle certainly seems to but i don't see the problem with it, most communists/socialists/statists argue from results as well, with equally or far more questionable "logical absolute morals" in order to achieve "whats fair". unfortunately the results of their system and state aggression never is fair, or functional.. and they also tend to end up defining liberty/freedom as slavery in Orwellian fashion

I'm not asking what the person COMMITTING suicide should do, I'm asking what an observer should do if they are trying to abide by NAP.

they should stop them.... the default position that "the assumption is that property,life and liberty are something that we all want defended." applies and stopping them is acting on that understanding..

Anarcho-capitalists believe that you can defend property from aggression with force. It's not a straw-man to bring up instances where one individual views their property rights to be ahead of human rights of people (or animals). Further, NAP enthusiasts should realize that we're simply taking their ethics to their logical conclusion...

but your not taking them to there logical conclusion you are misrepresenting them, the property owner has a right to be armed, he has a right to ask strangers to leave his property, but the NAP does not in any way justify shooting random trespassers and doing so is a violation of NAP, in order to shoot somebody they must pose a threat... random people do not,, ? ? percent of all trespassers are harmless such as neighbors who lost a dog or a kid looking for a ball etc (and if you are a trespasser NAP would demand you approach a property owner and state your reason for being on the land and ask permission)

What is "intent to do harm?" Stealing a few ears of corn? What if you're from a tribe that I have grown to distrust? Can I assume intent do do harm? There's always going to be uncertainty, and not just obscure, gray area stuff... HUGE differences in how people view their property (at least the part that's just sitting all around us that God (or whoever) gave us for free), "rights" could arise from wannabe NAP followers, both sides of which think they have legitimate rights to "defend from aggressors," and engage in violent conflict.

stealing is wrong and doing harm.. but what is a fitting level of response? not every response to aggression is automatic lethal force...
yes there are will be human nature problems, misunderstandings and disagreements, this is not a problem specific to NAP, it effects other views of how to govern our selves far worse (see Communism) but it seems to me to be the only one that has any kind of chance of producing a more enlightened society, one capable of peacefully solving these disputes and problems, and the only one with any history of successes so far, even when it has been practiced in the limited and mix and match way it has.

[Kshartle]

If someone steals so much as a paper clip from me the punishment is instant death. I will be judge, jury and executioner.

The sooner society embraces NAP the sooner I can go on an NAP justified rampage! 

I'll try and scroung up some responses to what Moda has brought up as I do have a slightly different take on this stuff than Simon.

[dualstow]

I'm sure Michael Caine, if he's a pp'er, reads it as I hate to start in his beloved accent. :-)
("I 'ate to start")