> but systems that eschew relativity and focus on universal principles (as defined by the philosophy) are more likely to value freedom over prior restraint.
Every system of ethics contains a relative ordering of values (the alternative is having a single value or none) to decide how to act when values conflict. "Freedom" is not such a well-defined (single) value -- i.e. it contains internal contradictions -- and therefore requires finer-grained prioritization at the very least, because all it implies is a lack of restraint, which is impossible in a system with more than one principal (two individuals can't both be completely unrestrained as it yields a logical contradiction: one is either allowed to restrain the other or not, either choice contradicts lack of restraint).
In short, anarcho-capitalism most certainly doesn't value speech over freedom from intimidation absolutely. It might have different relative priorities of different forms of speech vs. different forms or measures of intimidation. But this is just a difference in measure. An example that requires resolving the contradiction with prioritization is as follows: am I allowed to say, "if you deny evolution, I will stab you"? Prohibiting this speech is a restriction of speech, and allowing this speech is also a restriction of speech (and bear in mind that every kind of law requires intimidation for enforcement -- otherwise laws are not laws, but voluntary behavior -- so we have two options here, both involving intimidation, and both involving speech). This applies even in anarchic systems that don't have laws at all, up until the point that you get an anarchic system that has no values (other than individual values).
The latter, BTW, is my personal preference, but short of that I prefer a socialist liberal democracy. Any system that places the limit at physical violence (basically all American-style libertarian thought) seems to me to be both arbitrary and not truly anarchic (i.e. far from free). And if we can't have true anarchy, we might as well prioritize freedoms in a more principled way. Drawing a single line at physical violence to me seems not only arbitrary but ignorant of how social systems work (both human and animal), where freedoms are often restrained but only rarely through physical violence (and commonly through intimidation). This can be easily observed empirically.
> Every system of ethics contains a relative ordering of values...
> ...anarcho-capitalism most certainly doesn't value speech over freedom from intimidation absolutely.
It has been several years since I last gave this a lot of thought, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I only remember one universal principle in anarcho-capitalism: aggression is immoral. From that single precept every other value is derived - property rights, self ownership, etc. As I said, it has been a while, but I do remember being impressed by the logical consistency. So do you have a contradiction that you can point to?
> ...am I allowed to say, "if you deny evolution, I will stab you"?
Yes. I don't understand how you view that as a restriction on free speech, maybe the point of confusion is around your use of the word "allowed" - because there is no central authority to grant permission in a state of anarchy.
> This applies even in anarchic systems that don't have laws at all, up until the point that you get an anarchic system that has no values (other than individual values).
An anarchic system that has laws is not an anarchic system... maybe this is another hint at the point of confusion. Anarcho-capitalism is not really a form of governance, it is a philosophy that informs thinking related to interaction between individuals. It leads to a highly distributed system of justice, where each individual relies upon their own system of ethics to mete out justice - you decide if you want to do business with murders or those who consort with murders.
I am very interested to hear about any logical inconsistencies you've found, because absent that your first two paragraphs are totally wrong.
> I do remember being impressed by the logical consistency
While I'm very fond of anarchism (not its libertarian interpretations), I've always find its libertarian forms completely inconsistent (and very, very restrictive and far from free) under a guise of consistency (and freedom). The key is that everything can look consistent if you ignore the facts. It's ethics for spherical cows, and it's not simple but simplistic. Every ethics begins that way, but then there are lots of complications that stem from how the world works. Libertarian anarchism stops there, at the logic stage. It describes a consistent model -- for spherical cows -- and chooses not to examine whether the model fits the real world.
The main issue is what constitutes aggression. A clever teenager could say, "let's draw the line at physical harm!" but an educated scientist knows that physical aggression is rare, and is only used in those circumstances where common aggression fails. Common aggression works by intimidation (as I've shown -- even in the animal kingdom) and emergent social forces (like economics). You can only draw those arbitrary lines if you choose not to study aggression. If you choose not to learn something, then everything seems simple and consistent because it remains a Platonic ideal. Once you study aggression and see how it really works you realize that preventing aggression requires a very intricate ethics.
Which is why I'm for anarchism without false and arbitrary restrictions on aggression (which only serve to increase it in its common forms), or an intricate system of ethics and law that serves to really reduce aggression, but is a far cry from anarchy.
Just to very quickly explain the difference, in a real anarchy, the threat of physical harm must always be present to offset other forms of aggression. If it isn't, there's no balance in the system. The rich can inflict economic aggression without fear of reprecussion. Once you add "no-agression" to anarchy, you've basically created a very lopsided, very non-free, and a very inconsistent system.
> Yes. I don't understand how you view that as a restriction on free speech, maybe the point of confusion is around your use of the word "allowed" - because there is no central authority to grant permission in a state of anarchy.
I used the word "allowed" loosely in this case, to mean a combination of ethics and a possible enforcement structure. The belief that only a central authority grants permission is a common mistake among libertarians, that, as I said, stop at the logical reasoning stage and don't examine the facts. Centralized government is a recent invention, at least in the Western world -- 400 years or so (that the Roman Empire appears to us like a central authority is an anachronism based on extrapolation from what we know). Yet enforcement has existed throughout human history in much more diffuse ways.
Now, back to the example. So you say it's OK to say, "if you deny evolution, I will stab you". Fine. Now what happens when I deny evolution? If I know you'll never stab me then there must be some enforcement at play. But that means that I know your threat to be empty to begin with, and so no intimidation took place. In the real world, that's not the case. The possibility that you will stab me is always on the table. If so, stabbing me for denying evolution is most certainly a restriction of my free speech. And if that option exists, intimidating me with the threat also restricts my free speech.
> It leads to a highly distributed system of justice, where each individual relies upon their own system of ethics to mete out justice
Because that's how human society existed until not too long ago, it isn't some thought exercise, and we know how that looks in practice. That is a form of governance, but without a central authority.
> your first two paragraphs are totally wrong
No, they are not. Your confusion stems from the anachronistic conflation of laws with a central state. Laws are rules based on ethics with some enforcement mechanism. That enforcement can be excommunication. In fact, that was the primary form of enforcement until not long ago. A highly distributed system of justice was the norm (again, at least in the West; I haven't studied the history of Asia).
> It describes a consistent model -- for spherical cows -- and chooses not to examine whether the model fits the real world.
Ok, so to be clear, you don't have a logical inconsistency to point to? Your complaint is purely utilitarian? Well, I don't really have much to say about that except that such a perspective only ever serves those presently in power.
> The main issue is what constitutes aggression.
The initiation of force, force strictly related to property rights (derived from universal preference, not state fiat). But before you equate my views to that of an adolescent again, let me first say that you've consistently redefined words. You've indicated that english isn't your native language, which could explain it - despite your command of the language otherwise, except for the fact that all your redefinitions shift the meaning to a very broad definition that supports your position. That is what kicked the whole thread off, your redefinition of violence to include spoken word - and you've done it several more times here: aggression has been redefined to include economics, laws are now derived from ethics and not simply government decree, one's own fears (rational or otherwise) and choices as a consequence constitute restriction by some other party.
If your political opinions are so informed by nature, I don't understand how you could possibly think any system could exist where individuals enjoy the total absence of any outside stimuli that may cause them discomfort or hinder them in living out their every fantasy. Especially when the terms are subject to redefinition, and all definitions are equally valid - because... feelings.
> ...in a real anarchy, the threat of physical harm must always be present to offset other forms of aggression.
Well, that is really no different than the way things are now. I believe you are pointing to a lack of monopoly on force, which does nothing to change the net amount of bad things that can happen to you - just the likelihood of total personal destruction as delivered by the state.
> ...you've basically created a very lopsided, very non-free, and a very inconsistent system.
Consider for a moment the sort of world that we'd live in if aggression was redefined to your liking. The internet would be a very quite place after a few hundred are arrested as word rapists. Economics would grind to a halt as VCs are shuttered for all the human rights violations perpetrated in not funding everybody who approaches them. Theological laws become the norm as the vocal insane grow in number. You'll find no freedom if you live at the mercy of somebody else's emotional interpretations, but you'll certainly find consistency and equality: constant misery for everybody.
> Ok, so to be clear, you don't have a logical inconsistency to point to?
No, there is a logical inconsistency, but it can't be uncovered by looking at a statement in isolation. It's like saying that the statement A /\ B has no contradiction, but if you look at the definition of B and see that it's defined as ~A, then the contradiction is apparent. My example contains such a contradiction.
> aggression has been redefined to include economics
No. Aggression is defined (at least in the dictionary I have in front of me) as: "hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront". Nowhere does it say that aggression means a physical attack. I do not define aggression to include economics. I state that if you study the world (I studied history in graduate school) and learn how aggression works, you see that it often works through economics (sometimes through religion, sometimes through other social forces). If you say that your ethics include just a prohibition of physical aggression then I say that 1. it still leads to contradiction in my example, and 2. it is completely arbitrary. After all, you've chosen those values to achieve a purpose -- say freedom -- and you correctly note that aggression restricts freedom. But then you make the factual error -- that can only be confirmed through empirical observation, not logic -- that it is physical aggression that restricts freedom, and that's false.
How do you know that it's a good place to learn? Well, because it was written by people who have actually studied the subject rather than people who speculate on it, and therefore, while it may be wrong, it is probably a better source than that of people who want to prescribe ideas without learning how the system really works beforehand (i.e. they prefer their own imagined explanation to how the system works, which they take great care not to accidentally verify in the real world).
> laws are now derived from ethics and not simply government decree
I'm sorry, but it is you who are unfamiliar with some definitions (I spent years of my life studying these things). My dictionary says: "Law: the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties". You see government mentioned? Decree? A law is rule + enforcement accepted by a community. That's the only definition.
> Especially when the terms are subject to redefinition, and all definitions are equally valid - because... feelings.
You're making the same mistake. You want my statements to include redefinition of words (because you believe that that's what people of liberal or anarchic (as opposed to libertarian-anarchic) views or something do. But it's not really what I'm doing. If you want to argue with me you must first try to understand what it is that I'm saying, not misunderstand it based on what you'd want me to be saying.
> I believe you are pointing to a lack of monopoly on force, which does nothing to change the net amount of bad things that can happen to you
Ah, but if you want to limit the amount of "bad things" you must first study how "bad things" happen. As someone who has studied it, I can tell you that more bad things are caused by intimidation than by a release of violence. I'll gladly argue over facts with you, but we should at least be talking out of some knowledge and not a "feeling" that bad things happen because of physical violence.
Anarchy and the sanctity of private property can't go together. A system where the poor are not allowed to steal from the rich (because private property) but the rich are allowed to starve the poor as long as they don't do it through physical violence (i.e. they're allowed to do it the way this has actually been done in history) is not a free system. In a real anarchy, if the rich starve the poor, the poor will gang up and kill the rich. Only in such a system you can have true freedom. Otherwise, your "anarchic" society will quickly devolve into a system of masters and slaves (with no physical coercion!) We know that because that actually happened, and in quite a few distinct societies (including Europe).
> aggression was redefined to your liking
You mean that if aggression was defined the way you think it is
> The internet would be a very quite place after a few hundred are arrested as word rapists.
What? Arrested? I'm an anarchist! And short of that, a social-democrat! Neither anarchists nor social democrats advocate the arrest of people who threaten rape online. We just don't think communities should tolerate them.
> Theological laws become the norm as the vocal insane grow in number...
Look, study some history instead of making these Glen Beckian sci-fi fantasies. Pretty much every legal or political system you can think of has been tried somewhere more-or-less. I'm not saying we know how things will turn out -- far from it -- but we can at least make a few informed bets or knowledgeable comparisons. Your projections are similar to someone who'd try to create a model of the physical universe, but who's simply unaware of the electromagnetic force. There's a gap of information here, and without information you can't build a model.
Every system of ethics contains a relative ordering of values (the alternative is having a single value or none) to decide how to act when values conflict. "Freedom" is not such a well-defined (single) value -- i.e. it contains internal contradictions -- and therefore requires finer-grained prioritization at the very least, because all it implies is a lack of restraint, which is impossible in a system with more than one principal (two individuals can't both be completely unrestrained as it yields a logical contradiction: one is either allowed to restrain the other or not, either choice contradicts lack of restraint).
In short, anarcho-capitalism most certainly doesn't value speech over freedom from intimidation absolutely. It might have different relative priorities of different forms of speech vs. different forms or measures of intimidation. But this is just a difference in measure. An example that requires resolving the contradiction with prioritization is as follows: am I allowed to say, "if you deny evolution, I will stab you"? Prohibiting this speech is a restriction of speech, and allowing this speech is also a restriction of speech (and bear in mind that every kind of law requires intimidation for enforcement -- otherwise laws are not laws, but voluntary behavior -- so we have two options here, both involving intimidation, and both involving speech). This applies even in anarchic systems that don't have laws at all, up until the point that you get an anarchic system that has no values (other than individual values).
The latter, BTW, is my personal preference, but short of that I prefer a socialist liberal democracy. Any system that places the limit at physical violence (basically all American-style libertarian thought) seems to me to be both arbitrary and not truly anarchic (i.e. far from free). And if we can't have true anarchy, we might as well prioritize freedoms in a more principled way. Drawing a single line at physical violence to me seems not only arbitrary but ignorant of how social systems work (both human and animal), where freedoms are often restrained but only rarely through physical violence (and commonly through intimidation). This can be easily observed empirically.